Abstract
In the land requisition market in China, two very different compensation levels for land requisition can be seen in the real world: one is the highly rigid official compensation level for land requisition and the other is a fuzzy actual compensation level for land requisition. In order to uncover the determinants of the actual compensation level for land requisition in China, this paper adopts Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) to analyze the causal relationship between nonmarketization bargaining factors, like land-losing farmers’ bargaining ability, bargaining strategy, external intervention, etc., and the actual compensation level for land requisition by taking 70 land requisition conflict events occurring from 2002 to 2017 as the point of departure. The results of the empirical analysis show that if land-losing farmers have a relatively strong bargaining ability, forgo a radical bargaining strategy, and use a relatively gentle bargaining strategy instead, they can effectively force local governments to make concessions and compromises on the compensation level for land requisition. This paper not only enriches the existing research on the structure of social power, but it also has significance for the ongoing reform of the land requisition system.
Highlights
In the field of land requisition in China there are many “Chinese stories” worthy of deep academic excavation, in terms of the compensation for land requisition, since the compensation level for land requisition in official documents differs significantly from the compensation level awarded in reality
Compared with the existing research, this paper makes contributions in the following three areas: (1) This paper introduces the concept of nonmarketization bargaining and analyzes the influences of relevant factors like bargaining ability, bargaining strategy, external intervention, etc. on actual compensation levels for land requisition; (2) This paper carries out a meticulous decomposition and presents a panoramic display of land-losing farmers’ nonmarketization bargaining behavior while discussing the social power structure problem hidden behind it in depth; (3) At present, the research on land requisition conflict mostly takes the form of single-case analyses or qualitative interpretations, which is helpful for exploitative research, but less suitable for explanatory research
This paper analyzes in detail 70 land requisition conflict events occurring from 2002–2017 by means of qualitative comparative analysis and discusses the causal relationship between land-losing farmers’ nonmarketization bargaining behavior and the actual compensation level for land requisition
Summary
In the field of land requisition in China there are many “Chinese stories” worthy of deep academic excavation, in terms of the compensation for land requisition, since the compensation level for land requisition in official documents differs significantly from the compensation level awarded in reality. If the land requisition policy at the formal institutional level is strictly enforced, land-losing farmers can only passively accept the official compensation level for land requisition and have no right to negotiate with local governments [1]. Their research results prove that the monetary compensation obtained by 75% of land-losing families only met the minimum standard set in the government’s policies. Is this unfair, but it goes against the efficiency principle to a certain degree [4]. Too low official compensation level for land requisition will bring high transaction costs including negotiations, information collections and contracting for land development projects. Yani Lai et al studied the transaction costs of urban village reconstruction projects in Shenzhen from 2004 to 2009, and the results showed that the official compensation level for land requisition resulted in many time-consuming transactions and hindered the redevelopment of urban villages [5]
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.
