As a vital manifestation and component of socialist public ownership, the new rural collective economy serves as a crucial lever for achieving comprehensive rural revitalization. It also functions as an important vehicle for promoting integrated urban-rural development and realizing common prosperity for all. “Small-scale farming cannot lead to prosperity, nor does small-scale agriculture hold much promise. Collective economy is the foundation for farmers’ common prosperity and the material guarantee for their path toward shared prosperity.” Only by developing the new rural collective economy—this form of public ownership—can small-scale farmers be organized and connected to large markets, compensating for the shortcomings of fragmentation through coordination. This represents an inevitable choice for balancing fairness and efficiency under market economy conditions. Therefore, compared with the traditional collective economy, the core innovation of the new rural collective economy lies in the fundamental transformation of its institutional basis and internal mechanisms. It is based on the dual-level operation system under household contract management. Through the reform of the property rights system, it clearly defines the identity and rights of members by equity rather than household registration, which breaks the original village and group boundaries and makes the scope of the subject more flexible. In terms of operation mechanism, it strips off the additional political attributes and returns to the essence of economic organizations, emphasizing the stimulation of internal motivation through market-oriented factor combination and distribution according to contribution, thus changing the past egalitarianism and reliance on unified operation. Since the 18th CPC National Congress, the Party and the state have successively issued a series of policy documents on developing and strengthening the new rural collective economy, implementing systematic top-level design from property rights systems to operational mechanisms and distribution mechanisms. In 2016, the “Opinions on Steadily Advancing the Reform of Rural Collective Property Rights Systems” issued by the CPC Central Committee and the State Council first introduced the concept of “new collective economy” at the central level. Since then, the new rural collective economy has gradually become a hot topic in academic research. The 2023 Central Document No. 1 systematically proposed establishing a new rural collective economic operating mechanism characterized by “clear property rights relationships, scientific governance structures, stable operational methods, and reasonable profit distribution.” It further advocated exploring diversified development pathways such as “resource contracting, property leasing, intermediary services, and asset equity participation,” providing a reference framework for the scientific allocation of various factors. The Rural Collective Economic Organization Law of the People’s Republic of China, adopted at the 10th Session of the 14th National People’s Congress Standing Committee in 2024, further institutionalized these established theoretical frameworks at the legal level. It granted new rural collective economic organizations special legal person status, providing fundamental legal safeguards for their equitable participation in market competition. Consequently, the volume of policy documents in related fields has experienced explosive growth. This paper employs the visualization and measurement analysis software CiteSpace to examine relevant literature indexed in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database. Using scientometric methods, it constructs a visualized knowledge map of research on new rural collective economies, comprehensively presenting the current state, hotspots, and trends in this field to inform future research.

1)DataSourcesandResearchMethods

Research data were sourced from the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database. The search was conducted on November 4, 2025, with the following criteria: “Title = New Rural Collective Economy,” and the timeframe “January 2016 to present.” Advanced search yielded 968 high-quality documents. After manually removing duplicates, call-for-paper notices, news reports, interviews, and other non-research materials, 864 valid documents were selected as the base sample. The data were then exported in “Ref Works” format, with bibliographic records containing essential fields for analysis: article titles, authors, institutions, keywords, abstracts, classification codes, publishing journals, and publication dates. Cite Space software was employed to visualize these key data points, generating knowledge maps depicting author collaboration networks, research institution affiliations, keyword co-occurrence patterns, keyword clustering, and keyword timeline trends. These visualizations collectively reveal the current state, research hotspots, and future development trajectories of studies on the new rural collective economy.

2)AnnualPublicationVolumeAnalysis

To comprehensively understand the dynamic evolution of research on the new rural collective economy, the annual publication volume trajectory for this field (1990-2025) was directly exported from CNKI. As shown in Figure 1, this trajectory can be clearly divided into three phases: low-level fluctuation, steady growth, and explosive growth. The years 2019 and 2023 represent pivotal moments in this research domain. The period from 1990 to 2018 constituted a low-level fluctuation phase, with annual publication volumes generally remaining at a low level of 1 to 7 papers. During this time, although the concept of “new rural collective economy” had been proposed, it had not yet become a core topic of social and academic attention, resulting in limited research output. The period from 2019 to 2022 marked steady growth, with publication volume rising steadily from 13 articles in 2019 to 61 in 2022. The core drivers of this growth were the clarification of top-level design, the formation of a policy framework, and the subsequent surge in practical demand and resource investment. The period from 2023 to 2025 represents an explosive growth phase. Publication volume surged to 181 articles in 2023, peaked at 296 articles in 2024, and reached 293 articles in 2025. During this stage, the rural revitalization strategy was deeply implemented, and the reform of rural collective property rights systems was advanced comprehensively. Both practical exploration and theoretical research on the new rural collective economy reached a climax, resulting in an explosive growth of research outcomes. Overall, the fluctuation in publication volume accurately reflects the academic community’s attention to this topic as it aligns with national policy adjustments and the evolution of rural reform processes. It also illustrates the current state and trends in research on the new rural collective economy.

Figure 1. Annual paper output (1990-2025).

3)AuthorandCollaborationNetworkAnalysis

Visual analysis of research authors was conducted using CiteSpace software. Results show 161 author nodes (N), 45 connecting lines (E), and a network density (Density) of 0.0035. This indicates that a research community on the new rural collective economy has begun to form, but collaboration among authors remains weak, with the vast majority still conducting independent research. Publication statistics indicate that Gao Ming from the Rural Economic Research Center of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs has authored the most papers, totaling 5. According to Price’s Law, the minimum publication count for core authors is M ≈ 0.749 Nmax^1/2, where Nmax represents the highest publication count. Substituting yields: M ≈ 0.7495^1/2 ≈ 2, meaning core authors should publish at least 2 papers. Statistics reveal that core authors collectively published 166 papers, accounting for only 19% of total publications—far below the 50% threshold. This confirms that a stable core author cluster has yet to form in this research field.

As shown in Figure 2, a few author nodes—Gao Ming, Zong Chengfeng, Gong Chen, Wang Ruyi, Ni Kunxiao, Mu Na, and Wang Zhengbing—exhibit larger sizes and occupy relatively central positions. Numerous connections cluster around them, forming core hubs within the network. Further literature review reveals: Gao Ming connects with Ni Kunxiao and others as an early core, conducting macro-strategic policy research on the top-level design of the new rural collective economy from an “agriculture, rural areas, and farmers” perspective; Mu Na and Wang Zhengbing are both recently active practice-oriented researchers who frequently collaborate, primarily focusing on empirical studies in Shaanxi and Gansu provinces; Zong Chengfeng’s research, ongoing since 2020, centers on Party building leading the development of the new collective economy; Gong Chen’s relevant research outcomes are concentrated in 2020, examining practical pathways in Hezhou, Guangxi; Wang Ruyi, in collaboration with Bao Huiling and Yang Qin, has conducted case studies in Tongliang District, Chongqing, with findings concentrated in 2019. These core authors exhibit substantial publication output and significant academic influence. By leading teams or collaborating with peers, they drive progress on key research topics, fostering strong internal connections within their groups. However, cross-team research remains limited, and interdisciplinary collaboration across disciplines is insufficient, reflecting a fragmented research landscape.

Figure 2. Author collaboration network diagram.

4)ResearchInstitutionsandPublicationAnalysis

As shown in Figure 3, visual analysis of research institutions in this field reveals a network comprising 154 institutional nodes (N) and 60 connections (E), with a network density (Density) of only 0.0051. This indicates that while numerous domestic institutions focus on new rural collective economy research, most operate independently or in isolation, with few establishing collaborative relationships. Examples include the collaboration between the Rural Economy Research Center of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, the Institute of Rural Development of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and the University of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; the partnership between Xi’an Jiaotong University and Chang’an University; as well as the cooperation between Sichuan Normal University and the Sichuan Academy of Social Sciences. It can be observed that such collaborations are basically confined within the same institution or the same geographical region. The formation of this cooperation pattern may be attributed to the differences in the realistic foundations and practical paths of developing the new-type rural collective economy across various regions, coupled with the fact that relevant theoretical interpretations are largely reliant on institutions at the central level. In terms of publication output, the top three institutions are South China Agricultural University (12 papers), the Rural Economic Research Center of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (11 papers), and tied for third place are China Agricultural University and the University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (10 papers each). This distribution likely reflects each institution’s specialized focus and available research resources. Agricultural universities, research institutes, and government-affiliated research centers form the core research forces in this field, demonstrating strong scientific output capabilities (Table 1).

Table 1. Selected institutions’ publication output.

Note: Only the top ten institutions by publication volume are listed.

Figure 3. Institutional distribution map.

1)KeywordCo-OccurrenceAnalysis

Keywords serve as the “knowledge codes” of academic research. Their co-occurrence relationships and evolutionary trajectories profoundly map the core trajectories, shifting hotspots, and frontier directions within research fields. This study employed CiteSpace to conduct keyword co-occurrence analysis based on the sample literature dataset, yielding a keyword co-occurrence network diagram (Figure 4). In the map, line thickness indicates the strength of association between keywords, while node and font size represent keyword frequency. Thicker lines and larger nodes signify stronger associations and higher frequencies. Map parameters show: network nodes N = 251, connections E = 237, and network density 0.0076.

Figure 4. Keyword co-occurrence map.

To further visualize keyword frequency, centrality, and temporal patterns, high-frequency keywords were extracted and ranked from the sample literature. “Rural revitalization” ranked highest in frequency (201 occurrences) with an intermediary centrality of 0.5, followed by “common prosperity” (153 occurrences, centrality 0.47) and “collective economy” (39 occurrences, centrality 0.14). This indicates that these keywords not only appear frequently but also co-occur closely with other terms. Current research on the new rural collective economy focuses on rural revitalization, common prosperity, collective economy, and development pathways. Generally, keyword frequency correlates positively with betweenness centrality—higher frequency correlates with greater core influence within the network. However, exceptions exist. For instance, “development pathways” has a frequency of 28 but an intermediary centrality of 0.01, while “development challenges” has a frequency of 7 and a centrality of 0.04. Despite the former being four times more frequent, its centrality is lower. Therefore, analyzing research hotspots requires integrating multiple factors such as frequency and intermediary centrality, with centrality serving as a crucial reference. Certain keywords, like “industry amalgamation” with only 9 occurrences and a centrality of 0.02, may still serve as vital research connectors due to their position at key junctions.

2)KeywordClusteringAnalysis

Following co-occurrence analysis in CiteSpace, clustering analysis is typically required to address variations in keyword distribution across different documents. This process systematically organizes dispersed keywords, enabling researchers to grasp specific research directions more clearly. CiteSpace offers three clustering algorithms: LSI, LLR, and MI. While their results are not identical, they exhibit high similarity. This study employs the commonly used LLR algorithm for keyword clustering, with results shown in Figure 5. Cluster evaluation metrics indicate a Q-value of 0.8571 (greater than 0.3) and an S-value of 0.9521 (greater than 0.7), confirming the effectiveness of keyword clustering. Lower cluster numbers indicate a greater number of included keywords. This study selected the top 10 cluster labels to analyze research outcomes in this field from 2016 to 2025. The labels are: #0 “Common Prosperity,” #1 “Rural Revitalization,” #2 “Pathways,” #3 “Collective Economy,” #4 “Resource Integration,” #5 “Rural Governance,” #6 “Current Status,” #7 “Development Model,” #8 “Reflections,” #9 “Implementation Pathways.” Among these, #0 and #1 reveal research focusing on the relationship between the new rural collective economy and common prosperity/rural revitalization; #2 and #9 directly address discussions on development pathways for the new rural collective economy; #4, #5, and #7 also indirectly relate to its development paths; #6 and #8 concentrate on surveys and reflections regarding the current state of new rural collective economic development; #3 points to analyses of the connotations and characteristics of new rural collective economies. A systematic review of these 10 tag groups visually reveals the practice-oriented nature of related research. Furthermore, the co-occurrence map of keywords shows that problem awareness permeates the entire process of new rural collective economy research.

Figure 5. Keyword clustering diagram.

3)KeywordTimelineAnalysis

To trace the thematic evolution of research on the Chinese path to modernization, this study employs CiteSpace software to generate a keyword timeline map (see Figure 6). Based on the emergence and transition patterns of keywords, the research journey is divided into three phases.

Figure 6. Keyword timeline diagram.

The first stage represents the foundational phase (2016-2018). During this period, research output was limited, with core terms yet to emerge. The focus centered on defining basic concepts. High-frequency keywords such as “collective economy,” “farmers,” “pathways,” and “resources” reflect an emphasis on conceptual interpretation, feature categorization, and early model summarization. This stage provided the conceptual foundation and practical starting point for subsequent research.

The second phase represents the expansion and deepening stage (2019-2021). Starting in 2019, the number of keywords increased significantly, and the core terms in this research field became more diverse. A prominent feature was the emergence of “rural revitalization” as a central theme, closely linked to “collective economy.” This phase emphasized investigation and reflection, giving rise to research directions such as development pathways, practical challenges, and experience summarization. This shift indicates a transition from conceptual clarification to practical mechanisms, focusing on pathways for the new rural collective economy to drive comprehensive rural revitalization—such as through tertiary industry integration, property rights reform, and governance optimization. In 2021, “common prosperity” emerged as a long-term developmental goal for collective economies, though early studies primarily explored its theoretical connections.

The third phase represents a systematic leap in research (2022-present). Since 2022, studies on the new rural collective economy have exhibited systematic and interdisciplinary depth. “Common prosperity” has risen as the core anchor, forming a trinity analytical framework alongside “rural revitalization” and “collective economy,” while extending into specific topics like “income distribution” and “interest linkage.” Concurrently, keywords like “rural governance,” “resource integration,” and “development models” have emerged. Research on rural governance has evolved from exploring governance systems to emphasizing Party-building leadership, then incorporating collective property rights structures—shifting the lens from purely social issues to examining them through the prism of developing the collective economy. Studies on resource integration have expanded from initial industrial convergence research to encompass diverse support systems like financial backing and talent development. Research on development models has also begun prioritizing case studies and regional experience summaries. This indicates that research now emphasizes the institutional implications and long-term significance of the new rural collective economy within the broader goal of common prosperity. Overall, this research field has evolved from partial conceptual analysis to exploring practical pathways integrated into national strategies, ultimately advancing toward systematic and theoretical construction. Its evolution has consistently interacted closely with policy directions, revealing a distinct trend: equal emphasis on practical exploration and theoretical innovation, and a shift from singular economic issues toward diverse collaborative governance.

4)KeywordEmergenceAnalysis

Emerging keywords refer to research terms exhibiting significant frequency growth within a specific period, with their intensity reflecting the heat and cutting-edge dynamics of a research direction. Analyzing such terms helps identify the temporal evolution of research hotspots and grasp future development trends in the field. Similarly, using CiteSpace software for emergent analysis of keywords (see Figure 7), the emergent strength of keywords such as “new type,” “thinking,” and “rural” all exceed 1.5. This indicates that scholars have conducted systematic and profound discussions on the “novelty” of the new rural collective economy, consistently grounding their research in rural development and committing to the modernization of agriculture and rural areas. Since 2019, the annual number of published papers on the new-type rural collective economy has entered a phase of steady growth. Considering the emergence and persistence periods of emergent keywords, the concentrated emergence of general keywords such as “farmers,” “reflections,” “new-type,” “rural,” and “collective economy” around 2019 was closely associated with the deepening phase of rural reform in China at that time. It coincided with the initial stage of the full implementation of China’s Rural Revitalization Strategy, and policy impetus stimulated intense academic discussions on basic concepts.

Figure 7. Keyword salience map.

Scholars first devoted themselves to clarifying the connotation of its “new-type” feature, conducting conceptual analyses centering on the subjectivity of “farmers,” the characteristics of “new-type,” and the field of “rural” areas, and attempting to construct a theoretical framework meeting the requirements of the new era to respond to policy orientations and practical needs. This led to a high burst intensity of these words, highlighting the upsurge of theoretical exploration in the early stage of research. However, such conceptual studies were relatively concentrated and had clear objectives. Once the academic community reached a preliminary consensus on definitions and characteristics, relevant discussions quickly became saturated, and the burst of these keywords subsequently weakened. Therefore, these conceptual keywords only maintained their burst for 1 - 2 years, which reflected the natural transition of the research field from theoretical foundation-laying to practical deepening. In terms of the trend of theoretical transformation, this marked a shift in research focus from the conceptual interpretation of “what it is” to the exploration of practical mechanisms concerning “how to do it,” indicating that research has paid more attention to operability, applicability, and policy implementation. This phenomenon of short-lived keyword bursts not only reveals the law that academic hotspots iterate rapidly in response to policy cycles and social demands, but also suggests that the research on the new-type rural collective economy is moving from the stage of basic theoretical construction to a mature period of applied research, laying a solid foundation for subsequent cutting-edge topics such as sustainable development and property rights reform. With the conclusion of the Poverty Alleviation Campaign in 2020 and the further implementation of the Rural Revitalization Strategy, Keywords emerging in 2020 and 2022 predominantly pertain to the practical development of the new rural collective economy. These range from case studies and summaries of developmental challenges to explorations of growth pathways. This marked the shift of research focus from the conceptual interpretation of “what it is” to the exploration of practical mechanisms concerning “how to do it,” reflecting a growing emphasis on operability, applicability, and policy implementation in research. This keyword burst phenomenon not only reveals the law that academic hotspots evolve rapidly in response to policy cycles and social demands, but also indicates that research on the new-type rural collective economy has moved beyond the stage of basic theoretical construction to a mature period of applied research, laying a solid foundation for subsequent cutting-edge topics such as sustainable development and property rights reform. The analysis above largely aligns with the earlier keyword timeline chart (Figure 6), further validating the authority of bibliometric analysis and the credibility of its insights. Considering the historical context and the annual publication volume chart (Figure 1), the keywords that emerged prominently starting in 2023 reveal: Following the 2023 Central Document No. 1’s inaugural proposal to establish a new rural collective economic operating mechanism characterized by “clear property rights relations, scientific governance structures, stable operational methods, and reasonable profit distribution,” and its call to explore diversified development pathways such as “resource contracting, property leasing, intermediary services, and asset equity participation,” research on the new rural collective economy entered an explosive growth phase. Research on property rights systems has become increasingly extensive and in-depth, while studies on distribution mechanisms increasingly emphasize the value orientation of achieving common prosperity for all people. As the national institutional and legal frameworks mature, research has gradually focused on innovative development paths for the collective economy, with revitalizing and effectively utilizing “three resources” (funds, assets, and labor) becoming a top priority. Furthermore, the keywords that emerged in 2023 have persisted to the present, indicating that these research directions in the new rural collective economy are likely to remain hot topics for the foreseeable future.

Based on the results of bibliometric analysis and considering the accuracy of the literature, this study integrates the 10 effective clustering systems generated by the LLR algorithm into five major research themes to reveal the core issues and development trends in this field. Specifically: Clustering #0 “Common Prosperity” and #1 “Rural Revitalization” jointly support the research on the relationship between the new rural collective economy and common prosperity and rural revitalization; Clustering #3 “Collective Economy” mainly corresponds to research on the connotation and characteristics; Clustering #2 “Path” and #9 “Realization Path,” as well as parts of #4 “Resource Integration” and #7 “Development Model,” point to research on development impetus and development model; Clustering #6 “Current Situation” and #8 “Thoughts” focus on research on development predicaments.

1)Researchontherelationshipbetweenthenewruralcollectiveeconomyandcommonprosperity/ruralrevitalization.

This topic is highly aligned with Cluster #0 “Common Prosperity” and Cluster #1 “Rural Revitalization”. Cluster analysis shows that these two keywords rank the highest in terms of frequency and betweenness centrality, indicating that they are the core nodes of the research network. Bibliometric data demonstrate that the academic community has always regarded Common Prosperity and Rural Revitalization as the top-level goals of the new-type rural collective economy. In the new journey toward building a modern socialist country in all respects, achieving common prosperity for all people presents the most arduous and demanding task in rural areas. Developing the new rural collective economy is regarded as a key lever for resolving challenges in agriculture, rural areas, and farmers, promoting common prosperity for farmers and rural communities, and comprehensively advancing rural revitalization. In recent years, academia has conducted multidimensional explorations on this theme, yielding rich theoretical outcomes. a) RelationshipwithCommonProsperity. Common prosperity is an essential requirement of socialism. The academic community has mainly demonstrated the facilitating role of the new-type rural collective economy in common prosperity from the perspectives of institutional attributes, functional advantages, and realization paths. [1] argued that, fundamentally, the public ownership nature of the new rural collective economy determines its orientation toward achieving common interests rather than maximizing capital profits, thereby providing institutional safeguards for common prosperity through production relations. [27] systematically elucidated the intrinsic logical connection between the new rural collective economy and the four core dimensions of common prosperity in the new era. They argue that the new rural collective economy: - Boosts farmers’ income by revitalizing “three resources” (land, capital, and labor) and promoting industrial integration, corresponding to “prosperity for all”; - Supports “comprehensive prosperity” by fostering integrated economic, political, cultural, ecological, and social development in rural areas; - Advances “gradual prosperity” through collective wealth accumulation to shoulder greater social responsibilities and enable “the wealthy leading the less affluent”; - Realizes “shared prosperity” by establishing interest linkage mechanisms via shareholding cooperation to stimulate villager participation. [12] examine empowerment pathways. Their article first identifies the practical challenges faced by individual farmers, such as mismatched capabilities and market barriers, as well as the absence of economies of scale. The new collective economy provides a platform for coordinated development among various rural economic entities. This not only enhances overall risk resilience but also unleashes developmental vitality through benefit linkages, ultimately driving agricultural and rural modernization and ensuring shared development outcomes. b) RelationshipwithRuralRevitalization. The overarching requirements of the rural revitalization strategy are “thriving industries, ecological livability, civilized rural culture, effective governance, and prosperous livelihoods,” with the new rural collective economy playing a central role. [14] demonstrate the intrinsic connection between the new rural collective economy and rural revitalization through theoretical, historical, and practical arguments. They contend that, theoretically, the new rural collective economy inherits and develops Marxist cooperative economic theory; historically, it continues the Chinese Communist Party’s exploration of agricultural and rural modernization; and practically, it provides the material foundation and institutional innovations for rural revitalization. [25], focusing on rural industrial revitalization, argues that developing the new rural collective economy is a crucial pathway for effectively organizing and mobilizing social forces to participate in rural industrial revitalization. It can integrate idle rural resources, promote the integration of primary, secondary, and tertiary industries, and enhance the added value of agricultural products. The study emphasizes its foundational and driving role in advancing rural industrial revitalization. [31] elaborate on the pathways through which the new rural collective economy empowers rural revitalization by focusing on three dimensions: “strengthening agriculture, beautifying rural areas, and enriching farmers.” They contend that the new rural collective economy achieves “strengthening agriculture” through resource integration and industrial upgrading, “enriching farmers” through employment income growth and public welfare positions, and “beautifying rural areas” through environmental governance and the cultivation of rural customs. [29] contend that the new rural collective economy offers comprehensive support for rural revitalization through five dimensions: industrial integration, governance optimization, talent attraction, cultural enrichment, and ecological conservation. Simultaneously, the rural revitalization strategy provides institutional safeguards and industrial innovation opportunities for the development of the new rural collective economy, forming a mutually reinforcing logical loop. c) ResearchCommentary. The existing literature has reached a high degree of consensus on affirming the strategic value of the new-type rural collective economy. However, in-depth analysis reveals the inherent emphases and limitations within such studies. First, the research has primarily focused on macro-institutional analysis and the elaboration of theoretical correlations. There remains a lack of sufficiently in-depth empirical research and comparative analysis regarding the specific micro-transmission mechanisms through which the new-type rural collective economy promotes common prosperity and rural revitalization, its quantitative performance evaluation, and its differentiated effects in different regional contexts. Second, although the dominant position of farmers has been widely emphasized, the discourse perspective of a large number of studies still tends to focus on the organizational, industrial, or policy dimensions. There is a relative lack of special discussion on the realization mechanisms of farmers’ subjectivity in the new-type collective economy, their actual participation, their sense of gain, and the influencing factors thereof.

2)Researchontheconnotationandcharacteristicsofthenewruralcollectiveeconomy.

Cluster #3 “Collective Economy” directly corresponds to this topic. Focusing on the definition of connotation, its frequency and centrality also indicate that this issue is a basic research hotspot. As a crucial lever for consolidating and improving the basic rural operating system and comprehensively advancing the rural revitalization strategy, the conceptual definition and essential characteristics of the new rural collective economy have remained a focal point of academic research. a) ConceptualDefinition. The research mainly defines its connotation from four dimensions: institutional core, operation mode, governance mechanism, and value objective. These perspectives are interrelated and jointly outline the overall profile of the new-type rural collective economy. The property rights system serves as the core dimension distinguishing the “new” from the “traditional” collective economy. [13] argue that the new rural collective economy is characterized by “collective ownership and shareholding cooperation,” driving economic fairness in the distribution of collective property rights between the collective and individuals through labor and capital alliances. [3] further analyzed this from the perspective of evolving production relations, arguing that the new rural collective economy represents an adaptive transformation in the form of collective ownership of the means of production to meet the demands of developing new-quality productive forces in agriculture. From the perspective of operational methods, these scholars generally agree that the new rural collective economy must integrate into the socialist market economy system. [24] explicitly defines “adaptation to the socialist market economy system” as its core characteristic, characterizing it as “re-cooperation” based on collective land ownership. [11] specifically describe one of its features as “market-oriented management methods,” where its status as a special legal entity enables autonomous operation and flexible market entry or exit. This adaptability to the market economy distinguishes the new collective economy from the traditional model of centralized pooling and unified accounting prevalent during the planned economy era. From a governance mechanism perspective, [28], while exploring high-quality development, lists “scientific governance structure” as one of the essential elements defining the new collective economy. The 2023 Central Document No. 1 explicitly equates “scientific governance architecture” with property rights relations, operational methods, and profit distribution as the four core operational mechanisms of the new rural collective economy. From a value-orientation perspective, academia widely acknowledges that the new collective economy embodies social objectives beyond purely economic functions, reflecting a value orientation toward common prosperity in the distribution of labor outcomes. b) EssentialCharacteristics. Based on the consensus on its connotation, scholars have further refined the essential characteristics of the new-type rural collective economy, the core of which can be summarized as the “Four Modernizations.” The clarification and shareholding of property rights structures constitute its most fundamental feature. In stark contrast to the ambiguous property rights of traditional collective economies, the new collective economy clarifies collective assets to members of collective economic organizations through asset verification and quantification, granting farmers shareholding rights over collective assets. Market-oriented and diversified operational methods. The pathways summarized by [22]—government-supported, organization-led, and market-incentive models—along with the diverse forms mentioned by [11], such as resource contracting, property leasing, and asset equity participation, all reflect a market-oriented shift in operational logic and diversified exploration of implementation methods aimed at enhancing market competitiveness and profitability. Democratization and standardization of governance mechanisms. The introduction of modern enterprise management systems represents another major highlight. [13] note that contemporary rural collective economic organizations commonly establish governance structures including member assemblies, boards of directors, and supervisory boards. These implement democratic decision-making, management, and oversight to safeguard members’ rights to information, participation, expression, and supervision. Shared and Rationalized Distribution Mechanism. [28] contends that the new collective economy emphasizes retaining necessary development funds while rationally distributing distributable income based on members’ shares and contributions. This aims to enable farmers to tangibly share in the dividends of collective economic development, achieving interest linkage and sharing—a direct manifestation of its role in advancing common prosperity. Value objectives are becoming more complex and socially oriented. [24] points out that the new rural collective economy not only pursues economic growth but also shoulders multiple social functions, including providing community public services, improving rural governance, and promoting social harmony. This makes it a vital hub connecting farmers with markets and the state with rural society. In summary, the new rural collective economy is an economic form characterized by: a clear and shareholding property rights structure; market-oriented and diversified operational methods; democratic and standardized governance mechanisms; shared and rational distribution mechanisms; and complex and socialized organizational objectives. c) ResearchCommentary. The existing literature has provided a basic conceptual framework and characteristic sketch for understanding the new-type rural collective economy, yet it is obviously inadequate in terms of depth and criticality. On the one hand, the research shows a distinct tendency of policy interpretation. Most discussions are closely aligned with the formulations of central documents, while there is insufficient theoretical excavation of core concepts and a lack of in-depth dialogue between theories of different disciplines. On the other hand, in terms of research methods, the focus is on normative interpretation and case enumeration. There is a shortage of empirical tests on the relationship between various connotative elements and the performance of the collective economy, as well as a lack of comparative studies on the substantive differences in connotation under different regional contexts and development models.

3)Researchonthedrivingforcesbehindthedevelopmentofthenewruralcollectiveeconomy.

This topic is closely related to Cluster #2 “Path” and Cluster #4 “Resource Integration,” among others. In the keyword co-occurrence analysis, although these two keywords are not the most frequently used, they occupy pivotal connecting positions in the research network, indicating that the research on driving forces constitutes the core theoretical foundation for exploring development paths. Developmental momentum serves as the core engine propelling the sustained growth of the new rural collective economy. Existing studies have explored its “sources of momentum” from multiple dimensions, generally concluding that its driving forces are not singular but rather the combined result of government guidance, market-driven forces, and endogenous organizational capabilities. a) GovernmentandMarket. The relationship between government and market is the primary dimension for understanding development drivers. [2] argues that the formation of the new rural collective economy draws its driving force from both government and market. Specifically, “the government can play a facilitating role in establishing new rural collective economic organizations,” but the core operational aspects of the collective economy—namely, “collective production, operation, and income distribution—rely on the market to unleash the pioneering role of grassroots communities.” He summarizes the successful pathway as “grassroots farmers’ spontaneous pioneering practices → government recognition and promotion”. This perspective establishes the analytical foundation for combining an “effective market” with an “effective government.” [10] further support this conclusion, synthesizing existing research to state: “The primary drivers propelling the new rural collective economy stem from government guidance and market forces.” Government momentum manifests through top-down design—such as property rights reforms and policy support—to cultivate a conducive development environment, while market momentum energizes organizational effectiveness via resource allocation and competitive mechanisms. b) EndogenousMomentum. Beyond external government and market forces, research increasingly focuses on endogenous momentum generated within organizations. [17] proposes that the sustained development of new rural collective economic organizations primarily stems from two endogenous drivers: the economic interests of farmers and the social responsibility demands inherent to the organizations themselves. First, farmers’ economic interests serve as the fundamental driving force. He notes that new rural collective economic organizations function as vehicles for farmers’ “autonomous decision-making, voluntary participation, and mutually beneficial cooperation.” Farmers’ engagement and support for organizational development stem from realizing their individual values and goals, including income growth, risk mitigation, and enhanced market competitiveness. Second, social responsibility constitutes another layer of endogenous motivation. Beyond economic functions, these new rural collective economic organizations shoulder multiple social responsibilities. The sense of community identity, cohesion, and tangible improvements in member welfare that come from fulfilling these responsibilities, in turn, motivate the organizations to pursue better development, creating a virtuous cycle. c) ResearchCommentary. Most existing literature presents government, market, and endogenous driving forces in a parallel manner, yet fails to conduct in-depth analysis on which driving force dominates under different resource endowments or development stages. Nor has it clearly revealed whether the three are complementary, substitutive, or confrontational—the dynamic balance and conflicting relationships among these driving forces have not been fully explored. In addition, current research pays little attention to how these driving forces can be transformed into sustainable organizational competitiveness and development performance. For instance, can collective economic organizations maintain their development momentum after the withdrawal of government policy incentives? How can the short-term profit orientation of the market be reconciled with the long-term social goals of the collective economy? Due to the lack of empirical tracking and evaluation of the sustainability of driving forces in existing studies, the corresponding countermeasures and suggestions lack targeted relevance.

4)Researchondevelopmentmodelsforthenewruralcollectiveeconomy.

Cluster #7 “Development Models” and Cluster #9 “Implementation Paths” are a direct reflection of this topic, indicating that research on models constitutes the focus and core of practical exploration. Development models serve as the core carrier for the new-type rural collective economy to transition from theoretical conception to practical operation, and also hold the key to its success. Through a systematic review of existing literature, it is found that the new-type rural collective economy has formed a variety of specific development models in practice. Based on the core driving mechanisms, resource organization methods, and governance structure characteristics of these models, they can be categorized into five main types. a) AssetActivationandAppreciationModelcenteredonpropertyrightstructurereformandassetoperation. This type of model focuses on realizing the preservation and appreciation of collective “resources, assets, and funds” through clear definition of property rights and flexible asset operation. Its common feature is the introduction of market-oriented mechanisms into the collective property right framework. [21], through research on economically developed regions, summarized paths mainly based on asset and property leasing, government subsidies, and industrial alliances. Its operation relies on obtaining stable income through leasing physical assets such as land and factory buildings owned by the collective, or gaining revenue by undertaking government projects and participating in industrial cooperation. [26] explicitly listed activating resources and assets as one of the basic models, emphasizing the market-oriented development of idle or inefficiently used collective assets. In the multi-dimensional framework constructed by [5], “the utilization methods of ‘three capitals’ (resources, assets, funds)” is taken as a core dimension, covering various specific implementation forms such as resource contracting, asset leasing, and fund investment as shares. The advantage of this model lies in its relatively simple operation, controllable risks, and ability to quickly increase collective income, making it often regarded as a basic path. However, its limitations have also been pointed out by many scholars. For example, [21] found that it may lead to a low proportion and unreasonable structure of collective economic operating income, and excessive reliance on leasing and subsidies may result in a lack of endogenous motivation and sustainability for development ([8]). b) IntegratedDevelopmentModelcenteredonindustrialexpansionandvalueenhancement. Transcending simple asset leasing, this model aims to create higher value by developing characteristic industries, extending industrial chains, or promoting cross-industrial integration. It emphasizes the productive and innovative functions of the collective economy. [26] summarized the diversified industrial integration development model, where collective economic organizations directly engage in or guide the development of characteristic planting and breeding, agricultural product processing, rural tourism, e-commerce, and other industries. [16]’s case study focused on the role of the new-type rural collective economy in promoting the organization of rural tourism, elaborating in detail on how this model overcomes the scattered problems of individual operations and ensures farmers’ main income in tourism development by integrating village resources, unified development and operation, and standardized service standards. In addition, providing socialized services and labor economy also fall into this category ([26]); the former gains income by providing professional services such as mechanical tillage, warehousing, and marketing for farmers, while the latter organizes labor to undertake external engineering projects. This model has higher requirements for management capabilities, market development, talent, and technology, but if successful, it also has greater income-increasing potential and a stronger driving effect on rural industries. c) AgglomerationDevelopmentModelcenteredonorganizationalinnovationandjointcooperation. This model aims to break through the bottleneck of limited resources and capabilities of individual administrative villages, and obtain economies of scale and competitive advantages through innovative organizational forms or strengthened external cooperation. Its core characteristics are openness, jointness, and networking. [26] explicitly proposed two models: cross-village group joint development and undertaking external factor participation. The former refers to geographically adjacent or industrially complementary villages jointly establishing companies or cooperatives to integrate resources for common development; the latter refers to opening up to the outside world and introducing external entities such as industrial and commercial capital and social enterprises for cooperation. Among the three effective operation models analyzed by [20], the joint-stock cooperation model of Lizhiwei Village in Guangdong and the strong village company model of Yong’an Village in Zhejiang are typical representatives of this type. Joint-stock cooperation essentially involves village collectives and enterprises establishing a community of interests through equity cooperation; strong village companies are usually led by towns and townships, with multiple village collectives investing as shareholders to carry out market-oriented investment and operation, featuring the characteristics of “enclave economy.” [21] also suggested optimizing the collective economic structure by encouraging inter-village cooperation and cross-regional development. This model can effectively integrate scattered resources, connect with large markets, and introduce advanced management, but balancing the powers, responsibilities, and interests of all cooperative parties and preventing cooperation risks are key challenges. d) PoliticalandSocialDrivenModelcenteredonPartybuildingleadershipandgovernanceintegration. This model highlights the core leadership and organizational mobilization role of grassroots Party organizations in the development of the collective economy, emphasizing the inherent integration of economic activities with social governance and public interests. Based on the practice in Shiquan County, [6] proposed the “leading collaborative governance” model, which focuses on exerting the political momentum of Party organizations, linking the government, enterprises, collective organizations, and farmers, and constructing a “three grasps, three links, and three guarantees” mechanism. Using grounded theory, [9] found that the new-type rural collective economy is shaped by both market and social logics, and in areas with poor resource endowments, social logics such as community cohesion, trust, and norms may be more important than market logics. The village-community integration model led by Party organizations in Tangyue Village, Guizhou, analyzed by [20], is a model representative of this type, characterized by the in-depth integration of village Party organizations and collective economic organizations, and the realization of collective actions through strong social mobilization and organizational guarantees. The advantage of this model lies in its ability to effectively overcome the dilemma of collective action and ensure the fairness and public welfare of development, but its success is highly dependent on a strong, dedicated grassroots Party organization team. e) EndogenousEmpowermentModelcenteredonfactorsupportandcapacitybuilding. This model focuses on addressing the shortcomings of key factors such as talents, funds, and technology that restrict the development of the collective economy, and stimulating endogenous motivation through systematic empowerment. A special study by [4] systematically explored the models, dilemmas, and paths of talent support, pointing out the need to build a support system from multiple aspects, such as talent attraction, selection, training, and motivation. [8] also listed factor constraints such as talents and funds as development bottlenecks, and correspondingly proposed countermeasures such as strengthening talent projects and innovating financial support. This model is not an independent economic form, but a basic guarantee system that penetrates and serves the aforementioned various models. From a theoretical perspective, [13] pointed out that the new-type collective economy aims to simultaneously solve the contradiction between farmers’ “motivation” and “capacity,” where clarifying property rights solves the motivation problem, and unified operation improves farmers’ ability to participate in the market, which is essentially also an empowerment process. f) ResearchCommentary. In summary, the development models of the new-type rural collective economy revealed in existing literature form a multi-level and interwoven spectrum. From relying on the activation and operation of existing assets to taking the initiative to explore the market through industrial integration, and then to organizational cooperation, breaking boundaries, it reflects the progression and deepening of development levels. The Party building-led and governance-integrated model provides political guarantee and social foundation for these economic activities, while the factor empowerment model provides fuel for sustainable development. At the same time, through sorting out, it can be analyzed that the current research on development models mainly has two prominent limitations. Firstly, most models are summarized from “star villages” with special resource endowments or location advantages, and their experience is difficult to replicate in ordinary villages, resulting in limited practical guiding role for most regions. Secondly, research mostly focuses on superficial descriptions such as industrial selection or leading entities, lacking in-depth analysis of key links such as the internal operation mechanism, interest connection, and distribution method of the model, which may easily lead to imbalanced income distribution among entities in practice and affect farmers’ tangible sense of gain. Future research and practice should pay more attention to the applicable conditions, combination mechanisms, and prevention of potential risks of various models, so as to promote the new-type rural collective economy to achieve inclusive, sustainable, and high-quality development.

5)Researchonthedevelopmentalchallengesofthenewruralcollectiveeconomy.

This topic corresponds to Cluster #8 “Reflections” and Cluster #6 “Current Situation.” The label of Cluster #8 directly highlights the reflective nature of research on practical dilemmas. As the practice of the new rural collective economy deepens, the various practical challenges exposed during its development have become a focal point of academic attention in recent years. a) DevelopmentDilemmas. The current development of the new rural collective economy faces a series of structural, institutional, and capacity-related challenges, which scholars have revealed from different perspectives. Administrative Pressure and Formalism Dilemma. Based on field research in ten villages across five provinces, [15] point out that grassroots levels face a significant paradox of “disconnect between practical operations and institutional objectives” when developing the collective economy. Development tasks are often reduced to checklists and metrics, with excessive administrative evaluation pressures fostering formalism at the grassroots level. Development becomes driven by meeting targets rather than addressing the village’s intrinsic needs, resulting in a “disconnect between the collective economy’s name and reality.” The outcome is frequently “revenue without impact,” where farmers feel little sense of participation or gain, and the original purpose of collective economic development becomes distorted. Multiple scholars have highlighted the collective economic organizations’ insufficient “self-sustaining” capacity. [7] noted that since the rural tax and fee reform, village-level public expenditure has increased while collective economic income growth has stagnated, facing challenges of “fund shortages, insufficient revenue to cover expenses, and severe debt.” The contradiction between increased state fiscal transfers and insufficient village-level resources has become prominent. [23] summarize this as the “weak foundation” dilemma, characterized by dual constraints: insufficient material capital resources and a shortage of specialized human capital. Particularly under relatively closed property rights systems, it becomes difficult to connect with external market factors. [30] further notes that nearly 40% of villages nationwide have collective operating income below 50,000 yuan, indicating weak developmental foundations. Structural Imbalances in Property Rights and Governance. During the market-oriented transformation of new rural collective economies, tensions between traditional governance structures and modern property rights requirements have become increasingly apparent. [30] emphasizes that the “special legal person” status granted to rural collective economic organizations under the Civil Code faces implementation challenges in practice. Issues such as the nominalization of “three resources” (funds, assets, and resources) rights, difficulties in implementing tax incentives, and restrictions on collective land equity participation hinder deep cooperation with market entities. [23], drawing on agency theory, identify the “inefficient operational management” dilemma. This manifests as a mismatch between rights, responsibilities, and interests between collective members and managers—where members “demand much but control little,” while managers “demand little but control much”—leading to insufficient incentives and agency problems. [27] contend that collective economic development objectives often deviate, failing to effectively benefit ordinary farmers, particularly smallholders. Unstable benefit linkages constitute a core issue, as farmers’ role as development agents remains underutilized and revenue distribution mechanisms are inadequate. [23] summarize this as the “goal deviation” dilemma, where the economic functions of collective economic organizations clash with the social functions of community security, resulting in ambiguous value positioning. Regional imbalance and cognitive lag dilemmas. Developmental unevenness and subjective cognitive barriers also constitute significant constraints. [27] note that the uneven development of the new rural collective economy is pronounced, with successful cases predominantly concentrated in areas with favorable resource endowments or distinct locational advantages. A large number of rural areas in central and western China remain in an initial or weak stage. [19] and [18] both note that some grassroots cadres and masses require enhanced ideological understanding of the new rural collective economy. They exhibit traditionalist tendencies, reliance on top-down project funding, and a lack of initiative and capability in pioneering innovation and market operations. b) ResearchCommentary. Current research on development dilemmas mainly has two major blind spots. First, it overlooks the operational and investment risks faced by collective economic organizations after their market entry, and lacks discussions on the establishment of internal risk prevention and control mechanisms. Second, against the backdrop of urbanization, the research has not paid sufficient attention to the complex impacts of farmer differentiation on the definition of membership rights, interest demands, and other related aspects. Therefore, future research should no longer simply list problems; instead, it should commit to structural analysis, conduct in-depth exploration of the causal relationships and systematic roots between different dilemmas, and focus on the controversial issues in core institutional fields such as property rights and governance.

Based on a quantitative analysis of 864 research papers on the new rural collective economy indexed in the CNKI database from 2016 to 2025, this study systematically reviews the current state of research in this field and outlines future trends.

1) Fundamental Analysis Findings. Annual publication volume clearly delineates three distinct phases: low-level fluctuation (1990-2018), steady growth (2019-2022), and explosive expansion (2023-2025). This trajectory precisely mirrors the evolution of academic attention alongside national policy adjustments and deepening reform processes. Regarding key authors, figures such as Gao Ming, Zong Chengfeng, Gong Chen, Wang Ruyi, Ni Kunxiao, Mu Na, and Wang Zhengbing exhibit significant node sizes and occupy relatively central positions within collaborative networks. However, a stable core author cluster has yet to form. Institutionally, agricultural universities and research institutes—including South China Agricultural University, the Rural Economic Research Center of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, China Agricultural University, and the University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences—constitute the core force. This also indicates relatively weak inter-institutional collaboration, with most entities conducting independent or fragmented research.

2) Keyword co-occurrence and clustering analysis reveal that “rural revitalization” and “common prosperity” are the most influential core nodes in the network. Together with keywords like “collective economy” and “development pathways,” they form the primary framework of research hotspots. The top ten clustered keywords systematically present five core research themes: the relationship between the new rural collective economy and major national strategies; its connotative characteristics; development drivers; practical models; and problem-solving approaches. Research indicates that academic discourse has evolved from early conceptual definition and feature summarization (2016-2018) to deepening exploration of practical mechanisms integrated with the rural revitalization strategy (2019-2021). It has now entered a phase of systemic advancement (2022-present), establishing a “trinity” analytical framework linked to common prosperity goals. This research exhibits distinct practical orientation and policy interaction characteristics.

3) Keyword emergence and timeline analysis reveal dynamic shifts in research frontiers. Keywords emerging around 2019 focused on conceptual interpretation but showed short-lived prominence, indicating saturation in foundational conceptual studies. Post-2020 keywords signaled a shift toward practical experience summarization and problem analysis. Notably, since 2023, keywords such as “path selection,” “innovative development,” “property rights structure,” “three types of assets,” and “shared development” have emerged and persisted, signaling that current and future research will increasingly focus on key areas including deepening property rights system reforms, diversifying innovative pathways, optimizing benefit distribution mechanisms, and revitalizing the “three types of assets.”

Currently, developing new forms of the rural collective economy has become a crucial lever for comprehensively advancing rural revitalization and achieving common prosperity for farmers and rural areas. As the relevant legal framework matures and practical exploration deepens, future research in this field should emphasize three key areas. First, in view of the current situation where there is insufficient collaboration among authors and institutions engaged in research on China’s new-type rural collective economy, it is imperative to establish a top-down systematic coordination mechanism.

At the national level, special major research programs can be launched, mandating joint applications by universities, policy research institutions, and local pilot programs. In addition, regular high-level forums can be held to promote the in-depth integration of policy-making, academic research, and practical application. At the regional level, efforts should be made to encourage institutions of the same kind to form research alliances, share research bases and data resources, and conduct collaborative research to tackle common regional challenges. Meanwhile, the scientific research evaluation system should be reformed to increase the weight of collaborative achievements in performance assessments. An open and shared database and case repository should also be established to reduce the cost of knowledge acquisition. These multi-level and pragmatic measures will effectively integrate fragmented research forces, foster a collaborative innovation network, and thus provide more solid academic support for rural revitalization. Second, research perspectives must be refined, shifting from macro-level strategic interpretations to micro-level mechanism analyses. Particular emphasis should be placed on comparative case studies and empirical research examining critical aspects such as internal governance, market-oriented operations, and benefit-sharing mechanisms within collective economic organizations across different regional resource endowments and development models. Third, close attention must be paid to emerging challenges in reform practices, such as effectively preventing administrative intervention and formalism, enhancing the endogenous “blood-building” capacity of collective economic organizations, and ensuring equitable distribution of benefits. This will provide theoretical support for policy optimization. We must persistently pursue innovation in both theory and practice, driving research on the new rural collective economy to contribute greater wisdom toward achieving comprehensive rural revitalization and modernization of agriculture and rural areas.