IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0294788.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact of total factor mobility on rural-urban symbiosis: Evidence from 27 Chinese provinces

Author

Listed:
  • Xiangmei Zhu
  • Shaohua Guo
  • Hui Yuan

Abstract

The rational flow and optimal allocation of urban and rural factors is the key to solving the problem of unbalanced and insufficient urban and rural development. This study draws on the theory of ecological symbiosis to examine the mechanism of factor flow and urban-rural symbiosis. It analyzes panel data from 27 Chinese provinces and autonomous regions between 2010 and 2020 to empirically demonstrate the influence of labor, capital, technology, and land mobility on urban-rural symbiosis. The study found that: (1) The relationship between the total factor flow and urban-rural symbiosis is U-shaped nonlinear, and the time when cities feed the development of rural areas has come; (2) The impact of labor factor flow on urban-rural symbiosis exhibits an inverted U-shaped relationship, the impact of capital factor flow displays a positive U-shaped relationship, the impact of land factor flow shows an inverted U-shaped relationship, and the impact of technical factor flow on urban-rural symbiotic development is not significant. (3) The factor flow exerts a region-oriented impact on the level of urban-rural symbiosis. In developed areas, total factor flow does not affect urban-rural symbiosis, but the level of labor flow and the urban-rural symbiosis demonstrates an inverted U-shaped relationship, the flow of technological factors has a U-shaped impact on the urban-rural symbiosis level, the flow of land factors and the urban-rural symbiosis show an inverted U-shaped relationship, and the flow of capital factors has no impact on the urban-rural symbiosis relationship. In underdeveloped areas, the impact of the total factor flow on urban-rural symbiosis shows a significantly positive U-shaped characteristic, the labor mobility level and urban-rural symbiosis show an inverted U-shaped relationship, the flow of capital factors has a U-shaped impact on the urban-rural symbiosis level, and the flow of lands and technology does not have a remarkable impact on urban-rural symbiosis in underdeveloped areas.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiangmei Zhu & Shaohua Guo & Hui Yuan, 2023. "The impact of total factor mobility on rural-urban symbiosis: Evidence from 27 Chinese provinces," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(12), pages 1-25, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0294788
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294788
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0294788
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0294788&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0294788?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aiyar, Shekhar & Ebeke, Christian, 2020. "Inequality of opportunity, inequality of income and economic growth," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ionuț Jianu & Marin Dinu & Dragoș Huru & Alexandru Bodislav, 2021. "Examining the Relationship between Income Inequality and Growth from the Perspective of EU Member States’ Stage of Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-16, May.
    2. Ibrahim Mohamed Ali Ali & Imed Attiaoui & Rabeh Khalfaoui & Aviral Kumar Tiwari, 2022. "The Effect of Urbanization and Industrialization on Income Inequality: An Analysis Based on the Method of Moments Quantile Regression," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 161(1), pages 29-50, May.
    3. Elina Tuominen, 2024. "Top-end inequality and growth: empirical exploration of nonlinearities and the time dimension," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 22(2), pages 311-331, June.
    4. Borice Augustin Ngounou & Honoré Tekam Oumbe & Bruno Emmanuel Ongo Nkoa & Edmond Noubissi Domguia, 2024. "Inclusive growth in the face of increasing urbanization: What experience for African countries?," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 34-70, February.
    5. Enea Baselgia & Reto Foellmi, 2022. "Inequality and growth: a review on a great open debate in economics," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2022-5, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    6. Rozinskaya, N. & Drobyshevskaya, T., 2022. "Quantitative estimates of intergenerational mobility," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 57(5), pages 93-111.
    7. Reutzel, Fabian, 2024. "The grass is always greener on the other side: (Unfair) inequality and support for democracy," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    8. Junjie Gao & Lyubing Feng & Xianguo Yao, 2021. "Information Transmission Mechanism of Inequality of Opportunity and Effort on Settlement Intention," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-17, April.
    9. Priya, Pragati & Sharma, Chandan & Jha, Chandan Kumar, 2025. "Asymmetry in the inequality of opportunity in energy consumption across gender, caste, and religion in India," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    10. Rafael Carranza, 2020. "Inequality of Outcomes, Inequality of Opportunity, and Economic Growth," Working Papers 534, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    11. Rene Schwaiger & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler & Daniel Kleinlercher & Utz Weitzel, 2020. "Unequal Opportunities, Social Groups, and Redistribution: Evidence from the General Population," Working Papers 2020-26, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    12. Shiqi Jiang & Lingli Qi & Xinyue Lin, 2022. "The Impacts of COVID-19 Shock on Intergenerational Income Mobility: Evidence from China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-20, September.
    13. Lawrence Adu Asamoah & Francesco Figari & Andrea Vezzulli, 2021. "Spillover effects of innovation and entrepreneurial activity on income inequality in developing countries: A spatial panel approach," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(5), pages 1661-1686, October.
    14. Rajeev K. Goel & James W. Saunoris, 2020. "Does income inequality sand or grease the wheels of entrepreneurial activity? International evidence," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(2), pages 138-160, June.
    15. Callan, Tim & Doorley, Karina & McTague, Alyvia, 2020. "Top Incomes in Ireland: Reconciling Evidence from Tax Records and Household Survey Data," IZA Discussion Papers 13585, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. N. Cordemans, 2019. "Inclusive growth: a new societal paradigm?," Economic Review, National Bank of Belgium, issue i, pages 29-50, June.
    17. Abdul Aziz & Javed Ahmed Memon & Aleem Ahmed Qader, 2023. "Functional income distribution in Pakistan: Co‐integration and vector error correction model analysis," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 1081-1091, January.
    18. Dadon-Golan, Zehorit & BenDavid-Hadar, Iris & Klein, Joseph, 2019. "Revisiting educational (in)equity: Measuring educational Gini coefficients for Israeli high schools during the years 2001–2011," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 1-1.
    19. Ignacio Campomanes, 2022. "Inequality and Growth: How Social Mobility Reshapes The Main Theoretical Channels," Working Papers 599, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    20. Schwaiger, Rene & Huber, Jürgen & Kirchler, Michael & Kleinlercher, Daniel & Weitzel, Utz, 2022. "Unequal opportunities, social groups, and redistribution: Evidence from Germany," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0294788. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.