Reforms, incentives, welfare and productivity growth in Chinese wheat production

Following the 1978 rural reform, a series of agricultural reforms were introduced in China with an aim to create incentives for the farmers to produce more. However, the nineties’ reforms towards liberalization eventually resulted in a huge drop in agricultural production, which apparently motivated the grain self-sufficiency program in 1998. For a dataset that covers wheat production during these reforms, we examine how and to what extent these reforms affected the Total Factor Productivity (TFP) and the welfare of wheat farmers in China, both at the national and at the regional level. We find that although the nineties' price reforms led to a relatively faster growth of the incentivized TFP of wheat production, they failed to improve profits vis a vis welfare for the farmers. A series of weather shocks in the early nineties resulted in a scarcity of cultivable land and a shortage of agricultural labour, which eventually led to a sharp increase in their relative prices. The introduction of grain self-sufficiency program stabilized these agricultural prices but destroyed the growth in TFP for most regions. However, this reform resulted in some improvement in farmers’ welfare. Wheat farmers in China therefore experienced a trade off between productivity and welfare; competition boosted their productivity and regulation improved their welfare. Not only these findings add a completely new set of results to the existing literature, they can also form a strong basis for future agricultural reforms in China.

Receipt for Rent - 1867

A rent receipt for Mr. Cowan Sr. dated August 19th 1867. The amount paid is $1.50 to Canada Presbyterian Church in Thorold, 3months for July 1st to October 1st.

Receipt from St. Catharines and Welland Canal Gas Light Company for gas rent

Receipt from St. Catharines and Welland Canal Gas Light Company for gas rent, July 4, 1887.

Receipt from St. Catharines Water Works for water rent

Receipt from St. Catharines Water Works for water rent, Aug. 18, 1887.

Receipt from St. Catharines and Welland Canal Gas Light Company for gas rent

Receipt from St. Catharines and Welland Canal Gas Light Company for gas rent, Sept. 3, 1887.

Receipt from St. Catharines Water Works for water rent

Receipt from St. Catharines Water Works for water rent, Oct. 1, 1887.

Receipt from St. Catharines and Welland Canal Gas Light Company for gas rent

Receipt from St. Catharines and Welland Canal Gas Light Company for gas rent, Dec. 31, 1887.

Receipt from W.H. Eckhardt, Star Music Store, St. Catharines for rent of machine

Receipt from W.H. Eckhardt, Star Music Store, St. Catharines for rent of machine, Feb. 1, 1888.

Innis Lecture: Can the Theory of Incentives Explain Decentralization?

This survey presents within a single model three theories of decentralization of decision-making within organizations based on private information and incentives. Renegotiation, collusion, and limits on communication are three sufficient conditions for decentralization to be optimal.

On the Political Economy of Sequential Reforms

This paper proposes an explanation for why efficient reforms are not carried out when losers have the power to block their implementation, even though compensating them is feasible. We construct a signaling model with two-sided incomplete information in which a government faces the task of sequentially implementing two reforms by bargaining with interest groups. The organization of interest groups is endogenous. Compensations are distortionary and government types differ in the concern about distortions. We show that, when compensations are allowed to be informative about the government’s type, there is a bias against the payment of compensations and the implementation of reforms. This is because paying high compensations today provides incentives for some interest groups to organize and oppose subsequent reforms with the only purpose of receiving a transfer. By paying lower compensations, governments attempt to prevent such interest groups from organizing. However, this comes at the cost of reforms being blocked by interest groups with relatively high losses.

Perfectionism, Economic (dis)Incentives, and Political Coercion

May a government attempt to improve the lives of its citizens by promoting the activities it deems valuable and discouraging those it disvalues? May it engage in such a practice even when doing so is not a requirement of justice in some strict sense, and even when the judgments of value and disvalue in question are likely to be subject to controversy among its citizens? These questions have long stood at the center of debates between political perfectionists and political neutralists. In what follows I address a prominent cluster of arguments against political perfectionism—namely, arguments that focus on the coercive dimensions of state action. My main claim is simple: whatever concerns we might have about coercion, arguments from coercion fall short of supporting a thoroughgoing rejection of perfectionism, for the reason that perfectionist policies need not be coercive. Thlist challenges to this last claim.

Economic Incentives and Liberal Equality

In order to assess to the degree to which the provision of economic incentives can result in justified inequalities, we need to distinguish between compensatory incentive payments and non-compensatory incentive payments. From a liberal egalitarian perspective, economic inequalities traceable to the provision of compensatory incentive payments are generally justifiable. However, economic inequalities created by the provision of non-compensatory incentive payments are more problematic. I argue that in non-ideal circumstances justice may permit and even require the provision of non-compensatory incentives despite the fact that those who receive non-compensatory payments are not entitled to them. In some circumstances, justice may require us to accede to unreasonable demands for incentive payments by hard bargainers. This leads to a kind of paradox: from a systemic point of view, non-compensatory incentive payments can be justified even though those who receive them have no just claim to them.