IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2017i1p7-d123780.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cultivated Land Use Benefits Under State and Collective Agrarian Property Regimes in China

Author

Listed:
  • Quanfeng Li

    (College of Resources and Environment, Northeast Agricultural University, Harbin 150030, China
    School of Public Administration, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China)

  • Shougeng Hu

    (School of Public Administration, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Guoming Du

    (College of Resources and Environment, Northeast Agricultural University, Harbin 150030, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Chuanrong Zhang

    (Department of Geography, Center for Environmental Sciences and Engineering, University of Connecticut, 215 Glenbrook Rd, Unit 4148, Storrs, CT 06269, USA)

  • Yansui Liu

    (Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China)

Abstract

Agrarian property regimes interact with relevant property stakeholders’ behaviors and benefits, playing a vital role in national and regional cultivated land use. In China, state and collective agrarian property regimes are the two main forms of cultivated land use. To help fully realize the multi-objectives of cultivated land use benefits provided by agrarian property regimes, our study investigated the relationship between agrarian property regimes and cultivated land use. This paper describes the role of a cultivated land use system in facilitating the relationship between agrarian property regimes and cultivated land use from a geographical perspective. Understanding the cultivated land use system is the foundation for comparatively analyzing differences in the cultivated land use benefits in two adjacent areas, a state-owned regime and a collective regime, in the city of Fujin, China, through a comprehensive evaluation. We found the following results: (1) The arrangement of agrarian property rights directly reflects capital, material and technology inputs by motivating agricultural labors to obtain different economic benefits; (2) The state agrarian property regime reflects top-down agricultural management while the collective agrarian property regime reflects bottom-up agricultural management in China. The different agricultural managements influence planting structure and land use planning, resulting in different ecological benefits; (3) Labor division and social insurance are the main drivers of different social benefits from the two regimes. Examining cultivated land use benefits provides a new comparative perspective for studying agrarian property regimes. The results show that cultivated land use benefits from collective and state agrarian property regimes are different. These findings clarify that, incentivized by the different types of agrarian property ownerships represented by collectively and state-owned regimes, local governments and organizations aim to achieve the multi-objective cultivated land use benefit goal of Chinese agricultural development, including economic, ecological and social benefits. With China’s goal of conducting moderate agricultural reform in its agrarian property regime, verification of rural collective land rights is an effective form of asset management in collective areas in China, while deepening land tenure and usufruct is an important priority in state-owned regimes. Furthermore, to make full use of agricultural resources, it is necessary to have a close collaboration between the collective agrarian property regime and the state agrarian property regime.

Suggested Citation

  • Quanfeng Li & Shougeng Hu & Guoming Du & Chuanrong Zhang & Yansui Liu, 2017. "Cultivated Land Use Benefits Under State and Collective Agrarian Property Regimes in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-19, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2017:i:1:p:7-:d:123780
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/1/7/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/1/7/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Li, Guo & Rozelle, Scott & Brandt, Loren, 1998. "Tenure, land rights, and farmer investment incentives in China," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 19(1-2), pages 63-71, September.
    2. Krusekopf, Charles C., 2002. "Diversity in land-tenure arrangements under the household responsibility system in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 13(2-3), pages 297-312.
    3. Hounkonnou, Dominique & Kossou, Dansou & Kuyper, Thomas W. & Leeuwis, Cees & Nederlof, E. Suzanne & Röling, Niels & Sakyi-Dawson, Owuraku & Traoré, Mamoudou & van Huis, Arnold, 2012. "An innovation systems approach to institutional change: Smallholder development in West Africa," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 74-83.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Yafei Li & Gaohuan Liu, 2017. "Characterizing Spatiotemporal Pattern of Land Use Change and Its Driving Force Based on GIS and Landscape Analysis Techniques in Tianjin during 2000–2015," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-26, May.
    7. Timothy Besley & Robin Burgess, 2000. "Land Reform, Poverty Reduction, and Growth: Evidence from India," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 115(2), pages 389-430.
    8. Hongdong Guo & Robert W Jolly & Jianhua Zhu, 2007. "Contract Farming in China: Perspectives of Farm Households and Agribusiness Firms," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 49(2), pages 285-312, June.
    9. Fengqin Yan & Shuwen Zhang & Wenhui Kuang & Guoming Du & Jing Chen & Xingtu Liu & Lingxue Yu & Chaobin Yang, 2016. "Comparison of Cultivated Landscape Changes under Different Management Modes: A Case Study in Sanjiang Plain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-16, October.
    10. David Tilman & Kenneth G. Cassman & Pamela A. Matson & Rosamond Naylor & Stephen Polasky, 2002. "Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices," Nature, Nature, vol. 418(6898), pages 671-677, August.
    11. repec:hal:pseose:hal-00783786 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Q. Forrest Zhang & John A. Donaldson, 2010. "From Peasants to Farmers: Peasant Differentiation, Labor Regimes, and Land-Rights Institutions in China’s Agrarian Transition," Politics & Society, , vol. 38(4), pages 458-489, December.
    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. Yue Zhang & Yaqiang Dai & Yuanyuan Chen & Xinli Ke, 2022. "Coupling Coordination Development of New-Type Urbanization and Cultivated Land Low-Carbon Utilization in the Yangtze River Delta, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-24, June.
    2. Yayuan Pang & Xinjun Wang, 2020. "Land-Use Efficiency in Shandong (China): Empirical Analysis Based on a Super-SBM Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-20, December.

    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. Li, Bowei & Shen, Yueqin, 2021. "Effects of land transfer quality on the application of organic fertilizer by large-scale farmers in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    2. Ayalew, Hailemariam & Admasu, Yeshwas & Chamberlin, Jordan, 2021. "Is land certification pro-poor? Evidence from Ethiopia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    3. Zhou, Yang & Li, Xunhuan & Liu, Yansui, 2020. "Rural land system reforms in China: History, issues, measures and prospects," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    4. Qi-Qi CHEN & Jun-Biao ZHANG & Yu HUO, 2016. "A study on research hot-spots and frontiers of agricultural science and technology innovation - visualization analysis based on the Citespace III," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(9), pages 429-445.
    5. Wenli Cheng & Nan Zhou & Longyao Zhang, 2021. "How does land titling affect credit demand, supply, access, and rationing: Evidence from China," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 69(3), pages 383-414, September.
    6. Bowei Li & Qiyan Zeng, 2022. "The Effect of Land Right Stability on the Application of Fertilizer Reduction Technologies—Evidence from Large-Scale Farmers in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-13, July.
    7. Hongqin Chang & Ping Ai & Yuan Li, 2018. "Land tenure policy and off-farm employment in rural China," IZA Journal of Migration and Development, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 8(1), pages 1-28, December.
    8. Chiwuzulum Odozi, John & Uwaifo Oyelere, Ruth, 2024. "Land Access and Poverty among Agricultural Households in Nigeria," IZA Discussion Papers 17230, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Hui Xiao & Jianxiu Xiao & Fangting Xie, 2022. "Impact Assessment of Farmland Lease-Out on Rural Households’ Livelihood Capital and Livelihood Strategy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-22, August.
    10. 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.
    11. Xiao, Wei & Zhao, Guochang, 2020. "Who is affected: Influence of agricultural land on occupational choices of peasants in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    12. Ayalew, H., 2018. "Is tenure Security Pro-poor? Decomposing Welfare Effects," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277532, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Kotchikpa Gabriel Lawin & Lota Tamini, 2018. "Droits de propriété foncière et performance des petits producteurs agricoles des pays en développement : une synthèse de la littérature empirique," CIRANO Working Papers 2018s-05, CIRANO.
    14. Hongqin Chang & Jing Liu & Yanyun Gao, 2017. "Land tenure policy and women’s off-farm employment in rural China," Working Papers PMMA 2017-03, PEP-PMMA.
    15. Rogers, Sarah & Wilmsen, Brooke & Han, Xiao & Wang, Zoe Ju-Han & Duan, Yuefang & He, Jun & Li, Jie & Lin, Wanlong & Wong, Christine, 2021. "Scaling up agriculture? The dynamics of land transfer in inland China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    16. Jing Li, 2019. "Land tenure and agricultural investments in China: a meta-regression analysis," China Agricultural Economic Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 12(2), pages 329-347, September.
    17. Hui Mao & Yujia Chai & Shaojian Chen, 2021. "Land Tenure and Green Production Behavior: Empirical Analysis Based on Fertilizer Use by Cotton Farmers in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-18, April.
    18. Min, Shi & Waibel, Hermann & Huang, Jikun, 2017. "Smallholder participation in the land rental market in a mountainous region of Southern China: Impact of population aging, land tenure security and ethnicity," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 625-637.
    19. Xu, Yuting & Huang, Xianjin & Bao, Helen X.H. & Ju, Xiang & Zhong, Taiyang & Chen, Zhigang & Zhou, Yan, 2018. "Rural land rights reform and agro-environmental sustainability: Empirical evidence from China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 73-87.
    20. Xu, Licheng & Du, Xiaodong, 2020. "Land certification, rental market participation, and income dynamics in rural China," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304247, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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:jsusta:v:10:y:2017:i:1:p:7-:d:123780. 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.