Why should we draw three red lines of rural land?

The demarcation of the three red lines of ■ can not only ensure the smooth implementation of the reform, but also prevent some people from harming farmers and national interests in the name of reform, so that the scarce land resources can increase more output and benefits for the country and farmers.

China's rural land is divided into "three pieces of land", the first is contracted land, the second is homestead, and the third is collective construction land. Land is the foundation for farmers to settle down, but in the process of rapid urbanization, the price of land as a scarce resource continues to rise, so rural land has become the "flesh of Tang monks" in the eyes of some people in many places. in order to find ways to gain personal gain from it.

Land is one of the scarcest agricultural resources, because once occupied, it is difficult to increase it. The central government has issued a series of policies on how to manage rural land well and seek development in the course of reform. The seventh meeting of the Central leading Group for comprehensively deepening Reform examined the opinions on Rural Land expropriation, the entry of Collective Construction Land into the Market, and the pilot work of Homestead system Reform. The meeting pointed out that there are three bottom lines: no change in the nature of public ownership of land, no breakthrough in the red line of cultivated land, and no damage to the interests of farmers. Why are these three red lines drawn? In the process of promoting rural land reform, how to guarantee the interests of farmers? How can the reform be orderly and safe? The analysis is as follows:

Insisting on the public ownership of land is the inevitable choice of national conditions.

With regard to the reform of China's rural land system, there was a voice a few years ago, that is, the implementation of privatization. However, this point of view has always been controversial among rural economic researchers in China. The reason is very simple. There is a theory that all those who are "involved in public affairs" are basically nailed to the pillar of shame, while those who are "involved in private affairs" are basically regarded as "high efficiency". Under the background of the unique per capita resources of developed capitalism, it has its correct side, but it is obviously inappropriate and unacceptable to use this theory to cover our country.

The success of China's reform and opening up is due to the adoption of borrowlism rather than blindly copying western theories in the light of our national conditions. It is a special institutional arrangement that fully takes into account the national conditions of our country.

In recent years, the public ownership of rural land in China has actually undergone a substantial institutional evolution, which is no longer what the West calls "public ownership". It has imposed strict restrictions on this "collective public ownership", abandoning the disadvantage of being public. Fully authorize the collective land to the farmers who contract the land, and define the farmers' right to contract as property rights, in fact, it is also a kind of quasi-ownership. The collective is not allowed to take back the peasants' right to contract indiscriminately. On this basis, it also gives rise to the "separation of rights", that is, to increase the management right of farmers' contracted land, which can be mortgaged and leased. The main purpose of such an institutional arrangement is to prevent the abuse of this private right.

For example, land in Taiwan is privately owned, but the tragedy of agricultural land in recent years is also a pity, that is, farmers who have already left the countryside for the cities are unwilling to give up their land in the countryside, not because they have feelings for the land, but because of its appreciation, just like the real estate developers who buy houses, hoard houses and speculate in real estate. They do not cultivate well, or grow lazily, and allow the extremely scarce land to operate inefficiently. as a result, Taiwan falls into the tragedy of agricultural land. Therefore, some rights of collective public ownership can be recovered when the land is abused. This kind of deterrence should have its reasonable side under the background of extremely scarce agricultural land in our country.

In my opinion, in fact, the "collective" referred to by land in our country, that is, the western concept of community, emphasizes the common rights and interests of community members rather than one-sided emphasis on individual rights. Retain the ownership of community members in our country, so that the collective rights and interests of community members will not be infringed by individuals. In a country with a large population and little land, there is a reasonable basis for its existence.