The pictured is a migrant worker in his dormitory. There is an urgent need to improve the living conditions for migrants.

 

A migrant worker takes a rest on a construction site. Migrant workers are the main force of building houses in cities, but it is quite difficult for them to access the homes they build.

 

Providing adequate housing for migrant workers in cities is not only a hot issue in modern society but also a tough dilemma facing local governments. According to a 2012 survey of migrant workers by the National Bureau of Statistics, the migrant population in cities totaled 260 million nationwide. The study found the majority of these workers lived in employer-provided dormitories, with other housing options being shared tenements. Very few were able to buy their own homes due to restrictions and unaffordability.
 

The integration of migrant workers into cities has become one of the most important strategies in future urbanization, as indicated by the goal of the new urbanization set at the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China.
 

In response to the central government’s call to provide housing for migrant workers, local authorities have introduced a series of plans, including the Provident Fund System unveiled by the Huzhou government in Zhejiang Province and the Apartments for Migrant Workers project initiated by the Shanghai municipal government. Nonetheless, most local policies are pilot programs and have minimal effect on solving housing problems for migrant workers.

Migrants on society’s margins
A 2011 survey of 667 migrant households in Shanghai found that 93.2 percent of migrant workers rented tenements.
 

In order to circumvent high agency fees required by the official housing market, 89.9 percent of migrants surveyed said they found a rental property through unofficial channels, including through acquaintances or flyers.

Nearly 70 percent of respondents said they didn’t sign a rental agreement with their landlords. Asked to identify the biggest problem of living in Shanghai, 45.59 percent of respondents listed unaffordable rents, 11.7 percent listed residential congestion and 8.66 percent listed inadequate facilities.
 

In terms of housing quality, 77.2 percent of respondents said their rented dwellings had no toilet, and 80.3 percent said they had nowhere to take a shower in their residence.
 

Obviously, the majority of migrant workers are not entitled to public housing in cities, forcing them to turn to small, dilapidated shanties or private dwellings in the outskirts of cities.
 

Despite national and local institutional arrangements and a common desire for a decent living standard among migrant workers, few policies have worked to improve their access to housing.

Multiple factors
Housing for migrant workers is not simply a matter for the real estate market. Rather, it involves multiple factors, including the social system, cultural traditions and interest groups.
 

There are a number of factors impeding migrant workers’ access to city housing, including limited public resources (spatial and financial resources) in urban areas, discrimination by powerful stakeholders, differences in policy implementation and an unwillingness from migrant workers, as a disadvantaged group, to voice their demands.
 

First, housing for migrant workers is linked to the redistribution of spatial and financial resources in cities, which entails movement of funds and personnel as well as financial support of the central government. 
 

Under current systems and financial pressure, central authorities have promulgated macro housing policies for migrant workers that have provided guidance for local governments.
 

Obliged to resolve housing problems for migrant workers, local governments must increase spending to reallocate spatial and financial resources. Striking a balance in the redistribution is therefore an urgent problem that needs to be addressed.
 

Second, local powerful stakeholders have made policies discriminatory. In recent years, against the backdrop of social governance and urbanization, many local authorities have upheld the equalization of social services covering compulsory education, public health, social security and employment. However, on the housing front, migrant workers have always been excluded from public housing.
 

Provided by the government, public housing is meant to be available to all urban residents. However, applicants for public housing need to meet certain requirements closely related to local policies.
 

Take Shanghai, for example. On June 4, 2010, a draft on the implementation of public rental housing was released to the public. The policy extended the range of housing assurances from urban hukou (household registration) holders to the permanent residential population with stable jobs, covering young workers who temporarily had difficulties living in the city, nonlocal talent and “floating” workers in Shanghai.
 

On the surface, migrant workers were allowed to apply for public rental housing under the policy, but the draft explicitly required applicants to meet multiple criteria, including possession of a permanent Shanghai urban hukou or Shanghai residence permit, contributions to social security for a certain number of years and an effective labor contract with a local employer.

Unfortunately, these detailed regulations preclude most low-class migrant workers from receiving public housing access.
 

Third, the local population is potentially inclined to exclude outsiders. Public housing is a coveted resource in many cities, particularly because demand from urban residents overshadows supply.
Once a policy is loosened, the local population and outsiders will inevitably engage in competition for limited public housing resources. This conflict invariably raises tensions among residents.
 

There is a similar situation in terms of education. In 2012, when the Shanghai municipal government lifted restrictions to allow nonlocal students to take the gaokao (national college entrance examinations) in the city, many Shanghai parents lodged protests and demanded nonlocal gaokao students to leave the city to avoid straining the city’s educational resources.
 

It can therefore be expected that liberalizing public housing will likely raise tensions between the local and nonlocal populations unless the government is confident enough to control the situation.
 

Fourth, differences in policy implementation are also hindering migrant workers from accessing housing in cities. For example, the central government is progressively incorporating migrant workers into the urban housing assurance system year by year. However, various factors have made it difficult to implement central policies at a local level. The beneficiaries of local policies are often “high-end” outsiders who account for only a small proportion of the nonlocal population.
 

Fifth, migrant workers generally have a low awareness of their housing rights and interests. They are normally indifferent to the non-availability of urban public housing and resign themselves to their fate as nonlocal hukou holders. Due to their silence, migrant workers are often regarded as a disadvantaged group with no say.
 

However, it is noteworthy that when the interests of some other vulnerable groups’ are infringed, those who feel wronged will resort to drastic measures like petitioning or staging public stunts. Migrant workers, on the other hand, usually keep a low profile even when they feel wronged and opt to be silent. Compared to common problems, such as delays in salary payment, exclusion from public housing is a less obvious hardship.
 

Since 2000, academia has been paying growing attention to housing for migrant workers in cities amid heated discussions over related problems. Development of relevant research has expanded the scope of discussions on migrant workers in urban areas and provided an inspirational theoretical basis for urban governments to resolve pertinent problems.
 

While heeding the housing issue concerning rural migrant workers and the establishment of the urban housing security system, the social sciences community and political circles should connect related academic issues to latent social problems.
 

Zhao Yeqin is an associate professor from the Department of Sociology at East China Normal University.