Why the Reform of the Rural Collective Property Rights System Is Not Simply Dividing Everything Up

The reform of the rural collective property rights system means advancing classified reform according to the different types of resource assets, operating assets and public-welfare assets. However, this reform is by no means simply dividing everything up, by no means privatization, and still less is it about letting farmers eat the “farewell dinner” of the village collective economy; rather, it is about safeguarding the stability of rural collective economic organizations. In advancing this reform, we must take coordinated account of fairness and efficiency, take coordinated account of agricultural and rural development, and take coordinated account of urban and rural reform and development

Improving the property rights functions of rural collectives is a task put forward by the Fifth Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee. Deepening rural reform bears on the long-term stability and order of rural society. And the reform of the rural collective property rights system is an important part of deepening rural reform; it bears on the contracted management right of rural cultivated land and the right to distribute collective income, and bears on whether the goal of building a moderately prosperous society in all respects during the “13th Five-Year Plan” can be achieved on schedule.

Clear property rights are the core essence of a market economy. As China's rural reform advances in depth, problems such as unclear ownership of rural collective assets, unclear rights and responsibilities, lax protection and poor circulation have become increasingly prominent. In many rural areas around towns in developed coastal regions, the market value of village collective assets is often relatively high. Faced with huge interests, and in the absence of oversight, the phenomenon of some village officials, as “minor officials committing major graft,” embezzling collective assets occurs frequently. How to activate the rural “sleeping assets,” let farmers enjoy more property rights, and at the same time prevent a small number of people within collective economic organizations from encroaching on and controlling collective assets, and prevent external capital from swallowing up and controlling collective assets, has become a new issue facing the next step of rural reform.

Rural collective assets mainly include resource assets, operating assets and public-welfare assets. At present, the reform approach has been made clear: it is to advance classified reform according to different types of assets. For resource assets such as land, it is necessary to advance the confirmation, registration and issuance of certificates for contracted management rights, stabilize contract rights, invigorate management rights, and explore multiple forms of realizing appropriately scaled operations. For operating assets such as factory buildings, it is necessary to advance reform of the shareholding cooperative system, clarify creditors' rights and debts, asset quantification, equity setup and income distribution, convert assets into shares and quantify them to each member of the collective organization, and improve the management, oversight and income distribution mechanisms for the operation of collective assets. For public-welfare assets such as schools, it is necessary to explore effective mechanisms for unified collective operation and management so that they can better provide public-welfare services to members of the organization and community residents.

The reform of the rural collective property rights system is by no means simply dividing everything up, by no means privatization, and still less is it about letting farmers eat the “farewell dinner” of the village collective economy; rather, it is about safeguarding the stability of rural collective economic organizations. To deepen the reform of the rural collective property rights system, it is necessary to strengthen protection of rural collective property rights, activate the potential of various rural factors, and give farmers more property rights. Its purpose is to develop and strengthen the collective economy, and it must not wreck or hollow out the collective ownership system, nor must it make collective assets disappear. It is precisely on this basis that the central authorities proposed that at the present stage the reform of the rural collective property rights system must be strictly limited to within the given collective economic organization.

Coordination is the inherent requirement of sustained and healthy development. The proposal for the “13th Five-Year Plan” put forward that we should focus on promoting coordinated development between urban and rural areas and between regions, promote coordinated economic and social development, and promote the synchronous development of the new type of industrialization, informatization, urbanization and agricultural modernization. This also reminds us that the pace and methods of advancing collective property rights reform must take coordinated account of the actual conditions of each locality. Specifically, we must take coordinated account of fairness and efficiency, take coordinated account of agricultural and rural development, and take coordinated account of urban and rural reform and development. On the basis of confirming the membership status of rural collective economic organizations and comprehensively verifying rural collective assets, we should improve the management, oversight and income distribution systems for rural collective funds, assets and resources, the “three assets,” and ensure that rural property rights are traded according to law, voluntarily, openly and fairly. The clearer rural collective property rights are and the stronger their protection is, the greater the vitality of the rural economy will be, ultimately achieving the goal of establishing a rural collective economic property rights system with clear property rights relations, shared benefit distribution, optimized factor allocation and a sound governance structure.