As a tool for local government to develop economy, land finance has both advantages and disadvantages.
In China, the formation of land finance and land finance is generally a matter of nearly ten years. In the past ten years, China's urban construction has made rapid progress. The secret is that the municipal government has accumulated a lot of construction funds through land management. The rapid development of urban economy and the continuous improvement of citizens' quality of life have promoted the transformation and development of the surrounding rural economy and attracted a large number of migrant farmers to work in cities. Its positive role is undeniable.
However, problems also arise.
First of all, land finance has worsened the distribution of national income and curbed private investment. At the beginning of this century, some financial experts pointed out that at that time, the proportion of various government revenues in GDP exceeded 30%, reaching or even exceeding the level of developed countries. The proportion of government revenue to GDP is too high, which leads to the slow growth of residents' income, especially farmers' income, and on the other hand inhibits social investment. Although the central government has taken many measures to adjust the pattern of national income distribution, it has not changed fundamentally so far. It is particularly noteworthy that most of the land revenue is concentrated in cities, and the gap between urban and rural areas and regions has not narrowed, but has widened.
Second, government investment has affected the adjustment of industrial structure and aggravated overcapacity. Where the large amount of funds held by the government are invested plays an important guiding role in the change of industrial structure. Over the years, the local government's land transfer income has mainly been invested in urban construction, which has stimulated the great prosperity of the construction industry and real estate industry, promoted the development of building materials, civil electrical appliances, civil hardware, civil chemicals and other industries, and has a serious overcapacity. This industrial chain is basically at the low end, and excessive development takes up a lot of social resources, which runs counter to the central government's policy of accelerating the transformation of development mode.
Third, we can't ignore the serious waste of resources and funds. The income from land transfer is "self-supporting" by the government at the same level, and there is a long-term lack of revenue and expenditure norms and supervision mechanisms. In recent years, many "buildings, halls and offices" and "achievements projects" have been carried out in various places, and the trend of comparison has intensified, which is deeply hated by the people. In this process, a few party and government cadres have deep pockets, spend money like water and do whatever they want; At the same time, the activities of "land rent-seeking" have intensified, and it is not uncommon for public funds to become personal "gray income", and the public has reacted strongly.
Fourth, the land financial mechanism will not change, and the protection of cultivated land and farmers' legitimate land rights and interests can only be empty talk. At the same time, land finance makes the income of local governments too dependent on real estate developers. However, in the reality of China, because collective land can't develop real estate, the existing developers are actually in a natural monopoly position, which makes it possible for them to raise housing prices, and it is difficult to solve the housing problems of low-and middle-income citizens.
Generally speaking, land finance has played an important and positive role in the process of industrialization and urbanization in China. However, with the deepening of the reform, its system drawbacks are becoming more and more obvious and prominent, which has become an obstacle to the future sustainable development of China. In the future, we should conscientiously implement Scientific Outlook on Development and let the land finance gradually withdraw from the historical stage.
China mainly draws lessons from Hong Kong's land leasing system. In Hong Kong, land management and land leasing (that is, operation) belong to different departments, and the government's land revenue is included in fund management, eliminating the randomness of expenditure. This is exactly what we haven't learned.
The reason for this is also determined by the complicated historical conditions at that time. In the middle and late 1980s, the State Bureau of Land Management was established, responsible for the unified management of urban and rural land administration throughout the country, and gradually implemented the reform of the paid land use system. However, at that time, many local governments and some central government departments were unwilling to implement the system of paid land use, and the reform progressed slowly.
The main contradiction at that time was how to promote the reform of the paid land use system. In this case, the land management department naturally assumes the management function of state-owned land, which is a historical necessity. But history has no end. When the old contradictions are solved, new contradictions will arise.
With the establishment of the market economy system, at the end of the 20th century, the system of paid land use was established in an all-round way, and the land finance was gradually formed, and the disadvantages of government land management became more and more obvious. If it is said that we have only learned half or even less than half of the history of Hong Kong in those years, then this debt will always be paid, and I am afraid it is time to pay it back.