What Role(s) Do Village Committees Play in the Withdrawal from Rural Homesteads? Evidence from Sichuan Province in Western China

Abstract

Village committees, as grassroots spontaneously formed by rural collective members in China’s hierarchy system, play an irreplaceable role in the management of rural public affairs. Based on the filed survey dataset taken from three pilot counties/districts in Sichuan province, we explored the significant role that village committees played in farmers’ withdrawal from rural homesteads (WRH). Our empirical results, according to binary logistic regression (BLR) modelling, indicated that the WRH was significantly affected by the triple roles of village committees, among which information intermediary was the most effective followed by the trust builder and then the coordinated manager. Firstly, village committees’ involvement facilitated the WRH by improving policy transparency and decreasing information cost. Secondly, the depth of village committees’ participation (i.e., being involved in multiple phases) positively affected the WRH given its signification of the participation of farmers. Whereas the breadth of participation (i.e., considering various demands of different participants) negatively affected the process of WRH by reducing the decision-making efficiency. Thirdly, farmers’ trust in institutions played a positive role in the WRH, but their confidence in village cadres had limited impact. We therefore argue that promising village committees should act as “all-round stewards” in the decision-making of rural households, which not only includes the transmit of information between those above and those below, but also needs to actively strive for farmers’ trust by letting their voice heard. Based on our empirical findings, this paper finally proposed some policy suggestions, such as strengthening mutual communication, empowerment of rural grassroots, encouraging farmers’ participation and improving formal institutions.

Mapping the Challenges to the Sustainable Operation of Suburban Villages in a Metropolis: A Comparative Case Study from the Lens of Three Stakeholder-Led Approaches

“…Governments at all levels invest in a variety of rural planning and construction projects in rural areas. The government is the initiator of rural revitalization and a crucial stakeholder in practice [38]. Government-led village projects make gradual attempts to use the power of multiple stakeholders to participate in various stages of construction and maintenance [36].…”

“…Government-led village projects make gradual attempts to use the power of multiple stakeholders to participate in various stages of construction and maintenance [36]. Second, under the background of rapid urbanization, industrial and commercial enterprises [38] saw the massive value of rural land resource assets leading the flow of elements (including labor force, capital, and technology) from cities to rural areas. Currently, there are a series of challenges for private enterprises to participate in rural construction and operation, such as the distortion of government goals and the erosion of farmers' interests [25,39].…”

Research hotspots and prospects of homestead withdrawal and reuse

“…农村宅基地按集体经济组织成员资格权进行 分配， 无偿获得、 无限期使用 [1] ， 是中国农村重要的 福利性土地制度安排， 为保障农民 "居有定所" 及农 村社会稳定发挥了重要作用 [2] [5,6] [21] ； 家庭抚 养子女数量、 宅基地退出风险预期、 区位条件、 宅基 地面积及使用收益、 农户产权认知等阻碍农户宅基 地退出意愿 [12,22] 。此外， 经济发展水平及农户所处 家庭生命周期阶段也影响农户宅基地退出意愿， 经 济发展水平越高， 农户退地时考虑的因素也越多， 尤其是其家庭的资产和财产性收入状况 [23] 。有学者 将农户家庭按生命周期划分为夫妇核心家庭、 成长 核心家庭， 成熟核心家庭、 扩大家庭Ⅰ、 扩大家庭Ⅱ Tian 等 [10] 、 Wu 等 [11] 、 Zhao 等 [12] 、 Zhang [13] 、 Lu 等 [14] 、 Gu 等 [15] 、 Kong 等 [16] 、 Lyu 等 [17] 、 Zhang 等 [18] 、 Tang 等 [19] 、 Song 等 [20] 第 43 卷 第 7 期 资 源 科 学 http://www.resci.net 和萎缩家庭 6 个阶段， 其退出意愿呈现先增加后降 低再增加的 "N" 形变化趋势， 成熟核心家庭和萎缩 家庭的退地意愿是 2 个高值段 [24] 。…”

“…(2) 退出行为及影响因素。宅基地退出行为主 要取决于退出风险和收益的对比 [25] ， 生活成本增加、 生计不稳定、 财产性收入消失等是退地农户面临的 主要风险 [26,27] ， 货币及住房补偿、 就业培训及社会保 障等是退地农户的主要收益来源， 收益大于风险将 显著促进农户宅基地退出行为 [19] 。此外， 户主及其 家庭特征、 宅基地及住房状况、 农户法律和产权认 知等也是影响其退出行为的重要因素 [28,29] 。有学者 探讨农户分化对宅基地退出行为的影响， 认为非农化 程度高、 拥有城镇住房和已流转农地的农户对宅基地 的依赖程度较低， 其宅基地退出行为明显增加 [30] 。…”

“…(2) 农户发展能力变化。当前关于宅基地退出 后农户发展能力的研究较少。现有研究多从宅基 地退出后农户的经济、 社交、 风险应对和学习能力 等方面切入， 认为宅基地退出后农户家庭发展能力 是衡量宅基地退出效果的重要指标 [19] ， 但实际退地 后， 农户发展能力却有待加强 [69] 。有学者基于生态 位视角对农户宅基地退出后的家庭发展能力进行 研究， 认为退出宅基地后农户虽然获得城镇居民资 格， 但其各方面能力与城市居民仍有较大差距 [70] 。 [16] 。…”