Zhongguo jin cheng wu gong zi nü de sui qian xuan ze ji qi dui jiao yu zhi chu de ying xiang

随着我国城镇化的发展和城乡迁移人口的大幅增加，越来越多进城务工人员选择让子女随迁进入城市。在城乡教育水平存在差异的情况下，让子女随迁或留守反映着家庭对高质量教育的需求，同时也有可能改变家庭中教育资源的分配状况。政府是基础教育总成本的主要承担者，政策上可以通过增加政府教育的投入来减轻家庭的私人负担。因此，家庭负担的私人成本大小与政府的供给具有密切的关系。本研究主要采用2008年CHIP（Chinese Household Income Project）数据，从需求的角度考察随迁选择及其对教育支出的影响。研究进一步加入了流出老家和流入城市两地的县级的宏观教育财政数据来反映政府教育供给状况，并探讨了家庭支出和政府供给的相关关系。研究首先采用Probit 回归对随迁选择影响因素进行分析发现，除了个体、家庭和地区因素外，城市教育财政支出是家庭进行随迁选择的拉动力，城乡间教育支出的相对差异也显著地促进随迁选择；研究的第二部分采用倾向得分匹配法寻找随迁与家庭教育支出的因果关系。结果发现，与留守相比，随迁会导致家庭校内教育支出的显著增加，其中进入公办学校的家庭支出增加62%至64%左右。最后，结合政府供给水平对家庭需求的影响，作者发现，流入地政府的教育支出有助于提高流动儿童进入公办学校的机会，与家庭教育支出存在着挤入效应，随着政府支出的增加，家庭需要负担更多的私人成本。研究首次将政府供给水平与随迁子女的教育需求进行结合，具有一定的创新意义。 结论中关于城乡教育支出差异对随迁选择的积极作用，有助于中央或地方政府通过促进城乡均衡发展对随迁过程进行引导；而随迁家庭需要承担高额教育支出的客观事实，也有利于家庭进行随迁选择时充分地考虑成本因素；研究最后发现的挤入效应反映了流入地县级政府教育财力的缺陷，明确了中央政府承担责任的必要性。Whiles urbanization and rural-urban migration in China have been increased rapidly in recent years, more and more migration workers have chosen to bring their children to urban migration destinations. Because of the huge rural-urban gap in education funding, the choice of migrating with children versus leaving them behind in rural areas reflects demand of high educational quality by families. Further, different migration behaviors could also affect households’ resource allocation on education. Since government plays a major role on the total cost of basic education, policies can be implemented to release family’s budget constraint by raising the education finance. As a result, the extent to which private education cost by migrant households is closely related to the level of public funding.Using the 2008 Chinese Household Income Project (CHIP) data, my thesis attempts to investigate the determinants of family migration decision on children and the impact of children migration on educational expenditure. I merge the CHIP data with the macro educational fiscal data in migrants’ place of origin and destination to to indicate the public fiscal support, and explore the relationship between household expenditure and governmental funding on education. I first run probit regressions to explore factors of migration decision on whether to bring children together or not. Results suggest that controlling for individual, household and regional characteristics, the level of educational funding in urban destinations is a key driving force for children’s migration. In addition, the gap on educational funding between urban and rural areas is positively related to children’s migration. I then examine the casual impact of children’s migration on households’ education expenditure using the Propensity Score Matching method. The estimates show that children’s migration to urban areas induces higher household educational expenditure. Compared with the cost for left-behind children, the household expenditure for migrant children in urban public schools is around 62% to 64% higher. Lastly, I investigate the effects of public fiscal support at destination areas on migrant household’s demand on education. It is evident that higher level of public funding increases the probability of enrolling in public schools. I also find crowding-in effect of government spending on private investment, which implies that families need to pay more when government expenditure increasesMy research is innovative as it is the first study to consider both private demand and pubic supply in children’s migration issue. It is informative for either local or central government to consider balance the educational investment in both rural and urban areas if the governments intend to reduce children’s rural-to-urban migration with their parents. Further, my results might be helpful for migrant parents to understand the costs associated with migrating children together: there is potential higher expenditure that they need to bare even if their children can be enrolled in better quality urban public schools. Finally, crowding-in effect suggests that public educational resources in destination areas are limited which calls for support from the central government.Detailed summary in vernacular field only.Detailed summary in vernacular field only.Detailed summary in vernacular field only.曹妍.Thesis (Ph.D.) Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2014.Includes bibliographical references (leaves 142-158).Abstracts also in English.Cao Yan