Scholarlink

<p>Prior studies exploring rural households’ perceptions of land value capture changes triggered by institutional rural land marketization reform have been inconclusive from a justice perspective. While some studies argue that rural households’ perceptions are positive, this is often attributed to perceived procedural fairness and relative gains. However, it remains unclear how the three dimensions of justice—procedural justice, distributive justice (absolute gains and relative gains)—interact to shape overall perceived justice. To address this gap, we develop a novel theoretical framework to provide an in-depth understanding of rural households’ perceptions. Our empirical analysis draws on 130 semi-structured interviews conducted across 430 rural land transaction cases in five pilot counties/districts in China. Contrary to existing literature, we find that rural households express satisfaction with procedural justice and the distribution of land value among stakeholders, yet they criticize their absolute gains and especially the disparity between rural and urban land values. Specifically, our comparative analysis reveals nuanced findings. (1) <i>Socio-demographic characteristics:</i> Agriculture-dependent households are less positive than salary-dependent ones; Uninsured participants hold more neutral perceptions compared to insured respondents; Individuals over 60 generally exhibit neutral perceptions, contrasting to those under 60. (2) <i>Spatial variation:</i> Inland households generally hold neutral perceptions, whereas coastal participants report positive perceptions; Peri-urban and remote rural residents express neutral views, diverging from urban village participants. (3) <i>Institutional settings:</i> Respondents in village-led mode exhibit neutral perceptions, unlike those in group-led mode. These nuances arise because distributive justice (notably absolute gains) dominates overall perceived justice. The policy may exacerbate regional disparities in rural welfare and livelihoods. This study advances ongoing debates on the mixed consequences of institutional rural land marketization reform, household livelihoods, and impoverishment risks.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Rural households’ perceptions of land value capture from a justice perspective: empirical evidence from China’s rural land marketization reform

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月17日

查看全文
  • Weifang Wang,
  • Femke van Noorloos

摘要

Prior studies exploring rural households’ perceptions of land value capture changes triggered by institutional rural land marketization reform have been inconclusive from a justice perspective. While some studies argue that rural households’ perceptions are positive, this is often attributed to perceived procedural fairness and relative gains. However, it remains unclear how the three dimensions of justice—procedural justice, distributive justice (absolute gains and relative gains)—interact to shape overall perceived justice. To address this gap, we develop a novel theoretical framework to provide an in-depth understanding of rural households’ perceptions. Our empirical analysis draws on 130 semi-structured interviews conducted across 430 rural land transaction cases in five pilot counties/districts in China. Contrary to existing literature, we find that rural households express satisfaction with procedural justice and the distribution of land value among stakeholders, yet they criticize their absolute gains and especially the disparity between rural and urban land values. Specifically, our comparative analysis reveals nuanced findings. (1) Socio-demographic characteristics: Agriculture-dependent households are less positive than salary-dependent ones; Uninsured participants hold more neutral perceptions compared to insured respondents; Individuals over 60 generally exhibit neutral perceptions, contrasting to those under 60. (2) Spatial variation: Inland households generally hold neutral perceptions, whereas coastal participants report positive perceptions; Peri-urban and remote rural residents express neutral views, diverging from urban village participants. (3) Institutional settings: Respondents in village-led mode exhibit neutral perceptions, unlike those in group-led mode. These nuances arise because distributive justice (notably absolute gains) dominates overall perceived justice. The policy may exacerbate regional disparities in rural welfare and livelihoods. This study advances ongoing debates on the mixed consequences of institutional rural land marketization reform, household livelihoods, and impoverishment risks.