The recent rise in grass-roots labor activism alongside proactive changes in labor regulations highlights the fact that the nature of labor regimes in China is rapidly evolving. The authors in this article analyze aspects of these changes and suggest caution in considering whether the overall outcomes are positive. What they do bear out is that this remains an area of contestation calling for further reforms and regulatory interventions in order to bring about better labor standards in China.
By Chris King-Chi Chan and Kahlid Nadvi
The recent rise in
grass-roots labor activism alongside proactive changes in labor regulations
highlights the fact that the nature of labor regimes in China is rapidly
evolving. The authors in this article analyze aspects of these changes and
suggest caution in considering whether the overall outcomes are positive. What
they do bear out is that this remains an area of contestation calling for
further reforms and regulatory interventions in order to bring about better labor
standards in China.
Although Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
and private “soft” regulation have been highlighted as an effective alternative
for the protection of labor rights in the age of globalization and weakened
state power, the evidence from China tells a different story. Here, it seems
that it is the Chinese state and its “hard” public regulation that may provide
more effective protection for workers, especially for China’s vast numbers of
migrant workers who have limited “Hukou” (local citizenship) rights. Recent
years have seen growing labor strife and the power of workers’ activism
becoming the important forces behind improvement in wages and working
conditions. Such forms of labor activism and the growing shortages of skilled
workers in many of the coastal zones have also acted as key drivers of the
Chinese State’s greater engagement in labor legislation and labor policy (C.
Chan, 2010 and 2014). This suggests a relatively brighter outlook for Chinese
workers, as more effective public regulation leads to improved labor outcomes.
One significant measure of this trend is the substantial increase in wages seen
in China over the past decade.
What is clear
from the current situation is that despite the growing importance of public
regulatory interventions around labor, labor contracts and worker’s contractual
rights, the Chinese State is not homogeneous and its role in the protection of labor
rights is multifaceted and uneven. The implication is that in places where
workers’ power is weak, the local government may not effectively implement labor
regulations. Moreover, where the collective institutions of industrial capital
are better mobilized, their own associational power to pressure the Government
may well imply that workers’ power to influence state policy is constrained.
This calls for further and more detailed research into changes in China’s labor
regimes resulting from shifts in labor regulations and labor dynamics, and
their implications for labor standards. We conclude by suggesting a number of
areas where such further studies, drawing on multi-disciplinary approaches, and
providing more nuanced, more substantial and more rigorous evidence, would be
helpful.
First, there
is a need for more careful analysis of the Chinese State by labor scholars,
within the framework of the broader social relations between labor and capital
at the global, national and local levels (Jessop, 2008). This implies both conceptual
and empirical work. It also includes the need to understand better the
relationships between national and local levels of government in China.
Furthermore, it calls for a more in-depth understanding of the evolving nature
of political consensus in China and an understanding of why an effective social
contract or a social consensus around labor standards or CSR norms in
production remains somewhat out of reach in the Chinese context (Knorringa and
Nadvi, 2014; Lin, 2010).
Second, the
questions about collective bargaining should be further examined. Although the
Shenzhen Collective Consultation Ordinance and Guangdong Democratic Management
Regulations have been suspended as Hui and Chan report, a softer version of the
Guangdong Province Enterprise Collective Contract Regulations was passed in
September 2014 with effect from January 2015. Its impact on workers’ activism
and workplace relations is an important issue to be examined. In Guangdong,
pilots of direct trade union elections and collective bargaining have been
carried out in the core cities of the Pearl River Delta such as Guangzhou,
Shenzhen, Foshan and Dongguan (Hui and Chan, forthcoming). Further evaluation
of such projects within the Pearl River Delta will be helpful to inform both
theoretical reflection and policy on industrial relations more widely, across
other regions in China. This raises broader questions as to whether, why and
how Guangdong – the first province to be opened up to labor-intensive export
manufacturing – will offer lessons to other parts of the country in terms of
bringing about more effective labor regulations, better labor relations and
consequently improved labor standards.
Third, while labor-intensive
manufacturing industries have begun to relocate from the coastal metropolitan
cities to lower-wage inner provinces in response to the local government’s
campaign for industrial upgrading and for lowering businesses’ production costs
(Zhu and Pickles, 2014), questions arise as to what impacts this is likely to
have on labor regimes and worker’s conditions both in the inner provinces and
in the coastal regions. In the early 2000s, the internal relocation was from
the Pearl River Delta to the Yangtse River Delta; the new pattern is from both
of these regions to inland provinces and from the Pearl River Delta to the
outskirts of Guangdong, or from the South Jiangsu region to North Jiangsu.
Building on Zhuang and Ngok’s article, further comparative studies of local labor
regimes, including local practices on labor inspection, will help to reveal the
impact of industrial relocation on regional patterns of labor standards.
Fourth, this
uneven pattern of labor rights protection is also shaped by other factors, such
as the form of ownership, industry, and area of protection. One can indeed
assume that the level of enforcement of labor laws varies between state-owned
and foreign-invested enterprises, technology-intensive and labor-intensive
industries, wage and social security protections, and individual and collective
rights. To clarify this complicated picture, the implementation of various labor
regulations and its impact on labor standards must be studied in comparative
perspective. Similarly, while Lüthje’s article aptly captures the dynamics of
the automobile industry, more research is needed on other industries that have
been relatively less well explored (e.g. services, construction and heavy
manufacturing), where labor standards issues and associated labor conflict
remain germane.
Fifth,
although China’s economic growth in the post-reform era has been predicated on
its export manufacturing performance, the Chinese State has, since the 2008
global economic crisis, begun to recognize the economic importance of the
domestic market and domestic consumption. Robust and sustained growth within
the Chinese market has prompted Western retailers and brands to view China not
only as a manufacturing platform but also as a key end market for industries as
diverse as electronics, clothing, sports goods, foods and automobiles. Many
Chinese producers have also begun to refocus their energies on the domestic
market. This then raises questions as to whether and how rising domestic
consumption, and a large and growing middle class, might influence labor and
environmental considerations in the Chinese context (Guarin and Knorringa,
2014), and how the State might respond to this in terms of regulatory
interventions
Finally, while
there is much specificity inherent in China’s experience of labor regulation
and labor activism, there are also a number of important lessons to be drawn
for other parts of the world. The growing interest in emerging economies and
the very different patterns of labor regulation, labor inspection and labor
practices seen across China, Brazil and India call for further international
comparative analysis of labor regimes across these rising powers and how they
are shaped (Nadvi, 2014).
Furthermore,
Chinese capital is increasingly internationalizing, with Chinese firms
investing in primary commodities, manufacturing, construction and service
industries across the developed and developing worlds. In many cases these
international movements of Chinese capital are accompanied by international
movements of Chinese labor. What are the labor regimes that govern these
Chinese migrant workers? How do Chinese firms that are becoming global players
engage with labor issues in the management of their own complex supply chains,
including on the wages of workers from lower-income countries and their working
conditions?
Download The Paper - LINK
Publication Details:
This article is the conclusion
made at a research article, titled – “Changing labour regulations and labour
standards in China: Retrospect and challenges by Chris King-Chi CHAN and Khalid NADVI “ published at International
Labour Review Volume 153, Issue 4, under Creative Commons 4.0 License.
