Development sets the question; reform delivers the answer. China's 2026 No 1 Central Document has called for deepening rural reform and strengthening institutional innovation, and identified four priority tasks to advance rural vitalization: accelerating the modernization of agricultural operations, regulating and activating rural resource utilization, innovating financing mechanisms for rural development, and promoting two-way flows of factors between urban and rural areas.

Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China in 2012, rural reform has achieved significant results. By 2025, pilot programs extending the second round of land contracts for another 30 years had been expanded to seven provinces, covering more than 25 million farm households and keeping land tenure broadly stable. Nearly 4 million family farms and more than 2 million farmers' cooperatives have been established nationwide. Over 1.1 million business entities now provide socialized services, reaching close to 93 million smallholder households. Reforms to standardize rural homestead management and deepen collective property rights have moved steadily forward. More than 12 million people have returned to or entered rural areas to start businesses.

Yet as reform moves into deeper and more difficult terrain, practical bottlenecks have emerged in the four priority tasks. First, the development of new agricultural business entities remains uneven. While family farms and farmers' cooperatives have grown rapidly in some regions, progress nationwide is quite imbalanced. In many areas, low levels of organization and technological adoption limit productivity gains. Financing constraints, inadequate technical support, and weak market linkages continue to hold back broader development.

Second, homestead reform has exposed problems with fee standards. Advancing reform prudently hinges on optimizing the separation of homestead rights and expanding their functions. In practice, however, some localities apply arbitrary or inconsistent charges, set uneven thresholds, or rely on "one-size-fits-all" approaches. This undermines policy effectiveness and perceived fairness.

Third, agricultural subsidy policies lack sufficient precision. Current schemes tend to apply uniform standards, paying insufficient attention to regional differences and the diversity of farming entities. As a result, some farmers are unable to benefit fully from support policies, while subsidy allocations do not always match real production needs, diluting their impact on productivity.

Fourth, the effective flow of development factors and services into rural areas remains constrained. Channels for two-way urban-rural mobility are still incomplete. The long-standing net outflow of people, land and capital from the countryside has yet to be reversed, while institutional barriers continue to limit the movement of urban capital, management expertise, technology and talent into rural communities.

Deepening rural reform through institutional innovation requires treating the county as the basic unit of implementation. By targeting concrete bottlenecks within the four priority tasks and advancing reforms in a coordinated way, policies can move from paper to practice. The following measures can help.

First, establish tiered and differentiated support for new agricultural business entities. Counties should map local weaknesses and tailor cultivation strategies accordingly. This would strengthen value-chain extension for larger, scale-oriented entities, while improving organization among small and micro operators.

Dynamic registries can track progress. County-level agricultural service platforms should integrate technical guidance, bulk procurement of inputs, and product marketing to close gaps in technology and market access. In parallel, financial institutions should be encouraged to design dedicated credit products, using collective assets or agricultural income rights as collateral to ease financing constraints.

Second, develop clear and reasonable rules for homestead management. Boundaries for revitalizing idle homesteads should be clearly defined, including permitted transfers, land-use controls, and income-sharing arrangements, to safeguard farmers' rights. Fee standards for paid use should be set scientifically, with progressive charges based on household size and homestead area. All proceeds should be earmarked for rural infrastructure and public services.

Third, build a precision-matching mechanism for agricultural subsidies. Counties should conduct detailed assessments of local production needs and adopt differentiated standards by township and by type of business entity. Grain producers and operators in specialty industries should receive targeted support, with subsidies linked to production outcomes and spillover benefits, ensuring funds reach those who need them most.

Fourth, improve incentives for urban talent to work in rural areas. Professionals should be encouraged to bring projects and capital back to the countryside, supported by preferential treatment in title evaluations, compensation, and housing. Counties should coordinate urban-rural infrastructure and public services, advancing school-sharing systems and integrated county-level medical networks. Equalizing access to education and healthcare is essential to retaining talent and attracting resources.