Se otorga un estímulo fiscal a los contribuyentes que importen o adquieran

The main reasons cited for leaving the village on a short-duration or cyclical basis revolved around bettering livelihoods and for personal (social and family) reasons. Figure 4-6 (n=29, one observation excluded as incomplete) shows that the main reasons cited for employing this type of mobility were an inability to earn good money through agriculture (10), better job opportunities / ability to earn more money elsewhere (eight) and low incomes locally (seven). The next most commonly cited reasons related

to family (they were too far away or moving to be closer to family) and other, of which three were for caring for children or grandchildren and four related to education (attending school of college for example).

Figure 4-6: Factors considered important in influencing individual shorter-term migration decisions*.

*Responses only sought from households that indicated at least one member had participated in shorter-term migration at some point in the last year. Participants selected the up to five reasons from a list of thirty possible reasons. Answers were either provided by the migrant themselves or a proxy respondent if the migrant was unavailable.

For longer-term migration (n=93, 4 excluded as incomplete), the main reasons cited for leaving were linked to economic rationales (see Figure 4-7). The top four responses either related to an inability to earn a decent livelihood locally through agriculture or the prospect of better opportunities elsewhere. Other reasons that were also selected by a minority of respondents related to dissatisfaction with local livelihoods and a constraint on the amount of land available for farming. Droughts and floods were only cited as a reason influencing a minority of longer-term migration decisions.

Figure 4-7: Factors considered important in influencing individual longer-term migration decisions*.

*Responses only sought from households that indicated at least one member had participated in longer-term migration some point in the last 10 years and had not returned. Participants selected the up to five reasons from a list of thirty possible reasons. Answers provided by a proxy respondent.

Comparing the two figures (Figure 4-6 and Figure 4-7), two issues are worth highlighting at this stage. For households employing circular or shorter-duration mobility, one can infer that, over shorter spatial and temporal scales, local context seems slightly more visible in regard to the decision-making process. For example, personal reasons, moving to be closer to family and friends as well as floods and droughts are all selected more frequently. In contrast, longer-term moves seem more focused on larger life events such as work, earning a decent livelihood and marriage for example. The local environmental context and moving to see family and friends are not selected as frequently.

Second, the reasons given are a mix of individual and structural drivers. For example, the conditions for the economic reasons given are structural (wage differentials and stagnating rural incomes for example) but the desire to improve ones livelihood is distinctly personal or individual. Similarly, the detail provided in the ‘Other’ category relates to care responsibilities for children and grandchildren and accessing education. Educational access is structured in China through the Hukou registration. Accessing schooling and entrance exams for high school is much more difficult for migrants. As a result many children of rural migrants return to their home village for junior school and the entrance exam to access high school.

The similarities and differences in the reasons provided when comparing the different types (longer-term and shorter-term) of migration at an individual level with the general reasons perceived as important (see Figure 4-3 above) are interesting. The two issues that were selected by all participants as an influence over migration decisions in general (Hukou registration and restrictions on new building homes) were completely absent from the reasons provided concerning shorter-term migration decisions. This suggests that respondents use a different set of logics when responding to questions about migration reasoning more generally compared to those about specific

occurrences (Goffman, 1974; Hoffman, 2011; Schön and Rein, 1994). For general questions the respondents are perhaps echoing common (state) narratives about the issues influencing migration whereas, in specific cases, they draw much more on their own experience.

Interviews with those who have worked or are working away provide further insight into the reasons why people chose to leave their village. Wang Chung has lived in the village all of his life earning a living through teaching and administration within the local government. Wang Chung is 68 with a wife and at least two children. In addition to his clerical work, Wang Chung maintains 14 mu of farmland, which is considerably larger than the average plot size for Wanzhuang (8.35 mu), which is maintained by his wife when he works away. Wang Chung has always practiced a diversified livelihood and currently works in Shanghai as an accountancy clerk for an infrastructure company. Wang Chung explained that his motives for practicing this type of lifestyle were for economic and security reasons. Farming provides only limited income; added to this are the risks (particularly in summer) that the income can be reduced through hazards such as floods or droughts 20140204 Interview Wang Chung).

In Dongdian, Pan Hua described her livelihood and the working practices of her husband. Pan Hua’s family have between 5 and 7.5 mu of land, which is below the average of 8.9 for the village. Pan Hua stays in the village and farms whilst her husband splits his time between the village and his work outside. Pan Hua has two sons who both work outside the village in factories (and a daughter). Pan Hua’s husband first started working outside in 1996, as there was little farming work to be done for large portions of the year. He has maintained this lifestyle up to the present

These data show the impact of economic factors in influencing the mobility decisions employed by people. Living and working in multiple locations clearly represent a way for the individuals and households to increase their earning whilst maintaining land and their home within the village (Connelly et al., 2010). Most of the participants that I spoke to in the village liked living there and enjoyed the rural lifestyle. Stretching livelihoods across multiple destinations enables families to stay rural whilst exploiting some of the opportunities that are only available in more urban and developed locations. Comparing these accounts with migrant interviews in Shanghai and temporarily returned migrants in the rural case study sites I was struck by the much more exclusive focus on earning money and finding work. The conditions of work, the hardship and the difficulties of living and working in a more urban area were talked about but only in the background (for example 20130702 Interview Pan Tong-Mu, 20130721 Interview Pan Li, and 20130713 Wang Dao). The raison d’etre for migration was to work and to earn and this portrayal of migration by the migrants themselves reflected a belief that, through hard work (with an acceptance of some of the harsher realities of migrant life), you could rise up and be successful regardless of your origins (Nguyen and Locke, 2014).