Dealing with the three contradictions is the key to the Reform of Household Registration system

The State Council's "opinions on further promoting the Reform of the Household Registration system" is the top-level design of the reform of the household registration system. From the perspective of the road map of the reform, it must be matched by the "measures for the Management of residence permits" issued during the year; from the timetable of the reform, the transfer of 100 million agricultural people to cities and towns by 2020 will not only be large in total, but also the progress and details of various places are very important. In my opinion, the implementation of "opinions" will face three pairs of contradictions, all of which involve the equalization of public services, and whether they are well solved or not is directly related to the success or failure of the reform of the household registration system.

Can farmers really choose between urban interests and rural interests?

The first is whether farmers can really make their own choice between urban interests and rural interests. In accordance with the requirements of the "opinion", at the present stage, the withdrawal of the right to contracted management of land, the right to the use of residential land and the right to distribute collective income shall not be taken as the conditions for farmers to settle in the city. These "three rights" are protected by laws such as the property Law, and the wishes of farmers who settle in cities should be fully respected as to whether they withdraw from the "three rights" or not.

This gives rise to a question: can farmers who settle in cities enjoy both urban and rural interests? Previously, the practice of "land for social security" has been implemented in Chongqing and other places, and it also provides a three-year transition period, that is, you can give up going to the city and returning to the countryside during the transition period. However, if we do not take the abandonment of the "three rights" as a condition to settle in the city, not only the farmers in the city have a dual identity, but also it is unfair to the urban residents. Because farmers who settle in cities can enjoy public services and social welfare such as children's enrollment, medical insurance, entrepreneurial employment support, housing security, old-age insurance, and social assistance carried by hukou or residence permits, but retain the security and benefits of the "three rights". This may go from one extreme to the other, and it is not conducive to the economical and intensive use of rural land.

I think it is more realistic to set up a transition period. For example, within three years, we must enjoy both urban interests and rural interests, but we must make a choice after three years. The premise of having one interest is to give up another interest. Of course, the transfer of the "three rights" can be paid, so that farmers who settle down in cities can have the "first bucket of money" for buying houses, settling down, starting businesses, and so on, and the "three rights" vacated can be transferred or transferred within a certain range of rural areas.

The connection and difference between the two identity systems of hukou and residence permit

The second is the connection and difference between the two identity systems of hukou and residence permit. The "opinion" proposes to take the residence permit as the carrier to establish and improve the mechanism for the provision of basic public services linked to the number of years of residence and other conditions. Obviously, there is a difference between the household registration book and the residence permit, rather than the simple "equalization of social services" or "citizen treatment", which reflects the status and treatment of residents and public services and social welfare. In a sense, the design of residence permit is the level or stage of enjoying these citizenization treatment before obtaining the complete public services and social welfare embodied in the hukou.

It is said that the establishment of a residence permit system is a transitional institutional arrangement, mainly to establish and improve the mechanism for the provision of basic public services linked to the number of years of residence, and to solve the practical difficulties of the agricultural migrant population and other permanent residents who have been employed in cities and towns but have not settled down in education, employment, medical care, old-age care, housing security, and so on. At present, the Ministry of Public Security has formed the draft measures for the Administration of residence permits, which will be issued this year.

In my opinion, the residence permit system, a "transitional institutional arrangement", will exist for a long time. Because it is impossible for our country to narrow the gap between urban and rural areas soon, many big cities cannot afford the influx of people, not to mention that some migrant workers may not plan to live in cities and towns permanently.

Guangdong first implemented the residence permit system in the country in 2010, issuing 48.72 million residence permits in the past four years, while there are only 30 million floating population in the province. If you consider that some people do not apply for residence permits, it can be judged that a considerable number of floating population have left Guangdong. In other words, the temporary residence permit has been changed to a residence permit, but some floating people are still "temporary residents". And these "temporary residents" or those who are not sure whether they want to obtain a hukou or not also need some public services and social welfare, especially social services such as children's schooling, public rental housing, entry and exit, and so on. This is the function of residence permit.

The contradiction between people going to big cities and policies encouraging the development of small towns

The third is the contradiction between people going to big cities and policies to encourage the development of small towns. According to the spirit of the third Plenary session of the 18th CPC Central Committee, the opinion further clearly points out the orientation of the four types of cities. The expression of the image is that there is "basically no threshold" in small towns, "lower threshold" in medium-sized cities, "lower threshold" in big cities, and establishing and improving the "points entry" system in mega-cities.

The problem is that migrant workers flock to megacities and big cities, which is contrary to the direction guided by the reform of the household registration system. Statistics show that half of the migrant workers in the country are concentrated in the top ten cities, of which 1ax 4 is concentrated in the top four cities. According to the bulletin of the National Bureau of Statistics, the total number of migrant workers in the country is 269 million, of which 166 million are migrant workers. In theory, only the 100 million local migrant workers are likely to settle in small towns. Of course, Guangzhou, Shenzhen and the central towns in the Pearl River Delta also have strict restrictions on entry, while small towns in eastern and northwestern Guangdong find it difficult to attract migrant workers.

Basically, there is not only the problem of narrowing regional differences, but also the transfer of medical, educational, cultural and other resources to small and medium-sized cities. Just imagine why small and medium-sized towns in the United States are attractive because there is little difference between urban and rural areas, and many good universities and hospitals are built in small cities. This involves the readjustment of the path of urbanization in our country.