IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/oxecpp/v62y2010i1p132-156.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Relaxing rural constraints: a 'win-win' policy for poverty and environment in China?

Author

Listed:
  • Ben Groom
  • Pauline Grosjean
  • Andreas Kontoleon
  • Timothy Swanson
  • Shiqiu Zhang

Abstract

The link between institutional and market failures, rural poverty and environmental degradation suggests a 'win-win' policy intervention: relax local 'constraints' and achieve poverty alleviation and environmental goals. We evaluate the ability of the Sloping Lands Conversion Programme (SLCP) in China, a reforestation payments programme, to relax constraints on off-farm labour markets and achieve these dual objectives. Our model of the agricultural household allows for heterogeneous exposure to constraints and impacts. The model predicts that the impact of the SLCP on off-farm labour supply will be larger for constrained households if constraints are relaxed. To test the predictions we combine a switching regression with difference in differences. Applied to panel data, this technique allows identification of the heterogeneous impact of the SLCP on constrained and unconstrained households. Our results identify some support for the 'win-win' hypothesis in the case of the SLCP, and how the targeting of the programme can be improved. Copyright 2010 Oxford University Press 2009 All rights reserved, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Ben Groom & Pauline Grosjean & Andreas Kontoleon & Timothy Swanson & Shiqiu Zhang, 2010. "Relaxing rural constraints: a 'win-win' policy for poverty and environment in China?," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 62(1), pages 132-156, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:oxecpp:v:62:y:2010:i:1:p:132-156
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/oep/gpp021
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Démurger, Sylvie & Pelletier, Adeline, 2015. "Volunteer and satisfied? Rural households' participation in a payments for environmental services programme in Inner Mongolia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 25-33.
    2. Araujo, Claudio & Combes, Jean-Louis & Féres, José Gustavo, 2019. "Determinants of Amazon deforestation: the role of off-farm income," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 138-156, April.
    3. Xu, Hongzhang & Pittock, Jamie & Daniell, Katherine, 2022. "‘Sustainability of what, for whom? A critical analysis of Chinese development induced displacement and resettlement (DIDR) programs," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    4. Yang, Yu & Wu, Feng & Zhang, Qian & Hong, Jiayu & Dong, Congcong, 2020. "Is It Sustainable to Implement a Regional Payment for Ecosystem Service Programme for 10 Years? An Empirical Analysis From the Perspective of Household Livelihoods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    5. Deininger, Klaus & Jin, Songqing & Xia, Fang & Huang, Jikun, 2014. "Moving Off the Farm: Land Institutions to Facilitate Structural Transformation and Agricultural Productivity Growth in China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 505-520.
    6. Hao Li & Michael T Bennett & Xuemei Jiang & Kebin Zhang & Xiaohui Yang, 2017. "Rural Household Preferences for Active Participation in “Payment for Ecosystem Service” Programs: A Case in the Miyun Reservoir Catchment, China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-21, January.
    7. Chen, Cheng & Matzdorf, Bettina & Meyer, Claas & König, Hannes & Zhen, Lin, 2018. "How socioeconomic and institutional conditions at the household level shape the environmental effectiveness of governmental PES: China’s Sloping Land Conversion Program," SocArXiv jzvqh, Center for Open Science.
    8. Kolinjivadi, Vijay & Gamboa, Gonzalo & Adamowski, Jan & Kosoy, Nicolás, 2015. "Capabilities as justice: Analysing the acceptability of payments for ecosystem services (PES) through ‘social multi-criteria evaluation’," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 99-113.
    9. Liu, Ping & Yin, Runsheng & Zhao, Minjuan, 2019. "Reformulating China's ecological restoration policies: What can be learned from comparing Chinese and American experiences?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 54-61.
    10. Hao Li & Xiaohui Yang & Xiao Zhang & Yuyan Liu & Kebin Zhang, 2018. "Estimation of Rural Households’ Willingness to Accept Two PES Programs and Their Service Valuation in the Miyun Reservoir Catchment, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-19, January.
    11. Zhaoyang Liu & Jintao Xu & Xiaojun Yang & Qin Tu & Nick Hanley & Andreas Kontoleon, 2019. "Performance of Agglomeration Bonuses in Conservation Auctions: Lessons from a Framed Field Experiment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(3), pages 843-869, July.
    12. You, Jing & Kontoleon, Andreas & Wang, Sangui, 2015. "Identifying a Sustainable Pathway to Household Multi-dimensional Poverty Reduction in Rural China," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211865, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Kelly, Peter & Huo, Xuexi, 2013. "Land Retirement and Nonfarm Labor Market Participation: An Analysis of China’s Sloping Land Conversion Program," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 156-169.
    14. Pauline Grosjean & Andreas Kontoleon & Shiqiu Zhang, 2010. "Assessing the Sustainability of the Sloping Land Conversion Programme: A Choice Experiment Approach," Chapters, in: Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol (ed.), Choice Experiments in Developing Countries, chapter 7, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Liang, Yicheng & Li, Shuzhuo & Feldman, Marcus W. & Daily, Gretchen C., 2012. "Does household composition matter? The impact of the Grain for Green Program on rural livelihoods in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 152-160.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:oxecpp:v:62:y:2010:i:1:p:132-156. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/oep .

    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.