【作者】 崔宝敏；

【导师】 周冰；

【作者基本信息】 南开大学 ， 政治经济学， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 产权是一国经济体系内财产所有制关系的表现形式,是巩固财产关系、约束经济主体行为的一系列制度安排。产权主体、产权客体和主体对客体拥有的各项权利束构成产权的三个基本要素。在有关我国农村土地产权制度的理论研究中,对土地本身作为静态的、被动的产权客体的研究都是附着在产权各项权能结构中,较多的文献都是从土地产权结构及其权利的配置方面研究我国土地产权制度,而对产权主体这一最具能动性的产权要素的研究大部分都是割裂的、分散的,单独研究某一个或二个土地产权主体都会影响分析结论的全面性和准确性。由此,本文构建了一个多元农地产权主体的分析框架,以多元产权主体实际拥有的土地权利以及各主体间权利的重叠和冲突为分析的主要内容,用实证的方法来揭示我国农村土地集体所有制的性质。产权制度的核心是排他性,也就是行为主体的权责利的独立。而我国农地产权的特点是多元的行为主体都对农地拥有一定的权利,多元主体在农地上的权利彼此重叠和相互冲突。具体说有四个不同的产权主体：国家、农民集体、集体代理人和个体农户。国家在农地上的利益,一是保证获得一定量的农产品,特别是保证国家粮食供给安全；二是从农户手里低价获得国家经济发展、工业化和城市化所需的土地资源。国家的权利是通过土地管理法和土地利用总体规划等法律和行政条例的规定、直接的行政强制等方式实现的。在国家利益的实现过程中,农民没有抵制和讨价还价的权利和能力。农民集体是由法律规定的我国农村土地所有权的主体,它是在历史上的血缘、宗族和自然村社的传统基础上,经过建国以来历次土地制度变革而形成的农村社会经济政治生活的基层单位,但是其法律地位既不明确,也不统一,特别是由于缺乏实际的执行能力和土地承包权使用权在农户手里,集体产权是弱化和虚化的。村委会或集体经济组织虽然在法律上并不是集体所有权的主体,但是却作为集体产权的执行主体在事实上掌握了集体所有权。农户一方面作为集体成员是集体土地的所有者,但是作为个体又不能单独行使集体的所有权,另一方面以集体成员的资格拥有土地承包权和使用权。多元产权主体规定之间的权利重叠和冲突构成了我国农村土地产权制度中的主要矛盾。因此,我国农村土地产权制度是一种与市场经济完全不同的前现代的产权制度,这也是它不可能长期稳定地持续下去,而需要改革和调整的原因。由于研究者普遍从“集体所有制”这一法律规定出发,没有认识到我国农地产权实际上具有多元主体,因而也就不能理解农村土地集体所有制的真实性质,农地产权制度研究中的混乱的原因也在于此。本文研究的意义主要就是揭示出了这一问题。本文的研究结论显示,我国农地多元产权主体矛盾的根源在于,市场经济快速发展所引起的土地社会保障功能与生产功能转换过程中,通过国家权力强制性地改变土地产权结构配置,而不是土地产权自由、自愿、公平流动的结果。因此,我国农地产权的性质是一种传统社会经济中的、即前现代的、非市场经济的产权制度。它一方面很大程度上还反映着传统社会和自然经济的人身依附条件下的财产关系,另一方面又带有强烈的行政命令属性。这种前现代的土地产权制度性质与现代的市场经济要求之间的不适应,决定了必须继续调整和改革。更多还原

【Abstract】 Property rights is the form of property ownership within a country’s economy, it is a series of institutional arrangements to consolidate property relationship and to constraint the behavior of economic agents. The three basic elements of property rights are the property rights subject, the property rights object and the bundle of rights subjects have. In the theoretical study of rural land ownership in China, the research of land itself as a static, passive object of property rights was attached to the structure of property rights. Many documents of land property rights system in Chin were from the resource allocation angle of property rights structure. Otherwise the study of property rights’subject that was the most dynamic element was mostly fragmented and scattered. The conclusions weren’t comprehensive and accuracy to study one or two land property subjects separately. Thus, we constructed a framework of multiple property rights subjects with the rural land, meanwhile with the main content of the property rights owned by several subjects and the conflict or overlap between them, thereby to reveal the nature of rural land collective ownership using empirical methods.Exclusiveness is the core of property rights system, which means the consistence among rights, responsibilities and obligations. The features of Chinese rural land ownership were characterized by multiple subjects that everyone had certain rights, and the rights multi-subjects had was overlapped and conflicted mutually. Specifically, there are four different property rights subjects:the country, the collective of peasant, the collective agents and individual households. The interests of country in agricultural land was shown from two aspects:on the one hand, the country guaranteed a certain amount of agricultural products, especially ensuring the safety of food supply; on the other hand, the country got the land resources from farmers with low-cost for the economic development, industrialization and urbanization. The rights of country was achieved by administrative meditation directly and other law which was formulated through the "land management law" and land use plan. In the realization of national interests, the farmers had not the abilities of resisting and bargaining. The collective of peasants was the legal property rights subject. Its rights could be traced from the history of lineage, clan and traditional villages. The collective of peasants who formed through the several land institutional change was the basic unit of rural social, economic and political life. Their legal status was neither clear nor uniform. The property rights of collective were weakness and emptiness, especially because it was short of practical implementation capacity and the households own the using rights. Despite the village committee or the collective economic organizations weren’t the legal property rights subjects, they controlled the collective property rights actually as the proxy of collective property rights. On the one hand, all the peasants owned the land as the member of collective, but as individual they could not the exercise the collective ownership separately; on the other hand, they had the using rights through the collective membership. The overlap and conflict of rights among multiple property rights subjects constituted the principal contradiction in the system of Chinese rural land property rights institution. Therefore, the system of our rural land property rights was a pre-modern property rights system which was different from market economy completely. That was why it couldn’t be last and needed to reform and adjust in long-term. The researchers studied this problem from the law of "collective ownership" generally. They didn’t recognize the multiple subjects in the Chinese rural land property rights, and therefore they could not understand the true nature of collective ownership of rural land. That was why it was chaos in the existing research. The significance of this paper was that it revealed the problem.This study concluded the main source of multi-subjects confliction in our rural land system. In the converse process of land’s security function and production function which caused by rapid market development, the structure of land property rights was changed through mandatory power of country, but not the result through free, voluntary, fair transaction. Therefore, the nature of China’s rural land property rights was a traditional, pre-modern, non-market economic system. On the one hand, it reflected the property relationship under the personal attachment condition in the traditional society and natural economy. On the other hand, it had executive order attributes strongly. There was conflict between the pre-modern nature of land property rights system and the modern market economy, which decided we had to adapt and reform.更多还原