| Literature DB >> 36141877 |
Chuangxin Zhao1, Manping Tang1.
Abstract
Using the micro data of the China Labor Dynamics Survey (CLDS), this paper uses factor analysis to construct urban integration indicators and uses the OLS model and intermediary effect model to study the urban integration of 1976 migrant workers in 29 cities in China. This paper empirically analyzes the impact of labor contracts on migrant workers' urban integration and its mechanism. The study found that: (1) labor contract can significantly promote the urban integration of migrant workers. Further, this conclusion is still tenable after correcting endogenous bias with the 2SLS model and performing a series of robustness tests. (2) Signing labor contracts increases the participation rate of migrant workers in various insurances, enhances the social security level of migrant workers, alleviates the discrimination in the urban labor market, and thus enhances the urban integration of migrant workers. (3) The results of the heterogeneity tests show that the labor contract has a greater impact on the urban integration of the new generation, married and public sector of migrant workers compared with the old generation, unmarried and private sector of migrant workers. Therefore, this paper makes the following suggestions: the government should strengthen labor market supervision, encourage employers to sign long-term labor contracts with migrant workers, improve the social security system for migrant workers, and protect the legitimate rights and interests of migrant workers.Entities:
Keywords: China; labor contract; migrant workers; social security; urban integration
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36141877 PMCID: PMC9517089 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191811604
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Indicator description of urban integration and factor analysis.
| Dimension | Indicators | Indicator Description | Factor Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Economic integration | Salary income | Average monthly wage income of migrant workers in 2017 (logarithm) | KMO: 0.689 |
| Job satisfaction | 1 = very satisfied; 2 = satisfied; 3 = in general; 4 = dissatisfied; 5 = very dissatisfied | ||
| Satisfaction with respect for work | 1 = very satisfied; 2 = satisfied; 3 = in general; | ||
| Work environment satisfaction | 1 = very satisfied; 2 = satisfied; 3 = in general; | ||
| Household consumption expenditure | Average monthly consumption expenditure of migrant workers’ households in 2017 (logarithm) | ||
| Psychological integration | Number of close local friends | Actual number of people | KMO: 0.637 |
| Number of local friends who can discuss important issues | Actual number of people | ||
| Number of local friends who can share concerns | Actual number of people | ||
| Social adaptation | Familiarity with local residents | 1 = very familiar; 2 = familiar; 3 = in general; | KMO: 0.750 |
| Mutual assistance with local residents | 1 = very much; 2 = much; 3 = in general; | ||
| Level of trust in local residents | 1 = very trusting; 2 = trusting; 3 = in general; | ||
| Participating in village/neighborhood committee elections | 1 = yes; 0 = no | ||
| Local life happiness | 1 = very unhappy; 2 = unhappy; 3 = in general; | ||
| Urban integration | 13 indicators of three dimensions: economic integration, social adaptation and psychological integration | KMO: 0.739 |
Note: Data source CLDS2018, observed value 1976.
Meaning of variables and descriptive statistics.
| Variable Type | Variable Name | Variable Meaning and Assignment | Average | Standard Deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Explained variables | Urban integration | Factor values | 30.579 | 10.327 |
| Economic integration | Factor values | 46.575 | 13.733 | |
| Social adaptation | Factor values | 49.219 | 15.046 | |
| Psychological integration | Factor values | 31.787 | 3.837 | |
| Core explanatory variables | Whether to sign labor contract | 1 = yes; 0 = no | 0.477 | 0.500 |
| Term of labor contract | Actual term of the contract (years) | 1.840 | 3.070 | |
| Intermediate variables | Social security | Social insurance participation index: actual values | 1.326 | 2.023 |
| Personal characteristics | Gender | 1 = male; 0 = female | 0.562 | 0.496 |
| Age | Actual age of migrant workers (years) | 41.124 | 12.303 | |
| Marriage | 1 = married; 0 = unmarried | 0.826 | 0.379 | |
| Party membership | 1 = CPC member; 0 = others | 0.083 | 0.276 | |
| Human capital factors | Educational background | 1 = primary school and below; 2 = junior high school; 3 = high school, junior college; | 2.334 | 1.007 |
| Health status | 1 = very healthy; 2 = healthy; 3 = general | 2.088 | 0.835 | |
| Vocational skills training | Whether migrant workers have participated in vocational skills training: 1 = yes; 0 = no | 0.073 | 0.260 | |
| Migration experience | Whether migrant workers have more than half a year of cross-county migration experience: 1 = yes; 0 = no | 0.256 | 0.436 | |
| Economic | Family land area | Land area of migrant workers’ households (mu) | 3.466 | 8.640 |
| Annual household income | Actual income (logarithm) | 10.927 | 1.126 | |
| Social capital factors | Number of family members | Actual population (persons) | 4.661 | 2.038 |
| Participating in social organization activities | 1 = never; 2 = several times a year or less; | 4.718 | 0.664 | |
| Nature of the unit | 1 = public sector; 0 = private sector | 0.246 | 0.431 |
Note: Data source CLDS2018, observed value 1976.
Regression results of the impact of labor contract on the urban integration of migrant workers.
| Variable Name | Economic Integration | Social Adaptation (2) | Psychological Integration | Urban Integration | Economic Integration (5) | Social Adaptation (6) | Psychological Integration | Urban Integration (8) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to sign labor contract | 1.644 ** | 1.267 * | 0.013 | 1.354 *** | ||||
| Term of labor contract | 0.219 ** | 0.293 *** | −0.005 | 0.203 *** | ||||
| Gender | 2.795 *** | −1.092 * | −0.366 ** | 1.416 *** | 2.772 *** | −1.136 * | −0.365 ** | 1.393 *** |
| Age | −0.217 *** | −0.315 *** | −0.049 *** | −0.152 *** | −0.222 *** | −0.316 *** | −0.049 *** | −0.156 *** |
| Marital status | 4.604 *** | 1.694 * | 0.282 | 1.968 *** | 4.605 *** | 1.613 * | 0.286 | 1.954 *** |
| Party membership | −2.256 ** | −3.320 *** | −1.002 *** | −2.266 ** | −2.412 ** | −3.445 *** | −1.003 *** | −2.395 *** |
| Educational background | 0.175 | 0.519 | −0.039 | 0.549 * | 0.234 (0.356) | 0.494 (0.387) | −0.035 | 0.584 ** |
| Health status | 2.162 *** | 0.630 | 0.609 *** | 1.403 *** | 2.153 *** | 0.624 (0.396) | 0.609 *** | 1.396 *** |
| Vocational skills training | −3.439 *** | −2.015 (1.308) | −0.652 ** | −1.853 ** | −3.415 *** | −2.003 | −0.651 ** | −1.834 ** |
| Migration experience | 0.131 | 7.031 *** | 0.948 *** | 2.702 *** | 0.168 | 7.000 *** | 0.951 *** | 2.721 *** |
| Number of mu of family land | −0.048 ** | −0.066 *** | −0.012 ** | −0.067 *** | −0.050 *** | −0.066 *** | −0.012 ** | −0.068 *** |
| Annual household income | 1.252 *** | 0.769 ** | −0.056 | 0.893 *** | 1.279 *** | 0.783 ** | −0.055 | 0.914 *** |
| Number of family members | −0.227 | −0.201 | −0.058 * | −0.328 *** | −0.229 | −0.188 (0.158) | −0.059 * | −0.326 *** |
| Participating in social organization activities | 0.358 (0.456) | 0.597 (0.468) | 0.170 | 0.360 | 0.348 | 0.590 | 0.170 | 0.352 |
| Nature of the unit | −2.901 *** (0.778) | −1.318 * | −0.417 * | −1.358 ** (0.630) | −2.760 *** (0.778) | −1.270 (0.788) | −0.412 * | −1.252 ** (0.630) |
| Regional variables | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled |
| Constant term | 31.426 *** (5.010) | 47.248 *** (4.651) | 32.638 *** (0.907) | 19.691 *** (3.176) | 31.687 *** (5.003) | 47.382 *** (4.657) | 32.644 *** (0.910) | 19.894 *** (3.186) |
| R2 | 0.096 | 0.159 | 0.078 | 0.115 | 0.095 | 0.161 | 0.078 | 0.114 |
| Observations | 1976 | 1976 | 1976 | 1976 | 1976 | 1976 | 1976 | 1976 |
Note: ***, **, * denote significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.
2SLS estimation results of labor contract and urban integration of migrant workers.
| Variable Name | Whether to Sign Labor Contract | Urban Integration | Term of Labor Contract | Urban Integration |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to sign labor contract | 7.419 *** (1.942) | |||
| Term of labor contract | 2.760 ** (1.238) | |||
| Average labor contract signing rate of other migrant workers in the same village | 0.427 *** (0.038) | |||
| Average term of labor contract of other migrant workers in the same village | 0.191 *** (0.057) | |||
| Control variables | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled |
| Regional variables | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled |
| Constant term | 0.143 (0.154) | 18.711 *** (3.267) | 0.392 (1.000) | 18.629 *** (4.105) |
| F-value | 42.07 | 11.39 | ||
| R2 | 0.205 | 0.082 | ||
| Observations | 1976 | 1976 | 1976 | 1976 |
Note: ***, ** represent the significance level at 1%, 5% respectively; robust standard error in parentheses.
Robustness test of the impact of the labor contract on the urban integration of migrant workers.
| Variable Name | Randomly Censoring Subsamples | Excluding Samples Over 60 Years Old (2) | Adding Control Variables | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to sign labor contract | 1.924 *** (0.643) | 1.449 *** (0.485) | 1.539 *** (0.482) | |||
| Term of labor contract | 0.381 *** (0.092) | 0.228 *** (0.077) | 0.216 *** (0.077) | |||
| Whether the unit provides housing | −0.776 (0.501) | −0.640 (0.498) | ||||
| Wage type | 0.073 (0.509) | 0.171 (0.509) | ||||
| Heavy physical work | 0.662 *** (0.222) | 0.654 *** (0.222) | ||||
| Control variables | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled |
| Regional variables | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled |
| Constant term | 19.481 *** (4.109) | 19.973 *** (4.075) | 19.188 *** (3.246) | 19.423 *** (3.258) | 17.894 *** (3.244) | 18.068 *** (3.251) |
| R2 | 0.144 | 0.148 | 0.102 | 0.102 | 0.120 | 0.120 |
| Observations | 988 | 988 | 1823 | 1823 | 1976 | 1976 |
Note: *** denote significant at the 1% levels.
Test of the mediating effect of labor contract and urban integration of migrant workers.
| Variable Name | Urban | Social | Urban | Urban Integration | Social | Urban |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to sign labor contract | 1.354 *** (0.474) | 1.579 *** (0.082) | 0.406 (0.526) | |||
| Term of labor contract | 0.203 *** (0.077) | 0.184 *** (0.017) | 0.093 (0.083) | |||
| Social security | 0.600 *** (0.136) | 0.596 *** (0.132) | ||||
| Control variables | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled |
| Regional variables | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled |
| Constant term | 19.691 *** (3.176) | −0.351 (0.562) | 19.901 *** (3.128) | 19.894 *** (3.186) | −0.085 (0.573) | 19.945 *** (3.131) |
| R2 | 0.115 | 0.368 | 0.123 | 0.114 | 0.311 | 0.124 |
| Observations | 1976 | 1976 | 1976 | 1976 | 1976 | 1976 |
Note: *** denote significant at the 1% levels.
Heterogeneous effects of the labor contract on the urban integration of migrant workers.
| Variable Name | Generation | Marital Status | Unit Nature | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Older Generation | New Generation | Married | Unmarried | Public Sector | Private Sector | |
| Panel: A | ||||||
| Whether to sign labor contract | 1.091 | 1.452 ** | 1.317 ** | 1.681 | 2.063 * | 1.073 ** |
| Control variables | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled |
| Regional Variables | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled |
| R2 | 0.097 | 0.110 | 0.117 | 0.137 | 0.117 | 0.109 |
| Observations | 1098 | 878 | 1633 | 343 | 487 | 1489 |
| Panel: B | ||||||
| Term of labor contract | 0.142 | 0.243 ** | 0.195 ** | 0.245 | 0.297 ** | 0.167 * |
| Control variables | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled |
| Regional variables | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled |
| R2 | 0.097 | 0.111 | 0.117 | 0.137 | 0.117 | 0.109 |
| Observations | 1098 | 878 | 1633 | 343 | 487 | 1489 |
Note: **, * denote significant at the 5% and 10% levels, respectively.