基本理论与基本问题

非货币化收益视角下教育培训对农民工市民化水平的效应——基于苏州市农民工样本的实证研究

  • 崔玉平 ,
  • 吴颖
展开
  • 苏州大学教育学院, 苏州 215123

网络出版日期: 2019-03-21

基金资助

教育部普通高校人文社会科学重点研究基地重大项目"教育培训和市民化对城市外来务工人员犯罪行为影响的实证研究"(13JJD190003)。

The Effect of Education and Training on Migrant Workers' Citizenization in a Non-Monetization Benefit Perspective: Evidence from Suzhou City

  • Cui Yuping ,
  • Wu Ying
Expand
  • School of Education, Soochow University, Suzhou 215123, Jiangsu China

Online published: 2019-03-21

摘要

在新型城镇化建设进程中,教育培训不仅给农民工带来了诸如收入提升的货币收益,也带来了诸如市民化水平提升的非货币化收益。本文基于苏州市农民工问卷调查数据,构建农民工市民化水平评价指标体系,验证了教育培训通过提升农民工市民化水平而创造非货币化收益的积极效应。研究发现:一,农民工市民化水平可以从市民化意愿、经济生活条件、社会关系融合、政治参与程度四个维度来度量。二,目前苏州市农民工市民化处于中等偏上水平,但在四个维度上存在较大差异。三,学校教育对农民工市民化(不包括政治参与程度)具有显著正效应;而只有受教育程度为高中及以上的农民工,其市民化水平才会随着受教育程度的增加而提升。四,接受过培训对农民工市民化具有显著正效应;培训次数对农民工市民化及各维度均有显著正效应,培训周期和培训效果对农民工市民化(不包括政治参与程度)有显著正效应,且培训效果的正效应最强。

本文引用格式

崔玉平 , 吴颖 . 非货币化收益视角下教育培训对农民工市民化水平的效应——基于苏州市农民工样本的实证研究[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2019 , 37(2) : 94 -107 . DOI: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2019.02.011

Abstract

In the process of new urbanization, education and training have brought migrant workers not only monetary benefits such as an increase in income, but also non-monetized benefits such as the promotion of the level of citizenization. Based on the self-designed questionnaire and data collected among migrant workers working in Suzhou City, this paper constructs the evaluation index system of migrant workers' citizenization, and verifies the positive effect of education and training on the creation of non-monetized benefit by improving the level of migrant workers' citizenization. The study draws the following four conclusions. First, migrant workers' citizenization can be measured from four dimensions of citizenization willingness, economic life condition, social relations, and political participation. Second, migrant workers' citizenization is in the moderate upward level, but there are great differences between the four dimensions. Third, school education has a positive effect on the citizenization of migrant workers, which excludes the dimension of political participation. And only the migrant workers who have received high school education or above will improve their citizenization level with the increase of education. Fourth, training has also a significant positive effect on the citizenization of migrant workers. And the number of training has significant positive effects on the citizenization. Training cycle and effect have significant positive effects on the citizenization, which excludes the dimension of political participation, and the positive effect of training effect is the strongest.

参考文献

崔宁. (2014). 新生代农民工市民化进程及影响因素研究. 调研世界,(9),26-30.
崔玉平,吴颖. (2017). 教育培训对苏州市农民工收入的影响——教育培训经济收益率的再检验. 教育与经济,(2),42-50.
崔玉平. (2010). 教育投资的非货币化收益——基于教育对犯罪程度的效应分析. 教育与经济,(2),24-30.
费文会. (2016). 教育非货币化收益研究的起源及发展. 教育学术月刊,(3),17-21+70.
赖作莲,王建康,罗丞,魏雯. (2015). 农民工市民化程度的区域差异与影响因素——基于陕西5市的调查. 农业现代化研究,36(5),773-777.
李丹丹. (2017)教育程度提高了农民工的幸福感吗——来自2015年中国企业—员工匹配调查的证据. 经济理论与经济管理,36(1),39-54.
李锋亮,雷虹. (2007). 论教育的非货币化收益和溢出效益. 清华大学教育研究,28(6),65-69+94.
李锋亮,李拉. (2011). 高等教育非货币化收益与溢出效益的实证分析. 清华大学教育研究,32(1),89-93.
刘传江,程建林,董延芳. (2009). 中国第二代农民工研究. 济南:山东人民出版社.
刘传江,程建林. (2008). 第二代农民工市民化:现状分析与进程测度. 人口研究,32(5),48-57.
刘传江,徐建玲. (2007). 第二代农民工及其市民化研究. 中国人口·资源与环境, (1),6-10.
任娟娟. (2012). 新生代农民工市民化水平及影响因素研究——以西安市为例. 兰州学刊,(3),118-125+131.
沈映春,王泽强,焦婕,魏潇潇. (2013). 北京市农民工市民化水平及影响因素分析. 北京社会科学, (5),138-143.
石智雷,高晴. (2015). 农民工市民化的城市空间差异及影响因素研究. 电子科技大学学报(社会科学版),(6),10-18.
王桂新,沈建法,刘建波. (2008). 中国城市农民工市民化研究——以上海为例. 人口与发展,14(1),3-23.
王竹林,范维. (2015). 人力资本视角下农民工市民化能力形成机理及提升策略. 西北农林科技大学学报(社会科学版),15(2),51-55.
徐建玲. (2008). 农民工市民化进程度量:理论探讨与实证分析. 农业经济问题,(9),65-70.
许长青. (2015). 教育投资的外溢效应及其内在化. 教育学术月刊,(3), 40-47.
张斐. (2011). 新生代农民工市民化现状及影响因素分析. 人口研究,(6),100-109.
张秋山,付鸿彦. (2011). 教育的非货币化收益研究评述. 前沿,(24),223-226.
赵海. (2013). 教育和培训哪个更重要——对我国农民工人力资本回报率的实证分析. 农业技术经济,(1),40-45.
郑磊,朱志勇. (2013). 教育是否促进了中国公民的政治选举投票参与——来自CGSS2006调查数据的证据. 北京大学教育评论,11(2),165-185+192.
Alba,R.,Nee, V.(1997). Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of immigration. International Migration Review,31(4),826-874.
Aleksynska, M., Algan, Y.(2010). Assimilation and Integration of Immigrants in Europe. Social Science Electronic Publishing,9,1-46.
Dziechciarz-Duda,M.,Król,A.(2013). On non-monetary benefits of tertiary education. Econometrics no,3(41),78-94.
Friedberg, R.M.(2000). You can’t take it with you? Immigrant assimilation and the portability of human capital. Journal of Labor Economics,18(2),221-251.
Johnes,G., et al.(2004). International handbook on the economics of education. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
Gordon,M.M.(1964). Assimilation in American life: The role of race, religion, and national origins. New York: Oxford University Press.
Haveman,R.H.,Wolfe,B.L.(1984). Schooling and economic well-being: The role of non-market effects. Journal of Human Resources,19(3),377-407.
Vila, L.E.(2000). The non-monetary benefits of education. European Journal of Education,35(1),21-32.
Mcmahon,W.W.(1984). Why families invest in education? The collection and analysis of economic and consumer behavior data: Essays in memory of Robert Ferber. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.
Mcmahon,W.W.(2006). Education finance policy: Financing the non-market and social benefits. Journal of Education Finance,32(2),264-284.
Mcmahon,W.W.(2010). The external benefits of education. International Encyclopedia of Education, 260-271.
Meer,PVD.,Wielers,R.(1996). Educational credential and trust in the labor market. Kyklos,49(1),29-46.
Rigdon, E.(1995). A necessary and sufficient identification rule for structural equation models estimated in practice. Multivariate Behavioral Research,30(3),359-383.
Waters,M.C.,Jiménez,T.R.(2005). Assessing immigrant assimilation: New empirical & theoretical challenges. Sociology,31(31),1-14.
文章导航

/