Adhere to the market-oriented direction of land reform

Editor's note: the goal of "establishing a unified market for construction land in urban and rural areas" is unshakable, and in particular, it is necessary to do a good job in the article of "allowing rural collective construction land to be sold, leased, and shareholding, and enter the market on the same basis as state-owned land, with the same rights and at the same price."

Land is no small matter, and the debate on the basic direction of land reform is naturally worthy of special attention. A year ago, the third Plenary session of the 18th CPC Central Committee made a breakthrough in land reform. Unexpectedly, the implementation was difficult and controversial. In recent months, many rounds of debates have broken out among experts and scholars, and different views have exchanged fiercely. For important and complex issues, it is better to argue than nothing. However, the market-oriented direction of land reform should be adhered to only after decades of difficult exploration and paying a heavy price. The decision adopted at the third Plenary session of the 18th CPC Central Committee should be the bottom line and starting point for the next round of land reform. There is no way out for wavering and retrogression.

The crux of this debate is not that there are exploitable or occasional omissions in the analysis of specific issues, but that there are fundamental differences in the basic orientation, historical understanding and solutions of land reform. Land, like capital and labor, is the basic factor of production in the market economy. With the deepening of the market economic reform, "establishing a unified urban and rural construction land market" has become the clear goal of the land system reform. Unexpectedly, the dispute arises again, and "the same place and the same right" is questioned. In the past exploration of land expropriation system reform there has been a consensus on the strict definition of public welfare and commercial construction land but this time there is a significant objection.

Planning is a hot word in this controversy. In the process of urbanization, scientific planning is needed. However, such planning is usually functional. The planning based on the protection of property rights and the freedom of contract has no fundamental conflict with the market. In this debate, planning has been put in a position opposite to the market by some commentators, advocating that the primary allocation of land, that is, changing the allocation of land use, can only rely on planning; only in the secondary market, the market can play a decisive role. When emphasizing planning, "public power", "control", "governance" and "punishment and crackdown" flash from time to time, but the recognition and protection of land rights are rarely mentioned.

It can be seen that in the reform of the land system, whether to adhere to "the market plays a decisive role in the allocation of resources" is the focus of debate, while whether to respect citizens' land rights is the basis of divergent values.

The difference in starting point has led to a series of specific differences. Some people believe that the fundamental difference between urban and rural land lies in the use control, not the ownership power. This is obviously not in line with the facts. Only when rural land is requisitioned as state-owned, can it be invested in urban construction, obviously with a color of discrimination, which is also the reason why the decision puts forward the idea of "the same place and the same right". Today, in the urban-rural junction, even if the planning has been included in the urban area, it does not change the nature of the land, farmers are still unable to legally use collective land for construction. However, after all, the door of the market cannot be blocked, and reality and regulations have become two skins. Some commentators severely criticize farmers'"illegal construction". However, in order to regulate this underground market, there is no other way but to give farmers the legal right to use collective land for development.

Some scholars believe that due to the existence of use control, the right to the use of land development belongs to the state, not to the owner, and the right to the use of land development and property rights can be separated, which is a misunderstanding. Land development right is the translation name of "development rights" in Anglo-American law system, and "ground power" in continental law system. Refers to the right to build buildings, structures and their ancillary facilities on land and to obtain income. In China, it is called "right to the use of construction land", which is a kind of usufruct separated from ownership. Obviously, this is a property right. At present, the use control that is compatible with the market is generally implemented in mature market economy countries, the purpose is to prevent negative externalities, and it is unintentional and impossible to replace the owner's rights. The person in charge of land use control has the responsibility to explain why the land use cannot be changed by the owner, which must be recognized by the whole community on the grounds of public interest and negative externalities. Basically, the market still dominates the allocation of resources.

This debate has made people pay more attention to the future of the land reform and hope that the implementation plan for a new round of land reform can be issued as soon as possible. The relevant decision of the third Plenary session of the 18th CPC Central Committee is a solemn political commitment made in the form of the highest document of the ruling party after full investigation and demonstration under the background of the deepening and intensification of contradictions caused by the current land system. Resistance should be removed and resolutely implemented. The goal of "establishing a unified market for construction land in urban and rural areas" is unshakable, and in particular, it is necessary to do a good job in the article of "allowing rural collective construction land to sell, lease, and buy shares, and enter the market on the same basis as state-owned land, with the same rights and at the same price." and on this basis continue to make breakthroughs.

Land reform is important and complex, involving multiple interests. At the operational level, decision-makers can adhere to the sound policy, pilot first, and form policies and systems. China has carried out a pilot project on collective construction land for more than a decade and accumulated a lot of experience, but it is difficult to go deep because of the lack of top-level design and supporting reforms such as taxation and law. The new round of pilot projects should open up more space in the definition of commercial collective construction land and the use of entering the market. When the results of the reform show and the social consensus is formed, the law should be amended in due course to give the results of the reform a legal status.

Land reform is related to the promotion of urbanization and economic transformation, as well as fairness and justice and social stability. At present, a series of thorny problems such as increasing downward pressure on the economy and high government debt show that it is time to reform the current land system. It is even more difficult for reform to know that it is difficult to do, and it is even more necessary to do so.