The Effects of Parental Migrant Work Experience on Labor Market Performance of Rural-Urban Migrants: Evidence from China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The subject of the article is interesting, and it is linked to the objectives of the journal, however, there are some issues that have to be reconsidered.
For better visibility on databases, the authors are asked not to repeat among keywords the words/concepts included in the title of the article.
The authors are asked not to use any abbreviation before being explained. See "OLS" in the abstract (ordinary least squares method).
Figure 2. "Migration_p", "Migration_f", "Migration_m" should be explained
Line 89. Please use italic fronts for "ceteris paribus".
In Introduction the hypothesis/research objectives are not clearly described.
The results are interesting, but they are well discussed, and, also, are the conclusion.
Author Response
Point 1: For better visibility on databases, the authors are asked not to repeat among keywords the words/concepts included in the title of the article.
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion, and we have reset the keywords as follows (in lines 25 and 26 of the manuscript). Keywords: parental migration; income; rural-urban migrants; intergenerational inheritance; self-employment; CMDS; China
Point 2: The authors are asked not to use any abbreviation before being explained. See "OLS" in the abstract (ordinary least squares method).
Response 2: We greatly appreciate the reminder from the reviewer, and we have double-checked and revised it.
Point 3: Figure 2. "Migration_p", "Migration_f", "Migration_m" should be explained
Response 3: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have explained for "Migration_p", "Migration_f", and "Migration_m" to the manuscript and marked it in red (line 191-197).
Figure 2. Proportion of migrants having parental migration experience by birth year. (Migration_p indicates the proportion of the migrants with the same birth year in which both parents have migrant work experience; Migration_f indicates the proportion of the migrants with the same birth year in which only the father has migrant work experience; Migration_m indicates the proportion of the migrants with the same birth year in which only the mother has migrant work experience; Total indicates the proportion of the migrants with the same birth year in which both parents or one of them has migrant work experience). (line 191-197)
Point 4: Line 89. Please use italic fronts for "ceteris paribus".
Response 4: We thank the reviewer for this reminder, we have used italic fronts for "ceteris paribus" and marked it in red in the manuscript (line 356).
Point 5: In Introduction the hypothesis/research objectives are not clearly described.
Response 5: We thank this suggestion from the reviewer, which makes our introduction clearer. We have revised the introduction to make it clear (line 33-74), and described our research objectives (line 53-57). We have marked it in red in the manuscript.
In view of this, the main objective of this paper is to use a multiple linear regres-sion model and ordinary least squares (OLS) to empirically study the impact of pa-rental migrant work experience on the labor market performance of the second gen-eration of rural-urban migrants, identify the influence mechanism of such experience, and verify the heterogeneity based on individual traits (line 53-57).
Point 6: The results are interesting, but they are well discussed, and, also, are the conclusion.
Response 6: We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion, which helped us enhance the quality of the article. We have distinguished as much as possible between results and conclusions and have presented the conclusions generalized conclusions which simply based on the results. We have marked it in red in the manuscript (line 618-639).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Parental migration and its effects (on children's income) have always been a hot topic in development economics. The authors use CMDS data to focus on the impact of parental migration on children's earnings. In general, the research topic still remains to show that the lack of in-depth theoretical mechanism analysis, also can not meet the requirements of publication. Specific comments are as follows:
(1) The key scientific issues to be addressed and the marginal contribution are not clear. What is the practical significance of studying the impact of parental migration experience on children's income? Even if we don't do this study and assume that learning about parental migration significantly boosts children's incomes, what are the policy implications? Encourage your parents to migrate? Do you have experience of migration? In fact, I think the author has only paid attention to the surface of the problem, and has not studied further. Migration experiences, for example, parents affect children's income, in addition to pay attention to whether parents have migration experience, we may be more concerned about their parents rural industry, the distance of migration, migration time, parents migration patterns (migration of migration of father, mother or both migration), migration stability, these detail things affect children's offspring, In this way, the theory and mechanism can also be sorted out and the policy orientation is stronger. However, the author did not do the combing and research of this section, but the data results-oriented backward inference, which is of little significance.
(2) The research lacks in-depth theoretical mechanism analysis. Does parental migration affect children's income? If so, how does it work? What kind of theoretical support? These are the core critical things that the author doesn't have. This makes the whole study hardly convincing. The author naturally chose self-employment as the mediating variable. What is the theoretical basis? Can parental migration affect children's employment by expanding their social network? Isn't that the mechanism?
(3) Questions about data. As far as I know, CMDS is a long time series panel data, why do the authors only use the data of 2016-2017 for research? At the same time, it is already 2022, so will the timeliness of data be affected, especially after the COVID-19 outbreak in 2019, which may affect many aspects. Using a relatively old piece of data to draw conclusions and policy implications may in some ways have limited implications for today.
(4) About the processing of data. In the process of processing the dependent variable income, the author uses the reduced tail treatment, which I think is not advisable and will cover up a lot of factual information. In fact, you can solve the right skewed distribution problem by taking the logarithm. At the same time, if the authors want to see the performance of the core independent variables in different income ranges, they can use quantile regression.
(5) Variable selection should be based on evidence. When introducing the measurement of relevant variables, the author did not cite any literature at all, which is obviously not advisable for the research in this field.
(6) Due to the lack of in-depth theoretical analysis, the empirical study of the whole study is not tenable.
Author Response
Point 1: The key scientific issues to be addressed and the marginal contribution are not clear. What is the practical significance of studying the impact of parental migration experience on children's income? Even if we don't do this study and assume that learning about parental migration significantly boosts children's incomes, what are the policy implications? Encourage your parents to migrate? Do you have experience of migration? In fact, I think the author has only paid attention to the surface of the problem, and has not studied further. Migration experiences, for example, parents affect children's income, in addition to pay attention to whether parents have migration experience, we may be more concerned about their parents rural industry, the distance of migration, migration time, parents migration patterns (migration of migration of father, mother or both migration), migration stability, these detail things affect children's offspring, In this way, the theory and mechanism can also be sorted out and the policy orientation is stronger. However, the author did not do the combing and research of this section, but the data results-oriented backward inference, which is of little significance.
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for these comments, which helped us to think further about the marginal contribution of the article. In fact, we have several major considerations for the significance of this article.
First, we examine the income difference among rural-urban migrants in China based on whether or not their parents have migrant work experience, which helps to paint a more comprehensive picture of the facts about migration in China and better understand the phenomenon of intergenerational transmission of parental migrant work experience among the migrants.
Second, our work enriches the literature on the impact parental migration on children’s outcomes. Most of the relevant literatures mainly reveal the short-term impact of parents’ migrant work experience on children, and several studies on the long-term impact focus on the differences between the children of migrants and those of non-migrants. Based on the national large-scale sample survey data, we take the rural-urban migrants as the research object to analyze the intergenerational impact of parental migration on children entering the labor market, which is an effective supplement and extension to understanding the role of parental migration from multiple perspectives.
Third, this study contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the established facts of migration in China and the changes and differences that occur within rural-urban migrants, which provides some useful evidence for policies on migrants and helps to enhance the relevance and accuracy of policies.
Point 2: Some further justification around the research design, the validity and sampling. The research lacks in-depth theoretical mechanism analysis. Does parental migration affect children's income? If so, how does it work? What kind of theoretical support? These are the core critical things that the author doesn't have. This makes the whole study hardly convincing. The author naturally chose self-employment as the mediating variable. What is the theoretical basis? Can parental migration affect children's employment by expanding their social network? Isn't that the mechanism?
Response 2: We are pleased to accept this constructive suggestion from the reviewer. We have We have added the theoretical analysis in Section 2 to make it clear and have marked it in red in the manuscript (line 157-258).
Point 3: Questions about data. As far as I know, CMDS is a long time series panel data, why do the authors only use the data of 2016-2017 for research? At the same time, it is already 2022, so will the timeliness of data be affected, especially after the COVID-19 outbreak in 2019, which may affect many aspects. Using a relatively old piece of data to draw conclusions and policy implications may in some ways have limited implications for today.
Response 3: Thanks to the reviewer for the attention to the data. There are several main reasons why we used the data of CMDS 2016-2017.
First, currently, the official website (https://www.chinaldrk.org.cn/wjw/#/home) of the Migrant Population Service Center of the National Health and Health Commission of China only publishes data up to 2018, and we did not use the 2018 data because only the 2016 and 2017 data contain the independent variable we are interested in.
Second, we think that the findings derived using data from 2016 and 2017 are still somewhat helpful in understanding the phenomenon of migration in China today. Figure 2 shows that it is a common and extensive experience for their parents to migrate to work for more and more migrants, especially for those who were born in the late 1990s, which means that many rural people become migrants after their parents. China’s seventh national census in 2020 shows, the number of internal migrants has reached nearly 376 million (about 27% of the total population). We believe that intergenerational inheritance of parental work experiences still exists in such a large migrant population, and the findings of this study may still contribute to understanding this phenomenon.
Third, many of the most recent studies also used CMDS data from 2017 and earlier and have many interesting findings. For example,
- Yue, Q.; Song, Y.; Zhu, J.; Li, Z.; Zhang, M. Exploring the Effect of Air Pollution on Settlement Intentions from Migrants: Evidence from China. Impact Assess. Rev. 2021, 91, 106671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106671.
- Huang, N.; Ning, G.; Rong, Z. Destination Homeownership and Labor Force Participation: Evidence from Rural-to-Urban Migrants in China. Hous. Econ. 2022, 55, 101827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhe.2022.101827.
- Liao, L.; Wu, W.; Zhang, C. Housing Prices and the Subjective Well-Being of Migrant Workers: Evidence from China. Happiness Stud. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-022-00549-8.
- Zhou, J.; Chi-Man Hui, E. Housing Prices, Migration, and Self-Selection of Migrants in China. Habitat Int. 2022, 119, 102479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2021.102479.
- Lu, C. The Impact of Equalisation of Basic Public Health and Medical Services on the Long‐term Urban Settlement Intentions of Internal Migrants in China. Asia Pac. Viewp. 2022, apv.12349. https://doi.org/10.1111/apv.12349.
Certainly, the CMDS data in 2016-2017 is indeed not a perfect choice, and we would further improve it if we had access to better data.
Figure 2. Proportion of migrants having parental migration experience by birth year. (Migration_p indicates the proportion of the migrants with the same birth year in which both parents have migrant work experience; Migration_f indicates the proportion of the migrants with the same birth year in which only the father has migrant work experience; Migration_m indicates the proportion of the migrants with the same birth year in which only the mother has migrant work experience; Total indicates the proportion of the migrants with the same birth year in which both parents or one of them has migrant work experience).
Point 4: About the processing of data. In the process of processing the dependent variable income, the author uses the reduced tail treatment, which I think is not advisable and will cover up a lot of factual information. In fact, you can solve the right skewed distribution problem by taking the logarithm. At the same time, if the authors want to see the performance of the core independent variables in different income ranges, they can use quantile regression.
Response 4: We thank the reviewer for pointing out the risks in the data processing. We have removed the reduced tail treatment and taken the logarithm (line 280-282), and have updated the results in the tables and updated the figure 3. We also marked them in red in the manuscript.
Point 5: Variable selection should be based on evidence. When introducing the measurement of relevant variables, the author did not cite any literature at all, which is obviously not advisable for the research in this field.
Response 5: Thanks to the reviewer's suggestion, we have added some literature to the variable selection section and marked it in red in the manuscript (line 275-277, line 292-293, line 299, line 303-308).
Point 6: Due to the lack of in-depth theoretical analysis, the empirical study of the whole study is not tenable.
Response 6: We are pleased to accept this constructive suggestion from the reviewer. We have added the theoretical analysis in Section 2 to make it clear and have marked it in red in the manuscript (line 157-258). Also, we used propensity score matching (PSM) and instrumental variables (IV) in section 4 (line 402-480) to perform robustness tests to ensure the validity of the empirical estimation results.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is seeming to be well-organized and structured and uses the appropriate methodologies, however, the topic has a clear national/local interest and in various points and sections needs improvement. The used data seems old according to the dynamic of the migration phenomenon, especially in China.
Comments
1. The Introduction section, in my opinion, needs restructuring and improvement. Migration to China could be discussed more thoroughly in a sub-section of a Literature review section (which I think needs to be added).
We usually do not present Tables or Figures in the Introduction section. The legend in Figure 2 should be made clearer for the reader (construct the legend of Figure 2 correctly).
Between lines 88-100 the authors present key results of the study; this is not appropriate in an Introduction section (they should be deleted).
At the end of the section, I would suggest that the authors add a brief description of the structure of the paper.
2. I believe that for such an important subject it is necessary (as I mentioned above) to add a Literature review section.
3. In subsection 2.1 (Data) the authors explain why they used the 2016-2017 data, but this does not change a reality that says that the data is now old and does not correspond to today's reality. The dynamics of the migration phenomenon and the economy, especially in a country like China, make the years 2016-2017 to seem very distant from today. Are the authors believe that the results of the study are relevant to today's China?
4. In sub-section 3.3.2. (IV Test) the authors declare that 'In this section, we use the urban unemployment rate of the sample’s household registration area in 2001 as an instrumental variable...' Why are you using the urban' unemployment rate of 2001? How reliable is the test result with so old data?
5. In the Discussion section, the authors continue to present new results of their study (Tables 7,8, and 9). I suggest all these results be transferred to the appropriate section 3 (Results).
6. In the Results and Discussion section the authors present paragraphs that own exclusively to the discussion section. I suggest to the authors bring together these paragraphs for Discussion and to complete this section with aspects who missing. It is very important, for authors to compare findings with the findings of similar studies international oriented.
7. In the Conclusion section there are mainly repetitions that we met in the previous sections. Please avoid repetitions as in the Conclusion section the authors have the chance to present generalized conclusions which simply based on the results.
8. The basic limitations of the research are not mentioned by the authors, and the study implications to policies for promoting the employment and entrepreneurship of rural-urban migrants that presented, are surface also, in my opinion.
Author Response
Point 1:
Point 1.1:The Introduction section, in my opinion, needs restructuring and improvement. Migration to China could be discussed more thoroughly in a sub-section of a Literature review section (which I think needs to be added).
Response 1.1: We thank this suggestion from the reviewer, which makes our introduction clearer. We have restructured the introduction in section 1 and marked it in red in the manuscript (line 28-74). Meanwhile, we have provided an overview of migration in China in subsection 2.1 and also marked it in red in the manuscript (line 158-197).
Point 1.2:We usually do not present Tables or Figures in the Introduction section.
Response 1.2: We have removed Figure 1 and Figure 2 in the Introduction section according to this comment and restructured them in subsection 2.1 in the manuscript.
Point 1.3: The legend in Figure 2 should be made clearer for the reader (construct the legend of Figure 2 correctly).
Response 1.3: We have added an explanation of Figure 2 in subsection 2.1 (line 191-197).
Point 1.4: Between lines 88-100 the authors present key results of the study; this is not appropriate in an Introduction section (they should be deleted).
Response 1.4: Thanks to the reviewer's suggestion, we have deleted the key results of the study in Introduction section.
Point 1.5: At the end of the section, I would suggest that the authors add a brief description of the structure of the paper.
Response 1.5: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion, we have added a brief description of the structure of this article in section 1 and marked it in red in the manuscript (line 70-74).
Point 2: I believe that for such an important subject it is necessary (as I mentioned above) to add a Literature review section.
Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this important suggestion, which makes this paper more completed. We have added a literature review in section 2 and marked it in red in the manuscript (line 157-258).
Point 3: In subsection 2.1 (Data) the authors explain why they used the 2016-2017 data, but this does not change a reality that says that the data is now old and does not correspond to today's reality. The dynamics of the migration phenomenon and the economy, especially in a country like China, make the years 2016-2017 to seem very distant from today. Are the authors believe that the results of the study are relevant to today's China?
Response 3: Thanks to the reviewer for the attention to the data. There are several main reasons why we used the data of CMDS 2016-2017.
First, currently, the official website (https://www.chinaldrk.org.cn/wjw/#/home) of the Migrant Population Service Center of the National Health and Health Commission of China only publishes data up to 2018, and we did not use the 2018 data because only the 2016 and 2017 data contain the independent variable we are interested in.
Second, we think that the findings derived using data from 2016 and 2017 are still somewhat helpful in understanding the phenomenon of migration in China today. Figure 2 shows that it is a common and extensive experience for their parents to migrate to work for more and more migrants, especially for those who were born in the late 1990s, which means that many rural people become migrants after their parents. China’s seventh national census in 2020 shows, the number of internal migrants has reached nearly 376 million (about 27% of the total population). We believe that intergenerational inheritance of parental work experiences still exists in such a large migrant population, and the findings of this study may still contribute to understanding this phenomenon.
Figure 2. Proportion of migrants having parental migration experience by birth year. (Migration_p indicates the proportion of the migrants with the same birth year in which both parents have migrant work experience; Migration_f indicates the proportion of the migrants with the same birth year in which only the father has migrant work experience; Migration_m indicates the proportion of the migrants with the same birth year in which only the mother has migrant work experience; Total indicates the proportion of the migrants with the same birth year in which both parents or one of them has migrant work experience).
Third, many of the most recent studies also used CMDS data from 2017 and earlier and have many interesting findings. For example,
- Yue, Q.; Song, Y.; Zhu, J.; Li, Z.; Zhang, M. Exploring the Effect of Air Pollution on Settlement Intentions from Migrants: Evidence from China. Impact Assess. Rev. 2021, 91, 106671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106671.
- Huang, N.; Ning, G.; Rong, Z. Destination Homeownership and Labor Force Participation: Evidence from Rural-to-Urban Migrants in China. Hous. Econ. 2022, 55, 101827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhe.2022.101827.
- Liao, L.; Wu, W.; Zhang, C. Housing Prices and the Subjective Well-Being of Migrant Workers: Evidence from China. Happiness Stud. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-022-00549-8.
- Zhou, J.; Chi-Man Hui, E. Housing Prices, Migration, and Self-Selection of Migrants in China. Habitat Int. 2022, 119, 102479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2021.102479.
- Lu, C. The Impact of Equalisation of Basic Public Health and Medical Services on the Long‐term Urban Settlement Intentions of Internal Migrants in China. Asia Pac. Viewp. 2022, apv.12349. https://doi.org/10.1111/apv.12349.
Certainly, the CMDS data in 2016-2017 is indeed not a perfect choice, and we would further improve it if we had access to better data.
Point 4: In sub-section 3.3.2. (IV Test) the authors declare that 'In this section, we use the urban unemployment rate of the sample’s household registration area in 2001 as an instrumental variable...' Why are you using the urban' unemployment rate of 2001? How reliable is the test result with so old data?
Response 4: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion, and we have explained why this instrumental variable is used in sub-section 4.3.2 (line 447-464). We use the urban unemployment rate of the sample’s household registration (hukou) area in 2001 as an instrumental variable (IV), which meets the requirement of relevance and exclusion of IV. On the one hand, the higher the urban unemployment rate in the place of hukou, the more difficult it is for people to achieve non-agricultural employment in the local area, and the greater the possibility people migrate to find employment opportunities. Given this, the higher the urban unemployment rate in the place of hukou, the greater the possibility of parental migrant work. Furthermore, our independent variable is the parental migrant work experience of the rural-urban migrants, and the use of historical unemployment rate is necessary to ensure that the IV is correlated with parental migration at that time. China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001. Changes in China’s inter-regional economic development pattern and industrial layout have led to more frequent rural population movements. At this time, the higher the urban unemployment rate in a region, the more likely it is for local residents to migrate to work. On the other hand, as a population outflow place, the urban unemployment rate in the place of hukou has relatively little effect on the income of rural-urban migrants in the cities of inflow, making this IV better meet the exogenous requirements.
Point 5: In the Discussion section, the authors continue to present new results of their study (Tables 7,8, and 9). I suggest all these results be transferred to the appropriate section 3 (Results).
Response 5: We are pleased to accept this constructive advice from the reviewer, and we have transferred the results of tables 7-10 to the section 4 (Results).
Point 6: In the Results and Discussion section the authors present paragraphs that own exclusively to the discussion section. I suggest to the authors bring together these paragraphs for Discussion and to complete this section with aspects who missing. It is very important, for authors to compare findings with the findings of similar studies international oriented.
Response 6: We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion, which helped us enhance the quality of the article. We have integrated the Results and Discussion section of the original manuscript, and we have added a new Discussion in section 5 to the revised manuscript. We have marked it in red in the manuscript (line 581-616).
Point 7: In the Conclusion section there are mainly repetitions that we met in the previous sections. Please avoid repetitions as in the Conclusion section the authors have the chance to present generalized conclusions which simply based on the results.
Response 7: Thanks to the reviewer's comment, and we have distinguished as much as possible between results and conclusions and have presented the conclusions generalized conclusions which simply based on the results. We have marked it in red in the manuscript (line 618-639).
Point 8: The basic limitations of the research are not mentioned by the authors, and the study implications to policies for promoting the employment and entrepreneurship of rural-urban migrants that presented, are surface also, in my opinion.
Response 8: We have revised according to this comment. First, the limitations of the study are discussed in section 5 and we have marked it in red in the manuscript (line 606-616).
Second, this study contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the established facts of migration in China and the changes and differences that occur within rural-urban migrants. Based on the findings of this study, we draw some policy implications. We believe that the government should pay attention to the differences within the migrants, introduce targeted policies for different types and characteristics of the migrants, and improve policy accuracy.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks to the efforts of the author, however, the theoretical analysis part is still not satisfactory. In the part of theoretical analysis, the author needs to have a dialogue with classical theories, conduct rigorous research design under the guidance of theories, and then propose research hypotheses. At the same time, the author's selection of intermediary variables needs to have sufficient theoretical basis. Theoretically speaking, parents' migrant work experience can expand their social network, which may affect their children's off-farm employment, so why don't the authors examine the mediating effect of social network? It chose a variable that had no theoretical basis.
Author Response
Point 1: Thanks to the efforts of the author, however, the theoretical analysis part is still not satisfactory. In the part of theoretical analysis, the author needs to have a dialogue with classical theories, conduct rigorous research design under the guidance of theories, and then propose research hypotheses. At the same time, the author's selection of intermediary variables needs to have sufficient theoretical basis. Theoretically speaking, parents' migrant work experience can expand their social network, which may affect their children's off-farm employment, so why don't the authors examine the mediating effect of social network? It chose a variable that had no theoretical basis.
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for these constructive suggestions again, which indeed helped us enhance the quality of the article. We have integrated more relevant theories and literature analysis in Section 2 and propose research hypotheses. We have marked it in blue in the manuscript (line 222-227, line 234-237, line 258-262, line267-273, line 275, line278-281, line 284-289).
Regarding the choice of mechanism variables, we very much regret that the mediating effect of social network was not examined because of the failure to find measures of social network variable in the CMDS. We will further improve it if we can obtain more desirable data. Instead, we choose self-employment as the mechanism variable based on the insights from the existing literature and available data. We have continued to add a review of the relevant literature in sub-section 2.3 and marked it in blue in the manuscript (line 258-262, line267-273, line 275, line278-281), hoping to provide some evidence on the channels of the role of parental migrant work experience to a certain extent.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
No comments
Author Response
Response: We are very grateful to the reviewer’s comments on the manuscript, which were very encouraging and important in enhancing the quality of this paper and planning for future studies. We appreciate a lot for all your efforts in reviewing this paper again.
