The Study Of The Changing Household Registration But Keeping Farmland System

The difference between the name of rural household registration and urban household registration has been banned in the reform of household registration system.Farmers do not have to give up their rights to the land just in order to have a chance to settle down in the city.Namely,it is a kind of system of changing household registration but keeping land.The system of changing household registration but keeping farmland bases on the theory of urban and rural integration.To some extent it has cancelled the way to allocate resources by identity without adequate efficiency.It is also in line with the requirement of reasonable flow of population in the theory of urban and rural integration.Which is in line with the requirement of reasonable flow of population in the theory of urban and rural integration.Keeping farmland is also based on the farmers' willingness as the theoretical basis.Based on the property rights of farmers who enjoy the agricultural land,the abandonment of the right should reflect the free expression of the subject.Only by showing sufficient respect for the wishes of farmers can we achieve the goal of transferring agricultural population to non-agricultural population.Although the law does not let farmers who change household registration necessarily give up the rights of land,but limit the scope of right to retain and the place of residence.In the history of policy practice,local reform mainly adopts the system of changing household registration and giving up land,that is to say,in order to obtain urban social security,farmers must give up their three rights of land.On the contrary,the system of changing household registration and keeping land regards the farmers' real rights of land and due rights of social welfare as equal and farmers do not need to pay for this.Though the system of changing household registration but keeping land as a kind of policy has broken through the existing laws,it still has many dilemmas.They are: firstly,there is no clear period for keeping land so it may lead to the rights kept in an unstable state facing the risk of being deprived;the second is the dilemma about how to use land rights because the system may prove to be contrary to realize large-scale land management;third is paying much attention to farmers' rights but ignoring the performance of their obligations,thus resulting in unbalanced rights between farmers who change household registration and farmers who stay in villages and citizens in city.Notably,when allocating social resources,farmers who change household registration may enjoy a better treatment than citizens because they own both land resources and urban resources.There are three reasons accounting for this.Firstly,there is an inherent conflict between seeking equality and seeking efficiency in the system of changing household registration and keeping farmland.Emphasizing the value of efficiency in utilizing agricultural land may infringe the fair protection for farmers' rights and interests.Secondly,in terms of the function of land's security and property and the rights of farmers to survive and to develop,the function of land`s security corresponds to farmers' right to survive but cannot meet farmers' increasing demands for the property function and their own development.Thirdly,what kind of standard to define membership in rural collective economic organization has legislative blank.In practice,although the household registration and geography are often used as the standard to define,they do not function in the background of the abolition of urban and rural household registration and large-scale farmers settling down in the city.Fourthly,the retention of rights of agricultural land does not have an approach to give up due to the lack of withdrawal out of the meaning of autonomy and the market pricing mechanism.In order to comply with the spirits of voluntary principle,the voluntary reservation of rights should be consistent with the voluntarily exiting mechanism.The establishment of exiting price conforming to the market pricing mechanism can truly comply with the principle of fairness.To resolve the problems above,we put forward the following measures.Firstly,we should choose fair value as the guidance because it can protect the legitimate rights and interests of farmers.It is also in line with requirements of urban and rural integration theory.Secondly,under the guidance of fair value for the farmers' rights and interests,the criteria for determining the collective rights of the rural collective members should be re-established.Whether the farmer has signed a contract should be the criteria to judge whether he has acquired the membership.It can make sure that farmers fulfill their duties and draw a balance between farmers who change household registration and farmers who stay in the villages.Third,we should improve the rural land exit mechanism,build the contract mechanism which reflects the autonomy of the meaning of the parties to protect formal justice and establish a fully compensated exit price mechanism to protect substantive justice.Finally,oriented by the value of fairness,the efficiency of the use of land value should be taken into account.The remaining contract period should be regarded as the time of keeping farmland so as to avoid excessive protection for farmers caused by super-citizen treatment.By improving the recovery system,it can promote the rational operation of the land.