| Literature DB >> 36045972 |
Song Deng1, Di Yang1, Zhaoli Gao1, Zhen Yuan1, Chenghui Yao1.
Abstract
The main path of development credit funds in rural poverty alleviation in Y province is crucial. This paper studies the rural poverty alleviation work in extreme poverty areas in Yunnan and puts forward targeted and instructive policy suggestions for specific difficult areas. Research the relationship between credit resource allocation and rural poverty alleviation. The existing research is mainly based on the relationship between financial development and economic growth, income growth, income distribution, and, on the surface, the relationship between the scale of financial development and the efficiency of financial development and other indicators. The purpose is to put forward targeted measures and suggestions on the basis of theoretical research and model analysis to help the Yunnan banking industry support poverty alleviation. The results of the study show that there is a causal relationship between agriculture-related loans.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36045972 PMCID: PMC9424015 DOI: 10.1155/2022/9498056
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Research methods and ideas of this paper.
Agricultural-related credit resource allocation index system.
| Tier 1 indicators | Secondary indicators | Specific indicators for agriculture-related loans |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural-related loans | Industrial development loans | Agriculture, forestry, and fishery loans |
| Agricultural materials and agricultural by-products circulation loans | ||
| Agro-processing loans | ||
| Fixed asset class loans | Rural infrastructure construction loans | |
| Farmland capital construction loans | ||
| Technical service loans | Agricultural production materials manufacturing loans | |
| Agricultural science and technology loan |
Summary of research hypotheses in this paper.
| Assumption no. | Explanatory variables (credit resource allocation) | Explained variable (rural poverty alleviation effectiveness) |
|---|---|---|
| H1 | Agricultural-related loans (AL) | Granger causality |
| H1a | Industrial development type loans (ALa) | Significant positive relationship |
| H1b | Fixed-asset-based loans (ALb) | Significant positive relationship |
| H1c | Technical service loans (ALc) | Significant positive relationship |
Per capita net income of farmers in Yunnan Province, 2010–2015.
| Year | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue (yuan) | 3,952 | 4,722 | 5,417 | 6,141 | 7,456 | 8,242 |
Agricultural-related loan data, 2010–2015.
| Loan purpose | Loan balance (billion yuan) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | |
| Agriculture, forestry, and fishery loans | 905.92 | 685.39 | 777.72 | 855.65 | 967.56 | 1,039.17 |
| Agricultural materials and agricultural by-products circulation loans | 221.82 | 227.91 | 280.85 | 336.91 | 401.50 | 440.92 |
| Rural infrastructure construction loans | 956.36 | 1,096.37 | 1,159.84 | 1,062.73 | 1,160.43 | 1,190.29 |
| Agro-processing loans | 118.58 | 146.36 | 160.05 | 172.17 | 211.67 | 240.76 |
| Agricultural production materials manufacturing loans | 184.58 | 187.10 | 234.18 | 181.77 | 197.74 | 189.25 |
| Farmland capital construction loans | 125.90 | 141.07 | 116.83 | 118.15 | 95.92 | 134.55 |
| Agricultural science and technology loan | 14.63 | 11.60 | 16.84 | 11.60 | 8.24 | 5.03 |
| Total farm-related loans (excluding others) | 2527.78 | 2,495.79 | 2,746.30 | 2,738.98 | 3,043.07 | 3,239.97 |
Agricultural-related loan data after categorization by loan nature.
| Loan classification | Loan balance (billion yuan) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | |
| Industrial development loans | 1,246.32 | 1,059.66 | 1,218.62 | 1,364.73 | 1,580.73 | 1,720.85 |
| Fixed asset class loans | 1,082.25 | 1,237.43 | 1,276.66 | 1,180.88 | 1,256.35 | 1,324.85 |
| Technical service loans | 199.21 | 198.70 | 251.02 | 193.37 | 205.98 | 194.28 |
| Total farm-related loans (excluding others) | 2,527.78 | 2,495.79 | 2,746.30 | 2,738.98 | 3,043.07 | 3,239.97 |
AL and ANI variables smoothness test.
| Variables | ADF test value | Inspection type | 1% Critical value | 5% Critical value | 10% Threshold | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AL | −2.223592 | (C, 0, 1) | −4.887 | −3.8377 | −3.3677 | Nonstationary |
| AL1 | −3.424131 | (0, 0, 1) | −2.6491 | −1.9745 | −1.6503 | Flat at 1% level |
| ANI | 0.164814 | (0, t, 3) | −2.8376 | −1.9653 | −1.6241 | Nonstationary |
| ANI1 | −2.053887 | (C, 0, 1) | −2.7986 | −1.9654 | −1.6301 | Steady at 5% level |
Tests for smoothness of ALa, ALb, and ALc variables.
| Variables | ADF test value | Inspection type | 1% Critical value | 5% Critical value | 10% Threshold | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALa | −2.223592 | (C, 0, 3) | −3.5203 | −2.9878 | −2.8797 | Nonstationary |
| ALa1 | −1.867342 | (0, 0, 1) | −2.4332 | −1.5643 | −1.4689 | Flat at 1% level |
| ALb | 0.156832 | (0, 0, 2) | −2.6735 | −2.3561 | −2.8751 | Nonstationary |
| ALb1 | −1.560932 | (C, 0, 1) | −2.6591 | −1.9782 | −1.66431 | Steady at 5% level |
| ALc | −3.856342 | (0, 0, 2) | −3.2117 | −2.5649 | −2.4198 | Nonstationary |
| ALc1 | −2.017843 | (0, t, 1) | −2.7531 | −1.8796 | −1.5493 | Flat at 1% level |
AL1 and ANI1 cointegration test.
| Variable | ADF test value | Inspection type | 1% Critical value | 5% Critical value | 10% Threshold |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Residuals | −1.978712 | (0, 0, 1) | −2.766 | −1.9543 | −1.5761 |
Results of the Granger causality test for ANI1.
| Explained variables | ANI1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Variables and constant terms | Parameter estimates |
|
| Constant term | −0.0557372 | −1.376523 |
| Error correction term | 0.969778 | 4.436712 |
| AL1 (–1) | 3.214532 | 3.097415 |
| AL1 (–2) | 1.537621 | 2.598719 |
| Goodness-of-fit value | 0.7951623 | |
| Durbin–Watson test value | 1.7035621 | |
Results of the Granger causality test for AL1.
| Explained variables | AL1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Variables and constant terms | Parameter estimates |
|
| Constant term | 0.0318752 | 0.597651 |
| Error correction term | −0.056201 | −0.1508319 |
| ANI1 (–1) | 0.286514 | 2.915632 |
| AL1 (–1) | 0.497153 | 2.801653 |
| Goodness-of-fit value | 0.685132 | |
| Durbin–Watson test value | 1.726531 | |