Search results

Using official and household survey data, the purpose of this paper is to analyze the size of middle class in rural China, its trend and geographical distribution. Determinants or drivers of changes in the size of middle class are explored.

An absolute definition of middle class, adjusted by rural purchasing power parity (PPP) and spatial price index, is employed to measure the size and geographic distribution of rural middle class in 1988, 1995, 2002, and 2007. Biprobit models and OLS models are estimated to investigate the determinants and consumption behavior of middle class in rural China.

Major findings include: in 2007, as many as 398 million rural residents or almost 54 percent of China's rural population belonged to the middle class; the size estimate of China's rural middle class based on income is broadly consistent with that based on assets; factors enhancing the probability of a household entering the middle class include human capital, political capital and non‐farming employment while industrialization, urbanization and development of TVEs also play significant roles; and the middle class not only consume more, but also consume more durables.

A limitation of the paper is the use of 2002 data. However, more recent data are not available.

The size of the middle‐class is crucial for the stability of China, and the growth of the middle class in rural China is crucial for rebalancing the Chinese and global economy. Thus, the measurement results, the identified drivers, and the consumption behavior of rural middle class revealed in this paper can help shed light on nurturing middle class and adjusting development strategy for China to achieve a more sustainable and balanced economic growth.

In the United States, there is little difference in annual income inequality and income mobility between the rural and urban sectors of the economy. This forms a sharp contrast with China where income inequality is greater and income mobility lower among rural households than among urban households. When incomes are averaged over three years and when adjustments are made for the size and composition of households, income inequality among all households differs little between China and the United States in the 1990s. Moreover when pooling rural households and urban households and when measuring annual income inequality and income mobility of the pooled households, the mobility of incomes of households in the United States differs little from that in China. Social welfare functions are posited that allow for a trade-off between increases in income and increases in income inequality. These suggest strong increases in well-being for urban households in China. The corresponding changes in rural China and in the United States are smaller. Four sets of data on households are drawn on to document these findings.

Early models of the functional distribution of income assume constant labor productivity among all individuals. Not until human capital theory developed did scholars take into account how productivity varied across workers. According to early human capital models, this variation came about because each individual invested differently in education and training. Those acquiring greater amounts of schooling and on-the-job training earned more. However, these models neglected why one person would get training while another would not. One explanation is individual heterogeneity. Some individuals are smarter, some seek risk, some have time preferences for the future over the present, some simply are lucky by being in the right place at the right time, and some are motivated by the pay incentives of the jobs they are in. This volume contains 10 chapters, each dealing with an aspect of earnings. Of these, the first three deal directly with earnings distribution, the next four with job design and remuneration, the next two with discrimination, and the final chapter with wage rigidities in the labor market.