外文翻譯農(nóng)村向城市的遷移和工資確定

1、<p>　　Rural–urban migration and wage determination:</p><p>　　The case of Tianjin, China</p><p>　　1. Introduction</p><p>　　Since the mid-1980s, mass labor migration from the cou

2、ntryside to urban areas has been one of the most dramatic and noticeable changes in China. Based on survey data from Tianjin, this paper examines the characteristics of migrants and compares the employment and social con

3、ditions of migrants with those of permanent urban residents. It also investigates the determinants that affect wages of both migrant and nonimmigrant workers in order to evaluate how economic and social-demographic facto

4、rs con</p><p>　　The economic reform in China that started in 1978 has created a “floating population” as over 100 million people have left their villages and streamed into cities where manufacturing and bus

5、inesses boom. The migration of labor from agricultural to non-agricultural industries has increased the average income of rural people as migrant workers send a significant portion of their income back home. At the same

6、time, rural migrant laborers have made great contributions to economic growth by compleme</p><p>　　Rural migrants generally make less money, receive far fewer benefits, and have no health insurance. Most liv

7、e in precarious dormitories provided by their employers if they have any housing. Rural surplus laborers who moved to urban areas are called mingong to mark their difference from the city-dwelling workers. Rural migrants

8、 are treated as strangers and outsiders in cities. They are denied formal urban membership and substantive rights and their children are largely prohibited from attending c</p><p>　　The urban–rural dispariti

9、es in China's labor market may be categorized into two types. The first difference relates to productivity-related characteristics, such as education and job training, and the second relates to non-productivity-relat

10、ed characteristics, such as race, gender, or in our case, hukou status, which also could affect labor status. Discrimination is present if equally productive individuals within the same enterprise are treated differently

11、 simply because of their hukou status.</p><p>　　In order to promote labor mobility and efficiency and to improve equality and social stability, it is important to first understand the motivations for migrati

12、on and then examine the conditions that migrants encounter. Why do farmers migrate to cities? What are characteristics of migrants? What factors determine wages? Are migrant workers discriminated in China's urban lab

13、or market? To answer these questions, a survey of employees was conducted from October to December 2003 in Tianjin, one of th</p><p>　　2. Rural–urban migration and wage determinants: a literature review</

14、p><p>　　Millions of people in the rural populations of the developing world confront the decision of migrating to urban areas and every year; many find it worthwhile to leave their villages for cities. The 2000

15、 population census data show that 144.39 million rural residents in China, or 11.6% of the total population, moved into cities and towns, in 2000.</p><p>　　The massive rural–urban migration since 1980 can be

16、 broadly attributed to the huge surplus of rural labor, widening income and consumption disparities between rural and urban residents, and heavy taxation on the agricultural sector. The rapid expansion of China's ru

17、ral labor force, improvement in production efficiency, and the continuing reduction of cultivated land have caused a larger portion of rural laborers to be underemployed or unemployed. In the early 1980s, the surplus of

18、rural laborer</p><p>　　The widening income and consumption disparity between rural and urban residents is clearly a factor contributing to increasing migration. In 1978, annual per capita disposable income w

19、as 2.6 times higher for urban residents than for rural peasants and, by 2001, that ratio increased to 2.9. Over the same time period, the ratio of urban to rural consumption per capita increased from 2.9 to 3.5, demonstr

20、ating widening income and consumption disparities (NBSC, various years, 1994–2003). In addition,</p><p>　　The heavy tax burden on farmers also influences rural migration. Although the central government emph

21、asized the importance of alleviating this burden, according to, local governments still tax a significant portion of farmers' income. Even worse, the agricultural taxation is regressive. For example, in 1996, the tax

22、 rate was 16.7% for rural families with an annual income between 400 and 500 yuan, but only 2.8% for those with incomes of 2500 to 5000. The high tax on farmers' income discourages in</p><p>　　Table 1 li

23、sts major reasons why the rural laborers surveyed wanted to </p><p>　　Table 1 Reasons for rural–urban migration</p><p>　　Source: Survey conducted by the authors in Tianjin, 2003.</p><

24、;p>　　Responses are not mutually exclusive. Total number of respondents is 455.</p><p>　　migrate to the city of Tianjin. As expected, rural people migrate to seek higher income, better opportunities, a bet

25、ter quality of life, and a better education for themselves and their children. Interestingly, more than 20% of migrants cited loss of land in the countryside as a factor.</p><p>　　The impact of education on

26、rural–urban migration has been examined in the literature with some studies concluding that education is critical in driving rural laborers away from their land, while others suggest that education is not important in de

27、termining migration choice.</p><p>　　Previous studies have argued that non-market factors are more important than market forces in driving the rural population to non-agricultural migrating jobs. Wu, Wang, a

28、nd Xu (1990) and Wu (1994) found that many Chinese rural workers had been securing non-agricultural jobs through their friends or relatives, showed that networks of information and assistance are important for rural work

29、ers to get jobs in cities.</p><p>　　The return of education on earnings is extremely low in China. The OLS estimates of the increase in earnings from an additional year of schooling range from 1.4% to 5.4%.

30、Another study uses generalized method of moments estimation for young workers in China, and concludes that the estimated returns to schooling are about 15% overall and 16.9% for women. Zhao (1997) uses rural school educa

31、tion to show that OLS estimation underestimates the returns to education in China by ignoring the segregation</p><p>　　While wage and gender discrimination are common in many countries, they are particularly

32、 strong in China because of its unique ownership structure and hukou system. Meng (1998) found that overall wage discrimination was more prevalent in the state-owned sector. There is some disagreement about the relative

33、level of gender discrimination in the state owned sector ( Maurer-Fazio & Hughes, 2000; Rozelle, Dong, Zhang, & Mason, 2000), but Dong and Bowles (2002) found that wage discrimination against </p><p>

34、;　　3. Discussion and conclusion</p><p>　　Rural–urban migration has become a socioeconomic phenomenon in China since the late 1980s. This study examines factors of rural–urban migration, migrant characteristi

35、cs, and the determinants of wages. Since the late 1980s, the labor surplus, heavy tax burden, and loss of lands in rural areas, combined with higher income, more opportunities, and better education in cities, have driven

36、 farmers to leave their homelands for cities. Past institutions, especially the hukou system, however, make rural–</p><p>　　A wage regression model is developed to study the determinants of the wage gap betw

37、een rural and urban workers. Wages for both groups are sensitive to standard worker characteristics in the expected direction. The results also show that urban workers make more than migrant workers, holding all other th

38、ings constant, which suggests wage discrimination. In this sample, hukou does have a significant impact on the wage gap between migrant and non-migrant workers. After accounting for human capital c</p><p>　　

39、The empirical results give the following policy implications. First, the hukou system not only hinders rural–urban migration but also contributes to a wage gap between migrant and urban workers. Abolishment of the hukou

40、system will thus improve labor mobility, efficiency, and fairness. Second, given the positive influence of education and training on wages for both migrant and non-migrant workers, it is important to invest in human capi

41、tal in order to increase the productivity of both rural and </p><p>　　農(nóng)村向城市的遷移和工資確定： 基于中國天津的情況</p><p><b>　　1、導(dǎo)言</b></p><p>　　自20世紀80年代年代中期以來，大規(guī)模的勞動力從農(nóng)村遷移到城市地區(qū)一直在戲劇性的和顯著

42、的變化著。根據(jù)來自天津的調(diào)查數(shù)據(jù)，本文探討和比較農(nóng)民工與永久居民的就業(yè)和社會條件的特點。它還調(diào)查影響農(nóng)民工與非農(nóng)民工工資的決定因素，以評估經(jīng)濟和人口因素對農(nóng)村和城市收入差距的貢獻。</p><p>　　經(jīng)濟改革在我國開始于1978年，出現(xiàn)了一個超過1億人離開了他們的村莊涌入城市制造業(yè)和企業(yè)的繁榮的“流動人口”。勞動力從農(nóng)業(yè)向非農(nóng)產(chǎn)業(yè)的轉(zhuǎn)移，是流動的農(nóng)村居民平均收入增加并帶回家的一個重要部分。與此同時，農(nóng)民工通過補

43、充城市勞動力和提供廉價的勞動力對經(jīng)濟增長做出了巨大貢獻。然而，從經(jīng)濟增長中分享的收益在農(nóng)民工和城市工人之間卻是不公平的，我國城鄉(xiāng)勞動力市場存在著明顯的差距。據(jù)估計，每年將需要公正吸收剩余勞動力12至15萬的非農(nóng)業(yè)就業(yè)機會。</p><p>　　農(nóng)民工通常做的貢獻很多，得到的好處卻要少得多，而且沒有醫(yī)療保險。大多數(shù)生活在朝不保夕的雇主提供的宿舍。農(nóng)村富余勞動力轉(zhuǎn)移到城市地區(qū)被稱為民工來區(qū)分他們與城市居住工人的不同。

44、農(nóng)民工在城市里被當作陌生人和外人，他們被剝奪了城市成員和實質(zhì)性權(quán)利，他們的子女基本上禁止進入城市學校。我國的勞動力市場的城鄉(xiāng)差距可以分為兩種類型。第一差異涉及到生產(chǎn)力的相關(guān)特性，如教育和在職培訓(xùn)， 第二個問題涉及到非生產(chǎn)率有關(guān)的特征，如種族，性別，或是我們所說的戶口地位，這也可能會影響到勞動力的地位。如果同樣的生產(chǎn)工人在同一企業(yè)有不同的待遇只是因為他們的戶口地位，那么歧視確實存在。</p><p>　　為了促進勞

45、動力流動性和效率，并改善社會穩(wěn)定和平等，重要的是先了解轉(zhuǎn)移的動機，然后檢查轉(zhuǎn)移遇到的困難。為什么農(nóng)民遷移到城市？有哪些流動特點？工資是由什么因素決定的？農(nóng)民工在我國城市勞動力市場是否存在歧視？回答這些問題，我們從一項從10月到2003年12月在一個中央政府直轄市的天津的調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn)，除了經(jīng)濟和社會的人口因素，如所有權(quán)的商業(yè)，教育，經(jīng)驗與年齡，戶籍制度的限制對移民的收入有不利的影響。本文限制了它的討論，移民和非移民工人與移民工人的定義是： 是

46、否具有天津戶口。</p><p>　　2 、農(nóng)村向城市的遷移和工資的決定因素：一個文獻綜述</p><p>　　數(shù)百萬的農(nóng)村居民在發(fā)展中國家面臨著遷移到城市地區(qū)的決定，每年有許多人認為離開自己的村莊來到城市是值得的。 2000年人口普查數(shù)據(jù)顯示，在2000年有一億四千四百三十九萬農(nóng)村居民，或11.6 ％的總?cè)丝?，進入城市和城鎮(zhèn)。</p><p>　　自1980年以來

47、出現(xiàn)了大規(guī)模的農(nóng)村向城市的移民，大致可以歸因于農(nóng)村勞動力的巨額順差，城鄉(xiāng)居民之間日益擴大的收入和消費差距，以及農(nóng)業(yè)稅的加重、勞動生產(chǎn)率的提高、耕地的持續(xù)減少，造成了較大部分的農(nóng)村勞動力的剩余或失業(yè)。在20世紀80年代初期，富余的農(nóng)村勞動力為70萬，相當于整個農(nóng)村勞動力的18%而10年后增長到約130萬即28 ％。</p><p>　　日益擴大的收入和消費之間的差距城鄉(xiāng)居民顯然是一個勞動力流動增加的因素。1978年

48、，城鎮(zhèn)居民人均年可支配收入為農(nóng)村居民的2.6倍，到2001年，這一比例上升至2.9倍。在同一時期內(nèi)，城市比農(nóng)村的人均消費量從2.9 倍增長到3.5倍，這表明收入和消費差距的日益擴大（國家統(tǒng)計局，不同年份，1994-2003年）。此外，城鎮(zhèn)居民還享有各種國家補貼的食品，教育，就業(yè)和醫(yī)療服務(wù)。</p><p>　　沉重的稅務(wù)負擔，也影響農(nóng)民的農(nóng)村移民。雖然中央政府強調(diào)，必須減輕這種負擔，地方政府仍然把相當一部分農(nóng)民的

49、收入收稅。更糟的是，農(nóng)業(yè)稅收是倒退的。例如，在1996年，稅率為16.7 ％的農(nóng)村家庭的年收入400至500元，但只有2.8 ％的人收入在2500至5000間。 高稅收以及農(nóng)民收入不鼓勵投資農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)，這也促進了向城市的遷移。</p><p>　　表1列出農(nóng)村勞動力要遷移到城市天津的主要原因，正如預(yù)期的那樣，農(nóng)村居民遷移，尋求更高的收入，更好的機會，更好的生活質(zhì)量，以及更好的教育，為自己和子女。有趣的是，20 ％以

50、上的移民提到的土地流失在</p><p>　　表1 農(nóng)村向城市遷移的原因</p><p>　　來源：所進行的調(diào)查作者在天津， 2003年。</p><p>　　答復(fù)并不相互排斥，受訪者總數(shù)是455 。</p><p>　　鄉(xiāng)下是其中一個因素。</p><p>　　在有關(guān)農(nóng)村向城市的遷移的文獻中的一些研究得出結(jié)論認為，

51、教育是至關(guān)重要的推動農(nóng)村勞動力遠離自己的土地的影響因素，而另一些建議，教育是不是確定流動的重要選擇。</p><p>　　以往的研究認為，市場力量在推動農(nóng)村人口向非農(nóng)業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)移就業(yè)中比非市場因素更重。吳，王，徐（1990） ，吳（1994）發(fā)現(xiàn)，許多中國農(nóng)村工人已經(jīng)確保非農(nóng)業(yè)就業(yè)機會，通過他們的朋友或親戚，網(wǎng)絡(luò)信息的援助對農(nóng)村勞動力在城市獲得就業(yè)機會是重要的。</p><p>　　在中國教育的

52、投入回報很低，OLS估計數(shù)的增加，教育收入一年增加的范圍從1.4 ％至5.4 ％ 。另一項研究利用廣義矩法估計的青年工人中，并得出結(jié)論認為，婦女總體的教育的回報率估計約為15 ％和16.9 ％。趙（1997年）利用農(nóng)村學校教育表明，OLS估計因為忽視隔離農(nóng)村和城市勞動力市場低估了我國的教育回報率。她發(fā)現(xiàn)，教育預(yù)期回報率在農(nóng)村高中階段是相當高的，因為它提高了城市的就業(yè)機會使收入提高成為可能，學者建議政府各項政策去解決流動問題。

53、在許多國家工資和性別歧視非常常見，中國由于其獨特的所有權(quán)結(jié)構(gòu)和戶籍制度，他們擁有雄厚的實力。Meng（1998年）發(fā)現(xiàn)，整體工資歧視在國有部門較普遍，有一些分歧是國有部門相對水平的性別歧視（Maurer-Fazio & Hughes, 2000; Rozelle, Dong, Zhang, & Mason,2000） ，但Dong 和 Bowles（2002）發(fā)現(xiàn)，對婦女和移民工人的工資歧視存在跨所有制的類型，排序依次為

54、農(nóng)村勞動力移民存在的職業(yè)、部門、性別、年齡、婚姻狀況、教育、尤其是原籍區(qū)域（見羅伯茨，2001年）。</p><p><b>　　3、討論和結(jié)論</b></p><p>　　自19世紀80年代后期以來農(nóng)村向城市的遷移已成為我國社會經(jīng)濟現(xiàn)象。本研究研究主題為農(nóng)村向城市的移民、移民的特點、工資的決定因素。 80年代后期以來，勞動力過剩、沉重的稅務(wù)負擔、農(nóng)村地區(qū)土地喪失，加

55、上在城市較高的收入、更多的機會和更好的教育，促使農(nóng)民離開農(nóng)村走往城市。然而過去的機構(gòu)特別是戶口系統(tǒng)使農(nóng)村向城市的遷移顯得困難，但同時政府發(fā)現(xiàn)自己處于進退兩難的局面試圖平衡所帶來的好處和限制移民的流入。</p><p>　　為了研究農(nóng)村和城市工人之間的工資差距，有人提出了工資回歸模型，這兩個群體的工資標準是敏感的向工人特點的預(yù)期方向發(fā)展。結(jié)果還顯示，城鎮(zhèn)職工超過移徙工人，不斷持有其他所有的事情，這表明工資歧視。在此

56、示例中，戶口對移民和非移民工人之間的工資差距不會有重大影響。在考慮到人力資本的特點后，在城市抽取的樣本但不是移民樣本中女職工的工資收入明顯低于男性工人。在確定工人的收入水平時所有權(quán)的企業(yè)起著重要的作用，但國有企業(yè)的工人接受較低高于其他企業(yè)的薪酬。</p><p>　　實證結(jié)果給予以下政策的影響。首先，戶籍制度不僅阻礙了農(nóng)村向城市的遷移，而且也對擴大農(nóng)村移民和城鎮(zhèn)職工之間的工資差距起到推波助瀾的作用。取消戶籍制度，