IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v142y2024ics026483772400142x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Local government behavior in rural construction land marketization in China: An archetype analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Wang, Qingri
  • Hu, Hongwei
  • Hu, Rumei

Abstract

There are various rural construction land marketization (RCLM) patterns in China. Explorations on the factors influencing the differences between patterns can provide policy inspirations for establishing a unified land market in China. Archetype analysis enables us to reveal the structural relationships between various factors and elucidate reappearing patterns in the cases. Based on 29 cases, this study analyzes the effects of different factor combinations on the behavioral choices of local governments using the archetype analysis approach. Six archetypes are extracted, and the main findings from the archetype analysis are as follows: 1) The combination of active rural land markets and the effective operation of village autonomy or informal dialogue mechanisms led by rural elites promote the emergence of self-organization models for RCLM. Local governments mainly play guiding, supervisory, and service roles. 2) When the self-organization model is challenging to sustain, local governments participate in the process of RCLM with different mechanisms due to social benefits orientation. 3) In certain well-developed rural areas with a high level of industrialization and limited land resources, extensive government intervention has emerged as a new governance model to achieve regional coordinated development goals. Our work reveals the mechanisms through which local governments play a role in the reform and innovation of RCLM, and it contributes to a better understanding of local government positioning in the future RCLM reform process.

Suggested Citation

  • Wang, Qingri & Hu, Hongwei & Hu, Rumei, 2024. "Local government behavior in rural construction land marketization in China: An archetype analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:142:y:2024:i:c:s026483772400142x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107189
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026483772400142X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107189?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. Lijing Yang & Fei Sun & Shu Li, 2023. "What values are evaluated? An exploratory empirical study of the public values structure in Chinese local government performance evaluation through the case of the ‘Hangzhou model’," Journal of Chinese Governance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 83-109, January.
    2. Oberlack, Christoph & Eisenack, Klaus, 2018. "Archetypical barriers to adapting water governance in river basins to climate change," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(3), pages 527-555, June.
    3. Tang, Tingfeng & Li, Zhigang & Ni, Jinlan & Yuan, Jia, 2020. "Land costs, government intervention, and migration of firms: The case of China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    4. Shahab, Sina & Clinch, J. Peter & O’Neill, Eoin, 2018. "Accounting for transaction costs in planning policy evaluation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 263-272.
    5. Oliver E. Williamson, 2000. "The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(3), pages 595-613, September.
    6. Masahiko Aoki, 2011. "The Five-Phases of Economic Development and Institutional Evolution in China and Japan," Development Economics Working Papers 23196, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    7. Rong Tan & Volker Beckmann & Futian Qu & Cifang Wu, 2012. "Governing Farmland Conversion for Urban Development from the Perspective of Transaction Cost Economics," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 49(10), pages 2265-2283, August.
    8. Xu, Hengzhou & Jiao, Man, 2021. "City size, industrial structure and urbanization quality—A case study of the Yangtze River Delta urban agglomeration in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    9. Ragin, Charles C., 2000. "Fuzzy-Set Social Science," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226702773, December.
    10. Konrad Hagedorn, 2008. "Particular requirements for institutional analysis in nature-related sectors," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 35(4), pages 606-606, December.
    11. Sina Shahab & J. Peter Clinch & Eoin O'Neill, 2018. "Estimates of Transaction Costs in Transfer of Development Rights Programs," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 84(1), pages 61-75, January.
    12. Lian, Hongping & Li, Hui & Ko, Kilkon, 2019. "Market-led transactions and illegal land use: Evidence from China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 12-20.
    13. Rong Tan & Rongyu Wang & Thomas Sedlin, 2014. "Land-Development Offset Policies in the Quest for Sustainability: What Can China Learn from Germany?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(6), pages 1-31, May.
    14. Rong Tan & Rumei Hu & Arild Vatn, 2021. "What does sustainability demand? An institutionalist analysis with applications to China," Journal of Chinese Governance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(4), pages 486-514, October.
    15. Qin, Yu & Zhu, Hongjia & Zhu, Rong, 2016. "Changes in the distribution of land prices in urban China during 2007–2012," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 77-90.
    16. Zhun Chen & Yuefei Zhuo & Guan Li & Zhongguo Xu, 2021. "What Drives Different Governance Modes and Marketization Performance for Collective Commercial Construction Land in Rural China?," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-23, March.
    17. Wen, Lanjiao & Chatalova, Lioudmila & Zhang, Anlu, 2022. "Can China's unified construction land market mitigate urban land shortage? Evidence from Deqing and Nanhai, Eastern coastal China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    18. Gerry Stoker, 2019. "Embracing complexity: a framework for exploring governance resources," Journal of Chinese Governance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(2), pages 91-107, April.
    19. Fan, Xin & Qiu, Sainan & Sun, Yukun, 2020. "Land finance dependence and urban land marketization in China: The perspective of strategic choice of local governments on land transfer," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    20. Zhou, Changchang & Chan, Roger C.K., 2022. "State-scalar politics of rural land reform in China: The case of Wujin district," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    21. Hongbin Liu & Yuepeng Zhou, 2020. "The Marketization of Rural Collective Construction Land in Northeastern China: The Mechanism Exploration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-17, December.
    22. Huang, Huang & Akaateba, Millicent Awialie & Li, Fengqing, 2020. "A reflection on coproduction processes in urban collective construction land transformation: A case study of Guangzhou in the Pearl River Delta," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    23. Wang, Yuan & Hui, Eddie Chi-man, 2017. "Are local governments maximizing land revenue? Evidence from China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 196-215.
    24. Zhou, Lin & Zhang, Wenjia & Fang, Chenyu & Sun, Hanyue & Lin, Jian, 2020. "Actors and network in the marketization of rural collectively-owned commercial construction land (RCOCCL) in China: A pilot case of Langfa, Beijing," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    25. Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2011. "An international comparison of four polycentric approaches to climate and energy governance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3832-3844, June.
    26. Tan, Rong & Wang, Rongyu & Heerink, Nico, 2020. "Liberalizing rural-to-urban construction land transfers in China: Distribution effects," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    27. Masahiko Aoki, 2012. "The Five Phases of Economic Development and Institutional Evolution in China, Japan, and Korea," International Economic Association Series, in: Masahiko Aoki & Timur Kuran & Gérard Roland (ed.), Institutions and Comparative Economic Development, chapter 1, pages 13-47, Palgrave Macmillan.
    28. Aoki, Masahiko, 2015. "Why is the equilibrium notion essential for a unified institutional theory? A friendly remark on the article by Hindriks and Guala," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(3), pages 485-488, September.
    29. repec:ucp:bkecon:9780226702766 is not listed on IDEAS
    30. Alexander Woestenburg & Erwin van der Krabben & Tejo Spit, 2019. "Legitimacy Dilemmas in Direct Government Intervention: The Case of Public Land Development, an Example from the Netherlands," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-19, July.
    31. Wu, Yuzhe & Shan, Jiaming & Choguill, Charles L., 2021. "Combining behavioral interventions with market forces in the implementation of land use planning in China: A theoretical framework embedded with nudge," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Zhun Chen & Yuefei Zhuo & Guan Li & Zhongguo Xu, 2021. "What Drives Different Governance Modes and Marketization Performance for Collective Commercial Construction Land in Rural China?," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-23, March.
    2. Fei Bao & Zhenzhi Zhao, 2022. "“Takeover” and “Activation” Effects of National Strategies for Industrial Relocation—Based on the Perspective of Marketisation of Land Elements," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-23, October.
    3. Shenjie Yang & Lanjiao Wen, 2023. "Regional Heterogeneity in China’s Rural Collectively Owned Commercialized Land Market: An Empirical Analysis from 2015–2020," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-15, February.
    4. Tan, Rong & Xiong, Changsheng & Kimmich, Christian, 2023. "An agent-situation-based model for networked action situations: Cap-and-trade land policies in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    5. Zhaoxia Guo & Qinqin Guo & Yujie Cai & Ge Wang, 2021. "Unraveling Risk Networks of Cultivated Land Protection: An Exploratory Stakeholder-Oriented Case Study in Xiliuhe Town, Hubei Province, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, November.
    6. Rongyu Wang & Rong Tan, 2018. "Rural Renewal of China in the Context of Rural-Urban Integration: Governance Fit and Performance Differences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-22, February.
    7. Zihao Li & Xihang Xie & Xinyue Yan & Tingting Bai & Dong Xu, 2022. "Impact of China’s Rural Land Marketization on Ecological Environment Quality Based on Remote Sensing," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-21, October.
    8. Aoki, Masahiko & Rothwell, Geoffrey, 2013. "A comparative institutional analysis of the Fukushima nuclear disaster: Lessons and policy implications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 240-247.
    9. Valentová, Michaela & Horák, Martin & Dvořáček, Lukáš, 2020. "Why transaction costs do not decrease over time? A case study of energy efficiency programmes in Czechia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    10. Wang, Weifang, 2021. "Nuanced insights into land buyer perceptions of engaging in rural land transactions from a cost perspective: Evidence from China’s emerging rural land market," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    11. Oliver Maaß & Philipp Grundmann, 2018. "Governing Transactions and Interdependences between Linked Value Chains in a Circular Economy: The Case of Wastewater Reuse in Braunschweig (Germany)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-29, April.
    12. Meie Deng & Anlu Zhang & Congxi Cheng & Canwei Hu, 2022. "Are Villagers Willing to Enter the Rural Collective Construction Land Market under the Arrangement of Transaction Rules?—Evidence from Ezhou, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-11, March.
    13. Wang, Rongyu & Tan, Rong, 2020. "Patterns of revenue distribution in rural residential land consolidation in contemporary China: The perspective of property rights delineation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    14. Wen, Lanjiao & Yang, Shenjie & Qi, Mengna & Zhang, Anlu, 2024. "How does China’s rural collective commercialized land market run? New evidence from 26 pilot areas, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    15. Johannes M. Bauer, 2004. "Governing the Networks of the Information Society. Prospects and limits of policy in a complex technical system," ITA manu:scripts 04_03, Institute of Technology Assessment (ITA).
    16. Hongwei Zhang & Zhanqi Wang & Bin Yang & Ji Chai & Chao Wei, 2021. "Spatial–Temporal Characteristics of Illegal Land Use and Its Driving Factors in China from 2004 to 2017," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-18, February.
    17. Cheng, Jing, 2022. "Analysis of the factors influencing industrial land leasing in Beijing of China based on the district-level data," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    18. Shahab, Sina & Clinch, J. Peter & O’Neill, Eoin, 2018. "Accounting for transaction costs in planning policy evaluation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 263-272.
    19. Shahab, Sina & Clinch, J. Peter & O'Neill, Eoin, 2019. "An Analysis of the Factors Influencing Transaction Costs in Transferable Development Rights Programmes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 409-419.
    20. Getnet, Kindie & Pfeifer, Catherine & MacAlister, Charlotte, 2014. "Economic incentives and natural resource management among small-scale farmers: Addressing the missing link," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 1-7.

    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:142:y:2024:i:c:s026483772400142x. 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.