Search

The household registration (hukou) system in China, classifying each person as a rural or an urban resident, is a major means of controlling population mobility and determining eligibility for state-provided services and welfare. Established in the late 1950s, it was initially used to bar rural-to-urban migration. After the late 1970s reforms, an inflow of rural migrant workers was allowed into the cities to meet labor demands in the burgeoning export industries and urban services without, however, changing the migrants' registered status, thus precluding their access to subsidized housing and other benefits available to those with urban registration. While there have been many calls for reforming this system, progress has been limited. Proposed reforms have attracted increasing academic and media attention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At the start of the so-called development race sixty years ago, China, showcasing revolutionary socialism, and India, boasting parliamentary democracy, had close similarities in economic structures and levels of development, but striking differences in terms of cultural cohesion, institutional flexibility and political orientation. The outcome of the race is unambiguous: the question is not who won, but why and how? It is argued here that a wide margin had already opened up in China's favour by the time of the systemic or policy-regime switch-points, 1978 in China, and shortly thereafter in India. The author seeks explanations for this differential performance in the divergent institutional configurations of the two societies and economies, especially in the rural sector in the pre-reform period, and highlights the contrast between the power of the Chinese mass mobilization mode of transformation and the persistent institutional rigidities and obstacles in the Indian case. Post-reforms, processes of ‘pervergence’— an emerging congruence in negative social features — appear to dominate over tendencies towards conventional convergence. The author reflects on the historical significance of the two development paths: did Nehruvian state-led planned development and Maoist socialism serve essentially as pioneers of capitalism, leveraging the re-launching of the two once-powerful Asian giants back into the global capitalist game on dramatically revised terms of engagement? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the 1990s, the introduction of a market economy and the process of rapid urbanization have been accompanied by a new urban poverty related to lay-offs and unemployment as well as by large-scale rural–urban migration, which is different from the traditional urban poverty of the ‘Three Nos’ (no relatives or dependants, no working capacity and no source of income). This article focuses on new urban poverty in China under market transition and discusses the causes of poverty creation. Instead of considering Chinese new urban poverty only as a result of market mechanisms, it argues that the state as the manipulator of institutions and policies does matter in the creation of new urban poverty, and that the cleavages between the old and new institutions further intensify it. Specifically, the following aspects of the creation of new urban poverty are examined in detail: the adjustment of industrial policy, the reform of state-owned enterprises, evolution of the household registration system, and the transformation of the welfare state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]