The current land law has become the scourge of nearly all the
most serious economic, social and political problems in China. This
shows that China’s land system critically needs complete and
radical reform.
The land issue has reached epidemic proportions, embroiling more
than a few local government officials, real estate developers and
even ordinary farmers who have an urge to try to muscle in on land
earnings. The severity of the problem requires immediate
resolution, according to a recent China Newsweek
report.
Impulse to reach for more power on land-ownership
rights
In recent years local governments have become the epicenter of
the land dispute cases as bureaucrats are bought off during routine
transactions.
From October 2006 to the early 2007, about 1,500 officials were
punished for illegal conduct concerning land deals, including even
some senior officials. Some illegally expropriated collective
farmland and then distributed it for improper use. Others even
colluded with dishonest companies, undermining the interests of
both farmers and urbanites.
The major culprit has been identified as the local governments’
one-sided pursuit of GDP growth and fiscal revenue, two economic
targets that obsess local officials. To this end, they hold out
parcels of land as carrots in order to siphon off investment and
then set off a real estate boom in the city.
Since the middle 1990s, tax reforms have put pressure on local
governments to scout out revenue sources. One response has been to
grab rural land for development projects that generate fees and
taxes. But the local land-ownership rights appear very obscure for
lack of any legal endorsement. Technically, land ownership belongs
to the central government; these officials should oversee land
management when alerted of any malpractice inside local
governments.
The central government has begun to straighten out the land
tangle by placing limits on local governments that act too
liberally with their power. The central government has bared its
teeth, framing up stern laws and policies, as well as setting up a
supervision mechanism so that anyone defying the law cannot
escape.
Significantly, a clear line must be drawn between the central
and local governments when it comes to land-ownership rights and a
scientific incentive system requires forging. Otherwise the
supervision mechanism regarding land use becomes moot.
The blame also lies with the real estate developers who act as
accomplices in these cases.
Currently, various local governments are monopolizing land for
construction use. They delegate home construction franchises to the
real estate developers (who then create jobs) and stimulate the
economy, thus producing a cash cow by contributing large dollops of
wealth into local coffers. Furthermore, by entering into
partnerships with real estate developers these venal local
officials greatly enrich themselves.
The surge in real estate has created a new class of Chinese
tycoons. Many have amassed billions of dollars but they are often
considered greedy and ferocious.
In China, farmers still fall under a village collective system
that forbids them to own, buy or sell the land they till – and that
often leaves them powerless to keep it. Farmers have been excluded,
unable to sell their own land, even though urban expansion has made
outlying farmlands an inviting target.
It has often proved easiest and cheapest for these governments
to appropriate rural farmland and pay farmers a pittance in
compensation.
But now some farmers are organizing to prevent losses and
battling for more profits in land transactions. They have taken a
bite into the market, transforming themselves into "urban villages"
that rent land for profit. Some have even taken the liberty of
selling land directly to the real estate developers. In this way,
they swap the land for higher profits – much more than the
compensation they would receive for their requisitioned land.
Such an act usually gets a tacit nod from the local governments
while simultaneously encountering entrenched opposition from the
provincial and state governments, because it will generate chaos in
the real estate market and compound the ominous land situation.
Social upheaval has caused rural villages in flux to head en
masse to urban areas. Some villages have deeded their land-use
leases in perpetuity to farmers, while others empower themselves to
make land trades.
Academics have encouraged farmers to have a stab at the current
land system. Many professors have reached consensus, stating that
farmers should be entitled to more land rights. They perceive
activating land as significant for the market economy.
Unfortunately, any such systematic reforms always encounter
ticklish situations.
What the central government should do
Land seizures have become so rampant that central government
officials are alarmed. Many feel the arable land squeeze threatens
China's ability to feed itself. They have clamped down on farmland
transactions, ordered a freeze on various economic development
zones chewing up farmland and cracked down on anyone defying these
regulations.
The central government’s well-intended measures have also
spawned other woes, ranging from government monopolies to high
housing prices. In recent years local governments have become the
only beneficiaries in the large-scale appropriation of farmland for
housing and factory construction, while millions of farmers are
left landless. This remains the leading cause of rural unrest.
Land reforms should be directed at diverting more land rights to
the people – not to the local governments, said the China
Newsweek report.
Land reform must soon be regulated high up on the government
agenda.
(China.org.cn by He Shan, January 9, 2008)