About the Hukou system. I get the feeling that we all agree that it will eventually be abolished or become "not matter" or unnecessary. Agree?
I have read the article , I actually think it is pretty good except these paragraphs which I believe sounds bit strange that leads people suspecting the author.
But, that is not unique at all to Hukou system. It is almost everywhere including rich western Europe. For example, if my registered home is in city A but works in city B, My child can not go to the public school in city B unless city A is willing to pay the tuition at city B's price which could be out of the budget capability of city A. City A can simply refuse to do so. Of course, I have the "freedom" to buy a same-sized house in city B of double or triple price and change my "Hukou" to A. Unfortunately, most of the migrate workers have no such financial capacity.
In the end, question is "is Hukou more of the fault than money?" The root of the problem is not really Hukou itself, but the economical gap of both individual and region.
Apparently, the author is aware of the reason of reluctance to abolish Hukou. Like it or not, that is the exact reason to NOT to produce megacity of mega slum like Rio de Jeneiro, or New Dehli. It is exactly the reason of preventing a development bottle-neck that caused "middle income trap" and other social mess in many developing countries. That is what Deng Xiaoping's "some get rich first, others follow" is about.
The rest have right to social security and health care, but less, NOT because they are forbidden but because their income is very low which leads to their tax contribution to both residing city and hometown being very low which leads to less services from both hometown and residing city. If Hukou is removed, their level of received service won't be better just because they are now legal residents in a slum in a rich city. Take a look at Rio and New Dehli.
Hukou is not much different from any other househood regulations in a "free" country. Its only difference is it fix a person's legal residence, discourage people to permanently settle in other places. A Beijing resident who works in Shanghai is equally affected by Hukou as much as a migrant worker from the poorest corner. The Beijing person will be well-off only because Beijing can provide equally good service as Shanghai.
The issue with the author is that as a westerner, "social justice" is above everything, while a Chinese who live in that country knows that reality of "justice does not come from the sky, but through process which will take time".
At the end, I think nobody here is supporting Hukou staying for ever, but rather many of us are discontent to the "obsession of hating Hukou" on the ground of ideological and political correctness and fairness. The author is a bit obsessed apparently. I must reiterate though, the rest of the article and overall as a whole is good.
I have read the article , I actually think it is pretty good except these paragraphs which I believe sounds bit strange that leads people suspecting the author.
Let's to be clear, rights are direct results of tax. Migrant workers do not pay equal tax as their city counterparts. Their social rights to healthcare and education etc. are in their registered home. The fact is that they work in a richer place, but the social service are covered by their poorer home region. That difference makes the picture bad.
But, that is not unique at all to Hukou system. It is almost everywhere including rich western Europe. For example, if my registered home is in city A but works in city B, My child can not go to the public school in city B unless city A is willing to pay the tuition at city B's price which could be out of the budget capability of city A. City A can simply refuse to do so. Of course, I have the "freedom" to buy a same-sized house in city B of double or triple price and change my "Hukou" to A. Unfortunately, most of the migrate workers have no such financial capacity.
In the end, question is "is Hukou more of the fault than money?" The root of the problem is not really Hukou itself, but the economical gap of both individual and region.
Apparently, the author is aware of the reason of reluctance to abolish Hukou. Like it or not, that is the exact reason to NOT to produce megacity of mega slum like Rio de Jeneiro, or New Dehli. It is exactly the reason of preventing a development bottle-neck that caused "middle income trap" and other social mess in many developing countries. That is what Deng Xiaoping's "some get rich first, others follow" is about.
The hunch is right, BUT the rest is totally off mark.
The rest have right to social security and health care, but less, NOT because they are forbidden but because their income is very low which leads to their tax contribution to both residing city and hometown being very low which leads to less services from both hometown and residing city. If Hukou is removed, their level of received service won't be better just because they are now legal residents in a slum in a rich city. Take a look at Rio and New Dehli.
Hukou is not much different from any other househood regulations in a "free" country. Its only difference is it fix a person's legal residence, discourage people to permanently settle in other places. A Beijing resident who works in Shanghai is equally affected by Hukou as much as a migrant worker from the poorest corner. The Beijing person will be well-off only because Beijing can provide equally good service as Shanghai.
The issue with the author is that as a westerner, "social justice" is above everything, while a Chinese who live in that country knows that reality of "justice does not come from the sky, but through process which will take time".
At the end, I think nobody here is supporting Hukou staying for ever, but rather many of us are discontent to the "obsession of hating Hukou" on the ground of ideological and political correctness and fairness. The author is a bit obsessed apparently. I must reiterate though, the rest of the article and overall as a whole is good.
Last edited:
