国家重点帮扶县乡村产业振兴水平测度及障碍因素分析

MEASUREMENT OF RURAL INDUSTRIAL REVITALIZATION LEVEL AND ANALYSIS OF OBSTACLE FACTORS IN NATIONAL KEY ASSISTANCE COUNTIES

关键词:  国家重点帮扶县  乡村产业  产业振兴  障碍因素  脱贫攻坚

Key words:  national key assistance county  rural industry  industrial revitalization  obstacle factors  eradicate absolute poverty

摘要:

目的 文章量化分析国家重点帮扶县乡村产业振兴现状，探索脱贫攻坚成果巩固向乡村振兴战略过渡的机制和体制。方法 通过构建乡村产业振兴评价指标体系，采用熵权TOPSIS模型对160个国家重点帮扶县进行量化分析，同时引入障碍度模型，识别各县发展障碍因子。结果 （1）重点帮扶县的乡村产业振兴指数普遍较低，最高值为0.178 7，远小于1；极低水平、低水平、较低水平Ⅰ级和较低水平Ⅱ级4个等级的帮扶县数量依次为40、62、46和12个，呈正偏态分布特征。其中，极低水平县集中分布于青海和四川省内，低水平县分布较为分散，以云南、广西、内蒙古和贵州为主，较低水平Ⅰ级主要分布于甘肃和贵州，较低水平Ⅱ级的县数量相对较少。（2）国家重点帮扶县乡村产业振兴各维度水平指数的评价结果显示，农产品产业体系>农业支撑产业体系>农业多功能产业体系。其中，农产品产业体系评价指数等级县数量由低至高分别为44、66、35和15个，呈偏正态分布，各等级县空间分布与产业振兴总水平相似；农业多功能产业体系各等级县数量分别为73、60、20和7个，偏正态特征更加极化，极低水平和低水平等级县共计133个，占全面帮扶县总数的83.125%，且几乎全部分布于青海、广西、贵州、甘肃和云南5个省区；农业支撑产业体系各等级县数量分别为29、50、63和18个，趋向于正态分布，以中等水平县为主，但是，极低水平和低水平县几乎全部分布于青海、四川、云南、内蒙古和宁夏5个省区，占该等级县总数的88.125%。（3）从障碍因子出现频率来看，出现最多的是农产品产业中的农产品生产能力（A2，9次），其次是农业多功能中的社会功能（B2，7次）和农业支撑产业体系中的信息和流通（C3，5次）。结论 国家重点帮扶县的乡村产业振兴水平仍普遍处于极低水平和低水平，尤其以青海、四川、云南和广西的帮扶县水平最低，产业振兴难度较大；重庆、宁夏、甘肃和贵州略高；陕西和内蒙古自治区处于中等水平。重点帮扶县的农产品产业体系建设基础相对较好，但农业支撑产业体系建设滞后，农业产业的多功能价值延伸效果尚不明显，并且区域差异显著，发展极不平衡，部分县返贫风险依然严峻。农产品产业中的现代化生产体系、农业多功能中的社会功能体系、农业支撑中的信息和流通体系三方面限制是影响重点帮扶县乡村产业振兴的现实阻碍因子。

Abstract:

To quantitatively analyze the current situation of rural industrial revitalization in key counties supported by the state, and explore the mechanism and system for consolidating the achievements of poverty alleviation and transitioning to the strategy of rural revitalization. By constructing an evaluation index system for rural industrial revitalization, the entropy weight TOPSIS model was used to quantitatively analyze 160 key counties supported by the country. At the same time, an obstacle degree model was introduced to identify development obstacles in each county. The results showed that: (1) The rural revitalization index of key assisted counties was generally low, with a maximum value of 0.178 7, far less than 1. The number of assisted counties in the four levels of extremely low level, low level, low level I, and low level II was 40, 62, 46, and 12, respectively, showing a normal skewed distribution. Among them, extremely low-level counties were concentrated in Qinghai and Sichuan provinces, while low-level counties were relatively scattered, mainly in Yunnan, Guangxi, Inner Mongolia, and Guizhou. Level I low-level counties were mainly distributed in Gansu and Guizhou, and the number of Level II low-level counties was relatively small. (2) The evaluation results of the level index of various dimensions of rural industrial revitalization in key counties supported by the state showed that agricultural product industry system > agricultural industry support system > agricultural multifunctional industry system. Among them, the number of counties with evaluation index levels for the agricultural product industry system, from low to high, was 44, 66, 35, and 15, respectively, showing a skewed normal distribution. The spatial distribution of counties at each level was similar to the overall level of industrial revitalization; The number of counties in the agricultural multifunctional industry system at different levels was 73, 60, 20, and 7, respectively. The skewed normal characteristics were more polarized, with a total of 133 counties at extremely low and low-level levels, accounting for 83.125% of the total number of counties receiving comprehensive assistance, and almost all of them were distributed in five provinces and regions: Qinghai, Guangxi, Guizhou, Gansu, and Yunnan; The number of counties in each level of the agricultural support industry system was 29, 50, 63, and 18, respectively, tending towards a normal distribution, with medium level counties being the main ones. However, extremely low level and low-level counties were almost entirely distributed in five provinces and regions: Qinghai, Sichuan, Yunnan, Inner Mongolia, and Ningxia, accounting for 88.125% of the total number of counties in this level. (3) In terms of the frequency of obstacle factors, the most common one was the production capacity of agricultural products in the agricultural industry (A2, 10 times), followed by the social function in agricultural multifunctionality (B2, 7 times) and the information and circulation in the agricultural support system (C3, 5 times). In summary, the level of rural industrial revitalization in key counties supported by the state is still generally at an extremely low level, especially in the counties supported by Qinghai, Sichuan, Yunnan, and Guangxi, where the level is the lowest and the difficulty of industrial revitalization is relatively high; Chongqing, Ningxia, Gansu, and Guizhou are slightly higher; Shaanxi and Inner Mongolia provinces are at a moderate level. The construction foundation of the agricultural product industry system in key assisted counties is relatively good, but the construction of the agricultural support industry system lags behind. The multifunctional value extension effect of the agricultural industry is not yet obvious, and regional differences are significant. The development is extremely unbalanced, and the risk of some counties returning to poverty is still severe. The modern production system in the agricultural product industry, the social function system in the multifunctional agriculture, and the information and circulation system in the agricultural support are the three practical obstacles that affect the revitalization of rural industries in key assisted counties.