| 摘要: | 20世紀80年代開始出現的「農民工」，今天已成中國大陸一個規模龐大的社會群體（階層），更是其經濟增長貢獻份額巨大的產業大軍。吾人對其「稱謂」的變化，即自開始的「盲流」、「民工」、「外來務工人口」，以至於「農民工」、「新移民」等，折射出大陸社會主流意見對農民工態度的轉變。換言之，數十年來，農民工經歷了從被排斥（歧視）、打壓到默許、認可，直至接納、鼓勵的過程。但到目前，大陸廣大的農民群眾卻仍處於權利失衡與貧困之中，農民工在城鎮打工始終處於尷尬的邊緣地位。從農民工這一「雙重邊緣人」的諸般不公平待遇，充分表示二十年來中共的改革速度與幅度不大，更顯見其制度政策改革的複雜性和長期性。
本論文認為，農民工問題是一個涉及到中國大陸經濟、政治、社會乃至其他層面的綜合性問題。現實生活中的城市農民工，不論身份、地位、收入等方面，都處於弱勢狀態。現階段農民工是個絕對的弱勢群體，且處「制度障礙型的邊緣化」困境；以致遭受多方面不公正待遇甚至歧視。總體上看，城市農民工人還處於社會保障制度的空白地帶。近幾年，最重要社會保障項目──社會保險方面，在中共中央要求下，一些城市已為農民工逐步建立養老、醫療、失業、工傷和生育保險等險種，農民工也初步享有公民社會福利權，但程度卻很低。
當前，農民工社會保障制度的基本格局是：多種模式、各行其政，結構性缺失，整體社會保障水平低下。農民工社會保險的框架性、原則性規定，缺乏明確、可操作性的規章制度，制度不統一，關係轉移接續不便捷，是現存主要問題。歸結社會保險方面，主要問題在：一是農民工工傷保險缺失嚴重。二是農民工幾乎沒有失業保險。三是養老保險「入多退少」。四是農民工醫療保障制度嚴重滯後，醫療費用過高。五是女性農民工的生育保險嚴重缺失。
進入新世紀，農民工群體的「代際」更替已基本完成，上億的新生代農民工（80後）成為農民工的主體；惟其現實圖景是：新生代農民工成了無根的一代，失落故鄉的一代，處於「經濟接受，制度排斥」邊緣化狀態。新生代農民工既然來到所嚮往城市，卻又因為隔膜和歧視被城市所排拒，游走於城鄉邊緣，於是成了無根的一代，失落故鄉的一代；從而成為「城市」與「農村」之中的「雙重邊緣人」。儘管他們融（入）城（市）願望強烈，無奈迄仍處在游離或邊緣化命運，形成一個相對獨立的社會單元（或階層），擺盪在城鄉之間。
長期以來，由於城鄉「二元結構」的嚴重影響，中共社會保障制度主要以城市居民為保障對象，農民工基本處於一種保障水平低、甚至無保障地位。「農民工」這一特殊「身份」，象徵著一種時代「創傷」，且這種「創傷」，讓農民工難以完成向工人（市民）身份轉變，並淪為資本（企業主）肆無忌憚地榨取他們剩餘價值的社會基礎。事實上，在二元社會保障制度框架下，城市（地方）政府也缺乏解決農民工群體問題與政策執行的專責部門。復又，農民工社保制度缺乏頂層設計，更加劇各地運行的「碎片化」，客觀上造成了農民工問題是「上有宏觀政策，下無落實對策」局面，從而出現「社會全面關注、政府極為重視、政策無法落實」的困境。
自始至今，中國大陸的社會保障體系，表現的仍是一種「選擇性覆蓋」現狀，即把一些社會弱勢群體如農民工等，都排斥在制度保障之外。情況說明，農民工是大陸現今最龐大的「失語」群體，更是「沉默的大多數」。一方面，缺乏政治發言權是本身取得進步的最大障礙；另方面，其社會福利的獲得，取決於上級政府規定，或者地方官員和政府的慷慨施捨。因之，「政治公民權」在地方層面上仍然任重道遠。這充分說明「生存權」已得來不易，更遑論講求「發展權」！
總而言之，農民工問題隱含著很多社會問題，既是經濟問題又是政治問題，既涉及現代法治社會的一些重要價值，如憲政、人權等；又關涉諸多現行制度安排，如打破戶籍藩籬、維權等等，不一而足。它不僅是中共亟待解決的重大社會現實問題，還是一個重大的政治問題。因此，本文認為，如何具體又徹底地解決廣大農民工的社會保險問題，是一個「未解」並且「待解」的重大課題，其複雜性和長期性，自不待言！這個重大的「戰略」課題，亟須中共中央和各級地方政府實積極進行研究、探索、借鑒和引導，更需要依靠全社會的力量共同努力。
Emerging in the 1980s of the 20th century, “rural migrant workers” have become a social group (class) with a tremendously large population which has enormously contributed to the economic growth of China. The attitude of main-stream public toward this group of population has also changed as reflected in the evolving of the “title” people use in referring this large population, e.g., from “aimless drifters”, “civilian labor”, “non-local labor population”, to “rural migrant workers”, and “new immigrants”. In other words, the rural migrant workers have gone through a painful experience of being rejected (discriminated), suppressed; then connived, approved; and eventually, accepted and even appreciated. Nevertheless, the general peasant population as a whole is still suffering from the imbalance of civilian rights and poverty; the rural migrant workers are still finding themselves in an awkward and marginal social status – being alienated from their own hometowns and from the cities they work. This twofold misery of marginalization, which causes various unfair treatments the rural migrant workers suffer, clearly indicates China’s ineffective reformation of a pattern with a low tempo and a small magnitude. This also shows the complexity and tardiness in China’s long-term chronicle of systematic and strategic reformations.
In this study, it is considered that the issue relate to the rural migrant workers is a very comprehensive problem which involves China’s economic, political, social, and other gradations. In real life, a rural migrant worker is most likely under privilege, regardless of his or her identity, social status, and income, etc. Under current conditions, the rural migrant workers are an absolutely disadvantaged minority which is in a predicament caused by a “marginalization of systematic obstacle”; and accordingly, they are suffering from unfair treatments and even discrimination. Generally speaking, the rural migrant workers in the cities still find themselves in the legal limbo when it comes to social protection systems. In recent years, as required by the Chinese government, some cities have progressively developed one of the most important social protection issues – social security which includes some insurance on retirement, medical care, unemployment, occupational injury, and child birth. The rural migrant works are starting to benefit from - though in a limited capacity - the rights of social welfare an average citizen usually enjoys.
Currently, the fundamental framework of the social protection systems for the rural migrant workers is shaping up in the form of: multiple modes, each-goes-his-own-way style, systematic deficit, and a low overall standard. This framework is lack of principle regulations, clear, and operational systems. The most urgent issue to be resolved is the un-unified systems which lead to ineffectiveness of policy execution due to discontinuities among governmental sectors. The major problems remain in the social protection systems for the rural migrant workers are: a serious lack of insurance for occupational injury, virtually no insurance for unemployment, a pay-more-receive-less insurance for retirement, a sluggish protection system for medical care with expensive costs, and a serious lack of insurance for women’s child birth.
As stepping into the new century, “generation replacement” is basically achieved as a hundred millions young bloods become the main body of the rural migrant workers. In reality nonetheless, the young generation is also a rootless and lost generation. They are still marginalized from the society since they are rejected by the social security systems despite the fact that they may be accepted for economic concerns. The young workers, as they come to the cities they yearn for, are alienated by the city residents owing to the absence of mutual communications or even discrimination, are wandering on city borders, become a rootless and lost generation, and finally are marginalized from both the city residents and folks back home. In spite of their eager to blend into urban life, the young workers cannot help it to find themselves falling into a wandering and marginalizing fate to form a unique social identity which is not accepted by either side.
Due to the effects of this long-term “binary structure”, the rural migrant workers are situated in a low-level, if not none, standard of social protection systems which are mainly provided for the city residents by the government. This special “identity” of the rural migrant workers represents a trauma of an era, and the trauma prevents them from changing into the workers as a regular city resident. Instead, their surplus values fall prey to some unscrupulous capitalists (employers). In fact, city (local) administrations are lack of an ad-hoc department to handle and execute the issues and problems the rural migrant workers as a social group may have. What is worse is that there is no top-to-down structure of plan on solving the social protection systems for those workers. The social protections are performed in a unorganized and scattered way for those workers throughout the country. As a result, those workers are facing a situation that the top end (government) has a determination to solve the problems, but the bottom end (policy execution sectors) has no clue on achieving the goal. The issue has indeed become a dilemma of “a full national attention, a government’s top priority, and no abilities of execution”.
From the beginning, China’s social protection systems are in a form of “selective coverage” which excludes the rural migrant workers from the systems. In reality, the rural migrant workers form the largest group of “aphasia”; they are the “silent majority”. However, the right of speak, which provides an effective channel for obtaining various benefits in a political way, depends on the government regulations or even on the generosity of the officials of local and central administrations. On the local level, “political rights for a citizen” are still far from a reality for those workers to live their daily lives, let along the “rights of development”.
As a conclusion, the issues of the rural migrant workers imply various social problems which are both economic and political related – they involve some important values of a modern legislative society such as constitutional government and human rights, and some social arrangements such as household registration and preservation of this registration. This is not only a major social problem to be resolved in reality, but also a major political issue. This research points out the issue of the social protection systems for the rural migrant workers is unsolved and it needs an urgent attention to be solved. This strategic issue requires a total cooperation between central and local administrations to research, examine, learn, and guide -- with a full support of the general public -- in order to solve the problem once for all. |
