In this article I will try to provide some context about and insight into Mainland China’s Hukou system, and hopefully help you navigate the maze of popular misconceptions about Hukou and China. Fair warning, for basic facts, I cite Wikipedia, and I leave it to you the reader to decide if you want to trace the source references. I have to cite some Chinese websites due to the lack of English sources, and hope with tools like Google translate you can get a rough idea. I also use some Google translated screenshots, because manual translation would take too long.
What is Hukou?
The Hukou (户口), also known as Huji (户籍), system, is a form of household registration system that can be traced to as early as 1000 BC. Originally a census tool, it was used by Qin to boost tax collection and military mobilization efficiency. This eventually helped them to conquer the other states and unify China. In Tang Dynasty, the Huji system spread to other Asian regions along with the other cultural exports of Tang. (In China, Japan, and Korea, it is written in similar characters, in many places the words also sound quite similar.) Still implemented in several Asian countries and regions in various forms today, Huji is not a communistic invention, but a legacy of an ancient governing system that has worked for the agrarian societies of Asia for a millennia.
In an agrarian society such as the ones we find in Asia, people are tied to their land, and didn’t wantonly migrate, therefore the Huji system made sense. In China, during the more agriculture-focused dynasties, the Huji laws often were more strict, and during the more commerce-minded dynasties such as Song and Ming, more lax. Fast forward to today, many Asian regions have reformed their Huji system to remove various restrictions to suit the increase demand for social and physical mobility. While Mainland China’s Huji system is perhaps the most elaborate, it’s nevertheless on the same path of reform, and made significant progress in recent years. (A point I hope the rest of this article can illustrate.)
Hukou in modern China
Without a doubt, the Hukou system of Mainland China is still more restrictive than that of Japan or Taiwan. However, that is arguably due to China’s massive population and landmass size. (2x the size of EU, and 3x the population.) Such massive size creates disparity across demographics and regions, which has always been one of the biggest challenges of governance in China. Therein lies what I believe to be Hukou’s main purpose in modern China: to balance regional resource allocations through macro managing the internal migrations. Hukou was designed to balance that resource allocation in two ways: 1) managing rural to urban migration, and 2) managing cross-region migrations. But with the social economical situation in China changing rapidly and people demanding more mobility, the Hukou system also had to adapt to keep up.
Rural households used to be classified as “agrarian households”, and are entitled to own land for cultivation and building their own homes (urban, or “non-agrarian”, households can only own property but not land). The trade-off was that the rural population couldn’t access most social benefit programs and public services, which were administered only in the cities. This is likely because the government weren’t able to extend those programs to the countryside at the time. As urbanization grew and social benefit coverage expanded, the rural population now have more access to social security and public healthcare. The distinctions between agricultural and non-agricultural households has also been abolished. (“State Council’s Opinion on Further Advancing Huji Reform” from 2014, section 3 paragraph 9.)
Cross-region migration is much messier, and its significance grew as China’s economy boomed in the 90’s. Before 1979, everyone either worked for the government or state-owned companies, so all individual migrations were essentially state approved. But after Reform and Opening Up, the economy in coastal cities took off and the income gap between the coast and the interior increased. Suddenly in the 1990’s, everyone wanted to move to the coast, this I speak from experience as someone whose family did just that. But back then cities like Shanghai or Shenzhen were nowhere near capable of handling such a sudden and massive influx, nor did they have the infrastructure to provide the necessary social benefits. For example, Shanghai had over 5% annual population increase between 1991 and 2000, and the total population grew 5 million in 10 years.
To make matters more difficult, a large portion of social benefits in China is funded locally. Therefore it’s not difficult to see why certain regions want to limit incoming migrants to protect social benefits of local residents. To me, it seems that the big city governments back then made a judgement call: instead of letting people come and (most likely) fail, potentially creating social instability factors and crumbling the infrastructure, they kept them from even trying. But as regional economic disparity started to reduce, and people had more options beyond the handful of top-tier mega cities, this pressure alleviated. In the 2014 document, the State Council also laid out clear guidelines for allowing migrants to establish residency and guaranteeing their equal rights to public services and social benefits.
Major Hukou reforms
To illustrate the overall progression of Hukou reforms in China, I will choose 3 events that in my opinion significantly impacted the Hukou policies in China.
1982: passage of the anti vagrancy law
In 1982, China had just resumed normalcy after the Cultural Revolution, and Reform and Opening Up was in its infancy. The increase in economic vitality also brought some chaos and instability, and a vagrancy problem in cities started to appear. As a result, a rather harsh law was passed to remove beggars and vagrants from urban areas. It required cities to deport them back to their original residence according to their Hukou.
In the 90’s when big cities like Shanghai and Shenzhen wanted to curb the influx of migrants and social problems that created (such as crime rate, slums, etc.), the local government implemented a “Short-term Residence Permit” (暂时居住证) system. It was difficult to obtain and provided migrants with very little benefits. The local governments also abused the anti vagrancy law to send people caught without the short-term permit back to their hometowns. This period, in my opinion, created most of the stigma about the Hukou system, and earned Shanghai the notoriety for being unfriendly to outsiders.
2003: abolishing the anti vagrancy law
In March 2003, the tragic death of a migrant worker in Guangzhou while being detained for not having his short-term permit sparked national fury. Within 3 months, the State Council passed a legislation abolishing the 1982 anti vagrancy law, banned deportation, and instructed the vagrant detention centers to be converted to shelters.
Although the Hukou and short-term permit systems weren’t officially reformed as a direct result, in my opinion this signified the first step in the right direction for protecting migrant worker’s rights. In 2004 Shanghai also began to test a Residence Permit system to replace the short-term permit system, which would later be codified in national regulations. From then on, the role of the short-term permit greatly diminished, and to a large extent it stopped local police from randomly stopping people who looked poor on the street to check their IDs.
2014–2016: Residency Permit with equal benefits
The 2014 State Council opinion I mentioned earlier is the official starting point of the Hukou reform. Not only did it abolish the distinction between non-agrarian and agrarian households, it abolished short-term permit system and replaced it with the Residence Permit system that provided equal benefits. In 2015, the State Council passed the Interim Regulations on Residence Permit, which went into effect Jan. 1, 2016. This laid out more concrete regulations on how each city and province should implement their residence permit system. It also mandated that Residence Permit holders receive equal benefit as people with local Hukou, including education, healthcare, unemployment, and legal aid, among other things.
The regulation also defined what types qualifying requirements local governments can set for the Residence Permit. The smaller towns should focus on stable residence, medium-sized and large cities on stable employment and participation in local social security systems, and mega cities should implement a competitive point-based system based on all above and local capacity.
The regulation also declared that local agencies would be punished if they do not follow the State Council regulation.
Current Hukou policies
Social welfare and Hukou policies in China are implemented at a local level to account for disparity in regional circumstances such as city size and funding. Therefore, during the 2014–2016 reform, different cities formalized their own requirements for obtaining Hukou and Residence Permit. (In fact, there is no national Hukou or Residence Permit policies, just regulations on how local government should devise policies, as the 2016 decree shows.) So if someone’s argument starts with “China’s Hukou policy …”, you can probably just ignore them right there.
Let’s take Shanghai as an example. To obtain a regular Residence Permit is quite easy, one just need to establish residency for 6 months via employment, education, or direct relatives. (Direct relatives also can move their Hukou from hometown to Shanghai directly.) Notice that Shanghai still implemented a “Temporary Residence Permit” (临时居住证). This is different from the previous “Short-term Residence Permit” (暂时居住证), as it’s no longer mandatory and aims to enroll temporary visitors who don’t qualify for the regular permit into the local benefit system if they so choose.
Being one of the top-tier cities, obtaining a Shanghai Hukou can still be quite difficult. Here are 6 ways outlined by a local law firm posted on Zhihu, China’s Quora. In short, fresh graduates from universities in Shanghai who find jobs in the city and returning overseas students can obtain a Shanghai Hukou easily, certain incentives are given for high-level talents and business persons, spouses/children/parents of local residents can settle in Shanghai based on family ties, and for everyone else it requires 7 years of local residency and participation in social security with a valid Residence Permit.
To illustrate the regional differences in policy, let’s take Chengdu as another example. Comparing to Shanghai, it’s slightly easier to obtain a Residence Permit, since one can obtain it purely based on having a stable residence for 6 months even without a job (clause 2).
To obtain a Chengdu Hukou is also much easier in comparison. There isn’t a challenging requirement of establishing 7 years of residency, and people under 45 with college degrees and a stable residence can obtain a Chengdu Hukou directly.
Criticisms and Misconceptions
If you have read this far, first of all, thank you for staying with me on such a dry topic. Secondly, I’m sure you’ve formed a rough judgement on if you think the Hukou system’s pros outweighs its cons. Many of the criticisms it receives make very good arguments. Unfortunately, they also get grossly distorted into misconceptions. Here are a few pairs that often pop up.
Criticism: Hukou creates inequality
Misconception: People without local Hukou have no rights
I think during Reform and Opening Up, the Hukou system clearly favored local residents of coastal cities, and that was unfair to the people who lived in the interior. However, in recent years the central government poured vast amount of investment into the interior, significantly shrinking the economic gap. Of course disparity in opportunity and quality of education still exist, but the reforms have made it easier for people to migrate to and gain access to resources in top-tier cities. The misconception that migrant workers don’t have any rights is clearly wrong, since the Residence Permit was implemented to address that.
Criticism: Hukou system limits upward social mobility
Misconception: Hukou binds people to their birthplace/social class
Hukou definitely creates some obstacles in social mobility, as prerequisites such as employment and stable housing make it more challenging for people to move to large cities, where opportunities and resources are more abundant. Although, I would argue that even without such policies, supply and demand make large cities so expensive and competitive, that it would still be just as challenging for people to settle there. Hence the “if you can make it here you can make it anywhere” NYC mentality. Judging by the Residence Permit requirements for Shanghai and Chengdu, if one can support oneself in those cities, one most likely would qualify for the permit anyway. The requirements also aren’t significantly more stringent than the requirements to obtain a state ID in New York or California. In fact, when compared with what’s needed to qualify for in-state tuition in a state university in the US, these requirements seem rather easy to meet.
Since Residence Permit in large cities is likely attainable for a significant portion of the population, and its holders can qualify for local Hukou eventually, it’s clear to me that people aren’t bound to their birthplace or social class by the Hukou system. Opting for a government-planned basic requirement instead of letting market forces push people out of big cities, creating distress in its process, also doesn’t seem to be a bad idea to me. One can even argue that it’s partially the reason why China doesn’t have a wide spread homeless problem, because the regulations reduce the likelihood of migrants in large cities being completely crushed by the market forces.
Criticism: Hukou limits freedom of movement
Misconception: It’s illegal to travel within China without permit
As discussed above, Hukou does place some limitations on freedom of relocation-related movements. The deportations of migrants in the 90’s were also appalling, and I personally know people who experienced that. However, since the 2003 legislation that abolished deportations, normal movement such as business trips, personal vacations, and family visits have faced no limitations. Especially after the nation-wide implementation of the Residence Permit system, access to social benefits no longer created soft limitations on freedom of relocation-related movement either. Today in some cities even temporary visitors can receive certain social benefits like healthcare.
This is probably one of the most perpetuated myths about China’s Hukou system, that till recently people were still arrested for just going from point A to point B. I imagine it’s because people’s mind go to dark places when they read news snippets about Chinese regulations that say “temporary visitors shall register with local agencies”. The context people don’t have is that a) this is not mandatory as I explained earlier with Shanghai’s temporary permits; and b) in China when a traveler checks in at a hotel with an valid ID, the hotel automatically logs it in the local database, so no additional actions would be needed anyway. So I think it’s safe to say that in the past 15 years at least, Hukou hasn’t limited people’s freedom to travel and visit families.
Closing Notes
If I’m asked to summarize the essence of China’s Hukou system in one sentence, I would say it’s “if you’ll have a good shot at making it there, then you can move there.” This is clearly different from the popular western aspiration of “moving to NYC/London/Paris/LA for a while to see if I can make it”. It is in essence a choice between government intervention and the survival of the fittest. Which one is more “right” is perhaps ultimately a personal preference: pragmatists and collectivists may prefer the former, while idealists and individualists, the latter.
Regardless of your judgement on whether Hukou is more good or more bad, I hope I have provided useful context on its history and its reform in China. I have no doubt that the Hukou system is going in the direction of loosening control. After all, China is no longer an agrarian society but an industrial one.
