Unpacking the paradox of “insecure” housing rights in China: Urban residents’ perceptions on institutional credibility

《Unpacking the paradox of “insecure” housing rights in China: Urban residents’ perceptions on institutional credibility》

打印

关键字: Credibility thesis;Endogenous property rights;Housing ownership;Leasehold and ground lease;Forced evictions

作者单位: Zhejiang University, School of Public Affairs, Zijingang Campus, Hangzhou 310058, China;Department of International Development, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK;Zhejiang University, School of Public Affairs, Zijingang Campus, Hangzhou 310058, China;Department of International Development, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK

摘要: Formal or de jure property rights are deemed conditional for development in a neo-liberal reading. Paradoxically, real estate underwent explosive development even though China’s rights for housing are informal, ambiguous, and insecure. This article intends to explain this contradiction by examining how Chinese urban residents perceive the credibility of housing rights from three perspectives, i.e., ownership, land lease, and the 70-year lease term. The study is based on a survey (n = 1207) demonstrating: i) half of the respondents are indifferent about formalization policies; ii) 92 percent have never experienced housing-related conflicts, however, of those reporting conflict, close to half indicated demolition as the source; iii) housing ownership is considered important for most while the land use (or lease) permit is considerably less relevant, and the lease term is considered insignificant. Three conclusions can be drawn. First, urban residents have no preference for a “full bundle” of formal rights. Second, although low conflict indicates credibility of the current rights structure, there are risks to social stability due to expropriation. Three, credibility hinges on combinations of (in)formality and (in)security rather than being a direct function of formalization. Findings emphasize a need to rethink the property rights theory in terms of credibility, conflict, and time.