BF01797109

European Journal of Population 12: 195-218, 1996.
(~) 1996 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

195

Patterns of Economic Development and Patterns of
Rural-Urban Migration in China
XIUSHI YANG
Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA
Received 16 May 1995; accepted 26 March 1996

Yang, X., 1996. Patterns of Economic Development and Patterns of Rural-Urban Migration in China,
European Journal of Population /Revue Europ6enne de D6mographie 12: t95-218, 1996.

Abstract. This paper examines three distinctive patterns of economic development in terms of their
economic and migration outcomes in Zhejiang province, China. At the prefecture level, "trickle
down" development works best in promoting rural development while reducing out-migration; but it
requires a strong urban economy and sufficient investment. Rural household enterprise requires little
government investment while boosting rural development; but it increases rural out-migration and,
without a sound urban industrial base, is difficult to sustain in the long run. Rural collective industrialization achieves a better balance between rural development and out-migration. Future development
should pay equal attention to rural development and urban expansion. The challenge should not be

how to restrict but how to channel migration and capital flow.
Yang, X., 1996. Types de d6veloppement 6conomique et types de migrations rurales-urbaines en
Chine, European Journal of Population / Revue Europ6enne de D6mographie 12: 195-218, 1996.

R~sum~. Cet article examine trois types de d6veloppement 6conomique en fonction de leurs cons6quences 6conomiques et migratoires dans la province de Zhejiang en Chine. Au niveau pr6fectoral,
le d6veloppement industriel conventionnel de la ville vers le rural r6ussit mieux en encourageant le
d6veloppement rural tout en r6duisant l'6migration; mais il n6cessite une 6conomie urbaine forte et
des investissements suffisamment nombreux. L'entreprise famitiale rurale n6cessite peu d'investissements du gouvernement, tout en faisant valoir le d6veloppement rural; mais elle accro~t l'6migration
rurale et, sans une base industrielle et urbaine solide, est difficile ~t maintenir sur le long terme.
L'industrialisation collective rurale parvient h une meilleure balance entre d6veloppement rural et
6migration. Les 6volutions futures devront porter une attention 6gale au d6veloppement rural et
1'expansion urbaine. Le d6fi ne doit pas porter sur tes fa~ons de restreindre, rnais sur les fa~ons de
canaliser les migrations et les flux de capitaux.

1. I n t r o d u c t i o n
C o n c e m s o v e r p o p u l a t i o n redistribution a n d rural-urban inequality h a v e p r o m p t e d
p o l i c y m a k e r s in C h i n a to a d o p t a " b o t t o m u p " e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t strategy that
g i v e s priority to rural d e v e l o p m e n t w h i l e strictly controlling the g r o w t h o f big cities.
It is h o p e d that rural d e v e l o p m e n t will e x p a n d local opportunities and increase rural
productivity. This in turn is e x p e c t e d to n a r r o w rural-urban inequality and to r e d u c e

m i g r a t i o n f r o m rural areas to cities b y lessening individual m o t i v a t i o n to m o v e

196

xIusm YANG

and by absorbing surplus labor in rural areas. Thus the household responsibility
system, the foundation of economic reforms in rural areas first introduced in late
1978, has dismantled a considerable portion of the collective (commune) control
of production, exchange, and consumption, and substituted individual incentives
and decision-making. In addition, government policy vigorously promotes the
development of rural town and township industries, which have since grown rapidly
and become the backbone of rural economy and employment.
All these changes have greatly stimulated rural development which has captured
worldwide attention. Nonetheless, like in many other developing countries (e.g.,
Brown and Sanders, 1981; Findley, 1981, 1987), rural development in China does
not seem to have reduced rural-urban migration. In contrast, rural-urban migration
has increased considerably since 1978 (Goldstein, S. and A. Goldstein, 1990; Wang
and Wu, 1990; Yang, 1993). Specifically, a positive impact of rural industrialization
on migration has been suggested by recent research on interprovincial permanent

migration in China (Liang and White, 1994).
Can the increasing migration from rural areas since 1978 be taken as evidence
of the failure of rural development in reducing rural out-migration? Given the great
variations across space in patterns of rural development and patterns of migration
(e.g., permanent vs. temporary migration and intraprovincial vs. interprovincial
migration), an appropriate answer to the question should be sought at a more local
level. This paper tries to do so by examining the relationship between patterns of
economic development and patterns of migration at prefecture I level in Zhejiang
province on China's east coast.

2. Background
Since 1949, economic development in China has been carried out within the framework of a centrally planned economy. In the three-year recovery period from 1949 to
1952, the government initiated land reforms, redistributing land previously owned
by landlords to individual farmer households. During this time period, government
control was mainly instructive; individual farmers enjoyed a considerable flexibility and freedom in agricultural production and non-agricultural activities. After
fulfilling government requirements, farmers were allowed to trade their surplus
products in urban free markets (Ma, 1990). Starting in 1953, steps were taken to
collectivize agricultural production as well as cottage industries. A policy was also
initiated to take over private businesses and industries in the urban sectors.
Spatial mobility remained unregulated until 1958 when the government established the household registration system. In responding to the heavy government

investment in urban economy and the ensuing growing labor demand in the urban
sector during the first five-year plan (1953-58), rural-urban migration was heavy
in the early 1950s. The economy enjoyed a period of rapid growth and prosperity. This healthy course of socioeconomic development was, however, greatly
altered by the "Great Leap Forward" movement beginning in 1958. While further

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND RURAL-URBAN MIGRATION IN CHINA

197

collectivizing agricultural production by establishing and fully implementing the
commune system in rural areas in 1958, the government mistakenly called on rural
peasants to abandon the land and to move to urban areas to operate industry. Consequently, tens of thousands of peasants, influenced by the government call, moved
to urban places. The large volume of rural-urban migration was not justified by the
pace of economic development; it soon became an overwhelming socioeconomic
burden in cities while at the same time greatly handicapped rural agricultural production. The situation was further exacerbated by the unrealistic expectations on
the part of the top leaders and by false reports about the "great success" of the
movement from lower levels of government. By 1960, when the national economy
was in serious jeopardy, steps were taken to reduce the number of state employees
and urban population; millions of urban population were sent back to rural areas
between 1960 and 1965.

In the following decade, political turmoil was coupled with a stagnant economy.
During the ten years of "Cultural Revolution," the annual government investment
was the lowest since 1949; the economic growth rate was also the lowest, except
for that during the second five-year plan period (Wang, 1988). In the meantime,
leftist ideology continued to dominate policy formulation. Virtually all rural nonagricultural activities, except for those assigned by the government, were prohibited
during this period; urban free markets were limited to a minimum level; and all
economic sectors had to be strictly centrally planned. In both urban and rural
areas, everyone followed his/her respective assignment and shared the "big rice
bowl." Consequently, productivity was very low and economic development lacked
dynamism. By the end of the "Cultural Revolution" in 1976, the national economy
was on the verge of collapse and the urban economy was not able to absorb even the
urban population entering the labor force, let alone rural-urban migration, which
was closely regulated by local governments.
An integral part of the government micro-level regulation of individual migration was the household registration system, which functioned as the intermediary
mechanism through which the government exercised control over migration. In
China, everyone is born with one of two types of household registration: agricultural or non-agricultural. The type of household registration determines one's
eligibility for and access to government provision of social services and benefits, including employment, education, medical service, and pensions. Until very
recently, one had to be officially registered as a (de jure) resident in order to receive
the social services and benefits and to buy almost all daily necessities. Changes
in residence across administrative boundaries were strictly controlled by local

governments. Thus by attaching employment and social services to local de jure
residence registration, the government had for many years successfully regulated
permanent rural-urban migration according to labor demand in cities.
With the end of political turmoil, economic development again took top priority in the government agenda and so, too, the debate over development strategy.
Proponents of a "bottom up" strategy (e.g., Guo, 1980; Wang and Han, 1985; Xu

198

XIUSHIYANG

and Ye, 1985a; 1985b) maintained that economic development should consider
not only economic efficiency but also social and environmental efficiencies. The
"turn-over" of internal migration and the decline of central cities in most developed
countries were interpreted as corrections to past development strategies emphasizing concentration and "economy of scale" at the cost of social and environmental
efficiencies. In order to prevent similar problems from emerging in China, it was
argued that China should give priority to rural development, along with the development of small cities and towns to avoid overconcentration of industries and
population in a few major urban centers.
Opponents (e.g., Feng, 1983; Zhou and Li, 1989) argued that, at the early stage of
economic development, concentration of modem industries and population in a few
major urban centers was necessary in order to acquire the maximum economy of

scale with limited investment. What happened in now developed countries should
not be taken as evidence that their development strategy in the past was misguided;
it rather reflects the high level of socioeconomic development manifesting itself in
spatial distribution. Both concentration of industries and population in the past and
the more recent decentralization were seen as rational because they are determined
by and best suit the particular level of economic development. Therefore, given
the underdeveloped economy in China, this view held that limited capital should
be concentrated in a few major urban centers with better infrastructure to pursue
the "economy of scale." It was even argued that, in the immediate future, economic efficiency was more important than social and environmental efficiencies
for socioeconomic development in China.
While the debate about the best development strategy continues, economic
reforms since 1978 have given priority to rural development and the development of
small cities and towns to disperse economic opportunities and absorb rural surplus
labor locally. Consequently, rural industries have been vigorously promoted by
government and have since grown rapidly and played an increasingly important
role in rural development. By 1992, rural industries employed close to 25% of the
rural labor force and contributed to more than 50% of the total rural social output
(SSB, 1993a).
At the same time, non-agricultural activities among rural households have been
not only legalized but, in fact, encouraged by the new economic policy and so have

been private businesses and industries (Gray and White, 1982; Goldstein, S. and
A. Goldstein, 1985; Johnson, 1988). Land has again been allocated and cultivated
by individual households under contract with the collective (i.e., the household
responsibility system). Peasants can keep the sideline products as well as the
balance of basic agricultural production under the contract and use them in their
own way. These policy changes have offered rural peasants the greatest incentive
to maximize their production. The more efficient household-based organization of
agricultural production in turn has resulted in increasing surplus products and tens
of millions of rural surplus labor.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND RURAL-URBAN MIGRATION IN CHINA

199

Concurrently, reforms in cities have led to the complete opening of free markets
to rural peasants, who are allowed to enter commercial channels and to work
temporarily in urban places through individual or collective contracts or simply
self-employment. The establishment and proliferation of free markets have made it
possible now for any individual to buy virtually any commodities without requiring
the government-issued coupons restricted to de jure residents. At the same time,

a pent-up demand for services of all kinds in cities provides job opportunities
for many surplus, semi-skilled rural labourers. The many special economic zones
(SEZs) established since economic reforms have also become the focal points
attracting migrants both because of the increasing labour demand generated by
SEZs' rapidly expanding economies and because of the more market-oriented
employment practice found in many joint venture enterprises in SEZs. These
simultaneous developments in cities have enabled people to become de facto city
residents, to live and work in a city without depending on the government allocation
(ration) system; at the same time, they have provided a timely outlet for rural surplus
labour and products.
Consequently, the household registration system is losing its prominent role
in regulating individuals' residence and spatial movement, leading to a flood of
migrants to cities. This increasing rural-urban migration is often referred to as
temporary migration because it involves no change in migrants' official household
registration. Is the increasing rural-urban temporary migration a uniform demographic response across places experiencing divergent patterns of economic development? How do areas differ in their rural out-migration in terms of permanency,
distance, and direction? Does rural industrialization help to promote rural development while reducing rural out-migration? Which type of rural out-migration is
particularly responsive to which type of rural economic development?
These questions will be examined here with respect to three types of spatial
mobility: permanent, de facto permanent, and temporary migration. Permanent
migration is defined as the migration that is accompanied by a change in migrants'

official household registration; it is still controlled by local governments according
to labour demand in the formal sector. Temporary migration, by contrast, refers
to any spatial movements that involve no change in migrants' official household
registration; but the analysis here will include only temporary migrants engaged
in economic activities. 2 De facto permanent migration is defined as the migration
that involves no change in migrants' official household registration, but nonetheless entails more permanent change (over one year) in residence and economic
activities. Thus the de facto permanent migration is a special segment of the allencompassing temporary migration. By linking the three types of spatial mobility
to pattems of economic development, the analysis will not only enrich our theoretical understanding of the relationship between rural development and rural outmigration, it will also provide invaluable information for future policy formulation
and socioeconomic planning in China and other developing countries.

200

XIUSHI YANG

3. Research setting
Zhejiang province is located on China's east coast. Although historically a forerunner of economic development in China, Zhejiang experienced a slower economic growth before economic reforms. Between 1949 and 1978, while the gross
domestic product (GDP) of the nation as a whole increased at an annual rate of
9.7%, 3 it grew only 7.6% annually in Zhejiang. By 1978, the per capita GDP averaged 375 yuan nationwide, whereas it was only 331 yuan in Zhejiang (SSB, 1993b;
ZPSB, 1993a).
Since 1978, when economic reforms were first initiated, Zhejiang's economic

growth, particularly that in rural areas, has greatly exceeded the national average. Between 1978 and 1992, GDP grew 14.6% annually nationwide, whereas it
expanded 17.8% annually in Zhejiang. By 1992, the per capita GDP in Zhejiang
reached 2,850 yuan compared to the national average of 2,051 yuan (SSB, 1993b;
ZPSB, 1993a). Thus in a period of less than 15 years, Zhejiang's per capita GDP
jumped from below the national average to considerably above. During the same
post-reform period, the rural economy grew at a phenomenal rate of 23.9% and
34.5% annually for rural total and rural industrial output in Zhejiang, compared
to 19.7% and 28.1%, respectively, for the nation as a whole (SSB, 1993a; ZPSB,
1993a). By 1992, the per capita net income of Zhejiang's rural population reached
1,359 yuan, the third highest after Shanghai (2,225 yuan) and Beijing (1,572 yuan);
it was also 575 yuan above the national average (SSB, 1993a). Moreover, a recently
emerged pattern of rural development in Zhejiang - a gradual consolidation of land
to a few specialized farmer households and a transition of agricultural production
from the decentralized, small scale household activity back to centralized, large
scale production - is further leading the direction of future rural development. By
virtue of reorganizing economic activities, the new development is expected to
lead to more rural surplus labor released from the land and thereby to increase the
pressure to out-migrate.
Nonetheless, economic development is not homogeneous across Zhejiang. The
northeastern Hang-Jia-Hu and Ning-Shao plains are the most prosperous, whereas
the southwest is the least developed area in the province. In 1992, the per capita GDP
in the southwest was only 2,003 yuan, compared to 3,835 yuan in the northeast.
Particularly relevant for this research is the substantial spatial difference within the
province in patterns of rural development.
Located in the most developed northeast, Ningbo prefecture had a 1992 yearend population of 5.17 million, Qf which 20.7% were non-agricultural population.4
Its key city - Ningbo city - is a historical port city and is among the first fourteen
port cities in China defined by the State Council in 1984 as cities "further opened"
to foreign investment. This designation, along with the city's convenient land
transportation and good port facilities, has made Ningbo city not only the key city
in Zhejiang but also one of the key areas in China that attract the most government
and foreign investment. The development of modem industries has become the

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND RURAL-URBAN MIGRATION IN CHINA

201

main driving force behind the growth of Ningbo city as well as other cities in
the prefecture; the expansion of the urban economy has in turn facilitated rural
development by providing employment opportunities and technical support to its
surrounding rural areas. Thus the economic development in Ningbo resembles the
formal industrialization (or "trickle down") model.
A second distinctive pattem of rural development is typified by Wenzhou prefecture. Of the total population of 6.79 million in the prefecture in 1992, only 15%
were nonagricultural. Its key city - Wenzhou city - is also a historical port city
and one of the first fourteen port cities "further opened" to foreign investment in
China. Nonetheless, there has been no big government investment in Wenzhou
city, probably because of its poor port facilities and particularly its lack of railway
connection to the outside. As a result, the urban economy in Wenzhou prefecture
is weak and unable to support rural-urban migration. Rural development largely
benefits from the new economic policies that legalized private business, as more
and more people are resuming their tradition of trade and developing their own
businesses. The rapid development of private household(s) enterprise in Wenzhou
was criticized in the beginning because it endorsed a capitalist mode of production,
but later it was introduced nat ionwide as a "model" of rapid economic development
with little govemment investment.
Shaoxing prefecture represents the third distinctive pattern of rural development, where rural development has been accomplished mainly by rural collective
industrialization. Small collective industries have grown rapidly and become the
backbone of rural economy and employment. The economic growth in turn has
greatly improved the standard of living and social services in rural areas and thereby considerably reduced rural-urban inequality. It thus represents the "bottom up"
approach to economic development.
Table 1 displays selected key indicators of socioeconomic development in the
three prefectures and shows the relative economic strength of their dominant cities.
It is clear from the table that Ningbo city represents a city in a prefecture with a
higher level of economic development associated with modem industries; Wenzhou
depicts a city in a prefecture with a lower level of overall economic development
but more developed rural household industries; and Shaoxing exemplifies a city in a
prefecture with an intermediate level of overall economic development but the most
developed rural collective industries. Of the three prefectures, Shaoxing prefecture
has more widely dispersed industries as indicated by the lower percentage of its
GDP and industrial output emanating from its key city, Shaoxing city (about 16%
in Shaoxing as compared to over 35% in the other two prefectures).
Accordingly, following the arguments concerning the migration outcome of
development strategy outlined earlier, Ningbo city is expected to have the highest
rural-urban permanent in-migration because of its stronger urban economy and
greater concentration of modem industries. By contrast, Wenzhou city would have
the lowest rural-urban permanent in-migration as a result of its weak urban economy. Shaoxing city would have an intermediate level of rural-urban permanent

202

XIUSHIYANG

Table 1. Key Indicators of SocioeconomicDevelopmentin Ningbo, Wenzhou, and Shaoxing Prefectures in Zhejiang, 1992
Ningbo
Prefecture C i t y

Wenzhou
PrefectureCity

Shaoxing
PrefectureCity

Population (in million)
5.17
1.10
6.79
1.10
4.17
0.29
Non-agricultural Population (%)
20.7
51.9
15.0
39.3
13.3
65.1
Per Capita GDP (yuan)
4,133
7,075
1,877
4,082
3,057
7,029
GDP/Industrial Output as
% of the Provincial
Total GDP
17.5
6.4
10.4
3.7
10.4
1.6
Total Industrial Output
19.4
7.1
7.4
3.1
11.9
1.9
GDP/Industrial Output as
% of the Prefecture
Total GDP
100.0
36.9
100.0
35.3
100.0
15.6
Total Industrial Output
100.0
36.3
100.0
41.2
100.0
16.1
Rural Labour Force (in million)
2.69
0.35
3.02
0.40
2.13
0.06
of which % in
Rural Industries
34.0
51.2
14.8
31.1
38.5
72.5
of which % in
Household Enterprises
16.4
9.4
53.1
36.4
20.0
0.6
Source: Zhejiang Provincial Statistical Bureau, 1993, Zhejiang TongjiNianjian (China Statistics Publishing House, Beijing).

in-migration, given its intermediate level of urban economy and well-developed
and widely dispersed rural industries. Nonetheless, as a small city, Shaoxing city
may have an advantage in receiving permanent in-migrants over the other two
cities because government policy particularly discourages permanent rural-urban
migration to big cities (Goldstein, S. and A. Goldstein, 1985; 1990). The patterns
of permanent in-migration vis-a-vis a city's economy, however, would largely
apply to intraprovincial migration as none of the three cities has achieved national
prominence, 5 which will limit their influence within the province. Thus for interprovincial migration, we would see more comparable patterns of permanent inmigration - to be dominated by urban-urban migration - in all three cities, although
the volume of interprovincial permanent in-migration to Shaoxing city is expected
to be smaller than that to the other two cities because of its being a small city.
For out-migration, a different picture would be expected. The greater capacity
of Ningbo city in absorbing rural-urban migration, together with the overall higher
level of economic development in the prefecture, suggests that Ningbo prefecture
as a whole would have the lowest level of out-migration, leaving the prefecture.
By contrast, the inability of Wenzhou city in absorbing rural-urban migration,
together with the low level of economic development in the prefecture, suggests
that Wenzhou prefecture as a whole would have the highest out-migration searching
for opportunities outside the prefecture. Shaoxing prefecture is again expected to

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND RURAL-URBAN MIGRATION IN CHINA

203

have an intermediate level of out-migration. Both Wenzhou and Shaoxing cities,
however, are expected to have a higher temporary out-migration than Ningbo city
as a result of possibly increasing demand for science and technical assistance from
growing rural industries in the two prefectures. But again, the impact of economic
development on a prefecture/city's out-migration would be more pronounced in
intraprovincial than interprovincial movement for the reasons given earlier.
4. D a t a s o u r c e

Data used for this research come from several sources. The first is the Zhejiang
segment of the 1986 National Urban Migration Survey sponsored and supervised
by the Population Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. 6
According to the national survey design, the Zhejiang survey focused on selected
cities in the Northeast, where relatively greater population mobility was expected.
This initial survey was followed by another independent survey conducted by the
Population Research Center at Hangzhou University, covering three additional
cities - two in the southern, coastal areas and one in the central part of the province
- in order to broaden the coverage so that the data can represent geographically the
province as a whole.
The second add-on survey followed the same sampling procedure and used the
same questionnaire as the earlier national one. In both surveys, random selection of
households in the selected cities was based on two stages. First, sub-administrative
units within the cities were randomly selected, using neighborhoods in the city
proper and township in the suburbs as basic sub-units. Second, for each of these
randomly selected sub-units, households to be interviewed were then randomly
selected based on the official household registration files.
Both surveys were conducted in cities. While the data-set provides important
information on in- and out-migration of the city, it contains no information on rural
out-migration. For this reason, the survey data will be supplemented by information
from the 1990 Census and statistics yearbooks on rural out-migration as well as
on more recent permanent in-migration to cities. 7 Particularly, the 1990 Census
(Zhejiang only) attached a specially designed questionnaire to the standard census
to collect detailed information on the de facto permanent out-migration from the
household. This unique data-set enables the analysis to go beyond the official
permanent migration and the all-encompassing temporary migration by including
attention to the migration stream that is more comparable to migration defined
in other research in other countries. This in turn will make the findings more
generalizable to other developing countries.
5. U r b a n p e r m a n e n t i n - m i g r a t i o n

Table 2 shows permanent in-migrants per 1,000 resident population in Ningbo,
Wenzhou, and Shaoxing cities. The data show that, for intraprovincial migration,

204

XIUSHIYANG
Table 2. Permanent In-Migrants per 1,000 Population by City, by Residence Type of
Origin, and by Period of Migration

Cities

1950-1978
Urban- R u r a l Urban Urban

Time Periods
1979-1984
Urban- RuralUrban Urban

1985-1990
U r b a n - RuralUrban Urban

IntraprovincialMigration
Ningbo
Wenzhou
Shaoxing

30.8
20.1
31.0

37.6
15.4
52.8

15.8
8.3
20.9

26.3
1.8
34.9

19.8
14.2
36.0

43.9
31.7
44.6

12.4
3.6
13.2

3.7
1.8
4.8

InterprovincialMigration
Ningbo
Wenzhou
Shaoxing

23.3
30.3
10.1

6.8
6.5
0.7

8.3
8.9
14.8

3.8
0.6
1.6

Source: 1986 National Urban Migration Survey ZhejiangSegment.Data for permanent
in-migration between 1985 and 1990 are from the 1990 Census and include de facto
permanent in-migrants.
Ningbo city had a greater permanent in-migration than Wenzhou city in all three
time periods; the difference tends to be larger with respect to rural-urban than
for urban-urban migration. Particularly interesting is that, for the periods before
1985, intraprovincial permanent in-migration to Ningbo city was dominated by
migrants from rural areas whereas that to Wenzhou city was largely from urban
places. The discrepancy between the two cities was particularly pronounced in
the five-year period between 1979 and 1984. During this period, for every 1,000
resident population, Ningbo city absorbed about 16 and 26 in-migrants from urban
and rural areas, respectively, while Wenzhou city received only 8 in-migrants from
urban and less than 2 from rural areas. 8
For the most recent five-year period, the data suggest that Ningbo city increased
its intake of intraprovincial permanent migrants, particularly those from rural areas.
During the same time period, however, the pattern of intraprovincial migration to
Wenzhou city seemed to have departed dramatically from that of previous time
periods. Not only did Wenzhou city have a much higher in-migration rate from
rural areas in 1985-1990 than before (31.7 per 1,000 resident population, which
almost doubled that of the rural-urban migration during the entire 24 years from
1950 to 1984), it also had for the first time a higher rural-urban in-migration rate
than urban-urban one. In fact, rural-urban migration to Wenzhou city in 1985-1990
was more than twice as frequent as urban-urban migration.
Although the seeming reversal of the pattern of intraprovincial permanent migration to Wenzhou city may suggest that the city's ability to absorb rural-urban permanent migrants has been improved recently, the post-reform migration pattern
probably reflects more the unique pattern of urbanization in Wenzhou prefecture

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND RURAL-URBAN MIGRATION IN CHINA

205

since 1978. What accounted for the particularly rapid increase in the level of urbanization in Wenzhou prefecture in the last decade or so had not been a growing formal
economy in its key city (Wenzhou city) that enabled it to receive more permanent
rural-urban migrants. Rather, the driving force had been the increasing de facto
permanent rural-urban migration. Instead of responding to opportunities provided
by the city economy, the post-reform de facto permanent migrants actually contributed to the city economy by setting up their own small businesses, thanks to the
new econonfic policy that legalized private business (e.g., Wang and Wu, 1990).
Thus the large increase in rural-urban migration to Wenzhou city in 1985-1990 is
mainly attributable to the increasing de facto permanent migration. While increasing de facto permanent migration may have also affected the migration pattern in
the immediate post-reform period between 1979 and 1984, the conditions for de
facto permanent migration were not fully established until the late 1980s when
the government started relaxing its control over urban residence. Moreover, de
facto permanent migrants were largely bypassed by the 1986 National Migration
Survey because of its use of the official household registration (restricted to official
residents) as the sampling framework.
In all three time periods, Shaoxing city had a higher intraprovincial permanent
in-migration rate than the other two cities, which was true for both urban-urban
and rural-urban migration. The composition by origin of permanent in-migrants
to Shaoxing city, however, was more parallel to that of in-migrants to Ningbo
than to Wenzhou city. Like Ningbo city, Shaoxing city had a considerably higher
permanent in-migration from rural than from urban areas. This is in sharp contrast
to permanent migration to Wenzhou city, where urban-urban migration had been
the dominant stream before 1985, probably resulting from a combination of the
strict government control over rural-urban permanent migration and the lack of
opportunity for de facto permanent migration during the pre-reform as well as the
immediate post-reform years.
For interprovincial migration, Ningbo and Wenzhou cities have more comparable patterns of permanent in-migration. In all three time periods, both cities
received far more permanent in-migrants from urban than from rural areas outside Zhejiang. Also, both cities received far fewer rural-urban migrants from other
provinces than from within the province. But Wenzhou city experienced a higher
permanent in-migration originated in urban places outside than within the province
before 1979, when it had even a higher rate of interprovincial urban-urban migration than Ningbo city (30.3 vs. 23.3 per 1,000 in Wenzhou and Ningbo city,
respectively).
In contrast to its leading role in absorbing intraprovincial permanent in-migrants,
Shaoxing city actually had the lowest interprovincial permanent in-migration rate
among the three cities before 1979 (10.8 per 1,000 in Shaoxing vs. 30.1 and 36.8
per 1,000 in Ningbo and Wenzhou, respectively). Since 1984, however, Shaoxing
city has experienced a comparable rate of interprovincial permanent in-migration to
that to Ningbo city; both cities have had a considerably higher level of permanent

206

XIUSHI YANG

in-migration from other provinces than Wenzhou city. In all three time periods,
the difference in the intensity of in-migration between intraprovincial and interprovincial movements was particularly pronounced in Shaoxing city. Over time,
Shaoxing city tended also to have increased its rate of interprovincial permanent
in-migration, whereas Wenzhou city had actually reduced its rate of in-migration
from other provinces.
Thus, as expected, the higher level of economic development in general and the
more developed urban economy in particular have increased the capacity of Ningbo
as well as that of Shaoxing city to absorb rural labour. But such positive impact
occurs largely within the provincial boundary, which has led to higher intraprovincial rural-urban permanent in-migration rates in the two cities in both absolute
terms and relative to urban-urban migration. In fact, in all time periods examined
here, intraprovincial permanent in-migration to Ningbo and Shaoxing cities was
dominated by rural-urban migration. Furthermore, as a small city, Shaoxing city
perhaps has a closer connection to its surrounding rural areas than does Ningbo
city to its rural hinterlands; potential permanent migrants may also find it easier to
move to Shaoxing than to Ningbo city because govemment policy puts particular
emphasis on the control of permanent migration to big cities, like Ningbo city.
Consequently, Shaoxing city actually experienced higher intraprovincial permanent in-migration rates from both rural and urban areas than Ningbo city despite
the latter's stronger urban economy.
By contrast, despite Wenzhou city's status as a big city, the less developed
modem industries and especially the lack of large projects in recent years in
Wenzhou have limited the city's capacity in absorbing rural-urban permanent
migration. But thanks to the new economic policy which relaxed employment
control and legalized private enterprises, people can now work in a city through
individual or collective contracts or as self-employed without first acquiring the
official household registration. Concurrently the changing market conditions have
also made it possible for people to live in a city without the official household
registration there and thereby set the stage for rural-urban de facto permanent
migration (Yang, 1993). Consequently, more and more rural peasants have taken
the initiative to move to Wenzhou city to become de facto residents by setting
up their own businesses, which have since grown rapidly and become increasingly important in the city's economy. In 1992, for example, small-scale industries
owned privately by households in Wenzhou city accounted for 10.4% of the city's
total industrial output, while the corresponding figures in Ningbo and Shaoxing
cities were only 0.4% and 0.6%, respectively (ZPSB, 1993a: Table 18-40). Thus
in sharp contrast to Ningbo and Shaoxing cities, where the expansion of urban
economy provided opportunities to absorb permanent in-migrants through official
channels, in Wenzhou city it was the increasing de facto permanent in-migrants
in recent years who supported themselves, contributed to the urban economy, and
even invested in urban infrastructure.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND RURAL-URBAN MIGRATION IN CHINA

207

Also as expected, the impact of economic development on permanent migration is largely limited to intraprovincial movement. For interprovincial permanent
in-migration, all three cities exhibited more comparable patterns - all experienced much lower rates of rural-urban than urban-urban migration. Furthermore,
Wenzhou city is no longer always the city which has the lowest permanent inmigration in interprovincial migration, except for the most recent five-year period.
In fact, Wenzhou city had the highest level of interprovincial urban-urban migration
before 1979. The new pattern of economic development since economic reforms,
which has dramatically altered the pattern of intraprovincial permanent migration
to Wenzhou city, did not seem to have affected Wenzhou city's pattem of interprovincial in-migration. There was actually no clear shift in migrants' origin in
recent years in interprovincial migration, indicating that the increasing (de facto)
permanent migration to Wenzhou city largely originated from within the province.
The dominance of urban-urban migrants in interprovincial migration to all three
cities reflects the government control over permanent migration and employment
in China. Until very recently, most urban jobs were assigned to local residents,
but securing a job in a city was the prerequisite for permanent migration to it.
Consequently, very few peasants could find an urban job in other provinces and
move interprovincially; interprovincial permanent migrants were mainly college
graduates who were assigned to work in other provinces and urban residents applying for job transfer. Thus interprovincial permanent migration was predominantly
urban in origin and not directly related to the economy in the place of destination.

6. Urban temporary out-migration
For temporary out-migration from cities, Table 3 shows that both Wenzhou and
Shaoxing cities had higher overall temporary out-migration rates than Ningbo city
(the total temporary out-migration rates were 63.4 and 78.4 per 1,000 in Wenzhou
and Shaoxing cities, respectively, compared to 57.9 per 1,000 in Ningbo city), as
expected. When temporary out-migration is examined by intraprovincial and interprovincial movements, however, a completely different picture emerges, showing
sharp contrasts for the three cities. For intraprovincial migration, temporary outmigration from Wenzhou city was less than half as frequent as that from both
Ningbo and Shaoxing cities. The difference was particularly pronounced in urbanrural migration, of which the rate in Wenzhou city was only 2.4 per 1,000 in
comparison to 12.8 and 10.9 per 1,000 in Ningbo and Shaoxing cities, respectively.
For interprovincial migration, by contrast, temporary out-migration from Wenzhou
city was more than double the intensity of that from the other two cities. But, like
those from Ningbo city, virtually all temporary out-migrants from Wenzhou city
who had crossed the provincial boundary ended up in urban places.
While the higher temporary out-migration from Wenzhou than Ningbo city is
expected, the unique pattern in Wenzhou city is not quite anticipated. Apparently,
the higher temporary out-migration from Wenzhou city did not seem to be in

208

XIUSHIYANG
Table 3. Temporary Economic Out-Migrants per 1,000 Population by City, by Residence
Type of Destination, 1986

Cities

Total

Intraprovincial Migration
Urban-Urban Urban-Rural

Interprovincial Migration
Urban-Urban Urban-Rural

Ningbo
Wenzhou
Shaoxing

57.9
63.4
78.4

25.6
15.4
42.7

19.5
45.0
21.7

12.8
2.4
10.9

0
0.6
3.1

Source: 1986 National Urban Migration Survey Zhejiang Segment.

response to greater demand for technical assistance from the rapid development
of rural private enterprises in the prefecture, which would indicate a high instead
of low level of intraprovincial urban-rural temporary migration. Temporary outmigration from Wenzhou city was more likely to be the result of growing private
industries in the city itself. Because most household(s) enterprises are small in scale
and often operating outside government economic plans, their survival depends
to a great extent on their success in taking advantage of spatial differentials in
levels of economic development through trade and commerce, which, along with
handicrafts, constitute a strong tradition in Wenzhou prefecture. Given the greater
disparities in level of development among provinces and greater concentration of
consumer markets in urban places, the places where they can find a niche in doing
trade and engaging in other small businesses are naturally major urban centers in
other (remote) provinces. Consequently, temporary out-migration from Wenzhou
city was predominated by interprovincial urban-urban movement (71% of the total).
By contrast, the most frequent temporary migration from Ningbo city was
intraprovincial urban-urban movement (25.6 per 1,000). Ningbo city also had
the highest intraprovincial urban-rural temporary migration rate (12.8 per 1,000)
among the three cities. Together, the pattem may suggest that there is indeed
some "trickle down" impact of economic development. In other words, through
temporary migration, development of modem industries in Ningbo city had played
an important role in stimulating economic development and social changes in its
rural hinterlands.
A similar trickle down impact can also be found in Shaoxing city, as suggested
by the considerable intraprovincial urban-rural temporary migration from the city
(10.9 per 1,000). Recall that rural collective industries are more developed in both
Ningbo and Shaoxing than in Wenzhou prefecture (see Table 1), the considerable
intraprovincial urban-rural temporary migration from Ningbo and Shaoxing cities
further indicates substantial connections between these rural collective industries
and modem industries in key cities. These connections reflect both a growing
demand for technical assistance from rural industries and a principal-subsidiary
affiliation through which the rural industries provide the modem industries in key
cities with parts or semi-finished products. Furthermore, as a small city, Shaoxing
city also looks to big cities for economic opportunities and technical assistance,

209

ECONOMICDEVELOPMENTAND RURAL-URBANMIGRATIONIN CHINA
Table 4. De Facto Permanent Out-Migrants per 1,000 Official Residents in Ningbo,
Wenzhou, and Shaoxing Prefectures, by Destination, 1990

Prefectures* Total

Intraprovincial
Interprovincial
Intraprefecture Interprefecture Contiguoust Remote

Ningbo
Wenzhou
Shaoxing

13.7
10.4
6.9

25.5
71.6
41.4

2.9
5.2
15.2

3.7
18.0
14.0

5.1
38.1
5.2

* Ningbo, Wenzhou,and Shaoxingcities are excluded from their respectiveprefectures.
t Provinces contiguous to Zhejiang include Shanghai (municipality),Jiangsu, Anhui,
Fujian, and Jiangxi.
Source: 1990 Census, Zhejiang.
which leads to a much higher intraprovincial urban-urban temporary migration from
it (42.7 per 1,000, which constitutes 55.5% of the total temporary out-migration)
than that from the other two big cities. The pattern thus lends some support to the
argument that small cities can serve as the critical bridge connecting big cities to
the vast rural areas in the process of economic development.

7. Rural temporary out-migration
Thus far, the discussion has been limited to key cities in the three prefectures. Available data (ZPSB, 1988) also show differences in both volume and patterns of temporary out-migration among rural population in the three prefectures. In 1987, while
only 7.6% of rural labour in Ningbo prefecture was engaged in non-agricultural
activities away from home through temporary migration, the corresponding figures
were 11.1% in Wenzhou prefecture and 13.2% in Shaoxing prefecture, respectively
(the provincial average was 9.4%). While 28% of the out-migrating labourers from
Ningbo prefecture were working as contract or temporary workers, the corresponding percentages were only 5.3% in Wenzhou and 20.2% in Shaoxing prefecture,
respectively. By contrast, while only 12.9% of out-migrants from Ningbo prefecture had travelled across the provincial boundary, 65% from Wenzhou and 33.2%
from Shaoxing had moved interprovincially.
The above general patterns of rural temporary out-migration are further substantiated by more detailed data from the 1990 Census on de facto permanent
out-migration. Data in Table 4 indicate a clear inverse relationship between the
overall level of economic development in a prefecture and the overall rural de facto
permanent out-migration leaving the prefecture. 9 The rate of rural out-migration
in Wenzhou prefecture was close to three times that in Ningbo prefecture (71.6 vs.
25.5 per 1,000).
Furthermore, comparisons among the three prefectures manifest some most
interesting patterns with respect to de facto permanent out-migration. Wenzhou
and Ningbo prefectures had more comparable patterns of intraprovincial migration but they differed dramatically in interprovincial migration, of which the rate

210

XIUSHIYANG

China
Sea

Shaoxing

ZHEJIANG
~,t

China

Sea

Figure 1. GeographicalLocationsof Ningbo, Wenzhou,and ShaoxingPrefectures,Zhejiang
Province.

in Wenzhou prefecture was more than six times that in Ningbo (56.1 vs. 8.8 per
1,000). The difference in de facto permanent out-migration to remote provinces
was even larger, 38.1 and 5.1 per t,000 for Wenzhou and Ningbo prefectures,
respectively. Shaoxing prefecture distinguished itself from the other two prefectures by a much higher out-migration to other prefectures within the province
(15.2 per 1,000 in comparison to 2.9 and 5.2 per 1,000 in Ningbo and Wenzhou
prefectures, respectively) as well as a considerably high rate of out-migration to
contiguous provinces. Geographical proximity to other provinces is unlikely the
explanation because the three prefectures do not vary too much in their distances
to other provinces (See Figure 1). In explaining the divergent patterns of the de
facto permanent out-migration from the three prefectures, an examination of the
economic activities of the de facto permanent out-migrants may be informative.

21t

ECONOMICDEVELOPMENTANDRURAL-URBANMIGRATIONIN CHINA
Table 5. The Compositionof EconomicActivitiesamongDe FactoPermanentEconomic
Out-Migrants in Ningbo, Wenzhou,and ShaoxingPrefectures, 1990"
Prefecturest

Agri- Indus- Cons- Transpor- Comculture try
truction ration~
merce Service Totalno.

Ningbo
Wenzhou
Shaoxing

12.0
6.3
4.1

36.9
18.8
23.5

17.1
9.1
37.7

1.6

9.5

13.4

60,886

0.4
2.8

24. t
9.8

32.7
13.3

249,61t
111,071

* The differencebetween 100 and the sum of the six categoriesis due to thoseunspecified
other occupations.
t Ningbo,Wenzhou,and Shaoxingcities are excludedfrom their respectiveprefectures.
This categoryalso includesthose workingin communicationsector.
Source: 1990 Census,Zhejiang.
Table 5 shows the occupational distribution of the de facto permanent economic
out-migrants from the three prefectures. The data indicate a positive relationship
between a prefecture's level of economic development and the proportion of outmigrants working in the industrial sector. Shaoxing prefecture differed from the
other two prefectures by having a much higher proportion of out-migrants engaged
in the construction sector (37.7% in comparison to 17.1% and 9.1% in Ningbo and
Wenzhou prefectures, respectively). Out-migrants from Wenzhou prefecture were,
by contrast, predominantly involved in commerce or service activities (56.8% in
comparison to 22.9% and 23.1% in Ningbo and Shaoxing prefectures, respectively).
The patterns of rural out-migration (temporary as well as the de facto permanent movement) from the three prefectures reenforce earlier results based on the
three dominant cities. They clearly reflect differences in level and pattern of economic development among the three prefectures. The rapid development of modem
industries, particularly the growing government and foreign investment in recent
years in Ningbo city, had not only led to a greater demand for labour, which had
increased the city's intake of permanent migrants from

Dokumen yang terkait

BF01797109

0 0 24