Are China’s Minority Nationalities Still on the Margins?

Abstract

In 2010, the population of China totalled 1.33 billion people, of which an overwhelming majority (91.6 % of the total) were members of the Han nationality. The remaining 112 million (almost 8.4 %) were members of one of China’s 55 minority nationalities. The authors examine the demographic and socioeconomic structure of China’s minority populations, focusing in particular on the 18 groups with populations of over 1 million.

The chapter begins with a brief review of the history of relations between the Han and the non-Han minorities. It next presents vignettes for the largest 18 groups and analyses their socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, and the differences between them and the Han population. It concludes by spelling out some of the implications of our research for assimilationist theories of ethnic group relations.

Discussion

Our research indicates that the 18 largest minority nationalities in China show varying levels of similarity with the Han. Data from China’s 2010 census show that the Hui, the Manchu, and the Mongol groups appear to be more similar to the Han in social, demographic, and economic composition than the other groups, and may thus be said to be more integrated into Han society, while many of the other minorities are much less so. Also, as predicted by assimilation theory, those minority groups that are less geographically dispersed tend to be better off socioeconomically and demographically than those that are more dispersed.

There is an important exception: the Koreans, who are not distributed all around China; they live mainly in Jilin and Heilongjiang, although they are not as geographically isolated as the Uygur, the Tai, and the Hani. As already mentioned, they speak and write the Korean language and operate their own schools. Nevertheless, among the Chinese minorities studied in this chapter, the Koreans have one of the highest levels of socioeconomic development and the lowest fertility rate. One reason for their relative uniqueness could be their location. The two principal provinces where they reside, Jilin and Heilongjiang, comprise (with Liaoning) one of the most economically and industrially developed areas of China. Known at one time as Manchuria, this area in north-eastern China was heavily influenced by the Japanese through prior settlement and domination. The Koreans, although isolated geographically from the Han, have a geographic and ecological advantage unlike that of the other minorities—with the exception, of course, of their co-residents, the Manchu. Unlike the Koreans, however, the Manchu, who ruled China from Beijing for 250 years during the Qing Dynasty, are very similar residentially and socioeconomically to the Han. This advantageous sustenance base may be responsible in part for the more advanced socioeconomic and demographic standing of the Koreans (Poston and Shu 1987).

We also noted in this chapter that the geographic locations of the minority populations have been largely invariant for centuries. This situation is different from that in the United States, for instance, where the locations of the minority peoples are due largely to patterns of immigration to the country, the length of time the groups have been in the U.S., and differences in their rates of growth (Lieberson and Waters 1987). Thus, we argued, the causal nature of the relationship between spatial and social segregation in China is opposite to that in the United States. Nevertheless, our analysis here of the relationship between residential segregation and social differentiation of the minority groups from the Han suggests the viability and applicability, at least in part, of a principally Western-based hypothesis in a non-Western context. Our research has suggested that a Western-based ecological theory of residential segregation and social differentiation, while not completely appropriate for a country like China with its long history, provides many insights for understanding selected dimensions of the distribution of China’s population.

In summary, we have undertaken here an in-depth descriptive examination of the largest Chinese nationality groups, and have considered in less detail the remaining groups. The research was conducted using a standardized methodology enabling a closer comparison of the minority groups with each other and with the Han. We have shown that each group is quite distinct, and many are very different from one another in various demographic and socioeconomic dimensions.

Historical variation over the centuries has brought together many groups of people with considerable diversity. Though living under one nation, the minorities are very different geographically, a point noted especially in our analyses pertaining to geographic differentiation and residential segregation.

Also, our examination of various social and demographic characteristics, such as geographic dispersion, education, occupation, fertility and age heaping, reveals other major differences between many of the minority groups and the Han. For example, although since 1949 economic development and policies aimed at promoting minority educational and occupational attainment have increased access to formal education and better jobs, it seems that many of China’s minorities today still remain significantly behind the Han with respect to educational and occupational attainment.

Finally, to the degree that Chinese policy seeks the socioeconomic advancement of the minority populations, our analysis suggests that to date this goal has been reached only among a few of the minority nationalities. Most are still some distance away.