The Impacts Of Labor Migration On Farm Households' Agricultural Production

Grain security and agricultural development have caused public concern as massive labor was flowing away from farm in the past three decades, whereas they are crucial for national stabilization. Was the out-migration of labor hindering or fostering agricultural production in rural communities that migrants leave and how was agriculture impacted? What is subordinate to agriculture sustainability? And what is by now more serious, needed to be solved immediately? Still, little is understood.This dissertation was developed to answer these questions with household level evidences. Based on a field survey carried out in summer 2009 at four counties in Jiangxi province, the influence of labor migration on each aspects of agricultural production was analyzed systematically. Proceeding from previous researches, some progressive work was done. Firstly, we distinguished different forms of migration including return migration, considering their heterogenic impact on agricultural production. Secondly, we explored the underlying functional mechanism of labor lost and remittance on several important perspectives such as village level infrastructural investment, local economic development status and household life cycle. Thirdly, we made special efforts in understanding the structural adjustments of agriculture caused by migration, which receives little concern in past researches.Empirical results suggest that migrant households substitute migration for local non-farm work as their income strategy. Agricultural income does not fall when household members leave home because remittance can compensate for the labor lost by stimulating crop production.Evidences from all perspectives consistently suggest that migrant households are moving from cash crops and livestock production into cereal production. That is, labor constraint has played an evident role in the structural adjustment in agriculture among migrant families; however, increased access to credit is not associated with expansion of capital intensive production. All these reasons contribute also to a stronger tendency to lease out farmland among migrant households. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of their land supply depends on sufficient investment on agriculture infrastructure at village level. Farmers, especially those at richer villages, will cut down investment on agriculture as family members flow out to the city.Take rice production as an example, we find that more fertilizer and pesticide inputs significantly promote the productivity of migrant households who receive remittances, while the passive effect of labor lost on agricultural productivity dominants only when infrastructures are poor. Young farmers will marginalize agricultural production in contrast to old farmers because they can expect more credit support from migrants.Among all above mentioned impacts exerting on agricultural production, clear differences exist between long distance and short distance migration because the former exerts a stronger downward pressure on agricultural labor supply while providing less nonfarm income insurance. Further more, the evidences also show that return migrants are more likely to lease out farmland and leave traditional agriculture, in order to allocate more resources to livestock production or small nonfarm enterprises.Some policy implications can be drawn from our findings. Firstly, the Lewis Turning Point has come for Chinese rural labor transfer under the traditional agricultural circumstance. Much should be done by the government in order to release more labors from agriculture. To achieve this goal, the government ought to speed up in taking measures to improve the production technology and transform the traditional production mode. Secondly, to reduce the negative effect of labor emigration on agricultural production, the government should stick to the direct-subsidy policy which makes the crop production profitable and should encourage farmers to use more capital factors by enforcing the subsidy when they buy agricultural inputs. Also they have to switch from village-level investment to upper-governmental fiscal support in building up the agricultural infrastructures to enhance more sufficient supply in rural district. Thirdly, the government should fasten the pace in transferring the industry to less-developed inner district, improving small town establishment and county economy, so that more non-farm employment opportunities can be generated and thus migrant households can really leap out of agricultural field. Fourthly, new generation of farmers should be equipped with knowledge and skills, thus facilitating the technological progress in agriculture and making agriculture sustainable. Lastly, with reference to entrepreneurship of return migrants, sufficient supports in credit and policy should be provided, aiding them to pursue capital intensive agriculture activities and non-farm businesses. Besides, the government should strive to develop county economy, in order to nurture favorable condition for these entrepreneurships.