Transition Pathways of Poverty Alleviation Relocation Communities into New Urbanization in China: A Policy Tool Perspective Based on 38 Policy Texts

As a policy-driven land use transition initiative bridging poverty eradication and sustainable development, China’s Poverty Alleviation Relocation (PAR) program exemplifies how state-led resettlement can reconfigure land use patterns while balancing immediate livelihood security with long-term community capacity development. The integration of large-scale PAR communities into new urbanization is a critical postrelocation task that is essential for consolidating poverty eradication achievements and enhancing endogenous development capacity. This study examined how the configuration of policy instruments shapes the endogenous development capacity of PAR communities during their transition to new urbanization. Employing a “tool–goal” analytical framework, we conducted a content analysis of 38 provincial-level policy documents (2021–present) using NVivo 20 software. The findings reveal that while local governments have established a preliminary policy system, structural imbalances persist: (1) uneven deployment of policy tools, (2) underutilization of demand-based policy tools, (3) tool–goal misalignment, and (4) insufficient market/societal participation in government-led measures. The discussion further reveals that the land use transition in the PAR program emphasizes the “living mode” (housing and public services) over the “livelihood mode” (productive resources and nonagricultural employment), creating structural dependency and leaving industrial land underutilized—as evidenced by weak policy support for industrial development (14.83%) and labour outmigration from resettlement areas. Drawing on the sustainable livelihoods framework, we further demonstrate how this exogenous-dominated policy mix disproportionately enhances physical and financial capital while constraining the accumulation of human and social capital—the very foundations of endogenous development capacity. To address these issues, we propose three key recommendations: (1) optimizing the policy mix to strengthen the endogenous development capacity of PAR communities; (2) realigning policy tools with objectives to achieve diversified yet coordinated goals; and (3) addressing implementation gaps to better leverage market mechanisms and social forces in promoting the sustainable urban integration of resettlement areas.