EN中文

Journal of Resources and Ecology >

2025 , Vol. 16 >Issue 1: 36 - 48

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2025.01.004

Resource Economy

China’s Construction of an Agricultural Powerhouse—Experience and Inspiration from Representative Countries

  • FENG He ,
  • CHEN Yangfen , *
Expand
  • Institute of Agricultural Economics and Development, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China
*CHEN Yangfen, E-mail:

FENG He, E-mail:

Received date: 2024-01-20

  Accepted date: 2024-09-02

  Online published: 2025-01-21

Supported by

National Social Science Fund of China(21&ZD093)

National Natural Science Foundation of China(41871109)

Agricultural Science and Technology Innovation Program(CAAS-CSAERD-202402)

Agricultural Science and Technology Innovation Program(10-IAED-RC-09-2024)

Agricultural Science and Technology Innovation Program(10-IAED-04-2024)

Fold

Abstract

The construction of an agricultural powerhouse in China is confronted with the practical dilemma of relying mainly on small-scale farming and weak agricultural competitiveness, so an exploration of feasible paths for building an agricultural powerhouse is urgently needed. This study constructed indicator systems that reflect the level of agricultural development from three dimensions: resource endowment, output status, and urban-rural relations. On this basis, the gap between China and the world’s representative agricultural powers was analyzed, and the evolutionary characteristics of agricultural policies in the European Union, Japan, and the United States were explored, leading to relevant policy implications. This analysis found that the superficial problems of China's agricultural development lie in the relative scarcity of good resource conditions and insufficient modernization, while the underlying crux lies in the lack of obvious industrial competitive advantages, which is especially reflected in the lack of coordinated development between industry, agriculture, and urban-rural areas. The European Union, Japan, and the United States all focus on improving the international competitiveness of agriculture based on their comparative advantages, attach importance to the comprehensive development of rural areas, and have effectively constructed coordinated industry-agriculture and urban-rural relations, all of which have promoted the comprehensive development of agriculture. China’s construction of an agricultural powerhouse should be based on its national conditions and the general laws governing the building a world-class agricultural powerhouse. The strategy should include focusing on building a diversified food supply system to ensure food security; focusing on the modernization of agricultural science and technology, which will promote the process of agricultural modernization; promoting the development of the entire agricultural industry chain, which will enhance the competitiveness and risk resistance of the agricultural industry; accelerating public policy reform and continuing to promote urban-rural integration.

Key words： modernized agriculture; agricultural powerhouse; industry-agriculture and urban-rural relations; agricultural policy

Cite this article

FENG He , CHEN Yangfen . China’s Construction of an Agricultural Powerhouse—Experience and Inspiration from Representative Countries[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2025 , 16(1) : 36 -48 . DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2025.01.004

1 Introduction

Agriculture is the primary industry of the national economy (Marx, 1975). In 2022, the total population of China reached 1411.75 million①, and China had 127.58×106 ha of arable land②. With a large population and proportionally small land area, special attention must be paid to rural development. China’s reform and opening-up began in the agricultural sector, with the promotion of rural participation in industrialization and urbanization as the main focus (Chen et al., 2014). In the early 1980s, the main problem in agricultural development was the shortage of agricultural products. China successfully addressed the issue of food scarcity by implementing production-oriented agricultural policies. From 1978 to 1984, the household contract responsibility system was put into place, and reforms in the agricultural product price system were carried out simultaneously. Together, these two initiatives fueled the growth of China’s agriculture. At the beginning of the 21st century, the Chinese government increased its support for agricultural development through a series of policies based on the guidelines of “Giving More, Taking Less, and Loosening Control”. These policies included reducing the burden of agricultural taxes and fees and increasing financial expenditures on agriculture (Liu et al., 2008; Wang and Shen, 2014).
In terms of actual results, China’s agricultural development has achieved remarkable improvements. The conditions of farmland infrastructure have improved dramatically. For example, the effective irrigated area of farmland has increased from 4.497×105 km2 in 1978 to 7.036×105 km2 in 2022, an average annual increase of 1.02%. Agricultural technology and equipment conditions have improved significantly, with the total power of agricultural machinery increasing from 1.175×108 kW in 1978 to 1.106×109 kW in 2022, an average annual increase of 5.23%. The improved agricultural infrastructure has brought about a boom in food production and agricultural industries. For example, grain output has increased from 3.0477×108 t in 1978 to 6.8653×108 t in 2022, an average annual increase of 1.86%. The gross value of agricultural output increased from 1.1175×1011 yuan in 1978 to 8.4439×1012 yuan in 2022, an average annual increase of 10.33% ③.
While Chinese agriculture has achieved remarkable results, it also faces many difficulties and challenges. At the end of the 20th century, China’s per capita possession of resources declined due to population growth, and the non-agriculturalization of resources led to the loss of agricultural resources. The constraints of poor resource endowment in agriculture have persisted for a long time (Veeck et al., 2020). However, the population’s demand for high-quality and diversified agricultural products continues to rise (Christiansen, 2009). Cultivated land per capita was only 0.09 ha per person in 2022④. In 2021, the per capita consumption of poultry, aquatic products, eggs, and milk by Chinese residents were 12.3, 14.2, 13.2, and 14.4 kg, respectively. Compared with 2013, the average annual growth rates were only 6.92%, 3.97%, 6.13%, and 2.63%, respectively⑤. In addition, there are differences between China and the world’s agricultural powerhouses in terms of the basis for industrialization, the operating system of the national economy, and the degree of organization of agricultural production. The process of agricultural modernization lags behind in China, and there are gaps in the levels of modernization and development between different regions (Zhang et al., 2015). A regional decentralization strategy focusing on industrialization and urbanization development was implemented in the early years of China’s reform and opening up (Lu and Chen, 2006). The implementation of systems such as the Urban Welfare Guarantee System (UWGS) and the dual ownership system between urban and rural areas has solidified the urban-rural divide and the dual structure (Gao, 2004). However, agricultural development has been constrained to some extent, and there is an urgent need to build an agricultural powerhouse with Chinese characteristics.
In 2017, the Chinese government proposed building a strong, modernized socialist country. As an important component, an agricultural powerhouse was officially proposed in 2022. Officially, this proposal mainly refers to five aspects: strong supply security, strong science and technology equipment, strong business system, strong industrial resilience, and strong competitive ability. But the question remains: How can China grow from a largely agricultural country to an agricultural powerhouse?
At the theoretical level, agricultural development originated from the theory of division of labor. The process of agricultural development is characterized by the expansion of the agricultural industry, the development of agriculture-related industries, and the close integration of industry and agriculture (Wang and Luo, 2003). With the deepening of the division of labor, modern agriculture has become an inevitable trend in agricultural development because it can ensure long-term agricultural growth (Yang and Zhu, 2013). Schultz emphasized that traditional agriculture in developing countries could not contribute to economic growth, and that weak traditional agriculture should be transformed into modern agriculture to turn it into a high-productivity sector, i.e., modernized agriculture (Schultz, 1987). The theory of induced innovation suggests that choosing pathways that can effectively remove resource endowment constraints is a necessary condition for rapid growth in a country’s agricultural productivity and output. An in-depth study of technological and institutional changes by Yujiro Hayami and Vernon W. Rutta suggested that in order to maintain sustained agricultural growth, agricultural resource development should be transformed into the development of resource conservation or enhancement technologies (Hayami and Rutta, 2000).
At the practical level, agricultural development on a global scale has gone through three main paradigms: productivism, post-productivism, and multifunctionalism. In the post-World War II period, the production paradigm of agricultural development had the increase of food production and the maximization of agricultural production as its main objectives (Marsden et al., 1993). Excessive food production and the misuse of chemical fertilizers and pesticides have brought about ecological problems such as resource depletion and environmental pollution, resulting in the evolution of productivism to post-productivism (McCarthy, 2005). The post-productivist paradigm targets product quality, environmental friendliness, and sustainability, which emphasizes reduced inputs and appropriate outputs. It emphasizes de-agriculturalization and de-production and attaches importance to the non-agricultural production function of agricultural land (Argent, 2020). The late 1980s saw the rise of the theory of multifunctional agriculture, a paradigm that regionalizes, humanizes, and integrates the productionist and post-productionist paradigms (Wilson, 2007; 2010). It emphasizes the diversified functions of agriculture in social, economic, ecological, and cultural aspects, and focuses on the diversified links between agriculture and other industrial sectors.
Industrialization and urbanization have deepened the connection between the agricultural and non-agricultural sectors, which has increased non-agricultural employment opportunities. Urbanization has also promoted economic development and social progress (Zhang, 2016). However, against the backdrop of slow urbanization in China, industrialization can no longer absorb the large amount of surplus agricultural labor (Zhu et al., 2019). At the economic, social, and ecological levels, some rural areas are gradually declining. The tension between people and land is intensifying, and social problems such as rural hollowing out, reduced community cohesion, and urban-rural conflict are becoming more prominent (Yang et al., 2024). The natural ecology and human settlement environment are polluted and damaged (Jiang et al., 2022a). Critical nodes in rural community networks help to overcome persistent structural inequalities between rural and urban areas (He and Zhang, 2022); and promoting coordinated urban-rural development can provide a solid foundation for agricultural development. The theory and practice of agricultural development suggests that resource endowment, output level, and urban-rural relations are all aspects that should be emphasized in the process of agricultural development.
The existing research provides useful experiences and a solid foundation for examining these issues regarding the basic logic, practical challenges, and implementation paths for building agricultural power in China (Wei and Cui, 2022; Huang and Fu, 2023; Xue and Gao, 2023). However, there is still room for conducting in-depth research to draw on the experiences of other countries’ agricultural policy development histories. The marginal contribution of this study lies in enriching the indicator evaluation system of the world’s agricultural powerhouses while sorting out the developmental history of agricultural policies of the representative agricultural powerhouses. Starting from their policy-making characteristics, this study provides a unique perspective and systematic thinking regarding the question of “How can China build an agricultural powerhouse?”
The second part of this article introduces the research methodology, the basis for constructing the international comparative evaluation system of the indicators of agricultural powerhouses, and the data sources. The third part compares and analyzes China’s situation relative to the world's representative agricultural powerhouses and introduces the existing shortcomings and bottlenecks in China’s agricultural development. The fourth part introduces the developmental history of agricultural policies in the European Union, Japan, and the United States, and analyzes their common features. The fifth part summarizes and puts forward the limitations of this study and feasible suggestions for building an agricultural powerhouse with Chinese characteristics.

2 Research methodology and basis for the selection of indicators

The agricultural sector is vulnerable to macroeconomic factors, and economic growth increases the demand for agricultural and food products. The overall context of a country’s agricultural development is measured in terms of nominal GDP per capita (Jiang et al., 2022b). The contribution of the agricultural sector to a country's economic growth is measured in terms of the share of agricultural GDP, and in developed countries, this value is generally below 10% (Zhang et al., 2015). Sustained productivity growth is essential for the development of the world's agricultural systems. Crop yield growth and the expansion of arable land are the two main determinants of agricultural output growth (Zhong and Ba, 2023). The former reflects the level of agricultural output, while the latter reflects the status of resource endowment conditions. Trade links the production and consumption sides of the globe; and agricultural exports are an important source of income for many countries which, to some extent, reflect the performance of the agricultural sector (OECD/FAO, 2021). China’s trade in agricultural products has been in a deficit in recent years, and the net export of agricultural products is used to measure the potential for agricultural product trade (Yang and Yang, 2020).
Higher rates of urbanization can provide strong support for agricultural development. The world’s agricultural powerhouses typically possess high levels of physical and technical equipment in agriculture. Gross fixed asset formation per agricultural laborer is used to measure the level of physical investment in agriculture (Donckt et al., 2021), and it can indirectly reflect the basic material conditions for the development of agricultural modernization. Agricultural labor productivity and output efficiency increase with the level of agricultural modernization (Wädekin, 1984), and the ratio of non-agricultural labor force output per labor force to agricultural labor force output per labor force decreases. The number of people working in agriculture decreases as the agricultural labor force moves to other non-agricultural sectors. Agricultural productivity urgently needs to be transformed (Zhang and Wang, 2024), and it is reasonable to measure the output level based on the average value of agricultural labor output. The percentage of agricultural workers and the ratio of output per laborer in the non-agricultural sector to the agricultural sector is used as a preliminary measure of the urban-rural relationship.
Based on the problems that exist in China's agricultural development, this study divided the above indicators into three categories: resource endowment, output status, and urban-rural relations. China can be compared with representative agricultural powerhouses in the world to identify the deficiencies in China’s agricultural development (Table 1).
Table 1 International comparative evaluation system of the main indicators of strong agricultural countries
Grade 1 Grade 2 Method of calculation
Resource endowment (I) Nominal GDP per capita GDP/population
(II) Cultivated land area per capita Cultivated land area/population
(III) Gross fixed asset formation per agricultural labor Gross fixed asset formation in agriculture/number of people working in agriculture
Status of outputs (IV) Cereal yields Total output/sown area
(V) Net exports of agricultural products Export amount- import amount
(VI) Average value of agricultural labor output Value added in agriculture/number of people working in agriculture
Urban-rural relations (VII) Ratio of output per laborer in the non-agricultural sector to the agricultural sector Non-agricultural labor force output per labor force/agricultural labor force output per labor force
(VIII) Urbanization rate Urban population/total population
(IX) Percentage of agricultural workers Number of agricultural workers/employed population
(X) Share of agricultural GDP Agricultural GDP/total GDP

Note: Data sources: Nominal GDP per capita, cereal yields, value added in agriculture, value added in agriculture as a share of GDP, and urbanization rates were obtained from the World Bank: https://data.worldbank.org.cn/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD, https://data.worldbank.org/.Indicator/AG.YLD.CREL.KG, https://data.worldbank.org.cn/indicator/NV.AGR.TOTL.ZS, and https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS, respectively. Cultivated land area, population size, gross fixed asset formation in agriculture, agricultural exports, agricultural imports, number of people employed in agriculture, and percentage of people employed in agriculture were obtained from FAO database: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/RL, https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/OA, https://www.fao.org/faostat/zh/#data/CISP, https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/TCL, and https://www.fao.org/faostat/zh/#data/OEA, respectively.

3 Findings and analysis

3.1 Resource endowment

China’s nominal GDP per capita in 2021 was the lowest, at only 12556.33 USD. Therefore, the overall economic environment in which China’s agricultural development takes place still has much room for improvement. There is a large gap between China’s per capita arable land area and those of Australia, Canada, and the United States. China is basically at the same level as Israel, the Netherlands, and Japan (Table 2). These comparisons show that the resource constraints faced by China still exist. In the three representative years of 2001, 2011, and 2021, China’s gross fixed asset formation per agricultural laborer is much lower than those of the other countries (Figure 1). This reflects the fact that China’s overall level of agricultural modernization is far from the levels of agriculturally developed countries.
Table 2 Comparative evaluation of the main indicators of the world’s agricultural powerhouses
Country Resource endowment Status of outputs Urban-rural relations
I
(USD)		 II
(ha per capita)		 III
(USD person-1)		 IV
(kg ha-1)		 V
(1000 USD)		 VI
(USD per capita)		 VII VIII
(%)		 IX
(%)		 X
(%)
United States 70248.63 0.47① 24536.03 8268.0 1289868.42 88201.40 1.60 82.87 1.70 0.96
Canada 51987.94 1.01① 23273.74 3078.3 18871325.20 105731.01② 0.80② 81.65 1.30 1.70②
France* 43658.98 0.28① 20265.82 7170.9 13000797.14 71799.36 1.32 81.24 2.40 1.64
Germany* 51203.55 0.14① 26295.15 6998.1 -17840758.53 70056.73 1.41 77.54 1.20 0.85
Australia 60443.11 1.19① 33396.65 2548.0 27214713.74 112625.76 1.00 86.36 2.40 2.31
The Netherlands* 57767.88 0.06① 31410.99 7872.3 35409612.11 76390.84 1.38 92.57 2.20 1.55
Israel 52170.71 0.04① 31065.93 3508.8 -5735817.00 184829.34 0.62 92.67 0.90 1.26
Japan 39312.66 0.03① 5193.65 6787.3 -55607059.00 24710.04① 3.02① 91.87 3.10 1.04①
China 12556.33 0.08① 1030.62 6320.8 -143261089.25 6826.03 4.07 62.51 23.99 7.26

Note: Indicators followed by an asterisk (*) are for EU Member States; data followed by ① are for 2020; those followed by ② are for 2018; and the rest are for 2021. The Roman numerals “I” - “X” represent the corresponding indicators in Table 1. Indicator VII, Ratio of output per laborer in the non-agricultural sector to the agricultural sector, is a ratio without units.

Figure 1 Gross fixed asset formation per agricultural laborer by country in 2001, 2011, and 2021

3.2 Status of outputs

The country with the highest grain yields in 2021 was the United States, while Australia had the lowest level of grain yields. China had a high cereal yield level of 6320.8 kg ha-1. However, China is a net importer of agricultural products and is highly dependent on the international agricultural market. In 2021, the average value of the agricultural labor force in China was only 6826.03 USD, and the value of this indicator in Israel was about 27.08 times higher than that of China. In 2020, the average value of the agricultural labor force in Japan was the lowest among the developed countries in the agricultural sector, at 24710.04 USD. The gap between China and Japan in terms of the average value of agricultural labor output is still very large.

3.3 Urban-rural relations

Israel, the Netherlands, and Japan had urbanization rates greater than 90% in 2021. The urbanization rates in Australia, the United States, Canada, and France exceeded 80%. China’s urbanization rate was only 61.43%, so there is still much room for further urbanization. Although the proportion of agricultural added value in China’s GDP continues to decline, it is still significantly higher than those of the developed agricultural countries, and the percentage of agri cultural workers and the ratio of output per laborer in the non-agricultural sector to the agricultural sector in each country from 2001 to 2021 showed general downward trends. The rate of decline in the percentage of agricultural workers and the rate of decline in the ratio of output per laborer in the non-agricultural sector to the agricultural sector show that the faster the reduction of agricultural employees, the faster the reduction of the ratio of output per laborer in the non-agricultural sector to the agricultural sector. These two indicators are still much higher in China than in the other countries (Table 3). In contrast, this comparison shows that although China has a large population of agricultural workers, the output effectiveness created by the agricultural sector is still low.
Table 3 Percentage of agricultural workers and the ratio of output per laborer in the non-agricultural sector to the agricultural sector by country, 2001-2021
Country China United States Canada France Germany Australia The Netherlands Israel Japan
IX (%) VII IX (%) VII IX (%) VII IX (%) VII IX (%) VII IX (%) VII IX (%) VII IX (%) VII IX (%) VII
2001 50.00 5.96 2.10 1.79 2.20 0.92 4.10 1.67 2.60 2.23 4.80 1.27 2.90 1.28 2.00 0.90 4.70 3.35
2002 50.00 6.27 2.00 1.91 2.10 0.95 4.10 1.78 2.50 2.54 4.40 1.04 2.70 1.23 2.00 0.86 4.50 3.16
2003 49.10 6.53 1.80 1.50 2.10 0.92 4.20 2.00 2.40 2.64 3.90 1.28 2.90 1.36 1.90 0.86 4.50 3.33
2004 46.90 5.67 1.80 1.29 2.00 0.84 3.90 1.84 2.40 2.22 3.70 1.15 3.20 1.61 2.00 1.00 4.50 3.51
2005 44.80 5.84 1.70 1.38 2.10 1.02 3.60 1.88 2.40 2.92 3.60 1.18 3.50 1.78 2.00 0.86 4.30 3.77
2006 42.60 5.91 1.70 1.56 2.10 1.13 3.70 2.15 2.30 2.78 3.40 1.19 3.50 1.70 1.80 0.78 4.20 3.75
2007 40.80 5.74 1.60 1.38 2.00 1.15 3.40 1.88 2.30 2.67 3.30 1.45 3.20 1.68 1.60 0.76 4.10 3.85
2008 39.60 5.54 1.60 1.42 1.90 1.00 2.70 1.58 1.80 1.97 3.20 1.32 3.00 1.75 1.70 0.79 4.10 3.83
2009 38.10 5.57 1.60 1.51 2.00 1.12 2.90 1.91 1.70 2.24 3.20 1.33 2.90 1.76 1.70 0.65 4.10 3.62
2010 36.70 5.49 1.70 1.50 1.80 1.08 2.90 1.56 1.60 1.87 3.20 1.39 2.80 1.46 1.60 0.74 3.90 3.41
2011 34.80 5.14 1.80 1.31 1.80 0.91 2.90 1.52 1.60 1.69 2.80 1.17 2.50 1.48 1.40 0.64 3.70 3.23
2012 33.60 4.93 1.70 1.33 1.80 0.87 2.90 1.53 1.60 1.73 2.80 1.17 2.50 1.38 1.10 0.66 3.80 3.25
2013 31.40 4.58 1.60 1.12 1.80 0.85 3.00 1.79 1.40 1.44 2.60 1.08 1.90 0.98 1.20 0.74 3.60 3.28
2014 29.50 4.36 1.70 1.30 1.70 0.98 2.80 1.58 1.40 1.49 2.80 1.19 2.10 1.11 1.10 0.73 3.50 3.46
2015 28.30 4.26 1.80 1.61 1.60 0.80 2.70 1.46 1.40 1.93 2.60 1.04 2.10 1.14 1.00 0.66 3.50 3.31
2016 32.30 4.35 1.80 1.77 1.90 0.95 2.80 1.73 1.30 1.78 2.60 1.03 2.10 1.09 1.00 0.65 3.40 2.95
2017 31.60 4.59 1.80 1.76 1.50 0.73 2.60 1.47 1.30 1.43 2.60 0.90 2.00 1.03 1.00 0.65 3.30 2.90
2018 30.70 4.69 1.70 1.79 1.50 0.80 2.50 1.32 1.20 1.74 2.60 1.01 1.90 1.09 0.90 0.64 3.40 3.22
2019 29.60 4.44 1.70 1.90 1.50 0.85 2.50 1.45 1.20 1.49 2.60 1.15 1.90 1.09 0.90 0.66 3.30 3.12
2020 28.40 4.10 1.70 1.65 1.60 0.84 2.30 1.32 1.30 1.66 2.80 1.29 1.90 1.10 0.90 0.62 3.20 3.02
2021 23.99 4.07 1.70 1.60 1.30 0.83 2.40 1.32 1.20 1.41 2.40 1.00 2.20 1.38 0.90 0.62 3.10 3.08

Note: IX represents percentage of agricultural workers; VII represents the ratio of output per laborer in the non-agricultural sector to the agricultural sector.

The above analysis shows that the first set of superficial problems and the corresponding core crux of the construction of China’s agricultural power are currently the poor condition of resource endowment and the failure to form stable characteristics of the agricultural industry, respectively. Compared with Australia, Canada, the United States, and other countries with good comprehensive strength, China’s agricultural resource endowment conditions are poor. Although the agricultural volumes of Israel, the Netherlands, and Japan are small, Israel and the Netherlands have comparative advantages and strong competitiveness in the export of high-quality seeds, flower exports, and the development of agricultural technology and equipment facilities. Through the development of organic agriculture and brand-name agriculture, Japan has improved the added value of the agricultural industry and has a high degree of commercialization of agricultural products by virtue of the high quality of its international reputation. Compared with these three countries, China lacks an advantageous agricultural industry with international competitiveness.
The second set of superficial problems and the corresponding core crux are related to the low level of agricultural modernization. The development of urban and rural areas is not coordinated, and the effect of labor transfer is not significant. China’s agricultural modernization level is relatively low. The fact that the domestic cereal production level is strong is undeniable. However, compared with developed agricultural countries, China’s gross fixed asset formation per agricultural laborer and average value of agricultural labor output are both low. The problem of uncoordinated development between industry and agriculture, as well as between urban and rural areas, still exists in China. The number of people working in agriculture in China is huge, and the share of agricultural value added to GDP is much higher than those of agriculturally developed countries. However, the low average value of agricultural labor output indicates the poor effect of agricultural labor transfer in China. Combined with the reality of a low urbanization rate, this indicates that there is much room for improvement in the relationship between industry and agriculture, as well as between the urban and rural areas.

4 Insights from the history of agricultural policy development in representative countries

The implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has produced excellent results in the development of agriculture in the EU, and CAP has become an excellent model for high-quality agricultural development in other parts of the world. Japan and China have similar resource endowment structures. In the process of agricultural development, China has also faced conflicts such as a decline of agricultural productivity and a widening of the gap between workers and peasants, as well as between urban and rural areas. The United States is a superpower in agricultural production and agricultural trade, and a series of agricultural policies have played an important role in promoting and safeguarding the development of American agriculture. The specific practices of the European Union, Japan, and the United States for addressing agricultural issues are worth learning from to guide the practices in China. Therefore, this study analyzed the key points of agricultural policy development history in the EU, Japan, and the United States separately.

4.1 History of EU agricultural policy: Focus on rural areas

The CAP was created in 1962 by the six founding members of the European Community, based on the fundamental principles of community priority, a single market, price support, and enhanced financial support (Figure 2). It was initially dedicated to promoting the growth of agricultural production and the modernization of agriculture. However, remote and poor regions also need more attention and assistance in order for agriculture to develop steadily. Therefore, between the 1990s and 2006, there was a shift in policy focus towards the promotion of rural areas. This policy transition was aimed at addressing the problems of agricultural surplus, environmental degradation, and lagging development in rural areas. The Cork Declaration of 1996 put forward a strategy for prioritizing agricultural development, and the European Union established the second pillar of the Consolidated Appeal Process in 2000, which was dedicated to rural development. The budgetary expenditure of the second pillar accounts for 10% of the total agricultural budget, and it is expected to promote the diversification of rural economic activities by utilizing the multifunctionality of agriculture.
Figure 2 Review of changes in the focus of the EU common agricultural policy
The 2003 reform set the single farm payment policy and the principle of cross-compliance. Norms were established in the areas of food safety, environmental protection, sanitation, and animal protection. It emphasized the strengthening the links between agriculture and industries, such as the food and leisure industries, and providing a fairer distribution of support and incentives for young people to engage in agriculture. Since 2014, the EU has directed financial aid and resources to support infrastructure development and productive activities on land. The national allocations of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for the period 2014-2020 are shown in Table 4. One of the key focus areas of the policy at that time was the organization of the food chain. Numerous agribusinesses received support for their involvement in risk management and its related activities. In this way, the stable and efficient operation of the upstream and downstream agricultural chain could be ensured. The CAP 2023-2027, launched in 2021, set for the first time ten segmented objectives encompassing the position of farmers in the value chain, support for the intergenerational renewal of farmers, and enhancement of the vitality of rural areas. To ensure that rural areas receive adequate support, Member States are to provide a minimum of 20% to unified support for rural development projects when setting up national or regional programs⑥.
Table 4 Summary of European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) allocations, 2014-2020 (Unit: 106 Euros)
Country Allocation amount Country Allocation amount Country Allocation amount Country Allocation amount
Belgium 648 Greece 4718 Lithuania 1613 Portugal 4058
Bulgaria 2367 Spain 8297 Luxembourg 101 Romania 8128
Czech Republic 2306 France 11385 Hungary 3431 Slovenia 838
Denmark 919 Croatia 2026 Malta 97 Slovakia 1560
Germany 9446 Italy 10444 The Netherlands 765 Finland 2380
Estonia 823 Cyprus 132 Austria 3938 Sweden 1764
Ireland 2191 Latvia 1076 Poland 8698

Note: Data source: https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/5ca48161-5b83-4d93-bf26-5587c20c59b1_en?filename=rdp-2014-20-list_en.pdf.

4.2 Japan: High added value and strong competitiveness

In 1961, Japan enacted the Agricultural Basic Law, which was the most comprehensive and macro-guiding law in Japan, and until 1999, this policy had been the “mother law” leading the comprehensive development of Japan’s agriculture and rural areas (Figure 3). It emphasized the development of industrialized management that integrates agricultural production, processing, and distribution. Between the 1960s and the end of the 20th century, the development of Japan’s rural areas lagged behind that of its urban areas. The government introduced a series of policies and acts to address this issue, such as the Peninsula Revitalization Act, the Comprehensive Recreation Area Development Act, and the Citizen’s Farm Preparation Promotion Act. The government introduced urban capital into rural areas and promoted interaction, exchange, and integration between the urban and rural areas. These policies laid the institutional foundation for the proposal of the “Sixth Industry” of agriculture, which was first proposed by Imamura Naraom in the 1990s. It aimed to further develop the industrialization of agriculture and increase the added value of agriculture in multiple segments and through multiple channels, by superimposing and integrating the primary, secondary, and tertiary industries. In the 21st century, with the development of the “Sixth Industry” achieving remarkable results, Japan integrated “local consumption of local produce” with it. Note that “local consumption of local produce” and “Sixth Industry” are mutually reinforcing, forming a virtuous circle.
Figure 3 Timeline of the main agricultural policy developments in Japan
In addition, Japan’s agricultural policymaking in the 21st century has also focused on the two main goals of “high-value added” and “strong competitiveness”. In 2005, the revised Basic Plan for Food, Agriculture, and Rural Areas emphasized the creation of high-value-added agriculture and the promotion of exports of high-quality and safe agricultural products. The 2010 revision of the Basic Plan for Food, Agriculture and Rural Areas proposed revitalizing the food industry and continuing to enhance agriculture through the “Sixth Industry”. After 2013, the government issued the “Plan to Create Dynamism through Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries and Local Communities”, the “Agricultural Competitiveness Enhancement Program”, and the “Agricultural Competitiveness Enhancement Support Act”. The government of Japan is committed to making up for the disadvantages of agricultural development and enhancing agricultural competitiveness by strengthening agricultural production, fostering agricultural business entities, increasing the added value of agricultural products, and expanding the export of agricultural products. In recent years, the domestic market has been squeezed by the expansion of foreign markets, and domestic consumer demand has become increasingly diversified. At the same time, the number of agricultural workers and the area of arable land have both declined sharply, and public health incidents are becoming more frequent. The Japanese government issued the Basic Plan for Food, Agriculture and Rural Areas (BPFARA) in 2020, which emphasizes ensuring a stable supply of food and the sustainable development of agriculture.

4.3 United States: Systemic policy regulation

The United States uses agricultural legislation to constrain the behavior of various interest groups. Strong government protection measures were taken to create favorable conditions for agricultural development, and the world economic crisis of 1929 dealt a severe blow to U.S. agriculture. Since then, various United States agricultural policy objectives, from the promotion of productivity development to agricultural price support programs, have been the center. In 1933, the United States promulgated the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which increased agricultural production subsidies and export subsidies. Around 1950, the global agricultural market was oversupplied, and agricultural prices fell sharply. The U.S. began to increase agricultural subsidies across the board, and the Agricultural Act was enacted in 1948 to expand consumption through agricultural aid and export promotion. A worldwide food crisis emerged in 1973, which led to the near-total emptying of U.S. food stocks. The U.S. Congress passed the Agricultural and Consumer Protection Act to stop limited farming programs (Figure 4).
Figure 4 Timeline of major agricultural policy developments in the USA
The Food and Agricultural Act was fully implemented in 1977, and since then, agricultural subsidy policies have been revised and improved every five years based on changes in the domestic and international situation. The main objectives of the Food Security Act of 1985 included lowering the interest rate on commodity loans, freezing the spread of subsidies, encouraging and subsidizing land fallowing, and expanding export subsidies. Restrictions were imposed at the production level, and subsidies were provided at the distribution level. The Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 maintained fixed target prices and interest rates on agricultural loans. Farmers were free to adjust their production structure and scale according to the market. The Agricultural Act of 1996 provided for a seven-year transition period during which price and income support for farmers was discontinued. Restrictions on acreage and the types of production were eliminated, and policy objectives during this period tended to rely on market adjustment mechanisms.
International agricultural product prices fell in the early part of the 21st century, and ranchers’ farm incomes declined. To ensure global strategic interests and to dominate and regulate agricultural trade, the United States enacted the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act in 2002. Direct subsidies were implemented, expanding the types of subsidies, caps, and resource conservation areas. Counter-cyclical subsidies were added, loan interest rates were raised, and export and food aid programs were introduced. This act focused on the construction of agricultural infrastructure, agricultural science and technology, and agricultural product subsidies. At that time, the U.S. agricultural subsidy policy was based on the “yellow box” policy, which was relatively focused on major agricultural products and large-scale farmers. The 2008 Agricultural Act increased and expanded subsidies, increased target prices and marketing assistance loan rates for selected agricultural products, established the Supplemental Agricultural Disaster Assistance Program and strengthened support for bioenergy. The 2014 Food Farm Act demonstrated a clear trend toward marketization and a reduction in the amount budgeted for agricultural support. The Price Loss Protection Program and the Agricultural Risk Protection Program appeared for the first time, reinforcing the construction of an agricultural safety net.

4.4 Agricultural policy development in representative countries and regions: Common features

China’s agricultural policy focuses on market reform, which is mainly characterized by land reform and trade reform. Through specific measures such as a property rights system and trade openness, China has successfully achieved poverty reduction and remarkable results in agricultural and rural development (Lele and Goswami, 2020; Ullah et al., 2024). However, the implementation time of China’s agricultural policies has been relatively short, and a significant gap between China and the representative agricultural countries still exists. To build an agricultural powerhouse, China still needs to learn from the agricultural policy-making experiences of the European Union, Japan, and the United States. The CAP of the EU Member States focused on fostering rural competitive advantages. Japan has developed small-scale, high-value-added agriculture. The United States has emphasized government intervention and implemented systematic agricultural support and protection policies by means of agricultural legislation. Based on the development and evolution of agricultural policies in various countries, some commonalities can be identified.
First, the various policies effectively guarantee self-sufficiency in food and other key resources. Guaranteeing food security is the foundation of agricultural development (Liu and Zhou, 2021), and the EU, Japan, and the United States have always made it a priority in policy setting. The EU approved the establishment of a common market for grains and other important agricultural products as early as 1962. To date, the New Common Agricultural Policy (NCAP) continues to emphasize safeguarding long-term food security and agricultural diversity. Public interventions or support for the private storage of agricultural products such as cereals, meat, and dairy products are implemented. Japan has repeatedly set food self-sufficiency rate targets in its agricultural development policies to ensure food security, and the 2020 White Paper on Food, Agriculture, and Rural Development again proposed a series of measures to increase the food self-sufficiency rate, while focusing on strengthening the production main body, arable land, and industrial linkages. The United States, on the other hand, has gradually built an agricultural safety net for farmers, ranchers, and growers. Disaster assistance, technical assistance, crop insurance, producer protection, and other measures are provided.
Second, the policies guarantee good development in rural areas. The European Union has set up rural development funds and emphasized the cultivation of human capital in rural areas to enhance the dynamics of rural development from the bottom up. It has developed leaders and local action groups and encouraged rural residents to participate in the formulation of regional development strategies. Japan has introduced a number of policies that promote the development of infrastructure in rural areas and the diversification of the agricultural industry. These include the Outlying Islands Revitalization Act, the Yamamura Revitalization Act, the Act on Promotion of Industrial Importation in Rural Areas, and the Act on Improvement of Infrastructure in Agricultural, Mountain, and Fishing Villages. In recent years, policy settings have focused on enhancing land resilience and attracting young people to return to rural areas. The United States has established the National Rural Development Coordinating Committee to carry out rural development programs and has set up a supporting policy management system. Consistent support policies have been continued, and financial support measures for rural development have been increased.
Third, the policies strengthen the international competitiveness of agriculture. The EU is committed to strengthening the position of farmers in the supply chain. The development of producer organization associations is supported to help farmers produce, market, and promote their agricultural products. The setting of policies for agricultural production trade mechanisms is centered on market orientation. Japan focuses on enhancing the competitiveness of small farmers, developing the entire agricultural industry chain, and promoting domestic agricultural products with high added value to the international market. It has gradually deepened a series of development goals in the areas of food, six industrialization, and agricultural structure management. The United States continues to improve and expand its agricultural production trade legislation and policy system, and it maintains its dominant position in the global agricultural trade market. It has implemented a series of price support policies, export market programs, and others, and it provides farmers with a wide range of agricultural production subsidies and trade assistance guarantees.
Fourth, these policies provide support for agricultural science and technology innovation. The EU advocates for the recycling of agricultural production factors, improving the digitalization and informatization level of rural infrastructure, and emphasizing the transformation of technological innovation achievements, knowledge and technology sharing, external exchange, and cooperation. Japan is committed to increasing its investment in scientific research and innovation, and supporting public research institutions, businesses, universities, and other innovative institutions. These efforts will improve the training system for agricultural technology talents and enhance the technical level of agricultural practitioners. The United States has a mature and comprehensive system for promoting scientific research and innovation. The public and private sectors at the federal, state, and local levels are jointly committed to promoting technological innovation in agriculture.

5 Conclusions, limitations and policy recommendations

5.1 Conclusions

Based on the above analysis, the superficial problems of China’s agricultural development are poor resource endowment and a low level of modernization, and the corresponding deeper cruxes are the lack of obvious industrial advantages and the uncoordinated development of industry, agriculture, and the rural and urban areas. Developed agricultural countries promote their agricultural development based on their own resource endowment conditions and have achieved different developmental stages of the different issues for a long time. The EU has developed a unified framework of standards to ensure that the rural areas of member states show diversified and prosperous development. Japan focuses on the development of high-value- added agriculture and improving its international competitiveness. The United States is committed to macro-control and the protection of its agricultural development by improving its policy system. Some common trends in agricultural development and common features of policy evolution can be found in the differentiated agricultural policies of the various countries. All countries have experienced a historical period from prioritizing industrial and urban development to emphasizing agricultural and rural development. Their policy settings took full account of the country's comparative advantages at the resource endowment level. At the stage of modernization and development, the role of agricultural science and technology in promoting agricultural development has been emphasized. At the regional level, attention has been paid to the development of rural areas so that cities and villages show a pattern of coordinated development. All these experiences provide rich references for China to build an agricultural powerhouse.

5.2 Limitations

First, in constructing the indicator system based on the principle of comparability, the level of science and technology was not included as a dimension, but this does not mean that the level of science and technology is not important for building an agricultural powerhouse. china attaches great importance to the development of science and technology at this stage of development. One development will be to “reorganize the Ministry of Science and Technology” to clearly delineate the responsibilities and powers of government departments, in which “The Ministry of Science and Technology’s responsibility for organizing and formulating plans and policies for science and technology to promote agricultural and rural development and guiding scientific and technological progress in rural areas will be transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs”⑦. Continuously increasing support for agricultural science and technology is expected to improve the problem of chronic under-investment in agricultural science and technology in the second half of the 20th century (Chai et al., 2019). The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development’s total financial allocation revenue and expenditure budget for 2023 was 1.701×1012 yuan. The science and technology expenditure was 1.007×1012 yuan, accounting for 59.23%⑧.
Second, the output condition does not fully reflect the level of development of China’s agricultural modernization. Referring to the existing literature, the system for evaluating the development level of agricultural modernization includes agricultural production, agricultural operation, rural society, agricultural output, agroecology (Wang and Zhou, 2013), and other components, so the level of agricultural output is obviously only one of the aspects. This study hopes to show the relationship between industry and agriculture in urban and rural areas in China by highlighting the ratio of agricultural output to non-agricultural output.

5.3 Policy recommendations

Drawing on and absorbing the experiences of agricultural policy development in developed agricultural countries and based on the current situation of china’s agricultural development, a feasible path can be proposed for the construction of an agricultural powerhouse with chinese characteristics in the future. this path must guarantee the secure supply of grain and other important agricultural products, improve the modernization level of agricultural science and technology, enhance the resilience and competitiveness of the agricultural system and continuously promote the coordinated development of urban and rural areas.
First, a diversified food supply system that meets diversified food demands should be built. This system should incorporate the following goals. The government needs to guarantee the secure supply of major agricultural products such as grains, milk, meat, and oilseeds. Set targets for self-sufficiency rates by major categories and varieties. On this basis, expand food sources, explore the potential of the fisheries industry, and increase the effective supply of aquatic products. Emphasize the safety of seed sources and implement the seed industry revitalization plan. Implement the identification of germplasm resources and the demonstration and promotion of good seeds. Increase farmers' incentive to grow food and protect their basic rights and interests by optimizing the agricultural subsidy support system. In addition to the basic producer and crop rotation subsidies, increase the amounts of subsidies for good seeds, for the purchase of agricultural machinery, and for agricultural insurance premiums. Expand the scope of these subsidies, such as lowering the threshold for rice subsidies and expanding the types of agricultural machinery purchases that can be subsidized.
Second, a sound incentive mechanism should be established to provide a comprehensive institutional guarantee for agricultural science and technology innovation. This mechanism should include several key components. Improve and implement relevant regulations such as income from the transformation of scientific and technological achievements and part-time remuneration for scientific and technological personnel, so as to maximize the mobilization of agricultural researchers' enthusiasm for innovation and promotion. Support the development of agricultural science and technology innovation alliances. Encourage universities, research institutes, and agricultural research enterprises to join various agricultural science and technology innovation alliances, such as the Agricultural Big Data and Information Service Alliance and the National Rice Commercialized Molecular Breeding Technology Innovation Alliance. Relying on the aggregation effect of high-quality scientific research resources in the alliance, this effort will promote the deep integration of industry, academia, and research. Focus on breakthroughs in the seed industry, intelligent agriculture, and other strategic, forward-looking areas of key core technologies. It is worth noting that in the promotion of agricultural science and technology innovation, the results should prevent the county townships and villages from becoming disconnected.
Third, efforts should be made to promote the development of the whole agricultural industry chain. These efforts should focus on the following issues. Optimize the layout of the main agricultural production areas and establish a sound industry-related supporting service system. Under the joint effect of a demand-oriented technology system, an efficient and smooth production and marketing system, and a perfect and intelligent supervision system, the core competitiveness and developmental tenacity of the agricultural industry will be comprehensively improved. Break down the barriers to exporting high-quality tropical fruits and livestock and poultry products from coastal cities and improve the quality of exported agricultural products. Maintain and expand the good trends of aquatic product and fruit and vegetable agricultural product exports. At the same time, efforts are being made to explore new comparative advantages and characteristics of the agricultural industry, such as Xinjiang cotton, Tibetan barley, and others.
Fourth, in-depth public policy reforms should be continued to completely eliminate the urban-rural dichotomy, so that urban and rural residents can enjoy the same rights. For example, reforms of the urban and rural household registration system, the rural land system, and the rural collective property rights system have been accelerated to adjust the supply of public services, promote the optimal allocation of rural land resources, and stimulate the vitality that should be present in the basic rural business system. At the spatial level, scientific and rational planning has been carried out to integrate the geographical layout of urban and rural borders. With the county as the intermediary, the reconfiguration and integration of urban and rural space will be continuously promoted. At the factor level, the two-way free flow of urban and rural resources has been promoted through e-commerce, digital finance, and other emerging modes. At the industrial level, full play should be given to the multifunctionality of agriculture and the support for rural culture, tourism, recreation, and other industries should be increased. The goal of the coordinated development of space, factors, and industries in the urban and rural areas will be realized.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank their colleague and mentor, and they gratefully appreciate the reviewers who provided helpful suggestions for this manuscript.

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
Argent N. 2020. Postproductivist and multifunctional agriculture. International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, 1: 347-351.

[2]
Chai Y, Pardey P G, Chan-Kang C, et al. 2019. Passing the food and agricultural R&D buck? The United States and China. Food Policy, 86: 101729. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.101729.

[3]
Chen C, Woods M, Chen J, et al. 2014. Globalization, state intervention, local action, and rural locality reconstitution—A case study from rural China. Habitat International, 93: 102052. DOI: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2019.102052.

[4]
Christiansen F. 2009. Food security, urbanization and social stability in China. Journal of Agrarian Change, 9(4): 548-575.

[5]
Donckt M V, Chan P, Silvestrini A. 2021. A new global database on agriculture investment and capital stock. Food Policy, 100: 101961. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101961.

[6]
Gao P. 2004. Comparative study on urbanization between China and foreign countries. Tianjin, China: Nankai University Press. (in Chinese)

[7]
Hayami Y, Rutta V W. 2000. International analysis of agricultural development. Beijing, China: China Social Science Press. (in Chinese)

[8]
He S, Zhang Y. 2022. Reconceptualizing the rural through planetary thinking: A field experiment of sustainable approaches to rural revitalization in China. Journal of Rural Studies, 96: 42-52.

[9]
Huang Z, Fu L. 2023. Building an agricultural powerhouse: Connotation, key points, and paths. Seeker, (1): 132-141. (in Chinese)

[10]
Jiang C, Li J, Gong H. 2022a. Common characteristics and experience implications of global agricultural powers. Academics, (8): 127-144. (in Chinese)

[11]
Jiang Y, Long H, Ives C D, et al. 2022b. Modes and practices of rural vitalization promoted by land consolidation in a rapidly urbanizing China: A perspective of multifunctionality. Habitat International, 121: 102514. DOI: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2022.102514.

[12]
Lele U, Goswami S. 2020. Agricultural policy reforms: Roles of markets and states in China and India. Global Food Security, 26: 100371. DOI: 10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100371.

[13]
Liu J, Chen J, Fang S, et al. 2008. Chinese agricultural policies in thirty years and analysis on the effects. China Population, Resources and Environment, 18(5): 1-6. (in Chinese)

[14]
Liu Y, Zhou Y. 2021. Reflections on China’s food security and land use policy under rapid urbanization. Land Use Policy, 109: 105699. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105699.

[15]
Lu M, Chen Z. 2006. Urbanization, urban-biased policies, and urban-rural inequality in China, 1987-2001. The Chinese Economy, 39(3): 42-63. (in Chinese)

[16]
Marsden T, Murdoch J, Lowe P, et al. 1993. Constructing the countryside. London, UK: University College London Press.

[17]
Marx K. 1975. Capital (Vol 3). Beijing, China: People’s Publishing House. (in Chinese)

[18]
McCarthy J. 2005. Rural geography: Multifunctional rural geographies-Reactionary or radical? Progress in Human Geography, 29(6): 773-782.

[19]
OECD/FAO. 2021. OECD-FAO agricultural outlook 2021-2030. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.

[20]
Schultz T W. 1987. Transforming traditional agriculture. Beijing, China: Commercial Press. (in Chinese)

[21]
Ullah I, Dagar V, Tanin T I, et al. 2024. Agricultural productivity and rural poverty in China: The impact of land reforms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 475: 143723. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143723.

[22]
Veeck G, Veeck A, Yu H. 2020. Challenges of agriculture and food systems issues in China and the United States. Geography and Sustainability, 1(2): 109-117.

[23]
Wädekin K E. 1984. Modernization of Chinese agriculture. Land Use Policy, 1(3): 199-216.

[24]
Wang J, Luo B. 2003. The fundamentals of solving the “Three Rural Issues”: Reflections based on the theory of division of labor. South China Journal of Economics, (2): 60-62, 47. (in Chinese)

[25]
Wang X, Shen Y. 2014. The effect of China’s agricultural tax abolition on rural families’ incomes and production. China Economic Review, 29: 185-199.

[26]
Wang Y, Zhou Q. 2013. Evaluation of development of agricultural modernization in central China. IERI Procedia, 4: 417-424.

[27]
Wei H, Cui K. 2022. The Chinese road of building an agricultural powerhouse: Basic logic, process judgment and strategic support. Chinese Rural Economy, (1): 2-23. (in Chinese)

[28]
Wilson G A. 2007. Multifunctional agriculture: A transition theory perspective. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.

[29]
Wilson G A. 2010. Multifunctional ‘quality’ and rural community resilience. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 35(3): 364-381.

[30]
Xue Z, Gao Q. 2023. Moving from a large agricultural country to an agricultural powerhouse: Challenges, drivers and strategies. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University (Social Sciences Edition), 23(1): 1-15. (in Chinese)

[31]
Yang D T, Zhu X. 2013. Modernization of agriculture and long-term growth. Journal of Monetary Economics, 60(3): 367-382.

[32]
Yang H, Yang J. 2020. Analysis of the impact of the first phase Sino-US trade agreement on bilateral agricultural trade. Issues in Agricultural Economy, (12): 99-108. (in Chinese)

[33]
Yang L, Chen W, Fang C, et al. 2024. How does the coordinated development of population urbanization and land urbanization affect residents’ living standards? Empirical evidence from China. Cities, 149: 104922. DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2024.104922.

[34]
Zhang H, Wang Z. 2024. The agricultural new quality productive forces: Content characteristics practical basis and path of enhancement. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University (Social Sciences Edition), 24(3): 28-38. (in Chinese)

[35]
Zhang H, Zhang H, Li W, et al. 2015. Agricultural modernization with Chinese characteristics: Target orientation and reform and innovation. Chinese Rural Economy, (1): 4-13. (in Chinese)

[36]
Zhang X Q. 2016. The trends, promises and challenges of urbanisation in the world. Habitat International, 54: 241-252.

[37]
Zhong Y, Ba X. 2023. Transition of farmers to professional farmers in the context of building up China’s strength in agriculture. Economic Review Journal, (9): 38-47. (in Chinese)

[38]
Zhu J, Zhu M, Xiao Y. 2019. Urbanization for rural development: Spatial paradigm shifts toward inclusive urban-rural integrated development in China. Journal of Rural Studies, 71: 94-103.

Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉