Migration in China: To work or to wed?
中国的迁移:为了工作,还是为了婚嫁?AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要明确建立匹配与享乐模型、提出识别估计策略,并用反事实分解迁移收益,核心属于结构估计与结构反事实分析。
中国的迁移:为了工作,还是为了婚嫁?AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Summary This paper develops a model encompassing both matching and hedonic models, studies its properties, and provides identification and estimation strategies. We bring the model to data on internal migration in China to answer the question raised in the title. We estimate the migration surplus of singles and couples and the marital surplus of natives and, using counterfactuals together with our identification strategy, quantify the “marrying‐up” and the “work” effects of migration. Results show that, for floating (resp. permanent) migrant women married with urban men, the “marrying‐up” effect is positive but 3.5 (resp. 5) times smaller than the “work” effect. However, as these migrant women enter the urban marriage market, they generate equilibrium “marrying‐up” effects for all men and women by changing the relative supply of women on both the rural and urban marriage markets. These effects can be large relative to the “work” effect of migration for some types of migrants (floating migrant women married with a permanent migrant man and floating migrant women married with a floating migrant man) and represent about 13 % of the equilibrium utility of urban native men.