IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i22p14808-d968337.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rural Revitalization and Land Institution Reform: Achievement, Conflict and Potential Risk

Author

Listed:
  • Zhihan Xu

    (Land Consolidation and Rehabilitation Center of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou 310007, China)

  • Jianchun Xu

    (Department of Land Resources Management, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou 314423, China)

  • Xiaofang Chai

    (Department of Land Resources Management, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou 314423, China)

  • Ning Zhang

    (Department of Land Resources Management, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou 314423, China)

  • Rong Ye

    (School of Statistics and Mathematics, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou 314423, China)

  • Fei Xu

    (Institute of Land and Urban-Rural Development, Zhejiang University of Finance & Economics, Hangzhou 310018, China)

Abstract

Rural depression is a global issue in the process of worldwide urbanization. Compared with rural economic institution reform, rural land institution reform is more thorough in realizing rural revitalization. In this paper, polycentric governance theory is used to introduce marketization reform of collective profit-oriented land (MRCPL). MRCPL aims to allow rural collective profit-oriented construction land to be sold and leased with the same rights and at the same price as state-owned construction land. In the process of MRCPL, we suppose that the key subject is the central government, and the multiple auxiliary subjects include local governments, markets, villagers, and village collectives. Herein, Deqing County was selected as the research area and its achievements, conflicts, and potential risks in the process of MRCPL were studied. This study found that in Deqing County, a unified urban–rural construction land market has been preliminarily established, the rural revenue allocation mechanism has been updated, and the rural land finance mechanism has been developed. However, MRCPL may have conflicts with existing land requisition institutions and land banking institutions, and may also have conflicts within different subjects (farmers, village collective, local government, and central government). These conflicts may lead to potential risks, such as rent-seeking risk, land-financing risk, and real-estate-bubble risk. In general, the MRCPL aims to allow rural collective profit-oriented construction land to be sold and leased with the same rights and at the same prices as state-owned construction land. This reform can protect farmers’ land rights and promote the construction of urban and rural integration.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:22:p:14808-:d:968337
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/22/14808/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/22/14808/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wu, Yuzhe & Mo, Zhibin & Peng, Yi & Skitmore, Martin, 2018. "Market-driven land nationalization in China: A new system for the capitalization of rural homesteads," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 559-569.
    2. Meyer, Claas & Matzdorf, Bettina & Müller, Klaus & Schleyer, Christian, 2014. "Cross Compliance as payment for public goods? Understanding EU and US agricultural policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 185-194.
    3. 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. Jingru Chen & Hengyuan Zeng & Qiang Gao, 2023. "Using the Sustainable Development Capacity of Key Counties to Guide Rural Revitalization in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-26, 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. Chen, Kunqiu & Long, Hualou & Liao, Liuwen & Tu, Shuangshuang & Li, Tingting, 2020. "Land use transitions and urban-rural integrated development: Theoretical framework and China’s evidence," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    2. George Cusworth & Jennifer Dodsworth, 2021. "Using the ‘good farmer’ concept to explore agricultural attitudes to the provision of public goods. A case study of participants in an English agri-environment scheme," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(4), pages 929-941, December.
    3. Donald Larson & Will Martin & Sebnem Sahin & Marinos Tsigas, 2016. "Agricultural Policies and Trade Paths in Turkey," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(8), pages 1194-1224, August.
    4. Zhou, Yang & Li, Xunhuan & Liu, Yansui, 2020. "Rural land system reforms in China: History, issues, measures and prospects," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    5. Kai Li & Zhili Ma & Jinjin Liu, 2019. "A New Trend in the Space–Time Distribution of Cultivated Land Occupation for Construction in China and the Impact of Population Urbanization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-23, September.
    6. Yichi Zhang & Kai Xue & Huimin Cao & Yingen Hu, 2023. "The Non-Linear Relationship between the Number of Permanent Residents and the Willingness of Rural Residential Land Transfer: The Threshold Effect of per Capita Net Income," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-23, August.
    7. Yongchao Zhang & André Torre & Marianne Ehrlich, 2021. "Governance Structure of Rural Homestead Transfer in China: Government and/or Market?," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, July.
    8. 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.
    9. Morgan, Stephen N. & Mason, Nicole M. & Shupp, Robert S., 2016. "Do Open Comment Processes Increase Regulatory Compliance? Evidence from a Public Goods Experiment," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235719, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. 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.
    11. Liu, Runqiu & Jiang, Jian & Yu, Chao & Rodenbiker, Jesse & Jiang, Yongmu, 2021. "The endowment effect accompanying villagers' withdrawal from rural homesteads: Field evidence from Chengdu, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    12. Baur, Ivo & Schläpfer, Felix, 2018. "Expert Estimates of the Share of Agricultural Support that Compensates European Farmers for Providing Public Goods and Services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 264-275.
    13. 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).
    14. Wentao Si & Chen Jiang & Lin Meng, 2022. "Leaving the Homestead: Examining the Role of Relative Deprivation, Social Trust, and Urban Integration among Rural Farmers in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-28, October.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Li, Jing & Lo, Kevin & Zhang, Pingyu & Guo, Meng, 2021. "Reclaiming small to fill large: A novel approach to rural residential land consolidation in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    18. Zhao, Qianyu & Bao, Helen X.H. & Zhang, Zhanlu, 2021. "Off-farm employment and agricultural land use efficiency in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    19. Wang, Rongyu & Tan, Rong, 2020. "Efficiency and distribution of rural construction land marketization in contemporary China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    20. Wu, Changyan & Huang, Xianjin & Chen, Bowen, 2020. "Telecoupling mechanism of urban land expansion based on transportation accessibility: A case study of transitional Yangtze River economic Belt, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).

    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:14:y:2022:i:22:p:14808-:d:968337. 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.