Title

農業補貼對大專業農多角化及經營績效影響之研究

Translated Titles

The Impacts of Agricultural Subsidies on Big Tenant Farmers' Operation Diversification and Performance

Authors

林佩慧

Key Words

Tobit Model ; 經營績效 ; 多角化 ; 大專業農 ; 農業補貼 ; Tobit Model ; Operation Performance ; Diversification ; Big Tenant ; Agricultural Subsidy

PublicationName

中興大學應用經濟學系所學位論文

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

2017年

Academic Degree Category

碩士

Advisor

黃炳文

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

農政單位為擴大經營規模,調整農業結構及紓解老農、小農及農業競爭力不足等問題,自2009年推動「小地主大專業農」政策,並配合調整耕作制度及活化農地計畫,提供農民轉(契)作及休耕補貼,鼓勵種植進口替代及具外銷潛力作物,冀改變產業結構,以落實「擴大經營規模、調整農業結構」政策目標。 此外為維護農民權益,多年來亦推行多項農業補助如稻穀保價收購、農機/設施補助、休耕、轉(契)作補貼、農業油電補貼等。然過往相關研究較少探討農業補貼對多角化及經營績效的影響,有鑑於此,本研究以2015年大專業農經營概況調查樣本資料,探討農業補貼對大專業農多角化及經營績效的影響。 實證結果顯示,大專業農多角化程度為29.9%,北、中及南區均較東區多角化程度高,稻作、特作、果品及加工農家多角化程度較農事作業農家低,農產品加工及農事作業、農用設施、轉(契)作及休耕補貼對多角化為正向顯著的影響;大專業農平均農業所得率為31.8%,教育程度大專以上者較國小者經營績效高、北區較東區經營績效低、中區較東區經營績效高、稻作農家較農事作業農家經營績效低、其餘類型農家經營績效均較農事作業農家高。種植面積、多角化、初級農產品收入、加工農產品收入、農機及轉(契)作補貼對經營績效為正向的影響,農地租金、複種指數、臨時人員對經營績效為負向的影響。此研究結果可作為農政單位調整大專業農政策之參據。

English Abstract

In the light of expanding the scale of agricultural operation as well as addressing the structural issues like rural population aging, overly fragmented cultivation, and lack of competitiveness, Taiwan’s agricultural administrator implemented “Small Landlord and Big Tennant” program in 2009. Under the policy goal of “Scale Enlargement and Structural Adjustment”, in conjunction with cultivation adjustment, farmland revitalization, subsidy on farming transition (contractual farming) and set-aside, and encouragement of plantation of import substitute crops and crops with strong export potentials, this program aims at bringing about a structural change to the industry. For years, in safeguarding the interests of farmers, numerous subsidy programs have been introduced, including price guarantee paddy procurement, agricultural machinery/facility subsidies, set-aside subsidy, farming transition (contractual farming) subsidy, and subsidy on agricultural uses of electricity and fuel. However, the effects of agricultural subsidies and diversified operation on operation performance have rarely been touched on by studies in this field. In consideration of that, this study will analyze the survey data on 2015 Big Tenant operation to explore how agricultural subsidies can affect diversification and operation performance of Big Tenants participants. According to the data, the average diversification rate of policy guided Big Tenants was 29.9 percent. Among them, those in north, central, and south regions had a greater degree of diversification than those in east region. Farmers who cultivated paddy, special crops, and fruits and those who engaged in processing diversified less in their operation than those providing agricultural services. Engaging in agricultural processing, agricultural services, and agricultural machinery businesses and receiving transition and set-aside subsidies had significant positive effects on diversification. For Big Tenants, the agricultural income accounted for 31.8 percent of their total earning in average. In terms of operation performance, the data further indicates that those participants with college degree or above achieved better operation performance than that of those with only elementary education; compared against Big Tenants in east region, Big Tenants in north region fared worse and those in central region did better; paddy growing households had lower operation performance than those providing agricultural services, but households engaging in all other agricultural activities achieved better operation performance than agricultural service providers did. The planting area, diversification, income percentage from primary agricultural products and agricultural processed products, and the amount of subsidy received for agricultural machinery and farming transition (contractual farming) had positive effects on operation performance; on the other hand, rents paid for farmland, cropping index, number of part-time employees hired are shown to have negative effects on operation performance. In conclusion, these findings may serve as a basis for agricultural administrators to make an adjustment to the Big Tenant policy.

Topic Category 農業暨自然資源學院 > 應用經濟學系所
社會科學 > 經濟學
Reference
  1. 行政院農業委員會(2012)。政府已實施多項農業補助 將採取更積極作法因應國際環境變化。新聞與公告。
    連結:
  2. 行政院農業委員會農糧署2015年年報(2016)。調整耕作制度活化農地,20-21。行政院農業委員會農糧署編印。
    連結:
  3. 李應坼、戴劍鋒、李婕寧、彭克仲(2016)。臺灣荔枝產業經營績效分析。台灣農學會報17(2),192-214。
    連結:
  4. 林宜璇( 2010)。專業農民參與小地主大佃農計畫之財務評估(未出版之碩士論文)。國立成功大學都市計劃研究所。
    連結:
  5. 林昆立、黃玉麗(2014)。收益多角化對銀行是光明面還是黑暗面? 全球實證。管理評論, 33(3), 23-51。
    連結:
  6. 林俊昇 、 黃文琪(2002)。休閒農場經營績效評估之分析。 農業經營管理年刊 (8), 1-37。
    連結:
  7. 邱美菁、許永明、陳寧馨(2011)。台灣銀行業多角化經營對績效的影響。商略學報3(3),155-174。
    連結:
  8. 徐源清(2000)。臺灣農業經營管理顧問專家輔導績效評估模式之芻議。 農業經營管理年刊, 6 ,126-154。
    連結:
  9. 張簡永章(2012)。中國產險公司產品多角化與經營績效。保險專刊,28(1),27-59。
    連結:
  10. 陳世芳(2013)。臺中地區稻作大佃農擴大經營規模效益之研究。臺中區農業改良場特刊 117期 , 236-249 。
    連結:
  11. 陳世芳、戴登燦(2011)。擴大葡萄經營規模的大佃農賴昭農。台中區農情月報,146。
    連結:
  12. 陳郁蕙、詹滿色、陳雅惠 (2014)。台灣農民對農業休耕補貼政策及農地出租之參與意願及接受金額分析。農業調查研究特刊論文。調查研究-方法與應用, 32, 53-86。
    連結:
  13. 廖安定(2009)。規劃推動小地主大佃農政策。酪農天地雜誌。
    連結:
  14. 臺灣核心農家農場經營記帳報告(1991)。臺灣省政府農林廳編印。
    連結:
  15. 謝桑煙(1997)。台南區農業改良場研究彙報第34號。
    連結:
  16. 行政院農業委員會農糧署:活化農地專區。2017年7月17日,取自http://www.afa.gov.tw/ActFallowLand.aspx。
    連結:
  17. 行政院農業委員會農糧署:推動小地主大專業農。2017年7月17日,取自http://www.afa.gov.tw/Policy_index.aspx?CatID=26。
    連結:
  18. Bowler, I., Clark, G., Crockett, A., Ilbery, B., & Shaw, A. (1996). The development of alternative farm enterprises: a study of family labour farms in the Northern Pennines of England. Journal of Rural studies, 12(3), 285-295.
    連結:
  19. Ilbery, B. W. (1991). Farm diversification as an adjustment strategy on the urban fringe of the West Midlands. Journal of Rural studies, 7(3), 207-218.
    連結:
  20. Katchova, A. L. (2005). The farm diversification discount. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87(4), 984-994.
    連結:
  21. Kurosaki, T. (2003). Specialization and diversification in agricultural transformation: the case of West Punjab, 1903–92. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(2), 372-386.
    連結:
  22. Lebas, Michel J. (1995) "Performance measurement and performance management." International journal of production economics 41,23-35.
    連結:
  23. McNally, S. (2001). Farm diversification in England and Wales—what can we learn from the farm business survey?. Journal of rural studies, 17(2), 247-257.
    連結:
  24. Mercieca, S., Schaeck, K., & Wolfe, S. (2007). Small European banks: Benefits from diversification?. Journal of Banking & Finance, 31(7), 1975-1998.
    連結:
  25. Shucksmith, D. M., & Smith, R. (1991). Farm household strategies and pluriactivity in upland Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 42(3), 340-353.
    連結:
  26. Sumner, D. A. (1982). The off-farm labor supply of farmers. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 64(3), 499-509.
    連結:
  27. 一、中文文獻
  28. 方至民、鍾憲瑞(2006)。策略管理-建立企業永續競爭力。台北:前程文化出版。
  29. 于宗先主編(1986)。經濟學百科全書。台北:聯經。
  30. 林美華、莊岳峰、曾玫菁(2013)。休耕農地活化-農地活起來,農業有未來。農政與農情月刊,247。
  31. 林豐瑞、林勇信、謝佳珍、張鳳祥、蔡佩霖 (2009)。新進與專業農業經營者經營方式與績效分析之研究∼以設施蔬菜為例. 農業推廣文彙. 54期. 25-40。
  32. 洪忠修譯(2017)。2016年美國家庭農場多元觀察 America’s Diverse Family Farms 2016 Edition。農政與農情月刊,296,66-69。
  33. 陳澤義、陳啟斌(2006)。企業診斷與績效評估。台北:華泰出版。
  34. 陳耀勳(2002)。加入WTO後台灣農業之轉型發展。農政與農情,125。
  35. 黃炳文(2016)。專業農經營結構與生產效率之研究。行政院農委會農糧署105年度科技計畫研究報告,105農科-5.1.2-糧-Z1(2),台中:中興大學。
  36. 農林漁牧業普查作業手冊(2015)。行政院主計總處編印。
  37. 趙清源(1981)。農場管理學。台北:正中書局。
  38. 蔡秀婉(2010)。小地主大佃農政策執行成果及展望。農政與農情月刊,218。
  39. 鄭秀玲、劉育碩(2000)。銀行規模, 多角化程度與經營效率分析: 資料包絡法之應用。人文及社會科學期刊12(1),103-148。
  40. 謝俊雄、邱宗治、段兆麟(1998)。花卉產銷班成功營運績效指標之設訂。國立屏東科技大學學報。7(2),161-169。
  41. 謝國松(1987)。企業績效之衡量-美國NAA第四號管理會計公報。會計研究月刊,21,65-70。
  42. 蘇宗振 、 許鈺佩(2015)。推動小地主大佃農,提升經營規模與效益。農政與農情,272。
  43. 二、網路資料
  44. 行政院農業委員會(2012):農業新聞。政府已實施多項農業補助 將採取更積極作法因應國際環境變化。2017年7月17日,取自http://www.coa.gov.tw/theme_data.php?theme=news&sub_theme=agri&id=4401。
  45. 三、英文文獻
  46. Gasson, R. M. (1988). The economics of part-time farming. Longman Sc & Tech.
  47. Ilbery, B., Healy, M., & Higginbottom, J. (1997). On and off-farm business diversification by farm households in England.
  48. Kanyua, M. J., Ithinji, G. K., Muluvi, A. S., Gido, O. E., & Waluse, S. K. (2013). Factors influencing diversification and intensification of horticultural production by smallholder tea farmers in Gatanga District, Kenya. Current Research Journal of Social Sciences, 5(4), 103-111.
  49. McInerney, J. P., & Turner, M. M. (1991). Patterns, performance and prospects in farm diversification. Report-Agricultural Economics Unit, University of Exeter (United Kingdom).
  50. McInerney, J. P., Turner, M., & Hollingham, M. (1989). Diversification in the use of farm resources. Report-Agricultural Economics Unit, University of Exeter (UK).
  51. McInerney, J., & Turner, M. (1993). Agricultural adjustment in west Somerset. Report-Agricultural Economics Unit, University of Exeter (United Kingdom).