Hi John, > >But already a new category of 'peasant' has emerged: landless, reportedly > >numbering about 40 > >million. > > One often sees the "fact" cited that China's floating population numbers in > excess of 100 million. > But, of course, many of these 100 million are working in the urban informal > sector illegally, and most > retain rural citizenship and have access to leased plots of cropland if they > so desire. These 40 million landless you refer to, do you mean 40 million > peasants who have been deprived by force and fraud of access to leased land > plots, but at the same time aren't affliliated with an urban danwei? Or > what?
40 million (and no one really knows the number for sure) is the number of people who have lost land tenure but have not been given urban residency. Many I'm sure have joined the 'floating population'; they're not mutually exclusive categories. The little survey research that's been done shows that most are worse off after losing their land, and can't find permanent employment. I guess little surprise there. Also, there are no more danweis. The term is still used, but its devoid of content. The iron rice bowl is no more. Everyone works under labor contract. Each individual is their own unit now. > >Another fetter is the central state, which appears set to follow a policy > >of modest support for >agricultural producers: the ag tax has been > >abolished, and major reforms in health care and >education for peasants are > >planned. > > The abolition of the agricultural tax seems like a big breakthrough, but at > several successive NPC meetings hasn't the Hu-Wen leadership vowed to > increase central government spending on education and health initiatives in > the countryside, with little follow-through? Why should this time be any > different? They're already begun to disburse money to some localities to fund school, and I think they're quite serious about significanly changing central gov rural policy. Abolishing of the ag tax shows it, as does the direct subsidies given to grain producers in 2005. > Are you suggesting that a huge portion of state functionaries in the > countryside are revenue gatherers? This seems a little off to me. Yes, I'm suggsting that. The number of government officials at the township/village level has grown rapidly since the 80s, and they support themselves from direct taxes and levies on peasants. The central/provincial governments haven't funded them. In regions where there's little industry to tax, the 'burden' on peasants has been very heavy, and led to lots of grumbling, petitioning, resistance, violence, etc. > And if it > were true, why would a bunch of tax collectors play any role in shaping the > cultural cohesion of the rural masses? They're not of course. The lack of 'cohesion' among the peasantry is a common theme among rural researchers in China, who bemoan the 'atomization' of the pesantry. Areas which require cooperation among peasants (such irrigation) are doing poorly. > I recall reading an interesting piece in the NYT several years ago about the > reemergence of smuggling and racketeering networks (as well as social > bandit-style secret societies) in China. My impression was that these > outfits were more prevalent in rural parts of far southern provinces > -- Guangdong, Guanxi, etc. -- rather than elsewhere, not in the least > because clan-based social organization was never dissolved to the same > degree in the far south as elsewhere. Is that correct? Dunno about this one. Cheers, Jonathan
