Housing inequality and housing poverty in urban China in the late 1990s

Housing inequality and housing poverty in urban China

in the late 1990s

Hiroshi SATO *

Graduate School of Economics,Hitotsubashi University,2-1Naka,Kunitachi,Tokyo,186-8601,Japan

Received 27August 2003;accepted 20September 2004

Abstract

This paper discusses housing inequality and housing poverty in urban China in the late 1990s,using original household surveys.Focuses are on the distributive implications of the privatization of public-owned housing and the wave of rural–urban migration.Estimates of the imputed rent function for owned housing purchased at discount prices indicates that meritocracy and political credentialism work differently as determinants of housing inequality.The paper confirms that there has been a large disparity in housing conditions between urban and migrant households,and that a new type of housing poverty has been emerging among migrant households.D 2005Elsevier Inc.All rights reserved.

JEL classification:D31;P36;R21

Keywords:Housing inequality;Housing poverty;Distribution of wealth;Rural–urban migration;China

1.Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to discuss housing inequality and housing poverty in urban China in the late 1990s.Distributive implications of two important issues relating to urban housing–that is,the privatization of public-owned housing and the wave of rural–urban migration–are examined.Regarding the former issue,the analytical focus is on the determinants of housing inequality in the early stage of housing privatization.This is important because the initial distribution of housing assets impacts on subsequent economic inequality in urban society.As for the latter issue,a large disparity in housing conditions between urban residents and migrants

1043-951X/$-see front matter D 2005Elsevier Inc.All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.chieco.2004.09.005

*Fax:+81425808265.

E-mail address:satohrs@econ.hit-u.ac.jp.

China Economic Review 17(2006)37–

50

is described.This is also important because the housing conditions of migrants is a newly emerging and rapidly growing poverty issue in urban China.

The late 1990s provide useful data for examination of these issues.Development of market circulation of housing accelerated in this period.It is also the period when rural migrants who settled in urban areas may be studied.Original microdata on urban housing conditions in 1999are used throughout the study.

In the planned-economy era,urban housing was basically owned by work units (danwei)or housing management departments of local governments.Along with medical care and old-age security,the allocation of low-rent housing was one of the main pillars of b work unit socialism;Q that is,the system of income distribution,social security,and governance based on work units in urban areas during the planned-economy era (Liu,2000;Lu ¨and Perry,1997;Womack,1991).Since egalitarian approaches were employed in wage distribution throughout the planned-economy era,the substantial differences in standards of living were,to a considerable degree,caused by differences in the quality of housing allocated to a given worker.Rural areas were isolated from this particular system,and the rural population was unaffected by housing problems in urban areas.

This situation changed considerably throughout the 1990s owing to the above-mentioned two events.According to the Ministry of Construction,the proportion of urban households having owned housing exceeded 50%in 1998(Cheng,1999,p.137).In parallel with the wave of housing privatization,more and more households with rural household registration have begun to settle in cities.The questions that arise as a consequence are as follows.What kinds of factor determine the quality of privatized housing that urban households obtain from their work units?How has the flow of rural–urban migration,combined with housing privatization,changed the picture of housing inequality in urban areas?

Bian and Logan (1997)and Logan et al.(1999)have argued,using the 1993household survey conducted in Tianjin and Shanghai,that older workers with higher income,those who have party membership,and workers who belong to large work units can access better https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0c13330284.html,ing the official urban household surveys of the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS)from 1992to 1998,Fang et al.(2002)found that,for the low-income urban households,the rate of increase in expenditures on housing has outpaced the rate of income growth,making the poor more vulnerable to sudden shocks.Based on fieldwork in Beijing and Shanghai in the late 1990s,Wang (2000)found that,in addition to the problem of urban residents who live in relatively poor housing conditions,a newly emerging incidence of housing poverty among the poor migrants of rural origin was growing,although not recognized by the government.This paper elaborates Bian and Logan’s studies by employing imputed rent (rental value of owned housing)as the comprehensive measure of housing quality,while Bian and Logan used living space and facilities.This paper also develops the arguments of Wang (2000)and Fang et al.(2002)by employing more comprehensive data on urban housing conditions that cover both urban residents and migrants of rural origin.

This paper is organized into five sections.In the latter half of this section,the main data source is introduced.Section 2gives an outline of urban housing reform in the 1990s and provides a general picture of changes in urban housing conditions between the end of the 1980s and the end of the 1990s.Section 3analyzes the determinants of housing inequality in 1999by estimating imputed rent functions.In Section 4,new instances of housing poverty are described.Section 5concludes.

The main data source of this paper is a household survey conducted by the Institute of Economics,Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS),in collaboration with foreign

H.Sato /China Economic Review 17(2006)37–50

38

researchers including the author.This survey has covered 13cities in six provincial-level administrative units.The reference year is 1999(hereafter referred to as the 1999CASS survey).For comparison of housing conditions between the late 1980s and the late 1990s,the earlier nationwide household survey by CASS that collected data on 1988(hereafter referred to as the 1988CASS survey)is also used (for the sampling frame of the 1988CASS survey,see Griffin and Zhao,1993).

The 1999CASS survey includes 3977households with urban household registration (feinongye/chengzhen hukou)and 790migrant households of rural origin;that is,households with rural household registration (nongye/nongcun hukou).(Hereafter,the former category is referred to as an urban household and the latter as a migrant household).Urban households were subsamples of the sampling frame of the annual national household surveys conducted by the NBS.Migrant households were subsamples of the NBS’s large sample survey conducted in 1999to establish the new sampling frame for the annual national household survey from 2000onwards.It should be noted that migrant households are those who had stable home addresses in urban areas,and that those who lived in communal housing (such as dormitory and construction sites)were not included.Therefore,the migrant households covered by this paper should be seen as b settled Q migrants of rural origin.The surveyed cities are listed in Table 1.In addition to Beijing,cities located in the five provinces of Liaoning (Northeast region),Jiangsu (Eastern coastal region),Henan (Central inland region),Sichuan (Southeast region),and Gansu (Northwest region)were surveyed.Shenyang,Nanjing,Zhengzhou,Chengdu,and Lanzhou are provincial capitals;Jinzhou,Xuzhou,Kaifeng,Pingdingshan,Zigong,and Nanchong are subprovincial (diqu)-level cities.Pingliang,the smallest among 13cities,is a county (xian)-level city.

2.Housing reform and changes in housing conditions in the 1990s

Table 2compares the housing conditions of urban households in 1988and 1999in nine cities that were covered in both the 1988and 1999CASS surveys.It is obvious that the housing

Table 1

Basic information for the 13cities surveyed City Province

Urban population at year-end 1999(million)GDP per capita of urban population in 1999(yuan)Proportion of employment of secondary industry (%)Beijing 7.0025,37637Shenyang Liaoning 3.9021,30340Jinzhou Liaoning 0.6710,04953Nanjing Jiangsu 2.4727,05149Xuzhou Jiangsu 1.0623,50660Zhengzhou Henan 1.5218,58949Kaifeng

Henan 0.57890056Pingdingshan Henan 0.6413,47471Chengdu Sichuan 2.2127,28050Zigong Sichuan 0.4715,84555Nanchong Sichuan 0.4111,82636Lanzhou Gansu 1.4514,54956Pingliang

Gansu

0.13

11,262

–

Sources:Guojia Tongjiju (2000b),Guojia Tongjiju Chengshi Shehui Jingji Diaocha Zongdui (2001).

Urban population is defined as population with urban household registration status.Populations of suburban areas are not included.GDP per capita is calculated using GDP of secondary and tertiary industries.

H.Sato /China Economic Review 17(2006)37–50

39

conditions of urban households improved significantly.The living space per household member increased from 8to almost 16m 2.1The proportion of households living in housing with their own toilets and bathrooms increased from 4%to 33%.

Housing reform to break the vicious cycle of low-wage,low-rent,and low-quality housing lies behind these changes.2There are two basic policies regarding housing reform.One is rent reform (zujin gaige);that is,to raise the rent of public-owned housing while adding housing allowance to salaries simultaneously so that construction and maintenance of public-owned housing can be performed smoothly.The other policy is the privatization of public-owned housing (chushou gongyou zhufang);that is,disposal of public-owned housing by sale.

After carrying out some experiments of selling public-owned housing throughout the 1980s,the State Council issued an agenda for housing reform in 1988that stressed rent reform.During the high inflation of the late 1980s,however,it was very difficult to implement rent reform (Cheng,1999,p.125–131).

In July 1994,the State Council issued a directive that provided the basic framework for housing reform in the 1990s (Guowuyuan,1994).As the key reform principle,the directive advocated the b commercialization (shangpinhua)and socialization (shehuihua)of housing;Q that is,to abolish the work unit-based,welfare-oriented housing system gradually through housing privatization reform as well as rent reform.Regarding pricing policy for housing privatization,the directive adopted differential pricing policy according to income level,b market price (shichangjia)Q for higher income households,and discount prices;that is,b cost price (chengbenjia)Q or b standard price (biaozhunjia)Q for middle-and lower income households.Terms of conditions of property rights given to purchasers were to be set according to the price.In the case of selling at b cost price,Q which was the most common sales method,the property

1

The living space is defined as shiyong mianji,which includes sanitary and cooking facilities,not as juzhu mianji,which excludes such space,or as jianzhu mianji,which includes unusable space such as plumbing and pillars.2

Another significance of housing reform is to create labor market mobility.Regarding the linkage between housing–market reform and labor market reform,see Fleisher et al.(1997).

Table 2

Changes in housing conditions of urban households,1988–1999

Living space per household member (m 2)Proportion of households having their own toilets and bathrooms (%)Proportion of households having their own kitchens (%)Proportion of households using coal as fuel (%)1988

1999198819991988199919881999Beijing 8.413.94225774112Shenyang 5.516.12207193202Jinzhou 6.512.91109098201Nanjing 8.816.211456793310Xuzhou 8.814.53418593695Zhengzhou 9.219.01539191407Kaifeng

8.816.3115283959359Pingdingshan 8.819.32838884343Lanzhou 8.515.52108694174Average 8.015.84

337589297

Number of sample households

(2184)

(2966)

(2191)

(2962)

(2194)

(2966)

(2192)

(2965)

Sources:The 1999and 1988CASS surveys.

H.Sato /China Economic Review 17(2006)37–50

40

rights basically belonged to the purchaser,but renting or reselling the housing was prohibited

until after a fixed period had elapsed from the acquisition.In the case of purchasing at b standard

price,Q the new owner only acquired partial property rights,and renting or reselling to third

parties was restricted.

The next stage of housing reform came in the late1990s.In July1998,the State Council

announced the termination of in-kind distribution of public-owned housing(Guowuyuan,1998).

From the second half of1998,housing privatization had become the mainstream of housing

policy.Work units were to grant housing allowances to employees and to let employees purchase

owned housing.

According to the above-mentioned policy framework,after the mid-1990s,different types of

housing privatization progressed simultaneously.The first was nonmarket transactions between

work units and employees.The second was market circulation of subsidized owned housing for

lower income households who could not obtain housing from work units.This category includes

b economical and comfortable housing(jingji shiyong fang)Q and various low-price housing projects such as the b comfortable housing project(anju gongcheng).Q The third type was market

circulation of b commercialized housing(shanping fang)Q at market prices.

A strong systemic inertia of b work unit socialism Q was found in the housing reform up to the

late1990s.First,in this early stage of housing privatization,nonmarket transactions between

work units and employees at heavily discounted prices were in the majority.In this sense,

privatization was still within the scope of the old welfare system.For example,in Beijing,

although the city government raised the level of b cost price Q each year from1994,many work

units did not follow the policy.It was not until the end of2000that in-kind allocation of housing

terminated in Beijing(Ren and Kang,2002,p.48).

Second,as Bian and Logan(1997)and Logan et al.(1999)emphasized,work units were still

the main agent in housing construction.The quality of housing purchased by urban households

through housing reform was closely related to the administrative hierarchy as well as to

economic performance of the work units.Pricing and property rights attached to privatized

housing also varied considerably by work units(Cheng,1999;Ren and Kang,2002,p.45).As

reported in Table3,those who belong to work units of higher administrative status not only

enjoy better housing conditions but also purchase their own housing at lower prices.

Third,although part of the housing privatization policy was to promote differential pricing

policy and to accelerate construction of low-price housing for poor households,the impact of

Table3

Administrative status of work units and housing conditions,1999

Number

of sample households Living space

per household

member(m2)

Proportion of

households having

their own toilets

and bathrooms(%)

Proportion of

households

living in owned

housing(%)

Proportion of

households that

purchased owned

housing at discount

prices(%)

Central/provincial-level

state-owned work units

(1317)18.2407489

Local-level state-owned

work units

(1332)16.8396787

Urban collective work units(283)13.8325279

Other(nonpublic)work units(169)16.8436985

Total(3101)17.1396987

Source:The1999CASS survey.

H.Sato/China Economic Review17(2006)37–5041

Table4

Ownership structure of urban housing,1999

Ownership status(%)Time of purchase of privately owned

housing(%)Pricing method for privately

owned housing(%)

Self-estimated imputed

rent of privately owned

housing(yuan/m2)

Owned by work units Owned

by local

government

Privately

owned

Other Before

1994

1995–19961997–19981999Market

prices

Discount

prices

Other

Beijing(591)3720403311241171981372

Shenyang(446)21275128972129865127

Jinzhou(198)1917631316572414833104

Nanjing(444)201763001760232926174

Xuzhou(198)12879219294482926111

Zhengzhou(295)2347121234477293480

Kaifeng(198)14776351321708741868

Pingdingshan(199)120691934372543742362

Chengdu(401)225722231645154915109

Zigong(183)14578322135698504259

Nanchong(201)598426019165396156

Lanzhou(397)167761829323148115118

Pingliang(198)108802191937257781656

Average20(789)12(476)65(2569)3(106)20(471)21(501)44(1033)15(361)5(110)85(2022)10(239)139(2482)

Pr=0.000Pr=0.000Pr=0.000

Source:The1999CASS survey.

Numbers in parentheses are numbers of sample households.Pr in the bottom row indicates the level of significance for the chi-square test of independence between cities and housing conditions(ownership status,time of purchase,and pricing method).H. Sato / China Economic Review 17 (2006) 37–50 42

such policy arrangements was limited.Although it is not reported in a specific table or graph,regarding all the samples having owned housing in the 1999CASS survey,there has been found no significant association between household income and pricing method.(When a cross-tabulation of household income quantile and pricing method is examined,there is no tendency for poor households to be more likely to purchase housing at discount price or for wealthy households to purchase housing at market prices.)Also,no correlation has been found between household income and purchase price per square meter of owned housing.

Fourth,systemic inertia brought about macroeconomic imbalances;that is,the large gap between high prices of marketable housing and low rents of public-owned housing (the so-called zu mai bi or price/rent ratio)obstructed the progress of housing reform (Gao and Chu,1996;Lee,2000;Yuan,1998).As Yuan (1998)pointed out,housing marketization until the late 1990s was a dual-track marketization in which there were two segmented markets:an b internal Q market that had developed within the welfare system and an b open Q market that was still premature.

To confirm the above discussion,Table 4reports the progress of housing privatization and ownership structure to 1999by cities.Although the proportion of households who owned housing varies city by city,the majority (65%in an average of 13cities)had become owners of their own housing in 1999.If nine cities that were covered in both the 1988and 1999CASS surveys are compared,the proportion owning housing was 13%in 1988and 68%in 1999.In general,housing privatization accelerated after the mid-1990s.Of all sample households owning their housing,around 80%purchased their houses after 1995.The majority of households purchased owned housing at heavily discounted prices.To take the example of Shenyang,per square meter prices actually paid by households in 1997–1999were as follows:386yuan for purchase at the standard price,393yuan for purchase at cost price,and 910yuan for purchase at market prices.This table also shows large regional disparity in the value of privatized housing assets.Self-estimated imputed rent per square meter varies from 60to 80yuan in inland mid-sized cities to around 370yuan in Beijing.3.Determinants of housing inequality

As discussed in the previous section,the process of housing privatization in the 1990s was rather complicated in terms of pricing and property rights arrangements.It is assumed that not only economic conditions of households but also various factors relating to the sociopolitical hierarchy inherited from the planned-economy era affected the initial inequality of housing assets.

This section examines factors affecting the process of housing privatization by estimating the imputed rent function of owned housing.The focus is on the effects of sociopolitical factors,and the following framework of analysis is used in the estimation.The dependent variable is the rental value of privatized housing assets in 1999.The log of annual imputed rent of owned housing calculated based on self-estimated monthly imputed rent is used.Owned housing here means housing purchased at discount prices in 1996–1999.Since the opportunity for urban households to purchase owned housing from their work units at discount prices was restricted to just once (the State Council,1994),market circulation of second hand houses is not included in the estimation.Annual imputed rent (R )is defined as

R ?r 412àáàd 40:05àáwhere r denotes self-estimated monthly rental value of owned housing (yuan)and d denotes housing debt (yuan).Five percent annual interest for d is subtracted from the rental value.Values

H.Sato /China Economic Review 17(2006)37–5043

of r are collected by asking household heads the question,b How much rent do you think you could get if you were to rent out the housing you are currently living to another person?Q Some criticisms can be brought to bear against estimating imputed rents by subjective evaluations under conditions where the real estate market has not developed fully.Since no systematic data on rental value of housing are available,this paper,nonetheless,uses this subjective variable as the second-best solution.This would be justified by the fact that,as discussed below,renting or subletting of housing has become popular among urban households.

It should be noted that,as mentioned above,two different types of housing privatization are mixed in the cases of purchasing at discount prices.One is nonmarket transactions between work units and employees,which formed the majority up to the late 1990s.The other is market circulation of subsidized owned housing for lower income households.Unfortunately,the data set does not allow the author to discriminate accurately between the latter and the former.In spite of this shortcoming,the author believes that the estimation results reflect the distributive impact of the inertia of the old welfare system.This is because,regarding the samples used for imputed rent function,there is no correlation between household income and purchasing price per square meter in the samples used for the imputed rent function,suggesting that the latter type is in the minority.

The following factors are hypothesized to influence the initial distribution of housing assets.The first factor is seniority.Since work units generally put seniority into the formula for determining price and quality of housing to be privatized (Gao and Chu,1996),it is assumed that seniority positively and significantly correlates with the level of imputed rent after privatization.Purchasers’years of employment at the time of purchasing owned housing from their work units are used as the measurement of seniority.

The second factor is meritocracy.Marketization,in principle,will strengthen the correlation between ability/skill and economic status.Even within the scope of the welfare-oriented housing system,it is assumed that work units had begun to consider employees’ability/skill more seriously in the process of housing privatization since housing was an important means of providing incentives to employees.The level of ability/skill is measured by years of education.It is hypothesized that this factor has a positive effect on the imputed rent of privatized housing.The third factor is political credentialism.In contrast to meritocracy,political credentialism can be understood as a factor inherited from b work unit socialism.Q Controlling for seniority,educational level,and other variables,a positive and significant correlation between political status and imputed rent can be understood as the net premium for political credentialism.Political status is simply measured by a dummy variable for party membership.

The fourth factor is work units’administrative hierarchy.As discussed above,the administrative status of work units affects the terms of housing privatization.It is likely that the imputed rents of the housing offered by work units having higher administrative status are relatively high because they had been beneficiaries of state investments in housing during the planned-economy era,and because they tend to have location advantages.The administrative status of work units is classified into the following four categories:central/provincial-level state-owned work units,local level (subprovincial or city level)state-owned work units,urban collective-owned work units,and d other T work units.Other work units,or nonpublic work units,include mixed-ownership work units,private enterprises,and foreign-owned enterprises.The administrative status of work units is another factor inherited from the planned-economy era and hypothesized to have a positive correlation with imputed rent.

To examine the impact of the above-mentioned factors on housing inequality,the following variables should be controlled.The first controlling variable is the purchasing price.Each work

H.Sato /China Economic Review 17(2006)37–50

44

unit is assumed to decide housing prices based on the quantity and quality of housing to be sold. To control for quantity and quality of housing at the time of privatization,the log of purchase prices reported by household members who purchased housing is employed in the estimation. Purchase prices are deflated to1999prices using the consumer price index for urban households (chengshi jumin xiaofei jiage zhishu)(Guojia Tongjiju,2000a).The second controlling variable is household income.Although pure market transactions of housing are not included here, household income still should be considered,since households with higher income could purchase larger or better housing from their work units.To control for household income before the time of purchasing housing,average household income in1995and1996(deflated to1999 prices)is employed in the estimation.In addition to these two controlling variables,dummy variables for industrial sector and city are also employed to control disparity in economic performance by industry,regional differences in price level,and other region-specific factors. Table5

Determinants of imputed rent of owned housing

All households Households in the

business sector Households in the nonbusiness sector

Years of employment0.008(5.15)***0.008(4.33)***0.008(2.84)*** Years of education0.011(2.41)**0.012(2.14)**0.008(0.93) Party membership0.056(2.00)**0.034(1.01)0.108(2.10)** Central/provincial-level

state-owned work units

0.064(2.22)**0.057(1.64)0.102(1.90)*

Urban collective work units0.034(0.60)0.010(0.17)0.215(1.17) Other(nonpublic)work unitsà0.053(0.77)à0.064(0.83)à0.003(0.02) Log of household income,1995–19960.106(3.71)***0.100(2.98)***0.133(2.30)** Log of purchasing price0.118(7.19)***0.122(5.88)***0.109(3.87)*** Manufacturingà0.103(2.85)***à0.109(2.93)***–

Constructionà0.243(4.54)***à0.242(4.42)***–

Other secondary industry0.019(0.30)à0.024(0.36)–Government,public services0.030(0.83)––

Other industrial sectorsà0.058(0.84)à0.056(0.80)–

Shenyang0.418(7.62)***0.442(6.87)***0.333(3.05)*** Jinzhouà0.046(0.68)à0.035(0.46)à0.096(0.66) Xuzhouà0.122(1.87)*à0.142(1.87)*à0.043(0.33) Nanjing0.555(10.12)***0.582(8.84)***0.490(4.83)*** Beijing 1.230(19.13)*** 1.231(15.50)*** 1.213(10.68)*** Kaifengà0.337(2.39)**à0.307(1.54)à0.367(1.79)* Pingdingshanà0.186(2.07)**à0.162(1.61)à0.283(1.29) Chengdu0.313(5.59)***0.313(4.68)***0.314(3.00)*** Zigongà0.352(4.34)***à0.407(4.25)***à0.191(1.22) Nanchongà0.328(3.96)***0.280(2.59)***à0.419(3.12)*** Lanzhou0.191(3.47)***0.197(3.05)***0.153(1.41) Pingliangà0.533(7.80)***à0.554(5.95)***à0.536(4.88)*** Constant 5.934(21.25)*** 5.948(18.09)*** 5.833(10.38)*** Number of observations1300927373

Adjusted R-squared0.5570.5230.579

Mean of annual imputed rent(yuan)639760187340 Dependent variables are log of annual imputed rent of owned housing that were purchased in1996–1999.Omitted variables are local-level state-owned work units,commerce,and other services,and Zhengzhou.

Source:The1999CASS survey.

Absolute value of t-statistics in parentheses.***denotes statistically significant at the1%level,**at the5%level,and*at the10%level.

H.Sato/China Economic Review17(2006)37–5045

The estimation results appear in Table 5.Estimates were obtained for three cases:all households,households in the business sector,and households in the nonbusiness sector (government departments and other administrative agencies,institutions providing education/research,medical/welfare,and other public services).The following points can be made from the estimates.First,years of employment have significant positive effects on imputed rent in all cases,which suggests that the seniority principle affects the conditions of purchasing housing.It is interesting that the marginal effects of seniority are almost the same in all three cases (approximately 1%premium per year).Second,the impacts of educational level and party membership vary according to the different cases.Years of education have been proved to be positive and significant in the case of all samples and the business sector (marginal effects are approximately 1%per year),whereas it is not significant in the case of the nonbusiness sector.Contrary to educational level,the effect of party membership turned out to be insignificant in the case of the business sector,whereas an approximately 11%premium for party membership was found in the nonbusiness sector.Third,concerning the administrative status of work units,the dummy for central/provincial-level work units proved to be positive and significant in the case of all samples and the nonbusiness sector,whereas it is not significant in the case of the business sector.This outcome is consistent with the political credentialism case.

The differences in the impacts of meritocracy and political credentialism by business/nonbusiness sectors seem to reflect the characteristic of the Chinese-style systemic transition,in which marketization is progressing under the single-party system.In the business sector,marketization seems to raise the distributive impact of education on one hand,and the premium for political status has diminished on the other.However,in the nonbusiness sector,political status still matters.The old distributive issue in the planned-economy era–that is,political credentialism in the distribution of fringe benefits behind the egalitarianism in wage distribution–seems to take a new form in the initial distribution of housing assets.4.Migration and newly emerging housing poverty

Although more and more migrant households have been settling in urban areas,they are still alienated from housing reform policy.They do not benefit from the urban work units’housing allowance scheme and housing privatization programs.It is very difficult for migrant households to purchase owned housing not only because their incomes are too low but also because they cannot access subsidized low-price owned housing and housing loan schemes.They are also excluded from the local government’s low-rent public housing (lianzufang)programs.To settle in cities,most of the migrant households have to rent or sublet housing owned by urban households.From Table 6,it is confirmed that the majority (about 67%)of migrant households are living in rented housing.There is a landlord–tenant relationship between urban households and migrant households,implying that privatized urban housing has become an asset that produces income.The average of annual rent paid by migrant households is 2281yuan for 13cities surveyed,and it reaches 2958yuan for provincial-level cities.

As is reported in Table 6,in spite of the high rent,migrant households are living in very poor housing https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0c13330284.html,paring Table 6with Table 2,it is obvious that there is a large gap in housing conditions between urban and migrant households.For example,the proportion of households living in housing with its own toilet and bathroom is 33%for urban households,whereas it is only about 6%for migrant households.The condition,as is easily understood,is worse in provincial capital cities than in subprovincial-and county-level cities,whereas the rent paid is much higher in the former.

H.Sato /China Economic Review 17(2006)37–50

46

To highlight the gap between urban and migrant households,Table 7compares the expenditure structure of migrant and urban households living in rented housing in Beijing.It is shown that the share of housing expenditure (rent,utilities,and other relating expenditures)is much higher

Table 6

Housing conditions of migrant households,1999

Subprovincial-level and county-level cities

Provincial-level cities

Total

Household size (%)Single

193226Two members

333132Three or more members

48

37

42

Pr =0.000Housing conditions

Living space per household member (m 2)11.010.410.7Proportion of households having their own toilets and bathrooms (%)75

6Pr =0.216Proportion of households having kitchens (%)392531

Pr =0.000Proportion of households using coal as fuel (%)52

38

45

Pr =0.000Type of housing (%)

Rented housing (owned by work unit or local government)

91412Rented housing (privately owned housing)656162Shared rented housing with other migrant households (privately owned housing)365Owned housing 523Other 181818

Pr =0.008Number of sample households (350)(400)(750)Average of annual rent (yuan)

1553

2958

2281

Source:The 1999CASS survey.

Migrant households living in dormitories of work units are not included.Pr indicates the level of significance for the chi-square test of independence between city size and household size,housing conditions,and type of housing.

Table 7

Expenditure structure of migrant/urban households living in rented housing in Beijing,1999

Migrant households

Urban households Household size (person)

2.2

3.1Living space per person (m 2)9.612.4Number of sample households (89)(355)Annual rent paid (yuan/m 2)

34512Proportion of housing expenditures to total household expenditures (%)267Proportion of rent to total household expenditures (%)182Engel coefficient (%)

3541Average of annual household expenditure (yuan)16,80423,826Housing poverty ratio (%)280Number of sample households

(82)

(355)

Source:The 1999CASS survey.

Households living in owned housing are not included for both migrant households and urban households.Migrant households are those that lived in Beijing throughout 1999.Housing expenditure includes rent,utilities,and other housing-related expenditures.

H.Sato /China Economic Review 17(2006)37–50

47

in migrant households than in urban households.In particular,there is a large gap in the proportion of rent to total expenditure (18%in migrant households and only 2%in urban households).

Table 7also reveals that the Engel coefficient for migrant households in Beijing is even lower than in urban households owing to the heavy burden of housing expenditure.This finding strongly indicates the impact of newly emerging housing poverty in urban areas.It is not easy to set a relevant measurement of housing poverty applicable to urban China.If the proportion of rent actually paid in total household expenditure is used as a simple measurement of housing poverty,and the poverty line is set at the 30%level,then 28%of migrant households in Beijing are below the poverty line.No urban household in Beijing,by contrast,is under this poverty line.When the same housing poverty line is employed for 13cities,21%of the migrant households are in the situation of housing poverty,whereas no urban household living in rented housing is below the poverty line.5.Conclusion

This paper has examined distributive implications of two important issues for urban housing in the late 1990s,that is,the privatization of public-owned housing and the wave of rural–urban migration.The main points of the investigation are summarized as follows.

The housing conditions of urban households improved significantly in the 1990s,and the majority of urban households that used to rent housing became owners of their own housing through disposal of public-owned housing at discounted prices.However,a strong systemic inertia of b work unit socialism Q had remained in force during this early stage of housing privatization.In this stage,nonmarket transactions between work units and urban households at heavily discounted prices were in the majority.In this sense,housing privatization was still within the scope of the old welfare system.This initial structure of housing inequality formed by the late 1990s matters not only because the initial asset distribution affects subsequent economic inequality,including intergenerational inheritance of inequality in general but also because the rapid development of the housing market after the late 1990s is likely to reinforce the inequality.From the estimation of an imputed rent function for owned housing purchased at discount prices in 1996–1999,it has been found that meritocracy and political credentialism had different effects.Meritocracy has had a significant positive impact on imputed rent in the case of all samples and the business sector.Political credentialism has proved to be positive and significant in the nonbusiness sector,whereas it has turned out to be insignificant in the business sector.Administrative status of work units has also been found to have positive and significant influence on imputed rent in the nonbusiness sector,whereas it was insignificant in the business sector.

Changes in the impacts of educational attainment and political credentials in distributional outcomes have been an interdisciplinary focus of researches on postreform urban China.The common ground of discussions at the present stage can be summarized as the coexistence of increasing return for educational attainment,which indicates penetration of market mechanisms,and the persistence of a premium for political credentials,which represents systemic inertia of the planned economy (e.g.,Nee,1996;Walder,2003).Estimation results using the imputed rent function have confirmed the coexistence of different distributive mechanisms for assets,which in the previous literature are investigated less than the distribution mechanism for income.A criticism can be made that the magnitude of such systemic inertia in housing privatization should not be overemphasized,because it should be a transitional phenomenon and because the

H.Sato /China Economic Review 17(2006)37–50

48

H.Sato/China Economic Review17(2006)37–5049 relative share of the nonbusiness sector in the entire urban society will be declining.However,it should be noted that,in the context of China where marketization is progressing under the single-party system,inequality in the distribution of wealth caused by political credentialism and administrative hierarchy will appeal strongly to people’s sense of unfairness and make no small sociopolitical impacts.

In parallel with housing privatization,waves of migrant households arrived and a landlord–tenant relationship between urban households and migrant households was formed.It is confirmed that there has been a large disparity in housing conditions between urban households and migrant households,and that a new type of housing poverty has been emerging among migrant households.When a simple measurement of housing poverty(proportion of rent to total household expenditure)is used,it is suggested that21%of migrant households experience housing poverty.This newly emerging urban housing poverty will be another issue of considerable sociopolitical magnitude.

Therefore,it is essential for local governments not only to accelerate low-price housing projects for low-income urban households but also to introduce more comprehensive housing policy that includes settled rural migrants.In the long run,improvements to the wealth and inheritance tax system will also be required.

Acknowledgments

The author has benefited from the valuable comments from anonymous referees.The1999 CASS survey was conducted in collaboration with several foreign research institutions including Hitotsubashi University.The financial supports for the1999CASS survey from the Ford Foundation;the Masayoshi Ohira Memorial Foundation;Hitotsubashi University;the Ministry of Education,Culture,Sports,Science and Technology of Japan;the Committee on Scholarly Communication with China and the Department for International Development,United Kingdom,are gratefully acknowledged.

References

Bian,K.,&Logan,J.R.(1997).Work units and housing reform in two Chinese cities.In X.Lu,&E.J.Perry(Eds.), Danwei:The changing Chinese workplace in historical and comparative perspective.Armonk,New York7M.E.

Sharpe.

Cheng,S.(Ed.).(1999).Zhongguo chengzhen zhufang zhidu gaige[Urban housing reform in China].Beijing7Minzhu yu Jianshe Chubanshe.

Fang,C.,Zhang,X.,&Fan,S.(2002).Emergence of urban poverty and inequality in China:Evidence from household survey.China Econ Rev,13(4),430–443.

Fleisher,B.M.,Yin,Y.,&Hills,S.M.(1997).The role of housing privatization and labor-market reform in China’s dual economy.China Econ Rev,8(1),1–17.

Gao,S.,&Chu,C.(Eds.).(1996).Zhongguo chengzhen zhufang zhidu gaige quanshu[Comprehensive documents and studies on housing reform in urban China].Beijing7Zhongguo Jihua Chubanshe.

Griffin,K.,&Zhao,R.(Eds.).(1993).The distribution of income in China.London7Macmillan.

Guojia Tongjiju[the National Bureau of Statistics](2000a).Gansu tongji nianjian,2000[The statistical yearbook of Gansu,2000].Beijing7Zhongguo Tongji Chubanshe.

Guojia Tongjiju.(2000b).Zhongguo tongji nianjian,2000[The statistical yearbook of China,2000].Beijing7Zhongguo Tongji Chubanshe.

Guojia Tongjiju Chengshi Shehui Jingji Diaocha Zongdui[General Team of Urban Socioeconomic Survey,the National Bureau of Statistics].(2001).Zhongguo chengshi tongji nianjian,2000[Urban statistical yearbook of China,2000].

Beijing7Zhongguo Tongji Chubanshe.

Guowuyuan [the State Council].(1994).Guanyu shenhua chengzhen zhufang zhidu gaige de jueding [Decision on

deepening urban housing reform].Real estate and construction database (https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0c13330284.html,/law ).

Guowuyuan.(1998)Guanyu jinyibu shenhua chengzhen zhufang zhidu gaige jiakuai zhufang jianshe de tongzhi

[Direction on deepening housing reform and acceleration of housing construction].The ministry of construction law and policy document database (https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0c13330284.html,/indus/other/2001052503.htm ).

Lee,J.(2000).From welfare housing to home ownership:the dilemma of China’s housing reform.Hous Stud ,15,61–76.Liu,J.(2000).Danwei zhongguo [The work unit of China].Tianjin 7Tianjin Renmin Chubanshe.

Logan,J.R.,Bian,Y .,&Bian,F.(1999).Housing inequality in urban China in the 1990s.Int J Urban Reg Res ,23,

7–25.Lu ¨,X.,&Perry,E.J.(Eds.).(1997).Danwei:The changing Chinese workplace in historical and comparative

perspective .Armonk,New York 7M.E.Sharpe.

Nee,V .(1996).The emergence of a market society:changing mechanisms of stratification in China.Am J Sociol ,101,

908–949.

Ren,B.,&Kang,W.(2002).Fanggai miju [Confusing maze of housing reform].In Caijing Zashi Bianjibu (Ed.),

Zhuanxing zhongguo [China in transformation](pp.40–61).Beijing 7Shehuikexue Wenjian Chubanshe.Walder,A.(2003).Elite opportunity in transitional economics.Am Sociol Rev ,68,899–916.

Wang,Y .P.(2000).Housing reform and its impact on the urban poor in China.Hous Stud ,15,845–864.

Womack,B.(1991).Transfigured community:Neo-traditionalism and work-unit socialism in China.China Q ,126,

313–332.

Yuan,S.(1998).Key issues in establishing a new housing system based on a market-oriented economy.Working paper .

Chinese Economies Research Centre,The University of Adelaide,no.98/1,pp.1–38.

H.Sato /China Economic Review 17(2006)37–50

50

2018届高考文言文翻译之典型例题：2016年高考真题

2018届高考文言文翻译之典型例题：2016年高考真题 2018届高考文言文翻译之典型例题：2016年高考真题 2018届高考文言文翻译之典型例题：2016年高考真题 一、（2016年高考新课标I卷）阅读下面的文言文，完成4～7题。 曾公亮，字明仲，泉州晋江人。举进士甲科，知会稽县。民田镜湖旁，每患湖溢。公亮立斗门，泄水入曹娥江，民受其利。以端明殿学士知郑州，为政有能声盗悉窜他境至夜户不闭尝有使客亡橐中物移书诘盗公亮报吾境不藏盗殆从之者度耳索之果然 公亮明练文法，更践久，习知朝廷台阁典宪，首相韩琦每咨访焉。仁宗末年，琦请建储，与公亮等共定大议。密州民田产银，或盗取之，大理当以强。公亮日：此禁物也，取之虽强，与盗物民家有间矣。固争之，遂下有司议，比劫禁物法，盗得不死。契丹纵人渔界河，又数通盐舟，吏不敢禁，皆谓：与之校，且生事。公亮言：萌芽不禁，后将奈何？雄州赵滋勇而有谋，可任也。使谕以指意，边害讫息。英宗即位，加中书侍郎兼礼部尚书，寻加户部尚书。帝不豫，辽使至不能见，命公亮宴于馆，使者不肯赴。公亮质之曰：锡宴不赴，是不虔君命也。人主有疾，而必使亲临，处之安乎？使者即就席。熙宁三年，拜司空兼侍中、河阳三城节度使。明年，起判永兴军。居一岁，还京师。旋以太傅致仕。元丰元年卒，年八十。帝临哭，辍朝三日。公亮方厚庄重，沉深周密，平居谨绳墨，蹈规矩；然性吝啬，殖货至巨万。初荐王安石，及同辅政，知上方向之，阴为子孙计，凡更张庶事，一切听顺，而外若不与之者。常遣子孝宽参其谋，至上前略无所异，于是帝益信任安石。安石德其助己，故引擢孝宽至枢密以报之。苏轼尝从容责公亮不能救正，世讥其持禄固宠云。 （节选自《宋史曾公亮传》） 7.把文中画横线的句子翻译成现代汉语。 （1）锡宴不赴，是不虔君命也。人主有疾，而必使亲临，处之安乎? 译文：________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ （2）苏轼尝从容责公亮不能救正，世讥其持禄固宠云。 译文：________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ 二、（2016年高考新课标卷）阅读下面的文言文，完成4～7题。 陈登云，字从龙，唐山人。万历五年进士。除鄢陵知县，征授御史。出按辽东，疏陈安攘十策，又请速首功之赏。改巡山西。还朝，会廷臣方争建储。登云谓议不早决，由贵妃家阴沮之。十六年六月遂因灾异抗疏，劾妃父郑承宪，言：承宪怀祸藏奸窥觊储贰且广结术士之流曩陛下重惩科场冒籍承宪妻每扬言事由己发用以恐喝勋贵簧鼓朝绅 不但惠安遭其虐焰，即中宫与太后家亦谨避其锋矣。陛下享国久长，自由敬德所致，而承宪每对人言，以为不立东宫之效。干挠盛典，蓄隐邪谋，他日何所不至？疏入，贵妃、承宪皆怒，同列亦为登云危，帝竟留中不下。久之，疏论吏部尚书陆光祖，又论贬四川提学副使冯时可，论罢应天巡抚李涞、顺天巡抚王致祥，又论礼部侍郎韩世能、尚书罗万化、南京太仆卿徐用检。朝右皆惮之。时方考选科道，登云因疏言：近岁言官，壬午以前怵于威，则摧刚为柔；壬午以后昵于情，则化直为佞。其间岂无刚直之人，而弗胜龃龉，多不能安其身。二十年来，以刚直擢京卿者百止一二耳。背公植党，逐嗜乞怜，如所谓‘七豺’‘八狗’者，言路顾居其半。夫台谏为天下持是非，而使人贱辱至此，安望其抗颜直绳，为国家锄大奸、歼巨蠹哉！与其误用而斥之，不若慎于始进。因条数事以献。出按河南。岁大饥，人相食。

泛读教程2、课后题答案

A :c B 1-5 baccd 6-8 cdd D.1-5 daaba 6-10 dadca Fast Reading:1 dbcca 2 cbbcd 3 dcdcd Home Reading:abcccbac Unit 2 A:c B 1-5 cdada 6-10 bdacb D 1-5 dcbad 6-10 cbbad 11-15 cabdc Fast Reading:1 bbcad 2 bbbdd 3 cddda Home Reading: abadcadbcd Unit 3 A :c B 1-5 dccad 6-10 ddcaa D 1-5 badcd 6-12 bbcdacb Fast Reading:1 dbacc 2 abdcbd 3 dabc Home Reading:abdccccbab Unit 4 A :c B bdcaab D 1-5 dbacb 6-12 ccdcdcb Fast Reading:1 cdabd 2 cdcdd 3 dccbb Home Reading:bcddcdccdd Unit 5 A: c B 1-5 cacbd 6-10 bdabc D 1-5 abacd 6-10 ababa Fast Reading:1 ddbdb 2 dbddc 3 cdbcd Home Reading:cbdcbaacbd Uint 6 A:a B 1-5 bbbad 6-10 bdddc D 1-5 ccbaa 6-12 dabada Fast Reading:1 cabdd 2 addaa 3 bccdb Home Reading:bcacbbbb Unit 7 A:b B 1-5 cadbd 6-11 abcbad D 1-5 badca 6-14 bcbbadcab Fast Reading:1 cabdb 2 dbbdd 3 dccbd Home Reading:dcdbaccadb Unit 8 A:b B 1-5 badda 6-8 bac D:dacdcabbdab Fast Reading:1 cdbbd 2 dcacb 3 adcab Home Reading:accbdbacdb Unit 9 A:c B 1-5 bdcac 6-8 bcd D:aaabccdacbb Fast Reading:1 bcdda 2 adccd 3 dcbdc Home Reading:bcbadcab Unit 10 A:a B 1-5 acdcb 6-10 dadcc D:aaadbbcdabb Fast Reading: 1 ddccc 2 bbbca 3 cdacc Home Reading:bddcddcba Unit 11 A:c B 1-5 bdbba 6-7 bc D:aabbadab Fast Reading:1 bcbcb 2 ccbdd 3 abccd Home Reading:cdddddbcba

新模式英语第一册unit1lesson1-2.doc

新模式英语第一册unit1lesson1-2 广东省xxx学院广东省xxx学校理论课教案编号：NGQD-0707-09版本号：A/1页码：1编制/时间:审核/时间：批准/时间：课程名称NewModeofEnglish课题Unit1Talkingwithothers:Whereareyoufrom?Whatdoeshelooklike?授课班级1263FoodEngineeringandTesting授课日期2013.4.15/18授课时数4教学类型NewLesson教学方法Grammar-TranslationCommunicativeSituational教材及参考资料Textbook教学目标StudentscangivepersonalinationanddescribepeopleStudentsmastergra mmarpointhis/hersimplepresent:have;adjectiveorder教学重点及化解方法重点：Askandgivepersonalination化解方法：Dorcisestoreinforcewhatstudentshavelearn教学难点及化解方法难点：Grammarpoint:theusageofsimplepresent化解方法：DrillstudentsbyaskingquestionsaboutthepicturebelowthechartFonpag e3andaboutthemselves.Helpstudentstousecompletesentences.Writeth eirresponsesontheboardincompletesentences.教学准备laptop,teachingplanning教学对象分析Thereare32studentsinthisclass.Mostofthestudentscankeepsilentandlis tentotheteachercarefully,afewstudentshaveabadknowledgebasement, Duringtheclass,somestudentsaretooshytoopentheirmouthtospeakout.广东省xxx学院广东省xxxx学校理论课教案编制/时间：页码：

新课标下高效的英语课堂教学模式

新课标下高效的英语课堂教学模式 发表时间：2014-08-04T16:58:14.530Z 来源：《科教新时代》2014年7月供稿作者：陈志堂[导读] 进一步引导教师教学观念的转变，全面促使教师自觉地、富有创造性地投入到教学变革之中，并以此为统领，有效地将“三维”目标落实到课堂教学之中。贵州省福泉市地松初级中学陈志堂 【摘要】高效能课堂教学旨在提高课堂教学的效率和效力。所谓效率是指在单位课时内完成教学任务的量；效力是对完成教学任务在质的方面的要求。我们以《英语课程标准》中提出的 “要实现学生在语言技能、语言知识、情感态度、学习策略和文化意识等方面的综合发展”为总目标，积极探索转变教学观念，改变教学方法，优化英语教学过程，着眼于学生英语综合能力的提高，培养学生的文化意识和全球意识，使他们形成良好的学习态度和学习习惯，为他们的终身发展打下坚实的基础。【关键词】高效；课堂教学；英语【中图分类号】G533.40 【文章标识码】D 【文章编号】1326-3587（2014）07-0030-01 一、研究目标新的课程改革的核心目标是实现课程功能的转变，就是要改变课程过于注重知识传授的倾向，强调形成积极主动的学习态度，使获得知识与技能的过程成为学会学习和形成正确价值观的过程。实现这样三位一体的课程功能，探究性学习是一个比较理想的载体，它有利于学生主动探究、乐于合作，形成积极的情感体验，有利于他们主动发现问题、分析和解决问题，形成良好的学习习惯。这种学习方式的转变将帮助学生学会学习，为终身学习做好准备。 二、追求学生学习方式的转变 《基础教育课程改革纲要》中指出：“改变课程实施过于强调接受学习，死记硬背，机械训练的现状，倡导学生主动参与，乐于探究，勤于动手，培养学生搜集和处理信息的能力，获取新知识的能力以及交流与合作的能力。”探究性学习就是要开发学生的潜在能力，让学生在开放、愉悦的学习环境中，运用多渠道的学习资源，增强实践动手能力和观察发现能力，培养探究和创新的综合运用能力，真正让学生从“灌输式”的枷锁下解放出来，成为一名“知识与能力的融和型”人才。当然英语教育提倡探究性学习方式，但也不能排除接受性学习。英语教育中有意义的接受性学习要与探究性学习整合使用，协调发展。 三、追求学生科学性和人文性的整合发展 社会的发展靠人的发展推动，人的发展除了要掌握认识自然和社会、改造自然和社会的科学知识外，还必须发展人的思想道德、情感意志、科学态度、价值取向、合作分享等人文素质。英语学科探究性学习要求英语课堂教学紧密联系现实世界和社会以及学生的生活实际，让学生亲自参与运用英语探究、解决问题的过程。这样不仅能促进学生的英语知识和运用知识的系统化和结构化，同时也能加深思想观念、情感意志、科学态度、价值取向、互助合作和团队精神等方面的人文性的感悟和体验，使科学性和人文性协调发展、整合发展。 四、追求学生实践能力和创新精神的发展 探究性学习为学生提供参与实践活动的客观情境。在真实的情境中学生运用英语发现问题、提出问题，调查研究，查阅文献获取信息，并对信息进行分析判断处理，进而解决问题。学生亲自实践活动的过程不仅获取了实践能力，也感染了积极的情感意志，丰富了创新精神的体验。 五、追求学生素质和个性的全面发展 传统英语教学以书本、教师和课堂为中心，忽视学生德智体美劳全面素质和个性的健全发展。不同于这种消极被动的接受知识的学习方式，探究性学习根据学生认知心理结构、能力结构、情感意志、策略方法和经历体验的个性差异，重视因材施教，发展每一个学生的个性。采用探究性学习方式，学生可以在真实的情境中积极主动地参与师生、生生之间的合作探究交流活动，从而不断获取知识、技能和能力，发展学生的世界观、人生观和价值观。 六、存在的问题及解决办法 （一）存在的问题。 1．课程改革的许多新理念，要落实到课堂教学活动中，实践时，许多教师还相对稚拙。教学的进程是非线性的，教师要有应对变化、滋生教学的基本功。这对教师的专业水平提出了更高的要求。要真正把认识和行动统一到课程改革的思想上来，教师需要有专业指导，必须坚持理论与实践的统一，着眼于研究的科学性。 2．学生经过几年的学习，尤其是进入初三年级的时候，出现了两极分化现象：一部分学生学习能力强，学习成绩好，学习兴趣也更浓；而另一部分学生则学习能力低，学习成绩越来越差，也就越来越失去了学习英语的兴趣。其表现在听说尚可，但读写则很难。 3．学生的读写能力还有待加强。从整体上看，学生的读写能力普遍较差，还不能很好地独立完成学习任务，需要在教师的指导下才能完成，因此，他们这方面的能力还有待提高。 (二)解决办法。 1．进一步引导教师教学观念的转变，全面促使教师自觉地、富有创造性地投入到教学变革之中，并以此为统领，有效地将“三维”目标落实到课堂教学之中。 2.教师应多向学生推荐一些图文并茂的英文读物，鼓励学生进行课外阅读，精挑细选一些幽默故事、笑话等英文材料，激发学生的阅读兴趣，提高学生的阅读能力。回首近年课题研究历程，我们更加意识到，科研是完善教育、完善人的重要载体和途径，是学校得以持续发展的强大驱动力，是显示现代教育魅力之所在。我们将不负众望，求实务真，积极创新，努力谱写出有关初中英语课堂教学有效模式建构理念的新篇章。

高中文言文精短翻译练习100道题

高中文言文精短翻译练习100篇 1、范仲淹有志于天下 原文：范仲淹二岁而孤，母贫无靠，再适常山朱氏。既长，知其世家，感泣辞母，去之南都入学舍。昼夜苦学，五年未尝解衣就寝。或夜昏怠，辄以水沃面。往往糜粥不充，日昃始食，遂大通六经之旨，慨然有志于天下。常自诵曰：当先天下之忧而忧，后天下之乐而乐。 翻译：范仲淹二岁的时候死了父亲。母亲很穷，没有依靠。就改嫁到了常山的朱家。（范仲淹）长大以后，知道了自己的生世，含着眼泪告别母亲，离开去应天府的南都学舍读书。（他）白天、深夜都认真读书。五年中，竟然没有曾经脱去衣服上床睡觉。有时夜里感到昏昏欲睡，往往把水浇在脸上。（范仲淹）常常是白天苦读，什么也不吃，直到日头偏西才吃一点东西。就这样，他领悟了六经的主旨，后来又立下了造福天下的志向。他常常自己讲道：“当先天下之忧而忧，后天下之乐而乐。” 2、陈蕃愿扫除天下 原文：藩年十五，尝闲处一室，而庭宇芜岁。父友同郡薛勤来候之，谓藩曰：“孺子何不洒扫以待宾客？”藩曰：“大丈夫处世，当扫除天下，安事一室乎？”勤知其有清世志，甚奇之。 译文：陈藩十五岁的时候，曾经独自住在一处，庭院以及屋舍十分杂乱。他父亲同城的朋友薛勤来拜访他，对他说：“小伙子你为什么不整理打扫房间来迎接客人？”陈藩说：“大丈夫处理事情，应当以扫除天下的坏事为己任。不能在乎一间屋子的事情。”薛勤认为他有让世道澄清的志向，与众不同。 3、班超投笔从戎 原文：班超字仲升，扶风平陵人，徐令彪之少子也。为人有大志，不修细节。然内孝谨，居家常执勤苦，不耻劳辱。有口辩，而涉猎书传。永平五年。兄固被召诣校书郎，超与母随至洛阳。家贫，常为官佣书以供养。久劳苦，尝辍业投笔叹曰：“大丈夫无它志略，犹当效傅介子、张骞立功异域，以取封侯，安能久事笔研间乎？”左右皆笑之。超曰：“小子安知壮士志哉！” 翻译：班超为人有远大的志向，不计较一些小事情。然而在家中孝顺勤谨，过日子常常辛苦操劳，不以劳动为耻辱。他能言善辩，粗览了许多历史典籍。公元62年(永平五年)，哥哥班固被征召做校书郎，班超和母亲也随同班罟到了洛阳。因为家庭贫穷，班超常为官府抄书挣钱来养家。他长期抄写，劳苦不堪，有一次，他停下的手中的活儿，扔了笔感叹道：“大丈夫如果没有更好的志向谋略，也应像昭帝时期的傅介子、武帝时期的张骞那样，在异地他乡立下大功，以得到封侯，怎么能长期地在笔、砚之间忙忙碌碌呢？”旁边的人都嘲笑他，班超说：“小子怎么能了解壮士的志向呢！” 4、宗悫（què）乘风破浪 原文：宗悫字元干，南阳涅阳人也。叔父炳高尚不仕。悫年少时，炳问其志。悫曰：“愿乘长风破万里浪。”炳曰：“汝若不富贵，必破我门户。”兄泌娶妻，始入门，夜被劫，悫年十四，挺身与拒贼，十余人皆披散，不得入室。时天下无事，士人并以文艺为业，炳素高节，诸子群从皆好学，而悫任气好武，故不为乡曲所称。 翻译：宗悫，字元干，是南阳涅阳人。他的叔父宗炳，学问很好但不肯做官。宗悫小的时候，宗炳问他长大后志向是什么？他回答：“希望驾着大风刮散绵延万里的巨浪。”（宗炳说：“就算你不能大富大贵，也必然会光宗耀祖。”）有一次宗悫的哥哥宗泌结婚，结婚的当晚就遭到强盗打劫。当时宗悫才14岁，却挺身而出与强盗打斗，把十几个强盗打得四下溃散，根本进不了正屋。当时天下太平，有点名望的人都认为习文考取功名是正业。宗炳因为学问高，大家都喜欢跟着他读儒家经典。而宗悫因为任性而且爱好武艺，因此不被同乡称赞。 5、祖逖闻鸡起舞 原文：范阳祖逖，少有大志，与刘琨俱为司州主簿，同寝，中夜闻鸡鸣，蹴琨觉曰：“此非恶声也！”因起舞。及渡江，左丞相睿以为军谘祭酒。逖居京口，纠合骁健，言于睿曰：“晋室之乱，非上无道而下怨叛也，由宗室争权，自相鱼肉，遂使戎狄乘隙，毒流中土。今遗民既遭残贼，人思自奋，大王诚能命将出师，使如逖者统之以复中原，郡国豪杰，必有望风响应者矣！”睿素无北伐之志，以逖为奋威将军、豫州刺史，给千人廪，布三千匹，不给铠仗，使自召募。逖将其部曲百余家渡江，中流，击楫而誓曰：“祖逖不能清中原而复济者，有如大江！”遂屯淮阴，起冶铸兵，募得二千余人而后进。 翻译：当初，范阳人祖逖，年轻时就有大志向，曾与刘琨一起担任司州的主簿，与刘琨同寝，夜半时听到鸡鸣，他踢醒刘琨，说：“这不是令人厌恶的声音。”就起床舞剑。渡江以后，左丞相司马睿让他担任军咨祭酒。祖逖住在京口，聚集起骁勇强健的壮士，对司马睿说：“晋朝的变乱，不是因为君主无道而使臣下怨恨叛乱，而是皇亲宗室之间争夺权力，自相残杀，这样就使戎狄之人钻了空子，祸害遍及中原。现在晋朝的遗民遭到摧残伤害后，大家都想着自强奋发，大王您确实能够派遣将领率兵出师，使像我一样的人统领军队来光复中原，各地的英雄豪杰，一定会有闻风响应的人！”司马睿一直没有北伐的志向，他听了祖逖的话以后，就任命祖逖为奋威将军、豫州刺史，仅仅拨给他千人的口粮，三千匹布，不供给兵器，让祖逖自己想办法募集。祖逖带领自己私家的军队共一百多户人家渡过长江，在江中敲打着船桨说：“祖逖如果不能使中原清明而光复成功，就像大江一样有去无回！”于是到淮阴驻扎，建造熔炉冶炼浇铸兵器，又招募了二千多人然后继续前进。 6、画家赵广不屈 原文：赵广，合肥人。本李伯时家小史，伯时作画，每使侍左右。久之遂善画。尤工画马。几能乱真，建炎中陷贼，贼闻其善画，使图所虏妇人，广毅然辞以实不能画，胁以白刃，不从遂断右手拇指遣去，而广平生适用左手。乱定，惟画观音大士而已。又数年，乃死，今士大夫所藏伯时观音，多广笔也。 翻译：赵广是合肥人，本来是李伯时家里的书童。李伯时作画的时候就侍奉在左右，时间长了就擅长画画了，尤其擅长画马，几乎和李伯时所作的一样。建炎年间，他落在金兵手里。金兵听说他擅长画画，就让他画掳来的妇人。赵广毅然推辞作画，金兵用刀子威胁，没得逞，就将他的右手拇指砍去。而赵广其实是用左手作画的。局势平定以后，赵广只画观音大士。又过了几年，赵广死了，如今有地位的知识分子所藏的李伯时的观音画，大多是赵广的手笔。 7、苏武牧羊北海上

泛读教程3第二版答案

泛读英语教程3读写习题答案 unit1 When I think of people in this world who have really made a difference, I think of my parents. They were truly saints among ordinary people. I was one of the ten children my parents adopted. They rescue (挽救) each of us from a life of poverty and loneliness. They were hardly able to restrain （克制）themselves from bringing home m ore children to care for. If they had had the resources （资源） they certainly would have. Most people do not realize how much they appreciated（感激） someone until they pass away. My sisters and brothers and I did not want this to happen before we uttered（说） the words "Thank you" to our parents. Although we have all grown up and scattered（散落） about the country, we got back together to thank our parents. My brother Tom undertook（从事，承担）the task of organizing the event. Every Friday night, Mom and Dad have had the ham d inner special at the same r estaurant for the last twenty years. That is where we waited without their knowing. When we first caught a glimpse （瞥一眼） of them coming across the street, we all hid underneath(在…之下） a big table. When they entered, we leapt out and shouted, "Thank you, Mom and Dad." My brother Tom presented（提供）them with a card and we all hugged. My Dad pretended that he had known we were under the table all along. 当我想到的人在这个世界上真的有区别,我认为我的父母。他们是真正的圣徒在普通 人中间。我是十个孩子的父母。他们拯救(挽救)我们每个人从贫穷和孤独的生活。他们 几乎能够抑制(克制)把更多的孩子带回家照顾自己。如果他们有资源(资源)他们肯定会。大多数人都没有意识到他们欣赏(感激)的人,直到他们去世。我和我的兄弟姐妹不希望这 样的事情发生在我们说出的话(说)“谢谢”我们的父母。虽然我们都长大了,分散(散落)的国家,我们一起回来,感谢我们的父母,我的哥哥汤姆进行了(从事,承担)的任务组织事件。每一个星期五的晚上,妈妈和爸爸有火腿晚餐特别在同一餐厅过去二十年了。我们等 了不知道。当我们第一次瞥见(瞥一眼)的街对面,我们都躲在(在…之下)一个大表。当他

英语课堂教学模式流程最最新

杨屯联校三段·六环节英语课堂教学模式三段·六环节即：1、课堂准备阶段（Step1. Warming-up╱Revision） 2、精讲多练阶段（Step2.Presentation ，Step 3.New lesson，Step4.Practise） 3、巩固发展阶段（Step5. Check and extension ，Step6．Summary） Step1. Warming-up╱Revision 有读有演，有张有弛，循序渐进，温故知新。 （1）温习单词环节： 上英语课时，学生按单词表的顺序用升、降调领读单词两遍、汉语一遍。每个学生熟读后，要求齐读。通过周而复始地训练，到期中监测时，每个学生能背出一至五模块的单词 期中监测后，再按以上方法领读六至十模块的单词。到期末监测时，每个学生都能背出一至十模块的单词。不同英语水平的学生见词会读，多数学生还能见词说句、即兴表演。 （2）朗读课文环节 每堂课，学生要朗读学过的一个模块（下一节课接着这个模块继续读）。如：五年级已学到第五模块时，本周的第一堂课读第一模块，第二堂课读第二模块，以此类推。读时，找一个学生领读标题，其他学生齐读正文。这样反复进行朗读，有利于学生把学过的知识稳扎稳打，同时也提高了学生的口语交际能力 Step2.Presentation 单词学习 （1）首先教师以图片或事物的形式教授新单词，学生通过跟师读，点读笔读，来初步接触新单词，并模仿标准的语音语调，师给予指导。 个人细读、背诵一段时间后，各小组进行组内检查。组内检查由组长组织，组长先读或背诵，再是副组长、组员依次轮流。采用这样形式，小组团结一致，合作愉快，发现问题会及时相互共同解决，还能帮助学习有困难的同学不掉队。 强化巩固单词时，我们要求学生：1）心里想着这个单词的汉意。2）眼睛看着单词的字母组合。3）口里读着单词的音。4）手指笔划着字母组合。 这样通过小组的合作练读，减少了学生自读时遇到的困难, 避免了学生自读时的枯燥无味。小组合作愉快，学生积极性高，个个乐不疲惫，几乎没有掉队的，达到了事半功倍的效果。

中考文言文翻译实用方法经典讲解(带试题实例!)

一.增就是增补，在翻译时增补文言文省略句中的省略成分。 注意：补出省略的成分或语句，要加括号。 1、增补原文省略的主语、谓语或宾语 例1：“一鼓作气，再而衰，三而竭。”“再”“三”后省略了谓语“鼓”，翻译时要补上。 例2：“见渔人，乃大惊，问所从来。”译句：“（桃源中人）一见渔人，大为惊奇，问他是从哪里来的。” 例3：“君与具来。”“与”后省略了宾语“之”。 2、增补使语义明了的关联词 例：“不治将益深”是一个假设句，译句：“（如果）不治疗就会更加深入”。 二 .删就是删除，凡是古汉语中的发语词、在句子结构上起标志作用的助词和凑足音节的助词等虚词，因在现代汉语中是没有词能代替，故翻译时无须译出，可删去。 例1：“师道之不传也久矣。”译句：“从师学习的风尚已经很久不存在 了。”“也”为句中语气助词，起到舒缓语气的作用，没有实在意义。在翻译时，完全可以去掉。 例2：“孔子云：何陋之有？”译句：“孔子说：有什么简陋的呢？”“之”为宾语前置的标志，删去不译。 例3：“夫战，勇气也。”译句：“战斗，靠的是勇气”。“夫”为发语词，删去不译。 三.调就是调整，在翻译文言文倒装句时，应把古汉语倒装句式调整为现代汉语句式，使之符合现代汉语的表达习惯、译句通顺。这就需要调整语句语序， 大体有三种情况：

1、后置定语前移例：“群臣吏民，能面刺寡人之过者，受上赏。”可调成“能面刺寡人之过群臣吏民，受上赏。” 2、前置谓语后移例：“甚矣！汝之不惠。”可调成“汝之不惠甚矣。” 3、介宾短语前移。例：“还自扬州”可调成“自扬州还”。 4、前置宾语后移例：“何以战？”可调成“以何战？” 四.留就是保留，凡是古今意义相同的词、专有名词、国号、年号、人名、物名、人名、官职、地名等，在翻译时可保留不变。 例：“庆历四年春，滕子京谪守巴陵郡。”译句：“庆历四年的春天，滕子京被贬到巴陵郡做太守。”“庆历四年”为年号，“巴陵郡”是地名，可直接保留。 五.扩就是扩展。 1、言简义丰的句子，根据句义扩展其内容。 例：“怀敌附远，何招而不至？”译句：“使敌人降服，让远方的人归附，招抚谁，谁会不来呢？” 2、单音节词扩为同义的双音节词或多音节词。 例：“更若役，复若赋，则如何？”译句：“变更你的差役，恢复你的赋税，那么怎么样呢？”“役”“赋”扩展为双音节词。 六.缩就是凝缩，文言文中的有些句子，为了增强气势，故意实用繁笔，在翻译时应将其意思凝缩。 例：“有席卷天下，包举宇内，囊括四海之意，并吞八荒之心。”译句：“（秦）有吞并天下，统一四海的雄心。” 七.直即直译，就是指紧扣原文，按原文的词句进行对等翻译的今译方法。对于文言文的实词、大部分虚词、活用词和通假字，一般是要直接翻译的，否则， 在考查过程中是不能算作准取得翻译。 例：“清荣峻茂，良多趣味。”译句：“水清，树茂，山高，草盛，实在是趣味无穷。”

泛读教程第二版第一册unit13

Unit 13 Physical Fitness 1-5 BACBA ACB 1-5 BBAAC BCA Word Match subtract to take (a number, amount, ect.) from something larger dissolve to cause something to end or disappear persevere to continue doing something in spite of difficulties alleviate to make less hard to bear; relieve overtax to demand too much arthritis a disease that causes the joints to become swollen and painful obesity having too much fat in the body stroke an illness caused by a braking or blocked blood vessel in the brain fatigue physical or mental tiredness; exhaustion ; weariness tissue the substance of an organic body or organ diet a limited list of food or drink that one is allowed meditation focusing attention on only one thing so as to be calm and relaxed clearance official permission for someone to do something leisure the time when you are not working ratio the relationship between two things expressed in numbers Prefixes precede: to come before in time subway: an underground railway physiological: relating to physiology (function of a living organism ) preschool: of early childhood (before elementary school ) subzero: below zero physique: physical build (body size and shape ) subconscious : below the level of conscious perception posthumous : after one's death Cloze 2. joggers 4 .shoes 5. protect 7. far 8. short 9. distance 10. run SECTION B 1-5 ACBBC ABC SECTION C 1-5 FTTFT FFTTT

新模式英语1unit5

审阅签名： 版本/状态：D/1

Unit 5 ------ L2 ii. Having a free talk. 1. Make a big circle on the board. Write community inside the circle. Draw lines out from the circle and make four secondary circles. Label one of them lodging. Make lines form this circle to additional circles. Label these Hotels, Motels, and Hostels. 2. Ask students to close their books and help you complete the cluster. Use Medical Care, Parks and Recreation, and Residential Areas for the remaining three secondary circles. 3. In the Activity Bank CD-ROM template folder, there are cluster diagrams that can be duplicated for each student. ⅲ.Review some words. Introduction Identify well-know places in your community and ask students where they are located. Accept and answer. State the objective: Today we will give and follow street directions. Presentation 1 1.Write turn around on the board and ask students to repeat. 2.Ask students to open their books and look at the picture. Ask the questions in the box. ○A Practice the conversation. Ask volunteers to act out the conversation as if they are doing a role-play. Go over the new words briefly with them. ○B Practice these phrases with your classmates and teacher. Presentation 2 1.Study the map with students by asking questions. Such as: What street is next to First Street? Where is the car? 2.Review the direction vocabulary with the class again as you did in Exercise B on the previous page. 3.Draw a similar map on the board.

2019年高三语文一轮总复习(文言文阅读+翻译)第02课 典型例题(含解析)

2019年高三语文一轮总复习（文言文阅读+翻译）第02课典型例题 （含解析） 一、（2016年高考新课标I卷）阅读下面的文言文，完成4～7题。 曾公亮，字明仲，泉州晋江人。举进士甲科，知会稽县。民田镜湖旁，每患湖溢。公亮立斗门，泄水入曹娥江，民受其利。以端明殿学士知郑州，为政有能声盗悉窜他境至夜户不闭尝有使客亡橐中物移书诘盗公亮报吾境不藏盗殆从之者度耳索之果然公亮明练文法，更践 久，习知朝廷台阁典宪，首相 ．．，与公亮等共定大议。密 ．．韩琦每咨访焉。仁宗末年，琦请建储 州民田产银，或盗取之，大理当以强。公亮日：“此禁物也，取之虽强，与盗物民家有间矣。” 固争之，遂下有司 ．．纵人渔界河，又数通盐舟，吏不敢禁，．．议，比劫禁物法，盗得不死。契丹 皆谓：与之校，且生事。公亮言：“萌芽不禁，后将奈何？雄州赵滋勇而有谋，可任也。”使谕以指意，边害讫息。英宗即位，加中书侍郎兼礼部尚书，寻加户部尚书。帝不豫，辽使至不能见，命公亮宴于馆，使者不肯赴。公亮质之曰：“锡宴不赴，是不虔君命也。人主有疾，而必使亲临，处之安乎？”使者即就席。熙宁三年，拜司空兼侍中、河阳三城节度使。明年，起判永兴军。居一岁，还京师。旋以太傅致仕。元丰元年卒，年八十。帝临哭，辍朝三日。公亮方厚庄重，沉深周密，平居谨绳墨，蹈规矩；然性吝啬，殖货至巨万。初荐王安石，及同辅政，知上方向之，阴为子孙计，凡更张庶事，一切听顺，而外若不与之者。常遣子孝宽参其谋，至上前略无所异，于是帝益信任安石。安石德其助己，故引擢孝宽至枢密以报之。苏轼尝从容责公亮不能救正，世讥其持禄固宠云。 （节选自《宋史·曾公亮传》） 7.把文中画横线的句子翻译成现代汉语。 （1）锡宴不赴，是不虔君命也。人主有疾，而必使亲临，处之安乎? 译文：________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ （2）苏轼尝从容责公亮不能救正，世讥其持禄固宠云。 译文：________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ 【答案】（1）赐宴不到场，这是对君主命令的不敬。君主有病，却一定要他亲临宴会，做这样的事能心安吗？（2）苏轼曾从容地责备公亮不能纠正弊病，世人讥讽他保持禄位加固宠幸。

泛读教程第二册答案(全)

Keys to Reading Course 2 Unit 1 Reading Section A Word Pretest 1.B 2.A 3.B 4.A 5.B 6.C 7.B 8.C Reading Comprehension 1.B 2.A 3.B 4.B 5.C 6.C Vocabulary Building Word Search 1. assignment 2. irony 3. reverse 4. accomplish 5. assemble 6. squeeze 7. sensual 8. fragment 9. narcotic 10. adolescence Use of English 1. Bob agreed to take on the leadership of the expedition. 2. The world was taken in by his fantastic story of having got to the Pole alone. 3. He took up his story after a pause for questions and refreshments. 4. That takes me back to the time I climbed to the top of Mount Fuji. 5. The members of the party took it in turns to steer the boat. 6. They took it for granted that someone would pick up their signals and come to their aid. Stems 1. proclaim: to announce officially and publicly; to declare 2. percentage: a proportion or share in relation to a whole; a part 3. confirm: to support or establish the certainty or validity of; to verify 4. affirm: to declare positively or firmly; to maintain to be true 5. centigram: a metric unit of mass equal to one hundredth of a gram 6. exclaim: to express or utter(something) suddenly or vehemently Synonyms 1. adaptability 2. purpose 3.strained 4.hold 5.defeat Cloze important second France student bilingual monolingual serious means use difficult Section B 1.F 2.T 3.T 4.C 5.A 6.B 7.B 8.B 9.B 10.T 11.T 12.F 13.F 14.T 15.T Section C 1.F 2.T 3.T 4.F 5.T 6.F 7.F 8.F 9.F 10.F

小学英语课堂教学常见课型及课堂教学模式

小学英语“有效教学”课堂教学模式 小学英语课堂教学常见课型分类 一、第一种分法：新授课与复习课 根据教材的整体结构与体例，小学三到六年级英语课课型主要分为新授课与复习课两大类。 二、第二种分法：词汇和句型教学课与课文教学课 每单元的BCD是词汇和句型教学课。A部分是课文教学课。 课文教学课分为会话式课文教学与语篇式课文教学两种。课文教学着重是培养学生的阅读理解能力和语言的综合运用能力。课文内容是针对某一话题的一篇长会话或一篇短文。课文中应用了一些新的词汇与句型，包含了一些语法和功能知识。 小学英语新授课基本课堂教学模式 按照英语新课程标准，小学英语课堂教学的基本模式是：热身活动——新知呈现——语言操练——综合运用——小结并布置作业。 1、热身/复习活动（Warming-up/Revision） 此环节的目的是：激活大脑和激活已学知识。把学生们的积极性调动起来，使他们积极参与到课堂学习中。 热身活动的形式主要包括：1、Sing some English songs（歌曲）.2、Say the poem or chant（歌谣）.3、Play some games（游戏）.4、TPR活动 5、Do the actions.（角色扮演）6、Greetings（问候）7、Free talk(问答交流或日常交流)8、Repeat the text(复述课文)等等。 注意活动的互动形式应为师生互动或生生互动。 2、新知呈现（Presentation） 新知呈现阶段是学生语言输入的最初阶段，是一节课的重点教学环节。 这阶段的教学原则是：（1）设置真实语境。（2）聚焦重点语言。（3）优选呈现方式。（4）体现短时高效。 新学习项目的呈现方式是非常重要的，呈现方式应当直观、生动有趣，能让学生一目了然，了解这堂课所要学习的语言知识。 呈现方式主要有：实物、图片、简笔画、挂图、课件、录音、游戏、歌曲、歌谣、表演、TPR等等。 3、语言操练（Practice） 语言操练阶段是学生学习和掌握语言的关键阶段，它起着承上启下的重要作用。 学生通过新知呈现阶段的学习，还需要大量的语言操练，以达到真正的语言