World Regional Studies ›› 2022, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (6): 1273-1284.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-9479.2022.06.2020551
Previous Articles Next Articles
Linjing MA(), Peisu LI(), Yahong WU
Received:
2020-08-17
Revised:
2020-10-30
Online:
2022-11-15
Published:
2022-11-22
Contact:
Peisu LI
通讯作者:
李培速
作者简介:
马林靖(1981-),女,副研究员,博士研究生,研究方向为城镇化与区域经济发展,E-mail: 849959381@qq.com。
基金资助:
Linjing MA, Peisu LI, Yahong WU. How does urbanization affect informal employment?[J]. World Regional Studies, 2022, 31(6): 1273-1284.
马林靖, 李培速, 伍亚红. 城镇化发展如何影响非正规就业?[J]. 世界地理研究, 2022, 31(6): 1273-1284.
符号 | 样本量 | 均值 | 标准差 | 最小值 | 最大值 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
inf | 360 | 0.443 | 0.095 | 0.196 | 0.694 |
urb | 360 | 0.483 | 0.132 | 0.206 | 0.854 |
educ | 360 | 0.145 | 0.097 | 0.030 | 0.574 |
rgdp | 360 | 10.807 | 3.066 | -2.500 | 19.200 |
une | 360 | 3.487 | 0.652 | 1.210 | 5.100 |
gap | 360 | 2.850 | 0.543 | 1.845 | 4.593 |
Tab.1 Descriptive statistics of variables
符号 | 样本量 | 均值 | 标准差 | 最小值 | 最大值 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
inf | 360 | 0.443 | 0.095 | 0.196 | 0.694 |
urb | 360 | 0.483 | 0.132 | 0.206 | 0.854 |
educ | 360 | 0.145 | 0.097 | 0.030 | 0.574 |
rgdp | 360 | 10.807 | 3.066 | -2.500 | 19.200 |
une | 360 | 3.487 | 0.652 | 1.210 | 5.100 |
gap | 360 | 2.850 | 0.543 | 1.845 | 4.593 |
邻接矩阵(W1) | 距离矩阵(W2) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
检验 | 统计量 | 概率值 | 检验 | 统计量 | 概率值 | |
Moran's I | 0.450 | 0.0000 | Moran's I | 0.413 | 0.0000 | |
LM-lag | 57.074 | 0.0000 | LM-lag | 80.951 | 0.0000 | |
R-LM-lag | 33.861 | 0.0000 | R-LM-lag | 31.270 | 0.0000 | |
LM-err | 36.963 | 0.0000 | LM-err | 57.745 | 0.0000 | |
R-LM-err | 13.750 | 0.0000 | R-LM-err | 8.064 | 0.0005 | |
Hausman | 66.380 | 0.0000 | Hausman | 23.230 | 0.0000 | |
LR-lag | 26.850 | 0.0001 | LR-lag | 14.170 | 0.0146 | |
LR-err | 26.190 | 0.0001 | LR-err | 15.220 | 0.0095 |
Tab.2 Test results of spatial model
邻接矩阵(W1) | 距离矩阵(W2) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
检验 | 统计量 | 概率值 | 检验 | 统计量 | 概率值 | |
Moran's I | 0.450 | 0.0000 | Moran's I | 0.413 | 0.0000 | |
LM-lag | 57.074 | 0.0000 | LM-lag | 80.951 | 0.0000 | |
R-LM-lag | 33.861 | 0.0000 | R-LM-lag | 31.270 | 0.0000 | |
LM-err | 36.963 | 0.0000 | LM-err | 57.745 | 0.0000 | |
R-LM-err | 13.750 | 0.0000 | R-LM-err | 8.064 | 0.0005 | |
Hausman | 66.380 | 0.0000 | Hausman | 23.230 | 0.0000 | |
LR-lag | 26.850 | 0.0001 | LR-lag | 14.170 | 0.0146 | |
LR-err | 26.190 | 0.0001 | LR-err | 15.220 | 0.0095 |
var | SDM(W1) | SDM(W2) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
urb | 0.3448***(3.49) | 0.2306***(3.07) | 0.0802(0.79) | 0.2450**(2.43) | 0.1953***(3.19) | 0.1336(1.35) |
educ | 0.3531***(3.04) | -0.2287**(-0.26) | 0.2320**(2.01) | 0.2661**(2.16) | -0.0909(-1.12) | 0.1767*(1.44) |
rgdp | 0.0031**(2.12) | 0.0057***(2.61) | 0.0021(1.42) | 0.0022(1.47) | 0.0060***(3.02) | 0.0011(0.76) |
gap | -0.0067(-0.41) | -0.0190(-1.51) | -0.0261(-1.59) | -0.0148(-0.92) | -0.0546***(-4.50) | -0.0307*(-1.86) |
une | 0.0271***(3.20) | -0.0061(-0.94) | 0.0314***(3.77) | 0.0284***(3.33) | -0.0045(-0.77) | 0.0299***(3.48) |
W*urb | 0.1330(0.95) | 0.2822**(2.57) | -0.3692**(-2.35) | 0.7023***(3.10) | 0.3234*(1.67) | -0.0112(-0.04) |
W*educ | -0.1080(-1.38) | -0.7668***(-4.90) | -0.6937***(-2.75) | -0.1009(-0.57) | -0.9992***(-5.02) | -0.3864(-1.50) |
W*rgdp | -0.0076*** (-3.92) | -0.0094** (-2.50) | -0.0081*** (-3.25) | -0.0089*** (-3.92) | -0.0144*** (-3.02 ) | -0.0101*** (-2.66) |
W*gap | 0.0383(1.48) | 0.0482**(2.55) | -.0136(-0.44) | 0.1377***(4.41) | 0.1194***(4.18) | 0.0477(1.21) |
W*une | -0.0230(-1.38) | -0.0178(-1.19) | 0.0024(0.13) | -0.0649***(-3.21) | -0.0701***(-4.11) | -0.0308(-1.19) |
rho | 0.3169***(5.26) | 0.1517**(2.15) | 0.0479(0.66) | 0.2040***(2.66) | 0.1476*(1.80) | -0.1827*(-1.81) |
Sigma2 | 0.0014*** (13.29) | 0.0050*** (13.37) | 0.0013*** (13.41) | .0015***(13.38) | 0.0042***(13.39) | 0.0013***(13.37) |
Fe-s | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y |
Fe-t | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y |
R2 | 0.6219 | 0.3250 | 0.2439 | 0.6390 | 0.4553 | 0.3289 |
Log-L | 655.0006 | 441.8924 | 681.7517 | 654.9594 | 469.9277 | 676.6068 |
Tab.3 The estimation results of the spatial Durbin model
var | SDM(W1) | SDM(W2) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
urb | 0.3448***(3.49) | 0.2306***(3.07) | 0.0802(0.79) | 0.2450**(2.43) | 0.1953***(3.19) | 0.1336(1.35) |
educ | 0.3531***(3.04) | -0.2287**(-0.26) | 0.2320**(2.01) | 0.2661**(2.16) | -0.0909(-1.12) | 0.1767*(1.44) |
rgdp | 0.0031**(2.12) | 0.0057***(2.61) | 0.0021(1.42) | 0.0022(1.47) | 0.0060***(3.02) | 0.0011(0.76) |
gap | -0.0067(-0.41) | -0.0190(-1.51) | -0.0261(-1.59) | -0.0148(-0.92) | -0.0546***(-4.50) | -0.0307*(-1.86) |
une | 0.0271***(3.20) | -0.0061(-0.94) | 0.0314***(3.77) | 0.0284***(3.33) | -0.0045(-0.77) | 0.0299***(3.48) |
W*urb | 0.1330(0.95) | 0.2822**(2.57) | -0.3692**(-2.35) | 0.7023***(3.10) | 0.3234*(1.67) | -0.0112(-0.04) |
W*educ | -0.1080(-1.38) | -0.7668***(-4.90) | -0.6937***(-2.75) | -0.1009(-0.57) | -0.9992***(-5.02) | -0.3864(-1.50) |
W*rgdp | -0.0076*** (-3.92) | -0.0094** (-2.50) | -0.0081*** (-3.25) | -0.0089*** (-3.92) | -0.0144*** (-3.02 ) | -0.0101*** (-2.66) |
W*gap | 0.0383(1.48) | 0.0482**(2.55) | -.0136(-0.44) | 0.1377***(4.41) | 0.1194***(4.18) | 0.0477(1.21) |
W*une | -0.0230(-1.38) | -0.0178(-1.19) | 0.0024(0.13) | -0.0649***(-3.21) | -0.0701***(-4.11) | -0.0308(-1.19) |
rho | 0.3169***(5.26) | 0.1517**(2.15) | 0.0479(0.66) | 0.2040***(2.66) | 0.1476*(1.80) | -0.1827*(-1.81) |
Sigma2 | 0.0014*** (13.29) | 0.0050*** (13.37) | 0.0013*** (13.41) | .0015***(13.38) | 0.0042***(13.39) | 0.0013***(13.37) |
Fe-s | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y |
Fe-t | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y |
R2 | 0.6219 | 0.3250 | 0.2439 | 0.6390 | 0.4553 | 0.3289 |
Log-L | 655.0006 | 441.8924 | 681.7517 | 654.9594 | 469.9277 | 676.6068 |
var | SDM(W1) | SDM(W2) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
直接效应 | 溢出效应 | 总效应 | 直接效应 | 溢出效应 | 总效应 | |
urb | 0.3697***(3.60) | 0.3437**(1.68) | 0.7134***(3.11) | 0.2754***(2.71) | 0.9256***(3.83) | 1.2010***(4.84) |
educ | 0.3523***(3.27) | 0.0149(0.08) | 0.3672**(2.25) | 0.2628**(2.25) | -0.0471(-0.24) | 0.2158(1.35) |
rgdp | 0.0025**(1.83) | -0.0090***(-3.92) | -0.0065***(-2.73) | 0.0018(1.32) | -0.0102***(-3.99) | -0.0084***(-3.48) |
gap | -0.0030(-0.19) | 0.0523*(1.6) | 0.0493(1.4) | -0.0095(-0.60) | 0.1671***(4.60) | 0.1575***(4.19) |
une | 0.0268***(3.18) | -0.0197(-0.86) | 0.0071(0.27) | 0.0272***(3.28 ) | -0.0724***(-2.97) | -0.0452*(-1.65) |
Tab.4 Influence effect decomposition result
var | SDM(W1) | SDM(W2) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
直接效应 | 溢出效应 | 总效应 | 直接效应 | 溢出效应 | 总效应 | |
urb | 0.3697***(3.60) | 0.3437**(1.68) | 0.7134***(3.11) | 0.2754***(2.71) | 0.9256***(3.83) | 1.2010***(4.84) |
educ | 0.3523***(3.27) | 0.0149(0.08) | 0.3672**(2.25) | 0.2628**(2.25) | -0.0471(-0.24) | 0.2158(1.35) |
rgdp | 0.0025**(1.83) | -0.0090***(-3.92) | -0.0065***(-2.73) | 0.0018(1.32) | -0.0102***(-3.99) | -0.0084***(-3.48) |
gap | -0.0030(-0.19) | 0.0523*(1.6) | 0.0493(1.4) | -0.0095(-0.60) | 0.1671***(4.60) | 0.1575***(4.19) |
une | 0.0268***(3.18) | -0.0197(-0.86) | 0.0071(0.27) | 0.0272***(3.28 ) | -0.0724***(-2.97) | -0.0452*(-1.65) |
var | SDM(W1) | SDM(W2) |
---|---|---|
urb | 0.3342***(3.31) | 0.1997**(1.93) |
educ | 0.0166*(1.78) | 0.0244**(2.26) |
rgdp | 0.0024*(1.62) | 0.0018(1.17) |
gap | 0.0001(0.01) | -0.0100(-0.63) |
une | 0.0301***(3.45) | 0.0275***(3.15) |
W*urb | 0.1094(0.77) | 0.7353***(3.15) |
W*educ | 0.0136(1.24) | -0.0142(-0.96) |
W*rgdp | -0.0083***(-4.35) | -0.0096***(-4.44) |
W*gap | 0.0493*(1.85) | 0.1388***(4.48) |
W*une | -0.0078(-0.44) | -0.0632***(-2.28) |
rho | 0.2832***(4.64) | 0.2144***(2.81) |
Sigma2 | 0.0015**(13.31) | 0.0015**(13.37) |
R2 | 0.6267 | 0.6377 |
Log-L | 654.5156 | 654.6890 |
Tab.5 Robustness test results
var | SDM(W1) | SDM(W2) |
---|---|---|
urb | 0.3342***(3.31) | 0.1997**(1.93) |
educ | 0.0166*(1.78) | 0.0244**(2.26) |
rgdp | 0.0024*(1.62) | 0.0018(1.17) |
gap | 0.0001(0.01) | -0.0100(-0.63) |
une | 0.0301***(3.45) | 0.0275***(3.15) |
W*urb | 0.1094(0.77) | 0.7353***(3.15) |
W*educ | 0.0136(1.24) | -0.0142(-0.96) |
W*rgdp | -0.0083***(-4.35) | -0.0096***(-4.44) |
W*gap | 0.0493*(1.85) | 0.1388***(4.48) |
W*une | -0.0078(-0.44) | -0.0632***(-2.28) |
rho | 0.2832***(4.64) | 0.2144***(2.81) |
Sigma2 | 0.0015**(13.31) | 0.0015**(13.37) |
R2 | 0.6267 | 0.6377 |
Log-L | 654.5156 | 654.6890 |
var | SDM(W1) | SDM(W2) |
---|---|---|
rho | 0.3027***(4.97) | 0.2452 ***(3.26) |
W*urb*gov | 0.8821***(3.13) | 1.1134***(3.11) |
溢出效应urb*gov | 1.1652***(1.59) | 1.4008***(3.54) |
总效应urb*gov | 1.1453***(3.45) | 1.3522***(3.75) |
Sigma2 | 0.0015***(13.30) | 0.0015***(13.36) |
R2 | 0.6219 | 0.6266 |
Log-L | 653.7879 | 650.2793 |
Tab.6 Characteristics of spatial spillover effect (regulatory effect)
var | SDM(W1) | SDM(W2) |
---|---|---|
rho | 0.3027***(4.97) | 0.2452 ***(3.26) |
W*urb*gov | 0.8821***(3.13) | 1.1134***(3.11) |
溢出效应urb*gov | 1.1652***(1.59) | 1.4008***(3.54) |
总效应urb*gov | 1.1453***(3.45) | 1.3522***(3.75) |
Sigma2 | 0.0015***(13.30) | 0.0015***(13.36) |
R2 | 0.6219 | 0.6266 |
Log-L | 653.7879 | 650.2793 |
var | SDM(W1) | SDM(W2) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
rho | 0.3123***(5.21) | 0.2799***(4.54) | 0.2807***(3.87) | 0.1675** |
W*urb | 0.1021(0.73) | 0.6460(0.85) | ||
W*gov | 0.4979***(3.78) | 0.4568***(3.13) | 0.4510***(2.51) | 0.3440** |
溢出效应urb | 0.2575(1.31) | 0.8089(0.73) | ||
溢出效应gov | 0.6382***(3.75) | 0.5593***(3.45) | 0.5841***(2.28) | 0.3965**(2.08) |
总效应urb | 0.5986***(2.63) | 1.0662***(4.10) | ||
总效应gov | 0.5661***(3.43) | 0.4757***(3.20) | 0.5468***(2.99) | 0.3656**(2.37) |
Sigma2 | 0.0015***(13.29) | 0.0015***(13.31) | 0.0015***(13.36) | 0.0015***(13.39) |
R2 | 0.6312 | 0.6384 | 0.6169 | 0.6456 |
Log-L | 654.3333 | 660.4797 | 648.3408 | 657.4975 |
Tab.7 Formation mechanism of spatial spillover effect (mediating effect)
var | SDM(W1) | SDM(W2) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
rho | 0.3123***(5.21) | 0.2799***(4.54) | 0.2807***(3.87) | 0.1675** |
W*urb | 0.1021(0.73) | 0.6460(0.85) | ||
W*gov | 0.4979***(3.78) | 0.4568***(3.13) | 0.4510***(2.51) | 0.3440** |
溢出效应urb | 0.2575(1.31) | 0.8089(0.73) | ||
溢出效应gov | 0.6382***(3.75) | 0.5593***(3.45) | 0.5841***(2.28) | 0.3965**(2.08) |
总效应urb | 0.5986***(2.63) | 1.0662***(4.10) | ||
总效应gov | 0.5661***(3.43) | 0.4757***(3.20) | 0.5468***(2.99) | 0.3656**(2.37) |
Sigma2 | 0.0015***(13.29) | 0.0015***(13.31) | 0.0015***(13.36) | 0.0015***(13.39) |
R2 | 0.6312 | 0.6384 | 0.6169 | 0.6456 |
Log-L | 654.3333 | 660.4797 | 648.3408 | 657.4975 |
1 | 姚士谋,张平宇,余成,等.中国新型城镇化理论与实践问题.地理科学,2014,34(6):641-647. |
YAO S, ZHANG P, YU C, et al. The theory and practice of New Urbanization in China. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2014, 34(6):641-647. | |
2 | 刘雪梅.新型城镇化进程中农村劳动力转移就业政策研究.宏观经济研究,2014(2):81-86. |
LIU X. Research on employment policy of rural labor force transfer in the process of New Urbanization. Macroeconomics, 2014(2):81-86. | |
3 | 张延吉,陈祺超,秦波.论城镇非正规就业对经济增长的影响—基于我国31个省区市的面板数据分析.经济问题探索,2015(03):82-89. |
ZHANG Y, CHEN Q, QIN B.On the influence of informal employment on economic growth in cities and towns -- Based on the panel data analysis of 31 provinces in China .Inquiry into Economic Issues, 2015(03):82-89. | |
4 | MCGEE T. The Urbanization Process in the Third World: Explorations in Search of a Theory. London:G Bell and Sons Ltd,1971. |
5 | TODARO M. A model of labor migration and urban unemployment in less developed countries. American Economic Review, 1969, 59 (1): 138-148. |
6 | BISHWAPRIYA S. The urban informal sector revisited: Some notes on the relevance of the concept in the 1980s. Third World Planning Review, 1988, 10(1):65. |
7 | PERRY G E, MALONEY F M, ARIAS O S,et al. Informality:Exit and Exclusion. Washington DC:World Bank,2007. |
8 | 薛德升,方逸涵.改革开放30余年来中国非正规就业与城市化相互关系及区域差异.地理学核心问题与主线--中国地理学会2011年学术年会暨中国科学院新疆生态与地理研究所建所五十年庆典论文摘要集,2011:141-142. |
XUE D, FANG Y. The relationship between informal employment and urbanization and regional differences in China over the past 30 years of reform and opening up. Core Issues and Mainline of Geography--Summary of Papers of the 2011 Annual Academic Conference of the Chinese Geographical Society and the 50th Anniversary of the Establishment of the Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography,Chinese Academy of Sciences,2011:141-142. | |
9 | 王少杰.城市化对非正规就业的影响研究——以昆明市为例.知识经济,2014(9):11-12. |
WANG S. A study on the impact of urbanization on informal employment --A case study of Kunming. Knowledge Economy, 2014(9):11-12. | |
10 | ELGIN C, OYVAT C. Lurking in the cities: Urbanization and the informal economy. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 2013, 27(12):36-47. |
11 | 黄耿志,张虹鸥,薛德升,等.中国城镇非正规经济与城镇化发展的倒U形关系.经济地理,2019,39(11):76-83. |
HUANG G, ZHANG H, XUE D, et al. The inverted-U relationship between urban informal economy and urbanization in China. Economic Geography, 2019, 39(11):76-83. | |
12 | 金浩, 李瑞晶, 李媛媛. 基于ESDA-GWR的三重城镇化协调性空间分异及驱动力研究.统计研究,2018,35(1):75-81. |
JIN H, LI R, LI Y. The coordination of triple urbanization's spatial differentiation and driving forces based on ESDA-GWR. Statistical Research,2018,35(1):75-81. | |
13 | 马林靖, 郭彩梅. 新型城镇化进程中失地农民就业的收入差异——基于倾向得分匹配法的研究. 农林经济管理学报,2020,19(2):200-209. |
MA L, GUO C. Income difference of the landless farmers in New Urbanization:A study based on propensity score matching. Journal of Agro-Forestry Economics and Management, 2020,19(2):200-209. | |
14 | 陆铭,高虹,佐藤宏.城市规模与包容性就业.中国社会科学,2012(10):47-66. |
LU M, GAO H, ZUO T. City size and inclusive employment. Social Sciences in China,2012(10):47-66. | |
15 | 邓金钱,何爱平.政府主导、地方政府竞争与城乡收入差距——基于面板分位数模型的经验证据.中国人口科学,2017(06):54-67. |
DENG J, HE A. Government dominance, local government competition and urban-rural income gap: Empirical evidence based on panel quantile model. Chinese Journal of Population Science, 2017(06):54-67. | |
16 | 胡鞍钢,杨韵新.中国转型时期的就业问题.北京:中国劳动社会保障出版社,2002. |
HU A, YANG Y. Employment in China's Transition Period. Beijing: China Labor and Social Security Press, 2002. | |
17 | 吴要武.非正规就业者的未来.经济研究,2009,44(7):91-106. |
WU Y. The destination of informal employment. Economic Research Journal, 2009, 44(7):91-106. | |
18 | 刘燕斌.试论促进灵活就业发展的政策措施.中国劳动,2002(3):17-19. |
LIU Y. On the policy measures to promote the development of flexible employment. China Labor, 2002(3):17-19. | |
19 | 胡鞍钢, 赵黎. 我国转型期城镇非正规就业与非正规经济(1990-2004). 清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2006(3):111-119. |
HU A, ZHAO L. Informal employment and informal economy in the economic transformation in the process of urbanization in China (1990-2004). Journal of Tsinghua University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 2006(3):111-119. | |
20 | 刘波. 中国非正规经济的统计界定. 统计科学与实践, 2018(8):15-19. |
LIU B. The statistical definition of informal economy in China. Statistical Theory and Practice, 2018(8):15-19. | |
21 | 张彦. 对上海市人口非正规就业规模的估算与分析. 中国人口科学,2009(3):40-47. |
ZHANG Y. Estimating and analyzing the scale of informal employment in Shanghai. Chinese Journal of Population Science,2009(3):40-47. | |
22 | 王海成, 苏梽芳, 渠慎宁. 就业保护制度对非正规就业的影响——来自中国省际面板数据的证据. 中南财经政法大学学报, 2017(2):32-40. |
WANG H, SU Z, QU S. The impact of employment protection system on informal employment: Evidence from Chinese provincial panel data. Journal of Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, 2017(2):32-40. | |
23 | 曹广忠, 边雪, 刘涛. 基于人口、产业和用地结构的城镇化水平评估与解释——以长三角地区为例.地理研究,2011,30(12):2139-2149. |
CAO G, BIAN X, LIU T. Comprehensive evaluation of the urbanization level in Yangtze River Delta Region: An index framework based on the population, economic structure and land use. Geographical Research,2011,30(12):2139-2149. | |
24 | 祝明明, 董莹, 田玲玲,等. 湖北省人口-经济-土地城镇化的空间格局及其耦合协调性研究.湖北大学学报(自然科学版),2017,39(5):531-538. |
ZHU M, DONG Y, TIAN L, et al. Coupling coordination and spatial pattern among population, economic and land urbanization in Hubei. Journal of Hubei University (Natural Science), 2017, 39(5):531-538. | |
25 | 孙大明, 原毅军. 空间外溢视角下的协同创新与区域产业升级.统计研究,2019,36(10):100-114. |
SUN D, YUAN Y. Synergy innovation and regional industrial upgrading from the spatial spillover perspective. Statistical Research, 2019, 36(10):100-114. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||