Rural Migrant Workers in Urban China: Does Rural Land Still Matter?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.The hypothesis of the article model is that the land leasing market is not active, but the land transfer in some rural areas has begun to take shape. Therefore, there is a certain deviation between the article hypothesis and the real situation.

2.The data of the article was collected in 2011, and some topics discussed in the article no longer exist in the latest rural land contracting system. Therefore, the research results have deviations from the current support of rural development, and it is recommended to use the latest data for discussion.

3.Policy recommendations are not deep enough. The article as a whole is only through the sample data to verify the correlation, in the policy recommendations are only broadly mentioned, need to be further refined.

4.The references cited in the article are too old, and it is recommended to supplement the research results of the past five years.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

1.The hypothesis of the article model is that the land leasing market is not active, but the land transfer in some rural areas has begun to take shape. Therefore, there is a certain deviation between the article hypothesis and the real situation.

Response:

Thank you for your comments and suggestions regarding the section on China's land rental market: at present, China's land transfer is not strongly market-dominated, and in practice is still dominated by the local government; at the same time, due to the high degree of government financial bondage [1], land transfers from small farmers to other operators tend to be relatively limited, which is at variance with national statistics. We also add that in China farmland ownership is retained by rural collectives, and only the management right can be circulated as an institutional arrangement [2,3]; meanwhile, while studies have explored the impact of farmland use right transfer on collective action on public land from an irrigation perspective [4], the unique perspective of this study better reflects the relevant themes. Core data, such as changes in the area of household land transfer and the proportion of transfer, are also reflected in Figure 1.

Regarding the sample selection part, we have already made it clear in the paper that this study mainly adopts the data from a special survey in Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, in 2011 for rural-urban migrant workers. This data is special because it was at an important stage of China's urban-rural structural transformation, and the institutional environment and urban-rural relationship captured is the core context of this study's concern, reflecting the real choices made by rural households when faced with the issues of land endowment, labour transfer and sense of security of land tenure.

Figure 1: Qianji Investment Bank Research Report -2024 Land Transfer Industry Research Report

Source: Qianji Investment Bank Research Report

1. Gyourko, J.; Shen, Y.; Wu, J.; Zhang, R. Land Finance in China: Analysis and Review. China Econ. Rev. 2022, 76, 101868, doi:10.1016/j.chieco.2022.101868.
2. Tian, G.; Duan, J.; Yang, L. Spatio-Temporal Pattern and Driving Mechanisms of Cropland Circulation in China. Land Use Policy 2021, 100, 105118, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105118.
3. Kung, J.K. Common Property Rights and Land Reallocations in Rural China: Evidence from a Village Survey. World Dev. 2000, 28, 701–719, doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00148-5.
4. Wang, Y.; Wang, H. Effects of Farmland Use Rights Transfer on Collective Action in the Commons: Evidence from Rural China. Land Use Policy 2022, 120, 106262, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106262.

 

So we add a section to discuss the land rental market, please see this in section 5.3.

 

2. The data of the article was collected in 2011, and some topics discussed in the article no longer exist in the latest rural land contracting system. Therefore, the research results have deviations from the current support of rural development, and it is recommended to use the latest data for discussion.

Response:

Thanks for the coments. Regarding the data section, a total of 751 valid samples were collected, and the average age of the survey subjects has reached 60 years old, showing a clear aging trend. Most of the respondents have returned to rural areas, and their understanding and emotions towards land are relatively stable. The data used not only comprehensively covers basic information such as household labor allocation and land endowment, but also records key variables such as real personal income, urban-rural income gap, and urban integration degree in detail, providing accurate and rich detailed support for exploring the intrinsic driving factors of labor migration at the individual level. In addition, the data is more accurate in sample selection, and the factor data contained is less affected by the epidemic and subsequent social policy changes, making the data quality more "pure". The data focuses on migrant workers with urban employment experience, effectively avoiding the problem of low signal-to-noise ratio caused by wide coverage, and providing a unique and profound perspective for exploring the reconfiguration of household labor force. Overall, we believe that this data is more in line with the needs of our research direction.

 

3. Policy recommendations are not deep enough. The article as a whole is only through the sample data to verify the correlation, in the policy recommendations are only broadly mentioned, need to be further refined.

Response:

Thanks for the comments. The policy recommendations proposed in the article are based on in-depth data analysis and rigorous empirical testing, with sufficient theoretical basis and practical relevance. The sample data is mainly used to explain the inverse U-shaped relationship between land endowment and rural labor distribution. By distinguishing different groups with different expectations of land ownership security, this study explores in detail how to optimize the land compensation mechanism. However, policy recommendations are not deep enough. So we revise the last paragraph based on the comments:

The social security system for farmers should be improved, and  the development of the land leasing market should be promoted, in order to  achieve reasonable labor mobility and sustainable rural development in the current context of urban-rural in-tegration and land tenure reform.In fact, compared with current policies such as land tenure confirmation and urban-rural integration development policies promoted in recent years, our suggestions maintain the consistency of macro policy direction.

4. The references cited in the article are too old, and it is recommended to supplement the research results of the past five years.

Response:

Thanks for the comments. In fact, during the initial literature selection, we specifically selected classic literature that aid the theoretical foundation and methodological core, which have milestone significance in the research field. However, we also acknowledge that academic research is becoming increasingly broad and profound. Therefore, we are actively revising our manuscript and adding the latest research results from the past five years to the existing framework. These newly added literature not only enrich the theoretical discussion and empirical analysis perspectives, but also further demonstrate the close connection between this study and current academic trends, thereby enhancing the timeliness and persuasiveness of the paper.

 

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

During the processing of this manuscript, there was originally a clear division of labor between me and the corresponding author. However, recently I have been fully committed to the application for the National Natural Science Foundation, which has consumed a great deal of my energy. After submitting the application, I unfortunately suffered from sudden health problems. As a result, after completing my part of the revision, I simply did not have the strength to reserve time for the corresponding author to conduct further revisions and professional language polishing. I sincerely apologize for this. Fortunately, the corresponding author is fully aware of this situation and will promptly and properly complete this crucial part of the work to ensure that the quality of the manuscript reaches the best level.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Using an older set of data, the authors attempt to analyse the relationship between land endowment and labour migration. In my view, the data is too old and the research is not important, urgent, or innovative enough to be published. Specific suggestions are as follows:

(1) The research data is too old, collected in 2011 data at the end of 2010. Here we are in 2025, and many of the facts have changed radically. In fact, as far as I know, there are many public large sample databases in the market that can also complete the author's study, with larger sample size and updated data. Therefore, I strongly recommend the authors to re-run the results using open database data.

(2) The importance, urgency and innovation of research are insufficient. Because the data used by the author is the old data in 2010, at that time, many places have not started to confirm land rights, and there is a big difference between the current labor flow and land allocation. Therefore, from the current situation, this research is no longer important, and there is no urgency. At the same time, as far as I know, there have been a large number of studies on the impact of land ownership confirmation, land natural resource endowment (fragmentation, circulation, scale management, etc.) on labor allocation. Compared with these studies, the author's research is only repetitive without any new ideas.

Author Response

(1) The research data is too old, collected in 2011 data at the end of 2010. Here we are in 2025, and many of the facts have changed radically. In fact, as far as I know, there are many public large sample databases in the market that can also complete the author's study, with larger sample size and updated data. Therefore, I strongly recommend the authors to re-run the results using open database data.

Response:

This study focuses on how land endowment affects the labour allocation choices of households and individuals in rural households under different contexts of land tenure security, and then examines the trend relationship that emerges between land endowment and labour migration decisions.

Compared with large databases such as CLDS, CHIPS+CMDS and CHARLS, the data used in this study have the advantage of being more targeted and refined in design. Considering the construction of variables in Table 1, while the CLDS covers a wide range of rural data, its indicators are more general and lack in-depth measurements of key subjective variables such as the sense of security of land tenure. CHIPS+CMDS focuses mainly on land transfer and labour migration, and although its data truly reflect the basic land use situation, it is not sufficiently detailed in terms of intra-household labour allocation and micro-details of individual migration decisions. CHARLS, on the other hand, focuses on macro issues such as aging and health, and pays limited attention to the specific migration willingness of farm households and the interaction of the land system, making it difficult to capture the internal logic of how farm households adjust their labour allocation under the constraints of the land system. This study not only records objective indicators of land endowment (e.g., total land area, land area per capita, number of plots, etc.), but also innovatively introduces several subjective indicators reflecting farmers' perceptions of security of land tenure, such as land contracts, attitudes toward land adjustment, and land ownership assessment. In addition, this study introduces a unique instrumental variable, ‘Moneygift’, to strictly control for the endogeneity of income differences, which is rare in other databases, thus greatly enhancing the credibility of causal inference.

Table 1 Comparison of database variables

 

Variable	Year	Article correspondence	Database source
monthly income	2018；2016；2014	City salary	CLDS
Family income satisfaction	2018；2016；2014	Family income gap	CLDS
Individual characteristics of labor force	2018；2016；2014	Individual heterogeneity	CLDS
sense of happiness	2018；2016；2014	Urban integration	CLDS
Mental Health	2018；2016；2014	Urban integration	CLDS
Perceived social fairness	2018；2016；2014	Urban integration	CLDS
Sense of control over life	2018；2016；2014	Urban integration	CLDS
Self evaluation of social class	2018；2016；2014	Urban integration	CLDS
social comparison	2018；2016；2014	Urban integration	CLDS
Plan for the next 2 years	2018；2016；2014	immigration plan	CLDS
Household land area	2018；2016；2014	Total land	CLDS
Certificate of Land Contract Management Right	2018；2016；2014	land contract	CLDS
Collective Land Use Certificate	2018；2016；2014	land ownership	CLDS
Reasons for Abandoned Land Cultivation	2018；2016；2014	idle land	CLDS
Participation in agricultural production	2018；2016；2014	cultivated area	CLDS
Number of agricultural producers	2018；2016；2014	Non working population	CLDS
Land rental situation	2018；2016；2014	Rental Market	CLDS
Total area of operating and idle land	2018	idle land	CHIPS+CMDS
The land area of the contracted right	2018	Land endowment	CHIPS+CMDS
The total area of land acquisition	2018	Land endowment	CHIPS+CMDS
Land area leased or contracted	2018	Rental Market	CHIPS+CMDS
The total area of land subcontracted out	2018	Rental Market	CHIPS+CMDS
Reasons for converting rural household registration to non-agricultural status	2018	immigration plan	CHIPS+CMDS
Whether engaged in agricultural labor	2013；2015；2018；2020	Actual urban relocation ratio	Charls
Do you own collective land	2013；2015；2018；2020	land contract	Charls
Has the land been requisitioned	2013；2015；2018；2020	Land endowment (mu)	Charls
Rental rent	2013；2015；2018；2020	Land lease	Charls
Is it for rent	2013；2015；2018；	Land lease	Charls
How much to rent out	2013；2015；2018；	Land lease	Charls
Received rent	2013；2015；2018；	Land lease	Charls
Whether to rent or not	2013；2015；2018；	Land lease	Charls
How much to rent	2013；2015；2018；	Land lease	Charls

 

In our subsequent research topics on migrant workers, we will select the above-mentioned large-scale survey database. Thank you for your comments again.

 

(2) The importance, urgency and innovation of research are insufficient. Because the data used by the author is the old data in 2010, at that time, many places have not started to confirm land rights, and there is a big difference between the current labor flow and land allocation. Therefore, from the current situation, this research is no longer important, and there is no urgency. At the same time, as far as I know, there have been a large number of studies on the impact of land ownership confirmation, land natural resource endowment (fragmentation, circulation, scale management, etc.) on labor allocation. Compared with these studies, the author's research is only repetitive without any new ideas.

Response:

Although the data were collected in 2010, the research in this paper not only reveals the intrinsic mechanism of rural land endowment on household labour allocation and individual migration decisions, but also has practical guidance in terms of policy recommendations. At present, although some regions have gradually promoted land rights, in many rural areas, there are still many uncertainties in the implementation of the land system, and the problem of urban-rural labour mobility is still prominent, which is consistent with the inverse U-shape relationship and the different effects of different groups with different expectations of land security as revealed in the results of this paper.

By carefully distinguishing between the ‘safe’ and ‘unsafe’ groups of land rights expectations, this paper not only theoretically fills the gap between the interactive effects of labour allocation and land endowment explored in previous studies. In practice, it also provides practical policy suggestions for optimising land management, stimulating the rational mobility of rural labour and promoting rural revitalisation, which is also the highlight and fit of the article.

Against the background of the accelerating process of urban-rural integration, how to effectively guide labour migration while safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of farmers remains a key issue to be resolved urgently, and the formulation of various policies targeting China's rural migrant worker population remains a core direction for China's development (e.g., the Central Government's No. 1 Document in 2025). The conclusions and recommendations of this paper provide a theoretical basis and an operational path for this challenge, and therefore, the research in this paper is not only innovative, but also of long-term importance and urgency.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 
Your research is an interesting one, but still, you must improve some aspects:
-in the abstract part you must insist a little bit, focusing on the findings of the study
-you state in the introduction part that your study completes in some ways the existent studies, but is still missing the aim/purpose of your study
-in my opinion data collection must be renamed in the methodology part
-you have a result part very small!!! …and this is not good. I think that some part form methodology could be transformed in the the results part …
-also you must improve the conclusion!
-the reference numbered must be improved!

Author Response

-in the abstract part you must insist a little bit, focusing on the findings of the study

Response:

In response to the abstract section, we have further emphasized the main findings of the study, in particular the impact of land endowment on household labour allocation and how security of land tenure shapes migration decisions, thus enhancing the core message expressed in the abstract. We will also highlight the originality and contribution of our research more explicitly to ensure clarity.

In the abstract section, we revise:

The findings contribute to the impact of land endowment on household labor alloca-tion and how land tenure security affects immigration decisions

 

-you state in the introduction part that your study completes in some ways the existent studies, but is still missing the aim/purpose of your study

Response:

In the introduction section, we have clarified the purpose of the study, highlight the complementary role of this study in the existing literature, and focus on the relationship between land endowment and rural labour migration. This revision will ensure that the research objective is explicitly stated and properly contextualized within the broader academic discourse.

Please see the revision in paragraph 3, and paragraph 3.

 

-in my opinion data collection must be renamed in the methodology part

Response:

In the Methods section, we agree to adjust the title of the Data Collection section to make it more consistent with the overall structure of the research design. This modification will help improve clarity and better reflect the methodological rigor of the study.

 

-you have a result part very small!!! …and this is not good. I think that some part form methodology could be transformed in the the results part …

Response:

In addition, we have expanded the results section to include more details on data analysis, and appropriately adjust some of the methodological content to the discussion of the results, so as to enhance logical coherence and readability. The results section will be elaborated to provide a more detailed presentation of empirical findings, ensuring that the core arguments are well-supported by data.

 We add the section 5.3 to expand the results and discussion on the perspective of the land rental market.

 

-also you must improve the conclusion!

Response:

The conclusion section has been further improved to strengthen the policy insights, especially the recommendations on land rights, the improvement of the agricultural land transfer market, and the social security of migrant workers in urban areas, as well as the possible directions for future research. We will also refine our discussion to highlight the broader implications of our findings for rural development and labour mobility policies.

Please see the revision in the last paragraph.

 

-the reference numbered must be improved!

Response:

Regarding the references, we have double-checked the numbering and formatting to ensure that they meet the requirements of the journal. Any inconsistencies or errors will be corrected to maintain academic rigor and adherence to citation standards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is modified according to expert opinions, and the quality has improved, but there are still some places that need to be modified.

1.Modify the abstract to clarify the purpose, process, main conclusions and research contributions of the study.

2.The discussion can be added to the discussion of the limitations of this study and future research prospects.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your helpful comments! Now I will reply point by point.

The article is modified according to expert opinions, and the quality has improved, but there are still some places that need to be modified.

Thanks again for your recognition of our revisions.

 

1.Modify the abstract to clarify the purpose, process, main conclusions and research contributions of the study.

This is a helpful comment. According to the comment, we have revised the abstract:

The purpose of this study is to test the response of rural-urban migration to land endowment, while recognizing the heterogeneity of land tenure security perceptions. Based on the survey data of 751 migrant workers in Nanjing City, the latent class model identifies the secured group and unsecured group, with a particular focus on how heterogeneous concepts of land tenure security mediate the above relationships. The empirical modeling explores how land endowment affects household labor distribution and individual migration decisions, taking the heterogeneity of tenure expectations into ac-count. The key findings reveal that: 1) an inverse U-shaped relationship between land endowment and household labor distribution, but not between land endowment and individual migrant decisions. 2) Farm households who perceive land tenure as unsecured tend to send fewer household members as job-seeking migrants, even as their land endowment increases. 3) However, the individual migration decision under conditions of a secured land tenure reduces the risk of losing land and induces migrant workers to stay in cities. The findings contribute to the impact of land endowment on household labor allocation and how land tenure security affects immigration decisions, and providing empirical evidence for China's rural revitalization policies, which would support reforms that secure land tenure, such as the second-round contracting renewal policy and rural revitalization plan in China.

2.The discussion can be added to the discussion of the limitations of this study and future research prospects.

Thank you for the constructive comment. We have revised the conclusion section, and added the study’s limitations:

While this study enriches our understanding of land tenure’s role in migration dynamics, its limitations are focus on a specific institutional context and reliance on cross-sectional data. Future research could extend this inquiry to diverse institutional settings to test the robustness of the observed relationships. Also, longitudinal research or panel data would offer deeper insights into how evolving tenure security influences migration decisions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author did not modify my suggestions, which could not solve the problems I raised. I regret that I cannot make an acceptable recommendation.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? Must be improved

Thank you! We deeply appreciate the opportunity to strengthen the introduction by enhancing its background depth and ensuring comprehensive citation of relevant literature.

In the revised version, we have:

1. Expanded the contextual background in paragraph 1, which would provide a more robust foundation for understanding the study’s significance.
2. Conducted a thorough literature review update to analyze the U-shaped relationship between land endowment and labor allocation, as well as studies exploring the role of tenure security in migration decisions. Please see the revision in paragraph 2 and 3.
3. Stated the purpose and contribution of your study, which would ensure all key theoretical and empirical contributions to the above relationship.

 

Is the research design appropriate? Must be improved

Thank you for your suggestion.

The research design formulates research question and purpose based on the literature review (see the introduction and theoretical framework section), and applies mathematical economics to derive formulas and establish hypotheses (see the section 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4), and then the latent class model identifies the secured group and unsecured group (see the section 4.1). With a particular focus on how heterogeneous concepts of land tenure security, this research tests the hypotheses through choosing a fractional probit, and identifies the heterogeneous relationships between land endowment and labor migration (see the section 4.2-5.2). Overall, the research design is appropriate.

 

Are the methods adequately described? Must be improved

Thank you for highlighting the need to strengthen the methods description. We agree that clarity in methodology is essential, and we have revised and supplemented local methodological explanations in the section 4 within a targeted scope to address your feedback. Please see the section 4.1 and 4.2.

 

Are the results clearly presented? Must be improved

Thank you for your feedback on the results presentation. We recognize the need to enhance clarity and will refine this section through targeted, minor revisions. Please see the section 5.1 and 5.2.

 

Are the conclusions supported by the results? Must be improved

Thank you for this critical feedback. We read this paper and checked the connection between our conclusions and the presented results, and we have revies and fined the related section to strengthen the connection between conclusions and the results. Specifically, we will hope the improved part to meet your standards.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author did not modify my suggestions, which could not solve the problems I raised. I regret that I cannot make an acceptable recommendation.

Thank you for your insights. Your insights are very important for us to refine the quality of our work. Our first round of response is dedicated to explaining research data, research importance, and innovation. We appreciate your guidance and look forward to submitting the improved manuscript that meets your standards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no other comments, thank you.