资本循环视角下农地流转的空间格局与机制——以武汉市蔡甸区为例

土地等资源的确权流转开启了资本在乡村地域的循环,资本类型与农地用途之间按市场原则重新匹配。本文建构了资本循环作用于农地流转的理论框架,并以武汉市蔡甸区为例,结合村级多源数据,实证了中国大城市近郊农地流转的微观空间格局及机理。在理论层面,研究揭示出不同类型资本流向不同农地用途,形成不同的资本循环模式,并通过“资金实力”或“经济附加值”影响农地流转率;在实证层面,研究发现村级农地流转率的分布具有明显的空间集聚特征。在控制自然条件、区位、社会经济等因素后,资本循环对农地流转的影响显著且存在空间差异。就资本类型而言,“城市工商资本”与“城乡混合资本”对农地流转具有显著正向影响,前者对“城边村”的影响大于“远郊村”,后者反之,“乡村内生资本”的影响不显著。就农地用途而言,现代农业对农地流转有显著正向影响,对平原地区的影响程度大于山地和丘陵地区,传统农业、休闲农业影响不显著。从资本循环模式来看,城市工商资本-现代农业、乡村内生资本-传统农业、城乡混合资本-传统农业对农地流转具有显著正向影响,前者在现代农业原有基础好的地区影响程度更高,而后两者影响程度的空间分异较小。助力农地流转和乡村振兴的政策应因地、因资本循环制宜。

Spatial patterns of farmland transfer and the mechanisms from the perspective of capital cycle: A case study of Caidian,Wuhan city

Delineation and transfer of property rights over the rural resources such as farmland start the cycle of capital in the rural areas, which promotes the match between different types of capital and various land use types according to the principle of free market. This paper frames theoretically how the capital cycle affects the farmland transfer, and explores empirically the spatial patterns of villages' farmland transfer in Caidian District, Wuhan City and the underlying mechanism, based on the data at village level from multiple sources. The theoretical framework defines capital cycle as three dimensions: capital types, land use types and their matches; explains various impacts of different models of capital cycles over the degree of farmland transfer with the financing capacity of capital holders and profitability of land uses. Empirical findings are as follows: the spatial distribution of the degrees of villages' farmland transfer presents a prominent pattern of agglomeration. After controlling the factors like natural conditions, location, and socio-economic elements, the variables measuring the capital cycle produce significant effects on the degree of farmland transfer. For different types of capital, urban industrial and commercial capital and mixed urban and rural capital have a significant positive impact. The impact of the former is stronger for the remote villages far away from the urban core, while that of the latter is stronger for the suburban villages. The impact of rural endogenous capital is not significant. For different purposes of land use, the impact of modern agriculture is positive and significant, and stronger in the plain area than in the mountainous and hilly areas, while the impacts of traditional agriculture and leisure agriculture are not significant. As to the different matches, the matches of urban industrial and commercial capital with modern agriculture, rural endogenous capital with traditional agriculture, urban-rural mixed capital with traditional agriculture show a significant positive impact. The impact of the first match is stronger in the areas with good original foundation of modern agriculture than in other areas, while that of the later two matches shows little spatial difference. Policy-making to promote farmland transfer and rural vitalization should fully consider local conditions and specific models of capital cycle.