【作者】 刘小红；

【导师】 郭忠兴；

【作者基本信息】 南京农业大学 ， 土地资源管理， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 农地产权关系是权利主体围绕农地形成的人与人之间的财产权利关系,包括国家、地方政府、农民集体、农民个人等权利主体之间形成的财产权利关系。其中,农村集体内农民集体和农民个人之间的农地权利关系是整个农地产权关系的基础。农地产权结构和农地产权关系共同构成了农地产权制度。农地产权结构决定农地产权关系,一定的产权结构必然形成一定的农地利益分配格局,这种利益分配格局最终反映为行为主体间的经济利益关系。建国以来,我国农地产权制度的数次变更,其实质均是对产权主体之间的农地产权关系的调整,其核心是农地所有权和农地使用权在农民集体和农民个人之间的配置关系。在20世纪70年代,家庭联产承包责任制实施之后,中国农地产权制度的基本框架稳定在农地集体所有、农户承包经营的产权结构上。然而,在家庭联产承包责任制的制度框架下,农民集体和农民个人之间的产权关系长期模糊不清。现实中很难对如下问题做出明确回答：在现行制度下,农民集体和农民个人各自拥有哪些土地权利?农民集体和农民个人如何分享土地利益?农民集体和农民个人的农地权利如何实现?这些问题都无一例外地涉及到农地产权的基础架构问题。由于理论上未能对上述问题做出明确的解释,由此导致产权制度改革在触及到农村集体内部的权利关系时都显得十分乏力。本研究以“产权结构——产权关系——制度创新”为主线,构建了分析农村集体内部的农地权利关系的分析框架,深入分析了农村集体内农民集体和农民个人之间的农地产权关系。一定的农地产权结构必然形成一定的农地利益分配格局,这种利益分配格局最终反映为权利主体间的农地产权关系。农村集体内部的农地产权结构不仅要考虑集体所有权、农地承包经营权等正式制度,而且要考虑以非正式制度存在的成员权,三者均在农民集体和农民个人之间的农地产权关系发挥重要作用。本研究,首先在理论上深入分析农村集体内部的农地产权结构及其存在的缺陷,从权利属性、权利客体、权利主体、权利内容等几个方面对农民集体和农民个人之间的农地产权关系进行了系统分析,指出了农村集体内农民集体和农民个人之间的农地权利冲突的原因；然后,结合“征地补偿费在农村集体内部的分配”以及“农地股份合作社”两个案例对农村集体内农民集体和农民个人之间的农地产权关系进行了实证分析；最后,基于理论分析和实证分析提出了本研究的农地产权制度创新设计。本研究的主要研究结论如下：(1)实行家庭联产承包责任制以来,农民个人的农地权利逐渐趋于完整化和完全化,农民集体的农地权利减弱,并且农民个人对农民集体的农地权利的约束性增强。建国以来,农地产权制度围绕农民集体和农民个人之间的农地权利配置进行调整,先后经历了“私有私用”、“私有共用”、“共有共用”、“共有私用”等四个阶段。农民个人和农民集体间的农地权利配置演变脉络如下：农地所有权从农民个人所有权到以农民个人为成员的农民集体所有权；农地使用权从农民个人使用到集体统一使用,再到恢复农民个人使用并且使用权逐渐得以强化；农民个人的农地收益权失而复得,且逐渐完全化,农民集体的收益逐渐减少；农民个人的农地处分权也从严格限制到逐步放松。在实行家庭联产承包责任制以后,农民个人的农地权利逐渐趋于完整化和完全化,并且农民个人对农民集体的农地权利的约束性增强,农民集体的农地权利减弱。未来农地产权制度改革的方向应当是在坚持农地集体所有权性质不变的前提下,赋予农民个人更完整的农地使用、收益和处分权,同时完善农地集体所有权,使其真正发挥所有权的功能。(2)农村集体内部的产权结构在权利性质、权利主体、权利内容上均存在一定的缺陷。农村集体内部的产权结构存在以下缺陷：在权利性质方面,农民集体所有权的权利性质模糊；在权利主体方面,农民集体所有权的权利主体缺位,农民集体成员的范围难以界定；在权利内容方面,农民集体所有权的权能不完全,承包经营权的权能结构不完善,同时,农民集体和农民个人之间的权能界限不清,收益分配机制不合理。农地产权结构是农地产权关系的基础。残缺的产权结构必然会影响产权关系的明晰和稳定。(3)成员权在农地产权结构中占据重要地位。在农地集体所有、家庭承包经营的产权结构基础上,成员权在我国农村社会具有很强的理论基础和实践基础。农地集体所有权实质上是一定社区范围内的成员对于该社区内的农地的一种不可分割的共同共有形式的所有权。但是,成员权这一非正式制度长期以来都被排除在农地产权正式制度之外,未得到应有的重视。家庭联产承包责任制均分土地以来,“人人平均”的思想在农村社会根深蒂固。实践中,成员权在征地补偿费的分配、农地调整、农地股份合作社的经营中,均有体现,是一种长期存在且有效的非正式制度。成员权在农地产权结构中占据重要地位。(4)农地权利的相互性和模糊性是农民集体和农民个人间农地权利冲突的主要原因。农地权利冲突的实质是各个权利主体之间的农地利益冲突。农民集体和农民个人之间的权利冲突主要表现在集体所有权和农地承包经营权之间的权利冲突,以及成员权与集体所有权之间的权利冲突。权利冲突是由于权利的相互性和权利边界的模糊性而产生的两个或两个以上主体间的权利矛盾关系或者因行使权利导致他人受害的行为。通过对农地权利关系从权利属性、权利客体、权利主体、权利内容等四个方面的系统分析,表明农民集体和农民个人之间的农地权利在权利属性上存在派生、相互限制的关系；农地权利关系的客体具有稀缺性、多功能性和外部性；农地权利关系的主体具有多元性和身份的多重性；农地权利关系的内容则具有可分性、派生性和重组性。以上因素共同导致了农地权利的相互性和模糊性。农地权利关系存在的相互性和模糊性,是农村集体内部的农民集体与农民个人之间的农地权利冲突的主要原因。(5)成员权制度的建设和农地承包经营权股权化是农地产权制度创新的优选路径。农地产权改革的路径在于成员权的设立和农地承包经营权的股权化。农地产权制度改革的实质是调整农地产权在不同利益主体之间的分配。成员权的设立可以使农民在农民集体中的地位得到重视,显化其作为农民集体成员的一份子的农地所有权权益。农地承包经营权的股份化在保持农地实物形态不变的基础上,将农地集体所有权量化到个人,农民个人获得更多收益的同时,农民集体亦可获得集体土地所有权部分的收益,使农村集体经济得以发展和壮大。以上两种方式相结合,不仅化解了农村集体内部的农地权利冲突,明晰了农村集体内部的农地产权关系,而且保障了农民集体和农民个人的农地权益,使得农地集体所有权得以实现,是当前农地产权制度改革的优选路径。更多还原

【Abstract】 Farmland property rights relationship refer to the property right relation formed around the farmland between the state, local government, including the collective, individual farmers and other property rights subjects. Among them, the property right relation between the farmer collective and individual farmers within rural collective is the foundation of farmland property rights relationship.Farmland property right structure and farmland property right relations combined constituted farmland property right system. The farmland property construction determines the farmland property relationship.After the founding of China to the reform and opening up, the farmland property right system had undergone several changes. The core of all farmland institution changes was revolved around the relationship between the ownership and the use right of the farmland. In the 1970s, after the implementation of the household contract responsibility system, the farmland institution in rural China come to the structural changes as the main content of farmland property rights reform. After the founding of the household contracted responsibility system, the farmland institution had stabled on the collective ownership of agricultural land and the right to land contractual management as the basic framework.However, under the framework of the present farmland property right structure, the property right relationship between the collective and its farmers is unclear and the interest distribution pattern is diversified and uncertainty. The distribution of benefits between the collective and its farmers is uncertainty. Under the current system, there was no clear answers to the following questions:What farmland property rights do the farmers and the collective have? How do they share the interest of the farmland? How does the he right of the collective ownership realized? All these questions related to the infrastructure of the farmland institution. Due to fail to giving clear response to these questions, which led to the result that whatever property rights reform of the farmland is extremely weak when touches on the internal rights relationship of rural collective.In this paper, the author make the "property structure—property relationship—the institution innovation" as the main line of the study and constructed the analysis framework of the property relationship between the collective and its farmer. According to the theory of property rights, certain farmland property right structure inevitable formed certain farmland interest distribution patterns which reflect the economic relationship between the behaviors ultimately. The property right system including the right owned by different right subjects refer to particular object, and the economical relationship between the property right subjects. The nature of the innovation of property system is the adjustment of the distribution of the farmland interest.The study analyses the farmland property system from two aspects including the farmland property right structure and the farmland property right relationship, and points out the problems of the property relationship between the collective and its farmer, and figure out the innovation path of the property rights system. Therefore, it is undoubtedly that the study of the basic questions of the farmland property system will have theoretical significance and practical significance to the farmland property system reform in future.The main conclusions are as follows:(1) The farmer’s right for farmland were gradually completed and integrated. Since the founding of New China, the farmland property rights system can be divided into four stages:the private ownership, private ownership with community use, community ownership as well as the community ownership with private use. The distribution of the farmland property rights between the collective and its members is an important part of the farmland institution arrangements. We analyze the changes of the farmland property distribution between the collective and its farms from the four aspects which including the ownership, use, benefits and the transaction for farmland. The results show that the farmland ownership changed form the owned by individual farmers to owned by the collective while taking the farmer as the center; the farmland use rights changed from personal use to the collective use, then the farmers’use right been restored and enhanced; and the farmers’ right to benefit had been returned totally to the farmers; while the farmers’transaction right for farmland had been gradual relaxed from the strict restrictions, and accordingly the collective’s transaction right for farmland had been restricted by farmers. The authors finally figure out that the future direction for farmland property system reform should adhere to the collective ownership, giving the farmer more independent property in farmland using, beneficiary and transaction rights, and the farmers’right for farmland should be gradually completed and integrated.(2) There are some shortcomings of rural collective internal structure in the right nature, right subject, the right content.There are some shortcomings of rural collective internal structure in the right nature, right subject, and the right content. For the nature of the right, the nature of the collective ownership is fuzzy. For the subject of right, the subject of the ownership is absent and the collective farmers’range is undefined. For the content of the right, the entitlement of the collective ownership is incomplete and the structure of the contracted management right is imperfect. Also, the entitlement boundaries between the collective and its farmers are vague and the interest distribution mechanism is not reasonable. The farmland property right structure is the basis of farmland property right relationship. The incomplete property right structure will affect the clarity and stability of the property right relationship.(3) The collective land ownership, the right to land contractual management and the membership jointly composed the farmland property right system.The essence of the collective land ownership is a kind of indivisible joint ownership to the member of the collective in a certain community. The membership right was reflected in the distribution of the land compensation and the land adjustment. The membership right is an informal but effective rule which is a crucial point rather an evitable problem for farmland property reform in rural China. For a long time, the membership relationship which did not get the attention it deserved was excluded out the formal rules. In fact, the collective land ownership, the right to land contractual management and the membership jointly composed the farmland property right system.(4)The property right mutuality and the property right fuzziness are the main reason of the farmland property right conflict.The essence of the farmland property right conflict is the economical benefit conflict between the property right subjects. Because of the unanimous judgment to the boundaries of right, there would produce conflict when the right subjects exercise their own right. From the aspects of the law and economic theory, the author analyzes the farmland property rights relationship deeply from three aspects including the object, the subject of rights and the content of rights relationship. First, the paper pointed out that the object of farmland rights relationship are scarce, versatility, and externalities. Secondly, the characteristic of the subject of farmland right relationship are diversity and multiplicity of identities. Thirdly, the contents of farmland right relationship can be dividable, derivative and restructured. Finally, the author concluded that the roots of farmland property rights conflicts are due to the mutuality and fuzziness of farmland rights.(5) The path of the farmland property rights reform is the establishment of the membership right and operation the farmland rights of contract to the share.The substance of the farmland property reform is to adjust the property rights in farmland distributed among the different stakeholders. For the right conflict existed in the current farmland property system, the membership right should be set up to make the the right of collective farmers seriously and the farmers can got the benefit because of being the members of the collective. The operation of the farmland contracted management right to the share can make the exchange value of the right to full play. Combination of these two ways, not only to resolve the conflict within the rural collective and clarity the property relationship within the rural collective, but also protect the farmland benefit of the collective and individual farmers, which is preferred path to the current reform of property rights of farmland.更多还原