j.1468-2397.2009.00713.x Welfare Program Participation Among Rural to Urban Migran Wokkers in China

Welfare program participation amongrural-to-urban migrant workersin Chinaijsw_713 10..21

Xu Q, Guan X, Yao F. Welfare program participation amongrural-to-urban migrant workers in ChinaInt J Soc Welfare 2011: 20: 10–21 © 2010 The Author(s),International Journal of Social Welfare © 2010 BlackwellPublishing Ltd and International Journal of Social Welfare.

An estimated 225 million Chinese people have migrated tocities from China’s rural areas over the past two decades.These rural-to-urban migrant workers have greatly challengedChina’s welfare system. The pre-reform welfare system was aduel scheme with an urban–rural distinction in which ruralresidents were not covered by state-run welfare programs andhad to rely on their families and rural collectives. The devel-opment of employment-based social insurance programs in1999 made social welfare programs available for rural-to-urban migrant workers. Using an anonymous survey con-ducted in seven cities across China in 2006, we found thatsocial insurance program participation rates were low amongrural-to-urban migrant workers. Individual factors, includinglack of knowledge of welfare programs and of a willingness toparticipate, and macro-level factors, including type ofemployer and industry, are critical in determining migrantworkers’ participation in welfare programs. Implications forpolicies and practice are discussed.

Qingwen Xu1, Xinping Guan2, Fangfang Yao3

1 Graduate School of Social Work, Boston College, MA, USA2 Department of Social Work and Social Policy, NankaiUniversity, Tianjin, China3 School of Human Service Professions, Widener University,PA, USA

Key words: China, migrant worker, rural-to-urban migration,welfare utilization, welfare reform

Qingwen Xu, Boston College, Graduate School of Social Work,140 Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467E-mail: [email protected]

Accepted for publication September 29, 2009

Introduction

An estimated 225 million Chinese people havemigrated to cities from China’s rural areas for jobs overthe past two decades (National Bureau of Statistics ofChina, 2009). These rural-to-urban migrant workershave greatly challenged China’s welfare system.China’s pre-reform (pre-1978) social welfare systemwas a dual scheme with an urban–rural distinction, inwhich most social services were targeted for urban resi-dents; rural residents had to rely on their families andthe rural collectives to provide social services, such aschildcare and elder care. As a result of this dual system,rural-to-urban migrant workers dwelling in cities havefallen into a welfare Catch-22, because they were ineli-gible for the urban welfare programs and were unable toaccess their rural welfare benefits. China’s welfarereforms over the past three decades have attempted todiminish the urban–rural distinction and decreasewelfare inequality by developing employment-basedsocial insurance programs. However, migrant workers’participation in and utilization of these social welfareprograms have not been systematically documentedand studied. This article presents a study examining

Chinese rural-to-urban migrant workers’ use of welfareprograms and social services, and then explores themacro-level and individual barriers to this utilization.

China’s urban–rural distinction

China’s household registration system (hukou), intro-duced in 1958, created not only an urban–rural distinc-tion, but also two classes of people. The householdregistration system was a government mechanismaimed to control the movement of its citizens within thecountry (Chan & Zhang, 1999), and to distribute andredistribute its limited resources to urban residents. Upuntil 2003, without proper documents and/or employ-ment certificates, rural people could not reside in cities,and in some cases, those who were caught ‘illegally’living in the cities were detained and repatriated to thecountryside (Looney, 2003). The pre-reform socialwelfare system correspondingly had a clear urban–ruraldistinction, in which most state-run social and health-care services were targeted to urban residents, and thedistribution and delivery of welfare benefits for urbancitizens, including healthcare, housing, pension, child-care, etc., were linked to employers or ‘work units,’

DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2397.2009.00713.xInt J Soc Welfare 2011: 20: 10–21

INTERNATIONALJ O U R NA L O F

SOCIAL WELFAREISSN 1369-6866

© 2010 The Author(s)International Journal of Social Welfare © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare.

Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA10

because employment was theoretically, and in actuality,almost permanent. Rural residents did not haveemployers or ‘working units’. For them, there was onlya cooperative healthcare system, which was funded byrural collective economic organizations. It coveredlimited basic healthcare; in the absence of a pensionsystem and comprehensive healthcare coverage, fami-lies remained the main source for services, such aselder care, childcare, and the various other types of careand support (Guan, 2000; Xu & Chow, 2006).

Because of the long history of urban–rural distinc-tion, the household registration system also continuedto maintain a bias that divided the population into mul-tiple categories: state and collective; rural and urbanresidents; agricultural producers and industrialworkers; and, with recent changes, the new category,the traditional and the modernized. These classifica-tions also have translated into a broad distinction inopportunities, including employment, education, andhealthcare, among others. Urban families have greateraccess to university education, medical care at modernurban hospitals, and higher-paying jobs, whereas ruralyouth have underfunded schools, few chances foradvanced education, and a lack of opportunities forupward mobility (Li et al., 2007a). With millions ofrural migrants working and living in cities today, publicdisdain toward this group is growing and is exacerbatedby the loss of employment and the income insecuritiesbrought on by China’s economic reforms and structuralchanges. Many city governments have made efforts toincorporate migrant workers into the urban communi-ties and improve their wellbeing and public acceptance;this is symbolized by the city of Chongqing’s recentdeclaration of the first Rural Migrant Worker’s Day(Xinhua News, 2007) aimed to celebrate their contribu-tions to the city’s development. However, the long-termeffects of the urban–rural distinction cannot be easilyerased.

The surge of rural migration that started in the early1980s was prompted primarily by the infusion offoreign investment into China, due mainly to its cheaplabor and China’s decision to open its doors to foreigninvestment. This prompted an enormous growth andtransformation of the country’s urban economy, greatlyexpanded the manufacturing sector, and increased theneed for laborers, especially cheap labor. At the sametime, the ‘push’ factors that brought people from ruralareas into the cities included the increasing surplus ofagricultural labor and the growing income gap betweenurban factory workers and rural farm workers (Fan,2001; Meng, 2000). Even though factory workers arepaid low wages by Western standards, their wages farsurpass those of agricultural workers in China’s ruralareas.

To address China’s need for factory workers andother laborers in its urban regions, in 1985, China’s

central government issued the Ten Policies for RuralEconomic Development, which encouraged populationmovement for economic means. Since this time, rural-to-urban migrant workers have been permitted to workin China’s growing towns and cities with ‘temporaryresidence permits’ and without obtaining an urbanstatus from the household registration system. The planpaid off. In 1978, about 28.27 million permittedmigrants were working in the cities; three decades later,in 2008, the number had grown nearly eightfold, to 225million (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2009).However, the systematic rural bias and gatekeeping hascontinued to limit rural-to-urban migrant workers’equal accessibility to welfare benefits and service pro-grams. Migrant workers in China do not have equalaccess to state-subsidized benefits provided by publicagencies and/or their employers, and they must relyprimarily on their families for housing, healthcare,support services, and other necessities. Their survivalin cities has been made possible by the expanding labormarket and the marketization of goods and services.

Welfare policies for migrant workers

As this huge urban–rural population shift has beentaking place in unison with China’s economic reforms,the pre-reform social welfare system has faced tremen-dous challenges. In particular, it has faced pressurefrom the growing number of migrant workers and theirfamilies in need of medical services, housing, educa-tion, and other social services. Over past decades, therehas been a growing consensus among China’s scholars,policymakers, and politicians that the social welfaresystem is no longer compatible with its economicreforms and the evolving societal needs that havegrown out of these changes (Guan, 2000; Wang,2000a). Mounting internal political pressure hasprompted policymakers and central government offi-cials to initiate welfare reforms that depart fromChina’s traditional socialist model whereby everyworker and his/her family, at least for those in urbanareas, has a right to a job, basic healthcare, housing, apension, and social services, provided for and overseenby the central government. In the era of reform, Chinahas begun transforming its social welfare system froma wholly public enterprise into a public–private hybrid,i.e. a pluralistic approach. Nevertheless, the govern-ment has continued its provision of certain welfare ser-vices to assure the wellbeing of urban citizens(including the new citizens, i.e. migrant workers andtheir families) in order to maintain political and socialstability (Leung, 2006).

One outcome dealing with welfare challenges inconnection with the great number of rural-to-urbanmigrants is the social insurance programs created in thelate 1990s that have started to cover rural-to-urban

Welfare program participation

© 2010 The Author(s)International Journal of Social Welfare © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare 11

migrants working in cities in various state-runcompanies and various types of corporations. Theemployment-based social insurance programs includefive detailed programs. The so-called ‘Urban Five’include basic healthcare, basic elderly pensions, unem-ployment insurance, occupational injury insurance(similar to the US Worker’s Compensation program),and maternity benefits for working mothers. The socialinsurance programs for basic healthcare, basic elderlypensions, and unemployment insurance were estab-lished in 1999 and require contributions from bothemployers and employees. The programs for maternitybenefits and occupational injury, set up in 1995 and2003, respectively, are paid for solely by employers.These ‘Urban Five’ programs are mandatory, andalmost all types of urban organizations and corpora-tions must adhere to the regulations and offer them,including state-owned and urban-collective enterprises,joint venture corporations (JVCs), and private compa-nies that hire more than 50 workers. Different programshave different contribution rules; for instance, for theelderly pension fund, employers contribute 20 per centof their total payroll costs and employees contribute 8per cent of their salaries; for the employee healthcarefund, employers contribute 6 per cent of their totalpayroll costs and employees contribute 2 per cent oftheir salaries.

The development of the ‘Urban Five’ has facedcertain challenges; a general lack of enthusiasm amongemployers and extremely low participation rates havebeen a concern for years. A report by China’s Ministryof Labor and Social Security of People’s Republic ofChina (2005) indicated that only 15 percent of migrantworkers participated in the pension program, and only10 percent in the healthcare program. Furthermore,most migrant workers did not enjoy any of the benefitsfor their maternity and occupational injuries. Thus, thecentral government has made persistent efforts toencourage migrant workers living in urban areas toparticipate in the ‘Urban Five’. In 2006, the StateCouncil issued a comprehensive guideline in responseto criticism about migrant workers’ lack of rights andthe government’s lack of proactive policies for enhanc-ing the rural-to-urban migrant workers’ wellbeing.These guidelines support the government’s view thatmigrant workers’ wellbeing and right to welfare ser-vices are of great importance. The State Councilpointed to the priority of enrolling migrant workers inthe health care and occupational injury insurance pro-grams, the necessity of lowering migrant workers’monetary contribution to the ‘Urban Five’ fund, and theconsideration of migrant workers’ special needs in thedesign of welfare programs.

While the central government’s policies prescribeonly the minimal standards, principles, and guidelines,cities have the authority to design their own programs;

consequently, there are huge variations in terms oflocal policymaking and policy implementation andenforcement. Some cities, such as Shanghai andChengdu, have gone beyond the ‘Urban Five’s’minimal standards and have provided comprehensivesocial insurance programs for their migrant workers(Hu, 2006). Other cities, such as Beijing and Qingdao,are able to offer a pension program for migrantworkers that matches the benefits provided for urbanresidents. Still other cities are less than enthusiasticabout implementing and enforcing central governmentpolicies because doing so, they believe, would addcost to private enterprise and scare away investors(Tan, 2000). It is also noted that, without addressingthe urban–rural distinction systematically, a task thatthe central government has to achieve, local initiativesthat are to meet migrant workers’ needs in healthcareand elderly care have become politically controversial.For example, some cities, such as Chongqing andNanjing, developed very affordable local healthcareinsurance programs for migrant workers to cover thecost of hospitalization and certain disease treatments.As these programs cover only the current enrollmentterm, there has been criticism from rural governmentswhere migrant workers came from, since it will be upto the rural governments to take the tab of futurehealthcare costs when migrant workers become oldand retire to their rural villages.

Local programs have been designed to meet thechallenges facing China’s current social insurancesystem; however, none of these programs canadequately address all major issues with regard tomigrant workers’ special needs and the future devel-opment of a national universal program. In 2009, thecentral government proposed a revised elderly pensionprogram for migrant workers. The revised programwill decrease employers’ contribution from 20 percentof their total payroll costs to 12 percent, and employ-ees (i.e. migrant workers) can contribute as low as 4percent of their salaries instead of 8 percent. Mean-while, without a centralized system, the new programstreamlines the pension benefit administration in dif-ferent cities and provinces, and makes it easier totransfer the benefits among cities and between ruraland urban administrative systems. The 2009 proposalis just the central government’s initial response toaddress the barriers that have been reported as con-tributing to low program participation rates, such as ahigh contribution rate, a segmented administra-tion, and less flexibility of benefit transferability.Nevertheless, there is a lack of empirical studies iden-tifying the factors associated with low program par-ticipation and welfare utilization rates, and the teasingout of each social, structural, and behavioral factorthat could contribute to the different participationoutcomes.

Xu et al.

12© 2010 The Author(s)

International Journal of Social Welfare © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare

Literature review

When exploring welfare program participation andservice utilization in Western countries, Western schol-ars frequently ask similar questions in order to betterunderstand migrants’ behavior in the social, economic,and political context (Barrett & McCarthy, 2008). Forexample: Are immigrant workers eligible to receivesocial services and welfare benefits? If yes, do immi-grants use social welfare services less than their nativepeers? What are the barriers for immigrants to partici-pate in the program or use services? For rural-to-urbanmigrant workers in China, while the first question hasbeen addressed by the central government – the ‘UrbanFive’ is the answer – we focused our study on exploringthe barriers for migrant workers to participate in theprograms or use the social welfare services.

The literature on international migration has exam-ined two groups of factors that help explain immi-grants’ behavior in failing to access social welfarebenefits and services: (i) the cultural versus structuralfactors; and (ii) pre-migration versus post-migrationfactors. Scholars who have found that cultural pre-migration factors influence migrants’ use of welfareservices argue that immigrant service utilization islargely shaped by the cultural values that immigrantsbring from their home countries or cultures of origin.This has been particularly true for mental health serviceutilization, as certain groups of immigrants are lesslikely to use mental health services, even after all otherindividual and structural factors are controlled for(Leduc & Proulx, 2004; Vaga, Kolody, Aguilar-Gaxiola& Catalano, 1999). Scholars advancing the culturalpostmigration theory similarly focus on cultural valuesbut emphasize the values that immigrants develop as aresult of their migration experience. For example, theextensive service utilization among elderly Russianimmigrants was found to be due to their life circum-stances associated with immigration, and culturalnorms and beliefs they develop based on those of thelocal Russian immigrant community (Aroian,Khatutsky, Tran & Balsam, 2001).

On the other hand, structural pre-migration theoristspostulate that differences in service utilization stemfrom differences in immigrants’ pre-migration charac-teristics, such as their education or English languageproficiency. One study found that a low level of educa-tion and lack of English proficiency at the time ofmigration correlated with low use of social services(Jacobs, Shepard, Syaya & Stone, 2004). The structuralpost-migration theorists emphasize the post-migrationexperiences of different immigrant groups as being keyfactors in their social service utilization. Specifically,these theorists argue that immigrants face different eco-nomic and social opportunities and/or challenges oncethey arrive in the new society, and that these different

opportunities in turn create differences in service utili-zation, such as undocumented immigrant parents’limited use of services for their US-born children(Berk, Schur, Chavez & Frankel, 2000).

Available literature published in English concerningrural-to-urban migrant workers in China has focusedon migration causes (Liang, 2001), migration paths(Rozelle et al., 1999), remittance (Taylor & Rozelle,2003), and health and mental health (Li, Wang et al.,2007a; Li, Zhang et al., 2007b). Limited preliminarystudies concerning welfare program participation andservice utilization have identified a few factors thatcould contribute to migrant workers’ low participationrate. These factors are related to the individual; forexample, migrant workers are relatively young andhealthy, and consequently have fewer needs for eldercare and healthcare (Li et al., 2007b). Some factors arestructurally oriented; for example, although migrantworkers often move frequently for jobs and opportuni-ties, China’s current healthcare and elderly pensionbenefits are territory-oriented, and most benefits are notportable (Li, 2007). Nevertheless, we lack a systematicanalysis of the reasons why millions of China’s urbanmigrant workers minimally utilize welfare programsand services, even though these programs and servicesare available to them.

Method

This study addresses the following questions: Whatare the percentages of welfare program participationamong rural-to-urban migrant workers in China? Whatfactors contribute to their lack of welfare programparticipation? And to what extent do pre- and post-migration factors account for their welfare programparticipation behavior? We adapted the cultural vs.structural and pre- vs. post-migration framework inorder to answer these questions. This framework helpsus understand immigrants’ behavior from a life-courseperspective, and captures the dynamic changing natureof person–environment transactions. As migration is alife transition, migrants’ behaviors are characterizedby both continuity and change (Hutchison, 2007).By identifying special and unique migration-relatedfactors that contribute to different service use patternsamong migrants in comparison with local residents,this framework also subscribes to an understanding thataddressing these special and unique migration-relatedfactors would eliminate service utilization barriers andsupport the process of assimilation into the localculture and systems (Hammarstedt, 2009).

The present study has not considered factors fromthe culture perspective. Cultural factors, such asmigrant workers’ values and beliefs in seeking helpfrom the public sector in addition to their personalnetworks, their values in securing their life through the



social welfare system instead of through their personalresources, and their belief in their right to access ser-vices and request them, could provide an interestingway to understand Chinese migrant workers’ welfareparticipation and service utilization. However, rural-to-urban migrant workers in China are, in general, cultur-ally homogeneous. As rural people have been excludedfrom China’s main public welfare system for severaldecades, they predominately lack the understanding ofcertain concepts of social welfare, are not used togetting welfare and services from the government, andhave little knowledge about the ongoing welfarereforms that would benefit them (Wang, 2000b, 2002).While it will be interesting to explore the patterns ofchange that are due to the cultural influence of and theinterplay between cultural and structural factors, thisstudy is primarily designed as an extensive examinationof structural factors affecting migrant workers’ welfareparticipation; we leave the cultural issues for furtherinvestigations.

Meanwhile, given the nature of China’s rural-to-urban migration, we in this study shared the theoreticalorientation that focuses on migrants’ ‘integration’instead of ‘assimilation’ (Edmonston & Passel, 1994).Instead of talking about migrants assimilating intomainstream Western societies, the challenge China isfacing is to integrate more than 200 million migrantworkers into cities, both economically and socially.This integration process requires that individualmigrant workers develop and increasingly exercise theircapacities for interpersonal connectedness and urbanmembership; in fact, migrant workers have gradually,deliberately or not, changed their behaviors, percep-tions, and perspectives in order to adapt to the ‘new’systems and structures in cities. Simultaneously, thisintegration process calls for structural changes toaddress China’s urban–rural distinction. Thus, as thisstudy extends the analytical focus beyond that of thetraditional Western societies, we closely examinedmigrant workers’ service utilization behavior and itsrelation to China’s social, economic, and politicalstructure.

Conducting research with rural-to-urban migrantworkers in China is challenging, due to the difficulty ofidentifying and accessing a large nationwide migrantsample. The data used here are from an anonymoussurvey conducted in seven cities across China in the fallof 2006. This survey was part of the China Ministry ofEducation’s project, Social Policy for the Transition ofChina’s Rural Labor to Urban Areas.1 The survey ques-tionnaire contains 11 sections, including demographics,

employment and income, employment and job training,health and healthcare, housing, children’s education,family background, welfare program participation,service utilization, social activities and participation,and migration plan, in order to comprehensively docu-ment the rural-to-urban migrant workers’ life, work,family, social activity, behavior, and perception. Thesurvey was administered in Chinese and generally tookabout one hour to complete. The survey targeted peopleregistered as rural residents who were living andworking in cities at the time of the survey.

The sampling process involved a systematicapproach and a four-step scheme: (i) selection of sevencities – five large cities, including Guangzhou (south),Shanghai (east central), Shenyang (northeast), Tianjin(east), and Kunming (southwest), which are either capi-tals of provinces or chief administrative cities directlyreporting to the central government, as well as twomedium-sized cities. These seven cities are representa-tive of China’s diverse geographic areas. Given theresearch environment in China, the sample size was setat 500 for each large city and 250 for each medium-sized city; (ii) identification of specific administrativedistricts in each city where migrants concentratedthrough using public information and labor statisticsprovided by city governments; two districts in each citywere then randomly selected; (iii) random selection oftwo to three companies from a list of companies thathired migrant workers in each district; and (iv) therecruitment of rural-to-urban migrant workers at eachcompany who were willing to be interviewed. In eachdistrict, migrant workers were also recruited directlyfrom restaurants, hotels, markets, and other similarsmall businesses that were not included in the list ofcompanies at step three. A total of 3,024 participantscompleted the survey, including 509 from Guangzhou,500 from Shanghai, 500 from Shenyang, 503 fromTianjin, 497 from Kunming, and 265 and 250 partici-pants, respectively, from the two medium-sized city.

For the purpose of this study, we examined threegroups of variables:

1 The dependent variables concern welfare programparticipation. In the survey, migrant workers wereasked to answer yes–no questions about their partici-pation in the ‘Urban Five’. We were particularlyinterested in analyzing their participation in theelderly pension and healthcare programs, as thesetwo are the most basic programs of the ‘Urban Five,’and the most critical for migrant workers’ wellbeing.As such, dependent variables are two dichotomousvariables.

1 The project is sponsored by China Ministry of Education. DrXingping Guan, professor at Nankai University Departmentof Social Policy and Social Work, is the principal investigator.The project collected both qualitative and quantitative data inorder to inform social policymaking for the wellbeing of

migrant workers. The project is significant given China’surban–rural distinction and the country’s post-reform soci-etal goals that focus on equality, social harmony, and eco-nomic development.

Xu et al.



2 Pre-migration factors include the preexisting condi-tion of migrant workers before their migration. Thestudy included migrant workers’ demographics, i.e.age, gender, marital status, and education level. Agewas coded in three age groups: young – aged 18 to34; mid-life – aged 35 to 49; and old-age – aged 50and over. This age grouping is based on the under-standing that many people under age 35 are still inthe process of establishing their careers in the labormarket, and many over age 49, especially women inChina, are in the process of terminating their laborforce participation (Clogg, Eliason & Leicht, 2001).

3 Post-migration factors refer to the resettling condi-tion of migrant workers, as well as their perceptionsof and attitudes toward welfare program participa-tion that they develop after migration. We includedmacro-level factors, i.e. location/city, industry(manufacturing, construction, service, distribution,and non-industrial public entity), and ownership ofthe workers’ place of employment (state-ownedenterprise and joint venture corporation, privatecompany and individual/small business). We alsoincluded individual-level factors, including the sub-ject’s length of stay in the city and the migrantworkers’ knowledge about welfare programs andtheir willingness to participate.

All variables were recoded into dummy variables tofacilitate the analysis. A descriptive analysis was con-ducted first in order to describe the population anddocument the migrant workers’ welfare programparticipation. A bivariate analysis was performed toidentify preliminary patterns of welfare program par-ticipation and, in particular, the different participationpatterns (or lack of difference) between the two welfareprograms. Logistic regression models were then con-ducted to identify pre- and post-migration factors thatcould contribute to migrant workers’ welfare programparticipation.

Before presenting our results, we will discuss someof the study’s strengths and limitations. One limitationof the present study comes from the sampling process.Because participants were recruited primarily fromcompanies that hired migrant workers, the sample ispredominated by low-income, less skilled workingmigrants, thereby excluding those rural-to-urbanmigrants who were business owners or temporarilyunemployed. In addition, the seven cities in the studywere carefully chosen in relation to varying geographi-cal location and level of socioeconomic development.Nevertheless, these seven cities might not be represen-tative of other migrant-receiving cities in China. Thus,information derived from the survey may be less thanperfectly representative, as some individuals may havebeen excluded, which limits the generalizability of thefindings.

Furthermore, the material is self-reported, cross-sectional data, which prevents the drawing of anycausal inferences. For example, the study cannot inves-tigate whether migrant workers’ knowledge aboutwelfare programs is the cause of their participating inthe programs. Finally, as the survey was conducted in2006, it does not capture the recent changes in China.Despite these limitations, the study does have a strengthin that the large, nationwide rural-to-urban migrantsample is likely to be as representative a sample ofmigrant workers as can be obtained in China at present.Access to such information has become available onlyin recent years, and so this survey provides one of thefirst reliable glimpses into the behavior of Chinesemigrant workers.

Results

The average age of the 3,024 survey respondents was31 years, and 64.7 percent were younger than 35 years.Men comprised about 60.6 percent of the total sample.More than half (54.5 percent) of the participants weremarried, and 34.1 percent had children under 12 yearsof age. The majority of the respondent pool (75.2percent) had only nine years or less of education, i.e.the education provided by China’s pubic educationsystem. As for their length of stay in the city, 14.3percent are long-term urban residents who have lived inthe city for over 10 years, and about 35 percent of themigrant workers interviewed are recent settlers (twoyears or less). Almost all the migrant workers inter-viewed were working at the time of the survey, morethan half (53 percent) working at unskilled jobs. Over athird of the migrant workers (35.4 percent) worked inthe service industry, and 19 percent in the constructionand manufacturing industries. In terms of type ofemployer, 39 percent of the migrant workers worked forprivate companies, 28.6 percent for small businesses,and 12.7 percent for state-owned enterprises.

The social insurance program participation rateswere low, as we expected; only 11.5 percent of therespondents participated in the urban healthcareprogram, 9.1 percent in occupational injury, 8.5 percentin the elderly pension, 3.2 percent in unemployment,and 2.5 percent in maternity benefits. In terms of theelderly pension and healthcare programs, regard-lessof their individual- and macro-level, pre- and post-migration characteristics, more migrant workers par-ticipated in the healthcare program than in the elderlypension program (see Table 1). Bivariate analysisindicates that the most likely group to be enrolled inboth the elderly pension and the healthcare programswere single female respondents in the young age group(<35 years old), with more than a nine-year educationwho had knowledge about these two social insuranceprograms and were willing to participate in them.



Logistic regression models (see Tables 2 and 3)suggest that, among pre-migration factors, gender andeducation consistently predicted participation in bothelderly pension and healthcare programs. Male migrantworkers were about 30 percent less likely to enroll inboth social insurance programs than were femalemigrant workers. In terms of education levels, migrantworkers with only nine years or less of education were59.6 and 52 percent less likely to enroll in the elderlypension and healthcare programs, respectively.

Post-migration individual-level factors had differentlikelihoods of predicting participation. First, individualknowledge about the social insurance programs andwillingness to participate were essential to the actualparticipation. The more knowledge the migrant workers

had, the more likely they were to be enrolled in theprograms; workers who were willing to participate ineither the elderly care or healthcare programs weresimilarly about 2.5 times more likely to have actuallyparticipated in these two programs. While the length ofstay in cities predicted enrollment in the elderly pensionprogram – migrant workers who stayed in cities twoyears or more were 60 percent more likely to participatethan were recent migrants – this factor did not predictenrollment in the healthcare program.

Post-migration macro-level factors showed differentresults in predicting the extent of participation.Looking at the type of employer, when taking state-owned enterprises as the benchmark, it is clear thatmigrant workers in JVCs were more likely to partici-pate in both the elderly pension and healthcare pro-grams – migrant workers were about twice as likely toenroll in both programs. For migrants working inprivate companies and small businesses, the likelihoodof participating in the healthcare program was similarto that of their peers working in state-owned enter-prises, but they were significantly less likely than theirpeers in state-owned enterprises to participate in theelderly pension program.

Considering occupational differences in terms ofindustry versus nonindustrial public institutions/orga-nizations, migrant workers in the manufacturing indus-try were significantly more likely to participate in bothprograms than were those working in nonindustrialpublic institutions/organizations. In contrast, workersin the service industry were significantly less likelyto participate in both programs than were thoseworking in nonindustrial public institutions/orga-nizations. The city in which the migrant worker livedseems to correlate with participation in the two pro-grams. Using one of the two medium-sized cities as thebenchmark, it appears that city size had no impact onwhether the migrant workers participated in the twowelfare programs.

Discussion

This study indicates that less than 10 percent of therural-to-urban migrant workers in China were partici-pating in employment-based social insurance programsat the time of survey, although these programs wereavailable to them. We found that, while pre-migrationindividual factors, i.e. gender and education, explainedthe difference in participation, post-migration indi-vidual factors, i.e. lack of knowledge of welfare pro-grams and of a willingness to participate in socialinsurance programs, were the most important factors. Itis likely that lack of knowledge and lack of willingnessare mutually reinforcing. It is also notable that, as lack ofknowledge and willingness to participate predicted lowlevel of participation, low level of education definitely

Table 1. Participation in elderly pension and healthcare programs(N = 3,024).

Elderly pension Healthcare

AgeYoung age (<35) 9.4% 13.3%Mid age (35–49) 7.5% 8.3%Old age (>50) 4.5% 8.0%

GenderMale 7.4% 10.4%Female 10.2% 13.3%

Marital statusMarried 8% 9.9%Single 9.1% 13.5%

Education9 years or less 5.2% 7.5%More than 9 years 18.4% 23.8%

Length of stay (mean)Yes 69.5 months 55.7 monthsNo 61.5 months 63.4 months

KnowledgeVery knowledgeable 42.5% 51%Some knowledge 20.8% 26.6%Little knowledge 7.1% 9.4%No knowledge 2.8% 4.5%

WillingnessYes 14.1% 18.5%No 3.6% 5.6%

City1 16.4% 16.4%2 7% 7.1%3 12.9% 18.1%4 2.5% 4.1%5 5.6% 13%6 9.2% 12%7 4.8% 5.6%

OwnershipState-owned enterprises 11.3% 13.2%Jointed venture companies 33.9% 41.7%Private companies 5.6% 9.4%Individual/small business 4.8% 6.6%

IndustryManufacturing industry 20.2% 24.4%Construction industry 3.6% 7.9%Distribution industry 9.2% 9.1%Service industry 1.9% 6.2%Public service 17.2% 13.5%

Xu et al.



negatively affected the migrant workers’ ability to com-prehend the details and advantages of the social insur-ance programs, which are new concepts for China’srural people, and consequently influenced their interestand willingness to take advantage of these programs.

It is also of great interest that women were morelikely than men to participate in welfare programs. AsChina continues to some extent to be a patriarchalsociety, despite the many radical changes in its recenthistory, women still take a greater responsibility thanmen in providing care for themselves and their families,and play their traditional role to be the primary caregiv-ers for their children, aged parents, and ill familymembers. From this perspective, female migrantworkers might experience a pressing need and/or per-sonal motivation to participate in the elderly pensionand healthcare programs. While some researchers haveassociated the lack of willingness to participate insocial insurance programs with workers’ age, wherebyyounger workers are thought to perceive less need toparticipate in healthcare and elderly pension programs,it is interesting to note that in the present study, themid-age (35–49 years) and older-age (>50 years)

migrant workers did not differ from their younger peersin welfare program participation, after controlling forall other individual- and macro-level factors. Unlikeprevious studies, the present study would seem toinvalidate the ‘perceived needs’ assumption.

It is not easy to capture the whole picture of socialinsurance programs for migrant workers and describethe variation in different regions and cities. The lack ofcontextual information on the cities in which themigrant workers lived has made it difficult to interpretthe data related to post-migration factors and migrantworkers’ participation in the two employment-basedsocial insurance programs. Further study is clearlyneeded. Nevertheless, we can still approximate certainimpacts of the macro-level factors on migrant workers’program participation. In fact, it is understandable thatwe found differences in program participation in differ-ent cities because, while national policies only pre-scribe the minimal standards and principles forreceiving healthcare and pension benefits, cities havethe authority to design their own programs and stan-dards. Thus, huge variations exist between cities interms of local policies and policy implementation.

Table 2. Predictors of welfare program (elderly pension) participation (n = 2,616).

B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

AgeMid-age 0.192 0.218 0.775 1 0.379 1.212Old age -0.111 0.390 0.082 1 0.775 0.895

GenderMale -0.348 0.168 4.313 1 0.038 0.706

Marital statusMarried 0.161 0.204 0.621 1 0.431 1.175

Education9 years or less -0.906 0.170 28.384 1 0.000 0.404

Length of stay2 years or more 0.474 0.186 6.477 1 0.011 1.607

KnowledgeVery knowledgeable 1.832 0.403 20.668 1 0.000 6.244Some knowledge 1.160 0.225 26.569 1 0.000 3.191Limited knowledge 0.624 0.219 8.137 1 0.004 1.866

Willingness 0.815 0.182 20.139 1 0.000 2.259City

1 1.367 0.362 14.261 1 0.000 3.9252 0.721 0.374 3.710 1 0.054 2.0563 1.047 0.368 8.095 1 0.004 2.8504 0.436 0.483 0.817 1 0.366 1.5475 0.419 0.391 1.149 1 0.284 1.5216 0.969 0.434 4.978 1 0.026 2.634

OwnershipJoint venture 0.720 0.263 7.519 1 0.006 2.054Private -0.601 0.213 7.949 1 0.005 0.548Individual -0.737 0.251 8.584 1 0.003 0.479

IndustryManufacturing 0.700 0.221 10.043 1 0.002 2.015Construction -0.683 0.302 5.099 1 0.024 0.505Distribution 0.171 0.268 0.408 1 0.523 1.187Service -1.186 0.375 10.031 1 0.002 0.305

Constant -3.723 0.466 63.922 1 0.000 0.024

df, degrees of freedom.



In addition, differences due to type of industry andbusiness structure could be the result of different levelsof regulation, administration, and policy enforcement.While state-owned enterprises serve as a benchmark inthis study, due to their tradition of providing adequatecare and security for employees’ wellbeing, it is notsurprising that JVCs are doing significantly better inenrolling migrant workers in social insurance programsthan are the state-owned enterprises. With foreigninvestment, China’s JVCs enjoy many tax benefitsand/or government subsidies; however, they are alsosubject to international labor standards, as well asChina’s social security regulations. JVCs are mandatedto provide all the social insurance programs for theiremployees, and their business activities are under closescrutiny by the Chinese government (and their homegovernments if they are international organizations). Incontrast, China’s private companies and small busi-nesses are clearly doing poorly in securing social insur-ance benefits for their workers, primarily because it ismore difficult for the local social security administra-tion to strictly supervise their provision of employeesocial insurance programs.

As for industry, the manufacturing industry’s supe-rior participation in social insurance programs and theservice industry’s below-standard participation wereexpected findings because while state-owned enter-prises dominate the manufacturing industry, the serviceindustry is dominated by private, individually heldsmall businesses, such as restaurants and small stores.Additionally, the participation differences betweenindustries also correlates with the size of the enterprise.Smaller enterprises, such as restaurants and smallservice shops, are less closely scrutinized by the gov-ernment than are larger enterprises, and thus have lowerparticipation rates.

The low level of welfare program participationamong rural-to-urban migrant workers should also beexamined by evaluating the welfare programs them-selves. The ‘Urban Five’ are designed to beemployment-based contributory social insurance pro-grams, i.e. both employers and employees contribute tothe healthcare and elderly pension funds. Requiringemployees to contribute tends to discourage somemigrant workers from participating in these socialinsurance programs. This is not only because social

Table 3. Predictors of welfare program (healthcare) participation (n = 2,350).

B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

AgeMid-age -0.138 0.202 0.462 1 0.496 0.871Old age 0.123 0.315 0.153 1 0.696 1.131

GenderMale -0.357 0.155 5.302 1 0.021 0.700

Marital statusMarried 0.173 0.184 0.882 1 0.348 1.189

Education9 years or less -0.749 0.152 24.225 1 0.000 0.473

Length of stay2 years and more -0.062 0.158 0.157 1 0.692 0.940

KnowledgeVery knowledgeable 2.550 0.357 50.970 1 0.000 12.803Some knowledge 1.494 0.201 55.416 1 0.000 4.454Limited knowledge 0.546 0.201 7.418 1 0.006 1.727

Willingness 0.892 0.160 30.931 1 0.000 2.441City

1 1.266 0.343 13.599 1 0.000 3.5472 0.702 0.367 3.665 1 0.056 2.0183 1.267 0.341 13.849 1 0.000 3.5514 0.584 0.422 1.917 1 0.166 1.7945 1.371 0.342 16.060 1 0.000 3.9416 1.175 0.402 8.528 1 0.003 3.237

OwnershipJoint venture 0.900 0.247 13.244 1 0.000 2.460Private -0.182 0.188 0.935 1 0.334 0.834Individual -0.401 0.229 3.064 1 0.080 0.670

IndustryManufacturing 0.634 0.204 9.642 1 0.002 1.884Construction -0.255 0.244 1.096 1 0.295 0.775Distribution -0.286 0.266 1.160 1 0.282 0.751Service -0.538 0.265 4.125 1 0.042 0.584

Constant -3.640 0.427 72.688 1 0.000 0.026

df, degrees of freedom.

Xu et al.



insurance programs are too costly for some migrantworkers, but also because the historical urban–ruraldistinction has made many rural residents mistrust theurban welfare system. In addition, employment-basedcontributory social insurance programs exclude manyrural-to-urban migrants working in small businessesfrom participating because of the lack of strict policyimplementation and government enforcement. Thus,many rural-to-urban migrant workers do not have socialinsurance protection, either voluntarily or involuntarily.

China’s migrant workers are eligible to participate inwelfare programs via their employers and can accesspublic services offered by the urban governments thatwere traditionally (for decades) reserved for urban resi-dents only. However, as shown in the findings of thepresent study, welfare program participation is lowamong current rural-to-urban migrant workers. Fur-thermore, while making welfare programs available torural-to-urban migrants who lack the urban hukou andare viewed as temporary residents of the cities symbol-izes the granting of ‘urban membership,’ their lowwelfare program participation suggests a certain reluc-tance toward having such membership. Additionalstudies using qualitative data may enrich our under-standing of migrant workers’ behavior in welfareprogram participation. Many structural barriers stillexist in China’s current welfare, political, and eco-nomic systems, which makes it difficult for migrantworkers to participate in or take advantage of thesesocial welfare programs.

Rural-to-urban migration has contributed to China’srapid economic development in recent decades by sup-plying an undereducated, low-wage migrant workforce;migrant workers have thus been playing an essentialand irreplaceable role in the reformed Chinese marketeconomy. While this does not mean that migrantworkers have become fully integrated in the cities ineconomic terms (migrant workers still work predomi-nately in low-paid, unskilled jobs, often without anybenefits), their participation in China’s urban economicactivities might suggest a moderate level of labormarket and/or economic integration. However, migrantworkers’ extremely low participation in welfare pro-grams indicates that they have still not been sociallyintegrated into China’s urban communities.

From the theoretical perspective of migrant integra-tion, China clearly relies heavily on the welfare pro-grams administered at the different levels of governmentto promote integration and eliminate the urban–ruraldistinction. This approach has similarities withSweden’s immigrant integration policies (Heckmann,2004). Unfortunately, China’s efforts have not led to adesired level of social integration. International migra-tion studies have pointed at the contradiction betweenthe economic necessity of international migration andthe existence of widespread opposition to continued

migration and migrants. This opposition is motivated byand an expression of racism, and is the result of failedsocial integration (Miles & Thranhardt, 1995).

China’s experience indicates that opening up tomigrant workers such urban core systems as the labormarket, self-employment, education, health services,social security, and urban membership does not auto-matically lead to a successful social integration. Thefailure to integrate rural-to-urban migrant workers eco-nomically and socially can be attributed to the fact thatthese core systems in urban communities are not fullyopen to them; the discriminatory opportunity structurestill exists. Furthermore, welfare programs do not helpto increase migrant workers’ capacity to exercise theirurban membership, and they do not change the histori-cal relationship between China’s rural and urban resi-dents. Clearly, both situations need further research.The present study has contributed to the literature byinvestigating the integration process of migrants in thenovel context of contemporary China – a changed andchanging society. It has broadened the existing empiri-cal and analytical boundaries to encompass relativelyuncharted territory.

Implications and conclusion

The present study has provided insights into China’schanging social welfare system stimulated by its recentunprecedented economic growth. With the post-1978reforms in China, the government initiated changes inits welfare system to better serve its population, includ-ing its underserved, or historically unserved, ruralpopulations, particularly the rural-to-urban migrantpopulation.

To increase welfare program participation amongthe millions of China’s migrant workers and to supporttheir social integration, the Chinese government needsto make concrete changes in its policy and politicalstructure so that welfare programs will be accessible tomigrant workers and capable of meeting their needs andthose of their families. These changes include: (i) low-ering both employers’ and employees’ contribution,increasing government’s direct investment, and offer-ing affordable healthcare and pension rates so that low-income migrant workers, small business owners, andsmall-sized social institutions will be more likely andable to participate; (ii) tightening government adminis-tration and making the participation of the ‘Urban Five’mandatory to all types of enterprises and institutions;and (iii) providing family benefits to meet the needs ofmigrant workers and their families. Migrant workerswith family responsibilities can hardly be interested inwelfare programs that cover just themselves and nottheir children and spouses.

The central government’s proposal in 2009 is just astart to improving current social insurance programs for



rural-to-urban migrant workers. In addition to moderatepolicy changes, systematic efforts have to be made togradually eliminate the urban–rural distinction that isso deeply rooted in society and the Chinese mindset. Indoing so, community outreach, educational programs, acampaign to encourage migrant workers to apply forand utilize welfare benefits, and an adequate numberof social workers to help migrant workers navigatethrough the complicated urban and rural welfaresystems are essential for increasing the welfareprogram participation and overall wellbeing of rural-to-urban migrant workers, as well as facilitating theprocess of economic and social integration. AlthoughChina might have, as a future perspective, a nationaluniversal program that would cover both urban andrural residents, such a universal program has to bestructured fundamentally differently from the country’spre-reform welfare system.

From China’s experience, there are parallels in therole of the government to improve migrants’ overallwellbeing, yet there remain differences in migrantworkers’ welfare participation and service utilization,given the different social, political, and economic con-texts. The inequitable situation of China’s rural-to-urban migrant workers cannot be said to be comparablewith, for instance, the unfair treatment of seasonalMexican workers in the USA. The comparison lackssuch characteristics as national borders and state sov-ereignty that make immigration and welfare policies inthe United States ‘justifiable’. But China’s apparentignoring of the plight of its rural-to-urban migrantworkers in the past is connected in a special way to theUS immigration and welfare policies that restrict immi-grants’ rights, i.e. the economic conditions that cater toa perceived need to provide an exploitable workforce,and the political conditions that endorse social control.Therefore, the role that the governments in both theUSA and China have played to improve migrantworkers’ wellbeing is more passive than proactive,limited instead of broad, and administration-basedrather than rights-based.

Nor would it be feasible to compare the welfareprogram participation of China’s migrant workers with,say, that of Asian immigrants in the United States.Unlike Asian Americans, who struggle with raciallystratified social relationships and migration-associatedacculturation and assimilation issues, it is China’smacro-level structural factors that are the most criticalin determining rural-to-urban migrant workers’ welfareprogram participation and service utilization. Often,these macro-level factors offer limited options formigrant workers. The urban–rural distinction that hasexisted in China over the last four decades has pre-vented rural residents from enjoying the ‘privileges’ ofpublic welfare programs, such as healthcare and elderlypension. Because of the urban–rural distinction,

migrant workers are unfamiliar with, hesitant about,distrustful of, and reluctant to participate in the publicwelfare programs available to them.

Therefore, to blame the hardworking migrantworkers for their unwillingness to participate in socialwelfare programs is to blame the victims of a systemthat has traditionally ignored their needs. In China’songoing movement to improve its social welfaresystem, to carefully plan the growth of urban metro-politan areas, and to promote a smooth social transition,the social welfare policies and overarching socialsystems should implement fundamental changes for thewellbeing of all the people living and working in andoutside its cities.

References

Aroian KJ, Khatutsky G, Tran TV, Balsam AL (2001). Healthand social service utilization among elderly immigrants fromthe former Soviet Union. Journal of Nursing Scholarship33(3): 265–271.

Barrett A, McCarthy Y (2008). Immigrants and welfare pro-grammes: Exploring the interactions between immigrantcharacteristics, immigrant welfare dependence and welfarepolicy. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 24(3): 543–560.

Berk ML, Schur CL, Chavez LR, Frankel M (2000). Health careuse among undocumented Latino immigrants. Health Affairs19(4): 51–64.

Chan KW, Zhang L (1999). The hukou system and urban–ruralmigration in China: Processes and changes. China Quarterly160: 818–855.

Clogg CC, Eliason SR, Leicht KT (2001). Analyzing the laborforce: Concepts, measures, and trends. New York, Spinger.

Edmonston B, Passel J, eds. (1994). Immigration and ethnicity:The integration of America’s newest arrivals. Washington,DC, The Urban Institute Press.

Fan CC (2001). Migration and labor-market returns in urbanChina: Results from a recent survey in Guangzhou. Environ-ment and Planning 33: 479–508.

Guan X (2000). China’s social policy: Reform and developmentin the context of marketization and globalization. SocialPolicy and Administration 34(1): 115–130.

Hammarstedt M (2009). Assimilation and participation in socialassistance among immigrants. International Journal ofSocial Welfare 18(1): 85–94.

Heckmann, F (2004). The integration of immigrants in Europeansocieties. In: Kilton T, Birkhead C, eds. Migrations in society,culture, and the library, pp. 14–23. WESS European confer-ence, Paris, France, March 22, 2004. Chicago: Association ofCollege & Research Libraries.

Hu W (2006). Foreign workers’ (rural migrant workers’)comprehensive social insurance. Chengdu, China, SichuanUniversity Press.

Hutchison E (2007). Dimensions of human behaviour: Thechanging life course (3rd edn). New York, Sage.

Jacobs EA, Shepard DS, Syaya JA, Stone E (2004). Overcominglanguage barriers in health care: Costs and benefits of inter-preter services. American Journal of Public Health 94(5):866–869.

Leduc N, Proulx M (2004). Patterns of health services utilizationby recent immigrants. Journal of Immigrant Health 6(1):15–27.

Leung JCB (2006). The emergence of social assistance inChina. International Journal of Social Welfare 15(3): 188–198.

Xu et al.



Li H (2007). Economic efficiency and social insurance reformsin China. Contemporary Economic Policy 18(2): 194–204.

Li L, Wang H, Ye X, Jiang M, Lou Q, Hesketh T (2007a). Themental health status of Chinese rural-urban migrant workers.Social Psychiatry: Psychiatry Epidemiology 42: 716–722.

Li X, Zhang L, Fang X, Chen X, Lin D, Mathur A (2007b).Stigmatization experienced by rural-to-urban migrantworkers in China: Findings from a qualitative study. WorldHealth and Population 9(4): 29–43.

Liang Z (2001). The age of migration in China. Population andDevelopment Review 27(3): 499–524.

Looney K (2003). Death of Sun Zhigang challenges rule of lawin China. Available at http://en.chinaelections.org/newsinfo.asp?newsid=7758 [last accessed 25 October 2008].

Meng X (2000). Labour market reform in China. Cambridge,UK, Cambridge University Press.

Miles R, Thranhardt D, eds. (1995). Migration and Europeanintegration: The dynamics of inclusion and exclusion.London, Pinter Publishers.

Ministry of Labour and Social Security of People’s Republic ofChina (2005). Rural migrant workers’ social security.Beijing, Ministry of Labour and Social Security of People’sRepublic of China.

National Bureau of Statistics of People’s Republic of China(2009). Rural migrant workers amounted to 225.42 millionsnationwide at the end of 2008. Beijing, National Bureau ofStatistics of China.

Rozelle S, Guo L, Shen M, Hughart A, Giles J (1999). LeavingChina’s farms: Survey results of new paths and remaininghurdles to rural migration. China Quarterly 158: 367–393.

Tan S (2000). The relationship between foreign enterprises, localgovernments, and women migrant workers in the Pearl RiverDelta. In: West LA, Zhao YH, eds. Rural labor flows in

China, pp. 292–309. Berkeley, University of California atBerkeley, Institute of East Asian Studies.

Taylor JE, Rozelle S (2003). Migration and incomes in sourcecommunities: A new economics of migration perspectivefrom China. Economic Development and Cultural Change52: 75–101.

Vaga WA, Kolody B, Aguilar-Gaxiola S, Catalano R (1999).Gaps in service utilization by Mexican Americans withmental health problems. Journal of American Psychiatry 156:928–934.

Wang SB (2000a). Theoretical exploration on urban communitybuilding in reform China. Journal of Peking University(Philosophy and Sociology Edition) 5(37): 5–14.

Wang SB (2000b). The relationship between seeking help andoffering help in the Chinese society: Institutional and culturalperspectives. In: Tsang AKT, Yan MC, Shera, W, eds. Socialwork in China: A snapshot of critical issues and emergingideas, pp. 19–28. Toronto: University of Toronto, ChinaProject.

Wang SB (2002). Chinese welfare awareness and its reconstruc-tion. Paper presented at the Cross-Strait Four Regions SocialWelfare Symposium, Hong Kong. Taibei: Chinese Cultureand Social Welfare Foundation.

Xinhua News (2007, November 4). Thousands people celebratesthe first Rural Migrant Worker’s Day in Chongqing. XinhuaNews Agency. Available at http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2007-11/04/content_795259.htm [accessed 4 January 2010].

Xu Q, Chow J (2006). Urban community in China: Service,participation, and development. International Journal ofSocial Welfare 15(3): 198–208.



j.1468-2397.2009.00713.x Welfare Program Participation Among Rural to Urban Migran Wokkers in China

Documents

Transcript of j.1468-2397.2009.00713.x Welfare Program Participation Among Rural to Urban Migran Wokkers in China