Page 43 - IJPS-7-2

International Journal of
Population Studies Objective and subjective assimilation of migrants

sampling method with three layers of east, center, and west, 4 = “people in urban areas.” Thus, a higher value reflects a
covering 15 provinces, 126 cities, and 234 counties. In total, stronger willingness to become “urban residents.”
it includes 18,948 households and 64,777 individuals. The Since a clear reference group must be identified
18,948 households are comprised 7175 urban households, to measure assimilation, the other three options were
11,013 rural households, and 760 migrant households, excluded, because it is difficult to identify the reference
with 2210 migrant samples in total. However, the analyses groups that the migrants are referring to. “Relatives and
were restricted to heads of households and their spouses, friends,” may refer to “relatives and friends” in the host
because the data on subjective well-being were only destination or the home origin. For “people in the country,”
collected from them. The total eligible sample size is 726. the reference group is too general to make sense. Finally,
Among these 726 respondents, only 367 provided a clear for those who choose “unsure/no answer,” any reference
choice of their reference group who are the total valid group can be a potential option, and their reference group
sample size of the present study. is essentially not observed. These ambiguous reference
The sample selection procedure may raise a concern groups were not imputed because, given the significant
about external validity. The distribution of the basic role of selecting the reference group, the imputation (for
characteristics of each sample group (selected and all) example, multiple imputations) on the reference group
was compared (Table A1) to understand the extent that neither is appropriate nor leads to more accurate results.
the selected samples can be representative of the entire This research only focuses on economic assimilation.
migrant sample in the data. The distributions are almost As mentioned previously, there are other assimilation
identical between the selected samples and all migrant dimensions and income may be instrumental. Nevertheless,
samples, suggesting that the selected samples are likely given the limitation of the data and the importance of
representative of all migrant samples in the data.
economic assimilation in the literature, the analysis will
2.2. Reference group and assimilation measures center on economic assimilation. Exogenous variables
that are highly connected with income were controlled to
The survey includes a question about the respondents’ further alleviate the instrumental component of income in
reference group: “Generally speaking, when you evaluate the assimilation. Economic status was measured by yearly
your family’s economic and life condition, with whom income as suggested in the literature (Brown, 2006; Fischer-
are you comparing mainly?” The responses include Neumann, 2014; Kalmijn, 1996; Tienda, 1980). Education
“relatives and friends, people in the same community/ is another common measure of assimilation for second-
street/village, people in the same district/county, people in generation migrants (Brown, 2006; Fischer-Neumann,
urban areas, people in rural areas, people in the country, 2014; Jacob & Kalter, 2013; Kalmijn, 1996; Weller, 1974).
and unsure/no answer.” It is important to understand The information on education in contracting the outcome
these answers based on the Chinese context. People in variable was not used, because the samples are composed
the same community/street/village are probably refer to of mostly first-generation migrants with education levels
the migrants’ neighbors, who may include rural-to-urban set before migration.
migrants and local residents in the specific urban areas,
where the respondents are living, given their marginalized The gap or “distance” between migrants and the
status (Feng, et al., 2002; Wong, et al., 2007). People in the comparison group was constructed to transform the yearly
same district/county are most likely urban residents and income into economic assimilation (Chen & Liu, 2018).
may include some migrants in the specific urban areas, This generated a variable to measure the gap between the
where the respondents live. People in urban areas are the respondent’s yearly income and the average income of the
“urban residents” only. People in rural areas most likely reference group. While the average income of the reference
refer to people in the home province, because migrants group is not provided directly, the data include multilevel
were mainly exposed to rural areas in their home province. geographical information on where each respondent was
The inclusion of rural people as one of the reference groups residing at the time of the survey. Moreover, the data also
is essential, because it is normal for migrants to form a dual provide the migrants’ province of origin. This information
frame of reference – there is a tendency for migrants to was used to trace and identify people in the migrants’ place
evaluate their lives in the host destination by referencing of origin. For those respondents who selected “people in
the living conditions in their home location (Waldinger rural areas” as their reference group, their income was
& Lichter, 2003). Within this context, the variable was measured by the average income level of the rural residents
reconstructed and changed from categorical to ordinal, in their province of origin. For respondents who selected
with 1 = “rural areas,” 2 = “people in the same community/ “people in the community/street/village” or “people in the
street/village,” 3 = “people in the same district/county,” and district/county” as their reference group, their income

Volume 7 Issue 2 (2021) 37 https://doi.org/10.36922/ijps.v7i2.346