City Drifting and getting stuck: Migrants in Chinese citieswwu/publications/City-Migration.pdf ·...

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Wu, Weiping]On: 19 March 2010Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 920039174]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

CityPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713410570

Drifting and getting stuck: Migrants in Chinese citiesWeiping Wu

Online publication date: 19 March 2010

To cite this Article Wu, Weiping(2010) 'Drifting and getting stuck: Migrants in Chinese cities', City, 14: 1, 13 — 24To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13604810903298490URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13604810903298490

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713410570

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13604810903298490

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Downloaded By: [Wu, Weiping] At: 21:59 19 March 2010

CITY, VOL. 14, NOS. 1–2, FEBRUARY–APRIL 2010

ISSN 1360-4813 print/ISSN 1470-3629 online/10/01–2013-12 © 2010 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/13604810903298490

Drifting and getting stuckMigrants in Chinese cities

Weiping WuTaylor and Francis

Residential mobility patterns are an important indicator of the future socioeconomic stand-ing of rural–urban migrants in the urban society. In Chinese cities there are significantbarriers for migrants to settle permanently. Given this context and housing choices avail-able to migrants, what types of housing career do they follow once in the city? Drawingfrom survey data from three large cities, this paper studies migrant intra-urban residentialmobility through three lenses—temporal patterns, spatial trajectories and tenure shifts. Themajority of migrants are renters and remain so despite a lengthy residence in the cities.They experience a high level of mobility over time, but the trajectories of their moves arespatially confined and involve few tenure shifts.

Key words: migration, migrant settlement, residential mobility, housing, urban China

hina is a rapidly urbanizing soci-ety undergoing a transition from acommand to a market economy.

Accompanying this transformation is thelargely rural–urban migratory flow—perhaps the largest tide of migration inhuman history. Regarded as temporarymigrants (without change of householdregistration or hukou) by governmentauthorities, migrant workers and entrepre-neurs provide substantial human impetusfor the rapid modernization of China’scities. Much unlike their counterparts inmany developing countries who migrate tocities with the intention to settle, migrantsin China encounter significant barriers attheir destinations. The urban–rural andlocal–nonlocal divides institutionalizedthrough the hukou system, to a largeextent, continue to ensure that their pres-ence is unwanted in the urban society whiletheir labor is desired. Such divides also

shape their housing choices, mobilitypatterns and living arrangements in thecities.

China’s migrants display different hous-ing behaviors from not only local residentsin the cities but also internal migrants inother developing countries. Home owner-ship is yet to become an attainable goal.Informal settlements are not a viableoption, largely due to municipal authori-ties’ intolerance of migrant congregationand squatting. Private rental housingaccommodates the largest number ofmigrants, especially in suburban areas thatused to be or still are agricultural (Wu,2002a). In addition, when migrants find jobsin some enterprises, many of them obtainaccess to dormitory housing. Migrants inChinese cities, however, share some behav-iors with their counterparts elsewhere inthat they all tend to invest little income toimprove housing conditions.

C


WU: DRIFTING AND GETTING STUCK 15

Given the institutional context andhousing choices available to migrants,what types of housing career do theyfollow once in the city? To answer thequestion, this paper studies migrant resi-dential mobility in China’s large citiesthrough three lenses—temporal patterns,spatial trajectories and tenure shifts.

The main findings of this paper are based ondata drawn from citywide migrant housingsurveys in Shanghai and Beijing, supple-mented by a survey recently completed inGuangzhou. Some results have been previ-ously reported in Wu (2006). The survey inShanghai generated complete questionnairesfor 1789 migrants and was conducted betweenDecember 1998 and March 1999 in 22 neigh-borhoods of Shanghai’s 17 districts/counties(out of a total of 20) and 11 enterprises/insti-tutions (see Figure 1). The survey in Beijingwas carried out between May and July 2000 in18 neighborhoods of Beijing’s 12 districts/counties (out of a total of 18) and 13 workingunits, with complete questionnaires for 931migrants. The Guangzhou survey, conductedin 2005, includes 300 migrants living in 12 so-called ‘urban villages’ in three suburbandistricts where most of the city’s migrantsconcentrate.1 Although many of the key find-ings of the paper are drawn from data collectedaround the year 2000, it is reasonable to expectsimilar trends today as no substantial policychanges have occurred since then to allowbetter access to urban amenities by migrants.2Figure 1 Survey sites in Beijing and Shanghai.The paper expects to show that, once in thecity, migrants continue to be on the moveand experience a high level of mobility. Whiledrifting around, however, they get stuck withfew housing choices and remain as rentersafter years living in the city. The intra-urbanmobility trajectories of migrants also arespatially confined. They may be movingfrequently, but not very far. These patternslikely stem from the temporary statusmigrants are forced into. Though resemblingthe behavior of seasonal migrants in someAfrican cities, the housing career of China’smigrants is truncated. In the remainder of thepaper, I will first situate China’s experience

within key theories of migrant settlement andresidential mobility, and then presentevidence from the three large Chinese cities.

Understanding migrant residential mobility

Residential patterns and outcomes are partic-ularly informative in the study of adaptationof migrants. Residential mobility, in particu-lar, has a tendency to co-vary with socialmobility and participation in society.Research on migrant settlement in LatinAmerican cities reveals that new migrants(labeled as ‘bridgeheaders’) initially seekdeteriorating rental shelter, primarily in thecentral city. Over time, migrants generallyoccupy better housing—from rented roomsto self-built shanties or houses often closer tothe urban periphery. Once this transition ismade, migrants become consolidators. Astheir income level improves, they upgradeshanty dwellings over time into moresubstantial houses (Turner, 1968; Klak andHoltzclaw, 1993). In a number of countrieswith continuing urbanization, intermediateor peripheral zones have become the majordestination for new migrants (UNCHS,1982; Conway, 1985; Gilbert and Varley,1990; van Lindert, 1991). Overall, the periph-ery location is characterized by squattersettlement or self-help housing.

There is, however, an increasing level ofheterogeneity in how migrant mobility shiftsgeographically. Research in Quito, Ecuador,shows that migrants secure affordable andavailable housing be it centrally or peripher-ally located (Klak and Holtzclaw, 1993). Arecent study of Mexico City suggests thatmigrant mobility, once in the city, is limitedin terms of distance. Rather than movingfrom rental housing in the central city toperipheral settlement as suggested by Turner,most of them relocate relatively near theirlast places of residence (Ward, 1990). Tomost migrants, proximity to employmentranks high on the list of preferences andneeds as income generation and economic


16 CITY VOL. 14, NOS. 1–2

Figure 1 Survey sites in Beijing and Shanghai.



viability are a primary objective for them.Particularly for new arrivals with fewacquaintances in the city, an initial residencewithin walking distance of jobs is essential(Conway, 1985; Gilbert and Varley, 1990).Others also point out the importance ofkinship and friendship ties, acting as socialinstitutions (Abu-Lughod, 1961; Banerjee,1983; van Lindert, 1991).

This body of research on housing patternsof internal migrants in developing countrieshas not been an integral part of the generalliterature on residential mobility. By virtueof needing to minimize their costs while inthe city, migrants often do not share with thelocals a similar set of housing needs and pref-erences. But there is substantial sharing oftheoretical insight. Renters in general aremore mobile than owners, often about 3–4times more so. Age, marital status, the pres-ence of children, income, housing tenure andspace, and the previous history of moves, allaffect the likelihood of moving. Marriage,child birth and divorce are particularlysignificant triggers (Cadwallader, 1992; Clarkand Dieleman, 1996; Li, 2003a). Supply-sidevariables also play an important role, suchas availability of housing opportunities,constraints on housing choices and housingmarket tightness (summarized in Li and Siu,2001; Huang and Clark, 2002; Li, 2003a).

These global experiences of residentialmobility and migrant settlement will nodoubt help our understanding of trends inChina. There are barriers preventing orobstructing migrant settlement in destina-tions, ranging from labor market discrimi-nation to restrictions associated with thehukou system (Roberts, 1997; Solinger,1999). With deepening marketization,however, there are increasing variationsamong migrants. A small number ofsuccessful ones have gained urban statusunder recent hukou reforms, particularly insmaller cities. The majority of migrantscontinue to be denied the full set of urbanbenefits, with only limited access to afford-able housing and public education.

Temporal patterns of migrant mobility in Chinese cities

It is no exaggeration to say that once in thecity, migrants continue to be on the move.More than 55% of migrants surveyed havemade at least one residential move (seeTable 1). The proportion of movers variessomewhat across the three cities—largest inGuangzhou (74.7%) and smallest in Shang-hai (57.1%). A sizeable group of them (e.g.about 20% in Beijing) have moved multiple

Table 1 Percentage of movers by age and education groups

Shanghai Beijing Guangzhou

Male Female Total N Male Female Total N Male Female Total N

Age groupYounger than 25 53.4 53.5 53.4 597 67.1 56.9 62.9 385 58.3 68.4 62.8 4325 to younger than 35 61.3 57.6 59.9 779 75.1 62.8 70.1 334 69.1 85.7 74.8 14335 to younger than 45 60.5 54.3 58.7 271 68.5 62.5 66.4 137 82.4 84.2 82.8 9345 to younger than 55 56.7 48.9 54.2 142 75.4 44.4 68.0 75 56.3 80.0 61.9 21

Educational levelLittle or no education 41.5 49.4 46.7 120 67.3 59.3 63.0 108 83.3 n/a 83.3 6Elementary school 59.5 56.5 58.0 355 71.6 49.2 63.0 165 75.0 0.0 72.0 25Junior high school 57.6 54.7 56.6 1039 71.3 59.7 67.4 466 80.0 75.0 78.4 125Senior high/vocational school 64.9 57.4 63.3 248 72.5 60.9 67.5 160 62.3 86.4 71.7 113Associate degree or above 45.0 83.3 53.8 26 63.2 92.3 75.0 32 62.5 100.0 71.0 31

Total 58.4 55.0 57.1 1789 71.0 59.2 66.4 931 71.6 81.5 74.7 300



times (up to 10 moves) within an averageduration of four to six years in the city. Suchmobility behavior, however, may not be theresult of voluntary or predictive actions asmost migrants express little willingness tomove again when asked. In fact, only about9.1% in Beijing and Shanghai have definiteplans to move in the near future.

Migrant residential mobility varies by ageand educational attainment. Those betweenthe ages of 25 and 45 appear to be the mostmobile segment (see Table 1), a findingconsistent with the general trend worldwide.Residential moves during this period of thelife cycle often are spurred by family forma-tion and expansion. Also conforming withgeneral trends, the higher the level of educa-tion, the greater the likelihood of moving(with some exception in the male groups inBeijing and Guangzhou, see Table 1). Mobil-ity by gender, on the other hand, does notshow clear patterns across the three cities.

Migrants tend to experience a much higherlevel of residential mobility, especially whencompared to local residents. Given thatmigrants enter the city at various points oftime, individual mobility rates were calcu-lated first and then indicators of centraltendency obtained. The median mobility ratefor Beijing was 31.2% per annum (averagewas 75.7%), with a standard deviation of123.5%.3 For Guangzhou, the median was25.0% per annum (average was 35.8%) witha standard deviation of 46.3%. These rateswere significantly higher than those reportedfor local residents during a comparable timeperiod, at 4.26% for Beijing and at 5.30% forGuangzhou (Li, 2003b, 2004).

Mobility rates for migrants change steadilyby duration of residence in the city. Asmigrants stay longer, their average annualmobility rates decline by a significant degree(see Figure 2). The frequency of moves in thefirst year is particularly high (averaging about112% in Beijing and 62% in Guangzhou), withmultiple moves for many migrants. Figure 2thus appears to indicate a slow process ofsettling down for migrants, even thoughlonger-term migrants still experience much

higher mobility rates than local residents. Formigrants, proximity to existing or potentialemployment is a major factor underlyingchoices of residential site and job changes areperhaps the most important predictor for resi-dential mobility. In Beijing and Shanghai,about three-quarters of surveyed migrants livewithin 10 minutes of walking distance fromtheir workplaces. About 52% of those inGuangzhou have reported that the numberone reason for moving is job changes. In-depthinterviews with 59 longer-term migrants inBeijing show that 40 out of 90 reported resi-dential moves were related to work, triggeredby such events as job change, change in busi-ness location and completion of work projects.For migrants in the construction sector, theylive and move with work. The mobility rate ofmany self-employed migrants, such as thoseoperating food stalls and convenience stores,also is primarily determined by their worklocation and how profitable that location is forbusiness (Wu, 2006).Figure 2 Average annual mobility rates over duration of residence.

Spatial trajectories

To understand how location choices of newarrivals are distributed geographically,migrants’ zone of first settlement is arrayedby each five-year entry cohort for Shanghaiand Beijing. The sharply different patternsare likely the result of contrasting urbanforms in the two cities. In Shanghai, bothbefore 1980 and in the decade after, themajority of new migrants found their firstresidence in the central city (see Table 2).Such centrality of migrant distribution,before 1990, may be attributable to the city’sinverse concentric spatial pattern. Resultsfrom Beijing show the absence of suchcentrality, throughout the 1980s and 1990s.Across all of the entry cohorts, more thantwo-thirds of migrants there consistentlychoose their first residence within theconfines of the inner suburb. Closely resem-bling a multi-nuclear model, much ofBeijing’s city proper is laid out in a moresprawling urban form.



Figure 2 Average annual mobility rates over duration of residence.



But the spatial distribution of migrants hasexperienced a gradual shift in Shanghai. Thecity’s official enumerations show that in themid-1980s a larger proportion of migrants(over 40%) lived in the central city, but sincethe mid-1990s the inner suburb has been theprimary receiving area (Wang, 1995; Zhang,1998; Wu, 2002b). This is confirmed by thesurvey results, which show that migrantsarriving after 1995 favor the inner suburbmore than the central city (see Table 2).Clearly, migrant distribution is following thecity’s spatial economic development. There isincreasing concentration of employmentactivities outside of the central city, andcommercial redevelopment has driven uphousing costs in the city core. This shift alsomirrors a trend in a number of cities else-where in developing countries undergoingcontinuing urbanization.

What are the intra-urban mobility trajec-tories of migrants after their initial settle-ment? In Table 3, moving directions betweenzones of first residence and present locationare shown for the various entry cohorts.Migrants who have not changed their resi-dence since arrival are not counted. Theresults, surprisingly, do not resemble theoutward trajectories observed in many Latin

American cities. Instead, most migrants seemto remain fairly stationary—more than 75%of movers in both cities have stayed aroundthe same general geographic location regard-less of duration of residence in the city(Table 3). This suggests that migrants tend tomake short-distance residential moves tominimize unfamiliarity with the environ-ment. The sheer size of the cities likely hasrendered it possible for them to gain knowl-edge of only one sector of the city. Hence, inShanghai the most frequent moving directionis within the central city whereas in Beijing itis within the inner suburb. In both cities, thesecond most frequent direction is an inwardmove—from the inner suburb to central city.A slightly smaller group of migrants havemade the opposite, outward move.

Tenure shifts

Rental housing represents the key arrange-ment for most migrants in the city. Homeownership is minimal among migrants (lessthan 1%, see Wu, 2002a). As such, thefollowing analysis shows how over timehousing choices shift for migrants, ratherthan in the traditional sense of tenure shifts.

Table 2 Spatial distribution of new migrants by entry cohort

Central city Inner suburb Outer suburb Total

Entry cohort N % N % N % N %

ShanghaiBefore 1980 9 56.3 3 18.8 4 25.0 16 100.01980–84 16 50.0 7 21.9 9 28.1 32 100.01985–89 91 54.2 49 29.2 28 16.7 168 100.01990–94 268 46.1 245 42.2 68 11.7 581 100.01995–99 419 42.8 424 43.4 135 13.8 978 100.0Total 803 45.2 728 41.0 244 13.7 1775 100.0

BeijingBefore 1980 4 26.7 11 73.3 0 0.0 15 100.01980–84 4 21.1 14 73.7 1 5.3 19 100.01985–89 15 24.2 42 67.7 5 8.1 62 100.01990–94 35 19.4 125 69.4 20 11.1 180 100.01995–2000 119 18.7 422 66.5 94 14.8 635 100.0Total 177 19.4 614 67.4 120 13.2 911 100.0



The status of current housing is comparedwith that of previous housing and initialhousing upon first arrival in the city(Table 4).4 Columns indicate current housingtypes. The overall patterns are striking—themajority of migrants appear to be trapped inthe two dominant housing types in spite ofhigh mobility rates. These are renting privatehousing and living in dorm or workshed. Formigrants in Shanghai, private rental has beenthe most common type throughout theirhousing careers, accommodating more thanhalf of them at nearly all points of time. InBeijing, this proportion at times drops downto one-third, as dormitory housing also is acommon choice.

Few migrants in urban China make thetransition from bridgeheaders to consolida-tors even after years of living in the city.Therefore, the security offered by housingtenure (ownership) is less relevant as a moti-vation in making housing decisions. Themain explanation would lie with localcontrols, which force migrants (even thosewith families in tow) into more of a bridge-header existence than they may otherwise

prefer. Specifically, the system of grantingonly temporary urban residence permits tomigrants discourages them from makingsubstantial investment to alter their residen-tial choices in the city.

Getting stuck with private rental also hasimplications for migrants’ housing condi-tions. Research has shown that such rental,as well as dormitory housing, tends to haveworse overall conditions than other housingtypes. It also exposes migrants to a signifi-cantly higher level of instability as the rentalmarket is still immature with a lack of regu-latory oversight. When migrants stay withlocal residents, their housing conditionsimprove markedly. For those migrants ableto afford to buy commodity housing, hous-ing conditions are on par with the locals(Wu, 2002a).

Conclusion

Settlement patterns are an important deter-minant of the future socioeconomic stand-ing of migrants, as where and how they live

Table 3 Migrant spatial mobility between first and current residence by entry cohort (%)

Outward move Inward move Within-zone move Total

Entry cohort CI CO IO Subtotal IC OI OC Subtotal CC II OO Subtotal N %

ShanghaiBefore 1980 6.3 0.0 0.0 6.3 6.3 12.5 0.0 18.8 50.0 12.5 12.5 75.0 16 100.01980–84 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.2 0.0 3.8 23.1 50.0 7.7 19.2 76.9 26 100.01985–89 7.1 3.5 4.3 14.9 10.6 0.7 0.0 11.3 44.7 14.2 14.9 73.8 141 100.01990–94 8.6 1.5 3.3 13.5 9.5 1.5 0.9 11.9 37.8 28.8 8.0 74.6 452 100.01995–99 6.6 0.3 2.1 9.0 8.0 1.9 0.5 10.3 35.3 33.7 11.7 80.6 377 100.0Total 7.4 1.3 2.9 11.6 9.3 1.7 0.7 11.7 38.3 27.8 10.7 76.8 1012 100.0

BeijingBefore 1980 7.1 7.1 7.1 21.4 14.3 0.0 0.0 14.3 14.3 50.0 0.0 64.3 14 100.01980–84 17.6 0.0 0.0 17.6 17.6 0.0 0.0 17.6 5.9 52.9 5.9 64.7 17 100.01985–89 6.9 1.7 3.4 12.1 12.1 3.4 0.0 15.5 13.8 53.4 5.2 72.4 58 100.01990–94 6.8 2.1 2.7 11.6 8.9 3.4 0.0 12.3 8.2 58.2 9.6 76.0 146 100.01995–2000 7.8 0.8 2.2 10.9 7.8 4.5 0.8 13.1 10.3 56.5 9.2 76.0 359 100.0Total 7.7 1.3 2.5 11.6 8.9 3.9 0.5 13.3 10.1 56.4 8.6 75.1 594 100.0

Note: CI = central city to inner suburb, CO = central city to outer suburb, IO = inner to outer suburb, IC = inner suburb to central city, OI = outer to inner suburb, OC = outer suburb to central city, CC = within central city, II = within inner suburb, OO = within outer suburb.


22 CITY VOL. 14, NOS. 1–2Ta

ble

4Te

nure

mob

ility

of m

igra

nts

(by

curr

ent h

ousi

ng)

Rent

ing

priv

ate

hous

ing

Rent

ing

publ

ic h

ousi

ngD

orm

/wor

kshe

dSt

ayin

g w

ith lo

cal r

esid

ents

Oth

er h

ousi

nga

Tota

l

Num

ber

%N

umbe

r%

Num

ber

%N

umbe

r%

Num

ber

%N

umbe

r%

Shanghai

Prev

ious

hou

sing

Rent

ing

priv

ate

hous

ing

220

44.1

275.

422

4.4

30.

611

2.2

283

56.7

Rent

ing

publ

ic h

ousi

ng20

4.0

224.

42

0.4

20.

41

0.2

479.

4D

orm

/wor

kshe

d25

5.0

20.

498

19.6

10.

23

0.6

129

25.9

Stay

ing

w. l

ocal

res

iden

ts2

0.4

71.

44

0.8

71.

43

0.6

234.

6O

ther

hou

sing

a7

1.4

30.

61

0.2

20.

44

0.8

173.

4To

tal

274

54.9

6112

.212

725

.515

3.0

224.

449

910

0.0

Initi

al h

ousi

ngRe

ntin

g pr

ivat

e ho

usin

g37

036

.261

6.0

373.

67

0.7

181.

849

348

.3Re

ntin

g pu

blic

hou

sing

242.

423

2.3

60.

62

0.2

30.

358

5.7

Dor

m/w

orks

hed

126

12.3

252.

418

317

.99

0.9

70.

735

034

.3St

ayin

g w

. loc

al r

esid

ents

272.

69

0.9

151.

512

1.2

101.

073

7.1

Oth

er h

ousi

nga

191.

99

0.9

50.

54

0.4

101.

047

4.6

Tota

l56

655

.412

712

.424

624

.134

3.3

484.

710

2110

0.0

Bei

jing

Prev

ious

hou

sing

Rent

ing

priv

ate

hous

ing

8926

.340

11.8

113.

20

0.0

51.

514

542

.8Re

ntin

g pu

blic

hou

sing

72.

119

5.6

20.

60

0.0

00.

028

8.3

Dor

m/w

orks

hed

154.

46

1.8

116

34.2

41.

21

0.3

142

41.9

Stay

ing

w. l

ocal

res

iden

ts1

0.3

20.

63

0.9

00.

00

0.0

61.

8O

ther

hou

sing

a7

2.1

41.

20

0.0

10.

36

1.8

185.

3To

tal

119

35.1

7120

.913

238

.95

1.5

123.

533

910

0.0

Initi

al h

ousi

ngRe

ntin

g pr

ivat

e ho

usin

g10

116

.457

9.3

254.

13

0.5

61.

019

231

.2Re

ntin

g pu

blic

hou

sing

152.

419

3.1

30.

50

0.0

10.

238

6.2

Dor

m/w

orks

hed

7011

.433

5.4

192

31.2

71.

19

1.5

311

50.5

Stay

ing

w. l

ocal

res

iden

ts5

0.8

30.

512

1.9

40.

62

0.3

264.

2O

ther

hou

sing

a15

2.4

101.

614

2.3

00.

010

1.6

498.

0To

tal

206

33.4

122

19.8

246

39.9

142.

328

4.5

616

100.

0

a ‘O

ther

hou

sing

’ inc

lude

s co

mm

erci

al h

ousi

ng, a

nd li

ving

in s

elf-b

uilt

shed

, on

the

stree

t or

othe

r te

mpo

rary

spa

ce.



are likely to affect their general level ofsatisfaction with urban living and the easeor difficulty to adapt to the new environ-ment. The majority of migrants in China’slarge cities are renters and remain so despitea lengthy residence there. They experiencesubstantially higher mobility rates thanlocal residents, but such mobility is notnecessarily driven by the need for tenure oreven amenity. Though resembling thebehavior of seasonal migrants elsewhere,the housing career of China’s migrants istruncated—without the transition to aconsolidator status. This partially stemsfrom the tight reign over public land bymunicipal authorities and, hence, the lack ofopportunities to build self-help housing.Home ownership through the formalcommercial market is even less attainablefor most migrants.

Compared to Third World cities else-where, the intra-urban mobility trajectoriesof migrants in China are much morespatially confined. They may be moving justas frequently, but not very far. Most movesare within the same general geographic area.In Beijing and increasingly in Shanghai too,urban peripheries are where both employ-ment opportunities and rental housing areplentiful, and therefore are the primaryreceiving areas for migrants. Upon firstarrival there, many migrants seem to remainmore or less stationary geographically intheir subsequent moves. On top of this,getting stuck in the private rental sectorallows little room for improving their hous-ing conditions. If this scenario of residentialmobility is any indication of socioeconomicmobility, it is clear that most migrants inChinese cities are drifting in the bottomlayer of the urban society and getting stuckthere.

Acknowledgements

Grants from the National Science Founda-tion (BCS-9974540) and the US Departmentof Education (P019A80016) to support

fieldwork in Beijing and Shanghai are deeplyappreciated. Sincere thanks also go toProfessor Si-ming Li of Hong Kong BaptistUniversity for allowing me the use of theGuangzhou survey data.

Notes

1 1 In all three surveys, selected migrants met three criteria: aged 15 or older, with hukou outside of the city and had stayed in the city for over a month. Because of its limited geographical coverage and housing types (all but two rent from local residents), the Guangzhou survey is used to only illustrate temporal patterns of migrant residential mobility in this paper.

2 2 The latest move by the central government to reform the hukou system and allow individuals without a local hukou to receive more public services occurred in late 2005. But the national plans have encountered resistance from local governments, and do not involve substantive changes to afford migrants equal rights (CECC, 2005).

3 3 Because of data limitation, mobility rates for the Shanghai sample cannot be obtained.

4 4 The comparison between current housing and initial housing involves migrants who have moved at least once. The comparison between current housing and previous housing involves migrants who have moved at least twice.

References

Abu-Lughod, J. (1961) ‘Migrant adjustment to city life: the Egyptian case’, The American Journal of Sociology 67(1), pp. 22–32.

Banerjee, B. (1983) ‘Social networks in the migration process: empirical evidence on chain migration in India’, Journal of Developing Areas 17(2), pp. 185–196.

Cadwallader, M. (1992) Migration and Residential Mobility: Macro and Micro Approaches. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

CECC (Congressional Executive Commission on China) (2005) ‘Local governments resist reforms to household registration system’, CECC Virtual Academy, http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=32168 (accessed 16 March 2008).

Clark, W.A.V. and Dieleman, F.M. (1996) Households and Housing: Choice and Outcomes in the Housing Market. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.



Conway, D. (1985) ‘Changing perspectives on squatter settlements, intraurban mobility, and constraints on housing choice of the Third World urban poor’, Urban Geography 6(2), pp. 170–192.

Gilbert, A. and Varley, A. (1990) ‘Renting a home in a Third World city: choice or constraint?’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 14(1), pp. 89–108.

Huang, Y. and Clark, W.A.V. (2002) ‘Housing tenure choice in transitional urban China: a multilevel analysis’, Urban Studies 39(1), pp. 7–32.

Klak, T. and Holtzclaw, M. (1993) ‘The housing, geography, and mobility of Latin American urban poor: the prevailing model and the case of Quito, Ecuador’, Growth and Change 24(2), pp. 247–276.

Li, S. (2003a) ‘Housing tenure and residential mobility in urban China: a study of commodity housing development in Beijing and Guangzhou’, Urban Affairs Review 38(4), pp. 510–534.

Li, S. (2003b) ‘Life course, residential mobility and urban restructuring: the case of Guangzhou’, paper presented at the International Conference on Globalization, the State, and Urban Transformation in China, Hong Kong Baptist University, 15–17 December.

Li, S. (2004) ‘Life course and residential mobility in Beijing, China’, Environment and Planning A 36(1), pp. 27–43.

Li, S. and Siu, Y.-M. (2001) ‘Residential mobility and urban restructuring under market transition: a study of Guangzhou, China’, Professional Geographer 53(2), pp. 219–229.

Roberts, K.D. (1997) ‘China’s “tidal wave” of migrant labor: what can we learn from Mexican undocumented migration to the United States?’, International Migration Review 31(2), pp. 249–293.

Solinger, D.J. (1999) ‘Citizenship issues in China’s internal migration: comparisons with Germany and Japan’, Political Science Quarterly 114(3), pp. 455–470.

Turner, J.F.C. (1968) ‘Housing patterns, settlement patterns, and urban development in modernizing countries’, Journal of the American Planning Association 34(6), pp. 354–363.

UNCHS (United Nations Center for Human Settlements) (1982) Survey of Slum and Squatter Settlements. Dublin: Tycooly International.

Van Lindert, P. (1991) ‘Moving up or staying down? Migrant–native differential mobility in La Paz’, Urban Studies 28(3), pp. 433–463.

Wang, W. (ed.) (1995) Shanghai’s Floating Population in the 1990s [Jiushi Niandai Shanghai Liudong Renkou]. Shanghai: Eastern China Normal University Press.

Ward, P. (1990) Mexico City: The Production and Reproduction of an Urban Environment. London: Belhaven Press.

Wu, W. (2002a) ‘Migrant housing in urban China: choices and constraints’, Urban Affairs Review 38(1), pp. 90–119.

Wu, W. (2002b) ‘Temporary migrants in Shanghai: housing and settlement patterns’, in J. Logan (ed.) The New Chinese City: Globalization and Market Reform, pp. 212–226. Oxford: Blackwell.

Wu, W. (2006) ‘Migrant intraurban residential mobility in urban China’, Housing Studies 21(5), pp. 747–767.

Zhang, S. (ed.) (1998) The Current Status and Future of Shanghai’s Floating Population [Shanghai Liudong Renkou de Xianzhuang yu Zhanwang]. Shanghai: East China Normal University Press.

Weiping Wu is Professor of Urban Studiesand Planning at the L. Douglas WilderSchool of Government and Public Affairs,Virginia Commonwealth University, 312North Shafer Street, Richmond, VA 23284-2021, USA. Email: [email protected]


City Drifting and getting stuck: Migrants in Chinese citieswwu/publications/City-Migration.pdf ·...

Documents

Transcript of City Drifting and getting stuck: Migrants in Chinese citieswwu/publications/City-Migration.pdf ·...