Social Inclusion Concerning Migrants in Guangzhou City and the Spatial Differentiation

Abstract

This study investigates the social inclusion perceived by Guangzhou residents and the underlying factors based on the 2019 social survey with nearly 10,000 respondents. Surveys were conducted via quota sampling targeted at government officials and enterprise employers, referring to the Industrial Classification for National Economic Activities and the employment statistics of Guangzhou. In addition, online questionnaires were distributed to the general public. Responses were collected and analyzed through a multiple-regression model. Critical findings are as follows: (1) Residents’ attitude toward foreign immigrants is generally lower than that toward domestic migrants. Migrants who obtained Guangzhou hukou rated a higher social inclusion score than natives. (2) Residents without Guangzhou household registration expected that Guangzhou residents have better social inclusion scores for foreign immigrants. (3) People working in high-tech industries have lower social inclusion toward foreign migrants than those working in low-end industries, as there are no conflicts of interest between low-end workers and foreign migrants. Moreover, these two groups of people have more frequent interactions, given their living proximity. (4) Social inclusion held by residents in the inner-city region of Guangzhou is significantly higher than that of residents in the outer sphere, indicating a positive relationship between living environment and social inclusion perceptions. This paper lays the groundwork for identifying the relationship between social inclusion perceptions and differences in household registration statuses, working industries, and residence locations. It further facilitates the development of a more inclusive city.

1. Introduction

Migration is an unavoidable event during the wave of globalization [1]. China’s unprecedented economic development since the Open-up and Reform has also intensified population mobility [2]. A large number of people flow into its top-tier cities, most of whom are migrant workers. As China is envisaged to take more frequent economic and trade cooperation with other countries, its megacities have begun to see a rising number of immigrants [3]. Recently, China’s Ministry of Justice published the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on the Administration of Permanent Residence of Foreigners (draft for the solicitation of comments), aiming to introduce more foreign talents. Entrepreneurial local governments are also committed to embracing talents to boost local development [4]. High-end talents are mobile and tend to be geographically concentrated in first- and second-tier cities [5]. Under such circumstances, foreign talents are more likely to be affected by the attitudes of local residents toward them, meaning that the ability of a megacity to retain talents strongly depends on its social inclusion degree [6]. With the growing size of the floating population, the lives of local residents are gradually influenced. On the other hand, migrants are also influenced by the attitudes of urban residents toward them; thus, the influence on their living experiences is mutual [7]. Moreover, failure to properly manage the relationship between the two groups of people may result in the loss of talent and the outbreak of social instability.

Social inclusion is a commonly used concept in sociology and social policy studies. It refers to the process through which people in the same social environment share their power and benefits [8]. Social inclusion measures the acceptance and recognition of members within a social system characterized by various social characteristics and behaviors [9]. Social characteristics include gender, socioeconomic status, or other factors that show social significance within a particular society [10]. The existing research on social inclusion mainly focuses on exploring the influencing factors related to the attitudes of local residents toward migrants in migrant destinations. For instance, residents of the receiving countries may hold a negative point of view since they presume migrants would take over the limited resources [11]. In addition to interrogating the potential determinants that influence social inclusion, extant studies have also discussed issues concerning the integration of vulnerable groups into local society. However, most of the established scholarship has concentrated on the metropolitan regions of western capitalist countries; whether they are applicable in the Chinese context remains unknown.

Numerous international migrations began after 2000 when China joined the World Trade Organization. A typical phenomenon of impressive migration in China is the flow of Africans into Guangzhou [12], a major foreign trading center of China for over two millennia. Guangzhou is one of China’s fastest-developing megacities, and a large foreign workforce has essentially contributed to the city’s escalating economy. Contemporary migrants in Guangzhou are taking advantage of the booming economy and seeking a better life. In 2019, the foreigners living in Guangzhou were estimated at 83,400, 55,000 of whom resided for over six months [13]. Accurate official data on the African population living in Guangzhou was absent. According to the public media, by the end of 2019, there were about 13,652 Africans in Guangzhou, accounting for 15.8% of all the foreigners in Guangzhou [14]. In the meantime, Guangzhou has also gradually witnessed crowded internal migrant workers flow from other parts of China in the post-reform era [15]. The ever-increasing migration flows and the diversified migration patterns emerging in socialist countries challenge state-of-the-art theories on social inclusion and immigration. Questions such as the interaction between the floating population and residents in the receiving city and how these migrant people integrate into local society are worth further investigation.

The following analysis takes Guangzhou as the case study area and adopts an empirical approach to explore the social inclusion of its urban residents in the situation of expanding migrations. It specifically examines the differences held by different groups of residents toward the non-local population as well as the spatial differentiation of residents’ social inclusion across districts within the city. The study aims to discover factors that affect residents’ social inclusion and the reasons behind its spatial differentiation so as to shape a more inclusive Guangzhou that can retain more talents for future development.

Guangzhou has become the most extensive concentration of African entrepreneurs in China. Findings here can also provide insights for other cities that may introduce international migrants in the future, given that China has emerged as a destination country for transnational immigrants. The African migration in Guangzhou also has unique characteristics, such as China’s specific household registration and immigration regulations. Theoretically, this paper will hopefully contribute to the traditional literature on international migration focusing on a city from the Global South by enriching the understanding of the nature and mechanism of social inclusion beyond the black–white paradigm.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: after the Section 1, Section 2 reviews the relevant literature on social inclusion. Section 3 introduces the case study area Guangzhou and the methodology, including the indicator selection and data collection methods. Then, results from the survey are reported. Finally, findings and policy implications are drawn.

2. Review of the Literature

Studies of social inclusion mainly emphasize individual and structural factors at the micro and macro levels in investigating local residents’ attitudes toward immigrants and immigration (ATII), as well as the impacts of the presence of migrants. From a micro perspective, the theory of threatened interests suggests that, based on the principle of self-interest, social individuals and their groups have an exclusive mood and attitude toward migrants because of realistic, hypothetical, or expected loss of or threat to resources and interests caused by migrants [16]. Similarly, the resource dilution hypothesis contends that migrants are bound to share local social and public services, social security benefits, and other public resources, including but not limited to education, healthcare, housing, and employment. The arrival of migrants may also put pressure on local public security, the environment, transportation, and other public services and facilities [17]. Thus, immigration flows might not be advantageous for the natives [18]. Other relevant explanatory theories also include the competitive threat and contact hypothesis [19].

In emphasizing that the socioeconomic status of the local residents may affect their subjective perception, the rational person hypothesis proposes that the negative attitudes from local residents are mainly associated with their socioeconomic status and self-interest protection. As rational persons, they fear that migrants would bring about more fierce competition and threats over limited job opportunities, living spaces, and other social welfare. In this sense, they will likely build a negative impression of migrants [20]. Many foreign studies have validated the significant negative correlations between local residents’ socioeconomic status, such as education level, income, and occupation, versus their impressions of migrants [21]. Some scholars attributed the economic decline in Europe to the presence of unskilled immigrants, given the fertility differences between immigrants and indigenous populations and human capital investment [22]. Sometimes, cultural exclusion can be generated [23].

In addition to explaining the attitudes held by local residents toward migrants, other mainstream studies in the immigration field tend to articulate the mutual relationship between local people and migrants. The contact theory proposed by American psychologist Gordon W. Allport suggests that contact is beneficial for enhancing the impression of members of other groups [24]. In his words, in order to achieve such an effect, four basic conditions must be satisfied: equal status of two parties, mutual cooperation, common goals, and recognition of intergroup interaction from authorities. Some psychological studies based on experimental methods have proved that contact can have a positive effect if the above four conditions are met [25,26]. It is a consensus that having immigrant friends or acquaintances would help increase local people’s impressions of immigration [27]. In addition, Hamberger and Hewstone [28] further distinguished three types of contact: (a) intimate contact, which leads to the development of friendships or relationships; (b) accidental contact, which helps to establish a superficial or sporadic impression of migrants; and (c) extended contact, which suggests that the frequency or the duration of contact impacts the relationships and impressions formed.

In a similar vein, studies also made efforts to facilitate the integration of the migrant population into local society for the sake of building an inclusive city. For example, an analysis of the urban adaptation of rural migrant workers found four factors affecting the social integration of migrants: social exclusion, social capital, social distance, and social identity [29]. Some studies have analyzed the impact of human capital, social capital, community construction, government management, and other factors on social inclusion in urban areas [30,31,32]. For instance, it has been pointed out that to substantially enhance social inclusion, feasible and effective measures must be taken to reform the household registration system [33], increase investment in education [34], and strengthen community construction [35].

In summary, contemporary studies have provided valuable ideas and approaches toward understanding and applying the concept of social inclusion in transforming contemporary cities to be more inclusive [36]. The socialist cities of China may present certain unique patterns of social inclusion and distinctive underlying mechanism, which are worth further investigation. The following analysis turns to Guangzhou city for more in-depth empirical research.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Area and Data Collection

We select Guangzhou as the study area. Guangzhou is the capital and largest city of Guangdong province. It is located in southern coastal China and holds a central location in the Pearl River Delta, proximate to Hong Kong. By the end of 2020, Guangzhou hosted 18.74 million permanent residents, and the registered permanent population was 9.85 million. People without Guangzhou local household registration comprised around 50% [37]. The urbanization rate was 86.19%. Guangzhou is the fifth largest city in terms of population among the prefectural cities in China. In 2020, its GDP was 2502 billion yuan, ranking fourth nationwide (after Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen) [38].

Quota sampling surveys and online questionnaires were adopted to investigate the social inclusion perceived by Guangzhou residents. In 2019, the Guangzhou Municipal Housing and Urban–Rural Development Bureau and Guangzhou Urban Planning, Survey Design, & Research Institute (GZPI) jointly organized the urban health examination activity under the guidance of the Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development; a principal task was the social satisfaction investigation.

Firstly, the sampling quota was determined based on the Industrial Classification for National Economic Activities and the employment statistics of Guangzhou to improve data collection efficiency and assure respondents’ occupation diversity. Specifically, the staff of 22 functional departments under the Guangzhou municipal government and 11 urban districts were requested to participate in the questionnaire survey. In addition to civil servants from the district and municipal government departments, professional and technical personnel and industrial practitioners also joined the survey. During this quota sampling survey, 0.4% of Guangzhou’s permanent residents aged over 18 were sampled, and a total of 5875 individuals participated.

Simultaneously, questionnaires were publicized on the government website and in local mainstream media. Citizens were invited to participate in the online questionnaires by scanning a QR code. All data were obtained with informed consent.

The questionnaire contains 36 questions in total. Questions 1 to 6 and 28–36 are in single-choice format. These questions collect the personal information of respondents, such as age, gender, education level, salary, work and residence locations, household registration status, length of residence in Guangzhou, etc.

The rest of the questionnaire requested respondents to evaluate their social inclusion level. For example, Question 17 is “How do you feel about migrants from other provinces that live in Guangzhou?” Questions for each indicator were in the form of either a close-ended, single-choice question with a five-point Likert scale or a single-choice question. The original scoring of each option was as follows: 5 points for very satisfied, 4 points for relatively satisfied, 3 points for generally satisfied, 2 points for not too satisfied, and 1 point for very unsatisfied. These scores were then converted into 100-scale scores: 1 point for 20, 2 points for 40, 3 points for 60, 4 points for 80, and 5 points for 100.

By the end of July 2019, 10,085 questionnaires were collected. To ensure data accuracy and avoid repetitive “brush ticket” behaviors, the response system set restrictions that each IP address, PC, or cell phone could only answer once. Telephone interviews were also conducted to double-check the authenticity of respondents. In addition, questionnaires that took too long or too short to respond to were also eliminated. After going through all these data-cleaning techniques, 9607 questionnaires were valid.

Demographic Characteristics

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of respondents.

	Sample Size	Ratio
Gender
Male	4548	47.30%
Female	5059	52.70%
Length of Residence in Guangzhou
Less than 1 year	572	6%
1–5 years	1545	16.10%
5–10 years	1089	11.30%
More than 10 years	6401	66.60%
Age
Under 20	184	1.90%
20–29	2474	25.80%
30–39	3464	36.10%
40–49	2779	28.90%
50–59	688	7.20%
60–69	14	0.10%
Over 70	4	0.04%
Educational Background
Junior high school degree or below	874	9.10%
Senior high school/technical secondary school	1653	17.20%
Associate degree	2536	26.40%
Bachelor’s degree	4122	42.90%
Graduate degree or above	432	4.50%
Work Location by Administrative District
Baiyun	2672	27.81%
Nansha	1346	14.01%
Yuexiu	1026	10.68%
Tianhe	776	8.08%
Haizhu	733	7.63%
Huadu	715	7.44%
Panyu	644	6.70%
Zengcheng	552	5.75%
Conghua	536	5.58%
Huangpu	444	4.62%
Liwan	163	1.70%
Job Levels
General staff	6870	72%
Middle managers	2151	22%
Senior management	586	6%
Annual Household Income (unit: ten thousand yuan)
0~5	1777	18.50%
5~7	1576	16.40%
7~10	1614	16.80%
10~20	2392	24.90%
20~30	1249	13%
30~50	788	8.20%
50~100	173	1.80%
More than 100	48	0.50%
Residence by Administrative Division
Baiyun	2643	27.51%
Nansha	1205	12.55%
Panyu	842	8.76%
Haizhu	799	8.31%
Huadu	766	7.97%
Tianhe	755	7.86%
Yuexiu	685	7.13%
Zengcheng	570	5.93%
Conghua	545	5.67%
Huangpu	413	4.30%
Liwan	384	3.99%

provides the demographic information of the respondents. Urban residents in Guangzhou can be categorized as residents with local household registration status or hukou, residents with non-local household registration (Chinese domestic migrants), and foreign residents. Native residents holding Guangzhou hukou consisted of about 46% of the surveyed people. Non-local residents with Guangzhou hukou accounted for around 19%. About 35% were Chinese migrants without Guangzhou hukou, and the remaining 0.12% were foreign immigrants. Residents with local household registration have mostly been living in Guangzhou since they were children. In contrast, residents with non-local household registration mostly moved to Guangzhou for living and job opportunities only in recent years. The number of people who lived in Guangzhou for more than ten years accounted for 66.6% of the total respondents, and those who lived there for five to ten years and one to five years accounted for 11.3% and 16.1%, respectively. Thus, most respondents were quite familiar with the living environment of Guangzhou.

Among the total 9607 respondents, 5059 were women (52.7%), and 4548 were men (47.3%); thus, the sex ratio was quite balanced. In terms of their residential locations, Baiyun district accommodated most of the respondents (2643 people). Respondents from Liwan district (384 people) and Huangpu district (413 people) were relatively few, while the numbers of respondents from other districts were all above 500.

Regarding age distribution, most respondents fell into the group between 30–39 years old, accounting for 36.1% of the respondents; 28.9% of the respondents were aged between 40–49; and 25.8% were aged between 20–29. Thus, respondents were mainly young and middle-aged people.

Regarding their educational background, the number of respondents with a bachelor’s degree or above accounted for 47.4%. People with college degrees accounted for 26.4%, and 17.2% graduated from a high school or secondary technical school. In this sense, all respondents have finished primary education, and most were relatively well-educated. The variety of their education levels also ensures the authenticity and representativeness of the collected information in reflecting the perceptions of social inclusion by most of the people in Guangzhou.

In terms of their work location, the highest number of respondents worked in the Baiyun district (2672 people), comprising 27.8%. All the other districts have over 500 respondents working there, except for the Liwan district (163 people) and Huangpu district (444 people). If we further look into their jobs by industrial sector, 79% of the respondents worked in the tertiary industry, and the primary and secondary sectors together employed 21% of the respondents, which is consistent with the industrial structure of Guangzhou. Concerning the job levels, entry-level employees, middle-level employees, and senior-level managers accounted for 72% of the respondents (6870 people), 22% (2151 people), and 6% (586 people), respectively.

Regarding the annual household income, the proportion of respondents with a total annual income between CNY 100,000 and 200,000 was the largest, at 24.9%. Most respondents belonged to the low- or middle-income level. In this way, the collected data can represent the social inclusion perceptions of Guangzhou’s general public, who enjoy a moderate standard of living.

3.2. Social Inclusion Indicator System

The opinion concerning conducting city health examination pilots formulated by the Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development stipulated that the social inclusion degree of a city involves how the city takes care of the old, the disabled, the rural-to-urban migrant laborers, and international migrants.

Theoretically, the essence of social inclusion is citizenship and its level of realization [39]. Vulnerable groups consist of disabled people, the elderly, and people who are treated differently compared to ordinary residents in a broad sense, where urban residents’ opinions and social perspectives can influence their living conditions [40]. The level of social inclusion may also be affected by whether residents pay attention to the protection and care of vulnerable groups in their daily routine, as well as whether they provide social assistance [41].

The inclusion of foreign immigrants refers to the degree that the residents would subjectively and objectively share their rights and interests with foreigners based on domestic laws and policies [42]. The inclusion of domestic migrants from other provinces can be understood as the levels of protection and the fulfillment of citizens’ rights that residents and society support, including the degree of the subjective and objective impediments to citizens’ rights in housing, employment, social security, and others [43].

In addition, multiculturalism is one of the features embodied in contemporary extra-large cities. The acceptance and inclusion of diverse cultures include the levels of acceptance and inclusion of residents of different social classes and ages that differ from one’s own culture, as reflected by the attitudes toward other cultural groups and cultural activities in their daily lives [44]. Intercultural integration has been progressively realized as an approach to improve social cohesion [45].

Thus, following the policy instruction from above, social inclusion in this paper is measured using four first-level evaluation indicators, namely the inclusion of foreign immigrants, the inclusion of migrants from other provinces of China, the acceptance and inclusion of different cultures, and the care and inclusion of vulnerable groups. The weighted sum of these four indicators is the overall score of social inclusion.

The weights were determined by fitting the scores marked by Guangzhou residents in the multivariate regression analysis. The formula for calculating the social inclusion index can be obtained as follows:

$$y=0.159+0.125x_1+0.154x_2+0.406x_3+0.254x_4,$$

(1)

In Equation (1), $x_1,x_2,x_3, \mathrm{and} x_4$ denote the inclusion of foreign immigrants, the inclusion of migrants from other provinces of China, the acceptance and inclusion of different cultures, and the care and inclusion of vulnerable groups, respectively. The results of multivariate regression analysis indicated that the social inclusion concerning foreign migrants and care for disadvantaged people significantly influenced the social inclusion index. This article mainly focuses on the inclusion of foreign immigrants and the inclusion of Chinese domestic migrants from other provinces.

4. Results

4.1. Overall Characteristics of Guangzhou’s Social Inclusion

As shown in

Table 2. Guangzhou social inclusion scores, rated by respondents.

Index	Score
Social inclusion of migrants from other countries	72.75
Social inclusion of migrants from other provinces	80.2
Social inclusion and acceptance of different cultures	73.0
Social inclusion and consideration of vulnerable groups	69.5
Overall evaluation of social inclusion	68.4

, the overall social inclusion score was 68.4. The score of the social inclusion concerning Chinese domestic migrants from other provinces was the highest (80.2) among all the four indicators measuring the social inclusion degree. The high inclusion of domestic migrants indicates the appreciation of their contribution to Guangzhou’s economic growth over the past few decades. However, the score of social inclusion concerning vulnerable groups of people was the lowest, at only 69.5.

4.2. Group Differences of Social Inclusion

Guangzhou residents, residents from other parts of China, and foreigners came from different places with different life experiences, resulting in varying attachment levels to Guangzhou. This section analyzes the social inclusion degrees held by these three groups of people, respectively. Then, we further differentiated their occupied industries.

Firstly, residents with Guangzhou household registration status held different attitudes toward domestic and international migrants in Guangzhou (

Table 3. Social inclusion ratings by Guangzhou residents with hukou toward migrants.

Administrative Districts	Attitudes toward People from Other Provinces		Attitudes toward Foreigners
	Natives with Guangzhou Hukou	Migrants with Guangzhou Hukou	Natives with Guangzhou Hukou	Migrants with Guangzhou Hukou
Baiyun	75.8	82.2	70.4	70.6
Conghua	78.0	86.6	73.6	75.5
Panyu	79.0	83.0	75.0	75.8
Haizhu	74.3	82.3	70.9	69.9
Huadu	78.5	88.0	73.3	76.3
Huangpu	75.3	85.8	69.9	74.6
Liwan	73.1	83.2	70.6	73.6
Nansha	75.3	84.4	73.4	76.7
Tianhe	77.6	83.8	73.5	73.1
Yuexiu	74.9	84.0	70.5	72.5
Zengcheng	82.7	86.4	78.7	77.3
Sum	76.6	83.8	72.4	73.1

). Generally, migrants who settled in Guangzhou and obtained Guangzhou hukou showed better attitudes toward migrants than Guangzhou residents. Among all the districts, residents in the Zengcheng district were more pleasant to migrants, while people in the Haizhu district had a lower social inclusion degree. Moreover, Guangzhou citizens were more enthusiastic about Chinese migrants from other provinces than foreigners.

Figure 1 shows that residents from different occupations or industries marked varying social inclusion scores. People from the public administration sector, including those working in governments and sub-district offices, had the highest social inclusion score (77.2), followed by the public services sectors (77.0), such as water supply and sanitation. The overall scores of social inclusion for most industries were below 70, and the gas supply industry had the lowest score (58.1).

Table 4. Ratings for the perception of social inclusion in Guangzhou among residents with local household registration by industry.

	Social Inclusion Concerning Migrants	Social Inclusion and Acceptance of Different Cultures	Social Inclusion and Consideration of Vulnerable Groups
Real estate industry	80.4	74.3	70.5
Public services (e.g., water supply and sanitation)	75.6	81.2	76.7
Residential services (e.g., household management, property management)	74.9	76.6	74.6
Construction industry	77.5	74.3	71.1
Transportation, warehousing, and post industry	75.5	68.5	65.7
Education	74.6	70.7	67.0
Farming, forestry, husbandry, and fishing	76.0	73.8	72.1
Wholesale and retail	79.1	76.0	72.8
Gas supply industry	68.6	62.2	62.2
News, cultural medium, and entertainment industry	74.0	73.6	70.0
Information transmission, software, and information technology services	73.7	73.2	63.6
Medical and healthcare service	77.9	75.1	71.0
Public management (i.e., governments, subdistrict offices)	78.7	81.0	77.5
Manufacturing industry	78.4	73.7	71.2
Accommodation and catering services	80.9	72.9	69.7
NGOs and social organizations	75.4	75.0	68.7
Others	76.4	73.0	69.9
TOTAL	76.5	73.0	69.5

shows the social inclusion of Guangzhou from the perceptions of residents with local household registration, measured by social inclusion concerning migrants, acceptance of different cultures, and consideration of vulnerable groups. Ratings for the care and inclusion of vulnerable groups and the acceptance and inclusion of diverse cultures were the lowest for each industry. Generally, practitioners in high-tech, cultural, and low-end industries experience relatively low social inclusion degrees.

In addition to interrogating the local residents’ feelings about migrants, the perceptions of social inclusion experienced by Chinese domestic residents with non-local household registration were also collected. More specifically, their social inclusion perceptions were analyzed by asking about their feelings about the attitudes of Guangzhou natives toward migrants, both domestic and overseas, and their favorability of living in Guangzhou (

Table 5. Perceptions of Chinese residents without local household registration concerning social inclusion in Guangzhou by industry.

	The Attitude of Guangzhou Residents toward:
	People from Other Provinces	People from Other Countries	Favorability of Living in Guangzhou
Real estate industry	73.4	76.6	77.2
Public services (e.g., water supply and sanitation)	64.0	72.0	76.0
Residential services (e.g., household management, property management)	72.9	77.1	77.1
Construction industry	74.0	78.3	72.8
Transportation, warehousing, and post industry	68.2	74.2	71.0
Education	67.1	73.3	72.3
Farming, forestry, husbandry, and fishing	76.8	83.9	76.8
Wholesale and retail	76.7	79.2	78.5
Gas supply industry	64.1	72.4	72.4
News, cultural medium, and entertainment industry	74.8	77.7	77.0
Information transmission, software, and information technology services	75.7	76.2	73.5
Medical and healthcare service	69.8	76.3	72.8
Public management (i.e., governments, subdistrict offices)	77.0	81.1	77.0
Manufacturing industry	76.5	80.8	78.0
Accommodation and catering services	69.3	73.2	72.9
NGOs and social organizations	76.3	82.1	77.9
Others	71.5	74.9	74.3
TOTAL	70.6	75.7	73.3

). People working in the public service sector, such as water supply, sanitation (64.0), and the gas supply industry (64.1), assumed that Guangzhou residents held the most negative perception of them. Migrant employees in the transportation, storage, and postal sectors reported the lowest satisfaction with living in Guangzhou (71.0). We could also interpret that the perceived social inclusion in Guangzhou by employees in low-end industries (such as public services and gas supply) was lower than those working in high-end industries.

A large number of migrants in Guangzhou are rural migrant workers from the surrounding less-developed provinces of China seeking jobs. In other words, the attitudes of Guangzhou citizens toward these people largely depend on and manifest their overall attitudes toward rural migrant workers. Those rural migrant workers wander between urban and rural areas and mostly live in the city fringes, subject to pressures from various sources. Firstly, most rural migrant workers work in the low-end labor market, mainly interacting with fellow villagers and colleagues. Accordingly, it is difficult for them to integrate into the local living environment like other urban residents. Secondly, the semi-urbanized living conditions impede rural migrant workers from sensing widespread acceptance and recognition embodied in urban social inclusion. Such an environment may even dissociate rural migrant workers from urban society, resulting in the loss of a sense of place and belonging [46], further deepening the communication gap between rural migrant workers and other social members of the city. As a result, local social members cannot communicate with rural migrant workers effectively. A vicious cycle would occur if the two groups could not mutually understand each other. This explains why the perceived social inclusion by employees in low-end industries (such as public services and gas supply) was lower than those working in high-end industries.

Finally, we also collect data about foreigners’ perceptions concerning social inclusion in Guangzhou, which could be different from that of Chinese domestic migrants.

Table 6. Perception of the social inclusion in Guangzhou by foreign residents by industry.

	The Attitude of Guangzhou Residents toward:
	People from Other Provinces	People from Other Countries	Favorability of Living in Guangzhou
Real estate industry	40.0	40.0	100.0
Construction Industry	60.0	60.0	50.0
Transportation, warehousing, and post industry	55.0	75.0	75.0
Gas supply industry	100.0	100.0	80.0
News, cultural medium, and entertainment industry	80.0	80.0	100.0
Medical and healthcare service	60.0	80.0	60.0
Manufacturing industry	80.0	100.0	60.0
Accommodation and catering services	80.0	80.0	80.0
TOTAL	65.0	75.0	73.3

shows that foreign workers in the real estate industry perceived the lowest level of social inclusion, and those working in the construction industry reported the lowest favorability of living in Guangzhou. Foreign employees in the gas supply industry, news, cultural media, and other cultural and entertainment industries perceived the highest social inclusion in Guangzhou and were willing to live there.

4.3. Spatial Differentiation of Urban Residents’ Social Inclusion

This section analyzes the spatial differentiation concerning the social inclusion perceptions of urban residents across administrative regions of Guangzhou. The 11 administrative districts in Guangzhou can be grouped into three categories: inner-city areas, inner suburbs, and outer suburbs. Inner-city areas include Tianhe, Yuexiu, Liwan, and Haizhu; inner suburbs include Baiyun, Huangpu, and Panyu; and outer suburbs include Huadu, Conghua, Nansha, and Zengcheng.

Firstly, Figure 2 shows the overall social inclusion score across various administrative districts. A decreasing trend of social inclusion degrees could be seen from the inner city to the inner and outer suburbs, consistent with the decreasing housing rent. Nearly half of the districts in Guangzhou had scores below 70. Specifically, the four districts of the inner-city areas scored above the average, and the Yuexiu, Haizhu, and Liwan districts had the highest scores among all the 11 districts. The scores of three districts in the inner suburbs were approximate to the average, while the score of the Baiyun district was substantially below the average. The average score of four districts in the outer suburbs was slightly below the average score, and the score of the Nansha district (63.2) was the lowest among all districts.

The relatively higher housing prices of the central urban area demonstrate that residents living there have a more impressive income. These well-educated, skilled, and high-income groups tend to have a positive attitude toward migrants [47,48]. In this sense, people living in inner-city areas of Guangzhou are more likely to have a better socioeconomic status than those in inner and outer suburbs.

The resource dilution hypothesis also helps to justify the relatively higher levels of cultural inclusion in the inner-city regions of Guangzhou. According to the resource dilution hypothesis, society members with a lower socioeconomic status in terms of income, education level, occupational status, or who are informally employed or even unemployed are more likely to reject migrants because the inflow of migrants would not only bring competition to the labor market but would also impact local residents’ daily lives [49]. In addition, residents of the Baiyun, Nansha, and Conghua districts marked scores below 70 on the care and inclusion of vulnerable groups and the acceptance and inclusion of diverse cultures. It is suggested that the Guangzhou public should be more open-minded and inclusive toward migrants.

Secondly, as shown in Figure 3, the perceived social inclusion by foreign migrants also varied spatially. Foreigners living in Tianhe and Conghua districts rated high marks (100) concerning the attitudes of Guangzhou local residents toward them. Foreigners living in the Yuexiu district reported the highest favorability (90) toward residing in Guangzhou. This is likely due to the living environment in the Yuexiu district being better than that of other districts. Yuexiu, as the urban center historically, has committed to building a clean and well-organized urban environment of high quality in recent years. This further indicates that people with better socioeconomic status or educational backgrounds account for a more significant proportion concerning the urban core than in other areas, which is conducive to enhancing the social inclusion of foreigners in that area.

5. Discussion

As proposed by the rational person hypothesis, people of lower classes tend to think from a practical point of view. However, as seen from our case, residents of Guangzhou in high-end manufacturing industries such as news, culture, media, and other entertainment industries, as well as the information industry, held the lowest attitudes toward foreigners. By contrast, people in the gas and manufacturing industries reported higher scores of attitudes concerning the inflow of migrants. Thus, Guangzhou produces an interesting finding opposite to the rational hypothesis theory.

To fathom the underlying reasons, we resort to alternative theoretical perspectives. Foreign immigrants in Guangzhou are primarily concentrated in the Xiaobei and Sanyuanli areas of Guangzhou, as well as some other adjacent low-income neighborhoods in northwestern Guangzhou [50]. Professor Li and other scholars use the concept of “transnational social spaces” to analyze the establishment of the ethnic economic zone near Xiaobei Road in Guangzhou [51]. They accentuated that most foreign residents were Africans who came to Guangzhou for commodity trading. These African immigrants purchase goods in Guangzhou and sell them in their home countries. Thus, their economic activities are mainly confined within their own country. More explicitly, these African immigrants have not entered the Chinese labor market. Furthermore, unlike traditional studies focusing on unskilled or marginalized immigrants in western countries, who tend to be engaged primarily in low-end manufacturing and services industries, Africans in Guangzhou are business-oriented and mainly participate in trade and commerce. Therefore, Africans in Guangzhou rarely take job opportunities away from low-income local people [52]. In this sense, low-income respondents in Guangzhou are more likely to display a higher social inclusion of foreigners since these foreign migrants have not squeezed their job opportunities, and conflicts between them are modest.

In our case, migrants mostly gather in the urban villages of Guangzhou City. Five clusters are identified: Sanyuanli, Huanshidong, Tianhebei, Ersha Island, and Dashi [26]. Those low-income residents have more opportunities to contact migrants than residents with higher incomes. Moreover, these two groups of people have a lower socioeconomic status, which eliminates conflicts of interest or threats concerning job opportunities and social welfare. Therefore, they are more likely to establish interpersonal relationships. Their impressions of each other would be deepened through positive interactions, which can also explain the higher social inclusion degree rated by residents in low-end industries.

6. Conclusions

This research has investigated the social inclusion of Guangzhou urban residents, the perceptions held by migrants, the underlying factors, and its spatial differentiation across districts. The study constructed a metric consisting of four first-level indicators to understand the social inclusion degree in Guangzhou, considering people from different industries and regions. This study lays the groundwork for developing a model concerning the social inclusion of different groups of people and facilitates the understanding of the relationships between residents’ characteristics and the social inclusion level of a city. Furthermore, it provides hints on increasing the social inclusion of urban residents and the development of an inclusive city.

The key findings of this study are as follows: (1) Local residents’ attitude toward foreign immigrants in Guangzhou is generally lower than that toward migrants from other parts of China. Migrants who obtained Guangzhou hukou rated a higher social inclusion score than natives; (2) Residents without Guangzhou household registration expected that Guangzhou residents have better social inclusion scores for foreign immigrants; (3) People working in high-tech industries have a lower level of inclusion considering foreign migrants compared to those working in low-end sectors, which contradicts the rational person hypothesis. This can be explained by the fact that African migrants in Guangzhou do not have equal access to job opportunities, social welfare, and other scarce resources. Thus, those migrants do not have conflicts of interest with people working in low-end industries. In this way, the obtained results align with the rational person hypothesis. Furthermore, according to the contact theory, people in lower classes have more opportunities to meet migrants who live in urban villages than those in higher classes. In this sense, people in the lower classes are more likely to interact with migrants, and their impressions of each other would be improved. Our paper thus offers a complementary explanation tailed to the city-specific context of Guangzhou; (4) The social inclusion of residents in the inner-city areas, i.e., Tianhe, Yuexiu, Haizhu, and Liwan districts of Guangzhou, was significantly higher than that of residents in seven other districts, suggesting that residents’ cultural and living environments can have a significant influence on the level of social inclusion. These results also explain why the vast majority of high-end foreign talent tends to gather in the inner districts of Guangzhou.

Our paper also proposes several measures that could be taken to improve a city’s social inclusion. Firstly, it is encouraging to effectively promote the psychological sense of identity of urban residents and rural migrant workers. Suppose rural migrant workers can sense the friendly attitudes and social support from urban residents, their psychological integration into the city will be promoted, and their relative deprivation caused by urban–rural migration will be eased [53]. In addition, the government can also establish trade unions to secure the basic living needs of rural migrant workers. Regular community or trade union activities can be organized to strengthen the connection between rural migrant workers and the local society and promote interactions among different groups of people.

Moreover, apart from efforts made by governmental agencies, coordination and support from societal organizations are also helpful for enhancing residents’ inclusion of foreign migrants. For example, widespread practices are promoting community engagement and participation and redesigning the spaces to make them more comfortable for the multicultural population [34]. Civil society can facilitate the integration of foreigners into Chinese society and deepen their understanding of Chinese traditional culture and community culture. It is recommended that community activities should be frequently organized to reduce the distance between foreigners and local residents. Inviting foreigners to participate in activities related to Chinese culture is also highly advocated. Last but not least, local residents should raise their awareness of social inclusion, and relevant departments should help local residents to understand migration better and to avoid negative feelings toward foreigners. All these efforts can contribute to enhancing the social inclusion of Guangzhou City, which can further improve residents’ happiness.

Despite the conclusions obtained, this research admittedly confronts certain limitations. First, although some data cleaning techniques were adopted, such as deleting those responses beyond the normal range to address the potential bias of our questionnaire data, we are still concerned about data accuracy. Further, due to the deficiency of the publicity platform, foreigners’ perceptions and evaluations of Guangzhou’s inclusiveness were absent. Further research should spend more effort on studying the social inclusion of megacities from the perspective of outsiders to expect more convincing research results. We also hope to use more recent data from the city health examination pilots in the following studies to see how the social inclusion degree of Guangzhou evolved.