EN中文

中国人口·资源与环境 >

2026 , Vol. 36 >Issue 3: 184 - 198

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12062/cpre.20250919

“三农”与可持续发展

“人-草-畜”和谐共生草原合作经营模式对畜牧业生产效率的影响

  • 贡布泽仁 ,
  • 罗芸莹 ,
  • 伍骏骞
展开
  • 1.西南财经大学社会发展研究院,四川 成都 611130;
    2.西南财经大学中国西部经济研究院,四川 成都 611130
贡布泽仁,博士,教授,博导,主要研究方向为公共自然资源管理与产权制度、民族地区乡村社会经济发展。E-mail：gong-buyak@swufe.edu.cn。
伍骏骞,博士,教授,博导,主要研究方向为粮食安全、农村要素流动、共同富裕。E-mail：wujunqian@swufe.edu.cn。

收稿日期: 2025-03-19

  修回日期: 2025-09-21

  网络出版日期: 2026-06-05

基金资助

国家自然科学基金面上项目“放牧配额在草原畜牧业合作经营中的实践路径与作用机制：权益理论的视角”（批准号：72573127）; 国 家社会科学基金重点项目“青藏高原农牧民共同富裕的阶段目标、推进路径与重点任务研究”（批准号：22AZD021）

收起

Impact of rangeland cooperative management models under the herder-grassland-livestock coexistence framework on livestock production efficiency

  • ZEREN Gongbu ,
  • LUO Yunying ,
  • WU Junqian
Expand
  • 1. Research Institute of Social Development, Southwest University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu Sichuan 611130, China;
    2. Institute of Western China Economic Research, Southwest University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu Sichuan 611130, China

Received date: 2025-03-19

  Revised date: 2025-09-21

  Online published: 2026-06-05

Fold

摘要

草原合作经营模式创新被视为实现“人-草-畜”和谐共生的关键路径。然而,在现有产权制度框架下,仍有待深入探索如何在保障牧户个体权益的同时优化草原合作经营模式。该研究以若尔盖县牧区新型草原合作经营实践为例,聚焦单户经营、联户合作经营以及全村合作经营3种模式,运用DEA方法测算其畜牧业生产效率,并实证检验合作经营模式对畜牧业生产效率的影响及其作用机制。同时,结合公共资源管理中的“权利束”理论,并基于案例调研数据,系统探讨牧区新型合作经营制度创新的实践经验和理论意义。研究发现：①与单户经营模式相比,联户及全村合作经营模式显著提升了畜牧业生产效率。②不同经营模式下,草场流转行为对生产效率的影响有所不同。在单户经营中,未参与流转的牧户综合技术效率略高于参与流转者;而在联户与全村合作模式下,参与草场流转的牧户表现出更高的效率。③单户经营模式更依赖市场性生产策略;而联户及全村合作经营模式倾向于采纳市场性和合作性相结合的生产策略,进而能更好地提升畜牧业生产效率。④机制分析显示,联户合作与全村合作经营模式能够通过合作性生产策略正向影响生产效率,而市场性生产策略则负向影响生产效率。⑤草原合作经营模式的创新在于其在完善草原承包权的基础上,进一步拓展和丰富了经营权的内涵,包括放牧配额权、季节性放牧权、资源获取权等,通过结合市场网络、社会互惠关系和集体合作再分配等社会网络实现经营权配置。基于此,该研究认为,在草原管理中要明确区分资源初始权与经营权的差异,并进一步丰富经营权的内涵及其配置机制,这是在现有产权框架下推动草原合作经营制度的关键路径。同时,这一发现也在理论层面拓展和深化了公共资源管理中的“权利束”理论视角。

关键词： 权利束; 经营权; 合作经营; 草原产权

本文引用格式

贡布泽仁 , 罗芸莹 , 伍骏骞 . “人-草-畜”和谐共生草原合作经营模式对畜牧业生产效率的影响[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2026 , 36(3) : 184 -198 . DOI: 10.12062/cpre.20250919

Abstract

Innovative rangeland cooperative management models are viewed as critical pathways for achieving harmonious coexistence among herders, grasslands, and livestock. However, under the current property rights framework, how to optimize rangeland cooperative management models while safeguarding individual herder rights remains to be explored in depth. This study examined the emerging practice of innovative rangeland cooperative management in pastoral areas of Ruoergai County, focusing on three models: individual household management, multi-household cooperative management, and village-wide cooperative management. Using data development analysis (DEA), the study measured livestock production efficiency and empirically tested the impact of cooperative management mod-els on production efficiency, along with their underlying mechanisms. In addition, drawing on the “bundle of rights” theory in public re-source governance and case survey data, the study systematically explored the practical experiences and theoretical implications of in-novative cooperative management models in pastoral areas. The results demonstrated that: ① Compared to individual household man-agement, both multi-household and village-wide cooperative models significantly improved livestock production efficiency. ② The im-pact of grassland transfer behavior on production efficiency varied across management models. In individual household management, households not participating in grassland transfer exhibited slightly higher technical efficiency than those participating, whereas in multi-household and village-wide cooperative models, participants in grassland transfer demonstrated higher efficiency. ③ Individual household management relied more on market-based production strategies, while multi-household and village-wide cooperative models tended to adopt combined market-based and collaborative strategies, thereby achieving better efficiency outcomes. ④ Mechanism analy-sis indicated that multi-household and village-wide cooperative models positively influenced production efficiency through collaborative production strategies, while market-based production strategies exhibited a negative effect. ⑤ The innovation of rangeland cooperative management models lay in enriching the connotations of the management rights based on improved rangeland contracting rights, includ-ing rights such as grazing quotas, seasonal grazing rights, and critical resource access rights. These management rights were allocated through complex social networks integrating market networks, social reciprocal relationships, and collective redistribution. Based on these findings, this study argues that rangeland management should clearly distinguish between initial resource rights and the resource management rights and further enrich the connotations and allocation mechanisms of the management rights. This approach serves as a key pathway for advancing cooperative management models within the existing property rights framework, while also extending the “bundle of rights” theory in public resource governance.

Key words： bundle of rights; management rights; cooperative governance; rangeland property rights

参考文献

[1] 杨理 .中国草原治理的困境:从“公地的悲剧”到“围栏的陷阱”[J]. 中国软科学,2010(1):10-17.
[2] 曹建军,杨书荣,周俊菊,等. 青藏高原草地存在价值研究:以玛曲为例[J]. 生态学报,2017,37(19):6415-6421.
[3] LIU M,HUANG J K,DRIES L,et al.How does land tenure reform impact upon pastoral livestock production:an empirical study for In-ner Mongolia,China[J]. China economic review,2020,60:101110.
[4] SUN J,LIANG E Y,BARRIO I C,et al.Fences undermine biodiver-sity targets[J]. Science,2021,374(6565):269.
[5] 谭淑豪,杜辉,戴微著,等. 以集体行动促牧区草地资源走出治理困境[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境,2023,33(2):176-187.
[6] 李文军,陈建伟. 破碎化草场重新整合的路径[J]. 人与生物圈,2021(1):40-42.
[7] 苑鹏,罗千峰. 生态畜牧业合作社能否成为促进牧民从“自然人”到“职业人”转型的有效组织:青海拉格日生态畜牧业合作社案例解析[J]. 中国农村经济,2022(6):45-64.
[8] 杨团 .乡村集体经济组织的辨识与发展:30 年集体经济改革启示(下)[J]. 经济导刊,2022(7):22-29.
[9] LI A,WU J G,ZHANG X Y,et al.China's new rural“separating three property rights”land reform results in grassland degradation: evidence from Inner Mongolia[J]. Land use policy,2018,71: 170-182.
[10] 谭仲春,谭淑豪. 草地流转与牧户效率:“能人”效应还是“资源平衡”效应?[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境,2018,28(3):76-85.
[11] HUANG W,BRUEMMER B,HUNTSINGER L.Technical efficien-cy and the impact of grassland use right leasing on livestock graz-ing on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau[J]. Land use policy,2017,64: 342-352.
[12] 李先东,李录堂,苏岚岚,等. 牧民草场流转的收入效应分析[J]. 农业技术经济,2019(11):104-115.
[13] 励汀郁,谭淑豪. 干旱冲击下草地租赁对草场退化及牧户生计的影响[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境,2020,30(3):161-167.
[14] FENG X L,MA W L,LIU M Y,et al.Impact of grassland transfer on technical efficiency of livestock production in Northern China[J]. Applied economics,2022,54(6):702-718.
[15] 胡振通,孔德帅,焦金寿,等. 草场流转的生态环境效率:基于内蒙古甘肃两省份的实证研究[J]. 农业经济问题,2014,35(6):90-97.
[16] 冯晓龙,苏柳方,唐建军. 草场流转备案、流转范围规制与牧户超载过牧行为[J]. 农业技术经济,2021(12):4-16.
[17] 杨理. 草原治理:如何进一步完善草原家庭承包制[J]. 中国农村经济,2007(12):62-67.
[18] 赖玉珮,李文军. 草场流转对干旱半干旱地区草原生态和牧民生计影响研究:以呼伦贝尔市新巴尔虎右旗 M 嘎查为例[J]. 资源科学,2012,34(6):1039-1048.
[19] 贡布泽仁,李文军. 草场管理中的市场机制与习俗制度的关系及其影响:青藏高原案例研究[J]. 自然资源学报,2016,31(10):1637-1647.
[20] 侯建昀,李敬玉. 草原产权改革的经济影响研究:以内蒙古为例[M]. 北京:中国社会科学出版社,2022.
[21] 苏柳方,仇焕广,唐建军. 草场流转的转入地悲剧:来自 876 个草场地块的微观证据[J]. 中国农村经济,2021(3):68-85.
[22] 穆钰,姹苏,李文军. 草场流转对牧民生计和草原生态保护的影响分析:基于锡林郭勒盟镶黄旗的案例研究[J]. 中国草地学报,2021,43(11):84-96.
[23] YANG M Y,DONG S K,DONG Q M,et al.Cooperative grassland management practices promoted by land tenure system transforma-tion benefit social-ecological systems of pastoralism on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau,China[J]. Journal of environmental management, 2020,261:110215.
[24] ZEREN G B,ZHANG J,ZHUANG M H,et al. Mitigating the im-pacts of fragmented land tenure through community-based institu-tional innovations:two case study villages from Guinan County of Qinghai Province,China[J]. Ecology and society,2021,26(2):art15.
[25] 祁应军 .不同草场产权的界定与实施:基于产权交易成本视角的对比分析[J]. 中国农村经济,2021(11):55-71.
[26] 张倩 .社区草原管理的困境:社会生态系统管理的尺度匹配[J]. 东南大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2015,17(6):59-65.
[27] 祁应军,李文军,贾翔宇,等. 从“破碎化”到草场资源重新整合使用:理论构建与政策启示[J]. 中国农业大学学报(社会科学版),2023,40(6):56-72.
[28] OSTROM E.Governing the commons:the evolution of institutions for collective action[M]. Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,1990.
[29] 李文军,张倩. 解读草原困境:对于干旱半干旱草原利用和管理若干问题的认识[M]. 北京:经济科学出版社,2009.
[30] 王晓毅,张倩,荀丽丽. 非平衡、共有和地方性:草原管理的新思考[M]. 北京:中国社会科学出版社,2010.
[31] FERNÁNDEZ-GIMÉNEZ M E,BATKHISHIG B,BATBUYAN B,et al. Lessons from the dzud:community-based rangeland manage-ment increases the adaptive capacity of Mongolian herders to win-ter disasters[J]. World development,2015,68:48-65.
[32] ROBINSON L W,EBA B,FLINTAN F,et al.The challenges of community-based natural resource management in pastoral range-lands[J]. Society & natural resources,2021,34(9):1213-1231.
[33] QI Y J,LI W J.A nested property right system of the commons: perspective of resource system-units[J]. Environmental science & policy,2021,115:1-7.
[34] 于立,于左,徐斌 .“三牧”问题的成因与出路:兼论中国草场的资源整合[J]. 农业经济问题,2009,30(5):78-88.
[35] ZEREN G B,HUNTSINGER L,LI W J. Rebuilding pastoral social-ecological resilience on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau in response to changes in policy,economics,and climate[J]. Ecology and society, 2018,23(2):art21.
[36] LI W J,KERVEN C.Between commons and anticommons:a nest-ed common-private interface framework[J]. Humanities and social sciences communications,2024,11(1):509.
[37] 贡布泽仁 .市场化进程中青藏高原草场使用和管理的制度变迁[M]. 成都:西南财经大学出版社,2019.
[38] 仇焕广,张崇尚,刘乐,等. 我国草原管理制度演变及社区治理机制创新[J]. 经济社会体制比较,2020(3):48-56.
[39] 陈秋红 .社区主导型草地共管模式:成效与机制:基于社会资本视角的分析[J]. 中国农村经济,2011(5):61-71.
[40] CAO J J,XIONG Y C,SUN J,et al.Differential benefits of multi-and single-household grassland management patterns in the Qinghai-Ti-betan Plateau of China[J]. Human ecology,2011,39(2):217-227.
[41] CAO J J,YEH E T,HOLDEN N M,et al.The effects of enclosures and land-use contracts on rangeland degradation on the Qinghai-Ti-betan Plateau[J]. Journal of arid environments,2013,97:3-8.
[42] 蔡虹,李文军. 不同产权制度下青藏高原地区草地资源使用的效率与公平性分析[J]. 自然资源学报,2016,31(8):1302-1309.
[43] HARDIN G.The tragedy of the commons[J]. Science,1968,162(3859):1243-1248.
[44] COASE R H.The problem of social cost[J]. Journal of law and economics,1960,3:1-44.
[45] SINGER J W.Entitlement:the paradoxes of property[M]. New Haven,CO:Yale University Press,2000.
[46] AGRAWAL A,OSTROM E.Collective action,property rights,and decentralization in resource use in India and Nepal[J]. Politics & society,2001,29(4):485-514.
[47] OSTROM E.A general framework for analyzing sustainability of so-cial-ecological systems[J]. Science,2009,325:419-422.
[48] ARARAL E.Ostrom,hardin and the commons:a critical apprecia-tion and a revisionist view[J]. Environmental science & policy, 2014,36:11-23.
[49] ZEREN G B,TAN J,ZHANG Q,et al.Rebuilding rural commu-nity cooperative institutions and their role in adaptation to climate change[J]. Climate policy,2023,23:522-537.
[50] AGRAWAL A,ERBAUGH J,PRADHAN N.The commons[J]. Annual review of environment and resources,2023,48:531-558.
[51] SCHLAGER E,OSTROM E.Property-rights regimes and natural resources:a conceptual analysis[J]. Land economics,1992,68(3):249.
[52] SCOONES I,LIND J,MARU N,et al.Pastoralism and develop-ment:fifty years of dynamic change[J]. IDS Bulletin,2020(51):1-20.
[53] SIKOR T,HE J,LESTRELIN G.Property rights regimes and natu-ral resources:a conceptual analysis revisited[J]. World develop-ment,2017,93:337-349.
[54] YOUNG O. Vertical interplay among scale-dependent environmen-tal and resource regimes[J]. Ecology and society,2006,11:art27.
[55] GERMAN L,KEELER A.“Hybrid institutions”:applications of common property theory beyond discrete tenure regimes[J]. Inter-national journal of the commons,2010,4(1):571-596.
[56] COOPERMAN A,MCLARTY A R,SEIM B.Drivers of successful common-pool resource management:a conjoint experiment on groundwater management in Brazil[J]. Global environmental change,2022,74:102512.
[57] LIU M,LIU P F,HUANG K X.Combining private and common property management:the impact of a hybrid ownership structure on grassland conservation[J]. Journal of environmental economics and management,2024,128:103069.
[58] TSERING P.Hybrid rangeland governance:connecting policies with practices in pastoral China[J]. Area,2024,56(3):e12955.
[59] DALY H E,FARLEY J.Ecological economics:a workbook for problem-based learning[M]. Washington,D. C.:Island Press, 2011.
[60] LEACH M,MEARNS R,SCOONES I.Environmental entitlements: dynamics and institutions in community-based natural resource managemen[t J]. World development,1999,27(2):225-247.
[61] SEN A.Resources,values and development[J]. Economic jour-nal,1985,95(379):822-823.
[62] TEBBOTH M G L,CONWAY D,ADGER W N. Mobility endow-ment and entitlements mediate resilience in rural livelihood sys-tems[J]. Global environmental change,2019,54:172-183.
[63] VILLAMAYOR-TOMAS S. Cooperation in common property re-gimes under extreme drought conditions:empirical evidence from the use of pooled transferable quotas in Spanish irrigation systems[J]. Ecological economics,2014,107:482-493.
[64] ZEREN G B,LU J J,KERVEN C,et al.Exploring the role of nest-ed institutions in community-based tourism development:two case studies from China's Tibetan pastoral region[J]. Journal of sustain-able tourism,2024,32(4):677-694.
[65] NORTH D C.Institutions,institutional change and economic per-formance[M]. Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,1990.
[66] SCOONES I.Sustainable livelihoods and rural development[M]. Rugby,UK:Practical Action Publishing,2015.
[67] 江艇 .因果推断经验研究中的中介效应与调节效应[J]. 中国工业经济,2022(5):100-120.
[68] 张美艳,董建军,辛姝玉,等. 锡林郭勒盟草原流转牧户的技术效率研究:基于 DEA-Tobit 模型的分析[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2017,31(11):62-68.
[69] 孙致陆,肖海峰. 农牧户羊毛生产技术效率及其影响因素研究:基于内蒙古、新疆等 5 省份农牧户调查数据的分析[J]. 农业技术经济,2013(2):86-94.
[70] TAN S H,ZHANG R X,TAN Z C.Grassland rental markets and herder technical efficiency:ability effect or resource equilibration effect?[J]. Land use policy,2018,77:135-142.
Options
文章导航

/

〈 〉