The quest for sustainable livelihoods : social development challenges and social policy responses in Guangzhou, China

Document Type

Journal article

Source Publication

Social Policy and Society

Publication Date






First Page


Last Page



marketisation of social welfare, ustainable livelihoods, unmet social welfare needs, welfare expectations, Guangzhou


China's welfare system has been a typical 'residual welfare regime', but the economic reform and market-oriented transformations in recent decades have weakened the original well-balanced 'residual' and 'needs' pattern. Marketisation of social welfare has intensified social inequality as those who are less competitive in the market-oriented economy have encountered tremendous financial burdens in meeting their welfare needs. In order to rectify the social problems and tensions generated from the process of marketisation of social welfare, the Chinese government has adopted different policy measures to address the pressing welfare demands from the citizens. This article examines how a local government in Guangzhou, capital city of Guangdong province, has responded to the call of the central government in promoting social harmony in the context of growing welfare regionalism emerging in mainland China. More specifically, with reference to a case study of Guangzhou, this article discusses how Guangzhou residents assess their social welfare needs and expectations, and how they evaluate the municipal government's major welfare strategies. It also reflects upon the role of the state in welfare provision and social protection, especially when many social welfare and social services have been marketised in the last few decades in China.



Print ISSN


Publisher Statement

Access to external full text or publisher's version may require subscription.

Full-text Version

Publisher’s Version

Recommended Citation

Mok, K. H., & Lau, M. (2014). The quest for sustainable livelihoods: Social development challenges and social policy responses in Guangzhou, China. Social Policy and Society, 13(2), 239-250. doi: 10.1017/S1474746413000638