* [ / ] [ ] Abstract This essay studies various social groups such as those of women children and elders at the family and the community level in the rural areas with an attempt to analyze how social mobility affects different social groups at different levels and how it bears upon poverty and inequality. The author argues that the mobility of peasants and their turn into workers have had positive impacts on economic development resulting in widespread elimination of absolute poverty and overall improvement of life quality. However peasantry mobility has also had negative impacts on social and cultural aspects leading to weaker community cohesion and the spreading of utilitarian values. It must be pointed out that the impacts on different regions on different families in one region and on different members in one family vary from one to another. The shift of power in a family enhances the younger generation but weakens the elder. At its early stage mobility plays a positive role in breaking down the barrier between urban and rural areas and eliminating status inequality brought about by that barrier. However sustained mobility has enlarged rather than diminished inequality. Compared to the well-off and the young the poorly-off and the old are further marginalized. 20 90 81
2009/10 1 20 80 1985 1.25 2006 2148 80% 9 22008 4007 10 3 1985 輥輯訛 2006 ~ 2008 1985 輥輰訛 18.0% 2007 38.6% 4 / 1/4 5 1984 1.71 1 90 2006 3.28 1 6 17 12 7 / / 輥輱訛 8 82
10 S / 輥輳訛 X 17 12 70% 輥輴訛 10 Q 20 10 LRF 10 1991 10 10 Q 輥輲訛 J LRF 輥輵訛 D 輥輶訛 83
2009/10 Z PY 35 2003 9 1998 J 1997 80 90 2008 P 輥輷訛 2002 2004 J 輦輰訛 1/3 100% 輦輮訛 MSZ 1989 2004 J 16 346 6-7 1998 Z 1 242 2.4% H 輦輱訛 3/4 36 輦輯訛 CKS S 1 19 99 12 800 10 1990 Q 輦輲訛 19 99 2 1990 4000 2000 84
Q 輦輳訛 90 輦輴訛 Z 1987 T CH 輦輶訛 輦輵訛 85
2009/10 J 120 7 輦輷訛 輧輯訛 B 輧輰訛 X 輧輱訛 / / J F 20% 20% Y T F 20 2006 2 25 輧輲訛 Z J 輧輮訛 輧輳訛 86
19 95 J 2006 2 25 輧輴訛 J 20 90 輧輵訛 D 19 86 87 3 4 輧輶訛 S 10 10 80% / 80% 輧輷訛 X 300 25 25 9 36% 輨輮訛 J 87
2009/10 18.2% 輨輱訛 30 S S 輨輯訛 輨輰訛 輨輲訛 1. 2006 31.3% 88
2002 25 10% 輨輵訛 3. J 46 23 4 輨輶訛 Q 輨輳訛 2. 輨輷訛 20 80 90 40.9% 31.3% 輨輴訛 / 輩輮訛 89
2009/10 5 3 J 輩輯訛 XSE 8.4 4. 1 XXS 4 3 4 5 3 90
2001 2006 XSE XXS J XSE XXS 輩輰訛 輩輱訛 85% 輩輲訛 2005 2000 5 5800 輩輳訛 10 2001 2001 2010 J 10% H 2003 6 / 91
2009/10 1% / / / / X 2005 10 輩輴訛 / Z 7 7 2 4 92
/ / J * J 93
2009/10 2004 1 2004 1995 4 9 1997 34 2007 201 ~ 204 10 2005 1997 1 7 輥輯訛 2000 47 ~ 56 2 2.28 輥輰訛 http //news.xinhuanet.com/fortune/2007-05/26/content_6156047.htm 2009 9 8 3 4007 2009 3 17 1 4 30 輥輱訛 http //www.gov.cn/gzdt/2008-10/31/content_1136730.htm 2009 9 8 5 5.31 2004 5 輥輲訛 Q 2008 2 27 http //www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/ nypcgb/qgnypcgb/t20080227_402464718.htm 2009 9 8 2008 1.4 2008 22542 輥輴訛 X http //www.gov.cn/gzdt/2009-03/25/content_1268173.htm 2009 9 8 6 2006 3.28 1 http //www.china.com.cn/news/2007-09/13/content _8870200.htm 2009 9 8 7 17 12 輥輷訛 http //www.chinanews.com.cn/cj/gncj/news/ 2008/10-15/1412625.shtml 2009 9 8 6 12 輥輳訛 S 輥輵訛 J 輥輶訛 D 8 http //news.sohu.com/20090111/n261689952. shtml 2009 9 8 2003 T 輦輮訛 T T 94
2002 6 輦輯訛 T 輨輱訛 2008 2 27 J 輨輲訛 223 346 123 輦輰訛 J 輨輴訛 輦輱訛 H 輨輶訛 2000 92 ~ 輦輲訛 Q 輦輳訛 Q 輦輴訛 S 輦輵訛 輦輶訛 2008 輩輮訛 12 2009 1 輦輷訛 J 輧輮訛 J 輧輯訛 2008 輧輰訛 D 2007 8 輩輳訛 輧輱訛 X 輧輲訛 Y 8 輧輳訛 輧輴訛 J 輧輵訛 144 ~ 146 輧輶訛 D 100732 輧輷訛 S 輨輮訛 X 輨輯訛 S 輨輰訛 H 輨輳訛 Q 輨輵訛 93 輨輷訛 2003 2006 輩輯訛 J 輩輰訛 輩輱訛 / 輩輲訛 http //www.china.com.cn/zhibo/ 2008-02/27/content_10180165.htm?show=t 2009 9 輩輴訛 X 95