Gao Shengping

　　Renmin University of China Law School

　　Abstract:The strict limits on the financialization of agricultural land in the current legal system impede the development of rural finance. Objective needs have driven local governments’ exploration of different modes of financialization, providing samples we can analyze in connection with the next steps in institutional development. The financialization of agricultural land arises naturally from its nature as an asset. Whether one acknowledges the land’s social security function does not affect its financialization. In institutional rebuilding, the particular character of mortgages on agricultural land should be considered. The mortgage-holder must be a financial organization, not a natural person or an ordinary firm. The person mortgaging the right to operate the land under the contract responsibility system need not have a stable non-agricultural occupation or stable source of income, or the consent of the party issuing the contract. Registration constitutes public notification of the setting up of a mortgage and is also the condition whereby it comes into effect. The mortgage cannot be realized by means of discounting, but compulsory management can be used to subcontract or let the relevant agricultural land. The debt can then be liquidated from this income and the land returned to the mortgagor.

　　Keywords: land contractual management right, farmland finance, mortgage of land contractual management right, compulsory management