Isn’t this the definition of fascism? I was taught this in terms of ‘pure’ definitions:
Socialism = free elections / free speech, but government control over the means of production.
Communism = Dictatorial government control and state ownership of the means of production.
Fascism = Dictatorial government control, but generally private ownership of the means of production.
Democratic Capitalism = free elections / free speech, generally private ownership of the means of production.
By your definitions, the fascist model would be close.
There are two elements here, the political and the economic.
One interesting economic element (practically the only thing left that resembles Socialism) is that the land generally belongs to the government, so things like mineral rights are owned by the people/government much as other common resources (like the airwaves in the USA). Their use is licensed, but I do not know the particulars.
The buildings are owned by individuals, or as condominiums, and the land is public property, even for factories and commercial buildings. This is actually historically Chinese, long ago for many centuries all land was owned by the emperor, so technically everyone in China was a tenant (or a tenant of a tenant). After the revolution this theory was applied to the idea that all land belongs to the people.
This has made possible some major urban renewal projects, it is much easier to condemn whole neighborhoods (some very interesting historical ones at that). Private real estate developers are given the ‘contract’, or rights to redevelop the land, the plan being subject to approval of the local housing authorities. The housing is torn down and new homes are provided to the residents, or monetary compensation might be selected by the resident. In the new development, many more units are available for sale, and the developer makes his money on the sale of the new housing, but must bear the cost of the tear-downs and the new homes given to the former residents (which do not come with appliances and carpeting).
In such ways, the government spends little to no money of it’s own, and the developer pays for everything, including infrastructure improvements (cable, water gas, etc.). It is happening to my building sometime in the next year or so, my wife has just signed off on it. Actually, all of my neighbors are looking forward to it, they are convinced their new homes will be better than the present one. Our building is only about 15 years old, the first residential skyscraper erected in our little city. We were teased by the neighbors when I replaced storm windows last year, not realizing that this was going to happen until after the workmen finished.
This policy has also been a source of abuse, as some prime farmland has been taken by the cities for development, the insiders make a killing and the farmers are pushed off of their long-held land and not well compensated. As I understand it, this is a major source of social conflict around the big cities.
From my perspective, there is already a housing glut, and I think there are too many vacancies in my area, this policy will eventually make no sense but it has been good for fast profits up 'til this point.
