Perception and Experiences of Welfare Boundary By Two Migrant Populations in South China: A Comparison between Internal Migrants and African Immigrants

Background and Purpose: “Welfare boundary” refers to the conflict and compromise between the universal rights of all citizens to welfare benefits and the limited resources for welfare provision. This conflict creates an eligibility threshold for welfare entitlement, often arising in the context of migration. In China, given the household registration system (hukou), migrants (mainly rural-to-urban) face many barriers accessing social welfare in new destinations. Even with the recent reform of hukou system emphasizing equalization of welfare benefits and services, accessibility to migrants is still largely constrained. This situation is further complicated by the influx of African immigrants into southern China who share similar characteristics as the internal migrants (e.g., lack of local hukou) and also demonstrate unique needs as international immigrants. To better understand their experiences with social welfare in the receiving community, this study explores how diverse migrants in southern China perceive and experience the “welfare boundary”, considering similarities and discrepancies between these two migrant populations.

Methods: Adopting a qualitative research design, semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with ten internal migrants and eight African immigrants in a diverse southern Chinese province. The interviews surrounded five lines of inquiry: 1) expectation (what did they expect to receive before moving); 2) reality (what did they actually receive after moving); 3) accessibility (whether they could access benefits and any barriers they encountered); 4) relevance (whether the benefits/services were relevant to their actual needs); and 5) change (what would they change in the system). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded systematically using Nvivo 12.

Findings: Analyses suggested many similarities among the two populations. Both had little expectation of entitlement to social welfare before moving., yet in reality, the lack of access to social welfare did affect their quality of life. Inaccessibility generated dissatisfaction with the welfare system, and the welfare boundary experienced by migrants mainly appears in the areas of healthcare and children’s education. For the internal Chinese migrants, the lack of a local hukou, paired with a number of other factors such as limited knowledge about social welfare, low educational level and income, and instable or non-supportive employers, had contributed to their limited accessibility to welfare. The African migrants did not regard their lack of welfare entitlement unreasonable; but given their international migrant status, the legal and cultural barriers rendered their access to welfare even harder.  Interestingly, despite a shared belief about universal accessibility to welfare for everyone, both groups also considered it reasonable to allow differentiation for those with different residential/citizenship status, granting legitimacy to the existence of welfare boundary. But they hope to move the boundary lower to ease accessibility to welfare benefits. 

Conclusion and Implications: Findings of this qualitative study have advanced understanding of “welfare boundary” from the migrants’ own perspectives. The concept also demonstrates its potential to be applied in broader contexts of international migration studies. The findings suggest how migration and welfare policies should reach a better balance between rights and resources to ensure an adequate level of welfare for both internal and international migrants.