Abstract:Three strictly comparable cross-section household dataset,related to 1988,1995 and 2001,are used to analyze the rapid yet unequal growth of wage and the sharp widening of wage structure.Earnings functions are compared and the increase in both the level and the inequality of wages are decomposed into their constituent elements.Distinctions are made between the variables likely to represent human capital,discrimination,and segmentation.The evidence suggests that productive characteristics were increasingly rewarded as marketization The Gini coefficient of earnings rose by 10.7 percentage points in the first phase from 1988 to 1995.Whereas the mean wage increased by 67 percent,the pay of the 10th percentile rose by only 22 percent,and that of the 90th percentile rose by 97 percent.These changes are much larger than those of the second phase from 1995 to 2001.Moreover,the returns to education rose sharply,as did the returns to occupation-specific skills.The initially slight inverse-U shape of the age-earnings profile became more pronounced: a change consistent with human capital theory.Thus the productive characteristics of workers were increasingly rewarded in the labor market.However,there were also signs of greater wage discrimination against women.Moreover,the market forces operating in the growing private sector and the relative immunity of the state sector from those forces generated greater wage segmentation among types of ownership,and provincial differences in the pace of reform and in economic growth created spatial segmentation in wages that could not be removed by the equilibrating movement of labor.Decomposition analyses were conducted in order to examine the contribution of particular characteristics to the rise in the Gini coefficient.Only a third of earnings inequality and its increase could be explained: the unobserved determinants are clearly important to the increase in earnings dispersion.The discrimination variables accounted for only a small part of the increase.The segmentation variables made the most important contribution,and that was mainly due to growing wage dispersion among provinces.This result is supported by other evidence of powerful divergence in mean earnings among provinces(Knight,Li and Zhao,2001).Some but not all components of human capital were disequalizing.These particular changes are likely to represent the stirring of labor market forces.

The Growth Model and Economic Equality——a Comparison between South Jiangsu and Wenzhou

The “Growth-First Strategy” and the Imbalance Between Consumption and Investment in China

The Distortion of the Labor Market,the Difference in its Efficiency,and the Income Disparity between Peasants and Town People

Marketization and Unequal Growth of Wage: Their Extent and Influence Factors

Social Equality,the Disinterested Government and Economic Growth in China

The Economic Growth Mode in Transition and Urban-Rural Inequality:China's Experience

The Imbalanced Development of China's Regional Economy:Cause Analysis

Coping with Growth in China: Comparing Models of Development in Guangdong and Chongqing

Dynamics of Multi-Scale Intra-Provincial Regional Inequality in Zhejiang, China

Dual Binary Transition and Structural Adjustment: Model,Propositions,and Evidence from China

The Comparison between the Models in Regional Economic Internalization and Up-grading Orientation——With Suzhou and Wenzhou as examples

Regional Economy Development Against the Background of Institutional Evolvement

Endogenous Development and Exogenous Development:A Comparative Stu dy of Suzhou Model and Wenzhou Model

The Study of the Rural-urban Income Inequality a View from Residents' Income Resource

The Wenzhou Model of China’s Civil Society Development

Effect of Industrial Structure Change to Regional Economic Growth：Taking Guangxi as An Example

Gray-relation Analysis on Models of South-Jiangsu and Zhejiang

"Bureaucratic & Economic Markets"and China's Growth Story

Social Differences and Equal Rights in Chinese Mode

RURAL-URBANIZATION: "SOUTH JIANGSU MODEL"COMPARED WITH "PEARL RIVER MODEL

New structural economic growth model and labor income share