IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v112y2022ics0264837721005408.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing conflict of farmland institutions using credibility theory: Implications for socially acceptable land use

Author

Listed:
  • You, Heyuan
  • Zhang, Jinrong
  • Song, Yan

Abstract

Farmland institutional change has resulted in remarkable growth in agricultural productivity in rural China since the start of the economic reforms in 1978. Yet, numerous studies have signaled the emergence of conflicts because farmland institutions cannot adequately respond to the challenges of social and economic transition. These studies generally examine the level and/or frequency of conflict. Conversely, this research moots that a more comprehensive assessment of conflict is needed to understand the performance of farmland institutions. In this context, this study uses the Conflict Analysis Model (CAM) as predicated upon the credibility thesis to assess an additional set of variables, i.e., the source, actors, timing, intensity, and outcome of farmland-related conflicts. Based on a set of court cases (n = 133), farmland conflicts are classified into two types, pertaining to first, the termination of the contract right; second, the transfer of contract right. This study reports the following critical findings: (1) conflicts caused by the termination of the contract right are closely related to expropriation; (2) 90% of the conflict occurs between farmers (individuals or groups) versus authorities (local government or village committees); (3) they feature high conflict intensity and a late timing; (4) the most important source of farmland conflict pertaining to the transfer of contract right concerns disputes over the status holder of contract right; (5) around 50% of these conflicts occurs between farmers, while another 34% occurs between farmers vs. authorities; (6) this type of conflict features low intensity and early timing. It is concluded that empty institutions emerge since farmers and public administrations are unwilling or unable to implement farmland institutions. Furthermore, abusive behaviors of the actors that exercise public authority reduce the credibility of farmland institutions. This study offers new insights into realizing a more socially acceptable land use strategy in the socioeconomic transition of China in particular and of developing countries in general.

Suggested Citation

  • You, Heyuan & Zhang, Jinrong & Song, Yan, 2022. "Assessing conflict of farmland institutions using credibility theory: Implications for socially acceptable land use," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:112:y:2022:i:c:s0264837721005408
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105817
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837721005408
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105817?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lin, Justin Yifu, 1988. "The Household Responsibility System in China's Agricultural Reform: A Theoretical and Empirical Study," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 36(3), pages 199-224, Supplemen.
    2. Feng Deng, 2013. "Land development right and collective ownership in China," Post-Communist Economies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(2), pages 190-205, June.
    3. Heyuan You & Deshao Zhou & Shenyan Wu & Xiaowei Hu & Chenmeng Bie, 2020. "Social Deprivation and Rural Public Health in China: Exploring the Relationship Using Spatial Regression," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 147(3), pages 843-864, February.
    4. Holden, Stein T. & Deininger, Klaus & Ghebru, Hosaena, 2011. "Can Land Rregistration and Certification Reduce Land Border Conflicts?," CLTS Working Papers 5/11, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 10 Oct 2019.
    5. Xiuqing Zou & Arie J. Oskam, 2007. "New Compensation Standard for Land Expropriation in China," China & World Economy, Institute of World Economics and Politics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 15(5), pages 107-120, September.
    6. Long, Cheryl Xiaoning & Wang, Jun, 2015. "Judicial local protectionism in China: An empirical study of IP cases," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 48-59.
    7. Heyuan You & Xiaowei Hu & Chenmeng Bie & Deshao Zhou, 2019. "Impact of Livelihood Assets on Farmland-Transferred Households’ Willingness to Urbanism and Policies Implications for Farmland Transfer: Evidence from Zhejiang, China," Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-13, March.
    8. Ho, Peter, 2018. "Institutional function versus form: The evolutionary credibility of land, housing and natural resources," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 642-650.
    9. Heyuan You & Shenyan Wu & Xin Wu & Xuxu Guo & Yan Song, 2021. "The underlying influencing factors of farmland transfer in urbanizing China: implications for sustainable land use goals," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(6), pages 8722-8745, June.
    10. Fan, Shengyue & Yang, Jinfei & Liu, Wenwen & Wang, He, 2019. "Institutional Credibility Measurement Based on Structure of Transaction Costs: A Case Study of Ongniud Banner in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 212-225.
    11. Kees Jansen & Esther Roquas, 1998. "Modernizing Insecurity: The Land Titling Project in Honduras," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 29(1), pages 81-106, January.
    12. Biliang Luo, 2018. "40-year reform of farmland institution in China: target, effort and the future," China Agricultural Economic Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 10(1), pages 16-35, February.
    13. Zweynert, Joachim, 2009. "Interests versus culture in the theory of institutional change?," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(3), pages 339-360, December.
    14. Deininger, Klaus & Jin, Songqing & Xia, Fang & Huang, Jikun, 2014. "Moving Off the Farm: Land Institutions to Facilitate Structural Transformation and Agricultural Productivity Growth in China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 505-520.
    15. Müller, Daniel & Leitão, Pedro J. & Sikor, Thomas, 2013. "Comparing the determinants of cropland abandonment in Albania and Romania using boosted regression trees," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 66-77.
    16. You, Heyuan & Hu, Xiaowei & Wu, Yizhou, 2018. "Farmland use intensity changes in response to rural transition in Zhejiang province, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 350-361.
    17. Arrunada, Benito & Garoupa, Nuno, 2005. "The Choice of Titling System in Land," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 48(2), pages 709-727, October.
    18. Krul, Kees & Ho, Peter & Yang, Xiuyun, 2021. "Land titling as a conflict remedy or driver? Analyzing institutional outcomes through latent and manifest conflicts in China’s forest sector," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    19. Ghorbani, Amineh & Ho, Peter & Bravo, Giangiacomo, 2021. "Institutional form versus function in a common property context: The credibility thesis tested through an agent-based model," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    20. Lin, Justin Yifu, 1992. "Rural Reforms and Agricultural Growth in China," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(1), pages 34-51, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Qian, Chen & Antonides, Gerrit & Heerink, Nico & Zhu, Xueqin & Ma, Xianlei, 2022. "An economic-psychological perspective on perceived land tenure security: Evidence from rural eastern China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    2. Goyal, Yugank & Choudhury, Pranab Ranjan & Ghosh, Ranjan Kumar, 2022. "Informal land leasing in rural India persists because it is credible," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    3. Groenewegen, John, 2022. "Institutional form (blueprints) and institutional function (process): Theoretical reflections on property rights and land," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    4. Yang, Chen & Qian, Zhu, 2022. "The complexity of property rights embedded in the rural-to-urban resettlement of China: A case of Hangzhou," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    5. Shukui Tan & Bin Tong & Junwen Zhang, 2023. "How Did the Land Contract Disputes Evolve? Evidence from the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-18, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhang, Yumei & Diao, Xinshen, 2020. "The changing role of agriculture with economic structural change – The case of China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    2. Chen, Huirong, 2022. "Linking institutional function with form: Distributional dynamics, disequilibrium, and rural land shareholding in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    3. Wenjing Han & Zhengfeng Zhang & Xiaoling Zhang & Li He, 2021. "Farmland Rental Participation, Agricultural Productivity, and Household Income: Evidence from Rural China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-22, August.
    4. Benito Arruñada & Marco Fabbri & Michael Faure, 2022. "Land Titling and Litigation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(1), pages 131-156.
    5. Goyal, Yugank & Choudhury, Pranab Ranjan & Ghosh, Ranjan Kumar, 2022. "Informal land leasing in rural India persists because it is credible," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    6. Vatn, Arild, 2023. "The credibility thesis – A commentary from an original institutionalist position," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    7. Thomas Vendryes, 2014. "Peasants Against Private Property Rights: A Review Of The Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 971-995, December.
    8. Wang, Can & Deng, Mengzhi & Deng, Junfeng, 2020. "Factor reallocation and structural transformation implications of grain subsidies in China," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    9. Xiang Li & Xiaoqin Guo, 2023. "Can Policy Promote Agricultural Service Outsourcing? Quasi-Natural Experimental Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-18, January.
    10. Li, Jingrong & Zhang, Chenlei & Mi, Yunsheng, 2021. "Land titling and internal migration: Evidence from China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    11. Huang, Jikun & Shi, Pengfei, 2023. "IFAD Research Series 90: Rural Transformation, Income Growth and Poverty Reduction by Province in China in the Past Four Decades," IFAD Research Series 335374, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
    12. Fan, Shengyue & He, Miao & Zhang, Tianyu & Huo, Yajing & Fan, Di, 2022. "Credibility measurement as a tool for conserving nature: Chinese herders’ livelihood capitals and payment for grassland ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    13. Deininger, Klaus & Jin, Songqing, 2009. "Securing property rights in transition: Lessons from implementation of China's rural land contracting law," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(1-2), pages 22-38, May.
    14. Zhun Xu, 2015. "The Achievements, Contradictions and Demise of the Rural Collectives in Songzi County, China," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 46(2), pages 339-365, March.
    15. Groenewegen, John, 2022. "Institutional form (blueprints) and institutional function (process): Theoretical reflections on property rights and land," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    16. Yang, Fanzheng & Hou, Lingling & Xia, Fang, 2024. "Intergenerational altruism, pessimism bias on tenure insecurity, and sustainable land use: Evidence from household grassland management in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 215(C).
    17. Liu, Shouying & Carter, Michael R. & Yao, Yang, 1998. "Dimensions and diversity of property rights in rural China: Dilemmas on the road to further reform," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 26(10), pages 1789-1806, October.
    18. Besley, Timothy & Ghatak, Maitreesh, 2010. "Property Rights and Economic Development," Handbook of Development Economics, in: Dani Rodrik & Mark Rosenzweig (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 4525-4595, Elsevier.
    19. Longjunjiang Huang & Cong Liao & Xuan Guo & Yanlin Liu & Xiaojin Liu, 2023. "Analysis of the Impact of Livelihood Capital on Livelihood Strategies of Leased-In Farmland Households: A Case Study of Jiangxi Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-29, June.
    20. Qiu, Tongwei & Shi, Xinjie & He, Qinying & Luo, Biliang, 2021. "The paradox of developing agricultural mechanization services in China: Supporting or kicking out smallholder farmers?," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:112:y:2022:i:c:s0264837721005408. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.