Mobilising the welfare machine? A relational analysis of the resumed socialist concern in China's housing policy

In 2007, the state council of China declared a priority of expanding the coverage of social housing.  At the first sight, this seems to indicate a renaissance of socialist concern that has been absence thus criticized by... [ view full abstract ]

In 2007, the state council of China declared a priority of expanding the coverage of social housing.  At the first sight, this seems to indicate a renaissance of socialist concern that has been absence thus criticized by many scholars since China’s housing reform. This paper nevertheless cautions the immediate cheers and call for exploration towards nature of welfare and citizenship and the logic of policy making process. Indeed, there is a resurgent reflection on the nature of welfare, evidenced by debates on the validity of productivist thesis after welfare expansion observed in post-crisis East Asia, and the comparative studies of workfare programs in the global north. The two contradicting phenomena on the surface, nevertheless, put the issue of labour market governance to the fore in welfare regime studies. Moreover, the division between labour/non-labour has been further fragmented to the desired labour, categorised by socio-cultural characteristics like industrial sectors, education, and so on. As such, welfare that used to be envisaged as right and entitlement, can be made conditional by welfare-to-work policies, can be graduated in different zones or for different social groups, or be commodified such that accessible by those who can afford through self-entrepreneurializing. Drawn insights from preceding debates, this paper examines the social housing policy reform in two Chinese cities in different stages of economic development and thus adopts different strategies of urban growth. Note that, we do not aim to negate the social benefits of this policy. However, what we caution is how such social housing regime shapes the norm of citizenship and welfare regime by spliting society to different categories of labour-communities and differentiating their accesses to welfare. what concerns us is the interrelation between social housing regime and economic developmental strategies, which will help to illustrate the dynamic state, market, and society relations.