Examines return advantages of farm expansion in rice farming, suggesting the need for better service systems.
In smallholder-dominated agricultural systems, farm expansion is often expected to improve agricultural performance, yet a larger operated area does not necessarily translate into higher returns per unit of land. This issue is particularly relevant in rice farming, where land fragmentation, labor constraints, and uneven access to agricultural services may limit the return-enhancing effect of farm-scale management (FSM). Using 2024 household survey data from 732 rice-farming households in Jiangxi Province, China, this study examines how FSM, service-scale management (SSM), and their organizational matching affect rice-farming returns (RFR). We apply ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models with interaction-term specifications and further conduct mechanism, moderation, and heterogeneity analyses. The results show that FSM alone does not automatically increase per-mu net operating returns, whereas SSM is positively associated with RFR. More importantly, the interaction between FSM and SSM is significantly positive, indicating that farm expansion generates return advantages mainly when supported by agricultural socialized services. Mechanism analysis suggests that this synergistic effect operates partly through higher land consolidation (LC) and more formalized service contractualization (SC), while smart agricultural technology (SAT) further strengthens the return-enhancing effect. Heterogeneity analysis further shows that the effect differs across farmers with different operating scales. These findings suggest that smallholder modernization should not be understood as land expansion alone but as the organizational matching between farm scale and the service-based division of labor. Policy efforts should therefore aim to improve agricultural socialized service systems, promote land consolidation, strengthen service contracts, and integrate smart agricultural technologies into service provision.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ge et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: