农业支持政策结构变迁的国际比较分析
|
摘要
[目的]在多哈回合谈判再次要求削减黄箱政策背景下,通过量化比较分析典型发达国家和地区在多哈回合谈判前后农业支持政策结构变化趋势,为中国农业供给侧结构性改革背景下农业支持政策改革提供方向借鉴。[方法]使用OECD农业政策评价指标对比分析欧盟、美国、日本和中国4个国家和地区农业支持力度、支持结构的变化趋势。[结果]发达国家和地区积极创新农业支持手段以替代市场价格支持,加快农业支持政策的市场化转变,强调支持政策与资源环境保护的交互作用,注重对农业知识和创新体系的资金投入。[结论]我国应持续加大对农业的支持力度,逐渐减少市场价格支持比重,创新支持工具并强化政策间的协调性,优化一般服务支持结构,加大对农业知识和创新体系的财政投入。
The contradiction of agricultural development China is mainly in the supply side,and the agricultural support policy system based on increasing production is not suitable for the needs of agricultural development in China. After putting forward of reducing amber box policy again in the Agriculture Negotiation in Doha,developed countries or regions began to take market as the guide to adjust the structural of agricultural support policy. Therefore,the comparative analysis of the trend of the structural reform of the agricultural support policy in the typical developed countries and regions is of great reference value to the improvement of our agricultural support policy.With utilizing the agricultural policy system of OECD,this paper compares and analyzes the change rule of the level and structure for agricultural support policy among the United States,the European Union,Japan and China. The study found that the main direction of agricultural support policy structure adjustment in developed countries and regions is to adopt different policy measures to replace market price support,and pay attention to the input of agricultural knowledge and innovation system. On this basis,it is recommended to increase the support level for agriculture,gradually reduce market price support,innovate tools of agricultural support policies,strengthen the coordination among policies tools,optimize the general service support structure,and increase the financial input to the agricultural knowledge and innovation system.
The contradiction of agricultural development China is mainly in the supply side,and the agricultural support policy system based on increasing production is not suitable for the needs of agricultural development in China. After putting forward of reducing amber box policy again in the Agriculture Negotiation in Doha,developed countries or regions began to take market as the guide to adjust the structural of agricultural support policy. Therefore,the comparative analysis of the trend of the structural reform of the agricultural support policy in the typical developed countries and regions is of great reference value to the improvement of our agricultural support policy.With utilizing the agricultural policy system of OECD,this paper compares and analyzes the change rule of the level and structure for agricultural support policy among the United States,the European Union,Japan and China. The study found that the main direction of agricultural support policy structure adjustment in developed countries and regions is to adopt different policy measures to replace market price support,and pay attention to the input of agricultural knowledge and innovation system. On this basis,it is recommended to increase the support level for agriculture,gradually reduce market price support,innovate tools of agricultural support policies,strengthen the coordination among policies tools,optimize the general service support structure,and increase the financial input to the agricultural knowledge and innovation system.
引文
[1]廉桂萍.加大财政对农业支持力度不断提高农业竞争力.农业经济问题,2003,(11):51~53,80
[2]杜辉,张美文,陈池波.中国新农业补贴制度的困惑与出路:六年实践的理性反思.中国软科学,2010,(7):1~7,35
[3]叶兴庆.演进轨迹、困境摆脱与转变我国农业发展方式的政策选择.改革,2016,(6):22~39
[4]张领先,唐晓林,王洁琼.中美欧日韩农业支持水平及政策结构比较分析.科技管理研究,2016,36(18):36~39,56
[5]于法稳.基于资源视角的农业供给侧结构性改革的路径研究.中国农业资源与区划,2017,38(6):1~6,44
[6]叶兴庆.我国农业支持政策转型:从增产导向到竞争力导向.改革,2017,(3):19~34
[7]朱海洋.“入世”后我国农业支持政策取向的思考.财经研究,2002,(9):69~74
[8]徐雪,夏海龙.发达国家农业补贴政策调整及其经验借鉴——基于欧盟、美国、日本的考察.湖南农业大学学报(社会科学版),2015,16(3):70~74
[9]蔡鑫,陈永福,韩昕儒,等.日本农业支持政策的最新趋势及启示.中国农业资源与区划,2016,37(7):45~53
[10]韩一军,徐锐钊.2014美国农业法改革及启示.农业经济问题,2015,36(4):101~109
[11]刘武兵,李婷.欧盟共同农业政策改革:2014~2020.世界农业,2015,(6):65~69
[12]齐皓天,朱满德,袁祥州.美国2014年农业国内支持政策调整对其后巴厘农业谈判立场的影响.国际经贸探索,2017,33(5):4~15
[13]宗义湘,闫琰,李先德.巴西农业支持水平及支持政策分析——基于OECD最新农业政策分析框架.财贸研究,2011,22(2):51~58
[14]袁祥州,朱满德.南非农业政策的支持水平与结构特征——基于生产者支持估计(PSE)指标的分析.价格理论与实践,2011,(12):40~41
[15]梁謇,孙平.美国农业补贴政策演变趋势透析.学术交流,2011,(12):111~116
[16]张朝华,陈池波.基于BRICS比较的我国农业支持政策取向.中国科技论坛,2014,(4):141~147
[17]吕晓英,李先德.美国农业政策支持水平及改革走向.农业经济问题,2014,35(2):102~109,112
[18]李先德,宗义湘.中国农业支持水平衡量与评价.农业经济问题,2005,(S1):19~26
[19]朱满德,程国强.中国农业的黄箱政策支持水平评估:源于WTO规则一致性.改革,2015,(5):58~66
[20]OECD.Introduction to the OECD producer support estimate and related indicators of agricultural support.http://www.oecd.org/tad/agriculturalpolicies/pse-introduction-august-final.pdf
[21]毛世平,龚雅婷,刘福江.英国农业补贴政策及对我国的启示.农业现代化研究,2017,38(1):31~37
[22]杨春华,杨洁梅,彭超.美国2014农业法案的主要特点与启示.农业经济问题,2017,38(3):105~109
[23]DEFRA.Introduction of basic payment scheme.(2016-02-02)https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/basic-payment-scheme.
(1)数据来源:中国统计年鉴2016
(1)农业支持估计值总量(TSE)指农业部门每年从纳税人和消费者手中得到的转移支付,%TSE是指TSE占GDP的比重,用于衡量增加值中用于农业的投入
(2)生产者支持估计值(PSE)主要是指实施某一个农业补贴政策后,消费者和纳税人转移支付给生产者的货币价值
(3)消费者支持估计值是指消费者由农业政策实施获得的转移支付
(4)一般服务支持估计值(GSSE)主要衡量政府对农业部门实施的公共性服务站政策而引起的价值转移
(1)该文中未特别注明的数据均来自OECD数据库:http://www.oecd.org/tad/agricultural-policies/producerandconsumersupportestimatesdatabase.htm
(1)数据来源于美国环境工作组EGW:Farm Subsidy Database,https://farm.ewg.org/index.php
[2]杜辉,张美文,陈池波.中国新农业补贴制度的困惑与出路:六年实践的理性反思.中国软科学,2010,(7):1~7,35
[3]叶兴庆.演进轨迹、困境摆脱与转变我国农业发展方式的政策选择.改革,2016,(6):22~39
[4]张领先,唐晓林,王洁琼.中美欧日韩农业支持水平及政策结构比较分析.科技管理研究,2016,36(18):36~39,56
[5]于法稳.基于资源视角的农业供给侧结构性改革的路径研究.中国农业资源与区划,2017,38(6):1~6,44
[6]叶兴庆.我国农业支持政策转型:从增产导向到竞争力导向.改革,2017,(3):19~34
[7]朱海洋.“入世”后我国农业支持政策取向的思考.财经研究,2002,(9):69~74
[8]徐雪,夏海龙.发达国家农业补贴政策调整及其经验借鉴——基于欧盟、美国、日本的考察.湖南农业大学学报(社会科学版),2015,16(3):70~74
[9]蔡鑫,陈永福,韩昕儒,等.日本农业支持政策的最新趋势及启示.中国农业资源与区划,2016,37(7):45~53
[10]韩一军,徐锐钊.2014美国农业法改革及启示.农业经济问题,2015,36(4):101~109
[11]刘武兵,李婷.欧盟共同农业政策改革:2014~2020.世界农业,2015,(6):65~69
[12]齐皓天,朱满德,袁祥州.美国2014年农业国内支持政策调整对其后巴厘农业谈判立场的影响.国际经贸探索,2017,33(5):4~15
[13]宗义湘,闫琰,李先德.巴西农业支持水平及支持政策分析——基于OECD最新农业政策分析框架.财贸研究,2011,22(2):51~58
[14]袁祥州,朱满德.南非农业政策的支持水平与结构特征——基于生产者支持估计(PSE)指标的分析.价格理论与实践,2011,(12):40~41
[15]梁謇,孙平.美国农业补贴政策演变趋势透析.学术交流,2011,(12):111~116
[16]张朝华,陈池波.基于BRICS比较的我国农业支持政策取向.中国科技论坛,2014,(4):141~147
[17]吕晓英,李先德.美国农业政策支持水平及改革走向.农业经济问题,2014,35(2):102~109,112
[18]李先德,宗义湘.中国农业支持水平衡量与评价.农业经济问题,2005,(S1):19~26
[19]朱满德,程国强.中国农业的黄箱政策支持水平评估:源于WTO规则一致性.改革,2015,(5):58~66
[20]OECD.Introduction to the OECD producer support estimate and related indicators of agricultural support.http://www.oecd.org/tad/agriculturalpolicies/pse-introduction-august-final.pdf
[21]毛世平,龚雅婷,刘福江.英国农业补贴政策及对我国的启示.农业现代化研究,2017,38(1):31~37
[22]杨春华,杨洁梅,彭超.美国2014农业法案的主要特点与启示.农业经济问题,2017,38(3):105~109
[23]DEFRA.Introduction of basic payment scheme.(2016-02-02)https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/basic-payment-scheme.
(1)数据来源:中国统计年鉴2016
(1)农业支持估计值总量(TSE)指农业部门每年从纳税人和消费者手中得到的转移支付,%TSE是指TSE占GDP的比重,用于衡量增加值中用于农业的投入
(2)生产者支持估计值(PSE)主要是指实施某一个农业补贴政策后,消费者和纳税人转移支付给生产者的货币价值
(3)消费者支持估计值是指消费者由农业政策实施获得的转移支付
(4)一般服务支持估计值(GSSE)主要衡量政府对农业部门实施的公共性服务站政策而引起的价值转移
(1)该文中未特别注明的数据均来自OECD数据库:http://www.oecd.org/tad/agricultural-policies/producerandconsumersupportestimatesdatabase.htm
(1)数据来源于美国环境工作组EGW:Farm Subsidy Database,https://farm.ewg.org/index.php