IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v78y2018icp138-146.html

A novel framework for rural homestead land transfer under collective ownership in China

Author

Listed:
  • Kong, Xuesong
  • Liu, Yaolin
  • Jiang, Ping
  • Tian, Yasi
  • Zou, Yafeng

Abstract

Rapid urbanization in China has triggered the mass migration of rural populations to cities, resulting in a shortage of urban land and inefficient use of rural homestead land (RHL). To address these issues, there is increasing interest in allowing for RHL transfer. Although several transfer modes have been implemented in pilot areas, the long-term protection of farmers’ interests has been largely neglected. One-off transfer compensation and forced transfer often occur in practice, and there is no collective profit sharing. This paper explores the advantages and disadvantages of the extant transfer modes using comparative analysis. We propose a novel RHL transfer system under collective ownership, and three highly related key aspects add layers of protection: the separation of three sets of rights (ownership, tenure, and membership), the separation of land value from the value of accessory buildings and durable goods, and profit sharing among the collective members. The advantages of the proposal are summarized as follows: (1) it provides long-term protection for farmers’ interests based on membership in the collective; (2) endows the collective with actual rights of self-governance and collective autonomy; and (3) decreases institutional costs and reform risks and improves land-use efficiency of RHL. The implications of the proposal regarding topics of concern are also discussed. This study offers a clear direction for RHL transfer and increases the understanding of the essence of the collective ownership of RHL and relationships among farmers, collectives, and governments during RHL transfer.

Suggested Citation

  • Kong, Xuesong & Liu, Yaolin & Jiang, Ping & Tian, Yasi & Zou, Yafeng, 2018. "A novel framework for rural homestead land transfer under collective ownership in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 138-146.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:78:y:2018:i:c:p:138-146
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.06.046
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837716314144
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.06.046?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:wbk:wbpubs:18865 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. 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)

    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. Zhihan Xu & Jianchun Xu & Xiaofang Chai & Ning Zhang & Rong Ye & Fei Xu, 2022. "Rural Revitalization and Land Institution Reform: Achievement, Conflict and Potential Risk," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-15, November.
    2. Yan, Jinming & Yang, Yumeng & Xia, Fangzhou, 2021. "Subjective land ownership and the endowment effect in land markets: A case study of the farmland “three rights separation” reform in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    3. Min Jiang & Liangjie Xin & Xiubin Li & Minghong Tan, 2016. "Spatiotemporal Variation of China’s State-Owned Construction Land Supply from 2003 to 2014," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-16, November.
    4. 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).
    5. Ping Ren & Buting Hong & Siying Zhu, 2024. "Evaluation of Risks Related to Transfer of Rural Housing Land for Tourism Development in the Context of “Separation of Three Rights†Reform in China," Journal of Agricultural Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 14(2), pages 1-24, April.
    6. Yong Zhang, 2024. "THE PARTNERSHIP QUESTION AS A SCALE QUESTION: Extending the Theorization of Entrepreneurial Urbanism in China," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(5), pages 789-814, September.
    7. Yufan Chen & Yong He, 2022. "Urban Land Expansion Dynamics and Drivers in Peri-Urban Areas of China: A Case of Xiaoshan District, Hangzhou Metropolis (1985–2020)," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-19, September.
    8. Jing Qian & Yunfei Peng & Cheng Luo & Chao Wu & Qingyun Du, 2015. "Urban Land Expansion and Sustainable Land Use Policy in Shenzhen: A Case Study of China’s Rapid Urbanization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-16, December.
    9. Wang, Rongyu & Tan, Rong, 2020. "Efficiency and distribution of rural construction land marketization in contemporary China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    10. Qi Yin & Jinfu Hu & Zhanli Sun & Dingde Xu & Gideon Ntim-Amo & Hong Tang, 2020. "Assessing the Viability of Vacant Farmhouse Market in China: A Case Study in Sichuan," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-24, November.
    11. 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).
    12. Yunfei Peng & Jing Qian & Fu Ren & Wenhui Zhang & Qingyun Du, 2016. "Sustainability of Land Use Promoted by Construction-to-Ecological Land Conversion: A Case Study of Shenzhen City, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-16, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:lauspo:v:78:y:2018:i:c:p:138-146. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.