China has been undergoing an epic scale of rural-to-urban migration since the early 1980s. The migration involves numerous rural migrant workers (often called nongmingong in Chinese), who currently constitute approximately one-fifth of Chinaās 1.38 billion population, according to the National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBSC) (2017a, b). The manufacturing industry has always employed the most rural migrant workers. For instance, in 2016, 30.5% of rural migrants worked in the manufacturing industry, followed by the construction industry, which absorbed 19.7% of migrants (NBSC 2017b). Rural migrants enter cities and towns to seek improved socioeconomic opportunities, but urban governance constrains them in various political and socioeconomic aspects. Extant literature has revealed that the infamous hukou (household registration) system has hindered rural migrants from receiving basic local welfare and services, such as public housing and education (Chan 2009; Solinger 1999; Wang 2005). Indigenous people dominate and exclude them from local communities (Solinger 1999; Pun 2005; The Economist 2014). Manufacturing industrialists often exert rigid management techniques and may exploit migrant workers (Hsing 1998; Wright 2003; Pun et al. 2016). During recent years, the condition of an exhausted rural labor surplus and the high demand for urban labor should significantly raise migrant workersā wages (Lewis 1954; Cai 2010). However, their wages have remained low and are sometimes half that of urban workers (Song 2014; Zhu 2016). In the manufacturing industry, migrantsā real wage, even with raises, may still remain lower than all manufacturing workersā average (NBSC 2013, 2017b; Rasiah et al. 2015). 1 Although they greatly contribute to Chinaās development, migrants become secondary citizens, the urban underclass , sojourners, strangers, and cheap labor in the city (Pun 2005; Solinger 1999; Wang 2005; Zhang 2001; Song 2014; The Economist 2014).
Particular phenomena and events highlight the importance of space, scale, and process to the governance of migrants described above. First, specific spaces correlate with governance. While industrialists rigidly manage migrant workers in factories, indigenous villagers dominate them in migrant neighborhoods (Chung 2010; He et al. 2010). In streets and plazas, police used to spot-check migrantsā hukou identities and detain those determined to be a menace to cities (Wang 2005; Solinger 1999). In response to such governance, migrants have resisted by going on strike and protesting in factories and public spaces. For instance, thousands of migrants took to the streets in Guxiang , Zengcheng, and Shaxi (three towns in Guangdong Province) to protest the mistreatment of migrant workers by authorities there, leading to riots and conflicts with police (Browne 2011; Page 2011; Sudworth 2012). Constant interaction between authorities and migrants is the norm in non-factory areas such as streets and migrant residences. Second, the interaction appears on a particularly local scale, in specific cities, towns, and villages. Overseas industrialists manage migrants in many factories; however, outside the factories, migrants often interact with local authorities instead of the industrialists or the central state. Third, the system of governance, specifically the hukou system, is not inert but in a state of continuous transformation. The stateās institutions, policies, and actions, as well as indigenous villagersā domination, have been shifting during Chinaās reforms. Therefore, specific space, scale, and process are crucial factors constituting and impacting the governance of migrants.
This book studies the governance of migrants from the perspectives of space, scale, and process. It does not assess the factory management of migrantsāa worldwide conditionāthat many scholars (Hsing 1998; Pun 2005; Yeung 2001; Wright 2003) have examined. Instead, it focuses on governance in non-factory areasātown and village centers and migrant living zones such as rental residences and retail streets. Since authorities generally dominate and marginalize migrants who finally become cheap labor , these authorities may govern them outside factories for similar purposes of factory management, but through different approaches. This book intends to study governance in non-factory areas and connect it to our understanding of factory governance.
Instead of observing the governance of migrants on a macro- or microscale, this book studies it on the mesoscale of towns and villages. A sizable body of literature covers international, national, and regional scales of both governance and migrants, such as the rural-urban migration, national labor issues, and impacts of the central state and the global and national market upon migrants (Cai 2010; Chan 1994, 2010; Fan 2008; Pei 2006; Wang 2005; Solinger 1999). Likewise , the literature has examined the governance of migrants from both macro and microperspectives, focusing on migrantsā lives, socioeconomic characteristics, identities, and subjectivities under global political and socioeconomic impacts (Chang 2009; Hsing 1998; Pun 2005; Pun et al. 2012; Rofel 1992; Yeung 2001). In contrast, this book examines governance on the mesoscale of manufacturing towns to understand the governance at local levels. By doing so, this book intends to connect with the aforementioned macro- and micro-studies.
At least two reasons warrant an examination of the mesoscale governance of migrants. One is that their everyday lives often occur on the scale of towns and villages. They may travel back to their inland hometowns during a short period every year, but they spend most of the time living and working in the coastal towns and villages to which they have migrated. Due to the cost and their long daily working hours, they seldom travel among regions and cities. The interactions between authorities and migrants, therefore, take place within these towns and villages. The other reason is that, as several events in history demonstrate, authorities prefer to practice their ideologies upon governed subjects at the town level. For instance, many industrialists imposed their ideologies on workers through company towns, such as the exploitive mining towns in the Appalachian Mountains, the disciplinary Cannon mills in North Carolina, and the philanthropic Hershey Town in Pennsylvania (Green 2010). In the Soviet Unionās collective farms (Kolkhoz) and their counterpartsāChinaās peopleās communes that transformed into manufacturing townsālocal governments organize farmers in collective life for practicing communism (Zhang 1998; Davies 1980). The scale of towns varies to some extent in different countries; however, ordinary peopleās everyday lives usually take place on a mesoscale. A town that is neither too big to control nor too small to accommodate peopleās everyday lives is an ideal unit for authorities to practice their ideologies and governance.
Moreover, in contrast to many studi...