Village-level analysis

Given the previously mentioned drawbacks that may tarnish county-level studies, it can be interesting to carry-out a village-level analysis in addition to a county-level analysis. Indeed, using micro-level data overcomes the main drawbacks inherent in county-level analysis as the micro-level survey we will use follows the 2000 Census classification of urban/rural areas¹⁹. First, by using survey data we are thus able to consider as rural every village that belongs to a city’s UAA but which genuinely remains rural (represented in dark green in Figure 2.5). This is more relevant because it enables us to investigate the effect of cities on their most nearby villages. Second, as stated in Section 2.3.2, there are two urban units in China: cities (the main urban entity) and towns. The NBS-defined urban areas encompass towns within rural counties whereas in county-level analysis, counties are entirely considered as rural (see Figure 2.6). In other words, while using county-level data enables us to investigate whether cities enhance the development level of counties, using village-level data enables us to asses the effect of both cities and towns on the rural economy. Investigating the impact of proximity to towns seems particularly relevant. Indeed, rural non-agricultural activities as well as new technologies and ideas are concentrated in towns; thus, towns are likely to play a very significant role on nearby rural areas, by reducing agricultural labor surplus and by modernizing the countryside (Lin, 2002).

On the whole, it seems that county-level and village-level analyses constitute interesting and complementary scales of analysis to empirically investigate whether urban areas drive rural development in China. Thus, I will provide both county-level and village-level analyses in the present dissertation in order to provide the most thorough analysis possible. Specifically, Chapters 4 and 6 provide county-level studies (cities correspond to their UAA) while Chapter 5 provide a micro-level analysis (urban areas correspond to NBS-defined urban areas).

2.6 Conclusion

While the central government did not remove the hierarchical administrative structure during the economic transition, it has implemented three main administrative measures to empower cities and to spur urbanization.

19As described in Chapter 5, we use the 2000 rural survey of the Chinese Household Income Project.

60 Chapter 2. The Chinese Spatial System

First, in the early 1980s, the central government authorized cities to administer counties.

This administrative measure, which led to an increase in the administrative jurisdiction of cities, has had direct implications for the concept of cities. While in the pre-reform era cities refer to built-up areas (functional concept of cities), nowadays cities have become an administrative concept as they include urban districts (the UAA) as well as counties and lower-level cities. We have highlighted in this chapter the necessity of clearly understanding the difference between the city as an entire administrative area and the city as an urban administrative area. In the rest of the dissertation, we will refer to cities as Urban Administrative Areas.

In addition, during the reform era the criteria to designate a settlement as urban were weakened. First, this led to the conversion of entire rural counties into county-level cities during the 1980s and the mid-1990s. However, counties have been upgraded to the rank of county-level cities more as a consequence of a loosening in criteria to designate a settlement as urban than because of a genuine urbanization of counties. Second, many counties and county-level cities were converted into urban districts throughout the transition. As a result, the UAA of prefecture-level and above cities has increased but the new urban districts remain in large part rural entities. Thus, the UAA of prefecture-level and above cities has been changed from a genuine urban area to a hybrid entity, including both strongly urbanized areas and portions of rural areas. On the whole, the weakening of the criteria to classify entities as urban has progressively eroded the relevancy of the UAA to cover the city proper. This is a serious issue that must be kept in mind given that city-level data, which are provided by the City Statistical Yearbooks, are based on the UAA criteria.

Figure 2.7 summarizes the impact of the three previously described administrative measures on the number of administrative divisions. Consistently, the “turning prefecture into cities”

measure led both to an increase in the number of prefecture-level cities and to a decrease in the number of prefectures in the two first decades of the reforms. Moreover, the “turning counties into cities” measure led to a sharp increase in the number of county-level cities until 1997, when the policy ended. Since then, the number of county-level cities has declined because some of them have been converted into urban districts. The “turning counties and cities into urban districts” has also led to an increase in the number of urban districts since the reforms began.

Consistently, as counties were turned into county-level cities and urban districts, their number decreased during the whole reform era. On the whole, most administrative changes occurred

2.6. Conclusion 61

during the 1980s-1990s and despite the increase in the number of urban districts until 2004, administrative divisions have remained essentially unchanged since 2000.

Figure 2.7: Administrative changes thorough the reform era

Source: Li and Wu (2012)

Finally, in light of the previously discussed issues, we have wondered about the relevant scale of analysis to empirically assess urban influence on rural economic development. The obvious answer is to carry out county-level studies as this approach is directly derived from the theory and as it is the most widely used scale in empirical works on urban spillover effects on rural areas. However, we believe that it is interesting to complement county-level studies with a micro-level analysis to overcome some drawbacks inherent to county-level analyses carried out in the Chinese context. The present dissertation will thus provide both county-level and micro-level studies to empirically assess the effects of urban areas on the hinterland in China.

Bibliography

Chan, K. W., 1994: Urbanization and Rural-Urban Migration in China since 1982: A New Baseline. Modern China, 20 (3), 243–281.

Chan, K. W., 2007: Misconceptions and Complexities in the Study of China’s Cities: Defini-tions, Statistics, and Implications. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 48 (4), 383–412.

Chan, K. W., 2010: Fundamentals of China’s Urbanization and Policy. The China Review, 10 (1), 63–94.

Chan, K. W., J. V. Henderson, and K. Y. Tsui, 2008: Spatial Dimensions of Chinese Eco-nomic Development, chap. 19, 776–828. in L. Brandt and T. G. Rawski (Eds.), China’s Great Economic Transformation, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Chan, K. W. and Y. Hu, 2003: Urbanization in China in the 1990s: New Definition, Different Series, and Revised Trends. The China Review, 3 (2), 49–71.

Chung, J. H. and T.-C. Lam, 2004: China’s in Flux: Explaining Post-Mao Administrative Changes. The China Quarterly, 180, 945–964.

Fan, C. C., 1999: The Vertical and Horizontal Expansions of China’s City System. Urban Geography, 20 (6), 493–515.

Fan, S., L. Li, and X. Zhang, 2009: Rethinking China’s Underurbanization: An Evaluation of Its County-to-city Upgrading Policy. IFPRI discussion papers 875, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

Gustafsson, B. and S. Li, 2002: Income Inequality Within and Across Counties in Rural China 1988 and 1995. Journal of Development Economics, 69 (1), 179–204.

Ke, S. and E. Feser, 2010: Count on the Growth Pole Strategy for Regional Economic Growth?

Spread-Backwash Effects in Greater Central China. Regional Studies, 44 (9), 1131–1147.

Knight, J. and L. Song, 1993: The Spatial Contribution to Income Inequality in Rural China.

Cambridge Journal of Economics, 17 (2), 195–213.

64 Bibliography

Kojima, R., 1995: Urbanization in China. The Developing Economies, 33 (2), 151–154.

Li, L., 2011: The Incentive Role of Creating “Cities” in China. China Economic Review, 22 (1), 172–181.

Li, Y. and F. Wu, 2012: The Transformation of Regional Governance in China: The Rescaling of Statehood. Progress in Planning, 78 (2), 55–99.

Lin, G. C., 2002: The Growth and Structural Change of Chinese Cities: a Contextual and Geographic Analysis. Cities, 19 (5), 299–316.

Ma, L. J., 2005: Urban Administrative Restructuring, Changing Scale Relations and Local Economic Development in China. Political Geography, 24 (4), 477–497.

Rawski, T. G., 2001: What is Happening to China’s GDP Statistics? China Economic Review, 12 (4), 347–354.

Xu, Z., 2008: Urbanisation et Croissance des Villes en Chine. Ph.D. thesis, University of Auvergne.