NewKerala.com

China's Social Insurance Push Stalls as Firms, Workers Resist Costs

A new report reveals that only about one-third of Chinese companies are complying with a Supreme People's Court ruling mandating social insurance contributions from employers and employees. Firms are resisting due to increased costs, while many workers say they cannot afford their share of the payments. This low compliance rate raises significant questions about China's ability to implement structural economic reforms aimed at boosting domestic consumption. The situation illustrates the tension between maintaining export competitiveness and building a stronger social safety net.

Key Points: China Firms Resist Social Insurance Mandate, Report Reveals

  • Low compliance with court mandate
  • Firms minimize costs to protect profits
  • Workers cite affordability issues
  • Tests China's economic reform resolve
2 min read

Chinese firms drag feet on paying for workers' social insurance

Only a third of Chinese firms comply with court-ordered social insurance payments, highlighting a major hurdle in Beijing's economic rebalancing efforts.

"Can you accept short-term pain for long-term gain? The answer, in this instance, seems to be no. - Nick Marro, Economist Intelligence Unit"

New Delhi, March 2

While a top Chinese court has made it mandatory for employers and workers to contribute to social insurance schemes for workers, in practice, only around one-third of companies in the country are following the order, according to a media report.

The reason for the social welfare measure not taking off is that the companies see such payments as leading to an increase in costs that reduces their profit margins, while workers say that they do not have enough money to make their contribution, the report on The Japan Times news portal said.

From September 2025, the court made it illegal for workers and employers to avoid social insurance payments, setting the stage for a long-term redistribution of resources from producers to consumers via the welfare system.

Economists see the Supreme People's Court ruling as a pivotal test of Beijing's efforts to improve household finances and rebalance an export-reliant growth model that causes trade tensions and fuels disinflationary pressures, the article stated.

However, six months on, workers, employers, and economists say compliance remains partial, raising questions over China's ability to pursue structural economic shifts, it pointed out.

"Interviews with over a dozen workers and factory owners show firms responded to the ruling mostly in ways that minimise their own payments, in some cases even by lowering wages," the article said

Most make payments based on a lower base wage rather than the full salary, having restructured the balance as bonuses or other benefits. Some workers and one factory owner said they still don't pay at all because they cannot afford the contributions, the article points out.

Such examples "encapsulate the policy dilemma facing China's leaders: Can you accept short-term pain for long-term gain? The answer, in this instance, seems to be no," said Nick Marro, an Asia analyst at the Economist Intelligence Unit.

"This could be instructive when thinking about other difficult market-based reforms."

By making the contributions mandatory - roughly 25 per cent of income for employers and about a tenth for employees - the ruling aims to bolster the social safety net, a key step toward encouraging workers to spend more now, rather than save on their own for rainy days. But it also raises labour costs.

Avoiding such contributions historically has strengthened China's competitiveness, turning exports into a major growth driver, the article observed.

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

R
Rohit P
Interesting to see China facing similar implementation challenges we often discuss here. The "jugaad" of restructuring salaries into bonuses to avoid higher contributions sounds very familiar. The core issue is universal: who bears the cost of social security?
A
Aman W
While the intention is good, forcing a 25% contribution from employers is huge. It could make them uncompetitive globally. India must learn from this - our labor reforms need to balance worker protection with keeping industry viable. A tough act.
S
Sarah B
The worker's perspective is key here. If they can't afford their 10% contribution, it shows wages are already too low. Social insurance is meaningless if it makes today's survival harder. China's growth model has deep flaws if this is the reality.
V
Vikram M
This report shows the gap between policy and ground reality. China wants to rebalance its economy, but old habits die hard. Their export competitiveness was built on low costs. Changing that will cause pain. India has an opportunity if we get our policies right.
K
Kavya N
Respectfully, the article seems to frame this as a purely economic dilemma. What about the human cost? Workers without insurance are one accident or illness away from ruin. The court's ruling is morally right, even if enforcement is tough. Society must prioritize people over profits.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50