快速都市化下村集體地的開發類型—珠三角城中村/村中城案例

Abstract

2010年中國中央「一號文件」再次聚焦三農問題，為中共建政以來第十二個以農村問題為主題的「一號文件」，且是連續七年以「一號文件」關注農村的發展與改革；政策文件突顯地方政府推動快速都市化造成種種農村相關問題的重要性，而其中的核心即是農村土地問題。由於改革開放至今依然維持社會主義遺制中最為核心的「土地所有權制度」與「戶籍制度」依然維持城鄉二元，造成城鎮國有土地以外的土地由維持社會主義體制的「村集體」所有的制度格局；在國家壟斷都市土地所有權市場的制度下，村集體成為地方政府透過國有土地擴張以成全都市發展的廉價土地來源，而城中村就是城市擴張過程中沒有完全徵收村集體土地而形成的都市化農村。 本研究以珠江三角洲三個都市化農村—城中村/村中城—為案例，探討農村如何利用本有土地，參與改革開放以來以都市為中心的經濟發展。本研究將城鄉二元體制形成的農村—地方政府關係，就集體土地的開發上，化約作「社會力」與「公權力」的競爭、對抗與演化，以探討快速都市化下農村利用集體地追求自身經濟利益的不同型態。三個農村案例依照「地域性」、「集體性」而有不同的發展條件；所謂「地域性」包括：一、受地方政府土地國有化所決定的區位；二、由區位所決定的集體地開發型態；「集體性」包括：一、制度性的「集體公有制」；二、社會性的「宗族網絡」。最後，本研究就三個案例不同的發展後果，試圖拼湊「集體公有制」如何在不同的土地開發格局下演化。三個案例就其地域性、集體性特點，歸納其發展類型分別為：漁農村—集體私有、石井社區—分散式集體、南亭村—部份集體。 論文的初步結論是：首先、「集體公有制」作為農村的普遍性制度，能否達成政治經濟自治，與農村內宗族網絡的型態高度相關，即「宗族」影響「集體性」的建構，決定了社會力的形成；其次、公權力/社會力互相對抗的焦點在於村集體地開發，也就是「地域性」的變化為農村與地方政府所決定，影響集體經濟的優劣；第三、集體經濟的好壞，決定了農民個人是否支持「集體公有制」的維持。

In the beginning of 2010, the No.1 document of China central government focuses on the issues of agriculture, farmers and rural areas (三農問題) once again. This is the twelfth central No.1 document in the last seven consecutive years which concerns village/agriculture issues. These documents indicate the importance of these issues under the ongoing rapid-urbanization. The socialist legacy of urban-rural dichotomy in land ownership maintains to this day and results in a geographical pattern where state-owned urban areas are surrounded by village-owned countryside. Under the state-monopolized market of urban land ownership, village collectives become the source of low-cost land for the purpose of urban development initiated by the local state, the so-called “town villages” are the results of state-led land expropriation. This thesis chooses three urbanized-villages in Pearl-river Delta as cases to look into the process how socialist villages, pursuing their own economic interests, have joined the regional urban/economic development with their own collective land. With focus on the village collective land, this research conceptualizes the dynamics between the village and local state into “social force” and “public 'public authorities”, in order to discuss different types of land development in Chinese villages under rapid urbanization. Development conditions of these three cases are different according to their “locality” and “collectivity.” Locality includes: 1. Locational conditions as determined by land nationalization; and 2. The land development types determined by the location. Collectivity takes account of: 1. The institution of public ownership; and 2. Kinship network. The results of the three villages indicate different paths of evolution of the socialist village public ownership: Yu-nong (漁農) village -- “collective privatization”; Shi-jing (石井) village -- “dispersed collective ownership”; Nan-ting (南亭) village -- “partial collective ownership”. oWe conclude that: 1. Local clanship is a crucial factor in collectivity formation; 2. The conflict hbetween the social force and public powers happens in village land development, that is to say, the locality, as determined by both the village and local state, effects the performance of the local collective economy; and 3. The performance of collective economy determines whether the “socialist village public ownership” would be supported by the farmers.