Collective ownership of land are plain , economic

e707004304

Collective ownership of land: are plain, economic difficulties - a special case of the general village

Abstract: In contemporary rural China, land ownership is the primary moral goal of 900 million farmers living protection. However, since most of the arable land per capita in the village can not sustain the livelihood of a village, to rely on the collective protection of land for the villagers to survive, proceeds from the land can not be split in the village, but should give priority to internal distress Jikun for the village. However, the villagers agree to do so, depending on whether the leaders of the village for the villagers trust. Without such leaders, the villagers had to give up on life-support requirements, turn requires equal distribution of collective land use rights and income rights. In the current political situation in the village, a village leader to appear this is how scarce accident. Thus, in most villages, land ownership can only achieve all level objectives, can not really protect the safety of the villagers survive.

Key words: land ownership; social security; right to life; members of the right; village leaders

I. Introduction

Of existing rural land ownership is not only a special kind of agricultural land management system, and carrying the 9 million farmers heavy social security moral responsibility. provide basic living guarantee for the villagers, this is the effective configuration, However, as long as this system can indeed achieve these two objectives, there is the meaning of these efficiency losses, it is to provide farmers with the cost of social security.

However, the majority of our village, the basic fact is that a large population, shortage of land, per capita arable land is not sufficient to maintain a livelihood of the villagers. To achieve all level objectives, the need for regular or irregular use of the population equal distribution of land rights and income rights, this time, each village received land per capita and can not guarantee their basic living needs, for those who can not turn to non-agricultural employment, weak capacity of the villagers or labor, even without considering the incidents of illness and accident, or it may be difficult to extricate themselves caught in the quagmire of poverty. However, to rely on the collective protection of land for the villagers to survive, can not be less than originally split the land to the villagers, while the proceeds from the land should be priority for the relief of the poor village. Therefore, the villagers can not rely on the land for a living, the collective land of all levels of conflict goals and Jikun goals.

From the realization of social justice, the a variety of notions of fairness, the right to life the most moral persuasion 2003:157; Shen Jing, Wang Hansheng, 2005). Villagers held such a fair idea of universal significance includes: society should protect everyone's right to exist, that everyone should have the necessary survival of a group of basic goods, while each person also has the ability to access basic goods, so When some members of society are facing the threat, the remaining members of a moral obligation to impose a helping hand. This means that the collective ownership of land within the village as defined - that land use rights and benefits between the villagers the right to define
, However, is not the case. Currently, the collective ownership of land within the village as defined in the way, due to the multifaceted nature of land ownership and regional differences and diverse. However, for most of the village, its land, property rights define the members of the villagers is the principle of priority, only the individual villages used to give priority to the principle of survival. Whether it is the most common land contract Of course, the land contract and management on the .

However, we have shown that under the conditions of the members of the priority concerns of the right to survival, when the per capita land sufficient to maintain livelihood, the fact can not be protection for the villagers to survive.

Why most villages, land ownership can only achieve the goal of all levels, Jikun distress can not do it? In other words, if the land ownership to achieve Jikun goals, what kind of conditions? This condition is most villages in China have? Answer these questions, that is, the main purpose of this article.

Most villages land on the definition of property rights does not have priority use of the principle of survival, a widely accepted explanation is that the principle of survival lower priority the efficiency of land management, members rights principles can help improve efficiency (Zhou Qi Ren ,2004:12-27). In fact, the conditions to allow land rental business, this interpretation is not reliable. Because the land rented to people outside the village or village, the efficiency of land management can solve the problem, the rent they can live together first have difficulty in relief of the villagers.

This view is that collective ownership of land within the village to achieve Jikun goal, we must have some strict conditions, and these conditions in most villages but difficult to have. Therefore, the vast majority of our villagers, even if they want to rely on the collective land to provide themselves with life-support system, is bound to be unreliable. If this view can be established, then the moral land ownership ?

Our approach is to validate this view, the first game model, derived in a general sense the collective goal of land to achieve the necessary conditions Jikun; then, research Jikun successfully achieved a target of the village case study we derived a necessary condition logic is consistent with the village experience, analysis of these conditions can be extended to other villages. If we see in this particular village, Jikun goals but also in other villages, the conditions necessary for the implementation of Jikun goal, but in most villages is difficult to have, we will demonstrate the point.

Second, the members of the right of priority, or the subsistence priority - a theoretical hypothesis

House in the village, level of collective land to achieve goals and relieve the less privileged both goals, means that the definition of collective ownership of land two different principles: members the right to give priority to the principles and the principle of subsistence priority. The former refers to the principle of collective rights and benefits of land use right of the main shared equally by population, up to extract a small amount of land revenue for the village public affairs; The latter principle is the proceeds from the land should give priority to the village elderly, poor villagers, the villagers of the ability to work weak basic needs, is to protect the village in the weak survival needs, such as surplus, and then equally to each village. Obviously, these two principles are not fully independent, because members of the right to life includes the degree of protection; At this point, only the implementation of the principle of survival priority, it may protect the village's basic survival needs.
For every village, the principle of giving priority to support the right to life, or the principle of giving priority to support members of the right, first of all depends on the future risk and is The balance of income. Subsistence priority principle of life reduces the risk of each village, but also a corresponding reduction in the prime period of his income level, as part of his hand by members each year deserve the right to land revenue, in order to together for the relief of the year Village of the weak. Instead, members of the right to give priority to the principle of the villagers in the prime of life improved during each of the income level also increases the risk of his life,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], because each villager can only rely on their own We assume that the villagers have a tendency to risk aversion, as Scott said, the farmers of the option of following the This means that the lives of the villagers in order to reduce future risk, are willing to hand over the appropriate land revenue, focus on life-support for the villagers.

Being the case, why most members of the village is the implementation of the principle of the right of priority, rather than subsistence priority principle? The reason is that the villagers for what between these two options, depending on an important prerequisite. As part of subsistence priority need to focus on the principles of land revenue, also need to identify who is weak in the village, which requires a custodian of public funds by the custodian of public focus on hosting and distribution of funds; the contrary, the members of the principle of the right of priority do not need to focus on land revenue, operating only in the equal distribution of land right there was a village of principals, the principals do not need to become a custodian of public funds. Therefore, the villagers supported the premise of the principle of survival priority is to concentrate the land revenue to be real security for the protection of the villagers survive, which requires the principal villages (ie village leaders) must be the full trust of the villagers custodian of funds. To this end, we propose the following theoretical hypothesis: