IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i12p1353-d697615.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Farmers’ Satisfaction with Land Expropriation System Reform: A Case Study in China

Author

Listed:
  • Chenxi Li

    (School of Public Administration, Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology, Xi’an 710055, China)

  • Jingyao Wu

    (Shaanxi Mineral Resources and Geological Survey, Xi’an 710068, China)

  • Zenglei Xi

    (School of Economics, Hebei University, Baoding 071000, China
    Research Centre of Resources Utilization and Environmental Conservation, Hebei University, Baoding 071000, China)

  • Weiqiang Zhang

    (School of Economics and Management, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China)

Abstract

Farmers’ satisfaction with reform of the land expropriation system has not been fully examined, so it is difficult to comprehensively and successfully judge the effectiveness of the reforms. Traditional statistical methods cannot accurately explain the relationship between the variables. In order to fully understand the implementation, progress, and applicability of land expropriation system reform, this paper analyzes the factors influencing farmers’ satisfaction, presents the shortcomings of land expropriation system reform, and puts forward improvement suggestions. Taking the land expropriation system reform pilot in Dingzhou city as an example, this paper investigates the satisfaction of the farmers who have had their land expropriated by establishing a structural equation model (SEM) to obtain feedback on the implementation effect of the pilot work. The results show that the factors affecting farmers’ satisfaction with the reform of land expropriation systems can be summarized into four variables: land expropriation compensation standard, land income distribution, land expropriation security mode, and land expropriation procedure. The parameter estimation between these four potential variables and their corresponding observation variables shows that, in the process of land expropriation, the comparison of land expropriation compensation standards and observation variables with market entry projects is an important factor affecting the satisfaction of farmers with regard to land expropriation. The income of municipal and county governments and village collective incomes have a great impact on farmers, indicating that the satisfaction of farmers is not only related to the absolute level of compensation and income, but is also affected by the relative level. In addition, providing farmers with a variety of reasonable security methods is an important element to enable the smooth progress of land expropriation. Furthermore, attention should also be paid to the formulation of land expropriation schemes and emergency plans to solve land expropriation conflicts.

Suggested Citation

  • Chenxi Li & Jingyao Wu & Zenglei Xi & Weiqiang Zhang, 2021. "Farmers’ Satisfaction with Land Expropriation System Reform: A Case Study in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-16, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:12:p:1353-:d:697615
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/12/1353/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/12/1353/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hanan G. Jacoby & Guo Li & Scott Rozelle, 2002. "Hazards of Expropriation: Tenure Insecurity and Investment in Rural China," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1420-1447, December.
    2. Qidong Huang & Jiajun Xu & Hua Qin & Xinyu Gao, 2018. "Understanding Land Use and Rural Development in the National Scheme of Village Relocation and Urbanization in China: A Case Study of Two Villages in Jiangsu Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-13, September.
    3. Cao, Yingui & Dallimer, Martin & Stringer, Lindsay C. & Bai, Zhongke & Siu, Yim Ling, 2018. "Land expropriation compensation among multiple stakeholders in a mining area: Explaining “skeleton house” compensation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 97-110.
    4. Zhongcheng Yan & Feng Wei & Xin Deng & Chuan Li & Yanbin Qi, 2021. "Does Land Expropriation Experience Increase Farmers’ Farmland Value Expectations? Empirical Evidence from the People’s Republic of China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-23, June.
    5. Araujo, Claudio & Bonjean, Catherine Araujo & Combes, Jean-Louis & Combes Motel, Pascale & Reis, Eustaquio J., 2009. "Property rights and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2461-2468, June.
    6. Xie, Yong, 2019. "Land expropriation, shock to employment, and employment differentiation: Findings from land-lost farmers in Nanjing, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    7. 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.
    8. Murat Gunduz & Hesham Ahmed Elsherbeny, 2020. "Construction Contract Administration Performance Assessment Tool by Using a Fuzzy Structural Equation Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-21, January.
    9. Cai, Meina & Sun, Xin, 2018. "Institutional bindingness, power structure, and land expropriation in China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 172-186.
    10. Qudrat-Ullah, Hassan & Seong, Baek Seo, 2010. "How to do structural validity of a system dynamics type simulation model: The case of an energy policy model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 2216-2224, May.
    11. Karita Kan, 2020. "The social politics of dispossession: Informal institutions and land expropriation in China," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(16), pages 3331-3346, December.
    12. Solomon Dargie Chekole & Walter Timo de Vries & Pamela Durán-Díaz & Gebeyehu Belay Shibeshi, 2021. "Analyzing the Effects of Institutional Merger: Case of Cadastral Information Registration and Landholding Right Providing Institutions in Ethiopia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, April.
    13. DUBE MAKUWERERE Langton, 2020. "Autocracy, Institutional Constraints and Land Expropriation: A Conceptual Analysis of Land Redistribution in Zimbabwe," Journal of Public Administration and Governance, Macrothink Institute, vol. 10(2), pages 327349-3273, December.
    14. Tsega G Mezgebo & Catherine Porter, 2020. "From Rural to Urban, but not Through Migration: Household Livelihood Responses to Urban Reclassification in Northern Ethiopia†," Journal of African Economies, Centre for the Study of African Economies, vol. 29(2), pages 173-191.
    15. Kairong Hong & Yucheng Zou & Mingyuan Zhu & Yanwei Zhang, 2021. "A Game Analysis of Farmland Expropriation Conflict in China under Multi-Dimensional Preference: Cooperation or Resistance?," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-29, January.
    16. Jun Yang & Weiling Liu & Yonghua Li & Xueming Li & Quansheng Ge, 2018. "Simulating Intraurban Land Use Dynamics under Multiple Scenarios Based on Fuzzy Cellular Automata: A Case Study of Jinzhou District, Dalian," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-17, August.
    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. Wei You & Tianyu Dai & Wuqing Du & Jiabai Chen, 2022. "Special Sacrifice and Determination of Compensation Standard for Land Expropriation in the Urbanization Process—A Perspective of Legal Practice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-22, September.

    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. Chenxi Li & Zenglei Xi, 2019. "Social Stability Risk Assessment of Land Expropriation: Lessons from the Chinese Case," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-20, October.
    2. Zhang, Chuanyong & Song, Yanjiao, 2022. "Road to the city: Impact of land expropriation on farmers’ urban settlement intention in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    3. Anita Kwartnik-Pruc & Grzegorz Ginda & Anna Trembecka, 2022. "Using the DEMATEL Method to Identify Impediments to the Process of Determining Compensation for Expropriated Properties," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-21, May.
    4. Tilahun Dires & Derjew Fentie & Yeneneh Hunie & Worku Nega & Mulugeta Tenaw & Sayeh Kassaw Agegnehu & Reinfried Mansberger, 2021. "Assessing the Impacts of Expropriation and Compensation on Livelihood of Farmers: The Case of Peri-Urban Debre Markos, Ethiopia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-16, June.
    5. Wang, Dazhe & Qian, Wenrong & Guo, Xiaolin, 2019. "Gains and losses: Does farmland acquisition harm farmers’ welfare?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 78-90.
    6. Cao, Yueming & Bai, Yunli & Sun, Mingxing & Xu, Xiangbo & Fu, Chao & Zhang, Linxiu, 2022. "Experience and lessons from the implementing of the latest Land Certificated Program in rural China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    7. Akgüç, Mehtap & Liu, Xingfei & Tani, Massimiliano, 2014. "Expropriation with Hukou Change: Evidence from a Quasi-Natural Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 8689, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Kairong Hong & Yucheng Zou & Mingyuan Zhu & Yanwei Zhang, 2021. "A Game Analysis of Farmland Expropriation Conflict in China under Multi-Dimensional Preference: Cooperation or Resistance?," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-29, January.
    9. Tongwei Qiu & Xianlei Ma & Biliang Luo, 2022. "Are private property rights better? evidence from the marketization of land rentals in rural China," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 55(2), pages 875-902, May.
    10. Wang, Chuhong & Akgüҫ, Mehtap & Liu, Xingfei & Tani, Massimiliano, 2020. "Expropriation with hukou change and labour market outcomes in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    11. Lei Yan & Kairong Hong & Hui Li, 2021. "Transfer of Land Use Rights in Rural China and Farmers’ Utility: How to Select an Optimal Payment Mode of Land Increment Income," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-22, April.
    12. Kairong Hong & Yucheng Zou & Yanwei Zhang & Kaifeng Duan, 2020. "The Weapon of the Weak: An Analysis of RDEU Game in the Conflict of Farmland Expropriation under the Influence of Emotion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-21, April.
    13. Dehghan, Hamed & Amin-Naseri, Mohammad Reza & Nahavandi, Nasim, 2021. "A system dynamics model to analyze future electricity supply and demand in Iran under alternative pricing policies," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    14. Wang, Hui & Riedinger, Jeffrey & Jin, Songqing, 2015. "Land documents, tenure security and land rental development: Panel evidence from China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 220-235.
    15. Wang, Xiaobing & Herzfeld, Thomas & Glauben, Thomas, 2007. "Labor allocation in transition: Evidence from Chinese rural households," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 287-308.
    16. Thiemo Fetzer & Samuel Marden, 2017. "Take What You Can: Property Rights, Contestability and Conflict," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0(601), pages 757-783, May.
    17. Sébastien Marchand, 2011. "Technical Efficiency, Farm Size and Tropical Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazonian Forest," Working Papers halshs-00552981, HAL.
    18. Jiang, Meishan & Paudel, Krishna & Mi, Yunsheng, 2017. "Rural Land Transfer and Financial Impact: Evidence from China," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252853, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    19. Kapoor, Mudit & le Blanc, David, 2008. "Measuring risk on investment in informal (illegal) housing: Theory and evidence from Pune, India," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 311-329, July.
    20. Daniel Ayalew Ali & Stefan Dercon & Madhur Gautam, 2011. "Property rights in a very poor country: tenure insecurity and investment in Ethiopia," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 42(1), pages 75-86, January.

    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:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:12:p:1353-:d:697615. 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.