农民工论文外文翻译.doc

外文翻译一：国际移民审查，1990.8政府政策对浙江省农民工的影响杨秀师 中国试图同时实现农村发展，并严格控制其永久移民，尤其是控制大城市的移民，这与其他发展中国家形成鲜明的对比。中国的农村移民运动可以促进越来越多的农民通过迁徙的途径寻求到在城市就业的收益。但农民永久改变其居民身份，特别是在大中城市，很大程度上还是不可能的，迁徙只是一种可行的临时性选择的运动。 中国政府赞许这样一种运动，就像在试验这样的流动性在应付农村过剩劳动力中的价值一样。与需求大量劳动力和服务的城市相比，农村发展的历程，需要更多的资源。从政府的角度来看，临时流动比较易于实现放宽或者紧缩式地控制，而永久移民相对来讲会困难许多。与此同时，临时移民可能更受青睐,因为它有助于防止大规模的永久移民带来的城市社会混乱和不断增加的压力(Standing 1985)。 在农村和城市的生活质量存在相当大差异的背景下，农村地区和不同类型城市住宅的数据的分析表明，浙江省的永久移民无疑会少于特定的值，如果没政府政策法规的干预。在中国的政治经济系统中，临时居民不负担城市的教育设施。因为他们没有改变他们的户籍，因此不能像城市居民一样，享有政府在就业、补贴或分配粮食供应方面的援助。但事实上,他们中的很多人都将城市作为生活、工作和学习的长期目的地。他们中的大部分事实上已经是城市居民，这些暂住居民们为城市提供了城市以及城市居民所需的服务，他们还几乎利用了城市所有的基础设施，如住房、交通、电力、日常食品和消费品等。因此，在考虑移民对于城市的综合影响上，这部分实际上的居民必须加以考虑，如果不予以考虑，在城市规划服务方面会产生问题，同时也会影响城市生活质量。在中国的农村与城市经济体制造成的压力下，中国已经在灵活运用它的移民政策。(Chapman Prothero 1983)教导我们，这些国家的许多人事实上不仅仅只属于农村和城市。这些个体已经是农村和城市社区其中的一份子，他们为当地做出了重要贡献，而我们的政策也应该惠及到他们。要想较好地做到这点，我们的政策需要注意到所有形式的人口迁移，包括临时的运动，我们要用理论上公式，在我们研究的基础上，努力开发有效的且符合要求的政策。临时的运动在对于大城市的处理问题上，以及在城市化上扮演重要的角色，同时有助于实现农村发展，减少农村和城市之间不平等的地方。考虑到这些可能性的分析结果，笔者建议将研究的重点从移民登记系统上转至人口流动形态上。移民登记中的数据仅包括总体人口的流动性很小的一部分，而且这些数据反映出更多的被支配的痕迹。要克服这些限制，需要人口迁移方面更加全面的数据，需要涵盖长期或临时的运动，且需要师经过国家或省级的特别设计的调查。同时也迫切需要人口运动和政策方面专业学术性的考量。Foreign original one:Originate from：International Migration Review, Autumn, 1990Migrant workers in Zhejiang Province, China: The Impact of Government PoliciesXiushi YangChinas attempts simultaneously to achieve rural development and to strictly control permanent migration, especially to big cities, provide a striking contrast to other developing countries. Such movement allows and stimulates growing numbers of peasants to seek the benefits of urban employment through migration. With permanent change in residence, especially to big and medium cities, still largely impossible, temporary movement provides a viable alternative for many.It may well be, too, that the Chinese government may also be allowing such increased mobility as an experiment to assess its value for coping with the surplus rural labor, with the labor force and service needs of cities, and with rural needs for greater resources for development. From a government point of view, the attractiveness of temporary mobility is enhanced by the ability to relax or tighten control over such movement as conditions in urban and rural places change. Temporary migration may be favored because it helps to avoid the social dislocation and theadded strain on cities that large-scale permanent migration may create(Standing, 1985).Given the considerable differentials in quality oflife between urban and rural places and among different types of urban residence, analysis of the data for Zhejiang suggests strongly that the volume of permanent migration is undoubtedly less than it would have been if there were no intervention of government policies and regulations. Within the political and economic system in China, these temporary residents will not burden the cities educational facilities, employment and subsidized or rationed food supplies because they do not change their household registration and hence are not entitled to government assistance in these areas, as official city residents are. In reality, however, many of them are living, working and studying in the urban destinations for prolonged periods. Therefore, a substantial proportion are de facto city residents.While temporary residents provide cities with services that are needed by both the urban economy and the urban residents, they also utilize nearly all aspects of the urban infrastructure-housing, transportation, power, sani-tation and general supplies of daily food and consumer goods and amenities. Therefore, in considering the impact of migration on the overall social economic development in urban places, these de facto residents must be taken into account. Failure to do so could lead to serious problems in planning for urban services and the quality of urban life.The greater flexibility that China has allowed in its rural and urban economic systems creates pressures for more flexibility in its migration policies, (Chapman and Prothero 1983), teaches us that many people in these countries are, in fact, neither exclusively rural nor exclusively urban; The interests of these individual movers as well as of the rural and urban communities of which they are a part and to which they make important contributions can best be served by policies that take account of the needs of the resident populations in both locations as well as those who move between them. To be successful, such policies require that we recognize and give attention to all forms of population movement, including temporary movement, in our theoretical formulations, in our research and in our efforts to develop effective policies. Temporary movement may well provide an important mechanism for coping with problems of big cities and overurbanization and concurrendy with efforts to achieve rural development and to reduce inequalities between rural and urban places.Given these possibilities, the results of this analysis strongly suggest the need for a shift of research priorities to population mobility forms other than those documented by the migration registration system. The data provided by the migration registration system encompass only a small part of overall population mobility. Moreover, these data reflect more government planned involuntary migration and the differences in the ability to get permission to move, rather than individual behavior in response to opportunities. To overcome these limitations, more comprehensive data on population movement, covering both permanent and temporary movement and collected by specially designed national orprovincial surveys, is urgently needed both for the scholarly insights they will provide on population movement and for policy considerations.外文翻译二：亚洲经济期刊，2005.4民营部门和农民工进城中国专题研究孟昕20世纪80年代后期以来，90年代初，大量农村人口向城市迁移并“淹没”了大多数中国城市。许多研究开始已经聚焦这种“蚂蚁式”的迁移运动，但较少研究关注城市的民营部门在本次活动中起的作用。多数古典迁移模型认为民营部门为移民提供了临时就业的机会，虽然一些经验主义的研究质询这个假定，并且建议民营部门在经济发展中应该扮演一个重要角色。 本研究在以中国1504个农村为勘测数据，审查农村都市迁移的这个专题的各个方面。 1、 导言 20世纪80年代后期以来，90年代初，大量农村人口向城市迁移并“淹没”了大多数中国城市。这种趋势已经如此强大，它吸引了政策制定者和学者们大量的注意力。然而，移民文学的重要辩论点在于农村向城市的迁移进程中民营部门的作用。城市民营部门在农村向城市的迁移的过程中未有较多基于中国基础上的研究，本文以填补这一空白。 在移民文学中，民营部门的作用是一个有争议的问题。可能有两个导致争议的重要原因。一个是概念上的混乱，而定义民营部门活动的范围从“卖报”到“自我小型企业的就业人数”，这是可能的，因为不同的活动中在城乡运移过程中发挥着不同的作用。另一个原因可能是民营部门发挥的作用，因为其在很大程度上取决于经济发展阶段和经济体制的设置。2、背景民营部门所扮演的“吸纳城乡移民”这一角色引起经济学家的极大兴趣。在几十年来，辩论双方的经济学家们一直试图证明他们的论点。这场争论可能是由两个因素造成。首先是概念混乱，民营部门在发展中是常用的经济学术语，民营部门的基本特征被描述为“低工资”、“家庭型”、“员工易于自由进入”和“缺乏稳定的雇佣关系”等。国际劳工组织（1972年）定义民营部门的特点：（一）易于进入；（二）对本地资源的依赖；（三）企业家族所有权；（四）企业的经营规模较小；（五）劳动密集，使用适应技术；（六）在正规学校系统中获得技能；（七）较少管制及竞争性的市场； 第二个可能会引致辩论的因素是有关民营部门的作用，每个国家都有自己的经济发展方式和独特的机构设置，这些差异使得这一问题涉及到非正规部门是否在农村向城市移民中发挥了重要作用。 3、结语 首先，一部分优秀的人才倾向于在民营部门从事个体经营的工作，而不是在正规部门工作；另一方面，正规部门就业品质与民营部门部分相当。第二，在城市，移民工作的时间越长，就越有可能将从工薪一族转移到正规部门，进而转向民营部门从事个体经营。这可能表明，在民营部门，就业的工资收入充当了农村向城市移民的重要因素。另外，个体经营的方式可能是最具吸引的因素，一般充当了吸引移民长期就业的因素。 第三，在所有移民工作组中，个体经营者感到最满意自己目前的情况，而正规部门的打工仔却往往感到不太满意。最后，正规部门的员工在工作中收获了最少。民营部门和正规部门之间的工资差别在主要是他们在市场评价方面的差异，而不是二人禀赋不同。Foreign original two:Originate from: ASIAN ECONOMIC JOURNAL，May，2005The Informal Sector and Rural-Urban Migration A Chinese Case StudyXin MengSince the late 1980s and early 1990s, massive rural-urban migration has ooded most Chinese cities. Many studies have examined various aspects of this important movement, but none has investigated the role the urban informal sector plays in this movement. In the literature, this issue is controversial. Most classical migration models treat the informal sector as a temporary employment opportunity for migrants, though some empirical studies challenge this assumption and suggest that the informal sector may play an important role in economic development. This study uses a survey data set of 1504 rural-urban migrants in one Chinese city to examine this interesting aspect of rural-urban migration. I. Introduction Since the late 1980s and early 1990s, massive rural-urban migration has ooded most Chinese cities. The trend has been so strong that it attracted a great deal of attention from both policy makers and academics alike. Many recent studies have investigated various aspects of such an important issue.Nevertheless, an important debate in the rural-urban migration literature the role of the informal sector in the process of rural-urban migration has not been examined in the context of the Chinese experience. This paper intends to ll in this gap. There may be two important reasons which have led to the controversy. One is the conceptual confusion. While the denition of informal activities ranges from selling newspapers to self-employment in small business, it is possible that different activities play different roles in the processes of rural-urban migration. Another reason may be that the role the informal sector plays depends heavily on the stage of economic development and institutional settings of the economy. Countries at different stage of economic development and with different institutional settings may experience considerable differences in this regard.II.BackgroundThe controversial issue of the role played by the informal sector in absorbing rural-urban migrants has attracted great interest from economists. Over the decades, economists from both sides of the debate have been trying to prove their arguments both theoretically and empirically.This controversy is probably caused by two factors. The rst is conceptual confusion. Although informal sector is a commonly used term in development economics, the basic characteristics of this sector are described as low wage, small and family-based, freedom of entry, lack of a stable employer-employee relationship and being ignored by the authorities .The ILO (1972) dened the informal sector as being characterized by:(a) ease of entry;(b) reliance on indigenous resources;(c) family ownership of enterprises;(d) small scale of operation;(e) labour-intensive, using adapted technology;(f ) skills acquired outside the formal school system; (g) unregulated and competitive markets.The second factor which may cause added debate regarding the role of the informal sector is that each country has its own pattern of economic development and unique institutional settings. These differences make the issue of whether the informal sector plays an important role in employing rural-urban migrants very much an empirical question.III.Concluding RemarksFirst, it seems that higher quality individuals, in terms of human capital, are more likely to take a job in the self-employed group in the informal sector than to take a job in the other groups. On the other hand, those who are employed in the formal sector are of similar quality to those employed in the wage-earner group in the informal sector. Second, the longer migrants work in the city the more likely they will move from the wage-earner group to the formal sector, and then to the self-employed group in the informal sector. This may suggest that the wage-earning jobs in the informal sector have acted as a temporary employment opportunity for rural-urban migrants, but self-employment has attracted individuals with the highest quality and has generally acted as a long-term employment opportunity for migrants.Third, among all migrants those who worked in the self-employed group are the ones who felt the most satised with their current situation while the wage earners in the informal sector and migrants who worked in the formal sector felt less satised than the self-employed. Finally, those who worked in the formal sector earned the least. The wage differentials between the formal sector and the other two groups in the informal sector are mainly due to the difference in the market evaluation of individual endowments rather than to any difference in their endowments.