Keeping in Motion or Staying Put: Internal Migration in the United States and China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The thesis of the article is clear and the evidence used to support the argument is well-documented. The comparison between the internal migration in the USA and China provides an interesting analysis as well as some stark differences. The lack of direct census count in China does not help researchers to provide a direct comparison but the reasons given are adequate to see the larger contrast between the two countries. It may be useful to go deeper with questionnaires and other methods to find data needed in the Chinese population. But as stated, it is more time consuming. 

This article will be useful for future studies as some of the reasons given to why the internal movement within strong economies will be affected. It gives another perspective to migration studies that have concentrated mainly on the international migration and the reasons of cross country borders rather than internally.  

Author Response

Response Memo to Reviewer Reports

Keeping in Motion or Staying Put: Internal Migration in the United States and China

First and foremost, we want to extend our sincere gratitude for your participation in this process. Thank you to the Societies editorial team for facilitating this process and providing prompt feedback to questions/requests. Thank you to the reviewers for allocating time to review and provide thoughtful feedback. We feel it has contributed to revisions that have made this a stronger paper, and we appreciate your input. We are happy that most of the reviewers’ comments are supportive.

Please find below our responses to reviewer feedback.

 

RESPONSES to REVIEWER 1:

Reviewer 1: “The thesis of the article is clear and the evidence used to support the argument is well-documented. The comparison between the internal migration in the USA and China provides an interesting analysis as well as some stark differences. The lack of direct census count in China does not help researchers to provide a direct comparison but the reasons given are adequate to see the larger contrast between the two countries.”

Authors: Thank you for this positive assessment.

In this version we have been clearer that, “rather than just being a comparison between two random countries, China and the U.S. experience opposite trends because they are at different stages of development but also because in combining their labor force and focusing manufacturing more in China and services, design, and management more in the U.S. has affected internal migration patterns in both countries.” As reads in a longer version in at the end of the new introduction section.

R1: “It may be useful to go deeper with questionnaires and other methods to find data needed in the Chinese population. But as stated, it is more time consuming.”

AU: Indeed, but we decided to go deeper into the bigger picture rather than in localized data collection since the goals of this paper is to highlight the large national trends and compare the different directions of rates of internal migration in the U.S. and China and their general interconnection.

R1: “This article will be useful for future studies as some of the reasons given to why the internal movement within strong economies will be affected. It gives another perspective to migration studies that have concentrated mainly on the international migration and the reasons of cross country borders rather than internally.”

Thank you, well-put. We agree that this is one of the main contributions of the paper.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Most of the paper is well-organized and clearly written. The bulk of the paper involves the two separate reviews of internal mobility issues in China and the United States. For both countries, the reviews are sound. In that sense, the paper is fully acceptable.

However, I did have qualms about the overall purpose of the paper and how we are to gain the benefits of the comparison rather than simply a reminder of how different the two cases are. That is the task of the discussion and conclusion sections, which I found a bit unsteady. It does seem to me there are several threads which could be addressed more forcefully and clearly in the paper descriptions of the two economies and especially in the country comparisons at the ending discussion:

First, there is attention in the discussion to how movement is related specifically to the relative industrialization and de-industrialization trends in the two countries. That would suggest that movement for economic reasons has much to do with the state of the respective economies. Certainly that is true for the overall rural versus urban job categories. You do make this point with a focus on manufacturing. But how about other economic contexts that affect not internal migration in general, but the specifics of relatively long-range and relative local moves? That would provide a kind of holistic framework for talking about different kinds of “internal” migration as well as “external” in and out migration.

Second, there are brief mentions in the U.S. discussion of mobility (and immobility) that are better understood as life cycle changes or even life-cycle durabilities, like maintaining residence close to parents (especially mothers). That raises some very interesting questions about life-cycle changes and mobility in China both for maintaining family links and for positioning the next generation perhaps especially through education.

Third, there are a variety of comments about housing, its supply, and its regulation both by the government and by private actors (who often veer into discrimination for a mix of cultural and economic reasons). In particular, the regulatory issues (both publicly and privately generated) may provide a way to think about local (“in county”) type moves in both countries in the same kind of way.

Fourth, there are some general comments about immigration in the two countries. Those are fine in terms of the separate reviews, but the key point for the comparison may well be that long distance migrants (whether foreign in the U.S. or rural ethnic minorities in China) share some similarities but are also participating in the same dynamics of local and regional migration AFTER their longer-range moves.

A few specific comments along the way:

Page 1: “the topic most commonly centers on undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers.” Well, sort of. Perhaps better to say: “focuses mostly on international migration and highly politcized issues of undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers.”

Page 2, line 66: “extreme benefits”: what does “extreme” mean here?

Page 3-4: Good discussion of life cycle issues for U.S. Can something parallel be done for the China section?

Page 4, first paragraph of “Geographic Mobility”: “relatively long distances” seems to specifically mean cross-country or cross-state? Be clear about that here. (You are clear later on.)

Page 7, line 261: I think the proper convention is “Blacks and Hispanics”

Page 11, line 387: It’s technically the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Page 12, Discussion: This is where I found the writing a bit obtuse. For example: “Nonetheless, it seems there is lacking emphasis on the segments in which there is the greatest decline in relocation – local moves within the same county and among renters” How about: “Nonetheless, more attention is needed to the disproportionate decline in local moves, especially among renters.” As another example at the start of the next paragraph: “If housing is the most common reason people move, have housing-related variables been most impactful?” That seems to be tautological. Maybe instead: “Housing is crucial in determining movement. But how does this work in different contexts at different times?” I am not objecting to the basic points being made, but this whole section needs some serious editing.

Page 14. I agree the Barcelona material is interesting, but I suggest you delete it. With China and the U.S., you already have enough!

Page 14, Conclusion. Again, this needs serious editing although the two basic points (lack of attention to internal migration and difference between the U.S. and China cases in scale and trend) are fine.

 

Author Response

Response Memo to Reviewer Reports

Keeping in Motion or Staying Put: Internal Migration in the United States and China

First and foremost, we want to extend our sincere gratitude for your participation in this process. Thank you to the Societies editorial team for facilitating this process and providing prompt feedback to questions/requests. Thank you to the reviewers for allocating time to review and provide thoughtful feedback. We feel it has contributed to revisions that have made this a stronger paper, and we appreciate your input. We are happy that most of the reviewers’ comments are supportive.

Please find below our responses to reviewer feedback.

RESPONSES to REVIEWER 2:

Reviewer 2: “Most of the paper is well-organized and clearly written. The bulk of the paper involves the two separate reviews of internal mobility issues in China and the United States. For both countries, the reviews are sound. In that sense, the paper is fully acceptable.”

Authors: Thank you for this positive assessment of the structure, contribution, and goals of the paper. We have also explained further how the two patterns in the two countries are related.

R2: “However, I did have qualms about the overall purpose of the paper and how we are to gain the benefits of the comparison rather than simply a reminder of how different the two cases are. That is the task of the discussion and conclusion sections, which I found a bit unsteady. It does seem to me there are several threads which could be addressed more forcefully and clearly in the paper descriptions of the two economies and especially in the country comparisons at the ending discussion”

Authors: We have revised to make the purpose, benefits and findings clearer. We appreciate the feedback.

Among other changes, we have added this section to the introduction,

“Rather than just being a comparison between two random countries, China and the U.S. experience opposite trends because they are at different stages of development and also because in combining to an important extent their labor force by focusing more on manufacturing in China and services, design, and management happening to a larger degree in the U.S. has affected internal migration patterns in both countries. These hypotheses build open the findings that development causes migration both internal and international (Sassen 1988), that global cities are the neural centers of global trade and finance (Sassen 2001), and that internal urban-to-rural migration is durable and leads to economic development when there are good jobs available (Eckstein 1988).”

 

R2: “First, there is attention in the discussion to how movement is related specifically to the relative industrialization and de-industrialization trends in the two countries. That would suggest that movement for economic reasons has much to do with the state of the respective economies. Certainly, that is true for the overall rural versus urban job categories. You do make this point with a focus on manufacturing.”

AU: This is indeed a major effect of economic development. We have revised where applicable to better emphasize this point. The main reasons are indeed connected to national and international shifts in manufacturing.

R2: “But how about other economic contexts that affect not internal migration in general, but the specifics of relatively long-range and relative local moves?”

AU: Great point. No internal migration is the same, there are major economic and social consequences for rural to-urban migration as experienced in China and in the U.S. in the last 20 years. And economic contexts that influence more long-distance moves surely differ, in some ways, from those affecting local moves. In our revised discussion, we briefly touch on this.

R2: “That would provide a kind of holistic framework for talking about different kinds of “internal” migration as well as “external” in and out migration.”

AU: This paper focus on internal migration but you are right international migration to China is rather small, but international migration to the US has provided the urban and mobile population the U.S., the decreases during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 underlined this.

R2: “Second, there are brief mentions in the U.S. discussion of mobility (and immobility) that are better understood as life cycle changes or even life-cycle durabilities, like maintaining residence close to parents (especially mothers). That raises some very interesting questions about life-cycle changes and mobility in China both for maintaining family links and for positioning the next generation perhaps especially through education.”

AU: Thank you for this constructive feedback. Revisions have been made to highlight aspects of life-cycle changes in China and their impact on mobility.

Connected to life-cycle, household composition, and internal migration in the context of the China where internal migration is not as easy as in the United States, it leads to nuclear families divided across distance, akin to transnational families among undocumented workers. We have added a mention to this and a citation.

R2: “Third, there are a variety of comments about housing, its supply, and its regulation both by the government and by private actors (who often veer into discrimination for a mix of cultural and economic reasons). In particular, the regulatory issues (both publicly and privately generated) may provide a way to think about local (“in county”) type moves in both countries in the same kind of way.”

AU: Great point, we agree. Small revisions were made to call this out in the discussion, and it certainly could (and should) be explored more in-depth. This could be an interesting complimentary paper.

R2: “Fourth, there are some general comments about immigration in the two countries. Those are fine in terms of the separate reviews, but the key point for the comparison may well be that long distance migrants (whether foreign in the U.S. or rural ethnic minorities in China) share some similarities but are also participating in the same dynamics of local and regional migration AFTER their longer-range moves.”

AU: Thank you for this thought-provoking perspective. Revisions have been made to place less emphasis/discussion on immigration, but we agree on this key similarity and will consider it for future work. As noted before, we have recognized the similarities between large-distance internal migration in China and international migration, we have also written about this elsewhere.

R2: A few specific comments along the way:

Page 1: “the topic most commonly centers on undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers.” Well, sort of. Perhaps better to say: “focuses mostly on international migration and highly politicized issues of undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers.”

AU: Changed. Thank you.

R2: Page 2, line 66: “extreme benefits”: what does “extreme” mean here?

AU: Benefits such as food rations, etc. Changed to “most essential benefits.”

R2: Page 3-4: Good discussion of life cycle issues for U.S. Can something parallel be done for the China section?

AU: Revisions have been made to highlight aspects of life-cycle changes in China and their impact on mobility.

R2: Page 4, first paragraph of “Geographic Mobility”: “relatively long distances” seems to specifically mean cross-country or cross-state? Be clear about that here. (You are clear later on.)

AU: Changed to “relatively long distances that cross state or county borders”

R2: Page 7, line 261: I think the proper convention is “Blacks and Hispanics”

AU: Changed.

R2: Page 11, line 387: It’s technically the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

AU: Thank you, this has been changed.

R2: Page 12, Discussion: This is where I found the writing a bit obtuse. For example: “Nonetheless, it seems there is lacking emphasis on the segments in which there is the greatest decline in relocation – local moves within the same county and among renters” How about: “Nonetheless, more attention is needed to the disproportionate decline in local moves, especially among renters.” As another example at the start of the next paragraph: “If housing is the most common reason people move, have housing-related variables been most impactful?” That seems to be tautological. Maybe instead: “Housing is crucial in determining movement. But how does this work in different contexts at different times?” I am not objecting to the basic points being made, but this whole section needs some serious editing.

AU: Agreed, thank you for the helpful feedback. This has been revised to be more direct.

R2: Page 14. I agree the Barcelona material is interesting, but I suggest you delete it. With China and the U.S., you already have enough!

AU: Agreed. This has been removed.

R2: Page 14, Conclusion. Again, this needs serious editing although the two basic points (lack of attention to internal migration and difference between the U.S. and China cases in scale and trend) are fine.

AU: Thank you for the constructive feedback. Major revisions have been made to improve cohesion. The conclusion has been largely rewritten.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I must stress that I am not extremely qualified in the issue of internal migration. As an economist, I am also more familiar with economic journals and literature, which appear to be largely absent from the bibliographic references. That said, I reckon the authors are addressing an extremely important social phenomenon and the paper contains a lot of valuable information. In this regard, I am all the more disappointed to recommend the rejection of the manuscript, for reasons on which I elaborate below:

 

On  l. 465, the authors write: “Scholars pose theories for explaining phenomena on a macro level, such as why the United States is declining in mobility rates. Nonetheless, it seems there is lacking emphasis on the segments in which there is the greatest decline in relocation – local moves within the same county and among renters”. If there is a gap in the scientific literature, the authors are well-intentioned to try and address it. However, it is my impression that the paper lacks a clear research design, questions, and hypotheses. The authors claim in the abstract that they wish to compare trends in domestic migrations between China and the US. Although this can be regarded as an acceptable starting point, I do not believe this qualifies as an actual research question. There are hints throughout the paper that the authors are trying to provide some explanations for the reasons behind these diverging patterns. If this is indeed their intention, this should be stated more clearly and certainly implemented differently.

 

First of all, the US and China, although comparable in economic and geographic terms, are different countries with different histories and economic systems (largely free market in the US VS state-run in China). Why then should they be comparable in matters of internal migration? Put differently, why is it scientifically relevant to compare diverging trends in domestic migration between both countries? Merely highlighting the differences in economic and urbanization / migration trends between the two countries strikes me as insufficient motivation.

 

In fact, from the FINDINGS and DISCUSSION sections of the paper, it seems the only line of argument that allows for a comparative perspective between the US and China in matters of domestic migration is the influence of economic growth and development. The other channels discussed by the authors do not, and I reckon this is largely because, as stressed previously, the two countries have very different economic and social institutions and the drivers of domestic migration may be different.

Additionally and perhaps as a result of my previous point - with the notable exception of racial discrimination, which helps understand the decline in renters’ mobility (an increasing share of whom are racialized) - the paper first discusses the role of various theories and claims about domestic mobility (or immobility) and then presents descriptive evidence on domestic migration rates (differences between renters VS landlords and across geographical units - country, metro, state in the US,  floating population rate across cities and the role of the hukou system in China). If, as my intuition suggests, the authors intend to shed light on the patterns, trends, and differences in domestic migration between the US and China, this should be done differently lest the manuscript very much comes off as a literature review followed by descriptive statistics with little if any analytical insights.

 

Finally, I acknowledged that part of this review could be biased by my training and expectations as an economist. That said, I firmly believe that the scientific contribution of this paper in its current version is too small to reach publication standards, and I therefore strongly encourage the authors to revise their work to incorporate a clear research question and strategy, as well as a genuine analysis of their findings in light of existing theories and possibly new conjectures.

  

 

Other minor comments: 

I would like the abstract to stress the findings of the paper rather than introduce the subject.

 

From l.513 to l.548, the authors write about international migration, which, from their own account, is a separate issue from that of domestic migration. I, therefore, find the discussion rather irrelevant.

 

 

Author Response

Response Memo to Reviewer Reports

Keeping in Motion or Staying Put: Internal Migration in the United States and China

First and foremost, we want to extend our sincere gratitude for your participation in this process. Thank you to the Societies editorial team for facilitating this process and providing prompt feedback to questions/requests. Thank you to the reviewers for allocating time to review and provide thoughtful feedback. We feel it has contributed to revisions that have made this a stronger paper, and we appreciate your input. We are happy that most of the reviewers’ comments are supportive.

Please find below our responses to reviewer feedback.

RESPONSES to REVIEWER 3:

Reviewer 3: “That said, I reckon the authors are addressing an extremely important social phenomenon and the paper contains a lot of valuable information.”

 

Authors: Thank you for this acknowledgment.

 

R3: “I must stress that I am not extremely qualified in the issue of internal migration. As an economist, I am also more familiar with economic journals and literature, which appear to be largely absent from the bibliographic references. …”

 

AU: We appreciate the fair and honest assessment through the lens of an economist, as this is certainly a significant facet of the migration discussion and is most often cited. We consider the economic components and cite the work of a few economists. There are other facets of internal migration that have been historically overlooked, and we have made revisions to contextualize this and make our framework clearer.

 

R3: “In this regard, I am all the more disappointed to recommend the rejection of the manuscript, for reasons on which I elaborate below:

 

On  l. 465, the authors write: “Scholars pose theories for explaining phenomena on a macro level, such as why the United States is declining in mobility rates. Nonetheless, it seems there is lacking emphasis on the segments in which there is the greatest decline in relocation – local moves within the same county and among renters”. If there is a gap in the scientific literature, the authors are well-intentioned to try and address it.

 

“However, it is my impression that the paper lacks a clear research design, questions, and hypotheses. The authors claim in the abstract that they wish to compare trends in domestic migrations between China and the US. Although this can be regarded as an acceptable starting point, I do not believe this qualifies as an actual research question.”

 

AU: This constructive feedback is helpful and was considered in making revisions to more clearly state our purpose.

Among many changes, we have added a key paragraph to the end of the introduction to better explain the aim of the paper,

 

Rather than just being a comparison between two random countries, China and the U.S. experience opposite trends because they are at different stages of development and also because in combining to an important extent their labor force by focusing more on manufacturing in China and services, design, and management happening to a larger degree in the U.S. has affected internal migration patterns in both countries. These hypotheses build open the findings that development causes migration both internal and international (Sassen 1988), that global cities are the neural centers of global trade and finance (Sassen 2001), and that internal urban-to-rural migration is durable and leads to economic development when there are good jobs available (Eckstein 1988).

 

 

R3: “First of all, the US and China, although comparable in economic and geographic terms, are different countries with different histories and economic systems (largely free market in the US VS state-run in China). Why then should they be comparable in matters of internal migration? Put differently, why is it scientifically relevant to compare diverging trends in domestic migration between both countries? Merely highlighting the differences in economic and urbanization / migration trends between the two countries strikes me as insufficient motivation.”

 

AU: These are important questions. Major revisions have been made to state the relevancy of this comparison. Revisions were also made to articulate overlapping themes of social dynamics that influence geographic mobility. Also, please see new text like that one copied to the previous response and the many revisions made in the paper to better connect the data on China and the U.S.

 

R3: “In fact, from the FINDINGS and DISCUSSION sections of the paper, it seems the only line of argument that allows for a comparative perspective between the US and China in matters of domestic migration is the influence of economic growth and development. The other channels discussed by the authors do not, and I reckon this is largely because, as stressed previously, the two countries have very different economic and social institutions and the drivers of domestic migration may be different.”

 

AU: Part of our point is that the general connection between labor mobility and economic growth is important but so is international trade, FDI, and economic policies. We have made revisions to help readers digest the significance of the other channels and identify overlapping themes and the utility of comparison, as mentioned above.

  

R3: “Additionally and perhaps as a result of my previous point - with the notable exception of racial discrimination, which helps understand the decline in renters’ mobility (an increasing share of whom are racialized) - the paper first discusses the role of various theories and claims about domestic mobility (or immobility) and then presents descriptive evidence on domestic migration rates (differences between renters VS landlords and across geographical units - country, metro, state in the US,  floating population rate across cities and the role of the hukou system in China). If, as my intuition suggests, the authors intend to shed light on the patterns, trends, and differences in domestic migration between the US and China, this should be done differently lest the manuscript very much comes off as a literature review followed by descriptive statistics with little if any analytical insights.”

AU: Thank you for this feedback. We hope our revisions have to some extent improved the way readers digest the material by more assertively stating our goals, unique takeaways, and insightful interpretations.

R3: “Finally, I acknowledged that part of this review could be biased by my training and expectations as an economist.”

 

AU: Understood.

 

R3: “I firmly believe that the scientific contribution of this paper in its current version is too small to reach publication standards, and I therefore strongly encourage the authors to revise their work to incorporate a clear research question and strategy, as well as a genuine analysis of their findings in light of existing theories and possibly new conjectures.”

  

AU: Are revisions lend to a clearer understanding of the goals and strategy of the paper with the incorporation of theoretical framework, and we hope it stimulates further research in different fields.

 

Other minor comments: 

I would like the abstract to stress the findings of the paper rather than introduce the subject.

 

AU: Thank you for this recommendation. The abstract has been rewritten.

 

R3: From l.513 to l.548, the authors write about international migration, which, from their own account, is a separate issue from that of domestic migration. I, therefore, find the discussion rather irrelevant.

 

AU: This discussion has been substantially condensed. But we also want to stress how they are connected, although most often studied independently.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

this paper examines in a comparative way the migration in US and China. The reason for such a comparison is not clearly stated, neither the hypothesis, nor the methodology. The aim of this paper (in my opinion) is not enough highlighted.

I strongly recommend to describe the methodology used and to better highlight the aim of the paper. 

Despite the previous remarks, the paper is written in a comprehensive mode and the literature is relevant.

 

Author Response

Response Memo to Reviewer Reports

Keeping in Motion or Staying Put: Internal Migration in the United States and China

First and foremost, we want to extend our sincere gratitude for your participation in this process. Thank you to the Societies editorial team for facilitating this process and providing prompt feedback to questions/requests. Thank you to the reviewers for allocating time to review and provide thoughtful feedback. We feel it has contributed to revisions that have made this a stronger paper, and we appreciate your input. We are happy that most of the reviewers’ comments are supportive.

Please find below our responses to reviewer feedback.

 

RESPONSES to REVIEWER 4:

Reviewer 4: this paper examines in a comparative way the migration in US and China. The reason for such a comparison is not clearly stated, neither the hypothesis, nor the methodology. The aim of this paper (in my opinion) is not enough highlighted.

Authors: Thank you for calling this out. Major revisions have been made to address this.

Including largely rewritten introduction, discussion, and conclusion. E.g.,

 

Rather than just being a comparison between two random countries, China and the U.S. experience opposite trends because they are at different stages of development and also because in combining to an important extent their labor force by focusing more on manufacturing in China and services, design, and management happening to a larger degree in the U.S. has affected internal migration patterns in both countries. These hypotheses build open the findings that development causes migration both internal and international (Sassen 1988), that global cities are the neural centers of global trade and finance (Sassen 2001), and that internal urban-to-rural migration is durable and leads to economic development when there are good jobs available (Eckstein 1988).

 

R4: I strongly recommend to describe the methodology used and to better highlight the aim of the paper. 

AU: Done.

R4: Despite the previous remarks, the paper is written in a comprehensive mode and the literature is relevant.

AU: Thank you for your supportive feedback. We appreciate it.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

In the revised version of the paper, the authors responded to all my recomendation and concerns. 

I recommend to accept the paper.