Xiaogang village land “contract right” received collective?
There is such a saying on the Internet that “Xiaogang Village land is collectivized and collectivized”.He also said that this is “a prodigal son return gold.”So, did the land management mode of xiaogang village change after all?Does land contract authority receive village collective after all?Is it the household contract responsibility system?Today, I will discuss and exchange this problem with my friends.One, xiaogang village farmers “land contract right” after all to return to the village collective?In 1978, 18 farmers in Xiaogang Village, Anhui province, risked criticism by privately assigning land to households and pressing their handprints, so that if anything happened, they would share the responsibility.Fortunately, their behavior was not criticized, but got the support of provincial leaders and national leaders, which opened the second rural land reform. By 1982, most of the country’s rural areas were divided into farmland and household contract responsibility system.In 2018, the land of Xiaogang village was centralized again through the form of shareholding cooperatives.So, is this the same as the big collective operation of production teams in the past?The answer is no.The past production team big collective, is a planned economy, is a “unified purchase and sale” policy, rural land ownership, use and management of mixed together, by the collective unified management and operation, all the group members work together, unified distribution, land managers is, in fact, village cadres, membership has no control.After the distribution of farmland to households, land ownership, contract rights, management rights are separated, ownership belongs to the collective, contracted management rights belong to individual farmers.After the land right is confirmed, the land management right can be transferred through equity, lease, trusteeship and other ways. After the transfer, the contract right is still their own.Xiaogang village is now the implementation of the land shares are farmers to their contracted land management rights shares into the cooperative, according to share dividends, not the contract right to the village collective.In short, the “land contract right” of farmers in Xiaogang village was not transferred to the village collective, but the “management right” was invested into the cooperative to share dividends, which was completely different from the large collective operation of land production teams in the past.Ii. What is the ultimate purpose of rural land reform, the distribution of farmland to households and the implementation of the household contract responsibility system?In the past, when the production teams were large collectives, the state practiced a planned economy, and the three rights of land ownership, use right and management right were not separated, and the ownership, use right and management right were collectively owned and managed by the production teams and villages.Everyone has to on the surface, but because of the unclear property rights, which is zhang SAN plots of land, which is li si plots of land, which piece is just soso, not clear, so finally the land, poor crops yield is low, is not plow, still not sow good, still can’t manage, unclear responsibility, also not clear, so the captain is the only one to worry about.When land ownership was determined, it was clear which land belonged to Zhang SAN, Which land belonged to Li Si, and which land belonged to Wang Mazi. It was a matter of concern to each family.Therefore, under the same conditions, such as land, fertilizer and pesticides, the land will be planted better and the yield will be relatively high.But that was not the end of the land reform, it was only the first step.If the reform stays at this stage, it will only solve the problem of food and clothing.The ultimate goal of the second rural land reform is to reduce farmers, improve land efficiency and profits, and produce the most grain with the least labor and investment.The second step of rural land reform is “land right confirmation”.The national land right confirmation is about 2019, while Anhui Province started land right confirmation as early as 2015, so Xiaogang Village is also in the forefront of land equity transfer in the country.The purposes of land ownership confirmation are as follows: first, since China has a large population but little land, the contradiction between man and land always exists. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that the ownership of land is kept in collective hands so as not to lead to the actual “privatization” of land.Second, let farmers have real permanent land contract right (use right);Third, pave the way for centralized contiguity and large-scale cultivation of land through equity, leasing and trusteeship.The third step of land reform is to “invest in, lease and trust land”, so as to reduce the number of farmers as much as possible, reduce human and material costs and increase land returns and profits.In fact, the proportion of farmers in the national population in all developed countries is very low. Israel has 3 farmers for every 100 people, the United States has 1 farmer for every 100 people, And Japan has 1 farmer for every 70 people, while China has at least more than 60 farmers for every 100 people.Therefore, only by reducing the number of farmers who grow land can we join the ranks of advanced countries.Therefore, the ultimate purpose of the household contract responsibility system for rural land in China is to stabilize the relationship between rural people and land, let farmers have the right to use land permanently (contract right), and transfer the land through equity, lease, trusteeship and other ways to reduce farmers farming land, and finally enter the ranks of developed countries.Three, in fact, under the circumstances of reform and opening up, represented by nanjie village “” collective land nor the production team that kind of way of doing business in the past, represented by nanjiecun” collective village’s success, take the lead to achieve the economic take-off, also is one of the great achievements of reform and opening up, otherwise, why so long time did not achieve economic take-off in the past,How about the economic take-off soon after the reform and opening up?The first is to benefit from the unique geographical conditions, the second is to seize the opportunity brought by the reform and opening up, and the third is to have a good leader.Objectively speaking, at the beginning of the reform and opening up, the state was not very strict in land control. These villages took advantage of the “zero cost” of collective land to set up enterprises and build factories, with low cost, high profits and high market competitiveness, and made the first bucket of gold.But the latecomers have not been able to do so, as the state has increasingly tightened controls on agricultural land and has not allowed basic farmland to be used for non-agricultural purposes.Business costs are high and it is not competitive.From another point of view, the distribution pattern of these “collective villages” is completely different from that of the large production teams in the past. Although there is no distribution of farmland to households, all the collective assets such as land are converted into shares and then the shares are distributed to families and individuals. Dividends are paid by shares, rather than by wages as in the past.In short, Xiaogang village did not transfer the land contract right to the village collective, but invested the land management right into the cooperative on the basis of the household contract responsibility system, and then paid dividends according to the share. This is essentially different from the land management mode in the past when production teams were large collectives.The model of Nanjiecun is undoubtedly successful, but it is not practical or realistic to implement this model all over the country.Given China’s vast territory, covering more than 5,000 kilometers from the North to the South, land and other natural conditions differ greatly. In managing land, we must take into account local conditions and never apply a uniform approach to land management.