跨越世纪的城市人力资本足迹——历史遗产、政策冲击和劳动力流动
|
摘要
本文利用来自中国跨越几个世纪的独特数据,研究了影响城市人力资本发展的三股力量:历史上的人力资本遗产、政策冲击和劳动力流动。研究发现,历史上的人力资本(以明清时期的进士数据衡量)为当代城市的人力资本积累奠定了基础,20世纪50年代高校院系搬迁的政策冲击也对城市的人力资本积累发挥了重要作用。然而,在改革开放后的几十年间,计划经济时代政策冲击的影响逐渐减弱,市场经济环境下劳动力(特别是高技能劳动力)更多流向了人力资本水平更高的城市,城市间的人力资本空间分布又向历史上的人力资本空间分布逐渐收敛。进一步研究还发现,城市人力资本的积累与地理区位有关,离大港口较近的城市有着较好的历史继承下来的人力资本基础,又在经济开放条件下产生了较高的人力资本回报,吸引了更多高技能人力资本的流入。本文研究展现了几个世纪以来中国城市人力资本的发展足迹,揭示了人力资本如何影响城市发展的路径依赖性以及与区位的关系。
In the modern economy, human capital has become an important force for promoting urban development. The accumulation and agglomeration of human capital in cities comprise the basis of urban economic development and are an important source of modern economic growth(Glaeser et al., 2014). As the core of urban development, the spatial distribution of human capital basically determines the spatial distribution of the urban population and economy in a country. In recent years, human capital and population trends have become more concentrated in big cities and metropolitan areas around the world, and China is no exception(Berry & Glaeser, 2005; Moretti, 2010; Diamond, 2016; Giannetti, 2003; Xia & Lu, 2018), which is necessary under the conditions of a market economy and free labor flow. However, in reality, some policies promote the even distribution of human capital. These policies may affect the spatial distribution of the population to a certain extent in the short term. However, once the administrative means weaken, does the flow of human capital and population return to the earlier path, or does the policy effect sustain? The answer to this question reveals the long-term accumulation and development of urban human capital. However, sufficient research in this area is lacking. Based on the perspective of spatial agglomeration and path dependence, this paper examines the long-term development of urban human capital.In this paper, we use a unique dataset spanning several centuries in China to study the three forces that influence the formation of city-level human capital in the long run: the historical heritage of human capital, policy shock, and contemporary migration. We find that the historical human capital(measured by the number of jinshi in imperial examinations during the Ming and Qing Dynasties) has been inherited by contemporary Chinese cities and that the policy shock of relocating university departments in the 1950 s has impacted the geographic distribution of human capital. However, during the decades of ongoing marketization reform, the impact of the policy shock in the planning era has gradually weakened, and large-scale migration, especially high-skilled migration, is making the distribution of human capital across cities gradually converge to its historical status. We further find that the accumulation of city-level human capital depends on location. Cities in coastal areas, which have inherited more of the historical human capital and have higher returns on human capital under the conditions of economic openness, are attracting a highly skilled population. The footprint of human capital in China over centuries tells us that although administrative powers can change the distribution of human capital to a certain extent, their impact may not last in the long term. In a market economy, the long-term accumulation of human capital over the course of history remains an important force in the formation of the contemporary city system and plays an important role in the path dependence of city development. When the human capital accumulated throughout history obtains higher returns in the contemporary era, it can result in further human capital agglomeration by attracting migrants.Our study contributes to the literature by examining the impact of high-skilled human capital on city systems over several hundred years and testing the path dependence of city development. In the literature on the path dependence of city development(Davis & Weinstein, 2002; Bosker et al., 2013), few studies have examined the role of human capital. Meanwhile, no study of human capital agglomeration across cities(Berry & Glaeser, 2005; Moretti, 2004 a; Eeckhout et al., 2014; Diamond, 2016) has examined such a long historical period or included a shock in its analysis of human capital formation. Our unique dataset, which includes human capital of high education across cities over several centuries, extends almost several hundred years earlier than the measures of city-level human capital of other countries(Simon & Nardinelli, 2002; Tabellini, 2010; Akcomak et al., 2016). We determine the impact of high-skilled human capital at the city level via a natural experiment involving university relocation in the 1950 s to study whether the spatial distribution of human capital changed by administrative forces can be sustained. In addition, we examine the role of location advantage and its impact on the return of human capital in the path dependence of city-level human capital.
In the modern economy, human capital has become an important force for promoting urban development. The accumulation and agglomeration of human capital in cities comprise the basis of urban economic development and are an important source of modern economic growth(Glaeser et al., 2014). As the core of urban development, the spatial distribution of human capital basically determines the spatial distribution of the urban population and economy in a country. In recent years, human capital and population trends have become more concentrated in big cities and metropolitan areas around the world, and China is no exception(Berry & Glaeser, 2005; Moretti, 2010; Diamond, 2016; Giannetti, 2003; Xia & Lu, 2018), which is necessary under the conditions of a market economy and free labor flow. However, in reality, some policies promote the even distribution of human capital. These policies may affect the spatial distribution of the population to a certain extent in the short term. However, once the administrative means weaken, does the flow of human capital and population return to the earlier path, or does the policy effect sustain? The answer to this question reveals the long-term accumulation and development of urban human capital. However, sufficient research in this area is lacking. Based on the perspective of spatial agglomeration and path dependence, this paper examines the long-term development of urban human capital.In this paper, we use a unique dataset spanning several centuries in China to study the three forces that influence the formation of city-level human capital in the long run: the historical heritage of human capital, policy shock, and contemporary migration. We find that the historical human capital(measured by the number of jinshi in imperial examinations during the Ming and Qing Dynasties) has been inherited by contemporary Chinese cities and that the policy shock of relocating university departments in the 1950 s has impacted the geographic distribution of human capital. However, during the decades of ongoing marketization reform, the impact of the policy shock in the planning era has gradually weakened, and large-scale migration, especially high-skilled migration, is making the distribution of human capital across cities gradually converge to its historical status. We further find that the accumulation of city-level human capital depends on location. Cities in coastal areas, which have inherited more of the historical human capital and have higher returns on human capital under the conditions of economic openness, are attracting a highly skilled population. The footprint of human capital in China over centuries tells us that although administrative powers can change the distribution of human capital to a certain extent, their impact may not last in the long term. In a market economy, the long-term accumulation of human capital over the course of history remains an important force in the formation of the contemporary city system and plays an important role in the path dependence of city development. When the human capital accumulated throughout history obtains higher returns in the contemporary era, it can result in further human capital agglomeration by attracting migrants.Our study contributes to the literature by examining the impact of high-skilled human capital on city systems over several hundred years and testing the path dependence of city development. In the literature on the path dependence of city development(Davis & Weinstein, 2002; Bosker et al., 2013), few studies have examined the role of human capital. Meanwhile, no study of human capital agglomeration across cities(Berry & Glaeser, 2005; Moretti, 2004 a; Eeckhout et al., 2014; Diamond, 2016) has examined such a long historical period or included a shock in its analysis of human capital formation. Our unique dataset, which includes human capital of high education across cities over several centuries, extends almost several hundred years earlier than the measures of city-level human capital of other countries(Simon & Nardinelli, 2002; Tabellini, 2010; Akcomak et al., 2016). We determine the impact of high-skilled human capital at the city level via a natural experiment involving university relocation in the 1950 s to study whether the spatial distribution of human capital changed by administrative forces can be sustained. In addition, we examine the role of location advantage and its impact on the return of human capital in the path dependence of city-level human capital.
引文
曹树基,2001:《中国人口史(第五卷)》,复旦大学出版社。
傅林详、林涓、任玉雪、王卫东,2013:《中国行政区划通史(清代卷)》,复旦大学出版社。
李莎、刘卫东,2014:《俄罗斯人口分布及其空间格局演化》,《经济地理》第2期。
李同升、黄国胜,2007:《俄罗斯西伯利亚人口状况及其地理分析》,《人文地理》第3期。
李世愉,2013:《清代科举中额的分配原则及政策导向》,《社会科学战线》第3期。
梁文泉、陆铭,2015:《城市人力资本的分化:探索不同技能劳动者的互补和空间集聚》,《经济社会体制比较》第3期。
刘希伟,2012:《清代科举冒籍研究》,华中师范大学出版社。
陆铭,2016:《教育、城市与大国发展——中国跨越中等收入陷阱的区域战略》,《学术月刊》第1期
吴开亚、张力、陈筱,2010:《户籍改革进程的障碍:基于城市落户门槛的分析》,《中国人口科学》第1期。
夏怡然、陆铭,2018:《行政主导的人力资本均衡可否持续:让历史告诉未来》,《学术月刊》第3期。
张苏、曾庆宝,2011:《教育的人力资本代际传递效应述评》,《经济学动态》第8期。
朱保炯、谢沛霖,1980:《明清进士题名碑录索引》,上海古籍出版社。
朱农,2005:《中国劳动力流动与“三农”问题》,武汉大学出版社。
Acemoglu, D., S.Johnson, and J.A.Robinson, 2005, “The Rise of Europe: Atlantic Trade, Institutional Change, and Economic Growth”, American Economic Review, 95(3), 546—579.
Acemoglu, D.,and J.Angrist, 2000, “How Large are Human Capital Externalities? Evidence from Compulsory Schooling Laws”, NBER Macro Annual.
Akcomak,S., D.Webbink, and B.Weel, 2016, “Why did the Netherlands Develop so Early? The Legacy of the Brethren of the Common Life”, Economic Journal, 126 (593), 821—860.
Becker, S.O.,and L.Woessmann, 2009, “Was Weber Wrong? A Human Capital Theory of Protestant Economic History”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(2), 531—596.
Berry, C.R., and E.L.Glaeser, 2005, “The Divergence of Human Capital Levels across Cities”, Regional Science, 84 (3), 407—444.
Bosker, M., E.Buringh, and J.L.Zanden, 2013, “From Baghdad to London: Unraveling Urban Development in Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa, 800—1800”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(4), 1418—1437.
Bosker, M.,and E.Buringh, 2017, “City Seeds: Geography and the Origins of the European City System”, Journal of Urban Economics, 98, 139—157.
Chen, T., J.K.KUNG, and C.C.MA, 2017, “Long Live Keju! The Persistent Effects of China’s Imperial Examination System”, Available at SSRN:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2793790or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2793790.
Currie, J., and E.Moretti, 2003, “Mother’s Education and the Intergenerational Transmission of Human Capital”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1495—1532.
Davis, D.R.,and D.E.Weinstein, 2002, “Bones, Bombs, and Break Points: the Geography of Economic Activity”, American Economic Review, 92 (5), 1269—1289.
Diamond, R., 2016, “The Determinants and Welfare Implications of US Workers’ Diverging Location Choices by Skill:1980—2000”, American Economic Review, 106(3), 479—524.
Duranton, G.,and D.Puga, 2004, “Micro-foundations of Urban Agglomeration Economies”, In: Henderson, J.V.and J-F.Thisse, (Eds.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, Amsterdam: Elsevier,4, 2063—2118.
Eeckhout, J., R.Pinheiro, and K.Schmidheiny, 2014, “Spatial Sorting”, Journal of Political Economy, 122(3), 554—620.
Elman, B.A., 2000, A Cultural History of Civil Examinations in Late Imperial China, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press.
Elman, B.A., 2013, Civil Examinations and Meritocracy in Late Imperial China, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Fu, Y.M.,and W.C.Liao, 2012, “What Drive the Geographic Concentration of College Graduates in the US? Evidence from Internal Migration”, working paper
Fujita, M.,and T.Mori, 1996, “The Role of Ports in the Making of Major Cities: Self Agglomeration and Hub-effect”, Journal of Development Economics, 49(1), 93—120.
Giannetti, M., 2003, “On the Mechanics of Migration Decisions: Skill Complementarities and Endogenous Price Differentials”, Journal of Development Economics, 71(2), 329—349.
Glaeser, E.L., 1999, “Learning in Cities”, Journal of Urban Economics, 46(2), 254—277.
Glaeser, E.L.,and D.C.Maré, 2001, “Cities and Skills,” Journal of Labor Economics, 19(2), 316—342
Glaeser, E.L., G.Ponzetto, and K.Tobio, 2014, “Cities, Skills and Regional Change”, Regional Studies, 48(1), 7—43.
Glaeser, E.L.,and M.Lu, 2018, “Human Capital Externalities in China”, No.w24925.National Bureau of Economic Research.
Henderson, J.V., 1974, “The Sizes and Types of Cities”, American Economic Review, 64(4), 640—56.
Ho, P.T., 1962, The Ladder of Success in Imperial China, New York: Columbia University Press.
Ho, P.T., 1959, Studies on the Population of China 1368—1953, Boston: Harvard University Press.
Krugman, P., 1991, “Increasing Returns and Economic Geography”, Journal of Political Economy,99(3), 483—99.
Liang, W.Q.,and M.Lu,2017, “Growth Led by Human Capital in Big Cities: Exploring Complementarities and Spatial Agglomeration of the Workforce with Various Skills”, China Economic Review,forthcoming.
Moretti, E., 2004a, “Human Capital Externalities in Cities”, In: (Henderson, J.V.and Thisse, J.F., eds.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics 4,2243—2291, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Moretti, E., 2004b, “Estimating the Social Return to Higher Education: Evidence from Longitudinal and Repeated Cross-sectional Data”, Journal of Econometrics, 121, 175—212.
Moretti, E., 2010, “Local Multipliers”, American Economic Review, 100(2), 373—377.
Rauch, J., 1993, “Productivity Gains from Geographic Concentration of Human Capital: Evidence from the Cities”, Journal of Urban Economics, 34, 380—400.
Tabellini, G., 2010, “Culture and Institutions: Economic Development in the Regions of Europe”, Journal of the European Economic Association, 8(4), 677—716.
(1)朱保炯和谢霈霖(1980)编著的《明清进士题名碑录索引》详细记录了明清两朝201科殿试和51624位进士的姓名、籍贯、科年和甲次等科举信息,本文作者在此基础上将明清时期的进士籍贯与现在的城市一一匹配对应,最终匹配成功240个城市的47631位进士数据。关于进士数据的具体介绍请参见夏怡然和陆铭(2018)。
(2)高校搬迁数据最早由Glaeser & Lu(2018)整理和使用,关于这段历史及相关变量的详细介绍和解释请参见此文。
(3)人口普查分县资料对各地的迁入人口做了统计,这些迁入人口的统计范围指在调查地居留半年以上户籍不在调查地人口以及离开户籍地半年以上的人口。该分县资料按照迁入人口的来源地对迁入人口分了三类:第一类“本县(市)/本市市区”;第二类“本省其他县(市)、市区”;第三类“外省”。本文重点考察的是城市级层面的劳动力流动,即登记户口不在本城市而在本城市居住或工作的常住人口,因此本文计算第二类和第三类迁入人口的总和作为城市的劳动力流入总量。实际上,第二类“本省其他县(市)、市区”迁入人口中还包含了部分城市内部不同县区之间的流动人口,但因资料所限无法剔除,本文的城市劳动力流入数量可能存在一定程度的高估。
(4)失业率=登记失业人数/(登记失业人数+在岗职工人数)
(5)离港口的距离指到三大港口(上海、天津或香港)最近的地理距离,根据城市中心经纬度计算得到。
(6)房价=全市的商品房销售额(元)/销售面积(平方米)
(7)处理方法如下:用人均病床数、人均医生数和人均医院数衡量城市的医疗服务资源,用生均小学教师数和生均中学教师数衡量城市的基础教育资源,然后将教育资源和医疗资源两组变量分别采取主成份分析方法,取第一主成份值作为医疗资源和教育资源的度量。依据此方法,本文利用2009年的城市相关数据计算,医疗资源的第一主成分的方差贡献率为63.18%,教育资源的第一主成分的方差贡献率为73.39%。
(8)由于2005年1%人口抽样调查1/5子样本的微观数据在每个城市的抽样比例不尽相同,由此,我们根据2000年人口普查城市常住人口的比例对2005年1%人口抽样调查1/5子样本的微观数据进行了调整。根据调整后的数据计算不同技能水平的劳动力流动份额。例如,一个城市的大学生流入量份额等于该城市具有大学以上教育程度的流入人口数除以全国所有样本城市中具有大学以上教育程度的流入人口数的总和。
(9)吴开亚等(2010)构建了46个大城市的户籍指数,城市的户籍指数数值越高代表在该城市获得户籍的难度越大。本文样本中的其他小城市,该指数被设定为0。
(10)何炳棣(Ho,1959,1962)在深入分析明清时期中国的人口登记制度后,指出“中国历代官方人口统计资料中,明太祖时期(1368—1398年)、乾隆四十一年至道光三十年(1776—1850年)间和1953年人口普查的数据比较有用”。在历史人口学研究领域,基本就何炳棣的观点达成共识,认为清政府编制的《嘉庆一统志》中的人口数据是比较可靠的。曹树基(2001)在前人研究的基础上,基于《嘉庆一统志》的分府数据,结合大约3000多种地方志或其他资料中搜集到的县级或府级人口数据,采用历史人口学的方法对《嘉庆一统志》中的数据错误进行勘误,重建了1820年的分府人口数量,再除以谭其骧《中国历史地图集》中的各府面积计算出各府的人口密度。这是目前比较可信且应用较多的清朝府级人口数据。
傅林详、林涓、任玉雪、王卫东,2013:《中国行政区划通史(清代卷)》,复旦大学出版社。
李莎、刘卫东,2014:《俄罗斯人口分布及其空间格局演化》,《经济地理》第2期。
李同升、黄国胜,2007:《俄罗斯西伯利亚人口状况及其地理分析》,《人文地理》第3期。
李世愉,2013:《清代科举中额的分配原则及政策导向》,《社会科学战线》第3期。
梁文泉、陆铭,2015:《城市人力资本的分化:探索不同技能劳动者的互补和空间集聚》,《经济社会体制比较》第3期。
刘希伟,2012:《清代科举冒籍研究》,华中师范大学出版社。
陆铭,2016:《教育、城市与大国发展——中国跨越中等收入陷阱的区域战略》,《学术月刊》第1期
吴开亚、张力、陈筱,2010:《户籍改革进程的障碍:基于城市落户门槛的分析》,《中国人口科学》第1期。
夏怡然、陆铭,2018:《行政主导的人力资本均衡可否持续:让历史告诉未来》,《学术月刊》第3期。
张苏、曾庆宝,2011:《教育的人力资本代际传递效应述评》,《经济学动态》第8期。
朱保炯、谢沛霖,1980:《明清进士题名碑录索引》,上海古籍出版社。
朱农,2005:《中国劳动力流动与“三农”问题》,武汉大学出版社。
Acemoglu, D., S.Johnson, and J.A.Robinson, 2005, “The Rise of Europe: Atlantic Trade, Institutional Change, and Economic Growth”, American Economic Review, 95(3), 546—579.
Acemoglu, D.,and J.Angrist, 2000, “How Large are Human Capital Externalities? Evidence from Compulsory Schooling Laws”, NBER Macro Annual.
Akcomak,S., D.Webbink, and B.Weel, 2016, “Why did the Netherlands Develop so Early? The Legacy of the Brethren of the Common Life”, Economic Journal, 126 (593), 821—860.
Becker, S.O.,and L.Woessmann, 2009, “Was Weber Wrong? A Human Capital Theory of Protestant Economic History”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(2), 531—596.
Berry, C.R., and E.L.Glaeser, 2005, “The Divergence of Human Capital Levels across Cities”, Regional Science, 84 (3), 407—444.
Bosker, M., E.Buringh, and J.L.Zanden, 2013, “From Baghdad to London: Unraveling Urban Development in Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa, 800—1800”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(4), 1418—1437.
Bosker, M.,and E.Buringh, 2017, “City Seeds: Geography and the Origins of the European City System”, Journal of Urban Economics, 98, 139—157.
Chen, T., J.K.KUNG, and C.C.MA, 2017, “Long Live Keju! The Persistent Effects of China’s Imperial Examination System”, Available at SSRN:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2793790or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2793790.
Currie, J., and E.Moretti, 2003, “Mother’s Education and the Intergenerational Transmission of Human Capital”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1495—1532.
Davis, D.R.,and D.E.Weinstein, 2002, “Bones, Bombs, and Break Points: the Geography of Economic Activity”, American Economic Review, 92 (5), 1269—1289.
Diamond, R., 2016, “The Determinants and Welfare Implications of US Workers’ Diverging Location Choices by Skill:1980—2000”, American Economic Review, 106(3), 479—524.
Duranton, G.,and D.Puga, 2004, “Micro-foundations of Urban Agglomeration Economies”, In: Henderson, J.V.and J-F.Thisse, (Eds.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, Amsterdam: Elsevier,4, 2063—2118.
Eeckhout, J., R.Pinheiro, and K.Schmidheiny, 2014, “Spatial Sorting”, Journal of Political Economy, 122(3), 554—620.
Elman, B.A., 2000, A Cultural History of Civil Examinations in Late Imperial China, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press.
Elman, B.A., 2013, Civil Examinations and Meritocracy in Late Imperial China, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Fu, Y.M.,and W.C.Liao, 2012, “What Drive the Geographic Concentration of College Graduates in the US? Evidence from Internal Migration”, working paper
Fujita, M.,and T.Mori, 1996, “The Role of Ports in the Making of Major Cities: Self Agglomeration and Hub-effect”, Journal of Development Economics, 49(1), 93—120.
Giannetti, M., 2003, “On the Mechanics of Migration Decisions: Skill Complementarities and Endogenous Price Differentials”, Journal of Development Economics, 71(2), 329—349.
Glaeser, E.L., 1999, “Learning in Cities”, Journal of Urban Economics, 46(2), 254—277.
Glaeser, E.L.,and D.C.Maré, 2001, “Cities and Skills,” Journal of Labor Economics, 19(2), 316—342
Glaeser, E.L., G.Ponzetto, and K.Tobio, 2014, “Cities, Skills and Regional Change”, Regional Studies, 48(1), 7—43.
Glaeser, E.L.,and M.Lu, 2018, “Human Capital Externalities in China”, No.w24925.National Bureau of Economic Research.
Henderson, J.V., 1974, “The Sizes and Types of Cities”, American Economic Review, 64(4), 640—56.
Ho, P.T., 1962, The Ladder of Success in Imperial China, New York: Columbia University Press.
Ho, P.T., 1959, Studies on the Population of China 1368—1953, Boston: Harvard University Press.
Krugman, P., 1991, “Increasing Returns and Economic Geography”, Journal of Political Economy,99(3), 483—99.
Liang, W.Q.,and M.Lu,2017, “Growth Led by Human Capital in Big Cities: Exploring Complementarities and Spatial Agglomeration of the Workforce with Various Skills”, China Economic Review,forthcoming.
Moretti, E., 2004a, “Human Capital Externalities in Cities”, In: (Henderson, J.V.and Thisse, J.F., eds.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics 4,2243—2291, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Moretti, E., 2004b, “Estimating the Social Return to Higher Education: Evidence from Longitudinal and Repeated Cross-sectional Data”, Journal of Econometrics, 121, 175—212.
Moretti, E., 2010, “Local Multipliers”, American Economic Review, 100(2), 373—377.
Rauch, J., 1993, “Productivity Gains from Geographic Concentration of Human Capital: Evidence from the Cities”, Journal of Urban Economics, 34, 380—400.
Tabellini, G., 2010, “Culture and Institutions: Economic Development in the Regions of Europe”, Journal of the European Economic Association, 8(4), 677—716.
(1)朱保炯和谢霈霖(1980)编著的《明清进士题名碑录索引》详细记录了明清两朝201科殿试和51624位进士的姓名、籍贯、科年和甲次等科举信息,本文作者在此基础上将明清时期的进士籍贯与现在的城市一一匹配对应,最终匹配成功240个城市的47631位进士数据。关于进士数据的具体介绍请参见夏怡然和陆铭(2018)。
(2)高校搬迁数据最早由Glaeser & Lu(2018)整理和使用,关于这段历史及相关变量的详细介绍和解释请参见此文。
(3)人口普查分县资料对各地的迁入人口做了统计,这些迁入人口的统计范围指在调查地居留半年以上户籍不在调查地人口以及离开户籍地半年以上的人口。该分县资料按照迁入人口的来源地对迁入人口分了三类:第一类“本县(市)/本市市区”;第二类“本省其他县(市)、市区”;第三类“外省”。本文重点考察的是城市级层面的劳动力流动,即登记户口不在本城市而在本城市居住或工作的常住人口,因此本文计算第二类和第三类迁入人口的总和作为城市的劳动力流入总量。实际上,第二类“本省其他县(市)、市区”迁入人口中还包含了部分城市内部不同县区之间的流动人口,但因资料所限无法剔除,本文的城市劳动力流入数量可能存在一定程度的高估。
(4)失业率=登记失业人数/(登记失业人数+在岗职工人数)
(5)离港口的距离指到三大港口(上海、天津或香港)最近的地理距离,根据城市中心经纬度计算得到。
(6)房价=全市的商品房销售额(元)/销售面积(平方米)
(7)处理方法如下:用人均病床数、人均医生数和人均医院数衡量城市的医疗服务资源,用生均小学教师数和生均中学教师数衡量城市的基础教育资源,然后将教育资源和医疗资源两组变量分别采取主成份分析方法,取第一主成份值作为医疗资源和教育资源的度量。依据此方法,本文利用2009年的城市相关数据计算,医疗资源的第一主成分的方差贡献率为63.18%,教育资源的第一主成分的方差贡献率为73.39%。
(8)由于2005年1%人口抽样调查1/5子样本的微观数据在每个城市的抽样比例不尽相同,由此,我们根据2000年人口普查城市常住人口的比例对2005年1%人口抽样调查1/5子样本的微观数据进行了调整。根据调整后的数据计算不同技能水平的劳动力流动份额。例如,一个城市的大学生流入量份额等于该城市具有大学以上教育程度的流入人口数除以全国所有样本城市中具有大学以上教育程度的流入人口数的总和。
(9)吴开亚等(2010)构建了46个大城市的户籍指数,城市的户籍指数数值越高代表在该城市获得户籍的难度越大。本文样本中的其他小城市,该指数被设定为0。
(10)何炳棣(Ho,1959,1962)在深入分析明清时期中国的人口登记制度后,指出“中国历代官方人口统计资料中,明太祖时期(1368—1398年)、乾隆四十一年至道光三十年(1776—1850年)间和1953年人口普查的数据比较有用”。在历史人口学研究领域,基本就何炳棣的观点达成共识,认为清政府编制的《嘉庆一统志》中的人口数据是比较可靠的。曹树基(2001)在前人研究的基础上,基于《嘉庆一统志》的分府数据,结合大约3000多种地方志或其他资料中搜集到的县级或府级人口数据,采用历史人口学的方法对《嘉庆一统志》中的数据错误进行勘误,重建了1820年的分府人口数量,再除以谭其骧《中国历史地图集》中的各府面积计算出各府的人口密度。这是目前比较可信且应用较多的清朝府级人口数据。