IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v13y2023i6p1183-d1162443.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multiple Subject Behavior in Pest and Disease Control Outsourcing from the Perspective of Government Intervention: Based on Evolutionary Game and Simulation Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Yubin Wang

    (College of Economics and Management, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China
    National Agricultural and Rural Development Research Institute, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work and should be considered co-first authors.)

  • Jie Li

    (College of Economics and Management, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work and should be considered co-first authors.)

  • Pengfei Cheng

    (College of Economics and Management, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China)

Abstract

Pest and disease control outsourcing has become an effective means to restore damaged arable land and guarantee agroecological benefits. However, it is adopted at a relatively low rate in China. The purpose of this study is to explore, from the perspective of government intervention, behavioral logic, and the game relationship among farmers, service organizations and the government in the pest and disease control outsourcing system as well as the endogenous motivation of each subject. The results indicate that when the degree of policy implementation is low, the government’s policy is ineffective, but, after reaching a certain level, the higher the degree of policy implementation is, the stronger the farmers’ willingness to choose outsourcing control and the service organizations’ willingness to provide positive control services are, and the faster the stable state of tripartite joint pest and disease control is formed. In the case of implementing a single policy tool, the convergence rate of each party that implements the regulatory policy alone is fast but may be unstable, while the rate is slow but more stable when a guidance- or incentive-based policy is solely applied. The effect of a combination of policy tools being applied is much better than that of a single policy tool being applied. The simultaneous implementation of the three types of policy tools can form a policy system with both positive and negative mechanisms, which can maximize the complementary and superposition effects.

Suggested Citation

  • Yubin Wang & Jie Li & Pengfei Cheng, 2023. "Multiple Subject Behavior in Pest and Disease Control Outsourcing from the Perspective of Government Intervention: Based on Evolutionary Game and Simulation Analysis," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-21, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:6:p:1183-:d:1162443
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/6/1183/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/6/1183/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shumway, C. Richard & Chesser, Rayanne R., 1994. "Pesticide Tax, Cropping Patterns, and Water Quality in South Central Texas," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(1), pages 224-240, July.
    2. Theodoros Skevas & Spiro E. Stefanou & Alfons Oude Lansink, 2012. "Can economic incentives encourage actual reductions in pesticide use and environmental spillovers?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 43(3), pages 267-276, May.
    3. T.S. Jayne & David Mather & Nicole Mason & Jacob Ricker-Gilbert, 2013. "How do fertilizer subsidy programs affect total fertilizer use in sub-Saharan Africa? Crowding out, diversion, and benefit/cost assessments," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 44(6), pages 687-703, November.
    4. Dingqiang Sun & Michael Rickaille & Zhigang Xu, 2018. "Determinants and impacts of outsourcing pest and disease management," China Agricultural Economic Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 10(3), pages 443-461, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jing Gong & Hongyan Du & Yong Sun, 2023. "Collaboration among Governments, Pesticide Operators, and Farmers in Regulating Pesticide Operations for Agricultural Product Safety," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-20, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thomas G. Böcker & Robert Finger, 2017. "A Meta-Analysis on the Elasticity of Demand for Pesticides," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(2), pages 518-533, June.
    2. Nicole M. Mason & Thomas S. Jayne & Nicolas van de Walle, 2017. "The Political Economy of Fertilizer Subsidy Programs in Africa: Evidence from Zambia," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(3), pages 705-731.
    3. Yoko Kijima, 2022. "Effect of Nigeria’s e-voucher input subsidy program on fertilizer use, rice production, and household income," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 14(4), pages 919-935, August.
    4. Kaiyatsa, Stevier & Jumbe, Charles & Ricker-Gilbert, Jacob, 2017. "Supply-side Crowding-out and Crowding-in Effects of Malawi’s Farm Input Subsidy Program on Private-sector Input Marketing: A Quasi-experimental Field Study," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258135, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Fujimoto, Takefumi & Suzuki, Aya, 2021. "Do Fertilizer and Seed Subsidies Strengthen Farmers' Market Participation? the Impact of Tanzania NAIVS on Farmers' Purchase of Agricultural Inputs and Their Maize-Selling Activities," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315044, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Shumway, C. Richard, 1995. "Recent Duality Contributions In Production Economics," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 20(1), pages 1-17, July.
    7. Zinnbauer, Maximilian & Mockshell, Jonathan & Zeller, Manfred, 2018. "Effects if Fertilizer Subsidies in Zambia: A Literature Review," MPRA Paper 84125, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Féménia, Fabienne & Letort, Elodie, 2016. "How to achieve significant reduction in pesticide use? An empirical evaluation of the impacts of pesticide taxation associated to a change in cropping practice," Working Papers 233482, Institut National de la recherche Agronomique (INRA), Departement Sciences Sociales, Agriculture et Alimentation, Espace et Environnement (SAE2).
    9. Camara, Alhassane & Savard, Luc, 2023. "Impact of agricultural input subsidy policy on market participation and income distribution in Africa: A bottom-up/top-down approach," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    10. Liverpool-Tasie, Lenis Saweda O. & Jayne, Thomas & Muyanga, Milu & Sanou, Awa, 2017. "Are African Farmers Experiencing Improved Incentives To Use Fertilizer?," Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security Policy Research Papers 270632, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security (FSP).
    11. Tebogo B. Seleka, 2022. "Old wine in a new bottle? Impact of the ISPAAD input subsidy program on the subsistence economy in Botswana," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(1), pages 298-322, February.
    12. Shah, Mrunal & Ricker-Gilbert, Jacob & Oluwatoba, Omotilewa, 2021. "Longer Run Effects of One-Time Subsidy on Adoption of a New Agricultural Technology: Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial in Uganda," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315336, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Sinafikeh Asrat Gemessa, 2022. "An alternative approach to measuring the welfare implications of input subsidies: Evidence from Malawi," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(1), pages 112-138, February.
    14. Mason, Nicole & Tembo, Solomon, 2015. "Do input Subsidies Reduce Poverty among Smallholder Farm Households? Panel Survey Evidence from Zambia," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212233, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Channing Arndt & Karl Pauw & James Thurlow, 2016. "The Economy-wide Impacts and Risks of Malawi's Farm Input Subsidy Program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(3), pages 962-980.
    16. Grovermann, Christian & Schreinemachers, Pepijn & Berger, Thomas, 2015. "Evaluation of IPM adoption and financial instruments to reduce pesticide use in Thai agriculture using econometrics and agent-based modeling," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211690, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Cai, Yi & Sun, Yucheng & Qi, Wene & Yi, Famin, 2022. "Impact of smartphone use on production outsourcing: evidence from litchi farming in southern China," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 25(4), September.
    18. Zeng, Yangyi & Herzfeld, Thomas, 2021. "The effects of mental budgeting on the intentions to switch to low-toxicity pesticides: Evidence from vegetable farmers in Sichuan, China," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 13(3).
    19. Kuntashula, Elias & Mwelwa-Zgambo, Lukonde, 2022. "Impact of the farmer input support policy on agricultural production diversity and dietary diversity in Zambia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    20. Mason, Nicole M. & Wineman, Ayala & Kirimi, Lilian & Mather, David, 2016. "The Effects of Kenya’s ‘Smarter’ Input Subsidy Program on Smallholder Behavior and Incomes: Do Different Quasi-Experimental Approaches Lead to the Same Conclusions?," Food Security Collaborative Working Papers 232090, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:6:p:1183-:d:1162443. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.