全球化时代的人口与城市发展(txt+pdf+epub+mobi电子书下载)


发布时间:2020-08-02 00:12:25

点击下载

作者:彭希哲

出版社:复旦大学出版社

格式: AZW3, DOCX, EPUB, MOBI, PDF, TXT

全球化时代的人口与城市发展

全球化时代的人口与城市发展试读:

序言

21世纪仍是一个城市化的世纪,人口城市化、地域城市化、生产活动城市化将继续不断深入,这是不可逆转的历史趋势。世界上首次有一半以上的人口生活在城市里,另一半也将依托于城市生活。全球范围内的城市化进程不断加快,并出现一系列的新现象和新问题,诸如全球城市、世界城市网络、新城市空间、发展中国家的快速城市化问题等等。随着全球化的不断深化,城市的作用日益增强,在区域、国家乃至全球社会经济生活中都扮演着越来越重要的角色。从某种角度来看,国家、区域之间的竞争更多是依赖城市之间的竞争,城市的发展、城市竞争力的提高已经成为国家和地区最重要的发展战略之一。同时,城市之间社会、经济、文化等各方面的联系也将日趋紧密。城市化加速是一把双刃剑,既创造了巨大的社会经济效益,也带来了许多城市发展的困境,如何使城市让生活更美好成为了各个国家和地区面临的共同挑战。中国正处于城镇化持续发展的时期,城镇人口已经超过总人口的50%。城镇化是中国经济发展的最大潜力所在,也将决定中国未来社会发展的走向。中国除了要应对发达国家城市化所面临的各种城市问题,如何形成有效的公共政策与制度结构来破解城乡二元发展也是中国亟待解决的挑战。

人口态势的转变也是21世纪人类社会正在面对的新挑战。世界人口发展的新形势呈现出两方面特征:人口增长整体减缓与人口变化的多元化。尽管控制人口的过快增长仍然被视为实现可持续发展的重要途径,国际人口学界已经从20世纪70年代对“人口爆炸”可能带来的末日危机转向对世界范围的“低生育率”的担忧。持续性的低生育率将会对人类社会发展的形态产生深远的影响,而其最直接的后果是人口老龄化进程的加速。人口老龄化将成为今后社会的常态,并直接挑战世界和各国现行经济社会各种运行架构。就世界范围来看,亚洲人口发展特征突出表现在规模庞大,多样化明显。随着社会经济的发展,在未来十年中,亚洲各国将面临不同的人口发展态势,人口低生育率、人口老龄化等一系列问题及其后果将在东亚地区不断凸显,而中亚和南亚却还将被高人口增长所困扰。各国将面临不同的新挑战,若能顺势而行,适时制定合适的应对战略,将可以使社会、经济可持续地、更好地发展下去,而若应对失衡,经济发展将可能停滞甚至倒退。中国作为世界上人口最多的国家,人口态势的任何变化都将对全球人口发展和中国的长期发展稳定产生的巨大的影响。

正是在这样的宏观大背景之下,我们从2007年以来各届上海论坛社会分论坛的数十篇参会论文中,精心挑选了22篇比较具有代表性的学术论文和演讲稿,结集成书,以飨读者。全书分为上、下两篇。上篇为“城市化与城市发展”,下篇为“人口态势与社会发展”。

在上篇“城市化与城市发展”部分中,E. Helen Berry比较了中国、美国和墨西哥的城乡迁移现状,与传统的城乡迁移研究方法不同,除了影响迁移决定的劳动市场、经济因素之外,还兼顾了社会资源和人力资本因素,为解释迁移提供了更全面的分析。简新华和张国胜介绍了“农民非农化”和“农地非农化”这两个非农化过程在中国的现状,认为“农民非农化”不足,而“农地非农化”却过快,并提出了一系列政策建议来促进农村剩余劳动力向第二、第三产业转移,同时保障失地农民的合法权益,提高非农土地的利用效率。Christine ME Whitehead和Sarah Monk则通过研究英国政府如何利用土地利用规划体系对房地产市场进行调控,以保证房地产市场保持在合理价位,满足有需求的民众的住房需求,并为中国政府在房地产调控中所应发挥的作用提出了建议。城市化的发展伴随着公共基础设施投资的快速增加,Weiping Wu指出这类公共基础设施投资使得不同地区的城市之间差距越来越大,由于历史遗留问题和中国分税制改革,公共投资的不平衡可能对城市的经济增长产生长远的影响。王缉宪则认为全球化经济使得中国滨海网络节点城市受益,而这些节点城市为此形成了巨大内部差异,世界变得越来越小和越来越平,是以这些城市变得越来越大和越来越不平为代价或前提的。Jianfa Shen以香港和深圳的关系为案例,通过一个概念性的框架分析了香港与深圳之间的经济和社会的关系,并探讨了不同的城市治理模式会如何影响城市间的合作与竞争。Fulong Wu和Nick Phelps对中国城市地区的“边缘城市”进行了研究,指出多中心城市结构发展与大都市范围内的经济结构调整和升级有关,是由中国的区域政府为主导的带有政治色彩的经济活动。Yueman Yeung比较了中国与印度在亚洲经济活动中的表现,认为中国已经实现了较高水平的城市化,而印度则还有一定的距离。从发展模式来看,中国的城市化和经济发展取得成功的可能性更高,而印度则取决于大规模基础设施投资和战略规划的政策和城市规划的发展。Xiangming Chen和Anthony Orum追溯了上海的城市发展历程,分析了上海市在全球化过程中应如何面对新的挑战,从而成为全球金融中心。Usha P. Raghupathi认为一方面,外国直接投资的涌入会促使大城市土地利用格局的变化,进而加快小城镇与中小城市的发展;另一方面,城市贫困人口逐年增加,增强教育力度维持印度在日益激烈的全球化竞争中的重要措施。顾朝林、陈璐认为全球城市是世界发展的趋势,上海作为国家首位国际贸易经济体,需要克服水土能源供应紧张、环境污染与恶化、行政区争夺资源等挑战,实现产业结构重构,社会结构转型,城市空间扩展,城市功能重塑,发展为中国的全球城市。魏也华提出随着中国经济与全球经济的不断融合,外企在中国城市的经济发展和全球城市形成方面将发挥越来越重要的作用,认为加强外资的根植性和地方创新能力,增强全球——地方网络的互动应成为发展中国全球城市的一个重要方面。此外,全球化下的中国城市——区域的发展逐渐呈现出卫星型产业区的特点。

在下篇“人口态势与社会发展”部分中,王丰和顾宝昌指出了经济全球化影响低生育率的五个途径,并给出了人口学、社会经济学对低生育率的两种解释,同时分析了低生育率使中国面临的来自劳动力老化萎缩、家庭结构方面的挑战。Gavin W. Jones在报告中介绍了东亚国家的超低生育率现象,分析了若干应对超高、超低生育水平的不同政策,认为政府是否有干预生育率的倾向对生育水平的影响至关重要,但这些政策都可能招致女权主义者的反对,希望政府制定的政策能在这一角度保持中立。彭希哲分析了上海的超低生育水平和中国现在的人口态势,提出以延长退休年龄、户籍制度改革、适度提高生育水平等整合的社会政策应对超低生育水平。Andrew Mason认为人口老龄化对于各国经济是否存在负面影响尚难判断,各国强制的退休年龄和强制养老金政策会影响人们的劳动参与率,对年轻人的投资、年轻一代的劳动生产力也是重要的考虑因素之一。另外,他着重强调了老龄化对资产投资需求的影响,建议政府能制定相关政策,鼓励资产的积累,这样才能充分开发和利用“第二次人口红利”。Kua Wongboonsin和Patcharawalai Wongboonsin介绍了当今世界的人口老龄化现状,从人口红利的角度阐述了老龄化可能带来的积极效应。Dai Erbiao、Wang Guixin和Shen Xulei比较分析了北京、上海两市的居民收入不平等现象,估算基尼系数为0.40,并认为北京的不平等现象比上海较严重,两市的不平等现象70%是由当地居民引起的,29%是由迁移居民引起的。Yasushi Honda通过预测与炎热相关的死亡,估计了气候变化对人类健康的直接影响,并提出人类健康将成为今后气候变化评估的重要一项。杨宜勇、顾严分析了加入WTO后中国产业结构的转型情况,并认为劳动密集型为主的第二产业迅速发展,而第一、第三产业发展相对缓慢,是导致入世以来就业并没有相应快速增长、奥肯定律没有在中国实现的重要原因,他们提出了从社保基金管理、劳动保护政策强化等方面促进就业的建议。Bridget M. Hutter以英国为例,介绍了新型的风险管制治理模型,从微观层面的企业,再到宏观层面的城市管理,并着重强调了风险管理在新型治理模型中的重要地位。Prapin Manomaivibool从文化旅游业、生态旅游业、购物与服务、疗养旅游业四方面介绍了全球化背景下泰国的旅游业发展,尽管旅游业既存在机遇也存在挑战,但只要均衡发展、统筹规划,就能对当地百姓和企业带来效益,同时把对环境的危害控制在最小。

参加历年上海论坛社会发展和城市化专场的大都是在相关领域各有专攻的专家学者和政府官员,他们对上海论坛的成功做出了重要的贡献。受篇幅的约束和编者水平所限,本书只是收录了这些会议论文中的一小部分,难免挂一漏万,一些重要论文未能入选,敬请原谅。即使对所收录论文,上述简介也可能有不准确之处,也请作者和读者批评指正。期待本书能够为读者理解全球化时代下的城市与人口发展提供有益的导读和有价值的线索!彭希哲2012年4月于复旦园上篇城市化与城市发展Rural-Urban Migration and Migrant Integration: A Comparison of China and US /Mexico MigrationE. Helen Berry

Much research on voluntary migration, international or internal, has focused on economic factors that push or pull individual migrant households to or from an area. Migration flows are seen as equilibrating the demand and supply of jobs, with migrants viewed as units of trade.

This suggests that income gaps between urban and rural places will eventually disappear. But will rural immigrants into urban areas quickly be integrated into cities with no polarization of wealth and no need for anti-poverty strategies? Reality suggests not. Both the likelihood that a particular migrant or migrant household will move, and the likelihood that individuals or households will achieve economic success or stability in urban places are functions of the human capital possessed by the individual migrant. Equally important are the migrants' connections, termed social capital, which the migrant has or develops at the place of destination. Even the migrant' s ability to integrate into the city is as much a function of the individual' s social capital as of his or her human capital. Granovetter(1973)famously calls this“the strength of weak ties. ”

Most research on the success of diminishing urban-rural income gaps and on the integration of rural immigrants into cities has ignored social capital, and almost none of that research has examined the comparative benefits of social capital across different cultural contexts. Most likely the benefits of place-specific, social and local capital differ between cultural contexts. For example, in cultures where family and community obligations are strongest, the importance of strong ties is likely to lead to greater focus on the place of origin, and less integration of rural immigrants into cities. On the other hand, when family and community obligations are far less strong and when“weak ties”are more numerous and valued, the chance of integration of rural immigrants into cities will quite likely be enhanced and result in greater urban social stability. In other words, Granovetter' s insights into the strength of weak-ties can be put to use in understanding, and even providing, policies that might reduce urban social instability.

This paper proposes to compare rural urban migration in the Chinese context with that in the US /Mexico context. My purpose is to understand rural urban migration in a broader framework that takes into account not only the labor market and economic factors that drive migration, but that also examines migration comparatively in each country, using the ideas of social and human capital, in the hopes of providing a fuller understanding of rural urban migration in a globalizing world.1.The Problem

Since the reforms of the Chinese hukou system in the 1980s, there has been a rapid, and until quite recently, rapidly increasing flow of rural migrants to urban places in China. Chan and Zhang(1999)note that the hukou system was originally put in place to serve a larger economic and political system. Hukou is a classification system that defines one' s residence as being in one place and one place only, with a set of accompanying rights and privileges associated with one' s classification. Since the establishment of hukou in the 1950s, the system has changed to take into account changing economic and social developments that have affected China. The set of classifications has generally broadened and the ability to change statuses(a process called nongzhuanfei)has eased somewhat, but the system effectively controlled the free flow of migration between rural areas and urban or urbanizing areas. The reforms in the hukou system, from a rigid classification scheme to a more liberal scheme, have allowed families and individuals the ability to participate in wage markets outside their identified hukou but has created a social stratification system in the Chinese labour market wherein non-local hukou have lesser access to local schools, institutes of higher education, city-wide social welfare programs and many types of jobs and are not allowed to acquire property, even at market prices. Obviously this means that Chinese internal migration does not follow the purely economic pattern described by Harris and Todaro(1970). That is, the flow of labor to and from the cities does not result in an equalization of wages between urban and rural places, nor equilibrium in regards to the placement of laborers in relationship to work opportunities. Further, the fact that nongzhuanfei has historically required a payment of fees to city governments, has meant that towns and cities have a vested interest in maintaining the hukou system.

The pull of China' s urban areas is due in a significant part to those areas production of goods for export. This process was enhanced by China' s accession to the World Trade Organization at the turn of this century. Joining the WTO was of concern to rural areas due to the possibility that there would be increasing income differentials even in rural places. The worry was that even if producer prices of land intensive farm products might fall, prices of other, labor intensive farm and nonfarm products could rise. Evidence to date suggests that the impact of joining the WTO has been such that farm-nonfarm income inequality may be rising within China but rural-urban income inequality remains relatively stable. The stability of this inequality suggests that so long as international trade is the engine that drives the inequality, migration toward urban and industrial areas, from rural areas, will continue.

Internal income inequality in urban places is similarly problematic. Stratification in cities, between those individuals whose hukou status allows full urban privileges, those with hukou that allows less complete urban privileges, those who have paid for nongzhuanfei, and those who have nothas resulted in a powerful model in which workers with different skill levels are imperfect substitutes. Economic models show that economies with high substitutability between skilled and unskilled workers have high levels of capital, output, and a high proportion of skilled workers. The problem with the hukou system is that this substitutability is mitigated by the ability of workers to dependably reside in proximity to the labor market. At the same time, in an economic downturn, the migrant workers become dispensable workers because they can easily be returned to rural places.

This lack of reliability is further influenced by rural land use rules that impact the desirability of permanent movement to urban areas. The amount of land utilized by each household is“fixed”and is nontransferable—that is, land cannot be sold or rented. Thus, use, or maintenance of, the rights to a household' s land serves as a pull to keep migrants down on the farm. If the land is left idle, the household risks losing the right to it. In other words, there is a high cost to permanent migration to the city for all members of a household.

Thus, for agriculturalists, it is in their best interest to send only one or two household members into wage labor, so as not to lose the household' s right to land. The logic to sending one or two household members to the city is for those workers to provide remittances to the rural household in order to augment the household' s living standards. At the same time, the fact that urban workers are protected from competition with rural-urban migrants, means that there is a relatively high wage differential between urban and rural places thereby creating a real pull of rural workers toward the urban or industrial setting, even as the land-holding system creates a pull to remain in the rural setting.

The return of remittances to the rural place also means that having workers in the city can result in an increase in rural development opportunities since the remittances sent home add a great deal to the rural economy. Also, the return of remittances to the rural area contributes to the circular nature of migration in China:people leave the rural place, but then return to it, or leave and move to a new place, and to perhaps another new place, but ultimately return to the original rural place to, finally, enjoy the fruits of their labors. Other factors that draw migrants home include both the hukou(which is admittedly undergoing change)status, but also the land-use policies that result in a large opportunity cost to permanent migration in China.

In sum, the interplay between urban and rural places, largely produced by differential demands for labor in urban and rural places, is resulting in individual migrants developing increasing quantities of social capital in urban places. The social capital is built by the circularity of movement between urban and rural regions. The demand for labor pulls migrants to urban and industrializing regions producing the so-called floating labor. But the hukou system effectively results in those same floating migrants returning to the home place with regularity. Thus rural places gain increasing knowledge about urban places and urban labor markets and develop increasing social contacts in each place.2. How Does This Relate to the Mexico/US Situation?

Roberts(1997)drew parallels between Mexican undocumented migration to the US and Chinese internal floating labor migration and described the similarities between the two situations. First, both, Mexican labor immigration and Chinese internal migration, is generally circular, with migrants ultimately returning to their place of origin. Second, the large gap in wages and living standards between Mexico and the US, as well as the similar gap in wages between rural and urban places in China, almost inevitably leads to migration. Third, the laws in both cases:the Chinese hukou system, even as it is changing, and the international border between the US and Mexico border which bars free access between the two countries result in labor in both China &the US working illegally. Fourth, there is little geographic distance between the origin and destination places in both cases. Fifth, in both cases, agrarian revolutions gave land to peasants that could be neither sold nor easily sub-leased to others.

In Mexico, agricultural production grew very rapidly between the 1950s and 1960s, as a result of heavy inputs in irrigation and technological development. The 1940s political revolution in Mexico created a two tiered system of farms — one capitalistic, that could afford to put funds into irrigation and technology development, and the peasant farms that could not afford the technology. The result:an increase in surplus labor in rural Mexico. The surplus labor migrated to Mexican cities.

Simultaneously, the economic expansion in the US resulted in a demand for educated workers in urban places. The associated nearly full-employment in the US in the 1950s and early 1960s resulted in a demand for rural labor that was not being met by US workers who had access to higher paying wages. Ultimately, the US government endorsed a bracero program between the US and Mexico to attract Mexican farm labor to US farms.

The pull of jobs focusing on trade as well as in agriculture has also influenced cross-border migration from Mexico to the US as well. The maquiladora system of production, wherein international corporations set up factories along the US border to manufacture goods for export, was an early example of the pull of trade-oriented jobs, although in the case of the maquiladoras, this originally only influenced Mexican internal migration.

Even prior to the North American Free Trade Agreement(NAFTA)that allowed for a free-flow of trade goods across the border, there was significant immigration into labor-intensive manufacturing in the US One of the objectives of NAFTA, achieving only limited success, was to substitute the import of laborintensive goods from Mexico for the import of Mexicans from Mexico. In fact, the initial impact of NAFTA was to slow the rates of illegal immigration to the US The longer run impact of NAFTA, of drawing workers to labor intensive manufacturing jobs, has differed somewhat from the impact of the bracero program in that, with NAFTA, firms engaged in this sort of labor-intensive production can easily operate on whichever side of the border they wish. Many of them in effect import illegal Mexican labor to work in the US, even though they then have to pay higher wages than if they hired them to work in Mexico, because of superior US infrastructure.

But, as the logic of Granovetter' s weak ties would suggest, once in place, the stream of labor from Mexico to the US, attracted by the differential in wages across the US /Mexican border has increased the flow of immigration to the US The cost of an illegal migration to the US is relatively low in comparison to the wage price differential and ever increasing amounts of social capital in the US made the transition from Mexico to the US and back again easier. Thus, Mexican households began doing as the Chinese were doing:sending a household member or members to the US Because Mexican peasant farmers would lose their land if they did not return to it, a majority of migrants returned home to Mexico due to its proximity and the opportunity cost of losing the agricultural land if one chose to stay in the US3. How Else Are the Chinese and Mexico/US Situations Alike?

Where the situations continue to be alike is in what happens next:not all workers, in either China or the US /Mexico case, return home, in spite of the predominant circularity of both migration streams. In the US, children born in the US become US citizens, despite the status of their parents. In China, neither the birth of a child nor marriage to an urban person can change the hukou status, but the demand for labor in cities results in increasing changes of hukou status and in increasingly complex forms of hukou status which allow workers and their families to remain in cities. As suggested above, for China this has resulted in a hierarchical work-type system in urban places as a result of some workers having permanent hukou status, and others having more limited status. In the US, it has resulted in a similar hierarchical status system, with some workers legal and others not.

The US hierarchical system is built between legal residents of the US and illegal residents(illegal Mexican immigrants being most similar to the Chinese“floating”population). Those illegal immigrants who are caught in the US are deported, or more recently, jailed for identity-theft if they are caught using faked documents. It should be noted, however, that there are two distinct sources of Mexico-US immigration, not all of them illegal and, indeed, each group follows a separate pattern of migration. Specifically there is the well-established and undocumented, low-skilled agricultural labor and the newer migration of illegal immigrants from urban areas in Mexico to urban areas of the US. An even newer phenomenon is domestic internal Mexican migration within the US, often into new destination areas further from the Mexican-US border.

Those illegal immigrants from either migration stream who were lucky enough to be eligible for US government amnesty programs in the 1980s and 1990s became permanent residents of the US, but often discovered that the protections provided to them as legal residents often led to them losing their jobs. As illegal immigrants they were paid less and not protected by social security or other state-welfare systems. As legal residents of the US, the new citizens could now demand higher wages and protections and as a result found themselves without jobs in the industries in which they were originally working. Obviously, this resulted in return migration to Mexico.

The internal migration in China and the international illegal immigration from Mexico to the US is closely tied to globalization. In the US, since the beginning of the current recession, more than a year ago, there has been a surprising downturn in both the number and rate of illegal immigrants caught at the border. Similarly as the recession has begun to have an impact on the Chinese economy, busloads of the floating migrants have been leaving urban or industrialized places to return to their rural home areas, due to their lack of jobs.4. The Impact of Circular Migration on the Economy of the Place of Origin

Labor migration is a strategy used by households to acquire investment capital, as shown by Massey and Parrado(1998)and Ma(2002). Ma sees labor migration and business formation as a“group phenomena”. Permanent migration is associated with official change of hukou; temporary migration is not, resulting in labor market segregation between those with permanent jobs and rural migrants who have temporary jobs. But Ma finds that rural to urban migrants in China stay, on average, only 5.2 years at destination(11 percent stay less than 2 years at the destination; only 14 percent stay more than 10 years). Upon their return, they have developed new skills and, as a result, are creating a diversification of the rural economy. This rural development has meant that there is the opportunity for growth of the

试读结束[说明:试读内容隐藏了图片]

下载完整电子书


相关推荐

最新文章


© 2020 txtepub下载