|
China Urban-Rural Distinctions
In modern China, legal distinction is made between urban and
rural dwellers, and movement from rural to urban status is
difficult. Urban life is felt to be far preferable, and living
standards and opportunities for such advantages as education are
much better in the cities. This firm and absolute distinction,
which had no precedent in traditional society, is the result of a
set of administrative decisions and policies that have had major,
if unintended, consequences for social organization. Modern Chinese
society has been marked by an extraordinary degree of residential
immobility, and internal migration and population movement have
been limited by state control. For most of the period since 1958,
there has been no legal way to move out of villages or from small
cities to large cities. Although people have not inherited estates
and private property, they have inherited rural or urban status,
which has been a major determinant of living standards and life
chances.
China's cities grew rapidly in the early and mid-1950s as rural
people moved in to take advantage of the employment opportunities
generated by economic growth and the expansion of heavy industry.
The authorities became alarmed at this influx, both because of the
cost of providing urban services (food supply, waste disposal) and
because of the potential problems of unemployed or semi-employed
migrants creating squatter settlements. Additionally, Chinese
leaders held a certain anti-urban bias and tended to regard China's
cities as unproductive. They accused city residents of living off
the countryside and indulging in luxury consumption. Extolling
large, smoking factories, they sought to engage the population in
the manufacture of utilitarian commodities, like steel or trucks.
The authorities demonstrated their bias against commerce and
service trades by closing down many shops and markets. Since 1958
they have employed household registration and food rationing
systems to control urban growth and general migration
(see Migration
, ch. 2).
In the 1980s the distinction between urban and rural status
grew mainly out of the food distribution and rationing system.
Rural registrants were assumed to be growing their own staple
foods, and there was no provision for state allocation of grain to
them. The state monopolized the trade in grain; it collected grain
in the countryside as a tax or as compulsory purchase and used it
to supply its functionaries and the urban population
(see Internal Trade and Distribution
, ch. 8). Urban status entitled one to
purchase an allotment of grain, oil, and various other staple
items. These were rationed, and a ration coupon as well as money
was necessary to obtain grain legally. Ration coupons were good
only in their own localities. The rationing system served several
purposes. They included the fair distribution of scarce goods,
prevention of private speculation in staple foods, and residence
control. In addition, the police in cities kept household
registration records and could make unannounced inspections,
usually at night, looking for people who did not have legal
permission to reside in a city. The controls have not been
foolproof and have worked more effectively in times of shortages
and strict political control.
In the 1980s the reasons for the administrative barriers around
cities were fairly straightforward. Incomes and living standards in
China's cities are two to three times higher than in the
countryside. In addition, more urban dwellers have secure state
jobs with their associated benefits. State investment has been
concentrated in heavy industry, mostly urban, and agriculture and
the rural sector have been left to their own devices, after meeting
their tax obligations. The ironic consequence of a rural and
peasant-based revolution has been a system that has acted,
intentionally or not, to increase the social and economic gap
between country and city.
Data as of July 1987
|
