基于融入-隔离双向对比的流动人口主观社会融合及其影响因素研究——以福厦泉城市群为例

基于2017年流动人口动态监测数据,选取福厦泉城市群,构建融入-隔离对比的指标体系,探讨了流动人口在流入地的主观社会融合及其影响因素。研究发现：① 流动人口在流入地的主观社会融合程度较高,但融入与隔离并存,且以融入为主。② 流动人口主观社会融合受流迁模式、社会网络、生计资本、制度政策和人口特征等因素综合影响：宏观上基本公共服务均等化能显著地增强融入、削弱隔离,淡化了户籍制度造成的融入障碍;中观上在流入地加强社会交往和积极参加组织活动、改善住房和提高收入确实有助于流动人口在流入地增强融入、减弱隔离,但基于流出地方向的土地预期收益、家庭困难及乡土依恋等主客观因素则增强了流动人口在流入地的主观隔离、削弱了主观融入;微观上近距离、长时段和家庭化迁移的流动人口主观融入程度较高,受教育程度的提高有助于流动人口削弱主观隔离,更好地融入流入地。研究认为应促进流动人口客观融合并使其与主观融合相匹配,改变以流动人口融入当前流入地实现市民化的单向思维,统筹考虑流入地与流出地的双向影响,将流动人口市民化工作重心由落户转向基本公共服务的无差别覆盖,实现流动人口从主观“愿意”到客观“能够”的社会融合。

Migrants' subjective social integration and its determinants as a result of the two-way process of assimilation and segregation: A case study of Fuzhou-Xiamen-Quanzhou Urban Cluster

Migrants' social integration into destination cities has been an important and long-standing topic in the field of migration research in China. So far most research has treated such social integration of migrants as a combined process of both subjective and objective social integration, with little efforts to single out the former and conduct multi-dimensional and in-depth investigation into it. Using data from a migrant survey of Fujian Province in 2017 and taking Fuzhou-Xiamen-Quanzhou Urban Cluster as a case study, this paper aims to fill this gap of research and examine the subjective social integration of migrants and its determinants by comparing their two-way process of assimilation and segregation in the destination cities. The results show that: (1) The overall level of migrants' subjective social integration is high, with the process of assimilation stronger than that of segregation. (2) Subjective social integration of migrants is jointly influenced by migrants' demographic characteristics, mobility patterns, social networks, and livelihood capitals, and related to the institutional arrangements and relevant policies. Equalization of basic public services plays a more important role in the subjective social integration of migrants than the Hukou system, contributing to the increase of their assimilation and the decrease of their segregation in the destination cities. Those migrants who have higher income and better housing conditions, more frequently contacts with local people and participation in local organizations and their activities do have higher degree of subjective social integration in destination cities. The effects of land, family difficulties and local attachments in the places of origin are more complicated than expected, demonstrating both negative effects on the assimilation process and positive effects on the segregation process at the same time. Short-distance migration and long-term settlement with more family members promote assimilation as well as reduce segregation. Based on the above findings, we suggest that more attention should be paid to promoting the objective social integration of migrants and coordinating its development with that of subjective social integration. Efforts should be made to change the one-way approach of promoting migrants' full citizenship in the destination cities, taking factors from both the origin and destination into account, and to shift the focus of promoting migrants' full citizenship from facilitating their urban settlement to the equalization of basic public services, so that migrants are not only willing but also able to integrate into the cities.