農(nóng)民工相關(guān)外文翻譯

1、<p><b>　　外文翻譯一：</b></p><p>　　國(guó)際移民審查，1990.8</p><p>　　政府政策對(duì)浙江省農(nóng)民工的影響</p><p><b>　　楊秀師</b></p><p>　　中國(guó)試圖同時(shí)實(shí)現(xiàn)農(nóng)村發(fā)展，并嚴(yán)格控制其永久移民，尤其是控制大城市的移民，這與其他發(fā)展中

2、國(guó)家形成鮮明的對(duì)比。中國(guó)的農(nóng)村移民運(yùn)動(dòng)可以促進(jìn)越來(lái)越多的農(nóng)民通過(guò)遷徙的途徑尋求到在城市就業(yè)的收益。但農(nóng)民永久改變其居民身份，特別是在大中城市，很大程度上還是不可能的，遷徙只是一種可行的臨時(shí)性選擇的運(yùn)動(dòng)。</p><p>　　中國(guó)政府贊許這樣一種運(yùn)動(dòng)，就像在試驗(yàn)這樣的流動(dòng)性在應(yīng)付農(nóng)村過(guò)剩勞動(dòng)力中的價(jià)值一樣。與需求大量勞動(dòng)力和服務(wù)的城市相比，農(nóng)村發(fā)展的歷程，需要更多的資源。從政府的角度來(lái)看，臨時(shí)流動(dòng)比較易于實(shí)現(xiàn)放寬或

3、者緊縮式地控制，而永久移民相對(duì)來(lái)講會(huì)困難許多。與此同時(shí)，臨時(shí)移民可能更受青睞,因?yàn)樗兄诜乐勾笠?guī)模的永久移民帶來(lái)的城市社會(huì)混亂和不斷增加的壓力(Standing 1985)。</p><p>　　在農(nóng)村和城市的生活質(zhì)量存在相當(dāng)大差異的背景下，農(nóng)村地區(qū)和不同類型城市住宅的數(shù)據(jù)的分析表明，浙江省的永久移民無(wú)疑會(huì)少于特定的值，如果沒(méi)政府政策法規(guī)的干預(yù)。</p><p>　　在中國(guó)的政治經(jīng)濟(jì)系統(tǒng)

4、中，臨時(shí)居民不負(fù)擔(dān)城市的教育設(shè)施。因?yàn)樗麄儧](méi)有改變他們的戶籍，因此不能像城市居民一樣，享有政府在就業(yè)、補(bǔ)貼或分配糧食供應(yīng)方面的援助。但事實(shí)上,他們中的很多人都將城市作為生活、工作和學(xué)習(xí)的長(zhǎng)期目的地。</p><p>　　他們中的大部分事實(shí)上已經(jīng)是城市居民，這些暫住居民們?yōu)槌鞘刑峁┝顺鞘幸约俺鞘芯用袼璧姆?wù)，他們還幾乎利用了城市所有的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，如住房、交通、電力、日常食品和消費(fèi)品等。因此，在考慮移民對(duì)于城市的綜合

5、影響上，這部分實(shí)際上的居民必須加以考慮，如果不予以考慮，在城市規(guī)劃服務(wù)方面會(huì)產(chǎn)生問(wèn)題，同時(shí)也會(huì)影響城市生活質(zhì)量。</p><p>　　在中國(guó)的農(nóng)村與城市經(jīng)濟(jì)體制造成的壓力下，中國(guó)已經(jīng)在靈活運(yùn)用它的移民政策。(Chapman Prothero 1983)教導(dǎo)我們，這些國(guó)家的許多人事實(shí)上不僅僅只屬于農(nóng)村和城市。這些個(gè)體已經(jīng)是農(nóng)村和城市社區(qū)其中的一份子，他們?yōu)楫?dāng)?shù)刈龀隽酥匾暙I(xiàn)，而我們的政策也應(yīng)該惠及到他們。要想較好地

6、做到這點(diǎn)，我們的政策需要注意到所有形式的人口遷移，包括臨時(shí)的運(yùn)動(dòng)，我們要用理論上公式，在我們研究的基礎(chǔ)上，努力開(kāi)發(fā)有效的且符合要求的政策。</p><p>　　臨時(shí)的運(yùn)動(dòng)在對(duì)于大城市的處理問(wèn)題上，以及在城市化上扮演重要的角色，同時(shí)有助于實(shí)現(xiàn)農(nóng)村發(fā)展，減少農(nóng)村和城市之間不平等的地方。</p><p>　　考慮到這些可能性的分析結(jié)果，筆者建議將研究的重點(diǎn)從移民登記系統(tǒng)上轉(zhuǎn)至人口流動(dòng)形態(tài)上。&l

7、t;/p><p>　　移民登記中的數(shù)據(jù)僅包括總體人口的流動(dòng)性很小的一部分，而且這些數(shù)據(jù)反映出更多的被支配的痕跡。要克服這些限制，需要人口遷移方面更加全面的數(shù)據(jù)，需要涵蓋長(zhǎng)期或臨時(shí)的運(yùn)動(dòng)，且需要師經(jīng)過(guò)國(guó)家或省級(jí)的特別設(shè)計(jì)的調(diào)查。同時(shí)也迫切需要人口運(yùn)動(dòng)和政策方面專業(yè)學(xué)術(shù)性的考量。</p><p>　　Foreign original one:</p><p>　　Origi

8、nate from：International Migration Review, Autumn, 1990</p><p>　　Migrant workers in Zhejiang Province, China: The Impact of Government Policies</p><p>　　Xiushi Yang</p><p>　　China

9、9;s attempts simultaneously to achieve rural development and to strictly control permanent migration, especially to big cities, provide a striking contrast to other developing countries. Such movement allows and stimulat

10、es growing numbers of peasants to seek the benefits of urban employment through migration. With permanent change in residence, especially to big and medium cities, still largely impossible, temporary movement provides a

11、viable alternative for many.</p><p>　　It may well be, too, that the Chinese government may also be allowing such increased mobility as an experiment to assess its value for coping with the surplus rural labo

12、r, with the labor force and service needs of cities, and with rural needs for greater resources for development. From a government point of view, the attractiveness of temporary mobility is enhanced by the ability to rel

13、ax or tighten control over such movement as conditions in urban and rural places change. Temporary migration ma</p><p>　　Given the considerable differentials in quality oflife between urban and rural places

14、and among different types of urban residence, analysis of the data for Zhejiang suggests strongly that the volume of permanent migration is undoubtedly less than it would have been if there were no intervention of govern

15、ment policies and regulations. </p><p>　　Within the political and economic system in China, these temporary residents will not burden the cities' educational facilities, employment and subsidized or rati

16、oned food supplies because they do not change their household registration and hence are not entitled to government assistance in these areas, as official city residents are. In reality, however, many of them are living,

17、 working and studying in the urban destinations for prolonged periods. Therefore, a substantial proportion are de fact</p><p>　　While temporary residents provide cities with services that are needed by both

18、the urban economy and the urban residents, they also utilize nearly all aspects of the urban infrastructure-housing, transportation, power, sani-tation and general supplies of daily food and consumer goods and amenities.

19、 Therefore, in considering the impact of migration on the overall social economic development in urban places, these de facto residents must be taken into account. Failure to do so could lead to seriou</p><p&g

20、t;　　The greater flexibility that China has allowed in its rural and urban economic systems creates pressures for more flexibility in its migration policies, (Chapman and Prothero 1983), teaches us that many people in the

21、se countries are, in fact, neither exclusively rural nor exclusively urban; The interests of these individual movers as well as of the rural and urban communities of which they are a part and to which they make important

22、 contributions can best be served by policies that take account </p><p>　　Temporary movement may well provide an important mechanism for coping with problems of big cities and overurbanization and concurrend

23、y with efforts to achieve rural development and to reduce inequalities between rural and urban places.</p><p>　　Given these possibilities, the results of this analysis strongly suggest the need for a shift o

24、f research priorities to population mobility forms other than those documented by the migration registration system. </p><p>　　The data provided by the migration registration system encompass only a small pa

25、rt of overall population mobility. Moreover, these data reflect more government planned involuntary migration and the differences in the ability to get permission to move, rather than individual behavior in response to o

26、pportunities. To overcome these limitations, more comprehensive data on population movement, covering both permanent and temporary movement and collected by specially designed national orprovincial s</p><p>

27、;<b>　　外文翻譯二：</b></p><p>　　亞洲經(jīng)濟(jì)期刊，2005.4</p><p>　　民營(yíng)部門(mén)和農(nóng)民工進(jìn)城——中國(guó)專題研究</p><p><b>　　孟昕</b></p><p>　　20世紀(jì)80年代后期以來(lái)，90年代初，大量農(nóng)村人口向城市遷移并“淹沒(méi)”了大多數(shù)中國(guó)城市。許多研究

28、開(kāi)始已經(jīng)聚焦這種“螞蟻式”的遷移運(yùn)動(dòng)，但較少研究關(guān)注城市的民營(yíng)部門(mén)在本次活動(dòng)中起的作用。</p><p>　　多數(shù)古典遷移模型認(rèn)為民營(yíng)部門(mén)為移民提供了臨時(shí)就業(yè)的機(jī)會(huì)，雖然一些經(jīng)驗(yàn)主義的研究質(zhì)詢這個(gè)假定，并且建議民營(yíng)部門(mén)在經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展中應(yīng)該扮演一個(gè)重要角色。 本研究在以中國(guó)1504個(gè)農(nóng)村為勘測(cè)數(shù)據(jù)，審查農(nóng)村都市遷移的這個(gè)專題的各個(gè)方面。 </p><p><b>　　導(dǎo)言 </b

29、></p><p>　　20世紀(jì)80年代后期以來(lái)，90年代初，大量農(nóng)村人口向城市遷移并“淹沒(méi)”了大多數(shù)中國(guó)城市。這種趨勢(shì)已經(jīng)如此強(qiáng)大，它吸引了政策制定者和學(xué)者們大量的注意力。然而，移民文學(xué)的重要辯論點(diǎn)在于農(nóng)村向城市的遷移進(jìn)程中民營(yíng)部門(mén)的作用。城市民營(yíng)部門(mén)在農(nóng)村向城市的遷移的過(guò)程中未有較多基于中國(guó)基礎(chǔ)上的研究，本文以填補(bǔ)這一空白。</p><p>　　在移民文學(xué)中，民營(yíng)部門(mén)的作用是一個(gè)

30、有爭(zhēng)議的問(wèn)題?？赡苡袃蓚€(gè)導(dǎo)致?tīng)?zhēng)議的重要原因。一個(gè)是概念上的混亂，而定義民營(yíng)部門(mén)活動(dòng)的范圍從“賣(mài)報(bào)”到“自我小型企業(yè)的就業(yè)人數(shù)”，這是可能的，因?yàn)椴煌幕顒?dòng)中在城鄉(xiāng)運(yùn)移過(guò)程中發(fā)揮著不同的作用。另一個(gè)原因可能是民營(yíng)部門(mén)發(fā)揮的作用，因?yàn)槠湓诤艽蟪潭壬先Q于經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展階段和經(jīng)濟(jì)體制的設(shè)置。</p><p><b>　　2、背景</b></p><p>　　民營(yíng)部門(mén)所扮演的“吸納

31、城鄉(xiāng)移民”這一角色引起經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家的極大興趣。在幾十年來(lái)，辯論雙方的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家們一直試圖證明他們的論點(diǎn)。</p><p>　　這場(chǎng)爭(zhēng)論可能是由兩個(gè)因素造成。首先是概念混亂，民營(yíng)部門(mén)在發(fā)展中是常用的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)術(shù)語(yǔ)，民營(yíng)部門(mén)的基本特征被描述為“低工資”、“家庭型”、“員工易于自由進(jìn)入”和“缺乏穩(wěn)定的雇傭關(guān)系”等。</p><p>　　國(guó)際勞工組織（1972年）定義民營(yíng)部門(mén)的特點(diǎn)：（一）易于進(jìn)入；（二

32、）對(duì)本地資源的依賴；（三）企業(yè)家族所有權(quán)；（四）企業(yè)的經(jīng)營(yíng)規(guī)模較?。唬ㄎ澹﹦趧?dòng)密集，使用適應(yīng)技術(shù)；（六）在正規(guī)學(xué)校系統(tǒng)中獲得技能；（七）較少管制及競(jìng)爭(zhēng)性的市場(chǎng)； 第二個(gè)可能會(huì)引致辯論的因素是有關(guān)民營(yíng)部門(mén)的作用，每個(gè)國(guó)家都有自己的經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展方式和獨(dú)特的機(jī)構(gòu)設(shè)置，這些差異使得這一問(wèn)題涉及到非正規(guī)部門(mén)是否在農(nóng)村向城市移民中發(fā)揮了重要作用。</p><p><b>　　3、結(jié)語(yǔ)</b>

33、;</p><p>　　首先，一部分優(yōu)秀的人才傾向于在民營(yíng)部門(mén)從事個(gè)體經(jīng)營(yíng)的工作，而不是在正規(guī)部門(mén)工作；另一方面，正規(guī)部門(mén)就業(yè)品質(zhì)與民營(yíng)部門(mén)部分相當(dāng)。</p><p>　　第二，在城市，移民工作的時(shí)間越長(zhǎng)，就越有可能將從工薪一族轉(zhuǎn)移到正規(guī)部門(mén)，進(jìn)而轉(zhuǎn)向民營(yíng)部門(mén)從事個(gè)體經(jīng)營(yíng)。這可能表明，在民營(yíng)部門(mén)，就業(yè)的工資收入充當(dāng)了農(nóng)村向城市移民的重要因素。另外，個(gè)體經(jīng)營(yíng)的方式可能是最具吸引的因素，一般充

34、當(dāng)了吸引移民長(zhǎng)期就業(yè)的因素。 </p><p>　　第三，在所有移民工作組中，個(gè)體經(jīng)營(yíng)者感到最滿意自己目前的情況，而正規(guī)部門(mén)的打工仔卻往往感到不太滿意。</p><p>　　最后，正規(guī)部門(mén)的員工在工作中收獲了最少。民營(yíng)部門(mén)和正規(guī)部門(mén)之間的工資差別在主要是他們?cè)谑袌?chǎng)評(píng)價(jià)方面的差異，而不是二人稟賦不同。</p><p>　　Foreign original two:&l

35、t;/p><p>　　Originate from: ASIAN ECONOMIC JOURNAL，May，2005</p><p>　　The Informal Sector and Rural-Urban Migration</p><p>　　A Chinese Case Study</p><p><b>　　Xin Meng&

36、lt;/b></p><p>　　Since the late 1980s and early 1990s, massive rural-urban migration has ?ooded most Chinese cities. Many studies have examined various aspects of this important movement, but none has inve

37、stigated the role the urban informal sector plays in this movement. In the literature, this issue is controversial. </p><p>　　Most classical migration models treat the informal sector as a temporary employme

38、nt opportunity for migrants, though some empirical studies challenge this assumption and suggest that the informal sector may play an important role in economic development. This study uses a survey data set of 1504 rura

39、l-urban migrants in one Chinese city to examine this interesting aspect of rural-urban migration. </p><p>　　I. Introduction </p><p>　　Since the late 1980s and early 1990s, massive rural-urban mi

40、gration has ?ooded most Chinese cities. The trend has been so strong that it attracted a great deal of attention from both policy makers and academics alike. Many recent studies have investigated various aspects of such

41、an important issue.</p><p>　　Nevertheless, an important debate in the rural-urban migration literature the role of the informal sector in the process of rural-urban migration has not been examined in the con

42、text of the Chinese experience. This paper intends to ?ll in this gap. There may be two important reasons which have led to the controversy. One is the conceptual confusion. While the de?nition of ‘informal’ activities r

43、anges from ‘selling newspapers’ to ‘self-employment in small business’, it is possible that different </p><p>　　II.Background</p><p>　　The controversial issue of the role played by the informal

44、sector in absorbing rural-urban migrants has attracted great interest from economists. Over the decades, economists from both sides of the debate have been trying to prove their arguments both theoretically and empirical

45、ly.</p><p>　　This controversy is probably caused by two factors. The ?rst is conceptual confusion. Although ‘informal sector’ is a commonly used term in development economics, the basic characteristics of th

46、is sector are described as ‘low wage’, ‘small and family-based’, ‘freedom of entry’, ‘lack of a stable employer-employee relationship’ and ‘being ignored by the authorities’ .</p><p>　　The ILO (1972) de?ned

47、the informal sector as being characterized by:</p><p>　　(a) ease of entry;</p><p>　　(b) reliance on indigenous resources;</p><p>　　(c) family ownership of enterprises;</p>&l

48、t;p>　　(d) small scale of operation;</p><p>　　(e) labour-intensive, using adapted technology;</p><p>　　(f ) skills acquired outside the formal school system; </p><p>　　(g) unregul

49、ated and competitive markets.</p><p>　　The second factor which may cause added debate regarding the role of the informal sector is that each country has its own pattern of economic development and unique ins

50、titutional settings. These differences make the issue of whether the informal sector plays an important role in employing rural-urban migrants very much an empirical question.</p><p>　　III.Concluding Remark

51、s</p><p>　　First, it seems that higher quality individuals, in terms of human capital, are more likely to take a job in the self-employed group in the informal sector than to take a job in the other groups.

52、On the other hand, those who are employed in the formal sector are of similar quality to those employed in the wage-earner group in the informal sector.</p><p>　　Second, the longer migrants work in the city

53、the more likely they will move from the wage-earner group to the formal sector, and then to the self-employed group in the informal sector. This may suggest that the wage-earning jobs in the informal sector have acted as

54、 a temporary employment opportunity for rural-urban migrants, but self-employment has attracted individuals with the highest quality and has generally acted as a long-term employment opportunity for migrants.</p>

55、<p>　　Third, among all migrants those who worked in the self-employed group are the ones who felt the most satis?ed with their current situation while the wage earners in the informal sector and migrants who worked

56、in the formal sector felt less satis?ed than the self-employed.</p><p>　　Finally, those who worked in the formal sector earned the least. The wage differentials between the formal sector and the other two gr