宅基地制度改革是我国全面深化改革进程中的重要组成部分，严格限制流转和不完备的用益权能使我国农村居民长期无法从土地增值中获益，农村居民财产性收入难以提高。2015年宅基地制度改革试点启动以来，各试点地区在探索宅基地有偿退出、宅基地流转、宅基地“三权分置”等方面取得了一定成果，但同时也存在较多问题，尚未形成可复制可全面推广的经验，对宅基地制度改革试点的评价也存在分歧。本文回顾和梳理了国内外关于农村土地制度和宅基地改革的文献，构建了宅基地制度改革试点影响农民收入的理论分析框架，并提出本文的研究问题：我国宅基地制度改革试点对农民收入究竟有何种影响？宅基地制度改革试点在不同地区的成效是否存在差异？本文将定量研究方法与定性研究方法相结合，构建了试点地区和非试点地区2013年—2019年11个省228个县（市、区）面板数据库，以农村居民人均可支配收入和农村居民人均财产净收入为被解释变量，使用双重差分法的双向固定效应模型对宅基地制度改革试点的政策净效应进行了实证分析与检验，并结合试点地区案例分析，阐释宅基地制度改革对农民增收的作用机制。研究发现：宅基地制度改革试点对农村居民人均可支配收入增长产生显著的抑制作用，在不同收入水平的地区作用方向和显著程度存在差异，在低收入地区有显著的抑制作用，对中等收入地区农民收入影响不显著，对高收入地区农民收入存在抑制作用但相较低收入地区程度较小。研究同时发现，宅基地制度改革试点对农民居民人均财产净收入增长的促进作用并不显著，在低收入地区和高收入地区间差异并不明显。宅基地土地增值收益在地方政府、集体组织、农民个人间分配的不平衡，试点前农村房屋私下出租和宅基地非正式流转的长期存在，农村居民短期内购房建房需求和宅基地使用权抵押带来的利息支出等共同造成了宅基地制度改革试点在短期内对农村居民收入增长的抑制作用。因此，本文认为要坚持以农民增收为目标深化宅基地制度改革，探索建立更公平的土地增值收益分配机制，宅基地制度改革在利益分配上要向农民让利。探索土地要素城乡一体化市场化配置，在土地资源及人口消费等方面实现城乡双向流动，在资本要素方面实现城市反哺农村促进乡村产业振兴。同时改革要坚持维护农民权益的底线，做好对农民的基本保障，要完善制度设计，为宅基地流转、宅基地退出、宅基地抵押构建规范的制度安排，防止宅基地改革的无序扩张。

The reform of homestead system is an important part of China‘s comprehensive deepening reform process. Strict restrictions on circulation and incomplete usufructuary rights make rural residents in China unable to benefit from land appreciation for a long time, and the property income of rural residents is difficult to increase. Since the launch of the homestead system reform pilot in 2015, various pilot areas have made certain achievements in exploring the paid withdrawal of homestead, homestead transfer and homestead "three rights separation" reform, but no replicable and comprehensive promotion experience has yet been formed. There are also differences in the evaluation of the homestead system reform pilott.This paper reviews and combs the domestic and foreign literature on farms’ income, rural land system and homestead reform, constructs a theoretical analysis framework of the mechanism of homestead system reform pilot to increase farmers‘ income, and on this basis puts forward the research questions of this paper: What is the impact of homestead system reform pilot on farmers‘ income growth? Is there any difference in the effect of the homestead system reform pilot in different regions?This paper adopts a mixed research method of quantitative research and qualitative research. On the basis of a panel database of 228 counties (cities, districts) in 11 provinces in the pilot and non-pilot areas from 2013 to 2019, taking the per capita disposable income of rural residents and the per capita net property income of rural residents as the explanatory variables, the paper uses the two-way fixed effect model of the DID method to empirically analyze and test the policy net effect of the homestead system reform pilot. Combined with the case study of the pilot area, this paper explains the mechanism of the homestead system reform on increasing farmers‘ income. The study found that the homestead system reform pilot had a significant inhibitory effect on the growth of per capita disposable income of rural residents. There were differences in the direction and significance of the effect in areas with different income levels. There was a significant inhibitory effect in low-income areas, but there was no significant impact on the income of farmers in middle-income areas. There was a inhibitory effect on the income of farmers in high-income areas, but the degree was smaller than that in low-income areas. It also found that the homestead system reform pilot has not significantly promoted the growth of the per capita net income of farmers and residents, and the difference between low-income and high-income areas is not obvious. The imbalance in the distribution of the value-added income of homestead land among local governments, collective organizations and farmers, the long-term existence of private rental of rural houses and informal transfer of homestead before the pilot, the demand of rural residents to purchase and build houses in the short term, the interest expenditure brought by the mortgage of homestead use rights, and the lag in the growth of net operating income from wage related income, all together cause the inhibition of homestead system reform pilot on the income growth of rural residents in the short term.Therefore, this paper believes that it is necessary to improve the institutional design of the transfer of homestead land and empower rural residents with more complete disposal rights. We need to improve the paid exit model for homesteads, classify and utilize the vacated homesteads, and appropriately tilt the distribution of land appreciation benefits towards individual farmers. We need to explore the market-oriented allocation of land elements for urban-rural integration, smooth urban-rural supply and demand, and effectively activate idle rural homesteads. The reform of the homestead system should not only increase farmers‘ income, but also adhere to the guarantee rights of homestead land and provide housing security for rural residents.