I have been reading a lot about the 户口 (Hukou) in the broadsheets for the past few days.
Let’s recall.
Jamil Anderlini of FT.com writes–
A group of 13 Chinese newspapers from across the country carried an identical front-page editorial on Monday calling for the abolition of China’s household registration hukou system in a highly unusual co-ordinated critique of government policy.
In language that unmistakably evoked early 20th century Chinese revolutionary movements, the editorial referred to the hukou system as “segregation” and “unconstitutional” and “the heavy invisible fetters placed on all citizens”.
The hukou is the residence permit issued by the Chinese government. Each family in China has a hukou booklet where everything about each family member is listed on it. Information includes the name, birth date, relationship with each other, marital status, address, and employer.
New born babies are able to get their hukou’s immediately once registered with the police. There is a column in the hukou which asks about the baby’s 籍贯 or place of origin. Per China’s laws, it follows the father’s 籍贯. So if the baby was born in Place A but his father’s 籍贯 is in Place B, the baby’s hukou is registered in a place he might never step into. This is a pretty weird situation to be in.
The hukou is very, very important to the life of a Chinese. But its enforcement then and now is different. Before, you need the hukou to buy food, to get treated in a hospital, to go to school, to go to work. If you do not have the hukou for the province you are in, you just can not avail yourself of the services. Take note–that was then.
Today, hukou laws are less restricting. Except that there really are places still that favor people with the local hukou. For example, there are jobs in Shanghai that require the person to have a Shanghai hukou. That is why you might have heard of the phrase “prized Shanghai hukou”. Medical insurance is another thing.
The hukou came about when the Communist Party instigated the Planned Economy so that they could control the movement of people between the urban and rural areas.
But then, the hukou editorial revolt earned the 13 journalists the ire of the powers that be–
Editors at The Economic Observer, the newspaper which initiated a joint editorial published on Monday criticising the mainland’s hukou (household registration) system, have been punished for their bold action as other participating media confirmed a government order to remove the editorial from their websites.
Published on the eve of the annual meetings of the National People’s Congress and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, the strongly worded joint editorial by 13 metropolitan newspapers stirred excitement as it called on the nation’s legislators to abolish the hukou system, calling it “obsolete”, “unconstitutional” and “a violation of human rights”.
One of the problems lies in the migrants’ education. They can not enroll in the schools of the location they chose to move in. This has become a bothersome thing to many parents, because the children’s hukou status is unchangeable.
In Beijing alone, about half of the 460,000 children born in the city over the past three years were not eligible for a hukou registration in the city and would be denied proper access to education, according to independent research by Hu Xingdou, an economics professor at the Beijing Institute of Technology, and Li Fangping, an independent lawyer.
Besides education, there are other issues like discriminatioin faced by migrant children. Migrant children are often unable to assimilate and interact with local children. According to a China Labour Bulletin survey last 2009, 50 percent of migrant students in Guangdong province said they played only with other migrant children. An older study conducted last 2006 by the China Youth Research Center found out that 63% of local urban children are active in school activies as compared to just 45% of migrant children.
Now with the labor shortage facing China just last month, I wonder if the hukou system IS also a factor. Though ideally, the hukou should have prevented internal migration. Because that was the original plan anyway. But due to economic reforms, many residents sought jobs in high-paying areas but cannot avail for themselves the benefits in that province due to their limited hukou powers. The New York Times says that–
The immediate cause of the shortage is that millions of migrant workers who traveled home for the long lunar New Year earlier this month are not returning to the coast.
The coast is where the money is. Like Guangdong. But it looks as if this is not what the workers are thinking. Maybe the prospects are indeed closer to home? Why they are thinking that–I do not know.
Just a side note, The China Law Blog presents a point about placing your businesses in second-tier cities instead; because apparently, that’s where all the workers are.
So Guangdong is set on raising their labor wages which is kind of an action/reaction to the labor shortage. And with wages rising, the prices of goods are definitely going to go up. This is not a good thing given that Guangdong is like the factory of the world. See, if all of this really relate to each other, something must be done to the hukou issue.
Going back to the point, Matt Schiavenza then asks if reforms to the hukou will end the labor problems?
Shanghai is actually the first major city to lessen the restrictions on the hukou system. According to Wang Zhan who is director of the Policy Research Office of the municipal Party committee, in the end there would be only three basic criteria – applicants should have a stable job in the city, be taxpayers for three to five years and have no criminal record. However, it is not yet clear when these would be implemented.
One of the arguments is that why not just abolish the system completely? Everything just seems so complicated with the different hukou policies in every province.
The thing though is, it is not really a one-two step to provide equal access to healthcare and education among others for a population like China’s. China is so big, and the financial gap among the urban and rural areas is as much disparity as its land area. Given that most of the senior citizens cannot even pay their penson, equal is the last word to describe the society.
The most important question to probably ask is does China have the money to fund the extra social security if the hukou is abolished? This just bothers me, because one of the foreign-students-run organization in Fudan University sort of specializes in assisting the migrant children (especially) in their education. I mean if in that area the government can not even step in, well…
But then, I have always believed that there is always a positive side to any issue. A hukou reform–an effective one at that–can be successful. Like if some sort of funding scheme can be arranged. Or if incentives to local governments be given to quicken the pace and make more efficient the tax collection. Anything that would make money come in. Probably the domino effect would just stop then.
I had an interesting talk with my Chinese language partner yesterday on this. She quoted Wen Jiabao saying something like this, “A small problem multiplied by 1.3 billion people becomes a big problem. But then if this big problem is divided by 1.3 billion, it will turn out to be a small problem.” Ok, so she said it far more eloquently than I did.
What do you guys think?
This was a big topic at a planning conference I attended in Beijing last year. It’s big issue.
One of the issues being debated within urban planning circles in China at the moment is the possibility (or impossibility) of migrant urbanization. Some argue that even with the absence of a hukou requirement, migrant workers are essentially priced out of urban home ownership. This ties into the idea of “home”, property and it’s relationship to urban integration and societal stability and so-called ‘rural-incompatibilities’ (like their children’s, as mentioned in the post).
Some schools would also credit the presence of the hukou one of the reasons why Chinese cities haven’t experienced suburban slums that often characterize South American cities.
Their solutions? Mixed, on the planning side. Some argue that offering such public benefits such as health care/education merely encourages the permanent movement of families into a city where they can never realistically hope to purchase a home and thus creating an even greater housing problem. Others would argue the creation of more affordable housing options tied in with access to health care/education…although this risks the creation of more “Zhejiang Town” enclaves.
It’s typical that people point fingers at a fault then fail to offer better alternatives.
Yes, the HuKou system has serious problems, but abolishing it too quickly can potentially cause even bigger problems. As already mentioned both by the author and Bryan, you only need to look at the slums in India & South America to see what might happen to China.
You can also look at EU to see how it has choose to treat similar problems with great caution: The nationalities of EU states are very similar to China’s HuKou for this purpose. China is bigger (about 2.5 times of EU population) than the whole Europe putting together and the regional gap between Chinese coastal cities and western regions (about 5 times) is bigger than the gap between Western & Eastern Europe (just over 2 times). Even EU, within a free people & goods movement zone, limit the immigration from Eastern to Western Europe – not all Eastern Europeans can move freely to live & work in Western Europe. It’s clear for all to see how new migrants to England from relatively prosperous Poland had caused major housing and social cohesion headaches for the British government. If China had abolished HuKou system too quickly, China would face similar problems, except it would be ten times worse.
The HuKou system is changing, slowly but surely. The fact that so many migrant workers can live & work away from home is a testimonial to the progress that has already been made. Latest announcement from the government will see more mobility between the country and smaller cities.
It’s a shame some people think they know it better and tried to force the government’s hand.
ChineseInUK,
Your last comment is lame. Nobody is “forcing the government’s hand” here. More’s the shame that debate is stifled and discussions like this are thereby considered “a waste of time”, the last excuse of the powerless. Maybe you should get out more. Read the papers. Ask yourself why vigorous public opinions help to frame government policy. Enjoy your stay in the UK.
Sam,
Thank you for your comment.
I’ve lived between China & England for the past 20 years and travel frequently between the two. I have also been to and lived in many parts of Europe and SE Asia. Yes I should get out more – there are so many countries I have never been to :)
Part of my job is to advise my employer on latest development in my field so I subscribe to & read both in prints & online over 20 papers in English & Chinese each & everyday across the globe, from UK, US, Canada, Australia to China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, India etc plus a number of translated aggregators from other language media outlays. When I travel, I read the local newspapers. Thank you for your advice but I’m afraid I don’t have more time to read more papers.
Talking of reading the papers, there had certainly been plenty discussion about the HoKou system in China, both its benefits & drawbacks, in papers, on the internet, in lecture rooms & official meetings. But in my opinion, those articles were published with the aim of forcing the government’s hand.
I was an anti-CCP student leader when I first moved to England and took part in many anti-China activities. I know very well the tactics that were and are still been played by many anti-China forces. I’m not saying those editors were supported by the same forces but in my opinion too many people fail to see the historical progresses China had made and the unprecedented complexity of the issues China is facing. I understand their frustration but disagree with their approach.
You’re entitled to call my comment lame, but at the same time I’m entitled to express my opinion that they tried to force Chinese government’s hand.
It is going to be interesting to see what comes of this in the next few years – but I would like to think that public services may see some improvement, as people “vote with their feet”.
God knows – it been three cites/states in five years to stay employed in the states, with little or no issues transferring licensing and addresses – I shudder to think what I would have had to done if the U.S. had some sort of hukou system.
True, true, true. But that’s an interesting idea–what if the U.S. had a hukou system? What cities would be at the top of the people’s list? I could think of the possibilities already.
Thanks for your comment, Matthew!
Honestly? Hard to conceive the idea, given the history of how the U.S. was formed – though the folks in California tried to stop people from coming to that state during the Great Depression. Also, for those folks that are not aware, states do compete with each other for population – given that every 10 years the population count goes against how many U.S. Representatives that state will have.
So the higher the population, more U.S. Representatives.
One of the points I don’t like is the fact that education is limited. In the U.S., I don’t see this as a problem as every state has access to good schools.
Though it would be weird if only the people in Massachusetts are able to study in Harvard. Come to think of it, if education is on the top of everyone’s list (because it could lead to a good job), Americans would flood Massachusetts.
But then New York is another state that looks promising.
There is a balance to the question of more representatives for more population – more taxes. What usually happens is that a state or city will hit a “critical mass” where services are no longer covered by current tax rates – and people begin to move to states will lower rates/better services.
Funny that you Massachusetts – it tipped over it’s balance and people are now moving into Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine (much to the disappointment and disgust of current residents).
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/05/13/the-tentacles-of-taxachusetts
Thanks for sharing the link, Matthew.
Wow! What a complicated situation! It’s hard if the laws among the states do not complement each other.
If you brush up on your constitution – you will see that the federal government is actually limited in scope when it comes to the basics, which is supposed to be the domain of the states. As for the fifty states… diversity is a many splendored, yet chaoticly insane, thing.
Which is a challenge to the legislators exactly.
{smirk} When is anything not a challange to any legislator?
However, if I was to speculate, just by population:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html
Now mind you – this is population count only within the city limits. America has a rich history of “suburbs” where – if factored into the city counts – could skew that list in various ways (i.e. LA or SF area in competition with New York and Detroit and other cites back in the top ten).
Yeah! Life in the U.S. suburbs is pretty much ok. At least what I can say from LA. It’s not really suburbs-suburbs.
LA (proper and it’s suburbs) are a culture unto itself, when compared to other cities within the U.S. – including the SF/Oakland/SJ area.
If I read your bio correctly – your from bio and age – you got to see some of that with Subic and Clark being so close to Manila, or am I mistaked?
Wow. Is my bio that obvious to say how old I am? Hehe.
Anyway, Subic and Clark are not exactly near to Manila. But because of the SCTEX or the Subic-Clark-Tarlar Expressway, travel time has definitely shortened. Yes, there are American airbases there. And it’s actually a rather controversial topic in the Philippines.
If my hazy memory serves – Clark and Subic were closed after Mt. Pinatubo, correct? Not aware of any other bases still in operation in the Philippines.
Yes, they were heavily affected by the Pinatubo eruption. However, that was a long time ago. And both Subic and Clark are flourishing into airport-industry-tourism complexes.
I am very proud of Subic actually. It’s really unlike Manila. The roads are wide and the traffic regulations are strictly followed. You should visit the country one of these days. (And you seem to know a lot about the Philippines.)
There is an expression I use from time to time – “Knowing enough to be dangerous”. As for the invite… not in the immediate future – wife wants to take the little one to see her grandparents first.
No prob! Drop me a message if you’re interested to know more about Philippine history, etc. I take it, you’ve heard of the Philippine election news this week?
If your talking about Manny Pacquiao… it could go two ways – he does good as an outsider, or he brings another level of corruption in the Philippines. Given the level of insanity that is boxing – I would not be surprised if Don King or Bob Arum attempt to get a couple of matches in Manila – as a “favor”.
That and the other “unexpected” results. Though I’m actually excited to see how everything else unfolds. I hope Manny does a good job though. I don’t think “favors” like that will come.
Many Filipinos are pretty caught up with this season’s elections.
Okay, I am curious… “unexpected”? Dark Horse Candidates getting into office or a shifting of party loyalities as a new generation of voters goes to the polls?
To put it simply, the “shoo-in” candidates turned out to be not-so-shoo-in in the end. But you know, elections are always like that. I think the mix will be interesting.
Hm… mix like the hung parilament in the U.K.?
Yes, something like that. Both the president and the VP and the senator line-up.
“New born babies are able to get their hukou’s immediately once registered with the police. There is a column in the hukou which asks about the baby’s 籍贯 or place of origin. Per China’s laws, it follows the father’s 籍贯. So if the baby was born in Place A but his father’s 籍贯 is in Place B, the baby’s hukou is registered in a place he might never step into.”
This is incorrect. Before the late 1990s, the hukou always followed the mother. The reason for this is that urban-rural marriaged almost invariably involve a rural woman and an urban man, so to prevent the urban population from increasing, a baby would always inherit its mother’s hukou registration. However,
“After 1998, children could inherit their father’s or their mother’s hukou status, making rural-urban or cross-regional marriages a truly practical means of migration, at least for the next generation.”
Fei-Ling Wang: ‘Organizing Through Division and Exclusion: China’s Hukou System’ page 52
Thanks for the correction, Michael.