IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i3p319-d520565.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Drives Different Governance Modes and Marketization Performance for Collective Commercial Construction Land in Rural China?

Author

Listed:
  • Zhun Chen

    (Department of Land Management, School of Public Affairs, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
    Department of Environment and Planning, Henan University, Kaifeng 475004, China)

  • Yuefei Zhuo

    (Law School, Ningbo University, Ningbo 315211, China)

  • Guan Li

    (Law School, Ningbo University, Ningbo 315211, China)

  • Zhongguo Xu

    (Law School, Ningbo University, Ningbo 315211, China)

Abstract

The collective commercial construction land (CCCL) reform in China has attracted considerable attention worldwide, but studies on the influencing factors and performance of governance modes for CCCL marketization are still in their infancy. First, by deconstructing CCCL, this study developed a conceptual framework from the perspective of transaction cost economics. Based on a series of surveys, interviews, and closed questionnaires in two pilot areas, this study determined the influencing factors for governance mode choice for CCCL marketization through comparative case studies and compared the performance of the government-led and self-organized modes. This study concluded that asset specificity, uncertainty, and frequency were the main influencing factors for transaction costs, which could influence the choice of governance mode for CCCL marketization. Moreover, the characteristics of the two aforementioned governance modes, transaction costs, and specific revenue distribution resulted in different marketization performances.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:3:p:319-:d:520565
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/3/319/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/3/319/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xu, Yuting & Huang, Xianjin & Bao, Helen X.H. & Ju, Xiang & Zhong, Taiyang & Chen, Zhigang & Zhou, Yan, 2018. "Rural land rights reform and agro-environmental sustainability: Empirical evidence from China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 73-87.
    2. Williamson, Oliver E, 1979. "Transaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractural Relations," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 22(2), pages 233-261, October.
    3. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    4. Shahab, Sina & Clinch, J. Peter & O’Neill, Eoin, 2018. "Accounting for transaction costs in planning policy evaluation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 263-272.
    5. Oliver E. Williamson, 2000. "The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(3), pages 595-613, September.
    6. Shahab, Sina & Clinch, J. Peter & O'Neill, Eoin, 2019. "An Analysis of the Factors Influencing Transaction Costs in Transferable Development Rights Programmes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 409-419.
    7. 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).
    8. Rong Tan & Volker Beckmann & Futian Qu & Cifang Wu, 2012. "Governing Farmland Conversion for Urban Development from the Perspective of Transaction Cost Economics," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 49(10), pages 2265-2283, August.
    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. Yuan, Feng & Wei, Yehua Dennis & Xiao, Weiye, 2019. "Land marketization, fiscal decentralization, and the dynamics of urban land prices in transitional China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    11. 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.
    12. Konrad Hagedorn, 2008. "Particular requirements for institutional analysis in nature-related sectors," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 35(4), pages 606-606, December.
    13. 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.
    14. 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).
    15. Rongyu Wang & Rong Tan, 2018. "Rural Renewal of China in the Context of Rural-Urban Integration: Governance Fit and Performance Differences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-22, February.
    16. Fan, Xin & Qiu, Sainan & Sun, Yukun, 2020. "Land finance dependence and urban land marketization in China: The perspective of strategic choice of local governments on land transfer," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    17. Arild Vatn, 2005. "Institutions and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2826.
    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. Shenjie Yang & Lanjiao Wen, 2023. "Regional Heterogeneity in China’s Rural Collectively Owned Commercialized Land Market: An Empirical Analysis from 2015–2020," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-15, February.

    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. "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).
    2. Konrad Hagedorn, 2013. "Natural resource management: the role of cooperative institutions and governance," Journal of Entrepreneurial and Organizational Diversity, European Research Institute on Cooperative and Social Enterprises, vol. 2(1), pages 101-121, September.
    3. Ji, Chen & de Felipe, Isabel & Briz, Julian & Trienekens, Jacques H., 2012. "An Empirical Study on Governance Structure Choices in China´s Pork Supply Chain," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 15(2), pages 1-32, May.
    4. Phan, Thu-Ha Dang & Brouwer, Roy & Davidson, Marc David, 2017. "A Global Survey and Review of the Determinants of Transaction Costs of Forestry Carbon Projects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 1-10.
    5. Foundjem-Tita, Divine & Speelman, Stijn & D'Haese, Marijke & Degrande, Ann & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido & Van Damme, Patrick & Tchoundjeu, Zac, 2014. "A tale of transaction costs and forest law compliance: Trade permits for Non Timber Forests Products in Cameroon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 132-142.
    6. Richter, Rudolf, 2001. "New economic sociology and new institutional economics," MPRA Paper 4747, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Aric Rindfleisch, 2020. "Transaction cost theory: past, present and future," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 10(1), pages 85-97, June.
    8. Robert Gibbons, 2010. "Transaction‐Cost Economics: Past, Present, and Future?," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 112(2), pages 263-288, June.
    9. Stephan Bartke & Reimund Schwarze, 2021. "The Economic Role and Emergence of Professional Valuers in Real Estate Markets," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-20, June.
    10. Guilherme Fowler A. Monteiro & Bruno Varella Miranda, 2023. "Disentangling the role of the institutional environment in the ownership competence framework: A comment on Foss et al. (2021)," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(8), pages 1939-1954, August.
    11. Shahab, Sina & Clinch, J. Peter & O'Neill, Eoin, 2019. "An Analysis of the Factors Influencing Transaction Costs in Transferable Development Rights Programmes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 409-419.
    12. McCann, Laura, 2013. "Transaction costs and environmental policy design," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 253-262.
    13. Rongyu Wang & Rong Tan, 2018. "Rural Renewal of China in the Context of Rural-Urban Integration: Governance Fit and Performance Differences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-22, February.
    14. Padmanabhan, Martina & Jungcurt, Stefan, 2012. "Biocomplexity—conceptual challenges for institutional analysis in biodiversity governance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 70-79.
    15. 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.
    16. Sina Shahab & Leonhard K. Lades, 2020. "Sludge and Transaction Costs," Working Papers 202007, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    17. Thiel, Andreas & Schleyer, Christian & Plieninger, Tobias, 2011. "Characteristics of resources and the provision of biodiversity and ecosystem services in Germany: the cases of fruit tree meadows and wolf protection," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 116082, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Tan, Rong & Xiong, Changsheng & Kimmich, Christian, 2023. "An agent-situation-based model for networked action situations: Cap-and-trade land policies in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    19. Konrad Hagedorn, 2015. "Can the Concept of Integrative and Segregative Institutions Contribute to the Framing of Institutions of Sustainability?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-28, January.
    20. Vatn, Arild, 2005. "Rationality, institutions and environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 203-217, November.

    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:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:3:p:319-:d:520565. 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.