This study examines how multilevel governance structures respond to intersectional inequalities in the context of cross-border marriage migration among women in the China–Laos border villages of Yunnan. Combining intersectionality theory with a multilevel governance framework, it explores how gender, class, and legal status intersect to produce compounded vulnerabilities among marriage migrants. The analysis is structured around three levels: at the micro level, it investigates how personal identities and everyday experiences intersect with livelihood pressures; at the meso level, it analyzes how local governance practices and cultural norms shape migrants’ access to resources and social recognition; and at the macro level, it considers how national policies, immigration regimes, and global dynamics influence migrants’ legal status and social positioning. The study argues that addressing these inequalities requires a multilevel governance approach—one that integrates migrant populations into local institutions, balances rights and security at the national level, and fosters international cooperation to reduce vulnerability.
AnthiasF. (2012). Transnational mobilities, migration research and intersectionality. Nordic Journal of Migration Research, 2(2), 102–110. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10202-011-0032-y
2.
AnthiasF.Yuval-DavisN. (1983). Contextualizing feminism: Gender, ethnic and class divisions. Feminist Review, 15(1), 62–75. https://doi.org/10.1057/fr.1983.33
3.
BarabantsevaE. (2015). When borders lie within: Ethnic marriages and illegality on the Sino-Vietnamese border. International Political Sociology, 9(4), 352–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/ips.12102
4.
Beck-GernsheimE. (2007). Transnational lives, transnational marriages: A review of the evidence from migrant communities in Europe. Global Networks, 7(3), 271–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0374.2007.00169.x
BürknerH. J. (2012). Intersectionality: How gender studies might inspire the analysis of social inequality among migrants. Population, Space and Place, 18(2), 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.664
7.
BürknerP. C. (2017). Brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v080.i01
8.
CaponioT.PettrachinA. (2023). Neither multilevel governance nor battleground: Understanding the politics of immigrant integration in small and medium European localities. Governance, 38(1), e12833. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12833
9.
ChaoE. (2005). Cautionary tales: Marriage strategies, state discourse, and women’s agency in a Naxi village in south-western China. In ConstableN. (Ed.), Cross-border marriages: Gender and mobility in transnational Asia (pp. 34–52). University of Pennsylvania Press
10.
ChenX. (2017). An intersectional analysis of marriage immigrants in the border area of Yunnan Province [Doctoral dissertation]. Yunnan Minzu University.
11.
CollinsP. H. (2019). Intersectionality as critical social theory. Duke University Press.
12.
CrenshawK. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167.
13.
CrenshawK. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
14.
CrollE. (1984). The exchange of women and property: Marriage in post-revolutionary China. In HirschonR. (Ed.), Women and property–women as property (pp. 44–61). Croom Helm.
15.
DavisK. (2008). Intersectionality as buzzword: A sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist theory successful. Feminist Theory, 9(1), 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700108086364
16.
EnderleinH. (2010). Economic policy-making and multi-level governance. In EnderleinH.WältiS.ZürnM. (Eds.), Handbook on multi-level governance (pp. 299–312). Edward Elgar Publishing.
17.
EyckT. A.TobyA. (2001). Managing food: Cajun cuisine in economic and cultural terms. Rural Sociology, 66(2), 206–224.
18.
HolzerM. (2022). Public administration at a crossroad: Five enduring challenges. Chinese Public Administration Review, 13(3), 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/15396754221110591
19.
HoogheL.MarksG. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055403000649
20.
HuY. (2013). Land tenure, land use, and sustainable development: A case study of 60 years of change in a village in Inner Mongolia. Journal of China Agricultural University (Social Sciences Edition), 2013(1), 31–44.
21.
JinY. (2016). Exploring the deep mechanisms of women’s poverty. Journal of Women’s Studies, 2016(11), 10–12.
22.
KaufmannD.WittwerS. (2022). Public policy and small and medium-sized towns. In MayerH.LazzeroniM. (Eds.), A research Agenda for small and medium-sized towns (pp. 163–178). Edward Elgar.
23.
KnodtM. (2004). International embeddedness of European multi-level governance. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(4), 701–719. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350176042000248106
24.
LanP. (2008). Migrant women’s bodies as boundary markers: Reproductive crisis and sexual control in the ethnic frontiers of Taiwan. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 33(4), 833–861.
25.
LanP. (2019). From reproductive assimilation to neoliberal multiculturalism: Framing and regulating immigrant mothers and children in Taiwan. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 40(3), 318–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/07256868.2019.1598952
26.
LuH. (2016). Governance of cross-border marriage immigration: Challenges and solutions. Journal of Southwest Minzu University (Humanities and Social Sciences Edition), 2016(5), 48–53.
27.
LuM. (2005). Commercially arranged marriage migration: Case studies of cross-border marriages in Taiwan. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 12(2–3), 275–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/09715215050120020
28.
McCallL. (2005). The Complexity of Intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(3), 1771–1800. https://doi.org/10.1086/426800
29.
MinJ.GuoL. (2020). A gender perspective on rural land systems under the background of rural revitalization. Journal of Women’s Studies, 2020(3), 88–95.
30.
OngA. (2003). Buddha is hiding: Refugees, citizenship, the new America. University of California Press.
31.
ParreñasR. S. (2008). The force of domesticity: Filipina migrants and globalization. New York University Press.
32.
PettrachinA. (2020). Opening the “black box” of asylum governance: Decision-making and the politics of asylum policy-making. Italian Political Science Review, 50, 191–212.
ScholtenP.EngbersenG.van OstaijenM.SnelE. (2018). Multilevel governance from below: How Dutch cities respond to intra-EU mobility. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(12), 2011–2033.
36.
ScholtenP.PenninxR. (2016). The multilevel governance of migration and integration. In Garcés-MascareñasB.PenninxR. (Eds.), Integration processes and policies in Europe: Contexts, levels and actors (pp. 91–108). Springer.
37.
SeguraD. (1993). Chicanas and triple oppression in the labor force. In CórdovaT. (Ed.), Chicana voices: Intersections of race, class and gender (pp. 47–65). University of New Mexico Press.
38.
SlaughterA. M.HaleT. N. (2010). Transgovernmental networks and multi-level governance. In EnderleinH.WältiS.ZürnM. (Eds.), Handbook on multi-level governance (pp. 358–369). Edward Elgar Publishing.
39.
SomvixayT. (2019). Research on transnational marriages in Laos and China’s border Areas [Master’s thesis]. Yunnan University.
40.
TorpeyJ. (2000). The invention of the passport: Surveillance, citizenship, and the state. Cambridge University Press.
WangC.ZhangX. (2023). Governance capacity, social justice, social security, and institutionalized political participation in China: A moderated mediation model. Chinese Public Administration Review, 15(3), 194–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/15396754241252978
43.
WangH. (2007). Hidden spaces of resistance of the subordinated: Case studies from Vietnamese female migrant partners in Taiwan. International Migration Review, 41(3), 706–727. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2007.00091.x
44.
XuL. (2024). The regional integration transition of China’s immigration policy: The case of Yiwu. Chinese Public Administration Review, 15(2), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/15396754241242851
45.
YeJ.LiC. (2009). Actor-oriented methodology in development sociology: An interpretation of the actor-oriented perspective in development sociology. Guizhou Social Sciences, 2009(10), 72–79.
Yuval-DavisN.AnthiasF.KofmanE. (2002). Secure borders and safe haven and the gendered politics of belonging: Beyond social cohesion. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28(3), 513–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141987042000337867
48.
ZhangY. (2016). A Chinese perspective on global governance. World Economics and Politics, 2016(9), 4–8.
49.
ZimmermanW.FixM. (2002). Immigration and welfare reforms in the United States through the lens of mixed-status families. In CohenS.HumphriesB. B.MynotE. (Eds.), From immigration controls to welfare controls (pp. 59–80). Routledge.
