Housing inequality in urban China: the heritage of socialist institutional arrangements

Abstract

With the development of the market economy in China, does the effect of the original socialist institutional arrangements on social inequality fade? We examine this issue by considering the effect of people's positions in the work unit system and their socioeconomic status on patterns of housing inequality in urban China. Using individual-level data from the 2007 Household Survey on the Housing Conditions of Urban Residents in Nanjing, China, we find that although people's socioeconomic status (measured by household income and householder's education) has become very important in shaping people's housing outcomes in urban China, housing inequality is also determined to some extent by their position in the work unit system-such as being employed in various units within the state sector-before and during the housing reform process. The pattern of housing inequality in urban China indicates that the impact of socialist institutional arrangements on social inequality can still be found in market transition societies even years after the market transition has occurred.

Social stratification and housing inequality in transitional urban China

“…Despite the expanding housing opportunities during the past decades, there have been growing concerns that the improvements in housing in urban China have not been happening at the same pace and shared equally (Fang & Iceland, 2018). A long scholarly tradition has demonstrated that hukou, a unique Chinese stratification system based on the place of origin, largely maintains the housing inequality in China.…”

What Drove Housing Wealth Inequality in China?

“…Finally, according to power persistence theory (Bian and Logan, 1996), households that were favored before the housing reform continue to be privileged in and after the housing reform because of the heritage of socialist institutional arrangements (Fang and Iceland, 2018). In a more recent study, Jin and Xie (2017) revealed that political capital matters more in driving housing wealth while market factors (education and work experience) are relatively more important in determining non-housing wealth.…”

Market Transition, Occupational Status, and Depression in Urban China: A Population-based Multilevel Analysis

“…One of the principal aspects of market-oriented reform in China was to shift the allocation of economic resources from the government to the markets (Nee 1989), which raised an increasing debate on the consequences of such a move. Some prior research was concerned primarily with the emergence of new social orders and restructuring of social stratification (Zhao and Zhou 2017), while other studies centered on inequality in terms of income, housing, gender, ethnicity, education, and occupation (Fang and Iceland 2018; Li 2013; Molero-Simarro 2017; Whalley et al 2011; Wu 2013; Wu and Song 2014; Wu and Zhang 2010; Zhang, Hannum, and Wang 2008). Nevertheless, few researchers had devoted their attention to the uneven health consequences of market reforms, which in fact could raise the risk for depression among urban residents (Shu and Zhu 2009; Xu et al 2021).…”

“…Meanwhile, China has experienced an unprecedented market transition and tremendous economic growth during the past two decades. With increases in private enterprises and market competition, a large body of research on reform-era China has shown that a massive societal transformation has affected resource allocation, income distribution, and job mobility in the labor market (Cao 2020; Cao and Rubin 2014; Fang and Iceland 2018; He and Wu 2018; Yi et al 2022). Importantly, with an increasing trend for further marketization, studies have found an association between growing up and living in highly marketized cities and a relatively higher risk for social stress and mental disorders (Hammersen, Niemann, and Hoebel 2016; Lecic-Tosevski 2019; Lederbogen et al 2011), in Western countries.…”