Social Welfare Provision in Non-democracies: Evidence from China

Session Submission Type: Full Paper Panel

Session Description

Social welfare policy in non-democracies has functioned as an important tool to manage redistributive conflict. While the dominant approach has emphasized the authoritarian regimes’ need to co-opt the core constituency, recent studies reveal that many non-democracies adopt more broad-based welfare programs. Yet, why and for what they do so has been less explored. This panel examines this question by analyzing social welfare provision and reform in China.

In the early periods of economic reform, the Chinese regime prioritized rapid economic growth and neglected certain regions and groups. While the unprecedented economic growth in the recent decades has provided the political legitimacy to sustain the one-party rule in China, the growing income inequality and social unrest have created new incentivizes for the regime to construct its own welfare state. Since the late 1990s, the regime has increased welfare spending and extended social benefits to formerly marginalized groups such as migrant workers, peasants, and rural residents in the periphery areas, who might not possess enough political resources to directly pressure the government. The three papers in this panel address why the regime has extended welfare provision and increased social mobility by examining three topics: the core-periphery regional gap in welfare spending, household registration (hukou) reform, and welfare programs for informal workers.

Specifically, Vortherms’ paper examines the historical changes of the core-periphery regional gap in the Chinese government’s welfare spending. While the extant literature has extensively documented regional disparities between coastal and inland provinces, it has paid limited attention to the distribution of welfare spending within cities. The urban cores have historically enjoyed more fiscal resources compared to rural peripheries, but the gap varies greatly across regions and over time. Vortherms provides an explanation of this variation from the central government’s historical regional development plans. Huang’s paper examines the political consequences of the hukou reform since the 1980s, which has enabled more rural population to obtain urban hukou and entitlements . By adopting this reform, the paper shows, the Chinese regime has increased the citizens’ trust in the government by altering their perception of social mobility. Finally, Yang’s paper analyzes the Chinese regime’s decision to adopt a welfare program that targets informal workers. The paper shows that while informal workers might have little labor market power, the local governments still have a political incentive to accept them into the local welfare system.

In addition to differences in the specific topics related to social welfare provision, these papers also make use of diverse methodological tools. Some are detailed case studies based on extensive interviews and archival works. Others utilize survey experiment and quasi-experimental approaches and statistical analyses. All these papers, however, provide answers to the central question why the Chinese regime increased social welfare provision without substantial political reform or democratization. The diversity in topics and methods in these papers should provoke more studies and contribute to the broad issues of social welfare policy and redistributive politics in authoritarian regimes and in developing countries.

Sub Unit

• DIVISION 13: The Politics of Communist and Former Communist Countries

Individual Presentations

• Fiscal Inequality: The Distribution of Welfare Spending within China's Cities - Samantha Vortherms, University of California, Irvine

• The Chinese Dream: How Social Mobility Affects Regime Support in China - Xian Huang, Rutgers University

• Urbanization, Land seizure, and Welfare Provision in China - Yujeong Yang, State University of New York, Cortland

• Endogenous Social Network, Brokers and Public Service Provision in Rural China - Zheren Song, The Chinese University of Hong Kong; Jing Vivian Zhan, The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Chair

• Sungmin Rho Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies

Discussant

• Sungmin Rho Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies