Where should people-oriented urbanization be borrowed?

According to media reports, with the holding of the first inter-ministerial joint meeting of the new urbanization work, the "adjustment plan for urban size division standards" will enter the implementation stage.

The new city size standard disclosed in the report is different from the expression in the repealed Urban Planning Law of 1989 (the original law has been replaced by the Urban and Rural Planning Law implemented in 2008, but there is no corresponding standard, so it is still used in practical work) It is also different from the standard in the National New Urban Planning (2014-2020) just promulgated in March this year (100-5 million people are divided into 10-3 million and 300-5 million, the former requires "reasonable liberalization" in population management, and the latter is "reasonable determination of conditions for settling down").

The new disclosure standards are:

Cities with a population of less than 500000 are designated as small cities. The urban population of 50-1 million is a medium-sized city. Urban areas with a population of 10-5 million are big cities. A mega-city with an urban population of more than 5 million.

This is generally in line with the new situation of urbanization in our country.

Then, comparing with the relevant expressions of "National New Town Planning (2014-2020)", we can find that the differential requirements of the government's population management policies for cities of different sizes are as follows:

The restrictions on the settlement of established towns and small cities have been fully relaxed, the restrictions on the settlement of medium-sized cities have been liberalized in an orderly manner, the restrictions on settlement of large cities have been "reasonably relaxed", and the population of mega-cities with a population of more than 5 million in urban areas has been "strictly controlled".

Where is the new type of urbanization?

Although compared with the semi-chaotic and uncertain state in the past, the current standard of urban size and the corresponding population management policy are more clear, which is a great progress. But in my opinion, there are still some problems. The most important one is that the new type of urbanization is the foundation of "human urbanization".

Where is the "new" of the new urbanization? Specifically, it is "new" in the "citizenization of agricultural transferred population" put forward by the 18th CPC National Congress, and "new" in "full coverage of the permanent population of basic public services in cities and towns".

The former actually talks about the urban settlement of the agricultural migrant population (of course, it is not limited to this), while the latter aims at the reality that "the floating employment of the rural labor force between urban and rural areas is a long-term phenomenon", so that the families of migrant workers who can not settle in cities and towns can equally share the basic public services of urban residents, including the education rights of their children, public employment and entrepreneurial services. Old-age pension, medical care and other social security, basic medical and health services, and housing security.

If the former is understood as a "high limit requirement" (settled down), the latter is a "bottom line requirement" (public service), otherwise it will not be a deliberate definition of "new" urbanization.

Where is the kinetic energy of the new type of urbanization?

In this way, the question focuses on this "point": what are the "non-basic public services" above the bottom and below the peak? Is the "gold content" of these things enough to generate the driving force for the "citizenization of agricultural population transfer"?

If there is a lack of motivation and migrant workers are still satisfied with "amphibious and migratory birds in urban and rural areas", then the task of "human urbanization" (at least the first "100 million people" of the "three hundred million people" mentioned by Premier Li), when and when will it be completed? I am afraid the end result is still "year after year, mountains and rivers remain the same", the survival of migrant workers and the management state of urban society is still "the old side of a post", "change clothes do not change".

I fully understand the need for gradual reform. I can never make a fat man with one bite. However, at the same time, we should also understand the basic law of social reform under the condition of market economy-- in nature, potential energy can be converted into kinetic energy. The same is true in social governance: we should honestly follow the principle of material interests, make use of the potential energy generated by the interest gap, transform it into kinetic energy, and guide the common participation of the parties or stakeholders through interest realization and redemption. in order to achieve the desired goal of social progress.

Specifically, on the point of "human urbanization", it is not enough to have good wishes, but also to solve the problem of "bridges and roads" to achieve the ideal state at the same time. That is, in accordance with the spirit of free movement of "allowing farmers who are willing to go to cities to go to cities and citizens who are willing to go to the countryside to go to the countryside" and implementing the eight-character principle of "three rights to people (households) and rights to people (households)" proposed by the Zhejiang provincial government, we will promote the reform of the rural property rights system.

Then, on the basis of "interest induction" rather than "government mobilization", hundreds of millions of farmers themselves are allowed to "move" and take the initiative to participate in the process of "human urbanization". At this time, supplemented by matching city size standards and differential population management policies, things will have a truly meaningful "substantive turnaround".