4.7 Article

Who drives the formation and adoption of the increasing versus decreasing balance policy?-Evidence from a policy process analysis

期刊

LAND USE POLICY
卷 80, 期 -, 页码 175-184

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.002

关键词

Increasing versus decreasing balance policy; Policy process; Multi-level event history analysis; Policy formation; Policy diffusion

资金

  1. Major Program of Humanities and Social Science Key Research Base of China's Ministry of Education [20130004110004]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71874197]
  3. Special Developing and Guiding Fund for Building World-class Universities (disciplines) of Renmin University of China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The increasing versus decreasing balance policy (IDB) is an important land use innovation in China and it transfers developmental rights from less productive rural land to more productive urban construction land. Since its initiation in 2000, it was soon adopted in almost all provinces in China. In the process of transferring developmental rights, what roles do different levels of governments play and why? To answer these questions, this research conducts a policy process analysis by combing the methods of process tracing and multi-level event history analysis. It finds that the policy process of IDB is a bottom-up one. The prefectural level governments are the engine of the whole process for they gain direct benefit from the transfer of developmental right. Provincial governments, on the one hand, act as a hub connecting local to central; on the other hand, fail to regulate and supervise the implementation. Central government is pushed by the force from local to enact the policy of IDB but also shows lukewarm support to it with a concern that it might deviate from the Pareto increase and damaged peasants' wellbeing. This research explores the complicated inter-governmental relations in land policy-making process in China and also proposes policy implication on IDB's future implementation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据