农地产权制度的经济社会学分析

【作者】 臧得顺；

【导师】 李培林；

【作者基本信息】 中国社会科学院研究生院 ， 社会学， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 将农地产权制度问题置于中国经济改革的进程之中进行经济社会学考察,是本研究的基本思路和研究视角。在城市国有企业改革取得阶段性成果后,始于农村的中国经济改革,必将深化于下一步的农村经济社会改革中。农地产权制度作为“三农问题”的核心,对其进行系统探讨将有助于正在进行的新农村建设和下一步的农村改革。而现有的理论困境是:经济学和法学的“产权是一束权利”命题好似一种真空中的“理想类型”,在农地产权制度问题上解释乏力。运用经济社会学“产权是一束关系”命题对农地产权制度在真实世界中的配置进行研究是改革实践对理论创新的一种迫切要求。本研究始终围绕“市场进程中社会结构性要素如何界定农地产权”这一核心问题进行探讨,尝试提出了“关系地权”、“谋利型乡村精英”、小农的“钟摆式理性区间”和“培育社会型政府”(针对奥尔森的“强化市场型政府”概念)等新概念,以期对经济学和法学的“权利产权”理论在农地产权问题上进行补充甚或是替代解释。从结构上讲,本研究共有导论、结论和六章内容:导论部分,提出问题并交代研究的价值与意义、研究视角、方法与资料来源,并简单介绍了实地调查的个案村落——鲁、鄂四村及其所在县、镇的基本情况;第一章为理论分析,主要对以往关于产权制度的经济学视角和法学视角的研究文献做了综述并指出其不足,然后梳理了社会学视角的研究观点,明确了本研究的学术起点为周雪光的“关系产权”命题,提出本研究“关系地权”的核心概念,区分了“关系地权”的四种类型和四种原则,并给出了本研究的分析框架,在此基础上提出本研究的基本命题、四个分命题和另一核心概念“谋利型乡村精英”;第二章是历史分析,对晚清以降的中国农地制度从思想小史和制度小史的层面进行了历时意义上的追溯,从孙中山的土地思想一直到当代中国《物权法》的颁布;第三到六章为个案研究和实证分析,就笔者的实地调查资料分臧村、金村、朴村和桥村四章整理分析了18个具体的农地事件案例,针对前面的理论命题进行经验验证;其中,在对核心概念“谋利型乡村精英”的分析中,四个案例村材料各自具有不同的侧重点:由第三章臧村案例引出“谋利型乡村精英”,由第四章金村的材料探讨“谋利型乡村精英”群体的分化由来,由第五章朴村案例重点分析“谋利型乡村精英”群体谋利的高明手段,由第六章桥村案例与第五章朴村案例比较分析影响其谋利程度的因素等。最后指出“谋利型乡村精英”群体作为新时期乡村社会结构的实体要素之一对当代中国以“家庭承包责任制”为主体、以“均等原则”为特征的地权分配方式的扭曲和变形作用。最后为研究结论和政策建议,简短地对个案研究进行了理论总结,梳理了“谋利型乡村精英”概念的两条理论线索:第一条是共时意义上各相关利益主体的行为特征分析,如国家“政府集权和行政分权”(托克维尔)、“地方政府公司化”(戴慕珍和华尔德)、“乡村精英谋利化”、“小农的理性”(斯科特和波普金、舒尔茨);第二条是历时意义上从对中国传统社会乡村精英群体功能进行概括的“士绅理论”(吴晗、费孝通、张仲礼)到中国近代社会的“地方精英理论”(黄宗智、杜赞奇)。本研究就是从这两条线索上进行了理论补充和延伸,提出新时期“谋利型乡村精英”的概念,进而探讨了本个案研究的典型意义;并指出本研究的不足之处和以后进一步研究的着力点,最后就农地产权的制度设计为政府决策提出“削弱行政村农地权力”的政策建议。更多还原

【Abstract】 The basic idea and perspective of this study are putting the problem of rural land property rights into the process of China’s economic reform and analyzing it using an Economic Sociological visual Angle.China’s economic reform had started from rural area and made progresses in the phrasal sense in the reform of state-owned enterprises. And it will be deepened without doubt in the rural areas again. For the farmland property rights is the core of the issues concerning agriculture, countryside and farmers. So systematically studying it will contribute to the New Rural Construction and next economic reform in rural China. And yet, there are many predicaments in the academic fields: the economic and legal proposition that“property rights are a bundle of rights”is just like a sort of ideal type existing in the vacuum. And it can’t satisfy the need of the real life relating to the problem of rural land property rights. So the reality asks us to make a theory innovation to using the Economic Sociological proposition that“property rights are a bundle of relationships”to study it. This dissertation focus the key problem that“how the social structural elements define the rural land property rights during the market process”. In this dissertation, the author creates four new concepts: rural land property rights as a bundle of relationships, Profit-based Rural Elites, Pendulum-type Rational Interval, and Community-fostering Government (contrast with Olson’s Market-augmenting Government).Structurally speaking, this dissertation consists of eight parts. They are Introduction, Chapter1-6, and Conclusion.In the Introduction, the author brings forward the key academic problem which he will work over. And the author brings forth the value, the angle of view, the method and the material source of this study. In addition, the author makes a brief description of the county and the town which the four villages belong to of his field research.In Chapter1, the author mainly makes a theoretical analysis. The author summarizes the Economic and Legal literature on property rights pointing out their shortcomings. Then he elaborates on the Economic Sociological literature. After this groundwork, the author brings forward the new concepts rural land property rights as a bundle of relationships and Profit-based Rural Elites. In this part, the author also puts forward his analyzing frame and his fundamental proposition with four sub-propositions.In Chapter2, the author mainly makes a historical analysis. The author ascends to a former century on the literature about the land tenure of China from the idealistic and the institutional dimensions.From Chapter3 to Chapter6, it is mostly the case study and the positivistic analysis. Through tidying up the material of his field research from the Zang Village, the Jin Village, the Pu Village and the Qiao Village, the author recites 18 cases on the rural land tenure. Encircling the core concept to describe the new group Profit-based rural Elites, the cases from the Zang Village fetch it out, the cases from the Jin Village testify its origin, the cases from the Pu Village unfurl its profit-seeking means, and the cases from the Qiao Village disclose the factors which will affect the extent of their profit-seeking. At last, the author makes a conclusion: The new group of Profit-based rural Elites is one of the social structural elements. It distorts the distribution of the rural land whose dominant form is the Household Contract Responsibility System in contemporary China.In the last part, the author draws a conclusion and brings forward some policy proposals. Moreover, in order to look for the academic roots of the concept Profit-based rural Elites, the author outlines two theoretical clues. One clue is synchronic analysis, from Tocqueville’s theory of Governmental Unitarianism and Administrative Decentralization to Jean Oi and Andew Walder’theory of Local State Corpratism, even to James Scott’s Moral Economy and Popkin’s Rational Peasant theory. And the other is diachronic analysis, from Fei Hsiao-T’Ung and Chang Chung-li’s Chinese Gentry to Huang Philip and Prasenjit Duara’s Rural Elites theory. Just based on these two theoretical clues, the author puts forward the concept Profit-based rural Elites trying to perfect the clues. Additionally, the author figures out the shortage of this study. Finally, the author gives some policy proposals. One most urgent suggestion is to weaken the power of the administrative village on the rural land.更多还原