The Logic Mechanism, Realistic Obstacles, and Implementation Suggestions for the Integrated Development of Rural Revitalization Partners and Village Collectives

Objective/Meaning In response to the policy requirements for deepening the rural revitalization strategy, and addressing the practical challenge that traditional “capital going to the countryside” models—plagued by externally embedded suspension and competing with villagers for profits—fail to achieve deep integration with village collectives, this paper systematically defines the conceptual characteristics of rural revitalization partners and explores effective pathways for their integrated development with village collectives.

Methods/Procedures Based on policy document review and literature analysis, this paper identifies and synthesizes the core features of rural revitalization partners. Drawing on modern corporate governance theory, it constructs an analytical framework of collaborative governance from three dimensions—power allocation, benefit distribution, and accountability mechanisms—to reveal the major dilemmas and institutional obstacles in current practice.

Results/Conclusions Rural revitalization partners exhibit four core characteristics: subject equality, interest linkage, governance synergy, and shared responsibility. The key distinction from traditional models lies in the shift from external embedding to internal integration. Effective integration depends on a progressive logical chain composed of power allocation, benefit distribution, and accountability mechanisms. However, practice still faces threefold obstacles: administrative overreach, loose interest ties, and grassroots blame-avoidance. Coordinated improvements should be advanced in three areas—clarifying property rights and optimizing allocation, improving distribution and strengthening supervision, and delineating responsibilities and perfecting accountability—so as to move from “formal integration” to “substantive integration”.