Four Major Changes in China’s Overall Social Structure
Senior Tsinghua social scientist explains urbanization results
This newsletter features the translation of the Chinese article 《我国整体社会结构四大变化》Four Major Changes in China’s Overall Social Structure. The author is 李强 LI Qiang, a senior Tsinghua social scientist who formerly headed the School of Social Sciences there. This is easy to understand and not long, and it gives a broad and good idea of the macro changes in China.
Before we go, your Pekingnologist wishes to thank Dot Dot Stand, a China tech news site, for graciously doing the key and first round of copyediting the translation here.
***
Four Major Changes in China’s Overall Social Structure
by LI Qiang, formerly Dean, School of Social Sciences, Tsinghua University
China has witnessed seismic changes in its overall social structure since the reform and opening up. The former social classes and strata, such as farmers, workers, and intellectuals, have changed, and many new social classes have emerged. Regarding these changes, Lu Xueyi put forward the view of “ten classes”, which is, in fact, an explanation of occupational stratification. Based on the International Socio-Economic Index of Occupational Status (ISEI) and national census data, this author uses a purely quantitative method to conduct quantitative research on the changes in China’s social structure. The study reveals that China’s social structure has shifted from an “inverted T-shaped” one to a “土-shaped” one (with an expanded middle class). This illustrates the basic status in two respects: First, the lower-middle class in China still accounts for a large proportion of the total population. Second, the proportion of the middle class has increased markedly. According to the calculations done by the research team led by the author, so far China’s middle class (including family members), with a population of over 300 million, accounts for 26%-28% of the total population. This author attempts to elaborate on the four major changes below.
Fundamental changes in urban and rural population structure
Regarding the overall social structure, China’s society has shifted from one that is dominated by the rural population in the early 21st century to one that is dominated by the urban permanent population. The urbanization rate is usually adopted to indicate this change. In 2001, China’s urban population was 480.64 million, accounting for 37.7% of the total population, and its rural population stood at 795.63 million, accounting for 62.3% of the total. According to the data from the seventh national census conducted in 2020, the population living in cities and towns registered 901.99 million, 63.89% of the total, while the population living in rural areas registered 509.79 million, 36.11% of the total. In other words, China has seen a complete change in urban and rural populations: in 2001, rural residents took up over 60% of the total population, while in 2020, urban residents accounted for 60% of the total population instead.
The urban-rural disparity has always been one of the biggest problems in China, but it now manifests new characteristics, namely the complexity and diversity in urban-rural disparity. Today, rural areas have also witnessed prominent wealth gaps. Some villages and farmers are impoverished, while others can be quite affluent. The relationship between urban and rural areas is far more complicated than before. In the past, the development of rural areas was mainly realized through urbanizing the rural areas and transforming farmers into urban inhabitants. Yet today, farmers now are unwilling to be transformed into urban residents as they will lose their land, which is the source of their wealth. Such cases abound. In many regions, after the land rights were confirmed, farmers may acquire the land certificate, homestead certificate, and property ownership certificate. In many villages, land use rights and collective property were transformed into stock shares, and farmers become shareholders and enjoy generous dividend benefits. This is especially true for rural areas not far from big cities, where villages are growing rich with newly-established mechanisms. Generally speaking, the rural areas in the vicinity of big cities are wealthier, whereas those far away from big cities lag.
The changes in the urban and rural population structure cause tremendous changes in the way the residents work and live
Such tremendous change in the urban and rural population structure brings about comprehensive social changes. For hundreds of millions of people, the way of production has changed from the labor in agriculture in rural areas to the labor in industrial, service, and commercial sectors in cities and towns. There is also a fundamental lifestyle change. In the past, people in rural areas had a self-sufficient lifestyle in which they “planted melons and beans near the house”, raised chickens and pigs, and did not need much extra spending on daily necessities. Now, almost all needs can only be met through commercial exchanges. On the one hand, many elderly people are not well adapted to this change. On the other hand, this has indeed improved people’s level of consumption significantly.
Following the transition to urban life, the housing is obviously far less spacious than before, but the people enjoy far more convenient life and mobility services than those available in rural areas. Those farmer-turned-urban citizens are entitled to social benefits like urban residents. In this sense, tremendous changes also took place in their rights and interests.
For many people, what is the most difficult is to change their living habits and mindsets. Urban life compels people to obey the codes of conduct in modern cities. While it is hard to quantify the changes in the way of production, lifestyle, rights and interests, and civil behavior, the tremendous social changes brought by these are real.
The occupational structure has undergone tremendous changes
In recent years, new occupational groups have emerged in China. First, deliverymen. According to the Analysis Report on Market Prospects and Future Investment Strategies of China’s Express Delivery Sector from 2020 to 2025, there are 10 million deliverymen for takeaway food and products in China, and the number is growing at a stunning rate as there were only 3 million deliverymen in 2018. Second, online ride-hailing drivers. According to a report in October 2019, there were 30 million online ride-hailing drivers in China. Third, online sales staff. The number of people involved in online sales in urban and rural areas is very large and no official statistics are available so far. According to our daily observations, many people of all age groups have the experience of selling online, and online sales are pretty common even in chat groups on WeChat.
For the aforementioned three occupational groups, many work part-time, and quite a few of them work several shifts for different jobs per day. This novel employment mode is also an innovation in Chinese history. A new trend is that laborers are lured into a labor market where they can make bucks fast and many people are working part-time. In this way, it is hard for researchers to distinguish their occupations.
The enormous division in socioeconomic status between people in big cities and small and medium-sized cities
In terms of China’s overall social structure, the relationship between urban and rural areas has undergone fundamental changes. Due to continuous policy changes in many respects, there are great differences between urban and rural areas. Many farmers start to buy houses in the city or town near their hometown and begin to live an urban life. At the same time, there are increasing differences between large cities, super-large cities, megacities, and small and medium-sized cities. These differences are mainly manifested in three aspects.
First, the difference in occupational status between cities. The occupational status is a comprehensive social status. It is very important as it indicates a person’s social status, economic income, reputation, and so on. Since China has not released the occupation data of its seventh national census, the data of the sixth national census are used here. It can be seen that there is an obvious difference in occupational status between super-large cities and small and medium-sized cities. That is why although many university graduates wish to go back to their hometown and contribute to its development, they choose not to do so as they found that the occupation structure in small and medium-sized cities does not match that of the major they studied. Consequently, more talent flow from small cities to big cities. However, as talent are essential for urban development, brain drain is likely to form the vicious circle for the development of small cities.
Second, the difference among megacities, large cities, and small and medium-sized cities is a regional difference of political, economic, and social priority. A so-called “political, economic, and social regional body” is a prominent phenomenon in China. As the government plays an important role in resource allocation, each region will basically receive allocated resources based on the administrative level they belong to. Therefore, large cities with high levels enjoy more political, economic, and social resources, whereas small cities, however dynamic their market is, cannot attain the full-scale resource allocation based on the administrative level.
Third, the difference is also embodied in property prices. The housing prices in super-large cities and megacities are always on the upward trend, despite the efforts to rein them in. In contrast, housing prices in small and medium-sized cities mostly show a downward trend, although they may climb up sometimes. Recent research by Peking University shows that 79.8% of Chinese urban residents' household assets go to house property. The fact that housing prices are growing in super-large cities and megacities but are falling in small cities itself indicates the differentiation in family property, which is an important cause for the polarization of wealth. Thus, how to address the cyclic and cumulative effect of rising property prices in big cities remains a hard nut to crack.
Source: Page 10, Beijing Daily, November 22, 2021
You are welcome to buy me a coffee or pay me via Paypal.
李强《我国整体社会结构四大变化》
改革开放以后,中国整体社会结构发生了翻天覆地的变化。原有的社会阶级阶层,如农民、工人、知识分子都发生了变化,还产生了很多新的社会阶层。对于这种变化,陆学艺提出“十个阶层”的观点,实际上主要是对职业分层的阐释。笔者以纯粹量化的方法,依据“国际社会经济地位指数”,采用全国人口普查数据,对中国社会结构变迁作了定量研究。研究发现,中国社会结构已经从“倒丁字型”转变为“土字型”。这说明两个基本现状:其一,迄今为止,中国中下层群体所占比例仍较大;其二,中产阶层所占比例明显有所上升。根据笔者所带领的课题组的测算,目前中国中产阶层(包括其家庭成员)占全国总人口的26%~28%,人口有3亿多。笔者试阐述以下四大整体变化。
城乡人口结构发生根本变化
就整体社会结构来看,从21世纪初叶中国以农村为主体,变为当前的城市常住人口为主体的社会。通常用城镇化率来显示这种变化。2001年,中国城镇人口48064万,占总人口37.7%;乡村人口79563万,占62.3%。据2020年第七次全国人口普查数据,居住在城镇的人口为90199万,占63.89%;居住在乡村的人口为50979万,占36.11%。也就是说,中国城乡人口比例正好倒了个个,当年是居住在农村的人口占6成以上,而2020年居住在城镇的人口占了6成以上。
城乡差异历来是中国的最大问题之一,但目前亦有新的特征,就是城乡差异出现了复杂化和多元化局面。今天,农村与农村的分化也很突出。农村、农民有很贫穷的,也有很富裕的。城乡关系比以前复杂多了,以前农村发展主要通过城镇化、农民市民化解决。现在农民不愿意被市民化,因为市民化就要失去土地,而土地是财富之母。这样的案例很多,不少地方土地确权后,农民手里有土地证、宅基地证、房产证,不少村庄将地权股份化了、将集体财产股份化了,农民成为股权持有者,获得很大的分红利益。尤其是离大城市不太远的农村,出现了一批富裕起来的、创建了新机制的乡村。总的来看,离大城市近的农村富裕一些,离大城市远的、边远地区的农村落后的多一些。
城乡人口结构变化带来居民生产方式、生活方式的巨大变迁
这样一种城乡人口结构的巨大变化,所带来的社会变迁是全方位的。数亿人的生产方式从农村的农业劳动,转变为城市、城镇的工业劳动、服务业劳动、商业劳动。生活方式的变化也是根本性的,从农村的那种“房前屋后种瓜种豆”、养鸡养猪自给自足,日常生活基本上不用花钱的生活方式,转变为几乎所有事情都要通过商业交换才能够实现的生活方式,一方面很多老人都不太适应,另一方面确实极大地提高了人们的市场消费水平。
转变为城市生活以后,住房面积显然远不如之前宽敞,但生活的便利程度明显提高,出行条件也是农村无法比拟的。那些“农转居”成为城镇市民的人,获得了城镇居民的社会福利保障权利,所以,权利权益也发生了巨大变迁。
当然,对于很多人来说,最难改变的还是生活习惯和思想观念,城镇生活也在每日每时训练人们遵守现代城市文明的行为方式。生产方式、生活方式、权利权益、文明行为这四个方面的变化,很多难以作量化的描述,但所带来的巨大社会变迁是真实的。
职业结构发生了巨大变迁
近些年,中国出现了一些新生的职业群体。其一,快递员。根据《2020—2025年中国快递行业市场前瞻与未来投资战略分析报告》,目前中国外卖员、快递员总数达到1000万人,而且其增长速度是十分惊人的,2018年该职业群体人数仅300万。其二,网约司机。根据2019年10月的报道,中国网约司机从业人数达到3000万。其三,网销人员。中国城乡从事网络销售的人,是一个很大的群体,迄今没有官方统计数字。据我们日常观察看,各个年龄段的很多人都有在网上销售的经历,甚至在微信群里,网销也是常见现象。
上述三个庞大的从业群体,很多人都是兼业的劳动者,很多人都是一天打几份工。所以,这种新的从业方式,在中国历史上亦属创新。今天出现的新趋势是,哪一种劳动挣钱快,劳动者就会涌入哪一个劳动力市场,而且不少人都是在兼职工作。如此,研究者要想严格区分每一个人的职业位置,就变得比较困难。
大城市人口社会经济地位与中小城市人口社会经济地位的巨大分化
在中国整体社会结构上,城乡关系发生了根本变化。由于持续多方位的政策调整,城乡之间的差异有了很大变化,很多农民开始到家乡附近的城市或城镇买房,从乡村生活转变为城市生活。而与此同时发生的一个巨大变化是,大城市、特大城市、超大城市与中小城市存在着巨大的分化。这种分化突出体现在三个方面。
其一,城市之间职业地位的分化。人们的职业地位是一种综合社会地位,它暗含着社会地位、经济收入、声望等,非常重要。由于国家尚未公布“七普”的职业数据,引用“六普”的数据可以看到,超大城市与中小城市人口职业地位的差异是十分明显的。所以,近年来,很多大学毕业生虽然想回家乡参加建设,但感到中小城市的职业结构与自己在大学所学习专业的职业结构不匹配。这样,人才就更多地从小城市流往大城市。人才是城市发展的关键,人才的流失就更易造成小城市发展的恶性循环。
其二,这种超大城市、大城市与中小城市的差异,是一种“政治经济社会区域体”的差异。所谓“政治经济社会区域体”,是中国一种比较突出的现象,由于政府在资源配置上起到了非常突出的作用,每一个地区都是有行政级别的,资源配置也大体上依照这种行政级别配置。所以,级别高的大城市自然获得更多的政治、经济、社会资源,小城市即使再有市场活力也比不了这种按照行政级别给与的全方位资源配置。
其三,这种差异也突出体现在房价上。特大城市、超大城市的房价无论怎样控制,还是呈攀升的趋势。而中小城市的房价虽也有上升,但大多数呈下降趋势。北京大学近年的研究表明,中国城镇居民家庭财产的构成中,79.8%是房产。特大城市、超大城市的房价越来越高,小城市的房价不升反降,这本身就代表着家庭财产的分化,这是导致财富两极分化的重要原因。所以,如何处理大城市房价的循环累积效应,迄今仍是一道难题。
来源:《北京日报》2021年11月22日第10版