1. Chinese Urbanism in Global Context
PLAN A6526
Columbia University
Prof. Weiping Wu
Migration and Urbanization

2. Main topics Migration: push and pull factors China’s migration trends
Migrants in cities
Implications for planners
How are Chinese migrants compared to others?

3. Migration as key driver
Unprecedented magnitude
>200 million – primarily from rural-urban
Primarily short-distance migration
70 percent within province
Coastal region as key destination
Much inter-provincial migration originates from central and western regions
Circular or seasonal migration
Primarily aged 15-34, males outnumber females, and family migration about a third

4. Migration volume & directions
(Source: Chan 2012)
(Source: Fan 2005)

5. Background for China’s migration
New developmental state
Willingness to break with previous policy of strict control
Demand of urban economy
Low-cost rural labor
Compete strongly in global economy
Exclusionary practice
Urban bias, through hukou system
Low political place of labor

6. Two cities at a glance 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Beijing
Migrant population (million)
0.54
1.81
2.56
3.57
7.05
Total population (million)
10.86
12.51
13.64
15.38
19.62
% migrant population
5.0
14.5
18.8
23.2
35.9
Growth rate of migrants (%)
235.2
41.4
39.5
97.5
Growth rate of total pop (%)
15.2
9.0
12.8
27.6
Shanghai
1.06
2.51
3.06
5.40
8.98
13.34
14.14
16.41
18.81
23.02
7.9
17.8
18.6
28.7
39.0
136.8
21.9
76.5
66.3
6.0
16.1
14.6
22.4

7. Right to the city – contrasts
Institutional barriers
Two kinds of citizenship – urban and rural
Limited access to social housing – link between hukou and social benefits
Local control on migrant permanent residency
Self-help housing hardly an option – public land ownership and effective government eradication of large informal settlements

8. Migrant housing and settlement

9. Beijing
Shanghai

10. Housing ownership & conditions
Migrants (nonlocal)
Locals
% Ownership
Per capita m2
2005
Urban hukou
51.9
25.3
75.2
25.8
[N]
[14618]
[55784]
Rural hukou
8.7
11.5
96.6
43.7
[21407]
[16212]
All
26.3
17.1
80.0
29.8
1999/2000
1.9
9.5
30.6
[363]
[386]
0.4
7.5
87.6
33.5
[2357]
[129]
0.6
7.8
44.9
21.2

11. Implications for planners
Migrants are
Largely rural-urban
Circulate and ‘temporary’
Remain tied to rural origins
Subject to global economic swings
What do these characteristics mean for planners?

12. Housing conditions
Low cost and proximity to work are higher priorities than physical quality and space
Housing is temporary, overcrowded, with few facilities, and with poor environmental conditions

13. Drifting in the city Migrants continue to be on the move in city
Substantially higher mobility rates than locals
Experience more residential instability
Mobility rates change steadily by duration of residence – as migrants stay longer in city, their average annual mobility rates decline significantly

14. Drifting in the city

15. Getting stuck
Most migrants trapped in two housing types in spite of high mobility rates
Renting private housing
Living in dorm or workshed.
Few rural migrants make transition from renters to owners after years in city
Local controls on migrant settlement
Spatial mobility is confined to small geographic areas

16. Spatial distribution
Between 2000 and 2010, many neighborhoods became dominated by migrants, especially outside central city

17. Transportation

18. Impact of global swings
Source: Chan, 2010.

20. Compare to undocumented?
Large gap in income, cultural values, and living standards exists between areas of origin and destination
Restrictions preventing migrant permanent settlement in destinations, from labor market discrimination to hukou system
Common experience of exclusion shapes their housing choices, mobility patterns, and living arrangements in similar ways

21. Finding a place to stay in U.S.
In initial sojourning stage, search for accommodations simplified by living in housing provided by their employers
Housing mainly as places to sleep and prepare for next day’s labor, with strong preferences for:
Flexible rental arrangements
Choosing places where transience is common and accepted behavior

22. Finding a place to stay in U.S.
Few options suiting needs and preferences of undocumented exist in formal housing market
Limited supply of housing, combined with high and rising demand, created a situation of high rents and low quality
Newcomer’s rely on social capital to locate housing and tend to concentrate in certain areas and neighborhoods

23. Commonalities
Chinese migrants share with undocumented similar set of housing needs and preferences:
Low cost and proximity to work higher priorities
Physical quality and space less important
As is the case for undocumented:
Satellite or “daughter” communities of migrants from single village develop in destination cities.
Social networks that sustain migration flows also lead to spatial concentration

24. Commonalities
Absence of formal housing market available to migrants requires:
Development of an informal housing market to fill gap left by state’s lack of involvement
Extensive use of social network in informal market

25. Exceptions
One relates to legal status of children and family’s right to certain social benefits
All children of undocumented are entitled to such universal resources like public elementary and secondary education
Recent shift in U.S. policy towards stricter exclusionary rules aimed at immigrants; exclusion of Chinese migrants from state- sponsored housing far longer history