The Sighs of Landless Farmers: Where Are the Livelihood Options?
When farmers lose their land, they lose the basic foundation on which their ancestors relied for survival for generations, lose the arena in which their traditional livelihood skills could be put to use, shatter the rice bowl of their descendants, disrupt the familiar environment in which clans had lived together for generations, sever the traditional bloodline of rural culture, and lose the spiritual homeland that carried their attachment to their native place. Experts estimate that China currently has about 50 million landless farmers. This enormous group has far too many frustrations, and their repeated sighs call for the introduction of a new system. Although the reasons for their loss of land differ, and compensation and resettlement vary widely, most of them face common difficulties.
The Housing Problem
After farmers lose their land, the biggest problem they face first is housing. The reasons they cannot secure housing are as follows. First, the working method of “demolish first, build later” leaves farmers with nowhere to live. That is, in some places, instead of first building resettlement housing, letting farmers move, and then requisitioning land and demolishing, the land is requisitioned and demolition carried out first regardless of where the farmers will live. To rush the construction schedule and speed up progress, they often require people to move out within a few days. Whether you go to relatives or friends or sleep on the street, resettlement comes slowly only after demolition. This creates chaos and puts officials and the masses at daggers drawn. Second, compensation is too low, making it hard to secure housing. In terms of compensation forms, most places currently mainly adopt a rather uniform monetary resettlement method, that is, “want the land, not the people.” In some places, farmers' compensation is not even enough to buy resettlement and relocation housing. Third, reduced income sources and increased living expenses affect housing security. Before land requisition, besides farming, farmers could use the areas in front of and behind their houses for courtyard planting and breeding. Even the elderly and weak could do this work, which saved many expenses and solved many problems in life. Without land, on the one hand, income sources in life are reduced, and the elderly, weak, sick, and disabled have nowhere to work; on the other hand, living expenses increase. Grain, vegetables, meat, eggs, and drinking water that used to cost nothing now all must be bought from the market. In farmers' words, you pee, press the handle, water flushes, and one mao is gone. With living costs rising on one side and income falling on the other, this increase and decrease immediately plunges them into difficulty. Fourth, in some places the quality of demolition resettlement housing is poor, making it impossible to live securely. Some newly received homes already show cracks or peeling wall plaster, and “tofu-dreg building” incidents occur from time to time. Farmers complain strongly and live in constant fear in their new homes, unable to feel secure even if they want to.
Only with secure housing can people work happily. To solve the housing problem of landless farmers, the principle of building first and demolishing later must first be implemented, that is, first build resettlement housing, let farmers move safely into new homes, and only then requisition land and demolish. Even with monetary compensation, demolition should wait until the relocated households have secured housing.
Second, one principle that must be followed in the land requisition process is, on the basis of clarifying the interest relationships among local governments, rural collectives, individual farmers, and developers, to put the protection of farmers' interests first and give farmers a sense of psychological balance.
Furthermore, the current land requisition compensation policy must be thoroughly reformed. It is strictly necessary to eliminate the practice in some places of requisitioning land under the banner of public interest, then selling it for market-based development after requisition, while farmers receive only a negligible bit of compensation. To put it mildly, even for public interest, sacrificing farmers' interests cannot be justified by emotion, reason, or law. When compensating for land expropriation, Western developed countries not only compensate farmers for basic living expenses after entering the city, employment and entrepreneurial capital, and social security, but also include land value-added benefits over a certain period. For example, land expropriation compensation in the United States is calculated according to the market price standard before expropriation, compensating not only the existing value of the expropriated land but also considering compensation for the foreseeable and predictable future value of the land, while also compensating neighboring landowners for business losses caused by the expropriation. These aspects can serve as references. The approach our country's land requisition compensation policy reform should follow is that in the future, except for national defense and special uses that can be clearly explained, whether or not for public interest, a negotiation mechanism should be introduced, with farmers or collective organizations representing farmers directly participating in transactions. For purely public-interest, quasi-public-interest, and commercial development projects, standards and amounts must differ, and the government may provide certain guidance and supervision according to market price mechanisms and supply-demand relationships. Of course, establishing new compensation standards and systems cannot be achieved overnight, but the direction and path must be made clear.
⟦NL> Fourth, comprehensive resettlement methods that organically combine monetary compensation, housing resettlement, land allocation resettlement, employment resettlement, and social insurance in multiple forms must be established. In particular, the practice of resettlement with two apartments should be actively encouraged and promoted, using rental income from the second apartment to replace income from the requisitioned land, thereby safeguarding landless farmers' long-term interests from loss and preventing their living standards from declining. Future monetary compensation should include not only agricultural returns but also the land value-added portion, and should include not only physical and economic compensation but also spiritual and psychological compensation. As the saying goes, moving house makes you poor for three years, let alone demolition and relocation; appropriate spiritual compensation is of great significance. For those farmers who have already lost land and homes and still have not received housing resettlement, they should be included in the policy scope for housing provident funds and urban low-rent housing and affordable housing, and resolved preferentially in batches and stages. Let landless farmers truly become beneficiaries of the urbanization process.
The “Idle People” Problem
Among farmers who have lost their land, whether they have no work to do, find work hard to obtain, work only half-heartedly, or do not take work at all, many have become “idle people.” The “idleness” of “idle people” can be divided into five types.
First, they want to work but cannot find work. These people are willing to work but suffer from having no channels. They have no way to start a business, no skills for, and no strength for rough labor. For example, most elderly people over 50 fall into this category.
Second, grassroots organizations help arrange some work and provide some jobs, but these are often more form than substance. The arranged work is either unsuitable, too tiring, or too low-paid and unattractive. For farmers long accustomed to loose schedules, whether or not they go to work does not matter much, and they often work by fits and starts.
Third, they have received some compensation and have a little money in hand, but lack a clear and rational expectation for the future. They muddle along, do not want to work, and are even less willing to endure hardship. They live for the moment, drinking today and getting drunk today, drifting through life in a daze.
Fourth, some received a relatively large amount of compensation, became rich overnight, and then loafed about, spending every day in dissipation, keeping up appearances, and competing in extravagance. Some bought luxury cars, some went gambling wildly, and drug use even appeared.
Fifth, in rural areas the elderly, weak, sick, disabled, women, and children have always all participated in production as laborers year-round. Farmers have no retirement system, and agriculture has no child labor problem. After losing their land, they not only change from producers into pure consumers, but all become thoroughly genuine “idle people.”
According to energy dissipation theory, if human energy cannot find normal channels for dissipation, it will be released through abnormal channels. These “idle people,” having nothing to do, create trouble. At the same time as they lose land, they are most likely to lose their souls; as they move toward communities, they are most likely to move toward prisons. The key to solving these problems is to let them achieve full employment. An employment service system for landless farmers must be established and improved. In Western countries, employment rates often become an important deciding factor in presidential elections.
First, establish a reemployment training mechanism. Bring landless farmers' employment training into the scope of urban laid-off reemployment training for coordinated arrangement. Carry out targeted free training and certification in practical skills, vocational certificates, community services, domestic services, and other vocational skills to improve farmers' quality and employment skills, both “transfusing blood” and “making blood,” and strengthen landless farmers' ability to make a living. At the same time, bring landless farmers' employment into the employment networks of labor markets at the city and county levels, just like urban unemployed people, and provide them with necessary services.
Second, formulate reemployment support policies. For landless farmers engaged in individual businesses or seeking work themselves, policy support in taxation, industry and commerce, and other areas can be provided by referring to policies for urban unemployed people seeking work themselves, appropriately reducing or exempting business tax, income tax, management fees, and so on. Explore the establishment of special support funds, providing small loans or guarantee services to those who start their own businesses but have funding difficulties. Where conditions permit, actively guide and organize them to develop various household handicrafts.
Third, encourage land requisition units and other industrial and commercial enterprises to absorb landless farmers as much as possible. Enterprises that absorb landless farmers should enjoy the same preferential policies as those that absorb urban laid-off workers.
Fourth, mobilize community forces in the places where landless farmers settle and establish a “1+1” paired assistance system. Through paired assistance, provide guidance for landless farmers in urban life and employment, and help them complete the role transition from farmers to urban residents as quickly as possible.