Implementation And Its Policy Effect Of China's Agricultural Support Payments

Since 2004,China had implemented the "agriculture three subsidies"-direct subsidy,input comprehensive subsidy,high-quality seed subsidy,all promoting grain production and improving grain producers' income to a large extent.However,the effects of these three subsidies gradually diminished as time goes on.Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Agriculture have thus carried out three subsidies reforms pilot in Zhejiang,Shandong,Anhui,Sichuan and Hunan province in 2015 and implemented"Agricultural Support Payments"(ASP).Part of the funds are aimed at protecting farmland productivity which is known as farmland productivity protection subsidy and another part of the funds are aimed at improving grain production capacity which is known as moderate scale management subsidy.One year later,the reform was popularized throughout the countrywide.It is necessary to carry out in-depth research on this new agricultural policy.This research include the follows contexts:(1)Summarizing the development of China's main agricultural domestic support policies from the historical perspective and different operation methods in different regions;(2)Evaluating the effect of ASP based on the policy objective including its influence on farmers' income,grain production,farmland productivity,agricultural credit guarantee relatively;(3)Describing farmers' evaluation and expectations about ASP;(4)Measuring how large amber box space can be released after this reform and its fiscal cost and implementation cost;(5)Proposing methods to optimize the policy;(6)Putting forward the corresponding policy recommendations based on the above findings.This paper is trying to build a relatively complete analysis framework to study ASP by using macro economic data and micro household survey data which not only can effectively reveal the policy effect of the new agricultural policy but also may provide ideas for the government for further improvement.The conclusions drawn from this study are as follows:(1)ASP is the adjustment and improvement of the previous "three subsidies".The nature of "GSP" is still unchanged,but the moderate scale management subsidy turn to "preferential" which increases the precision of the policy.(2)Farmland productivity protection subsidy has no significant influence on farmers' farmland protection behavior;vague policy objectives and difficult implementation of grassroots government are not conducive to the achievement of farmland productivity protection.The policy task of "protecting farmland" should not be completely attached to the farmers.(3)The farmland productivity protection subsidy that linked to the confirmed area has greater impact on farmers' income and the effect of farmland productivity protection subsidy that linked to actual grain planting area on output is greater.However,no matter which way,the current standard has little stimulation effect on both grain production and farmers' income.Farmland productivity protection subsidy can narrow the income inequality of farmers.(4)The moderate scale management subsidy has a better effect on increasing grain production and farmers' income,but the scale operators are more sensitive to price changes.(5)The function of subsidy supporting the credit guarantee system can improve the guarantee company's core strengths,stimulate credit supply and reduce farmers' financing cost.(6)Compared with the original three subsidies,the implementation cost of ASP is simplified.Compared with other agricultural policies,the implementation cost of ASP is not high.Farmers' expectation of subsidies standards is within the scope of 100-200 yuan per mu;and their expects of socialized service mainly are the agricultural production services.(7)The policy space released for non-product-specific AMS is huge.