Crafting a holistic strategy for rural renewal

To truly understand China, one must first grasp the concept of sannong, a term that encapsulates three intertwined elements: nongye, or agriculture, nongcun or rural areas, and nongmin or farmers. These are not separate components but deeply interconnected facets of a singular entity.

In English, one might list them as "agriculture, rural areas and farmers", but this fails to convey the unified concept that sannong represents.

By combining the three aspects, the term signifies a holistic view.

The reason is simple: these are not three separate issues. Their interconnectedness becomes evident when policies targeting any one of them inadvertently impact the other two. For instance, efforts to consolidate agricultural land and increase output can hollow out villages and push landless farmers to cities.

Thus, a policy aimed at solving the agricultural problem may inadvertently trigger a crisis in rural areas and among farmers. The three components are intrinsically linked, and it is futile to optimize one without considering the other two.

Yet, modern academics do exactly that. Agricultural economics focuses on farming, rural sociology examines village life, and political science studies the peasantry. While each field offers good insights, the comprehensive perspective that sannong requires often falls through the cracks between the disciplines.

This is where Sannongology comes into the picture. It is an initiative to bridge the gap and further develop the conceptual framework embodied in sannong.

Sannongology is built on two foundational pillars.

The first pillar is a system of analytical categories. It comprises seven elements, including mode of production, property rights, markets, region, human-nature relations, state-society relations and nation-world relations. These categories are not a checklist but a conceptual coordinate system that guides researchers to focus on the interactions among them: how a shift in production affects property rights, markets and human-nature relations, and how these tensions change over time.

The critical task is to trace these interactions and identify which tensions are most influential at any given time.

The second pillar is a theory of the state as the entity responsible for addressing sannong. This theory interprets state action through four elements. The first is goals, such as food security, economic growth and social protection. The second is channels, which align with the seven categories of the first pillar.

They are the lens through which the problem is seen and also the levers by which the State addresses it. The third is measures, the concrete actions taken within each channel. The fourth is mechanisms, or how these elements are sustained and coordinated over time, especially when the goals conflict with one another.

If one looks at food security through this frame, China's strategy is not merely about increasing yields. It involves coordinated actions across several categories: protecting farmland and clarifying land rights (property rights), developing socialized services and integrating the supply chain (mode of production), setting up processing in main producing areas (region) and building brands nearer to the consumer (markets). None of these measures are effective in isolation. Their effectiveness comes from being pursued together.

China's approach has two notable features. The first is a division of labor across the government levels: the central government sets non-negotiable limits, such as minimum farmland requirements, while local governments have the discretion to adapt policies to local conditions. The second is a culture of experimentation, where policies are first piloted, results are evaluated, and then scaled up only if they are successful.

It's important to note that Sannongology is not a prescriptive set of solutions, but a research agenda with a theoretical foundation. It is not intended to replace established disciplines such as agricultural economics and rural sociology.

Rather, it draws on all of them to address the rural sector as a whole within the broader context of modernization, providing a framework that has been missing between existing disciplines.

Moreover, it is not a model that can be replicated or exported. The results revealed by applying the framework will differ from place to place, depending on local conditions and challenges.

In some countries the binding tension may lie in property rights and social structure, while in others it could be between large-scale farming and the natural environment, or the dependence on a single export crop. The same frame, but different tensions and different solutions.

Ultimately, Sannongology raises essential questions for any country: Is the rural sector a single entity or three distinct ones? If it is one, do you have the tools to address the issues it faces? And if the state is the ultimate agent of change, do you have a robust theory to guide its actions?

The author is the vice president of Renmin University of China.

The views don't necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.