论文部分内容阅读
Through a series of exten- sive and profound reforms centering on economic development， China has been undergoing a drastic social transformation since the beginning of the 21st century. Among the changes is a rise in the middleincome group and a new type of workers in the urban-rural dual structure.
China now has the world’s largest middle-income group which accounts for about 30 percent of the country’s total population. In terms of rural development， this group is diverse.
A similarity shared by middle-income groups around the world is increased attention to food safety and more keenness on resource conservation， environmental protection， and cultural inheritance. The middle-income group in China is especially enthusiastic about visiting villages for tourism or other entertainment in the new era， which is helping the development of the countryside and promoting the integration of urban and rural areas. Particularly considering the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic， many are reflecting on the risks of living in big cities and taking a closer look at rural areas， where more comfortable living is possible through closeness to nature.
The shift has been facilitated by infrastructure development. China has achieved “five connections” in more than 98 percent of its villages， namely expanded networks of roads， electricity， water supply， internet access， and telephone connections， after years of investment in infrastructural construction in rural areas. Some have even managed to significantly improve the sanitation situation through comprehensive measures. Those improvements signify that the requisite infrastructure had been established to serve the development of small and medium-sized enterprises in rural areas.
Urbanites that consume tourism in villages started communicating and buying things through WeChat groups， which is gradually enabling villagers to do business without leaving their houses.
The mass construction of infrastructure promoted by the government has also offered opportunities for the development of ecological resources in rural areas， facilitating new interaction between the urban middle-income group and villagers. This has played a role in the shift to Agriculture 4.0.
The industrialization of agriculture on which China has focused largely aims to transform the country’s agriculture through the secondary industry and extend the industrial chain based on large-scale and intensive agricultural operation that increases value-added benefits. Some have dubbed it the 2.0 version of agriculture. In the United States， less than 10 percent of profits from this industry chain remain in the hands of farmers. In China， the benefits that farmers in the agricultural industry chain can earn may not even reach 8 percent of the final selling price.
One direct consequence of this agricultural development model has been overproduction. The output of many bulk agricultural products in China tops the world： China produces about 70 percent of the world’s freshwater products， 67 percent of vegetables， 51 percent of pork， and 40 percent of bulk fruits. These bulk products all leave a certain surplus. China’s grain production at present is in “tight balance”： Its grain output accounts for 21 percent of the world’s total while it needs to feed 19 percent of the world’s population. There is still a tiny margin of surplus.
Meanwhile， the 2.0 version of agriculture has led to severe damage to resources and the environment. Nowadays， the non-point source pollution caused by agriculture greatly exceeds that of industry and cities. In China， agriculture has become the sector that contributes most to non-point source pollution.
Agriculture 3.0 refers to the services-oriented agricultural transformation through comprehensive agricultural cooperatives， which China has advocated for many years. The per unit area returns of the tertiary industry are generally higher than that of the secondary industry， which enables farmers to reap the benefits of “repricing” labor and rural resources through developing the 3.0 version of agriculture. For example， the health industry based on agriculture will reprice environmental factors such as air， water， and greenery. Agro-tourism will also enable middle-aged and senior rural women who would be excluded from the labor market elsewhere to earn higher returns than they would through agricultural employment.
China has rich experience in direct integration of the tertiary industry and the small-scale peasant economy， but policy obstacles have emerged. The country’s experiments in rural areas over the past two decades have shown that Agriculture 3.0 doesn’t bring great benefits to farmers and hardly works to address China’s problems concerning agriculture， farmers， and rural areas.
In this context， China introduced what became Agriculture 4.0 in the second decade of the 21st century under the formal name of “socialized eco-agriculture.” In traditional societies， especially concentrations of indigenous people in Asia， agriculture often preserves diversified and primitive forms that have been used for thousands of years. Contemporary emphasis on sustainable development must be a feature of the system of socialized eco-agriculture—a combination of Agriculture 3.0 and Agriculture 4.0.
Agriculture 4.0 is reliant on the “Internet Plus” initiative. But at the same time， it emphasizes socialized and ecological agriculture featuring interaction and cooperation between rural and urban areas. The more mainstream the activity of “urbanites going to the countryside for entertainment and agriculture reaching cities” becomes， the more agricultural development will reflect the strategy of ecological progress advocated by the central government. This is the issue to be considered in realizing Agriculture 3.0 and Agriculture 4.0.
Agriculture 4.0 places more focus on leveraging trends of urban-rural integration and fair participation of all classes on the internet to develop socialized eco-agriculture in which both urban and rural residents can find great opportunities to participate. Socialized eco-agriculture itself presents an inheritance of Chinese civilization.
China now has the world’s largest middle-income group which accounts for about 30 percent of the country’s total population. In terms of rural development， this group is diverse.
A similarity shared by middle-income groups around the world is increased attention to food safety and more keenness on resource conservation， environmental protection， and cultural inheritance. The middle-income group in China is especially enthusiastic about visiting villages for tourism or other entertainment in the new era， which is helping the development of the countryside and promoting the integration of urban and rural areas. Particularly considering the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic， many are reflecting on the risks of living in big cities and taking a closer look at rural areas， where more comfortable living is possible through closeness to nature.
The shift has been facilitated by infrastructure development. China has achieved “five connections” in more than 98 percent of its villages， namely expanded networks of roads， electricity， water supply， internet access， and telephone connections， after years of investment in infrastructural construction in rural areas. Some have even managed to significantly improve the sanitation situation through comprehensive measures. Those improvements signify that the requisite infrastructure had been established to serve the development of small and medium-sized enterprises in rural areas.
Urbanites that consume tourism in villages started communicating and buying things through WeChat groups， which is gradually enabling villagers to do business without leaving their houses.
The mass construction of infrastructure promoted by the government has also offered opportunities for the development of ecological resources in rural areas， facilitating new interaction between the urban middle-income group and villagers. This has played a role in the shift to Agriculture 4.0.
The industrialization of agriculture on which China has focused largely aims to transform the country’s agriculture through the secondary industry and extend the industrial chain based on large-scale and intensive agricultural operation that increases value-added benefits. Some have dubbed it the 2.0 version of agriculture. In the United States， less than 10 percent of profits from this industry chain remain in the hands of farmers. In China， the benefits that farmers in the agricultural industry chain can earn may not even reach 8 percent of the final selling price.
One direct consequence of this agricultural development model has been overproduction. The output of many bulk agricultural products in China tops the world： China produces about 70 percent of the world’s freshwater products， 67 percent of vegetables， 51 percent of pork， and 40 percent of bulk fruits. These bulk products all leave a certain surplus. China’s grain production at present is in “tight balance”： Its grain output accounts for 21 percent of the world’s total while it needs to feed 19 percent of the world’s population. There is still a tiny margin of surplus.
Meanwhile， the 2.0 version of agriculture has led to severe damage to resources and the environment. Nowadays， the non-point source pollution caused by agriculture greatly exceeds that of industry and cities. In China， agriculture has become the sector that contributes most to non-point source pollution.
Agriculture 3.0 refers to the services-oriented agricultural transformation through comprehensive agricultural cooperatives， which China has advocated for many years. The per unit area returns of the tertiary industry are generally higher than that of the secondary industry， which enables farmers to reap the benefits of “repricing” labor and rural resources through developing the 3.0 version of agriculture. For example， the health industry based on agriculture will reprice environmental factors such as air， water， and greenery. Agro-tourism will also enable middle-aged and senior rural women who would be excluded from the labor market elsewhere to earn higher returns than they would through agricultural employment.
China has rich experience in direct integration of the tertiary industry and the small-scale peasant economy， but policy obstacles have emerged. The country’s experiments in rural areas over the past two decades have shown that Agriculture 3.0 doesn’t bring great benefits to farmers and hardly works to address China’s problems concerning agriculture， farmers， and rural areas.
In this context， China introduced what became Agriculture 4.0 in the second decade of the 21st century under the formal name of “socialized eco-agriculture.” In traditional societies， especially concentrations of indigenous people in Asia， agriculture often preserves diversified and primitive forms that have been used for thousands of years. Contemporary emphasis on sustainable development must be a feature of the system of socialized eco-agriculture—a combination of Agriculture 3.0 and Agriculture 4.0.
Agriculture 4.0 is reliant on the “Internet Plus” initiative. But at the same time， it emphasizes socialized and ecological agriculture featuring interaction and cooperation between rural and urban areas. The more mainstream the activity of “urbanites going to the countryside for entertainment and agriculture reaching cities” becomes， the more agricultural development will reflect the strategy of ecological progress advocated by the central government. This is the issue to be considered in realizing Agriculture 3.0 and Agriculture 4.0.
Agriculture 4.0 places more focus on leveraging trends of urban-rural integration and fair participation of all classes on the internet to develop socialized eco-agriculture in which both urban and rural residents can find great opportunities to participate. Socialized eco-agriculture itself presents an inheritance of Chinese civilization.