During the “Two Sessions” legislative meetings earlier this month, one of the topics that attracted the most public attention was raising farmers’ pensions to reduce rural poverty and address the urban-rural pension gap. Although the recommended rise this year was a paltry 20 yuan (approximately $3 U.S.) per month, there appears to be growing political momentum for larger increases in the future. This has been evidenced by a flood of news articles, op-eds, televised interviews, blog posts, and robust online debate—some of it censored—on various proposals to increase rural pensions.

At The New York Times, Vivian Wang reported on how this rare debate about inequality was touched off by the smaller than expected pension increase:

The promised increase is so meager that it has prompted widespread calls for more — even from representatives to China’s rubber-stamp legislature who usually spend their annual meeting praising Beijing’s plans.

[…] For many Chinese farmers, the payments are far from enough to live on. The average older rural resident spends about $80 a month on routine expenses, according to a government report published in 2024. About 180 million people receive the rural pension, a cohort that is set to grow as China’s population ages rapidly. (The pension also covers urban residents without salaried work, but the vast majority of recipients are farmers.)

The paltriness of the pension is one of the clearest examples of the vast inequalities in China’s economy, and the deep-rooted challenges that are often overshadowed by its much-touted progress in high-tech fields. While the country leads the world in sectors like robotics or electric vehicles, many of the workers who powered China’s economic rise, such as farmers and workers in low-end manufacturing, are suffering from stagnating wages and cutthroat competition.

Despite its socialist billing, China has a threadbare social safety net; the country’s top leader, Xi Jinping, has warned against the dangers of “welfarism.”

Rural residents have also long had far fewer benefits than their urban counterparts. While the average actual payout for rural pensioners is about 246 yuan, or $36, a month, retirees in cities receive on average almost 16 times more, or about $560 a month, according to the government’s 2025 Labor Statistical Yearbook. Retired officials get even more, on average $940 a month. [Source]

CDT Chinese editors have archived about a dozen posts, several of which were deleted from WeChat, exploring various aspects of the complex and long-running rural pension debate: how raising these pensions could help to reduce poverty and stimulate consumption; proposals for funding pension increases; society’s obligations to farmers for decades of maintaining the food supply; the growing political momentum in favor of increasing pensions; debunking arguments against increasing pensions; and more.

Our editors have also noted some censorship of the topic, most notably the deletion of a number of articles by former investigative journalist Peng Yuanwen and the closure of Peng’s WeChat account 盘点六条 (Pándiǎn liùtiáo), which was focused on the pension issue. Known for his reporting at The Beijing News, Vista and ifeng.com, Peng has been a tireless advocate for raising rural pensions. He continues to publish articles about this and other topics on his other WeChat account, 往事随想录 (Wǎngshì suíxiǎnglù, “Scribblings on Events Past”).

In one of these archived articles, Peng discusses the growing political and social momentum behind increasing rural pensions. This piece includes quotes from many NPC delegates who have advocated for a larger rise. Despite this year’s disappointingly low increase, Peng sounds a note of optimism and suggests that future years may prove kinder to China’s elderly farmers:

This year the pension increase was once again only 20 yuan, which is disappointing. But it would be unfair to say we should feel discouraged or hopeless about the future: in fact, the situation is quite the opposite.

Let’s put it this way: what was the hottest topic at this year’s Two Sessions? Without a doubt, it was raising farmers’ pensions, a topic so dominant that it seemed to crowd out everything else, almost as if it were the only pressing issue on this year’s agenda. In the two decades I have been following the topic of rural pensions, this is unprecedented.

Many delegates spoke out on the topic. By a conservative estimate, no fewer than nine NPC delegates called for raising farmers’ pensions. And the public response was overwhelming: social media sites were filled with posts garnering tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of likes. The media naturally jumped on the bandwagon, contributing both original reporting and reposted content, until the topic blanketed the entire internet.

The online discourse shows that a 20-yuan increase is no longer considered acceptable by anyone. The figures being discussed are now 300, 500, or 1,000 yuan, within a timetable of three to five years. This wasn’t always the case. Just last year, [CCTV news anchor] Bai Yansong was still advocating a “rapid series of small steps" to increase pensions. That phrase has now become the biggest punchline of his career, something he surely never anticipated.

On the very day the Government Work Report announced the 20 yuan increase, [business and financial news outlet] Yicai published a commentary titled "A Great Effort Could Be Made to Raise Farmers’ Pensions." The following day, the Beijing News featured the headline "Boosting Domestic Demand Requires Raising Farmers’ Pensions." I can’t recall another time in recent years that media outlets so promptly or openly expressed dissatisfaction about a government work report.

All of this is very much a product of our times. In just one short year, a great deal has changed. [Chinese]

Another WeChat article, “Who Should be Responsible for Taking Care of Elderly Farmers?” focuses on how to allocate societal responsibility toward China’s farmers. The author makes a number of arguments in favor of increasing rural pensions, debunks some arguments opposing it, and concludes that raising rural pensions is not a problem of fiscal resources, but of political will:

Some argue that China’s rural population is too large to be supported by public funds. This is a claim that needs careful examination.

There are approximately 55 million rural residents over the age of 70. If their pensions were increased to 1,000 yuan per month, or 12,000 yuan per year ($145/mo and $1743/yr, respectively), the total annual cost would be approximately 660 billion yuan ($95 billion). This figure is equivalent to 3% of national fiscal revenue in 2024, but it is less than 40% of the military budget.

In other words, it is absolutely financially feasible to support these 55 million elderly people, at a cost of roughly 3% of annual fiscal revenue.

It makes no sense to argue that a country that can build a space station, expand high-speed rail to county capitals, and host the Olympics cannot afford to support tens of millions of elderly rural residents.

The real obstacle is not financial resources, but political priorities. The [comparatively generous] urban and public-employee pension system is backed by a vast interest group; any increase in resources flowing toward rural areas would mean adjusting the existing distribution pattern. The elderly rural population lacks a political voice, collective bargaining power, and channels through which to express their opinions about policy-making. Their resulting silence is precisely why they have been so neglected. [Chinese]