IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i21p6084-d282519.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nonmarketization Bargaining and Actual Compensation Level for Land Requisition: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of China’s Land Requisition Conflict Events

Author

Listed:
  • Li Huang

    (School of Public Administration, China University of Geosciences (CUG), Wuhan 430074, China)

  • Shougeng Hu

    (School of Public Administration, China University of Geosciences (CUG), Wuhan 430074, China
    Key Laboratory of Legal Evaluation Project, Ministry of Natural Resources, Wuhan 430074, China)

  • Shixiang Li

    (School of Public Administration, China University of Geosciences (CUG), Wuhan 430074, China)

  • Zhenqi Fu

    (School of Public Administration, Hunan Normal University, Changsha 410081, China)

Abstract

In the land requisition market in China, two very different compensation levels for land requisition can be seen in the real world: one is the highly rigid official compensation level for land requisition and the other is a fuzzy actual compensation level for land requisition. In order to uncover the determinants of the actual compensation level for land requisition in China, this paper adopts Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) to analyze the causal relationship between nonmarketization bargaining factors, like land-losing farmers’ bargaining ability, bargaining strategy, external intervention, etc., and the actual compensation level for land requisition by taking 70 land requisition conflict events occurring from 2002 to 2017 as the point of departure. The results of the empirical analysis show that if land-losing farmers have a relatively strong bargaining ability, forgo a radical bargaining strategy, and use a relatively gentle bargaining strategy instead, they can effectively force local governments to make concessions and compromises on the compensation level for land requisition. This paper not only enriches the existing research on the structure of social power, but it also has significance for the ongoing reform of the land requisition system.

Suggested Citation

  • Li Huang & Shougeng Hu & Shixiang Li & Zhenqi Fu, 2019. "Nonmarketization Bargaining and Actual Compensation Level for Land Requisition: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of China’s Land Requisition Conflict Events," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-24, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:21:p:6084-:d:282519
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/21/6084/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/21/6084/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Qiuxiang Li & Haijun Bao & Yi Peng & Haowen Wang & Xiaoling Zhang, 2017. "The Collective Strategies of Major Stakeholders in Land Expropriation: A Tripartite Game Analysis of Central Government, Local Governments, and Land-Lost Farmers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-15, April.
    3. Sina Shahab & J. Peter Clinch & Eoin O'Neill, 2018. "Estimates of Transaction Costs in Transfer of Development Rights Programs," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 84(1), pages 61-75, January.
    4. Fulong Wu & Fangzhu Zhang & Chris Webster, 2013. "Informality and the Development and Demolition of Urban Villages in the Chinese Peri-urban Area," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 50(10), pages 1919-1934, August.
    5. Xu, Yiqing & Yao, Yang, 2015. "Informal Institutions, Collective Action, and Public Investment in Rural China," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 109(2), pages 371-391, May.
    6. Wubneh, Mulatu, 2018. "Policies and praxis of land acquisition, use, and development in Ethiopia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 170-183.
    7. Anna Maria Colavitti & Sergio Serra, 2018. "The transfer of development rights as a tool for the urban growth containment: A comparison between the United States and Italy," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 97(4), pages 1247-1265, November.
    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. Jiaxing Cui & Xuesong Kong & Jing Chen & Jianwei Sun & Yuanyuan Zhu, 2021. "Spatially Explicit Evaluation and Driving Factor Identification of Land Use Conflict in Yangtze River Economic Belt," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-24, January.
    2. Li Huang & Minjie Zheng & Rongyu Wang, 2022. "Rural Housing Rental Rates in China: Regional Differences, Influencing Factors, and Policy Implications," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-20, July.
    3. Roland Cheo & Kainan Huang & Jingping Li, 2023. "Group cooperation of village officials in Chinese rural resettlement: A lab in the field," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 41(2), pages 388-407, April.

    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. Bruno, Erica & Falco, Enzo & Shahab, Sina & Geneletti, Davide, 2023. "Integrating ecosystem services in transfer of development rights: a literature review," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    2. Wang, Han & Lu, Siying & Lu, Bo & Nie, Xin, 2021. "Overt and covert: The relationship between the transfer of land development rights and carbon emissions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    3. He, Quqiong & Pan, Ying & Sarangi, Sudipta, 2018. "Lineage-based heterogeneity and cooperative behavior in rural China," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 248-269.
    4. Siyi Chen & Zhigang Chen & Yan Shen, 2021. "Can improving law enforcement effectively curb illegal land use in China?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-17, February.
    5. Tang, Can & Zhao, Zhong, 2022. "Informal institution meets child development," MERIT Working Papers 2022-032, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    6. Bei Luo & Terence Tai-Leung Chong, 2017. "Entrepreneurial activities and institutional environment in China," Economic and Political Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(2), pages 179-194, April.
    7. Liu, Feifei & He, Xinming & Wang, Tao, 2023. "In the name of the family: The effect of CEO clan culture background on firm internationalization," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    8. Huang, Liangxiong & Ma, Minghui & Wang, Xianbin, 2022. "Clan culture and risk-taking of Chinese enterprises," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    9. Taiyang Zhong & Xianjin Huang & Lifang Ye & Steffanie Scott, 2014. "The Impacts on Illegal Farmland Conversion of Adopting Remote Sensing Technology for Land Inspection in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(7), pages 1-26, July.
    10. David Asante Edwin & Evam Kofi Glover & Edinam K. Glover, 2020. "When Tradition Meets Modernity in Land Registration: Evidence from Dagbon, Ghana," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-28, October.
    11. Skarbek, David, 2016. "Covenants without the Sword? Comparing Prison Self-Governance Globally," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 110(4), pages 845-862, November.
    12. Dinghuan Yuan & Yung Yau & Haijun Bao & Yongshen Liu & Ting Liu, 2019. "Anatomizing the Institutional Arrangements of Urban Village Redevelopment: Case Studies in Guangzhou, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-16, June.
    13. Tang, Can & Zhao, Zhong, 2023. "Informal institution meets child development: Clan culture and child labor in China," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 277-294.
    14. Guan Li & Zhongguo Xu & Cifang Wu & Yuefei Zhuo & Xinhua Tong & Yanfei Wei & Xiaoqiang Shen, 2019. "Inside or Outside? The Impact Factors of Zoning–Land Use Mismatch," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-25, December.
    15. Klaus Deininger & Songqing Jin & Shouying Liu & Fang Xia, 2020. "Property rights reform to support China’s rural ‐ urban integration: household‐level evidence from the Chengdu experiment," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(1), pages 30-54, January.
    16. Xianlei Ma & Justus Wesseler & Nico Heerink & Futian Qu, 2013. "Land Tenure Reforms and Land Conservation Investments in China ¨C What Does Real Option Value Theory Tell Us?," Review of Economics & Finance, Better Advances Press, Canada, vol. 3, pages 19-33, August.
    17. Yang Tang & Kairong Hong & Yucheng Zou & Yanwei Zhang, 2021. "Equilibrium Resolution Mechanism for Multidimensional Conflicts in Farmland Expropriation Based on a Multistage Van Damme’s Model," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-25, May.
    18. Ying Liang & Demi Zhu, 2015. "Subjective Well-Being of Chinese Landless Peasants in Relatively Developed Regions: Measurement Using PANAS and SWLS," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 123(3), pages 817-835, September.
    19. Li, Shi & Vendryes, Thomas, 2018. "Real estate activity, democracy and land rights in rural China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 54-79.
    20. Somayeh Ahani & Hashem Dadashpoor, 2021. "Urban growth containment policies for the guidance and control of peri-urbanization: a review and proposed framework," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(10), pages 14215-14244, October.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:21:p:6084-:d:282519. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.