In the future, farmers will take the road of scale, not identity but occupation.

Li Yining said that in the future, farmers will no longer be an identity, but a profession. In the future, China's agricultural practitioners will be farmers, farmers' cooperatives and agricultural enterprises who really understand agricultural technology, and agricultural planting and production will take the road of scale.

Li Yining, a famous economist, gave a speech entitled "Reform and Development of China's economy" at St. Petersburg State University of Finance and Economics in Russia on the 8th. This paper analyzes the middle-income trap, the problem of income distribution in China, the determination of power in rural areas, the combination of the two household registration systems, the prospect of China's rural areas, and the reform of state-owned enterprises. Let hundreds of students, teachers and other listeners have an in-depth understanding of China's national conditions and the direction of reform at this stage.

In response to a reporter's question on the relationship between the cancellation of farmers' household registration and farmers' previous ownership of land, Li Yining said: "according to my experience of investigation and inspection in Zhejiang and some other provinces, I think the right should be confirmed first, and the difference in household registration should be cancelled later. The cancellation of household registration differences should be promoted together with the progress of urbanization. "

Li Yining said, "the determination of farmers' power is the most important." First of all, make clear the right to use the homestead, the right to manage the contracted land and the right of ownership of the house on the homestead, and then with the promotion of urbanization, the hukou system is gradually merged into one. "

Li Yining believes that after the confirmation of power, farmers will have more sources of income. Farmers' land can be used for planting and aquaculture, or leasing out land, renting houses and going out to work all become sources of income. For example, before and after the confirmation of power in Jiaxing, Zhejiang Province, the income ratio between urban and rural areas changed from 3.1 to 1 to 1.9 to 1.

Li Yining said that in the future, farmers will no longer be an identity, but a profession. In the future, China's agricultural practitioners will be farmers, farmers' cooperatives and agricultural enterprises who really understand agricultural technology, and agricultural planting and production will take the road of scale.

-

Depriving farmers of land property rights is the deepest discrimination against farmers.

Discussion on the land issue between the Friends Club hosted by Phoenix New Media and Watson and Qin Hui on August 22nd

Sheng Hong: I have been concerned about the land issue over the years, and I have done a lot of research. I have also published some articles, including very severe articles criticizing the current land legal system. There is an article called "criticism of the Land Management Law and its revised draft". The name is basically qualitative.

A study has been done in the past two years. This study is called "the principled framework of the land legal system". What does this mean? It is still my basic attitude. I basically hold a negative attitude to the existing land legal system, especially to the Land Management Law. I even called it a "draconian law". Our attitude is that we do not want to propose amendments to the Land Management Law at all. I once made an analogy, a very clumsy painting to find some masters to modify the painting, it is too difficult, it is better to draw a new one.

Sheng Hong: in fact, some of the constitutions we see stipulate that rural areas are owned by rural collectives, which is just a formality. You need to know that the source of rights is not given by a piece of paper, but actually has its far-reaching sources of rights. The source of rights in China is that people opened up wasteland at the beginning, and then through transactions to buy land, the basic land property rights were formed. I basically agree with what Qin Hui said just now.

What was the situation during the land reform? During the land reform, it was indeed the Communist Party that led the peasants to divide the land of the landlords. However, the land reform is basically based on the village as a unit, in fact, it is redistributed among relatives, and there is no village at all. Moreover, it is very important that the property right of the land is originally in the village, just that relatives are changing each other. I very much agree with what Qin Hui said just now that there is no land given to the peasants at all. The land is originally owned by the peasants themselves, so they already have this right.

In addition, some people say that this is the protection of farmers, in fact, it is a way of belittling farmers' rights to land. The most important thing is that farmers' land rights are the most important. If they own property rights, property rights can be used to do a variety of things, which can help him survive, help him become rich and develop, and can also be used as a guarantee. If it is only protection, in fact, this is a huge mistake, which derogates the meaning of land property rights.

If there is free trading, some people say that there is no guarantee. This view is a big mistake. This argument is to deprive them of their rights on the grounds of concern for farmers. Once the land is traded freely, there will be no land in the transaction, and there will be no guarantee without land. Don't forget that there is an equivalent exchange of land, you can take money, and money can be traded. Maybe some farmers have made failed deals, and some farmers have made successful deals. Farmers and urbanites are the same. City dwellers have houses to sell and farmers can sell land. This failure does not mean that the whole farmer as a whole will lose security, and there will be individual failures. This failure can be remedied by other arrangements for society, such as insurance. In this sense, it can not be said that in order to protect the transaction is not allowed, the deprivation of rights.

What is the biggest drawback of this statement? Is that he assumes that farmers are irrational. I asked you to trade, you sold the land to buy wine, there is no guarantee. Why do farmers do such a thing? Why not restrict city dwellers from selling houses? There is the deepest discrimination against farmers, that is, farmers are irrational. What we advocate is that the peasants restore their property rights to the land. When we talk about property rights, property rights are a complete concept, including the rights of ownership, use, disposition and income. If you have this right but are not allowed to sell, this property right is incomplete. Now that you have bought a house, you are not allowed to sell it. You should know that the price of a house that is allowed to sell is not the same as that of a house that is not allowed to sell. Why? Because the concept of property rights is incomplete. At present, the peasants are not allowed to dispose of their land freely, which in fact infringes upon the peasants' property rights, and there is no right to dispose of and gain income. In this sense, if we really think for the sake of farmers, we should restore farmers' ownership of land property rights.

Sheng Hong: the red line of 1.8 billion mu is actually a big joke. Of course, no one has mentioned 1.8 billion mu now. Two years ago, the Ministry of Land conducted an aerial photograph and found that the actual area of cultivated land was about 2.2 billion mu, but it was announced that it was 2 billion mu.

Sheng Hong: there is a big gap. Originally, the Ministry of Land has set a target in the office, that is, there are only 1.826 billion mu now, and we must stick to it. Why is that? Because the history of interaction between such a country and farmers is the result of a country's irresponsibility and failure to deliver on its promises. After 1949, from the land reform to public canteens, it was the farmers who bear the losses after the real grain production reduction, and in the end, tens of millions of people starved to death, and they will no longer tell the government the truth. We all know a very important fact, that is, the number of mu of land reported by farmers to the government is lower than the actual number of mu, so 1.8 billion mu is a joke.

My view is a little different from that of Qin Hui. 1.8 billion mu of red line is used to blackmail the central government. You can take a look at Zhou Qiren's "Urban and Rural China". In 1998, the Ministry of Land said that the cultivated land had been greatly reduced in the past two years, so it was necessary to take 1.8 billion mu as the red line. The large reduction of cultivated land is not due to the reduction of cultivated land brought about by urbanization at that time, but because of the conversion of farmland to forests at that time. They lied that the reduced cultivated land was the reduction of cultivated land brought about by urbanization, which led to the result of this policy. The result of this policy is not only the result of the policy, but also a legal result, so that in 1998, the Land Management Law made an amendment that houses could be built on rural land and could be rented to urban dwellers; after 1998, this article was removed and the control of rural land property rights was strengthened, that is, farmers are prohibited from doing this thing or farmers are prohibited from doing such things.

There is a causal relationship between the red line of 1.8 billion mu and this. It has become such a logic to restrict farmers because there is less arable land. After restricting farmers, it is found that local government land expropriation has not decreased, because China is going through the process of urbanization. Local governments are now facing a weak opponent for land expropriation. Farmers are already politically weak. In addition, the Land Management Law has stipulated that if farmers' land is turned into urban land, they must first be expropriated as state-owned land. First of all, they do not have the right to buy and sell land freely and bargain.

What is another provision in the Land Management Law? What is the subsidy for land expropriation? It is 6 to 10 times the average output value of the land in the previous three years.

In other words, what does it mean? Even in terms of agricultural output, it is very low, which is equivalent to taking 100 yuan from you, but paying you back 20 to 40 yuan. Why is it a draconian law? This is a law that comes out of nowhere. The law tells you that I will pay you back 20 to 40 yuan with 100 yuan. In this case, the land of the farmers is expropriated at a low price. It is very important for us to know that there are fewer people who buy something if it is expensive in the market economy, and more people buy it if it is cheap, and the land is the same.

Now the peasants are deprived of their right to bargain and the right to build houses and buildings on their land. At this time, the relationship between the government and farmers becomes that I expect to seize land from you and give you 20% to 40% compensation, or even lower. I have seen an example of a lower compensation is to give zero yuan. I will take the land from you first and then return it to you after attracting investment, but the businessman has not been brought in, nor has he compensated the farmers.

What we mean is that the effect of the policy on the 1.8 billion mu red line is just the opposite. Precisely because the peasants are deprived of their land property rights under the banner of 1.8 billion mu red line, they cannot confront those who plunder the land, nor can they force the government to expropriate land at a higher price. The government expropriates more land for the so-called urbanization, and as a result, more arable land is occupied, and the result is exactly like this.

Sheng Hong: I'll talk about history, too. Of course, I don't know as much about history as Qin Hui. I have also been studying history recently, and basically I am just making some additions.

Because there are a lot of people's research, one is an economist named Zhao Gang, he is in Taiwan, he once taught in the United States. He said that the distribution of land rights was relatively uniform in the Republic of China. He talked about many reasons. In fact, in the political structure of China after the Tang and Song dynasties, due to the establishment and development of the imperial examination system, political resources were evenly distributed, and there could not be a great concentration through market transactions.

Then there is the inheritance system in China, which is a system in which several sons divide the land equally. The land that a person has worked hard to buy all his life will be divided into several pieces when he dies.

There are several important factors to emphasize. One is the permanent tenancy system developed in China after the Ming and Qing dynasties, which means permanent tenancy. Not only permanent tenancy, but also have a certain land property rights. The so-called permanent tenancy right is called land right in many places, and land right is bought and sold independently, which is a kind of property right. Equivalent to a piece of land has land rights and land rights, the relatively simple is to divide the land into two layers to sell, both layers are actually rights. Like stocks, stocks are the same as an enterprise that divides assets into multiple shares.

Zhao Gang said that in the past, the general distribution of land property rights was only calculated on the basis of land rights, and if land rights were also counted as property rights, the distribution of land property rights would be more even. As a matter of fact, if many tenants have land rights and permanent tenancy rights, their income is very high, even higher than that of landlords with land rights.

Another aspect is the so-called view that the landlords brutally exploited the peasants. In recent years, there is a historian named Gao Wangling. He has a book called "A New Theory of tenancy relationship". He said that in fact, the land rent has declined from the Ming and Qing dynasties to the Republic of China, including the real yield. For example, if the land rent stipulated in the contract is 40% or 50%, in fact only 70 to 80% of what should be paid will be paid, so it will be even lower. He said that it was about 30% of the actual government rent, which was not very high. There is a great deal of evidence to prove that in such a so-called land system of landlords and tenants, the land rent is not as high as people think, it is not very high.

There is also a story about the concentration of land. When Mao Zedong was young, he probably did a rural survey in or before Jinggangshan, and there was a report called "Wu-seeking investigation." In the report, it is said that land and rich peasants account for 70 to 80 percent of the total land. In recent years, many historians have made a new study of these conclusions, and a historian named Guo Dehong has studied the "Xunwu investigation", saying that some of Mao Zedong's investigations are wrong. One mistake is to put public land in the share of land owned by landlords and rich peasants. Now there may be no concept of public land, that is, clan land, plus other fields, such as Xuetian and Yitian.

This public land accounts for about 40% of Mao Zedong's report, which is a very high number. Mao Zedong simply put this piece of public land on the side of the landlords and rich peasants, so it looked very high. This article was written probably in 1989.