Rural Revitalization Must Focus on Practical Problems
Since the Rural Revitalization Strategy was announced, it quickly became a nationwide focus. As expectations rise and people prepare to charge ahead, we must carefully consider the problems that may arise in implementation and take preventive measures in advance.
Rural revitalization requires sustained effort. Tasks should continue year after year; pursue steady, persistent progress rather than impatient, one‑shot wins. The January 2018 policy opinion envisioned “important progress by 2020” with a basic framework and policies in place. Compressing such a national‑level transformation into three years risks haste. Under layered targets and performance pressures, local governments may push superficial “image projects” while neglecting the essence. It is encouraging that the Politburo reviewed the Rural Revitalization Plan (2018–2022), shifting from a typical three‑year action plan to five years, which helps temper over‑aggressive moves.
The market should play the leading role, with government guiding. The first of the “twenty‑character guidelines” is “thriving industry.” That is not how many industrial parks or “pastoral complexes” you can see, but the quality of industry, its impact on jobs, and improvements to farmers’ livelihoods. True market know‑how lies with enterprises that survive by constant self‑improvement; they should be the main actors. Government should act more like a service‑oriented “concierge,” not the “shopkeeper.” A cautionary tale: in the wave of “walnut poverty‑alleviation,” seedlings were handed out widely and hillsides filled with saplings. Years later, many trees were cut down. A handful of walnut trees per household never formed an industry; grown trees shaded fields and hurt crop yields. That’s a classic failure where government overrode the market, creating pseudo‑prosperity. Government also must “steer” to prevent ecological damage and policy drift—such as “pastoral complexes” sliding toward real‑estate projects—and step in promptly when needed.
Rural revitalization should advance urban–rural integration. Distinguish agriculture (an industry) from “the countryside” (a space). Agriculture, like industry and services, creates social value. Thriving industry does not mean tying hukou‑defined “farmers” to their original place. Instead, develop agriculture with industrial thinking, turn willing producers into “professional farmers,” making “farmer” a profession rather than a status. Agricultural producers can live in cities; urban residents can enjoy rural life experiences. Beautiful countryside becomes a shared spiritual home; cities provide shared living services. Most people will live in cities; a small share will stay in rural areas to run modern agriculture. Urbanization and urban–rural integration are unstoppable. Rural revitalization should facilitate the citizenization of people transferring from agriculture, not trap more people in the countryside. The future spatial pattern is a mix of medium‑large cities, renewed “central villages,” redeveloped urban villages, and natural hamlets—multiple layers of integrated living space.
Published at: Sep 10, 2025 · Modified at: Sep 10, 2025
