Determinants and Consequences of Peasant Labor Migration in Contemporary China

Determinants and Consequences of Peasant Labor Migration in

Contemporary China

Donald J. Treiman, UCLAYao Lu, Columbia

PAA, April 29-2 May 2009

2

Outline

• Introduction: brief history of migration in China.

• Data: our just-completed “Survey of Migration and Health in China.”

• Analysis:1. Determinants of migration2. Consequences (propensity score adjustments)3. Consequences (fixed effects models)

3

The hukou system

• China built an urban welfare state on the backs of the peasants.

• In 1955 established an internal registration (“hukou”) system.– Overarching agricultural vs. non-agricultural

(“rural” vs. “urban”) status, acquired from mother and very difficult to change (Wu and Treiman 2004).

– Local vs. non-local status.

4

Hukou system (2)

• Separate welfare provisions for rural and urban populations; inferior or non-existent for rural population: health care, housing, education, jobs, unemployment, disability, and retirement benefits.

• Many services restricted to those with local registration, or require high non-resident fees. Example: education in Beijing. Also, health care. Until recently, housing, etc., connected to danwei (work unit).

5

Migration trends

• Severe restrictions on migration from 1961-1978 (end of Great Leap Forward to beginning of Economic Reform) [hotel room example].

• Increasing migration since then, due to– Push: “family responsibility system,” resulting

agricultural labor surplus.– Pull: economic expansion in urban areas,

resulting in need for low-level labor (factory, construction, service, and sales).

6

Migration trends (2)

• Currently 150 million migrants (people living other than where they are registered), 12% of Chinese population.

• Migration is complex (topic of my paper Saturday morning).

• Today we focus on “peasant labor migration,” that is, “going out for work” by those from rural origins.

7

The 2008 Chinese Migration and Health Survey

• Overall goal: analyze determinants, dynamics, and consequences of internal migration for health and well-being.

• Sample design– Single nationally representative cross-section of

3,000 adults, with an over-sample of high out-migration and in-migration areas.

– Seeking new funding to expand the sample and Create a panel study, with new data every 3 years.

8

Analysis 1• What increases the odds that peasants go out

for work (discrete-time hazard rate models for people 14-58 with rural hukou at age 14);

• Expectations:– As elsewhere, migrants are disproportionately

male and young.– “Healthy migrant hypothesis”—migrants are

positively selected for health.– Generalization: migrants are positively selected

for “quality.”– Place of origin—no clear expectation.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Summary 1• Likelihood of going out – Concentrated in young males.– Increased by health (excellent eyesight, animal

protein as child).– Increased by parental educ. and R’s education.– Increased if father in agriculture (lack of job

opportunities at home).– Reduced by employment (many go out straight

from school).– Increased by self employment.– Increased by isolation of village.

17

Analysis 2• What are the consequences of migration?

(contrasting current rural migrants with rural-hukou holders who have never migrated, adjusting for sample selection bias using propensity scores).

• Expectations: Migration has– a positive effect on income. – a negative effect on working conditions.– a negative effect on quality of life.– a negative effect on emotional health.– expected effects on health are unclear.

18

Propensity score model• Adjusts for differences between those who never

have gone out, those currently out in– prevalence of illnesses, gender, and their interaction;

years of schooling; age, age-squared, and their interaction with schooling; and size of place of residence prior to going out (dummies).

• Nearest neighbor matching with a caliper of .01 and common support.

• Reasonably well balanced:– Mean bias is 5.11% after matching.– 12 of 16 variables have < 5% bias, 3 have < 10% bias,

and 1 has > 10% bias.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Summary 2• Results are mixed, but generally as expected. – Migration increases income.– Migrants have harsher working conditions than

rural non-migrants (a striking result).– Migrants feel disrespected, less happy.– Migrants more likely to be robbed.– Migrants less likely to have medical insurance, but

more likely to have seen a doctor; eat better; practice better hygiene.

– Differences in health measurements, self-reported health apparently due mainly to age and sex differences.

26

Analysis 3• What are the consequences of migration for

occupational status, level of living? (Over-time fixed-effects analysis for those with rural hukou who had never migrated as of 5 years earlier.)

• Contrasts: never out; former (out and back in past 5 years); current.

• Expectations:– Current migrants will have higher occupational status (ISEI)

and be less likely to work in agriculture than never migrants. The more interesting question—what about former migrants?

– Former migrants will have more consumer durables than never migrants, but current migrants will not, due to restricted living conditions.

27

28

Summary 3• Results are generally as expected. – Current migrants are less likely to work in

agriculture and tend to work at slightly high status jobs.

– More interestingly, returned migrants gain no advantage in terms of avoiding agriculture or upgrading their agricultural status relative to those who have never migrated.

– But migration pays off in terms of an increased level of living, as measured by the number of consumer durables possessed by returned migrants.

29

Conclusions• Internal migration in China follows the pattern

of labor migration elsewhere:– Migration is selective of the young, especially

young men, of the healthy, and of those who are relatively advantaged compared to their neighbors.

– Even controlling for selectivity, migration appears to be economically advantageous, yielding much higher income than for those left behind and a higher level of living for returned migrants.

– But migration is also costly, resulting in difficult working and living conditions and psychological stress.