Study On A System Of Urbanization Of The Rural Collective Land

China’s dual system of land property rights adopted at the outset of the economicopening in1978has transformed the country from one of the most egalitariancountries in the world to one of the least.In China, land rights have always been a central concern of the CCP since itcame to power. Improving the living conditions of peasants was at the heart of thearguments used by Mao Zedong to rally the peasants around the revolutionary cause.The current dual property system is directly related to collectivization, when thesystem was completely shaken and private property disappeared. The Chineseeconomic model confronted the liberal economic one for which the recognition andprotection of private property is a condition sine qua non for economic development.Behind the academic discussions, there was always a constant fear of returningto the pre-revolutionary situation where land was concentrated in the hands of a few,which constituted according to Marxists one the great contradictions of capitalism.The dual public ownership of land has persisted since the mid1950s even thoughthe structure of the economy has undergone radical changes. Before the start of thereform process in1978, the collective land system of property was the foundation ofthe collective economy in rural areas. However, since the1980s, and especially sincethe1990s it has coexisted with an urban system where land has been progressivelyliberated. In urban land there is a thriving market in real estate that has contributedgreatly to the robustness of the economy and the welfare of urban residents.When State land was liberalized, it represented the largest one-time transfer ofwealth in history, as most of China’s urban stock was handed over to its occupants,and the country was transformed from one of the world’s lowest home-ownershiprates to one of the highest. However, this also led to the coexistence day by day lesspacifique of two diametrically opposed systems of property: a system of collectiveownership with socialist characteristics and a quasi free-market system where land can be transferred, leased, or used as collateral, exploiting its inherent value.Behind the rural land policy of the Chinese Communist Party is the ideal ofcommon prosperity. However, after more than thirty years of fast economicdevelopment, a salient feature of China’s rural areas has been the common poverty ofthe farmer class as a whole. The economic gap between the rural and the urban hasnot ceased to increase. The author argues that one of the main causes of thisurban-rural gap lies in the dual system of land property rights, which has proved to beflawed, as farmers have been deprived from exploiting the value of their mostprecious asset: land. Therefore, a reform of the dual system of property rights isimperative.The author advocates reforming rural land development rights as a solution to thenegative effects caused by the dual property system. The introduction of thedissertation describes the significance of the study, its research scope, the researchmethods, the status quo of the research question as well as the main ideas andinnovations of the thesis. The paper is divided in five chapters, with over160,000words.The first part of the dissertation describes the formation of the dual propertyrights system. It analyzes then its negative consequences over time. Particularly, itexamines the flourishing informal rural land market prompted by the rapid economicdevelopment experienced in urban areas, the so-called small property housingphenomenon, which is the most salient example of the illegal ways farmers havecome up with to break with the State monopoly of the primary land market. Likewise,the study analyzes the consequences of irregular urban planning, which has led to theemergence of the urban villages phenomenon in most Chinese cities. The author endsexploring the abandon of rural villages and the encroachment on arable land. Thedissertation draws on empirical evidence to analyze some legal experimentsimplemented in order to resolve these issues in two provinces. In particular, itanalyses the pros and cons of two land reform models implemented in Chongqing andNanhai (Guangdong province) concluding that allowing collectives to fully exercisetheir property rights, particularly development rights, is the optimal solution to thedistortions caused by the dual land property rights system. The author proposes that,during the process of land urbanisation, ownership of land does not change, allowingcollectives to develop and market construction land, and fostering the urbanization of the countryside as the best way to finance their self-development and to achieve theintegration of the urban and the rural.Finally, the author uses a comparative perspective analyzing the Spanishproperty rights system to use as a reference. The study is the first research on ruralland development rights in China that focuses on the Spanish legal system as a modelfor comparison.The author chooses the Spanish land property rights system because it placesgreat emphasis on the social function of land property rights, which agrees with theprinciples of the Chinese Communist Party. Although the Spanish Constitutionrecognizes private property, it also places the social function at the nucleus of the landproperty right. The use and transfer of construction land property rights has to becarried out in harmony with the interests of the community. The exercise of landproperty rights in Spain has a finalist element that is going to limit its content. Thelimitation of its content is reflected in the social relevance of land and has to bespecified by the lawmaker. The possibility to introduce and circulate land into theconstruction land market, the unfolding of the ius edificandi, is going to be decided bythe lawmaker through the urban plan, which becomes an essential tool to protect thepublic interest and control the adequate exercise of the property right by its holder. Asa consequence, the Spanish property system does not regulate an expropriationprocedure in order for the land-use right to allow the exercise of its inherent right tobuild. It’s the lawmaker through the urban plan who is going to activate this rightgranting it to its original owner.The Third Plenary Session of the18thCPC of the Central Committee hasemphasized the importance of putting people at the heart of urbanisation, protectingfarmers’ development rights, and acknowledging the need to implement an importantland reform. The author concludes that resolving the problem of rural China isessential to construct a harmonious society. The restrictions on the exercise andcirculation of development rights by the collective are no longer sustainable. TheSpanish land property system can be used as a reference to reform the collectiveconstruction land use rights system.