This chapter critically examines China’s “Linkage” Policy through a dual analytical lens—as both a national institutional framework for land governance and as localized implementation projects. The analysis reveals three key dimensions of scholarly discourse: (1) stakeholder dynamics in policy implementation, highlighting tensions between central planning objectives and local fiscal interests; (2) policy efficacy debates, contrasting arguments about rural welfare impacts versus urban development benefits; and (3) local adaptation models, demonstrating regional variations in governance structures. Through the comprehensive review of the existing literature on property rights arrangements under China’s Linkage Policy, as well as their impacts on stakeholder interactions and policy outcomes, this chapter identifies significant gaps in current research, particularly the conflation of policy design with project implementation, and the lack of systematic analysis of the policy’s dual nature as both a market mechanism and planning tool.

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

“Linkage” Policy and “Linkage” Projects

  • Chen Shi

摘要

This chapter critically examines China’s “Linkage” Policy through a dual analytical lens—as both a national institutional framework for land governance and as localized implementation projects. The analysis reveals three key dimensions of scholarly discourse: (1) stakeholder dynamics in policy implementation, highlighting tensions between central planning objectives and local fiscal interests; (2) policy efficacy debates, contrasting arguments about rural welfare impacts versus urban development benefits; and (3) local adaptation models, demonstrating regional variations in governance structures. Through the comprehensive review of the existing literature on property rights arrangements under China’s Linkage Policy, as well as their impacts on stakeholder interactions and policy outcomes, this chapter identifies significant gaps in current research, particularly the conflation of policy design with project implementation, and the lack of systematic analysis of the policy’s dual nature as both a market mechanism and planning tool.