Commuting town workers the case of Qinshan, China 中国的小城镇,乡村劳动力和工人
Habitat International 25(2001)35}47
Commuting town workers:the case of Qinshan,China
Haiqing Xu *
Department of Geography,Concordia Uni v ersity,1445de Maisonneu v e West,Montreal,Canada H3G 1M8
Abstract
In China 's rapidly developing coastal region,a very high percentage of town workers return to the villages on a daily basis.This paper investigates the causes of what is referred here as commuting town workers through the case of Qinshan.It is found that the development of township and village enterprises has dramatically changed rural people 's desire to live in town.Factors,such as land tenure,social security,controlled distribution of urban welfare,as well as changing means of transportation,are among the most important ones responsible for the village }town commuting phenomenon.The research challenges China 's current rural policy in its applicability to the more developed coastal region and o !ers recommendations to deal with the problems. 2001Elsevier Science Ltd.All rights reserved.
Keywords:Commuting;Rural enterprises;Small towns;China
1.Introduction
Large rural-to-urban migration #ow is a quintessential feature of development in most develop-ing countries.With more than 70%of its population still living in rural areas and urban congestion intensifying,China has been tenacious in promoting the development of small towns.One of the measures the government takes is to encourage the development of township and village enter-prises (TVEs).These enterprises have created more than 130million jobs and signi "cantly boosted rural incomes.With the concentration of these rural enterprises,the number of designated towns has risen precipitously from about 2600in 1978to 18,316in 1997 (Fig.1).
*Tel.:514-8482064;fax:514-8482057.
E-mail address:haiqing @vax2.concordia.ca (H.Xu).
Designated town is the lowest in the hierarchy of China 's urban system.A town meeting any one of the following three criteria can be granted designated town status:(1)the town is the location of a county government;(2)the town has more than 2000non-agricultural population and is the location of a commune (Xiang )government;(3)the town has less than 2000non-agricultural population,but is located in a remote area,minority area,mining district,industrial area,or port area (Wang,1992).
0197-3975/01/$-see front matter 2001Elsevier Science Ltd.All rights reserved.
PII:S 0197-3975(00)00017-5
Fig.1.Increases of o $cially designated towns and TVE employment.Sources:Data derived from RSYC (1995,p.335),Chan (1994,p.27),City Planning Newsletter (1993,1995).
However,recent studies indicate that a high percentage of town workers do not stay in the towns.A nationwide sample survey of 60designated towns reveals that about 42%of the town populations returned to their villages each day (SCRES,1996).The phenomenon is more apparent in the rapidly developing coastal region.A survey conducted in the Yangtze River delta found that on average 64%of designated town population returned to their villages on a daily basis.For townships, the percentage was near 90(Zhang &Jin,1992).Similar phenomenon has also been observed in southern China 's Pearl River delta (Lin,1997).Such a large number of town workers commuting between the towns and villages can signi "cantly a !ect the shape of small town development.If this trend continues,these small towns can become predominantly manufacturing sites instead of living places.It can also a !ect the towns 'capability in attracting and retaining rural migrants.
These studies provide little insight into what factors trigger the `commuting a of the town workers.Most existing studies on migration tend to agree that the rural migration decision is largely driven by a comparative economic advantage (Gustav &Frances,1999).To understand temporary and cyclical migration decisions,studies have focused even more on the issue of income.However,the various models developed to explain the determinants of migration are largely based on a simple consensus that agriculture is always the primary source of income for rural households.Thus,the rural household migration decision depends on the expected amount of supplemental income that its migrant member(s)is able to bring back (Lauby &Stark,1988;Velenchik,1993; Townships are quasi-urban areas,but not included in the urban system.They have been developed from market places,and thus sometimes also called market towns.Most townships are the locations of commune (Xiang )governments.
36H.Xu /Habitat International 25(2001)35}47
H.Xu/Habitat International25(2001)35}4737 El-Moula,1991;Todaro,1969;Gugler,1971).These studies can hardly explain the commuting phenomenon of the town workers in China,where the role of agriculture as the primary source of household income is being challenged by employment in township and village enterprises. Although the dominant role that the township and village enterprises have been playing in generating income and employment is recognized in some studies(Johnson,1996),how the changing roles of agricultural and non-agricultural sectors in the rural economy a!ect rural households'migration decision remains to be further explored.
2.Rural labor mobility:a historical background
China di!ers greatly from most other developing countries in mobility control.Its registered residence system rigorously di!erentiates urban and rural people and once served as the basis for the provision of ration,employment,housing,health care,and other social welfare to urban residents(Ma,1982).Under such a system,unregistered rural people could hardly survive in cities. In rural areas,however,labor mobility was restricted through a collective farming system.Since most of the land was collectively managed,every rural worker had to join the local collective production team to secure a ration.Meanwhile,government monopoly in grain purchases and sales prohibited rural people to buy or sell grains in the market.This made it virtually impossible for the people of one rural area to survive in another area.
The e!ect of the rural economic reforms of the early1980s on rural labor mobility was mainly re#ected by its recognition and assurance of private ownership through a redistribution of land to individual rural households.Under the so-called household production responsibility system,rural households have gained the control of every aspect of farming operations,including the allocation of labor force.It reduced rural people's absolute dependence on collective farming and made it possible for them to engage in non-agricultural activities.Undoubtedly,the reform has improved labor mobility in the rural areas(Wu,1993;Islam&Jin,1994;Yang,1997).
Although the reform did bring about a sustained growth in agricultural production,the land that rural households received was not su$cient to provide them with full employment.In some densely populated regions,such as the Yangtze River and Pearl River deltas,the average cultivated land area per rural person was around0.08ha.This created a huge number of excess laborers in the rural areas.Studies suggest that as high as40%of the rural labor force,or more than200million rural workers nationally,were not needed by agriculture(Woon,1993).These excess labors would have to be accommodated eventually in the non-agricultural sectors.However,with the registered residence system still largely in e!ect in the early years of the reforms,it was not possible for rural people to seek employment in urban areas.Consequently,a massive number of rural enterprises emerged in villages and townships.
With the success of township and village enterprises and their need to concentrate,the strict mobility control has gradually been relaxed since the mid-1980s.The government initially permit-ted rural people to work and live in townships and designated towns providing that they brought with them their own rations(Chen&Chen,1993).The ration issue quickly became less important when free market grain trade was allowed.This removed a major obstacle in rural-to-urban migration.Nevertheless,the di!erentiated treatment of rural people in urban areas continued.It was not until the1990s that the restrictions were gradually eliminated particularly with the
Table1
Advantages and disadvantages for staying and leaving villages
Staying in village Leaving for town
Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages
Economic Agricultural income Limited non-agricultural
opportunities Closer to
non-agricultural
employment
No agricultural income
Self-produced food Poorer connection with
urban market More economic
opportunities
Extra costs for food
Lower housing cost Higher housing cost
Other living expenses
Social Strong kinship
contacts Few social activities More social activities
and contacts
Identity not fully
recognized
Familiar culture Poorer education and
training facilities Better education and
training facilities
Discriminative
treatments
Traditional lifestyle Closer to fashion
Environmental Less pollution Poorer living conditions Better living conditions More pollution Low crime rate Poorer communication Better communication Higher crime rate
Lack of emergency services Closer to medical facilities
deepening of urban economic reforms.Nowadays,many municipal governments would grant urban residence status to anyone who purchases a commercial apartment or owns a reasonably sized business in the cities.It has become more a rural people's choice on whether to live and work in town(Zhang,1995;Han&Li,1994).
Based on these understandings,rural people have advantages and disadvantages for both staying in or leaving their villages(Table1).Theoretically,the commuting of town workers may be explained as taking advantage of both.Since it is impossible to have the full advantages of both, there can only be a compromised solution.Therefore,distinguishing the major factors that determine the town workers'decision to commute can help us to understand the rural people's migration decision process.
3.Case study area and approach
The commuting phenomenon has been reported largely in the coastal region. This region has a share of40%of the total rural labor force,32%the total arable land area,and57%of the total In most studies,the coastal region refers to the provinces of Hainan,Guangdong,Fujiang,Zhejiang,Jiangsu, Shandong,Hebei,and Liaoning,and two metropolitan areas of Shanghai and Tianjing.
38H.Xu/Habitat International25(2001)35}47
Fig.2.Town of Qinshan and its administrative villages.
rural enterprise employees in China (MoA,1995b).Higher population densities and #ourishing rural enterprise development are the two features of the coastal region.This study uses two criteria in the selection of a case study area in this region.First,the area is representative of the region 's #ourishing township and village enterprise development.Second,it is not too close to a major urban center in order to minimize large city e !ect on the migration of nearby rural areas.
The town of Qinshan is located about 120km southwest of Shanghai and 100km northeast of Hangzhou,the two major urban centers in the Yangtze River delta.It has jurisdiction over 12administrative villages,each having a population ranging from 890to 3300 (Fig.2).It is similar to the regional average in terms of high man }land ratio,while much higher in per capita income largely due to a greater involvement of the rural people in enterprises (Table 2).Since township and The term `village a is more an administrative unit in China.It often contains a number of naturally formed villages.H.Xu /Habitat International 25(2001)35}4739
40H.Xu/Habitat International25(2001)35}47
Table2
Selected development indicators in Qinshan and the coastal region
Indicators Regional average Town of Qinshan Number of towns(every10,000rural people)0.380.49
Cultivated land area(ha/rural person)0.080.06
Number of enterprises(every10,000rural people)326307
Enterprise employees(every10,000rural workers)38035938
Income per person(Yuan/person)17953817
Grain production(kg/person)408306
Sources:Data derived from MoA(1995a),Yearbook of Haiyan(1995}1996),and RSYC(1995).
village enterprise development is the main factor behind the commuting of town workers,Qinshan provides a good basis for a detailed investigation.
In this study,a commuting town worker is de"ned as one who holds a regular job in the town, but returns to his/her village on a daily basis. A sample survey of the commuting town workers was conducted in the town of Qinshan following a three-step process.First,based on the average size of enterprises in the area,six enterprises in the town were randomly selected from the town's enterprise registration roster,in order to generate a sample size of around120individuals.The actual enterprises selected consisted of a mechanical workshop,two textile factories,a plastic toy factory,an electroplating workshop,and a building part prefabrication plant.Second,the commuting town workers were identi"ed based on the de"nition and their residence information from the enterprises'personnel archives.After eliminating those who did not meet the de"nition, 122employees in the six enterprises were identi"ed as commuting town workers,or about73%of all the employees in these six enterprises.Third,a questionnaire survey of all these122employees was conducted which yielded113valid responses.
The key variables included in the questionnaire were developed from the factors listed in Table1. Since migration decision is a household decision(Gilbert&Gugler,1987;Greenwood&Hunt, 1989),the respondents were requested to provide both personal and household information in the survey.The spatial distribution of the respondents(except4cases from the neighboring towns)is presented in Fig.2.
The town itself is also the location of an administrative village,which has part of its population residing within the town's built-up area.For the residents of this administrative village,there can be four commuting scenarios:First,both their residences and enterprise working places are within the town's built-up area;second,the residences are within the built-up area,but the working places are outside;third,the residences are outside the built-up area,but the working places are inside;and"nally,both the residences and working places are outside the built-up area.The second and the "nal scenarios largely describe the ones who are still working in agriculture or village enterprise while the "rst scenario does not involve a village-town commuting.All these three scenarios are thus out of the concerns of this study.This study only considers the people of this particular village described by the third scenario as village-town commuters.
H.Xu/Habitat International25(2001)35}4741 Table3
Breakdowns of per capita income
Cases Percentage Total income(Yuan)Cases Percentage Non-agricultural income
(Yuan)
Lower than31797769.4Lower than31798681.9
3179to40001614.43179to40007 6.7
4000to5000109.04000to50006 5.7
Higher than500087.2Higher than50006 5.7
4.Findings from the case study area
4.1.Income and agriculture
Bene"ting from extensive rural industrial development,the per capita rural income in Qinshan reached3155Yuan(1Yuan"8.25US Dollars)in1994,very close to the nationwide per capita urban income of3179Yuan(MoA,1995a,b).The survey reveals that nearly a third of the rural households had achieved a higher per capita income than the average of their urban counterparts. However,if the total rural household income is divided into agricultural and non-agricultural incomes,27.9%of the average income came from agriculture.For an average rural household, permanently leaving the village would mean an immediate drop of more than a quarter of the total income.Therefore,unless there exists an appropriate opportunity in town to make up the losses, rural people are unlikely to give up such a considerable portion of their income.
The survey also reveals that18.1%of the rural households had achieved a per capita non-agricultural income higher than their urban counterparts(Table3).If the average urban income is considered as the needed level of income for a decent living in town,these households are the most likely group to make a move.However,the survey reveals that none of these rural households intended to entirely abandon agriculture and move into the town,although there was a general trend that the higher the non-agricultural income,the less land the households keep for farming (Fig.3).But no matter how high the non-agricultural income,the determination of these rural households to stay with agriculture appears unshakable.It seems that the factor of non-agricul-tural income alone has limited in#uence over the household migration decision.
Whilst less a%uent rural households might have a genuine interest in agriculture,the reduction of cultivated land area and reluctance to entirely give up the land by the wealthier rural households clearly imply a security concern.In response to the survey about the prerequisites for leaving agriculture,the majority of the households replied that they would always keep the land(Fig.4). More than a"fth of the households preferred to have the right to repossess the land in future,while nearly a"fth mentioned job security in the enterprises.Some other terms mentioned by the respondents included compensations for the losses of agricultural income,assurance of youth employment,and subsidies for urban housing.Among the18.1%of wealthier rural households, 42.1%favored enterprise job security and31.6%preferred the right to repossess the land in future. Since both of the concerns share the same cause,that is the uncertainty of their enterprise
Fig.3.Non-agricultural income and land area per person currently under cultivation.Note:1ha"15
mu.
Fig.4.Non-agricultural income and opinions on future land tenure.
employment in town,the majority of the rural households turned to use the land as the means of insurance for this uncertainty.Their entitlement to the land enables them to return to agriculture and maintain a basic living in case the town enterprises fail.
4.2.Impro v ed v illage li v ing conditions
The dynamics of rural-to-urban migration is usually explained by the`pull a factors of urban areas and the`push a factors of rural areas(Jansen,1970;Sinclair,1978).Many studies regard the wage di!erential between urban and rural employment and the time it takes for rural people to secure an urban employment as the prime factors determining the movement(Todaro,1994; 42H.Xu/Habitat International25(2001)35}47
H.Xu/Habitat International25(2001)35}4743 Gugler,1997;Gilbert&Gugler,1987).However,if such an income gap diminishes to a less signi"cant level,what will drive the rural people into urban areas?In responding to the survey about factors that would in#uence their migration decision in addition to agriculture,the town workers raised many issues,but mainly concentrated in these areas:child education,housing, healthcare,recreational activities,clean water supply,retail services,and information.Few mentioned the relatively higher crime rate and more serious environmental pollution in town. The issue of child education in Qinshan is more related to the transfer of children from one school to another than the availability of school seats.With the government policy to provide a nine-year basic education,virtually every school-aged child can attend school in the local village. Such a school is normally run jointly by the county,the town and the village,with the village making the principal contributions to the day-to-day operation of the school.Most of the funds come from local households and village collective enterprises.In Qinshan,village pupils are admitted to the primary high school(years13}15)in the town on a competitive basis.Others would attend primary high schools in their own or a nearby village.For both elementary school and primary high school students,a transfer from a village to the town is allowed if there is a good reason,such as migration,but they would often be requested to make a donation to the school in order to justify the admittance.Such a donation can become very high if a rural household intends to send a child to a school in the county town or the prefecture city.
Like the rural education system,healthcare at village level is also managed collectively.Each village in Qinshan has a clinic,which can treat most minor sicknesses and emergencies.The clinic nurses are normally residents of the village.For more complicated health problems,the town's public health center is within an accessible distance.Local statistics suggest that95.7%of sicknesses can be treated at the town's public health center and the village clinics(Yearbook of Haiyan,1995}1996).The concern about healthcare by rural people who intend to migrate is largely with respect to the losses of their entitlement to the low cost but reliable healthcare in the village rather than opting for quality healthcare in town.While most urban residents are subsidized by their employers,rural people have to pay the full costs for medical treatment in town.
The survey reveals that71.4%of the town workers believed that they enjoyed better housing than their urban counterparts.Since the mid-1980s,there has been a building boom in the villages and the majority of the rural households have renewed their houses.In Qinshan,a typical family of four normally has a two-story house with three bedrooms on the second#oor,one living room,one large storage room and a large kitchen with a dining room on the"rst#oor.The average building area per person was55.47m for rural residents,but only18.41m for urban residents(Statistical Yearbook of Haiyan,1998).In1997,a typical2-bedroom apartment unit(approximately60m of living area)in the town was priced at around100,000Yuan.Meanwhile,the government housing commercialization scheme permits urban households to purchase their dwellings at a huge discount.Such a discount could reduce the prices to as low as a third of the market values based on the calculation of building depreciation and worker's seniority and position.Rural migrants,on the other hand,would have to purchase or rent their dwellers at full market prices.The favorite A county town is where the county government is located.It belongs to the same category of designated towns in China's urban system,but is normally much larger and has longer history than most designated towns.In the case of Qinshan,the population size of the county town is approximately seven times of the town of Qinshan.
44H.Xu/Habitat International25(2001)35}47
Table4
Travel distance and the means of transportation
Distance(1km1}2km2}3km3}4km4}5km'5km Total cases Bicycle22(71.0)18(75.0)12(54.5)13(72.2)7(63.6)7(100.0)79(69.9) Motorcycle3(9.7)3(12.5)4(18.2)4(22.2)2(18.2)0(0.0)16(14.2) Bus0(0.0)0(0.0)5(22.7)1(5.6)2(18.2)0(0.0)8(7.1) Foot6(19.4)3(12.5)1(4.5)0(0.0)0(0.0)0(0.0)10(8.8) No.cases31(100.0)24(100.0)22(100.0)18(100.0)11(100.0)7(100.0)113(100.0)
treatment for urban residents creates a huge di!erence in housing expenditure between urban households and rural newcomers.
Infrastructure development in rural areas also appears to have reduced the stimulus for migration.The survey reveals that4.4%of the rural households already had access to tap water while10.6%of them had telephone connections.The rates have been increasing quickly.Certain goods and services that used to be found only in towns are now available in the villages.In Qinshan, this development was characterized by a rapid increase of some low-key services in the villages, such as groceries,daycare,barbers,bicycle repair,and restaurants.Take the retail service as an example:15years ago only a small number of grocery stores existed in the villages and most rural people relied on the town for shopping.By1997,as the survey reveals,most rural households could access a grocery store within one kilometer of their residence.Although the younger generation appeared to favor more the recreational facilities in larger urban areas,the overall rural house-holds'dependence on the town for goods and services has been signi"cantly lessened.
4.3.Distance and transportation
The large amount of village}town commuting would not have happened if the towns were located beyond an accessible distance.This accessible distance is an important factor that enables the commuting of town workers.Generally,such a distance is determined by both the spatial distance between the town and the villages and the means of transportation the commuters use. The survey reveals that the average one-way travel distance of the commuting town workers was 2.7km and the longest was about6km(Table4).Only a small number of rural people traveled by bus or on foot.Bus-based commuting was obviously not possible for most of the rural people because there were only two bus stops in Luotang and Beituan,and only those who lived near the bus stops could take advantage.For those commuting on foot,the data suggests that they mostly came from within a2-km radius of the town center.With a very high bicycle ownership at one bicycle for1.59rural persons or1.10rural laborers,bicycle use has become the most popular mode of transportation among the commuters,and the2}6km of travel distance is ideal for bicycle users.
In Qinshan,bicycle commuting would not have become so popular without a well-developed road system and improved road conditions.Much of the achievement should,however,be attributed to an agricultural mechanization scheme in the early1970s,when many roads were built
H.Xu/Habitat International25(2001)35}4745 Table5
Weekly trips to other urban areas by age
Destinations Age groups
Less than2525to3536to45More than45Mean To the county town 1.440.790.490.370.88
To other cities0.090.060.040.080.07 for agricultural machinery.No one during those days could anticipate that more than two decades later,these roads would contribute so dramatically to the villager's journey to work in the town. With the development of the rural industries,most of these roads have been improved.Nearly70% of the town workers traveled almost entirely on gravel or paved roads,while less than16%of them expressed dissatisfaction about the road conditions.
The survey also indicates that the motorcycle has become increasingly popular among the commuters.Fourteen percent of the respondents regularly used motorcycles to commute.More than two-thirds of these motorcycles were purchased in the past three years.Further analysis suggests that the motorcycle users were younger and traveled much more frequently to the county town and other nearby urban areas than other town workers.Clearly,motorcycles have enabled them to further overcome the spatial barriers.
The widespread use of bicycles and motorcycles appears to have a!ected the rural people's lifestyle.Despite their daily commuting to the town of Qinshan,each of the town workers on average made0.88trips per week to the county town,nearly12km north of Qinshan.While the survey did not"nd a general gender di!erence in the number of trips made to the county town,it did identify a signi"cant di!erence between age groups.The younger group(less than25years)on average made1.44trips per week while the older group(more than45years)made only0.37of a trip per week(t"3.190,p"0.003).The younger group also made more trips to cities than any other group(Table5).About80%of the commuters below the age of35went to the county town mostly for social and cultural activities that were not available in Qinshan town and the villages. The frequent visits to the county town and other nearby cities by the younger generation"ll their needs for a more colorful social life without having to relocate into the urban areas.This could further depress the service sectors in the town of Qinshan.
5.Discussions and conclusions
To summarize,the"ndings suggest that China's current rural policy linking rural households with farmland is primarily responsible for the returning of town workers to villages.In areas such as Qinshan,where non-agricultural incomes have far exceeded agricultural incomes,town workers' continued involvement in agriculture is not justi"ed by its economic rewards.The commuting phenomenon expresses largely a security concern.Meanwhile,improving village living conditions have reduced the urban attraction to the rural people,while e$cient means of transportation have
46H.Xu/Habitat International25(2001)35}47
brought the villagers closer to urban areas.The cumulative e!ect of all these factors has made it unnecessary for the rural people to relocate to the town.
Town workers reluctance to fully participate in urban life can become a serious burden in the urbanization and development processes.Most obviously,it hurts small town development.The sizable and frequent#uctuations of town populations can lead to a lopsided land-use pattern in the towns when more enterprises move in and fewer people stay on.As a result,the development of housing and services are likely to be a!ected due to the lack of clientele.Such a threat has already become apparent in Qinshan,where the town has been losing people to the county town.The town is facing a dilemma:without signi"cant improvements in its quality of life,particularly in terms of the service sector,the town will fail to attract local prospective migrants,whereas without more people to settle in it,it is impossible for the service sector to take o!.
In general,rural people so closely follow the urban lifestyle that some sociologists even call it as a process of`townization a(Guldin,1997).However,the spatially dispersed nature of village settlements determines that village level services and infrastructure development can never match those in town.For instance,it would be very costly to supply disposable water to the large number of naturally formed small villages.Thus,the reluctance of villagers to relocate to town and their continued investment in village level developments are taking away the much needed capital from town development and can subsequently delay the urbanization process.
The commuting can also hurt agricultural development when cultivated land is held largely for the insurance of non-agricultural employment.As a result,the land cannot be concentrated to some professional farmers for the economies of scale.With only0.06ha of land area per rural person,even serious farmers would not invest in agricultural machinery to improve productivity. Furthermore,with an increasing number of rural households losing their interest in farming,more lands are left uncultivated.This has become a grievous waste of the nation's most precious resource.
The case of Qinshan suggests that,unless the rural people decide to give up farming,the commuting phenomenon is likely to continue.This suggests that the once very successful rural policy dating back to the rural economic reform period might have ful"lled its duty.In areas like Qinshan,it is probably the time to replace the rural household responsibility system with incentives to encourage rural people to move into the towns.What is urgently needed is a full and reliable social security system for the town workers.Other measures designed to cut down the costs of relocation would also contribute to such a move.To initiate,the town authorities should consider allowing a reasonably sized land lot for the construction of a house by a village household who wishes to migrate to the town in exchange for the household's village curtilage and its entitled cultivated land.This can help both the urbanization process and the development of agriculture. References
Chan,K.W.(1994).Cities with in v isible walls.Hong Kong:Oxford University Press.
Chen,J.Y.,&Chen,J.J.(1993).Socio-economic changes of China's rural areas:1949}1989.Shanxi,China:Shanxi Economic Press.
City Planning Newsletter(1993}1995).City Planning Newsletter(ChenShi-GuiHua-TongXun).Society of Urban Planning,Beijing,China.
H.Xu/Habitat International25(2001)35}4747 El-Moula,M.E.A.(1991).Migration:causes and e!ects*the case of Omodiat Burush,norhern Barfur,Sudan.
GeoJournal,25(1),47}50.
Gilbert,A.,&Gugler,J.(1987).Cities,po v erty,and de v elopment:Urbanization in the Third World.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Greenwood,M.,&Hunt,G.(1989).Jobs versus amenities in the analysis of metropolitan migration.Journal of Urban Economics,25(1),1}16.
Gugler,J.(1971).A future note on unemployment rate in developing countries.Manpower and Unemployment Research in Africa,4(1),14}16.
Gugler,J.(1997).Overurbanization reconsidered.In J.Gugler,Cities in the De v eloping World(pp.114}123).Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Guldin,G.E.(1997).Desakotas and beyond:urbanization in sourthern China.In G.E.Guldin,Farewell to Peasant China:Rural Urbanization and social change in the late twentieth century(pp.47}70).New York:M.E.Sharpe. Gustav,R.,&Frances,S.(1999).V-goods and the role of the urban informal sector in development.Economic De v elopment and Cultural Change,47(2),259}288.
Han,J.,&Li,J.(1994).The tide of migrant labour:A cross-century issue for China:A seminar review.Chinese Rural Economy(Zhongguo-Noncun-Jingji),5,3}11.
Islam,R.,&Jin,H.(1994).Rural industrialization:An engine of prosperity in post-reform rural China.World De v elopment,22(11),1643}1662.
Jansen,C.J.(1970).Readings in the sociology of migration.Oxford:Oxford Pergamon Press.
Johnson,D.G.(1996).China's rural and agricultural reforms:successes and failures.Working Paper of Chinese Economic Research Centre.Australia:University of Adelaide.
Lauby,J.,&Stark,O.(1988).Individual migration as a family strategy:young women in the Philippines.Population Studies,42,473}486.
Lin,G.C.S.(1997).Red capitalism in South China:Growth and de v elopment of the Pearl Ri v er Delta.Vancouver:University of British Culumbia Press.
Ma,H.(1982).Contemporary economic a w airs of China(XianDai-ZhongGuo-JingJi-ShiDian).Beijing:China Social Science Press.
MoA(1995a).Concise rural statistical data of China1994.Beijing:Ministry of Agriculture.
MoA(1995b).White-paper of China's agricultural de v elopment.Beijing:Ministry of Agriculture.
RSYC(1995).Rural statistical yearbook of China ZhongGuo NongChun TongJi Nianjian.Beijing:China Statistics Press. SCRES(1996).Institutional change and the development of small cities and towns in China.Chinese Rural Economy (ZhongGuo NongChun JinJi),12(3),11}16.
Sinclair,S.(1978).Urbanization and labor market in de v eloping countries.Guilford,Britain:Biddles Ltd.
Statistical Yearbook of Haiyan(1998).Haiyan Tongjin Nianjian.Statistical Bureau of Haiyan County,Zhejiang Province, China.
Todaro,M.P.(1969).A model of labor migration and urban development in less developed countries.American Economic Re v iew,59(1),138}148.
Todaro,M.P.(1994).Economic de v elopment in the third world(5th Ed).New York:Longman.
Velenchik,A.D.(1993).Cash seeking behavior and migration:A place-to-place migration function for Cote d'Ivoire.
Journal of African Economies,2(3),329}347.
Wang,Y.K.(1992).China:Urban development at the change of century.Shenyang,China:Liaoning People's Press. Woon,Y.F.(1993).Circulatory mobility in post-Mao China:Temporary migrants in Kaiping county,Pearl River delta region.International Migration Re v iew,27,578}604.
Wu,H.X.(1993).Rural enterprise contribution to growth and structural change.In C.Findlay,A.Watson,&H.X.Wu, Rural enterprises in China.New York:St.Martin's Press.
Yang,D.T.(1997).China's land arrangements and rural labor mobility.China Economic Re v iew,2(8),101}116. Yearbook of Haiyan(1995}1996).Haiyan-Nianjian.China:Zhejiang University Press.
Zhang,Q.(1995).A survey on the#oating population of China's50townships.China Population Science(Zhongguo Renkou Kexue),1,25}32.
Zhang,X.L.,&Jin,Q.M.(1992).Rural urbanization and recent development in Southern Jiangsu province.In G.H.Cui, China Town de v elopment studies(pp.147}162).Beijing:China Construction Press.