How can farmers' right to choose to move to the city be preserved?
One of the biggest constraints on China's economic development in the future will be the already deeply contradictory land system, and a more strategic and comprehensive reform will be necessary in the future to adapt to the new development of the Chinese economy. For example, while implementing the policy of "farmers do not have to give up their land when moving to the city," the gradual and unconditional extension of urban real estate land use rights could serve as a breakthrough to realize de facto land ownership for urban residents.
A few days ago, Minister of Land and Resources Jiang Daming published an article in People's Daily, proposing that the choice of "moving to the city" should be left to farmers: whether to move to the city and whether to give up their land should be chosen by farmers themselves, rather than having others choose for them.
From countless rural young people treating "shedding the farmer label" as their greatest life ambition, to refusing to be "forced into the city" becoming a right that needs to be defended, behind this huge contrast lies the enormous change in Chinese society and economy. The more crucial factor is that, with socioeconomic development, especially the acceleration of urbanisation, the value of land has become increasingly prominent, turning it into a huge "cake" that all parties covet, and at the same time into property and rights that farmers must fight to defend. Therefore, the so-called respect for farmers' right to choose whether to move to the city is in essence respect for farmers' ownership of land.
For decades, China has implemented a dual land system, namely urban land owned by the state and rural land owned collectively by villagers. But under the previously strict urban-rural separation system, land that villagers owned with partial property rights was less a form of farmers' property than a shackle forcibly binding them to the land. Therefore, withdrawing from the villagers' collective and giving up ownership of collective land in exchange for the qualification to "eat commodity grain" in the city was, for farmers, an liberation that shattered their shackles. They could hardly embrace it and cheer fast enough, so why would coercion be needed?
However, with China's economic development and changes in social structure, large numbers of farmers have voluntarily and freely left the land to work in cities, and the land left in the countryside is no longer a shackle binding them, but has become property that keeps rising in value. At this point, if farmers were required to give up this "potential growth stock" in order to obtain the right to become urban residents, it would indeed present farmers with a difficult choice. Conversely, if the urban household registration were not linked to the land issue, and farmers could still enjoy the corresponding original rights to land even after converting to urban household registration, then farmers would not only not need to make a difficult choice, but would instead become special urban residents who enjoy the same public welfare and services as other urban residents while also owning a piece of land in the countryside.
Therefore, the statement by the Ministry of Land and Resources that "whether to move to the city and whether to give up land should have the choice left to farmers, with farmers choosing rather than others choosing for them" can actually be interpreted in different ways. The option most beneficial to farmers is "move to the city, but do not give up the land." But if that were truly the case, then the so-called "leaving the choice to farmers" would become an unnecessary promise, because no farmer would refuse such a good thing, and there would be no possibility of forcing farmers to choose. Another possibility is to leave farmers themselves to choose between "moving to the city means giving up land" and "not giving up land means not being able to move to the city (and obtain household registration)." But how much meaning such "freedom of choice" really has is in fact highly questionable.
The causes of China's land system are complex, and the difficulties it leaves for today are equally complex. If the policy of "moving to the city requires giving up land" were forcibly pushed through, it would amount to using urban household registration, which belongs to citizens' rights, to forcibly exchange for farmers' actual property. That would be unfair to farmers and also difficult to justify in legal terms. If the farmer-friendly policy of "moving to the city but not giving up land" were implemented, then among future urban residents there would appear "old urban residents" with not an inch of land and "new urban residents" who both have urban household registration and own rural land. Although such a policy is reasonable in that it compensates farmers for past sacrifices, the new "dual structure" between old and new urban residents could also bring new unfairness and hidden dangers.
To date, adjustments to land policy have been limited to reactive, partial fine-tuning, and only to the rural land policy portion. In fact, one of the biggest constraints on China's economic development in the future will be the already deeply contradictory land system, and a more strategic and comprehensive reform will be necessary in the future to adapt to the new development of the Chinese economy. For example, while implementing the policy of "farmers do not have to give up their land when moving to the city," the gradual and unconditional extension of urban real estate land use rights could serve as a breakthrough to realize de facto land ownership for urban residents. At the same time, rural homestead transactions could gradually be opened to urban residents, allowing more "old urban residents" to own land in the countryside just like "new urban residents." In this way, the new "dual structure" could be broken, and wealth, people, materials and culture could flow in both directions between urban and rural areas, truly breaking down the urban-rural barriers and promoting integrated urban-rural development.