The Policy Implementation Differences Of The Confirmation Of Right To Rural Land

Confirming, registering and certificating of right to rural and is a beginning of Chinese comprehensive reform in new era, for which the stable and clear rural land ownership relations are precondition for land market`s smooth running, the security of millions of peasants` land-right and utility, and basement of well-off society and modernization in rural area. In fact, the significance of which the government promotes confirmation of right to rural land parallels with its enormity. After the Document No.1 of the central authorities set the mission deadline of the confirmation, register and certificating of rural land, local governments set up the goals and schedule, which extended the scale of the early policy pilot. The confirmation, involving in the historical problems remained, ambiguous definition in law and disputes which take place between rational peasants and collectives, which are troubles that local governments try to keep away from, encounters difficulties and resistance.This article brings insight in local governments` practice, method and effect of confirmation performance through a real case, and chiefly reveals the reason why it could develop such a structure and state of policy implementation after a brief review on its influence. Specifically, the author chooses a north province, i.e., J province, and its arrangement and implementation, concentrating on two county-level cities M and G whose policy circumstances are close, and then carries out a diachronic investigation and comparative analysis which focuses on the implementation procedure of the confirmation.The main content of this paper includes the following six parts. The Introduction will introduce the background, significance of the topic and method of the study used in this paper, especially summarize the development of the implementation research of confirming the right to rural land and give the logic and frame of this paper. This paper argues that it is lack of strength and deficiency for existing researches to explain some policies on characteristic of “imperceptible interest” and “weak regular”, and tries to explore the problem and ground of implementation in confirmation of the right to rural land in prospect of institution and cognition. The second part will introduce a case in which this paper will give outline of the background and process of confirmation of the right to rural land in J province briefly, and mainly demonstrate the policy implementation differences of the two County-level cities in detail. It will be found that the observation implies that the means and result of two County-level city governments in the performance diverge, despite the same external environment. The former moves fast and keeps a positive attitude, even a little rash; the latter is so much too cautious to advance on that contains a passive inclination, of which a paradox comes out,though which the main problem and phenomenon need to be interpreted.The third part will concentrate on illuminating the all troubles above the implementation differences bring about, for policy of confirming the right to rural land, in which the policy implementation differences are proved to be a real question in provincial government. The different styles and results of County-level city governments policy performance carry out a negative effect on public trust and the goals, cost, scheme of the policy in confirming the right to rural land. Therefore, it`s very necessary for us to solve the similar problems in policy implementation. The forth part mainly will demonstrate the ground of policy implementation differences in two cases from the view of institution and cognition. The County-level city governments are faced with the unstable legal environment, unclear policy and loose structure of governmental sectors, as well as the comprehension and cognition of superior principles, inferior village committees and their villagers, and the governmental functions, in which the interaction between institution and cognition dispels the authority and result in the different performance. The fifth part will suggest to harden the institution, clarify the authority and responsibility of relative departments, strengthen process of assessment and supervision, and encourage communication and learn from the perspective of “institution-cognition”, which can construct cooperative structure of implementation and promote the performance.In conclusion, it is lack of authority in institutional environment that brings out different comprehensions, which is the external cause of the diverged cognition. Practice of local governments which is based on the comprehension and cognition is absorbed in institutions that constitute the background of implementation. The disperse cognition exacerbates the problem of loose structure and breaks down the normative and mimetic mechanism. Hence, this frame is not a one-way determinism but based on the interaction between institution and cognition.