What's new

Once a symbol of power, farming now an economic drag in China

wolfschanzze

BANNED
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
4,838
Reaction score
-25
Country
India
Location
India
Once a symbol of power, farming now an economic drag in China
Ian Johnson,NYT News Service | Oct 13, 2014, 12.30 PM IST

YANGLING: For about 4,000 years, farming in this region has been a touchstone of Chinese civilization. It was here that the mythic hero Hou Ji is said to have taught Chinese how to grow grain, and the area's rich harvests underpinned China's first dynasties, feeding officials and soldiers in the nearby imperial capital.

But nowadays, Yangling's fields are in disarray. Frustrated by how little they earn, the ablest farmers have migrated to cities, hollowing out this rural district in the Chinese heartland. Left behind are people like Hui Zongchang, 74, who grows wheat and corn on a half-acre plot while his son works as a day laborer in the metropolis of Xi'an to the east.

Mr Hui, still vigorous despite a stoop, said he makes next to no money from farming. He tills the earth as a kind of insurance. "What land will they farm if I don't keep this going?" he said of his children. "Not everyone makes it in the city."

From a bedrock of traditional culture, and an engine of the post-Mao economic boom in the 1980s, agriculture has become a burden for China.

Farm output remains high. But rural living standards have stagnated compared with the cities, and few in the countryside see their future there. The most recent figures show a threefold gap between urban and rural incomes, fueling discontent and helping to make China one of the most unequal societies in the world.

The nation's Communist leaders have declared that fixing the countryside is crucial to maintaining social stability. Last year, they unveiled a new blueprint for economic reform with agricultural policy as a centerpiece. But the challenge confronting them resembles a tangled knot.

dadea188e2d827b3efe695b5237b517b._.gif


Li Haiwen, 47, grows medicinal plants, rather than grain, on the plot of land he rents from the local government in Yangling. "The more grain you plant," he said, "the poorer you get." (Image courtesy: Gilles Sabrie for The New York Times)

It begins with the fact that farms in China are too small to generate large profits, about 1.6 acres on average, compared with 400 acres in the United States. Yet it is difficult to consolidate these farms into larger, more efficient operations because Chinese farmers do not own their plots - they lease them from the government.

Privatizing farmland would allow market forces to create bigger farms. But that would be a political minefield for the Communist Party. It would also risk exacerbating inequality, by concentrating land ownership in the hands of a few while leaving many rural families without farms to fall back on if they hit hard times in the cities.

"All of these issues are interlocked and require a series of reforms to be solved," said Luo Jianchao, a professor at Northwest A & F University in Yangling, and a government adviser. "There's no magic bullet."

In late September, President Xi Jinping endorsed an experiment underway in Yangling and other parts of China to untangle this knot. The measure, called liuzhuan, stops short of privatization but gives farmers land-use rights that they can transfer to others in exchange for a rental fee.

The goal is to simulate a private land market and allow China's family-run, labor-intensive farms to change hands and be amalgamated into large-scale, industrialized businesses. In theory, liuzhuan allows this to happen without cutting ties between rural families and the land, because they collect rental fees as a safety net.

Mr Xi has presented the policy as critical to China's next phase of economic reform. Skeptics, however, say it shows the government remains unwilling to consider a bold measure that has worked in many countries: giving farmers full ownership of their land.

"Privatization of land is a key issue but it's completely taboo," said Tao Ran, an agricultural expert at Renmin University in Beijing. The party leadership, he said, "cannot countenance it."

More is at stake than the socialist credentials of the Communist Party, which came to power in a peasant revolution in 1949 and immediately collectivized farmland. State ownership of land is also a major source of government revenue. In areas near cities, local officials often rezone agricultural land and flip it to developers at a huge premium, sometimes setting off violent protests by residents who are left out.

d2618c8b7c8d6a792b3d09350f0cd7d3._.gif

Farmers dry chillies in the Gobi desert in Turpan, China.(Reuters Photo)

Others see the system of political control of the countryside at stake. "The rural system they've had since the 1950s is based on the state ownership of land," said Fred Gale, who writes an influential blog on China's agricultural sector called Dim Sums. "If this unravels, then the bureaucrats would be at a loss as to how to manage the countryside."

In Yangling, a district of 155,000 people that has been a center for agricultural sciences since the 1930s, several problems with the government's attempt to sidestep privatization are apparent.

Because farmers do not own their land, they cannot sell it and get a large, lump sum payment that could be used to make a new start. Nor can they mortgage land for funds that could be reinvested in their farms or in other businesses.

Yang Tewang, a branch manager of the state-run Yangling Rural Commercial Bank, said he has made about $3 million in mortgage-style loans since the liuzhuan experiment began. But he said they were not true mortgages since the banks cannot repossess land if the farmer defaults - the state owns the land, not the farmer. As a result, Mr Yang said he minimizes risk by lending only to large-scale vegetable and fruit farmers.

"The rest don't pay," he said. A grain farmer, for example, could never get a loan, he said.

Another problem has been figuring out how to set the rental fees that rural families collect if they transfer their land-use rights.

Yangling set up a land bank that took over land-use rights in an area of 36 square miles, then set an annual rental fee of at least $750 per acre of land. Farmers could choose between giving up their land and collecting that rent, or leasing their land back from the state and continuing to farm.

But the fees can distort the market. For example, they have discouraged production of grain, which does not sell for enough of a margin over the cost of renting the land. Grain pays only about $1,250 per acre, for an annual profit of about $500, said one resident, Li Haiwen.

"The more grain you plant," he said, "the poorer you get."

Mr Li grows magnolia bushes used in traditional Chinese medicine instead. But he said farming is just a sideline for him. His main source of income is in professional landscaping. "I think our minds are opening up and we realize there are other ways to make money," he said.

Exactly why rental prices are so high is open to debate. In some parts of China, rents are even higher than in Yangling, topping $1,200 per acre. By contrast, the average acre of farmland in the United States rented for $136 in 2013, according to the United States Department of Agriculture. Some experts say the rental fees have been driven up by the same sort of speculation that has made apartments so exorbitantly expensive in Chinese cities. Even in a remote area like Yangling, an apartment of 1,000 square feet sells for $50,000, and in cities like Beijing the price can easily be 10 times that.

In recent months, banks like the China International Trust and Investment Corporation have been buying rural land-use rights at high prices. Li Ping, an agricultural expert at Landesa, a nongovernmental organization focused on rural issues, said he believed the purchases have been made with an eye toward rezoning land for housing or industrial use.

"It's like the housing prices here being higher than in most parts of the U.S.," Mr Li said. "It's not sustainable."

One of the success stories in Yangling has been the case of Zhang Hongli, who took over 197 acres once farmed by three villages and pays about $150,000 per year in rental fees.

Mr Yang, the banker, described it as a win-win exchange. Mr Zhang uses the land to grow watermelons, which sell for a nice profit in Xi'an. Meanwhile, the families who gave up their land are collecting about $500 per year on average, and almost all received free apartments from the government as well.

Government planners hope that more farmers will be moved to the cities so the countryside gradually depopulates and ever-larger-scale farming takes over. For farmers with a job already lined up in the city, this system is attractive. But for people still wanting to work the land, like Zhou Yuansheng, 66, it is an example of how little say he has.

"The big decisions are made by the government," he said. "No one asked me what I wanted to do with my land."

Once a symbol of power, farming now an economic drag in China - The Times of India
 
.
But I can see a future where the Chinese government, in order to feed its population more efficiently, takes over HUGE swaths of farmland and mechanizes it to the max.
 
.
Yes. Every Rice eating countries should stop rice farming. Its an economic drag. Lets manual work be done by us,Thai. They shld buy from Thailand we have enormous high quality rice.
 
.
China should improve the supply of clean food and water.
 
.
Indian friends whether we need to determine the authenticity of the news ?Some commentators really outrageous.
 
Last edited:
.
But I can see a future where the Chinese government, in order to feed its population more efficiently, takes over HUGE swaths of farmland and mechanizes it to the max.

They are already doing that a long time. There is a reason China is by far the largest agriculture producer in the world, larger than the next four country combined.

Presentation is such a funny thing. By twist a few words and take a certain perspective, you can make completely different impression. This articles employed some of these.

First of all, it is necessary to understand what exactly does "farmer being poor" mean. Does Chinese farmer receive less and less income over the years? Of course not. Chinese farmers' income increased just like every other job in China over the past six decades. Does Chinese farmer has trouble making their end's meet and their income can't cover the cost? Of course not. I will elaborate this issue a bit farther later, but suffice to say their income is still more than enough to cover all the cost and have decent amount to bare.

What causes a lot of farmers to migrate into the cities is that for equal amount of time and effort, farming yields less income than some of the work found in the cities. The reason for this several fold. First and foremost is that factory work fundamentally yield more income for the labor.
The second is a bit more complicated and a long explanation. Now, let's get a concept out of the way. In China, all lands are technically owned by the government. What farmers get is the use right for the land. This is a technically that means if necessary, the Chinese government is legally justified on perform policy intervene on land ownership and arbitrate any issues. In practice, the land use right is actually quite similar to US' concept of land ownership. Just think about this way, even though you own a piece of land in US, it is still US territory. You are allowed to develop it, but you still have to follow many state and federal laws. The Chinese government extend this concept a bit farther so they can do policy interventions such as ensuring the required amount of land is reserved for agriculture production. Also, in case of public construction, the government has the right to assert its authority to use the land for public project (with compensation of course).
A bit historical lesson, there are four phases in farmland use-right ownership (hence referred as ownership) distribution in PRC history. The first phase is from 1949 to mid-1950s. During this phase, the land ownership is distributed into individual farmers. The phase only lasted about half a decade. The reason is that many farmers at the time begin to trade away their land ownership rights. The reasons vary, some are financial difficulty, some are personal problems, but the result is clear, that the land ownership begin to be concentrated into the hands of wealthier individuals barely half a decade after it was distributed into the hands of the poor farmers. To be honest, it really isn't all that surprising. People are different. Some people are simply better at managing their assets than others. However, for China in 1950s, this is huge problem. This is because in 1950s, China does not have a sufficiently large industrial or service sector to absorb these landless farmers (many of them doesn't have the necessary education anyway). This means if you lose your land, then you are truly jobless and there are immediate problems like starvation and death. Consequently, the Chinese government decided it is necessary to change its policy and the land ownership entered the second phase, common ownership.
The second phase lasted from middle 1950s to mid-1980s. During this period of time, the land is publicly owned by something called a commune. Farmers would work on the commune and at the end of the year, the products are distributed according to a contribution system. It has advantages and disadvantages. The biggest advantage is made sure everyone at least got their minimum required amount of food, which is no small achievement back in the 50s. The downside, of course, is that the difficulty of micro-managing so many little organization throughout the country. The difference in the ability of the commune management also means there are certainly communes that did well, but there are also a lot of them that were barely getting by. Due to the low level of general education back then, the latter is unfortunately more common than the former. Another big factor is work motivation. Many people are simply not that motivated to work on public lands. Because these inherent inefficiency, around mid-1980s, the land ownership is again distributed into individual farmers.
Now, 1980s is a much different time from 1950s. By 1980s, China already has a flourishing industrial and service sector. So people leaving communes doesn't actually have to be farmers. There are enough posts in the cities to absorb these population. As a result, commune lands are gradually leased out and distributed into individual farmers. With improved work motivation and national infrastructure in general, we see a lot of successful individual farmer.
By 2000s, however, China entered the fourth phase of farming land ownership. Again, 2000s are very different from 1980s. By 2000, Chinese industrial and service sectors are huge. General education level of the country is also high enough, so there are large number of posts that paid well enough to leave farming to the dust. This is why many young people saw working in the cities as a much better alternative than farming. As a result, individual farmers of the 1980s begins to become uncompetitive----it is quite easy to understand, enthusiasm only goes so far. In an interesting turn of events, the publicly farmed "communes" begin to make an appearance again. However, just like the individual farmers in 1980s are very different from their 1950s counterparts. The communes in 2000s are very different from their 1960s counterpart as well. What modern day Chinese farmers do is that they will lease out their lands to farming companies, which are fully mechanized and with technology backing up their expertize such as selectively bred seed, rotating crop cycle, many others. The farmers themselves will head to the cities to work and at the end of the year receive a portion of income from the farming companies as rent.

The reply is a bit long, but to sum it up, there are fourth phases on land use right ownership in PRC history. It started with individual farmer and transitioned to a form of concentrated farming and back to individual farming again. Right now it is transitioning into concentrated, mechanized farming again.
 
.
Yes. Every Rice eating countries should stop rice farming. Its an economic drag. Lets manual work be done by us,Thai. They shld buy from Thailand we have enormous high quality rice.

But Thailand don't rank high in rice production.

Top 10 Largest Producers of Rice in the World | Top 10 Rice Producing Countries in the World | Countries of the World

Once a symbol of power, farming now an economic drag in China
Ian Johnson,NYT News Service | Oct 13, 2014, 12.30 PM IST

YANGLING: For about 4,000 years, farming in this region has been a touchstone of Chinese civilization. It was here that the mythic hero Hou Ji is said to have taught Chinese how to grow grain, and the area's rich harvests underpinned China's first dynasties, feeding officials and soldiers in the nearby imperial capital.

But nowadays, Yangling's fields are in disarray. Frustrated by how little they earn, the ablest farmers have migrated to cities, hollowing out this rural district in the Chinese heartland. Left behind are people like Hui Zongchang, 74, who grows wheat and corn on a half-acre plot while his son works as a day laborer in the metropolis of Xi'an to the east.

Mr Hui, still vigorous despite a stoop, said he makes next to no money from farming. He tills the earth as a kind of insurance. "What land will they farm if I don't keep this going?" he said of his children. "Not everyone makes it in the city."

From a bedrock of traditional culture, and an engine of the post-Mao economic boom in the 1980s, agriculture has become a burden for China.

Farm output remains high. But rural living standards have stagnated compared with the cities, and few in the countryside see their future there. The most recent figures show a threefold gap between urban and rural incomes, fueling discontent and helping to make China one of the most unequal societies in the world.

The nation's Communist leaders have declared that fixing the countryside is crucial to maintaining social stability. Last year, they unveiled a new blueprint for economic reform with agricultural policy as a centerpiece. But the challenge confronting them resembles a tangled knot.

View attachment 129689

Li Haiwen, 47, grows medicinal plants, rather than grain, on the plot of land he rents from the local government in Yangling. "The more grain you plant," he said, "the poorer you get." (Image courtesy: Gilles Sabrie for The New York Times)

It begins with the fact that farms in China are too small to generate large profits, about 1.6 acres on average, compared with 400 acres in the United States. Yet it is difficult to consolidate these farms into larger, more efficient operations because Chinese farmers do not own their plots - they lease them from the government.

Privatizing farmland would allow market forces to create bigger farms. But that would be a political minefield for the Communist Party. It would also risk exacerbating inequality, by concentrating land ownership in the hands of a few while leaving many rural families without farms to fall back on if they hit hard times in the cities.

"All of these issues are interlocked and require a series of reforms to be solved," said Luo Jianchao, a professor at Northwest A & F University in Yangling, and a government adviser. "There's no magic bullet."

In late September, President Xi Jinping endorsed an experiment underway in Yangling and other parts of China to untangle this knot. The measure, called liuzhuan, stops short of privatization but gives farmers land-use rights that they can transfer to others in exchange for a rental fee.

The goal is to simulate a private land market and allow China's family-run, labor-intensive farms to change hands and be amalgamated into large-scale, industrialized businesses. In theory, liuzhuan allows this to happen without cutting ties between rural families and the land, because they collect rental fees as a safety net.

Mr Xi has presented the policy as critical to China's next phase of economic reform. Skeptics, however, say it shows the government remains unwilling to consider a bold measure that has worked in many countries: giving farmers full ownership of their land.

"Privatization of land is a key issue but it's completely taboo," said Tao Ran, an agricultural expert at Renmin University in Beijing. The party leadership, he said, "cannot countenance it."

More is at stake than the socialist credentials of the Communist Party, which came to power in a peasant revolution in 1949 and immediately collectivized farmland. State ownership of land is also a major source of government revenue. In areas near cities, local officials often rezone agricultural land and flip it to developers at a huge premium, sometimes setting off violent protests by residents who are left out.

View attachment 129690
Farmers dry chillies in the Gobi desert in Turpan, China.(Reuters Photo)

Others see the system of political control of the countryside at stake. "The rural system they've had since the 1950s is based on the state ownership of land," said Fred Gale, who writes an influential blog on China's agricultural sector called Dim Sums. "If this unravels, then the bureaucrats would be at a loss as to how to manage the countryside."

In Yangling, a district of 155,000 people that has been a center for agricultural sciences since the 1930s, several problems with the government's attempt to sidestep privatization are apparent.

Because farmers do not own their land, they cannot sell it and get a large, lump sum payment that could be used to make a new start. Nor can they mortgage land for funds that could be reinvested in their farms or in other businesses.

Yang Tewang, a branch manager of the state-run Yangling Rural Commercial Bank, said he has made about $3 million in mortgage-style loans since the liuzhuan experiment began. But he said they were not true mortgages since the banks cannot repossess land if the farmer defaults - the state owns the land, not the farmer. As a result, Mr Yang said he minimizes risk by lending only to large-scale vegetable and fruit farmers.

"The rest don't pay," he said. A grain farmer, for example, could never get a loan, he said.

Another problem has been figuring out how to set the rental fees that rural families collect if they transfer their land-use rights.

Yangling set up a land bank that took over land-use rights in an area of 36 square miles, then set an annual rental fee of at least $750 per acre of land. Farmers could choose between giving up their land and collecting that rent, or leasing their land back from the state and continuing to farm.

But the fees can distort the market. For example, they have discouraged production of grain, which does not sell for enough of a margin over the cost of renting the land. Grain pays only about $1,250 per acre, for an annual profit of about $500, said one resident, Li Haiwen.

"The more grain you plant," he said, "the poorer you get."

Mr Li grows magnolia bushes used in traditional Chinese medicine instead. But he said farming is just a sideline for him. His main source of income is in professional landscaping. "I think our minds are opening up and we realize there are other ways to make money," he said.

Exactly why rental prices are so high is open to debate. In some parts of China, rents are even higher than in Yangling, topping $1,200 per acre. By contrast, the average acre of farmland in the United States rented for $136 in 2013, according to the United States Department of Agriculture. Some experts say the rental fees have been driven up by the same sort of speculation that has made apartments so exorbitantly expensive in Chinese cities. Even in a remote area like Yangling, an apartment of 1,000 square feet sells for $50,000, and in cities like Beijing the price can easily be 10 times that.

In recent months, banks like the China International Trust and Investment Corporation have been buying rural land-use rights at high prices. Li Ping, an agricultural expert at Landesa, a nongovernmental organization focused on rural issues, said he believed the purchases have been made with an eye toward rezoning land for housing or industrial use.

"It's like the housing prices here being higher than in most parts of the U.S.," Mr Li said. "It's not sustainable."

One of the success stories in Yangling has been the case of Zhang Hongli, who took over 197 acres once farmed by three villages and pays about $150,000 per year in rental fees.

Mr Yang, the banker, described it as a win-win exchange. Mr Zhang uses the land to grow watermelons, which sell for a nice profit in Xi'an. Meanwhile, the families who gave up their land are collecting about $500 per year on average, and almost all received free apartments from the government as well.

Government planners hope that more farmers will be moved to the cities so the countryside gradually depopulates and ever-larger-scale farming takes over. For farmers with a job already lined up in the city, this system is attractive. But for people still wanting to work the land, like Zhou Yuansheng, 66, it is an example of how little say he has.

"The big decisions are made by the government," he said. "No one asked me what I wanted to do with my land."

Once a symbol of power, farming now an economic drag in China - The Times of India


This is not a good trend, even Industrialized countries in Europe and America have never neglected agriculture. Growing food crops will be significant even after 1000 years.
 
.
But Thailand don't rank high in rice production.

Top 10 Largest Producers of Rice in the World | Top 10 Rice Producing Countries in the World | Countries of the World

This is not a good trend, even Industrialized countries in Europe and America have never neglected agriculture. Growing food crops will be significant even after 1000 years.

Erm, China is far from neglecting agriculture. In fact, from 1967 to 2014, Chinese agriculture sector has shown a consistent growth. In fact, the growth rate is picking up in the recent years.
Agriculture - value added (annual % growth) in China

In comparison, the annual growth of agriculture sector of India (Second largest country in the world by nominal agriculture sector GDP):
Agriculture - value added (annual % growth) in India

In comparison, the annual growth of agriculture sector of US (third largest country in the world by nominal agriculture sector GDP):
Agriculture - value added (annual % growth) in the United States

In comparison, the annual growth of agriculture sector of Brazil (fourth largest country in the world by nominal agriculture sector GDP):
Agriculture - value added (annual % growth) in Brazil

In comparison, the annual growth of agriculture sector of Indonesia (fifth largest country in the world by nominal agriculture sector GDP):
Agriculture - value added (annual % growth) in Indonesia

Some analysis based on the trend data (note all of them has the time range from 1967 to 2014)

First of all, US has a consistently lower growth rate comparing to the other four countries listed. It makes sense because US' industrialization in the 19th century, it is not a developing country by 1967, so understandably the rate will be lower.

All four developing countries has similar range of growth in the agriculture sector.
However, within that range, Indonesia has lower growth rate comparing to China, India and Brazil and a slightly downward trend for agriculture growth. This is likely due to geographic limitation as Indonesia. As seen in the page below:
Land use statistics by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Indonesia, while about 2/3 of the size of India, has only about 1/7 of India's arable land. Out of the four countries, the one with the 2nd smallest amount of arable land is Brazil and it has almost three times of the arable land and more than twice cultivated land than Indonesia. As a result, it is much easier for Indonesia to reach saturation than the other three.
The other three countries has similar agriculture sector growth rate. However, if you observe the specific trend from 1967 to 2014, India and Brazil both started with stronger growth and slightly dip down in the recent years. Where China started with weaker growth than India and Brazil, but picked up over the years.
The likely cause is due to infrastructure. It is well known that India started off with stronger infrastructure than China in the 1950s. It is less known in the Pakistan defense circle that Brazil (along with other South American countries) were the first developing countries to flourish after WWII. Basically, in 1960s, Brazil is a much stronger economic power than Asia countries (including countries like South Korea and Japan) and they have the infrastructure to go with it.
Basically, modern agriculture is very infrastructure dependent. For modern day China, it can afford to have less people farming, because the infrastructure allows it and the agriculture GDP growth trend proves it.
 
.
But Thailand don't rank high in rice production.

Top 10 Largest Producers of Rice in the World | Top 10 Rice Producing Countries in the World | Countries of the World




This is not a good trend, even Industrialized countries in Europe and America have never neglected agriculture. Growing food crops will be significant even after 1000 years.
Crops can be rotten. Therefore we just work at less than half of our true capacity. Current production is not our true capacity. Also there is a Rice breed quality. High price rice havestment in ton per unit land is not equal to hivh yields rice, yet may be better ROI.

Also if other countries stupid enough to believe me. Thai will b rich, coz we will dictate rice price.
 
.
Yes. Every Rice eating countries should stop rice farming. Its an economic drag. Lets manual work be done by us,Thai. They shld buy from Thailand we have enormous high quality rice.
Can lady boys farm? Vietnamese can grow rice, leave it to us real men.
 
.
China should improve the supply of clean food and water.
you like to make these pointless posts, then prove me wrong, tell me what is the problem of China's food.

I know what it is, I doubt you know it. It's not something you know about, until you research it.

This also affects water btw.
 
.
Indian friends whether we need to determine the authenticity of the news ?Some commentators really outrageous.
The news source is from New York Times check above the source says so.
Once a symbol of power, farming now an economic drag in China
Ian Johnson,NYT News Service | Oct 13, 2014,
 
. .
Times of India.
Yes but they copied it from New york times
see
Once a symbol of power, farming now an economic drag in China
Ian Johnson,NYT News Service | Oct 13, 2014,


Does India have Ian Johnson as reporter
Ian Johnson,NYT News Service | Oct 13, 2014,
 
.
I have always seen such BS of West trying to undermine China. Getting rid of agriculture can harm China more than anything else. Other than countries like USA, Brazil, Canada, Australia, farming is a big economic drag to white man developed countries including Europe.

Farming is so unprofitable that Europeans need to subsidize their farmers and farm subsidy is perpetually among the greatest budget allocation in EU. Agriculture subsidy is a source big complaints against EU from USA to developed countries but why Europe is not closing down their farms.

Similarly, Japan, Korea, Taiwan are holding on to agriculture and everyone know Japanese farmers are surviving due to rampant protectionism.

Why not doing something more productive?

The reason is to become a strong country, food security is a BIG MUST. A country will be hijack by others if you are not self-sufficient in your food production.

The worrying trend is PRC leaders may buy into white man "market capitalism" theory that even white man themselves (european) dont believe, and start neglecting their own agriculture.

PRC government has already start to shift from 100% food sufficiency and if the trend persist, it will be worrying.

Has China really ditched its grain self-sufficiency policy? | CER
 
.
Back
Top Bottom