文章摘要
居祥,石晓平,饶芳萍.基于倾向值匹配方法的土地督察制度的耕地保护效应研究[J].水土保持通报,2018,38(4):135~141
基于倾向值匹配方法的土地督察制度的耕地保护效应研究
Research on Effects of Land Supervision on Arable Land Conservation Based on Propensity Score Matching
投稿时间:2017-12-18  修订日期:2018-02-07
DOI:10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2018.04.023
中文关键词: 土地政策  土地督察  倾向值匹配  耕地保护  效果评价  内生性问题
英文关键词: land policy  land supervision  propensity score matching  PSM  arable land protection  effect evaluation  endogenous problem
基金项目:国家自然科学基金青年项目“非正式制度视角下农地产权安全与投资激励:作用机理及政府干预机制设计”(71603121);中国博士后科学基金项目“村庄自治下国家赋权与宗教信仰对农地产权的协同治理”(2017T100381)
作者单位E-mail
居祥 南京农业大学 土地管理学院, 江苏 南京 210095  
石晓平 南京农业大学 土地管理学院, 江苏 南京 210095  
饶芳萍 南京农业大学 土地管理学院, 江苏 南京 210095 raofangping@njau.edu.cn 
摘要点击次数: 32
全文下载次数: 52
中文摘要:
      [目的]评估土地督察对耕地保护的效果以及解决样本选择带来的内生性问题,进一步完善土地督察制度提供理论支持。[方法]收集1999—2008年的省级面板数据,基于倾向值匹配分析估计土地督察的耕地保护效果。[结果]①通过匹配变量的平衡性检验,最终采用了内核匹配方法。运用内核匹配法进行匹配估算,专项督察每年减少建设占用耕地面积8 037.489 hm2,例行督察每年减少建设占用耕地面积62 741.880 hm2。②专项督查地区的选择并非随机产生的,由此产生了样本选择偏误,即由于样本选择产生的内生性问题,采用倾向值匹配方法能够更为准确地估算专项督查的耕地保护效果。③例行督察对地区的选择相对专项督查而言,随机性更强,督察也更为全面,因此样本选择偏误也较小。以被督察地区面积比重表达政策变量方式估计得到的例行督查耕地保护效果要比倾向值匹配方法估计得到的结果更为可靠。[结论]例行督察的耕地保护效果较好。在土地政策评估中,需要考虑政策及其对象的相互关系的不同,以此考虑政策效果评估方法的选择。
英文摘要:
      [Objective] Studying whether the implementation of land supervision is effective in arable land protection and solving the sample selection bias for land supervision improvement.[Methods] Based on province-level panel data from 1999 to 2008, propensity score matching(PSM) was employed to estimate the effect of land supervision on arable land protection.[Results] ① Kernel matching is the best method by balancing test. This study estimates that the loss of arable land due to construction use decreases 8 037.489 hm2 per year because of special land supervision in effect and the loss of arable land due to construction use decreases 62 741.880 hm2 per year because of regular land supervision in effect by Kernel matching. ② The sample selection of special land supervision is not random, resulting in the effect of special land supervision on cultivated land protection larger in previous studies. ③ The sample selection of regular land supervision is more random, resulting in the sample selection bias smaller and the effect of regular land supervision on cultivated land protection more accurate compared with the special land supervision in previous studies.[Conclusion] The effect of cultivated land protection by regular land supervision is better. In the evaluation of land policy, we need to consider the difference of the relationship between the policy and its object, in order to choose the method used in policy effect evaluation.
查看全文   查看/发表评论  下载PDF阅读器
关闭