Characteristics of Local Officials and High Quality Development of Chinese Agriculture - Evidence from Chinese Governors and Secretaries of the Provincial Party Committee

Data envelopment analysis (DEA) is a commonly used method for evaluating efficiency. Färe [37, 38] introduced the DEA method into environmental efficiency evaluation research for the first time and proposed the unexpected output concept, thereby providing the basis for environmental efficiency evaluations. Many studies have used the slacks based measure (SBM) undesirable model [39,40,41]. The SBM-undesirable model is a non-radial and non-angular DEA model constructed by Tone [42, 43], which solves the problem of neglecting the input-output relaxation in the traditional DEA model and unexpected output is also added to the model, thereby allowing more accurate evaluations of agricultural GTFP. In the present study, the SBM-undesirable model was employed to measure and evaluate the agricultural GTFP in 31 provinces and autonomous regions of China.

The model assumes n independent DMUs, where each comprises m input variables x, s₁ expected outputs, and s₂ undesired outputs, which can be expressed as a vector with x ∈ s^m, y^a ∈ s^s₁, y^b ∈ s^s₂. X, Y^a, and Y^b are matrices such that X = [x₁ ···x_n] ∈ s^m×n, Ya=[y1a⋯yna]∈ss1×n{Y^a} = \left[ {y_1^a \cdots y_n^a} \right] \in {s^{{s_1} \times n}} , and Yb=[y1b⋯ynb]∈ss2×n{Y^b} = \left[ {y_1^b \cdots y_n^b} \right] \in {s^{{s_2} \times n}} . The SBM-undesirable model is constructed as follows [44].

The tobit panel data model was used to investigate the impacts of officials on agricultural GTFP in China. The efficiency range for agricultural GTFP in China ranges between 0 and 1, this kind of data is more suitable for Tobit model, and the tobit model can avoid the shortcomings of ordinary least squares estimation in terms of biased parameter estimation and inconsistent parameter estimation. Therefore, the tobit model was selected for empirical analysis. The mathematical expression of the tobit model is defined as follows: (3)ym*=α0+∑n=1iαnxmn+εmy_m^* = {\alpha _0} + \sum\limits_{n = 1}^i {{\alpha _n}{x_{mn}} + {\varepsilon _m}} (4){ym=ym*0<ym*≤1ym=0ym*<0ym=1ym*>1\left\{ {\matrix{ {{y_m} = y_m^*0 < y_m^* \le 1} \hfill \cr {{y_m} = 0y_m^* < 0} \hfill \cr {{y_m} = 1y_m^* > 1} \hfill \cr } } \right. where ym*y_m^* is a latent variable, y_m is an actual dependent variable, x_mn is an independent variable, α₀ is a constant term, α_n is a correlation coefficient vector, and ɛ_m is independent, where ɛ_m ~ N (0, σ²).

Agriculture includes arable agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry, and fisheries. In a narrow sense, agriculture mainly comprises the arable farming industry. As the basis of agriculture, the arable farming industry is crucial for promoting the development of green ecological agriculture. The production input-output factors for forestry, animal husbandry, and fishery are very different from those for the arable farming industry, and the input-output accuracy is low. Therefore, we selected the arable farming industry to evaluate the agricultural GTFP.

According to previous research and the current agricultural development situation in China, we selected seven input indicators and three output indicators (including one desirable output indicator and two undesirable output indicators) to evaluate the TFP for agriculture in China [47,48,49]. Table 1 shows the specific input-output indicators as well as their characteristic variables and descriptions.

This study considered 31 provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions in China from 1997 to 2016. Most of the data were derived from the “China Statistical Yearbook” and “China Rural Statistical Yearbook,” which include 620 decision-making units. Table 2 shows the specific descriptions of the statistics used.

In order to reduce the effects of multiple collinearity and heteroscedasticity, the logarithmic value of agricultural GTFP efficiency in China was selected as the explained variable.

The core explanatory variables comprised the personal characteristics of the secretaries and governors of 31 provincial units. The data were mainly collected from the “Official Records of the People's Republic of China” and personal websites. The specific variables are described as follows.

Eight indicators that are closely associated with the agricultural development process were selected as control variables. These data were obtained from the China Statistical Yearbook and China Rural Statistical Yearbook. The specific variables and descriptions are shown in Table 4.

Table 5 shows the results estimated using the model. In order to gain a deeper and more intuitive understanding of the impacts of officials on high-quality agricultural development, we regressed the agricultural GTFP and the total agricultural output value. The agricultural GTFP represents the quality of agricultural development. The total agricultural output value represents an increase in the quantity of agriculture.

If officials affect agricultural GTFP, then a longer term of office for the secretary will increase the possibility of the agricultural GTFP increasing because their governance concept will be more mature and they will have greater management experience. The economic and ecological environment of China is well understood, and the relationship between the development of the agricultural economy and agricultural ecology protection can be balanced in a reasonable manner. Moreover, agriculture is a weak industry with long production cycles, large environmental impacts, and slow returns. Therefore, officials only had significant impacts on the agricultural GTFP in the long term. The age of a secretary had a significant negative impact on the growth of agriculture GTFP. As their age increases, officials will have a greater expectation of promotion, and thus they are relatively more likely to ignore the development of agricultural quality. By contrast, young officials are more likely to accept advanced political ideas and be more adaptable to transformation and development in the new era. The birthplace of governor had a significant impact on the agricultural GTFP. A governor who works in their native area is more likely to improve the agricultural GTFP. Indeed, a “hometown preference” is a global phenomenon, where officials have a strong affection for the hometown where they were born and grew up. Thus, in order to ensure the development of their hometown, officials with local origins have a requirement for “quantitative” as well as “quality” development.

In terms of the impact of officials on the total agricultural output value, an increase in the tenure of the secretary was also conducive to the growth of the total agricultural economy. If the tenure of officials is shorter, this will lead to short-sighted behavior, thereby making it difficult for them to promote increases in the quality and quantity of the agricultural economy. The educational level of secretaries also had a significant negative effect on the growth of the total agricultural output. A highly-educated secretary has a more advanced understanding of development and they will not focus only on the quantitative development of agriculture. The ages of secretaries and governors had negative effects on increases in the total agricultural output, where the results indicated that as the officials became older, their desire for promotion was greater and they had increased expectations of high economic growth. However, the contribution of the total agricultural output value to the aggregate economic level is relatively small, which could also make officials ignore agricultural development. A secretary who worked in their native area was more likely to the increase the total agricultural output, thereby indicating that the promotion of young officials from a province will have a highly positive impact on local economic development. The off-site exchanges between secretaries and governors significantly promoted agricultural economic growth, thereby suggesting that implementing an off-site exchange system for officials could help to promote development of the agricultural economy.

In general, the individual characteristics of officials had significant impacts on the agricultural GTFP and agricultural output value, and they were highly significant indicators of the impacts of officials on the agricultural output value, thereby demonstrating that officials pay more attention to agricultural economic growth but ignore the development of agricultural quality. In addition, secretaries had more significant impacts on agricultural development than governors because the secretary is the actual decision-maker in the local government under China's political system.

In 2005, the State Council issued the decision of the State Council on Implementing the Scientific Outlook on Development and Strengthening Environmental Protection, which stated that environmental protection should be included during the selection, appointment, rewarding, and punishments of leading groups and cadres. In 2007, the State Council issued the “Notice on Printing and Distributing a Comprehensive Work Plan for Energy Conservation and Emission Reduction,” which clearly stated that the completion of energy conservation and emission reduction targets should be treated as an important basis for performance evaluations in a “one-vote veto” system. The State Council issued two consecutive articles that placed binding provisions on the assessment standards for officials, which mean that the requirements for economic development in the new era can only be met by internalizing GTFP and environmental protection into promotion incentives. As a consequence, we examined the effects of officials on the agricultural GTFP in China during different periods. Thus, we analyzed the changing roles of officials and their impacts on agricultural GTFP, and investigated the effects of implementing the central government's policy demanding the incorporation of environmental protection policy into the official promotion assessment system.

Table 6 shows that during the period from 1997–2006, the birthplace of secretaries had a significant impact on the agricultural GTFP. A secretary from the local area was conducive to growth in the agricultural GTFP. The educational level of provincial governors had a significant negative impact on the agricultural GTFP, possibly due to the low level of economic development at the beginning of the reform and opening up in China, and the lack of food and other materials. Thus, in order to solve the basic problems related to food and clothing, quantitative economic growth was the focus during this stage. After rapid economic growth, the pressure on resources and environment constraints inevitably increased, and thus a high educational level did not improve the overall quality of economic growth

Between 2007 and 2016, the tenure of secretaries, exchanges, and the birthplace of governors had positive impacts on the agricultural GTFP, whereas the educational background, age of secretaries, and age of governors had significant negative impacts. It should be noted that secretaries undergoing non-local exchanges during this stage had a significant positive impact on the GTFP of agriculture. The officials who participated in exchanges had more experience of management and administration, as well as a more diversified economic and ecological environment, and thus they possessed more solutions in order to balance the agricultural economy and agricultural ecology. In addition, during the stage from high-speed economic growth to high-quality development, the official exchange system played an important role in agricultural GTFP growth. Compared with the full sample model and the previous model, the impacts of the characteristics of officials on the agricultural GTFP were significantly greater in this stage, thereby indicating that the roles of individual officials in promoting the high-quality development of agriculture became increasingly important with the deepening of the reform of the market system.

In general, the impacts of officials on the agricultural GTFP were relatively low during 1997–2006, but they increased significantly in 2007–2016. These results demonstrate that the central government's assessment mechanism for officials improved continuously and the incorporation of the ecological environment into official assessment standards achieved significant results. These changes also explain why the agriculture GTFP was generally low before 2006, as shown in Figure 1.