Abstract
This paper undertakes a comparative analysis of rural–urban land conversion policies in China and Vietnam, and examines the ideology of the state in land policymaking under a market socialism environment. It argues that land policies in both countries include ambiguous boundaries, which allow the socialist state to legitimize its politico-administrative power in land management and retain strong intervention capacity in the land market. In addition to similarities, land policies in China and Vietnam show significant differences in terms of the ownership of rural land and related legislation on land expropriation and transactions. Together, these distinctions cause divergent impacts on the interests and motivations of multiple stakeholders in rural land conversion. It is further observed that the state in both countries is characterized by dynamic, complex, and self-coordinated institutional systems, in which multiple levels of government have different driving forces and strategies in land development. The internal structure of authority in rural–urban land conversion between the multiple levels of government is readjusted by the regulatory land control of the central government.
Highlights
It has been more than three decades since economic reform
This paper examines the commonalities and differences in contemporary rural–urban land conversion policies and the effect of such policies on rural–urban land development in both C&V
This paper provides a comparative perspective on two socialist countries, and it may better explain the ideology of transitional states in land policymaking under the orientation of market socialism
Summary
It has been more than three decades since economic reform What is the relation between the state and the market and between the multiple levels of government in current land policies, and how does it affect rural–urban land conversion? A comparison of land policies in C&V is interesting for the following reasons They are two transitionally socialist countries that have experienced similar processes related to globalization, marketization, and decentralization, since implementing economic reforms. Despite their historical and cultural differences, C&V share many common features in their contemporary administrative structure and land policies. This paper aims to analyze the similarities and differences in contemporary land policies between the two countries and the resulting effects on the interest of stakeholders in rural–urban land development. The paper begins by reviewing the institutional changes in the context of each country
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
