The key to the success or failure of rural land reform lies in the details

The reform concerning the market entry of rural commercial construction land may be accelerated through the recently passed "green light bill" authorized by the National People's Congress for 33 cities and counties. But it must be seen that this reform is not easy. As early as 2008, the Third Plenary Session of the 17th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China already proposed establishing a "unified urban and rural construction land market." Such a relatively important reform goal has now been transformed into the relatively narrow and specific reform of "market entry of rural collective commercial construction land." It can be said that rural land system reform as a whole is tending toward caution. In the author's view, although the reform authorization by the National People's Congress certainly reflects the new thinking of "reform in accordance with the law" and is highly commendable, from the perspective of the inherent requirements of land system reform, the current reform deployment is only the beginning, and the future evolution of reform will inevitably generate new authorization requirements.

"Market entry of rural collective commercial construction land" faces the following difficulties:

First, the distribution of rural commercial construction land is too scattered, and it is often mixed together with village residential houses, which is not conducive to centralized planning and use. Small enterprises that serve urban life are suitable for layout in cities and their surrounding areas, while agricultural product processing enterprises need a certain scale; three mu or five mu of land is not easy to use. Supporting enterprises in manufacturing also need a certain degree of concentration and are not well suited to being dispersed among villages. If scattered commercial construction land is used for commercial housing development, it means that commodity housing and farmers' houses are mixed together, which brings difficulties to infrastructure construction. If the landscape contrast between the two types of housing is too great, it will also damage the value of commodity housing, which in turn brings difficulties to attracting investment.

Second, the boundary between rural commercial construction land and non-commercial construction land is not easy to determine. The author has learned that in a certain village, farmers "voluntarily" returned their homestead land to the collective, and the collective then regarded this homestead land as commercial construction land. From a legal perspective, it is difficult to consider this unreasonable. But if most villages do this, the distinction between commercial construction land and non-commercial construction land loses its meaning.

Third, a large amount of rural commercial construction land has already been occupied, its use efficiency is not high, and yet it is difficult to recover. Some local governments have taken certain measures, such as providing compensation for the benefits of early termination of contracts, to make the occupiers leave. But because the compensation is inadequate, the effect is poor, and some conflicts have arisen. Some villages have recovered the land, but have not solved the problem of reuse, causing damage to the interests of multiple parties.

Despite the above problems, reform still must be advanced. Here one may apply an old saying: "Details determine success or failure." In the reform, the following measures may be considered:

First, it is necessary to make good use of the policy space of the Ministry of Land and Resources regarding the "increase-decrease linkage" of urban and rural construction land, and spatially concentrate scattered commercial construction land. The author believes that the Ministry of Land and Resources may appropriately increase the quota for "increase-decrease linkage," and may even consider abolishing the quota limit for "increase-decrease linkage" in the 33 counties and cities.

Second, consideration may be given to giving localities more autonomy so that the overall construction of villages and the construction after the market entry of commercial construction land can be considered in a coordinated way. In the construction stage, all construction land in the village should be planned and built together, but in the "market entry" stage, according to a certain proportion, only part of the assets should be arranged for public sale. This can improve the use efficiency of land resources and also improve farmers' quality of life. Of course, doing this must also be combined with "increase-decrease linkage" assets, and comprehensive renewal and renovation cannot be advanced in every village.

Third, with the help of this reform, it is also necessary to innovate the forms through which the collective economy is realized. Market entry of commercial construction land is a very important level of reform, but there is also another level of reform that follows. In most cases, after commercial construction land enters the market, a new form of "collective asset" will be formed, and the interest relationships in this part of the assets will be clarified through the establishment of a shareholding system. If such a reform arrangement is made, there is also the question of whether farmers' shares can be "marketized," that is, whether farmers should be allowed to publicly sell these shares. The author believes that this level of reform will sooner or later need to be put on the agenda.