The Chinese authorities have placed high priority on resolving China’s extensive rural problems through policy changes that aim to improve the livelihood of farmers. Last October, the government introduced a new land reform policy that aims to enable farmers to lease or transfer land-user rights, igniting the hope of those untouched by China’s explosive growth and prosperity. The intent of this policy shift is to better secure farmers’ rights to their land while introducing a land rights market that would empower farmers to use their land as collateral. Despite such promises, however, farmers have yet to see any concrete evidence and continue to face the very real threat of land grabs by corrupt local governments in collusion with their economic patrons.

In mid-April, the Vice Governor of Henan Province apologized to Wang Shuai, a 24-year-old blogger, for wrongly accusing him of defaming the government of his hometown, Lingbao City, and for the improper behavior of the local police. Mr. Wang, who works in Shanghai, published online posts to reveal that his hometown illegally rented out 2.8 hectares (42 mu) of land for an industrial zone, resulting in the displacement of more than 30 thousand peasants. His posts attracted the attention of millions of bloggers… as well as the police. In March, Lingbao police officers traveled 1,200 kilometers to Shanghai to arrest Wang. He was then detained for eight days and released only after his family agreed to uproot their fruit trees to make way for the industrial zone. This case well demonstrates the prevailing issues facing local farmers: illegal land grabs, unjust and corrupt policing, the absence of the rule of law, and the ineffectiveness of the official complaint system.

Others, such as fellow blogger Wu Baoquan, have not been so lucky. Wu published an online article in September 2007 to reveal illegal land grabs in Ordos City in Inner Mongolia. The government schemed local residents into handing over 50,000 mu (3,300 hectares) of land for 250 RMB per mu which they then proceeded to auction off at up to 820,000 RMB per mu. Unsurprisingly, new irrigation facilities and other infrastructure improvements promised as compensation failed to materialize, resulting in failed harvests and widespread economic hardship. Wu’s exposing blog post did not attract much attention from the public, but was quickly noticed by the authorities. Within a few days, Wu was arrested in Shandong Province by three police officers who had trekked all the way from Ordos City. Wu was detained and interrogated for ten days. After his release, he posted of his hardship only to be arrested again and sentenced to a year in prison. Attempts to appeal his arrest after 10 months of imprisonment were rewarded by an additional two year sentence for defaming the government. Wu’s misfortune contrasts sharply with Wang’s eventual success, but it does not take much effort to guess which is more representative.

There is little doubt that the central government intends to counteract the scourge of illegal land grabs. With the growing gap between the ailing rural poor and the affluent coastal cities, the central government has been striving to alleviate the many disadvantages faced by farmers in a quest to maintain stability and promote “social harmony.” Yet Beijing has found the problem impossible to eradicate. This is not entirely for lack of effort: China Business Review describes in detail the shifting legal landscape in favor of farmers: the 1998 revisions to the Land Management Law, the 2002 Rural Land Contract Law, and the 2007 Property Law. Today, farmers are granted thirty year usage rights and must be properly compensated for land requisition. But as described earlier, farmers still suffer from widespread land takings. The core issue, then, is not the absence of law but the absence of the rule of law.

The problem is in implementation. First, farmers lack knowledge of the existing regulations rendering them incapable to fight against their local governments. On average, the compensation paid to the land-losing farmers is far less than that required by law. In Wang’s case, the local government only wanted to pay 10 percent of the annual income of each lot of land despite the fact that the law requires the payment of at least 6 to 10 times annual income. Even when farmers do not suffer from information asymmetries, they often do not have contracts or certificates that prove their right to the land. Local governments have issued contracts, certificates, or both to only 63 percent of households according to a 2005 survey. In addition, these documents often lack the specific start and end date, accurate size and location descriptions, and valid signatures. The same survey shows that only about 10 percent of farmers possess one of the two required documents compliant with the law.

So called “barefoot lawyers” have emerged to help rural farmers fight for their land and sufficient compensation, often at great risk. These noble citizens often face jail time and frequently suffer police beatings. Like Wang Shuai and Wu Baoquan, they bravely fight to improve the livelihood of China’s rural poor by combating corrupt local officials and police goons—sometimes even successfully. But they cannot reform China on their own. Both China and the international community must shift their attention from the glitzy towers of the coastal regions to the enduring poverty and appalling governance of China’s vast hinterland. China’s humble famer deserves allies in her plight against corrupt local officials; the time has come for the rural poor to take part in the country’s so far elusive economic miracle.

Themes: bloggers, china, property rights

This entry was posted on May 8, 2009 at 7:03 am and is filed under Asia. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.