The Precariat in Western China by Xueyang Ma examines the experiences of workers in precarious employment in Ya’an, a city in Sichuan province, Western China. Drawing on interviews with workers and using Amartya Sen’s capability framework, the book offers interesting insights into an understudied section of the labour force, though it is limited by the scope and approach of the study, writes Mel Cousins.

The Precariat in Western China: Poverty, Risks and Influences. Xueyang Ma. Routledge. 2024.

There has been a rapid growth in precarious employment in China since the opening up of the 1980s and after (see Zhou (2013)). Wu (2024) estimates that in 2021 that 16 per cent of the workers in the Chinese labour market were underpaid at the local level, 30 per cent had no work-related benefits, and 42 per cent had no employment contract with precarity being significantly higher in private sector employment. 

This book by Xueyang Ma (postdoctoral researcher at Wuhan University) aims to understand the experiences and dynamics of precarious workers’ in-work poverty in China within Amartya Sen’s capability approach/framework. It does so by developing a “capability list” (Annex 2 of the book) which includes factors such as material wellbeing (e.g. health), employment, social protection, and social networks. The book combines the capability approach with an analysis of the lived experience of workers though semi-structured interviews with a snowball sample of 46 people in precarious employment in one small city in western China. 

Having presented the approach and methodology, successive chapters look at employment, family life, social capital and social relations, the extent to which precarious workers rely on the Chinese social assistance system, and – finally – subjective well-being and coping strategies. 

Unsurprisingly, the author finds that employment is low-paid with long and/or irregular hours, high mobility, frequent unemployment and often no (formal) labour contracts or social insurance coverage. This impacts on family life with high levels of divorce (though the direction of causation is unclear) and delayed marriage/low fertility. Of course, the sample is not representative, so one must be cautious about reading too much into these data. However, one does get the impression that, although the wider family may be less important for these workers, the bond between adult children and their parents often remains strong and the family (in this sense) remains a key locus of support both financially and in terms of care (chapter three).

It follows that the limited resources of many precarious workers inhibit them from investing in developing social capital and new social relations. This, of course, limits their ability to move on from precarious work. Despite their limited resources, relatively few of the workers (seven of the 46) were in receipt of the residual urban social assistance (dibao). This is perhaps not surprising when we learn that the numbers on social assistance in the city in 2019 fell to only 10 per cent of the 2013 level (although this would appear to be a much more rapid fall than in China as a whole in that period). The study found that dibao lifted recipients out of extreme poverty but left them deprived in relation to many other capabilities. Somewhat more study participants (13) engaged in public welfare jobs but again this did not fundamentally change their living situations.

One might argue that precarious workers are in fact central to China’s modernisation which precisely involves a transition from the old managed economy to a much more uncertain market-oriented economy

In terms of wellbeing and coping strategies, the study indicated that precarious workers adopted various avoidance strategies to prevent negative emotions arising from their vulnerable situations. Respondents were generally risk-averse and expressed a preference for job stability. Participants also generally indicated that they had no or low expectations. One might wonder whether a more ethnographic approach would have allowed a more in-depth exploration of this (perhaps) defensive responsive.

The author suggests that precarious workers are “outliers in China’s modernisation” in that they are unable to manage the risks generated by that society (169). To the contrary, one might argue that precarious workers are in fact central to China’s modernisation which precisely involves a transition from the old managed economy to a much more uncertain market-oriented economy where many workers struggle to manage. 

The “thicker” ethnographic approach might have learned more about some of the issues pursued in this study such as the reasons why workers do not (or cannot) develop social capital and relations

It is interesting to contrast the sociological approach adopted in this book with the anthropological approach often adopted in studies of Chinese workers (see, for example, Zavoretti (2020)). Both disciplines obviously have their strengths and weakness. But one might wonder if the “thicker” ethnographic approach might have learned more about some of the issues pursued in this study such as the reasons why workers do not (or cannot) develop social capital and relations and a deeper understanding of their coping mechanisms. 

One minor criticism is that the book’s title rather oversells its content. While the book (and the University of Sydney thesis on which it is based) do use the term “precariat”, this is simply as a shorthand for “precarious workers”. There is no discussion of what the term might mean and no attempt to present “the” precariat as a social class (see the discussion by Smith and Pun, 2018). Indeed, the limited discussion in this book suggests that precarious workers come from rather diverse backgrounds. Western China, in this context, also means one small city (Ya’an, a prefectural-level city in Sichuan province) which may or may not be more widely representative.

An interesting and informative volume which tells us much about an understudied aspect of the Chinese labour force.

The transition from thesis to book perhaps leads to some structural faults. Chapter one involves a lengthy theoretical discussion of the capability approach which was perhaps important in the thesis but is not essential to the book. Conversely, some essential material including the methodology and approach has been relegated to Annexes, which means that the reader arrives at the first findings in chapter two without understanding fully how they were obtained. 

Nonetheless, this is an interesting and informative volume which tells us much about an understudied aspect of the Chinese labour force. Ma also avoids simplistic analysis which sees the Chinese state(s) as having abandoned vulnerable groups. Nonetheless, this study does indicate that the local state is neither very effective nor efficient in addressing (relative) poverty and increasing employability. In her concluding comments, Ma suggests that the state should both develop a more preventative welfare system and improve the employability of vulnerable workers through measures such as education, skills training and care. This book will be relevant to those interested in precarious work and poverty in China and, more broadly, to those interested in how individuals and family structures are responding to rapid economic and social change.

Note: This review gives the views of the author and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Image: Dmitry Kalinovsky on Shutterstock.

Enjoyed this post? Subscribe to our newsletter for a round-up of the latest reviews sent straight to your inbox every other Tuesday.