LAND RIGHTS IN CHINA: FACTS, FICTIONS, AND ISSUES
Scott Rozelle,Loren Brandt,Li Guo,Jikun Huang,Carl H. Gotsch,Hongbin Li,Fangbin Qiao,Albert Nyberg,Matt Turner,Dwayne Benjamin,Minggao Shen,Linxiu Zhang,Changbao Zhao,F. J. Zimmerman
2001-01-01
Abstract:The overall goal of our paper is to begin the task of laying out the current facts and to describe systematically the organization and utilization of China’s cultivated land resources. Currently, we observe enormous heterogeneity at the village level in the property rights that households enjoy. In some villages, farmers seem to enjoy relatively long-term security and most of the rights typically associated with a private property regime, short of being able to buy or sell the land. In other villages, on the other hand, tenure is insecure, and farmers’ use of the land appears to be constrained in a variety of ways. From a policy perspective the critical question is how effective these alternative regimes have been in providing households the necessary incentives to ensure rational land use and investment, while simultaneously helping local communities meet distributive objectives. One of the most important messages to take away from this essay is that a solid empirical basis does not currently exist for making an assessment of the impact of the land system on efficiency, equity, and overall development of China’s rural sector. On the basis of the work that has been done, the record of China’s land system is mixed. Over the past two decades, reallocations by village leaders may have facilitated access to land and the food it produces for a majority of China’s households and overcome some of the imperfections in land rental markets. No work has found a large effect of the land management system on agricultural production. Nonetheless, in many parts of China there are significant and growing costs of the current property right regime in terms of short and long-run productivity that are not being offset by lower income inequality. Land Rights In China: Facts, Fictions, and Issues China’s rural economic reform, widely regarded as one of the most successful transitions of the last two decades years (Johnson, 1996; Perkins, 1992; Lin, 1992), radically altered land tenure in rural China. With the introduction of the Household Responsibility System (HRS) and the extension of land-use rights and residual income rights to households, agriculture shifted from a collective-based to a family-based farming system. Land was not privatized, however. Ownership remained “collective”, with local governing bodies and officials at the village level exercising a major influence over household land use and allocation. The initial reforms triggered an unprecedented acceleration of agricultural growth in China. From 1979 to 1984, the gross value of agricultural output increased in real terms at an annual rate of 7.6 percent, and grain production rose by 4.9 percent annually (ZGTJNJ, 1989). Empirical studies (McMillan, Whalley, and Zhu,1989; Lin, 1992; and Huang and Rozelle,1996) attribute a significant part of this increase to the incentives associated with better residual income rights. Growth slackened after 1984, however, especially for grain production. From 1985 to 1994, grain output rose only 0.9 percent per year (ZGTJNJ, 1996), despite expanded efforts to further liberalize rural input and output markets. This deceleration has generated considerable debate about the reasons for the slowdown. Some observers have focused attention on China’s land management system, the one dimension of the farm economy that has been least altered since the initial reforms. Some suggest that weaknesses in these institutional arrangements are the fundamental source of the problem. Poor incentives related to tenure insecurity, for example, has reportedly discouraged investment in agriculture and lowered growth (Prosterman, Hansted, and Li, 1996). The perceived incentive problems have sparked calls for either land privatization or for extending land contracts to 30 or more years. (Chen, 1999). The need for privatization or extended tenure has not gone uncontested. Low farm-gate prices, not land rights arrangements, has alternatively been blamed for the sagging productivity. In many areas a majority of farmers reportedly oppose privatization (or even extended tenure) because their households enjoy better overall income security under the current form of 1 The growth rate was so fast that some policy makers even began to worry about how to deal with the problem of surplus grain in China.