Deep torture on the transfer of farmland

After the third Plenary session of the 18th CPC Central Committee, the problem of agricultural land transfer has been raised to an unprecedented height. All over the country have taken action, its momentum is strong, the limelight is flourishing, and the fierce promotion has the courage to overwhelm other rural work. It is estimated that by the end of 2014, the area of agricultural land transfer across the country will approach or exceed 400 million mu, accounting for about 30% of the contracted arable land in the country. In terms of the scale of contracted cultivated land in China, this is a considerable proportion, and then there has been a number of large farmers, large farms and other operating entities that occupy thousands of mu, more than 10,000 mu and tens of thousands of mu of cultivated land through circulation, as far as China's per capita arable land is concerned, this is also quite an "amazing" scale concentration. In November 2014, the Central Office and the State Office issued the opinions on guiding the orderly transfer of rural land management rights to develop appropriate scale operation of agriculture, which will undoubtedly play a normative role in land circulation, and the momentum of relying on administrative means to promote land circulation will cool down accordingly. However, according to the past experience and the complexity of China's land problems, its role can not be overestimated. The undercurrent of agricultural land transfer in China deeply asks the author's conscience and takes the opportunity to discuss related issues.

What is the land and the owner of the land?

What is land?

Land is the carrier of all materials in the world and the basis for the survival, activity and development of human beings and other living things on earth. The land of a country is the basis for the survival, survival, creation and development of its citizens. As the basis of national activities, land is not only the breeding and bearer of all material and spiritual wealth, but also irreplaceable wealth. The land within the territory of a country is formed by the people of this country through generations of development, colonization, possession, inheritance and development. Therefore, the land is the home of the people, and the people are the masters of the land. Citizens who lose their homes lose their basis and destination for survival, and the land without citizens is the land without owners. The ultimate ownership of land can only be owned by citizens.

What is agricultural land?

Agricultural land is the basis for the survival and development of farmers living in a certain range of villages through reclamation, possession, management, development and inheritance from generation to generation. The land in the whole country is the total combination of agricultural land in each village. Farmers, only farmers are the owners of the land in the village. The peasants who have lost their land will not be peasants, but will become people who have no roots in advance or retreat.

Because land is the irreplaceable carrier and foundation of human life and development, and the most fundamental wealth of all wealth, agricultural land is the foundation of farmers' living and development, the basis of advance and retreat, and the root of material and spiritual homeland, therefore, the introduction of any policies, laws and reform measures related to land and agricultural land are related to the foundation of the country, and the roots of the people need to be extremely cautious, such as treading on thin ice.

Second, what is the transfer of agricultural land and why?

What is the transfer of agricultural land?

In a general sense, the circulation of agricultural land includes the sale, lease, shareholding, mortgage, guarantee, expropriation and so on. However, under the conditions of China, agricultural land whose ownership does not belong to farmers is not allowed to be sold in law, and the right of contract or management can be transferred. The mortgage and guarantee of farmland generally refers to the mortgage and guarantee of the right of contract or the right of management. Although this has been allowed at the policy level of the national university in recent years, it is very difficult to operate because of the lag of supporting measures and the uncertainty and ambiguity of collective ownership and farmers' right to contract. In this way, the transfer of agricultural land under Chinese conditions is feasible, and the only ones that are relatively easy to operate are subcontracting, leasing, shareholding and requisition. On the other hand, agricultural land expropriation is a special form of agricultural land transfer, which does not belong to the scope of normal circulation; agricultural land subcontract is actually equivalent to leasing and leasing among members of the community. Therefore, in reality, the regular circulation is mainly rental and shareholding.

Why does farmland have to be transferred?

From the perspective of the general background, the transfer of agricultural land appears under the non-agricultural transfer of rural labor force and rural population. This kind of transfer began in the mid-1980s, and the speed, breadth and depth of the transfer accelerated, increased and deepened after entering the 21 century. it is said that as many as 200 to 300 million people are involved in the migration every year, most of them are young and middle-aged, resulting in the emergence of many "empty nest elderly", "left-behind women", "left-behind children" rural families and "3860" farming teams. This background does provide objective conditions for the transfer of agricultural land. Under this background, in recent years, some people have put forward in a high profile that promoting the circulation of agricultural land is to solve the problem of "who will farm the land."

Is it true that the land is deserted? In other words, will the remaining "3860" groups in the countryside not be able to grow land well?

If this is the case, it will be impossible to understand the good results of the "eleventh consecutive increase" in grain output across the country. Under the pattern of 7.5 mu of arable land per household in China, and under the condition of more and more labor-saving due to the strengthening of agricultural mechanization, China's agricultural land is not uninhabited but simply insufficient. Even if there are really only "3860" farmers left, under the conditions of modern seeds, agricultural machinery, chemical fertilizers, pesticides and their popularity, if we take them seriously, we will still be able to produce "flowers" for those poor mu of land. What's more, there are not really only "3860" farmers left in the countryside, not to mention that a considerable number of young and middle-aged people who go out to work have to go back to their hometown to cultivate land when they are busy with agriculture.

To put it bluntly, "the question of who will farm the land", which has been very popular by some people in recent years, is actually a false proposition.

There is a very mainstream saying that the purpose of agricultural land transfer is to increase farmers' income.

This is also a specious argument. May I ask which farmers' income can be increased? Is it to increase the income of the farmers transferred out of the land, or to transfer the income of the land farmers? Because it's a completely different thing.

If it is said to increase the income of farmers transferred out of land, it needs to be calculated as a "comparative account". That is, how much is the annual income and expenditure of farmers before they are transferred out of the land, and what is the annual income and expenditure after the transfer of land, and it needs to be calculated for several years. However, the author does not see a convincing comparative accounting method. It is now more popular to say that farmers who transfer out of their land have an annual income from land rent or land ownership, as well as income from working. It seems that if these two kinds of income are added together, they will naturally increase. But the problem is that farmers still have income from farming and working before they are transferred out of the land, and there are also two kinds of income. Why should it be said that the income after the transfer of the land will certainly be higher than that before the transfer of the land? From the point of view of expenditure, it is true that farmers have to pay for the purchase of agricultural materials and the use of water and electricity before they are transferred out of the land. after they are transferred out of the land, they save these costs, but they increase the expenditure on grain and other agricultural products. it is difficult to determine which kind of expenditure is more.

If it is said to increase the income of farmers transferred to land, it is more reasonable. Because after the transfer of land to a certain scale, the productivity increases accordingly, the operation tends to be economic, the cost will decrease, the marginal benefit of the unit will increase, and the overall income will increase. But this is only theoretical, and the actual situation is much more complicated. What kind of scale to achieve is more economical and reasonable, and the intensive goal can be achieved, which depends on a variety of factors. It is also possible that the more land transferred, the greater the loss. And the influence of climate factors. Even if it is said that the income of farmers who transfer to a certain scale of land will generally increase, what does this have to do with other farmers, including those who transfer out of the land?

There is also a saying that there is a good market: in the context of the deepening of non-agricultural transfer, more and more farmers have become less dependent on land, and for them, farming has become a sideline, or even a burden, which naturally needs to be transferred. Even urgent need for circulation. This may seem reasonable, but in essence, it is to make judgments in place of farmers.

It is true to say that with the deepening of non-agricultural transfer, many farmers have reduced their dependence on land. But this does not mean that farmers no longer attach importance to contracted land. Farming may be a burden for some farmers, but owning contracted land is unlikely to be a burden for all farmers. Because first, even if relatively stable transfer conditions have been obtained, the problem of retreat must be considered by every rational farmer. What's more, most of the "transfer farmers" have not obtained relatively stable conditions. Second, in the view of farmers, contracted land is their own real estate, and some farmers can live without land, but it is impossible not to attach importance to their own land and real estate. Third, whether farming is a burden, whether the contracted land should be transferred, whether the transfer is urgent or not, and what form of transfer should be adopted, in the final analysis, it is up to the peasants themselves to judge, and should not be judged by others (including the government and relevant departments) instead of the peasants.

So, what is the real motivation of agricultural land transfer in China now?

The real motivation is that there are several different forces expressing different interests around the transfer of agricultural land, which constitute the basic driving force to promote the transfer of agricultural land.

The first force is the farmers who seek to expand the scale of operation. These farmers have business acumen, sharp thinking and foresight. Through hard work over the years, they have accumulated a certain amount of capital and network resources, and have a better understanding of policy guidance. Hope to expand the scale of operation to achieve a certain degree of intensification, improve the level of income, but also hope to expand the scale of operation in exchange for government support and policy tilt. However, the proportion of these farmers is very small, they can not represent the wishes and interests of the majority of farmers.

The second force is the village cadres who have a certain degree of power, resources and management mind. Such as the secretary of the party branch and the director of the village committee. These people are not only farmers, but also cadres, have a certain degree of power and network resources, and have business acumen, and have accumulated a certain amount of economic strength by using their power and ability. they have the understanding and convenience of "getting the moon first" to the policy trend of the country and the behavior preference of the local government. These people are eager to control more resources through the transfer of land, get more policy dividends, and further improve their economic and social status. They not only have a high enthusiasm for the transfer of land, but also have the power to directly promote this transfer. This is the most approachable and unnegligible force among the forces. But obviously, they cannot represent the wishes and interests of the majority of farmers.