中国户籍制度的公民身份二重化与权利保障的结构性局限 - 以北京户籍制度与公共服务差别待遇为中心

Abstract

This study analyzes the dual structure of citizenship and the structural limitations of rights protection under China’s household registration (hukou) system, focusing on Beijing as a representative case. It explores how the hukou system constrains the substantive realization of constitutional equality and social rights through differential access to public services. Employing a comprehensive approach that integrates constitutional law, administrative law, and comparative law perspectives, the paper reveals how the hukou system has evolved from a population management mechanism into a core instrument of state resource allocation and social rights distribution. Although Article 33 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China stipulates that “all citizens are equal before the law,” the hukou system in practice divides citizens into categories such as urban–rural and Beijing–non-Beijing, creating a new hierarchy among citizens of the same nationality. This results in a situation where formal equality is preserved, but substantive equality is undermined. The study conceptualizes this phenomenon as “dual citizenship within a single nationality”, in which citizens hold both a constitutional identity (based on nationality, conferring abstract rights) and an administrative identity (based on hukou status, determining concrete entitlements), with the latter limiting the practical effect of the former. Empirical analysis of Beijing’s public policies shows that non-Beijing residents face systematic inequality in education, healthcare, social security, housing, and transportation. For example, the admission approval rate for non-Beijing children entering compulsory education is below 70%; non-Beijing residents must maintain ten consecutive years of contributions before being eligible to renew medical insurance; and their success rates for public rental housing and shared-ownership housing are below 15% and 20%, respectively. These disparities are institutionalized through local legislation and further entrenched by the judiciary’s reluctance to directly apply constitutional provisions. The study also finds that China’s current mechanisms for constitutional review and rights protection are inadequate. Courts typically dismiss claims on the grounds of “lawful local administrative authority,” while administrative review lacks independence and binding force. The petition (xinfang) process provides only advisory relief, leaving non-Beijing residents without effective legal remedies. In contrast, Korea’s 2005 amendment to the Resident Registration Act decoupled household registration from public service provision, and Japan’s system allocates public resources based on actual residence rather than registered status, thereby preventing regional discrimination. The paper concludes that comprehensive structural reform across legislative, judicial, and institutional dimensions is necessary. Gradually dismantling the linkage between hukou and public services and establishing a rights-protection framework based on actual residence and social contribution are essential for the substantive realization of constitutional equality. Such reform represents a crucial step toward transforming China’s social rights protection from a formal to a substantive system and is integral to advancing constitutional implementation, legal modernization, and social justice.