Premium
China's Abolition of the Agricultural Tax, Local Governments’ Responses and Economic Growth
Author(s) -
Shi Hao,
Ye Bing
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
fiscal studies
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.63
H-Index - 40
eISSN - 1475-5890
pISSN - 0143-5671
DOI - 10.1111/1475-5890.12166
Subject(s) - economics , agriculture , revenue , agricultural productivity , china , per capita , tax revenue , productivity , agricultural economics , gross output , production (economics) , economic policy , economic growth , macroeconomics , finance , political science , geography , population , demography , archaeology , sociology , law
When evaluating agricultural policy changes, much of the attention in the literature has been limited to agricultural productivity growth. This study demonstrates that, under a regionally decentralised authority system, the effect of China's abolition of the agricultural tax (AAT) in 2004–05 extended beyond the realm of agriculture. We find that, following the AAT reform, Chinese counties with higher reliance on agricultural taxation for budgetary revenue prior to the AAT reform experienced higher agricultural economic growth, as expected, but lower non‐agricultural economic growth in the short run. This growth‐inhibiting effect of the AAT reform on non‐agricultural production in the short run can be explained, to some extent, by the increased non‐agricultural taxation due to the insufficient funds that Chinese county governments received from the upper‐level governments following the AAT reform; the magnitude of this tax increase was associated with the degree to which each county relied on agricultural taxation for budgetary revenue prior to the reform. In addition, our results show that the AAT reform resulted in a high level of regional inequality in terms of non‐agricultural GDP per capita. In summary, our study shows that although the AAT reform succeeded in promoting agricultural production, such accomplishments were achieved at the cost of lower non‐agricultural output growth and higher regional inequality of non‐agricultural GDP per capita at the county level.