the professional geographer

This article was downloaded by:[Wu, Weiping]On: 18 January 2008Access Details: [subscription number 789710422]Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Professional GeographerPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t788352615

Migrant Settlement and Spatial Distribution inMetropolitan ShanghaiWeiping Wu aa Virginia Commonwealth University,

Online Publication Date: 01 February 2008To cite this Article: Wu, Weiping (2008) 'Migrant Settlement and Spatial Distributionin Metropolitan Shanghai ', The Professional Geographer, 60:1, 101 - 120To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/00330120701724210URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00330120701724210

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will becomplete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with orarising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t788352615

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00330120701724210

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wu,

Wei

ping

] At:

02:3

5 18

Jan

uary

200

8

Migrant Settlement and Spatial Distribution in

Metropolitan Shanghai*

Weiping WuVirginia Commonwealth University

Given the persistence of China’s migration trends since the early 1980s, migrants have begun to assert theirinfluence on cities’ spatial structure. This article attempts to understand the geography of migrant residenceand how it relates to the overall spatial development in metropolitan Shanghai. It explores the key geographicalfactors underlying migrant spatial distribution. Results are based on spatial analyses and a regression model atthe subdistrict level, with data drawn primarily from the 2000 Population Census, 1996 Basic EstablishmentCensus, and a migrant housing survey completed in 1999. The article also shows how intra-urban migrantsettlement and mobility patterns in China might be distinctive from those in other developing countries, givenChina’s unique context and institutional factors. In general, migrant distribution in metropolitan Shanghaidisplayed a strong degree of centrality until the late 1990s when the inner suburb became the main receptor fornew arrivals. The geography of migrant residence has shifted in tandem with deconcentration of the local pop-ulation and, to a lesser degree, industrial relocation. Areas with a large number of manufacturing enterprisesbut a smaller state sector are likely to see a high share of migrants in total population. New arrivals also are at-tracted to areas already concentrated with migrants. Housing availability, however, proves to be an insignificantpredictor. Key Words: location behavior, migrant settlement, Shanghai, spatial distribution, urban China.

Dada la persistencia de las tendencias migratorias de China desde principios de la decada de los 80, losmigrantes han comenzado a ejercer su influencia en la estructura espacial de las ciudades. En este artıculose intenta entender la geografıa de la residencia de los migrantes y su relacion con el desarrollo espacialgeneral del area metropolitana de Shanghai. En el se exploran los factores geograficos claves que determinanla distribucion espacial de los migrantes. Los resultados de basan en analisis espaciales y un modelo deregresion a nivel de subdistrito, con datos obtenidos principalmente del Censo de Poblacion de 2000, elCenso de Establecimiento Basico de 1996 y la encuesta sobre vivienda de los migrantes que se concluyoen 1999. El artıculo tambien muestra como los patrones de movilidad y asentamiento intraurbano de losmigrantes en China pueden ser caracterısticos, en comparacion con los de otros paıses en desarrollo, dadoslos factores institucionales y de contexto especıficos de China. En general, la distribucion de migrantesen el area metropolitana de Shanghai mostro un fuerte grado de centralidad hasta finales de la decada delos 90, cuando las areas intersuburbanas se convirtieron en el principal receptor de los recien llegados.

∗Support from the National Science Foundation (BCS-9974540) and the United States Department of Education (P019A80016) for the fieldwork phase of this research is deeply appreciated, as are constructive comments from multiple reviewers.

The Professional Geographer, 60(1) 2008, pages 101–120 C© Copyright 2008 by Association of American Geographers.Initial submission, March 2006; revised submissions, December 2006, May and June 2007; final acceptance, June 2007.

Published by Taylor & Francis, LLC.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wu,

Wei

ping

] At:

02:3

5 18

Jan

uary

200

8

102 Volume 60, Number 1, February 2008

La geografıa de residencia de los migrantes ha cambiado conjuntamente con la desconcentracion de lapoblacion local, y en menos grado con la reubicacion industrial. Las areas con un mayor numero de empresasde manufactura pero con un sector estatal mas pequeno probablemente veran una mayor proporcion demigrantes en su poblacion total. Los recien llegados tambien son atraıdos hacia areas ya concentradas conmigrantes. Sin embargo, la disponibilidad de vivienda ha mostrado ser un predictor insignificante. Palabrasclave: conducta locacional, asentamiento de migrantes, Shanghai, distribucion espacial, China urbana.

D espite China’s impressive record of eco-nomic growth since the start of the re-

form in 1979, income disparities between urbanand rural areas, as well as regional imbalances,remain large (Fan 1997; Wei 2000). Such dis-parities are a key driving force behind thelargest tide of internal migration in the coun-try’s history. By official estimates, about 120million rural migrants are living in urban ar-eas (“China: Migrants, Slaves” 2007). Shanghaialone has received in excess of three millionmigrants. The majority of migrants move toseek employment, and family migration is onthe rise. The sheer magnitude of the migrationis bringing significant challenges to cities andtheir spatial development.

The persistence of China’s migration trendscalls for a better understanding of the spatialdynamics of migrant settlement in destinationcities. This article builds on existing theories ofmigrant spatial distribution and analyzes pat-terns in Shanghai, China’s largest metropolis.It addresses three research questions: (1) Howis migrant residence distributed geographicallywithin the metropolitan area? In particular,where do newly arrived migrants find housingand how have patterns evolved over time? (2)What are the main predictors of the residentialdistribution of migrants? (3) How is migrantspatial distribution related to patterns of localpopulation and employment activities? The fo-cus of the article is temporary migrants (alsoknown as floating population) without officialchanges of household registration (hukou), whomake up the bulk of China’s internal migra-tion. Local population refers to registered per-manent residents and permanent migrants withformal changes of hukou.

Adding to the complexity of understandingmigrant settlement in urban China are the in-evitable changes brought by the transition froma command to a market economy. In particular,urban housing and land systems have oper-ated with a significant level of fluidity. Underreforms, housing is no longer a free public good

to urban residents and commercial housingdistributed through market mechanisms is in-creasingly the main choice in cities. Housingoften is developed with private capital, giv-ing rise to a variety of residential spaces thatare replacing the prereform cellular neighbor-hood structure built around work units. Urbanland, on the other hand, remains owned by thestate and managed by municipal governmentsthrough a land leasing system. For migrants,squatting and illegal subdivisions are generallynot a viable option, unlike in many develop-ing countries, largely due to municipal author-ities’ intolerance and tight reign over publicland.

A key objective of this article is to understandhow migrant distribution patterns in urbanChina might be distinctive from trends else-where given the unique institutional environ-ment. This large context, in no small way, hasshaped the housing choices, mobility patterns,and living arrangements of migrants in China.Overall, they experience a housing disadvan-tage that is rooted in restrictions associated withthe hukou system (W. Wu 2004). They canbe characterized as seasonal or temporary mi-grants, and tend to invest little financially andsocially in cities. Thus, low cost and proximityto the workplace are higher priorities in makingresidential decisions than tenure and amenities.Most migrants never make the transition fromrenters to owners, even after a lengthy resi-dence in the cities. I also expect to show thattheir spatial mobility is limited in distance andintertwined with employment opportunities.

Results of this article are based on spatialanalyses and a regression model at the sub-district level, which is the best resolution ofavailable information for Shanghai (and Chi-nese cities in general). Data are drawn from the2000 Population Census and 1996 Basic Es-tablishment Census, supplemented by my ownsurvey of 1,789 migrants completed in 1999.Because of limited data availability at the sub-district level, I have little choice but to use

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wu,

Wei

ping

] At:

02:3

5 18

Jan

uary

200

8

Migrant Settlement and Spatial Distribution in Metropolitan Shanghai 103

population and employment data from differ-ent years.

The main body of the article is organizedinto five sections. The first is a synthesis ofresearch on the spatial distribution of migrantsin Third World cities. This also provides a con-ceptual framework for the subsequent analysesand places China’s experience in a comparativecontext. The next section introduces the datasources and assesses their reliability and limi-tations. The third section offers a discussion ofspatial development in Shanghai (particularlyin terms of the local population and employ-ment activities), as a pretext to understandingmigrant residential patterns. Next, I analyzemigrant housing behavior in Shanghai andmetropolitan-wide geographic distribution ofmigrant residence. The last section is an analy-sis of the key geographic factors underlying thespatial distribution of migrants, primarily basedon a multivariate regression model. The inter-pretation of the model is supplemented by thesurvey results and field observations conductedin select neighborhoods around Shanghai.

Understanding Migrant Settlement

and Residential Distribution

Theoretical constructs of spatial distributionpatterns of internal migrants in Third Worldcities have originated primarily in the context ofLatin American countries. As the major migra-tory tides swept through these countries fromthe 1950s to the 1980s, most research was donearound that time. Subsequent massive rural–urban migration in other regions, particularlyAfrica and South and Southeast Asia, also hasattracted the attention of researchers to studyintra-urban migrant settlement patterns. Thesestudies have evolved in a setting in which pri-vate land ownership, and housing and rentalmarkets are functional. China’s unprecedentedwaves of internal migration commenced in theearly 1980s after the central government hadrelaxed population mobility control (primarilythrough the hukou system). Largely from ruralto urban, much of the migratory flow involvescircular movements of rural labor in searchof work to augment agricultural income. Mi-grants continue to be regarded as temporary byauthorities, although longer term residence isincreasing (about 52 percent of surveyed mi-

grants in Shanghai have lived in the city forfive years or longer). This is in some wayssimilar to circular migration in African coun-tries, where many migrants live in cities for along time. Research shows that such semiper-manent residence means that intra-urban resi-dential movement is increasingly similar to thattypical in many Latin American cities (Gilbertand Crankshaw 1999).

One influential view in the literature regard-ing the initial location of migrant settlement isTurner’s (1968) model, based on his work inLima, Peru. It suggests a two-stage settlementprocess for rural–urban migrants in urbaniz-ing countries. New migrants (labeled bridge-headers) initially seek deteriorating rental shel-ter, primarily in the central city but sometimesscattered across town for good access to jobs.As their income level improves, they move tobuild peripheral informal shanties for residen-tial stability or ownership and then upgradeshanty dwellings over time into more substan-tial houses. Once this transition from rentedrooms to self-help housing is made, migrantsbecome consolidators.

However, in a number of countries withcontinuing urbanization, inner-city areas areno longer found to be the major destinationfor new migrants. The expansion and redevel-opment of the commercial core has led to arapid rise in land costs. To avoid higher rentswithin the city, migrants are attracted to set-tlements in intermediate or peripheral zones,and recent arrivals tend to locate more on theoutskirts (United Nations Center for HumanSettlements [UNCHS] 1982; Conway 1985;Gilbert and Varley 1990; van Lindert 1991).The trend of increasing concentration of newmigrants in the periphery has been observedin, for instance, Jakarta, Indonesia (Rustiadiand Panuju 2006); Karachi, Pakistan (Ahmad1992); La Paz, Bolivia (van Lindert 1991); andLagos, Nigeria (Afoloyan 1982 cited in Ahmad1992). In Johannesburg, South Africa, the cen-tral city has never been the major receptionarea because it has been predominantly com-mercial and industrial from the beginning. In-stead, the new townships are the main desti-nations for migrants (Gilbert and Crankshaw1999). In all of these cities, the periphery loca-tion is characterized by squatter settlements orself-help housing. Such housing also serves theeconomic function of reducing or eliminating

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wu,

Wei

ping

] At:

02:3

5 18

Jan

uary

200

8


housing costs for migrants (Collier 1976; Ulack1978).

For some of these and other cities, the keyrecipient area for new migrants also shifts asurban expansion proceeds from early to laterphases. In many cities, such expansion tendsto be in an outward, concentric pattern. Thecase of Jakarta illustrates how the shifting ofmigrant spatial distribution has occurred. In-migration flows reached their peaks in the pe-riod between 1982 and 1992. Central Jakartalost its attractiveness as migration destinationearlier than other districts of the city. Most ofthe districts have steadily lost their attractive-ness from about the beginning of the 1990s.Since then, the destination of new migrants hasshifted to the suburb of Jakarta City (Rustiadiand Panuju 2006). Similarly in La Paz, the old-est part of the city was the first residence ofearly migrants, but recent arrivals tended to lo-cate more outside of the central city. The inter-mediate zone was the largest reception areaduring rapid urban expansion around the 1960s.Many migrants now end up in the far peripheryof the city’s high plateau (van Lindert 1991). InMexico City, the inner city was the major re-ception area for migrants during its early phaseof urbanization (the 1940s and 1950s). Subse-quently new squatter settlements began to ap-pear outside of the inner city. By the 1960s and1970s, the periphery was experiencing the mostrapid proliferation of migrant settlement (Con-way 1985). Even in Lima, on which Turner’s(1968) model is based, from the 1980s onward,a growing number of new migrants settleddirectly in the periphery of the city, whereascentral city neighborhoods are increasinglypopulated by second-generation migrants(Chambers 2005).

In some cities, however, spatial distributionof new migrants might be less concentrated ina specific zone and instead be more dispersed.For instance, in Monterrey, Mexico, on arrivalmigrants scatter throughout the city (Vaughanand Feindt 1973). There is also an increasinglevel of heterogeneity in how major migrantreceptors shift geographically with respectto the three concentric zones (central city,intermediate zone, and periphery). Researchin Quito, Ecuador, shows that migrants secureaffordable and available housing, be it ina central or peripheral location (Klak andHoltzclaw 1993). A more recent study ofMexico City suggests that migrant mobility,

once in the city, is limited in terms of distance.Rather than moving from rental housing inthe central city to peripheral settlement assuggested by Turner, most of them relocaterelatively near their last places of residence(Ward 1990). This might be attributed to thesheer size of Mexico City, whereby migrantsrelate to only one sector of the city.

Spatial distribution of migrant residence isoften determined by a common set of factors.Proximity to existing or potential employmentis a major factor underlying choices of sitefor the first residence, as well as subsequentrelocation. It ranks high on the list of prefer-ences and needs of migrants for at least two rea-sons. First, income generation and economicviability are a primary objective for migrants.Second, most migrants work long hours at whatare almost inevitably physically exhausting jobs.Particularly for new arrivals with few acquain-tances in the city, an initial residence withinwalking distance of jobs is essential (Conway1985; Gilbert and Varley 1990). Others pointout the importance of kinship and friendshipties, acting as social institutions (Abu-Lughod1961; Collier 1976; UNCHS 1982; Banerjee1983; van Lindert 1991). Migrants’ first placeof residence in the city is largely predeterminedby the location of kin or friends. New arrivals tothe city might stay with members of their socialnetworks, or rely on the information controlledby the networks to find a place to stay. Thesocial networks that sustain migration flowsalso lead to spatial concentration of migrants,often in the form of satellite or “daughter”communities of migrants from a single village.

These theoretical constructs of intra-urbandistribution patterns of internal migrants willno doubt help our understanding of likelytrends in China. However, Chinese migrantsencounter significantly more barriers in cities.There are restrictions preventing or obstruct-ing their settlement in destinations, rangingfrom labor market discrimination to the hukousystem (Roberts 1997; Solinger 1999). Thesebarriers make China’s rural–urban migrantsmore like immigrants from developing to de-veloped counties than internal migrants withindeveloping countries (Roberts 1997). Solinger(1999) even argues that two kinds of citizen-ship, urban and rural, created during the era ofstate socialism now form the basis of the broad-est kind of social inequality in China. Whereasurban citizenship comes with provision of

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wu,

Wei

ping

] At:

02:3

5 18

Jan

uary

200

8


social welfare, rural citizenship essentially en-tails self-responsibility in food supply, housing,employment and income. With deepeningmarketization, however, citizenship rights nolonger neatly correlate with the rural–urban di-chotomy (L. Zhang 2001). There are increasingvariations among migrants. A small number ofsuccessful ones have gained urban status underrecent hukou reforms, particularly in smallercities. Some have gained access to limitedbenefits (e.g., dormitory housing) by signingemployment contracts with urban enterprises.On the other hand, some with capital and skillshave resorted to self-employment and para-doxically have been living on the fringe, oftenliterally, in the cities. The majority of migrantscontinue to be denied full urban benefits.

Any study of migrant settlement patternsalso requires some understanding of how exist-ing urban residential areas are distributed geo-graphically by socioeconomic status (Vaughanand Feindt 1973). Accounts of such patternsneed to be adequately linked to the chang-ing spatial patterns of the destination city and,in particular, location of employment oppor-tunities. The formation and development ofmigrant settlements often reflect changes inthe economic activity of the surrounding ar-eas (Conway 1985). Market forces are increas-ingly the dominant force behind urban pro-cesses in China, particularly in housing andland development. There is evidence that theimportance of location, which was irrelevantin socialist cities without land markets, has ledto the emergence of a land rent gradient sim-ilar to that of cities in capitalist systems (Ma2003). Some cities now show three rings of dif-ferentiated urban space: pre-1949 historic ar-eas, a socialist planned work units ring (1949–1985), and the new estates ring (built during theproperty boom years since 1985; Y. Wang andMurie 2000). Accelerated urban growth has ledto increasing concentration of economic func-tions on the outskirts of the city proper, in theform of high-tech development zones and of-fice and industrial parks. In addition, since the1980s, comprehensive development or largeresidential development projects have replacedsector-based, project-specific development. Byallowing work units to retreat from direct landdevelopment, comprehensive development re-duces the traditional tie between workplace andresidence in the urban space. New residential

communities in turn have become much largerand are often located in the peripheral areas(Yeh and Wu 1996).

As a result of such fundamental changesin urban processes, Chinese cities are expe-riencing socio-spatial development often seenin many other Third World cities. Hous-ing commodification and socioeconomic dif-ferentiation brought by the planned-to-markettransition is leading to the resurgence andcontinuation of the pre-1949 spatial divisionin Shanghai, detailed in a later section (F. Wu2002b; Ma 2003). Beijing, for instance, has seenthe formation of a small number of wealthyhousing areas in the suburbs. Aggravated liv-ing conditions of the central city and real es-tate development propaganda encourage theurban affluent to move to the eastern and north-ern inner suburbs of the city (Hu and Kaplan2001). Ironically these same areas also attractthe largest number of migrants, although somemigrants concentrate in the old central city (Guand Shen 2003).

Data Sources and Reliability

The empirical analysis in this article is based ondata from multiple sources, both primary andsecondary. The first source is the 2000 Popu-lation Census, which is residence based. TheNational Bureau of Statistics estimated an un-dercount rate of 1.81 percent nationally in the2000 Census, largely because of the increas-ing population mobility (Chan 2003). Shanghaiadded a new migrant form with more questionsto the national standard forms, defining mi-grants as those without Shanghai hukou whohad stayed for more than one day in the city(Shanghai Fifth Population Census Office [SF-PCO] 2002). Available data on migrants at thesubdistrict level, however, include only thosewho had been in Shanghai for more than sixmonths. This article hence uses this set of cen-sus data for migrants.

The second source is the 1996 Basic Estab-lishment Census. Unlike the population census,the establishment census is workplace basedand surveys the local economic structure, ba-sic economic activities, labor force, and distri-bution of production factors. It would be idealif the population and employment data werefrom the same year. The establishment cen-

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wu,

Wei

ping

] At:

02:3

5 18

Jan

uary

200

8


sus was conducted twice in Shanghai, in 1996and 2001. Published information on the 2001Establishment Census, unfortunately, is aggre-gated at the district level. As a result, the 1996Establishment Census data allow for a more re-fined resolution that is needed in this analysis.

My own migrant housing survey, the thirdsource, was conducted between December1998 and March 1999 in twenty-two neigh-borhoods of Shanghai’s seventeen districts (outof a total of twenty at the time) and eleven en-terprises or institutions, with 1,789 completequestionnaires from migrants. Multistage strat-ified cluster sampling procedures were used toselect migrants in residential neighborhoods.First, a number of districts were selected inthree stratified geographical zones: central city,inner suburb, and outer suburb (based on of-ficial designations). Within each selected dis-trict in the central city and outer suburb, oneneighborhood was randomly picked. Becauseof the large size of and migrant concentrationin the inner suburb, two neighborhoods werepicked in each selected district there. This re-sulted in a total of twenty-two neighborhoodsas the areal sampling units. Second, the totalnumber of migrants in each of these neighbor-hoods was drawn from the 1997 Floating Popu-lation Survey, jointly conducted by the munic-ipal security bureau and Shanghai Academy ofSocial Sciences. Population-proportionate-to-size procedures were then used to determinethe exact number of migrants to be surveyedin each neighborhood. Selected migrants alsoneeded to meet four criteria: aged fifteen orolder, with hukou outside of Shanghai, had mi-grated for employment reasons, and had stayedin the city for longer than a month.

Although these survey procedures did notyield a random sample, a great deal of atten-tion was paid to increasing the quality of thedata as much as possible. Geographical strat-ification reduced potential spatial skewednessand helped generate samples with compara-ble distribution patterns as in the 1997 officialenumeration of migrants. To capture migrantsliving in informal housing and work-relatedcompounds (e.g., construction sites and dor-mitories), eleven additional enterprises or in-stitutions were selected to represent housingarrangements outside of residential neighbor-hoods. The definition of migrants in the surveydiffers from that in the 2000 Census, but this

should have limited impact on the reliability ofthe results in this article, as data from the twosources are largely used to investigate differ-ent aspects of migrant settlement. The censusdata are the foundation for the analysis of lo-cal population and migrant residential distri-bution. The survey data, on the other hand,show migrant housing and mobility choices.Because the sample design affects the num-ber of migrants selected from different partsof the city, the distribution of their presentresidence should be interpreted with limitedconfidence (in any case, this is mostly done toconfirm trends drawn from census data). How-ever, migrant mobility patterns are more dy-namic and less subject to the effect of samplingprocedures.

Changing Spatial Patterns in

Shanghai

With a population of 16.74 million (includ-ing 3.87 million migrants; see SFPCO 2002)and land area of 6,377 km2, the Shanghaimetropolitan area is governed by the Shang-hai Municipal Government, equivalent to aprovincial government because of Shanghai’sspecial administrative status. Nineteen districtunits (before the year 2000 there were twenty),eighteen with urban designation (district, or qu)and one rural (county, or xian), are located inthree geographic zones: central city, inner sub-urb, and outer suburb (see Figure 1). Theseunits are then divided into subdistricts (jiedao)for urban areas or towns (zhen) for rural areas(referred to in this article as subdistricts). Be-tween 50,000 and 100,000 residents live in eachsubdistrict, whose functions in the populationcensus resemble those of census tracts in theUnited States. There are government agenciesadministering migrants at all three levels: mu-nicipality, district, and subdistrict. Each subdis-trict is further divided into a number of neigh-borhood or village committees (referred to hereas neighborhoods), which are the smallest resi-dential administrative units.

Shanghai has a history of residential differ-entiation, dating back to the pre-1949 period.Urban space was differentiated into upper andlower ends in the central city. Semicolonialrule (1840s–1949) delineated where the upperends were, in the French Concession and

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wu,

Wei

ping

] At:

02:3

5 18

Jan

uary

200

8


Figure 1 Metropolitan Shanghai. Source: Based on Yeh (1996). EDTZ = economic and technologydevelopment; EPZ = export processing zone.

International Settlement, both located in andnear the city core (see Figure 2). Shantytownswere located along the boundaries of foreignsettlements and in areas designated for Chineseresidents. At the time these slums were allperipheral to the city core, unlike those intwentieth century urban America (Lu 1995;F. Wu 2002a). After more than thirty years ofsocialist development, there were still signs of

such shantytowns in several districts locatedimmediately outside of the central downtown.However, residential differentiation markedlydeclined after many years of building publichousing and accelerated efforts to redevelopshanty areas (W. Wu 2005).

Prior to 1949, a mixed pattern of land useand industrial fragmentation characterized thecentral city (Hodder 1996; W. Wu 1999). The

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wu,

Wei

ping

] At:

02:3

5 18

Jan

uary

200

8


Figure 2 Central Shanghai. Sources: Based on Gamble (2003); S. Wang and Zhang (2005).

lack of a proper planning framework, when for-eign settlements and Chinese districts were sep-arately administrated, led to a situation in whichthe locations of factories and houses were ratherrandom and often encircled each other. Thisproblem was further aggravated by Mao’s pol-icy on industrial self-sufficiency and the systemof administrative allocation of land before 1979without the agency of rent or price (Hodder1996). Even in 1990, the central city housednearly four times more industrial (manufac-turing) establishments than the inner suburb(Ning and Yan 1995). Industrial fragmentationalso extends to the metropolitan level more re-cently, aggravated by the haphazard locationof township and village enterprises across sub-urban districts. About 27 percent of the landis currently under industrial use, a level muchhigher than the average for other large Chi-nese cities (about 15 percent). This might beattributable to the fact that nearly 44 percentof Shanghai’s industrial land use is scatteredand not in concentrated forms such as indus-trial parks (Xiong and Luo 2000).

More or less following an inverse concen-tric pattern, Shanghai’s central city has longbeen the residential core, with some of thehighest population densities in the world (inthe range of 50,000–60,000 people per squarekilometer in some neighborhoods). Deconcen-tration began in recent decades, albeit with un-even results. Redevelopment within and newhousing construction outside the central cityare two important mechanisms. Under mar-ket reforms, previously residential central areasare increasingly under pressure from redevel-opment, largely for commercial and office uses.This has had the effect of pushing up housingprices in the core. Redevelopment through realestate, however, is selective. Some residentialareas with extreme dilapidation and high den-sity have been left out of recent redevelopmentbecause of high costs associated with resettle-ment (F. Wu 2002a).

Outside of the central city, there has beensubstantial housing construction in new sub-urban areas and satellite towns. For instance,the development of the Pudong New Area

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wu,

Wei

ping

] At:

02:3

5 18

Jan

uary

200

8


accommodates close to a million residents re-located from the central city (W. Wu 1999).Many areas in the inner suburb, in particu-lar, are experiencing rapid transition from ru-ral to urban uses (often referred to as rural–urban transitional areas or chengxiang jiehebu).There is an increasing juxtaposition of ru-ral villages, resettlement housing for central-city residents, migrant communities, and newcommercial housing projects (F. Wu 2002b).The satellite town program, launched after the1950s primarily for the purpose of industrialdevelopment, has begun to attract more pop-ulation since the 1980s (accommodating abouttwo-thirds of a million residents in 1990). Fiveof the seven satellite towns are in the inner sub-urb, including one in Baoshan, two in Jiad-ing, and two in Minhang, whereas the sixthin Songjiang and seventh in Jinshan are in theouter suburb (see Figure 1). The functions ofother small towns in the suburbs have diversi-fied and their population size also has increased,primarily as the result of recent industrializa-tion (see Ning and Yan 1995).

Shanghai’s residential patterns have changedsteadily during the reform era, with the com-bined effect of central city redevelopment, newhousing construction, and the satellite townprogram. Using limited subdistrict data, I havearrayed the spatial distribution of local pop-ulation in 1997 and 2000 according to sevendistance bands, expressed in terms of distancefrom the city center or the People’s Square (seeTable 1). About two-thirds of local residentslived within a radius of 20 km and close to halfwithin 10 km in the year 2000. However, be-tween 1997 and 2000, the innermost band lostnearly 5 percent of its local population. Themost drastic change occurred in the band be-

tween 10 and 20 km—a sharp rise of 45 per-cent. More specifically, the core of the centralcity, including Huangpu, Nanshi, Luwan, Jin-gan, and Hongkou districts, lost a significantamount of local residents (in the range of 15–20 percent since the 1980s), but the peripheryof the central city has seen some gains, partic-ularly in Xuhui District. Population growth inthe four districts of the inner suburb has beensubstantial, in the range of 20 to 25 percent,whereas the outer suburban population levelhas remained stable (Gao and Jiang 2002). As aresult of such deconcentration, inner suburbansubdistricts immediately outside of the centralcity are accommodating a large local populationat a fairly high density, even though the centralcity remains the residential core (see Figure 3).

To solve problems associated with frag-mented industrial land use, Shanghai has reliedon relocating factories in the central city to newdistricts. A number of industrial parks (oftencalled economic and technology developmentzones, or ETDZs) have been created (mostlyin the inner suburb), including the Jinqiao Ex-port Processing Zone (EPZ) and ZhangjiangHigh-Tech Park in Pudong, Minhang ETDZ,Hongqiao ETDZ, and Caohejing High-TechPark (see Figure 1). This process of industrialrelocation, albeit slow and with mixed results,has freed up a significant amount of space in thecentral city and led to an industrial concentra-tion in the inner suburb (or the 10–20-km band;see Table 2). Between the central city and in-ner suburb, the split was close to even in 1996,compared to the situation in 1990 when the ra-tio was closer to 4:1 in the number of industrialestablishments. By 1996, only about 24 per-cent of the city’s total industrial establishmentswere still located in the central city. Industrial

Table 1 Spatial distribution of Shanghai’s population, 1997 and 2000

1997 2000 Change (1997–2000) 2000Distance category(km) Locals % Locals % Locals % Migrants %

0–10 6,480,619 50.9 6,177,470 46.5 −303,149 −4.7 1,045,527 33.410.1–20 1,927,245 15.1 2,793,834 21.0 866,589 45.0 1,245,850 39.720.1–30 1,350,175 10.6 1,390,245 10.5 40,070 3.0 461,214 14.730.1–40 1,350,879 10.6 1,308,572 9.9 −42,307 −3.1 227,994 7.340.1–50 984,155 7.7 954,376 7.2 −29,779 −3.0 86,032 2.750.1–60 565,386 4.4 578,706 4.4 13,320 2.4 59,397 1.960+ 64,966 0.5 69,836 0.5 4,870 7.5 8,684 0.3Total 12,723,425 100.0 13,273,039 100.0 549,614 4.3 3,134,698 100.0

Source: SFPCO (2002).

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wu,

Wei

ping

] At:

02:3

5 18

Jan

uary

200

8


Figure 3 Spatial distribution of population, 2000. Source: SFPCO (2002).

deconcentration might have contributed, tosome extent, to the spread of local residentsto the inner suburb as population increases inspecific districts where major industrial devel-opment is in progress (Walcott and Pannell2006). There is now an increasing concentra-tion of economic functions on the outskirts ofthe city proper.

In addition to industrial relocation, at theheart of Shanghai’s new development is a set ofservice nodes. Each of them, including Nan-jing Road (Huangpu District), Huaihai Road(Luwan District), Xujiahui (Xuhui District),Yuyuan (the former Nanshi District), thePassenger Rail Station (Tianmu Road, ZhabeiDistrict), and North Sichuan Road (Hongkou

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wu,

Wei

ping

] At:

02:3

5 18

Jan

uary

200

8


Table 2 Spatial distribution of industrial and service establishments, 1996

Total State-owned Industrial Service

Distance category (km) Number % Number % Number % Number %

0–10 129,461 51.3 27,982 67.2 12,474 24.1 53,168 61.510.1–20 38,504 15.3 4,912 11.8 12,886 24.9 9,598 11.120.1–30 28,002 11.1 2,596 6.2 9,600 18.5 7,978 9.230.1–40 27,383 10.9 2,849 6.8 8,444 16.3 7,811 9.040.1–50 16,291 6.5 1,832 4.4 5,013 9.7 4,203 4.950.1–60 11,590 4.6 1,184 2.8 3,007 5.8 3,510 4.160+ 1130 0.4 271 0.7 367 0.7 128 0.1Total 252,361 100.0 41,626 100.0 51,791 100.0 86,396 100.0

Source: SBECO (1997).Note: The category of industrial establishments is equivalent to the manufacturing sector in the West.

District), has become increasingly commercialin character, with shops and offices displacingresidential and industrial space (see Figure 2).In addition to these municipal retail nodes,many districts have designated their own(Gaubatz 1999; S. Wang and Zhang 2005).The building of Pudong’s Lujiazui central busi-ness district on the east bank of the HuangpuRiver adds to the city’s service alignments.With these multiple new centers, Shanghai’sspatial pattern might begin to resemble theinitial stage of a polynucleated form (Walcottand Pannell 2006). In contrast to the distribu-tion of industrial establishments, commercialand service establishments tend to be moreconcentrated in the central city. More than 60percent of them are located within a radius of10 km from the People’s Square (see Table 2).

The Geography of Migrant Residence

Migrant Access to Urban HousingDespite recent efforts aimed at disassociatinghukou with the provision of social welfare, alocal hukou continues to be an important qual-ification for accessing several types of urbanhousing. This is particularly true for more af-fordable housing options. Migrants cannot ac-quire ownership of municipal and work unitpublic housing because only sitting tenants (lo-cal urban residents) can do so. New public pro-grams of affordable housing, either for sale orrental, also target only local urban residents.Commercial housing, the only real propertysector without ownership restrictions, is not af-fordable for most migrants. A small number ofmigrants (fewer than one hundred) contacted

for further interviews after the housing surveyreported that the housing price they would con-sider affordable averaged around 160,000 yuan.This is lower than what it would cost on av-erage to buy a new commercial housing unit,about 250,000 yuan in Shanghai in 1999 (W.Wu 2004).

Hence, the vast majority of new migrantsrent or share accommodations on arrival. Morethan 60 percent of migrants in the surveyare renters. Frequently migrants rent privatehousing in suburban areas that used to be orstill are designated as agricultural within themetropolis. Because of urban expansion, manylocal rural residents have lost their farmland todevelopment. However, by virtue of their ruralhukou status, they have been allocated ampleland to build private living quarters and tendto have much larger housing space than urbanresidents living in the more developed urbancore. Many also expand their homes or buildadditional structures on their land to rent outto migrants (W. Wu 2005). Consequently, theshare of migrants renting private housing ismuch higher in the inner suburb than in thecentral city (see Table 3). In more central lo-cations, migrants can rent the so-called publichousing from urban residents who have pur-chased ownership rights to their housing (seeTable 3). On the other hand, when migrantsfind jobs in state and collective enterprises, theyobtain the access to institutionally provideddormitory housing, a legacy of the welfarehousing system. Close to 30 percent of migrantsin Shanghai share such dormitory housing (seeTable 3). By and large, overcrowding and lackof facilities is a feature of migrant housing.Migrants also tend to live in dwellings that are

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wu,

Wei

ping

] At:

02:3

5 18

Jan

uary

200

8


Table 3 Migrant housing and employment distribution (based on survey results)

Central city Inner suburb Outer suburb Total

N % N % N % N %

Housing typeRenting private housing 275 31.5 436 50.0 161 18.5 872 100.0Renting public housing 124 59.6 52 25.0 32 15.4 208 100.0Dorm/workshed 296 57.9 171 33.5 44 8.6 511 100.0Staying with locals 57 70.4 13 16.0 11 13.6 81 100.0Commercial housing 4 36.4 1 9.1 6 54.5 11 100.0Othera 58 61.7 26 27.7 10 10.6 94 100.0

OccupationManagers/administrators 12 66.7 5 27.8 1 5.6 18 100.0Professionals/technicians 22 45.8 24 50.0 2 4.2 48 100.0Office workers 28 45.2 31 50.0 3 4.8 62 100.0Service/sales workers 325 51.5 193 30.6 113 17.9 631 100.0Craft/building workers 129 44.6 100 34.6 60 20.8 289 100.0Factory workers 76 26.7 177 62.1 32 11.2 285 100.0Elementary occupationsb 138 47.4 120 41.2 33 11.3 291 100.0

Ownership type of employerState-owned 244 75.3 62 19.1 18 5.6 324 100.0Collective 42 26.9 84 53.8 30 19.2 156 100.0Private 103 51.5 77 38.5 20 10.0 200 100.0Self-employed 324 40.2 308 38.3 173 21.5 805 100.0Foreign-invested 11 8.5 115 89.1 3 2.3 129 100.0

aOther housing includes self-built shed, boat, hotel or inn, living on the street or in a hallway, and staying in hospitalrooms.b Elementary occupations include sales and services workers (street vendors, cleaning workers, domestic helpers,building caretakers, porter, garbage collectors, etc.), agricultural laborers, and laborers in mining, construction, ortransport. Based on the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO-88).

temporary or makeshift structures that are usedfor working or storage purposes in addition toserving as residences (W. Wu 2002).

It is no exaggeration to say that once in thecity, migrants continue to move. With sub-stantially higher mobility rates than local res-idents, they experience much more residentialinstability (W. Wu 2006). Close to 60 percentof surveyed migrants have made at least onemove. However, such mobility is not neces-sarily driven by the need for tenure or evenamenity. Few migrants make the transitionfrom bridgeheaders to consolidators after yearsof living in the city, a trend in migrant settle-ment seen elsewhere in developing countries.My survey shows that only about 1 percentof migrants in Shanghai are homeowners (seeTable 3). Instead, most remain trapped in theprivate rental sector or in dormitory housing.Home ownership has yet to become an attain-able goal and, therefore, the security offeredby housing tenure is less relevant as a motiva-tion for migrants in making housing decisions.China’s migrants, however, do share some be-haviors with their counterparts elsewhere inthat they all tend to invest little income to im-prove housing conditions.

The critical factor often lies in the inten-tion of migrants and their commitment to thecity. Many see migration as a seasonal pursuitto augment agricultural income, and continueto maintain close ties to their places of ori-gin. Such a temporary mentality has importantimplications for housing behavior. Short-termresidence, for example, is likely to encouragerenting over ownership. Another main expla-nation would lie with institutional barriers mi-grants encounter in the city. Specifically, thesystem of granting only temporary urban res-idence permits to migrants forces them (eventhose with families in tow) into more of abridgeheader existence than they might oth-erwise prefer (W. Wu 2006). Although somesmall cities and towns recently have experi-enced a weakening of the hukou system, it con-tinues to be enforced in the largest Chinesecities. The hukou system is one socialist in-stitution that is slow to change in the courseof the transition to a market economy. It re-mains a way for the state to exclude migrantsfrom acquiring full access to urban citizenshipand its attendant social rights (Solinger 1999).Therefore, there is a general disadvantage expe-rienced by all migrants in cities, although those

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wu,

Wei

ping

] At:

02:3

5 18

Jan

uary

200

8


few with capital and skills have fared better andgained entry into the league of homeowners(W. Wu 2002).

Spatial Patterns of Migrant ResidenceAt the turn of the 1980s when the migrantinflux first began, the central, oldest part ofShanghai was the chosen residential location ofnew arrivals. This resembled a number of LatinAmerican cities (e.g., Lima and La Paz) at anearly stage of urbanization and with a concen-tric spatial structure. In the mid-1980s whenShanghai enumerated the migrant populationfor the first time, a larger proportion (over 40percent) lived in the central city than in theinner suburb (W. Wang 1995). The 2000 Pop-ulation Census shows that migrants remain at-tracted to more central locations, as more than70 percent of them still live within a radius of 20km of the city center (see Table 1). The surveyresults are even more telling when migrants’zone of first settlement is arrayed by each five-year entry cohort. Both before 1980 and inthe decade after, the majority of new migrantsfound their first residence in the central city (seeTable 4). Such centrality of migrant distribu-tion, before 1990, can be attributed to the city’sinverse concentric spatial pattern. Preliminaryresults from a parallel survey in Beijing aroundthe same time show the absence of such central-ity. Across all of the same entry cohorts, morethan two-thirds of migrants in Beijing consis-tently choose their first residence within theconfines of the inner suburb. Closely resem-bling a multinuclear model, much of Beijing’scity proper is laid out in a more sprawling urbanform.

However, the spatial distribution of migrantshas experienced a gradual shift in Shanghai,mirroring a trend in a number of cities

elsewhere in developing countries undergoingcontinuing urbanization. With urban expan-sion and downtown redevelopment, the innersuburb has become a more important receivingarea for migrants since the early 1990s (S.Zhang 1998). Central city housing is becomingless attractive to migrants due to commercialredevelopment and in turn the rapid risein costs. The largest number of migrants(close to 40 percent) now concentrates in the10–20-km band (inner suburb), based on the2000 Census data (see Table 1). This shift isfurther confirmed by the survey results, whichshow that migrants arriving after 1995 favorthe inner suburb more than the central city (seeTable 4). The attraction of the outer suburbremains low, and a substantial number of newmigrants still choose to settle in the old core.

This shift also coincides with the decon-centration trend seen in Shanghai’s localpopulation. As discussed previously, the coreof the central city has lost a significant amountof local population while growth in the innersuburb has been substantial. More specifically,the 10–20-km band experienced a sharp risein local residents (45 percent) in the late1990s. To some extent, the emerging patternof migrant concentration in the inner suburblags behind the pace with which industrialestablishments have been relocated out of thecentral city. Industries now are increasinglylocated on the outskirts of the metropolitanarea, with more than half of them outside ofthe 10–20-km band (see Table 2).

It appears that a number of subdistricts im-mediately flanking the central city boundaryare now residential centers for both migrantsand, to some extent, the locals (see Figure 3).They are primarily in the districts of Minhang,Baoshan, and Pudong (inner suburb), as wellas Putuo, Xuhui, and Yangpu (periphery of the

Table 4 Spatial distribution of new migrants by entry cohort (based onsurvey results)

Central city Inner suburb Outer suburb Total

Entry cohort N % N % N % N %

Before 1980 9 56.3 3 18.8 4 25.0 16 100.01980–1984 16 50.0 7 21.9 9 28.1 32 100.01985–1989 91 54.2 49 29.2 28 16.7 168 100.01990–1994 268 46.1 245 42.2 68 11.7 581 100.01995–1999 419 42.8 424 43.4 135 13.8 978 100.0Total 803 45.2 728 41.0 244 13.7 1,775 100.0

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wu,

Wei

ping

] At:

02:3

5 18

Jan

uary

200

8


central city). This ring area can be character-ized as the urban periphery or rural–urban tran-sitional area (chengxiang jiehebu). Similar to theconcept of periurban areas, urban periphery issituated at the edge of the city proper as theintermediary between agricultural use in sub-urban areas and urban land use in the center.Migrant concentration in the urban peripheryis not unique in Shanghai, as other large citiessuch as Beijing and Wuhan show similar pat-terns (Gu and Shen 2003; Yang et al. 2003).

Another useful indicator is the share of mi-grants in the total population (see Figure 3).The urban periphery clearly emerges as a ringof migrant concentration. More specifically, allfour districts in the inner suburb have migrantshares in the range of 27 to 33 percent (seeTable 5). Other districts, on the other hand,register levels less than 20 percent (with one ex-ception). About a dozen subdistricts, primarilyin the four inner suburban districts and slightlybeyond, are areas where migrants make up largeproportions of the total population (more than45 percent). In some of these subdistricts, mi-

grants even outnumber local residents. Someevidence suggests that where migrants con-gregate in large numbers, living environmentsand residential conditions seem to worsen. Oneof the most common problems is deteriorat-ing sanitary conditions in such areas (S. Zhang1998). Some dwellings are built illegally, withprimitive materials and unstable structures, andare potential safety hazards.

A related question is what the main intra-urban trajectories of migrants are after their ini-tial settlement in Shanghai. In Table 6, movingdirections between zones of first residence andpresent location are shown for the various entrycohorts. Migrants who have not changed theirresidence since arrival (about 43 percent) arenot counted. The results, surprisingly, do notresemble the outward trajectories observed inmany Latin American cities. Instead, most mi-grants seem to remain fairly stable; more than75 percent of movers in the survey have stayedaround the same general geographic locationregardless of duration of stay in the city (Table6). This suggests that migrants tend to make

Table 5 Population, employment, and housing by district (mean values)

% migrants in Density of local Ratio of employment Per capitatotal population population 1999 to local population housing area 2000 Number of

District 2000 (per km2) 1996 (m2) subdistricts

Central cityHuangpu 10.6 59,672 2.29 10.8 4Nanshi 12.7 67,685 0.68 10.8 5Luwan 10.6 54,635 0.90 13.4 4Xuhui 19.8 19,788 1.18 18.4 12Changning 15.4 24,948 1.04 17.5 10Jingan 10.5 48,854 0.91 13.8 5Putuo 19.9 28,024 0.71 16.9 14Zhabei 15.3 36,068 1.10 15.5 9Hongkou 12.2 39,743 0.68 15.8 10Yangpu 12.0 27,267 1.10 15.8 11

Inner suburbMinhang 32.7 2,243 1.31 25.3 17Baoshan 28.0 3,295 1.38 23.4 18Jiading 26.5 1,258 0.69 31.5 20Pudong 27.3 8,190 0.81 23.6 39

Outer suburbNanhui 13.6 1,036 0.47 39.0 28Fenxian 18.6 767 0.51 34.1 24Songjiang 19.6 825 0.68 33.7 20Jinshan 7.2 1,006 0.54 38.2 16Qingpu 20.7 1,195 0.66 32.2 20Chongming 11.8 805 0.33 42.6 33

Central city 15.1 35,014 1.00 15.7 84Inner suburb 28.2 4,702 0.98 27.6 94Outer suburb 15.2 934 0.52 36.9 141City average 19.0 11,481 0.80 28.6 319

Sources: SBECO (1997) and SFPCO (2002).Note: In 2000, the districts of Huangpu and Nanshi were merged into one district named Huangpu.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wu,

Wei

ping

] At:

02:3

5 18

Jan

uary

200

8


Table 6 Migrant spatial mobility between first and current residence by entry cohort (based onsurvey results)

Outward move Inward move Within-zone move Total

Entry cohort CI CO IO Subtotal IC OI OC Subtotal CC II OO Subtotal N %

Before 1980 6.3 0.0 0.0 6.3 6.3 12.5 0.0 18.8 50.0 12.5 12.5 75.0 16 100.01980–1984 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.2 0.0 3.8 23.1 50.0 7.7 19.2 76.9 26 100.01985–1989 7.1 3.5 4.3 14.9 10.6 0.7 0.0 11.3 44.7 14.2 14.9 73.8 141 100.01990–1994 8.6 1.5 3.3 13.5 9.5 1.5 0.9 11.9 37.8 28.8 8.0 74.6 452 100.01995–1999 6.6 0.3 2.1 9.0 8.0 1.9 0.5 10.3 35.3 33.7 11.7 80.6 377 100.0Total 7.4 1.3 2.9 11.6 9.3 1.7 0.7 11.7 38.3 27.8 10.7 76.8 1012 100.0

Note: CI = central city to inner suburb; CO = central city to outer suburb; IO = inner to outer suburb; IC = innersuburb to central city; OI = outer to inner suburb; OC = outer suburb to central city; CC = within central city; II =within inner suburb; OO = within outer suburb.

short-distance residential moves to minimizeunfamiliarity with the environment. Recent re-search on Mexico City shows similar mobilitypatterns confined to a sector, perhaps becauseof the city’s sheer size (Ward 1990).

Predictors of Migrant Spatial

Distribution

Migrants are attracted to different parts of thecity for a variety of reasons. As for geographicfactors, the literature points to the criticalimportance of employment opportunity as wellas social networks. To determine significantpredictors of migrant residential distribution,I have constructed a data set for the 319subdistricts in Shanghai. A number of indica-tors are selected to approximate employmentopportunities, including the ratio of employ-ment to local population, and the number ofestablishments by sector (agriculture, industry,construction, and services) and ownership type(state, collective, private, foreign-invested, andshareholding). The category of industrial es-tablishments is equivalent to the manufacturingsector in the West. Local population densityand per capita housing area (as an indicatorof housing availability) are additional variablesthat show whether housing availability mightinfluence migrant spatial distribution. Thesquared value of per capita housing area also isincluded to test for nonlinear effects. Findinga good indicator for the existence of migrantsocial networks, however, is more difficult.The number of migrants in previous years canbe such an indicator, under the assumption thatthe more migrants already living in an area, the

more will be attracted in the future. Althoughofficial enumeration of migrants had takenplace prior to the 2000 Census in Shanghai,data on migrant population at the subdistrictlevel are not available for early years. Tocompromise, data are drawn from the official1995 1 Percent Population Survey to calculatethe share of migrants in the total population atthe district level. Then subdistricts within thesame district are assigned the same share.

A multivariate linear regression model uses,as the dependent variable, the share of migrantsin the total population (in the year 2000) andnot the absolute number of migrants. The lat-ter is likely associated with the overall size ofthe subdistrict (e.g., number of local residentsand physical size). After a correlation analy-sis, only variables significantly associated (r >

0.5) with the dependent variable are used inthe model. The model is run with simulta-neous entry, not stepwise procedures. Thereis general agreement that stepwise procedurestend to capitalize on random variations in thedata (Menard 1995). To control for problems ofmulticollinearity, variables with tolerance lev-els less than 0.2 are removed from the model(except for per capita housing area and itssquared value, as they would be naturally corre-lated), and the regression is run again. Becauseregression coefficients are unit dependent, mydiscussion focuses on standardized coefficientsin assessing the extent to which each predictoris influential.

The combined influence of these predictorvariables included in the regression model isstrong, as indicated by a fairly high value ofadjusted R2 (p < 0.001) in Table 7. Closeto 59 percent of the variance in migrant

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wu,

Wei

ping

] At:

02:3

5 18

Jan

uary

200

8


Table 7 Regression on the share of migrants in total population (2000)

Predictor variable Standardized coefficient t value Significance Tolerance

Ratio of employment to local population 0.184 4.082 0.000 0.668State-owned establishments −0.530 −8.464 0.000 0.348Foreign-invested establishments 0.173 3.462 0.001 0.549Industrial establishments 0.314 7.323 0.000 0.740Local population density −0.193 −2.519 0.012 0.232Share of migrants in total population 1995 0.257 5.342 0.000 0.589Per capita housing area 0.028 0.090 0.928 0.014Per capita housing area squared −0.374 −1.396 0.164 0.019Adjusted R2 0.588

concentration can be explained. First and fore-most, employment opportunities are the mostimportant determinant of migrant residentialpatterns (see Table 7). Because most migrantscome to Shanghai in search of work to aug-ment agricultural income, it is natural that theybase their locational decisions on where the jobsare. In particular, there appears to be a strongpositive relationship between the number of in-dustrial establishments in a subdistrict and thelevel of migrant concentration. Among all pre-dictors, this variable appears to make the sec-ond largest independent contribution. The Tvalue is statistically significant at the level of.0000. My own survey results show that abouttwo-thirds of migrants who are factory workerssettle in the inner suburb (see Table 3). Theyalso are more likely to be living in institutionallyprovided dormitories on site (about 44 percentof them do so, compared to 29 percent of allmigrants).

Another indicator of employment opportu-nities, ratio of employment to local popula-tion, also is a good predictor of where migrantstend to concentrate. Its positive contributionis smaller than the effect of the number ofindustrial establishments, but nevertheless sig-nificant. In addition, the size of the foreign-invested sector proves to be a significant, pos-itive contributor (see Table 7). Just as in thecase of factory workers, migrants working inforeign-invested enterprises tend to concen-trate in the inner suburb (see survey resultsshown in Table 3). This is likely related to thefact that the newly established industrial parksin the inner suburb (e.g., Jinqiao EPZ, Min-hang ETDZ, and Caohejing High-Tech Park)house most of the foreign-invested enterprisesin Shanghai. Given the significant impact of allthree indicators, it is clear that employment op-portunities in a given area are the most impor-

tant predictor of migrant spatial distribution.My survey results also suggest that migrantstend to settle in close proximity to employ-ment. About three-quarters of them live withinten minutes’ walking distance from their workplaces. There could be two reasons for thisfinding. First, income generation and economicviability are their primary objectives. Proxim-ity allows them to reduce travel costs so thatthey can remit most of what they earn. Second,many migrants are self-employed, as indicatedby about half of those surveyed, and often usetheir residence as shops or workshops.

An interesting finding from the regressionanalysis is the significant negative relationshipbetween the number of state-owned establish-ments in a subdistrict and the share of migrantsin the total population. Data from the 1996 Ba-sic Establishment Census show that two-thirdsof state-owned enterprises are still concen-trated in the 0–10-km band or the central city(see Table 2). The state-owned sector also isthe least receptive to migrant employment, andjobs are more available to local residents andpermanent migrants with local hukou. Onlyabout 20 percent of the migrants surveyedwork in the state sector, of whom 75 percentstay in the central city (see Table 3). Stateenterprises hiring migrants are required toobtain specific quotas from the municipal laborbureau, although some companies circumventsuch rules to cut labor costs. As a result, themajority of migrants are confined to nonstatejobs. About half of the working migrants inthe survey are self-employed, many as streetvendors, domestic helpers, and scavengers.

The model results also suggest that the lowerthe local population density of a subdistrict, thehigher the proportion of migrants. Thus mi-grant concentration is unlikely to occur in cen-tral city neighborhoods densely populated with

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wu,

Wei

ping

] At:

02:3

5 18

Jan

uary

200

8


locals. Local population density in the core av-erages about 35,000 people per square meter,drastically higher than that in the suburbs (lessthan 5,000 people per square meter; see Table5). Such a relationship could be an indication ofhow migrants naturally gravitate toward areaswith more people like themselves. This is fur-ther born out by the significant impact of theearlier share of migrants (1995) on the degree ofconcentration five years later (2000). Of course,such continuity can be partially attributed to thefact that much of migrant mobility is limited toa section of the city. Undoubtedly, it signalsthat newcomers tend to choose their first resi-dence in the city based on where their friendsor relatives live. The survey results indicate thatmore than half of them have found their initialhousing through the help of friends, relatives,or co-villagers. Although the reliance on socialnetworks declines gradually over time, a sub-stantial proportion of migrants continue to de-pend on these networks for subsequent residen-tial moves. As migrants stay longer in the city,they begin to make friends locally and rely lesson relatives for housing-related information.

Per capita housing area, a reasonable proxyfor housing availability, seems to be an insignif-icant predictor of migrant concentration with avery small positive contribution. For instance,much less migrant concentration occurs in theouter suburb where per capita housing space islarger than that of the inner suburb. It is clearthat housing availability is not an importantconsideration to migrants in their locationalbehavior compared to employment opportuni-ties and social networks. However, rental hous-ing price would have been a better indicator ofhousing availability, as the majority of migrantsrent. However, such data are not available at thedistrict or subdistrict level, as the rental sector isstill in its infancy with limited regulatory over-sight and statistical enumeration.

These results, however, are too aggregate toshow the complex inner working of migranthousing behaviors. For instance, many mi-grants turn to an alternative provision of hous-ing, in the form of an informal housing marketthat parallels the formal market but providesoptions that fit their needs. The reasons for in-formal rental housing could be twofold. First,current land laws do not allow clear or quasi-legal title to be conferred to individual owners,thereby undercutting the possibility of a localform of pirate subdivision. Second, the contin-

uing use of the hukou system and strict gov-ernment oversight effectively prevent migrantsfrom building their own housing, thereby dis-allowing any medium- or long-term land lease(Leaf 1995).

The urban periphery (mostly in the innersuburb) is where both employment opportuni-ties and rental housing are plentiful, and there-fore is the primary receiving area for migrants.Suburban towns there have diversified theireconomies since 1979, with an increasing num-ber of township industrial enterprises. In fact,township and village enterprises counted forone-fourth of the city’s industrial output valuein 1997 (Marton 2000). Many such enterprisesprefer to hire migrant workers because of theirwillingness to work hard for less pay. On theother hand, these towns still do not have thesame level of existing services as central cityareas. This might actually be an attraction tomany migrants as opportunities to open smallbusinesses are more abundant and competi-tion with established local establishments is lessfierce. Data from the 2000 Population Censusshow that 27.4 percent of all migrants work inShanghai’s service sector, outnumbering thosein manufacturing (25.9 percent). In the urbanperiphery, there is more self-constructed pri-vate housing by local farmers or former farmerson land allotted by their production brigades.Rental housing, therefore, is more readily avail-able and costs less. A room of about 10 m2 rentsfor around 200 yuan a month on average (circayear 2000).

Conclusion

Patterns of migrant settlement are a major in-fluence on urban spatial development, as exem-plified in many developing cities in Latin Amer-ica, Africa, and Asia. Many of the prevailingtheoretical inquiries on spatial distribution ofmigrant residence and mobility have evolved ina context in which private land ownership andhousing markets are more or less functional.As China undergoes reforms in its economicsystem, urban processes are increasingly drivenby market forces. To most migrants, however,the rural–urban divide instituted throughthe hukou system continues to restrict theiroptions in destination cities. As such, they tendto maintain strong linkages with rural areas oforigin.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wu,

Wei

ping

] At:

02:3

5 18

Jan

uary

200

8


Given this distinct institutional environ-ment, does migrant spatial distribution inChina’s cities resemble trends in Third Worldcities elsewhere? The case study of Shanghaipresented in this article provides significant in-sight on this question. With data drawn fromboth statistical and survey sources, my analysesreveal both aggregate patterns and inner work-ings of migrant location behaviors. First andforemost, the majority of migrants are rentersand remain so despite a lengthy residence inthe city. Their officially designated temporarystatus forces them to stay in more of a bridge-header existence than they might otherwiseprefer. Although it resembles the behavior ofseasonal migrants in some African cities, thehousing career of China’s migrants is truncated,without the transition to consolidator status.This also stems from the tight reign over pub-lic land by municipal authorities and, hence, thelack of opportunities to build self-help housing.In addition, compared to Third World citieselsewhere, the intra-urban mobility trajectoriesof migrants in Shanghai are much more spa-tially confined. They might be moving just asfrequently, but not very far. Most moves arewithin the same geographic zone, indicatingthat Shanghai’s sheer size renders it possibleto relate to only one part of the city.

Second, prior to the 1990s, Shanghai’s cen-tral city attracted the largest number of mi-grants. This was a pattern seen in many ThirdWorld cities, particularly those at an early stageof urbanization and with a concentric spa-tial structure. However, with urban expansionand downtown redevelopment, Shanghai’s in-ner city areas are becoming more costly andless attractive to new arrivals. The overall mi-grant distribution in the year 2000 shows a sig-nificant concentration in the urban periphery.Mirroring a trend in countries with continuingurbanization, this shift also is confirmed by theanalysis of survey results by entry cohort. Thechanging migrant residential distribution ap-pears to coincide with the trend of local popula-tion decentralization. A number of subdistrictsimmediately flanking the central city boundaryare now residential centers for both migrantsand locals. Migrants even outnumber local pop-ulation in some subdistricts there. Clearly, mi-grant distribution is following Shanghai’s spa-tial economic development. Accelerated urbangrowth and efforts to minimize fragmented

industrial land use have led to increasingconcentration of economic functions outside ofthe central city.

The migrant distribution pattern is not ac-cidental, as migrants are attracted to differentparts of a city for good reasons. The regressionanalysis shows that the best predictor of mi-grant concentration is employment opportuni-ties, particularly the number of industrial es-tablishments and state-owned establishments.Subdistricts with a large number of manufac-turing enterprises but a smaller state sector arelikely to see a high share of migrants in totalpopulation. Clearly, proximity to employmentis the overriding concern for migrants. Hous-ing availability, as measured by per capita hous-ing area, proves to be an insignificant contribu-tor. Moreover, given that ownership is not yetan attainable goal, housing comfort and tenureare less relevant as a motivation for migrants inmaking settlement decisions, unlike migrants inmany Third World cities. On the other hand,home ownership for urban residents is growingrapidly in China, already at 80 percent circa2002 (“China’s Urban Dwellers Take to HomeOwnership” 2002). Increasingly, tenure choicedecisions are based on such market-based fac-tors as income and education. If restrictionson migrant settlement in Chinese cities arelifted, housing considerations might becomemore paramount and migrant residential dis-tribution might display new patterns.

Much like trends elsewhere, China’s mi-grants rely on social networks to find housing.This leads to their concentration in certain ar-eas. Results of the regression analysis confirmthis: the more migrants already living in an area,the more will be attracted in the future. For newarrivals in particular, their first residence in thecity is often determined by the location of theirrelatives or friends. Given the long-standingrural–urban divide in China, there is a largegap in the cultural values and social relationsbetween their areas of origin and destination.Being close to people like themselves providesa more familiar environment to new arrivals.As they gradually acculturate to the urban en-vironment, some become more self-sufficientin their housing searches.

The geography of migrant residence willcontinue to figure in the matrix of Shanghai’sspatial development as the large migrant in-flux remains unabated. Because most migrant

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wu,

Wei

ping

] At:

02:3

5 18

Jan

uary

200

8


housing is in much worse condition than lo-cal housing, increasing migrant concentrationmight aggravate existing residential differentia-tion. In addition, settlement patterns will be animportant determinant of the future socioeco-nomic standing of migrants, as where and howthey live are likely to affect their general levelof satisfaction with urban living and the ease ordifficulty in adapting to the new environment.Such residential characteristics as tenure andconditions of dwelling, access to facilities andservices, and geographic location are essentialto migrants’ quality of life. Attributes associa-ted with urban living, including the higher den-sity of urban housing and use of communityfacilities, also will have profound social impactson the lifestyle of migrants. �

Literature Cited

Abu-Lughod, J. 1961. Migrant adjustment to city life:The Egyptian case. The American Journal of Sociol-ogy 67 (1): 22–32.

Afoloyan, A. A. 1982. Residential mobility withinmetropolitan Lagos. Geoforum 13 (4): 315–25.

Ahmad, N. 1992. Choice of location and mobilitybehavior of migrant households in a Third Worldcity. Urban Studies 29 (7): 1147–57.

Banerjee, B. 1983. Social networks in the migrationprocess: Empirical evidence on chain migration inIndia. Journal of Developing Areas 17 (2): 185–96.

Chambers, B. 2005. The barriadas of Lima: Slums ofhope or despair? Problems or solutions? Geography90 (3): 200–24.

Chan, K. W. 2003. Chinese census 2000: New op-portunities and challenges. The China Review 3 (2):1–12.

“China: Migrants, slaves.” 2007. Migration News14 (3). http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php?id=3306 0 3 0 (last accessed on 15 November2007).

“China’s urban dwellers take to home ownership.”2002. People’s Daily, 9 August. http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200208/09/eng20020809101182.shtml (last accessed 15 November 2007).

Collier, D. 1976. Squatter settlements and the incorpo-ration of migrants into urban life: The case of Lima.Cambridge, MA: Center for International Studies,MIT.

Conway, D. 1985. Changing perspectives on squattersettlements, intraurban mobility, and constraintson housing choice of the Third World urban poor.Urban Geography 6 (2): 170–92.

Fan, C. C. 1997. Uneven development and beyond:Regional development theory in post-Mao China.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research21 (4): 620–39.

Gamble, J. 2003. Shanghai in transition: Changing per-spectives and social contours of a Chinese metropolis.London: Routledge Curzon.

Gao, X., and Q. Jiang. 2002. Changes in Shanghai’surban population distribution and suburbanization(dui shanghai chengshi renkou fenbu biandong yu jiao-quhua de tantao). Urban Population (chengshi renkou)26 (1): 66–69.

Gaubatz, P. 1999. China’s urban transformation: Pat-terns and processes of morphological change inBeijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou. Urban Studies36 (9): 1495–1521.

Gilbert, A., and O. Crankshaw. 1999. ComparingSouth African and Latin American experience: Mi-gration and housing mobility in Soweto. UrbanStudies 36 (13): 2375–2400.

Gilbert, A., and A. Varley. 1990. Renting a home ina Third World city: Choice or constraint? Interna-tional Journal of Urban and Regional Research 14 (1):89–108.

Gu, C., and J. Shen. 2003. Transformation of ur-ban social-spatial structure in socialist marketeconomies: The case of Beijing. Habitat Interna-tional 27:107–22.

Hodder, R. 1996. Industrial location. In Shanghai:Transformation and modernization under China’s openpolicy, ed. Y. M. Yeung and Sung Yun-wing, 225–48. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.

Hu, X., and D. H. Kaplan. 2001. The emergence ofaffluence in Beijing: Residential social stratificationin China’s capital city. Urban Geography 22 (1): 54–77.

Klak, T., and M. Holtzclaw. 1993. The housing, ge-ography, and mobility of Latin American urbanpoor: The prevailing model and the case of Quito,Ecuador. Growth and Change 24 (2): 247–76.

Leaf, M. 1995. Inner city redevelopment in China:Implications for the city of Beijing. Cities 12 (3):149–62.

Lu, H. 1995. Creating urban outcasts: Shantytownsin Shanghai, 1920–1950. Journal of Urban History21 (5): 563–96.

Ma, L. J. C. 2003. Some reflections on China’s ur-banization and urban spatial restructuring. Paperpresented at the Urban China Research NetworkWorkshop on Urban Studies and Demography inChina, Minneapolis, MN.

Marton, A. M. 2000. China’s spatial economic develop-ment: Restless landscapes in the Lower Yangzi Delta.London: Routledge.

Menard, S. 1995. Applied logistic regression analysis.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ning, Y., and Z. Yan. 1995. The changing industrialand spatial structure in Shanghai. Urban Geography16 (7): 577–94.

Roberts, K. D. 1997. China’s “tidal wave” of migrantlabor: What can we learn from Mexican undocu-mented migration to the United States? Interna-tional Migration Review 31 (2): 249–93.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wu,

Wei

ping

] At:

02:3

5 18

Jan

uary

200

8


Rustiadi, E., and D. R. Panuju. 2006. A study ofspatial pattern of suburbanization process: A case studyin Jakarta suburb. Laboratory of Land Resourcesand Regional Planning, Indonesian HumanDimension Program. http://www.hdp-ina.net/Paper/Paper%20-%20A%20STUDY%20OF%20SPATIAL%20PATTERN%20OF%20SUBURBANIZATION%20PROCESS/ (last accessed 20November 2006).

Shanghai Basic Establishment Census Office(SBECO). 1997. Results on the First Basic Estab-lishment Census of Shanghai, 1996 (shanghaishi jibendanwei pucha zilao hubian). Beijing: China StatisticalPublishing Housing.

Shanghai Fifth Population Census Office (SFPCO).2002. Tabulation on Shanghai’s Fifth Population Cen-sus (shanghaishi diwuci renkou pucha zilao). Shanghai:Shanghai People’s Press.

Solinger, D. J. 1999.Citizenship issues in China’s in-ternal migration: Comparisons with Germany andJapan. Political Science Quarterly 114 (3): 455–70.

Turner, J. F. C. 1968. Housing patterns, settlementpatterns, and urban development in modernizingcountries. Journal of the American Planning Associa-tion 34 (6): 354–63.

Ulack, R. 1978. The role of urban squatter settle-ments. Annals of the Association of American Geogra-phers 68 (4): 535–50.

United Nations Center for Human Settlements(UNCHS). 1982. Survey of slum and squatter set-tlements. Dublin, Ireland: Tycooly International.

Van Lindert, P. 1991. Moving up or staying down?Migrant-native differential mobility in La Paz. Ur-ban Studies 28 (3): 433–63.

Vaughan, D. R., and W. Feindt. 1973. Initial settle-ment and intracity movement of migrants in Mon-terrey, Mexico. AIP Journal 39 (6): 388–401.

Walcott, S. M., and C. W. Pannell. 2006. Metropoli-tan spatial dynamics: Shanghai. Habitat Interna-tional 30 (2): 199–211.

Wang, S., and Y. Zhang. 2005. The new retail econ-omy of Shanghai. Growth and Change 36 (1): 41–73.

Wang, W., ed. 1995. Shanghai’s floating population inthe 1990s (jiushi niandai Shanghai liudong renkou).Shanghai: Eastern China Normal University Press.

Wang, Y., and A. Murie. 2000. Social and spatialimplications of housing reform in China. Interna-tional Journal of Urban and Regional Research 24 (2):397–417.

Ward, P. 1990. Mexico City: The production and repro-duction of an urban environment. London: Belhaven.

Wei, Y. D. 2000. Regional development in China: States,globalization, and inequality. London: Routledge.

Wu, F. 2002a. Real estate development and the trans-formation of urban space in Chinese transitionaleconomy: With special reference to Shanghai. InThe new Chinese city: Globalization and market re-

form, ed. J. R. Logan, 151–66. New York: Black-well.

———. 2002b. Sociospatial differentiation in ur-ban China: Evidence from Shanghai’s real estatemarkets. Environment and Planning A 34:1591–1615.

Wu, W. 1999. City profile: Shanghai. Cities: The In-ternational Journal of Urban Policy and Planning 16(3): 207–16.

———. 2002. Migrant housing in urban China:Choices and constraints. Urban Affairs Review 38(1): 90–119.

———. 2004. Sources of migrant housing disadvan-tage in urban China. Environment and Planning A36 (7): 1285–1304.

———. 2005. Migrant residential distribution andmetropolitan spatial development in Shanghai. InRestructuring the Chinese city: Changing society, econ-omy and space, ed. L. J. C. Ma and F. Wu, 222–42.London: Routledge.

———. 2006. Migrant intraurban residential mobil-ity in urban China. Housing Studies 21 (5): 747–67.

Xiong, L., and Z. Luo. 2000. The efficiency and pat-tern of Shanghai’s industrial land use (shanghaishigongye yongdi de xiaolu yu buju). Urban Planning Fo-rum (chengshi guihua huikan) 126: 22–29.

Yang, Y., Y. Tian, C. Yi, and X. He. 2003. Intra-citymigration and spatial dynamics in Wuhan: An em-pirical study. Paper presented at the InternationalConference on Globalization, the State, and Ur-ban Transformation in China, Hong Kong BaptistUniversity, Hong Kong.

Yeh, A. G. O. 1996. Pudong: Remaking Shanghaias a world city. In Shanghai: Transformation andmodernization under China’s open policy, ed. Y. M.Yeung and Y. W. Sung, 273–98. Hong Kong: TheChinese University Press.

Yeh, A. G. O., and F. Wu. 1996. The new land devel-opment process and urban development in Chinesecities. International Journal of Urban and RegionalResearch 20 (2):330–53.

Zhang, L. 2001. Strangers in the city: Space, power, andidentity in China’s lloating population. Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.

Zhang, S., ed. 1998. The current status and futureof Shanghai’s floating population (shanghai liudongrenkou de xianzhuang yu zhanwang). Shanghai: EastChina Normal University Press.

WEIPING WU is an Associate Professor in theSchool of World Studies and L. Douglas WilderSchool of Government and Public Affairs at VirginiaCommonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23284-2021. E-mail: [email protected]. Her research interestsinclude urban economic geography, local innovationand university–industry linkage, migrant housing andsettlement, and China’s urban development.

the professional geographer

Documents