China's Migrant 'Floating Population'

If you sometimes wonder why China is so hell bent on keeping economic growth at high levels the following article might open your eyes a bit. It comes via Capital Gains and Games and was written by a sociology professor at Columbia:

The conventional term for internal migrants in China is “floating population,” a phrase that describes unprecedented migrant flows, moving from inland villages in the underdeveloped central and western regions to China’s coastal cities, searching for work. According to recent estimates, the total number of migrant workers is more than 150 million, perhaps the largest movement of labor in human history. The floating population is a major force fueling the country’s rapid economic growth. Having made China one of the largest export economies in the world, migrant workers have also become visible to those outside China.

This mass migration has taken place in little more than 25 years. Since the 1950s, China has had an internal passport (hukou) system to control geographic mobility and, in particular, to limit rural-to-urban migration. As a result of economic reforms in the late 1970s, demand for manufacturing and service labor rapidly increased and legal restrictions on migration were relaxed, allowing workers to move from villages to cities. Despite this relaxation, the hukousystem has remained intact, preventing migrants from fully integrating into urban China.
Because of the hukou system, the legal status of China’s internal migrants more closely resembles that of undocumented immigrants to developed countries rather than other internal migrant populations. While their presence in cities is legal, China’s internal passport system does not allow most migrants to gain local residential status in the cities where they work. As a result, migrants hold disproportionate numbers of low-paying, low-skilled jobs distasteful to urban residents and are also excluded from many urban welfare provisions including housing, healthcare, and education for their children.

Now if you were a high ranking government official in China do you think you would take this wandering mob lightly? I sure wouldn’t. The author points out that some 10 to 20 million of these workers are now unemployed yet they haven’t returned to the rural areas. They continue to hang out in the cities or wander from city to city looking for work. “How you gonna keep ‘em down on the farm …”

This explains why the Chinese take the situation in Xinjiang so seriously. It would probably take a small spark indeed to spread discontent in that region to the millions that live the second class life of the floating population. In no manner could one describe China as a modern stable society.

I am forever at a loss to reconcile reports like this with observations from the China bulls who describe the incredible growth of the economy and the vast riches that are being accumulated by some of the citizens. I take them at their word and understand the vast potential that they see for the country but at the same time I ask myself, how do they hold this together.

History has not been kind to societies that have the sort of social stratification that this paper describes. I’m sure that the Chinese are well aware of this and feel themselves in a race against time to correct it. I wish them good luck and they will need much of that.

Comments

[Graham and ...:]

I can understand the China "bulls." They don't mind China's social stratification because they hope to be the beneficiaries of it (on the other side of the China trade). But if there is another Chinese revolution, it could make the French revolution look like a picnic. Then the China bulls will be quaking in their boots.

Jul 09 04:52 PM

[Jackrabbit:]

I would really like to see you go a little more in depth to the economic consequences of the kind of economic inequality you are talking about in this post. It seems like an aspect of the Chinese economy that is hugely important but almost entirely ignored by everyone one commenting on China's growth.

Jul 09 06:24 PM

[onebir:]

"This explains why the Chinese take the situation in Xinjiang so seriously. "
I don't think so. The Xinjiang problem is about relations between Han Chinese and Uiyghurs - who are culturally, linguistically & physically very different. (Blue-eyed Europeans speaking reasonable Chinese can pass for Uiyghur...) Han Chinese make up the majority of the floating population you describe (throughout the country) and seem to have *absolutely* no sympathy with Uiyghurs.

"I am forever at a loss to reconcile reports like this with observations from the China bulls" Agreed.

"I’m sure that the Chinese are well aware of this and feel themselves in a race against time to correct it." The raison d'etre of the regime is to perpetuate the the advantages it brings its members. The advantages stem from social stratification. If it doesn't perpetuate social stratification, it's pointless.

This 'internal contradiction' is one factor that makes the regime half-hearted in dealing with (dangerously destabilising) inequalities.

Jul 09 10:30 PM

[Tom Lindmark:]

An interesting take on the social inequality issue. If I read you correctly the regime's focus is a short-term maximization of returns to the favored and the devil take the hindmost. Put another way, they have no long-term plan for the country.

Am I overstating your case?


On Jul 09 10:30 PM onebir wrote:

> "This explains why the Chinese take the situation in Xinjiang so
> seriously. "
> I don't think so. The Xinjiang problem is about relations between
> Han Chinese and Uiyghurs - who are culturally, linguistically &
> physically very different. (Blue-eyed Europeans speaking reasonable
> Chinese can pass for Uiyghur...) Han Chinese make up the majority
> of the floating population you describe (throughout the country)
> and seem to have *absolutely* no sympathy with Uiyghurs.
>
> "I am forever at a loss to reconcile reports like this with observations
> from the China bulls" Agreed.
>
> "I’m sure that the Chinese are well aware of this and feel themselves
> in a race against time to correct it." The raison d'etre of the
> regime is to perpetuate the the advantages it brings its members.
> The advantages stem from social stratification. If it doesn't perpetuate
> social stratification, it's pointless.
>
> This 'internal contradiction' is one factor that makes the regime
> half-hearted in dealing with (dangerously destabilising) inequalities.

Jul 09 11:55 PM

[hondaicivic:]

"Put another way, they have no long-term plan for the country."....

- I think you're confusing China with the USA. Long-term planning in the USA is about 1 week while long-term planning in China ranges from 50-100 years. Trust me, when it comes to long-term planning the Chinese are definitely experts. They didn't cook up their plan to destroy the US manufacturing base 30 years ago when they started opening up all for nothing. Am I right?


On Jul 09 11:55 PM Tom Lindmark wrote:

> An interesting take on the social inequality issue. If I read you
> correctly the regime's focus is a short-term maximization of returns
> to the favored and the devil take the hindmost. Put another way,
> they have no long-term plan for the country.
>
> Am I overstating your case?

Jul 10 01:16 AM

[Graham and ...:]

Dear Tom Lindmark:

Take out your references to short-term and long-term and I would agree with you. China is a very hierarchical society with the five "relationships" (king to subject, husband to wife, parent to child, teacher to student, employer to employee). I'd also add a sixth: Chinese to foreigner. This is both China's short-term and long term plan.


On Jul 09 11:55 PM Tom Lindmark wrote:

> An interesting take on the social inequality issue. If I read you
> correctly the regime's focus is a short-term maximization of returns
> to the favored and the devil take the hindmost. Put another way,
> they have no long-term plan for the country.
>
> Am I overstating your case?

Jul 10 08:55 AM

[coreopsis:]

On Jul 09 04:52 PM Graham and Dodd Investor wrote:

> I can understand the US"bulls." They don't mind the US's social
> stratification because they hope to be the beneficiaries of it (on
> the other side of the US trade). But if there is another American > revolution, it could make the French revolution look like a picnic.
> Then the US bulls will be quaking in their boots.

Jul 10 09:27 AM

[Graham and ...:]

Dear coreopsis:

You "misquoted" me. But you clearly got the message.


On Jul 10 09:27 AM coreopsis wrote:

>

Jul 10 01:22 PM

[M.R. Henderson:]

China could well be having a revolution now and our hotel press core would not know. What happened in Xinjiang was political and small, except for the likely false death count. In South China, however, in the week prior, some 50,000-70,000 workers destroyed police offices and other government buildings in Hubei. The army was brought in to fight them. Stunning unrest kept the blog censors busy all week deleting reports as they appeared. Amazing a country can keep this kind of incident invisible in our day and age.

Jul 14 07:02 PM