Abstract:Based on the panel data of 2047 counties (districts) in China from 2006 to 2018, the policy practice of setting up 592 poverty alleviation and development key counties and 203 rural reform pilot areas in China is regarded as a natural experiment, and the double difference method is used to identify the practical performance of the two regional policies. The analysis shows that the two policy practices can improve the economic performance of the policy implementation areas; among them, the minority areas in the poverty alleviation and development key counties, the areas with higher dependence on exogenous financial transfer payment and the areas with weak market economic vitality will have the policy performance enhancement effect; but at the same time, based on the differences in the effectiveness of the regional, provincial, municipal and county levels and the different effects of the two policies Urbanization reflects the inherent weakness and endogenous motivation of deep poverty-stricken areas, which will rely on policy support for a long time. More importantly, based on the market-oriented, management oriented and political transaction cost theory, this paper explores the behavior path of Rural Revitalization from the three dimensions of rural industrial revolution, rural business entities and institutional innovation. In addition, we must adhere to the constraints of the stability of land property rights, the dominant position of farmers, and the principle of equity of collective ownership, and put the improvement of land usufructuary rights, the construction of long-term industrial development mechanism, and the realization of the equalization of basic public services such as education, medical care and human settlements in urban and rural areas on the reform agenda to achieve the goal of Rural Revitalization.

Key words:poverty alleviation,Rural Revitalization,regional policy,transaction costs,path selection