Explaining Service Access for the Urban Poor: Practices of Provision, Operation and Usage of Education in Kanglecun, Guangzhou

Abstract

The purpose of this thesis is to understand how exclusion from services works in cities wherein social, legal and physical boundaries between enclaves become more radically expressed. Major cities in the 'Global South' face new challenges in providing adequate access to services as they undergo rigorous spatial transformations. These spatial transformations are characterised by the simultaneous development of gated communities and substandard settlements. In many cities, this development coincides with an unequal spatial distribution of urban services such as education, healthcare and basic infrastructure. Hereby, residents of substandard settlements face new risks of being excluded from (good quality) urban services, impairing opportunities for upward social and economic mobility.

The original contribution of this study for scientific research on spatial inequalities and social exclusion in cities is a methodological-analytical framework. This thesis has developed an analytical framework that takes social practices as unit of analysis to address urban inequalities and social exclusion. To test this analytical framework, access to services is chosen as the angle for this research. By means of empirical research we often know which social groups are excluded from services, as well as where they geographically concentrate in cities. However, for explaining exclusion, we do not know how exclusion from services works for residents of substandard settlements; particularly when considering the contextual variations of urban development across the world.

Conceptualising service access as a structured in practices of provision, operation, and usage reorients the analytical focus from who is excluded from services to how exclusion comes about in specific urban contexts. By taking social practices as unit of analysis we can make structures visible that underlie exclusion for residents in substandard settlements. This enables us to identify the specific mechanisms that cause exclusionary access effects for residents in substandard settlements. A case study in Guangzhou has been conducted to analyse how actors in practices of provision, operation and usage of education services deal with rules and resources in their acts. In each of these practices, the mechanisms that cause exclusion from services were identified. Since this study targets a 'how' question, this type of research is relevant to local/national governments and public/private development organisations dealing with poverty alleviation in substandard settlements and sustainable urban development. The study identifies specific practices that are tangible, therefore easing the effectiveness of interventions directed to poverty alleviation and social inclusive urban development. For the specific case study in Guangzhou, the study proposes recommendations to promote access to education services.

Mechanisms of exclusion in service access

Recent years have seen an abundance of urban research on the effects of spatial inequalities on access to services, a topic that is dominated by the Western theoretical narrative of 'Splintering Urbanism'. Chapter 2 shows how the splintering thesis proceeds on the presumption that private provision of urban services in a neoliberal political economy bypasses substandard settlements in service provision. This results in the generic assumption within urban research that - in any given urban context - gated communities are 'hotspots' of service access, while substandard settlements are 'cold spots' of service access, therefore becoming spatial poverty traps. Splintering Urbanism departs from spatially deterministic assumptions of service provision, and causally links access patterns of slum dwellers to geographical structures of service provision.

Chapter 2 further shows that exclusion from services involves other mechanisms than space only, each deserving equal attention in explaining exclusion. Based on theories on service provision (spatial economics; welfare economics; public service provision), service operation (urban managerialism) and service usage (spatial usage behaviour; urban livelihoods), chapter 2 develops a typology of exclusion for empirically studying and evaluating access to services in local urban settings. Six different types of exclusion were identified: spatial-, monetary-, administrative-, social-, temporal-, and affective types of exclusion. Each of these types contain specific mechanisms that can be at play in explaining exclusion from urban services for residents in substandard settlements.

Why study local social practices of access in cities?

Most theories in the Geographical Sciences on exclusion from services in cities treat access to services as a 'black-box'. These theories are marked by the assumption that service usage in everyday life is a direct product of national welfare systems, policies, ownership of services, and geographic distribution of services. Actor-oriented approaches towards exclusion criticise such structural explanations for in/exclusion. Such research focusses on the choices and discretion of social actors involved in the supply and demand of services. These approaches provide a good attempt to open the 'black box' of service access, which can be of support for identifying mechanisms of exclusion in the process of service provision, operation and usage. Chapter 2 illustrates this with the structuring role of 'urban managers' and 'street-level-bureaucrats' in service access, showing that managers in systems of welfare schemes service operation act as agents who mediate access in everyday life. The chapter also presents research approaches that focus on the incentives and disincentives of residents to use certain service qualities. For the latter, livelihoods research in development studies show that the urban poor actively make trade-offs in everyday life.

Nonetheless, although actor-oriented approaches are an important contribution for research on service access, they ignore the structural features that inform the everyday life acts of actors in the supply and demand of services. Thus, on the one hand, theory in urban studies needs to pay attention to the multitude of actors that are involved in the constitution of service access. On the other hand, theory should also acknowledge that these actors in practices of supply and demand operate in a setting of rules and resources that structure their acts. This requires an analytical framework that does justice to both the agency of actors involved in supply and demand of services, as well as the influence of policies, welfare systems, spatial structures and wider sociocultural systems.

Therefore, chapter 3 introduces an analytical framework for the study of access that can meet both requirements. By drawing on Giddens' structuration theory, this framework takes social practices of service provision, operation and usage as the unit of analysis. Chapter 3 conceptualises service access as 'structured in local social practices that have spatial outcomes. Structures that have constraining and enabling effects on residents of substandard settlements to access urban services, are expressed through practices of provision, operation and usage of urban services; each hosting specific mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion. Each of these practices involve different actors and specific rules and resources with which these actors interact (doing). It is the interaction then, between practices of provision, operation and usage practices, that result in access with its particular spatial features. By conceiving access as a local social practice, this thesis offers an analytical framework that takes into account both the active role of actors in provision, operation and usage of services who mediate structures through practices, as well as the rules and resources that structure their acts. This framework helps to open the 'black box' of service access in urban studies.

A case study on practices of service access in Guangzhou, China

This analytical framework for the study of access to services is applied in a case study in Kanglecun, Guangzhou. Chapter 4 outlines the methodology for this empirical study that focuses on analysing practices of provision, operation and usage of education services. Semi-structured interviews have been conducted with relevant actors in each of the three practices, ranging from government officials and private actors, to school directors, teachers, migrant workers and their children. The research methodology is characterised by an ethnographic mode of operation during a 1.5 year period of fieldwork. This was supportive for the identification of relevant actors involved in service access that received limited attention in previous research. It also helped to obtain in-depth knowledge of local practices, as a basis for conclusions about the 'how of exclusion'. In turn, these conclusions can be translated into suggestions in support of more inclusive practices.

Chapter 5 explains how China's 1978 urban transformation and reforms in service provision relate to uneven sociospatial patterns of urban service provision. This involves two major developments. First, new residential enclaves emerged in Chinese cities. These included chengzhongcun ('village in the city'), which are former rural villages that transformed into densely populated, low-income urban settlements. These enclaves are marked by poor building standards and lack basic service provision, such as water & sanitation, health and education. Local governments administratively classify chengzhongcun as 'non-urban' enclaves, limiting urban service provision in these areas. Meanwhile, gated commodity housing estates (xiaoqu) are the new standard for urban housing in China. These come with high quality services, including education, healthcare, commercial and recreational services. The decentralisation of service provision makes xiaoqu crucial service providers for local urban governments in Chinese cities.

The second development of significance is the unprecedented influx of domestic rural migrants in major cities. Due to their affordable and flexible housing supply, chengzhongcun mainly accommodate rural migrants who live and work in cities. However, the nationwide household registration system (hukou) ties access to public services to the places where people are registered. However, rural migrants usually do not posses an urban hukou. This limits access to healthcare, education, and affordable housing for the approximately 200 million rural migrants that work and reside in China's major cities. Since the empirical research specifically focuses on access to education services in chengzhongcun, chapter 5 further provides the background of the education system in China and the Chinese literature education provision in chengzhongcun. It concludes that the Chinese literature on education provision addresses only monetary and administrative types of exclusion for migrants in chengzhongcun. This contrasts with the typology of exclusion that was developed with generic theory on service provision, operation and usage.

Local social practices of provision, operation and usage of education in Kanglecun

The first empirical chapter discusses the provision of education services in the Kanglecun and the Fengyang subdistrict (jiedao) where Kanglecun belongs to. Chapter 6 calculated that according to public planning standards, there is a shortage of 34 primary schools and 4 Middle schools in Fengyang. Administrative exclusion is identified as the explanatory type of exclusion for the existing geographic mismatch of education provision in Kanglecun and surroundings. The key mechanism through which administrative exclusion is at work in bypassing the case study area is administrative labelling. Administrative labelling targets both people (hukou|non-hukou) and land (urban|rural). This mechanism has repercussions for the spatial distribution of services: the amount of education services available is limited, and education provision in Kanglecun relies on private investors who capitalise on the marginalised status of people and land. However, the quality standards of facilities, school management and educational staff of private migrant schooling is comparatively backward in the Chinese education system.

As chapter 6 shows in more detail, administrative labelling of people and land works through two further related mechanisms. The first of these is counting. As the municipal government only 'counts' residents with a local hukou, no services with public quality standards are provided in Kanglecun as this area is predominantly populated by non-hukou holders (except for some private initiatives that are important safety nets for migrants, but have relatively low qualities). The second mechanism is negotiating. In Kanglecun, no services with public quality standards are provided as the original villagers take a strong position in negotiations over the conversion of land-use rights. Through counting and negotiating, land administration functions as the mechanism that underserves chengzhongcun. The hypothesis is thus that positive changes in administrative labelling reduces spatial bypassing (non-hukou holders to be counted in education provision and services to be built on land with a rural classification). Overall, the empirical analysis shows a conflicting outcome with splintering urbanism theory as education provision via gated commodity housing estates (xiaoqu) has no direct effect on spatial bypassing of education delivery in Kanglecun. This empirical contradiction results from the specific local attributes of administrative labelling in Guangzhou.

Chapter 7 discusses practices of school operation and access regulations in schools. If we position the mechanisms of exclusion in the typology of exclusion, we can identify three types of exclusion taking place in practices of operation that have access effects: administrative exclusion (school zoning via hukou and academic achievements), monetary exclusion (tuition fees and zhanzhufei) and social exclusion (access via gatekeepers in the education system). The results show that against the background of competition in the educational system, schools regulate access by selecting students. There are formal ways in which schools organise access and informal ways. These vary between school type. The ways in which schools select students differ between government schools, elite private schools, migrant schools and kindergartens. For government schools, administrative labelling is a key mechanism in access, and takes two forms. One is the hukou categorisation that also plays a role in practices of provision. The other form of administrative labelling is residential location, informed by zoning regulations set out by the government based on hukou regulations. However, this is a form of administrative labelling for migrants living in Kanglecun as they have no local hukou. At the same time, due to its rural land status, Kanglecun is not included in residential school zones of Fengyang government schools.

For the small amount of zhanzhufei seats available in public education, chapter 7 shows that government run schools select students themselves, and access results from the same mechanisms that are at play in access to elite private schools: affordability, academic achievements and social networks. These mechanisms exist because government run schools and private schools manage their resources in such a way that they can be competitive and increase their status in the education system. Migrant schools cannot partake in this competition to acquire good facilities, high quality teachers and good students. Therefore, whether a migrant can afford tuition fees plays a key role in the selection practice of migrant schools. In contrast to splintering urbanism, school attachment to private gated commodity housing estates (xiaoqu) does not play a key role in the organisation of access for the migrants in Kanglecun. The explanations for this contrast are to be found in the hukou system, the competitive Chinese education system, and rationalised local government regulations regarding access.

Chapter 8 zooms in on the third dimension of access: usage practices of education among Kanglecun residents. Migrants without a Guangzhou hukou actively work on their livelihoods, which informs different access paths of education. The chapter has shown that service usage includes multiple practices taking take place at the household and community level. At the same time, these practices are strongly linked to national education laws (mandatory education and the gaokao college entrance examination) and hukou regulations. Nonetheless, the boundaries of Kanglecun and hukou registration do not directly define usage practices among the migrants. Under hukou constraints, the spatial behaviour of educational usage varies considerably among migrants, as well as the type of education that they use. Their spatial usage patterns cross Kangle's boundaries and those of Guangzhou. Parents may send their children to school in their hometown where their hukou is registered, or send them to Guangzhou schools, even though their hukou is not registered in the Guangzhou. Migrant children also follow temporary educational tracks and combine different places of residency for different school types. The Kangle migrants show variation in their usage patterns regarding school types in Guangzhou, ranging from kindergartens to middle schools and privately run- or government run schools. Further, the migrants enact a differentiated range of access opportunities between different school types. Overall, the empirical study shows that access paths of migrants involve wide spatial variations and do not directly follow their hukou statuses and residential locations.

The variation in usage patterns of education services among migrants in Kanglecun is reflected in the types of exclusion that are identified in this study. These are administrative (hukou), monetary (affordability), temporal (time), social (social networks), and affective (social-and built environment of Kanglecun, expectations, attitudes). Within each of these types, several mechanisms of exclusion are at play that have access effects. As for administrative exclusion, legal documentation is the first that is identified in educational usage. The hukou status limits the education choice of migrants. Obtaining a local hukou can also remove the financial barrier in accessing Guangzhou schools that meet public education standards. In addition, documents such as working contracts and residential registration provide access to other schools in Guangzhou, as well as opportunities to sit public exams in Guangzhou (gaokao). These documents are often not available for migrants. Available time is another mechanism of exclusion (temporal type of exclusion) as migrants make trade-offs between, for example, raising a child in Guangzhou and earning money. Affordability (monetary type of exclusion) enables or constrains the range of educational options that migrants in Kanglecun have. The result of their financial trade-offs is that migrants often choose cheaper education, generally with lower quality.

The social network is a mechanism at play under the social type of exclusion, as it can provide direct access to schools, including government run schools in Fengyang and wider Guangzhou. Social networks are also important as this enables migrants to utilise their hukou status in their hometowns because it enables transfer of childcare. Social networks enable or constrain the activity space and knowledge of education opportunities among migrants, as they often follow peers in the community. Further, the substandard social- and built environment of Kanglecun plays an important role in the choice of migrants for the location of education, as they do not want their children to grow up in these substandard areas. This often leads to the choice for hometown education. Lastly, expectations and attitudes are important mechanisms of exclusion in service usage. This is because experiences, meaning and values that migrants attach to education in relation to other aspects of their livelihoods informs their access paths. Although there is considerable variation in expectations and attitudes among migrants, this affective type of exclusion hosts important explanations for access to education among the migrants Kanglecun. In contrast with the assumptions in Chinese literature, migrants do actively compete in the competitive education system to enact upward social mobility. Nor do their access patterns of education align with the hukou regulations as suggested in Chinese theory on education provision in chenghzongcun. The explanation for this mismatch between theory in the Chinese literature and practice in Kanglecun lies in the fact that this literature largely ignores livelihoods that are informed by mechanisms of monetary, temporal, social and affective types of exclusion.

Chapter 9 reflects on the conclusions of the empirical study and discusses the implications for theory. The chapter also provides policy recommendations directed to the promotion of equal access opportunities for education services in the case-study area. Space is chiefly invisible as a mechanism in the structuration of service access, nor do ownership and policies have direct access effects on education services for the residents in Kanglecun. Overall, the thesis concludes that not the organisation of the physical space and geographic distribution of services solely explain exclusion from education services. Instead, it is the interaction between practices of provision, operation and usage that explain access effects, each containing specific explanatory mechanisms of exclusion that are to be distinguished between spatial-, monetary-, administrative-, social-, temporal-, and affective- types of exclusion. How, and the extent to which these types of exclusion appear in cities depends on how local actors involved practices of provision, operation and usage of urban services draw on rules and resources in their decisions. This thesis hereby underscores the importance of replacing a generic structural and spatially deterministic view on service access with a socio-spatial approach that includes a contextual view of the multiple decisions over access.