Chak Kwan Chan

Social policy in China: development and well-being

Part one: Background and framework: Chinas social policy: new era and basic policy issues Social policy and human well-being Social policy in the context of economic reform The making of social policy in China Part two: Key policy areas and human well-being: Social security Labour policy Health policy Education policy Housing policy Part three: Conclusion: Chinas welfare reform and human well-being.

Contracting social services in China: the case of the Integrated Family Services Centres in Guangzhou

This article uses the Integrated Family Services Centres (IFSCs) as an example to illustrate the contractual relationship between the state and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the capacities of government officials to implement the contracting-out of services in China. The data from 12 focus groups in 2015 indicated that local governments treated IFSCs as foot soldiers by asking them to fulfil duties beyond their service contracts. Moreover, Guangzhou government’s fragmented service evaluation arrangements and workload-oriented criteria were unable to effectively assess the impact of social work practices. The study concludes that appropriate legislation is required to safeguard the rights of NGOs.

Workfare in the undemocratic states: The case of China

This article examines the problems caused by workfare in China. It is found that China’s public assistance scheme is managed mainly by volunteers and government officials who do not necessarily possess relevant qualifications. Also, welfare claimants’ benefits can be ceased without going through a rigorous procedure; they can hardly challenge the decisions of the authority because China’s judicial system is interfered by central and local senior officials. This article concludes that workfare is a product of Western democratic countries; its implementation in undemocratic states will only increase power abuses among welfare bureaucrats and threaten the rights of claimants.

Public assistance eligibility and the well-being of poor people in China

ABSTRACT This study adopted content analysis to examine policy papers concerning the eligibility requirements of the Minimum Living Standard Scheme (MLSS) in Chinas 31 capital cities. It was found that local officials not only assess applicants’ assets and incomes, but also their living space, quality of home decoration, possession of luxury goods, leisure activities, and behavior. The local governments’ use of a lifestyle assessment approach is caused by financial constraints and the lack of an effective mechanism to check applicants’ incomes. The lifestyle approach leads to regional inequalities in accessing public assistance, because some of the terms, which define the quality of life, are too ambiguous. The lifestyle approach, which requires applicants to live in very poor living conditions and also demonstrate their hardship to local officials, will be a barrier preventing poor people from being integrated into their communities. This study suggests that the key words and terms in the policy documents need to be clearly explained and similar criteria should also be adopted across different regions. It also proposes that the gap between MLSS eligibility criteria in the policy papers and their actual implementation requires further study in order to understand the impact of special local factors and the quality of life of poor people in China.

Does China’s public assistance scheme create welfare dependency? An assessment of the welfare of the Urban Minimum Living Standard Guarantee

This study examines the myth of whether China’s public assistance scheme is creating welfare dependency. It first analyses the benefit levels of the Urban Minimum Living Standard Guarantee (UMLSG) according to the international poverty measurements. Then it employs in-depth interviews to reveal the life experiences of 15 UMLSG beneficiaries and the views of 8 welfare officials in Guangzhou city. It concludes that the UMLSG assistance is actually too low to reduce the work motivation of beneficiaries. Instead, supplementary welfare associated with the UMLSG contributes to the staying of beneficiaries, to facilitate access to basic housing, health and educational services.