...The amendment marks the first time that the so-called “presumption of state expropriation in non-agricultural use of rural collective land,” a practice that the state has kept for decades, is abandoned...the [existing] laws tied up state expropriation with urbanization and de-agrarianization, i.e. when turning land legally designated for agricultural uses into land for non-agricultural purposes, state expropriation is necessary...

As for the possible implications, it is clear that the removal of expropriation steers clear of the normative boundaries for collective-owned land being used for non-agricultural purposes. In this sense, collective owners are allowed, if not encouraged, to lease out or transfer land for industrial and commercial uses, as long as the registration process is completed.

This at least ushers in two important changes. First, the amendment further curtails the powers of the local governments, as the scope of the land that can be taken is substantially limited to only six circumstances, say, infrastructure construction, public affairs, and large-scale buildings, where expropriations are permitted. As a result, the government's discretion to make compensation decisions are largely contained....