Search results

China's population–land contradiction is a crucial issue, and by deeply analyzing causes of wasting arable land, this article recommends some policies to avoid waste.

Based on the current high-, middle- and low-class differentiation in the agricultural products' consumption structure against urban residents' rapid income growth, this article proposes that agricultural products with distinctive regional characteristics should be developed according to regional natural agricultural resources and market demand, so as to ensure that China's scarce arable land can be used effectively.

Choices in regional agricultural production relate to operational farmers' enthusiasm for profitability and production, residential farmers' ability to ensure their own food security, agriculture's sustainable development and arable land resources' optimal allocation. Therefore, the varietal structure of agricultural products and regional production layout should be compatibly decided according to consumer demand and resource endowment.

During the process of industrialization and urbanization, wasting of arable land has become a social development problem. On the basis of agriculture's regional resource endowment, this article reconstructs the functional positioning of various Chinese agricultural regions and solves the difficult problem of consumption structure transformation and homogeneous competition through the geographical division of labor, thereby optimizing allocation of arable land resources.

It was not until the late 1960s that housing attracted much attention from academic social scientists. Since that time the literature has expanded widely and diversified, establishing housing with a specialised status in economics, sociology, politics, and in related subjects. As we would expect, the new literature covers a technical, statistical, theoretical, ideological, and historical range. Housing studies have not been conceived and interpreted in a monolithic way, with generally accepted concepts and principles, or with uniformly fixed and precise methodological approaches. Instead, some studies have been derived selectively from diverse bases in conventional theories in economics or sociology, or politics. Others have their origins in less conventional social theory, including neo‐Marxist theory which has had a wider intellectual following in the modern democracies since the mid‐1970s. With all this diversity, and in a context where ideological positions compete, housing studies have consequently left in their wake some significant controversies and some gaps in evaluative perspective. In short, the new housing intellectuals have written from personal commitments to particular cognitive, theoretical, ideological, and national positions and experiences. This present piece of writing takes up the two main themes which have emerged in the recent literature. These themes are first, questions relating to building and developing housing theory, and, second, the issue of how we are to conceptualise housing and relate it to policy studies. We shall be arguing that the two themes are closely related: in order to create a useful housing theory we must have awareness and understanding of housing practice and the nature of housing.

Nobody concerned with political economy can neglect the history of economic doctrines. Structural changes in the economy and society influence economic thinking and, conversely, innovative thought structures and attitudes have almost always forced economic institutions and modes of behaviour to adjust. We learn from the history of economic doctrines how a particular theory emerged and whether, and in which environment, it could take root. We can see how a school evolves out of a common methodological perception and similar techniques of analysis, and how it has to establish itself. The interaction between unresolved problems on the one hand, and the search for better solutions or explanations on the other, leads to a change in paradigma and to the formation of new lines of reasoning. As long as the real world is subject to progress and change scientific search for explanation must out of necessity continue.

The contradiction of construction land in economically developed regions is becoming more prominent, and the scale of construction land in some large cities is close to the ceiling. Therefore, China implemented the policy of construction land reduction in 2014. The main objective is to optimize the stock of homesteads and then help to realize rural revitalization by transferring land indexes across regions. Shanghai took the lead in implementing the reduction policy in 2014, for which reduction acceptance data are available. Thus, this paper evaluates the impact of homestead reduction on rural economic development based on data from towns in Shanghai.

This paper uses the difference-in-difference (DID) model to analyze the policy effects of homestead reduction on rural residents' income and industrial integration development. Using economic agglomeration (EA) as a mediating variable, the authors explore how homestead reduction (HR) promotes EA to drive rural economic development and analyze the impact of geographic location and government investment.

HR significantly promotes rural economic development and shows a significant cumulative effect. In the long run, HR can improve rural residents' income and promote industrial integration by promoting EA. The positive effect of HR and EA in suburban regions on industrial integration development is gradually increasing. However, the incentive effect on rural residents' income is weakening. The positive mediating effect of EA is significantly higher in regions with low government investment than in regions with high government investment.

This paper contributes to testing the impact of HR policy on rural economic development and can provide a reference for other regions aiming to implement reduction policy.

The Soviet experiment on socialism provides several distinguishable politico‐economic models. Employing dialectical methodology, examines the political economy of War Communism (1917‐21) as an exemplar of the “Socialist Command Model”. Explores the economic, political and social forces that were responsible for the emergence of the model, its policies, programmes and consequences, and finally, the forces that made it obsolete for the subsequent stages of Soviet development.

The purpose of this second part of this special issue is to contribute to a better understanding of the nature of Soviet society. It is not possible to analyse such a society in all its complexities within the space of one study. There are, however, some economic relations which determine society's major features. We believe that commodity‐production relations in the Soviet Union are of this type.

As a sustainability initiative with the backing of civil society, business, or government interests, urban agriculture can drive green gentrification even when advocates of these initiatives have good intentions and are aware of their exclusionary potential for urban farmers and residents. I investigate this more general pattern with the case of how urban agriculture became used for green gentrification in Denver, Colorado. This is a city with many urban farmers that gained access to land after the Great Recession but faced the contradiction of being a force for displacement and at risk of displacement as the city adopted new sustainability and food system goals, the housing market recovered, and green gentrification spread. I argue that to understand this outcome, it is necessary to explain how political economy and cultural forces create neighborhood disinvestment and economic marginalization and compel the entrance of urban agriculture initiatives due to their low-profit mode of production and potential economic, environmental, and social benefits. Central to how urban agriculture initiatives contribute to green gentrification is the process of revalorization, which is how green growth machines repurpose such initiatives by drawing on their cultural cachet to exploit rent gaps. I conclude with a set of hypotheses to help other scholars test the conditions under which urban agriculture is more or less likely to contribute to green gentrification. Doing so may help nuance convictions about the benefits of urban agriculture within the context of entrenched inequalities in rapidly changing cities.

Based on the brief historical review, the purpose of this paper is to expound the target and bottom line for the farmland institutional reform of in China, analyze the “Chinese scenes” and historical heritage of farmland institutional arrangement, evaluate the policies and their effects over the last four decades and outline the keynotes and possible direction of the future reform.

The paper builds the analytical clue of “institutional target – institutional heritage – policy effort – realistic dilemma – future direction” and review and forecast the Chinese farmland institutional reform.

The farmland institution is an important issue with Chinese characteristics. Over the last four decades, the farmland institutional reform in China has focused on “stabilizing the land property rights” and “promote the farmland transfer.” As the study indicates, the promotion of farmland transfer has not effectively improved the scale economy of agriculture and stabilizing land property rights by titling may restrain the development of farmland transfer market because farmland transfer is of special market logic.

It depends on the revitalization of farmland management rights to resolve the transaction constraint of personal property and its endowment effect in farmland transfer. And, classifying the land management property to involve farmers into the economy of division can be reference for the reform of traditional agriculture worldwide.