中國大陸的城鄉關係在二元經濟結構下，為了保證城鎮非農業人口的糧食供給，並避免城市福利上的財政負擔，以戶藉和票證制度等，嚴格限制鄉村人口向城鎮遷移，農民只能留在農村從事單一的種植業，因此造成了農業的落後和農民的貧困。1978年改革之後，由於城市經濟改革對勞動力的需求，中共乃允許農民進城務工經商。於此同時，戶藉制度的鬆動和票證制度的取消，更帶動了農村勞動力大量轉移到城市地區。

本文主要的目的即在以1995年山東濟南市農村流動人口的調查為例，評估中國大陸農村個別移民藉由遷移，在都市勞動力市場上的所得經濟成就，據以評估遷移對城鄉差異的影響作用。而本文所得成就係從移民和相對未遷移者當前經濟特性比較的途徑分析，然因山東濟南市的調查並未訪問與移民背景條件相似的遷出地未遷移者，及遷入地的都市居民，故本文乃採相對所得移動的方法，以移民遷出前在農村的收入和遷移後現在工作的所得，觀察遷移前後所得位置移動的變化，作為評估遷移效果的依據。而以從《濟南統計年鑑》中得到的城市職工月均工資的次級資料，做為移民與都市當地人收入比較的基礎，以觀察移民的遷移利益。並進一步選擇九個自變數對遷移前後所得移動，與移民和都市人所得比較的影響因素進行分析。

後遷移前後所得位置移動的分析發現，有14.5%的樣本移民所得未移動，73.8%的人遷出後所得位置向上移動，11.7%的人所得位置向下移動。其中向上移動的平均幅度大於向下移動，遷出前所得位置在較低層的人，遷出後向上流動的級數愈大，遷出前所得位置愈高者，遷出後較不易維持，向下移動的級數也愈大。分析所得移動的影響因素時發現，遷移前從事非農業工作的男性所得傾向向下移動，新近移民，目前為個體戶、遷移前後沒有參加過訓練的移民等，傾向所得向上移動。遷移前從事非農業工作的男性，係因在農村的所得位置偏高，遷移後不易提高位置偏高，遷移後不易提高位置。新近移民係受目前工作單位、物價及人力資本條件邊際收益較高的影響。而因只有在私營企業，受訓與所得間才有顯著差異，在其他單位則無差異，致曾受過訓練的移民並未顯現出遷移利益。

從移民與都市當地人收入的比較發現，73.9%的農村移民收入低於城市職工，只有26.1%的人高於城市職工，其中目前為個體服務商飲業主收入高於城市職工的機率最大，目前在企事業機關就業的移民，收入低於城市職工的機率最大。這些發現證明了多數農村移民在都市勞動力市場，仍因具有農村的背景，而不利於與城市職工競爭。這種不利本文發現是來自於移民在都市勞動力市場所從事的工作，而非人力素質，尤其是就業於注重資深制、政府計畫控制幅度較大的企事業機關及國有單位的移民，在福利待遇上與城市職工差距太大之故。

從以上發現本文認為，農村移民藉由遷移確實可以改善其經濟情況，但移民在都市勞動力市場上的經濟成就仍不及城市職工，反映出中國大陸的農村移民已因遷移減少了鄉村背景的不利影響，但仍無法完全消除。因此只要中共官方仍允許農民自由遷往城市就業，而城市的農村移民也有意願回鄉創業，則藉由遷移使城鄉二地人口重分配，會是消除城鄉差異的手段之一。

Purpose:

To investigate whether individual person in the rural China through immigration has any effect upon his income achievement on the urban labor market, in other words, to investigate whether immigration has any effect on rural-urban disparity.

Model:

Model (1): dept. variable: income mobility before and after immigration.

indept. variables: nine variables.

Model (2): dept. variable: income disparity between rural immigrants and urban residents.

indept. variables: nine variables.

Method: Using the relative income mobility model, we compare the movement of each individual person's income position before and agter immigration to see if there is any immigration effect or not.

Data:

Data (1): From "Investigation of Rural-Urban Migration in Chi Nan, Shan Tong Province, 1995," we got first-hand data from questionnaires.

Data (2): From data 91) and "Chi Nan Statistics Yearbook," we got secondary data about urban employees' average wage.

Findings：

Finding(1): From the analysis of income mobility model before and after immigration, we found that 14.5% of the sample immigrants did not change their income at all, while 73.8% of those immigrants move upward and 11.7% move downward. The more lower of those possessing income position before immigration the more higher they will move up after immigration and visa versa After analyzing which factors influence income mobility we found that those doing non-agricultural works and males are more inclined to move downward, while those newly immigrants and those holding individual enterprises and those non-training immigrants have the potential to move upward

Finding(2): From the analysis of income disparity between rural immigrants and urban residents. we found that 73.9% of the former have lover income than urban employees only 26.1% of the former have higher income than the latter For those doing individual enterprises especially drinking business. have the best possibi-Iity of higher income than urban employees The income disadvantage of rural immigrants may mot due to human quality. but due to their "jobs"in the urban labor market especially for those employeed in the central planning agencies and public enterprises of which their employees wages and benefits are largely based upon seniority

Conclusion: we conclude that rural immigrants indeed can improve their own economic situation through immigration But the income disadvantage of rural immigrants to urban employees indicates that the former because of their immigration have eliminated somewhat the effect of their rural background though not completely eliminated Accordingly we suggest that to let the rural farmers free immigration to urban areas without restraint and also to let the rural immigrants in the city to initiate their own business on their homeland, only through these redistribution of rural-urban migration can this disparity be eliminated effectively