汲取与包容性治理视角下的土地发展权转移与乡村发展

Land Development Rights Transfer and Rural Development from the Perspective of Extractive and Inclusive Governance

土地发展权转移是通过土地增值收益的再分配来推动乡村发展的重要政策。然而,地方政府对该政策的实施呈现出不同的结果。从汲取与包容性治理视角出发,采用案例比较法,分别以德州与成都为典型案例,分析不同地方治理路径下发展权转移对乡村发展的差异化影响。在汲取性管制路径下,地方政府以土地财政为导向,主导发展权转移并垄断了土地交易,指标进城却并未引入资本下乡,最终造成农民权益受损。而在包容性治理路径下,地方政府以统筹城乡发展为导向,发挥村民的自主性,明晰产权、搭建交易平台并维护市场运行,乡村凭借土地资源撬动城市资本下乡,并通过市场机制推动土地增值收益的多主体共享。以土地发展权转移助推乡村发展,更应注重治理路径选择,推进集体建设用地全面确权,并建立市场化交易机制显化土地发展权。

Land development rights transfer(LDRT),centered on the variation of urban and rural construction areas,is an important policy to promote rural development through the redistribution of land increment income.However,local governments exhibit different rural development outcomes during implementation of LDRT.In this study,how LDRT affects rural development under differentiated local governance was explored from the perspective of extractive and inclusive institutions.Regions which have established inclusive institutions can realize long-term sustainable development.Politically,inclusive institutions maintain legal order and form extensive distribution of power.Economically,inclusive institutions demonstrate clear security of property rights and market-orientedallocation of resource elements. However, extractive institutions havethe opposite characteristics. In this study, the influences of LDRT onrural development were investigated through case study comparisonof Dezhou and Chengdu from the perspective of extractive andinclusive governance traits of local governments. Under extractivegovernance, local governments promote LDRT coercively, monopolizethe transaction market, and exhaust the property rights of collectiveconstruction land by catering to land finance. Due to the absenceof a transaction mechanism, the rural collective construction landquota benefits the city, but no capital investment is attracted torural areas. Finally, this causes impairment of rights and interests ofvillages and peasants. The poor interaction between governanceand rights and interests hinders rural development. This manifestsin the governments’ fast and mandatory promotion of villageintegration when it benefits the city, and governments' monopolyover the land market harming countryside social capital. Underinclusive governance, local governments establish villager councils topromote grassroots democracy and give full autonomy to villagers bycentering urban-rural development. Moreover, inclusive governmentsclarify property rights, confirm the rights to households, build markettransaction platforms of development rights, and maintain marketoperation. Under such institutional design, rural areas can attracturban capital with land resources, realize multi-subject sharing of landvalue-added revenues through market mechanisms, and facilitatethe growth of rural incomes and rural development. The interactionbetween governance and rights and interests promotes ruraldevelopment. This not only guarantees villagers' rights and interestsby confirmation and certification of property rights and establishmentof villager councils in the city quota stages, but also by establishinglicenses for use and price protection mechanisms in the stage ofcountryside capital. The essence of different local governance pathslies in the differences of government and market strength betweenthe institutional and cultural environments of South and North China.Therefore, more attention should be given to institutional reform of market-oriented institutional environments duringpromotion of rural development with LDRT. On thisbasis, the comprehensive confirmation of rights ofcollective building land should be promoted to protectthe rights and interests of villagers. Moreover, atransaction platform should be established and thetransaction scope gradually expanded to clarify thevalue of development rights and realize sharing ofvalue-added revenues.