{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020054694621695533, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.038461538461538, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Hybridization in China's elder care service provision

Although the party‐state has embarked on a mission to increase elder care services, evaluating this development according to different sectors demonstrates certain challenges. Official statistics do not include sector‐specific information, and while provider websites suggest that elder care services are largely in public hands, Chinese experts argue that they are mostly “civilian‐run.” How can we explain these discrepancies in data on Chinese elder care? Drawing on the concept of hybridization and triangulating quantitative and qualitative data, I argue that the party‐state's efforts to “socialize” elder care provision has resulted in hybridization within the industry which blurs the line between care providers and obfuscates the stark role of the state in elder care service provision. During the implementation of state‐initiated hybridization, providers misclassify their ownership type to benefit from financial incentives or circumvent political control, resulting in even greater hybridization and fragmentation on the ground.