论文部分内容阅读
学界关于房屋拆迁补偿纠纷的讨论经历了从绝对剥夺假说到相对剥夺假说的转变,然而在论述相对剥夺假说时却忽略了探讨这种剥夺产生的制度诱因。文章以两个城中村改造为例,指出拆迁补偿方案对两种产权界定原则的优先安排将会导致不同的社会后果。优先考虑成员权的方案会在保证每一位村民的基本补偿面积之后,对超出面积采取逐级递减的补偿标准,该方案会适当缩小不同村民在补偿过程中产生的差距;优先考虑投资权的方案在强调村民村籍的同时,以现有房屋拆迁面积作为直接补偿的依据,这种做法看似公平合理,但是在无形中会拉大不同村民之间的补偿差距,引起一部分村民的联合抵制。
The academic discussion on the compensation dispute of house demolition goes through the change from the absolute deprivation hypothesis to the relative deprivation hypothesis. However, when discussing the relative deprivation hypothesis, it ignores the institutional inducement to explore such deprivation. Taking the reconstruction of two villages in villages as an example, the article points out that the preferential arrangement of resettlement compensation programs on the principle of defining the two kinds of property rights will lead to different social consequences. The program that prioritizes the rights of membership will, after guaranteeing the basic compensation area of each villager, adopt a gradually decreasing compensation standard for the oversupply area, which will appropriately narrow the gap between different villagers in the compensation process; give priority to the investment rights While emphasizing the villagers’ village status, the plan takes the existing house demolition area as the basis for direct compensation. This approach seems fair and reasonable, but it will undoubtedly widen the compensation gap between different villagers and cause some villagers to boycott them .