Free China Movement

Evidence · Human Rights · Democratic Future

Take Action

English 简体中文 繁體中文 Français Deutsch Español

🔎

Zhou Qiren (周其仁)

Before Zhou Qiren (周其仁) became one of China’s leading property-rights economists, he was a field researcher in the countryside. Through the 1980s he worked at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and the State Council’s Rural Development Research Center, watching decollectivization unfold at close range. The book that came out of that work — 《农村变革与中国发展 1978–1989》 (Oxford University Press, 1994) — is the canonical Chinese-language history of the rural reform era, and everything he has argued since about property rights grows out of that fieldwork.

Current position

PKU Boya Chair Professor; LangRun Chair Professor, National School of Development (NSD), Peking University (formerly CCER) — per his official CV hosted on the PKU CCER site. He was Dean of NSD/CCER from May 2008 to October 2012, a member of the PBOC Monetary Policy Committee (2010–2012), and a member of the Expert Committee for the 13th Five-Year Plan.

Positions at the time of key cited work

  • 《发展的主题——中国国民经济结构的变革》(Sichuan People’s Press, 1987); 《农村变革与中国发展 1978–1989》(OUP, 1994): CASS and the State Council Rural Development Research Center, 1980s.
  • UCLA doctorate, 1991–1992 (earlier visiting study at Oxford, Colorado, and Chicago from 1989); joined CCER, Peking University, January 1996.
  • 《产权与制度变迁》(PKU Press, 2004); 《货币的教训》(PKU Press, 2012): CCER/NSD, Peking University.
  • “The institutional foundation of China’s economic growth” (China Economic Journal, 2010): NSD, Peking University; PBOC Monetary Policy Committee member (2010–2012).
  • 《改革的逻辑》(revised, CITIC, 2017): NSD, Peking University.

Field and expertise

Economics — property rights and contracts, institutional change, firms and market organization: rural reform history, property-rights redefinition, land-use rights and urbanization (“new land reform,” 新土改), telecom and regulatory reform, monetary lessons, and reform sequencing. Born August 1950; Renmin University, 1982; UCLA PhD, 1992. Methodologically: 1980s rural field research, township-and-village enterprise studies, and new-institutional-economics analysis in the Alchian/Demsetz tradition. Relevant period: the 1980s to the present.

Major works

Per his official CV, a 17-book Chinese bibliography, including 《农村变革与中国发展 1978–1989》(OUP, 1994), 《中国区域发展差异调查 1978–1989》(OUP, 1994), 《数网竞争：中国电信业的开放和改革》(2001), 《产权与制度变迁》(PKU Press, 2004), 《货币的教训》(PKU Press, 2012), 《竞争与繁荣》(CITIC, 2013), 《城乡中国》(revised, CITIC, 2017), 《产权与中国变革》(CITIC, 2017), and 《改革的逻辑》(revised, CITIC, 2017).

Two English-language books:

  • Property Rights and Changes in China (Springer Singapore, 2020; DOI 10.1007/978-981-15-9885-2): 314 pages, including chapters on rural reform and agricultural-land property rights / land requisition. (First edition 2020; softcover 2021.)
  • Urban and Rural China (Peter Lang, November 2022, 438 pages, ISBN 9781433172939). The publisher’s description: China’s dual urban-rural property-rights system creates imbalance; transfer rights must be redefined; the rule of law must constrain coercive power. The full text was not read; this description is the publisher’s, not an independent summary.

The “new land reform” argument

Zhou’s core proposition — the transfer-rights pole of the rural-land debate — is that clear property titles must precede functioning markets: rural land assets must become tradable through redefined transfer rights, and the rule of law must constrain coercive (takings) power.

On the land system, he attacked the “requisition-and-sale” (征地售地) arrangement — in which administrative power converts farmers’ land into fiscal revenue — as violating farmers’ legitimate property rights (Caixin columns, including “If Reform Stalls, Chinese People Will Play by Their Own Rules,” 2018).

On sequencing, he argued for pilot-based land-rights marketization with small-scale, conditional, risk-controlled rollout (2015 FFTC-AP debate context).

The Chongqing dipiao pilots — reported evidence, not his assessment

Land-ticket (地票) pilots in Chongqing and Chengdu attempted to let rural land value be monetized within the planning system. NPR reporting (November 29, 2021) states that in the Chongqing dipiao system, “the villager gets 85% of the sale, the government 15%.” The same report documents the system’s problems: farmers allegedly paid less than promised, inability to negotiate market rates, and courts declining to treat reclamation disputes as expropriation cases. This is journalistic reporting, not Zhou’s own assessment, and it is not attributed to him. It illustrates the gap between transfer-rights reform and Zhou’s stated rule-of-law precondition.

Documented positions (attributed to Zhou Qiren)

  1. Institutional foundation of growth: China’s growth is explained by property-rights redefinition that lowered the operating costs of the planned economy; clear property-rights delineation is the institutional foundation of growth (2010 China Economic Journal abstract).
  2. “New land reform”: marketable rural land rights with institutional constraints on state takings; the 征地售地 system lets administrative power violate farmers’ legitimate property rights.
  3. 《改革的逻辑》: reform must outrun corruption and defeat; human-capital productivity gains came from incentive-compatible property-rights changes.
  4. Against government-led investment economics: he disputed the “China model” thesis that “government in competition” is the secret of the miracle (PKU News blog reprint, April 9, 2011).

The land debate, in three positions

Opponents of land-market liberalization (e.g., He Xuefeng) argue marketization would create a rentier class and dispossess outer-suburban farmers (2015 FFTC-AP debate summary). Wen Tiejun’s criticism of the land-marketization school — the school of which Zhou is the transfer-rights pole — is registered in debate summaries; its exact wording is not documented in the sources consulted and is not reproduced here. (The “imperialist accomplice” charge documented elsewhere in the debate record was directed at Qin Hui, not Zhou.)

One contextual note: the explanation that local-government land-finance interests are the principal resistance to land-rights reform is the standard political-economy account in the debate. It is analytical context, not a finding of Zhou’s own research.

What this entry does not cover

  • The 1980s internal rural-research reports were not located; full texts of the key books were not read.
  • Quantified estimates of land-expropriation harms, if he has published any, were not found.
  • The English books are described at bibliographic/publisher level only.

Selected sources

Related records