我国城乡建设用地增减挂钩政策与美国土地发展权转移政策的比较研究  

A Comparative Study between the Hook of Urban Construction Land Increase and Rural Residential Land Decrease Policy in China and Transferable Development Rights Policy in US

作　　者：顾汉龙[1] 冯淑怡[1] 张志林[1] 曲福田[1] 

机构地区：[1]南京农业大学中国土地问题研究中心,中国江苏南京210095

出　　处：《经济地理》2015年第6期143-148,183,共7页Economic Geography

基　　金：国家自然科学基金优秀青年科学基金项目(71322301);南京农业大学中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金项目(KJYQ201401);高等学校博士学科点专项科研基金(20130097110038);教育部哲学社会科学研究重大课题攻关项目(13JZD014;11JZ031)

摘　　要：通过对比我国城乡建设用地增减挂钩政策与美国土地发展权转移政策,分析两项政策的共性及差异,为我国城乡建设用地增减挂钩政策的进一步完善提供政策建议。结果表明:两项政策本质上都是土地发展权的交易,但在产生背景、运作流程和实施效果上均存在一定程度的差异。为了解决规划分区制度的刚性,我国和美国分别出台了城乡建设用地增减挂钩政策和土地发展权转移政策,但由于两国制度环境的差异,在政策的具体实施过程中美国选择了一种以市场和层级相结合的混合型治理结构,而我国则选择了一种以政府为主导的层级治理结构。虽然两项政策都在一定程度上增加了规划分区制度的弹性,但现阶段,美国土地发展权转移政策在利益分配机制设计和耕地保护效果方面均优于我国城乡建设用地增减挂钩政策。The objective of this paper is to examine the similarities and differences between the hook policy in China and the TDR policy in US in order to provide references to improve the hook policy in China. Results show that the essence of the two policies is the transfer of development rights, but their emerging background, operation form and implementation effects are to some extent different. To solve the rigidity of zoning policy, China introduced the hook policy, and US introduced the TDR policy. Due to the differences in institutional environment, in the policy implementation process US chose a combination of market and hierarchical hybrid governance structure, while China chose a government led hierarchical governance structure. Although both policies increased the flexibility of zoning policy to a certain extent, but at this stage, the TDR policy in US has better performances in the interest distribution mechanism design and the protection of cultivated land than the hook policy in China.

关 键 词：城乡建设用地增减挂钩 土地发展权转移 制度环境 治理结构 资源配置 

分 类 号：F301[经济管理—产业经济]