华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版) ›› 2024, Vol. 56 ›› Issue (2): 110-119.doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5579.2024.02.010

• 社会学研究 • 上一篇    

“城乡两栖”视角下农村宅基地“三权分置”问题研究

郑雄飞, 刘婕   

  • 接受日期:2024-02-26 出版日期:2024-03-15 发布日期:2024-04-08
  • 作者简介:郑雄飞,北京师范大学社会学院教授(北京,100875)|刘婕,北京师范大学政府管理学院博士生
  • 基金资助:
    国家社科基金重大项目“民生保障视角下农村地权结构调整的社会学研究”(项目编号:18ZDA168)。

On “the Separation of the Three Rights” of Rural Residential Land from the Perspective of “Residing between the Urban and the Rural”

Xiongfei Zheng, Jie Liu   

  • Accepted:2024-02-26 Online:2024-03-15 Published:2024-04-08

摘要:

“三权分置”改革有助于化解“城乡两栖”背景下宅基地的制度困境。在我国城镇化进程和乡村振兴过程中,城乡人口双向流动以及异地居住的“城乡两栖”现象日益明显。人口迁居带来了宅基地及其地上房屋所承载的居住功能弱化,而它们的财产功能和社会情感功能则逐渐增强。总体来看,现有部分制度抑制了宅基地的产权权能开发和资产价值挖掘,造成了闲置、低效利用与隐性流转共存的困局,需要合理推进“三权分置”改革。宅基地“三权分置”改革受到乡村治理机制不完善、产权边界不清晰、农民宅基地权属观念模糊等因素掣肘,面临所有权主体虚置、过度“资本化”等诸多问题,阻碍了相关体制机制创新。为此,“三权分置”改革需要清晰界定“三权”边界,明确宅基地的法权属性,在保障农户资格权的基础上适度拓展宅基地使用权,推动实现宅基地的财产价值;引入市场机制多元盘活闲置宅基地,进而提高土地资源利用效率。

关键词: 宅基地, “三权分置”, 功能演变, “城乡两栖”

Abstract:

The reform of “the separation of the three rights” is an important means to deal with the dilemmas of rural residential land system under the background of “residing between the urban and the rural”. With the acceleration of urbanization and the implementation of rural revitalization strategy, the phenomenon of “residing between the urban and the rural”, which is formed by the two-way-flow of urban and rural population and their changing residences in different places, has become increasingly prominent. The population migration mode leads to function changes of rural residential lands. The residential function begins to weaken, while their property and social emotion functions are increasingly stronger. But limitations of the rural residential land system have restrained the property rights and assets values of rural residential land, resulting in many dilemmas, such as the coexistence of zero or inefficient utilization and covert transactions. Thus, it is urgent to promote the reform of “the separation of the three rights”. However, the reform is still restricted by many elements, including imperfect rural governance mechanisms, unclear property rights boundaries and ambiguous consciousness of farmers’ ownership. The innovation of relevant systems and mechanisms is hindered by virtual ownership and excessive “capitalization”. Therefore, the reform needs to clearly define boundaries of “the three rights”, clarify the legal right of rural residential land, and appropriately expand its use right basing on ensuring farmers’ qualification right in order to realize the property value. We also need to introduce market mechanisms to revitalize idle rural residential land in multiple ways so as to improve the utilization efficiency of rural residential land.

Key words: rural residential land, “the separation of three rights”, functional evolution, “residing between the urban and the rural”