The implication of the word “resource” is not restricted to objective, physical, or tangible substances. More often, people intentionally “discover” new resources when trying to meet specific goals. Recent scholarships on China’s rural governance have mostly dealt with the eastern coastal areas, where collective or private economies are thriving, or the southern villages with conspicuous lineage organizations. This study, with the aim to rediscover common resources for governance, chose a northwestern village as a case, where, at first glance, both the above-mentioned resources are lacking. Major findings include the following:First, unlike the eastern areas, the northwest villages own less discernible common resources including farmland, forest, or school buildings, which local residents have created and maintained through the socialist experiences during the commune era （1960s to 70s）. Second, unlike southern China where kinship relationships function as a carrier of people’s memories, the northwest villages share “collective memories”of the socialist past, which can bring resources into present rural governance. Third, rural governance can be seen as a “circulation” process in which these modest ecological or symbolic resources mutually interact.

　　　This study aims to examine one simple question: why do some low-income houeholds in a Northeast Thai village keep staying on in the village despite the fact that they could earn much higher income if they just work in urban areas. For the stated purpose, the study, based on first-hand observations from 9 years of intensive fieldworks in the rural area in Northeast Thailand, provides a detailed description of the villagers’ resources that allow them to sustain their living and autonomy and also their motivations to stay on in the village. The decision to stay on in the village and forgo the option to move out in the pursuit of higher income, may seem irrational from the eyes of economists. However, the author, by borrowing “capability approach” argument by A. Sen, argues that their behaviors could be understood as efforts of pursuing “lives worth living”, not profit maximization. Their “efforts” include forming community groups and practicing “sustainable agriculture” such as “organic agriculture” and “integrated agriculture”. These activities suit well with their natural environments and economic conditions and at the same time give them “issara” freedom/autonomy in the village.

　　　This paper analyzes the change of life-style of the livestock farmers and the transformation of the community of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, in the crisis that meadows are short, by carrying out an interview to four livestock farmers that lived in Hubeetshara-Hosho.
　　　The investigation clarified that, in Hot which is the local smallest unit, the joint ownership of the well and the joint use of meadows disappeared, and the individual treatment use settled. And an individualization advances to the relations of the mutual aid other than the ceremonial occasion. Furthermore, the lack of meadows, the remarkable rise of the breeding expense suppress management, and the secession from Hot brings instability of the life. The life-style of the city penetrates, and life became convenient, but the issue of inheritor is occurring.
　　　This paper showed the prospects to explore the joint use of meadows on having done it assuming individualizing it.