How should we objectively view the problem of major grain-producing counties being financially poor counties?

The transformation of major grain-producing counties does not mean abandoning grain production, but rather achieving a leap from major counties to strong counties. Whether major grain-producing counties can successfully transform into strong grain-producing counties is not only related to whether the development of major grain-producing counties is sustainable, but also related to whether national food security is sustainable.

“Among the 800 major grain-producing counties, 105 are national-level poverty-stricken counties, with 36 million poor people.” Recently, a research report by the China Well-off Society Construction Research Association brought the issue of “major grain-producing counties, financially poor counties” to the public eye, sparking strong social concern: as the mainstay of national food security, why have “major grain-producing counties” become the “laggards” on the road to comprehensive moderate prosperity?

This is only one side of the issue. The national top 100 counties list released at almost the same time included 18 national advanced grain production counties such as Qihe in Shandong. Although the evaluation indicators of the two are not entirely the same, they show from one angle that major grain-producing counties and financially poor counties cannot simply be equated. Using the 105 national-level poverty-stricken counties as a sample for examining major grain-producing counties is just as prone to bias as using the 18 top 100 counties to talk about major grain-producing counties.

It cannot be denied that after the complete abolition of the agricultural tax, grain production can no longer contribute tax revenue to local governments, and many subsidy policies still require local government matching funds, making “the more grain is grown, the more one loses” a realistic consideration for local governments. What also needs to be seen is that for a large country with nearly 1.4 billion people, grain production is not a simple economic industry, and the comprehensive capacity of major grain-producing counties cannot be measured by fiscal revenue alone.

According to statistics, the 800 major grain-producing counties involved in the national plan to increase grain production capacity by 100 billion jin account for less than 30% of the total number of administrative counties nationwide, yet their total grain output is close to 70% of the national total. From 2004 to 2012, major counties with output of more than 1 billion jin increased production by more than 230 billion jin in total, contributing more than 70% to the “ten consecutive increases” in grain. These two “70%” figures determine that on the map of national food security, the position of major grain-producing counties is pivotal.

In view of this, the central government has continuously increased rewards and subsidies for major grain-producing counties. From 5.5 billion yuan in 2005 to 31.92 billion yuan in 2013, a cumulative total of 158.92 billion yuan in reward funds was allocated over 9 years, which, calculated across 800 major counties, averages nearly 200 million yuan per county. At the same time, special investments were arranged for field projects, agricultural technology service systems, and grain processing project construction in major grain-producing counties to change the backward state of infrastructure; among the 800 major grain-producing counties, 771 comprehensive agricultural development counties had their county-level fiscal matching tasks canceled. Between additions and subtractions, transfer payments have become an important source of fiscal revenue for major grain-producing counties.

“Safeguarding the status of a major grain-producing county without the slightest wavering has become the primary task of the county party committee and county government.” The heartfelt words of a party secretary of a major grain-producing county reveal the truth——the comparative benefit of grain is low, yet for major grain-producing counties, their greatest advantage for development is grain, and their greatest resource is also grain.

Major grain-producing counties are mostly small economic counties and financially poor counties, which in the final analysis is a reflection of the low efficiency and comparative benefit of grain production. If the entire social production is compared to an assembly line, for grain production to obtain average social returns, social redistribution is indispensable. In a sense, the central government's transfer payments are precisely paying the bill for safeguarding national food security. Therefore, while agriculture is still a weak industry, to break out of the strange cycle of “the more grain is produced, the poorer the finances,” the central government needs to continue increasing transfer payments to major grain-producing counties, so that they not only have political honor but also have economic benefits. With benefits, major grain-producing counties will have the enthusiasm to seek development; with income, major grain-producing counties will have the ability to develop farmland water conservancy, agricultural technology services and other public undertakings, achieving “storing grain in the land” and “storing grain in technology.”

In recent years, the intensity of fiscal transfer payments cannot be called small, yet why is it that some major grain-producing counties have fiscal revenue only enough to keep operating, while other major grain-producing counties can rank among the national top 100 counties? The reasons can certainly be sought in factors such as geography and resources, but the efficiency of fund use is also an important factor. Qihe County in Shandong integrated project funds to establish demonstration plots, showing farmers how it is done, while Ningxiang County in Hunan vigorously supported socialized service organizations, helping farmers do the work, both allowing limited fiscal funds to play the role of “four taels moving a thousand jin,” attracting more farmers and enterprises into grain production. From individual households to contiguous plots, from carrying small sprayers to apply pesticide to using helicopters to control pests and diseases, from merely scratching a living from the land to the integration of primary, secondary and tertiary industries, when the industry is strong and farmers are rich, does the government still need to worry about having no money for development?

At present, China is in a critical period of “adjusting structure and transforming mode,” and the adjustment and upgrading of the industrial structure will inevitably bring a major reshuffling of the social structure. The transformation of major grain-producing counties does not mean abandoning grain production, but rather achieving a leap from major counties to strong counties. Whether major grain-producing counties can successfully transform into strong grain-producing counties is not only related to whether the development of major grain-producing counties is sustainable, but also related to whether national food security is sustainable. In this process, major grain-producing counties need all the more to take the long view, position themselves accurately, and plan proactively. With accurate positioning, grain can become a “hit product,” and removing the label of a financially poor county will only be a matter of time; with inaccurate positioning, blindly competing on one's weaknesses will likely go in the opposite direction and lose the foundation and source of development.