strikingly large for female workers; 83 percent of female migrants (versus only 38
percent of female village residents working in village enterprises) had jobs in private
enterprises in 1988. By 1995 private firms employed about half of all village residents
employed in village industry and a little more than half of all commuters (column 1 rows
2 and 3). Over 70 percent of incoming migrants, however, worked in private firms.
Private enterprises have contributed to the growth of rural-to-rural migration in
three ways. First, since private firms have always tended to hire more incoming workers,
the rapid growth in the private sector vis-a-vis collective enterprises has itself increased
the employment of rural-to-rural migrants and commuters. Second, private firms have
increased their reliance on incoming labor in recent years. Third, competition from
private enterprises has pressured village level collective enterprises to increase their
reliance on incoming labor as well.
The predominance of light industry in rural areas also has influenced the growth
and gender composition of the rural mobile workforce. Light industry was by far the
largest employer of rural-to-rural migrants and commuters in both 1988 and 1995 (table
4, rows 4 and 5, columns 1 and 4).vi In 1995, most migrants, particularly female
migrants, worked in light industry (65 percent of all migrants and 78 percent of female
migrants, row 5, columns 1 and 3). The preference of light industry for hiring female
workers suggests that the rise of the sector may explain some of the increase in rural-to-
rural labor movement among female workers.
While the survey clearly shows that rural firms are far more likely to hire workers
from other villages in 1995 than they were in 1988, it is still unclear whether they can
hire entirely without restrictions imposed by local governments. Rural firms may still be
16