Core Disparities in Land Resumption Valuation Rules Between Mainland China and Hong Kong: A Comparative Study of Valuation Dates and Development Betterment Compensation
Abstract
The results of this study show that the two legal systems have different property rights structures and legal cultures, which are reflected in three valuation practice elements. The mainland opts to select the "date of expropriation notice" as its valuation reference date because it is more efficient administratively, whereas Hong Kong selects the "date when the requisition becomes effective" because it is more likely to represent the loss-based compensation. Looking at capital gain, the mainland adopts the concept of "public appropriation of urban development gains"; Hong Kong adopts the concept of optimal legal use and acknowledges the potential of redevelopment in the land leases. Regarding evidentiary paradigms, the mainland uses the method of ex officio valuation, in contrast, Hong Kong has established an adversarial system based on the idea of balancing probabilities. Such decisions are not just technical, but also reflect the overall policy climate of urbanisation. The two regions aim to increase land value by renewal, but they address the problem of the public-private rights trade-off in different ways a common challenge which continues to yield different institutional results. In order to address the weaknesses of the state-led valuation system in mainland China, this paper suggests implementing a participatory compensation framework, which is inspired by the experience of Hong Kong, but does not compromise the underlying principle of public land ownership. These insights, in turn, indicate a route towards a rule-of-law-driven reformation of the expropriation and compensation processes in mainland China.
References
- Paradza, P., & Zulch, B. (2026). Research trends in property valuation for expropriation: A bibliometric analysis.Land, 15(3), 399.
- Cheng, J. (2006). Balance of interests under procedural anomie and administrative intervention—an analysis of land recovery system in Hong Kong.Studies in Law(4), 57–68.
- Lai, L. W. C. (1997).The economics of land use planning: A transaction cost approach. Hong Kong University Press. Hong Kong.
- He, Z., Hu, M., Wang, Z., & Yao, V. (2024). Valuing long-term property rights with anticipated political regime shifts.American Economic Review, 114(9), 2701–2747.
- OECD. (2022).Global compendium of land value capture policies. OECD Publishing.
- Shukla, J., & Tiwari, P. (2022). Measuring inadequacy in compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land: Evidence from Bengaluru, India.Land, 11(5), 664.
- Legislative Council Secretariat. (2023). Policies and programmes on land requisition for urban development in Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Hong Kong. Legislative Council Secretariat.
- Chan, S. A. (2002).A critical review on land resumption and compensation policy in Hong Kong(M.Sc. thesis, Hong Kong Polytechnic University).
- Li, S. R., & Mei, D. C. (2026). Analysis and practical exploration of the compensation dilemma of factual property rights in administrative expropriation.Advances in Social Sciences(1), 175–183.
- Ti, E. S. W. (2022). Justice as fairness: A Rawlsian perspective in compensating regulatory land takings.Journal of Property, Planning and Environmental Law, 14(2/3), 147–161.