从个体化确权到多样化确权——农地产权正规化五种模式的比较分析

个体化确权是发展中国家土地确权的主导方式,近年来则逐渐形成从个体化确权向多样化确权转变的趋势。本文对个体化确权和多样化确权进行比较分析,提炼总结多样化确权的典型模式,探讨如何选择最适合的确权制度问题。研究表明,个体化确权具有强制性、系统性、确定性等优势,赋予个人完全的剩余索取权,有效规避公地悲剧;同时具有耗时长、成本高、见效慢等劣势,易忽视弱势群体利益,无法适应复杂的社会经济现实。多样化确权弥合了地方与国家、传统习俗与正式规则之间的差距和鸿沟,是一种保留传统地权和个体化确权两种路径之外的第三条道路。可以根据土地共有产权强度和国家分权程度的高低,将多样化确权划分为国家主导集体确权、地方主导个体确权、集体土地管理地方自治、基层社区治理和公社产权登记等5种典型模式,不同模式契合了不同国家和地区私有、集体、公共等多种农地产权安排的异质性诉求,在确权实施的统一性、有效性、灵活性、适应性等方面各具优势。因此,根据多样化确权的经验做法,结合理论探讨和中国实践,建议事前评估当地条件以辅助确权决策;提高地方政府、基层社区的自主权和集体经济组织成员认可度;并鼓励多元确权模式的创新和改革实践规律的总结。

From individualized land title registration to diversified land title registration: A comparative study on the five models of rural land property right formalization

Individualized land title registration has been a predominant mode of land tenure reform in developing countries. However, it has gradually formed a trend of the reform from individualized to diversified land title registration recently. After systematically analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of individualized land title registration and combing the formation of diversified land title registration, this paper compared five typical models of rural land property right formalization, discussed how to choose the most suitable property right system for China. Results show that: 1) with the systematic, mandatory, and deterministic advantages, individualized land registration can avoid the tragedy of the commons effectively by giving individuals land residual claim rights. Nevertheless, due to the disadvantages of time-consuming, high cost, delayed effects, this method neglects the interests of vulnerable groups and fails to integrate into complex economic and social reality; 2) diversified land title registration has been adopted by more and more nations and regions as it can bridge the gap between local and nation, traditional customs and formal rules; and 3) there are five different modes for the diversified land title registration, including state-led collective land title, local-led individual land title, local autonomy collective land tile, private land community land title, and community-led communal land title. Each mode has its own advantage in uniformity, effectiveness, flexibility and adaptability to satisfy heterogeneous demands of different nations and regions. In summary, this paper suggests: to assess local conditions first before any decision-making, to improve the level of the autonomy of local governments and the power of grass-roots communities and recognition of collective members, to encourage the innovation of multiple land title registration modes, and to continuously monitor and summarize these reform practices.