{"title":"中国“只出不进”的减员政策是否缓解了林业工人家庭的物质匮乏?来自中国天然林保护项目的证据","authors":"Bo Cao, Hongge Zhu, Yufang Wang","doi":"10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103391","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The existing literature primarily assesses the effectiveness of self-governance models in decentralized forest management, while studies on state-centered government regulation are scarce. This gap may introduce biases in comparative analyses of forest management models. This paper provides new evidence to evaluate China's government regulation model from a welfare perspective. First, we construct a material deprivation index (MDI) of forestry worker families based on a new individual-level household survey data collected from 56 state forest enterprises (SFEs) across three provinces in China. Second, combined with historical enterprise-level attrition data in SFEs, we find that, during the period of China's Natural Forest Protection Program, the “only-out, no-in” staff-reduction policy alleviated the material deprivation of forestry worker families. Various identification strategies including the instrumental variable method have confirmed the above causal relationship. Third, we further divide the MDI into three subindexes: quality of life, living environment, and social relations. We find that the cumulative staff-reduction scale has negative causal effect on reducing forestry worker families' material deprivation in terms of the second subindex, but has no effect in terms of the first and third subindexes. Lastly, when the sample is divided into two groups—households living on the mountain and down the hill—the negative causal effect exists only for the latter group. These results update the empirical literature on government regulation model effectiveness and provide significant references for comparative studies on forest management model diversity. They hold substantial implications for the innovation and optimization of forest management models in developing countries.","PeriodicalId":12451,"journal":{"name":"Forest Policy and Economics","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Has China's “only-out, no-in” staff-reduction policy alleviated the material deprivation of forestry worker families? Evidence from China's Natural Forest Protection Program\",\"authors\":\"Bo Cao, Hongge Zhu, Yufang Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103391\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The existing literature primarily assesses the effectiveness of self-governance models in decentralized forest management, while studies on state-centered government regulation are scarce. This gap may introduce biases in comparative analyses of forest management models. This paper provides new evidence to evaluate China's government regulation model from a welfare perspective. First, we construct a material deprivation index (MDI) of forestry worker families based on a new individual-level household survey data collected from 56 state forest enterprises (SFEs) across three provinces in China. Second, combined with historical enterprise-level attrition data in SFEs, we find that, during the period of China's Natural Forest Protection Program, the “only-out, no-in” staff-reduction policy alleviated the material deprivation of forestry worker families. Various identification strategies including the instrumental variable method have confirmed the above causal relationship. Third, we further divide the MDI into three subindexes: quality of life, living environment, and social relations. We find that the cumulative staff-reduction scale has negative causal effect on reducing forestry worker families' material deprivation in terms of the second subindex, but has no effect in terms of the first and third subindexes. Lastly, when the sample is divided into two groups—households living on the mountain and down the hill—the negative causal effect exists only for the latter group. These results update the empirical literature on government regulation model effectiveness and provide significant references for comparative studies on forest management model diversity. They hold substantial implications for the innovation and optimization of forest management models in developing countries.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12451,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Forest Policy and Economics\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Forest Policy and Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103391\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forest Policy and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103391","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Has China's “only-out, no-in” staff-reduction policy alleviated the material deprivation of forestry worker families? Evidence from China's Natural Forest Protection Program
The existing literature primarily assesses the effectiveness of self-governance models in decentralized forest management, while studies on state-centered government regulation are scarce. This gap may introduce biases in comparative analyses of forest management models. This paper provides new evidence to evaluate China's government regulation model from a welfare perspective. First, we construct a material deprivation index (MDI) of forestry worker families based on a new individual-level household survey data collected from 56 state forest enterprises (SFEs) across three provinces in China. Second, combined with historical enterprise-level attrition data in SFEs, we find that, during the period of China's Natural Forest Protection Program, the “only-out, no-in” staff-reduction policy alleviated the material deprivation of forestry worker families. Various identification strategies including the instrumental variable method have confirmed the above causal relationship. Third, we further divide the MDI into three subindexes: quality of life, living environment, and social relations. We find that the cumulative staff-reduction scale has negative causal effect on reducing forestry worker families' material deprivation in terms of the second subindex, but has no effect in terms of the first and third subindexes. Lastly, when the sample is divided into two groups—households living on the mountain and down the hill—the negative causal effect exists only for the latter group. These results update the empirical literature on government regulation model effectiveness and provide significant references for comparative studies on forest management model diversity. They hold substantial implications for the innovation and optimization of forest management models in developing countries.
期刊介绍:
Forest Policy and Economics is a leading scientific journal that publishes peer-reviewed policy and economics research relating to forests, forested landscapes, forest-related industries, and other forest-relevant land uses. It also welcomes contributions from other social sciences and humanities perspectives that make clear theoretical, conceptual and methodological contributions to the existing state-of-the-art literature on forests and related land use systems. These disciplines include, but are not limited to, sociology, anthropology, human geography, history, jurisprudence, planning, development studies, and psychology research on forests. Forest Policy and Economics is global in scope and publishes multiple article types of high scientific standard. Acceptance for publication is subject to a double-blind peer-review process.