Abstract
The question of how (im)migrants integrate into their host societies has long been a focus of scholarly research. This article adds to this body of knowledge by examining how different types of neighbourhoods shape the integration experience of migrant residents and their daily practice in peri-urban Beijing. The study was conducted by non-participant observation and semi-structured interviews in four peri-urban Beijing neighbourhoods. The findings suggest that migrant integration has a spatial dimension, with integration differences being enhanced and fixed through residential differentiation. Specifically, a migrant’s position in the urban economy predetermines their integration path and neighbourhood preference, with the neighbourhood further impacting their social integration through embedded lifestyles and ideologies. Neighbourhoods serve as essential places of shared experience in which distinct migrant social groups are formed. Theoretically, the study contributes to the debate between ethnic enclaves and mixed neighbourhoods by arguing that mixed neighbourhoods foster stronger sentiments toward host cities among migrant residents. The failure of integration is not necessarily a result of a neighbourhood’s homogenous tenure and population but rather because residents are not involved in the formal urban economy. Unlike ethnoburbs in America, urban villages in peri-urban Beijing cannot generate upward social mobility because of the informality. Low-skilled migrant entrepreneurs struggle to develop their informal businesses facing unpredictable demolishment of urban villages.
Introduction
China has witnessed an unprecedented urban migration, with hundreds of millions relocating to cities in search of better opportunities and improved living standards. The question of how to integrate this vast population of migrants into urban China emerges as a pressing concern. Migrant integration is a process whereby the differences between the migrants and the local population gradually decline across a range of domains, including socioeconomic attainment, social networks and sense of belonging. The concept is from the assimilation study (e.g., Alba and Logan, 1992; Bolt et al., 2010; Gordon, 1964; Myers and Lee, 1998; Schierup et al., 2006) of immigrants. Successful migrant integration in China is considered to be an amalgamation of economic stability and institutional attainment, evidenced by secure employment and access to social security; social inclusion and connectedness, highlighted by interpersonal relationships and networks within the host community; and a developed sense of belonging into the host city.
However, in stereotype, migrant integration in urban China has not been easy. Although national governments have reacted to migration with integration (shiminhua) policy, migrants’ social integration seems difficult. Socioeconomic deficiency, institutional barriers and limited social network hinder their integration. With a considerable proportion of migrants in urban China, failing to integrate in the long run can threaten social stability.
Meanwhile, major cities are witnessing unprecedented expansion towards outer urban areas in a different form of mixed-use clustered development (Wu and Phelps, 2011). Unlike inner cities being turned into high-tech versions of modernity, peripheries of cities remain different types of residential communities where indigenous residents and migrants from diverse backgrounds coexist in the transformation period. It is unclear whether neighbourhoods and associated lifestyles take on much importance for migrant integration, given that some migrants spend significant means on moving into particular residential communities. Are neighbourhoods merely coincidental groupings of residents or formative elements of migrant integration processes?
This research draws upon four neighbourhoods with migrant residents in peri-urban Beijing. It first explores the circumstances of integration in different residential communities. It focuses on different aspects of integration: economic integration, reflecting the migrants’ employment status and income levels; institutional achievement, including the access to social welfare and local hukou; knitting social networks, involving the formation of resourceful relationship; and sense of belonging to the host city. Strategies employed to deal with uncertainty in the host city are then analysed. Meanwhile, neighbourhood characteristics are investigated as a potential influence on migrant integration. It is followed by a theoretical debate between enclaves and mixed communities and a discussion of spatial consideration of migrant integration.
Literature review
Debates over ethnocultural enclave and mixed neighbourhood
Existing studies (e.g. Bauer et al., 2005; Danzer and Yaman, 2016; Danzer et al., 2022) show that excluded/segregated enclaves can be recognised as a problem that causes low language proficiency and educational attainment and social exclusion, and jeopardises local development, deprived groups’ integration into society and social cohesion, because it substantially deprives the life chances of the poor assembled in segregated areas, which often trap inhabitants in negative cycles of exclusion and poverty (Nee et al., 1994). Immigrants working in enclaves tend to be disadvantaged in earnings, or their earnings returns to human capital are lower than those of immigrants working in the open economy. The presence of individuals from the same ethnic background also raises the interaction barriers between migrants and native populations, consequently diminishing the prospects of integration (Danzer and Yaman, 2013). Additionally, the size of the enclave negatively affects the probability of the children of immigrants graduating from higher education (Grönqvist, 2006).
Meanwhile, some studies emphasise the importance of enclaves in (im)migrant integration into host cities. It begins with McKenzie et al. (1967) arguing that enclaves in inner cities serve as ports of entry, providing shelters and initial employment to newly arrived immigrants, who disperse in the city over time. Classic studies (e.g., Logan et al., 2002; Portes, 1987; Wilson and Portes, 1980) also suggest that living in enclaves does not necessarily contradict upward social mobility because the preferences of ethnic groups play an important role in forming ethnic enclaves. For instance, numerous accomplished entrepreneurs from diverse ethnic backgrounds persistently expanded their businesses within well-established urban enclaves (Zhou, 1992, 2004, 2009). Li (1998) created the term ‘ethnoburb’ to describe suburban residential and business areas with a notable cluster of middle-class minorities. Such ethnic enclaves play a significant role in the economic, cultural and political incorporation of Asian Americans into the country (Li et al., 2007). Also, a study in the UK (Dikici, 2021) on the Turkish community found that immigrants gradually built a highly self-sufficient community with significant contributions to labour market activities through self-employed small businesses. In China, Zhang (2001) explored how migrant entrepreneurs built up their power and authority by constructing a migrant community to incorporate into Beijing. Ethnic enclaves can increase immigrants’ annual earnings and improve job-worker match quality due to networks disseminating job information (Damm, 2009). Liu et al. (2015) find that the enclave economy in deprived urban villages is reciprocal and provides a possible path through which migrants can achieve social mobility and adapt to the new urban environment.
As regards mixed community, this has been adopted by many European countries (Arthurson, 2012; Graham et al., 2009; Van Kempen and Bolt, 2012) to foster social mix among classes, as mixed community are assumed to promote social harmony by reducing social and racial tensions as social interaction would automatically happen in those neighbourhoods (e.g. Forrest and Kearns, 2001; Meegan and Mitchell, 2001). By breaking up and deconcentrating social housing, mixed neighbourhoods can facilitate a less stigmatised and more dynamic and cohesive society (Arthurson, 2012: 127). Mixed neighbourhoods, particularly communities of mixed-income and housing tenure, are intended and alleged to benefit neighbourhoods and their residents (Atkinson and Kintrea, 2000a).
In contrast, empirical studies show that mixed neighbourhoods actually exclude interclass communication (e.g., Méreiné-Berki et al., 2021; Schuermans et al., 2015) and even lead to antisocial behaviours (e.g., Baum et al., 2015; Odgers et al., 2015; Yau, 2020). It seems that residing together does not necessarily generate social interaction and integration (Bolt and Van Kempen, 2013). Also, in the US, the study (Zhou, 1998) on immigrant assimilation found a group of unassimilated children called ‘parachute/satellite kids’ in upscale neighbourhoods without assimilation. In support, Zhou et al. (2008) found that many Chinese immigrants bypass the traditional staging ground, moving directly into affluent suburban communities without much acculturation and situating themselves comfortably on the middle or upper-middle rungs of the mobility ladder. Similarly, Arbaci and Rae (2013) indicate that social tenants are not dependent on, or improved by, the level of tenured mix within the neighbourhoods to obtain socioeconomic opportunities and access to resources. In this sense, (im)migrants could generate upward mobility outside their living areas.
As we can see from the existing literature, there has been an ongoing dispute over mixed neighbourhoods and ethnic enclaves. Studies on this debate show the complicated relationship between integration into receiving city and neighbourhood characteristics. On the one hand, spatial social bonding was identified as a predictor of integration (Ebrahimi Hasanakloo et al., 2023). Ethnic enclaves sometimes keep their residents from assimilating into mainstream society and sometimes provide an alternative means to incorporate into the society that does not conflict with cultural distinctiveness (Zhou, 1992). On the other hand, residential assimilation and integration seem incompatible (Zhou et al., 2008); settlement may be attained without access to the main society. However, neighbourhoods supply inhabitants with an essential place where social interaction, exclusion and collision happen. The phenomenon observed in enclaves and mixed residential communities provides an insight that different neighbourhoods may play a significant role in Chinese internal migrants’ integration.
Neighbourhood and migrant integration in China
Spatial inequalities are also very challenging for migrant integration in China (Mai and Wang, 2022; Wu, 2022). Lin et al.’s (2020, 2023) study explores migrant social integration in different types of neighbourhoods and housing. The result shows that migrants living in commodity housing neighbourhoods have higher social integration. In comparison, Migrants living in urban villages could not find a path to integrate into the city. The findings are supported by Huang and Ren’s (2022) study showing that strict requirements to access subsidised housing neighbourhoods exclude migrants from integration in urban China. Another in-depth research (Chen et al., 2023) found that urban village regeneration undermines social equity and causes social conflicts, negatively affecting migrant integration into the city. Moreover, a study (Zhu et al., 2022) on ageing migrants has proven that housing tenure matters and entitlement would be conducive to improving their integration.
Recent literature on neighbourhood influence on migrant integration in China can be categorised into three threads: examination of access to resources and opportunities; social networks and community ties; and subjective wellbeing.
Access to resources and opportunities
Migrants’ access to resources and opportunities has a pivotal influence on their integration into host societies. Several scholars have investigated how the availability or impression of resources and opportunities in neighbourhoods impacts migrants’ socioeconomic attainment and institutional achievement. For example, Yang et al. (2020) examined the differences in integration among the three types of migrant enclaves in Shenzhen; and found that neighbourhood factors such as community support, job opportunities, vocational training and diverse community functions play an important role in integration. Liu et al. (2019a) found feeling socio-economically deprived relative to those living in deprived neighbourhoods was an important pathway through which migrants’ absolute economic disadvantages negatively affected their subjective well-being. Zou et al. (2020) highlight that migrants residing in formal neighbourhoods exhibit higher socioeconomic integration compared to those in informal neighbourhoods, due to the development of localised social capital and a stronger desire to settle and integrate into mainstream society (Zou and Deng, 2021). Studies also illustrate how neighbourhood characteristics significantly impact employment opportunities for migrants. For example, Cheng and Wang (2013) conducted an empirical investigation into the impact of neighbourhood characteristics on migrants’ earnings, discovering that aspects like space, quality, interaction, organisation and satisfaction have a substantial influence on the residents’ income.
Social networks and community ties
Neighbourhoods also provide an important place in which migrant-resident ties have been knitted. Neighbouring remains an important form of social relationship and migrant integration (Wang, 2022). Especially for rural migrants, the neighbourhood is a territorial anchor supporting their urban social integration (Liu, 2019). Thus, migrants are more likely to engage in socialising and exchanging help with neighbourhoods (Wu and Logan, 2016). A few studies (e.g. Forrest and Yip, 2007) have tested the effect of social ties among neighbourhood residents on migrant integration. They have been found to decrease as most citizens move to newly developed commodity housing neighbourhoods from traditional real estate. Residents do not need to share facilities there as they are internalised in separate dwellings in new housing neighbourhoods. The opportunities for social interaction are therefore diminished. Wu and He (2005) and Wang et al. (2016) further examined the variation of intergroup neighbouring. The results show that poorer and more neglected neighbourhoods have better social interaction, while the significantly developed communities have lower interaction. Another piece of research (Lin et al., 2023) found that contacts in the residential community are related to the sense of belonging to the host society of highly educated migrants. The existing barriers between migrant and indigenous residents can be broken down by intergroup neighbouring (Wang et al., 2020). However, residential segregation can diminish migrants’ willingness to interact with locals, even when controlling for the endogeneity bias of residential choice, particularly focusing on those residing in employer-provided housing (Xu et al., 2023). They are unlikely to integrate into the city (Xu et al., 2022). The above research shows that neighbourhood characteristics significantly contribute to the complexity and thickness of social networks between migrants and their neighbours.
Subjective wellbeing and sense of belonging
A neighbourhood’s physical and social environment also enhances migrants’ subjective wellbeing by strengthening place attachment and social cohesion, building localised social capital and gaining community social support (Liu et al., 2019b). Residents have varying levels of migrant exposure, with locals experiencing the least and rural migrants the most, impacting city attachment differently for each group. Liu et al. (2022) further explore migrants’ sense of belonging to the city and its determinants with 943 first-hand neighbourhood-level data samples. The finding shows that integration difference results from a neighbourhood environment, social mix and tenure heterogeneity.
Research by Syed et al. (2017) illustrated that the precursor for feelings of social isolation and diminished self-perceived quality of life and wellbeing among elderly migrants was living alone. Li and Rose (2017) analysed the correlation between factors of social exclusion and the mental health of migrants at both the community and neighbourhood levels, focusing on elements like perceived social status, social interaction, social participation and self-identity. Therefore, residential segregation at the neighbourhood level can negatively impact health outcomes through the mechanism of relative deprivation. Another study (Lin and Ta, 2023) suggests evaluating social mix in residential and routine activity locations as it plays a crucial role in individual’s experiences of city attachment and their subsequent social integration.
Alterations in neighbourhood conditions stemming from residential mobility are also progressively associated with migrant health (Chen et al., 2020). Enhanced neighbourhood environments can boost migrants’ mental health by promoting place attachment, social cohesion and local social capital (Huang et al., 2023). A recent study (Ji et al., 2023) in Wuhan examines the intersection of high-rise residential environments and elderly mental health, revealing that accessibility to green spaces significantly impacts mental well-being, mediated by subjective cognition. The findings derived from structural equation models underline the paramount importance of green spaces.
The above literature in China highlights the intricate interplay between residential environment, socioeconomic factors and social exposure in shaping migrants’ integration experiences and outcomes.
Research gap
There is no consensus on whether spatial distribution is an influential factor for (im)migrants to incorporate into the host city. Studies on ethnocultural enclaves and mixed neighbourhoods show that physically residing together and integration remain vague connections.
While there has been substantive research on the impacts of different neighbourhood types on migrant integration in China, a predominant barrier to socio-spatial studies in the country is the over-reliance on census data (Li and Wu, 2008) and the China Migrants Dynamic Survey. This is due to the limited number of published sources available in China and a substantial absence of detailed, fieldwork-based research. Research has predominantly relied on models that, due to inherent limitations, have been ineffective in fully addressing neighbourhood mechanisms. This has constrained the establishment of a causal relationship between neighbourhood types and migrant integration. Since integration is an individualised concept, conducting detailed observations and in-depth qualitative research in neighbourhoods is essential to complement quantitative studies, exploring migrants’ experiences in integration more holistically.
Research questions
Based on the literature review, a neighbourhood may provide or diminish opportunities for migrants to generate upward or downward mobility; and eventually improves or jeopardises integration.
Two basic but important questions are raised concerning the relationship between neighbourhood and migrant integration. First, how do the available integration pathways differ among different neighbourhood types? This question delves into the specific pathways available for integration in different neighbourhoods, addressing the variance in opportunities and challenges that migrants face in each neighbourhood type, and how these distinct pathways influence the overall integration experience.
Second, how do the varying characteristics of different neighbourhoods influence the integration progress of migrants? This question seeks to understand the role of neighbourhood characteristics in shaping the migrant integration process. It aims to explore how different neighbourhoods offer or restrict opportunities for migrants, affecting their ability to integrate into the city.
The study underscores the multifaceted nature of integration; a migrant may exhibit high levels of integration in one dimension but may lag in others. The aim of this study is to discern the integration experience of migrants in different neighbourhoods instead of telling who is more successful in term of integration.
Research method
As a result of the land and housing reforms, the peripheries of China’s city experience sustained growth and urbanisation. Shijingshan District (Figure 1) in the West of Beijing experiences an explosion of commodity housing estates that draw many homeowners and tenants with better socioeconomic status. The commodification of work-unit housing results in some local residents moving out and migrant residents moving in. This urban periphery also provides affordable housing. One type is the workers’ dormitory, mainly provided to migrant workers by state-owned enterprises or institutions. The other type is the urban village, mostly for low-skilled migrants who left their rural hometowns searching for cheap housing. The urban village has become enveloped by urban development but retains some rural characteristics, typically manifesting lower living standards and informal housing structure. Four case study neighbourhoods (Figure 2) representing different types of peri-urban residential communities were selected based on data accessibility.
Case-study neighborhoods in Shijingshan District, Beijing.
Site boundaries of the four case-study neighbourhoods.
The data is supplemented by information retrieved from local authorities. With the help of the four residential committees and the district government, the attributes of the case neighbourhoods were mainly derived from the archives of the street offices and local police stations. The characteristics of the neighbourhoods and their residents are shown in Table 1.
Attributes of the four neighbourhoods and migrant residents.
The presented data reveals substantial disparities and variances across the neighbourhoods, with the urban village and workers’ dormitory being migrant-dominant. However, the workers’ dormitory showcases higher educational attainment compared to the urban village. While the household income in the workers’ dormitory is the lowest among all the neighbourhoods, the per capita income in this neighbourhood is higher than that in the urban village. This suggests that the workers’ dormitory primarily houses working singles, whereas the urban village is home to migrant families. The commodity housing estate emerges as a contrasting space, hosting a more affluent and educated populace, primarily non-migrant. The privatised work-unit compounds present a harmonious blend, hosting a mixed demographic with diverse educational and income backgrounds. These observed occupational diversities further accentuate the unique socio-economic identities of each neighbourhood, indicating a complex and nuanced integration of varying populace categories within the peri-urban fabric.
The primary data of this research is drawn from the non-participant observation and semi-structured interview of 24 migrant individuals in the four neighbourhoods in Shijingshan District from 2017 to 2019. The attributes of interviewees in the four neighbourhoods are shown in Table 2. Non-participant observation remains a detached and passive observer so as to keep a low level of engagement. Thus, this study is able to maintain objectivity by allowing for an external perspective. The observation was conducted over the span of 12 months, and was carried out in various settings like accommodations, workplaces, local markets, community centres and parks, to observe the daily life, interaction and behaviours of the migrants without intervening. The participants were selected using a purposive sampling method and snowball sampling techniques with the help of a local neighbourhood committee to ensure diversity in terms of age, job type and length of stay in the neighbourhood. This sampling strategy aimed to represent the majority migrant residents in each neighbourhood, and to encapsulate a range of experiences in migrant integration in different neighbourhood. Data for this study was also collected through semi-structured interviewing ot the 24 individuals, each interview lasting between 45 and 120 minutes, allowing for in-depth exploration of the participants’ experiences, perceptions and integration process.
Attributes of interviewees in the four neighbourhoods.
These methods with in-depth observation in a small sample size allow the voice of grass-roots migrants especially, 1 who are traditionally considered marginalised, stereotyped and treated as the ‘the other’ in urban China in the dominant discourse and many official or popular representations, to be really heard, not only to bring about greater diversity in voice and expression and affirmative image but also to raise awareness for researchers, relevant policy arenas and the general public of the aspirations, experiences and needs of migrant individuals.
In the analysis of migrant integration, the study employs a multidimensional approach, considering different aspects of integration including employment, income, education, homeownership, social welfare, hukou, social networks beyond neighbourhood and neighbourliness and sense of belonging. This approach allows the varying experiences of integration of migrants in different neighbourhoods to be discerned.
Migrant integration in four neighbourhoods
This section examines four types of peri-urban neighbourhoods (Figure 3) with migrant residents.
Street views of the four case-study neighbourhoods.
Mayu village—urban village
Combined with the basic information about Mayu village, we can create a general picture of the dwellers in the urban village. Migrants there with limited human capital face social barriers. They are concentrated in the urban village, which rural migrants largely occupy. Local farmers only accounted for a small percentage of the population living in this place. Rural migrants were the predominant population. Most did not have local or urban household registration status. However, they were not lone workers. Unlike the earlier stage of rural-to-urban migration, when migrants were mostly unmarried single workers, recent migration has become family-based. A significant number of migrants in Mayu village lived with their spouses if they were married. In this sense, the housing in the urban village was more family-oriented and accommodated the needs of family life. Migrants in the urban village were not predominantly contracted or long-term workers; most of them worked as self-employed or conducted informal small businesses in this village. Their jobs were not stable; few had secure jobs.
Migrants in Mayu village were also forced to move frequently. It happened when the government demolished some urban villages and evicted the ‘low-end floating population’. ‘I wish my children could come to Beijing to see us, but I do not know if we will still live here next month’, said a migrant interviewee (interview, 2 February 2018). Such cheaper rental housing appeared to have lower chances of having a written contract. Informal tenancy with only a verbal agreement was very common in the village. As a result, these migrants stood outside the new space negotiations in the urban landscape.
Indeed, they could withdraw from the unfavourable urban realities and return to the farmland and their hometown. However, a considerable number of deprived migrants choose to live in urban villages to support their families in other parts of China financially. Many migrants (interviews, 15–17 February 2018) showed me a strong sentiment of obligation in this issue: ‘I arrived in Beijing in 2011. I had to work because the money earned from farming was not enough.’ ‘Here, I can send money to my children and grandchildren.’ ‘Beijing is not my home, but I can earn much more here compared to being a farmer.’ Despite their low standard of living and low sense of belonging in the city, the migrants in the village that I spoke to expressed willingness to stay in Beijing for economic reasons.
Enclave economy as a double-edge-sword
During the data collection, I found a noticeable amount of embedded small businesses run by migrant couples in the village, allowing them to make a living in the city. And other migrant dwellers also relied on these small businesses for their daily consumption due to lower prices. Over time, the migrant dwellers developed their enclave economy. A migrant enclave is formed with a concentration of low-skilled rural migrants and a cluster of commercial activities associated with village dwellers. As such, migrants in the urban village are not necessarily poor. Although an urban village is formed through exclusion on behalf of the host city against the interests of its migrant residents, the benefit that migrant dwellers acquired from the enclave economy makes them unwilling to escape. When those migrants face displacement, many move to another informal settlement and start their small informal businesses again. An urban village is a temporary neighbourhood of convenience containing resources to be drawn upon. Therefore, urban villages, with their embedded enclave economy, provide low-skilled migrants with a place to survive in the city.
The informality of urban villages can be seen as an incubator of the enclave economy. It is a harbour for deprived migrants in the host city. And those migrants take advantage of the informality and marginality of urban villages by continuously generating a profit and reducing living expenses by using affordable services inside urban villages. ‘Many of us want to study [in Mayu] because our businesses depend on the people in this village; moving out would mean starting from scratch again,’ shared one migrant respondent, highlighting the economic dependence on the enclave economy present within the urban village. These findings challenge previous studies (e.g., Wu et al., 2013) seeing the urban village as an entry point for migrants to familiarise to the host city. In contrast, in this study, migrant dwellers involved in the enclave economy have an entrenched interest in finding ways to maintain their small informal businesses or low living expenses by keeping looking for other urban villages when facing the demolition of the village.
Despite economic benefits, the enclave economy that the migrant dwellers are involved in actually stops them from social integration in the city. Another migrant respondent said, ‘we hope to move out someday, to places better connected and integrated to urban centre, but the costs and the fear of unemployment, lack of hukou, high rental price, and the unknown hold us back. . . We do not have a degree,’ reflecting the aspiration for upward mobility and better living conditions and the many socioeconomic and institutional barriers therein. And the inadequate human capital constrains low-skilled migrants from finding decent or formal jobs in urban areas. Many disadvantaged migrants choose to find a job in the urban village or informal labour market nearby and get involved in an informal economy. However, working without a labour contract is restricted as regards health care, unemployment insurance and working injury insurance.
Mayu village and the embedded enclave economy also led to a segregated life. Most of the migrants in Mayu worked in or near where their rental housing was located. It stops them from interacting with local people in daily life experiences because they barely have contact with local residents. Their integration pathway unfolded predominantly within the village and its direct vicinity. Given their general lack of social capital, experience and information about life in the city, it was unsurprising that the migrants commonly relied on friends and kin they knew in their hometown to get a temporary shelter and find a job there. In addition, their experience drew attention to the unpredictable life of low-skilled migrants in many urban villages in Beijing. In general, we can see that, regardless of its economic benefit, the enclave economy pushes deprived migrants far away from social integration into the host city.
The enclave economies within these urban villages do not merely act as a refuge for migrants unable to secure better employment; they also actively shape and constrain the economic trajectories of migrant dwellers. Low-skilled migrant dwellers often gravitate towards the affordability and tolerance of informal economies in this area in the labour-receiving cities. However, their continued residence and economic participation in these enclaves perpetuate a cycle of marginalisation and limit their opportunities for broader social and economic integration within the city.
However, the context of urban villages in Beijing is notably different from those in other large cities like Guangzhou and Shenzhen. These latter cities, distinguished by their industrial and commercial vitality, provide more formal employment opportunities to urban village residents. ‘Our friends in Shenzhen have more opportunities; they work in factories. Here [in Beijing], we are more on our own, running small businesses,’ one migrant remarked, highlighting the diversity in economic opportunities that enable many migrants to secure employment in formal sectors. Furthermore, the geographical marginalisation and poor accessibility of Beijing’s peri-urban villages restrict job opportunities, compelling migrants to predominantly engage in informal sectors and become integral components of enclave economies.
Shougang dormitory—worker dormitory
A significant number of single migrant employers in the Shougang Group were living in this worker dormitory. Several interviewees expressed that they decided to live in the shared accommodation because the state-owned company managed the dormitory. They felt the dormitory was safe and the service was better than other low-priced accommodations in urban villages. Shougang dormitory is a combination of workplace and living space dating back to state-led industrialisation in the 1950s, and thus with a territory of governance combined with hierarchical residential management.
Social welfare
The income of migrants in dormitories was not high, about a third less than average in Beijing. But the migrant residents in the dormitory I spoke with expressed their good sentiments toward living in Beijing. This is because Shougang Group and its dormitory are organised under an egalitarian ideology, guaranteeing the basic living conditions for these residents, who are also the employees. Although full welfare entitlement has been abandoned and the new social insurance emphasises personal contributions to insurance premiums (Wu and Huang, 2007), the welfare system has integrated with the workplace system in Shougang Group and provided employers’ social benefits: ‘I do not have a Beijing local hukou, but Shougang [Group] guarantees me to have a place to live. Also, I can go to the hospital when ill without worrying too much about the money because Shougang pays the most part’ (interview, 6 July 2017). Despite non-local hukou, migrant workers are eligible to enjoy affordable medical care and rental housing provided by this state-owned enterprise. Like workers in many state-owned enterprises and institutions, migrants are institutionally integrated through employment policy.
As developed by the state-owned enterprise, Shougang dormitories are still organised based on a socialist ideology emphasising social equality and justice. In terms of socioeconomic dimension, the dormitory ensured all residents could gain basic living materials and services. For instance, migrant residents (interview, 23 July 2017) told me that the dormitory offered transport allowances, daily necessities including toilet paper, laundry detergent and shampoo, and refreshments and fruits during festivals. In the dormitory, clinics provided basic and free medical treatment, secured neighbourhood management and other services such as cheap catering and hot water to meet residents’ needs. Regarding living conditions, no matter the occupational position of migrants, the room conditions, facilities and services are almost the same. As a result, although migrant workers in the dormitory earned below-average salary and their living conditions were unsatisfactory (no kitchen, internalised shower room and toilets), they did not feel segregated from the host city.
Therefore, the workers’ dormitory provided by state-owned companies is more attractive than urban villages. Shougang Group is more than a production unit; it is a total social entity carrying out service provision, housing development and distribution, and social management. This dormitory, like many neighbourhoods organised by institutions and state-owned enterprises, represents a remaining institutional force in the process of migrant integration. It is like a mirror reflecting how migrants in the planned-economy era integrated into the host cities.
Disposable social network
In the dormitory, the migrant residents I talked with had built social networks with their neighbours and citizens outside the neighbourhood. To counter the difficulties that the migrants faced in their everyday lives in the city, they built relationships of support. However, these were based on being on the same life cycle stage rather than coming from the same native place. After arriving in Beijing, they built friendships with other colleagues in their workplace, dormitory and online. Most were in a similar life situation, the same age or with other single migrant roommates who just graduated from colleges and universities.
Nonetheless, I found the friendship between migrant dwellers halted when they moved out ot the dormitory, as the relations of mutual support and help were often grounded in necessity. For instance, one interviewee moved out with his girlfriend from the Shougang dormitory and barely contacted his previous roommates afterwards. Forming long-term residential social networks is difficult for these migrants because they consider the dormitory a springboard to better housing choices, and the relationships between migrant roommates are unintentional. Another interviewee was randomly allocated a room and another three roommates without knowing them in the first place. Instead, she had established long-lasting relationships with her colleagues and other citizens she met online. Migrants have also established long-term relationships because of similar schedules and frequent meeting times. One interviewee (September 2018) explained: ‘My roommates and I have different schedules as we work in different departments. I barely see my roommates. During weekends, I am always with friends that I met online.’
It shows that migrant integration into the host city does not necessarily rely on social network ties that are knitted in the neighbourhood. It is partially driven by the necessity of surviving in an unfamiliar environment. For migrants in this dormitory, there are no imminent losses or threats to their survival in the city, even if they do not have any connections with their neighbours. It is consistent with Wang et al.’s (2016) research finding that general neighbouring reflects individuals’ willingness and likelihood to invest time into their neighbourhoods, while intergroup neighbouring relates much more to migrants’ preferred choice of people to interact with. In other words, intergroup neighbouring can be considered dispensable in this workers’ dormitory because some institutional barriers have been overcome due to the state-owned companies providing their workers with basic social welfare and other services.
Based on the comparison between migrants in the dormitory and the urban village, another interesting finding is that the failure of social integration is not necessarily a result of homogenous tenure and population of a neighbourhood but because the residents are unsuccessful in their involvement in the formal urban economy and proper neighbourhood governance. Specifically, most of the migrants in worker dormitories are employed by a formal company, which means that social welfare was attached to them. The employer helps their migrant employees to incorporate into the city from an institutional aspect.
Laoshan community—privatised work-unit compounds
Before housing reform, tenure and residents in work-unit compounds were homogenous. Financed by work units, more residents are co-workers in state-owned enterprises. Since the housing reform in the 1990s, the work-unit compounds have been commoditised. The apartments were sold to the work unit’s employees. After the popularity of new commodity housing estate in Beijing, many workers moved out of Laoshan neighbourhoods; their apartments were sold on the market. Many young, educated migrants moved into the compounds because the housing and rental price was lower than that of new commodity housing estates. Consequently, Laoshan was converted into a mixed residential community with different tenure types and a heterogeneous population.
Heterogeneity and social mix
Laoshan Community consists of two types of residential buildings and tenures: six-storey terrace houses and 18-storey apartments with a mix of commodity and public housing purchased and commodity and affordable housing rental tenure, pointing to the socioeconomic differentiations of the residents in Laoshan compounds. At the end of the fieldwork in the summer of 2019, the average price was about 50,000 yuan per square meter to purchase and 4,500 yuan to rent a one-bedroom flat. The migrant buyers or renters had to have enough money to move in. Although located in the same neighbourhood, the situation of the high-rise apartments is different. The high-rise apartments of only 12 buildings accommodated 2404 households, which is 36.3% of all households in the neighbourhood (archive provided by Laoshan police station in December 2017). Although the number of households in each building was much higher than that of the low-rise terrace houses, the buildings only occupied 11.6% area in the neighbourhood. With less floor space and higher density, the average price of these units was 31,478 yuan per square meter and 3,300 yuan per month for renting a one-bedroom flat. Buyers and renters in high-rise apartment buildings generally have lower incomes. However, due to the mixed layout of the two types of residential buildings, residents barely know who lives in which building.
Migrants living in this mixed neighbourhood feel socially mixed with locals. The neighbourhood was, therefore, desirable for them to live in: ‘I think Laoshan [Community] has a wide range variation [of residents] as we meet in the city’ (interview, 16 January 2018). Another migrant renter (interview, 4 March 2018) stated, ‘I think Laoshan is the best [neighbourhood] in Shijingshan [District] because not only the housing is cheaper than new residential communities, but also I can see both local residents and migrants here.’ Therefore, they did not feel that they were surrounded by people that were significantly different from themselves. One of the strongest themes that emerged concurred with the perceived relative lack of social distinction between migrants and local residents, renters and buyers. Thus, migrant interviewees said they did not think there were big differences among residents in the neighbourhood. ‘I personally would not think that anybody was very different between whether they are renting their house or buying, and I do not know who are the local if they do not talk with Beijing accent.’ As the above quotation indicates, the migrant interviewee (interview, 25 March 2018) emphasised that this mixed neighbourhood is heterogeneous. They (interviews, 1–8 March 2018) also talked about how only a ‘small minority’ of local residents had a ‘bad attitude’ toward migrants and ‘looked down’ on them. ‘Some local residents who have moved in since the beginning tend to look down on those who moved in later. I would say it was a very small minority.’ Therefore, the social and tenure mix in the neighbourhood helps migrant residents to avoid negative stigmatisation, and does not seem to cause a strong feeling of exclusion.
Nevertheless, this ‘mix’ was articulated in a particular way as no proactive neighbouring. Migrant interviewees (interviews, 6 March 2018) told me: ‘Many neighbours are out most of the day working, so I cannot see them. People have jobs and are much busier than before. I do not get to necessarily interact with them because I do not need to. They live their life. We do not see neighbouring is necessary.’ Atkinson and Kintrea (2000b) found that owners and renters tended to occupy distinct social worlds that limited their opportunities for social mixing. However, in Laoshan Community, this lack of neighbourliness between indigenous residents and migrants did not mean that social exclusion exists. Due to the sufficient public areas in the neighbourhood, migrants and local residents frequently encounter each other in the neighbourhood, such as farmer’s markets and green spaces. Many migrant interviewees (interviews, 14 July 2018) talked about neighbours that they would speak to or smile at her in public areas: ‘We do not go to neighbours’ homes. But if we meet in the garden, we say hello or chat for a while.’ Social contact with neighbours was, therefore, passive rather than proactive. It was something that tended to happen rather than something that was actively sought out, because socioeconomic and institutional achievement can be achieved outside this neighbourhood.
Compared to the other neighbourhoods, former work-unit compounds tend to have heterogeneous tenure and population. Migrants (interviews, 3 July 2018) regarded the neighbourhood as ‘a good mixture’. However, the sense of inclusion did not result from the emergence of cross-tenure and cross-group social networks across the neighbourhood. It is because their socioeconomic and institutional attainments were not consequences of frequent neighbouring behaviour. Instead, frequently seeing each other appears on a spatial basis, and small talks happen on an occasional basis. Migrants described their relationships as polite, reflecting that they regarded residents as having more similarities than differences and the neighbourhood as having more inclusion than exclusion. It results in less stigmatisation of the neighbourhood, which enables migrants to foster stronger sentiment toward host cities and integrate into urban society easily.
Yuanyang Qinshanshui estate—new gated community
Migrant residents in this neighbourhood were the best financially positioned in this study. Their acquired lifestyle and the neighbourhood illustrated their financial wellbeing: based on their financial means, not only did they use their financial means to frequently visit restaurants, travel for leisure purposes and provide better education to the next generation. Their thoughts and concerns showed that they are migrants with career success who no longer have to worry about immediate survival that could not associate with migrants in stereotype. For example, they are very aware of children’s education, health care, travel for leisure and even overseas investment. In contrast to migrants in the other three neighbourhoods, they have considerations beyond the property’s price, but the surrounding environment, design, public space and service of the property management company. Financial independence based on career success put them in charge of housing selection; they were quite comfortable and satisfied with their life in the host city.
Sense of privilege
For migrant residents in these neighbourhoods, the quality of the neighbourhood had become an important topic. When I talked about what this issue meant to all of the interviewees, they (interviews, 6–18 October 2018) were quite specific about their reason for renting or purchasing a flat in this gated community. They highlighted a relatively expensive housing price, decorative communal areas, less noise, adequate service by the management company and more green space and public facilities and transport nearby. For instance, a migrant resident (interviews, 15 October 2018) cited the reasons for choosing this neighbourhood: ‘The district government [of Shijingshan] focuses the east part [where the neighbourhood stands], many high-rise buildings for business, entertainment plaza and parks in the eastern part have been built nearby. So, the service and environment are better here.’ ‘The [housing] price and [service charge] are indeed much more expensive [than other neighbourhoods], but we get better environment and service.’
In this sense, the newly developed commodity housing estate generates a sense of privilege. Property developers emphasise high environmental quality and stress comprehensive and high-quality services inside the neighbourhood and nearby. Property management companies take over responsibility for service provision previously undertaken by the local government or state work units. The commodification of neighbourhood services as it appears in gated communities is thorough and fully fledged. The property management company normally takes over such services as cleaning, greening, security, recreation and amenities. These high-level services are exclusive to those who can afford the high costs. Therefore, the concentration of advantaged and private services provides a sense of privilege to migrant residents. It is related to housing market fragmentation: residents of low socioeconomic status cannot afford private services.
The integration phenomenon observed in migrant residents in this new gated community is not just a mere consequence of the immediate environment but is significantly predicated upon the levels and dimensions of pre-existing integration they had experienced before moving into this neighbourhood. However, the gated communities serve not merely as dwellings but as catalysts that amplify the pre-established sense of belonging. They do so by extending a multitude of socio-spatial privileges, thereby fostering a milieu that is exclusive and affirming. The privileges and services are not just limited to enhanced security and amenity richness, but also encompass superior community services, well-maintained public spaces and access to better educational and recreational facilities, forging an environment that is conducive to fostering a sense of belonging and acceptance to the city.
This intensified sense of belonging and acceptance experienced by migrants in new gated communities is a culmination of pre-existing levels of integration and the advantageous socio-spatial privileges offered by the communities. It’s a multifaceted interplay of these elements that consolidates their place in the urban fabric, reinforcing their sense of belonging and self-assurance in the city.
Comparison of migrant integration in the four neighbourhoods
The meanings of residential communities in migrant integration differ in these four case neighbourhoods. To be more specific, the urban village is used mainly as a place to sleep or for informal economic activities because lack of skill excludes them from the city. Low-skilled migrants in this urban village live segregated lives. Not only do many migrant residents not have a mode of incorporation into the host city, but the homogenous population and enclave economy they rely on make it hard to interact with locals. It was found that the urban village provides migrants with a niche in cities for economic integration. Through the enclave economy that migrants formed in the informal settlement, they contribute to economic adaptation. This importance gives many of them the confidence to work hard in the city. However, the segregated enclave and informal economy stops migrant residents from institutional and psychological integration. Their every day is characterised by informality and uncertainty, such as frequent changes in housing. They appear to have nothing in common with local residents and migrants in other neighbourhoods.
Noticeably, the relationship between living in urban villages and economic integration is bidirectional and mutually reinforcing. Many migrants living in Mayu, the urban peripheral village, initially settle in it due to their inability to secure better employment and the lack of affordability and accessibility of formal accommodation in Beijing. Consequently, the existence enclave economies within this urban village serves to further embed migrants in informal, lower-paying sectors. Migrants, especially those involved in enclave economies, have a stronger inclination to stay in urban villages, which is partially due to living expenses being lower and the informal businesses they have developed being more tolerated. Simultaneously, the very nature of enclave economies and the living conditions in urban villages can also hinder migrants’ socioeconomic attainment, institutional achievement and social networks into the wider urban society by limiting their exposure and access to formal employment sectors and social networks outside of these enclaves. The finding supports Lin et al.’s (2020) finding that many migrants stuck in the informal housing of urban villages, indicating migrants in these settings, struggle to integrate into the city.
In the workers’ dormitory, by providing affordable rental housing to employees and proper neighbourhood management, the employers help migrant workers to incorporate into the city to some extent. Despite their undesirable economic status, the migrant residents achieved some institutional entitlements provided by their employer. The contracted migrant singles live in variously networked arrangements of mutual support from roommates, colleagues and friends across the city. However, their social network in the neighbourhood is disposable. The reason is that their employers have guaranteed them some institutional entitlement by offering affordable rental housing and some social welfare. It is unnecessary for them to retreat into a communal setting where people know and help each other survive in the city.
In the former work-unit compound, the mixed population in the neighbourhood develops more similarities than differences between migrants and local residents. With more socioeconomic capital, migrants in former work-unit compounds have avoided the above two migrant enclaves and live side by side with local residents. This mixed community offers those migrants a haven to escape the stigmatisation of low socioeconomic status and deprived neighbourhoods. It also enables migrant residents to integrate into the host city.
Migrant residents in new commodity housing estates have successfully integrated into the host city from more aspects compared to migrants in the other three neighbourhoods. The neighbourhood and the property are more like items on which migrant workers spend a great deal of thought, effort or financial means. Many professional and affluent migrants who live in high-end real estate with busy work schedules and active agendas are satisfied with the neighbourhood due to the sense of privilege. Therefore, the integration of migrant residents in new gated communities is substantially marked by the pre-existing integration in different aspects before moving in, and the neighbourhood itself serves to intensify this sense of belonging through the various socio-spatial privileges it offers. The integration experience in these communities is largely influenced by the better services and comfortable coexistence with local middle-class residents, enabling migrants to feel a stronger sense of belonging and acceptance in the urban fabric.
Conclusion: Migrant integration and its spatial contingency
This research is based on non-participant observation and interviews in four peri-urban neighbourhoods to explore migrants’ integration approaches in Beijing. It illustrates how different types of neighbourhoods shape diverse migrant experiences and integration approaches. With different capitals, migrants select neighbourhoods as a temporary shelter, a springboard or their destination. Analysis across the neighbourhoods revealed significant disparities in integration experiences, shaped by the characteristics of each neighbourhood, illustrating how neighbourhood environment influences the multifaceted integration of migrants. The type of neighbourhood plays a pivotal role in shaping the migrant integration process, indicating the presence of spatial contingency when discussing migrant integration.
The urban village story in this research indicates that the enclave economy may enhance migrants’ income in the city but may limit their integration in other aspects. In contrast, dormitories aid residents in achieving institutional accomplishments even though their income may not be high, and the social networks formed in such neighbourhoods are typically transient. Privatised work-unit compounds offer a more heterogeneous resident profile and a better social mix, creating an environment where migrants feel more welcomed and integrated. Meanwhile, migrants residing in new gated communities are seen to have integrated into almost every aspect of urban life before even moving into these neighbourhoods. The gated communities reinforce and solidify their sense of belonging to the city through the sense of privilege that these neighbourhoods provide.
Theoretically, this study observes that mixed neighbourhoods foster stronger sentiments toward host cities among migrant residents. Migrants in former work-unit compounds and new real estate show similarities in integration in that the integration of those migrants is through the social and occupational strata in the host city. As migrants in these two neighbourhoods achieved higher socioeconomic status and accumulated more financial resources, they spread to areas with better housing conditions and lived with indigenous residents. Many migrants with advantaged socioeconomic resources settle directly in these two types of neighbourhoods upon arriving, bypassing the segregated migrant neighbourhoods completely. While many hold non-local hukou, the residential decisions are voluntary, with minimal external pressure. They are attracted to the local neighbourhoods by more local residents, fewer stigmas, better living environment, good services, a sense of privilege, and many have the financial resources to purchase their own flat. Different from research seeing mixed communities enhancing ethnic group economic status, this neighbourhood study in peri-urban Beijing finds that migrant residents in mixed neighbourhoods are not dependent on or improved by the neighbourhoods to obtain socioeconomic opportunities and access resources. Their upward mobility was generated before they moved into the mixed neighbourhoods.
In contrast, disadvantaged socioeconomic status and institutional discrimination result in a concentration of low-skilled migrants in urban villages. In this type of migrant enclave, the embedded economy further directs the migrants to informal economic activities. Facing the demolishment of urban villages, they need to find ways to maintain their small informal business or keep low living expenses by looking for other urban villages. Migrants involved in such an enclave economy have an entrenched interest in this circle. Therefore, for migrants in urban villages, the segregated neighbourhood and its embedded economy, combining a low awareness of the law, set them apart from other migrants and indigenous residents living in the cities. Urban village and their embedded enclave economy in this study are incompatible with ‘ethnoburb’ (Li, 1998; Zhou, 2009) due to the poor residential condition, the informal economic activities and the uncertainty caused by displacement. However, migrant enclaves do not necessarily lead to a failure of integration. Due to the egalitarian ideology of state-owned enterprise, the workers’ dormitory ensures all residents gain basic living materials and services designed to meet resident needs. In this sense, to some degree, migrant residents have achieved institutional integration within the city.
Importantly, this research finds that migrant integration has a spatial dimension in which integration difference is enhanced and fixed through residential differences because neighbourhoods offer more than just dwellings. They symbolise lifestyles and to what extent migrant residents integrate into the host city. The concentration of migrants in certain neighbourhoods resulted from the interplay of social and spatial factors. For example, rental prices in formal residential communities are often unaffordable for low-skill migrants, forcing them to move to affordable but informal settlements. Purchase or rent of housing in specific neighbourhoods is a creation or alteration of their social status. In turn, neighbourhoods have a formative impact on emerging distinct migrant groups. When they choose a house, migrants also intentionally or unintentionally choose the real or perceived lifestyle associated with different residential locations. Migrants’ position in the urban economy market and preference for certain places influence their integration pathways in the host city. Meanwhile, through neighbourhoods, migrant groups appear to be increasingly different from each other while sharing distinct characteristics.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Manqi Wang for visualization.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by National Social Science Fund of China (NSSFC) (grant number 21CSH015).
1.
The term in this study refers to individuals migrating from rural areas to mega cities like Beijing, often in search of better economic opportunities and living conditions. They are typically characterised by lower socioeconomic and educational backgrounds and are predominantly engaged in informal or low-skilled occupations.