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(guó)天津的情況</p><p><b>　　1、導(dǎo)言</b></p><p>　　自20世紀(jì)80年代年代中期以來(lái)，大規(guī)模的勞動(dòng)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(lái)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(huì)條件的特點(diǎn)。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(píng)估經(jīng)濟(jì)和人口因素對(duì)農(nóng)村和城市收入差距的貢獻(xiàn)。</p><p>　　經(jīng)濟(jì)改革在我國(guó)開(kāi)始于1978年，出現(xiàn)了一個(gè)超過(guò)1億人離開(kāi)了他們的村莊涌入城市制造業(yè)和企業(yè)的繁榮的“流動(dòng)人口”。勞動(dòng)力從農(nóng)業(yè)向非農(nóng)產(chǎn)業(yè)的轉(zhuǎn)移，是流動(dòng)的農(nóng)村居民平均收入增加并帶回家的一個(gè)重要部分。與此同時(shí)，農(nóng)民工通過(guò)補(bǔ)

43、充城市勞動(dòng)力和提供廉價(jià)的勞動(dòng)力對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)做出了巨大貢獻(xiàn)。然而，從經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)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(guó)城鄉(xiāng)勞動(dòng)力市場(chǎng)存在著明顯的差距。據(jù)估計(jì)，每年將需要公正吸收剩余勞動(dòng)力12至15萬(wàn)的非農(nóng)業(yè)就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)。</p><p>　　農(nóng)民工通常做的貢獻(xiàn)很多，得到的好處卻要少得多，而且沒(méi)有醫(yī)療保險(xiǎn)。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(dòng)力轉(zhuǎn)移到城市地區(qū)被稱為民工來(lái)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(dāng)作陌生人和外人，他們被剝奪了城市成員和實(shí)質(zhì)性權(quán)利，他們的子女基本上禁止進(jìn)入城市學(xué)校。我國(guó)的勞動(dòng)力市場(chǎng)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(gè)問(wèn)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(shuō)的戶口地位，這也可能會(huì)影響到勞動(dòng)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?yàn)樗麄兊膽艨诘匚?，那么歧視確實(shí)存在。</p><p>　　為了促進(jìn)勞

45、動(dòng)力流動(dòng)性和效率，并改善社會(huì)穩(wěn)定和平等，重要的是先了解轉(zhuǎn)移的動(dòng)機(jī)，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(dòng)特點(diǎn)？工資是由什么因素決定的？農(nóng)民工在我國(guó)城市勞動(dòng)力市場(chǎng)是否存在歧視？回答這些問(wèn)題，我們從一項(xiàng)從10月到2003年12月在一個(gè)中央政府直轄市的天津的調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn)，除了經(jīng)濟(jì)和社會(huì)的人口因素，如所有權(quán)的商業(yè)，教育，經(jīng)驗(yàn)與年齡，戶籍制度的限制對(duì)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(gè)文獻(xiàn)綜述</p><p>　　數(shù)百萬(wàn)的農(nóng)村居民在發(fā)展中國(guó)家面臨著遷移到城市地區(qū)的決定，每年有許多人認(rèn)為離開(kāi)自己的村莊來(lái)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(wàn)農(nóng)村居民，或11.6 ％的總?cè)丝?，進(jìn)入城市和城鎮(zhèn)。</p><p>　　自1980年以來(lái)

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(dòng)力的巨額順差，城鄉(xiāng)居民之間日益擴(kuò)大的收入和消費(fèi)差距，以及農(nóng)業(yè)稅的加重、勞動(dòng)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(dòng)力的剩余或失業(yè)。在20世紀(jì)80年代初期，富余的農(nóng)村勞動(dòng)力為70萬(wàn)，相當(dāng)于整個(gè)農(nóng)村勞動(dòng)力的18%而10年后增長(zhǎng)到約130萬(wàn)即28 ％。</p><p>　　日益擴(kuò)大的收入和消費(fèi)之間的差距城鄉(xiāng)居民顯然是一個(gè)勞動(dòng)力流動(dòng)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(shí)期內(nèi)，城市比農(nóng)村的人均消費(fèi)量從2.9 倍增長(zhǎng)到3.5倍，這表明收入和消費(fèi)差距的日益擴(kuò)大（國(guó)家統(tǒng)計(jì)局，不同年份，1994-2003年）。此外，城鎮(zhèn)居民還享有各種國(guó)家補(bǔ)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(fù)擔(dān)，也影響農(nóng)民的農(nóng)村移民。雖然中央政府強(qiáng)調(diào)，必須減輕這種負(fù)擔(dān)，地方政府仍然把相當(dāng)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(lì)投資農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)，這也促進(jìn)了向城市的遷移。</p><p>　　表1列出農(nóng)村勞動(dòng)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(jī)會(huì)，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(lái)源：所進(jìn)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(gè)因素。</p><p>　　在有關(guān)農(nóng)村向城市的遷移的文獻(xiàn)中的一些研究得出結(jié)論認(rèn)為，

51、教育是至關(guān)重要的推動(dòng)農(nóng)村勞動(dòng)力遠(yuǎn)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(dòng)的重要選擇。</p><p>　　以往的研究認(rèn)為，市場(chǎng)力量在推動(dòng)農(nóng)村人口向非農(nóng)業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)移就業(yè)中比非市場(chǎng)因素更重。吳，王，徐（1990） ，吳（1994）發(fā)現(xiàn)，許多中國(guó)農(nóng)村工人已經(jīng)確保非農(nóng)業(yè)就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)，通過(guò)他們的朋友或親戚，網(wǎng)絡(luò)信息的援助對(duì)農(nóng)村勞動(dòng)力在城市獲得就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)是重要的。</p><p>　　在中國(guó)教育的

52、投入回報(bào)很低，OLS估計(jì)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(xiàng)研究利用廣義矩法估計(jì)的青年工人中，并得出結(jié)論認(rèn)為，婦女總體的教育的回報(bào)率估計(jì)約為15 ％和16.9 ％。趙（1997年）利用農(nóng)村學(xué)校教育表明，OLS估計(jì)因?yàn)楹鲆暩綦x農(nóng)村和城市勞動(dòng)力市場(chǎng)低估了我國(guó)的教育回報(bào)率。她發(fā)現(xiàn)，教育預(yù)期回報(bào)率在農(nóng)村高中階段是相當(dāng)高的，因?yàn)樗岣吡顺鞘械木蜆I(yè)機(jī)會(huì)使收入提高成為可能，學(xué)者建議政府各項(xiàng)政策去解決流動(dòng)問(wèn)題。

53、在許多國(guó)家工資和性別歧視非常常見(jiàn)，中國(guó)由于其獨(dú)特的所有權(quán)結(jié)構(gòu)和戶籍制度，他們擁有雄厚的實(shí)力。Meng（1998年）發(fā)現(xiàn)，整體工資歧視在國(guó)有部門較普遍，有一些分歧是國(guó)有部門相對(duì)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(duì)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(dòng)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(jiàn)羅伯茨，2001年）。</p><p><b>　　3、討論和結(jié)論</b></p><p>　　自19世紀(jì)80年代后期以來(lái)農(nóng)村向城市的遷移已成為我國(guó)社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)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(diǎn)、工資的決定因素。 80年代后期以來(lái)，勞動(dòng)力過(guò)剩、沉重的稅務(wù)負(fù)擔(dān)、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(jī)會(huì)和更好的教育，促使農(nóng)民離開(kāi)農(nóng)村走往城市。然而過(guò)去的機(jī)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(shí)政府發(fā)現(xiàn)自己處于進(jìn)退兩難的局面試圖平衡所帶來(lái)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(gè)群體的工資標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是敏感的向工人特點(diǎn)的預(yù)期方向發(fā)展。結(jié)果還顯示，城鎮(zhèn)職工超過(guò)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(duì)移民和非移民工人之間的工資差距不會(huì)有重大影響。在考慮到人力資本的特點(diǎn)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(shí)所有權(quán)的企業(yè)起著重要的作用，但國(guó)有企業(yè)的工人接受較低高于其他企業(yè)的薪酬。</p><p>　　實(shí)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(duì)擴(kuò)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，