农村土地非农开发和集体经济组织重构——基于浙江两种留地安置模式的比较  

Rural Land Non-agricultural Development and Collective Economic Organization Restructuring:Comparison of Two Return- Land- Resettlement Patterns in Zhejiang Province

作　　者：姚如青[1] 

机构地区：[1]中共杭州市委党校市情研究所

出　　处：《中国经济问题》2015年第6期37-48,共12页China Economic Studies

基　　金：2014年度浙江省哲学社会科学规划立项课题(编号:14NDJC01YBM)的研究成果

摘　　要：农村集体土地征用过程中,中国地方政府返还部分土地作为留用地,农民自主进行留用地的非农开发,由此形成两种主要的留地安置模式。一种是农户分散开发留用地的个体主义制度结构,以温州模式为代表。另外一种是村社集体开发留用地的集体主义制度结构,以杭州模式为代表。经过案例比较和逻辑分析,发现杭州模式的生存能力优于温州模式。农村土地集体所有的背景和城市土地开发的特点共同导致杭州模式更有生存能力;由于土地开发价值的差异和地方官员制度供给的行动理性,两个区域实施不同的留地安置模式;杭州模式的关键环节在于原有的农村集体经济组织进行重组。Accompanied by rural collective land acquisition, local governments of China return part of land. Peasants in- dependently develop the retained land for non-agricultural purposes. Thus two main Return-Land-Resettlement patterns are formed. One is individualism institutional structure of peasants＇ scattered developing retained land, Wenzhou pattern being as a representative. Another is collectivism institutional structure of collective economic organization＇s developing retained land, Hangzhou pattern being as a representative. Through case comparison and logical analysis, it is discovered that the survival a- bility of Hangzhou pattern is better than Wenzhou pattern. The background of rural land collective and the characteristics of ur- ban land development have resulted in Hangzhou pattern more survival ability. Because of the differences in land exploitation value and the action rationality of local officials system supply, two regions implement different Return-Land-Resettlement pat- tern. In addition, the key link in Hangzhou mode is the original rural collective economic organization restructuring.

关 键 词：留地安置 土地非农开发权利 个体主义 集体主义 

分 类 号：F321.1[经济管理—产业经济] F321.32