Land Inequality and Its Influencing Factors in Rural China in Modern Times: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Land inequality is a global and historic issue. There is a problem of unequal distribution of land ownership in modern China; research results on this topic are extensive, but the conclusions are quite different or even completely opposite. This study systematically reviewed the research results obtained for land inequality in modern China and performed an international comparison. The results show that the debate on the estimation of land inequality in modern China has existed for a long time. The overall estimation of land inequality has been repeatedly revised, and many subdivision estimates show great regional variability. The application of the Gini coefficient and other methods can address the drawbacks of traditional methods. A change trend toward equality was found to be more likely in the late modern period. The majority of studies support the notion that debt burden, power, and strength exacerbated land inequality in modern China, whereas the inheritance system with equal sharing, revolution, and reform reduced the land inequality. However, the impact of disasters and commercialization remains controversial. Compared with relevant international studies, the study on land inequality in modern China focused on estimations with unique interpretation perspectives, but there are limitations in terms of the research methods used.

1. Introduction

William Petty and Adam Smith both pointed out that “land is the mother of wealth”. As the source of wealth, the distribution of land is crucial. Land distribution refers to the possession of rural land ownership among different groups, which is often unequal. Ray [1] pointed out that land distribution around the world was extremely unequal at the start of the 20th century, with much of it concentrated in the hands of a few in Asia in the 1970s and even more so in Latin America; the situation has not improved significantly in the 21st century. Inequality in land distribution has been a major global concern and has been hotly debated and widely investigated in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America. For example, Wegge [2] revealed that the inheritance system led to land inequality in Germany in the 19th century. Besley et al. [3] studied the relationship between land reform and land inequality in India in the mid-20th century. Galli and Rönnbäck [4] observed land inequality caused by colonization in Sierra Leone from 1792 to 1831. Faguet et al. [5] analyzed the high concentration of land and the distortion of land distribution by rural elites in Colombia over the past 50 years.

In the context of globalization research, China has also paid great attention to the unequal distribution of land ownership. Land distribution and land tenure have always been at the core of China’s long history of 5000 years. Zhao [6] analyzed the long-term change trend of land distribution during the Northern Song Dynasty, the Ming and Qing Dynasties, and the Republic of China (ca. 976 to 1935). Jiang [7] specifically studied the land distribution in the Qing Dynasty (ca. 17th to 19th century) and its important influence on the economy and society. After the founding of New China in 1949, the unequal distribution of land was fundamentally resolved with land reform. A large number of studies on land distribution in China mainly focused on modern China (1840 to 1949), especially from the 1920s to the 1940s because statistical data are more abundant for this period. The period from 1925 to 1948 represents the time of the national government of the Republic of China, which was established and ruled by the Kuomintang of China; at that time, China was a semicolonial and semifeudal society. Many generations of domestic and foreign scholars, such as Buck, Chen Hansheng, Myers, Perkins, Esherick, Brandt, Zhang Youyi, Zhao Gang, Liu Kexiang, Qin Hui, Long Denggao, and Hu Yingze, have made important contributions to this topic. The unequal distribution of land in modern China was relatively high, which caused extremely important economic, social, and political effects. This included severe agricultural income shortfalls, extreme poverty among peasants [8], the spread of refugees, an increase in the number of bandits, and intense social conflicts [9], thus inducing peasants to participate in the revolution and promote regime change [10].

On the important issue of land distribution in modern China, academia has presented fruitful research results. Xia [11], Xu [12], Huang [13], and other scholars conducted review studies on this topic. Guan’s [14] special review representatively and systematically evaluated the main research results on this issue over the past 100 years during three stages: Republic of China, 1950–1980s, and post 1980s. However, the existing individual reviews lacked a systematic summary of the factors affecting land inequality and lacked an international comparison. Hence, with the emergence of novel results and more heated debates, a further review is necessary. Accordingly, this study systematically reviews and summarizes the following aspects of the literature: (1) the inequality of land distribution and its changes in China from the 1920s to 1940s; (2) the important factors influencing land inequality in China from the 1920s to 1940s; and (3) a comparison of domestic and foreign studies on land inequality. The aim was to highlight the research progress on land inequality in modern China compared to the rest of the world and put forward directions for further research.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Literature Review Strategy

This study had three objectives in literature retrieval: (1) collect classic books both domestic and foreign published around the research period to better grasp the actual situation of land distribution in China from the 1920s to 1940s; (2) collect high-quality domestic and foreign papers on land distribution in China from the 1920s to 1940s published in the past 40 years to understand consensus, debate, and development; and (3) collect high-level foreign papers on land inequality in other countries published in recent years for comparison and to determine research progress.

In terms of article retrieval, three databases, CNKI, Elsevier ScienceDirect, and Web of Science, which are the most widely used in the world, were searched for both Chinese and foreign articles using the following keywords: (1) land ownership; (2) distribution of land/land ownership; (3) inequality of land/land ownership; and (4) land/land ownership concentration.

In terms of book retrieval, the Duxiu academic database was searched using the above keywords, while manual retrieval was also carried out on the basis of long-term reading experience.

2.2. Literature Screening Process

Using the literature review strategy mentioned above, 408 core papers were retrieved from CNKI, 542 core papers were retrieved from Elsevier ScienceDirect, 1900 core papers were retrieved from Web of Science, and 113 books were retrieved from Duxiu. After deleting duplicate articles, a total of 2136 articles remained. All retrieved articles were uploaded to EndNote software to manage the references. Then, these articles were screened in two stages: (1) according to the title and abstract, 1756 articles were removed, leaving 380 articles; and (2) according to the full text, 307 articles were removed, leaving 73 articles (Figure 1). These 73 articles formed the basis of this study’s literature review on land inequality in modern China.

2.3. Distribution of the Included Literature

Among these 73 articles, 51 were in Chinese, accounting for 69.86%, while 22 were in English, accounting for 30.14%. Furthermore, there were 60 journal articles, accounting for 82.19%, and 13 books, accounting for 17.81%. A total of 55 articles focused on China, accounting for 75.34%, whereas 18 articles involved other countries, accounting for 24.66%. The time distribution of the articles spanned from 1973 to 2022: one article from 1970 to 1979, which was Buck’s representative work on “Land Utilization in China” [15]; eight articles from 1980 to 1989, including studies by Chen [16,17], Perkins [18], Esherick [19], and Zhang [20]; three articles from 1990 to 1999, such as studies by Cao [21] and Brandt [22]; 15 articles from 2000 to 2009, including studies by Zhao [6], Liu [23,24], and Xia [11]; 35 articles from 2010 to 2019, such as studies by Myers [25], Qin [26], Long [27], and Hu [28,29]; 11 articles from 2020 to 2022, including studies by Tian [30] and Liu [31,32] (Figure 2). These documents are very representative of studies on land inequality in modern China (see Appendix A for the list of articles). Section 3 provides a detailed review of these studies.

3. Results

3.1. The Inequality of and Changes in Land Ownership Distribution in Modern China

3.1.1. Two Representative Views on Land Inequality in Modern Times

From the 1920s to 1940s, the government and academic circles had heated debates about land inequality in China. The Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce of the Beiyang Government, Ministry of the Interior of the Nationalist Government, Kuomintang Land Committee, Central Agricultural Laboratory of the Kuomintang Real Department, and Land Reform Committee of the Military and Political Committee, as well as Buck, Chen Hansheng, Mazayal, Li Jinghan, Xue Muqiao, Wu Wenhui, Qian Junrui, Wan Guoding, and others, conducted rural surveys, provided statistical data, or published articles and monographs on land distribution at that time. Among them, the technical aspect presented by Buck and the distribution aspect presented by Chen Hansheng had strong academic representation. On the basis of their respective rural micro-survey data, the two schools of thought used the economic relationship of tenancy and class composition to put forward different views on the degree of inequality characterizing land distribution in modern China.

From 1921 to 1925, Buck [33] carried out a micro-survey of 2866 peasant households in 17 counties of 7 provinces in North and East China, pointing out that 63.23% of them were homesteaders and 19.68% were tenants. From 1929 to 1933, he [15] launched a larger micro-survey of 16,786 peasant households in 168 regions of 22 provinces in China, pointing out that homesteaders accounted for 54.20% and tenants accounted for 16.90%. On this basis, Buck believed that the inequality of land distribution in China at that time was not exaggerated, and measures to improve China’s backward agriculture did not lie in land distribution relationships, but in improving agricultural technology and improving production efficiency.

From 1929 to 1930, Chen [17] selectively carried out a micro-survey of the rural areas of Wuxi in East China and Baoding in North China, pointing out that, in the 11 villages in Wuxi, landlords and rich peasants who accounted for 15.02% of the population occupied 61.02% of the land, while poor peasants and farm laborers who accounted for 54.99% of the population only owned 17.04% of the land, revealing that the per capita land ownership of landlords was 35 times that of poor peasants. Furthermore, in Baoding’s 11 villages, landlords and rich peasants who accounted for 16.74% of the total population occupied 41.07% of the land, while poor peasants and farm laborers who accounted for 44.09% of the total population occupied only 19.25% of the land. In 1933, he [16] also surveyed 11 villages in Panyu, South China, and conservatively estimated that 68.40% of the land cultivated by peasant households was rented from landlords. According to these findings, Chen considered the land distribution in modern China to be extremely unequal, consequently restricting social and economic development.

3.1.2. Revision of the Overall Estimate of Land Inequality across the Country

Regarding land inequality in China in the 1920s and 1930s, it was widely estimated for a long time that landlords and rich peasants, who accounted for less than 10% of the rural population, owned 70% to 80% of the land, whereas middle peasants, poor peasants, and farm laborers, who accounted for more than 90% of the rural population, owned only 20% to 30% of the land. This showed that the land distribution in modern China was extremely unequal and that landlord ownership was in an absolutely dominant position. This estimate was mainly found in various reports and documents of the Communist Party and the government in the early days of the founding of New China, and the data probably came from the seventh Agricultural and Commercial Statistics under the Beiyang government [20]. However, academia has generally believed the credibility of these statistics to be poor; thus, this estimate has been increasingly questioned in recent decades, and scholars at home and abroad have carried out extensive re-estimation and correction.

Esherick [19] pointed out potential bias in this estimate, and he used the Outline of the National Land Survey Report of the Kuomintang Land Committee to speculate that landless households and landlords not in the village were neglected in the survey; he estimated that landlords and rich peasants who accounted for 10% of the families owned 56% of the land, and 68% of the land was occupied by poor peasants, farm laborers, and others. Arrigo [34] calculated that landlords and rich peasants occupied 69.8% of the land in China after a correction based on Buck’s land utilization survey data. However, the use of a single data source was not very convincing; accordingly, domestic studies began using diversified statistical data. Zhang [20] integrated data from multiple departments of the Kuomintang government, estimates of well-known scholars in modern times, and statistics from the Land Reform Committee of the Military and Political Committee, and he pointed out that landless households accounted for about 30% to 40% of the total rural households, whereas landlords and rich peasants occupied about 50% to 60% of the land. The middle class, poor peasants, etc., occupied the remainder. Guo [35] and Liu [24] also adopted a similar method and obtained roughly the same conclusion, but the accuracy of the estimation was further increased. Compared with the above studies, Long and He [27] proposed a lower estimate, mainly using the statistical data of the Land Reform Committee of the Military and Political Committee; they pointed out that, before the land reform, the rich in China’s rural areas, accounting for 10% of the population, occupied about 25% to 35% of the land in the south and even less in the north. Considering the factors of land surface ownership, permanent tenant rights, and public land, the inequality of land distribution was suggested to be lower.

3.1.3. Regional Estimation of Land Inequality and Its Differences

In addition to the above national overall estimates, many other studies compiled estimates of land distribution inequality in different regions of modern China, mainly including North, Southeast, South Central, and Northwest China.

North China was the most discussed region. Shi [36] collected historical data from more than 300 counties in North China and calculated that the proportions of counties in Hebei, Shandong, and Henan with more than 50% homesteads were 86.04%, 89.70%, and 68.47%, respectively, higher than the national average level, indicating that the homestead economy represented the main body in North China. Li [37] focused on Dingxian County of Hebei Province in North China and pointed out that middle peasants, poor peasants, and farm laborers occupied more land, while landlords and rich peasants occupied less land, which was also supported by indicators such as the proportion of self-owned farmland and the proportion of homesteads. These and many other studies generally agreed that the land distribution in North China was less unequal and often lower than the national average.

Southeast China was generally considered to be a region with unequal distribution of land. For example, Ma [38] pointed out that the land distribution in the Huaibei region (the northern area of Anhui and Jiangsu Provinces) was highly unequal, with landlords occupying a large amount of land and a serious gap between rich and poor. However, some studies also presented lower levels of inequality in some areas. Huang [39] pointed out that, in Jiangxi and Fujian Provinces, landlords and rich peasants, who accounted for 7% of the population, occupied about 30% of the land, and poor peasants, who accounted for 40% of population, occupied about 20% of the land; he claimed that these data were also representative of other provinces in Southeast China (Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and Anhui). Wen and Chen [40] pointed out that, according to Mao Zedong’s Survey on Seeking Xunwu and other important materials, the land occupation rate of landlords and rich peasants in Xunwu of Jiangxi did not exceed 30%, taking into account public land, land leases, and property rights.

The unequal degree of land distribution was also considered high in Central and Southern China. Chang [41] analyzed 100 townships in 6 provinces of Henan, Hubei, Hunan, Jiangxi, Guangdong, and Guangxi, using survey data from the Land Reform Committee of the Central South District Military and Political Committee, pointing out that, in general, the landlords and rich peasants occupied on average about 45% of the total area. Specifically, the proportion of land occupied by landlords and rich peasants in 41% of the townships exceeded 60%; in 44% of the townships it was less than 40%, and in 15% of the townships it was 25% to 30%. Lin [42] focused on the uneven distribution of land in Hunan and Hubei, two lake regions, revealing a high proportion of landless households and a large area occupied by landlords and rich peasants.

The northwest region was large and sparsely populated, and there was a low degree of unequal land distribution. Huang [43,44] pointed out that in Gansu, Qinghai, and Ningxia Provinces landlords and rich peasants who accounted for 10% to 20% of the population occupied an area of about 30% to 40%, while homesteaders and poor peasants who accounted for 80% of the population occupied an area of about 60% to 70%, lower than the national average.

Lastly, there were few estimates and analyses focusing on land distribution in Southwest China.

3.1.4. Application of Gini Coefficient Method for Study of Land Inequality

The previous section mainly analyzed land inequality in modern China according to class. This method has its advantages, but the classification standards and the characterization of different classes such as landlord, rich peasant, middle peasant, poor peasant, and farm laborer often have disadvantages. In this regard, this section applies the Gini coefficient for analysis.

At the national level, Zhao [6] calculated the Gini coefficient of China as 0.376 according to data from the Ministry of the Interior of the National Government in 1932, revealing that Qinghai and Guangxi Provinces had the highest Gini coefficients (0.546 and 0.492, respectively), whereas Hubei and Hunan Provinces had the lowest Gini coefficients (0.234 and 0.284, respectively). These results were quite different from the general understanding. Brandt and Sands [22], on the basis of the Outline of the National Land Survey Report, found that the Gini coefficient of the country was 0.72, and they believed that there was a bias in this result considering factors such as landlords not living in the village and the hierarchy of land ownership. Pang et al. [45] collected more than 1000 county records and used various analytical methods; the results showed that, before the land reform, the Gini coefficient of the whole country was 0.47, the Theil index was 0.59, the index of inequality was 0.53, and the land occupied by landlords and rich peasants was 42.8%. The results of the above studies varied greatly, which may have been related to data sources and calculation methods.

At the regional level, Qin and Jin [26] calculated that the Gini coefficient of most counties in the Guanzhong region of Shaanxi Province before the land reform was below 0.23 according to the data from local archives, and the land distribution was relatively equal. Hu [46] integrated a large amount of data from North China and calculated that the Gini coefficient of Shanxi Province was 0.556, that of Hebei Province was 0.493, and that of Shandong Province was 0.495. Myers [25] drew a Lorentz curve of land distribution using data on household number and village land in Hebei Province. Tian and Wang [30], on the basis of data from the Military and Political Committee of Eastern China, without considering public fields, obtained that the Gini coefficient of counties in Zhejiang Province ranged from 0.20 to 0.66, with great differences. Yang and Wang [47] used the Herfindahl–Hirschman index (HHI) to measure the concentration of land distribution in Pingxiang County, Hebei Province.

The Gini coefficient was a commonly used method for the study of land distribution in modern China. However, its use also faced some problems in practical application. Hu [48] pointed out that the calculation method of the Gini coefficient used in existing studies was inappropriate, resulting in a large deviation in the results. Hu [29] also stressed that the Gini coefficient could not reflect the absolute difference in land quantity, and other indicators were needed to better describe the land distribution. Hu [49] also pointed out that the use of the Gini coefficient of land distribution according to population data is wrong when there are no detailed data corresponding to land. Liu [31] believed that the calculation methods, grouping, evaluation criteria, and data should be carefully considered when calculating the Gini coefficient; factors such as public land, one plot with two owners, and landless households needed to be considered, which would have an important impact on the results [32].

3.1.5. Evidence for the Changing Trend of Land Distribution Becoming More Equal

The theory of “continuous concentration”, which holds that the land distribution over China’s long history has become increasingly unequal and concentrated, has long been popular. Zhang [20] and Zhao [50] questioned this historical trend; they believed that the land distribution in China from the Song Dynasty to modern times was generally stable or tended to become gradually equal. However, what was the change trend of land distribution during the period of the 1920s to 1940s in China?

A handful of studies supported rising inequality. Among them, Liu [23,24] pointed out that during the agricultural crisis period from 1932 to 1934 land buying and selling gradually changed from multi-way flow to one-way flow favoring major landlords, whereas land occupied by homesteaders and semi-homesteaders generally decreased, landless households increased, the number of small and medium-sized landlords gradually declined, the number of large landlords and urban landlords occupied more and more land, and the land distribution throughout the country became more unequal and concentrated.

However, a greater number of studies supported rising equality. Guo [35] pointed out that the land distribution showed an overall trend of becoming more equal before the liberation of the country. Pang et al. [45] also observed a trend of increasing equality before and after land reform. There were also many regional studies that observed a trend of equality: Zhang [51] in Shandong Province from 1900 to 1945; Hou [52] and Shi [53] in Baoding, Hebei Province in the late 1930s; Wang [54] in Northeast China in late modern times; Li [37] in Dingxian County, Hebei Province in the 1920s and 1930s; Dong [55] in northwest Shanxi Province during the Anti-Japanese War; and Yang and Wang [47] in Pingxiang County, Hebei Province. Furthermore, the study by Sui and Han [56] was highly representative. On the one hand, their survey data of the Wuxi Baoding rural area had advantages of a long-term time series and good credibility, which have been widely used in research on the change trend of land distribution. On the other hand, they applied the Gini coefficient in their analysis. The results showed that the Gini coefficients of Baoding, Hebei Province declined from 1930 to 1946, with a more obvious trend of decline from 1936 to 1946, indicating a continuous decrease in the inequality of land distribution (Figure 3). These regional studies supporting greater equality focused on Northern China, whereas regional studies were not conducted in Southern China.

3.2. The Important Influencing Factors of Land Inequality in Modern China

From the 1920s to the 1940s, China faced one of the most serious disasters in its history, including the global economic crisis, imperialist aggression, fierce wars, and severe social unrest. Under such a special background, the land distribution in China at that time, the characteristics left over from previous dynasties, and the transfer of land in the background of modern times produced new characteristics of land distribution. Existing studies mainly explained the land inequality in modern China from six aspects: impact of natural disasters, debt burden, commercialization, inheritance system with equal sharing, power and strength, and revolution and reform. These factors can be divided into two categories. The first three factors mainly affect land inequality through land market transactions. The last three factors mainly affect land inequality through non-market transactions (Figure 4). In addition, some other studies explained the land inequality in China from the 1920s to the 1940s from the perspectives of family sideline production [37], population growth [57], transportation conditions [24], and the tax system, among others.

3.2.1. Impact of Natural Disasters

One view was that disaster shocks promoted land inequality. The research of Xia [11] was quite representative, which considered that, in order for farmers to achieve survival and safety in modern China under the impact of disasters and starvation, the traditional close relationship between man and land was restricted, and the constraints of the feudal patriarchal relationship were broken; accordingly, the land supply market expanded rapidly, and land prices dropped rapidly. This created favorable conditions for annexation. Disaster shocks could also lead to a relatively shrinking land demand market. On the one hand, some landlords were affected by the disaster, including their income, thus affecting the demand. On the other hand, the presence of risk affected the expected return rate on the demand side. Taken together, disasters could lead to small land inequalities but did not promote drastic land concentration. Many other studies also showed that disasters increased land inequality.

Another point of view was that intense disasters weakened land inequality to a certain extent. Hu [46] proposed three reasons: firstly, severe disasters reduced land yield rate; secondly, low land prices after famine provided opportunities for surviving middle- and lower-class peasants to buy land; and thirdly, the proportion of death and migration caused by severe disasters was different among different strata of the population. Before the disaster, the rate of death and flight of peasants with a small land area may have been greater, but the average household and per capita land acquisition may have increased after the disaster. Wang and Shao [58] found that in modern China bandit disasters were severe in western Henan Province, and lands were widely distributed, whereas, in the southwest, bandits were eliminated, and land distribution was more concentrated.

Another view, according to a comparative case analysis, was that disasters did not affect land inequality. Perkins [18] pointed out that in North China where disasters were more severe and crop yields fluctuated more, tenancy rates were lower, and land inequality was lower. However, in the Yangtze River basin, where famine was relatively low, the tenancy rate and the land inequality were higher. Cao [21] also raised similar doubts when comparing North China and southern Jiangsu Province. Following a brief comparison, it was argued that disasters could not explain the land inequality. Hu [28] pointed out that there was almost no change in land distribution before and after the Yellow River flooding in modern times, instead putting forward the stagnation theory of disasters.

3.2.2. Household Debt Burden

Most studies supported that a heavier debt burden of peasants resulted in a more unequal distribution of land. Buck [15] pointed out that the debt ratio of peasant households in China was 39% at that time, and many homesteaders were unable to pay their debts; therefore, their land was transferred to money lenders, and they became tenants. After harvest, the tenants had to sell most of their produce for cash to pay their debts or rent but soon had to borrow money to buy food and maintain consumption. As a result, after several years of borrowing money, buying grain for consumption, and selling grain to repay the debt, the land was lost, which in turn promoted land inequality. Cao [21] pointed out that the peasant households in the areas of southern Jiangsu Province faced major disasters and diseases; thus, after weddings, funerals, and other sources of acute spending, they needed to pledge or even pawn their land to borrow money from lenders, which was rarely repaid on time. Therefore, once the land was pawned, it was likely lost, as it was better to sell the land at one time. As a result, ordinary peasant households at that time could not bear major shocks and became heavily in debt until they lost their land, leading to a concentration of land inequality. Xu [12] pointed out that the debt burden of peasants in the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River was severe, and the proportion of land being mortgaged to borrow money reached 50% in 1935, with high interest and a short repayment period. Thus, peasants turned to pawning once they defaulted on the interest, further weakening their repayment ability, which led to them losing their land, thus promoting land inequality.

3.2.3. Commercialization of Agricultural Products

One view was that commercialization increased the motivation of the rich to buy land, which increased risk differentiation, thus promoting land inequality. Perkins [18] pointed out that the highly developed commercialized areas in modern China, on the one hand, gave birth to wealthier citizens with a large demand for land. On the other hand, this increased the rate of return on investment for land through the low cost of transporting goods and market trade. In turn, this motivated businessmen and landlords to buy land, which increased the land inequality. Huang [59] believed that at that time the cultivation of cash crops in North China gradually expanded, and the commercialization of agriculture deepened. However, weak peasants at that time faced the fierce competition of the international market, the wild fluctuation of international prices, and the impact of severe natural disasters, which accelerated the differentiation of peasant households and led to land inequality. Liu [24] specifically observed that areas and villages with more developed commercial agriculture in Guangxi Province had a higher degree of land inequality, while areas and villages where self-catering agriculture still dominated had a lower degree of land inequality.

Another point of view was that commercialization effectively improved the income of small peasant households and enabled them to maintain or even purchase a small amount of land, thus reducing land inequality. Myers [25] pointed out that the cultivation of cash crops increased the income of small peasant households, as did the income of the handicraft industry, while the proportion of large peasant households decreased; thus, the land distribution did not become more uneven. Loren Brandt [60] believed that commercialization led to an increase in labor demand and a faster increase in income than rent, which improved the economic situation of small peasant households and reduced land inequality. In addition, small peasant households purchased land with the income accumulated from commercialization, while large peasant households turned to industry and commerce with more economic profits. In the context of agricultural commercialization, the differences in goals and behaviors of different farmers and classes led to the dispersion of land [61].

The third view was more comprehensive. Cao [21] believed that the early prosperity of agricultural commercialization in southern Jiangsu Province provided enough commercial profits for the trinity of landlords, merchants, and loan sharks to promote the transfer, concentration, and inequality of land. As agricultural commercialization continued to deepen, big landlords invested the huge capital accumulated from the land to promote the development of urban industry and commerce, because the profit rate on land investment (8.7%) was lower than that on business and industry (30.2% and 31.4%). Land gradually shifted from single large landowners to several small and medium-sized landowners, and the distribution of land became decentralized, thus reducing the degree of inequality.

3.2.4. Inheritance System with Equal Sharing

The traditional inheritance system of land and other property in China is the system of equal sharing among sons, and it was believed that this system negatively affected land inequality. Zhang [20] pointed out the negative effect of the equal sharing system, whereby the continuous equal distribution of farmland made it possible for small and medium-sized landlords to be reduced to homesteaders, thus weakening and reducing the trend of inequality. Zhao [6] systematically pointed out that the traditional system of equal sharing had the inherent mechanism of dispersing large estates unless the population birth rate was low. The size of the estate was determined by the number of people per household who participated in the division. Thus, by setting some basic parameters, a theoretical land distribution model was built; combined with many land property distribution cases, it was emphasized that the system had a strong negative impact. In addition, Zhao [50] emphasized that the equalization system could only promote average land distribution under the premise of overall population growth. Furthermore, Qin [62], Li [37], Hu [46], Wen and Chen [40], Long and He [27], and others also pointed out the negative effect of the equal sharing system, which led to the Chinese traditional phenomenon of “rich but for three generations”. The abovementioned studies based on the perspective of the equal division system were typically brief discussions without thorough evidence.

3.2.5. Power and Strength

Land transactions in modern China were not completely determined by the market; they also depended on power and strength factors, which were generally believed to have caused land inequality. Zhang [63] specifically studied the influence of power factors on land distribution in modern China. He believed that modern China still retained the concept of “distribution according to power” from a traditional feudal society to some extent, whereby it was easier to occupy and annex a large amount of land in a short period of time by relying on power capital, resulting in worsening land distribution. Therefore, the unequal distribution of power led to the unequal distribution of land. Wang [54] pointed out that land concentration in Northeast China in the early period of the Republic of China was mainly caused by powerful groups such as warlord bureaucrats, foreign invading forces, big landlords, businessmen, loan sharks, and farm companies. Among them, warlords and bureaucrats in modern China occupied an important position in the power hierarchy, which had an important impact on the distribution of land. For example, Long and He [27] pointed out that the warlords in modern China had great power, which made it easy to annex land in their areas of influence, thus strengthening land inequality. Lin [42] pointed out that a group of senior military and political officials emerged in Hunan Province in modern times and annexed land using their power, resulting in land inequality. In addition, in modern China, religious forces were huge in some ethnic minority areas, which also affected the distribution of local land. For example, Huang [8,44] pointed out that, in some areas of Gansu, Ningxia, and Qinghai Provinces, religious power was dominant, with land mainly existing in the hands of monasteries and senior monks, and the proportion of tenants was high, resulting in land inequality.

3.2.6. Revolution and Reform

In the late modern period, with the successful revolutionary war and land reform led by the Communist Party of China (CPC), the unequal distribution of land in modern China was fundamentally improved.

Sui and Han [56] pointed out that the revolutionary situation played an important role in eliminating land inequality; they observed in Baoding, Hebei Province that the land inequality was lower in villages closer to the revolutionary base of the Communist Party, while the land inequality was higher in the villages controlled by the Kuomintang and Japanese puppet army. They explain the mechanism of the revolutionary forces from several aspects. On the one hand, landlords and rich peasants judged that the CPC was more likely to win the revolutionary conflict, and on the basis of the CPC’s land policy and its deterrent effect, they voluntarily sold their land. On the other hand, as the war resulted in a larger land tax burden, the yield of holding land decreased, which accelerated land selling. Moreover, for tillers who owned their land, the land reform carried out by the CPC accelerated land equality. On the basis of a village in northwest Shanxi Province, Dong [55] pointed out that the CPC revolution was a key factor for the equal distribution of rural land in late modern times. Before the Anti-Japanese War, the village had a high degree of inequality in land distribution, with landlords and rich peasants occupying a large proportion of the land. However, after the revolution and the CPC’s entry into the village, the land distribution in the village became more equal. The trend of equal distribution of land mainly stemmed from the various land reform policies implemented by the CPC.

Some studies specifically studied the quantitative effect of land reform on the equalization of land. Pang et al. [45] calculated the Gini coefficient, Theil index, and proportion of land occupied by landlords and rich peasants before and after the land reform, and the quantitative results showed that the land reform and the implementation of the equal land policy led by the CPC greatly reduced the land inequality in modern China. The landlord system in traditional society was truly transformed into a system dominated by homesteaders (Figure 5). Yang and Wang [47] also quantified the effect of the equal land distribution brought about by land reform using data from Pingxiang County, Hebei Province, and they also pointed out the significant effect of land reform.

3.3. A Brief International Comparison of Studies on Land Inequality in Modern China

There were also many high-quality international studies on land inequality and its influencing factors. Here, a brief comparative analysis was conducted between modern Chinese studies and international studies (

Table 1. A brief international comparison of studies on land inequality in modern China.

Comparison	Estimates of Land Inequality	Explanation of Land Inequality
Chinese Studies	Many specific studies, typically based on class or the Gini coefficient	Natural disasters, debt burden, commercialization, inheritance system with equal sharing, power and strength, and revolution and reform
International studies	Few specific studies, mainly based on the Gini coefficient	Land market, inheritance systems, political and elite power, land system reform, gender, and colonization

).

Firstly, there were many studies on the basic estimation of land inequality in modern China. In the past, these studies were mainly conducted on the basis of class; however, methods such as the Gini coefficient have been used more recently. It was concluded that the distribution of land in modern China was not equal but showed a trend of gradually increasing equality in the late modern period. However, there were relatively few international studies that specifically estimated land inequality. Among the collected articles, Jayne et al. [64] and Popescu et al. [65] specifically measured land inequality and its changing trend in Africa and Europe in recent decades. The Gini coefficient method was the most commonly used method in international research.

Secondly, for the explanation of land inequality, modern Chinese studies had their own unique perspectives, such as paying more attention to natural disasters and the debt burden. At the same time, they had certain similarities. For example, international studies also analyzed the effects of land marketization [66,67], inheritance systems, intergenerational property transfer [2,68], political power, elite power [5,69,70], and land reform [3,71,72] on land inequality. In addition, international studies had their own unique perspectives, e.g., considering the effects of gender [73,74,75,76] and colonization [4,77]. Case analyses and descriptive statistics were more used in modern Chinese studies, whereas econometrics was more used in international studies.

4. Discussion

According to the above results, it can be seen that academia has presented fruitful research results on the important issue of land distribution in modern China. However, there are few literature reviews summarizing the previous achievements. At present, Guan [14] and Huang [13] have conducted special review studies on this topic. This section will attempt to compare and discuss with their reviews.

Guan representatively and systematically evaluated the main research results on this issue over the past 100 years during three stages: Republic of China, 1950–1980s, and post 1980s. It was concluded that the estimation results of the Gini coefficient in most studies were between 0.5 and 0.7, and the overall land distribution in modern China showed a trend of decentralization. His review also summarized the research status of some regions in modern China and concluded that the degree of land concentration in North China and the Guanzhong region was not high. In addition, he also emphasized the importance of regional research to the overall understanding. This review agrees with the conclusion that the land distribution in modern China was very unequal on the whole, with a Gini coefficient above 0.5 showing a trend toward equality in the later period. This study provided a more detailed overview of regional studies in North China, Southeast China, Central and Southern China, and Northwest China and systematically summarized the differences in land distribution in different regions. The results showed that the land distribution was more unequal in southern regions such as Southeast China and Central and Southern China, while it was lower in northern regions such as North China and Northwest China.

Huang’s review also concluded that there was uneven land distribution in rural China in the 1920s and 1930s, and after the 1930s, land distribution changed, and the degree of inequality decreased. He further briefly examined the reasons for the decline in the inequality of land distribution in China in the late modern period, such as separation of property, family handicraft management, frequent wars, and insufficient returns on land investment. This study made a more systematic review of the influencing factors of the unequal distribution of rural land in modern China, mainly from six perspectives: impact of natural disasters, debt burden, commercialization, inheritance system with equal sharing, power and strength, and revolution and reform. The results showed that most studies supported that debt burden, as well as power and strength, aggravated land inequality in modern China, whereas the inheritance system with equal sharing, as well as revolution and reform, reduced land inequality; the impacts of disasters and commercialization were highly debated. In addition, this study and Huang’s review also emphasized the development and inadequacy of the research on the rural land distribution in modern China in terms of theoretical basis, data, and research methods.

In addition, this review also summarized international research and made an international comparison between the research on the unequal distribution of rural land in modern China and the relevant international frontier research results. The results showed that the study on land inequality in modern China focused on estimations with unique interpretation perspectives such as natural disasters and debt burden, but there are limitations in terms of the research methods used.

Based on the above discussion, this review systematically summarized the classic and recent important results of research on the rural land distribution in modern China at home and abroad and made some contributions and advances in the collation of regional research, sorting out important influencing factors, and international comparison.

5. Conclusions

In this literature review, a total of 73 important articles were screened to systematically review the basic estimation of rural land inequality in modern China and its main explanatory factors, and a brief comparison with international studies was conducted.

The research results showed that there were differences in the estimation of the land inequality in modern China in academia. In modern times, the technical aspect represented by Buck and the distribution aspect represented by Chen Hansheng put forward different viewpoints according to their respective rural surveys and research methods, revealing “not exaggerated inequality” and “extreme inequality”, respectively. In the past 40 years, analyses according to class and more diverse statistical data have been used to revise past popular estimates of overall land inequality in modern China (i.e., that landlords and rich peasants who accounted for 10% of the population owned 70% to 80% of the land), as well as propose regional estimates and highlight differences. In view of the insufficiency of analyses according to class, methods such as the Gini coefficient were gradually applied, but the results obtained in the literature differed greatly. At present, the preliminary consensus is that the distribution of land in modern China was very unequal on the whole, with a Gini coefficient above 0.5, showing a trend of equality in the later period. Compared with international studies, there were more specific estimation studies on land inequality in modern China.

According to the historical background of modern China, scholars at home and abroad mainly explained land inequality from six aspects: natural disasters, debt burden, commercialization, inheritance system with equal sharing, power and strength, and revolution and reform. The above factors affected land ownership inequality in modern China through both land market transactions and non-land market transactions. Most studies supported that debt burden, as well as power and strength, aggravated land inequality in modern China, whereas the inheritance system with equal sharing, as well as revolution and reform, reduced land inequality; the impacts of disaster and commercialization were highly debated. It can be seen that the degree of land inequality in modern China was the comprehensive result of many positive and negative factors. Therefore, the traditional view of “infinite or continuous concentration” may lack sufficient theoretical basis. Compared with international studies, modern Chinese studies offered unique perspectives on disaster and debt. In addition, China’s property inheritance system, land system reform, commercialized market, and other aspects reflected the concept of “fairness and equality” in land distribution, in contrast to the research conclusions in other countries.

Of course, there were still some limitations in the research on land inequality in modern China. Firstly, there was insufficient economic theoretical analysis of land inequality in modern China. Secondly, the interpretation of land inequality in modern China suffered from certain drawbacks with respect to research methods. Thirdly, some important data sources were not used in the research on land inequality in modern China. Therefore, future research should, on the basis of existing research, strengthen the theoretical analysis of land distribution in modern China using traditional and modern economic theories, making full use of important data such as Buck’s micro-survey data and Manchurian railway survey data. Furthermore, the use of mature modern econometric methods should be expanded, clarifying the relevant debates on the explanatory factors of land inequality. In the end, this will deepen the historical understanding of land inequality in modern China, providing a comprehensive overview of the Chinese scenario as a reference for the global and historical issue of land inequality.