Effective measures have been taken in the last few years to raise the living standards of low-income groups to prevent society from becoming further polarized.
What is more important, however, is to improve the status of the disadvantaged groups in the market and give opportunities for development, in addition to earmarking more money to subsidize their livelihood.
Short of this, their vulnerable positions cannot be improved.
At the very core of opportunities is the opportunity to make a living. The opportunity to make a living exists nowhere but in the "social ecological system" as I call it.
Here is an example. A couple living in the old inner city of Shanghai can easily make a living by selling 100 boiled eggs per day. But when they move into the Pudong area across the Huangpu River, they can barely sell 20 eggs a day. Their livelihood is now at issue.
This demonstrates how important this kind of "social ecological system" is to the survival of the poor.
However, the matter of improving this system has gone largely unheeded in recent years in the process of urbanization.
In the pursuit of making their cities more beautiful, some local governments ban eateries and food stalls that are nothing but scars in their eyes.
At the same time, shantytowns in some cities are bulldozed to make way for large squares, beautiful lawns and grand buildings. Amidst this kind of construction boom, one thing is ignored: The shantytowns are where the poor secure a place in life.
In recent years, conflicts between urban administrative personnel and street vendors without business licenses have become increasingly frequent.
As a matter of fact, street vending has always been an important means of eking out a living for the disadvantaged.
On the other hand, the development of the city puts higher requirements on environment and appearance. Also, urban development demands better order in the city.
All this is bound to intensify the friction between urban management and the poor attempting to make a living.
But the conflicts can be and should be settled by effective management, rather than at the expense of the rights of the disadvantaged.
Employment constitutes an even more important factor in improving the positions of the disadvantaged.
The Chinese population increased by 140 million between 1992 and 2006. And more than 100 million people came of employment age during that time.
These new laborers either joined the contingent of the unemployed or are absorbed by the euphemistically termed "flexible employment" such as vending and odd jobs.
As a result, large numbers of the unemployed, half-employed and "flexibly employed" have emerged alongside regular employment. This is a new phenomenon in the country's labor market, worth our attention.
The lives of these irregularly employed people are extremely vulnerable in the absence of a guaranteed income source and social security.
At present, many factors are restricting the improvement of the "social ecological system" for the disadvantaged groups.
For example, high taxes on small businesses, poor management policy and the high threshold of monetary services make it extremely difficult for the disadvantaged to enter the channel of regular employment or to set up lawful businesses, no matter how small they are.
Since China formally joined the World Trade Organization in late 2001, foreign capital has been pouring into the country at an accelerated pace. New factories and buildings keep springing up across the country. As a result, large numbers of farmers have lost land and entered the cities as workers.
They have thus become part of the world labor force in the context of globalization.
But these farmers-turned-city-workers are still in a disadvantaged status, in no position to bargain for benefits. Some observers predict that farmers and farmers-turned-urban-workers will find themselves in an increasingly disadvantaged position or further marginalized against the background of accelerated globalization.
In this scenario, they will find it hard to gain benefits even in the face of favorable market conditions.
For instance, the grain price rose sharply in the latter half of 2006, which normally benefits farmers. But in reality, farmers benefited very little. Some researchers remarked that farmers were absent from the interest sharing.
According to media reports, every link in the grain market enjoyed considerable profit as a result of the price hike. But farmers, as the producers of grain, shared only 15 to 20 percent of the profits.
The price hike came, with the alleged manipulation of China Grain Reserves Corporation, in November. The purchase of grain from farmers was completed by the latter half of October.
Monopolizing the grain source, the corporation reaped fat profits.
From this, we can see that farmers' maneuvering capability to win themselves benefits from the market was extremely weak.
(China Daily June 12, 2007)
