公益性和非公益性农地城市流转的农户福利效应研究
|
摘要
农地城市流转一方面为社会经济发展和城市化发展提供土地支持,另一方面带来粮食安全隐患,威胁社会稳定,造成生态环境压力。对于农民而言,农地城市流转为其提供了享受城市发展部分成果,改善居住地周围基础设施状况的机会,但同时也使其失去了稳定的经济来源、就业岗位和养老保障,尤其对于年老者来说他们必须改变习惯已久的生活方式、面临社会保障问题。土地自然供给的不变性和经济供给的有限性决定了农地城市流转的必然性。农民作为农地流转过程中的弱势群体,其福利状况需要给予特别的关注,农民庞大的数量也使得其福利问题成为社会关注的重大问题。福利的衡量标准经历了“基数效用论”和“序数效用论”的争论、“经济福利”和“非经济福利”孰轻孰重的讨论以及福利是否在人际间可比的讨论。农地对农民而言除了经济来源以外,其社会保障功能也逐渐被大家所认识。那么如何测度农地流转对农户的综合福利效应?目前对于农地流转前后农地经济产出功能和社会保障功能的变化研究较多,征地后的土地用途对农民福利的影响探讨较少。实际上,征地后的土地用途在客观上会影响农民的居住环境,从而影响农民的健康状况,而主观上由于流转后土地的不同用途造成土地在流转前后的比较利益的差距从而影响农民对于补偿公平的判断。那么,公益性和非公益性农地流转的农户福利效应究竟如何?本文分为四大部分进行了研究。
(1)第一部分,即本文的前两章。首先对全文的选题背景、研究目的与意义、研究思路与方法进行了介绍,理清了后文的写作思路。其次对国内外关于农地流转中的福利问题和福利测度方法的研究进展进行了梳理,并对本文的理论基础—福利经济学、新制度经济学、外部性及家庭功能理论进行了回顾。
(2)第二部分,即本文的第三章。从农地城市流转与福利效应的内涵着手,从理论上分析了农地城市流转的正负福利效应。选择根据森的可行能力理论对不同类型农地城市流转的农户福利效应进行测度。考虑到中国农村的实际情况以农户为基本研究单位。可行能力理论认为福利具有模糊性,并与目标特征密切相关,因此并不提倡千篇一律的功能性活动列表。本文通过总结国内外运用可行能力测算福利选用的功能性活动列表,结合中国农户家庭特征,以及对农地流转的福利效应的理论分析,立足于家庭功能构建包括8项可行能力及其19个评价指标的农地城市流转中农户家庭的可行能力框架。此外,可行能力理论还强调商品和服务不是福利,商品和服务转换为可行能力才是福利,影响转换效率的就是转换因素。本文参考森对转换因素的分类以及高进云等国内学者对转换因素的选择,结合研究对象和研究目的,从家庭特征、地区社会经济环境和征地用途三大类选择转换因素。并在此基础上构建基于可行能力理论的福利效应测度理论框架。
(3)第三部分,即本文的第四、五、六章是实证部分。选取社会经济发展情况相近的武汉市江夏区和成宁市咸安区为样本区域,采用入户访谈的调查方式并最终获取398份有效问卷。采用灰色模糊综合评判方法：①以层次分析法的结果作为主观赋权法的测度结果,以灰色关联分析方法的结果作为客观赋权法的测度结果,取二者的平均值作为模糊评判方法的权重值；②通过设定农户福利的模糊函数和隶属函数,从有效问卷中提取福利测度指标数据,计算各农户各指标的隶属值；③利用前面计算的权重和隶属值进行单个农户和农户总体的隶属度加总。第四章、第五章和第六章分别从农地流转的农户福利效应、公益性和非公益性农地流转的福利效应以及其他转换因素下的农地城市流转的福利效应三个方面进行实证研究。
(4)第四部分,即第七章为本文的研究结论和讨论部分。本文研究表明：①农地城市流转使得农户家庭的总福利隶属度从农地流转前的0.423下降到农地流转后的0.363。而农地流转对农户不同功能性活动影响方向和程度各异,农地流转使得农户的组织生产、社会保障、居住条件与环境和社会公平功能水平下降,使得农户的经济收入、健康与休闲、社会参与和子女教育功能水平上升。②虽然农地城市流转在不同转换因素下对农户福利的影响方向一致,但是不同转换因素下农地流转对农户家庭福利的影响程度各异,对农户家庭各功能性活动的影响也各不相同。③公益性和非公益性农地流转对农户家庭福利的影响存在差异。非公益性农地流转对农户总福利的影响更大。非公益性农地流转对农户家庭的组织生产功能、居住条件和环境状况的负向影响大于公益性农地流转；对农户家庭的社会保障功能和对社会公平的评价的负向影响小于公益性农地流转。非公益性征地对农户家庭的经济收入功能、健康与休闲功能的正向影响大于公益性征地；对农户家庭子女教育功能正向影响小于公益性征地。唯一公益性和非公益性农地流转使其变化方向相反的家庭功能是社会参与功能,公益性流转使农户该功能的隶属度提高了66.67%,而非公益性流转使农户的该功能隶属度降低了9.09%。可见,农地流转不仅影响农户的客观福利,而且影响农户的主观福利；不仅影响农户的经济福利,还影响农户的非经济福利。要想改善农户失地后的福利状况,需要区别对待公益性和非公益性征地及其补偿,建立货币、社会保障、心理辅导等全方位的补偿模式。具体而言,首先要分别做好公益性和非公益性征地的宣传工作并保证征地程序的透明公正；然后需做好新旧补偿标准和相邻区域补偿标准的衔接并尽量做到补偿标准的细致化和人性化；最后要保证补偿的持续性并对失地农户进行跟踪管理。在本文的最后,指出本研究在理论方法、资料获取和实证测度等方面的不足之处,以期在未来的研究中探讨与改进。
On the one hand rural-urban land conversion provides land support for social and economic development and the development of urbanization, on the other hand decreased cultivated land bring food safety problems, land expropriation conflicts threaten social stability, reduced agricultural land area poses the ecological environment pressure. For farmers, farmland conversion offers farmers the opportunity to enjoy a part of urban development achievements, improves infrastructure status near the residence. At the same time, it deprives farmers of the stable financial resources, jobs, and old-age security, especially for the elderly, they must change the way of life habit and fear that the social security problem. The invariance of the natural supply and the limitation of economic supply of land determine the necessity of rural-urban land conversion. Farmers as the vulnerable groups in the process of land conversion, the welfare state needs to pay special attention. The huge number of farmers also makes its welfare become the core issue to ease the land requisition conflict. Welfare measure Criteria experience the dispute about "cardinal utility theory" and "ordinal utility theory", the discussion on the importance of "economic welfare" and "Non-economic welfare", and also the game of whether it can be compared in interpersonal. Besides the economic source functions, the social security functions of farmland for farmers are known by people gradually. Then how to measure the comprehensive welfare effect of rural-urban land conversion for peasant household? At present, the research about the change of economic output function and the social security function of farmland before and after rural-urban land conversion are more, the impact of land use after land requisition on farmers' welfare is less discussed. In fact, the land use after land requisition not only affect the farmers' living environment that affect farmers' health objectively, but also cause the difference of comparative advantage before and after land conversion that affect farmers' fair judgment for compensation subjectively. So, how is the household welfare effect of rural-urban land conversion for the public purpose or non public purpose? This article is divided into four parts to study.
(1)The first two chapters of this article, first of all to introduce the selected topic background, research purpose and significance, research ideas and methods of the full text, and also to sort out the train of thought for later writing. Second to generalize the research progress of welfare issues in rural-urban land conversion and welfare measurement methods at home and abroad, and then review the theoretical basis of this article which include welfare economics, new institutional economics, externality theory and family function theory.
(2)In the third chapter of this paper, we analyzed the positive and negative welfare effects of rural-urban land conversion theoretically from the connotation of rural-urban land conversion and welfare effect. We try to measure peasant household welfare of rural-urban land conversion for different object based on Sen's capability theory. Considering the situation of China's rural, peasant household was taken as the basic research unit. In capability theory we think that welfare is fuzzy, and is closely related with the target features, therefore non fixed functional activities list was advocated. Functional activity list in welfare measure using capability method at home and abroad is summed up, combined with the feature of Chinese peasant household, as well as the theoretical analysis of the welfare effect of rural-urban land conversion, based on the function of family, the framework of peasant households'capability in rural-urban land conversion including8capabilities and19evaluation indexes was built. Capability theory also emphasizes that goods and services are welfare only if they transfer into capability, the conversion factors are which influence the transformation efficiency. Considered classification to conversion factors by Sen and choice to influence factors by domestic scholars such as Gao Jinyun, combined with the special object of study, we choose the influence factors from the family characteristics, regional social and economic environment and land use.
(3) The fourth, fifth and sixth chapters of this paper is the empirical part. Jiangxia district in Wuhan and Xianan district in Xianning are selected as the sample area because their similar social and economic development situation. By interview survey method we finally obtain398valid questionnaires. Grey fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method is used:1) With the results of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as the results of subjective values measure method, with the results of grey correlation analysis method as the results of objective values measure method, take the average weights of two as the values results of fuzzy evaluation method;2) By setting the fuzzy function and membership function of farmers'welfare, extracting welfare measure data from valid questionnaires, calculate the membership values of each index of the farmers;3) Using the calculation of weight and the membership value to aggregate overall membership degree of individual and the overall farmers. The fourth chapter has carried on the empirical research in peasant household welfare effect of rural-urban land conversion; Household welfare effect of rural-urban land conversion for the public purpose and non public purpose were measured empirically in Chapter5; Household welfare effect of rural-urban land conversion under the other conversion factors were measured empirically in Chapter6.
(4) The seventh chapter is conclusions and discussion part of this research. We concluded that:1) Rural-urban land conversion makes the total welfare membership of peasant household flow from0.423before the conversion down to0.363after the conversion. The effect direction and degree of rural-urban land conversion to different functional activities of household is different. Land conversion makes the level of peasant households'functional activities of production organization, social security, living conditions and the environment, and social equity decline. It makes the level of functional activities of income, health and leisure, social participation, and children's education rise.2) Although the effect direction of household welfare effect of rural-urban land conversion under different conversion factors is consistent, the degree of welfare effect is different. The impact on each functional activities of peasant household is also not identical.3) Peasant households'welfare effects of public purpose and non public purpose land conversion vary. The public purpose land conversion influence farmer total welfare more. The negative effects of non public purpose land conversion on peasant households'functional activities of production organization, living conditions and the environment are greater than the public purpose one; the negative effects on social security and social equity are less. The positive influence of non public purpose land conversion on peasant households'functional activities of income, health and leisure is greater than the public purpose one; The positive influence on children's education is less. Only on the functional activities of social participation of peasant household, the influence direction of land conversion for public purpose and non pubic welfare is opposite. Land conversion for public purpose make the membership degree of peasant households'functional activities of social participation increased by66.67%, land conversion for non public purpose make it reduced by9.09%. To improve the welfare of land-lost farmers, need to be targeted to enhance the practical capacity of peasant households. Specifically, first of all, do propaganda work of public purpose and non public purpose land acquisition respectively and make sure the land acquisition process is transparent and fair; Then link up the new compensation standard with old and adjacent area's compensation standard, and try to be detailed and humanization; finally ensure the continuity of compensation and track management to land-lost farmers. In the end of this article, pointed out the deficiency in aspect of theory method, data acquisition and empirical measure, in order to discuss and improve in future research.
(1)第一部分,即本文的前两章。首先对全文的选题背景、研究目的与意义、研究思路与方法进行了介绍,理清了后文的写作思路。其次对国内外关于农地流转中的福利问题和福利测度方法的研究进展进行了梳理,并对本文的理论基础—福利经济学、新制度经济学、外部性及家庭功能理论进行了回顾。
(2)第二部分,即本文的第三章。从农地城市流转与福利效应的内涵着手,从理论上分析了农地城市流转的正负福利效应。选择根据森的可行能力理论对不同类型农地城市流转的农户福利效应进行测度。考虑到中国农村的实际情况以农户为基本研究单位。可行能力理论认为福利具有模糊性,并与目标特征密切相关,因此并不提倡千篇一律的功能性活动列表。本文通过总结国内外运用可行能力测算福利选用的功能性活动列表,结合中国农户家庭特征,以及对农地流转的福利效应的理论分析,立足于家庭功能构建包括8项可行能力及其19个评价指标的农地城市流转中农户家庭的可行能力框架。此外,可行能力理论还强调商品和服务不是福利,商品和服务转换为可行能力才是福利,影响转换效率的就是转换因素。本文参考森对转换因素的分类以及高进云等国内学者对转换因素的选择,结合研究对象和研究目的,从家庭特征、地区社会经济环境和征地用途三大类选择转换因素。并在此基础上构建基于可行能力理论的福利效应测度理论框架。
(3)第三部分,即本文的第四、五、六章是实证部分。选取社会经济发展情况相近的武汉市江夏区和成宁市咸安区为样本区域,采用入户访谈的调查方式并最终获取398份有效问卷。采用灰色模糊综合评判方法：①以层次分析法的结果作为主观赋权法的测度结果,以灰色关联分析方法的结果作为客观赋权法的测度结果,取二者的平均值作为模糊评判方法的权重值；②通过设定农户福利的模糊函数和隶属函数,从有效问卷中提取福利测度指标数据,计算各农户各指标的隶属值；③利用前面计算的权重和隶属值进行单个农户和农户总体的隶属度加总。第四章、第五章和第六章分别从农地流转的农户福利效应、公益性和非公益性农地流转的福利效应以及其他转换因素下的农地城市流转的福利效应三个方面进行实证研究。
(4)第四部分,即第七章为本文的研究结论和讨论部分。本文研究表明：①农地城市流转使得农户家庭的总福利隶属度从农地流转前的0.423下降到农地流转后的0.363。而农地流转对农户不同功能性活动影响方向和程度各异,农地流转使得农户的组织生产、社会保障、居住条件与环境和社会公平功能水平下降,使得农户的经济收入、健康与休闲、社会参与和子女教育功能水平上升。②虽然农地城市流转在不同转换因素下对农户福利的影响方向一致,但是不同转换因素下农地流转对农户家庭福利的影响程度各异,对农户家庭各功能性活动的影响也各不相同。③公益性和非公益性农地流转对农户家庭福利的影响存在差异。非公益性农地流转对农户总福利的影响更大。非公益性农地流转对农户家庭的组织生产功能、居住条件和环境状况的负向影响大于公益性农地流转；对农户家庭的社会保障功能和对社会公平的评价的负向影响小于公益性农地流转。非公益性征地对农户家庭的经济收入功能、健康与休闲功能的正向影响大于公益性征地；对农户家庭子女教育功能正向影响小于公益性征地。唯一公益性和非公益性农地流转使其变化方向相反的家庭功能是社会参与功能,公益性流转使农户该功能的隶属度提高了66.67%,而非公益性流转使农户的该功能隶属度降低了9.09%。可见,农地流转不仅影响农户的客观福利,而且影响农户的主观福利；不仅影响农户的经济福利,还影响农户的非经济福利。要想改善农户失地后的福利状况,需要区别对待公益性和非公益性征地及其补偿,建立货币、社会保障、心理辅导等全方位的补偿模式。具体而言,首先要分别做好公益性和非公益性征地的宣传工作并保证征地程序的透明公正；然后需做好新旧补偿标准和相邻区域补偿标准的衔接并尽量做到补偿标准的细致化和人性化；最后要保证补偿的持续性并对失地农户进行跟踪管理。在本文的最后,指出本研究在理论方法、资料获取和实证测度等方面的不足之处,以期在未来的研究中探讨与改进。
On the one hand rural-urban land conversion provides land support for social and economic development and the development of urbanization, on the other hand decreased cultivated land bring food safety problems, land expropriation conflicts threaten social stability, reduced agricultural land area poses the ecological environment pressure. For farmers, farmland conversion offers farmers the opportunity to enjoy a part of urban development achievements, improves infrastructure status near the residence. At the same time, it deprives farmers of the stable financial resources, jobs, and old-age security, especially for the elderly, they must change the way of life habit and fear that the social security problem. The invariance of the natural supply and the limitation of economic supply of land determine the necessity of rural-urban land conversion. Farmers as the vulnerable groups in the process of land conversion, the welfare state needs to pay special attention. The huge number of farmers also makes its welfare become the core issue to ease the land requisition conflict. Welfare measure Criteria experience the dispute about "cardinal utility theory" and "ordinal utility theory", the discussion on the importance of "economic welfare" and "Non-economic welfare", and also the game of whether it can be compared in interpersonal. Besides the economic source functions, the social security functions of farmland for farmers are known by people gradually. Then how to measure the comprehensive welfare effect of rural-urban land conversion for peasant household? At present, the research about the change of economic output function and the social security function of farmland before and after rural-urban land conversion are more, the impact of land use after land requisition on farmers' welfare is less discussed. In fact, the land use after land requisition not only affect the farmers' living environment that affect farmers' health objectively, but also cause the difference of comparative advantage before and after land conversion that affect farmers' fair judgment for compensation subjectively. So, how is the household welfare effect of rural-urban land conversion for the public purpose or non public purpose? This article is divided into four parts to study.
(1)The first two chapters of this article, first of all to introduce the selected topic background, research purpose and significance, research ideas and methods of the full text, and also to sort out the train of thought for later writing. Second to generalize the research progress of welfare issues in rural-urban land conversion and welfare measurement methods at home and abroad, and then review the theoretical basis of this article which include welfare economics, new institutional economics, externality theory and family function theory.
(2)In the third chapter of this paper, we analyzed the positive and negative welfare effects of rural-urban land conversion theoretically from the connotation of rural-urban land conversion and welfare effect. We try to measure peasant household welfare of rural-urban land conversion for different object based on Sen's capability theory. Considering the situation of China's rural, peasant household was taken as the basic research unit. In capability theory we think that welfare is fuzzy, and is closely related with the target features, therefore non fixed functional activities list was advocated. Functional activity list in welfare measure using capability method at home and abroad is summed up, combined with the feature of Chinese peasant household, as well as the theoretical analysis of the welfare effect of rural-urban land conversion, based on the function of family, the framework of peasant households'capability in rural-urban land conversion including8capabilities and19evaluation indexes was built. Capability theory also emphasizes that goods and services are welfare only if they transfer into capability, the conversion factors are which influence the transformation efficiency. Considered classification to conversion factors by Sen and choice to influence factors by domestic scholars such as Gao Jinyun, combined with the special object of study, we choose the influence factors from the family characteristics, regional social and economic environment and land use.
(3) The fourth, fifth and sixth chapters of this paper is the empirical part. Jiangxia district in Wuhan and Xianan district in Xianning are selected as the sample area because their similar social and economic development situation. By interview survey method we finally obtain398valid questionnaires. Grey fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method is used:1) With the results of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as the results of subjective values measure method, with the results of grey correlation analysis method as the results of objective values measure method, take the average weights of two as the values results of fuzzy evaluation method;2) By setting the fuzzy function and membership function of farmers'welfare, extracting welfare measure data from valid questionnaires, calculate the membership values of each index of the farmers;3) Using the calculation of weight and the membership value to aggregate overall membership degree of individual and the overall farmers. The fourth chapter has carried on the empirical research in peasant household welfare effect of rural-urban land conversion; Household welfare effect of rural-urban land conversion for the public purpose and non public purpose were measured empirically in Chapter5; Household welfare effect of rural-urban land conversion under the other conversion factors were measured empirically in Chapter6.
(4) The seventh chapter is conclusions and discussion part of this research. We concluded that:1) Rural-urban land conversion makes the total welfare membership of peasant household flow from0.423before the conversion down to0.363after the conversion. The effect direction and degree of rural-urban land conversion to different functional activities of household is different. Land conversion makes the level of peasant households'functional activities of production organization, social security, living conditions and the environment, and social equity decline. It makes the level of functional activities of income, health and leisure, social participation, and children's education rise.2) Although the effect direction of household welfare effect of rural-urban land conversion under different conversion factors is consistent, the degree of welfare effect is different. The impact on each functional activities of peasant household is also not identical.3) Peasant households'welfare effects of public purpose and non public purpose land conversion vary. The public purpose land conversion influence farmer total welfare more. The negative effects of non public purpose land conversion on peasant households'functional activities of production organization, living conditions and the environment are greater than the public purpose one; the negative effects on social security and social equity are less. The positive influence of non public purpose land conversion on peasant households'functional activities of income, health and leisure is greater than the public purpose one; The positive influence on children's education is less. Only on the functional activities of social participation of peasant household, the influence direction of land conversion for public purpose and non pubic welfare is opposite. Land conversion for public purpose make the membership degree of peasant households'functional activities of social participation increased by66.67%, land conversion for non public purpose make it reduced by9.09%. To improve the welfare of land-lost farmers, need to be targeted to enhance the practical capacity of peasant households. Specifically, first of all, do propaganda work of public purpose and non public purpose land acquisition respectively and make sure the land acquisition process is transparent and fair; Then link up the new compensation standard with old and adjacent area's compensation standard, and try to be detailed and humanization; finally ensure the continuity of compensation and track management to land-lost farmers. In the end of this article, pointed out the deficiency in aspect of theory method, data acquisition and empirical measure, in order to discuss and improve in future research.
引文
1. C. Pigou.福利经济学.陆民仁,译.台湾：台湾银行经济研究室编,1971.
2. 阿马蒂亚·森.以自由看待发展.任赜,于真,译.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2002.
3. 卜广志,张宇文.基于灰色模糊关系的灰色模糊综合评判.系统工程理论与实践,2002,22(4)：141-144.
4. 陈波狲,郝寿义.征地补偿标准的经济学分析.中国农村观察,2004(6)：34-39.
5. 陈卫灵.基于产权经济学视角的农地城市流转研究.广东农业科学,2009,(12)：312-314.
6. 陈莹,张安录.农地城市流转过程中农民的认知与福利变化分析—基于武汉市城乡结合部农户与村级问卷调查.2007年中国科学技术协会年会论文集,2007：427-437.
7. 陈莹.土地征收补偿及利益关系研究[博士学位论文].武汉：华中农业大学图书馆,2008.
8. 邓大松,王曾·城市化进程中失地农民福利水平的调查·经济纵横,2012,(05)：53-57.
9. 邓伟志,徐新.当代中国家庭的变动轨迹.社会科学,2000,(10)：51-55.
10.封志明.中国未来人口发展的粮食安全与耕地保障.人口研究,2007,(02)：15-29.
11.傅蔚冈.农地征收中的财产和福利.浙江学刊,2008,(4)：145-152.
12.高进云,乔荣锋.农地城市流转福利优化的动态分析.数学的实践与认识,2010,(06)：21-29.
13.高进云,乔荣锋.农地城市流转前后农户福利变化差异分析.中国人口·资源与环境,2011,21(1)：99-105.
14.高进云,乔荣锋.森的可行能力框架下福利模糊评价的权重结构讨论.软科学,2010,(06)：133-136.
15.高进云,周智,乔荣锋.森的可行能力理论框架下土地征收对农民福利的影响测度.中国软科学,2010,(12)：59-69.
16.高进云.农地城市流转中农民福利变化研究[博士学位论文].武汉：华中农业大学图书馆,2008.
17.谷继建,刘定云,吴安新,赵锋.福利经济学对农民均衡分享经济发展成果诠释.城市发展研究,2009,16(1)：20-23.
18.郭贯成,吴群.供地政策对土地市场配置效率影响的经济学分析—理论研究与实践检验.地域研究与开发,2009,28(1)：86-89,95.
19.郭玲霞.农地城市流转对失地农户福利影响及征地补偿研究—以武汉城市圈为实证[博士学位论文].武汉：华中农业大学图书馆,2012.
20.郭凌晨.产权的福利效应—基于利益实现机制视角的分析[博士学位论文].天津：南开大学图书馆,2009.
21.贾燕,李钢,朱新华,王静,李妍.农民集中居住前后福利状况变化研究——基于森的“可行能力”视角.农业经济问题,2009,(02)：30-36.
22.李立新,刘琳,王强等.模糊灰色综合评价方法的构建及应用.沈刚建筑大学学报(自然科学版),2008,24(4)：577-580.
23.李仁贵,党国印.1998年诺贝尔经济学奖获得者阿马蒂亚··森生平与学术贡献.经济学动态,1998,(11)：50-58.
24.李蕊,宋永会,段亮,刘雪瑜,向连城.基于模糊-灰色评价法集成的工业废水处理技术评估研究.环境工程技术学报,2011,01(4)：344-347.
25.李晓云,张安录,高进云,乔荣峰,陈莹.农户农地城市流转意愿及其影响因素分析——以武汉市城乡交错区农户为例.长江流域资源与环境,2007,(04)：471-475.
26.李燕琼,嘉蓉梅.城市化过程中土地征用与管理问题的理性反思——对我国东、中、西部1538个失地农户的调查分析.经济学家,2006,(05)：84-90.
27.林乐芬,葛扬.基于福利经济学视角的失地农民补偿问题研究.经济学家,2010,(01)：49-56.
28.刘长生,郭小东,简玉蜂等.社会福利指数、政府支出规模及其结构优化.公共管理学报,2008,5(3)：91-99.
29.刘灵辉.水库移民安置区土地流转补偿研究[博士学位论文].武汉：华中农业大学图书馆,2010.
30.刘祥琪,陈钊,赵阳.程序公正先于货币补偿：农民征地满意度的决定.管理世界,2012,(02)：44-51+187-188.
31.刘正山.“沦陷”拯救——“圈地运动”与治理整顿搏击记事.中国土地,2004,(3)：4-9.
32.刘正山.让市场法则说话——征地补偿标准的过去、现在和未来.中国土地,2005,(10)：4-7,13.
33.罗君丽.科斯经济思想研究[硕士学位论文].杭州：浙江大学图书馆,2003.
34.罗纳德·哈里·科斯.论生产的制度结构.盛洪,陈郁,译.上海：生活·读书·新知三联书店上海分店,1994.
35.麻战洪,刘勇.关于征地补偿问题的探讨.农村经济,2003,(2)：63-65.
36.马璐璐.成都市失地农民福利水平评价颐士学位论文].雅安：四川农业大学,2010.
37.马贤磊,孙晓中.不同经济发展水平下农民集中居住后的福利变化研究——基于江苏省高淳县和盱眙县的比较分析.南京农业大学学报(社会科学版),2012,(02)：8-15.
38.孟庆瑜.论土地征用与失地农民的社会保障.甘肃社会科学,2006,(3)：45-48.
39.聂鑫.农地城市流转中失地农民多维福利影响因素和测度研究[博士学位论文].武汉：华中农业大学图书馆,2011.
40.彭开丽,张安录.农地城市流转中土地增值收益分配不公平的度量—方法与案例.价值工程,2012,(31)：1-4.
41.彭开丽,张鹏,张安录.农地城市流转中不同权利主体的福利均衡分析.中国人口.资源与环境,2009,(02)：137-142.
42.彭开丽.农地城市流转的社会福利效应—基于效率与公平理论的实证分析[博+学位论文].武汉：华中农业大学图书馆,2008.
43.任艳胜,张安录,王世新等.农地价值与农户福利补偿研究—以武汉市为例.生态经济,2006,(10)：387-389,407.
44.沈开举.论行政补偿的标准.河南社会科学,2005,13(1)：24-27.
45.宋保维,卜广志,张宇文,徐德民.模糊优化最优水平值的灰色模糊综合评判.机械设计,1999,16(6)：15-18.
46.谭荣.农地非农化的效率：资源配置、治理结构与制度环境.[博士学位论文].南京：南京农业大学图书馆,2008.
47.王继垄,赵旭东.McMaster模式家庭功能评价及家庭治疗.临床精神医学杂志,2011,21(4)：280-282.
48.王瑞雪,魏凯,赵秀红.社会保障价格法测算征地补偿若干问题探讨.中国土地科学,2009,23(5)：22-25,36.
49.魏玲,张安录,望晓东.农地城市流转中福利变化研究进展综述.中国土地科学,2011,(03)：90-96.
50.吴群,李永乐.土地征收利用过程中福利与效率分析.农村经济,2008,(1)：18-20.
51.吴旬.土地价格、地方政府竞争与政府失灵.中国土地科学,2004,18(2)：10-14.
52.吴郁玲,曲福田,冯忠垒.我国开发区土地资源配置效率的区域差异研究.中国人口资源与环境,2006,16(5)：112-116.
53.肖屹.失地农民权益受损与中国征地制度改革研究：基于产权视角的分析[博士学位论文].南京：南京农业大学,2008.
54.谢高地,鲁春霞,冷允法,郑度,李双成.青藏高原生态资产的价值评估.自然资源学报,2003,(02)：189-196.
55.徐烽烽,李放,唐焱.苏南农户土地承包经营权置换城镇社会保障前后福利变化的模糊评价—基于森的可行能力视角.中国农村经济,2010,(08)：67-79.
56.徐琴.农村土地的社会功能与失地农民的利益补偿.江海学刊,2003,(6)：75-80.
57.徐唐奇.农地城市流转中农民集体福利问题研究[博士学位论文].武汉：华中农业大学图书馆,2011.
58.亚瑟·赛斯尔·庇古.福利经济学.何玉长,丁晓钦,译.上海：上海财经大学出版社,2009.
59.杨缅昆.国民福利：核算理论和方法.统计研究,2006,(5)：18-22.
60.杨缅昆.社会福利指数构造的理论和方法初探.统计研究,2009,26(7)：37-42.
61.杨一帆.失地农民的征地补偿与社会保障—兼论构建复合型的失地农民社会保障制度.财经科学,2008,(4)：115-124.
62.易法建,黄文胜.皮亚杰的儿童道德发展理论及其启示.广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2005,41(4)：94-97.
63.尹奇,马璐璐,王庆日.基于森的功能和能力福利理论的失地农民福利水平评价.中国土地科学,2010,(07)：4146.
64.于柏生.城镇化进程中被征地农民社会保障制度研究[硕士学位论文].长春：吉林大学图书馆,2012.
65.袁方,蔡银莺.城市近郊被征地农民的福利变化测度—以武汉市江夏区五里界镇为实证.资源科学,2012a,(03)：449-458.
66.袁方,蔡银莺.城市近郊被征地农民的福利变化及个体差异—以江夏区五里界镇为实证.公共管理学报,2012b,(02)：76-82+125-126.
67.苑韶峰,杨丽霞,王庆日.慈溪市四镇农地转刚过程中农户福利变化的定量测度.中国土地科学,2012,(10)：82-90.
68.张安录,毛泓.农地城市流转：途径、方式及特征.地理学与国土研究,2000,16(2)：17-22.
69.张丽.农地城市流转中的农民权益保护研究[博士学位论文].武汉：华中科技大学图书馆,2011.
70.张玲.关于农地非农化增值收益分配的思考—基于增值收益公平分配的框架[硕士学位论文].南昌：江西师范大学图书馆,2011.
71.张卫东,童睿.租值消散理论述评.江西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2005,38(3)：4448.
72.张五常.经济解释.上海：商务印书馆,2000.
73.张新波,卢英.基于关联度的灰色模糊综合评判.数学的实践与认识,2008,38(21)：156-160.
74.赵利,李昕,罗显枫,周晶.溃坝后果的灰色模糊综合评判研究.人民黄河,2010,32(1)：113-115,117.
75.赵玲萍,张凤娥,董良飞,涂保华.灰色模糊综合评价法在中水工程中的应用.节水灌溉,2009,(4)：4042,45.
76.郑谊.我国农民非物质福利问题研究[硕士学位论文].武汉：华中科技大学,2007.
77.周诚.关于我国农地转非自然增值分配理论的新思考.农业经济问题,2006a,(12)：4-7.
78.周诚.我国农地转非自然增值分配的“私公兼顾”论.中国发展观察,2006b,(9)：26-29.
79.诸培新,曲福田.从资源环境经济学角度考察土地征用补偿价格构成.中国土地科学,2003,17(3)：10-14.
80.邹伟,孙良媛.土地流转、农民生产效率与福利关系研究.江汉论坛,2011,(03)：31-36.
81. American farmland trust (AFT). PACE:Status of state and local programs. American Farmland Trust fact sheet, Northampton, MA,2004.
82. Anand P, Krishnakumar J, Tran NB. Measuring welfare:Latent variable models for happiness and capabilities in the presence of unobservable heterogeneity. Journal of Public Economics,2011,95:205-215.
83. Araar A, Dissou Y, Duclos JY. Household incidence of pollution control policies:A robust welfare analysis using general equilibrium effects. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,2011,61:227-243.
84. Arrow KJ. Individual values and social choice. New York:Wiley,1951.
85. Atkinson AB, Bourguignon F. Handbook of income distribution. Amsterdam:North-Holland, 2000.
86. Atkinson AB. On the measurement of inequality. Journal of Economic Theory,1970,2: 244-263.
87. Beavers R, Hampson R. The beaver systems model of family functioning. The Association for Family Therapy,2000,22:128-143.
88. Beca P, Santos R. Measuring sustainable welfare:A new approach to the ISEW. Ecological Economics,2010,69:810-819.
89. Bellanca N, Biggeri M, Marchetta F. An extension of the capability approach:Towards a theory of dis-capability. ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research,2011,5:158-176.
90. Blume L, Rubinfeld DL. Compensation for takings:an economic analysis. California Law Review,1984,72:569-628.
91. Bukenya JO. Dynamics of land-use change in North Alabama:Implications of new residential development. Southern Agricultural Economics Association's Annual Meetings, 2007, Mobile, Alabama.
92. Burk A. A reformulation of certain aspects of welfare economics. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1938,52:310-334.
93. Burns ME. A note on the concept and measure of consumer's surplus. American Economic Review,1973,63:335-344.
94. Cheli B, Lemmi A. A "totally" fuzzy and relative approach to the multidimensional analysis of poverty. Economic Notes,1995,24:115-133.
95. Cheshire P, Sheppard S. The welfare economics of land use planning. Journal of Urban Economics,2002,52:242-269.
96. Chin B. Income, health, and well-being in rural Malawi. Demographic Research,2010,23: 997-1030.
97. Chipman JS, Moore JC. The scope of consumer's surplus arguments. In:Tang M et al eds., Evolution, Welfare and Time in Economics:Essays in Honour of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen. Lexington:Heath,1976.69-123.
98. Coase RH. The nature of the firm. Economica,1937,4:386-405.
99. Coase RH. The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics,1960,3:1-44.
100. Cobb C, Halstead T, Rowe J. If the GDP is up, why is America down? 1995-10. http://www.theatlantic.com/past/politics/ecbig/gdp.htm.
101. Cohen GA. Equality of what? On welfare, goods, and capabilities. In:Nussbaum M& Sen AK, ed., The Quality of Life. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1990.
102. Creedy J, Herault N, Kalb G. Measuring welfare changes in behavioural microsimulation modeling:accounting for the random utility component. Journal of Applied Economics,2011, 14:5-34.
103. Daly HE, Cobb JB. For the common good:redirecting the economy toward community, the environment and a sustainable future. Boston:Beacon Press,1989.
104. Dong A, Sarkar S, Nichols C, Kvan T. The capability approach as a framework for the assessment of policies toward civic engagement in design, Design Studies,2013,34: 326-344.
105. Estes RJ. Trends in world social development. New York:Praeger Publishers,1988.
106. Ferrer-i-Carbonell A. Income and well-being:an empirical analysis of the comparison income effect. Journal of Public Economics,2005,89:997-1019.
107. Harsnyi JC. Utilities, preferences, and substantive goods. Social Choice and Welfare,1997, 14:129-145.
108. Hasegawa H, Ueda K. Measuring inequality of subjective Well-being:A Bayesian approach. The Journal of Socio-Economics,2011,40:700-708.
109. Hicks JR. The foundations of welfare economics. Economic Journal,1939,49:696-712.
110. Hicks JR. The four consumer's surpluses. Review of Economics Studies,1943,11:31-41.
111. Kahneman D, Krueger AB. Developments in the measurement of subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Perspectives,2006,20:3-24.
112. Kahneman D, Thaler R. Economic analysis and the psychology of utility:applications to compensation policy. The American Economic Review,1991,81:341-346.
113. Kaldor N. Welfare propositions in economics and interpersonal comparisons of utility. Economic Journal,1939,49:549-52.
114. Kemp MC, Ng YK. On the existence of social welfare functions, social orderings and social decision functions. Economica,1976,43:59-66.
115. Little IMD. A critique of welfare economics. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1950.
116. Miceli D. Measuring poverty using fuzzy sets.1998. http://www.natsem.canberra.edu.au/publications/papers/dps/dp38/dp38.pdf.
117. Morris MD. A physical quality of life index. Urban Ecology,1978,3:225-240.
118. Mukhopadhaya P. Efficiency criteria and the sen-type social welfare function.2001-11. http://www.fas.nus.edu.sg/ecs/pub/wp/wp0114.pdf.
119. Nam KM, Selin NE, Reilly JM, Paltsev S. Measuring welfare loss caused by air pollution in Europe:A CGE analysis. Energy Policy,2010,38:5059-5071.
120. Nozick R. Anarchy, state and utopia. New York:Basic Books,1974.
121. Nussbaum MC. Women and human development. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2000.
122. Olson DH, Gorall DM. Circumplex model of marital and family systems. Journal of Family Therapy,2000,22:144-167.
123. Olson DH, Miller BC. Family studies review yearbook. Perm State:SAGE Publications, 1984.
124. Pigou AC. Some aspects of welfare economics. The American Economic Review,1951,40: 287-302.
125. Pigou AC. The economics of welfare. London:The Macmillan Company,1932.
126. Rawls J. A theory of justice. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press,1971.
127. Rawls J. Justice as fairness:political not metaphysical. Philosophy and Public Affairs,1985, 14:222-225.
128. Rawls J. Some reasons for the maximin criterion. American Economic Review,1974,64: 141-146.
129. Robinson DT, Murray-Rust D, Rieser V, Milicic V, Rounsevell M. Modelling the impacts of land system dynamics on human well-being:Using an agent-based approach to cope with data limitations in Koper, Slovenia. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems,2012,36: 164-176.
130. Samuelson PA. Foundations of economic analysis. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press,1947.
131. Scitovsky T. A note on welfare propositions in economics. Review of Economic Studies,1941, 9:77-88.
132. Sen AK. Commodities and capabilities. Amsterdam:North-Holland,1985.
133. Sen AK. Development:Which Way Now? Economic Journal,1983,93:745-761.
134. Sen AK. Inequality reexamined. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1992.
135. Sen AK. On economic inequality. Expanded edition with a substantial annexe by Foster JE and Sen AK,1996.
136. Shek DTL. Family functioning and psychological well-Being, school adjustment, and problem behavior in Chinese adolescents with and without economic disadvantage. Journal of Genetic Psychology,2002,163:497-500.
137. Skinner H, Steinhauer P. Family assessment measure and process model of family functioning. Journal of Family Therapy,2000,22:190-210.
138.Takeuchi A, Cropper M, Bento A. Measuring the welfare effects of slum improvement programs:the case of Mumbai. Journal of Urban Economics,2008,64:65-84.
139. Tan R, Beckmann V, Berg L, Qu F. Governing farmland conversion:Comparing China with the Netherlands and Germany. Land Use Policy,2009,26:961-974.
140. Veenhoven R. World database of happiness. Social Indicators Research,1995,34:299-313.
141. Williamson OE. The new institutional economics:Taking stock, looking ahead. Journal of Economic Literature,2000,38:595-613.
142. Zhao Y, Kockelman K, Karlstrom A. Welfare calculations in discrete choice settings:An exploratory analysis of error term correlation with finite populations. Transport Policy,2012, 19:76-84.
2. 阿马蒂亚·森.以自由看待发展.任赜,于真,译.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2002.
3. 卜广志,张宇文.基于灰色模糊关系的灰色模糊综合评判.系统工程理论与实践,2002,22(4)：141-144.
4. 陈波狲,郝寿义.征地补偿标准的经济学分析.中国农村观察,2004(6)：34-39.
5. 陈卫灵.基于产权经济学视角的农地城市流转研究.广东农业科学,2009,(12)：312-314.
6. 陈莹,张安录.农地城市流转过程中农民的认知与福利变化分析—基于武汉市城乡结合部农户与村级问卷调查.2007年中国科学技术协会年会论文集,2007：427-437.
7. 陈莹.土地征收补偿及利益关系研究[博士学位论文].武汉：华中农业大学图书馆,2008.
8. 邓大松,王曾·城市化进程中失地农民福利水平的调查·经济纵横,2012,(05)：53-57.
9. 邓伟志,徐新.当代中国家庭的变动轨迹.社会科学,2000,(10)：51-55.
10.封志明.中国未来人口发展的粮食安全与耕地保障.人口研究,2007,(02)：15-29.
11.傅蔚冈.农地征收中的财产和福利.浙江学刊,2008,(4)：145-152.
12.高进云,乔荣锋.农地城市流转福利优化的动态分析.数学的实践与认识,2010,(06)：21-29.
13.高进云,乔荣锋.农地城市流转前后农户福利变化差异分析.中国人口·资源与环境,2011,21(1)：99-105.
14.高进云,乔荣锋.森的可行能力框架下福利模糊评价的权重结构讨论.软科学,2010,(06)：133-136.
15.高进云,周智,乔荣锋.森的可行能力理论框架下土地征收对农民福利的影响测度.中国软科学,2010,(12)：59-69.
16.高进云.农地城市流转中农民福利变化研究[博士学位论文].武汉：华中农业大学图书馆,2008.
17.谷继建,刘定云,吴安新,赵锋.福利经济学对农民均衡分享经济发展成果诠释.城市发展研究,2009,16(1)：20-23.
18.郭贯成,吴群.供地政策对土地市场配置效率影响的经济学分析—理论研究与实践检验.地域研究与开发,2009,28(1)：86-89,95.
19.郭玲霞.农地城市流转对失地农户福利影响及征地补偿研究—以武汉城市圈为实证[博士学位论文].武汉：华中农业大学图书馆,2012.
20.郭凌晨.产权的福利效应—基于利益实现机制视角的分析[博士学位论文].天津：南开大学图书馆,2009.
21.贾燕,李钢,朱新华,王静,李妍.农民集中居住前后福利状况变化研究——基于森的“可行能力”视角.农业经济问题,2009,(02)：30-36.
22.李立新,刘琳,王强等.模糊灰色综合评价方法的构建及应用.沈刚建筑大学学报(自然科学版),2008,24(4)：577-580.
23.李仁贵,党国印.1998年诺贝尔经济学奖获得者阿马蒂亚··森生平与学术贡献.经济学动态,1998,(11)：50-58.
24.李蕊,宋永会,段亮,刘雪瑜,向连城.基于模糊-灰色评价法集成的工业废水处理技术评估研究.环境工程技术学报,2011,01(4)：344-347.
25.李晓云,张安录,高进云,乔荣峰,陈莹.农户农地城市流转意愿及其影响因素分析——以武汉市城乡交错区农户为例.长江流域资源与环境,2007,(04)：471-475.
26.李燕琼,嘉蓉梅.城市化过程中土地征用与管理问题的理性反思——对我国东、中、西部1538个失地农户的调查分析.经济学家,2006,(05)：84-90.
27.林乐芬,葛扬.基于福利经济学视角的失地农民补偿问题研究.经济学家,2010,(01)：49-56.
28.刘长生,郭小东,简玉蜂等.社会福利指数、政府支出规模及其结构优化.公共管理学报,2008,5(3)：91-99.
29.刘灵辉.水库移民安置区土地流转补偿研究[博士学位论文].武汉：华中农业大学图书馆,2010.
30.刘祥琪,陈钊,赵阳.程序公正先于货币补偿：农民征地满意度的决定.管理世界,2012,(02)：44-51+187-188.
31.刘正山.“沦陷”拯救——“圈地运动”与治理整顿搏击记事.中国土地,2004,(3)：4-9.
32.刘正山.让市场法则说话——征地补偿标准的过去、现在和未来.中国土地,2005,(10)：4-7,13.
33.罗君丽.科斯经济思想研究[硕士学位论文].杭州：浙江大学图书馆,2003.
34.罗纳德·哈里·科斯.论生产的制度结构.盛洪,陈郁,译.上海：生活·读书·新知三联书店上海分店,1994.
35.麻战洪,刘勇.关于征地补偿问题的探讨.农村经济,2003,(2)：63-65.
36.马璐璐.成都市失地农民福利水平评价颐士学位论文].雅安：四川农业大学,2010.
37.马贤磊,孙晓中.不同经济发展水平下农民集中居住后的福利变化研究——基于江苏省高淳县和盱眙县的比较分析.南京农业大学学报(社会科学版),2012,(02)：8-15.
38.孟庆瑜.论土地征用与失地农民的社会保障.甘肃社会科学,2006,(3)：45-48.
39.聂鑫.农地城市流转中失地农民多维福利影响因素和测度研究[博士学位论文].武汉：华中农业大学图书馆,2011.
40.彭开丽,张安录.农地城市流转中土地增值收益分配不公平的度量—方法与案例.价值工程,2012,(31)：1-4.
41.彭开丽,张鹏,张安录.农地城市流转中不同权利主体的福利均衡分析.中国人口.资源与环境,2009,(02)：137-142.
42.彭开丽.农地城市流转的社会福利效应—基于效率与公平理论的实证分析[博+学位论文].武汉：华中农业大学图书馆,2008.
43.任艳胜,张安录,王世新等.农地价值与农户福利补偿研究—以武汉市为例.生态经济,2006,(10)：387-389,407.
44.沈开举.论行政补偿的标准.河南社会科学,2005,13(1)：24-27.
45.宋保维,卜广志,张宇文,徐德民.模糊优化最优水平值的灰色模糊综合评判.机械设计,1999,16(6)：15-18.
46.谭荣.农地非农化的效率：资源配置、治理结构与制度环境.[博士学位论文].南京：南京农业大学图书馆,2008.
47.王继垄,赵旭东.McMaster模式家庭功能评价及家庭治疗.临床精神医学杂志,2011,21(4)：280-282.
48.王瑞雪,魏凯,赵秀红.社会保障价格法测算征地补偿若干问题探讨.中国土地科学,2009,23(5)：22-25,36.
49.魏玲,张安录,望晓东.农地城市流转中福利变化研究进展综述.中国土地科学,2011,(03)：90-96.
50.吴群,李永乐.土地征收利用过程中福利与效率分析.农村经济,2008,(1)：18-20.
51.吴旬.土地价格、地方政府竞争与政府失灵.中国土地科学,2004,18(2)：10-14.
52.吴郁玲,曲福田,冯忠垒.我国开发区土地资源配置效率的区域差异研究.中国人口资源与环境,2006,16(5)：112-116.
53.肖屹.失地农民权益受损与中国征地制度改革研究：基于产权视角的分析[博士学位论文].南京：南京农业大学,2008.
54.谢高地,鲁春霞,冷允法,郑度,李双成.青藏高原生态资产的价值评估.自然资源学报,2003,(02)：189-196.
55.徐烽烽,李放,唐焱.苏南农户土地承包经营权置换城镇社会保障前后福利变化的模糊评价—基于森的可行能力视角.中国农村经济,2010,(08)：67-79.
56.徐琴.农村土地的社会功能与失地农民的利益补偿.江海学刊,2003,(6)：75-80.
57.徐唐奇.农地城市流转中农民集体福利问题研究[博士学位论文].武汉：华中农业大学图书馆,2011.
58.亚瑟·赛斯尔·庇古.福利经济学.何玉长,丁晓钦,译.上海：上海财经大学出版社,2009.
59.杨缅昆.国民福利：核算理论和方法.统计研究,2006,(5)：18-22.
60.杨缅昆.社会福利指数构造的理论和方法初探.统计研究,2009,26(7)：37-42.
61.杨一帆.失地农民的征地补偿与社会保障—兼论构建复合型的失地农民社会保障制度.财经科学,2008,(4)：115-124.
62.易法建,黄文胜.皮亚杰的儿童道德发展理论及其启示.广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2005,41(4)：94-97.
63.尹奇,马璐璐,王庆日.基于森的功能和能力福利理论的失地农民福利水平评价.中国土地科学,2010,(07)：4146.
64.于柏生.城镇化进程中被征地农民社会保障制度研究[硕士学位论文].长春：吉林大学图书馆,2012.
65.袁方,蔡银莺.城市近郊被征地农民的福利变化测度—以武汉市江夏区五里界镇为实证.资源科学,2012a,(03)：449-458.
66.袁方,蔡银莺.城市近郊被征地农民的福利变化及个体差异—以江夏区五里界镇为实证.公共管理学报,2012b,(02)：76-82+125-126.
67.苑韶峰,杨丽霞,王庆日.慈溪市四镇农地转刚过程中农户福利变化的定量测度.中国土地科学,2012,(10)：82-90.
68.张安录,毛泓.农地城市流转：途径、方式及特征.地理学与国土研究,2000,16(2)：17-22.
69.张丽.农地城市流转中的农民权益保护研究[博士学位论文].武汉：华中科技大学图书馆,2011.
70.张玲.关于农地非农化增值收益分配的思考—基于增值收益公平分配的框架[硕士学位论文].南昌：江西师范大学图书馆,2011.
71.张卫东,童睿.租值消散理论述评.江西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2005,38(3)：4448.
72.张五常.经济解释.上海：商务印书馆,2000.
73.张新波,卢英.基于关联度的灰色模糊综合评判.数学的实践与认识,2008,38(21)：156-160.
74.赵利,李昕,罗显枫,周晶.溃坝后果的灰色模糊综合评判研究.人民黄河,2010,32(1)：113-115,117.
75.赵玲萍,张凤娥,董良飞,涂保华.灰色模糊综合评价法在中水工程中的应用.节水灌溉,2009,(4)：4042,45.
76.郑谊.我国农民非物质福利问题研究[硕士学位论文].武汉：华中科技大学,2007.
77.周诚.关于我国农地转非自然增值分配理论的新思考.农业经济问题,2006a,(12)：4-7.
78.周诚.我国农地转非自然增值分配的“私公兼顾”论.中国发展观察,2006b,(9)：26-29.
79.诸培新,曲福田.从资源环境经济学角度考察土地征用补偿价格构成.中国土地科学,2003,17(3)：10-14.
80.邹伟,孙良媛.土地流转、农民生产效率与福利关系研究.江汉论坛,2011,(03)：31-36.
81. American farmland trust (AFT). PACE:Status of state and local programs. American Farmland Trust fact sheet, Northampton, MA,2004.
82. Anand P, Krishnakumar J, Tran NB. Measuring welfare:Latent variable models for happiness and capabilities in the presence of unobservable heterogeneity. Journal of Public Economics,2011,95:205-215.
83. Araar A, Dissou Y, Duclos JY. Household incidence of pollution control policies:A robust welfare analysis using general equilibrium effects. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,2011,61:227-243.
84. Arrow KJ. Individual values and social choice. New York:Wiley,1951.
85. Atkinson AB, Bourguignon F. Handbook of income distribution. Amsterdam:North-Holland, 2000.
86. Atkinson AB. On the measurement of inequality. Journal of Economic Theory,1970,2: 244-263.
87. Beavers R, Hampson R. The beaver systems model of family functioning. The Association for Family Therapy,2000,22:128-143.
88. Beca P, Santos R. Measuring sustainable welfare:A new approach to the ISEW. Ecological Economics,2010,69:810-819.
89. Bellanca N, Biggeri M, Marchetta F. An extension of the capability approach:Towards a theory of dis-capability. ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research,2011,5:158-176.
90. Blume L, Rubinfeld DL. Compensation for takings:an economic analysis. California Law Review,1984,72:569-628.
91. Bukenya JO. Dynamics of land-use change in North Alabama:Implications of new residential development. Southern Agricultural Economics Association's Annual Meetings, 2007, Mobile, Alabama.
92. Burk A. A reformulation of certain aspects of welfare economics. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1938,52:310-334.
93. Burns ME. A note on the concept and measure of consumer's surplus. American Economic Review,1973,63:335-344.
94. Cheli B, Lemmi A. A "totally" fuzzy and relative approach to the multidimensional analysis of poverty. Economic Notes,1995,24:115-133.
95. Cheshire P, Sheppard S. The welfare economics of land use planning. Journal of Urban Economics,2002,52:242-269.
96. Chin B. Income, health, and well-being in rural Malawi. Demographic Research,2010,23: 997-1030.
97. Chipman JS, Moore JC. The scope of consumer's surplus arguments. In:Tang M et al eds., Evolution, Welfare and Time in Economics:Essays in Honour of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen. Lexington:Heath,1976.69-123.
98. Coase RH. The nature of the firm. Economica,1937,4:386-405.
99. Coase RH. The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics,1960,3:1-44.
100. Cobb C, Halstead T, Rowe J. If the GDP is up, why is America down? 1995-10. http://www.theatlantic.com/past/politics/ecbig/gdp.htm.
101. Cohen GA. Equality of what? On welfare, goods, and capabilities. In:Nussbaum M& Sen AK, ed., The Quality of Life. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1990.
102. Creedy J, Herault N, Kalb G. Measuring welfare changes in behavioural microsimulation modeling:accounting for the random utility component. Journal of Applied Economics,2011, 14:5-34.
103. Daly HE, Cobb JB. For the common good:redirecting the economy toward community, the environment and a sustainable future. Boston:Beacon Press,1989.
104. Dong A, Sarkar S, Nichols C, Kvan T. The capability approach as a framework for the assessment of policies toward civic engagement in design, Design Studies,2013,34: 326-344.
105. Estes RJ. Trends in world social development. New York:Praeger Publishers,1988.
106. Ferrer-i-Carbonell A. Income and well-being:an empirical analysis of the comparison income effect. Journal of Public Economics,2005,89:997-1019.
107. Harsnyi JC. Utilities, preferences, and substantive goods. Social Choice and Welfare,1997, 14:129-145.
108. Hasegawa H, Ueda K. Measuring inequality of subjective Well-being:A Bayesian approach. The Journal of Socio-Economics,2011,40:700-708.
109. Hicks JR. The foundations of welfare economics. Economic Journal,1939,49:696-712.
110. Hicks JR. The four consumer's surpluses. Review of Economics Studies,1943,11:31-41.
111. Kahneman D, Krueger AB. Developments in the measurement of subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Perspectives,2006,20:3-24.
112. Kahneman D, Thaler R. Economic analysis and the psychology of utility:applications to compensation policy. The American Economic Review,1991,81:341-346.
113. Kaldor N. Welfare propositions in economics and interpersonal comparisons of utility. Economic Journal,1939,49:549-52.
114. Kemp MC, Ng YK. On the existence of social welfare functions, social orderings and social decision functions. Economica,1976,43:59-66.
115. Little IMD. A critique of welfare economics. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1950.
116. Miceli D. Measuring poverty using fuzzy sets.1998. http://www.natsem.canberra.edu.au/publications/papers/dps/dp38/dp38.pdf.
117. Morris MD. A physical quality of life index. Urban Ecology,1978,3:225-240.
118. Mukhopadhaya P. Efficiency criteria and the sen-type social welfare function.2001-11. http://www.fas.nus.edu.sg/ecs/pub/wp/wp0114.pdf.
119. Nam KM, Selin NE, Reilly JM, Paltsev S. Measuring welfare loss caused by air pollution in Europe:A CGE analysis. Energy Policy,2010,38:5059-5071.
120. Nozick R. Anarchy, state and utopia. New York:Basic Books,1974.
121. Nussbaum MC. Women and human development. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2000.
122. Olson DH, Gorall DM. Circumplex model of marital and family systems. Journal of Family Therapy,2000,22:144-167.
123. Olson DH, Miller BC. Family studies review yearbook. Perm State:SAGE Publications, 1984.
124. Pigou AC. Some aspects of welfare economics. The American Economic Review,1951,40: 287-302.
125. Pigou AC. The economics of welfare. London:The Macmillan Company,1932.
126. Rawls J. A theory of justice. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press,1971.
127. Rawls J. Justice as fairness:political not metaphysical. Philosophy and Public Affairs,1985, 14:222-225.
128. Rawls J. Some reasons for the maximin criterion. American Economic Review,1974,64: 141-146.
129. Robinson DT, Murray-Rust D, Rieser V, Milicic V, Rounsevell M. Modelling the impacts of land system dynamics on human well-being:Using an agent-based approach to cope with data limitations in Koper, Slovenia. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems,2012,36: 164-176.
130. Samuelson PA. Foundations of economic analysis. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press,1947.
131. Scitovsky T. A note on welfare propositions in economics. Review of Economic Studies,1941, 9:77-88.
132. Sen AK. Commodities and capabilities. Amsterdam:North-Holland,1985.
133. Sen AK. Development:Which Way Now? Economic Journal,1983,93:745-761.
134. Sen AK. Inequality reexamined. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1992.
135. Sen AK. On economic inequality. Expanded edition with a substantial annexe by Foster JE and Sen AK,1996.
136. Shek DTL. Family functioning and psychological well-Being, school adjustment, and problem behavior in Chinese adolescents with and without economic disadvantage. Journal of Genetic Psychology,2002,163:497-500.
137. Skinner H, Steinhauer P. Family assessment measure and process model of family functioning. Journal of Family Therapy,2000,22:190-210.
138.Takeuchi A, Cropper M, Bento A. Measuring the welfare effects of slum improvement programs:the case of Mumbai. Journal of Urban Economics,2008,64:65-84.
139. Tan R, Beckmann V, Berg L, Qu F. Governing farmland conversion:Comparing China with the Netherlands and Germany. Land Use Policy,2009,26:961-974.
140. Veenhoven R. World database of happiness. Social Indicators Research,1995,34:299-313.
141. Williamson OE. The new institutional economics:Taking stock, looking ahead. Journal of Economic Literature,2000,38:595-613.
142. Zhao Y, Kockelman K, Karlstrom A. Welfare calculations in discrete choice settings:An exploratory analysis of error term correlation with finite populations. Transport Policy,2012, 19:76-84.