不同类型农户耕地投入行为及其效率研究
|
摘要
农业是保障一国经济健康快速发展的重要基石,有关中国的粮食安全问题也是国内外众多学者一直关注的重要课题。改革开放以来,随着我国社会经济的快速发展,耕地数量锐减、农村劳动力大量流失等问题严重威胁着国家的粮食安全。在此背景下,如何提高现有耕地的利用效率成为保障粮食安全的重要途径。农户作为农业生产的微观主体,其经济行为直接影响着耕地的利用效率。而农户在社会经济变革中逐渐出现了分化,农户分化对农户的耕地利用行为将产生一定影响,从而影响到农户耕地利用过程中的技术效率和耕地投入要素配置效率,进一步影响到农业生产效率。因此在我国农村经济快速发展,农户已经出现不同类型分化的既定事实下,分析不同类型农户的耕地投入行为及其效率具有十分重要的意义。
本研究基于我国农户分化的视角,以农户行为理论和要素生产效率理论为理论框架,以生产前沿面方法和风险决策优化模型为实证方法,对不同类型农户耕地投入行为及其效率进行了较全面的分析。全文研究内容主要有：(1)农户分化的形态及原因。农户类型的划分是全文研究的基础,本文从农户家庭成员间的专业化选择和农户间的职能分工对农户分化的原因和形态进行了分析；新古典经济学的农户效用理论和新兴古典经济学的超边际分析理论都是比较好的分析工具,本文主要采用上述两种理论来分析农户内部分化的动因。(2)不同类型农户耕地投入行为模型。从新古典经济理论角度,分析了农户的分化形态对农户家庭资源禀赋产生的影响；而农户家庭资源禀赋的不同产生了不同的预算约束和不同的效用函数,从而导致了农户耕地投入行为决策的不同；从家庭经济理论的角度,分析了农户家庭成员专业选择及经济行为对农户耕地投入行为的影响。该部分的研究主要是建立不同类型农户耕地投入决策模型,分析农户耕地投入行为的内在机理。(3)典型区域农户耕地投入特征。农户耕地投入包括土地、资本和劳力三大要素,这三大要素的投入量由农户的耕地投入决策进行控制。该部分采用典型区域农户调查数据对各类型农户耕地投入的特征进行分析,同时对前面建立的农户生产投入决策模型进行了验证。(4)农户耕地投入效率测度。农户不同的耕地投入行为对农业生产效率的影响是本文研究的目的与意义所在；本文采用随机前沿生产模型和成本有效性联立方程组对不同类型农户耕地投入技术效率和成本效率进行分析,并探讨其效率损失的原因。(5)农户耕地投入效率改进。本文应用target-MOTAD模型对农户耕地利用结构和要素配置进行优化分析,并达到改进其耕地投入效率的目标。
通过以上内容的分析,本文得到以下结论：(1)农户分化类型。文章根据分工和专业化经济理论,将我国农户家庭内部分化形态定义为：完全分工型农户、不完全分工型农户、农业专业(参与市场)型农户、农业专业(自给自足)型农户和非农专业型农户；将农户间分化形态定义为：“组织化”农户和“自由化”农户。在本文所调查的样本农户中,完全分工型农户占总样本的41.57%,不完全分工农户占总样本比例为35.87%,专业型农户占总样本数的21.75%(其中参与市场的农业专业户占农业专业户和总样本数的比例分别为72.89%和15.85%,自给自足的农业专业户占农业专业户和总样本数的比例分别为27.10%和5.89%),专业化从事非农业生产的农户占总样本的比例为0.41%。(2)专业化有利于农户耕地投入效率的提高。从不同类型农户耕地投入技术效率的测算结果中可以看出,具有专业化从事农业生产特征的农户耕地投入技术效率要高于具有兼业特征的农户,具体表现为农业专业(自给自足)型农户、农业专业(参与市场)型农户和完全分工型农户的耕地投入技术效率高于不完全分工型农户；不同类型农户耕地投入成本效率关系为：农业专业(参与市场)型农户>完全分工型农户>不完全分工型农户>农业专业(自给自足)型农户；具有“组织化”农户特征的耕地利用效率高于“自由化”农户。(3)农户家庭分工改进有利于家庭总效用的增加。各类型农户总效用大小顺序如下：非农专业农户>不完全分工型农户>完全分工型农户>农业专业(参与市场)型农户>农业专业(自给自足)型农户,这反映出农户家庭分工改进对家庭总效率具有促进作用。(4)我国农户耕地利用效率损失严重。通过随机前沿面方法和联立方程组测算得到不同类型农户耕地投入技术效率损失情况为：完全分工型农户技术效率损失27.36%,不完全分工型农户技术效率损失31.40%,农业专业(参与市场)型农户技术效率损失11.63%,农业专业(自给自足)型农户技术效率损失13.24%；不同类型农户耕地投入要素配置效率损失情况为：完全分工型农户配置效率损失32.65%,不完全分工型农户配置效率损失36.99%,农业专业(参与市场)型农户配置效率损失39.19%,农业专业(自给自足)型农户配置效率损失41.47%。以上结果反映了我国农户耕地投入效率损失普遍较严重的客观事实,其中以耕地投入要素配置效率损失情况更为严重。(5)我国农户耕地投入要素中劳动投入与资本投入相比普遍较高,而资本投入普遍不足,耕地利用结构存在一定的优化空间,农户通过优化要素投入配置和耕地利用结构可获得更高的实际收入。因此,耕地利用程度较低、耕地投入要素配置不合理是我国农户进行农业生产过程中存在的普遍现象,也是造成我国农户耕地利用效率损失的主要原因。因此,促进耕地向农业专业户流转、促进农村剩余劳动力转移和城乡协调发展、加大对农民专业合作组织的扶持力度,对提高农户耕地投入效率具有重要意义。
Agriculture is the foundation that guarantee one country's economy develops rapidly. The important subject on Chinese food security is also concerned by many domestic and foreign scholars. Since the reform and opening up, with transformation of our country economic system, rural social and economic system has profound change. That the quantity of cultivated land decline sharply and rural labor loss make serious threat to national food security. In such background, how to improve the utilization efficiency of cultivated land becomes the important approach to ensure food safety. Rural households as microcosmic mainstay in agricultural production, its economic behavior influences utilization efficiency of cultivated land directly. The rural households started to divide gradually in transformation of social economic, and the division of rural households is inevitable phenomena during China's socio-economic development. Rural households division would produce some effect to utilization of cultivated land, thus affect technical efficiency and input allocation efficiency. Therefore, at the condition of rural households division, it is significant to analyze behavior of different type's rural households on utilization of cultivated land.
This study analyzed different types of cultivated lands input behavior and efficiency comprehensively, based on a view of division of rural households, at farmer behavioral theory and production efficiency of elements theory as the theoretical framework, by production frontier method and risk decision optimization model for empirical methods. Full text research content mainly about as follows:(1) Deformation and reason of farmers division. Division of rural households'type is the basis of text. This paper analyzed deformation and reason of rural households division on the view of specialization selection of family member and division of function between rural households. New classical economics of rural households'utility theory and new classical economics extra-marginal analysis theory are better analysis tools, this paper mainly use the mentioned two theory above to analyze the reason on the internal division of rural households. (2) Cultivated land input behavior model of different type's rural households. This paper analyzed the deformation division of rural households'effect to resource endowment of family from new classical economics theory view. Because different resource endowments of family created different budget constraints and different utility function, which led to different behavior on decision-making of cultivated land input. From the Angle of family economic theory, this paper analyzed professional selection and economic behavior's influence of cultivated lands input behavior. This part of study built the decision-making model respectively, which mainly aimed at different types of rural households, and had analysis on internal mechanism of rural households'cultivated land input behavior. (3) Cultivated land input characteristics of rural households in typical region. Cultivated land input of rural households includes three essential factors, which are land, capital and labor. Inputs quantity of these three elements is controlled by rural households'input decision-making. This part used the typical region's survey data of rural households to research all kinds of rural households'cultivated land input characteristics. And verified the rural households'decision-making models which were established in front paper. (4) Measure of cultivated land input efficiency of rural households. Significance and purpose of this paper's study was rural households'cultivated land input behavior's influence to agricultural production efficiency. This paper used stochastic frontier production model and cost effectiveness equations to analyze different types of cultivated land input technical efficiency and cost efficiency, simultaneously found the reason of its efficiency loss. (5) Cultivated land input efficiency improvement. It analyzed optimization of cultivated lands use structure and input allocation, and had reached the target of improve efficiency by target-MOTAD model.
Through the analysis of the above content, this paper indicated the following conclusion:(1) Rural households'division types. The paper defined the division deformation of rural households in the internal family based on the work division and specialization economic theory:completely division rural households, incompletely division rural households, agricultural professional rural households (participating in market), agricultural professional (self-sufficiency) rural households and non-agricultural rural households. Division deformation definition of family to family is "organized rural households" and "liberalizing rural households". Among the samples of survey, completely division rural households had 41.57 percent, incompletely division rural households had 35.87 percent, non-agricultural rural households had 21.75 percent. Among them, rural households who participating in market account for agricultural professional and account for the proportion of the total sample had 72.89 percent and 15.85 respectively. Self-sufficiency rural household account for agricultural professional and account for the proportion of the total sample had 27.10 percent and 5.89 percent. Non-agricultural rural household had 0.41 percent. (2) Professionalization is benefit to improve the efficiency of cultivated land input. From the result of the technical efficiency of different type rural households'cultivated land input, the technical efficiency of professional rural households was higher than the rural households which had feature of concurrent-business, it shows up technical efficiency of agricultural professional (participating in market)、agricultural professional (self-sufficiency) and completely division rural households were higher than incompletely division rural households. Cultivated land input cost efficiency of different type rural households from maximum to minimum was:agricultural professional rural households (participating in market)>completely division rural households>incompletely division rural households>agricultural professional (self-sufficiency) rural households. Cultivated land use efficiency of "organized rural household" was higher than "liberalizing rural household" (3) Improvement of rural households division had helped to increase total utility of family. Through comparison of different type's rural households'revenue that can obtain total utility of rural households, it indicated order of total utility of farmer family as follows:non-professional rural households> incompletely division rural households> completely division rural households>agricultural professional rural households (participating in market)>agricultural professional (self-sufficiency) rural households. The conclusion above could prove that improvement of rural households division could help to increase total utility of family. (4) The rural households in China suffered huge losses in cultivated land use efficiency. This paper measured the land use efficiency and cost efficiency losses in cultivated land use efficiency of different type's rural households with the stochastic frontier method and Simultaneous equations. The results showed that there were 27.36 percent efficiency losses and 32.65 percent allocate efficiency losses of completely division type rural households; there were 31.40 percent efficiency losses and 36.99 percent allocate efficiency losses of incompletely division type rural households; there were 11.63 percent efficiency losses and 39.19 of percent allocate efficiency losses of agricultural professional (participating in the market) type rural households; and there were 13.24 percent efficiency losses and 41.47 percent allocate efficiency losses of agricultural professional(self-sufficient) type rural households. The results reflected the objective fact that there are serious losses in rural households cultivated land use efficiency in china, and the efficiency of input elements allocation loss is more serious. (5) Comparison the rural households'cultivated land input elements in China, there's a universal phenomenon that labor inputs were more than capital elements inputs, well the capital inputs was insufficient in general, and the cultivated land use structure need to optimize. Rural households could get more income through the way that optimization the inputs and cultivated land use structure. The results indicated that the low rate of China's cultivated land utilization, and the improper allocation of elements input into cultivated land are universal phenomenon in China's cultivated land utilization, it also lead to the huge losses in rural households'cultivated land use efficiency in China. Therefore, it has important significance to improve rural households farmland input efficiency, by promoting cultivated land turnover to agricultural professional rural households, and transfer the rural surplus labor force, increasing more support to farmers' specialized cooperative organizations.
本研究基于我国农户分化的视角,以农户行为理论和要素生产效率理论为理论框架,以生产前沿面方法和风险决策优化模型为实证方法,对不同类型农户耕地投入行为及其效率进行了较全面的分析。全文研究内容主要有：(1)农户分化的形态及原因。农户类型的划分是全文研究的基础,本文从农户家庭成员间的专业化选择和农户间的职能分工对农户分化的原因和形态进行了分析；新古典经济学的农户效用理论和新兴古典经济学的超边际分析理论都是比较好的分析工具,本文主要采用上述两种理论来分析农户内部分化的动因。(2)不同类型农户耕地投入行为模型。从新古典经济理论角度,分析了农户的分化形态对农户家庭资源禀赋产生的影响；而农户家庭资源禀赋的不同产生了不同的预算约束和不同的效用函数,从而导致了农户耕地投入行为决策的不同；从家庭经济理论的角度,分析了农户家庭成员专业选择及经济行为对农户耕地投入行为的影响。该部分的研究主要是建立不同类型农户耕地投入决策模型,分析农户耕地投入行为的内在机理。(3)典型区域农户耕地投入特征。农户耕地投入包括土地、资本和劳力三大要素,这三大要素的投入量由农户的耕地投入决策进行控制。该部分采用典型区域农户调查数据对各类型农户耕地投入的特征进行分析,同时对前面建立的农户生产投入决策模型进行了验证。(4)农户耕地投入效率测度。农户不同的耕地投入行为对农业生产效率的影响是本文研究的目的与意义所在；本文采用随机前沿生产模型和成本有效性联立方程组对不同类型农户耕地投入技术效率和成本效率进行分析,并探讨其效率损失的原因。(5)农户耕地投入效率改进。本文应用target-MOTAD模型对农户耕地利用结构和要素配置进行优化分析,并达到改进其耕地投入效率的目标。
通过以上内容的分析,本文得到以下结论：(1)农户分化类型。文章根据分工和专业化经济理论,将我国农户家庭内部分化形态定义为：完全分工型农户、不完全分工型农户、农业专业(参与市场)型农户、农业专业(自给自足)型农户和非农专业型农户；将农户间分化形态定义为：“组织化”农户和“自由化”农户。在本文所调查的样本农户中,完全分工型农户占总样本的41.57%,不完全分工农户占总样本比例为35.87%,专业型农户占总样本数的21.75%(其中参与市场的农业专业户占农业专业户和总样本数的比例分别为72.89%和15.85%,自给自足的农业专业户占农业专业户和总样本数的比例分别为27.10%和5.89%),专业化从事非农业生产的农户占总样本的比例为0.41%。(2)专业化有利于农户耕地投入效率的提高。从不同类型农户耕地投入技术效率的测算结果中可以看出,具有专业化从事农业生产特征的农户耕地投入技术效率要高于具有兼业特征的农户,具体表现为农业专业(自给自足)型农户、农业专业(参与市场)型农户和完全分工型农户的耕地投入技术效率高于不完全分工型农户；不同类型农户耕地投入成本效率关系为：农业专业(参与市场)型农户>完全分工型农户>不完全分工型农户>农业专业(自给自足)型农户；具有“组织化”农户特征的耕地利用效率高于“自由化”农户。(3)农户家庭分工改进有利于家庭总效用的增加。各类型农户总效用大小顺序如下：非农专业农户>不完全分工型农户>完全分工型农户>农业专业(参与市场)型农户>农业专业(自给自足)型农户,这反映出农户家庭分工改进对家庭总效率具有促进作用。(4)我国农户耕地利用效率损失严重。通过随机前沿面方法和联立方程组测算得到不同类型农户耕地投入技术效率损失情况为：完全分工型农户技术效率损失27.36%,不完全分工型农户技术效率损失31.40%,农业专业(参与市场)型农户技术效率损失11.63%,农业专业(自给自足)型农户技术效率损失13.24%；不同类型农户耕地投入要素配置效率损失情况为：完全分工型农户配置效率损失32.65%,不完全分工型农户配置效率损失36.99%,农业专业(参与市场)型农户配置效率损失39.19%,农业专业(自给自足)型农户配置效率损失41.47%。以上结果反映了我国农户耕地投入效率损失普遍较严重的客观事实,其中以耕地投入要素配置效率损失情况更为严重。(5)我国农户耕地投入要素中劳动投入与资本投入相比普遍较高,而资本投入普遍不足,耕地利用结构存在一定的优化空间,农户通过优化要素投入配置和耕地利用结构可获得更高的实际收入。因此,耕地利用程度较低、耕地投入要素配置不合理是我国农户进行农业生产过程中存在的普遍现象,也是造成我国农户耕地利用效率损失的主要原因。因此,促进耕地向农业专业户流转、促进农村剩余劳动力转移和城乡协调发展、加大对农民专业合作组织的扶持力度,对提高农户耕地投入效率具有重要意义。
Agriculture is the foundation that guarantee one country's economy develops rapidly. The important subject on Chinese food security is also concerned by many domestic and foreign scholars. Since the reform and opening up, with transformation of our country economic system, rural social and economic system has profound change. That the quantity of cultivated land decline sharply and rural labor loss make serious threat to national food security. In such background, how to improve the utilization efficiency of cultivated land becomes the important approach to ensure food safety. Rural households as microcosmic mainstay in agricultural production, its economic behavior influences utilization efficiency of cultivated land directly. The rural households started to divide gradually in transformation of social economic, and the division of rural households is inevitable phenomena during China's socio-economic development. Rural households division would produce some effect to utilization of cultivated land, thus affect technical efficiency and input allocation efficiency. Therefore, at the condition of rural households division, it is significant to analyze behavior of different type's rural households on utilization of cultivated land.
This study analyzed different types of cultivated lands input behavior and efficiency comprehensively, based on a view of division of rural households, at farmer behavioral theory and production efficiency of elements theory as the theoretical framework, by production frontier method and risk decision optimization model for empirical methods. Full text research content mainly about as follows:(1) Deformation and reason of farmers division. Division of rural households'type is the basis of text. This paper analyzed deformation and reason of rural households division on the view of specialization selection of family member and division of function between rural households. New classical economics of rural households'utility theory and new classical economics extra-marginal analysis theory are better analysis tools, this paper mainly use the mentioned two theory above to analyze the reason on the internal division of rural households. (2) Cultivated land input behavior model of different type's rural households. This paper analyzed the deformation division of rural households'effect to resource endowment of family from new classical economics theory view. Because different resource endowments of family created different budget constraints and different utility function, which led to different behavior on decision-making of cultivated land input. From the Angle of family economic theory, this paper analyzed professional selection and economic behavior's influence of cultivated lands input behavior. This part of study built the decision-making model respectively, which mainly aimed at different types of rural households, and had analysis on internal mechanism of rural households'cultivated land input behavior. (3) Cultivated land input characteristics of rural households in typical region. Cultivated land input of rural households includes three essential factors, which are land, capital and labor. Inputs quantity of these three elements is controlled by rural households'input decision-making. This part used the typical region's survey data of rural households to research all kinds of rural households'cultivated land input characteristics. And verified the rural households'decision-making models which were established in front paper. (4) Measure of cultivated land input efficiency of rural households. Significance and purpose of this paper's study was rural households'cultivated land input behavior's influence to agricultural production efficiency. This paper used stochastic frontier production model and cost effectiveness equations to analyze different types of cultivated land input technical efficiency and cost efficiency, simultaneously found the reason of its efficiency loss. (5) Cultivated land input efficiency improvement. It analyzed optimization of cultivated lands use structure and input allocation, and had reached the target of improve efficiency by target-MOTAD model.
Through the analysis of the above content, this paper indicated the following conclusion:(1) Rural households'division types. The paper defined the division deformation of rural households in the internal family based on the work division and specialization economic theory:completely division rural households, incompletely division rural households, agricultural professional rural households (participating in market), agricultural professional (self-sufficiency) rural households and non-agricultural rural households. Division deformation definition of family to family is "organized rural households" and "liberalizing rural households". Among the samples of survey, completely division rural households had 41.57 percent, incompletely division rural households had 35.87 percent, non-agricultural rural households had 21.75 percent. Among them, rural households who participating in market account for agricultural professional and account for the proportion of the total sample had 72.89 percent and 15.85 respectively. Self-sufficiency rural household account for agricultural professional and account for the proportion of the total sample had 27.10 percent and 5.89 percent. Non-agricultural rural household had 0.41 percent. (2) Professionalization is benefit to improve the efficiency of cultivated land input. From the result of the technical efficiency of different type rural households'cultivated land input, the technical efficiency of professional rural households was higher than the rural households which had feature of concurrent-business, it shows up technical efficiency of agricultural professional (participating in market)、agricultural professional (self-sufficiency) and completely division rural households were higher than incompletely division rural households. Cultivated land input cost efficiency of different type rural households from maximum to minimum was:agricultural professional rural households (participating in market)>completely division rural households>incompletely division rural households>agricultural professional (self-sufficiency) rural households. Cultivated land use efficiency of "organized rural household" was higher than "liberalizing rural household" (3) Improvement of rural households division had helped to increase total utility of family. Through comparison of different type's rural households'revenue that can obtain total utility of rural households, it indicated order of total utility of farmer family as follows:non-professional rural households> incompletely division rural households> completely division rural households>agricultural professional rural households (participating in market)>agricultural professional (self-sufficiency) rural households. The conclusion above could prove that improvement of rural households division could help to increase total utility of family. (4) The rural households in China suffered huge losses in cultivated land use efficiency. This paper measured the land use efficiency and cost efficiency losses in cultivated land use efficiency of different type's rural households with the stochastic frontier method and Simultaneous equations. The results showed that there were 27.36 percent efficiency losses and 32.65 percent allocate efficiency losses of completely division type rural households; there were 31.40 percent efficiency losses and 36.99 percent allocate efficiency losses of incompletely division type rural households; there were 11.63 percent efficiency losses and 39.19 of percent allocate efficiency losses of agricultural professional (participating in the market) type rural households; and there were 13.24 percent efficiency losses and 41.47 percent allocate efficiency losses of agricultural professional(self-sufficient) type rural households. The results reflected the objective fact that there are serious losses in rural households cultivated land use efficiency in china, and the efficiency of input elements allocation loss is more serious. (5) Comparison the rural households'cultivated land input elements in China, there's a universal phenomenon that labor inputs were more than capital elements inputs, well the capital inputs was insufficient in general, and the cultivated land use structure need to optimize. Rural households could get more income through the way that optimization the inputs and cultivated land use structure. The results indicated that the low rate of China's cultivated land utilization, and the improper allocation of elements input into cultivated land are universal phenomenon in China's cultivated land utilization, it also lead to the huge losses in rural households'cultivated land use efficiency in China. Therefore, it has important significance to improve rural households farmland input efficiency, by promoting cultivated land turnover to agricultural professional rural households, and transfer the rural surplus labor force, increasing more support to farmers' specialized cooperative organizations.
引文
1.(美)迪克西特(Dixit, A.K.)著,冯曲,吴桂英译.经济理论中的最优化方法[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2006.
2. A·恰亚诺夫.农民的经济组织[M].北京：中国编译出版社,1996.
3.P. Albert,任常青.自给自足和风险状态下的农户生产决策模型——中国贫困地区的实证研究[J].农业技术经济,1995(5)：22-26.
4.蔡昉.人口转变、人口红利与经济增长可持续性—兼论充分就业如何促进经济增长[J].人口研究,2004,28(2)：2-10.
5.蔡基宏.关于农地规模与兼业程度对土地产出率影响争议的一个解答：基于农户模型的讨论[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2005(3)：28-37.
6.陈和午.农户模型的发展与应用：文献综述[J].农业技术经济,2004(3)：2-10.
7.陈钊,陆铭和吴桂英.考虑离婚的动态家庭分工理论及一个提高分工效率的保险机制[J].经济学(季刊),2004,3(10)：167-190.
8.迟国泰,孙秀峰,芦丹.中国商业银行成本效率实证研究[J].经济研究,2005(6)：104-114.
9.董召荣,姜长云.农户内在因素对农户类型选择和分化的影响[J].安徽农业大学学报(社科版),1996(1)：37-40.
10.方鹏,黄贤金,陈志刚,濮励杰,李宪文.区域农村土地市场发育的农户行为响应与农业土地利用变化——以江苏省苏州市、南京市、扬州市村庄及农户调查为例[J].自然资源学报,2003,18(3)：319-325.
11.冯中朝.农民分化与城乡协调发展的实证分析[J].农业经济问题,1995(3)：37-41.
12.弗兰克·艾利思.农民经济学-农民家庭农业和农业发展(第二版)[M].胡景北译,上海人民出版社,2006.
13.高帆.交易效率、分工演进与二元经济结构转化.[博十学位论文].西安：西北大学,2004.
14.高强,赵贞.我国农户兼业化八大特征[J].调研世界,2000(4)：29-31.
15.高强.国外农户兼业化研究述评[J].世界农业,1998(11)：3-5.
16.郭剑雄,李志俊.劳动力选择性转移条件下的农业发展机制[J].经济研究,2009(5)：31-42.
17.韩俊.中国农民专业合作社调查[M].上海远东出版社,上海,2007.
18.韩耀.中国农户生产行为研究[J].经济纵横,1995(2)：29-33.
19.贺振华.农户兼业的一个分析框架[J].中国农村观察,2005(1)：2-11.
20.洪建国.农户使用农机行为研究.[博士学位论文].武汉：华中农业大学图书馆,2010.
21.黄祖辉,陈欣欣.农户粮田规模经营效率.实证分析与若干结论[J].农业经济问题,1998(11)：2-7.
22.黄祖辉,胡豹,黄莉莉.谁是农业结构调整的主体—农户行为及决策分析[M].北京：中国农业出版社,2005.
23.黄祖辉.中国农民合作组织发展的若干理论与实践问题[J].中国农村观察,2008(11)：4-8
24.黄宗智.华北的小农经济与社会变迁[M].北京：中华书局,1986.
25.加里·S·贝克尔著,王业宇,陈琪译.人类行为的经济分析[M].上海上海人民出版社.
26.加里·斯坦利·贝克尔.家庭论[M].北京：商务印刷馆,2007.
27.姜长云.农村非农化过程中农户、农民分化的动态考察——以安徽省天长市为例[J].中国农村经济,1995(9)：50-56.
28.亢霞,刘秀梅.我国粮食生产的技术效率分析——基于随机前沿分析方法[J].中国农村观察,2005(4)：25-32.
29.孔祥智,孙陶生.不同类型农户投资行为的比较分析[J].经济经纬,1998(3)：76-80.
30.李栋.中国商业银行成本效率实证研究.[博士学位论文].天津：天津大学图书馆,2008
31.李谷成,冯中朝,占邵文.家庭禀赋对农户家庭经营技术效率的影响冲击——基于湖北省农户的随机前沿生产函数实证[J].统计研究,2008,25,(1)：35-42.
32.李录堂.农户分类管理持续激励机制研究[J].科技导报,1999(11)：32-34.
33.李旻,赵连阁.农业劳动力“老龄化”现象及其对农业生产的影响[J].农业经济问题,2009(10)：12-19.
34.李小建,罗庆,樊新生.农区专业村的形成与演化机理研究[J].中国软科学,2009(2)：71-80.
35.李小建,乔家君.欠发达地区农户的兼业演变及农户经济发展研究——基于河南省1000农户的调进分析[J].中州学刊,2003(5)：58-61.
36.李小建.还原论与农户地理研究[J].地理研究,2010,29(5)：767-777.
37.李岳云,蓝海涛,方晓军.不同经营规模农户经营行为的研究[J].中国农村观察,1999(4)：39-45.
38.梁流涛,曲福田,诸培新等.不同兼业类型农户的土地利用行为和效率分析——基于经济发达地区的实证研究[J].资源科学,2008,30(10)：1525-1532.
39.刘承芳,张林秀,樊胜根.农户农业生产性投资影响因素研究—对江苏省六个县市的实证分析[J].中国农村观察,2002(4)：34-41.
40.刘建国.我国农户消费倾向偏低的原因分析[J].经济研究,1999(3)：52-60.
41.刘明宇.制度、分工演化与经济绩效——基于分工维度对农民贫困的制度分析.[博士学位论文].西安：西北大学,2004.
42.刘涛,曲福田,金晶等.土地细碎化、土地流转对农户土地利用效率的影响[J].资源科学,2008,30(10)：1511-1516.
43.刘莹,黄季焜.农户多目标种植决策模型与目标权重的估计[J].经济研究,2010(1)：148-158.
44.刘泽隆,范红霞.我国农户精养淡水鱼成本效率的测定及其影响因素分析[J].安徽农业科学,2007,35(8)：2204-2206,2254.
45.陆文聪,西爱琴.农户农业生产的风险反应：以浙江为例的MOTAD模型分析[J].中国农村经济,2005(12)：68-75.
46.农村产业分化与农业生产社会化研究课题组山西省农科院农业综考所.山西农户分化趋势,特点及成因分析[J].农业技术经济,1996(6)：33-37.
47.乔榛,焦方义,李楠.中国农村经济制度变迁与农业增长—对1978—2004年中国农业增长的实证分析[J].经济研究,2007(7)：73-82.
48.曲兆鹏,赵忠.老龄化对我国农村消费和收入不平等的影响[J].经济研究,2008(12)：85-99,149.
49.任治君.中国农业规模经营的制约[J].经济研究,1995(6)：54-58.
50.史清华,张改清.农户家庭决策模式与经济增长的关系——来自浙江5村的调查[J].农业现代化研究,2003,24,(2)：86-90.
51.史正富.农户经济规模的效果和动因、中国农村土地制度变革[M].北京：北京大学出版社,1993.
52.宋圭武.对小农问题的若干思考[J].农业经济问题,1999(12),37-42.
53.宋洪远.经济体制与农户行为_一个理论分析框架及其对中国农户问题的应用研究[J].经济研究,1994(8)：22-30.
54.孙文华.农户分化：微观机理与实证分析[J].江海学刊,2008(4)：114-119.
55.涂正革,肖耿.中国的工业生产力革命——用随机前沿生产模型对中国大中型工业企业全要素生产率增长的分解及分析[J].经济研究,2005(3)：4-15.
56.卫新,胡豹,徐萍.浙江省农户生产经营行为特征与差异分析[J].中国农村经济,2005(10)：49-56.
57.吴桂英.家庭内部决策理论的发展和应用：文献综述[J].世界经济文汇,2002(2)：70-80.
58.西奥多.w.舒尔茨,梁小民译.改造传统农业[M].北京：商务印书馆出版,2003.
59.向国成,韩绍凤.农户兼业化：基于分l：视角的分析[J].中国农村观察,2005(8)：4-11.
60.杨俊,杨钢桥.风险状态下不同类型农户农业生产组合优化——基于target-MOTAD模型的分析[J].中国农村观察,2011(1)：49-59.
61.杨慕义.草地农业系统研究中的农户决策行为分析——农户期望值—基尼均差风险决策模型[J].草业学报,1999,8,(1)：73—80.
62.杨三军,沈翀,李钧德.十年后谁来种田[N].经济参考报,2006,12,第004版.
63.杨小凯.经济学——新兴古典与新古典框架[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,2003.
64.张林秀,徐小明.农户生产在不同政策环境下行为的研究：农户系统模型的应用[J].农业技术经济,1996(4)：27-32.
65.尤小文.农户：一个概念的探讨[J].中国农村观察,1999(5)：17-21.
66.钟甫宁,纪月清.土地产权、非农就业机会与农户农业生产投资[J].经济研究,2009(12)：43-51.
67.钟甫宁.全球化与小农——中国面临的现实[J].南京农业大学学报(社会科学版),2005(6)：l-7.
68.周飞,刘朝晖.论农户兼业化与土地可持续利用[J].农村经济,2003(2)：38.
69.周钱.基于家庭决策的交通行为和需求预测研究.[博十学位论文].北京：清华大学图书馆,2008.
70.周哗馨.转型时期的农户兼业和非农化——基于斯密一科斯框架的超边际分析.[硕十学位论文].辽宁：辽宁大学图书馆,2007.
71.朱晶.农业公共投资、竞争力与粮食安全[J].经济研究,2003(1)：13-21.
72. Alain D.J., Marcel F., Elisabeth S.., "Peasant Household Behaviour with Missing Markets. Some Paradoxes Explained", The Economic Journal,1991,101(409):1400-1417.
73. Ananth R.., "Cost frontier efficiency and risk-return analysis in an emerging market", International Review of Financial Analysis,2005,14(3):283-303.
74. Anthea T., "The social implications of an ageing population", Mechanisms of Ageing and Development,2002,123(7):729-735.
75. Barro, R. J.&Lee,, "International Comparison of Educational Attainment", Journal of Monetary Economics,1993,32(3):363-394.
76. Bauer, Larry L., "A Target MOTAD Analysis of Sweet Potato Marketing", Southern Journal of Agriculture Economics,1991,23(12):123-130.
77. Berbel, Julio, "A Comparision of Target MOTAD Efficient Sets and the Choice of Target", Canadian Journal of Agriculture Economics,1990,38(1):149-158.
78. C. Aubry, F.A.C., "Modelling Decision-Making Processes for Annual Crop Management "Agricultural Systems,1998,56(1):45-65.
79. Carter, Michael R., "Equilibrium Credit Rationing of Small Farm Agriculture", Journal of Development Economics,1988,28(1):83-103.
80. Chavas, J. P, Ragan P. and Michael R.,, "Farm Household Production Efficiency. Evidence from the Gambia", American Journal ofAgricultural Economics,,2005,87(1):160-179.
81. Choon Y.A., Inderjit S., Lyn S.., "A Model of an Agricultural Household in a Multicrop Economy: The Case of Korea", Review of Economics and Statistics,1981,63(4):520-525.
82. Colli, T. J., Rao D.S.P. and Battese G.E.. An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis[M]. Boston, MA.Kluwer Academic Publishers,1998.
83. Dillon, J. L. and Scandizzo, P. L., "Risk Attitudes of Subsistence Farmers in Northeast Brazil. A Sampling Approach", American Journal ofAgricultural Economics,1978,60(3):425-435.
84. Dr. Shahid M. Zia, "A Trade-off Between Expected Returns and Risk Among Farmers of Rice-wheat Zone of Punjab, Pakistan", Journal of Economic Cooperation Among Islamic Countries,1997,18(4):155-170.
85. E. J. Austin, et al., "Empirical Models of Farmer Behaviour Using Psychological, Social and Economic Variables. Part I. Linear Modelling", Agricultural Systems,1998a,58(2):203-224.
86. E. J. Austin, et al. "Empirical Models of Farmer Behaviour Using Psychological, Social and Economic Variables. Part Ⅱ. Nonlinear and Expert Modelling", Agricultural Systems, 1998b,57(2):225-241.
87. Freige S., Maria J., "Human capital accumulation and economic growth", Investigaciones Economics,2001,25(3):585-602.
88. Gary S. B., "A Theory of the Allocation of Time", The Economic Journal,1965,75(299):493-517
89. Ghatak, J.J.A., "Can unobserved heterogeneity in farmer ability explain the inverse relationship between farm size and productivity", Economics Letters,2003,80(2):189-194.
90. Hardaker, J. B.. Some Issues in Dealing with Risk in Agriculture, Working Paper Series in Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of New England,2000.
91. Hassan, R. M. and Hallam, A., "Stochastic Technology in a Programming Framework. A Generalized Mean-Variance Farm Model", Journal of Agricultural Economics,1990,41(2): 196-206.
92. Hatch, U.; Sindelar, S.; Rouse, D. and Perez, H., "Demonstrating the Use of Risk Programming for Aquacultural Farm Management. The Case of Penaeid Shrimp in Panama", Journal of World Aquaculture Society,1987,18(4):260-269.
93. Heerink, S.F., "Are farm households'land renting andAre farm households'land renting and migration decisions inter-related in rural China?", Journal of Life Sciences,2008,44(4):345-362.
94. Heltberg, R., "Rural Market Imperfections and the Farm Size-Productivity Relationship: Evidence from Pakistan", World Development,1998,26(10):1807-1826.
95. Howard N. Barnum, Lyn S.., "An econometric application of the theory of the farm-household", Journal of Development Economics,1976(6):79-102.
96. Huffman, Wallace E. Agricultural Household Models:Survey and Critique. Iowa:Iowa State University Press,1991,79-111.
97. Israel, Danilo C.and Sevilleja, Ruben C. "Production-Related Risk in Rice-Fish Culture. A Target MOTAD Analysis", The ICLARM Quarterly,1993(2):49-51.
98. Jacoby, Hanan., "Shadow Wages and Peasant Family Labour Supply:An Econometric Application to the Peruvian Sierra", Review of Economic Studies,1993,60(4):903-921.
99. J. D. C. Beedell&T. Rehman., "Explaining farmers'conservation behaviour:Why do farmers behave the way they do?", Journal of Environmental Management,1999,57(2):165-176.
100. Jin-Li Hu, Chia-Ning Chiu, Hwai-Shuh Shieh, et al. (2010), "A stochastic cost efficiency analysis of international tourist hotels in Taiwan". International Journal of Hospitality Management, 2010,29(1):99-107.
101. Joanna S., Andrew P.., "Models of risk and choice, challenge or danger", Acta Psychologica, 2000,104(3):339-369.
102. Joyce W., Ian J. Deary,Murray M. McGregor, et al., "Farmers'Attitudes, Objectives, Behaviors, and Personality Traits:The Edinburgh Study of Decision Making on Farms", Journal of Vocational Behavior,1999,54(1):5-36.
103. John B. P., Jr., Danny A. Klinefelter, David A. Lins. Farm Investment and Financial Analysis. New Jersey:Prentice-Hall,1982.
104. Kuroda, Yoshimi, Pan Y.., "A Microeconomic Analysis of Production Behavior of the Farm Household in Japan:A Profit Function Approach", The Economic Review,1978,29:115-129.
105. Maryke D.., "Labor supply, the family and poverty, the S-shaped labor supply curve", Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,2002,49(4):433-458.
106. Maxime F., et al., "Population ageing, time allocation and human capital. A general equilibrium analysis for Canada", Economic Modeling,2009,26(1):30-39.
107. Mehmet S.T.., " Population aging and economic growth, political economy and open economy effects", Economics Letters,2003,81(3):291-296.
108. Michael L.,, "The theory of the optimising peasant", Journal of Development Stues,1986,4(3): 327-351.
109. Miika L., Anne N., Matti K.., "Technical and cost efficiency of oral health care provision in Finnish health centers", Social Science & Medicine,2003,56(2):343-353.
110. Nakajima, C. Subjective Equilibrium Theory of The Farm Household. Amsterdam:Elsevier,1986,302.
111.Quentin F.B., Ruth L.., "Understanding farmers'strategic decision-making processes and the implications for biodiversity conservation policy", Journal of Environmental Management, 2009,90(2):1135-1144.
112. Rob J.F. Burton., "An alternative to farmer age as an indicator of life-cycle stage. The case for a farm family age index", Journal of Rural Studies,2006,22(4):485-492.
113. Robert T. Michael, Gary S.B.., "On The new theory of consumer behavior", The Swedish Journal of Economics,1973,75(4):378-396.
114. Simons, S.,, "Land Fragmentation and Consolidation, a Theoretical Model of Land Configuration with an Empirical Analysis of Fragmentation in Thailand", Ph. D. University of Maryland, College Park,1987.
115. Singh, Inderjit, Lyn S., John S., "Agricultural Household Models-Extensions, Applications and Policy", Baltimore:The Johns Hopkins University Press,1986.
116. T. Bernet, O.O.R.D., "Tailoring agricultural extension to different production contexts. a user-friendly farm-household model to improve decision-making for participatory research", Agricultural Systems,2001,69(3):183-198.
117. Tauer, L. M. "Target MOTAD", American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1983,65(3):606-610.
118. Taylor J. Edward, Adelman I., "Agricultural Household Models:Genesis, Evolution, and Extensions", Review of Economics of the Household,2003,1(1):133-158.
119. Thomas S., Danier M. and Johannes S.., "Land Fragmentation and Cropland Abandonment in Albania. Implications for the Roles of State and Community in Post-Socialist Land Consolidation", World Development,2009,37(8):1411-1423.
120. Umoh, Gabriel S., "Programming Risks in Wetlands Farming. Evidence from Nigerian Floodplains", Journal of Human. Ecology,2008,24(2):85-92.
121.Wiens,T. B., "Peasant Risk Aversion and Allocative Behavior. Quadratic Programming Experiment", American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1976,58(4):629-635.
122. Yang Du, A.S.W., "Migration and rural poverty in China". Journal of Comparative Economics, 2005,33(4):688-709.
123. Young, Allyn., "Growth without Scale Effects", Journal of Political Economy,1998,106(1): 41-63.
124. Zimet, David J. and Spreen, Thomas H., "A Target MOTAD Analysis of A Crop and Livestock Farm In Jefferon County, Florida", Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics,1986,18(12):175-186.
125. Zuo Xue-jin, Yang Xiao-ping. (2009), "The long-term impact on the Chinese economy of an aging population", Social Sciences in China,2009,(1):197-208.
2. A·恰亚诺夫.农民的经济组织[M].北京：中国编译出版社,1996.
3.P. Albert,任常青.自给自足和风险状态下的农户生产决策模型——中国贫困地区的实证研究[J].农业技术经济,1995(5)：22-26.
4.蔡昉.人口转变、人口红利与经济增长可持续性—兼论充分就业如何促进经济增长[J].人口研究,2004,28(2)：2-10.
5.蔡基宏.关于农地规模与兼业程度对土地产出率影响争议的一个解答：基于农户模型的讨论[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2005(3)：28-37.
6.陈和午.农户模型的发展与应用：文献综述[J].农业技术经济,2004(3)：2-10.
7.陈钊,陆铭和吴桂英.考虑离婚的动态家庭分工理论及一个提高分工效率的保险机制[J].经济学(季刊),2004,3(10)：167-190.
8.迟国泰,孙秀峰,芦丹.中国商业银行成本效率实证研究[J].经济研究,2005(6)：104-114.
9.董召荣,姜长云.农户内在因素对农户类型选择和分化的影响[J].安徽农业大学学报(社科版),1996(1)：37-40.
10.方鹏,黄贤金,陈志刚,濮励杰,李宪文.区域农村土地市场发育的农户行为响应与农业土地利用变化——以江苏省苏州市、南京市、扬州市村庄及农户调查为例[J].自然资源学报,2003,18(3)：319-325.
11.冯中朝.农民分化与城乡协调发展的实证分析[J].农业经济问题,1995(3)：37-41.
12.弗兰克·艾利思.农民经济学-农民家庭农业和农业发展(第二版)[M].胡景北译,上海人民出版社,2006.
13.高帆.交易效率、分工演进与二元经济结构转化.[博十学位论文].西安：西北大学,2004.
14.高强,赵贞.我国农户兼业化八大特征[J].调研世界,2000(4)：29-31.
15.高强.国外农户兼业化研究述评[J].世界农业,1998(11)：3-5.
16.郭剑雄,李志俊.劳动力选择性转移条件下的农业发展机制[J].经济研究,2009(5)：31-42.
17.韩俊.中国农民专业合作社调查[M].上海远东出版社,上海,2007.
18.韩耀.中国农户生产行为研究[J].经济纵横,1995(2)：29-33.
19.贺振华.农户兼业的一个分析框架[J].中国农村观察,2005(1)：2-11.
20.洪建国.农户使用农机行为研究.[博士学位论文].武汉：华中农业大学图书馆,2010.
21.黄祖辉,陈欣欣.农户粮田规模经营效率.实证分析与若干结论[J].农业经济问题,1998(11)：2-7.
22.黄祖辉,胡豹,黄莉莉.谁是农业结构调整的主体—农户行为及决策分析[M].北京：中国农业出版社,2005.
23.黄祖辉.中国农民合作组织发展的若干理论与实践问题[J].中国农村观察,2008(11)：4-8
24.黄宗智.华北的小农经济与社会变迁[M].北京：中华书局,1986.
25.加里·S·贝克尔著,王业宇,陈琪译.人类行为的经济分析[M].上海上海人民出版社.
26.加里·斯坦利·贝克尔.家庭论[M].北京：商务印刷馆,2007.
27.姜长云.农村非农化过程中农户、农民分化的动态考察——以安徽省天长市为例[J].中国农村经济,1995(9)：50-56.
28.亢霞,刘秀梅.我国粮食生产的技术效率分析——基于随机前沿分析方法[J].中国农村观察,2005(4)：25-32.
29.孔祥智,孙陶生.不同类型农户投资行为的比较分析[J].经济经纬,1998(3)：76-80.
30.李栋.中国商业银行成本效率实证研究.[博士学位论文].天津：天津大学图书馆,2008
31.李谷成,冯中朝,占邵文.家庭禀赋对农户家庭经营技术效率的影响冲击——基于湖北省农户的随机前沿生产函数实证[J].统计研究,2008,25,(1)：35-42.
32.李录堂.农户分类管理持续激励机制研究[J].科技导报,1999(11)：32-34.
33.李旻,赵连阁.农业劳动力“老龄化”现象及其对农业生产的影响[J].农业经济问题,2009(10)：12-19.
34.李小建,罗庆,樊新生.农区专业村的形成与演化机理研究[J].中国软科学,2009(2)：71-80.
35.李小建,乔家君.欠发达地区农户的兼业演变及农户经济发展研究——基于河南省1000农户的调进分析[J].中州学刊,2003(5)：58-61.
36.李小建.还原论与农户地理研究[J].地理研究,2010,29(5)：767-777.
37.李岳云,蓝海涛,方晓军.不同经营规模农户经营行为的研究[J].中国农村观察,1999(4)：39-45.
38.梁流涛,曲福田,诸培新等.不同兼业类型农户的土地利用行为和效率分析——基于经济发达地区的实证研究[J].资源科学,2008,30(10)：1525-1532.
39.刘承芳,张林秀,樊胜根.农户农业生产性投资影响因素研究—对江苏省六个县市的实证分析[J].中国农村观察,2002(4)：34-41.
40.刘建国.我国农户消费倾向偏低的原因分析[J].经济研究,1999(3)：52-60.
41.刘明宇.制度、分工演化与经济绩效——基于分工维度对农民贫困的制度分析.[博士学位论文].西安：西北大学,2004.
42.刘涛,曲福田,金晶等.土地细碎化、土地流转对农户土地利用效率的影响[J].资源科学,2008,30(10)：1511-1516.
43.刘莹,黄季焜.农户多目标种植决策模型与目标权重的估计[J].经济研究,2010(1)：148-158.
44.刘泽隆,范红霞.我国农户精养淡水鱼成本效率的测定及其影响因素分析[J].安徽农业科学,2007,35(8)：2204-2206,2254.
45.陆文聪,西爱琴.农户农业生产的风险反应：以浙江为例的MOTAD模型分析[J].中国农村经济,2005(12)：68-75.
46.农村产业分化与农业生产社会化研究课题组山西省农科院农业综考所.山西农户分化趋势,特点及成因分析[J].农业技术经济,1996(6)：33-37.
47.乔榛,焦方义,李楠.中国农村经济制度变迁与农业增长—对1978—2004年中国农业增长的实证分析[J].经济研究,2007(7)：73-82.
48.曲兆鹏,赵忠.老龄化对我国农村消费和收入不平等的影响[J].经济研究,2008(12)：85-99,149.
49.任治君.中国农业规模经营的制约[J].经济研究,1995(6)：54-58.
50.史清华,张改清.农户家庭决策模式与经济增长的关系——来自浙江5村的调查[J].农业现代化研究,2003,24,(2)：86-90.
51.史正富.农户经济规模的效果和动因、中国农村土地制度变革[M].北京：北京大学出版社,1993.
52.宋圭武.对小农问题的若干思考[J].农业经济问题,1999(12),37-42.
53.宋洪远.经济体制与农户行为_一个理论分析框架及其对中国农户问题的应用研究[J].经济研究,1994(8)：22-30.
54.孙文华.农户分化：微观机理与实证分析[J].江海学刊,2008(4)：114-119.
55.涂正革,肖耿.中国的工业生产力革命——用随机前沿生产模型对中国大中型工业企业全要素生产率增长的分解及分析[J].经济研究,2005(3)：4-15.
56.卫新,胡豹,徐萍.浙江省农户生产经营行为特征与差异分析[J].中国农村经济,2005(10)：49-56.
57.吴桂英.家庭内部决策理论的发展和应用：文献综述[J].世界经济文汇,2002(2)：70-80.
58.西奥多.w.舒尔茨,梁小民译.改造传统农业[M].北京：商务印书馆出版,2003.
59.向国成,韩绍凤.农户兼业化：基于分l：视角的分析[J].中国农村观察,2005(8)：4-11.
60.杨俊,杨钢桥.风险状态下不同类型农户农业生产组合优化——基于target-MOTAD模型的分析[J].中国农村观察,2011(1)：49-59.
61.杨慕义.草地农业系统研究中的农户决策行为分析——农户期望值—基尼均差风险决策模型[J].草业学报,1999,8,(1)：73—80.
62.杨三军,沈翀,李钧德.十年后谁来种田[N].经济参考报,2006,12,第004版.
63.杨小凯.经济学——新兴古典与新古典框架[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,2003.
64.张林秀,徐小明.农户生产在不同政策环境下行为的研究：农户系统模型的应用[J].农业技术经济,1996(4)：27-32.
65.尤小文.农户：一个概念的探讨[J].中国农村观察,1999(5)：17-21.
66.钟甫宁,纪月清.土地产权、非农就业机会与农户农业生产投资[J].经济研究,2009(12)：43-51.
67.钟甫宁.全球化与小农——中国面临的现实[J].南京农业大学学报(社会科学版),2005(6)：l-7.
68.周飞,刘朝晖.论农户兼业化与土地可持续利用[J].农村经济,2003(2)：38.
69.周钱.基于家庭决策的交通行为和需求预测研究.[博十学位论文].北京：清华大学图书馆,2008.
70.周哗馨.转型时期的农户兼业和非农化——基于斯密一科斯框架的超边际分析.[硕十学位论文].辽宁：辽宁大学图书馆,2007.
71.朱晶.农业公共投资、竞争力与粮食安全[J].经济研究,2003(1)：13-21.
72. Alain D.J., Marcel F., Elisabeth S.., "Peasant Household Behaviour with Missing Markets. Some Paradoxes Explained", The Economic Journal,1991,101(409):1400-1417.
73. Ananth R.., "Cost frontier efficiency and risk-return analysis in an emerging market", International Review of Financial Analysis,2005,14(3):283-303.
74. Anthea T., "The social implications of an ageing population", Mechanisms of Ageing and Development,2002,123(7):729-735.
75. Barro, R. J.&Lee,, "International Comparison of Educational Attainment", Journal of Monetary Economics,1993,32(3):363-394.
76. Bauer, Larry L., "A Target MOTAD Analysis of Sweet Potato Marketing", Southern Journal of Agriculture Economics,1991,23(12):123-130.
77. Berbel, Julio, "A Comparision of Target MOTAD Efficient Sets and the Choice of Target", Canadian Journal of Agriculture Economics,1990,38(1):149-158.
78. C. Aubry, F.A.C., "Modelling Decision-Making Processes for Annual Crop Management "Agricultural Systems,1998,56(1):45-65.
79. Carter, Michael R., "Equilibrium Credit Rationing of Small Farm Agriculture", Journal of Development Economics,1988,28(1):83-103.
80. Chavas, J. P, Ragan P. and Michael R.,, "Farm Household Production Efficiency. Evidence from the Gambia", American Journal ofAgricultural Economics,,2005,87(1):160-179.
81. Choon Y.A., Inderjit S., Lyn S.., "A Model of an Agricultural Household in a Multicrop Economy: The Case of Korea", Review of Economics and Statistics,1981,63(4):520-525.
82. Colli, T. J., Rao D.S.P. and Battese G.E.. An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis[M]. Boston, MA.Kluwer Academic Publishers,1998.
83. Dillon, J. L. and Scandizzo, P. L., "Risk Attitudes of Subsistence Farmers in Northeast Brazil. A Sampling Approach", American Journal ofAgricultural Economics,1978,60(3):425-435.
84. Dr. Shahid M. Zia, "A Trade-off Between Expected Returns and Risk Among Farmers of Rice-wheat Zone of Punjab, Pakistan", Journal of Economic Cooperation Among Islamic Countries,1997,18(4):155-170.
85. E. J. Austin, et al., "Empirical Models of Farmer Behaviour Using Psychological, Social and Economic Variables. Part I. Linear Modelling", Agricultural Systems,1998a,58(2):203-224.
86. E. J. Austin, et al. "Empirical Models of Farmer Behaviour Using Psychological, Social and Economic Variables. Part Ⅱ. Nonlinear and Expert Modelling", Agricultural Systems, 1998b,57(2):225-241.
87. Freige S., Maria J., "Human capital accumulation and economic growth", Investigaciones Economics,2001,25(3):585-602.
88. Gary S. B., "A Theory of the Allocation of Time", The Economic Journal,1965,75(299):493-517
89. Ghatak, J.J.A., "Can unobserved heterogeneity in farmer ability explain the inverse relationship between farm size and productivity", Economics Letters,2003,80(2):189-194.
90. Hardaker, J. B.. Some Issues in Dealing with Risk in Agriculture, Working Paper Series in Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of New England,2000.
91. Hassan, R. M. and Hallam, A., "Stochastic Technology in a Programming Framework. A Generalized Mean-Variance Farm Model", Journal of Agricultural Economics,1990,41(2): 196-206.
92. Hatch, U.; Sindelar, S.; Rouse, D. and Perez, H., "Demonstrating the Use of Risk Programming for Aquacultural Farm Management. The Case of Penaeid Shrimp in Panama", Journal of World Aquaculture Society,1987,18(4):260-269.
93. Heerink, S.F., "Are farm households'land renting andAre farm households'land renting and migration decisions inter-related in rural China?", Journal of Life Sciences,2008,44(4):345-362.
94. Heltberg, R., "Rural Market Imperfections and the Farm Size-Productivity Relationship: Evidence from Pakistan", World Development,1998,26(10):1807-1826.
95. Howard N. Barnum, Lyn S.., "An econometric application of the theory of the farm-household", Journal of Development Economics,1976(6):79-102.
96. Huffman, Wallace E. Agricultural Household Models:Survey and Critique. Iowa:Iowa State University Press,1991,79-111.
97. Israel, Danilo C.and Sevilleja, Ruben C. "Production-Related Risk in Rice-Fish Culture. A Target MOTAD Analysis", The ICLARM Quarterly,1993(2):49-51.
98. Jacoby, Hanan., "Shadow Wages and Peasant Family Labour Supply:An Econometric Application to the Peruvian Sierra", Review of Economic Studies,1993,60(4):903-921.
99. J. D. C. Beedell&T. Rehman., "Explaining farmers'conservation behaviour:Why do farmers behave the way they do?", Journal of Environmental Management,1999,57(2):165-176.
100. Jin-Li Hu, Chia-Ning Chiu, Hwai-Shuh Shieh, et al. (2010), "A stochastic cost efficiency analysis of international tourist hotels in Taiwan". International Journal of Hospitality Management, 2010,29(1):99-107.
101. Joanna S., Andrew P.., "Models of risk and choice, challenge or danger", Acta Psychologica, 2000,104(3):339-369.
102. Joyce W., Ian J. Deary,Murray M. McGregor, et al., "Farmers'Attitudes, Objectives, Behaviors, and Personality Traits:The Edinburgh Study of Decision Making on Farms", Journal of Vocational Behavior,1999,54(1):5-36.
103. John B. P., Jr., Danny A. Klinefelter, David A. Lins. Farm Investment and Financial Analysis. New Jersey:Prentice-Hall,1982.
104. Kuroda, Yoshimi, Pan Y.., "A Microeconomic Analysis of Production Behavior of the Farm Household in Japan:A Profit Function Approach", The Economic Review,1978,29:115-129.
105. Maryke D.., "Labor supply, the family and poverty, the S-shaped labor supply curve", Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,2002,49(4):433-458.
106. Maxime F., et al., "Population ageing, time allocation and human capital. A general equilibrium analysis for Canada", Economic Modeling,2009,26(1):30-39.
107. Mehmet S.T.., " Population aging and economic growth, political economy and open economy effects", Economics Letters,2003,81(3):291-296.
108. Michael L.,, "The theory of the optimising peasant", Journal of Development Stues,1986,4(3): 327-351.
109. Miika L., Anne N., Matti K.., "Technical and cost efficiency of oral health care provision in Finnish health centers", Social Science & Medicine,2003,56(2):343-353.
110. Nakajima, C. Subjective Equilibrium Theory of The Farm Household. Amsterdam:Elsevier,1986,302.
111.Quentin F.B., Ruth L.., "Understanding farmers'strategic decision-making processes and the implications for biodiversity conservation policy", Journal of Environmental Management, 2009,90(2):1135-1144.
112. Rob J.F. Burton., "An alternative to farmer age as an indicator of life-cycle stage. The case for a farm family age index", Journal of Rural Studies,2006,22(4):485-492.
113. Robert T. Michael, Gary S.B.., "On The new theory of consumer behavior", The Swedish Journal of Economics,1973,75(4):378-396.
114. Simons, S.,, "Land Fragmentation and Consolidation, a Theoretical Model of Land Configuration with an Empirical Analysis of Fragmentation in Thailand", Ph. D. University of Maryland, College Park,1987.
115. Singh, Inderjit, Lyn S., John S., "Agricultural Household Models-Extensions, Applications and Policy", Baltimore:The Johns Hopkins University Press,1986.
116. T. Bernet, O.O.R.D., "Tailoring agricultural extension to different production contexts. a user-friendly farm-household model to improve decision-making for participatory research", Agricultural Systems,2001,69(3):183-198.
117. Tauer, L. M. "Target MOTAD", American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1983,65(3):606-610.
118. Taylor J. Edward, Adelman I., "Agricultural Household Models:Genesis, Evolution, and Extensions", Review of Economics of the Household,2003,1(1):133-158.
119. Thomas S., Danier M. and Johannes S.., "Land Fragmentation and Cropland Abandonment in Albania. Implications for the Roles of State and Community in Post-Socialist Land Consolidation", World Development,2009,37(8):1411-1423.
120. Umoh, Gabriel S., "Programming Risks in Wetlands Farming. Evidence from Nigerian Floodplains", Journal of Human. Ecology,2008,24(2):85-92.
121.Wiens,T. B., "Peasant Risk Aversion and Allocative Behavior. Quadratic Programming Experiment", American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1976,58(4):629-635.
122. Yang Du, A.S.W., "Migration and rural poverty in China". Journal of Comparative Economics, 2005,33(4):688-709.
123. Young, Allyn., "Growth without Scale Effects", Journal of Political Economy,1998,106(1): 41-63.
124. Zimet, David J. and Spreen, Thomas H., "A Target MOTAD Analysis of A Crop and Livestock Farm In Jefferon County, Florida", Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics,1986,18(12):175-186.
125. Zuo Xue-jin, Yang Xiao-ping. (2009), "The long-term impact on the Chinese economy of an aging population", Social Sciences in China,2009,(1):197-208.