Document No. 1 has no intention to pry up the "demand for rural real estate".

Not long ago, a report entitled "document No. 1 is expected to pry the demand of the rural real estate market" attracted attention. Some experts said in an interview with the media that the reform of the rural collective property rights system can stimulate the demand of the new rural real estate market and appropriately alleviate the current depressed urban real estate market.

For a long time, the default transactions in the real estate market are houses built on urban construction land. The formulation of "rural real estate" is very eye-catching at first glance. No wonder this report interviewed a number of experts on this year's Central No. 1 document, and put this point in the title among the many views of various experts. Can the reforms mentioned in document 1 really stimulate demand in the real estate market in rural areas? Should rural construction land be open to social capital? A series of problems need to be discriminated and clarified.

The reform of ■ rural land system is only a pilot project; now the pilot project has just started, and the national implementation has not been put on the agenda, so how to pry up the demand of the rural real estate market?

Document ■ 1 sets three restrictions on "transfer, leasing and equity investment" of rural collective construction land, which are in line with planning, use control and rural collective construction land.

Of course, there is no problem for ■ farmers to go to the cities freely, but they should be vigilant when capital goes to the countryside freely. In particular, "urban residents outside the collective" should not be allowed to buy houses in rural areas.

He Xuefeng

The media published three experts' interpretation of the 2015 Central Committee document, asking them to answer, "how should agriculture dance under the new economic normal?" Among them, some experts believe that the classified implementation of the pilot land system reform proposed in the first document this year "will help to extensively draw on external forces and attract social capital to engage in the development, construction and management of the rural residential land and rural collective construction land market." "after the reform of the rural collective property right system, it is expected to pry the market of rural residential land and collective construction land first, and extensively attract external forces and social capital to engage in the development, construction and management of these land markets. it can not only rapidly promote the construction and renewal of the new countryside, enhance the attractiveness of rural areas, but also promote the maintenance and increase of rural collective assets and farmers' income by invigorating these markets. It can also stimulate the demand of the new rural real estate market and appropriately alleviate the already depressed urban real estate market. He also believes that the specific effect "depends on whether urban residents outside the collective are allowed to buy houses, as well as whether rural roads, power grids and other infrastructure construction is perfect or not."

The path given by this interpretation from document No. 1 to the rescue of the property market is as follows: first, the reform of rural collective property rights system promoted by document No. 1 allows rural homestead and collective construction land to enter the market freely; second, attract capital into rural development and management of homestead and collective construction land; third, a huge influx of foreign capital, farmers get monetary income from the transfer of homestead and construction land. Fourth, farmers have spare money to go to the city to buy houses, and the current depressed urban real estate market is saved.

From the perspective of prying the demand of the rural real estate market, it is obvious that there is a deviation in the spirit of the document "on the classified implementation of the pilot project of land system reform". Document No. 1 clearly stipulates that the reform of the rural land system is only a pilot project, and requires that "guidance and supervision over the pilot work be strengthened, closed operation and risk control be effectively achieved, and the reform results that can be replicated and popularized will be formed while piloting, summarizing, and improving at the same time." Now the pilot project has just started, and the national implementation has not been put on the agenda, so how to pry the demand of the rural real estate market.

Even with regard to the pilot content of the reform of the rural land system, document No. 1 still has clear boundaries and restrictions: "to grant the transfer, leasing and shareholding of rural collective construction land in line with planning and use control, and to establish and improve market transaction rules and service supervision mechanisms." It is worth noting that document No. 1 sets three restrictions on the "transfer, leasing, and equity investment" of rural collective construction land, namely, in line with planning, second, in line with use control, and third, rural collective construction land. not all rural collective construction land. With these three restrictions, the pilot is only limited to a very limited scope, and more is to solve the historical problems left over from the rural collective construction land in the past.

With regard to the reform of the homestead system, the No. 1 document says: "protect the rights and interests of farmers' homestead in accordance with the law, reform the way farmers obtain residential land, and explore a new mechanism for farmers' housing security." Obviously, document No. 1 puts more emphasis on protecting the rights and interests of farmers' homestead, but there is no intention of homestead entering the market at all. Judging from the relevant statements of the No. 1 document, the basic attitude of the central government towards the reform of the land system is prudent and prudent, not impatient and rash. This year's No. 1 document did not express any meaning to pry the demand of the rural real estate market.

Document No. 1 has adopted a prudent and prudent attitude in the reform of the rural land system because China is currently in the middle-income stage and is a period of frequent contradictions. If the reform is not careful, it is easy to fall into the so-called middle-income trap. The middle-income trap means that after a country's per capita income reaches the middle level, it can not smoothly realize the transformation of the mode of economic development, resulting in insufficient power for economic growth and finally economic stagnation. According to the standards of the World Bank, China's per capita GDP reached 6100 US dollars in 2012, which has already entered the list of middle-income countries. At present, although almost all peasant families have people to work and do business in the city, most of the migrant workers do not live in the city, and their elderly parents or young children still stay in the countryside. When they are young, they go to work in the city, but when they are older, they may return to their hometown to work. It is the two-way flow that allows them to go to the city freely and return to their hometown freely, giving them more choices. This right of choice makes the social structure of our country very flexible. As a result, the countryside has become the stabilizer and reservoir of China's modernization.

The current stage of development in China determines that it is very difficult for most rural migrant workers to obtain stable employment and reliable security for decent living in cities, and it is impossible for the state to provide such relief for such a large-scale population. It is precisely for this reason that migrant workers can return home, which is their most basic right. This is the bottom line, and the policy must protect their bottom line rights. In other words, land is the basic security and social insurance for farmers, while basic security and social insurance cannot be traded freely.

At present, there is a common misunderstanding in academic circles that the integration of urban and rural areas means the free entry of farmers to the cities and the freedom of capital to the countryside. Of course, there is no problem for farmers to go to cities freely, and future policies will further create institutional and institutional conditions for farmers to enter cities. The freedom of capital to go to the countryside should be vigilant, especially the "urban residents outside the collective" should not be allowed to buy houses in rural areas. At present, the city has accumulated a huge amount of excess capital, and the capital has been liberalized to go to the countryside. Every time the capital obtains the land rights of a farmer, it means that a farmer who goes to the city loses the opportunity to return to his hometown. It is of course good for them to go to the city and settle down in the city. The problem is that most of the farmers who go to the cities cannot live decent in the cities, and many countries in the world have created urban slums at this stage of development. Slums are not only inhumane, but will certainly become an amplifier of any economic, financial, social and political crisis.

There is also a universal view that the parallel movement of farmers to cities and capital to the countryside can narrow the gap between urban and rural areas. The problem is that even if we can narrow the gap between urban and rural areas, it will inevitably lead to the increasingly serious dual structure of the city, even if it can narrow the gap between urban and rural areas, the problem is to allow urban people with high income to occupy the land of farmers as a way to retreat from rural areas. The formation of a more acutely opposed dual structure in the cramped space of the city is obviously not a good thing for China, which is in a middle-income stage with frequent conflicts.

It is precisely from this point of consideration, from the overall situation of China's response to the middle-income trap, the reform of the rural land system must be prudent and prudent, and must not be acted in undue haste.