【作者】 闵桂林；

【导师】 温锐；

【作者基本信息】 江西财经大学 ， 政治经济学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 中国是一个拥有8亿农民的农业大国,人多地少的刚性约束使“三农”问题始终成为中国经济发展中不可回避的重大问题。“三农”问题的核心乃是农民土地问题,其本质也就是农民土地产权制度问题。之所以成为核心问题,是因为它不仅关系到农村的安全与稳定,也关系到农业如何现代化及其发展问题,最根本的还是关系到农民收入增加和生活改善的问题。然而,中国农村土地产权制度虽然在整个20世纪历经了跌宕起伏的制度变迁,但是时至21世纪的今天,农地产权制度问题仍然是困扰“三农”的核心问题。农民无情地抛荒与变相抛荒土地的现象比比皆是,强制性地“规模经营”与“农地征用”要不造成农户“有地不能种”、“有人没地种”,要不引起失去土地的农民利益遭受剥夺,生活失去保障,种种问题最终导致“农民真苦,农村真穷,农业真危险”成为时代最强音。针对这些问题,学术界、政界以及其他社会团体无不给予极大的关注,纷纷呼吁只有“农地产权回归农民”才能够有效地解决困扰“三农”的系列问题,并就此从各自研究的角度出发提出具体的“农地产权回归农民”的相关改革思路与主张。这些论述似乎都有各自充分的理由,有些观点相似、相近,有些观点甚至相互对立,并以各自的观点或主张据理力争,抨击甚至否定他人的观点,那么到底孰是孰非、孰优孰劣,难以言表,其原因在于理论上难以找到系统地支持“农地产权回归农民”的立论依据,实践上难以找到“农地产权回归农民”的事实依据。因此,研究当前农地产权回归农民问题,必须搞清楚为什么农地产权要回归农民,怎样回归农民,也就是要在搞清楚农地产权回归农民的理论依据、历史依据、现实依据的基础上,找出农地产权回归农民的具体对策。缘于众多学者极力主张“农地产权应该回归农民”,而依然有学者掷地有声地抨击“凭什么把土地分给农民”,针锋相对的立场使得政府政策决策处于“进退维谷”、“踌躇不前”的状态。因此,探求“农地产权回归农民”之本质,必须从更高的理论层面或经济哲学层面追根溯源,使人们在理论认识和政策制订上形成共识。在经济哲学层面,古今中外无数思想家及学者都致力于对“农民土地财产权”的本质研究。中国传统的“民本经济”思想中无不闪烁着农地产权回归农民的思想火花,尽管历经不同历史时期的“养民”、“裕民”、“富民”、“厚民”、“惠民”、“恤民”、“教民”、“保民”等不同的思想表现形式,但是以“民生”为核心的儒家经济思想的本质始终没变。如孟子提出的“制民以恒产”,“有恒产者有恒心,无恒产者无恒心”;宋代朱熹的“有恒产者有仁心”;章太炎提出的“田不均,虽衰定赋税,民不乐其生,终之发难,有帑藏而不足以养民也”;孙中山的“耕者有其田”的主张。西方则有较为系统地关于农地产权回归农民的经济哲学思想,农地产权回归农民的前提条件是人类存在基本的社会分工(柏拉图的经济社会分工学说),社会分工之后农民之所以拥有自己的财产是因为农民施加了辛勤的劳动(洛克的劳动创造私有财产的学说),而这一切都是天赋的权利,是人的绝对的理性存在(黑格尔财产权的理性存在与人的本质说)。马克思则从辩证唯物主义与历史唯物主义的角度出发,提出“人的本质”、“人民群众是历史的主体”、“人民是历史的创造者”、“人民主权”(或者说人民当家作主)的思想以及“农民享有土地生产资料的权利”的具体主张,由此共同构成支撑农地产权回归农民的思想基础。在理论分析层面,以“经济人”的基本假设作为理论分析前提,并立足于现实“社会人”的视角进行深入剖析,充分运用交易费用理论、新制度经济学与马克思主义经济学关于制度变迁的理论进行分析;同时结合运用现代技术分析工具,如计量经济学中的频数分析、卡方检验、交叉列联表分析、Logistic回归分析,来系统科学地研究本文命题。农地产权回归农民的确有深刻的内在应然性。然而,抛除具体的时空范围条件大谈“理性化”的制度设计,必然为“无源之水”、“无本之木”,也必然沦为“柏拉图”式的理论说教。因此,农地产权回归农民首先必须立足于“历史实践”,因为几个“似是而非”的历史命题长期使人们陷入无谓的争论。其一,农民土地产权是独立存在,还是与其他土地产权制度并存;其二,历史上农民是否拥有完整的土地产权;其三,不管农地的产权归谁所有,农民对农地具有怎样的使用权力;其四,农地产权没有回归农民是否会导致历史悲剧重演。通过考察从古至今的农地产权回归农民的制度实践发现:中国农地产权制度呈现多样化的特点。从历史发展的纵向看,国家土地所有制、集体土地所有制和私人土地所有制的独立形态还没有存在,多元化并存的态势十分明显;从历史发展的横向看,有时表现为以“国家所有”为主体的两极所有制,有时表现为以“私有”为主体的两极所有制,还有时表现为国家、集体和私人共存的三极所有制。即便是太平天国所谓的“均耕”、“共享”与集体化时期的土地绝对“公有”,也不可能是现代意义上的独立的产权制度,其实质也不过是土地两极所有制的特殊表现。土地产权的国家终极所有的性质始终没有发生变化,集体共有的土地也颇为常见,土地产权私有则广为存在。由此得出农民从来没有获得完整的、独立的农地所有权,即绝对的私有制不复存在;历史上的私有一般既有以少部分“自耕农”存在的农民私有,还有以“地主、官僚”为主体的私有;但是不管是谁的“私有”,农民都是天然的农地耕作者,即使没有土地的农民也可以成为雇农或佃农;但是问题在于不同性质的土地使用权力决定了农民的收益多寡,自耕农拥有土地所有权,可以自己决定自己的命运;而雇农是受他人雇佣,佃农是要靠租种他人的土地生活,不稳定的地位决定了雇农、佃农无法保障自己对土地的使用权,只有祈求政权的恩赐与地主阶级的仁慈,所以,农民收入的获取与上层社会的索取成反比。然而,在整个以上层阶级或社会精英为主导的封建社会,地主官僚的私有常常淹没农民对土地的所有权或使用权,即农民不是苦于土地私有制,而是苦于地主官僚的私有对农民私有的剥夺;之所以导致土地兼并、农民起义及王朝更替的历史悲剧,绝不是土地农民私有所导致的,而是官僚地主土地私有侵犯农民土地私有所导致的。因此,农地产权回归农民是历史的使然,当农地产权回归农民之时,农民生活得到保障,社会就稳定;而当农民的产权利益遭到剥夺之时,历史的悲剧往往会再次重演。已步入21世纪的中国,农地产权制度依然成为困扰农村经济发展的症结所在。众多学者纷纷指出,当前农地产权制度的严重缺陷在于产权虚置,表现在:各种法律法规对农地产权主体内涵规制的不同,使农地产权主体模糊不清;农民没有所有权,仅有使用权的权利与义务不对称,使用权的债权性质以及经常性的农地调整,使农民对农地使用权的拥有具有不完整性;拥有土地使用权的农民可以流转自己的土地,但是因为农民没有土地所有权或者凌驾于农民之上的多个主体存在,美其名曰的“公共利益建设”、“规模经营或现代农业”、“开发区或工业园建设”常常成为强制性的或者非自愿的农地流转或者农地征用的借口。正因为如此,农民非但没有成为农地流转或农地征用的受益者,反而成为利益的牺牲者。然而,农地产权制度虚置到底使农民的哪些利益受到伤害,笼统的定性说明难以让人心悦诚服,以致影响农地产权制度的正确规制。因此突破现有的研究范式以便提出更具有科学性、针对性的制度规制必须细致入微地进行量化研究。通过对江西赣北3县(武宁、永修、南昌),6个乡镇(鲁溪镇、横路乡、虬津镇、艾城乡、蒋巷镇、南新乡)进行“农地产权回归农民的制度实践状况”调研发现以下几个问题。其一,农地所有权利益没有很好地惠及农民,表现在农村集体“共有”的土地产出收益、农民承包地或农村集体“共有”土地被征用后的补偿、农民承包地“产出收入”及政府“财政补贴”等方面都不同程度地存在收益流失或者严重流失。其二,农地使用权缺乏稳定性会影响农民利益最大化的实现程度,尽管样本区的农地调整频率较全国其他地方稍好,但是不稳定性的倾向性也同样影响农民对农地的长期投入,影响农民彻底进行劳动力城市化转移。其三,农地流转没有给农民带来更多的资本化收益。由于担心农地的使用权的稳定性或流转后农地经营权的稳定性(农地流转期限约定的不确定性或没有契约承诺保障),进行农地流转的农民不多,即农地流转的比例低,农地流转的对象更多地是见于本村的农地流转,农地流转的形式主要还是农户之间的农地租赁、互换,但是也存在以转包、入股等为主要形式的政府强制性的大规模的农地流转。因此,一方面农地流转程度低,“有地没人种”、“有人没地种”的现象仍然存在;一方面农民资本化收益很低,强制性流转甚至会恶化不愿转出土地的农民的生存状况。其四,农地的其他权利还没有或只是部分地赋予农民。如农民既希望拥有继承权,又希望农转非的农民或子女放弃继承权;农民没有抵押权,但农民进行土地抵押的事实已经存在,尽管发生比例很低,但是有较高比例的农民希望有农地抵押权;农民没有土地买卖权,农民在土地征用的谈判当中不可能有地位,农民的利益因此遭到剥削,农民希望有土地买卖权,但是农民不希望卖地,因为农地还是担负着农民基本的生存保障。针对如何进行制度规制以保障农地产权利益回归农民,学术界有众多学者致力于这方面研究。由于学者们各自所持的价值判断不同、各自所面对的研究对象的特殊性,使得各自提出的产权制度设置模式及其他制度建议呈现较大的差异性。尽管不同程度地都可以起到维护农民土地权益的作用,但是制度设置所存在的内在缺陷也限制了农民土地权益的充分实现。本文认为农地产权回归农民的制度取向必须赋予农民对农地的实际所有权或实际产权利益。基于这个本质精神,本文提出以下几点建议。首先,从长远来看,主张以“农民为本位”多元化分层式的复合产权制度设置,在宏观层面,国家是农地产权的终极主体,剥离集体组织对农地笼统的所有权;在中观层面,取消农地集体所有,赋予其产权管理主体身份;在微观层面,农民或农民群体是农地产权的实际主体。其次,从目前来看,由于人们存在的多种认识障碍与忧虑,以保障农地使用权稳定性的改良性政策不失为良好的选择,即确保农地使用权“物权化”方向的改革,在具体政策上注意确保农地使用权长期性、稳定性的辩证法;消除“债权”性质的合同,确立“物权”性质的合同;丰富农地使用权“物权化”的权利内涵。第三,倡导以农民为主体的农地流转是农地产权回归农民的关键。即确保农民是农地流转的主体,如农民短时期内的农地流转,只要双方愿意,私下协议、没有争执,政府及其干部就不要干预,而长期农地流转必须经农民签字方能认可,同时剥离乡(镇)政府、村集体直接参与或代理农民履行签字行为,让政府及其干部从参与利益分配人转变为农民利益的监督者、维护人;确保农地流转后农民是稳定的经营主体,如农地流转后必须保证“真正”的农民经营农地,避免“取消农户作为主体,而要以公司、企业为主体”,同时还要必须保证本地农民优先的原则,以免忽视了土地对本地农民基本“生存权”的意义;确保农地流转后农民是利益主体,如农地流转价格必须在保底的基础上随市场波动,农地流转后从事经营的农民获得经营工资,或者农地流转后的农民享有利润分红。第四,农地产权回归农民的其他制度设置。比如“征地补偿+社会保障”以保障被征地农民的合理利益得以实现;比如实行“两条腿”走路的方针,以保障与限制农民对农地发展权的政策,即对非城郊农地,政府不能干预农民如何发展农业的权利,但是如果政府以“发展规模农业”或调整“农业结构”为名,强行要求农民改变原有的发展项目,就必须有“保底收益”或失败后的“补偿收益”政策以弥补农民的利益受损;对于城郊农地,禁止农民进行非农业发展,就必须对农民放弃农地发展权进行补偿。再如,以农民组织为载体进行博弈是农地产权回归农民的重要保障机制,即确立农民组织以合法的地位,赋予农民组织征地或流转的许可权、农地“议价”权、事后的监督申诉权以提高其博弈的能力,保证农民土地产权利益不受侵害。农地产权回归农民,是千百年来广大的中国农民最高的经济要求与梦寐以求的理想,无数的能人志士无不为此进行执著的追求与探索。无数英明的封建王朝统治者也不断进行着农地产权回归农民的制度实践。历史发展的踪迹反复证明,当农地产权回归农民,农民安居乐业,社会稳定,王朝兴盛;而当农民的产权利益遭到剥夺,历史便会再次演绎农地兼并、土地集中、农民起义及王朝更替的历史逻辑。整个20世纪,共产党人从“耕者有其田”的梦想实现,到“农地集体化”的实施,再到今天“两权分离”的实践,艰难曲折的反复磨练使共产党人深深懂得:只有农地产权回归农民,困扰农村经济发展的“三农”问题才能不断地得到有效解决。而今中国政府也着力于农地产权回归农民的制度改革实践,众多的学者以及社会各界人士也致力于农地产权回归农民的制度探索,开放的学术研究,大胆的实践探索,政学两界互动,相信在理论与实践不断交融的基础上,我们将会提炼出更具有科学性、前瞻性、针对性的农地产权回归农民的制度设计。更多还原

【Abstract】 China is a large agricultural nation with 900 million farmers, the rigid restraint with more people and little land has always become an unable to avoid and significant issue throughout the Chinese economic development. The core question of "three agriculture" is the farmer land question, its essence is also the farmer land property system question, it not only relates the countryside the security and stable, also how relates the agricultural modernization and the development question, what is most basic is relates the farmers’ income to increase with the life improvement question. However, Chinese countryside land property system, although has had been through the ups and downs of the system changes, until the 21st century’s today, the farmland property system question still became the core question of puzzling "three agriculture". Farmers relentless abandoned land, "the large-scale management" and Land expropriation with compulsory, causes the peasant have land or have people, but both cannot plant; the farmer benefit suffer eliminates, the life loses the safeguard, all sorts of questions initiate the strongest voice with "the farmer finally really painstakingly, the countryside is really poor, the agriculture is really dangerous" at present. In view of these questions, the academic circle, the political circle as well as other social group gives the enormous attention, appeals to only when "the farmland property right to return the farmer" can solve effectively the series question with the puzzle "three agriculture", and proposed reform ideas and position. The elaboration as if has respectively the full reason, some viewpoints are similar, are close, and even mutually oppose, and argues strongly based on reason by the respective viewpoint or the position, the attack even denies other people’s viewpoint, then which is right and which is wrong, which one is good and which one is bad, its reason lay in found the fact support "the farmland property right returned the farmer". Only making clear the theoretical basis, historical basis, the reality basis, the farmland property right to return farmer’s concrete countermeasure will be discovered.The numerous scholars hold that "the farmland property right should return the farmer", but still the scholars to throw the sound attack "why to apportion the land the farmer". The standpoint with sharp opposition causes the government policy decision-making being in the condition of "dilemma" and "hesitates". Therefore, seeking the essence of "the farmland property right to return the farmer", must get to the bottom from the higher theory stratification plane or the economic philosophy stratification plane, and causes the people reaches the consensus in the theory knowing and policy making. In the economic philosophy stratification plane, the innumerable thinkers and the scholars are committed to the essence studies of "the farmer land property rights". Chinese tradition economic thought glitters the farmland property right to return farmer’s thought spark all, in spite of different historical periods, with "the caring for the people", "enriching the people", "guaranteeing the people" and et cetera, has not changed the essence of Confucian economic thought with humanist. Mencius proposed that has the property to have the perseverance; ZhuXi thought that "has the property to have the kind-heartedness"; Sun Yat-Sen advocated that "the cultivator has its field". The west has the economic philosophy thought about the farmland property right with systematically. The basic social division of labor is the prerequisite of what the farmland property right returns farmer (Plato); the reason that the farmer has own property is because the farmer has exerted the industrious work (John Locke); all these are the talent rights and person’s absolute rational existence (Hegel). Marx from the dialectical materialism and historical materialism’s angle embarking, proposed "person’s essence", "people are the historical main body", "the people are the historical inventor", "people’s sovereignty thought", and "the farmer enjoys the land producer goods right". These become the ideological foundation of what support farmland property right to return farmer. In theory tool surface, the basic supposition with "economic man" is a premise of the theoretical analysis, and carries on the thorough analysis with the angle of "the social person", fully using the transaction cost theory, the new system economic and the Marxism economic , Simultaneously, making use of modern technology tool, for example, frequency analysis, the card side examination, the overlapping contingency table analysis, the factorial analysis, and the Logistic regression analysis, in order to support the research proposition about article with systematically and scientifically.The returning farmland property right to farmer really has profoundly intrinsic regularity. However, talking system design with "the rationalization", is inevitably "the water without a source", and "the wood without roots", and also degenerating into "Plato theory rigid theorizing" by eliminating the condition of concrete space and time scope. Therefore, the farmland property right returning to farmer is firstly based on "the historical practice". Several historical proposition with "specious" puzzles the people frequently, and causes the people to fall into the senseless argument for a long time. First, the farmer land property right is the independent existence, or coexisting; Second, farmer is whether to have the complete land property right in history; Third, no matter who the farmland property right does turn over to possess, the farmer does have the natural right of use; Fourth, the farmland property right has not returned the farmer whether to cause the historical tragedy to repeat. In view of these questions, this article inspected the practice of the farmland property system from ancient times to till now, and discover that the Chinese farmland property system presents the characteristic with diverse. Longitudinal looked from the historical development, the independent shape has not existed in the country land ownership, the collective land ownership and the personal land ownership, and the multiplex coexisting situation is very obvious. Crosswise looked from the historical development, sometimes displays for the two-pole ownership of taking "the country all" or "private" as the main body; but also sometimes displays for third-level system of ownership with the coexistence of national, collective and the personal. Even the "average cultivation" and "enjoys together" of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, and the "absolute public" of the collectivization is also the special performance with the two-pole system of ownership at essence. The national ultimate ownership has not changed throughout, the collective altogether is also quite common, the land property right private widely exists. Farmer does not obtain completely, independent property right, the absolute private ownership does not exist; the farmers have the natural land employment right. However, the private of landlord and bureaucrat often submerges the land property rights or the right of use of the farmer’s land at the feudal society leading by the upper class and the social outstanding people. Namely the farmer does not suffer from the system of private ownership of land, but suffers from the landlord and bureaucrat private eliminating to farmer private; The reason that causes the annexation, the peasant uprising and the historical tragedy of the dynasty change, is not farmer private, but is the bureaucratic and landlord land private, which infringement farmer land private. Therefore, the returning farmland property right to farmer is historical logic. when the farmland property right returns the fanner, the farmer life may obtains the safeguard, the society is stable; but when farmer’s property right benefit encounters harm, the historical tragedy once more will often repeat.Marched into the 21st century’s China, the farmland property system still becomes the fundamental question of puzzling the rural economic development. The numerous scholars pointed out that the serious defect of current farmland property system lies in empty set of the property right. For example, each kind of laws and regulations to the main body of farmland property has different connotation, cause the farmland property right main body to be slurred; The farmer does not have the property rights, the only right of use’s rights and obligations is asymmetrical, the right of use with creditor’s rights nature and the regular farmland adjustment enables the farmer to have incomplete property; the farmer may past own land, but because the farmer does not have the land ownership, there are many excuses of compulsory or the non-voluntary farmland circulation or the farmland taking over for use. Because of this, the farmer does not enjoy the benefit, but causes farmer’s to receive the injury at the farmland circulation or the farmland requisition. However, which benefits does the farmland property system empty set causes farmer’s to receive the injury, general qualitative showing lets the human feel a heartfelt admiration with difficulty, so that influence the rules and regulations of farmland property system with correct. Therefore breaking through the existing research model, will be conduct the quantification research in order to propose the rules and regulations with scientific and the pointed system. By carrying investigation on Jiangxi 3 counties (Wuning, Yongxiu, Nanchang), 6 villages and towns (LuXi, Henglu, Qiujin, Aicheng, Jiangxiang, Naxin), and discover: First, the benefit Of farmland property rights hasn’t touched to the farmer; Second, the deficient stability in right of use affects the farmer to realize benefit maximization. Although the frequency adjustment in the sample area is fairly better to other places, but unstable tendentiousness similarly also affect the farmer’s long-term investment, and affect the farmer to carry on the urbanized labor force shift thoroughly; Third, the farmland circulation has not brought the more capitalization incomes to the farmer. Because of worrying the stability at farmland right of use or the right of management, the farmer do not want to carries on the farmland circulation, namely the farmland circulation’s proportion is low, the farmland circulation’s object is more in this village, and the farmland circulation’s types are rents, the exchange, other subcontracts, joint stock system. Some farmland circulation with large-scale is the government compulsory circulation particularly. Namely, the farmer doesn’t want to exit the land. Therefore, on the one hand, the farmland circulation’s degree is low; on the other hand, the farmer capitalization income was very low, the compulsory circulation will even worsen farmer’s survival condition. Fourth, the other rights of farmland did not have or only partial allocate for the farmer. The farmer hopes to have the right of inheritance, and to give up the right of inheritance to urbanization’s farmer or the children; The farmer does not have the mortgage, but the farmer has already carried on the land mortgage, although the proportion is very low, the high proportion farmer hope them have the farmland mortgage; The farmer does not have the land business power, but the farmer hoped that has the power of the land to buy and sell, and the fanner does not hope to sell, because the farmland is shouldering farmer’s basic survival safeguard.The academic circle has the numerous scholars to devote in that how to carry on the system rules and regulations to safeguard the farmland property right benefit. Because each one holds the different on the value judgment and the particularity of study’s object, there is the big difference in property system and property pattern. Although different degree of all may play the role in maintaining the farmer land rights and interests, what the system establishment exists the intrinsic flaw has also limited full realization in farmer land rights and interests. Therefore, based on the analysis and comparison of various system design is proposed, based on the specific "farmland property rights system of peasant" regression suggested. Therefore, this article proposed more concrete system suggestions in returning the farmland property right to the fanner, based on the analysis contrasts. First, in the long run, advocating in composite property rights system with hierarchical and diversified, that is to say, what entrusts the fanner with the farmland actual property rights is the farmland property system’s fundamental transformation. Namely, at the macro-level, the country is the ultimate main body of farmland property rights, and peel general property rights of collective organization; In the medium level, cancel its collective property rights, entrust main body status with its property right management; In micro-level farmers or farmer group is the actual main farmland property rights. Secondly, attributing to understanding barriers and the anxiety in the people mind, the benign policy which ensure the stability of farmland use is a good choice, namely, to ensure "the real right" direction of farmland use. In specific policy, pays attention in guaranteeing the long-term characteristic and the stable diagnostic method at farmland right of use; eliminates the contract with "the creditor’s rights", establish the contract with "the real right"; enrich connotation of "the real right" right in farmland right of use. The key of returning farmland property right to farmer is land transfer which takes the farmer as the main body. That is, to ensure that farmers are the main body of farmland transfer. As long as both sides are willing, the government and the cadres should refrain from interfering in short period farmland transfer; but the long-term farmland transfer, must be approved by the signature of farmers, simultaneously peels the government and the village collective to participate directly or acts the fanner to fulfill the signature behavior, lets the government and the cadre transform the benefit assignment into the supervisor and maintenance person of the farmer benefit. To ensure that farmer is the stable management main body. After the land transfer, must guarantee the "true" farmer manages the farmland, avoids "the abolition of farmers as the main, but to companies and enterprises as the mainstay", and also must ensure the principle of giving priority to local farmers in order to avoid the neglect of the subsistence right to local farmers. To ensure that the farmer is the benefit main body, such as the farmer obtains the management wages and enjoy the profit to draw bonus after farmland circulation. Fourth, there is the other system establishment in the farmland property right returning to farmer. Such as, "land levying compensation + social security" to guarantee the legitimate interests of the farmer’s land to realize; "two legs" walk to safeguards and limits the farmer to the farmland right to development; Carry on gambling by taking the peasant organization as the carrier is an important safeguard mechanism of the returning the farmland property right to farmers.The returning farmland property rights to farmer, is the highest economy request and dream of the masses of Chinese farmers for centuries, the innumerable capable person has carried on the rigid pursue and the exploration all for this reason. The countless wise ruler of the feudal dynasty also unceasingly carries on the farmland property right to return farmer’s system practice. Historical practice proved repeatedly, when the farmland property right return farmer, the farmer enjoys a good and prosperous life, the social stability, the dynasty is prosperous; But when farmer’s property right benefit encounters eliminates, the history will then deduct the farmland annexation, the land centralism, the peasant uprising and dynasty changing. Throughout the 20th century, the Communist had carried on the practice from "having its field for the cultivator", "the implementation of farmland collectivization", to today "the farmland practice of two power separations", difficult disciplines repeatedly again causes the Communist to understand deeply: only the farmland property right return farmer, the "three agriculture" question of puzzling on rural economic development will be able to obtain the fundamental solution unceasingly. Now, the Chinese government has focused on the reform practice for farmland property rights returning farmers. The numerous scholars and social circles also committed to return farmland property rights for farmers. Open academic research, bold practice explorations, joint effort of academic circle and political circle diligent, we believe that at the foundation of theory and practice blend, we will refine the scientific , foresighted, the pointed system for returning farmland property right to farmers.更多还原