4.7 Article

Collective land system in China: Congenital flaw or acquired irrational weakness?

期刊

HABITAT INTERNATIONAL
卷 50, 期 -, 页码 226-233

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.08.035

关键词

Collective land ownership; Land rights; Privatization; Efficiency; Justice; Reform; China

资金

  1. CityU Start-up Grant for New Faculty [7200376]
  2. College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, City University of Hong Kong [9610315, 9618005]
  3. Early Career Scheme of Hong Kong Research grant council [9048039]
  4. National Natural Science Fund by HKSAR Dept [71303203]
  5. Environment and Conservation Fund by HKSAR Dept [92110732]
  6. NSFC [9680114, 7004309]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With the level of urbanization in China now exceeding 50%, its collective rural land system is under increasing pressure, creating conditions in which there is increasing conflict between the efficient use of land for agricultural purposes and its retention as security for the rural population. This paper first examines the fundamental nature of China's collective land system by analyzing the collectivization history of China, then provides a comprehensive appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of the collective land system's role in history and the challenges it faces in modern times. The main changes needed for the current collective system are identified as (1) the establishment of a new transfer mechanism for potential collective construction land, (2) the completion of land rights verification and consolidation work, and (3) the endowment of villagers with more rights to enjoy the distribution of land incremental value. The paper's main contribution is to question the relevance of collective rural land system in contemporary China, where a shift is now taking place from one of pure economic development to one involving more social concerns, and propose potential viable amendments to integrate the need for both perspectives. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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