ArticlePloS one2018
Would you like to leave Beijing, Shanghai, or Shenzhen? An empirical analysis of migration effect in China.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Relocation preference and settlement: Lessons from the Poverty Alleviation Relocation Program in China.PloS one · 2024Article
- Understanding China's urban system evolution from web search index data.EPJ data science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to estimate the migration effect of the overall samples and different flowing scales for the floating population from the perspective of personal wages. Although we used both the OLS and PSM methods to estimate the migration effect, we found that the PSM method was preferred in the study of migration as a result of the selection bias. The empirical results show that there is a significant difference in wage before and after migration. In fact, migration increased wages by 15.18% to 23.63% overall. Additionally, wages were increased by 44.96% to 59.20%, 23.06% to 26.18%, and 10.89% to 15.08% respectively for these three migration patterns: flowing into the three largest megacities, inter-provincial migration, and inter-city migration within a province, but for this pattern of inter-district migration within a city, the migration effect is not significant. We concluded that the floating population removing policies of the largest megacities maybe are effective because of the administrative power of their government. On the other hand, for these policies of non-largest megacities to attract labor and local employment and local urbanization near the floating population's place of origin, they were not effective enough as a result of the lack of significant migration effect in these cities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.