Acta Geographica Sinica ›› 2019, Vol. 74 ›› Issue (4): 737-752.doi: 10.11821/dlxb201904009
• Industry and Regional Development • Previous Articles Next Articles
Liyue LIN1,2(), Yu ZHU1,2,3(
), Wenqian KE1,2, Jianshun WANG1,2
Received:
2017-12-17
Revised:
2018-04-18
Online:
2019-04-25
Published:
2019-04-23
Supported by:
Liyue LIN, Yu ZHU, Wenqian KE, Jianshun WANG. The impact of migrants' access to urban public services on their urban settlement intentions: A study from the perspective of different-sized cities[J].Acta Geographica Sinica, 2019, 74(4): 737-752.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks
Tab. 1
Variables and statistical description
变量名称 | 变量赋值 | 均值 | 标准差 |
---|---|---|---|
因变量 | |||
城市居留意愿强度(Y) | 无=0;低=1;中=2;高=3 | 1.324 | 1.011 |
核心自变量 | |||
是否参与养老保险(X1) | 否=0;是=1 | 0.337 | 0.473 |
是否参与失业保险(X2) | 否=0;是=1 | 0.297 | 0.457 |
是否参与工伤保险(X3) | 否=0;是=1 | 0.342 | 0.474 |
是否参与医疗保险(X4) | 否=0;是=1 | 0.235 | 0.424 |
是否有住房公积金(X5) | 否=0;是=1 | 0.143 | 0.350 |
劳动合同签订(X6) | 没有=0;有=1 | 0.413 | 0.492 |
是否建立健康档案(X7) | 否=0;是=1 | 0.311 | 0.463 |
健康教育普及程度(X8) | 低=1;中=2;高=3 | 1.876 | 0.648 |
控制变量 | |||
性别(X9) | 女=0;男=1 | 0.517 | 0.500 |
年龄(X10) | 连续变量 | 35.113 | 9.948 |
年龄平方(X11) | 连续变量 | 7.038 | 0.566 |
受教育年限(X12) | 连续变量 | 10.135 | 3.038 |
户口性质(X13) | 农业=0;非农业=1 | 0.133 | 0.340 |
婚姻状况(X14) | 单身=0;在婚=1 | 0.846 | 0.361 |
本地滞留时间(X15) | 连续性变量 | 6.000 | 5.643 |
职业类型(X16) | 白领人员=1;商业服务业人员=2;生产运输操作人员=3;其他人员=4;无就业=5 | 2.688 | 1.125 |
家庭节余类型(X17) | 家庭节余无=1;家庭节余少=2;家庭节余中=3;家庭节余多=4 | 2.272 | 0.785 |
流动范围(X18) | 跨省流动=0;省内流动=1 | 0.316 | 0.465 |
流动方式(X19) | 独自流动=1;部分家庭成员流动=2;举家迁移=3 | 1.891 | 0.829 |
城市规模(X20) | 超大城市=1;特大城市=2;Ⅰ型大城市=3;Ⅱ型大城市=4;中等城市=5;Ⅰ型小城市=6 | 2.678 | 1.361 |
Tab. 2
Migrants' urban public services and their urban settlement intentions (%)
城镇基本公共服务 | 居留意愿强度 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
无 | 低 | 中 | 高 | |||
就业关联公共服务 | 是否参与养老保险 | 否 | 31.68 | 32.01 | 26.45 | 9.86 |
是 | 16.20 | 23.22 | 39.31 | 21.27 | ||
是否参与失业保险 | 否 | 30.76 | 31.77 | 27.43 | 10.04 | |
是 | 16.19 | 22.58 | 38.84 | 22.39 | ||
是否参与工伤保险 | 否 | 29.81 | 31.75 | 27.94 | 10.50 | |
是 | 19.60 | 23.65 | 36.60 | 20.15 | ||
是否参与医疗保险 | 否 | 29.95 | 30.94 | 28.16 | 10.95 | |
是 | 14.88 | 22.74 | 39.58 | 22.80 | ||
是否有住房公积金 | 否 | 28.71 | 30.70 | 29.21 | 11.38 | |
是 | 12.53 | 18.99 | 40.76 | 27.72 | ||
是否签订劳动合同 | 否 | 26.80 | 31.16 | 29.84 | 12.20 | |
是 | 25.47 | 25.70 | 32.58 | 16.25 | ||
非就业关联公共服务 | 健康教育普及程度 | 低 | 30.47 | 29.41 | 29.05 | 11.07 |
中 | 26.17 | 29.16 | 30.33 | 14.34 | ||
高 | 19.35 | 27.27 | 36.44 | 16.94 | ||
是否建立健康档案 | 否 | 29.11 | 28.92 | 29.29 | 12.68 | |
是 | 20.21 | 28.94 | 34.49 | 16.36 |
Tab. 3
Urban public services of migrants in different-sized cities (%)
公共服务 | 城市规模 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
超大城市 | 特大城市 | Ⅰ型大城市 | Ⅱ型大城市 | 中等城市 | Ⅰ型小城市 | ||
养老保险参与率 | 49.31 | 38.85 | 30.26 | 17.4 | 21.87 | 20.68 | |
失业保险参与率 | 41.86 | 37.15 | 26.37 | 15.37 | 18.74 | 16.06 | |
工伤保险参与率 | 46.74 | 38.97 | 30.01 | 23.13 | 22.03 | 22.39 | |
医疗保险参与率 | 30.39 | 26.98 | 24.26 | 13.65 | 16.24 | 11.45 | |
住房公积金拥有率 | 24.85 | 17.15 | 9.04 | 7.3 | 6.56 | 8.24 | |
劳动合同签订率 | 49.09 | 44.78 | 36.89 | 37.14 | 33.2 | 27.89 | |
健康档案建档率 | 30.56 | 20.35 | 39.59 | 30.92 | 40.37 | 16.42 | |
健康教育 普及程度 | 低 | 30.58 | 33.41 | 22.76 | 24.56 | 29.01 | 31.64 |
中 | 52.74 | 54.8 | 57.9 | 61.77 | 55.43 | 56.61 | |
高 | 16.68 | 11.79 | 19.34 | 13.67 | 15.56 | 11.75 |
Tab. 4
Urban public services of migrants and effects on their urban settlement intentions
变量 | 模型1 | 模型2 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
系数 | 标准误 | 系数 | 标准误 | |||
核心自变量 | ||||||
养老保险(否) | 0.246*** | 0.042 | 0.223** | 0.088 | ||
失业保险(否) | 0.239*** | 0.049 | 0.247** | 0.091 | ||
工伤保险(否) | -0.229*** | 0.043 | -0.277** | 0.089 | ||
医疗保险(否) | 0.206*** | 0.032 | 0.278*** | 0.062 | ||
住房公积金(否) | 0.251*** | 0.034 | 0.131** | 0.066 | ||
劳动合同(否) | -0.096*** | 0.026 | -0.122** | 0.053 | ||
健康档案(否) | 0.136*** | 0.020 | -0.021 | 0.046 | ||
健康教育普及程度 | 0.137*** | 0.014 | 0.162*** | 0.030 | ||
控制变量 | ||||||
男(女) | -0.013 | 0.019 | -0.014 | 0.019 | ||
年龄 | -0.054*** | 0.006 | -0.055*** | 0.006 | ||
年龄平方 | 0.931*** | 0.107 | 0.939*** | 0.107 | ||
受教育年限 | 0.112*** | 0.004 | 0.112*** | 0.004 | ||
非农业(农业) | 0.353*** | 0.030 | 0.357*** | 0.030 | ||
在婚(单身) | 0.346*** | 0.034 | 0.345*** | 0.034 | ||
本地滞留时间 | 0.057*** | 0.002 | 0.056*** | 0.002 | ||
职业类型(白领人员) | ||||||
商业服务业人员 | 0.123*** | 0.035 | 0.123*** | 0.035 | ||
生产运输设备操作人员 | -0.316*** | 0.036 | -0.318*** | 0.036 | ||
其他人员 | 0.026 | 0.060 | 0.027 | 0.060 | ||
无就业 | 0.172*** | 0.044 | 0.167*** | 0.044 | ||
家庭节余类型(家庭节余无) | ||||||
家庭节余少 | 0.041 | 0.028 | 0.041 | 0.028 | ||
家庭节余中 | 0.261*** | 0.032 | 0.262*** | 0.032 | ||
家庭节余多 | 0.541*** | 0.040 | 0.548*** | 0.041 | ||
省内流动(跨省流动) | 0.546*** | 0.022 | 0.543*** | 0.022 | ||
流动方式(独自流动) | ||||||
部分家庭成员流动 | -0.019 | 0.024 | -0.019 | 0.024 | ||
举家迁移 | 0.322*** | 0.024 | 0.322*** | 0.024 | ||
城市规模(超大城市) | ||||||
特大城市 | -0.537*** | 0.029 | -0.557*** | 0.036 | ||
Ⅰ型大城市 | -0.515*** | 0.027 | -0.540*** | 0.048 | ||
Ⅱ型大城市 | -0.835*** | 0.030 | -0.868*** | 0.067 | ||
中等城市 | -0.822*** | 0.041 | -0.872*** | 0.088 | ||
Ⅰ型小城市 | -1.070*** | 0.065 | -1.100*** | 0.117 | ||
交互项 | ||||||
城市规模×养老保险 | 0.012 | 0.031 | ||||
城市规模×失业保险 | 0.000 | 0.036 | ||||
城市规模×工伤保险 | 0.019 | 0.031 | ||||
城市规模×医疗保险 | -0.037 | 0.025 | ||||
城市规模×住房公积金 | 0.056* | 0.026 | ||||
城市规模×劳动合同签订 | 0.009 | 0.018 | ||||
城市规模×建立健康档案 | 0.057*** | 0.015 | ||||
城市规模×健康教育普及程度 | -0.011 | 0.010 | ||||
log pseudo likelihood | -52060.839 | -52047.309 | ||||
pseudo R2 | 0.097 | 0.097 |
Tab. 5
Urban public services of migrants in different-sized cities and effects on their urban settlement intentions
超大城市 | 特大城市 | Ⅰ型大城市 | Ⅱ型大城市 | 中等城市 | Ⅰ型小城市 | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
系数 | 标准误 | 系数 | 标准误 | 系数 | 标准误 | 系数 | 标准误 | 系数 | 标准误 | 系数 | 标准误 | ||||||
核心自变量 | |||||||||||||||||
养老保险(否) | 0.426*** | 0.080 | -0.001 | 0.110 | 0.168* | 0.075 | 0.365** | 0.136 | 0.627*** | 0.173 | 0.594 | 0.272 | |||||
失业保险(否) | 0.214** | 0.078 | 0.352* | 0.144 | 0.372*** | 0.107 | 0.153 | 0.162 | -0.196 | 0.251 | -0.443 | 0.347 | |||||
工伤保险(否) | -0.175* | 0.081 | -0.421*** | 0.123 | -0.147 | 0.087 | -0.355*** | 0.098 | 0.283 | 0.214 | 0.010 | 0.287 | |||||
医疗保险(否) | 0.105 | 0.054 | 0.338*** | 0.069 | 0.171** | 0.066 | 0.363** | 0.120 | -0.525*** | 0.164 | -0.387 | 0.293 | |||||
住房公积金(否) | 0.097 | 0.061 | 0.431*** | 0.073 | 0.163** | 0.064 | 0.443*** | 0.112 | 0.324 | 0.173 | 0.717 | 0.301 | |||||
劳动合同(否) | -0.203*** | 0.055 | -0.080 | 0.058 | -0.072 | 0.047 | -0.154* | 0.062 | 0.060 | 0.103 | -0.127 | 0.198 | |||||
健康档案(否) | 0.034 | 0.045 | 0.143** | 0.050 | 0.246*** | 0.035 | 0.031 | 0.051 | 0.221** | 0.076 | 0.462** | 0.171 | |||||
健康教育普及程度 | 0.205*** | 0.028 | 0.049 | 0.032 | 0.164*** | 0.027 | 0.108** | 0.038 | 0.117* | 0.056 | 0.234** | 0.105 | |||||
控制变量 | |||||||||||||||||
男(女) | -0.093* | 0.040 | -0.044 | 0.042 | 0.022 | 0.035 | 0.051 | 0.046 | 0.125 | 0.076 | -0.177 | 0.132 | |||||
年龄 | -0.027* | 0.012 | -0.087*** | 0.014 | -0.044*** | 0.013 | -0.072*** | 0.014 | -0.082*** | 0.025 | -0.009 | 0.035 | |||||
年龄平方 | 0.473* | 0.216 | 1.430*** | 0.241 | 0.706** | 0.224 | 1.279*** | 0.247 | 1.367** | 0.459 | 0.129 | 0.659 | |||||
受教育年限 | 0.114*** | 0.008 | 0.100*** | 0.009 | 0.120*** | 0.008 | 0.106*** | 0.010 | 0.096*** | 0.017 | 0.035 | 0.028 | |||||
非农业(农业) | 0.421*** | 0.054 | 0.400*** | 0.070 | 0.492*** | 0.066 | 0.172* | 0.087 | 0.318* | 0.129 | 0.140 | 0.209 | |||||
在婚(单身) | 0.219** | 0.069 | 0.463*** | 0.070 | 0.322*** | 0.068 | 0.205* | 0.080 | 0.589*** | 0.152 | 0.236 | 0.215 | |||||
本地滞留时间 | 0.067*** | 0.003 | 0.057*** | 0.004 | 0.049*** | 0.004 | 0.054*** | 0.005 | 0.042*** | 0.007 | 0.059*** | 0.010 | |||||
职业类型(白领人员) | |||||||||||||||||
商业服务业人员 | 0.061 | 0.063 | 0.005 | 0.087 | 0.158* | 0.072 | 0.189 | 0.098 | 0.101 | 0.143 | 0.054 | 0.241 | |||||
生产运输设备操作人员 | -0.405*** | 0.068 | -0.483*** | 0.087 | -0.328*** | 0.073 | -0.116 | 0.098 | -0.272 | 0.144 | -0.006 | 0.256 | |||||
其他人员 | -0.051 | 0.102 | -0.165 | 0.125 | 0.016 | 0.129 | 0.086 | 0.177 | 0.709** | 0.261 | 0.564 | 0.374 | |||||
无就业 | 0.151 | 0.084 | -0.075 | 0.105 | 0.146 | 0.087 | 0.251* | 0.117 | 0.396* | 0.177 | 0.222 | 0.285 | |||||
家庭节余类型(家庭节余无) | |||||||||||||||||
家庭节余少 | -0.031 | 0.065 | 0.094 | 0.064 | 0.082 | 0.050 | 0.055 | 0.064 | -0.142 | 0.098 | 0.022 | 0.154 | |||||
家庭节余中 | 0.332*** | 0.071 | 0.362*** | 0.071 | 0.284*** | 0.058 | 0.128 | 0.077 | -0.081 | 0.122 | -0.076 | 0.203 | |||||
家庭节余多 | 0.686*** | 0.080 | 0.766*** | 0.093 | 0.629*** | 0.083 | 0.136 | 0.108 | 0.009 | 0.167 | -0.182 | 0.289 | |||||
省内流动(跨省流动) | -0.030 | 0.064 | 0.367*** | 0.047 | 0.705*** | 0.037 | 0.711*** | 0.052 | 0.437*** | 0.079 | 0.739*** | 0.139 | |||||
流动方式(独自流动) | |||||||||||||||||
部分家庭成员流动 | 0.023 | 0.047 | -0.064 | 0.054 | -0.052 | 0.046 | -0.023 | 0.060 | 0.008 | 0.101 | -0.040 | 0.162 | |||||
举家迁移 | 0.062 | 0.055 | 0.317*** | 0.055 | 0.294*** | 0.044 | 0.493*** | 0.059 | 0.283** | 0.092 | 0.569*** | 0.158 | |||||
log pseudo likelihood | -11671.437 | -10420.900 | -16104.024 | -8726.799 | -3291.336 | -1160.355 | |||||||||||
pseudo R2 | 0.092 | 0.077 | 0.093 | 0.086 | 0.062 | 0.068 |
[1] | Zhang Yi.Migrant workers′ willing of hukou register and policy choice of China urbanization. Chinese Journal of Population Science, 2011, 31(2): 14-26. |
[张翼. 农民工“进城落户”意愿与中国近期城镇化道路的选择. 中国人口科学, 2011, 31(2): 14-26.] | |
[2] |
Xu Q, Guan X, Yao F.Welfare program participation among rural to urban migrant workers in China. International Journal of Social Welfare, 2011, 20(1): 10-21.
doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2397.2009.00713.x |
[3] | Chen Yunsong, Zhang Yi. The inequality effect and social integration in urbanization. Social Sciences in China, 2015(6): 78-95, 206-207. |
[陈云松, 张翼. 城镇化的不平等效应与社会融合. 中国社会科学, 2015(6): 78-95, 206-207.] | |
[4] |
Zhu Y, Chen W Z.The settlement intention of China's floating population in the cities: Recent changes and multifaceted individual-level determinants. Population, Space and Place, 2010, 16(4): 253-267.
doi: 10.1002/psp.544 |
[5] | Ren Yuan, Qiao Nan.Social integration for migrants: Process, measure and determinants. Population Research, 2010, 34(2): 11-20. |
[任远, 乔楠. 城市流动人口社会融合的过程、测量及影响因素. 人口研究, 2010, 34(2): 11-20.] | |
[6] | Yang Juhua.Research on the assimilation of the floating population in China. Social Sciences in China, 2015(2): 61-79. |
[杨菊华. 中国流动人口的社会融入研究. 中国社会科学, 2015(2): 61-79.] | |
[7] |
Wang Mingfeng, Cheng Hong, Ning Yuemin.Social integration of migrants in Shanghai's urban villages. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2015, 70(8): 1243-1255.
doi: 10.11821/dlxb201508005 |
[汪明峰, 程红, 宁越敏. 上海城中村外来人口的社会融合及其影响因素. 地理学报, 2015, 70(8): 1243-1255.]
doi: 10.11821/dlxb201508005 |
|
[8] |
Lin Liyue, Zhu Yu.Spatial variation and its determinants of migrants' hukou transfer intention of China's prefecture- and provincial-level cities: Evidence from the 2012 national migrant population dynamic monitoring survey. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2016, 71(10): 1696-1709.
doi: 10.11821/dlxb201610003 |
[林李月, 朱宇. 中国城市流动人口户籍迁移意愿的空间格局及影响因素: 基于2012年全国流动人口动态监测调查数据. 地理学报, 2016, 71(10): 1696-1709.]
doi: 10.11821/dlxb201610003 |
|
[9] |
Yang Gangqiang, Li Mengqin, Meng Xia.The scale of migrants, fiscal autonomy and the allocation of public Goods: The spatial econometric test of 286 cities' panel data. China Soft Science, 2017(6): 49-58.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-9753.2017.06.006 |
[杨刚强, 李梦琴, 孟霞. 人口流动规模、财政分权与基本公共服务资源配置研究: 基于286个城市面板数据空间计量检验. 中国软科学, 2017(6): 49-58.]
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-9753.2017.06.006 |
|
[10] | Sun Yang, Yao Shimou, Lu Dadao, et al.Population mobility of urban agglomeration in China: A case study on the three coastal agglomerations. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2016, 36(12): 1777-1783. |
[孙阳, 姚士谋, 陆大道, 等. 中国城市群人口流动问题探析: 以沿海三大城市群为例. 地理科学, 2016, 36(12): 1777-1783.] | |
[11] | Hu Chenchong, Zhu Yu, Lin Liyue, et al.Analysis on floating population's hukou transfer intention and its influencing factor: Insights from a survey in Fujian Province. Population & Development, 2011, 17(3): 2-10. |
[胡陈冲, 朱宇, 林李月, 等. 流动人口的户籍迁移意愿及其影响因素分析: 基于一项在福建省的问卷调查. 人口与发展, 2011, 17(3): 2-10.] | |
[12] | Liu Yuqi, Liu Ye, Li Zhigang.Settlement intention of new migrants in China's large cities: Patterns and determinants. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2014, 34(7): 780-787. |
[刘于琪, 刘晔, 李志刚. 中国城市新移民的定居意愿及其影响机制. 地理科学, 2014, 34(7): 780-787.] | |
[13] | Qin Lijian, Wang Zhen.Analysis on the determinations of floating population's hukou transfer intention. Chinese Journal of Population Science, 2014, 34(5): 99-106. |
[秦立建, 王震. 农民工城镇户籍转换意愿的影响因素分析. 中国人口科学, 2014, 34(5): 99-106.] | |
[14] | Dong Xin.Housing affordability and permanent migration desire of rural-urban migrants. Chinese Journal of Population Science, 2015, 35(6): 91-99, 128. |
[董昕. 住房支付能力与农业转移人口的持久性迁移意愿. 中国人口科学, 2015, 35(6): 91-99, 128.] | |
[15] | Yang Xue, Wei Hongying.New features and influencing mechanisms of migrant long-term residence tendency. Population Research, 2017, 41(5): 63-73. |
[杨雪, 魏洪英. 流动人口长期居留意愿的新特征及影响机制. 人口研究, 2017, 41(5): 63-73.] | |
[16] | Ye Pengfei.Residential preferences of migrant workers: An analysis of the empirical survey data from seven provinces/districts. Chinese Journal of Sociology, 2011, 31(2): 153-169. |
[叶鹏飞. 农民工的城市定居意愿研究: 基于七省(区)调查数据的实证分析. 社会, 2011, 31(2): 153-169.] | |
[17] | Wang Yujun.Settlement intention of rural migrants in Chinese cities: Findings from a twelve-city migrant survey. Population Research, 2013, 37(4): 19-32. |
[王玉君. 农民工城市定居意愿研究: 基于十二个城市问卷调查的实证分析. 人口研究, 2013, 37(4): 19-32.] | |
[18] | Zhang Peng, Hao Yubiao, Chen Weimin.Happiness, social integration and migration decision. Economic Review, 2014(1): 58-69. |
[张鹏, 郝宇彪, 陈卫民. 幸福感社会融合对户籍迁入城市意愿的影响: 基于2011年四省市外来人口微观调查数据的经验分析. 经济评论, 2014(1): 58-69.] | |
[19] |
Qi Jianan.An empirical research of migrants' wish of leaving the city: The preliminary analysis based on a survey conducted in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou. Population Journal, 2014, 36(5): 80-86.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-129X.2014.05.008 |
[齐嘉楠. 流动人口离城意愿实证研究: 基于北京、上海、广州三市调查的初步分析. 人口学刊, 2014, 36(5): 80-86.]
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-129X.2014.05.008 |
|
[20] | Tong Yufen, Wang Yingying.The choice of floating migrants in China: Why megacities are always preferred? A cost-benefit analysis. Population Research, 2015, 39(4): 49-56. |
[童玉芬, 王莹莹. 中国流动人口的选择: 为何北上广如此受青睐? 基于个体成本收益分析. 人口研究, 2015, 39(4): 49-56.] | |
[21] | Li Bin, Li Tuo, Zhu Ye.Equalization of public services, financial expenditure on people's livelihood and urbanization: An empirical study based on dynamic spatial econometrics models by use of panel data from 286 cities of China. China Soft Science, 2015(6): 79-90. |
[李斌, 李拓, 朱业. 公共服务均等化、民生财政支出与城市化: 基于中国286个城市面板数据的动态空间计量检验. 中国软科学, 2015(6): 79-90.] | |
[22] | Hou Huili.The difference of urban public service supply and its influence on population movement. Chinese Journal of Population Science, 2016, 36(1): 118-125, 128. |
[侯慧丽. 城市公共服务的供给差异及其对人口流动的影响. 中国人口科学, 2016, 36(1): 118-125, 128.] | |
[23] |
Wang Runquan, Liu Yiwei.Can housing fund retain the floating population? Comparative analysis based on the perspective of the differences of household registration. Population & Economics, 2017(1): 22-34.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-4149.2017.01.003 |
[汪润泉, 刘一伟. 住房公积金能留住进城流动人口吗? 基于户籍差异视角的比较分析. 人口与经济, 2017(1): 22-34.]
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-4149.2017.01.003 |
|
[24] |
Wang Xiaofeng, Wen Xin.The influence of labor rights and interests on willingness of citizenization of rural migrant workers: An analysis based on social integration survey of National Migrant Population Dynamic Monitoring Survey. Population Journal, 2017, 39(1): 38-49.
doi: 10.16405/j.cnki.1004-129X.2017.01.004 |
[王晓峰, 温馨. 劳动权益对农民工市民化意愿的影响: 基于全国流动人口动态监测8城市融合数据的分析. 人口学刊, 2017, 39(1): 38-49.]
doi: 10.16405/j.cnki.1004-129X.2017.01.004 |
|
[25] |
Liu Tao, Qi Yuanjing, Cao Guangzhong.China's floating population in the 21st century: Uneven landscape, influencing factors, and effects on urbanization. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2015, 70(4): 567-581.
doi: 10.11821/dlxb201504005 |
[刘涛, 齐元静, 曹广忠. 中国流动人口空间格局演变机制及城镇化效应: 基于2000和2010年人口普查分县数据的分析. 地理学报, 2015, 70(4): 567-581.]
doi: 10.11821/dlxb201504005 |
|
[26] |
Sheng Yinan.Influence of residing preference of migrants and policy evaluation. City Planning Review, 2016, 40(9): 67-74.
doi: 10.11819/cpr20160909a |
[盛亦男. 流动人口居留意愿的影响效应及政策评价. 城市规划, 2016, 40(9): 67-74.]
doi: 10.11819/cpr20160909a |
|
[27] | Wang Jianhua.Urban scale, public service and the tendency of family cohabitation among migrant workers. Youth Studies, 2017(3): 31-41, 95. |
[汪建华. 城市规模、公共服务与农民工的家庭同住趋势. 青年研究, 2017(3): 31-41, 95.] | |
[28] | Yang Xiaojun.The impact of urban public services quality on population mobility. Chinese Journal of Population Science, 2017, 37(2): 104-114. |
[杨晓军. 城市公共服务质量对人口流动的影响. 中国人口科学, 2017, 37(2): 104-114.] | |
[29] | Hou Huili.The effect of the urban scale on the migrants' fertility intention during the urbanization. Population & Development, 2017, 23(5): 42-48. |
[侯慧丽. 城市化进程中流入城市规模对流动人口生育意愿的影响. 人口与发展, 2017, 23(5): 42-48.] | |
[30] | Hu Rong.Housing inequality during market transition: Evidence from the data of CGSS2006. Society, 2012, 32(1): 126-151. |
[胡蓉. 市场化转型下的住房不平等: 基于CGSS2006调查数据. 社会, 2012, 32(1): 126-151.] | |
[31] |
Xu Huang, Martin Dijst, Jan vanWeesep, et al. Residential choice among rural-urban migrants after Hukou Reform: Evidence from Suzhou, China. Population, Space and Place, 2017, 23(4): 2035-2052.
doi: 10.1002/psp.2035 |
[32] | Yang Xi.City size and the economic impacts of urbanization and citizenization: Quantitative analysis of productivity and amenity differences among Chinese cities. China Economic Quarterly, 2017, 16(4): 1601-1620. |
[杨曦. 城市规模与城镇化、农民工市民化的经济效应: 基于城市生产率与宜居度差异的定量分析. 经济学(季刊), 2017, 16(4): 1601-1620.] | |
[33] |
Liu Naiquan, Yu Chuang, Zhao Haitao.Migrants' access to urban public serves and dwelling will in city: Based on the empirical analysis of Yangtze River Delta region. Region Economic Studies, 2017(6): 112-126.
doi: 10.13962/j.cnki.37-1486/f.2017.06.013 |
[刘乃全, 宇畅, 赵海涛. 流动人口城市公共服务获取与居留意愿: 基于长三角地区的实证分析. 区域经济研究, 2017(6): 112-126.]
doi: 10.13962/j.cnki.37-1486/f.2017.06.013 |
|
[34] | Cai Xiuyun, Li Xue, Tang Yanhao.China's public service and population urbanization. Chinese Journal of Population Science, 2012, 32(6): 58-65, 112. |
[蔡秀云, 李雪, 汤寅昊. 公共服务与人口城市化发展关系研究. 中国人口科学, 2012, 32(6): 58-65, 112.] | |
[35] | Han Fuguo. Influential differences of human capital and urban integration on migrants' access to the urban common public resources: A research based on Guangzhou Survey in 2012. Zhejiang Social Sciences,2016(6): 44-55, 88, 156-157. |
[韩福国. 人力资本和城市融入对公共资源使用的影响差异分析: 基于2012年对广州市流动人口的调查. 浙江社会科学, 2016(6): 44-55, 88, 156-157.] | |
[36] | Zhang Zhanxin.The marketization of employment, the social security tolerance and the equalization of migrant workers' rights//Zheng Zhenzhen, He Zhenyi, Zhang Zhanxin. Comparative Study on Migration between China and America. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press, 2016: 36-64. |
[张展新. 就业市场化、社会保障包容与农民工权利均等化//郑真真, 贺珍怡, 张展新. 中美流动迁移比较研究. 北京: 中国社会科学出版社, 2016: 36-64.] | |
[37] | Song Yueping, Li Long.Investigation and analysis of health archives of floating population. Archives Science Bulletin, 2015(3): 84-88. |
[宋月萍, 李龙. 流动人口健康档案现状调查分析. 档案学通讯, 2015(3): 84-88.] | |
[38] |
Guo Jing, Wen Haoyi, Zhou Qingyu.Status and determinants on basic public health services of floating population. Chinese Journal of Health Policy, 2014, 7(8): 51-56.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-2982.2014.08.011 |
[郭静, 翁昊艺, 周庆誉. 流动人口基本公共卫生服务利用及影响因素分析. 中国卫生政策研究, 2014, 7(8): 51-56.]
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-2982.2014.08.011 |
|
[39] | Wang Jichuan, Guo Zhigang.Logistic Regression Model Methods and Applications. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2001. |
[王济川, 郭志刚. Logistic回归模型方法与应用. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2001.] | |
[40] | Gu Shengzu, Li Rui, Cao Yubo.The dual-path selection for Chinese rural migrants' becoming citizens: In the perspective of hukou reform. Chinese Journal of Population Science, 2014, 34(5): 2-10, 126. |
[辜胜阻, 李睿, 曹誉波. 中国农民工市民化的二维路径选择: 以户籍改革为视角. 中国人口科学, 2014, 34(5): 2-10, 126.] | |
[41] |
Jaccard J, Turrisi R.Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2003.
doi: 10.2307/2348747 |