IntroductionThe significant rise in labor mobility during the last two decades is a prominentfeature of China's economic transition, reflecting a rapid process of industrializationand urbanization. Despite an impressive overall record of growth, income disparitiesbetween urban and rural areas, as well as regional imbalances, remain large. Primarilyfrom rural to urban, much of the migratory flow takes place outside of the state planand involves circular movements of rural labor in search of work to augment agricul-tural income. By the end of 2000 approximately 70 million rural migrants wereworking and living in urban areas according to official estimates. Nearly all of thesepeople migrate without official change of household registration (hukou), although asmall number manage to do so and achieve hukou change (permanent migration).

This increasing level of mobility challenges the current population-managementstructure, as the hukou system still links residency with employment and social welfare.Most migrants continue to be regarded as temporary and have little chance of gettinglocal hukou, no matter how long they have lived in the cities (often termed `temporarymigrants', in this study I refer to them simply as `migrants'). Scholars agree thathousing, an important element of urban amenities associated with hukou, remainsdifficult to attain for migrants (Chan and Zhang, 1999; Solinger, 1999; Wang andMurie, 2000; World Bank, 1997).

Migrants are still largely excluded from the mainstream housing-distributionsystem. In theory they may purchase commodity housing in the cities, but bankmortgages are not available to them. In the secondary housing market, where olderhousing units change hands, a local hukou is often required. Subsidized public housingfor low-income families is provided at below-market rents to qualified local urbanresidents only. Given these constraints, migrants make different housing choices and faremuch worse in terms of housing conditions. The majority rent private housing or live inenterprise dormitories. They occupy far less space per person and overcrowding seemsto be a feature of migrant housing. They also tend to live in less well-built dwellingsthat are less well built and which are less well equipped with kitchen/bathroom

Sources of migrant housing disadvantage in urban China

Weiping WuSchool of World Studies, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23284-2021, USA;e-mail: wwu@vcu.eduReceived 7 March 2003; in revised form 1 August 2003

Environment and Planning A 2004, volume 36, pages 1285 ^ 1304

Abstract. The increasing level of labor mobility in China challenges the current population-managementstructure. In particular, recent reforms in urban housing provision seem largely to overlook the needsof the migrant population. In this paper I examine the sources of migrant housing disadvantage incities. Specifically, I analyze the institutional and socioeconomic factors underlying migrant housingchoice and conditions, and how these factors influence migrants differently from the locals. Data aredrawn primarily from citywide housing surveys and interviews conducted in Shanghai and Beijing.The findings show that migrants make housing decisions based on whether they intend to settle in thecities, and market-related factors such as income and education have a significant, positive impact onmigrant housing conditions. But more importantly, the general disadvantage experienced by migrantshas much of its root in the institutional restrictions associated with the hukou system that outweighthe combined effects of socioeconomic factors.

DOI:10.1068/a36193

facilities. It is not unusual to see a migrant family of three sharing a single rented roomwith no facilities, and using a corner of the room to set up a small cooking area witheither a kerosene burner or a propane stove.

Many of the prevailing theoretical studies on factors of migrant housing haveevolved in a context in which private landownership, housing, and rental markets arefunctional, and thus these studies have largely focused on microanalyses. Chief amongthese individual factors are duration of residence, employment status, income level,and family status (Conway, 1985; Gilbert and Varley, 1990; Miraftab, 1997; Turner,1968). There appears to be a direct relationship between housing choice (for example,renting versus ownership) and the economic status of migrants. Often it is only aftermigrants reach the stage of a secure job with reasonable income that they are able tobecome homeowners. Housing type and location also are directly linked to duration ofresidence in the city. Over time, migrants tend to move from rented rooms to squatterdwellings and then to houses. In addition, gender, household, and life-cycle factors areimportant in determining migrant housing choices and conditions (Miraftab, 1997).Other studies point to the importance of kinship and friendship ties in housingdecisions (Banerjee, 1983; Conway, 1985).

These inquiries, however, often fall short of considering the peculiar attributesassociated with temporary and circulating migrants. Involving reciprocal flows,migrant circulation is characterized by movement from, and continuing ties with, arural home base. Migrants who regard themselves as temporary members of the cityoften demonstrate different behaviors from permanent migrants (Goldstein, 1993;Nelson, 1976; Solinger, 1995). They tend to make different housing choices, investlittle of their income to improve their living conditions, and demand fewer amenitiesand services. However, some evidence from Africa and Latin America suggeststhat, over time, urban ties surpass rural ties and temporary migrants eventually settlepermanently in urban destinations (reviewed by Goldstein et al, 1991).

What institutional and socioeconomic factors affect migrant housing choice andconditions in China? How do these influence migrants differently from the locals?These are the central questions of this paper. The focus of this paper is migrants whohave moved to Shanghai and Beijing for employment purposes. The findings areprimarily based on citywide migrant-housing surveys conducted in the two citiesbetween 1998 and 2000, supplemented by in-depth interviews and results from officialsurveys. The first section of the paper is a discussion of the institutional barriersmigrants face in urban destinations, and particularly in the housing system, followedby an outline of the research design. Then I empirically test the sources of migrantdisadvantage in housing choice and conditions, and compare the effect of institutionaland socioeconomic factors on migrant housing and between different populationgroups.

The hukou system and urban housingThe system of hukou has a profound impact on China's migrants. Implemented sincethe mid-1950s, the hukou system requires each citizen to register in one, and only one,place of regular residence. It entails two related parts: place of registration and type ofregistration (urban versus rural). This system has long been used to restrict migration,especially from rural to urban areas. The notion of temporary migrants is unique inChina's contemporary context, as it does not denote a time frame but, rather, anofficial designationöhukou defines whether a migrant is permanent or temporary(also see Chan, 1996). The distinction between permanent and temporary migrationis important, as permanent migration with official change of hukou has continued tobe strictly controlled. Municipal authorities still use household registration as a basis

1286 W Wu

for providing urban services and maintaining infrastructure. To local urban residentsand permanent migrants, urban amenities are either priced low or provided free. On theother hand, migrants without local hukou have very limited or no access to localschools, citywide welfare programs, state sector jobs, or the housing-distribution sys-tem. For instance, urban labor markets are highly segmented: the majority of migrantsare restricted to jobs that are undesirable to the local population. Most migrant childrencannot be enrolled in urban public schools, although a small number of them do so butat significantly higher expense than the charge made for local children.

Housing had long been a form of social welfare to urban residents until recentreforms, and the rural ^ urban divide in housing provision dates back to the earlysocialist period. The dominant route, prior to 1999, was through a system of low-renthousing distributed either by work units or by municipal governments. This urbanwelfare housing system, however, did not apply to local residents with rural hukou,or to farmers in the countryside, who did not have access either to municipal or towork-unit public housing. Traditional family houses and private housing constructed onland allotted by production brigades were the norm for them, even in rural pocketswithin cities (Wu, 2002).

Housing reforms gradually implemented during the last two decades havebroadened housing choices for urban residents (see table 1). A new route is throughmarket mechanisms, in which new commodity housing is developed and sold by real

Table 1. Types of urban housing and their availability (source: based on Huang, 2003; Wu, 2002;and various government documents).

Type of housing Qualification

Commodity housing Anyone can purchase at market price. However, only those withlocal urban hukou can qualify for bank mortgage loans.

Economic andcomfortable housing

Local urban residents with low or medium income can purchaseat subsidized prices.

Muncipal public housing Sitting local urban tenants can purchase either ownership or useright, and can trade units. Other local urban residents canpurchase either ownership or use right on the secondaryhousing market. Can be rented out with permit.

Work-unit public housing Sitting local urban tenants can purchase ownership from theirwork units (mostly state owned) and transfer on thesecondary housing market (except housing in institutions ofhigher education and some government agencies). Can berented out with permit (and with work-unit approval inBeijing).

Low-rent housing For rental to local urban residents with lowest incomes, livingon government allowances, and with per capita living areasmaller than certain standards (for example 6 m2 inShanghai).

Resettlement housing Local residents being relocated from areas undergoingdevelopment can purchase at subsidized price (often lowerquality housing in remote locations).

Private housing Pre-1949 housing units passed on within family, and self-constructed housing in rural areas. Local residents with ruralhukou can construct new private housing on land allocatedby their production brigades.

Rental housing Anyone can rent already-purchased commodity housing,already-purchased resettlement housing, and private housing.

Sources of migrant housing disadvantage in urban China 1287

estate companies. Both Shanghai and Beijing benefit from the national ComfortableHousing Project (anju gongcheng), which was launched in 1995 to create private sectorhousing (with government support) for low-income urban families to purchase (Li,2000a). In the meantime the end of 1999 marked a turning point for China's housing-distribution system when the provision of all welfare housing (both through municipaland through work-unit distribution) was ended. Sitting tenants can choose to buy outthe property right of their public housing. Individuals buying at market prices canenjoy full ownership rights, whereas those paying cost prices obtain a limited owner-ship share or only a use right (Wang and Murie, 2000; Zhang, 2000). Now urbanresidents have the option to trade these different types of housing on a secondarymarket. They also can rent directly from individual owners with rental permits, aswell as rent private housing inherited by urban families or constructed by suburbanfarmers. More recently, low-rent public housing has become available to benefiturbanites with the lowest incomes and smallest living space (`Low-rent HousingPolicy', China Daily 4 April 2003).

Recent housing reforms, however, seem to overlook the need of the migrantpopulation, despite its considerable size in many large cities. A local urban hukoucontinues to be an important qualification for accessing several type of urban hous-ing, particularly those that are more affordable (see table 1). Migrants cannot acquireeither the use right or ownership of muncipal or work-unit public housing directlybecause only sitting tenants (local urban residents) can do so. Both the Economicand Comfortable Housing and affordable rental units are also reserved for local urbanresidents only. On the secondary housing market, where older housing units are traded,participation generally requires a local hukou, although theoretically migrants canpurchase housing there after completing a lengthy process of official approval (BeijingEvening News 27 June 2000).

Commodity housing, the only property sector open for migrant ownership, is notaffordable for most migrants. In-depth interviews with migrants reveal that the housingprice considered by migrants as affordable averages around 160 000 yuan, a level muchlower than what it would cost to buy a new commodity housing unitöabout 250 000yuan in Shanghai and higher in Beijing.(1) Even local residents report difficulty inaffording new commodity housing (Rosen and Ross, 2000). In addition, a local urbanhukou is required to qualify for bank mortgages for new commodity housing (Bi,2000). As a result of these restrictions, the rural ^ urban divide in housing continueseven after rural migrants move to cities. The increasing mobility has added a newdimension (local versus nonlocal) to this divide, as migrants from urban origins donot enjoy the same access as local urban residents.

Renting represents the best choice for migrants without local hukou. The rentalsector involves a variety of housing types and has been active since at least the mid-1980s when peasants began to trickle into Shanghai and Beijing. Urban residents whohave purchased the ownership right of public housing can rent out their units (table 1).Shanghai has actually permitted the rental of public housing of which the sittingtenants have only a use right. In Beijing such housing is still theoretically prohibitedfrom being rented out unless the approval of municipal housing authorities or relevantwork units is given. But a large quantity of such housing has, in fact, been rented out.

The bulk of rental housing is private housing in areas that used to be, or still are,agricultural within cities (Wu, 2001). In these areas local residents with rural hukouhave been allocated ample land to build private living quarters, and tend to have

(1) The price of a typical new commodity housing unit is based on a 1999 estimate (Shanghai Star29 June 1999); migrant interviews were conducted in 1999 in Shanghai and in 2000 in Beijing.

1288 W Wu

much more housing space per person than urban residents living in the more built-upurban cores. In recent years accelerated urban development has led to the concentrationof new functions (such as industrial parks, commercial subcenters, and technology-development zones) in suburban areas. As a result, many rural residents are convertedto urban status after their farmland is acquired for development. Because of theirsevered economic ties with rural villages, these residents tend to fair worse financiallythan the remaining rural residentsöso they have very strong incentives to rent outrooms for extra income.

The growing demand of migrants for housing, and the lack of regulatory oversight,both contribute to the chaotic situation of the rental housing sector. As cities scrambleto develop effective rental regulations, an increasing amount of deleterious buildingand rental activity continuesölargely in the form of unauthorized construction andthe leasing of unsafe dwellings. This problem is particularly serious in urban ^ ruraltransitional areas where land is more readily available, the migrant population is moreconcentrated, and local residents have more incentive to rent out rooms. Even whenregulations on rental housing take shape in some cities, concerns for adequate housingconditions and rental rights tend to be secondary. For instance, Beijing's regulationsand Shanghai's early versions were promulgated merely for the purpose of maintainingpublic security, by using a rental-permit system.

Another socialist institutionöthe work unitöalso plays a role in housing distribu-tion, albeit with declining importance, and employees in state enterprises tend to havean edge over others. After 1999 state work units were no longer involved in housingprovision and distribution, but many of them still offer housing subsidies to theiremployees. The most important form of subsidy is their matching of employee con-tributions to housing provident funds. Many state and collective enterprises alsoprovide basic housing (in the form of dormitories) to migrant workers. Municipalauthorities often prefer this arrangement as it provides a more controlled workingand living environment in which enterprises can better manage matters related totemporary work and residence permits. A survey of 120 enterprises in four cities(Beijing,Wulhan, Suzhou, and Shenzhen) shows that, on average, about 75% of labormigrants employed by the enterprises live in institutionally provided dormitories(Knight et al, 1999; Wu, 2002).

Research designThe empirical data for this study derive primarily from new field research, includingmigrant-housing surveys, focused observation, and in-depth interviews, as secondaryinformation on the subject is extremely limited. Studying two cities offers the quickestway of uncovering the impact of macrofactors on migrant housing patterns, partic-ularly when the cities differ in their physical and policy environments. The choice ofBeijing and Shanghai was made for a number of reasons. Ranked among China'slargest metropolises, both have attracted similar numbers of migrants in recent years,in addition to a comparable local population base. Beijing, a northern city with harshwinters, is the political and cultural center of the country. Closely resembling amultinuclei model, the bulk of the city is organized around uniform work-unit com-pounds in a sprawling, somewhat homogeneous, urban form. Its housing and landsystems remain heavily influenced by socialist planning. Located at the mouth of theYangtze River, Shanghai is now a freewheeling southern city renowned for manufactur-ing, commercial, and trading activities. More or less following a concentric pattern,Shanghai has a history of residential differentiation and private housing ownership,dating back to the pre-1949 period. Shanghai has made more headway than Beijing intransforming its housing system.

Sources of migrant housing disadvantage in urban China 1289

Migrant-housing surveysThe migrant-housing surveys provide in-depth housing information primarily concerningmigrants, although a small number of locals also are included. A key rationale for thesurveys is to produce several reference groups for comparisons. Two types of migrantare included in the sample: those with rural household registrations and those withurban ones. I also draw a small sample of permanent migrants who have moved to thecities with an official change of hukou. The last reference group consists of a smallsample of local residents whose hukou has always been in the cities, drawn from thesame neighborhoods as the migrants.

Multistage stratified cluster sampling procedures were used to select respondents inthe housing surveys. First, a number of districts were selected in three stratified geo-graphical zones: central city, inner suburb, and outer suburb. Within each selecteddistrict in the central city and outer suburb, one neighborhood was picked at random.Because of the high migrant concentration in the inner suburb, two neighborhoodswere picked in each selected district there. This resulted in a total of twenty-twoneighborhoods as the areal sampling units in Shanghai (see figure 1) and eighteenin Beijing (see figure 2). Second, the total number of migrants in each of these

Large river

Central city

Inner suburb

Outer suburb

District boundary

Subdistrict boundary

Figure 1. Surveyed neighborhoods in Shanghai.

1290 W Wu

neighborhoods was obtained from official sources. Population proportionate to sizeprocedures were then used to determine the exact number of migrants to be surveyed ineach neighborhood. In addition, a small number of migrants were selected fromrepresentative work units in different sectors. Selected migrants also needed to meetfour criteria: aged 15 years or older; with nonlocal hukou; having migrated for employ-ment reasons; and having stayed in the cities for over a month. These qualificationswere intended to exclude those who were in the cities for cultural reasons (for example,training and attending conferences) and social reasons (for example, visiting familiesand friends, seeking medical treatment, tourism, and transient stay).

The survey in Shanghai generated complete questionnaires for 1789 temporarymigrants, 80 permanent migrants, and 137 local residents. It was conducted betweenDecember 1998 and March 1999 in 22 neighborhoods of Shanghai's 17 districts orcounties (out of a total of 20) and 11 enterprises or institutions. The survey in Beijingwas carried out between May and July 2000 in 18 neighborhoods of Beijing's 12districts or counties (out of a total of 18) and 13 work units. The final outcome wascomplete questionnaires from 931 temporary migrants, 145 permanent migrants, and154 local residents. After the surveys, a pool of longer term migrants (77 in Shanghai

Central city

Inner suburb

Outer suburb

District boundary

Subdistrict boundary

Figure 2. Surveyed neighborhoods in Beijing.

Sources of migrant housing disadvantage in urban China 1291

and 59 in Beijing), as well as a small number of locals, were selected and visited againfor in-depth interviews.

The basic demographic characteristics and geographical locations of the surveyedmigrants closely resemble those of the larger floating population officially surveyed byboth cities in 1997 (listed in parentheses below). For the Shanghai sample, the averageage is 29.6 years (versus 29.9 in the 1997 city survey), 62.1% are male (versus 70.4),68.5% are married (versus 67.4%), and 58.1% have attended junior high schools (versus57.1%). For the Beijing sample, the average age is 28.6 years (versus 28.2 in the 1997city survey), 61.0% are male (versus 66.9%), 61.7% are married (versus 57.0%), and50.1% have attended junior high schools (versus 60.8%). In both cities, the housingsurveys have a slight overrepresentation of female and married migrants. The geo-graphical distribution across the central city, inner suburb, and outer suburb for theShanghai sample is 37.4%: 44.6%: 18.0% (versus 41.5%: 40.3%: 18.2%) and for Beijing20.8%: 62.4%: 16.8% (versus 16.0%: 62.9%: 21.1%).

Although the stratified cluster sampling procedures did not yield random samples,a great deal of attention was paid to increasing the quality and representativeness ofthe data as much as possible. Geographical stratification reduced potential spatialskewness and, as described above, helped generate samples with distribution patternscomparable to those in official surveys. To capture migrants living in informal housingand work-related compounds (for example, construction sites and dormitories), adifferent set of sampling procedures was used for migrants in housing arrangementsoutside of residential neighborhoods such that the diversified nature of these housingarrangements was well reflected.

Despite the relatively high quality of the survey data, there are limitations. Shanghaiand Beijing may be different from other Chinese cities and, therefore, may not berepresentative. Even with repeated visits, migrants living in informal housing andpublic places are likely to be undercounted. Because of the small sample size of thelocals in both cities, their attributes may not be fully representative of the larger localpopulations. Hence the comparisons between migrants and locals are illustrative innature, and may not be conclusive. Supplementing these primary data sources, partic-ularly for the locals, are results from the official 1997 Floating Population Surveysand from the 1995 1% Population Surveys in both cities. Qualitative methods, includingin-depth interviews, observations, and site visits, helped to trace life-course events ofmigrants and community-level information.

Measuring housing qualityMost scholars agree that definitions of housing quality should encompass the interrelatednature of housing availability, affordability, and qualitative aspects of the residentialenvironment (Lawrence, 1995). In this study, two critical measures of migrant-housingquality were used: housing choice or access, and housing conditions. Because the urbanhousing sector has been undergoing drastic reforms, housing price and rent levels areconstantly changing. As a result, no reliable data are available for measuring housingaffordability. Even though the average purchase price for commodity housing can beused as a proxy for affordability, the extremely small number of migrants in homeown-ership in cities will inevitably create bias. Therefore, housing affordability was notanalyzed systematically in this study.

The classification of housing type is complicated by the fluidity of China's housingsystem, as discussed earlier. The simple tenure choice between rental and ownershipdoes not fully capture the complexity. In this research, as well as in several officialsurveys of migrants (Wang, 2001; Zhang, 1998; Zhou, 1996), key categories include thefollowing: private housing (older housing units owned by individuals), commodity housing

1292 W Wu

(new housing units acquired through market mechanisms), renting private housing,renting public housing and living in dorms or worksheds provided by employers.Some migrants stay with urban residents, and a small number of migrants live in othertypes of accommodation (including hotels, self-built sheds, boats, and public places).

Two indicators were used to measure housing conditions. The first is size, or percapita usable space, which includes living space and space for bathroom and kitchenfacilities. This indicator has long been used within China to gauge progress in housingprovision. The second indicator is a composite of seven qualitative aspects of housing,called the qualitative index. These seven aspects use a single scale: electricity (0 � no,1 � yes), water (0 � no, 1 � yes), piped gas or propane (0 � no, 1 � yes), kitchen(0 � no, 1 � shared, 2 � private), bathroom (0 � public only, 1 � shared, 2 � private),type of structure (0 � temporary, 1 � permanent), and purpose of dwelling (0 � residentialand working or other purpose, 1 � solely residential). Since the maximum composite scoremay be 9, the qualitative index is calculated as the sum of the seven aspects divided by 9.

To understand the sources of migrant-housing disadvantage, two general groups ofindependent variables were used in the empirical analysis. Socioeconomic factorsincluded age, education, gender, family status, household income, duration of residencein the city, and intention to stay (the last two are applicable to migrants only). Thesecond group was institutional, including place of hukou, type of hukou, and type ofwork unit. Such division allows for direct tests of whether institutional factors are moreimportant determinants of housing choice and conditions.

Two sets of regression analysis were conducted to disentangle the effects of institu-tional and socioeconomic factors on housing choice and conditions. Housing choice isa categorical variable and therefore, logistic regressions were used to predict tenurechoice (own versus rent) and rental sector (public versus private). Models were run for allpopulation groups. Because the number of migrants in homeownership is very small,logistic regressions to predict housing tenure among migrants would not be reliable.Instead, the characteristics of homeowning migrants are shown descriptively and thencompared with those of migrant renters. The effect of the same factors on housingconditions was analyzed through multivariate linear regressions, first of all populationgroups and then separately for migrants and locals. Because regression coefficients areunit dependent, my discussion focuses on standardized regression coefficients in assessingthe extent to which each independent variable is influential (see also Fan, 2001).

Empirical analysis of sources of migrant housing disadvantageMigrants make a very different range of housing choices from locals, as a result of theirrestricted access to the mainstream urban housing system. In both cities, homeowner-ship is minimal (under 1%) for migrants. It is clear that the nonlocal ^ local divide is amore prominent barrier, resulting from the hukou system, than the rural ^ urban divide (seetable 2, over). Renting represents the best choice for migrants, and more than half of themin both cities are renters. Private rental housing accommodates the largest number ofmigrants (table 3, over), especially in suburban areas that used to be, or still are, agricultural.In addition, when migrants find jobs in state and some collective enterprises, many ofthem also obtain access to the dormitory housing provided by those enterprises.

Compared with the locals, migrants fare much worse in both indicators of housingconditions (table 2). Overcrowding seems to be a feature of migrant housing, with eachperson using one third of the space occupied by a typical local resident (7.8 versus22:9 m2). Migrants also tend to live in dwellings that are less well equipped withkitchen/bathroom facilities, are used for working or other purposes in addition toserving as residence, and are structurally less stable. For instance, about 69% ofmigrants have no access to bathroom facilities (either shared or private) inside their

Sources of migrant housing disadvantage in urban China 1293

Table 3. Mean values for three population groups.

Temporarymigrants

Permanentmigrants

Localresidents

Housing conditionsPer capita usable space (m2) 7.79 19.36 22.86Qualitative index 0.51 0.78 0.83

Housing typeRenting private housing 0.43 0.06 0.03Renting public housing 0.14 0.29 0.34Dormitory or workshed 0.33 0.08 0.01Stay with local residents 0.04 0.01 0.01Private housing 0.00 0.39 0.41Commodity housing 0.01 0.03 0.06Other housing a 0.05 0.13 0.14

Socioeconomic factorsAge (years) 29.24 41.56 44.88Gender (female � 1)À 0.38 0.65 0.60Education (years) 8.23 10.03 9.69Marital status (reference: not married)À

married with family in city 0.44 0.83 0.86married without family in city 0.22 0.04 0.01

Household monthly income (yuan) 1275.01 1682.13 1969.36Duration of residence in city (years) 4.03 13.46 naPlan to stay in city (plan to stay � 1)À 0.41 0.88 na

Institutional factorsType of hukou (rural � 1)À 0.87 0.26 0.24Type of work unit (reference: no employment)À

state enterprise 0.20 0.37 0.26collective enterprise 0.10 0.23 0.41other types of employment 0.63 0.15 0.13

ÀDummy variable.naÐnot applicable.a `Other housing' choices include self-built shed, boat, hotel or inn, living on the street or in ahallway, and staying in hospital rooms for temporary migrants; and include relocation housingand housing sold by work units for local residents and permanent migrants.

Table 2. Housing ownership and conditions by place and type of hukou (frequency shown inparentheses).

Temporary migrants (nonlocal) Locals a

rate of per capita qualitative rate of per capita qualitativeownership usable index ownership usable index(%) area (m2) (%) area (m2)

Urban 1.9 9.46 0.58 30.6 17.14 0.80(363) (357) (362) (386) (381) (385)

Rural 0.4 7.53 0.50 87.6 33.50 0.84(2357) (2310) (2356) (129) (126) (129)

a Locals include both local residents and permanent migrants.

1294 W Wu

dwellings, and 71% have no kitchen.(2) Housing conditions are worst for migrants livingin the inner suburb, and the lack of kitchen and bathroom facilities is especiallystriking here: over 80% in both cities. This is a troublesome situation as the innersuburb is now the primary receiving area for migrants (Wang, 1995; Zhang, 1998). Inaddition, migrants in Beijing fare worse overall than those in Shanghai, both in size(7.1 versus 8:1 m2) and in qualitative index (0.48 versus 0.53) of their accommodation.

Another indirect indication of the housing problems experienced by migrants incities is their own perception. Less than half of them are content with their housingsize and facilities, but close to 90% feel happy about their commute distance (table 4).This is largely because migrants primarily choose housing based on its convenience towork or business (about two thirds of migrants in both cities responded so). Themarked difference between the cities in the levels of satisfaction with housing expensessuggests that housing in Beijing may be much less affordable than in Shanghai.What is

Table 4. Perception of housing situation in cities (cumulative percentages).

Temporary migrants Local residents

Shanghai Beijing all

Housing sizeVery satisfied 9.1 3.4 6.6 13.3Satisfied 39.0 44.1 41.2 43.3Neutral 74.0 74.6 74.3 70.0Dissatisfied 93.5 98.3 95.6 90.0Very dissatisfied 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Housing facilitiesVery satisfied 2.6 5.1 3.7 10.0Satisfied 33.8 55.9 43.4 43.3Neutral 75.3 84.7 79.4 70.0Dissatisfied 98.7 100.0 99.3 96.7Very dissatisfied 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Commute distanceVery satisfied 49.4 28.0 40.9 17.4Satisfied 88.3 86.0 87.4 82.6Neutral 96.1 96.0 96.1 82.6Dissatisfied 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0Very dissatisfied 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Housing expenseVery satisfied 21.2 8.7 16.1 5.9Satisfied 54.5 32.6 45.5 35.3Neutral 77.3 60.9 70.5 64.7Dissatisfied 95.5 97.8 96.4 94.1Very dissatisfied 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Compared to housing at home originMuch better 5.3 3.4 4.4 naBetter 15.8 8.5 12.6 naAbout the same 21.1 15.3 18.5 naWorse 53.9 67.8 60.0 naMuch worse 100.0 100.0 100.0 na

Note: results in this table are based on in-depth interviews with a much smaller sample ofmigrantsÐ77 in Shanghai and 59 in Beijing, and 30 local residents. naÐnot applicable.

(2) The 1995 1% Population Surveys show that about 49% of local Shanghai residents have nobathrooms and 34% no kitchens. The numbers for Beijing residents are 35% and 13%, respectively.

Sources of migrant housing disadvantage in urban China 1295

most striking is that more than three quarters of migrants consider that their housingconditions in the cities are worse than those back home. Given the dismal conditionsthat migrants endure, nonetheless they express similar dissatisfaction with their currenthousing situations as the locals. In the analysis in the next two subsections I furtherinvestigate and empirically test the sources of migrant housing disadvantage.

Housing choiceWith drastic reforms in the urban housing system, homeownership is increasinglyattainable in Chinese cities. In Shanghai, for instance, about 60% of all families hadbought their own homes by early 2001, either from their employers or from privatedevelopers (Far Eastern Economic Review 2001). Research shows that homeownershipis a positive influence in people's financial standing and family lives. Given the transi-tional nature of China's housing system, both socioeconomic and institutional factorsare important determinants of homeownership (Huang and Clark, 2002; Li, 2000b).For urban residents, job and work-unit ranks still play important roles in tenure choice,although lifecycle factors and income are becoming significant predictors. Even beforethe commencement of any major housing reform, the linkage between income andhousing quality already existed (Logan and Bian, 1993).

Institutional factors remain the foremost determinant of tenure choice whenmigrants are included in the analysis. The results of the logistic regression show thatplace of hukou (local versus nonlocal) is the single most important factor predictinghomeownership (see table 5). Local residents and permanent migrants are much morelikely than temporary migrants to own either commodity or private housing in thecities. This confirms my earlier theoretical analysis that the hukou system, segregatingmigrants from the local population, is much more important than socioeconomicfactors in accounting for migrant disadvantage in housing choice. Affordable housingis particularly difficult for migrants to own in cities, as they cannot construct privatehousing (as they do back home) or purchase public housing units. In addition, workunits still play some role in housing distribution, and employees of state enterprises areless likely to purchase commodity housing. On the other hand, a rural hukou andaffiliation with collective enterprises predict a higher level of homeownership. This isprimarily because local rural residents are much more likely to own private housing.

As for those fortunate few migrants who do own their home; they are more likelyto be older, better educated, with higher income, longer-term migrants (having lived inthe destination city for five years or more), from urban origins, and with the intentionto stay in the city (see table 6, over). These results confirm the general trend worldwide,that only those migrants who plan to stay in the city are willing to invest in moresubstantial housing. The critical difference lies in their commitment to the city because,as long as they intend to return to rural areas of origin, their behavior will be shapeddifferently (Goldstein, 1993; Nelson, 1976). In Beijing and Shanghai, longer termmigrants who plan to stay also are more likely to have families living with them inthe city, to make a better living, and to enjoy better housing conditions (table 6).

When migrants have the chance of homeownership, they make their decisionsbased on whether they intend to settle in the cities. For example, a truck driver fromJiangxi, `̀ would like to buy a new housing unit primarily to get the `blue stamp' householdregistration [that may allow him to settle in Shanghai]'' (interview SHM51).(3) Thus, thesystem of granting only temporary urban residence permits to migrants is steering

(3) In many large cities migrants may purchase, upon full payment at the time of sale, commodityhousing of specified size and price and obtain `blue stamp' household registration that can becomepermanent after a specified number of years. This policy, however, favors only high-income migrantsand is beyond the reach of most. Shanghai has recently discontinued the implementation of this policy.

1296 W Wu

them away from considering homeownership in cities. Many of them have never givenit a thought because they `̀ have not planned to stay in the city permanently'' (inter-view SHM74). The comments of a middle-aged nanny also reflect that many migrantsnever feel that they belong in the city: `̀ as the saying goes, farmers are always farmers.I do not dream of becoming a Shanghainese'' (interview SHM08). Most migrants,therefore, tend to invest their savings in building nicer houses back at home. Thesentiment expressed by a shipyard worker in Shanghai is typical: `̀ eventually I will gohome to Shandong and will remodel and decorate my house at home rather than [the]one [in Shanghai]'' (interview SHM75).

Even in the rental sector, institutional factors appear to be important. Migrants aremuch less likely to rent public housing, and gravitate towards private rentals (seetable 5). Again, the local ^ nonlocal distinction is the most significant predictor.Municipal public housing, in principle, can only be rented out to local urban residentsin Beijing unless there are special approvals; whereas Shanghai has begun to allowtenants to sublease their units. In both cities, work-unit public housing is generallyallowed to be subleased to employees of the same work units. As a result of theserestrictions, migrants have limited access to the public housing units made available forrental by sitting local tenants. This further confirms that private rental is the onlyhousing sector completely open and affordable to nonlocals.

Table 5. Logistic regressionöhousing choice for three population groups.

Independent variable Tenure (own � 1, rent � 0) a Rent (private � 1, public � 0) b

standardizedcoefficient

odds ratio standardizedcoefficient

odds ratio

SocioeconomicAge (years) 0.190 1.032 0.039 1.007Age squared ÿ0.223 1.000 ÿ0.334 0.999Gender (female � 1)À ÿ0.041 0.861 ÿ0.118 0.648**Education (years) ÿ0.038 0.979 ÿ0.011 0.994Marital status (reference: notmarried)À

married with family in city 0.084 1.408 ÿ0.032 0.879married without family in city ÿ0.061 0.708 ÿ0.025 0.877

Household monthly income(yuan)

0.064 1.000 ÿ0.075 1.000

InstitutionalPlace of hukou (local � 1)À 1.378 405.623*** ÿ0.394 0.107***Type of hukou (rural � 1)À 0.466 7.041*** 0.066 1.341Type of work unit (reference: noemployment)À

state enterprise ÿ0.201 0.311 ** ÿ0.030 0.843collective enterprise 0.126 1.943* ÿ0.143 0.392**other types of employment ÿ0.081 0.738 0.100 0.679

ÿ2 log likelihood of model 603.115 1629.416Model w 2 806.961*** 359.344***Degrees of freedom 12 12Number of cases 1814 1576Percentage correct 93.7 76.7

Significance levels: *<0:05; **<0:01; ***<0:001.ÀDummy variable.a `Owned' housing includes commodity housing and private housing.b `Rented' housing includes rented private housing and rented public housing.

Sources of migrant housing disadvantage in urban China 1297

1298W

Wu

N:/psfiles/epa3607w

/Table 6. Mean values for temporary migrants.

Housing tenure Type of hukou Intention to stay in city Length of residence

owner renter urban rural yes no 55 years <5 years

Housing conditionsPer capita usable space (m2� 21.81 8.65 9.46 7.53 8.65 7.20 8.31 7.57Qualitative index 0.90 0.51 0.58 0.50 0.54 0.50 0.52 0.51

Socioeconomic factorsAge (years) 34.06 29.77 30.12 29.11 29.82 28.84 32.94 27.56Gender (female � 1)À 0.65 0.40 0.39 0.38 0.35 0.40 0.32 0.41Education (years) 10.00 8.04 10.47 7.88 8.39 8.11 8.21 8.24Marital status (reference: not married)À

married with family in city 0.76 0.63 0.38 0.45 0.50 0.40 0.59 0.38married without family in city 0.00 0.14 0.20 0.22 0.18 0.24 0.24 0.21

Household monthly income (yuan) 3243.75 1408.59 1659.95 1215.11 1377.47 1201.58 1458.24 1190.32Duration of residence in city (years) 7.43 4.17 3.72 4.08 4.58 3.65 na naPlan to stay in city (plane to stay � 1)À 0.76 0.42 0.42 0.41 na na 0.49 0.37

Institutional factorsType of hukou (rural � 1)À 0.59 0.89 na na 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.86Type of work unit (reference: no employment) À

state enterprise 0.18 0.07 0.29 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.19collective enterprise 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.12 0.09other types of employment 0.71 0.74 0.53 0.65 0.65 0.63 0.59 0.66

ÀDummy variable.naÐnot applicable.

Migrant housing choices differ to some degree between the two cities (table 7).Substantially more migrants are renting private housing in Shanghai than in Beijing,whereas more migrants live in dormitories in the capital city. The level of homeowner-ship also is slightly higher in Shanghai. Much of the variation is, I believe, attributableto overall housing patterns in the two cities. Shanghai's private housing stock, partic-ularly in the central city area, is relatively large thanks to its stronger presocialist legacy;whereas Beijing has more work-unit compounds built in the prereform socialist areaand, therefore, a larger stock of public housing. The state sector is bigger in Beijingwith more state-owned enterprises hiring migrant workers, many of whom are housedin dormitories. The capital city also has unusually high-priced commodity housing,because of the strong buying power of many government agencies and the high pricelevel of land leases. This inevitably discourages homeownership for migrants, as well asfor some local residents.(4)

Housing conditionsRecent reforms and increasing investment have brought marked improvements inhousing conditions in urban China. For instance, per capita living space in Shanghainearly doubled between 1990 and 2001 (Shanghai Statistical Yearbook 2002). Butmigrants living in cities do not seem to benefit. Again, results from the regressionanalysis confirm that a nonlocal hukou places migrants at a significant disadvantagein housing conditions (see table 8, over). The effect of this institutional factor is sopronounced that it accounts for well over half of the variations both in housing sizeand in qualitative index for migrants. The impact of socioeconomic factors, bycomparison, is much weaker, although education and income levels show sizeableinfluence.

Table 7. Relationship between housing choice and conditions for temporary migrants.

Housing choice Shanghai Beijing

% per capitausable area(m2)

qualitativeindex

% per capitausable area(m2)

qualitativeindex

Renting private housing 49.0 8.8 0.52 32.0 7.9 0.49Renting public housing 11.6 10.1 0.56 18.7 7.4 0.42Dormitory or

workshed28.8 5.8 0.54 41.6 5.7 0.46

Staying with localresidents

4.6 10.4 0.74 3.9 14.5 0.79

Private housing na na na na na naCommodity housing 0.7 19.6 0.88 0.4 21.3 0.98Other a 5.4 6.8 0.39 3.3 5.4 0.37Combined 100.0 8.1 0.53 100.0 7.1 0.48

naÐnot applicable.a `Other' housing choices include self-built shed, boat, hotel/inn, living on the street or in ahallway, and staying in hospital rooms.

(4) The average commodity housing price in Beijing was 4771 yuan (US $576) per m2 at the end of2001 (People's Daily 31 January 2002). During the first half of 2001, commodity housing prices inShanghai averaged 4173 yuan (US $504) per m2 (`̀ Property investment boom expected after themerger of domestic and nondomestic housing markets'', 21 October 2001, http://www.dtz.com.hk/press room/pr prc101101 2.html).

Sources of migrant housing disadvantage in urban China 1299

1300W

Wu

Table 8. Regression on housing conditions (standardized coefficients).

Independent variable Per capita usable area Qualitative index

all groups temporarymigrants

locals a all groups temporarymigrants

locals

SocioeconomicAge (years) 0.020 0.069** ÿ0.043 ÿ0.003 0.000 ÿ0:015Age squared 0.008 ÿ0.177 ÿ0.046 0.006 0.015 ÿ0.007Gender (female � 1)À ÿ0.029 ÿ0.002 ÿ0.124** 0.098*** 0.149*** ÿ0.055Education (years) 0.078*** 0.102*** 0.074 0.111*** 0.121*** 0.151**Marital status (reference: not married)À

married with family in city ÿ0.016 ÿ0.053** ÿ0.044 ÿ0.032 ÿ0.031 0.067married without family in city 0.007 ÿ0.028 ÿ0.081* ÿ0.033* ÿ0.027 ÿ0.134**

Household monthly income (yuan) 0.092*** 0.132*** 0.056 0.118*** 0.130*** 0.165***

InstitutionalPlace of hukou (local � 1)À 0.480*** 0.414***Type of hukou (rural � 1)À 0.095*** ÿ0.054** 0.365*** ÿ0.058** ÿ0.099*** 0.117**Type of work unit (reference: no employment)À

state enterprise ÿ0.045 ÿ0.171*** 0.005 0.100 0.008 0.035collective enterprise 0.117*** ÿ0.013 0.138** 0.003 ÿ0.025 0.044other types of employment 0.100*** 0.045 0.035 ÿ0.017 ÿ0.017 0.012

R 2 0.240 0.062 0.204 0.299 0.071 0.090

Significance levels: *<0:05; **<0:01, ***< 0:001.ÀDummy variable.Note: Regression coefficients are standardized.a Locals include both local residents and permanent migrants.

The difference a local hukou can make also is borne out by a comparison ofbefore-migration and after-migration housing conditions between temporary and per-manent migrants. For permanent migrants, migration to the cities brings someimprovement in housing conditions. But for temporary migrants, moving to the citiesrepresents a big step backwards: housing space is reduced by close to three times, andthe qualitative index deteriorates by half. Once in the cities, the housing conditions ofpermanent migrants with local hukou seem to be almost on par with those of localresidents, both in size and in qualitative measures (see table 3).

The housing surveys show that migrant-housing conditions are closely associatedwith housing choice (see table 7). The majority of migrants rent or live in dormi-tories, which tend to have worse overall housing conditions. When they stay withlocal residents, thus gaining indirect access to the urban housing-distribution system,their housing conditions improve markedly. For those migrants able to afford com-modity housing, housing conditions are on a par with those of the locals. On theother hand, when access to urban housing is severely restricted, migrants have muchpoorer facilities while staying in self-built sheds or boats, living on the street or in ahallway, or staying in hospital rooms. These results confirm that there is a generaldisadvantage that applies to most migrants because of their restricted access to theurban housing-distribution system.

For migrants only, income and education have significant positive impacts on bothindicators of housing conditions (see table 8). Income could be expected to be influen-tial because, even with restricted access to urban housing, migrants with higherincomes can afford to rent bigger places with better facilities. The effect of educationon housing conditions is likely related to that of income. On the other hand, significantdisadvantages in both indicators exist for migrants from rural origins. The distinctionbetween rural and urban migrants is obvious for several important attributes. Com-pared with rural migrants, urban migrants tend to be much better educated and to earna much higher income (see table 6); thus, the effect of hukou type may be reflectingthat of education and income. Migrants working in state enterprises tend to suffermore overcrowding. This is largely because they are more likely to be living indormitory-style housing (73% of them do so), which allows for much less personalspace (table 7). Married migrants with their family and children in tow also suffermore overcrowding, indicating that urban life may be more difficult for larger familiesmigrating together (World Bank, 1997).

By and large, the division between local and nonlocal associated with the hukousystem is the single most prominent predictor of housing conditionsömuch as it iswith housing choice. Given the restricted access migrants experience in the cities,market-related factors such as income and education still have a significant, positive,impact on their housing conditions. In contrast, the effect of education and income ismuch weaker for the locals, especially on housing size. This suggests that market forcesassert more control over housing sectors open to migrants (commodity housing andprivate rental). For local residents, on the other hand, additional institutional factorssuch as work-unit size and rank are sill influential (Huang and Clark, 2002; Loganet al, 1999). Also unlike migrants, a rural status actually indicates better housingconditions for the locals (table 8). This partially reflects the dual housing systemsexisting in Chinese cities: most rural residents have been allocated ample land on whichto build private living quarters, often with private kitchens. As a result, local ruralresidents enjoy much more spacious housing and somewhat better facilities than dourban residents, in both cities.

Sources of migrant housing disadvantage in urban China 1301

ConclusionAs China undergoes rapid development and modernization, the country's urbanizationlevel will increase steadily. Persistent migratory influx will have a significant effect onthe rate of urbanization and on patterns of urban development. Experience of otherdeveloping countries shows that severe shortages of affordable housing are likely toforce migrants to live in squatter settlements and slums; many of them will eventuallybecome the urban underclass. In this respect, housing provides an environment foradaptation. Especially for rural migrants, the urban living experience is no less than aprocess of resocialization.

The findings in this paper suggest that there is a general disadvantage to allmigrants in access to urban housing because of their nonlocal hukou status. The majorityof them are unable to gain ownership of affordable housing in cities as they are largelyexcluded from the mainstream housing-distribution system. As migrants make housingdecisions based on whether or not they intend to settle in the cities, the system ofgranting only temporary urban residence permits to migrants is further steering themaway from considering homeownership. Those fortunate few with homeownership inthe cities tend to be longer term urban migrants with higher incomes.

Such restricted access is particularly problematic for migrants, as further analysisshows that housing choice is very much related to conditions. It is therefore not surprisingthat migrants' housing conditions compare poorly with those of the locals. The dis-advantage experienced by migrants in housing conditions has much of its root in theinstitutional restrictions associated with the hukou system, which outweigh the effect ofany socioeconomic factors. At the individual level, market-related factors, such asincome and education, have a significant positive impact on migrant housing condi-tions. The majority of migrants also are less than satisfied with their housing situationsin the cities, particularly when compared with how they would be housed back home.

Migrant residential choice also is influenced by the different housing patterns in thetwo cities. Shanghai's larger private housing stock accommodates more migrants,whereas Beijing's more abundant public housing units and state-owned enterpriseskeep a significant number of migrants away from private rentals. The capital city has,in addition, unusually high price of commodity housing compared with all otherChinese cities, which inevitably discourages homeownership by migrants. To someextent, such different housing choices explain why migrants in Beijing fare worseoverall than those in Shanghai, both in the size and in the qualitative measures oftheir housing conditions.

The experience of China's migrants is intriguing as it provides a window to thecomplexity of the inevitable changes brought by the transition from plan to market inChinese society at large. This transition involves a redistribution of income between theurban and rural sectors, through temporary migration. One of the potential conse-quences may be that migrants will become the first of an emerging group of poor incities with no traditional large poor populations. In addition, the housing system isundergoing reforms and is operating with a significant level of uncertainty and fluidity.The rental sector, which accommodates the majority of migrants, is still in its infancyand has little regulatory oversight or protection of rental rights.

Given such a larger context, migrants in Chinese cities display housing behav-iors that differ not only from those of local residents but also from those ofmigrants in other developing countries. Homeownership is yet to become an attain-able goal and, therefore, the security offered by housing tenure is less relevant as amotivation for migrants in making housing decisions. China's migrants do, however,share some similar behavior patterns with their counterparts elsewhere in thatthey all tend to invest little of their income in improving their housing conditions.

1302 W Wu

The critical factor often lies in the intentions of migrants and their commitment to thecities. If China's household-registration system is reformed, and restrictions on settle-ment in cities are lifted, it is conceivable that migrants may make a different range ofdecisions regarding housing tenure and investment.

Acknowledgements. Support from the National Science Foundation (BCS-9974540) and the USDepartment of Education (P019A80016) is deeply appreciated. I would like to thank members ofthe research teams at Beijing University's Department of Sociology and Shanghai Academyof Social Sciences' Institute of Population and Development Studies. This paper would not becomplete without the able research assistance by Jianmin Zhao, Quynn Nguyen, and Bryan Venable.I am also very grateful for the constructive comments of the editor and referees.

ReferencesBanerjee B, 1983, ``Social networks in the migration process: empirical evidence on chain migration

in India'' Journal of Developing Areas 17(2) 185 ^ 196Bi B, 2000 Zhufang: Mai Mai Huan ZuYong [Housing: purchase, sale, transfer, rental, and use]

(China Development Press, Beijing)Chan KW, 1996, `̀ Post-Mao China: a two-class urban society in the making'' International Journal

of Urban and Regional Research 20 134 ^ 150Chan KW, Zhang L, 1999, `̀ The hukou system and rural ^ urban migration in China: processes

and changes'' China Quarterly number 160, 818 ^ 855Conway D, 1985, `̀ Changing perspectives on squatter settlements, intraurban mobility, and

constraints on housing choice of the Third World urban poor'' Urban Geography 6 170 ^ 192Fan C C, 2001, `̀ Migration and labor-market returns in urban China: results from a recent survey

in Guangzhou'' Environment and Planning A 33 479 ^ 508Far Eastern Economic Review 2001, ``Windows of opportunity'', 3 MayGilbert A,Varley A, 1990, `̀ Renting a home in a Third World city: choice or constraint? ''

International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 14 89 ^ 108Goldstein A, Goldstein S, Guo S, 1991, `̀ Temporary migrants in Shanghai households, 1984''

Demography 28 275 ^ 292Goldstein S, 1993, `̀ The impact of temporary migration on urban places: Thailand and China as

case studies'', in Third World Cities: Problems, Policies, and Prospects Eds J D Kasarda,A M Parnell (Sage, Newbury Park, CA) pp 199 ^ 219

HuangY, 2003, `̀A room of one's own: housing consumption and residential crowding in transitionalurban China'' Environment and Planning A 35 591 ^ 614

Huang Y, ClarkWAV, 2002, `̀ Housing tenure choice in transitional urban China: a multilevelanalysis'' Urban Studies 39 7 ^ 32

Knight J, Song L, Huaibin J, 1999, `̀ Chinese rural migrants in urban enterprises: three perspectives''Journal of Development Studies 35 73 ^ 104

Lawrence R J, 1995, `̀ Housing quality: an agenda for research'' Urban Studies 32 1655 ^ 1664Li S-M, 2000a, `̀ Housing consumption in urban China: a comparative study of Beijing and

Guangzhou'' Environment and Planning A 32 1115 ^ 1134Li S-M, 2000b, `̀ The housing market and tenure decisions in Chinese cities: a multivariate analysis

of the case of Guangzhou''Housing Studies 15 213 ^ 236Logan J R, Bian Y, 1993, `̀ Inequalities in access to community resources in a Chinese city'' Social

Forces 72 555 ^ 577Logan J R, Bian Y, Bian F, 1999, `̀ Housing inequality in urban China in the 1990s'' International

Journal of Urban and Regional Research 23 7 ^ 25Miraftab F, 1997, `̀ Revisiting informal-sector home ownership: the relevance of household

composition for housing options of the poor'' International Journal of Urban and RegionalResearch 21 303 ^ 322

Nelson J M, 1976, `̀ Sojourners versus new urbanites: causes and consequences of temporary versuspermanent cityward migration in developing countries'' Economic Development and CulturalChange 24 721 ^ 757

Rosen K T, Ross M C, 2000, `̀ Increasing home ownership in urban China: notes on the problemof affordability''Housing Studies 15 77 ^ 88

Shanghai Statistical Yearbook 2002 (China Statistics Press, Beijing)Solinger D J, 1995, `̀ China's urban transients in the transition from socialism and the collapse of

the communist `urban public goods regime' '' Comparative Politics January, 127 ^ 146

Sources of migrant housing disadvantage in urban China 1303

Solinger D J, 1999Contesting Citizenship in Urban China: PeasantMigrants, the State, and the Logicof the Market (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA)

Turner J F C, 1968, `̀ Housing patterns, settlement patterns, and urban development in modernizingcountries'' Journal of the American Planning Association 34 354 ^ 363

WangW (Ed.), 1995 Jiushi Niandai Shanghai Liudong Renkou [Shanghai's floating population in the1990s] (East China Normal University Press, Shanghai)

WangY, 2001, `̀ Urban housing reform and finance in China: a case study of Beijing''Urban AffairsReview 36 620 ^ 645

WangY, Murie A, 2000, `̀ Social and spatial implications of housing reform in China'' InternationalJournal of Urban and Regional Research 24 397 ^ 417

World Bank, 1997 Sharing Rising Incomes: Disparities in China (TheWorld Bank,Washington, DC)WuW, 2001, `̀ Temporary migrants in Shanghai: housing and settlement patterns'', in The New

Chinese City: Globalization andMarket ReformEd. J R Logan (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 212 ^ 226WuW, 2002, `̀ Migrant housing in urban China: choices and constraints'' Urban Affairs Review

38 90 ^ 119Zhang S (Ed.), 1998 Shanghai Liudong Renkou de Xianzhung yu Zhanwang [The current status and

future of Shanghai's floating population] (East China Normal University Press, Shanghai)Zhang X, 2000, `̀ Privatization and the Chinese housing model'' International Planning Studies

5 191 ^ 204Zhou L (Ed.), 1996 Beijing de Liudong Renkou [Floating population in Beijing] (China Population

Press, Beijing)

ß 2004 a Pion publication printed in Great Britain

1304 W Wu