Rupture and Representation: Migrant Workers, Unions and the State in China By Eli David Friedman A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in Charge: Professor Peter Evans, Chair Professor Kim Voss Professor Ching Kwan Lee Professor Kevin O’Brien Fall 2011 Abstract Rupture and Representation: Migrant Workers, Unions and the State in China By Eli David Friedman Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology University of California, Berkeley Professor Peter Evans, Chair This project begins with a simple observation: during the first decade of the 21st century, worker resistance in China continued to increase rapidly despite the fact that certain segments of the state began moving in a pro-labor direction. This poses a problem for the Polanyian theory of the countermovement, which conflates social resistance to the market with actual decommodification and incorporation of labor. I then pose the question, why is labor strong enough to win major legislative and policy concessions from the state, but not strong enough to significantly benefit from these policies? The “partial” nature of the countermovement can be explained with reference to the dynamics of labor politics in China, and specifically the relationship between migrant workers, unions, and the state, or what I refer to as “appropriated representation.” Because unions in China are an invention of the state, they have good access to policy makers but are highly illegitimate amongst their own membership, i.e. strong at the top, weak at the bottom. Labor’s impotence within enterprises means that pro-labor laws and collective agreements frequently go un-enforced. As a result, workers are forced to take radical autonomous action in order to have their grievances addressed. Expanding worker insurgency strengthens the hand of unions at the national (and potentially provincial and even municipal) level, but fails to produce a durable re-alignment of power at the point of production that is capable of enforcing laws. Thus, the central state’s initiatives to advance the interests of migrant workers is simultaneously undermined by their categorical ban on independent worker organization, a dilemma I refer to as insurgency trap. Through an analysis of several most-likely cases, I empirically demonstrate the problems generated by appropriated representation and attempt to discern under what conditions insurgency trap can be undone. By reconfiguring the theory of the countermovement, I gain conceptual clarity on the relationship between spontaneous resistance to the market and institutionalization of class compromise. 1 Acknowledgements Throughout this project and indeed my entire graduate student career I have had the exceptional privilege of having Peter Evans serve as my advisor. At every step of the way, Peter has been an exemplary mentor, alternatively advising, instructing, cajoling, and simply leading by example. I have learned a tremendous amount from him, not just about sociology and doing good scholarship, but also about how to act in the world. It goes without saying that this dissertation would not have been possible without his support and guidance. Ching Kwan Lee has selflessly advised me for a number of years, despite the fact that she has in this time never held a position at Berkeley. My intellectual debt to her is apparent enough in the following pages, and if I can count any scholarly or professional achievements they owe in large part to her ongoing support. Kim Voss has helped me think deeply about union organization, and always provides timely reminders that Chinese labor politics may not be as unique as I think. Kevin O’Brien has consistently provided me with some of the best feedback and suggestions on my work and how to make it comprehensible to others, as well as invaluable knowledge on conducting research in China. His course on contentious politics in China changed the way I think about social movements and continues to be one of the best experiences I had in grad school. Although Dylan Riley was not on my dissertation committee I would like to acknowledge his contribution to my intellectual growth. He provided me with a rigorous training in social theory that helped me to see the world in a radically new light. The intellectual environment at Berkeley is unparalleled, and I have learned from an incredible group of fellow students. Many of the following people have read and commented on parts of this dissertation; others have contributed to my development in a less direct but equally important manner: Abigail Andrews, Dan Buch, Ryan Calder, Jia Ching Chen, Zongshi Chen, Julia Chuang, Barry Eidlin, Jonathan Hassid, Paul Hathazy, Daniel Immerwahr, Zach Levenson, Mike Levien, Kate Maich, Simon Morfit, Marcel Paret, Tianna Paschel, Alina Polyakova, Jeff Sallaz, Aaron Shaw, and Rachel Stern. My fieldwork would not have been possible without the help of numerous friends and colleagues in China. Given the political sensitivity of the research I unfortunately will not acknowledge them by name. However a significant number of people around the country provided contacts, intellectual stimulation, as well as friendship while I was in the field. I would also like to thank Anthony Spires and the faculty of the sociology department at Chinese University of Hong Kong for hosting me while I conducted archival research at the Universities Service Centre. While conducting fieldwork I received generous support from the University of California’s Pacific Rim Research Program as well as the Labor and Employment Research Fund. My time at Chinese University of Hong Kong was supported by the Global Scholarship Programme for Research Excellence – CNOOC Grant. My wife Julia Chang not only gave me unconditional love and support throughout the challenge of having to spend more than a year apart, but quite literally came up with the title of this project. The acknowledgement section of a dissertation is an awkward place to formally recognize the profundity of a spousal relationship. Nonetheless, I love her deeply and have counted on her for emotional and intellectual inspiration time and time again. i Finally, there are my parents Ellen and Stuart, who have probably set some sort of record for direct contribution to a child’s dissertation. For the first several months of my fieldwork (undoubtedly the most personally challenging part of the project) I lived in an apartment with them on the campus of Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou. They of course fed me, listened to me gripe about the challenges of studying labor politics in China, but also engaged in substantive daily conversations about the research which profoundly shaped the development of the project. Additionally, they have read nearly every word of this dissertation, sometimes reading it aloud to each other on long car trips. While it is perhaps customary to dedicate a first major project to one’s parents, mine have actually earned it in spades. I love them very much and dedicate this work to them. ii Table of Contents Chapter 1 – Introduction p.1 Chapter 2 – Theory p.19 Chapter 3 – The History and Structure of the ACFTU p. 40 Chapter 4 – The Most Progressive Union in China p.64 Chapter 5 – Oligarchic Decommodification? Sectoral Unions and Crises of Representation p.91 Chapter 6 – Worker Insurgency and the Evolving Political Economy of The Pearl River Delta p.124 Chapter 7 – Conclusion p.151 Bibliography p.164 iii List of Figures and Images Figure 1 p.3 Image 1 p.82 iv Chapter 1 Introduction – Labor Politics and Capitalist Industrialization Shortly after assuming leadership of the Chinese Communist Party in late 2002, Hu Jintao embarked on a significant rhetorical departure from his predecessors. Deng Xiaoping had famously argued that it was acceptable for “some to get rich first,” and that “it doesn’t matter if the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice,” both indications that economic growth was the unquestioned and ultimate end of action. Jiang Zemin’s “Three Represents” affirmed the Party’s support for private capital and reinforced the primacy of developing the productive forces. But Hu quickly – if subtly – moved to re- orient the state away from such a single-minded pursuit of growth. Over the course of his first year and a half in office, he unveiled the key slogans that would be associated with his tenure: “scientific development view,” “putting people first,” (yirenweiben) and most famously, “harmonious society.” Though imbued with slightly different shades of meaning, in sum these slogans were meant to indicate that the state would no longer be exclusively concerned with GDP growth as an end in itself. Under this new approach to development, the state was to pay greater attention to environmental protection, reducing inequality, expanding the social welfare system, and enhancing rule of law. In short, Hu wanted to take steps to soften the edges of the bare-knuckle laissez-faire capitalism that, while leading to many consecutive years of high growth, had resulted in stark class polarization, ecological destruction, and rapidly expanding social conflict. And indeed, over the next several years there were strong indications that the central government was backing away from full-throttle marketization and re-orienting their growth strategy away from one highly dependent on wage repression and export- oriented manufacturing. Although calls for a shift away from exports grew significantly following the global economic crisis of 2008, the government had been advocating an increase of domestic consumption since at least 2004.1 In part responding to massive protests among laid-off workers in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the high wave of privatization of state-owned enterprises (SOE) subsided. It became clear that the public sector was going to continue to play a large role in the economy, particularly in key industries such as energy, arms, transportation, finance, and education.