社区类型与流动人口的社会经济融合

上海交通大学国际与公共事务学院/中国城市治理研究院陈杰教授作为通讯作者和浙江财经大学邹静博士、英国谢菲尔德大学陈瑜讲师共同合作在城市研究类国际知名期刊Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 2020年第1期发表论文The Complex Relationship between Neighbourhood Types and Migrants’ Socio-Economic Integration: The Case of Urban China.该文探讨了社区类型与流动人口在流入地城市的社会经济融合之间的关系，该文发现社区类型确实对流动人口的社会经济融合程度有十分重要的影响，该文研究结果对精细化社区治理及推进流动人口市民化、加速以人为本的新型城镇化具有一定参考价值。Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 是城市研究类/环境类SSCI，2019年影响因子1.442。

文献目录信息：

Zou, Jing, Yu Chen, and Jie Chen^*. 2020. “The Complex Relationship between Neighbourhood Types and Migrants’ Socio-Economic Integration: The Case of Urban China.” Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 35 (1): 65–92.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-019-09670-2.

http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10901-019-09670-2.

概要：流动人口是中国城市人口的重要组成部分，但文献对这个群体在流入地城市社会经济融合过程中关键决定因素的了解仍然所知甚少。本文通过考察居住社区类型与社会经济融合多维度指标之间复杂的联系，扩展了流动人口社会经济融合的相关文献。本文的实证研究主要基于2014年国家卫计委流动人口动态调查(CMDS)中提取的大样本微观层面个体数据。本文所构建的多维度社会经济融合指数涵盖了经济、社会-文化和身份认同等多方面。研究结果表明，与居住在非正规社区（如城中村）的流动人口相比，居住在正规居住小区（由商品房、单位房和经济适用房组成）的流动人口表现出更高的整体社会经济一体化水平。此外，居住在商品房小区的流动人口在经济上得到最好的融合，而居住在经济适用房和工作单位居住社区的流动人口在社会文化上的融合程度高于其他人。与城中村相比，老城区旧公房小区与社会文化融合呈正相关，而这两种小区类型又与身份融合呈负相关。我们的主要研究结果在通过计量手段控制了流动人口在不同社区类型中的自我选择所导致的潜在内生性偏误之后仍然是稳健的。我们还进而发现，住区类型与社会经济融合在不同流动人口群体之间的表现在很大的异质性。我们的结论是，社区类型确实对流动人口的社会经济融合程度有十分重要的影响，要加强流动人口在流入地城市的社会经济融合，要从关注这个群体的居住选择做起。该文研究结果对精细化社区治理及推进流动人口市民化、加速以人为本的新型城镇化具有一定参考价值。

Abstract: Migrants are important parts of China’s urban population, but still limited knowledge is known about the contextual determinants of their socio-economic integration in Chinese cities. Based on a large national micro-level data extracted from the 2014 China Migrant Dynamic Survey, we extend the literature on migrants’ socio-economic integration by examining the relationships between neighbourhood types and different dimensions of socio-economic integration. Our multi-dimensional index of socio-economic integration covers economic, socio-cultural and identity perspectives. The results show that migrants demonstrate significantly higher levels of overall socio-economic integration when living in formal neighbourhoods (composed of commercial properties, work unit and affordable housing), compared with those residing in informal neighbourhoods (e.g. urban villages). Moreover, migrants living in commercial property neighbourhoods are best integrated economically, and those living in affordable and work unit housing neighbourhoods are more socio-culturally integrated than others. Inner city old housing neighbourhoods are positively associated with socio-cultural integration, compared with urban villages, while both neighbourhood types are negatively correlated with identity integration. Our findings remain robust after controlling for potential endogeneity bias caused by migrants’ self-selection into different neighbourhood types. We conclude that neighbourhood types do matter for migrants’ socio-economic integration but there is large heterogeneity of the correlations across different migrant groups.

http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10901-019-09670-2.