Abstract

AbstractThe conventional argument that the introduction of transfer of development rights (TDR) shifts the power of land use regulation from the state to the market is increasingly under challenge. In China, the state's grip on land is reinforced through TDR, in which the state is both regulator and player. This state‐dominated form of TDR affects China in three ways. First, competing aspirations of different scales of government complicate how TDR is implemented. Although the central state promotes TDR to maintain a national balance of arable land, some local states instrumentalize it to expand their landed basis of accumulation. Secondly, TDR tends to benefit the state but not its people. It may increase the fiscal income of the sending government and lessen the land shortage of the receiving government, but sometimes at the expense of the interests of land users without land ownership. Thirdly, given the state's deep involvement in TDR programs, the key for China's TDR to protect arable land lies not so much in clear property rights or a fully fledged market as in effective checks and balances regarding the state's powers over TDR. These three observations attest to the embeddedness of TDR in the local political economy.

Highlights

  • In recent years there has been increased interest in market-based instruments to preserve arable land and ecological properties in China

  • This article contributes to the growing debate on the use of market-based instruments in land use regulation

  • Our point of departure in this article is the study of state–market relationships and how these shape the effects of transfer of development rights (TDR) programs

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The success of a TDR program depends on market mechanisms, especially on the supply–demand equilibrium of the land market This line of argument resonates with the notion of TDR as a market-based planning instrument to manage growth, preserve ecological properties and safeguard heritages (Johnston and Madison, 1997; McConnell et al, 2005; Harman et al, 2015). It echoes the neoliberal political economy and its associated ideological frame––a sociopolitical force that drives the shift of planning from a regulatory and comprehensive approach to one that emphasizes market-based strategies (Linkous, 2017).

THE STATE AS BOTH REGULATOR AND PLAYER
Nantong Suzhou
Poor GDP performer
Active transaction under local state discretion
The government and villagers together
Suzhou Zhenjiang Changzhou
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call