Abstract:During the 80 ’s and 90’s in the 20 thcentury,Township and Village Enterprises(TVEs)were the strongest force leading to China’s economic growth.The enterprises were unique in the sense of the structure of property rights.Some economists pointed out the"ambiguous"structure in TVEs because their property right or ownership belonged to village collectives or township governments but their operation was delegated to TVE managers. Based on the new classic economic theory,this kind of property structure is inefficient due to the separation of the inputs and returns.The success of TVEs thus has stirred up hot debates on the economic growth of"China Pattern,"with the key question being why an ambiguous property structure could have been so successful. There have been three categories of academic explanations.The first one is based on"industrial structural characteristics,"which argues that the success of TVEs was due to the differences between the"light"and"heavy"industries.There was a shortage of"light industry"products in contrast to the"heavy industry"products.TVEs took the market opportunities to make consumer products and reaped high returns with little competition.The second explanation focuses on the behaviors of local governments.The new fiscal contract system provided local governments with strong incentives to develop local TVEs.The third is a"historical explanation,"that is,the success of TVEs could be explained by the"path dependent"theory. In 1994,Martin Weitzman and Xu Chenggang proposed a new"cultural explanation"in their paper that the Chinese"corporate"culture could be regarded as an important factor that had positively affected the management of TVEs.In the current paper,I try to continue Weitzman and Xu’s arguments and respond to Qu Jingdong’s views in his paper of"Possession,Operation and Governance as Three Conceptual Dimensions of Town and Township Enterprises."I believe that the nature of village culture was an important part of TVE operation,which could help us understand the success of Chinese TVEs.

Public Versus Private Ownership of Firms: Evidence from Rural China*

Public Vs. Private Ownership Of Firms: Evidence From Rural China

Analysis of the Differences in Economic Efficiency of Human Capital Property Rights Between State, Township, and Village Enterprises

Institutional Environment, Community Government, And Corporate Governance: Understanding China'S Township-Village Enterprises

The Nature of the Township-Village Enterprise

Chinese Institutional Innovation and Privatization from Below

The Costs and Benefits of Government Control: Evidence from China'S Collectively-Owned Enterprises

Productivity Performance and Investment Efficiency of China's Private Enterprises

Return to Earthbound China: Reflections on Township and Village Enterprises (tves) Studies

The Costs and Benefits of Government Ownership: Evidence from Privatization of China's Collectively-Owned Enterprises

Privatizing Rural China: Insider Privatization, Innovative Contracts and the Performance of Township Enterprises

The Evolution of Chinese Entrepreneurial Firms: Township-Village Enterprises Revisited

How Does Government Ownership Affect Firm Performance? Evidence from China’s Privatization Experience

Institutions, State Activism, and Economic Development: A Comparison of State‐Owned and Township‐Village Enterprises in China

Insecure Property Rights and Government Ownership of Firms

Impacts on Rural Community Development and Governance by Different Land Ownership: A Comparative Study Based on Two Villages in China

Saving or stripping rural industry: an analysis of privatization and efficiency in China

The Selective Mechanism for the Township-Village Enterprises

Government's Budget Constraint, Competition, and Privatization: Evidence from China's Rural Industry

Has a private sector emerged in China's industry? Evidence from a quarter of a million Chinese firms