IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/chieco/v60y2020ics1043951x18300014.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Liberalizing rural-to-urban construction land transfers in China: Distribution effects

Author

Listed:
  • Tan, Rong
  • Wang, Rongyu
  • Heerink, Nico

Abstract

China's land market is characterized by a dual urban-rural system, with the government in control of rural-urban land transfers. In recent years, different types of pilot projects have been implemented to experiment with liberalizing markets for rural-urban construction land transfers. The objective of this study is to gain insights into the distributional effects of three different types of land liberalization rules by making a comparative analysis of three pilot projects carried out under each of these liberalization rules. We find that transfers facing more liberalized rules result in higher shares of land revenue flowing to the rural sector and thereby reduce the ruralurban income gap. But direct transfers between rural and urban land users also contribute to growing income inequality within the rural sector, as households living in urban fringes benefit relatively more from such transfers. A tradable quota system can reduce the impact of location on the price of land, and thereby contribute to a more equal distribution of the revenues of rural-urban land transfers within the rural sector.

Suggested Citation

  • Tan, Rong & Wang, Rongyu & Heerink, Nico, 2020. "Liberalizing rural-to-urban construction land transfers in China: Distribution effects," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:chieco:v:60:y:2020:i:c:s1043951x18300014
    DOI: 10.1016/j.chieco.2018.01.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043951X18300014
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.chieco.2018.01.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rong Tan & Rongyu Wang & Thomas Sedlin, 2014. "Land-Development Offset Policies in the Quest for Sustainability: What Can China Learn from Germany?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(6), pages 1-31, May.
    2. Ray Yep, 2015. "Filling the Institutional Void in Rural Land Markets in Southern China: Is there Room for Spontaneous Change from Below?," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 46(3), pages 534-561, May.
    3. Tan, Rong & Qu, Futian & Heerink, Nico & Mettepenningen, Evy, 2011. "Rural to urban land conversion in China — How large is the over-conversion and what are its welfare implications?," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 474-484.
    4. Wang, Hui & Riedinger, Jeffrey & Jin, Songqing, 2015. "Land documents, tenure security and land rental development: Panel evidence from China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 220-235.
    5. Elizabeth Kopits & Virginia McConnell & Margaret Walls, 2008. "Making Markets for Development Rights Work: What Determines Demand?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 1-16.
    6. Tom Tietenberg, 1995. "Tradeable permits for pollution control when emission location matters: What have we learned?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 5(2), pages 95-113, March.
    7. Deininger, Klaus & Zegarra, Eduardo & Lavadenz, Isabel, 2003. "Determinants and Impacts of Rural Land Market Activity: Evidence from Nicaragua," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 31(8), pages 1385-1404, August.
    8. Arild Vatn, 2005. "Institutions and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2826.
    9. Josep Roca Cladera & Malcolm C. Burns, 2000. "The Liberalization of the Land Market in Spain: The 1998 Reform of Urban Planning Legislation," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(5), pages 547-564, October.
    10. Carter, Michael R. & Zimmerman, Frederick J., 2000. "The dynamic cost and persistence of asset inequality in an agrarian economy," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 265-302, December.
    11. Gohar, Abdelaziz A. & Ward, Frank A., 2010. "Gains from expanded irrigation water trading in Egypt: An integrated basin approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2535-2548, October.
    12. David L. Chicoine, 1981. "Farmland Values at the Urban Fringe: An Analysis of Sale Prices," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 57(3), pages 353-362.
    13. Klaus Deininger, 2003. "Land Markets in Developing and Transition Economies: Impact of Liberalization and Implications for Future Reform," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1217-1222.
    14. Vatn, Arild, 2005. "Rationality, institutions and environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 203-217, November.
    15. Scott Rozelle & Johan F.M. Swinnen, 2004. "Success and Failure of Reform: Insights from the Transition of Agriculture," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(2), pages 404-456, June.
    16. Richard L. Barrows & Bruce A. Prenguber, 1975. "Transfer of Development Rights: An Analysis of a New Land Use Policy Tool," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 57(4), pages 549-557.
    17. Yonghua Zou & Wanxia Zhao & Robert Mason, 2014. "Marketization of Collective-owned Rural Land: A Breakthrough in Shenzhen, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-10, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wang, Weifang, 2021. "Nuanced insights into land buyer perceptions of engaging in rural land transactions from a cost perspective: Evidence from China’s emerging rural land market," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    2. Jiao, Man & Xu, Hengzhou, 2022. "How do Collective Operating Construction Land (COCL) Transactions affect rural residents’ property income? Evidence from rural Deqing County, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    3. Daquan Huang & Shihao Zhu & Tao Liu & Pingping Ma, 2022. "Do land ownership types matter in manufacturing firms’ location choice? Using Beijing as a case study," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(1), pages 151-169, March.
    4. Hongkun Ma & Hao Zhu & Shuhan Ren & Rudi Liu & Cuixia Qiao, 2023. "The Impact of Government-Led Farmland Construction on Market-Oriented Farmland Transfer—Evidence from Shandong, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-12, February.
    5. Dong Ouyang & Xigang Zhu & Xingguang Liu & Renfei He & Qian Wan, 2021. "Spatial Differentiation and Driving Factor Analysis of Urban Construction Land Change in County-Level City of Guangxi, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-21, June.
    6. Maolong Chen & Shurong Yao & Chaoran Hu & Songqing Jin, 2023. "Transfer or retain land development right: The role of China’s IDB programme in supporting inclusive urbanisation," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 60(13), pages 2651-2668, October.
    7. Peng Yao & Qi Jia & Jianxu Liu & Woraphon Yamaka, 2022. "Reform of Collective Land for Construction and Rental Housing and the Growth of Farmers’ Property Income: Evidence from China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-19, December.
    8. Wang, Rongyu & Tan, Rong, 2020. "Patterns of revenue distribution in rural residential land consolidation in contemporary China: The perspective of property rights delineation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    9. Man Jiao & Hengzhou Xu, 2022. "Does Rural Construction Land Marketization Inhibit State-Owned Industrial Land Transactions? Evidence from Huzhou City, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, September.
    10. Bangrong Shu & Yi Qu, 2022. "Impact Mechanism of the Three Pilot Reforms of the Rural Land System on Rural Residential Land Use Transition: A Regime Shifts Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-17, December.
    11. Weiguo Fan & Wei Yao & Kehan Chen, 2023. "Integrating Energy Systems Language and Emergy Approach to Simulate and Analyze the Energy Flow Process of Land Transfer," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-24, May.
    12. Zhongqiong Qu & Yongxin Wei & Xun Li, 2021. "Risk Perception of Rural Land Supply Reform in China: From the Perspective of Stakeholders," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-25, July.
    13. Rui Yao & Jianping Ye & Lei Song, 2023. "The Impact of the Rural–Urban Migration of Chinese Farmers on the Use of Rural Homesteads: A Threshold Model Analysis," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-27, July.
    14. Yu Wang & Li Tian & Ziyi Wang & Chenyue Wang & Yuan Gao, 2023. "Effects of Transfer of Land Development Rights on Urban–Rural Integration: Theoretical Framework and Evidence from Chongqing, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-22, November.
    15. Li, Chengyou & Jiao, Yong & Sun, Tao & Liu, Anran, 2021. "Alleviating multi-dimensional poverty through land transfer: Evidence from poverty-stricken villages in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    16. Xuelan Li & Jiyu Jiang & Javier Cifuentes-Faura, 2023. "Coordinated Development and Sustainability of the Agriculture, Climate and Society System in China: Based on the PLE Analysis Framework," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-19, March.
    17. Zhixin Zeng & Xiaojun Wang, 2021. "Effects of Domestic Tourism on Urban-Rural Income Inequality: Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-21, August.
    18. Li, Cheng & Zhang, Ying, 2021. "How does housing wealth affect household consumption? Evidence from macro-data with special implications for China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    19. Pengrui Wang & Chen Zeng & Yan Song & Long Guo & Wenping Liu & Wenting Zhang, 2021. "The Spatial Effect of Administrative Division on Land-Use Intensity," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-18, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wang, Rongyu & Tan, Rong, 2020. "Efficiency and distribution of rural construction land marketization in contemporary China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    2. Klaus Deininger & Songqing Jin, 2008. "Land Sales and Rental Markets in Transition: Evidence from Rural Vietnam," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 70(1), pages 67-101, February.
    3. Hengzhou Xu & Yihang Zhao & Ronghui Tan & Hongchun Yin, 2017. "Does the Policy of Rural Land Rights Confirmation Promote the Transfer of Farmland in China?," Acta Oeconomica, Akadémiai Kiadó, Hungary, vol. 67(4), pages 643-672, December.
    4. Zhun Chen & Yuefei Zhuo & Guan Li & Zhongguo Xu, 2021. "What Drives Different Governance Modes and Marketization Performance for Collective Commercial Construction Land in Rural China?," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-23, March.
    5. Wen, Lanjiao & Chatalova, Lioudmila & Zhang, Anlu, 2022. "Can China's unified construction land market mitigate urban land shortage? Evidence from Deqing and Nanhai, Eastern coastal China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    6. Ma, Xianlei & Heerink, Nico & van Ierland, Ekko & Lang, Hairu & Shi, Xiaoping, 2020. "Decisions by Chinese households regarding renting in arable land—The impact of tenure security perceptions and trust," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    7. Li, Rui & Li, Qinghai & Lv, Xiaofeng & Zhu, Xi, 2019. "The land rental of Chinese rural households and its welfare effects," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 204-217.
    8. Petrick, Martin, 2008. "Theoretical and methodological topics in the institutional economics of European agriculture. With applications to farm organisation and rural credit arrangements," Studies on the Agricultural and Food Sector in Transition Economies, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), volume 45, number 92318.
    9. Wen, Lan-jiao & Butsic, Van & Stapp, Jared R. & Zhang, An-lu, 2020. "What happens to land price when a rural construction land market legally opens in China? A spatiotemporal analysis of Nanhai district from 2010 to 2015," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    10. Bobulescu, Roxana & Fritscheova, Aneta, 2021. "Convivial innovation in sustainable communities: Four cases in France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    11. Kvakkestad, Valborg, 2009. "Institutions and the R&D of GM-crops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2688-2695, August.
    12. Trædal, Leif Tore & Vedeld, Pål Olav & Pétursson, Jón Geir, 2016. "Analyzing the transformations of forest PES in Vietnam: Implications for REDD+," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 109-117.
    13. Spash, Clive L. & Vatn, Arild, 2006. "Transferring environmental value estimates: Issues and alternatives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 379-388, December.
    14. Padmanabhan, Martina, 2011. "Women and men as conservers, users and managers of agrobiodiversity," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 968-976.
    15. Cao, Yueming & Bai, Yunli & Zhang, Linxiu, 2021. "Plot Size, Adjacency, and Farmland Rental Contract Choice," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315378, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Clive L Spash, 2009. "Social Ecological Economics," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2009-08, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    17. Dimitrios Zikos, 2020. "Revisiting the Role of Institutions in Transformative Contexts: Institutional Change and Conflicts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-20, October.
    18. Jean-David Gerber, St phane Nahrath, 2013. "Beitrag zur Entwicklung eines Ressourcenansatzes der Nachhaltigkeit," Diskussionsschriften credresearchpaper03, Universitaet Bern, Departement Volkswirtschaft - CRED.
    19. Kathleen McAfee, 2012. "The Contradictory Logic of Global Ecosystem Services Markets," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 43(1), pages 105-131, January.
    20. Lars Hein & Pete Roberts & Lucia Gonzalez, 2016. "Valuing a Statistical Life Year in Relation to Clean Air," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(04), pages 1-24, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:chieco:v:60:y:2020:i:c:s1043951x18300014. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/chieco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.