How to determine the right of rural land?

The reform of rural property rights system has always been a hot issue in the society. There is no doubt that the main content of the reform of rural property right system is the reform of rural land property right system. I do not know since when, the reform of rural land property rights system has been classically summarized into four sentences, which is also the main content of this reform, namely: "clarify ownership, stabilize the right of contract, activate the right of management, and strengthen the right of management". These four sentences highly condensed the reform of the rural land property rights system, the following talk about some personal understanding and thinking.

I. the basic connotation and problems of the current rural property right system reform

1. "clear ownership"

"clear ownership" is to clarify the subject of ownership of rural land. Rural land used to be "three-level ownership, team-based", and later basically determined in the "production team" this unit. But in fact, there are some unclear land ownership in rural areas, such as village primary school, infirmary, land for educated youth in rural areas, forest farms and so on. Therefore, the purpose of confirming the right now is to find out which class of the land to which the ownership belongs to. When it is clear, the boundaries between villages and villages, groups and groups, towns and towns, villages and towns, villages and groups, and so on, will be made clear. However, it should be noted that only a small part of the land is involved, and most of the land ownership in rural areas is very clear.

2. "stabilize the right to contract"

The purpose of "stabilizing the right to contract" is to further implement the "Land contract Law", consolidate the current rural land contracting system, and implement the spirit of "giving farmers more adequate and guaranteed" land contractual management rights.

However, grass-roots cadres and the masses are generally quite confused about the understanding of the determination of power this time. The second round of extension of the land contract around 1997 was originally a confirmation of power. Due to the heavy task of taxes and fees at that time, the policy of extending the contract was rough, which later led to some disputes over land contracting after the burden on farmers was reduced (for example, some people who did not want land came back to ask for land). As a result, the second-round extension policy has been perfected in some places. To put it bluntly, these actions are all about "confirming the rights" of land. Up to now, most of these contradictions and disputes are basically resolved through internal mediation, and everyone is waiting for the land to be divided after it expires in 2028. In real life, there is nothing unclear about the property rights of land in rural areas. even if there are complaints, they complain that 30 years is too long, resulting in "one and a half generations" of people without land, the dead occupying the jobs of the living, and so on. As to why we still want to "confirm power" now, not only the grass-roots cadres are very confused, but the peasants are also very confused.

Moreover, what on earth is going to do with the confirmation of power? People are confused, too. There are two main modes in practice. One is to "confirm the right and the land", that is to say, to stabilize the right to contract is to stabilize the relationship between the peasant household who contracts the land and the specific plots he contracts. The other is "confirming the right to confirm the shares (uncertain)", that is to say, it only confirms the contracting relationship between the contracted farmers and the collective land, not to which plot. In practical work, when the farmers' land is mainly cultivated by themselves, it is easier to "confirm the land"; but once it comes to the separation of the land contract right and the management right, especially the large-scale land circulation, because the original boundary has been destroyed, then it is very difficult to confirm the right to be "accurate". Therefore, the local authorities generally need to adopt the method of "confirming the right and confirming the shares". But no matter how it is done, it is difficult to avoid "formality" and "air rights" in this work. To put it bluntly, it is to replace the land contract management right certificate of the second round of extension with a new certificate, and nothing else has been moved. Or, at most, it is to make the area more solid, four to write clearly, and there is no substantive breakthrough.

In fact, it would be fine if it were just like this, but in some places it is necessary to innovate and break through the "unchanged for 30 years" stipulated in the Land contract Law. For example, a city in southwest China proposed that the determination of land rights should remain "unchanged for a long time", thinking that the land contract relationship of farmers could be more stable in this way. In fact, at the beginning, there were also "air rights" and "formalities". Unexpectedly, it was found by some people and fed back to the relevant parties of the superior. As a result, the above asked to do it again, "really right". Therefore, the following has to take back the newly issued certificate, in accordance with the above requirements, set the "forever unchanged", and then issue the certificate. Later, some people argued that the word "forever" is a philosophical concept, not appropriate, and should be called "permanent". As a result, the certificate issued was taken back and changed to "unchanged for a long time" and then issued. These rounds of twists and turns have not only spent a lot of money, but also occupied a lot of administrative resources at the grass-roots level in villages and towns, which are the central work of many villages and towns for two years. During our investigation, many grass-roots cadres said that "industrial reform has made us miserable," and that "industrial reform" has made them "unable to afford to hurt." More interestingly, the government thought that the right to contract should be stabilized now, but the farmers said, "what does it mean to remain unchanged for a long time?" 10 years is a long time, and 3-5 years is already a long time. If necessary, we will change (adjust) at that time. From this point of view, people are confused not only before the confirmation of power, but also after the confirmation of power.

3. "enliven the right of management"

To put it simply, "activating the right of management" is the transfer of land. There are three aspects to be paid attention to. First, the "right of management" has been put forward separately, which is a more important sign. From the separation of "ownership" and "use right" to the current separation of "ownership", "contract right" and "management right", there are important and profound changes. But academia and policy circles do not seem to know exactly what this change means.

Second, the word "live". Simply understood as "activation", is to make the flow of management rights more smooth, so that the market transactions of management rights more active. At present, many places are engaged in the determination of rights, setting up market trading platforms, asset evaluation, optimizing market services, strengthening management, providing subsidies and support, providing safeguard measures, and so on, it is basically all about how to "activate" the land management rights trading market. In theory, land transfer should be the business of both sides of the circulation, there is demand and supply, there should be circulation, so it should be a market behavior. However, due to the particularity of agriculture, rural areas and farmers, the government always feels that it should do something about it. Therefore, it is required to intervene in the transfer of management rights in policy.

To put it bluntly, "activating the management right" means that the local government tries to intervene in the circulation market of the land management right. This kind of intervention is necessary in some aspects, but it may not be needed in others. The key is that the degree is not easy to grasp. Therefore, the controversy of activating the management right is mainly focused on whether the government has the responsibility and necessity, and how to activate the circulation market of the management right. Interestingly, those who usually seem to be "very market-oriented" often feel that it is necessary for the government to intervene in this market, because industrial and commercial enterprises always lose money in farming, so the state has the obligation to support them and give them subsidies and preferential policies. And those who usually seem to be "very unmarket-minded" feel that there is no need for the government to intervene in this market, because it is common sense that the small-scale peasant economy is higher than enterprises in terms of land output rate. moreover, farmers' spontaneous land transfer can ensure that farmers do not lose their final survival security, and there is no need for the government to help industrial and commercial capital go to the countryside to defeat small farmers.

Third, the word "release". To put it bluntly, it means "decentralization", or "empowerment". The state gives the power of "mortgage financing" to the right of land management, which is a very new content, and it is a new power that land ownership and land contract rights do not have. It needs attention. However, the purpose of "release" is still to "live", in order to make the transfer of land management rights more "alive". Unfortunately, the credit of the rural land management right itself is seriously insufficient, and it is impossible to get a loan from the bank. It is not that the bank does not support this work, but that the bank itself needs to obey the economic rationality. after all, the bank is neither a financial department nor a charity. The credit of land management right itself is insufficient, so it is necessary to enhance its credit degree through other channels. For example, using government financial guarantee, or using administrative means to put pressure on banks and so on. But in doing so, the management right "alive" also means that the economic risk is increased. In fact, banks are often reluctant to take such risks, and local governments have limited control over banks. Therefore, the mortgages of management rights in many places are rushed to the front line by local agricultural and commercial banks (credit cooperatives). Therefore, generally speaking, in activating the right of management, the local government can still do something on the word "living", but it has been very difficult to promote the word "release".

4. "strengthen the right of management"

"strengthening the power of management" is a sentence that was added later, and at first there were only the first three sentences. The term "strengthening management power" here mainly refers to strengthening the government's management of land transfer. "strengthening the power of management" mainly solves two problems, one is the "absence" of the government, and the other is the "offside" of the government. To put it bluntly, it means that at the time of the transfer of land, the government does not take care of what should be managed, but it does all the things that should not be managed, and it is noisy. This situation needs to be corrected now.

It is a common phenomenon that the government is "offside" in land transfer. Very often, governments at all levels press targets, set tasks, hold tournaments, and sign certificates of responsibility, simply turning "getting rich for the people" into "forcing the people to get rich" and eventually turning good things into bad things. This kind of government behavior instead of market behavior is still very common. The problem is that this "substitution" will soon be punished by economic laws, and government subsidies often become the target of capital profit. Therefore, the first thing to "strengthen the power of management" is to let the government correct its position and role in land transfer. At the very least, we should not be "offside".

Secondly, "strengthening the power of management" also points to the "absence" of the government. The management of land by departments has the advantages of specialization, but it also has the disadvantages of division. For example, generally speaking, the land transfer is managed by the economic management system, but the land and planning departments may plan the transferred land as reserved construction land, then the land may face land expropriation soon after the land is transferred out, thus increasing the difficulty and cost of land expropriation. Because of the professional division of labor and departmental interests, it is difficult to communicate directly between departments, so a comprehensive organization such as the government is needed to integrate the information between departments. Therefore, it is necessary to strengthen the power of government management. Second, similar to the activation mentioned earlier, the government also plays a role in building a market trading platform, which is to make the market more complete and to build infrastructure for the market. therefore, of course, it is also a reasonable and necessary intervention. The third is to control the risks in the process of circulation, especially to protect the interests of farmers. For example, it requires the payment of transfer deposit, the formulation of land transfer guidance price, the standardization of land transfer contract and so on. These are also necessary government interventions.

Objectively, "strengthening the right of management" increases the transaction cost of land transfer to a certain extent. However, in the long run, it not only contributes to the safety, rationality and stability of the land management right transfer market, but also helps to protect the interests of farmers, which in turn has a positive function for the side of the land transfer. This is not only a need, but also an innovation.