IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i4p3424-d1069634.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Allocation of Land Factors in China Looking Forward to 2035: Planning and Market

Author

Listed:
  • Yuzhe Wu

    (School of Public Affairs, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China)

  • Jia Ao

    (School of Public Affairs, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China)

  • Yuhang Ren

    (School of Public Affairs, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
    Center for Balance Architecture, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310028, China)

Abstract

Land factors are natural resources with fundamental and strategic significance in the achievement of China’s 2035 modernization goals. Dilemmas caused by market-oriented or planning-oriented allocation of land factors urgently call for new theoretical guidance and mode. After conducting a systematic review of the literature, this paper built a new framework from the perspective of production–living–ecological spaces to facilitate a better understanding of China’s land factors allocation looking forward to 2035. Inductive and deductive methods were both used to interpret the applications of planning and market in land factors allocation. Our results show that: (1) The allocation of land factors for production space is truth-oriented and needs the guidance of market efficiency. The essential feature of “production” as the driving force in production space requires that the allocation of land factors in production space must “respect rules, give play to the agglomeration effect, and rationally carry out regional economic layout”. (2) For the allocation of land factors for living space, it is necessary to pursue a kindness-oriented approach and establish a reasonable housing supply system based on people. Among them, the ordinary commercial housing and improving housing should rely on market forces to achieve multi-subject supply, while affordable housing should be ensured through government intervention in a multi-channel way. (3) For the allocation of land factors in ecological space, aesthetic-oriented planning should follow the rule of territorial differentiation and realize the transformation of ecological function into ecological value through market mechanisms. Top-down planning and bottom-up market represents the logic of overall and individual rationality, respectively. The effective allocation of land factors requires the utilization of both planning and market forces. However, the intersection needs be guided by boundary selection theory. This research indicates that “middle-around” theory could be a possible theoretical solution for future study.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuzhe Wu & Jia Ao & Yuhang Ren, 2023. "Allocation of Land Factors in China Looking Forward to 2035: Planning and Market," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-16, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:4:p:3424-:d:1069634
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/4/3424/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/4/3424/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gyourko, Joseph & Shen, Yang & Wu, Jing & Zhang, Rongjie, 2022. "Land finance in China: Analysis and review," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    2. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    3. Thériault, Marius & Le Berre, Iwan & Dubé, Jean & Maulpoix, Adeline & Vandersmissen, Marie-Hélène, 2020. "The effects of land use planning on housing spread: A case study in the region of Brest, France," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    4. Sufeng Li & Chenxin Dong & Lei Yang & Xinpeng Gao & Wei Wei & Ming Zhao & Weiqi Xia, 2022. "Research on Evolutionary Game Strategy Selection and Simulation Research of Carbon Emission Reduction of Government and Enterprises under the “Dual Carbon” Goal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-18, October.
    5. Thomas S. Nesslein, 1988. "Housing : The Market Versus the Welfare State Model Revisited," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 25(2), pages 95-108, April.
    6. Deegen, Peter & Halbritter, Andreas, 2018. "The pure market allocation of land between forestry and agriculture," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 122-131.
    7. Mark Bagnoli & Susan G. Watts, 2003. "Selling to Socially Responsible Consumers: Competition and The Private Provision of Public Goods," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(3), pages 419-445, September.
    8. João Rodrigues, 2012. "Where to Draw the Line between the State and Markets? Institutionalist Elements in Hayek's Neoliberal Political Economy," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(4), pages 1007-1034.
    9. 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. Aseem Kaul & Jiao Luo, 2018. "An economic case for CSR: The comparative efficiency of for‐profit firms in meeting consumer demand for social goods," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(6), pages 1650-1677, June.
    2. John Morgan & Justin Tumlinson, 2019. "Corporate Provision of Public Goods," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(10), pages 4489-4504, October.
    3. Puggioni, Daniela & Stefanou, Spiro E., 2019. "The value of being socially responsible: A primal-dual approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(3), pages 1090-1103.
    4. Kwon-Sik Kim & Seong-ho Jeong, 2019. "Free Riding without Dead Weight Losses," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-15, September.
    5. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    6. Qiuyue Xia & Lu Li & Jie Dong & Bin Zhang, 2021. "Reduction Effect and Mechanism Analysis of Carbon Trading Policy on Carbon Emissions from Land Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-22, August.
    7. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    8. Usher, Dan, 2001. "Personal goods, efficiency and the law," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 673-703, November.
    9. George Tridimas & Stanley L. Winer, 2018. "On the Definition and Nature of Fiscal Coercion," Carleton Economic Papers 18-09, Carleton University, Department of Economics.
    10. Mario Jametti & Thomas von Ungern-Sternberg, 2005. "Assessing the Efficiency of an Insurance Provider—A Measurement Error Approach," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 30(1), pages 15-34, June.
    11. Stephanie Rosenkranz & Patrick W. Schmitz, 2007. "Can Coasean Bargaining Justify Pigouvian Taxation?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 74(296), pages 573-585, November.
    12. Stefan Ambec & Yann Kervinio, 2016. "Cooperative decision-making for the provision of a locally undesirable facility," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(1), pages 119-155, January.
    13. Aurora García‐Gallego & Nikolaos Georgantzís, 2009. "Market Effects of Changes in Consumers' Social Responsibility," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(1), pages 235-262, March.
    14. Liu, Duan & Yu, Nizhou & Wan, Hong, 2022. "Does water rights trading affect corporate investment? The role of resource allocation and risk mitigation channels," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    15. Rinaldo Brau & Carlo Carraro, 2011. "The design of voluntary agreements in oligopolistic markets," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 111-142, April.
    16. Valcu-Lisman, Adriana & Weninger, Quinn, 2012. "Markov-Perfect rent dissipation in rights-based fisheries," ISU General Staff Papers 201209260700001037, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    17. Hausknost, Daniel & Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron Jit, 2017. "The political dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Cascade or stairway?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 109-118.
    18. Kurtis Swope & Ryan Wielgus & Pamela Schmitt & John Cadigan, 2011. "Contracts, Behavior, and the Land-assembly Problem: An Experimental Study," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experiments on Energy, the Environment, and Sustainability, pages 151-180, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    19. Ralph E. Townsend, 2010. "Transactions costs as an obstacle to fisheries self-governance in New Zealand," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 54(3), pages 301-320, July.
    20. Simon Levin & Anastasios Xepapadeas, 2021. "On the Coevolution of Economic and Ecological Systems," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 13(1), pages 355-377, October.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:4:p:3424-:d:1069634. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.