The changing credibility of institutions: how household registration systems (hukou) in Mainland China and Taiwan define immigrants’ social benefits

Abstract

The hukou is one of the enduring institutions that defines social citizenship of residents/immigrants in mainland China. Whilst much discussion has focused on the Chinese case, relatively little attention has been paid to the system in Taiwan, to say nothing of a comparison between the two. This article seeks to enrich the discussion of the two hukou systems in terms of their functions in determining the access of cross-strait immigrants to social benefits in the respective host countries. Drawing on the ‘credibility thesis’, the analytical locus is placed on the continuity and change of institutional functions underlying the apparent persistence of institutional forms. When granting/withholding immigrants access to local social benefits, hukou systems fulfil several functions: firstly, a symbolic dimension, in which immigrants from both sides are (artificially) regarded as citizens of a divided nation rather than two separate countries; secondly, a substantial dimension that defines the scope and extent of social benefit entitlements granted to the immigrants in question; and finally, a management dimension that allows room for considerable administrative discretion in terms of adaptation to various circumstances arising from the unsettled state of cross-strait relations. Often times, realisation of these various functions is compounded by conflicts in identity politics, with repercussions for the generosity/rigidity of social inclusion for cross-strait immigrants. Evidence underpinning the theoretical elaboration stems from the analysis of legal documents regulating the social rights of immigrants in mainland China and Taiwan, supplemented by historical traces of the politics of cross-strait migration. The final findings should shed light on the facilitative/restrictive mechanisms of the hukou regulations in mainland China and Taiwan, highlighting the puzzling phenomenon that both hukou systems are gaining increasing significance in steering the cross-strait migration at a time when their functions in regulating domestic migration are changing, if not waning.

Keywords:

• Credibility thesis
• cross-strait migration
• Hukou systems
• Mainland China
• Taiwan

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Cheng and Selden, “The Origins and Social Consequences,” 644–668.

2 Chan and Buckingham, “Is China Abolishing,” 582–606; Wang, “Conflict, Resistance,” 80–100.

3 Information given by the Taiwan Affairs Office of State Council, accessed 02/August/2020 at: http://www.gwytb.gov.cn/wyly/201901/t20190116_12132596.htm.

4 National Immigration Agency statistics, accessed 03/August/2020. https://www.immigration.gov.tw/5382/5385/7344/7350/8883/.

5 Ho, “In Defense of Endogenous,” 1087–1118; Ho, “The ‘Credibility Thesis,” 13–27.

6 DiMaggio and Powell, “Introduction,” 1–38; Hall and Taylor, “Political Science,” 936–957; Immergut, “The Theoretical Core,” 5–34.

7 Pierson, Dismantling the Welfare State; Pierson, “The New Politics,” 143–179.

8 Esping-Andersen. The Three Worlds.

9 Hacker, “Privatizing Risk,” 243–260; Kuipers, The Crisis Imperative.

10 Streeck and Thelen, Beyond Continuity; Mahoney and Thelen, Explaining Institutional Change.

11 See note 5 above; Ho, Unmaking China’s Development; cf. Grabel, “The Political Economy,” 1–19.

12 See note 10 above.

13 Beckert, “Institutional Isomorphism Revisited,” 150–166.

14 cf. Banting and Kymlicka, Multiculturalism; Crepaz, Trust beyond Borders.

15 Zhang, “The Credibility of Slums,” 876–890; Sun and Ho, “A model for inclusive”; Oranje, van Huyssteen, and Maritz, “Rapid Urbanisation”.

16 Ten households comprise one ‘jia’ whilst ten ‘jias’ further comprise one ‘bao’, each unit with a head in charge of supervising the households within his area of responsibility. Tu, Bianhu Qimin.

17 See note 1 above; Wang, Organizing through Division.

18 Lu, Beyond Hukou.

19 World Bank, Sharing Rising Incomes, 16.

20 Wang, Organizing through Division; Wang, “Conflict, Resistance,” 80–100.

21 cf. Chen, “Institutional Credibility”; Sun and Ho, “A model for inclusive”.

22 Chan and Buckingham, “Is China Abolishing,” 582–606; Lin and Wu, Report on the Administration; Lin and Tseng, “The Politics of Hukou,” 63–96.

23 Shi, “Towards Inclusive Social Citizenship,” 789–810.

24 I am grateful for the reminder of one referee about this point.

25 Deng, Y, “Chongqing Land ticket: Liqidizing the ‘dead assets’ of farmers”. China Financial and Economic News, February/21/2012.

26 Du, “Rethinking the Hukou System,” 91–93; Bie, “Research on the Household,” 10–15; Zhang, “The Credibility of Slums,” 876–890; Liu and Zhang, “Cities without Slums”.

27 Hung, “The Pao-Chia System,” 437–471; Tsai, “Notes on Hoko Secretaryship,” 5–24.

28 Wang, “From Chinese Original Domicile,” 59–117.

29 Between 1945-1960, the number of ‘Mainlanders’ immigrating to Taiwan was estimated at ca. 1.2 million. See Yeh, “The Number, Origin,” 15–17.

30 Wang, “Political Transformation,” 71–116; Chang, “Towards an Understanding,” 93–150.

31 Lin and Tseng, “The Politics of Hukou,” 63–96.

32 Regulation on Chinese Citizens’ Travel to/from Taiwan. Information accessed September 18, 2016. http://www.gwytb.gov.cn/wl/zcfg_43785/l_43904/201312/t20131230_5451174.htm.

33 Annulation of the Taiwanese citizenship is unnecessary since the Beijing authority refuses to recognize any official documents of the Republic of China.

34 Information available at: http://www.gov.cn/banshi/2005-08/21/content_25042.htm; accessed September 23, 2016.

35 To be sure, glass ceiling remains for Taiwanese residents, for instance, in the employment restriction in civil service and those professional occupations in which skill certificates are required. In the last few years, however, the Mainland Chinse government has begun improving this policy by allowing Taiwanese to acquire certificates for occupations such as lawyers and architects.

36 http://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20160501000619-260301; accessed September 23, 2016.

37 Information available at https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/trad/chinese-news-45571941; August 2, 2020.

38 Tseng and Wu, “Reconfiguring Citizenship and Nationality,” 265–282.

39 Wang, “Ethnic Politics,” 81–107.

40 Chen and Yu, “Public Attitudes,” 95–148.

41 Chao, “Household Registration,” 43–90.

42 Previous studies have shown that the wide administrative discretion granted to the government agencies such as the Migration Bureau of the Ministry of Interior have given rise to abuses of power amongst officials processing the applications. Unfair treatment of mainland migrants was often blended with stereotype discrimination (Chao, “Household Registration,” 43–90; Tseng, “Who Can Be Us,” 73–107).

43 Sun, “Judiciary Exploration,” 245–312; MOHW, Second-Generation National Health Insurance.

44 Ho, “In Defense of Endogenous,” 1087–1118; Ho, Unmaking China’s Development.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan [MOST 108-2410-H-002-205-MY2].

Notes on contributors

Shih-Jiunn Shi

Shih-Jiunn Shi is a Professor of Social Policy in the Graduate Institute of National Development, National Taiwan University. He serves currently as Chair of the international organization “East Asian Social Policy Network”. His fields of research include comparative social policy with particular focus on East Asian social policy. He has published papers in major policy journals including the Journal of Social Policy; Social Policy & Administration; Policy & Politics; International Journal of Social Welfare; Public Management Review; Ageing & Society; Journal of Asian Public Policy; Environment & Planning C: Politics and Space.