"Poession Of Right,Poession Of No Land,Poession Of No Share":Comparative Study On Management Of Collectivization Villages' Rules

Promoting the process of rural governance is one of the important contents in the modernization in the national governance capacity and govermance system of our country.The development of collective economy is an important form of realizing the sustainable development to China's economy,and of narrowing the urban-rural gap between urban and rural areas.Collectivized villages,as an important part of our country's villages,have important theoretical and practical significance for the advancement of China's rural science development and modernization of govermance.This thesis takes Nanjie Village and Liuzhuang Village of Henan Province as comparative research objects to conduct an intermal comparative study on the villages of "accurately indefinitely indefinite shares" in traditional collectivized villages,as is to compare the governance of the system of "homogeneous" collectivized villages.The difference between the two have a certain degree of uniqueness by correcting misunderstandings of the "homogenization" of traditional collectivized villages of other researchers.Ai the same time,it discusses the problem of the governance of collectivized villages with "accurately indefinitely inaccurate shares,based on the unique perspective of institutional governance comparison,and analyzes the similarities and differences in the contents of the two governance systems.The research adopts empirical research methods,observation methods,and interview metihods to analyze the institutional governance of collective villages in China represented by Nanjie and Liuzhuang,and then examines the challenges that collectivized villages currently face in governance.So prospects for future governance will be provided in order to provide useful inspiration for China's vast rural governance.The research shows that Nanjie Village and Liuzhuang Village have many similarities in the governance of collectivized villages,such as plural modes of concept government and familial village systematization.At the same time,the two have certain differences in the practice of specific institutional governance,such as governance of the concept system,governance of the distribution system,and governance of the industrial system.These specific institutional governance showed different characteristics in the actual implementation of the two villages.The issues such as the sustainability and effectiveness of development in the governance of the collectivized village system,the non-replicability of the strongman leadership model,and industrial transformation are worth pondering.In addition,we must not only see the positive exploration and effective experience of the two in terms of institutional governance,but also recognize that we should promote diversified institutional governance in the practice of village governance in China.