Is There a Chinese Middle Class?

People often ask me about the definition of the Chinese middle class. To me, it’s simple: the middle class are people who are neither poor nor rich, who have disposable incomes to consume, and who can follow their own dreams and pursue their own futures.

Yet there are many debates about the Chinese middle class. Some people say China has only the new rich and the very poor; others argue that the middle class is an American concept and it doesn’t apply to China.

To make things simple, here is a definition from China’s National Bureau of Statistics: the households with an annual income ranging from 60,000 yuan ($7,250) to 500,000 yuan ($62,500) should be categorized as middle class.

A research team led by Professor Zhou Xiaohong in Nanjing University further defined middle class occupations as: professionals in management and technology, civil servants, and entrepreneurs, with college or graduate school education.

If the “middle class” is an American concept, the Chinese are adopting it. With these two definitions, I believe the picture should be clearer about what the Chinese middle class would look like. They are consistent with my research and interviews with people in China.

I have to point out that there is even confusion about the term “middle class.” In an article “Myth of China’s new middle class,” the author argued the middle class in the West was evolved from bourgeoisie during the industrialization and “became more complex, producing managerial and professional classes,” and China's "new rich categories of entrepreneurs are quite unlike the 19th-century European bourgeoisie in the extent to which they have emerged from and retain close relationships with the established political system.”

I don’t understand why the “new rich” has anything to do with the “new middle class” here. To make things more complicated, people in China actually consider “bourgeoisie” (小资) to be lower than the middle class (中产). Furthermore, to separate the government from people is also a “Western way of thinking.” Notice the occupations of the Chinese middle class include “civil servants,” – that means “the government officials.”

The Chinese middle class will not be the same as the Western middle class. How are they different? What impact will they have? These are the “myths” my book is going to unveil. Please stay tuned.

Comments

[Chungst]

I am sorry, but your article comes across as a self-promotion of your yet-to-be published book or stated differently, your piece fails to add value. In contrast, when I read books by Chin-ning Chu (author of the famous "Think Face Black Heart"), she adds value through her didactical style despite dealing with mudane material -- that is to say I can still remember most of the analogies she employed because of their lasting impacts.

Please allow me to leave you with this comment. Someone once asked me to explain the difference between spam (his pejorative term) and an interesting article on a website? I answered an interesting article is thought-provoking.

Cheers

[semuren]

I think it is more that a little misleading to say that "people in China actually consider 'bourgeoisie' (小资) to be lower than the middle class (中产)." The problem I have here is with the translation of xiaozi （小资）as bourgeoisie. The whole conceptual backing for the systems of socio-economic identity in China don't really square up neatly with the Western historical experience. You seem to know this, given that you book is going to clarify for us these differences, but if this ham-fisted one-for-one equivalency of concepts is what your book is going to contain I don’t imagine it will be too enlightening for readers who have little or limited exposure to contemporary China. Your analysis here is like trying to define the 土/洋 dichotomy as domestic/foreign or ocean/earth. In other words, and over literalness vitiates the vale of your discussion. Why not write a post explaining the differences in the concepts (小资、中产、小康等等) as they are used in contemporary China. If you could do that it might make your book seem potentially interesting or insightful.

Moreover, I think you really misrepresent the author, Rowan Callick, and his source, David Goodman, who you link (cite?) and quote above. Goodman's point is just that the situation in China is different from that in the 19th century West. Goodman's point then seems to be the same as your’s, though you quote him, as if her were Callick, and in a way that makes it seem you are arguing against his thesis. This becomes apparent if one looks a a section of Callick's article that you did not quote:

"Goodman highlights 'the close associational links between the new entrepreneurs and the party-state; they are neither independent of nor excluded from the political establishment, which on the contrary seeks actively to incorporate them if there is no pre-existing relationship.'

This was the chief innovation of Jiang Zemin, who retired as leader five years ago.

He opened the doors for capitalists to join the party. "


But then again maybe you just wanted to 抛砖引玉. If that is the case, which I don't think I have provided any 玉 what you have produced here is certainly much more 砖 than 玉 like.

[kkin365]

I thought the post is well done. Her purpose, it seems to me, is to demarcate what a middle-class person is, in China, in terms of his/her income. Why accuse her of self-promotion -- after all, each poster is presumed to have something to say -- ditto, indeed, for commentators. The second commentator, immediately above, introduced a lot of words not in the original post. Who cares how the term should be rendered in Chinese -- what is important is the income range, which Ms. Wang has given us. Why not wait and see how she develops her theme in the forthcoming book.

[CrossProfit]

Take a look at author's bio, previous articles and site. This is what she writes about exclusively. Whether you agree or disagree with her conclusion is not the issue. SA posts all opinions no matter what and it is up to the reader to either agree or disagree with the article.

As for plugging her upcoming book, SA doesn't edit-out plugs as long as the article has some informative value. This is our experience and holds true for all contributors as long as the plug is upfront (obvious) and not misleading.

Perhaps the author can reply to some of the comments above and start a dialog. This would add some value.

CrossProfit

[huangthomas]

The said income group was created by Chinese official Statistical Bureau. Officially, the group is called "medium income group, or middle income stratum". The emphasis is on income, and not on overall wealth of the family. The income criteria is derived from World Bank figure of average per capita GDP of $8,700(the latest figure is 2005), which is adjusted for PPP (purchasing power parity)....etc. The current Chinese per capita GDP is $1,700 ~ 2,000 before PPP adjustment. It seems that Chinese government set a goal of ~$8,000 annual income for a family of 3 to lift the life of low income Chinese from poverty. This seems to be the goal of "Xiao Kang She Hui" of President Hu and Premier Wen, the Chinese leaders.

Officially, the goal is "middle or medium income stratum, or group". It never been called "middle class". The latter in English is more of a sociological definition, not purely defined by dollar figures in income. Helen Wang's use of the term "Chinese middle class" can be very misleading in our mine. The threshold of Chinese "medium income stratum", is lower than poverty line of the US in 2006. Our poverty line is ~$8,000 for family of 3 living in 48 contiguous states and it will be much higher in Alaska. In a previous writing, Helen Wang even brag about Chinese middle class is the same as American middle class in Bay area. It is highly misleading.

It is highly objectionable to translate "Chinese medium income stratum or group" into "Chinese middle class". This remind me of the day when Stalin and Mao declared their people enjoy the same "freedom" and "democracy" as in the West by corrupting the meaning of those English words.

To emphasize my point, a dental technician or secretary can have very high income, but they are not American middle class. Their works is to execute. They play little decision making role in their works. This is part of the sociologic definition of "American middle class".

[huangjin]

I don't care about other meanings attached to the word, for most people it means "neither rich nor poor".

The confusion is over whether "middle class" is a relative or absolute term, as I've seen it used both ways.

[huangthomas]

A word or term represent a concept and carry more meaning than the simple dollor figures. "Chinese medium income stratum" definitely exist, because it was created by Chinese Statistical Bureau to set a political and economic goal for the regime. The definition means very little for average American.

"Chinese Middle Class" is something which has not been well defined. It certainly is not the same as in American "MIddle Class".

[huangjin]

There are two ways to split it in my mind, for investors. There is the relative "middle class", i.e. the middle income group. They are large in number but individually are poor by American standards. There is also the "middle class" of people who have earning and spending power similar to that of Americans, especially considering PPP. But too many times I see lazy writing in articles (not this one) which blur the two groups in the mind of the reader.

Shilling makes a good distinction in this article:
www.forbes.com/2008/02...

"...we estimated that China's middle and upper classes amount to about 110 million. This indicates that only 8% of the total 1.4 billion population are middle class in terms of having measurable discretionary purchasing power. And despite their higher than average incomes, they accounted for only 25% of GDP in 2005."

[Helen Wang]

OK, here is a more comprehensive definition about the Chinese middle class: www.accessmylibrary.co....

[huangthomas]

Those are scholarly discussions. The focus is what sociological conditions should be included in defining this group. They have never been taken into consideration in the statistics, which still shows only "middle income stratum". To include sociological conditions in statistic, admittedly, is not an easy task.

The title of HW's post is a rhetorical question. Of course there is a Chinese middle class. But, where are they?

[Chungst]

kkin365:

The purpose of constructive criticism is to help the author write better pieces in the future so we can all benefit. The piece didn't add a lot of value to me -- which may not be the case for you -- and thus the constructive feedback. I prefer thought provoking pieces and if the author can incorporate that into her future pieces, it will incentivize me to read her pieces and possibly buy her book or at least recommend her to people who would be interested. Or, stated differently, if this is the best she is doing then I have little incentive to read her up coming book much less recommend it.

Separately, as a matter of style, her conclusion or summary came across as a book-plugging piece. It really detracted from the article and unfortunately, that was the last thought she left me with -- plugging her book. It would have been better (at least for me) to leave the last thought as a means to summarize, better yet to synthetize, her key points. Again, this is a matter of style.

[Chungst]

CrossProfit:

Any chance SA could put a disclaimer, i.e. as an adminstrative item, that this is a plug for a book so we can it out of the way and not detract from the article? Having it as the last line of an article is bad form (this is my opinion, of course).

Also, I agree with you that article was informative. However, I prefer thought-provoking to informative, and by thought-provoking, I agree with your concept of "it is up to the reader to either agree or disagree with the article."

Thank you.

Cheers.