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

IF 2.4 3区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Shih‐Jiunn Shi
{"title":"The changing credibility of institutions: how household registration systems (hukou) in Mainland China and Taiwan define immigrants’ social benefits","authors":"Shih‐Jiunn Shi","doi":"10.1080/23812346.2021.1896206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":45091,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Chinese Governance","volume":"6 1","pages":"307 - 326"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/23812346.2021.1896206","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Chinese Governance","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23812346.2021.1896206","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

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.
制度可信度的变化:中国大陆和台湾的户口制度如何定义移民的社会福利
户口是界定中国大陆居民/移民社会公民身份的持久制度之一。虽然很多讨论都集中在中国大陆的案例上,但相对而言,很少有人关注台湾的制度,更不用说两者之间的比较了。本文旨在丰富两种户口制度在决定两岸移民在各自东道国获得社会福利方面的作用。利用“可信度论题”,分析的轨迹被置于制度形式表面上持续存在的制度功能的连续性和变化之上。当允许或拒绝移民获得当地社会福利时,户口制度实现了几个功能:首先,具有象征意义,来自双方的移民(人为地)被视为一个分裂国家的公民,而不是两个独立国家的公民;第二,确定给予有关移民的社会福利权利的范围和程度的实质性方面;最后,一个管理层面,允许相当大的行政自由裁量权,以适应两岸关系不稳定状态所产生的各种情况。通常情况下,这些不同功能的实现与身份政治的冲突交织在一起,对两岸移民的慷慨/僵化的社会包容产生了影响。支持这一理论阐述的证据来自对规范中国大陆和台湾移民社会权利的法律文件的分析,并辅以两岸移民政治的历史痕迹。最后的研究结果将揭示中国大陆和台湾户籍制度的促进/限制机制,突出一个令人困惑的现象,即在户籍制度调节国内人口迁移的功能发生变化(如果不是减弱的话)的同时,它们在引导两岸人口迁移方面的作用却越来越重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
6.70%
发文量
9
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信