The household responsibility system and social change in rural Guizhou, China: applying a cohort approach

Since the introduction of the Household Responsibility System (HRS) in 1978, Chinese rural households have experienced many changes. The HRS allows farming households to organize their own agricultural production on contracted lands, enabling them to work more efficiently and get more benefits compared to during the collective era. Since the market liberation, the number of enterprises that can absorb the surplus labour has increased, and many men migrate to earn cash. This entails changes in gender roles in the rural areas, leading to feminization of agriculture and women becoming de facto household heads. Household landholding, land use and livelihoods are changing and social stratification is becoming more pronounced. As a consequence, farming households’ needs for agricultural extension are increasingly diverse and can no longer be accommodated by traditional top-down extension. The changes since the implementation of the HRS provide the opportunity to study the interrelationships of household, gender, livelihood and social change in rural China. This research aimed to identify the changes in the farming household, gender roles, and rural livelihoods since the implementation of the Household Responsibility System (HRS) in 1978, to understand the heterogeneous household land use practices in the context of diversified livelihood portfolios, and to provide policy recommendations for agricultural technology extension. This research aimed to answer the following research questions: 1. What are the changes in farming households after the HRS, in terms of household structure, composition, size, sources of income and livelihood (including land use), and gender roles? 2. What are the changes in the household, gender roles, livelihood, and land use strategies and their impacts on rural society? 3. How can agricultural extension policies better accommodate the increasing heterogeneity of farming households, particularly regarding household land use? This research was conducted in the municipality of Kaizuo, located in the southern part of the province of Guizhou, China. The municipality has 37 villages. The field work was done from August 2007 to October 2008. The researcher could also use earlier working experience in the same area. The study used a life course approach and the livelihood framework. The main research methods were cohort analysis, key informant interviews, household survey, focus group discussions (FGDs), case study and participant observation. Secondary data collection was used to describe the research area. The major findings of this research are summarized below. Before 1978, many rural households had food shortage problems. They only worked on the collective land and had no decision-making power about land use. Food distribution was organized according to labour contribution (work points) to the collective production. About half of the households had to borrow food from the collective. The households were rather similar in terms of physical, financial, social and environmental resources. People’s education level was low and most marriages were arranged. The houses were small and poorly built. People helped each other in many activities, e.g. house construction, in return for food. There were few products in the market and there was only one cooperative shop in the municipality that sold daily necessities. Coupons were required if you wanted to buy goods there, but these were allocated to each person according to a certain ratio and their number was very limited. There were no tap water and there were only dirt roads. Most households used firewood for fuel and did not have electricity. The main income came from agricultural production and few skilled villagers, all men, did sideline activities for the collective. Skilled persons were entitled to more food. Agricultural extension was top-down, through village leaders and extension workers. Men and women did not get equal work points, since men were involved in activities that earned more points, such as ploughing and skilled work. Since the implementation of the HRS, the household size has become smaller and the younger people are better educated. Young couples started to go out to earn cash, leaving their children with the grandparents. Income sources have become more diversified. Migration is very common for the younger people and off-farm circulation is common among middle-aged persons. Only aged persons now depend on land only. Villagers run small shops and a small mine factory, work in the transportation business or trade, sell wild vegetables and medicinal herbs. Most of the money made is not from agriculture. More money comes from animal husbandry, migration and off-farm work. People have extra food to sell because of higher yields from the land and fewer mouths at home. Traders come to buy non-timber forest products, resources that are valuable for women, aged persons, and children. Land is rented to others to cultivate because migration causes labour shortage. More cash crops are cultivated. Women and men are now more equal ideologically. Younger wives are active in agricultural production and have to do many activities in the field them¬selves or get help from the parents-in-law. Women prefer to cultivate more diversified crops. Men are more interested in cultivating staple food or cash crops and they prefer to get money from non-agricultural sources. It is common that who does the job, makes the decisions relating to it. The home garden is the women’s domain. Aged couples usually work together, according to a rigid division of labour that is not found among young couples anymore. Newly married couples spend more time on child care and less on agriculture. The daughter-in-law is now more power¬ful than the mother-in-law and can make her own decisions, even if the older woman works harder. In economic terms, most households are medium-level households. House¬holds that rely only on their land and agriculture are not rich. For rich house¬holds the land is not so important anymore, although they hold on to it. For such house¬holds agriculture production is a sideline activity. Most medium-level house¬holds diversify land use and cultivate more cash crops. Poorest households are not good at land management and only cultivate a limited number of crops. Only few households that have little land want to give up the land to earn money by migration. Most people, however, want to come back to farming some day, when they are too old for migration. The households of late 1980s and 1990s cohorts have the most difficult time because they have to pay for the children’s higher education. The situation is easier for the households of the 2000s cohort, whose children are younger, and who prefer to work outside to earn cash for the children’s upbringing and future. Some households do not migrate and are engaged in intensive cultivation, trading, or transportation. For them, cash crops are important. The households of the 1970s and early 1980s cohorts are usually involved in circulation. They can use the money they earn from this, and what their children send them, for inputs in agricultural production. They can employ labourers to work for them in the busy season and are eager to increase their knowledge about land management. They prefer to cultivate more diversified food for own consumption. But they have a heavy burden, taking care of grandchildren and their children’s land. Younger cohorts prefer to migrate or have a business of their own, and do not pay much attention to agriculture. They give the land to their parents to manage or rent it out to others. Older cohorts stick to agriculture and animal husbandry and only do circulation. They rent land to cultivate, even though it is not very profitable. They are not accepted as workers by factories, so they have to stay at home to work in agriculture. Some mentioned that they would like to work in the factory to earn more money, but most still prefer to work in the field. They use agricultural products to feed their animals and earn cash from selling animals. Migration causes serious labour shortage in agricultural production. Nowadays, help in return for food is decreasing and money-rewarded employ¬¬ment is on the increase. It is now difficult for the village to organize community activities. Nobody wants to be a village leader, because of the time it takes. At the same time, the mutual help between neighbours, relatives and friends plays an important role in the migration process. The women left behind make decisions in many fields. The number of de facto female-headed households is increasing. Migrants bring new ideas to rural society, thereby opening it up. Cases of land being abandoned occur more frequently than in former times. Villagers now enjoy better living conditions and have more leisure time. Compared to the older generation, the younger people have more time to relax. Aged persons still work hard, because they have to look after grandchildren left with them, in addition to working on the farm. Differences in income between farming households have not become much larger in the past twenty years, but liveli¬hood strategies are more diverse and social and occupational stratification is increasing. The channels for the transfer of new agricultural technologies are mainly relatives, friends and neighbours. Only a few people get information from the extension workers. The shop keeper is an important figure in providing the villagers with information on agricultural technologies. The older couples are the main agricultural producers, and they have a lot of experience. Younger couples put more effort into migration and their agricultural skills are limited. However, they easily adopt new technologies. The government’s extension service cannot very well meet the diversified need for agricultural technology. Labour shortages and feminization of agriculture caused by migration create a need for labour-saving technologies and appropriate technologies for women. Extension activities should pay more attention to the older cohorts who are the main agricultural producers.