Labor Market Returns to Education and English
Language Skills in the People’s Republic
of China: An Update
M Niaz Asadullah and Saizi Xiao∗

We reexamine the economic returns to education in the People’s Republic of
China (PRC) using data from the Chinese General Social Survey 2010. Noi
find that the conventional ordinary least squares estimate of wage returns to
schooling is 7.8%, while the instrumental variable estimate is 20.9%. The gains
from schooling rise sharply with higher levels of education. The estimated
returns are 12.2% in urban provinces and 10.7% in coastal provinces, higher
than in rural and inland areas. Inoltre, the wage premium for workers with
good English skills (speaking and listening) È 30%. These results are robust
to controls for height, body mass index, and English language skills, and to
corrections for sample selection bias. Our findings, together with a critical
review of existing studies, confirm the growing significance of human capital
as a determinant of labor market performance in postreform PRC.

Keywords: endogeneity bias, health, language skills, schooling
JEL codes: I26, J30

IO. introduzione

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
UN
D
e
v
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

/

3
6
1
8
0
1
6
4
4
1
6
5
UN
D
e
v
_
UN
_
0
0
1
2
4
P
D

.

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) saw a four-fold increase in the
level of consumption per capita and unprecedented economic growth during
1980–2010. The country’s transition to a market economy saw the dissolution of
social safety net programs and the end of full employment. Substantial physical
capital investment during this transition led to greater demand for high-skilled labor,
thereby increasing the importance of education as a determinant of labor market
earnings (Heckman and Yi 2012). In prereform years, wages were administratively

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

∗M Niaz Asadullah (corresponding author): Professor, Faculty of Economics and Administration, University of
Malaya. E-mail: m.niaz@um.edu.my; Saizi Xiao: Doctoral Researcher, Faculty of Economics and Administration,
University of Malaya. E-mail: xszbrave@aliyun.com. This study is the outcome of The China Model: Implications of
the Contemporary Rise of China (MOHE High-Impact Research Grant) project UMC/625/1/HIR/MOHE/ASH/03.
Data analyzed in this paper come from the research project the Chinese General Social Survey of the National
Survey Research Center (NSRC), Renmin University of China. The authors appreciate the assistance given by NSRC
in providing access to the data. They also thank Professor John Strauss, participants at the Singapore Economic
Review Annual Conference 2017, the managing editor, and two anonymous referees for their valuable comments and
suggestions. The usual ADB disclaimer applies. ADB recognizes “China” as the People’s Republic of China; “Hong
Kong” as Hong Kong, China; and “Russia” as the Russian Federation.

Asian Development Review, vol. 36, NO. 1, pag. 80–111
https://doi.org/10.1162/adev_a_00124

© 2019 Asian Development Bank and
Asian Development Bank Institute.
Pubblicato sotto Creative Commons
Attribuzione 3.0 Internazionale (CC BY 3.0) licenza.

Returns to Education and English Language Skills in the PRC 81

set, which suppressed the true returns to cognitive skills and schooling (Fleisher
and Chen 1997, Chen and Feng 2000, Démurger 2001, Fleisher and Wang 2004).
Returns to schooling were low in the early years after the beginning of economic
reform in 1978 but increased in the 1990s (Zhao and Zhou 2002).1 Therefore, an
updated analysis of how education is paying off in the labor market is important for
understanding the evolution of income distribution in transition economies.

The PRC’s rapid economic growth was accompanied by a considerable
increase in earnings inequality.2 Moreover, the country’s postreform “open door”
policy attracted foreign direct investment and multinational companies, leading to
strong demand for skilled workers along the rapidly expanding industrial coast.3
Therefore, it is important to understand how skills and education are rewarded
across rural and urban locations, and across coastal and inland cities.4

Understanding the determinants of rising returns to education—a labor
market phenomenon in transition economies—can also help us understand the
difference between the PRC and other transition countries in terms of labor
market characteristics. Unsurprisingly, following the shift from an administratively
determined wage system to a market-oriented one in the early 1990s, there has been
a significant increase in research on the economic profitability of human capital
investment in the PRC.

Most estimates of labor market returns correspond to the early years of
reform and hence are unlikely to be a good guide given the unprecedented
transformation of the PRC economy during the 1990s. Spatial differences in
infrastructure growth and physical investment are also likely to have caused
important variations in the way schooling impacts labor market earnings (Fleisher
and Chen 1997). Therefore, we add to the existing literature by using the Chinese
General Social Survey (CGSS) 2010 dataset and provide an up-to-date account of
the labor market returns to education in the PRC.

Our empirical model accounts for two important determinants of earnings:
health capital, which includes height, body mass index (BMI), and self-reported
health status; and English language proficiency that were both ignored by most of
the recent studies on the PRC. Inoltre, our empirical analysis addresses concerns
over endogeneity and sample selection biases. We use information on parental death
during the respondent’s childhood and parental schooling as excluded instruments
to estimate the instrumental variable (IV) modello. Nonrandom selection into waged
work is modeled using data on various measures of nonlabor income. Lastly, we

1This pattern of rising returns to education is similar to the experience of other economies in Central and

Eastern Europe that went through the transition from a planned economy to a market economy (Hung 2008).

2According to one account, the average real earnings of Chinese urban male workers increased by 350%

during 1988–2009, increasing the variance in log earnings by 94% (Meng, Shen, and Xue 2013).

3For the interplay between human capital and foreign direct investment in the PRC, see Liu, Xu, and Liu

(2004); Su and Liu (2016); and Salike (2016).

4According to Hung (2008), the returns to education in Central and Eastern Europe were about 2%–4% in

the pretransition period, while those in the PRC were even lower at less than 2%.

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
UN
D
e
v
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

/

3
6
1
8
0
1
6
4
4
1
6
5
UN
D
e
v
_
UN
_
0
0
1
2
4
P
D

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

82 Asian Development Review

report estimates for various subgroups—men versus women, rural versus urban, E
coastal versus inland provinces—to document the heterogeneous nature of returns
to schooling and skills in postreform PRC.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II briefly reviews the
literature. Section III and section IV describe the data and empirical framework used
in our study, rispettivamente. Section V presents our econometric results. We conclude
in section VI.

II. Literature Review: What Do We Know about Returns to Education in

the People’s Republic of China?

Existing studies on the PRC have estimated a Mincer-type earnings function
using a variety of micro datasets. Our review of the published literature on returns
to education for the period 1987–2016 identified a total of 68 studies (Tavolo 1).5

Of these studies, 52 included residents in urban areas, 8 included residents in
rural areas, E 10 were rural–urban migrants, while only 6 covered both urban and
rural areas. Most studies (59) used household survey datasets. These include the
Chinese Household Income Project (CHIP, 27 studies); China Health and Nutrition
Survey (CHNS, 5); Chinese Twins Survey (4); China Urban Labor Survey (CULS,
3); Panel Data of Urban Residents from 20 cities in six provinces (3); China Urban
Household Income and Expenditure Survey (CUHIES, 2); and Urban Household
Survey (UHS, 2). A total of 13 studies used data from other well-established
household surveys, such as the Chinese Labor Market Research Project (CLMRP)
and Rural Urban Migration in China (RUMiC), among others. The remaining 8
studies used data from several firm-based surveys, while only 1 study (Mishra and
Smyth 2015) used data from both a household survey (China Household Finance
Survey) and a firm-level survey (Shanghai matched worker-firm survey 2007). In
this section, we discuss only those studies that used household survey datasets.

A stylized fact from the literature is that returns to education in the PRC
labor market in the 1980s and early 1990s were extremely low compared with the
average returns in other Asian countries (9.6%), low- and middle-income countries
(11.2%–11.7%), and the world (10.1%) (Psacharopoulos 1994). The rate of return
in studies using data from the 1986, 1988, E 1993 CHIP surveys ranged from
1.5% A 4.5% for urban areas (Knight and Song 1991, 1995; Xie and Hannum 1996;
Johnson and Chow 1997; Liu 1998; Maurer-Fazio 1999) and 0%–4% for rural areas
(Knight and Song 1993; Parish, Zhe, and Li 1995; Johnson and Chow 1997). Apart
from the findings using CHIP dataset, researchers who employed data from other
household surveys during this period found comparatively low rates of return to

5For existing meta-analyses of studies on returns to education in the PRC, see Liu and Zhang (2013) E
Awaworyi and Mishra (2014). Inoltre, for a review of developing country estimates, see Psacharopoulos and
Patrinos (2004).

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
UN
D
e
v
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

/

3
6
1
8
0
1
6
4
4
1
6
5
UN
D
e
v
_
UN
_
0
0
1
2
4
P
D

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Returns to Education and English Language Skills in the PRC 83

,
)
e
l
UN
M
e
F

,

2
0
0
2
(

.

1
8
–
)
e
l
UN
M
e
F

,

5
9
9
1
(

6
.
5

.

5
6
–
2
4

.

4
.
7
–
2
.
4

;
8
.
6
–
0
.
6

,
)
e
l
UN
M
e
F
(

.

8
1
1
–
3
7

.

;
)
e
l
UN
M

(

.

6
6
–
6
.
3

)
e
l
UN
M

(

.

8
8
–
4
.
4

)
7
0
0
2
(

.

0
4
–
1
2
o
T

.

)
2
0
0
2
(

6
.
9
–
0
.
6

0
M
o
R
F

T
N
e
R
e
F
F
io
D
sì
l
l
UN
C
io
T
S
io
T
UN
T
S

T
o
N

.

5
5
–
8
4

.

;
)
7
0
0
2
(

.

9
4
–
)
2
0
0
2
(

8
.
3

3
.
7
–
6
.
3

1
.
3

.
D
e
tu
N
io
T
N
o
C

)
7
0
0
2
(

.

8
3
–
3
3
o
T

.

)
2
0
0
2
(

9
.
2
–
3
.
2

)
5
9
9
1
(

.

3
7
–
9
5
o
T

.

)
8
8
9
1
(

9
.
3
–
3
.
3

)
e
l
UN
M

(

9
2

.

,
)
e
l
UN
M
e
F
(

)
5
9
9
1
(

.

6
5
–
)
8
8
9
1
(

5
.
4

4
.
5

8
.
2

0
.
4
–
3
.
3

0
.
3
–
4
.
2

3
.
2

5
.
4
–
2
.
2

6
.
3
–
9
.
2

)
2
0
0
2
(

.

5
7
–
)
8
8
9
1
(

)
5
9
9
1
(

.

4
4
–
)
8
8
9
1
(

)
5
9
9
1
(

.

4
7
–
)
8
8
9
1
(

)
9
9
9
1
(

.

1
4
–
)
5
9
9
1
(

6
.
3

5
.
1

0
.
2

2
.
3

.

0
5
1

.

;
6
5
1
–
3
5
1

.

;
9
.
8
–
5
.
7

M
M
G

P
N

;
S
l
O

S
l
O

7
0
0
2
–
2
0
0
2

7
0
0
2
–
2
0
0
2

)
7
1
0
2
(

o
UN
H
Z
D
N
UN

tu
Q

)
5
1
0
2
(

tu
H
Z

;

V

IO

S
l
O

S
l
O

S
l
O

S
l
O

S
l
O

S
l
O

S
l
O

S
l
O

;
S
l
O

S
l
O

S
l
O

S
l
O

S
l
O

S
l
O

S
l
O

V

IO

V

IO

;
S
l
O

;
S
l
O

S
l
O

S
l
O

S
l
O

S
l
O

8
8
9
1

6
8
9
1

8
8
9
1

8
8
9
1

8
8
9
1

8
8
9
1

5
9
9
1

5
9
9
1
–
8
8
9
1

5
9
9
1

2
0
0
2
–
8
8
9
1

5
9
9
1
–
8
8
9
1

5
9
9
1
–
8
8
9
1

9
9
9
1
–
5
9
9
1

5
9
9
1
–
8
8
9
1

2
0
0
2
–
5
9
9
1

2
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

7
0
0
2
–
2
0
0
2

8
8
9
1

3
9
9
1

2
0
0
2

)
1
9
9
1
(

G
N
o
S
D
N
UN

T
H
G
io
N
K

)
5
9
9
1
(

G
N
o
S
D
N
UN

T
H
G
io
N
K

)
6
9
9
1
(

M
tu
N
N
UN
H
D
N
UN

e
io
X

)
9
9
9
1
(

o
io
z
UN
F
–
R
e
R
tu
UN
M

)
8
9
9
1
(
tu
io
l

)
3
0
0
2
(

io

l

)
4
0
0
2
(

tu
o
io
H
C
D
N
UN

P
o
H
S
io
B

)
4
0
0
2
(

o
tu
l
D
N
UN

io

l

)
5
0
0
2
(

UN
io
X
D
N
UN

,
G
N
o
S

,
N
o
T
e
l
P
P
UN

)
5
0
0
2
(
G
N
UN
W
D
N
UN

,
o
tu
l

,
P
o
H
S
io
B

)
5
0
0
2
(

G
N
o
S
D
N
UN

T
H
G
io
N
K

)
5
0
0
2
(

e
io
X
D
N
UN

R
e
S
tu
UN
H

)
9
0
0
2
(

.
l
UN

T
e

R
e
G
R
tu
M
é
D

)
5
0
0
2
(

G
N
UN
Y

)
1
1
0
2
(

G
N
o
H
Z

)
3
1
0
2
(

G
N
UN
W

l
UN
R
tu
R

N
UN
B
R
U

)
7
9
9
1
(

w
o
H
C
D
N
UN

N
o
S
N
H
o
J

D
N
UN

N
UN
B
R
U

)
5
9
9
1
(

io

l
D
N
UN

,
e
H
Z

,
H
S
io
R
UN
P

)
3
9
9
1
(

G
N
o
S
D
N
UN

T
H
G
io
N
K

)
7
1
0
2
(

o
UN
H
Z
D
N
UN

tu
Q

l
UN
R
tu
R

)
9
0
0
2
(

.
l
UN

T
e

R
e
G
R
tu
M
é
D

S
T
N
UN
R
G
io
M

D
l
o
H
e
S
tu
o
H
e
S
e
N
io
H
C

T
C
e
j
o
R
P
e
M
o
C
N
IO

)
P
IO
H
C

(

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
UN
D
e
v
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

/

3
6
1
8
0
1
6
4
4
1
6
5
UN
D
e
v
_
UN
_
0
0
1
2
4
P
D

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

)

%

(

UN
N
io
H
C

F
o
C
io
l
B
tu
P
e
R
S
’
e
l
P
o
e
P
e
H
T
N
io
N
o
io
T
UN
C
tu
D
E
o
T

S
N
R
tu
T
e
R
N
o
S
e
io
D
tu
T
S
G
N
io
T
S
io
X
E

F
o
sì
R
UN
M
M
tu
S

.
1

e
l
B
UN
T

e
T
UN
M

io
T
S
E
S
N
R
tu
T
e
R

D
o
H
T
e

M

D
o
io
R
e
P
sì
D
tu
T
S

R
o
H
T
tu
UN

e
l
P
M
UN
S

e
C
R
tu
o
S
UN
T
UN
D

84 Asian Development Review

,
)
e
l
UN
M
e
F
(

.

.

9
8
–
7
5
;
)
e
l
UN
M

(

.

0
7
–
6
.
2

)
e
l
UN
M

(

.

6
5
–
8
.
0

)
e
l
UN
M

(

.

0
1
1
–
6
.
5

,
)
e
l
UN
M
e
F

,

6
0
0
2
(

.

2
5
–
)
e
l
UN
M
e
F

,

3
9
9
1
(

0
.
2

S
l
O

6
0
0
2
–
3
9
9
1

)
2
1
0
2
(

R
e
l
l
io

M
D
N
UN
N
e
R

)
N
e
M
D
e
io
R
R
UN
M

(

.

6
2
1

,
)
N
e
M
o
w
D
e
io
R
R
UN
M

(

D
e
io
R
R
UN
M

(

9
7

.

,
)
e
l
UN
M

(

1
8

.

,
)
e
l
UN
M
e
F
(

7
.
7

.

5
4
1

;
)
N
e
M
D
e
io
R
R
UN
M

(

0
8

.

,
)
N
e
M
o
w

,
)
e
l
UN
M
e
F

,

9
0
0
2
(

.

3
0
1
–
)
e
l
UN
M
e
F

,

9
8
9
1
(

2
.
2

9
.
6
–
1
.
5

V

IO

;
S
l
O

S
l
O

0
0
0
2
–
9
8
9
1

9
0
0
2
–
9
8
9
1

)
0
1
0
2
(

N
o
S
D
tu
H
D
N
UN

tu
io
Q

)
2
1
0
2
(

G
N
e
P
D
N
UN

G
N
UN
K

V

IO

;
S
l
O

6
0
0
2
–
4
0
0
2

)
9
0
0
2
(

io
R
o
M
UN
H
D
N
UN

N
e
H
C

l
UN
R
tu
R

N
UN
B
R
U

0
2

;
9

V

IO

;
S
l
O

6
0
0
2
–
7
9
9
1

)
2
1
0
2
(

.
l
UN

T
e

G
N
UN
F

D
N
UN

N
UN
B
R
U

sì
e
v
R
tu
S
N
o
io
T
io
R
T
tu
N

D
N
UN
H
T
l
UN
e
H
UN
N
io
H
C

)
S
N
H
C

(

)

%

(

.
D
e
tu
N
io
T
N
o
C

.
1

e
l
B
UN
T

e
T
UN
M

io
T
S
E
S
N
R
tu
T
e
R

D
o
H
T
e

M

D
o
io
R
e
P
sì
D
tu
T
S

R
o
H
T
tu
UN

e
l
P
M
UN
S

e
C
R
tu
o
S
UN
T
UN
D

.

8
4
–
2
5

.

.

;
1
9
–
2
8

.

)
0
1
0
2
(

1
1
–
)
1
0
0
2
(

2
.
0
1

;
)
0
1
0
2
(

.

6
8
–
)
1
0
0
2
(

8
.
6

V

IO

l
e
B
w
e
l

5
.
3
–
8
.
1

;

V

IO

S
l
O

;
S
l
O

S
l
O

,
)
e
l
UN
M
e
F

,

1
0
0
2
(

.

2
3
1
–
)
e
l
UN
M
e
F

,

8
8
9
1
(

.

8
5
1
–
1
0
–

.

;
)
1
9
9
1
(

.

9
5
–
)
5
7
9
1
(

4
.
1

2
.
5

N
UN
M
k
C
e
H

;
S
l
O

V

IO

;
S
l
O

.

7
2
–
5
2

.

.

;
7
2
–
5
2

.

;
4
.
8
–
2
.
8

3
3

.

;
2
3

.

;
0
.
7
–
3
.
6

.

5
0
1
–
1
9

.

;
8
.
9
–
8
.
8

.

8
3
–
7
.
2

;
4
.
8

.

3
8
–
0
8

.

;
6
.
9
–
3
.
8

S
l
G

;

E
F
;
S
l
O

S
l
G

;

E
F
;
S
l
O

V

IO

;
S
l
O

E
F
;
S
l
O

V

IO

;
S
l
O

0
1
0
2
–
1
0
0
2

0
1
0
2
–
1
0
0
2

3
9
9
1
–
8
7
9
1

1
9
9
1
–
5
7
9
1

1
0
0
2
–
8
8
9
1

2
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

1
0
0
2

)
5
0
0
2
(

G
N
UN
H
Z
D
N
UN

,
UN

M

,
tu
io
l

,
io

l

N
UN
B
R
U

sì
e
v
R
tu
S
S
N
io
w
T
e
S
e
N
io
H
C

)
7
0
0
2
(

G
N
tu
Y
D
N
UN

,
tu
io
l

,
G
N
UN
H
Z

)
2
1
0
2
(

G
N
UN
H
Z
D
N
UN

,
tu
io
l

,
io

l

)
8
0
0
2
(

G
N
UN
W
D
N
UN

,
k
R
UN
P

,
S
e
l
io

G

)
7
0
0
2
(

.
l
UN

T
e

io

l

)
5
0
0
2
(

G
N
UN
W
D
N
UN

R
e
H
S
io
e
l
F

)
5
1
0
2
(

H
T
sì
M
S
D
N
UN

o
UN
G

)
2
0
0
2
(

tu
o
H
Z
D
N
UN

o
UN
H
Z

)
1
1
0
2
(

tu
D
D
N
UN

io
UN
C

N
UN
B
R
U

)
S
l
U
C

(

sì
e
v
R
tu
S

R
o
B
UN
l
N
UN
B
R
U
UN
N
io
H
C

N
UN
B
R
U

N
UN
B
R
U

F
o
UN
T
UN
D

l
e
N
UN
P

S
e
io
T
io
C
0
2
N
io

S
T
N
e
D
io
S
e
R

)
5
0
0
2
(

.
l
UN

T
e

G
N
UN
H
Z

N
UN
B
R
U

)
S
H
U

(

sì
e
v
R
tu
S

D
l
o
H
e
S
tu
o
H
N
UN
B
R
U

,
)
e
l
UN
M
e
F
(

.

.

5
2
1
–
2
5
;
)
e
l
UN
M

(

.

4
8
–
9
.
2

.
D
e
tu
N
io
T
N
o
C

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

)
7
0
0
2
(

.

4
1
1
–
)
8
8
9
1
(

6
.
3

)
e
l
UN
M

(

.

5
7
–
8
.
2

.

5
3
1
–
9
2
1

.

.

;
9
8
1
–
5
7
1

.

9
–
6

8
–
7

;
7
.
8
–
6
.
8

V

IO

l
e
B
w
e
l

/

e
D
tu
UN
D
e
v
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

/

3
6
1
8
0
1
6
4
4
1
6
5
UN
D
e
v
_
UN
_
0
0
1
2
4
P
D

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

;

V

IO

S
l
O

V

IO

V

IO

;
S
l
O

7
0
0
2
–
8
8
9
1

9
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

1
1
0
2

)
6
1
0
2
(
G
N
UN
F
D
N
UN
tu
o
io
R
UN
l
l
e
k
UN
S

)
6
1
0
2
(
G
N
UN
F
D
N
UN
tu
o
io
R
UN
l
l
e
k
UN
S

)
5
1
0
2
(

H
T
sì
M
S
D
N
UN

UN
R
H
S
io

M

)
1
1
0
2
(

G
N
UN
Y
D
N
UN

e
G

S
T
N
UN
R
G
io
M

N
UN
B
R
U

)

io

C
M
U
R

(

UN
N
io
H
C
N
io

sì
e
v
R
tu
S
e
C
N
UN
N
io
F

D
l
o
H
e
S
tu
o
H
UN
N
io
H
C

)
S
F
H
C

(

N
UN
B
R
U

N
o
io
T
UN
R
G
io
M
N
UN
B
R
U

l
UN
R
tu
R

Returns to Education and English Language Skills in the PRC 85

)
e
l
UN
M

(

.

5
4
,
)
e
l
UN
M
e
F
(

5
.
5

S
l
O

9
.
3

;
7
.
3

S
l
W

;
S
l
O

)
e
l
UN
M

(

.

6
3
1

,
)
e
l
UN
M
e
F
(

3
9

.

,
)
e
l
P
M
UN
S

l
l
tu
F
(

1
.
2
1

)
e
l
UN
M

(

.

7
3
,
)
e
l
UN
M
e
F
(

9
.
4

)
e
l
UN
M

(

.

5
4
,
)
e
l
UN
M
e
F
(

5
.
5

3
.
2

8
.
4

3
.
4

8
.
4

8
.
7

8
.
6

0
.
4
–
0
.
3

.

9
2
2
–
4
1
2

.

;
9
.
1
1
–
8
.
0
1

8
.
6
–
6
.
5

S
l
O

S
l
O

S
l
O

V

IO

;
S
l
O

0
1
0
2
–
9
0
0
2

N
UN
M
k
C
e
H

S
l
O

N
UN
M
k
C
e
H

S
l
O

S
l
O

S
l
O

S
l
O

S
l
O

5
8
9
1

0
9
9
1

1
9
9
1

0
0
0
2

6
9
9
1

0
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

5
8
9
1

6
8
9
1

2
9
9
1

5
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

)
7
8
9
1
(
G
UN
UN
G

R
e
D
N
UN
V
D
N
UN

N
o
S
io
M
UN
J

)
0
9
9
1
(

o
T
o
l
UN
N
UN
M
D
N
UN

N
o
R
sì
B

)
B
8
0
0
2
(

H
T
sì
M
S
D
N
UN

N
UN
io
Q

)
9
9
9
1
(

o
io
z
UN
F
–
R
e
R
tu
UN
M

)
0
1
0
2
(

io

l
D
N
UN

G
N
e
D

)
3
1
0
2
(

H
T
sì
M
S
D
N
UN

UN
R
H
S
io

M

)
8
0
0
2
(

e
l
l
e
z
o
R
D
N
UN
w
tu
UN
R
B
e
D

)
0
1
0
2
(

io

l
D
N
UN

G
N
e
D

)
0
1
0
2
(

G
N
e
M
D
N
UN

,
e
e
l

,
S
R
e
T
j
io
R
F

)
8
0
0
2
(

e
l
l
e
z
o
R
D
N
UN
w
tu
UN
R
B
e
D

)
1
0
0
2
(

G
N
UN
H
Z
D
N
UN

G
N
e
M

S
T
N
UN
R
G
io
M

)
9
9
9
1
(

.
l
UN

T
e

io
e

W

)
7
9
9
1
(

G
N
UN
Y

l
UN
R
tu
R

)
7
8
9
1
(
G
UN
UN
G

R
e
D
N
UN
V
D
N
UN

N
o
S
io
M
UN
J

N
UN
B
R
U

S
R
e
H
T
O

)

%

(

.
D
e
tu
N
io
T
N
o
C

.
1

e
l
B
UN
T

e
T
UN
M

io
T
S
E
S
N
R
tu
T
e
R

D
o
H
T
e

M

D
o
io
R
e
P
sì
D
tu
T
S

R
o
H
T
tu
UN

e
l
P
M
UN
S

e
C
R
tu
o
S
UN
T
UN
D

C
io
R
T
e
M
UN
R
UN
P
N
o
N
(

N
o
io
S
S
e
R
G
e
R

l
e
N
R
e
k

C
io
R
T
e
M
UN
R
UN
P
N
o
N
=
P
N

,
S
T
N
e
M
o
M

F
o

D
o
H
T
e
M
D
e
z
io
l
UN
R
e
N
e
G
=
M
M
G

,
S
e
R
UN
tu
q
S

T
S
UN
e
l

D
e
z
io
l
UN
R
e
N
e
G
=
S
l
G

,
e
l
B
UN
io
R
UN
v

l
UN
T
N
e
M
tu
R
T
S
N
io

=
V

IO

,
S
T
C
e
F
F
e

D
e
X
fi
=
E
F

.
S
e
R
UN
tu
q
S

T
S
UN
e
l
D
e
T
H
G
io
e
w
=
S
l
W

,
S
e
R
UN
tu
q
S

T
S
UN
e
l

sì
R
UN
N
io
D
R
o
=
S
l
O

,
)
N
o
io
T
UN
M

io
T
S
e

M
o
R
F
D
e
D
tu
l
C
X
e

e
R
e
w

)
N
o
io
T
UN
C
tu
D
e

e
G
e
l
l
o
C
(
N
o
io
T
UN
C
tu
D
e

R
e
H
G
io
H
o
T

S
N
R
tu
T
e
R
sì
l
N
o
D
e
T
UN
M

io
T
S
e

T
UN
H
T

S
e
io
D
tu
T
S
N
e
v
e
l
E

.
e
l
B
UN
T

e
H
T
N
io
D
e
T
N
e
S
e
R
P
e
R
UN

UN
T
UN
D
sì
e
v
R
tu
S
D
l
o
H
e
S
tu
o
H
D
e
S
tu
T
UN
H
T

S
e
io
D
tu
T
S
sì
l
N
O

:
S
e
T
o
N

;
3
1
0
2
.
l
UN

T
e
sì
o
N
R
UN
C

;
2
1
0
2
G
N
UN
W

;
2
1
0
2
.
l
UN

T
e

io

l

;
7
0
0
2
.
l
UN

T
e
G
N
UN
W

;
5
0
0
2
.
l
UN

T
e

R
e
H
S
io
e
l
F
;
4
0
0
2

io

l
D
N
UN
N
UN
M
k
C
e
H

;
3
0
0
2

G
N
o
S
D
N
UN

T
H
G
io
N
K

;
0
0
0
2

tu
o
H
Z

;
0
0
0
2

io

l
D
N
UN

N
o
S
S
F
UN
T
S
tu
G

(

e
l
B
UN
T

e
H
T

D
N
UN

,
G
N
o
D

,
R
e
H
S
io
e
l
F
;
5
9
9
1

G
N
e
M
D
N
UN

sì
R
o
G
e
R
G

;
2
9
9
1

G
N
e
P
(

e
l
B
UN
T

e
H
T

M
o
R
F

D
e
D
tu
l
C
X
e

e
R
e
w
UN
T
UN
D

sì
e
v
R
tu
S
M
R
fi
sì
l
N
o

D
e
S
tu

T
UN
H
T

S
e
io
D
tu
T
S

T
H
G
io
E

.
)
3
1
0
2

S
io
N
io
S
S
e

M

;
3
1
0
2

e
tu
X
D
N
UN

,

N
e
H
S

,

G
N
e
M

UN
T
UN
D
sì
e
v
R
tu
S
D
l
o
H
e
S
tu
o
H
H
T
o
B
D
e
S
tu
)
5
1
0
2
H
T
sì
M
S
D
N
UN

UN
R
H
S
io

M

(
sì
D
tu
T
S

e
N
O

.
)
4
0
0
2
H
N
io
D
D
N
UN
o
io
z
UN
F
–
R
e
R
tu
UN
M

;
2
0
0
2
.
l
UN

T
e
o
H

;
4
0
0
2
,
1
0
0
2
G
N
UN
W
D
N
UN

R
e
H
S
io
e
l

F

;
7
9
9
1
D
D
io
K
D
N
UN
G
N
e
M

;
6
9
9
1
tu
io
l

.
e
l
B
UN
T

e
H
T
N
io
D
e
T
S
io
l

e
R
UN

UN
T
UN
D
sì
e
v
R
tu
S
D
l
o
H
e
S
tu
o
H

N
o
D
e
S
UN
B
S
T
l
tu
S
e
R

e
H
T

sì
l
N
o

T
tu
B
,
)
sì
e
v
R
tu
S
M
R
fi
–
R
e
k
R
o
w
D
e
H
C
T
UN
M

–
io
UN
H
G
N
UN
H
S
7
0
0
2
(

UN
T
UN
D
sì
e
v
R
tu
S
M
R
fi
D
N
UN

)
S
F
H
C

(

.
e
R
tu
T
UN
R
e
T
io
l

e
H
T

F
o
w
e
io
v
e
R

’
S
R
o
H
T
tu
UN

:
e
C
R
tu
o
S

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
UN
D
e
v
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

/

3
6
1
8
0
1
6
4
4
1
6
5
UN
D
e
v
_
UN
_
0
0
1
2
4
P
D

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

86 Asian Development Review

schooling, around 3.7%–5.9% for urban areas, compared with 2.3%–4.8% for rural
areas (Jamison and Van Der Gaag 1987, Byron and Manaloto 1990, Yang 1997,
Wei et al. 1999, Maurer-Fazio 1999, Zhou 2000, Zhao and Zhou 2002, Fleisher and
Wang 2005).

Another stylized fact is that returns to education have increased since
the mid-1990s, along with improvements in wages and workers’ contractual
rights (Chan and Nadvi 2014). Studies that employed CHIP datasets found that
the economic returns to each additional year of schooling increased to around
4.4%–8.9% in 1995 (Li 2003; Bishop and Chiou 2004; Li and Luo 2004; Bishop,
Luo, and Wang 2005; Hauser and Xie 2005; Yang 2005), 4.1% In 1999 (Knight
and Song 2005), 7.5%–8.1% in 2002 among urban residents (Appleton, Song, E
Xia 2005; Wang 2013), and 3.6%–7.3% in 2002 among migrants (Démurger et al.
2009).

Findings from studies using non-CHIP datasets also indicate an increased
rate of return after 1995. Per esempio, research using another widely used dataset,
CHNS, found that the rate of return rose sharply to 6.9% In 2000 (Qiu and Hudson
2010), 8.1% In 2004 (Chen and Hamori 2009), and around 9% In 2006 (Fang et al.
2012) in urban areas. Again, based on the CHNS dataset, Ren and Miller (2012)
found that the returns to women increased from 2% In 1993 A 7% In 2004, while
the returns to men increased from 0.8% A 3.1%. Allo stesso modo, Kang and Peng (2012)
documented a larger increase in returns to education for Chinese women than men
using the expanded CHNS dataset from 1989 A 2009. More precisely, the rate
increased from 2.2% In 1989 A 10.3% In 2009 for women, but only from 2.6% A
7% for men. Additionally, these increased returns to schooling since the mid-1990s
have been recorded in a large number of studies that used non-CHIP or non-CHNS
survey datasets, including studies on rural workers (De Brauw and Rozelle 2008);
migrant workers (Meng and Zhang 2001; Maurer-Fazio and Dinh 2004; De Brauw
and Rozelle 2008; Deng and Li 2010; Frijters, Lee, and Meng 2010; Sakellariou and
Fang 2016); and urban workers using the Chinese Twins Survey dataset (Li, Liu,
Mamma, and Zhang 2005; Zhang, Liu, and Yung 2007; Li et al. 2007; Li et al. 2012);
CULS (Giles, Park, and Wang 2008; Cai and Du 2011; Gao and Smyth 2015); E
CUHIES (Meng, Shen, and Xue 2013).

Apart from the overall returns to education, earlier studies looked into returns
to specific education levels. Studies based on data from the period after higher
education reform documented a sharp increase in returns to college education
(Heckman and Li 2004; Fleisher et al. 2005; Giles, Park, and Wang 2008; Qian
and Smyth 2008b; Zhong 2011; Li et al. 2012; Wang 2012; Carnoy et al. 2013;
Meng, Shen, and Xue 2013), compared with those from before the reform period
(Gustafsson and Li 2000, Knight and Song 2003, Li 2003, Bishop and Chiou
2004). Inoltre, research on the postreform period argued that graduates from
elite colleges earned a premium over other college graduates even after controlling
for cognitive ability, academic major, college location, and students’ individual

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
UN
D
e
v
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

/

3
6
1
8
0
1
6
4
4
1
6
5
UN
D
e
v
_
UN
_
0
0
1
2
4
P
D

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Returns to Education and English Language Skills in the PRC 87

characteristics and family backgrounds (Zhong 2011, Li et al. 2012). Existing
literature also found that women benefited more from a university education than
men, and similarly, urban residents earned more than rural residents with the same
college degree (Qian and Smyth 2008, Wang 2012).

The pattern of returns to education in different regions has also changed since
the mid-1990s. In contrast to the finding of Liu (1998), Li (2003) observed that
the rate of return was higher in less developed provinces, such as Gansu, than in
high-income provinces, such as Guangdong.

There are additional stylized facts relating to methodological issues. Primo,
recent research has employed an instrumental variable (IV) approach to solve the
endogeneity bias in educational attainment.6 For the PRC, the IV estimates were
higher than the corresponding ordinary least squares (OLS) estimates (Fleisher
and Wang 2004; Heckman and Li 2004; Li and Luo 2004; Fleisher et al. 2005;
Fleisher and Wang 2005; Zhang, Liu, and Yung 2007; Giles, Park, and Wang
2008; Chen and Hamori 2009; Zhong 2011; Fang et al. 2012; Kang and Peng
2012; Wang 2012; Mishra and Smyth 2013; Wang 2013; Gao and Smyth 2015;
Mishra and Smyth 2015; Sakellariou and Fang 2016). Most of these studies used
family-background variables to estimate the IV model. For instance, Heckman and
Li (2004) used the 2000 CUHIES, and parental education and year of birth as
instruments for an individual’s education. Allo stesso modo, based on the 1995 CHIP data,
Li and Luo (2004) estimated returns to schooling for young workers in urban areas
using parental education and variables related to siblings as instruments. Inoltre,
using the 1988–2002 CHIP data, Fleisher et al. (2005) explored the private returns
to schooling at the university level. They found that the IV and semiparametric
estimates on the rate of return for college graduates were higher when parental
schooling was the proxy for ability.7

In summary, while findings from existing research vary in terms of data
fonti, metodi, and study periods, they generally confirm that gains from
schooling have increased significantly. The estimated returns to schooling are higher
in urban areas than in rural locations, and higher for female workers than for male
workers. Inoltre, the IV estimates that used parental education as instruments
for an individual’s schooling yielded higher returns than the OLS estimates. For the
prereform period, the OLS estimates of the rate of return are around 1.4%–1.9%
in urban areas, compared with 0%–2.6% in rural areas. For the postreform period,
the OLS estimates show an increase of 3.3%–9% for the full sample, compared
with the IV estimates of up to 20%. The OLS estimates also show an increase of

6For relevant international studies, see Arabsheibani and Lau (1999); Trostel, Walker, and Woolley (2002).
7Recentemente, some researchers have used the Lewbel (2012) IV method rather than the traditional IV approach
to study the returns to schooling in the PRC, especially in urban areas (Gao and Smyth 2015, Mishra and Smyth
2015). Findings from either the conventional IV approach or the Lewbel IV method suggest that measurement errors
exert a downward bias on OLS estimates.

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
UN
D
e
v
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

/

3
6
1
8
0
1
6
4
4
1
6
5
UN
D
e
v
_
UN
_
0
0
1
2
4
P
D

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

88 Asian Development Review

0%–4.8% for the rural sample, and OLS estimates of 1.5%–12.1% for the urban
sample, compared with the IV estimates of 4.2%–22.9%.

III. Data

in questo documento, we use data from the CGSS 2010. The main advantage of
CGSS over existing datasets (such as CHNS, CHIP, CLMRP, and RUMiC) is that,
in addition to being representative of rural and urban areas of the PRC, it offers
information on both language skills and health of the respondents. The CGSS 2010
sampled a total of 11,783 individuals, Dove 38.7% were from rural areas and 51.8%
were women. Table A1 provides a breakdown of the sample observations across
different groups and work status: (io) agricultural waged work, (ii) nonagricultural
waged work, (iii) self-employed, (iv) in the labor force but unemployed, E (v)
not in the labor force. Most studies relied on the second age group, females age
16–55 years and males age 16–60 years (16 is the youngest legal working age in
the PRC, while 55 E 60 are the official retirement age). In this study, we follow
Schultz (2002) and restrict the analysis to women age 25–55 years and men age
25–60 years. Our main analysis is restricted to individuals in waged work, both in
agricultural and nonagricultural sectors. After ignoring cases with missing data, our
working sample contains 4,223 waged workers. Table A2 summarizes all variables
used in the regression analysis.

IV. Empirical Framework

As explained in section II, past studies on the PRC rarely controlled for
cognitive skills despite the fact that market reforms of the 1990s were likely to
have increased demand for such language and numeracy skills. Although schooling
is expected to capture returns to cognitive skills, recent research documents a
systematic economic return to cognitive skills around the world independent of
schooling completed (Hanushek et al. 2015). Therefore, it is useful to know, In
the context of the PRC, the pathways through which schooling is rewarded in the
labor market.

Allo stesso modo, individuals with more schooling may have higher wages because
they have better health and healthier behaviors.8 At
the same time, school
attendance may ignore skills acquired through social channels and in the workplace.
Existing studies on the PRC have not fully considered the interaction between
schooling, skills, and health capital in determining labor market success. Recente
studies have instead focused on the possibility that schooling is endogenous,
owing to omitted health components, or that return to schooling is understated,

8The positive relationship between schooling and health is well established in the literature (Vedere, Per esempio,

Grossman 2008; Silles 2009; Conti, Heckman, and Urzua 2010; and Heckman et al. 2014).

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
UN
D
e
v
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

/

3
6
1
8
0
1
6
4
4
1
6
5
UN
D
e
v
_
UN
_
0
0
1
2
4
P
D

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Returns to Education and English Language Skills in the PRC 89

because it does not capture the quality of human capital. Consequently, researchers
have modeled schooling attainment as an endogenous determinant of earnings by
employing instrumental variable techniques (Li and Luo 2004, Heckman and Li
2004, Mishra and Smyth 2013, Chen and Hamori 2009, Mishra and Smyth 2015,
Gao and Smyth 2015, Sakellariou and Fang 2016). Inoltre, some researchers
have accounted for nonrandom selection into waged work by employing Heckman’s
(1979) two-step procedure (Zhang et al. 2005, Chen and Hamori 2009).

Keeping the above issues in mind, we specify a Mincerian earnings function
where the log of monthly employment income (measured in renminbi) is regressed
on years of schooling; work experience; work experience squared; genere; marital
status; and a series of additional control variables including ethnicity; hukou
type; marital status; health factors (height, self-reported health status, and BMI);
proficiency in English; and location dummies.9 In addition, we account for the
endogeneity of years of schooling in the earnings function.

Existing studies on developed and developing countries such as the PRC have
attempted to address the issue in an IV framework in two settings: experimental and
nonexperimental. Experimental studies rely on various institutional reforms, ad esempio
changes in the minimum age of leaving school (Harmon and Walker 1995), Quale
result in exogenous variation in educational attainment. Nonexperimental studies,
on the other hand, use family background (Li and Luo 2004); parents’ education
(Heckman and Li 2004, Mishra and Smyth 2013); and spouse’s education (Chen
and Hamori 2009, Mishra and Smyth 2013, Gao and Smyth 2015) as instruments
for education in the PRC and other countries (Trostel, Walker, and Woolley 2002).
in questo documento, we follow the second approach.

Therefore, in addition to OLS estimates, we present IV estimates where
we instrument schooling completed using the following as excluded instruments:
whether a parent died when the respondent was 14 years old, father’s education, E
mother’s education. Following Case, Paxson, and Ableidinger (2004) and Gertler,
Levine, and Ames (2004), we assume that timing of parental death is exogenous
and serves as a negative shock to the respondent’s schooling. D'altra parte,
the father’s and mother’s education are not correlated to their children’s inherent
abilities but have influence on their children’s education when we use them as
excluded instruments. It should be noted that studies that used parental education
as an instrument to estimate returns to education in the PRC have often done so
only for a subsample. This is because of how the survey is designed, dove il
instruments are available only for the respondents whose parents are present in the

9Since CGSS does not have data on work experience or tenure, we use information on age and school
completion to define postschool experience. We assume the legal age for starting work is 16 years old. For those
who completed secondary schooling, we calculate experience as current age minus years of schooling minus 6, Ma
for those who didn’t complete secondary schooling, experience is current age minus 16. This definition is consistent
with existing studies on the PRC (Qian and Smyth 2008b, Gao and Smyth 2015, Mishra and Smyth 2015).

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
UN
D
e
v
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

/

3
6
1
8
0
1
6
4
4
1
6
5
UN
D
e
v
_
UN
_
0
0
1
2
4
P
D

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

90 Asian Development Review

same household (Wang 2013). Our dataset doesn’t suffer from this problem as all
respondents are asked about parental background in a retrospective manner.

Apart from the endogeneity problem, another common methodological
concern is the sample selection problem. If individuals select into the labor force on
the basis of some unobserved attributes that also affect their wages, OLS estimates
would yield biased estimates of the correlation between education and wages. In this
paper, we follow Heckman (1979) to correct for nonrandom selection into waged
lavoro. Primo, we estimate a probit function for labor force participation where a
sample selection correction term, lambda, is computed. Then the earnings function
is estimated with the selection correction term as an extra variable. For the purpose
of identifying the lambda term, at least one variable needs to be excluded from the
wage equation, which is otherwise included in the probit equation. In our model, we
follow Duraisamy (2002) and Asadullah (2006) who used data on nonlabor income
(cioè., income received from bequest) as an excluded variable, leaving it out of the
wage equation.10

V. Results

UN.

Ordinary Least Squares Estimates of Returns to Education

In this section, we estimate returns to education by adding additional controls
for factors that are correlated with both wages and schooling. Inoltre, we
formally include a measure of English language skills alongside schooling.11 Table
2 reports OLS estimates of the Mincerian earnings function for the full sample.
To understand the true returns to education, we pursue a stepwise approach,
sequentially adding controls for language proficiency and three measures of
health—height, self-reported health status, and BMI—in the regression function.
Four patterns follow from our analysis.

Primo, education has a significant and positive impact on earnings in the
PRC even after we control for English language proficiency and health capital
(specification 3). The rate of return to an additional year of schooling ranges from
7.8% A 8.8% in the full sample. Our OLS estimate is similar to the estimated
average rate reported in existing literature on the PRC, which ranges between 7%
E 10% (Chen and Hamori 2009, Mishra and Smyth 2015). The biggest decline
in estimated returns to education (from 8.8% A 8%) occurs when we control for
language proficiency (specification 1 versus 2). The decline in the rate of return to
education after controlling for language skills may simply be because English is part
of the institutional education received in school. Therefore, when such components

10We also considered income from land leasing and sale of property as additional identifying variables, Ma

these were not significant in the first stage.

11English language skills are measured as a binary indicator and refers to proficiency at or above the standard

level.

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

/

e
D
tu
UN
D
e
v
/
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

/

3
6
1
8
0
1
6
4
4
1
6
5
UN
D
e
v
_
UN
_
0
0
1
2
4
P
D

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Returns to Education and English Language Skills in the PRC 91

Tavolo 2. Ordinary Least Squares Estimates of the Determinants of Earnings with and
without Controls for Language Skills and Health Endowments (full sample)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Personal characteristics
Experience

Experience squared

Female

Minority

Nonagricultural hukou

Currently married

Schooling and cognitive skills
Years of education

Good English skills

Health capital
Height (centimeters)

Self-reported health status:
Bad

Good

Body mass index (BMI):
BMI < 18.5, underweight 25 (cid:2) BMI < 30, overweight BMI(cid:3)30, obese Geographic location Rural Eastern (coastal) region Western region Constant Number of observations Adjusted R-squared 0.004 (0.59) −0.001 (1.01) −0.376*** (14.64) −0.002 (0.04) 0.205*** (5.59) 0.055 (1.29) 0.005 (0.75) −0.001** (2.22) −0.393*** (15.32) 0.003 (0.06) 0.196*** (5.36) 0.074 (1.76) 0.006 (1.03) −0.001** (2.32) −0.246*** (7.05) 0.007 (0.17) 0.175*** (4.79) 0.071 (1.69) 0.008 (1.30) −0.001** (2.27) −0.237*** (6.83) −0.012 (0.27) 0.174*** (4.79) 0.048 (1.16) 0.008 (1.20) −0.001** (2.19) −0.235*** (6.75) −0.011 (0.27) 0.173*** (4.76) 0.048 (1.15) 0.088*** 0.080*** 0.079*** 0.078*** 0.078*** (20.98) (18.51) 0.317*** (7.10) (18.39) 0.306*** (6.88) (18.24) 0.306*** (6.92) (18.16) 0.307*** (6.94) 0.014*** (6.14) 0.013*** (5.79) 0.014*** (5.84) −0.178*** (3.94) 0.116*** (3.75) −0.179*** (3.95) 0.112*** (3.60) −0.061 (1.24) 0.002 (0.07) −0.147* (1.68) −0.413*** (11.50) 0.371*** (12.00) −0.021 (0.66) 3.773*** (9.19) 4,223 0.51 −0.420*** (11.54) 0.404*** (12.90) −0.052 (1.60) 6.238*** (60.03) 4,223 0.49 −0.423*** (11.68) 0.388*** (12.43) −0.057 (1.77) 6.164*** (59.35) 4,223 0.49 −0.423*** (11.73) 0.376*** (12.10) −0.039 (1.21) 3.712*** (9.01) 4,223 0.50 −0.413*** (11.52) 0.370*** (11.97) −0.022 (0.68) 3.770*** (9.19) 4,223 0.51 Notes: *, **, and *** indicate significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively. “Good English skills” is a dummy variable which indicates whether a respondent’s English skills (including speaking and listening) are at or above the standard proficiency level (=1) or not (=0). For self-reported health status, the reference category is “in normal health condition.” For body mass index (BMI), the reference category is “normal, 18.5 (cid:2) BMI < 25.” For regional dummies, the reference group is “central region.” Sources: Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS) and authors’ calculations. l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u a d e v / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 3 6 1 8 0 1 6 4 4 1 6 5 a d e v _ a _ 0 0 1 2 4 p d . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 92 Asian Development Review of education are included in the regression, they underestimate the true returns to education. Second, in contrast to Mishra and Smyth (2015) where language proficiency has no statistically significant relationship with wages in the PRC, our results indicate a clear correlation—individuals with good English speaking and listening abilities earn wages that are 30% higher than those who do not have these skills (column 5). This positive earnings premium from foreign language skills is consistent with existing studies focusing on both developed countries (Leslie and Lindley 2001, Dustmann and Fabbri 2003 on the United Kingdom, Bleakley and Chin 2004 on the United States) and other developing countries (Azam, Chin, and Prakash 2013 on India; Di Paolo and Tansel 2015 on Turkey). Moreover, compared with returns to other skills, the returns to a foreign language (i.e., English skills) are extremely high (Fasih, Patrinos, and Sakellariou 2013).12 Third, consistent with the literature for both developed countries (Case and Paxson 2008, 2009; Heineck 2008; Hübler 2006) and developing countries (Schultz 2002, 2003; Dinda et al. 2006), health capital matters for earnings in the PRC. The OLS estimates suggest an additional centimeter of adult height is associated with a 1.4% higher wage in the full sample. This result is very close to some of the recent studies on returns to health capital in the PRC, including Gao and Smyth (2010) who were the first to confirm the height–wage premium in the PRC using the CULS 2005 data. They found that the wage return to height in urban areas is 1.1% and 0.9% for men and women, respectively. A later study by Elu and Price (2013) documented a similar rate of return to height (1.1%) based on urban and rural sample data from the CHNS 2006. Besides the height–wage premium, the returns to self-reported health status in our paper are also close to the results found by Zhang (2011) and Fang et al. (2012). Fourth, work experience is not rewarded in terms of higher wages in the full sample. Subsample estimates of the earnings function presented in Table 3 show that this is also true for rural areas of the PRC.13 However, we find a significant and inverse U-shaped relationship between experience and earnings in urban areas of the PRC. This is consistent with previous studies on urban areas of the PRC (Bishop and Chiou 2004; Appleton, Song, and Xia 2005; Gao and Smyth 2015). The return to work experience is low, only 2.7% in urban areas of the PRC using the CGSS 2010 dataset. This is in line with Appleton, Song, and Xia (2005), who document an increase in returns to education but a decrease in the returns to work experience in postreform PRC. Bishop and Chiou (2004) also report evidence of declining returns to experience in urban areas of the PRC between 1988 and 1995. One 12This is also true for the PRC. For example, Giles et al. (2003), using data from the China Adult Literacy Survey (CALS), find that the estimated return to adult literacy (capturing knowledge of the vernacular) for residents in urban areas of the PRC is 9.3%–11.4%. 13For rural areas of the PRC, Li, De Brauw, Rozelle, and Zhang (2005) also find experience to be insignificant, based on Heckman estimates of the earnings function. l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u a d e v / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 3 6 1 8 0 1 6 4 4 1 6 5 a d e v _ a _ 0 0 1 2 4 p d . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Returns to Education and English Language Skills in the PRC 93 h t l a e H d n a s l l i k S e g a u g n a L r o f s l o r t n o C t u o h t i w d n a h t i w s g n i n r a E f o s t n a n i m r e t e D e h t f o s e t a m i t s E s e r a u q S t s a e L y r a n i d r O . 3 e l b a T ) 5 ( ) 4 ( l a r u R ) 3 ( 1 0 0 0 . 1 0 0 0 . 4 0 0 0 . * * * 9 1 3 0 − . ) 8 3 1 ( . ) 1 0 0 ( . 1 0 0 0 − . * * * 1 2 3 0 − . ) 5 4 1 ( . ) 7 0 0 ( . 1 0 0 0 − . * * * 6 3 3 0 − . ) 7 2 1 ( . ) 5 3 0 ( . 1 0 0 0 − . ) l a r u r s u s r e v n a b r u ( s t n e m w o d n E ) 2 ( ) 1 ( ) 5 ( ) 4 ( n a b r U ) 3 ( ) 2 ( ) 1 ( 6 0 0 . 0 ) 7 5 . 0 ( 1 0 0 . 0 − 9 0 0 . 0 ) 3 8 . 0 ( 1 0 0 . 0 − * * * 1 1 5 . 0 − ) 7 1 . 1 ( * * * 3 0 5 . 0 − ) 4 9 . 0 ( * * * 7 2 0 . 0 * * * 1 0 0 . 0 − ) 5 3 . 3 ( * * * 8 7 2 . 0 − ) 3 3 . 3 ( * * * 8 2 0 . 0 * * * 1 0 0 . 0 − ) 2 4 . 3 ( * * * 8 7 2 . 0 − ) 6 3 . 3 ( * * * 8 2 0 . 0 * * * 1 0 0 . 0 − ) 2 4 . 3 ( * * * 8 7 2 . 0 − ) 2 5 . 3 ( * * * 7 2 0 . 0 * * * 1 0 0 . 0 − ) 8 2 . 3 ( * * * 7 7 3 . 0 − ) 6 4 . 3 ( * * * 1 2 0 . 0 * * * 1 0 0 . 0 − ) 7 5 . 2 ( * * * 9 6 3 . 0 − ) 7 8 . 2 ( . d e u n i t n o C * * * 1 1 2 0 . * * * 4 1 2 0 . ) 6 1 4 ( . ) 4 2 4 ( . * 8 0 1 0 − . ) 0 7 1 ( . * 9 0 1 0 − . ) 1 7 1 ( . * * * 4 9 1 . 0 − * * * 2 9 1 . 0 − ) 5 9 . 2 ( 5 3 0 . 0 ) 6 9 . 0 ( ) 1 9 . 2 ( 2 4 0 . 0 ) 3 1 . 1 ( * * * 6 1 0 0 . * * * 6 1 0 0 . * * * 8 1 0 0 . ) 4 6 4 ( . ) 1 6 4 ( . ) 9 1 5 ( . * * * 9 0 0 . 0 * * * 9 0 0 . 0 * * * 9 0 0 . 0 ) 8 0 . 3 ( ) 1 0 . 3 ( ) 8 0 . 3 ( 0 3 0 0 . ) 1 5 0 ( . 9 2 0 0 . ) 4 9 5 ( . ) 1 5 0 ( . * * * 4 8 5 0 . * * * 6 8 5 0 . * * 7 9 1 0 . ) 9 6 5 ( . ) 0 5 2 ( . * * 7 9 1 0 . ) 2 7 5 ( . ) 0 5 2 ( . 3 5 0 0 . ) 9 1 6 ( . ) 0 9 0 ( . * * * 5 9 5 0 . * * * 1 4 2 0 . ) 5 7 5 ( . ) 4 0 3 ( . * * * 1 1 6 . 0 * * * 6 6 2 . 0 ) 6 8 . 5 ( ) 4 3 . 3 ( 1 4 0 . 0 ) 9 6 . 0 ( ) 5 8 . 1 1 ( * * * 4 3 6 . 0 * * * 5 6 2 . 0 ) 2 1 . 6 ( ) 2 3 . 3 ( 1 4 0 . 0 ) 8 6 . 0 ( ) 1 7 . 1 1 ( ) 8 2 . 6 ( 9 9 0 . 0 − 1 3 0 . 0 ) 1 6 . 1 ( ) 8 8 . 0 ( 5 2 0 . 0 − ) 4 5 . 0 ( ) 0 3 . 6 ( 1 0 1 . 0 − 1 3 0 . 0 ) 4 6 . 1 ( ) 8 8 . 0 ( 4 2 0 . 0 − ) 3 5 . 0 ( ) 9 2 . 6 ( 3 9 0 . 0 − 4 3 0 . 0 ) 0 5 . 1 ( ) 5 9 . 0 ( 3 1 0 . 0 − ) 9 2 . 0 ( ) 9 4 . 2 1 ( 1 9 0 . 0 − 5 4 0 . 0 ) 7 4 . 1 ( ) 8 2 . 1 ( 7 1 0 . 0 − ) 7 3 . 0 ( ) 6 1 . 2 1 ( 2 0 1 . 0 − 5 4 0 . 0 ) 3 6 . 1 ( ) 5 2 . 1 ( 2 3 0 . 0 − ) 9 6 . 0 ( * * * 2 2 0 0 . * * * 3 2 0 0 . * * * 4 2 0 0 . * * * 4 2 0 . 0 * * * 6 2 0 . 0 * * * 2 2 1 . 0 * * * 2 2 1 . 0 * * * 3 2 1 . 0 * * * 4 2 1 . 0 * * * 2 3 1 . 0 * * 5 8 2 0 . ) 2 2 3 ( . ) 6 8 1 ( . * * 2 8 2 0 . ) 9 2 3 ( . ) 3 8 1 ( . * * 9 8 2 0 . ) 5 3 3 ( . ) 6 8 1 ( . * * 8 9 2 . 0 ) 2 4 . 3 ( ) 1 9 . 1 ( * * * 8 0 2 . 0 * * * 9 0 2 . 0 * * * 0 1 2 . 0 * * * 5 1 2 . 0 ) 2 9 . 4 ( ) 6 9 . 4 ( ) 6 9 . 4 ( ) 8 0 . 5 ( ) 5 7 . 3 ( ) 1 5 . 3 2 ( ) 9 5 . 3 2 ( ) 8 6 . 3 2 ( ) 9 8 . 3 2 ( ) 4 6 . 6 2 ( s c i t s i r e t c a r a h c l a n o s r e P e c n e i r e p x E d e r a u q s e c n e i r e p x E e l a m e F y t i r o n i M s l l i k s e v i t i n g o c d n a g n i l o o h c S n o i t a c u d e f o s r a e Y u o k u h l a r u t l u c i r g a n o N d e i r r a m y l t n e r r u C : s u t a t s h t l a e h d e t r o p e r - f l e S s l l i k s h s i l g n E d o o G ) s r e t e m i t n e c ( t h g i e H l a t i p a c h t l a e H d a B d o o G l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u a d e v / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 3 6 1 8 0 1 6 4 4 1 6 5 a d e v _ a _ 0 0 1 2 4 p d . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 94 Asian Development Review ) 5 ( ) 4 ( l a r u R ) 3 ( ) 2 ( ) 1 ( ) 5 ( ) 4 ( n a b r U ) 3 ( ) 2 ( ) 1 ( . d e u n i t n o C . 3 e l b a T 6 4 0 0 − . 4 4 0 0 . ) 4 6 0 ( . ) 9 7 0 ( . 3 2 0 0 − . ) 6 1 0 ( . * * * 6 1 2 0 . * * * 6 1 2 0 . * * * 3 3 2 0 . * * * 9 4 1 0 − . ) 7 9 3 ( . * * * 2 5 1 0 − . ) 8 9 3 ( . * * * 8 7 1 0 − . ) 5 2 . 4 ( * * * 4 5 3 3 . ) 9 2 3 ( . * * * 1 6 3 3 . ) 8 3 3 ( . * * * 2 9 1 3 . ) 4 9 3 ( . 5 3 9 1 , 3 2 0 . ) 0 3 5 ( . 5 3 9 1 , 2 2 . 0 ) 2 3 5 ( . 5 3 9 1 , 1 2 . 0 ) 1 0 5 ( . 2 5 0 . 0 − ) 1 8 . 0 ( 2 1 0 . 0 − * * 0 4 2 . 0 − ) 3 3 . 0 ( ) 8 3 . 2 ( * * * 4 4 2 . 0 * * * 0 0 2 . 0 − ) 1 4 . 4 ( * * * 6 6 3 . 6 ) 0 4 . 4 ( ) 2 4 . 5 3 ( 5 3 9 , 1 9 1 . 0 * * * 4 4 2 . 0 * * * 8 9 1 . 0 − ) 1 4 . 4 ( * * * 5 9 3 . 6 ) 5 3 . 4 ( ) 8 6 . 5 3 ( 5 3 9 , 1 9 1 . 0 * * * 3 5 4 . 0 * * * 2 5 4 . 0 * * * 8 5 4 . 0 * * * 5 6 4 . 0 * * * 5 7 4 . 0 * * 2 0 1 . 0 ) 7 2 . 2 ( * * * 8 9 8 . 3 8 8 2 , 2 5 4 . 0 ) 8 5 . 7 ( * * 2 0 1 . 0 ) 8 2 . 2 ( * * * 6 0 9 . 3 8 8 2 , 2 4 4 . 0 ) 0 6 . 7 ( * * 8 9 0 . 0 ) 9 1 . 2 ( * * * 8 7 8 . 3 8 8 2 , 2 4 4 . 0 ) 4 5 . 7 ( ) 5 4 . 2 1 ( ) 0 4 . 2 1 ( ) 5 5 . 2 1 ( * 5 8 0 . 0 ) 9 8 . 1 ( ) 4 7 . 2 1 ( 4 8 0 . 0 ) 7 8 . 1 ( ) 0 0 . 3 1 ( * * * 8 1 4 . 5 * * * 9 4 4 . 5 ) 8 2 . 5 4 ( ) 5 3 . 5 4 ( 8 8 2 , 2 4 4 . 0 8 8 2 , 2 3 4 . 0 t h g i e w r e d n u , 5 . 8 1 < I M B : ) I M B ( x e d n i s s a m y d o B t h g i e w r e v o , 0 3 < I M B (cid:2) 5 2 n o i g e r ) l a t s a o c ( n r e t s a E n o i t a c o l c i h p a r g o e G e s e b o , 0 3 (cid:3) I M B s n o i t a v r e s b o f o r e b m u N d e r a u q s - R d e t s u j d A n o i g e r n r e t s e W t n a t s n o C h s i l g n E s ’ t n e d n o p s e r a r e h t e h w s e t a c i d n i h c i h w e l b a i r a v y m m u d a s i ” s l l i k s h s i l g n E d o o G “ . y l e v i t c e p s e r , s l e v e l % 1 d n a , % 5 , % 0 1 e h t t a e c n a c fi i n g i s e t a c i d n i * * * d n a , * * , * : s e t o N h t l a e h l a m r o n n i “ s i y r o g e t a c e c n e r e f e r e h t , s u t a t s h t l a e h d e t r o p e r - f l e s r o F . ) 0 = ( t o n r o ) 1 = ( l e v e l y c n e i c fi o r p d r a d n a t s e h t e v o b a r o t a e r a ) g n i n e t s i l d n a g n i k a e p s g n i d u l c n i ( s l l i k s ” . n o i g e r l a r t n e c “ s i p u o r g e c n e r e f e r e h t , s e i m m u d l a n o i g e r r o F ” . 5 2 < I M B (cid:2) 5 . 8 1 , l a m r o n “ s i y r o g e t a c e c n e r e f e r e h t , ) I M B ( x e d n i s s a m y d o b r o F ” . n o i t i d n o c l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u a d e v / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 3 6 1 8 0 1 6 4 4 1 6 5 a d e v _ a _ 0 0 1 2 4 p d . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 . s n o i t a l u c l a c ’ s r o h t u a d n a ) S S G C ( y e v r u S l a i c o S l a r e n e G e s e n i h C : s e c r u o S Returns to Education and English Language Skills in the PRC 95 possible explanation for this declining return is that, unlike education, experience was overrewarded prior to the reform. Payments for seniority were a central feature of the prereform wage structure.14 The other possibility is that skills acquired in a socialist economy by older workers have declined in value following the PRC’s labor market transition to one more market oriented. B. Ordinary Least Squares Estimates versus Instrumental Variable and Heckman Two-Step Estimates We check the reliability of OLS estimates on the causal relationship between education capital and wages by comparing them with estimates using the IV and Heckman two-step models. Table 4 presents the returns to schooling based on OLS, IV, and Heckman sample selection correction estimation models for the full sample. Subsample specific results (female versus male, urban versus rural, and coastal versus inland regions) are also presented in the bottom panels of Table 4. All regressions control for personal characteristics, location dummies, and height, which is a predetermined health endowment (height). IV estimates are based on early parental death and parental education as excluded instruments. This serves as a way to address potential endogeneity bias in the estimated returns to education. On the other hand, excluding nonlabor income from bequest in the Heckman model identifies the selectivity term (lambda). Comparing OLS and selectivity-corrected Heckman estimates can help us understand the extent of sample selection bias in the OLS estimates. In the OLS model, the estimated return is 7.8%. Furthermore, the result of the endogeneity test in column 2 rejects the null hypothesis that the OLS estimates are consistent. Using father’s and mother’s education and whether a parent died when the respondent was 14 years old as instruments, the IV rate of return yields 20.9%, which is 13.1 percentage points higher than the OLS return. Moreover, consistent with the international literature (Mendolicchio and Rhein 2014), we find that returns to education for female workers (OLS: 9%; IV: 23.7%) are higher than for male workers (OLS: 7.1%; IV: 17.9%) in both methods. The gender difference in returns to schooling increases by approximately 3% after correcting for endogeneity bias. Table 4 also reports returns to schooling for urban versus rural residents, and coastal versus inland provinces. Returns to schooling are higher for urban workers (OLS: 12.2%) than their rural counterparts (OLS: 2.2%), which is consistent with earlier studies that report a clear gap in returns to education between urban and 14Moreover, Appleton et al. (2002) document an inverse U-shaped relationship between general work experience and the probability of retrenchment in the PRC in 1999. If experience was overrewarded in the prereform period, then experienced workers would be at greater risk of retrenchment and their wage premiums would subsequently decline. Other studies employing a similar measure of “postschool experience” in the context of urban areas of the PRC are Qian and Smyth (2008b) and Mishra and Smyth (2015). While Qian and Smyth (2008b), using 2005 survey data from the PRC’s Institute of Labor Studies (ILS), do not find any significant relationship between experience and wages, Mishra and Smyth (2015) confirm a convex relationship between experience and earnings. l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u a d e v / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 3 6 1 8 0 1 6 4 4 1 6 5 a d e v _ a _ 0 0 1 2 4 p d . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 96 Asian Development Review Table 4. Ordinary Least Squares, Instrumental Variable, and Heckman Estimates of the Returns to Education Full sample (N = 4,223) F-test on excluded IVs Sargan overid test (p-value) Lambda Female sample (N = 1,797) F-test on excluded IVs Sargan overid test (p-value) Lambda Male sample (N = 2,426) F-test on excluded IVs Sargan overid test (p-value) Lambda Urban sample (N = 2,288) F-test on excluded IVs Sargan overid test (p-value) Lambda Rural sample (N = 1,935) F-test on excluded IVs Sargan overid test (p-value) Lambda Eastern (coastal) region (N = 1,586) F-test on excluded IVs Sargan overid test (p-value) Lambda Central region (N = 1,435) F-test on excluded IVs Sargan overid test (p-value) Lambda Western region (N = 1,202) F-test on excluded IVs Sargan overid test (p-value) Lambda OLS IV Heckman Two-Step 0.078*** (18.16) 0.209*** (10.42) 0.082*** (16.19) 0.090*** (13.80) 0.071*** (12.00) 171.19 0.56 0.237*** (8.39) 99.05 0.48 0.179*** (6.47) 78.76 0.68 −0.045 (0.25) 0.097*** (5.72) −1.974 (2.20) 0.074*** (12.00) 0.085 (0.36) 0.122*** (23.51) 0.219*** (11.77) 0.134*** (18.08) 161.69 0.77 0.022*** (3.22) 0.088*** (1.52) 41.39 0.72 0.165 (0.90) 0.021*** (2.72) 0.054 (0.14) 0.107*** (15.41) 0.248*** (10.55) 0.123*** (13.84) 0.056*** (7.69) 0.054*** (6.77) 107.54 0.52 0.249*** (3.05) 22.87 0.24 0.101*** (2.89) 44.48 0.23 0.596 (2.51) 0.063*** (6.39) −0.458 (1.48) 0.057*** (6.73) −0.075 (0.20) IV = instrumental variable, OLS = ordinary least squares. Notes: *, **, and *** indicate significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively. Early parental death along with father’s and mother’s education are used as excluded instruments in the IV model. Nonlabor income received from bequest is used as an excluded identifying variable in the Heckman model. For regional dummies, the reference group is “central region.” All regressions were controlled for covariates included in model 5 of Table 2. Sources: Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS) and authors’ calculations. rural areas (Zhang 2011). Once again, the OLS estimates are smaller than the IV estimates in all of these subsamples. In addition, the true rate of return is underestimated by 9.7 percentage points for urban workers and by 14.1 percentage points for workers in the coastal region, compared with only 6.6 percentage points for rural workers and 4.7 percentage points for workers in the western area. l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u a d e v / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 3 6 1 8 0 1 6 4 4 1 6 5 a d e v _ a _ 0 0 1 2 4 p d . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Returns to Education and English Language Skills in the PRC 97 One explanation for the relatively larger size of the IV estimates is that the instruments are weak or nearly invalid, or both (Murray 2006, Wooldridge 2002). The first stage regression results of the IV model along with the diagnostic test results are presented in Table A3. The F-test statistic corresponding to the estimated coefficients of early parental death and parental education are both significant and large (19 and 151, respectively), implying that the instruments are strong and significant determinants of years of schooling completed. Results also show that if a parent died when the child was 14 years old, then his years of schooling are reduced dramatically. Turning to Heckman estimates, we do not find significant evidence of sample selection bias in our analysis. The identifying variable in the probit model has the expected sign (see Table A3). Higher unearned income from bequest is found to significantly decrease labor market participation. Nonetheless, the lambda term is not significant. Overall, results from Table 4 confirm that for CGSS data, we can rely on OLS estimates to examine the causal relationship between schooling and earnings. OLS, if anything, only leads to more conservative estimates of the true returns to years of education completed in the PRC.15 Therefore, the next section exclusively discusses estimates obtained from the OLS regression of wages to understand how returns to education and language skills vary in the PRC. C. Heterogeneous Returns to Education and Language Skills Next, we explore two particular channels through which returns to skills and schooling may have changed in postreform years. First, we reestimate returns to education and language skills for all subsamples. Second, we reestimate the returns to different levels of education vis-à-vis language skills for the full sample and all subsamples. Because the OLS method is shown to consistently produce a conservative estimate in the previous section, we use this to understand the heterogeneous nature of the returns in our data.16 Table 5 repeats the analysis presented in Table 2 for various subsamples, but only results specific to education and language skills are reported. The subsamples are female, male, urban, rural, eastern region, central region, and western region. First, we find that returns to education for female workers (9%) are still higher than 15Another reason to treat OLS estimates as conservative is because the larger value of the IV estimates may be capturing treatment effects only for the subgroup of observations that comply with the instrument, i.e., the causal effect is identified for the observations affected by the instrument (“compliers”) so that the estimates are of a “local average treatment effect” (LATE), averaged across these compliers (Imbens and Rubin 1997, Wooldridge 2002, Murray 2006). In our case, the IV estimation arguably captures the returns to education only for those individuals whose schooling are very sensitive to their parents’ support. If so, the effect size cannot be generalized to the whole population. 16This approach to using OLS to understand heterogeneous returns assumes that across subsamples studied, the direction and extent of downward bias in OLS estimates remain the same. l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u a d e v / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 3 6 1 8 0 1 6 4 4 1 6 5 a d e v _ a _ 0 0 1 2 4 p d . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 98 Asian Development Review Table 5. Ordinary Least Squares Estimates of the Returns to Education versus Language Skills, by Gender and Location (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Female sample (N = 1,797) Years of education 0.103*** 0.093*** 0.091*** 0.090*** 0.090*** (16.13) (14.17) (13.98) (13.90) (13.80) Good English skills Adjusted R-squared 0.51 0.379*** (5.88) 0.52 0.372*** (5.79) 0.52 0.369*** (5.80) 0.53 0.362*** (5.67) 0.53 Male sample (N = 2,426) Years of education 0.079*** 0.072*** 0.071*** 0.071*** 0.071*** (13.67) (12.21) (12.04) (12.08) (12.00) Good English skills Adjusted R-squared 0.45 0.243*** (3.95) 0.46 0.232*** (3.78) 0.46 0.232*** (3.80) 0.47 0.232*** (3.80) 0.47 Urban sample (N = 2,288) Years of education 0.132*** 0.124*** 0.123*** 0.122*** 0.122*** (26.64) (23.89) (23.68) (23.59) (23.51) Rural sample (N = 1,935) Good English skills Adjusted R-squared 0.43 Years of education Good English skills 0.026*** (3.75) Adjusted R-squared 0.19 0.215*** (5.08) 0.44 0.024*** (3.42) 0.298** (1.91) 0.19 0.210*** (4.96) 0.44 0.024*** (3.35) 0.289** (1.86) 0.21 0.209*** (4.96) 0.44 0.023*** (3.29) 0.282** (1.83) 0.22 0.208*** (4.92) 0.45 0.022*** (3.22) 0.285** (1.86) 0.23 Eastern (coastal) Years of education 0.122*** 0.109*** 0.108*** 0.108*** 0.107*** (18.32) (15.50) (15.33) (15.39) (15.41) region (N = 1,586) Good English skills Central region (N = 1,435) Western region (N = 1,202) Adjusted R-squared 0.44 Years of education Good English skills 0.063*** (8.76) Adjusted R-squared 0.34 Years of education Good English skills 0.060*** (7.44) Adjusted R-squared 0.42 0.319*** (5.70) 0.45 0.059*** (8.04) 0.209** (2.29) 0.35 0.057*** (7.00) 0.221** (1.88) 0.43 0.312*** (5.56) 0.45 0.058*** (7.95) 0.214** (2.34) 0.35 0.056*** (6.99) 0.214* (1.83) 0.44 0.309*** (5.55) 0.45 0.056*** (7.72) 0.194** (2.16) 0.37 0.056*** (6.93) 0.212* (1.82) 0.44 0.304*** (5.46) 0.46 0.056*** (7.69) 0.196** (2.19) 0.37 0.054*** (6.77) 0.230** (1.98) 0.45 Notes: *, **, and *** indicate significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively. “Good English skills” is a dummy variable which indicates whether a respondent’s English skills (including speaking and listening) are at or above the standard proficiency level (=1) or not (=0). Full specifications for models 1–5 are shown in Table 2. Sources: Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS) and authors’ calculations. for male workers (7.1%), even after controlling for personal characteristics; health indicators (height, self-reported health status, and BMI); and geographic locations, which is consistent with findings from previous studies (Kang and Peng 2012, Mishra and Smyth 2013, Wang 2013). The returns to women with good English skills (36%) are also higher than the returns to men (23%, see column 5). Second, l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u a d e v / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 3 6 1 8 0 1 6 4 4 1 6 5 a d e v _ a _ 0 0 1 2 4 p d . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Returns to Education and English Language Skills in the PRC 99 in addition to this gender gap in returns to schooling, we observe a clear rural–urban gap in the returns. Our finding is consistent with Meng, Shen, and Xue (2013) who find that the rates of return to each additional year of schooling increased from 8% to 9.3% during 1988–2009. This increase is even larger in urban areas (about 3 percentage points higher), which is similar to the finding of Gao and Smyth (2015) for the period 2001–2010. Turning to region-specific estimates, our analysis shows clear regional differences in the returns to education. The bottom three panels of Table 5 report estimates by region. We find that the eastern region of the PRC (i.e., coastal provinces) has a comparatively higher rate of return to schooling (10.7%) than the central (5.6%) and western regions (5.4%). One explanation for this regional difference in returns to education might be the observed widening gap in the production of cognitive skills, assessed in terms of differences in per student recurrent expenditure, teacher quality, and physical conditions of schools between coastal and inland areas (Qian and Smyth 2008a; Cheng 2009; Bickenbach and Liu 2013; Yang, Huang, and Liu 2014; Whalley and Xing 2014). Zhong (2011) examined the relationship between college quality and returns to higher education in the PRC and confirmed that the returns vary significantly depending on school quality. Moreover, he found that the maximum earnings gap between recipients of high- and low-quality higher education is 28%, and the gap for annual returns reached 1.4% after controlling for ability. Thus, better education quality at both basic education level (Cheng 2009) and higher education level (Bickenbach and Liu 2013) has resulted in higher returns to education in coastal areas of the PRC. Table 6 shows the returns to different levels of education for the full sample and seven subsamples. We find that the returns to schooling increase with higher levels of education, which are consistent with results found in studies of developing countries (Kuepié and Nordman 2016). We calculate the average rate of return ri specific to each level using the estimated OLS coefficients in the following way: ri = (βi − βi−1)/ (Yi − Yi−1) where i is the level of education, Yi is the year of schooling at education level i, and β i is the estimate of the coefficient on the corresponding education level dummy in the wage regression. Thus, the rate of return to higher education, a bachelor’s degree and above, is 31.9%, which is higher than the returns found in some studies that focused on the prehigher education expansion period. For example, based on 1981–1987 data from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Meng and Kidd (1997) found that the rate of return to a bachelor’s degree or higher relative to primary education is 29.1% in 1981 and 31.3% in 1987.17 Moreover, we also find 17Studies based on data from the posthigher education reform period documented a sharp increase in returns to college education (Heckman and Li 2004, Fleisher et al. 2005, Qian and Smyth 2008b). l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u a d e v / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 3 6 1 8 0 1 6 4 4 1 6 5 a d e v _ a _ 0 0 1 2 4 p d . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 100 Asian Development Review e l p m a s l l u f ( n o i t a c u d E f o s l e v e L y b g n i l o o h c S o t s n r u t e R e h t f o s e t a m i t s E s e r a u q S t s a e L y r a n d r O i . 6 e l b a T ) s e l p m a s b u s d n a n r e t s e W n o i g e R l a r t n e C n o i g e R * * 7 3 1 0 . ) 4 1 2 ( . * * * 4 7 4 0 . ) 2 4 5 ( . * * * 5 1 9 0 . ) 7 5 7 ( . * * * 8 1 0 1 . ) 7 7 7 ( . 3 0 1 0 . ) 7 8 0 ( . 2 0 2 1 , 6 4 0 . * 7 9 0 . 0 ) 4 8 1 ( . * * * 6 0 3 . 0 * * * 4 0 7 . 0 ) 2 4 4 ( . ) 3 2 . 7 ( * * * 4 0 9 . 0 ) 6 4 7 ( . 5 5 0 . 0 ) 8 5 0 ( . 5 3 4 1 , 8 3 0 . n r e t s a E ) l a t s a o C ( n o i g e R * * * 3 8 1 . 0 * * * 9 2 5 . 0 * * * 6 1 9 . 0 ) 9 0 . 7 ( ) 7 6 . 2 ( * * * 6 9 2 . 1 * * * 5 0 2 . 0 ) 1 5 . 4 1 ( ) 8 6 . 0 1 ( 6 8 5 , 1 8 4 . 0 ) 1 6 . 3 ( l a r u R n a b r U e l a M e l a m e F * 8 8 0 . 0 ) 8 8 . 1 ( * * * 1 5 2 . 0 * * * 5 6 6 . 0 ) 1 5 . 3 ( ) 3 2 . 3 ( * * * 3 3 7 . 0 ) 2 7 . 2 ( 8 5 1 . 0 ) 0 0 . 1 ( 5 3 9 , 1 3 2 . 0 * * * 9 2 2 . 0 * * * 2 0 6 . 0 ) 7 9 . 3 ( * * * 8 1 0 . 1 * * * 5 3 3 . 1 * * * 4 5 1 . 0 ) 5 2 . 9 1 ( ) 8 5 . 5 1 ( ) 4 0 . 0 1 ( 8 8 2 , 2 5 4 . 0 ) 5 5 . 3 ( * * * 6 2 1 . 0 * * * 6 6 3 . 0 * * * 3 9 6 . 0 ) 8 5 . 6 ( ) 2 7 . 2 ( ) 4 4 . 9 ( * * * 1 8 9 . 0 * 5 1 1 . 0 ) 0 8 . 1 ( 6 2 4 , 2 8 4 . 0 ) 8 5 . 2 1 ( * * * 9 4 1 . 0 * * * 2 8 5 . 0 * * * 4 1 1 . 1 ) 0 4 . 8 ( ) 3 8 . 2 ( * * * 1 0 5 . 1 * * 7 4 1 . 0 ) 3 2 . 6 1 ( ) 6 3 . 3 1 ( 7 9 7 , 1 6 5 . 0 ) 4 2 . 2 ( l l u F e l p m a S * * * 9 4 1 . 0 * * * 3 5 4 . 0 ) 9 2 . 4 ( * * * 2 7 8 . 0 * * * 1 9 1 . 1 * * * 0 5 1 . 0 ) 6 0 . 0 2 ( ) 2 9 . 5 1 ( ) 3 5 . 0 1 ( 3 2 2 , 4 3 5 . 0 ) 8 2 . 3 ( n o i t a c u d e f o l e v e L y r a d n o c e s r o i n u J y r a d n o c e s r o i n e S r o l e h c a b i m e S e v o b a d n a r o l e h c a B s l l i k s h s i l g n E d o o G s n o i t a v r e s b o f o r e b m u N d e r a u q s - R d e t s u j d A r e h t e h w s e t a c i d n i h c i h w e l b a i r a v y m m u d a s i ” s l l i k s h s i l g n E d o o G “ . y l e v i t c e p s e r , s l e v e l % 1 d n a , % 5 , % 0 1 e h t t a e c n a c fi i n g i s e t a c i d n i * * * d n a , * * , * : s e t o N n i s i n o i t a c fi i c e p s l l u F . ) 0 = ( t o n r o ) 1 = ( l e v e l y c n e i c fi o r p d r a d n a t s e h t e v o b a r o t a e r a ) g n i n e t s i l d n a g n i k a e p s g n i d u l c n i ( s l l i k s h s i l g n E s ’ t n e d n o p s e r a l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u a d e v / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 3 6 1 8 0 1 6 4 4 1 6 5 a d e v _ a _ 0 0 1 2 4 p d . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 . ) 7 9 9 1 ( d d i K d n a g n e M g n i w o l l o f ” , l e v e l y r a m i r p w o l e b r o t a “ s i y r o g e t a c e c n e r e f e r e h t ” , n o i t a c u d e f o l e v e l “ r o F . 2 e l b a T f o 5 l e d o m . s n o i t a l u c l a c ’ s r o h t u a d n a ) S S G C ( y e v r u S l a i c o S l a r e n e G e s e n i h C : s e c r u o S Returns to Education and English Language Skills in the PRC 101 that female workers benefit more from having higher education than men. Similarly, urban residents are rewarded more than rural residents with the same level of college education, which is consistent with findings from Qian and Smyth (2008b) and Wang (2012). Given such convexities in the earnings function, income inequality is unlikely to be reduced through school education unless equality in access to higher education is ensured.18 This is also confirmed by the fact that educational endowments (schooling as well as skills) are distributed unequally in the PRC. The average number of years of schooling in Shanghai is 13.8, which is clearly higher than in the full sample (9.7), the eastern region including Shanghai (11.6), the eastern region excluding Shanghai (11.4), the central region (8.9), and the western region (8.1). Moreover, the percentage of respondents that have good English skills in Shanghai is also higher (43.1%) than in the full sample (11.2%), the eastern region including Shanghai (20.1%), the eastern region excluding Shanghai (17.8%), the central region (6.3%), and the western region (5.4%). VI. Conclusion In this paper, we have reexamined the economic returns to education in the PRC using a recent dataset that is representative of all provinces. When the endogeneity problem is not addressed, OLS estimates underestimate the true returns to schooling in the PRC. The IV estimates yield a much higher return to schooling—20.9% compared with the OLS estimate of 7.8%. In addition to commonly used instruments such as father’s and mother’s education, we used parental death when the respondent was 14 years old, which proved to be a strong excluded instrument in the first stage regression. In general, our estimates are much higher than what has been reported in earlier studies on the PRC, particularly those that used prereform labor market datasets. This confirms that returns to education have steadily increased following the process of transition toward a market economy. Our evidence also confirms that individuals in coastal and urban locations (particularly nonstate sector employees) and young workers with market-relevant language skills were rewarded with higher returns to their education than their counterparts in rural and inland locations. The findings support the conclusions of recent studies that it took about 2 decades for the PRC to raise their workers’ respective returns to education to the 10% level (Hung 2008; Meng, Shen, and Xue 2013). The transition of the Chinese labor market from a centrally planned to a market-oriented system has contributed to a significant increase in earnings inequality by increasing the rewards for education and work experience. The 18For evidence on the role of higher education in explaining income inequality in the PRC, see Yang and Qiu (2016). l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u a d e v / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 3 6 1 8 0 1 6 4 4 1 6 5 a d e v _ a _ 0 0 1 2 4 p d . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 102 Asian Development Review estimated return is much larger for higher education compared with secondary education. Market reforms may have also increased the price of unobserved skills (Meng, Shen, and Xue 2013). This may explain why we find a systematic labor market advantage enjoyed by those with English language skills and why the return is highest in coastal provinces where private sector jobs have the highest concentration. This finding is consistent with the evidence that schooling contributes to labor market performance in educationally advanced countries by enhancing labor market relevant functional literacy skills. Given our evidence on the convexities in returns to education and the significance of human capital as a determinant of labor market performance in postreform PRC, policies that improve access to cognitive skills are likely to reduce income inequality and boost economic growth in the coming decades. References Appleton, Simon, John Knight, Lina Song, and Qingjie Xia. 2002. “Labor Retrenchment in China: Determinants and Consequences.” China Economic Review 13 (2–3): 252–75. Appleton, Simon, Lina Song, and Qingjie Xia. 2005. “Has China Crossed the River? The Evolution of Wage Structure in Urban China during Reform and Retrenchment.” Journal of Comparative Economics 33 (4): 644–63. Arabsheibani, G. Reza, and Lisa Lau. 1999. “Mind the Gap: An Analysis of Gender Wage Differentials in Russia.” Labour 13 (4): 761–74. Asadullah, M. Niaz. 2006. “Returns to Education in Bangladesh.” Education Economics 14 (4): 453–68. Awaworyi, Sefa, and Vinod Mishra. 2014. “Returns to Education in China: A Meta-Analysis.” Department of Economics of Monash University Discussion Paper No. 41. Azam, Mehtabul, Aimee Chin, and Nishith Prakash. 2013. “The Returns to English-Language Skills in India.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 61 (2): 335–67. Bickenbach, Frank, and Wan-Hsin Liu. 2013. “Regional Inequality of Higher Education in China and the Role of Unequal Economic Development.” Frontiers of Education in China 8 (2): 266–302. Bishop, John A., and Jong-Rong Chiou. 2004. Journal of Asian Economics 15 (3): 549–62. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1049007804000594. Bishop, John A., Feijun Luo, and Fang Wang. 2005. “Economic Transition, Gender Bias, and the Distribution of Earnings in China.” Economics of Transition 13 (2): 239–59. Bleakley, Hoyt, and Aimee Chin. 2004. “Language Skills and Earnings: Evidence from Childhood Immigrants.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 86 (2): 481–96. Byron, Raymond P., and Evelyn Q. Manaloto. 1990. “Returns to Education in China.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 38 (4): 783–96. Cai, Fang, and Yang Du. 2011. “Wage Increases, Wage Convergence, and the Lewis Turning Point in China.” China Economic Review 22 (4): 601–10. Carnoy, Martin, Prashant Kumar Loyalka, Greg Androushchak, and Anna Proudnikova. 2013. “The Economic Returns to Higher Education in the BRIC Countries and Their Implications for Higher Education Expansion.” University of Stanford REAP Working Paper No. 253. l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u a d e v / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 3 6 1 8 0 1 6 4 4 1 6 5 a d e v _ a _ 0 0 1 2 4 p d . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Returns to Education and English Language Skills in the PRC 103 Case, Anne, and Christina Paxson. 2008. “Stature and Status: Height, Ability and Labor Market Outcomes.” Journal of Political Economy 116 (3): 499–532. _____. 2009. “Making Sense of the Labor Market Height Premium: Evidence from the British Household Panel Survey.” Economics Letters 102 (3): 174–76. Case, Anne, Christina Paxson, and Joseph Ableidinger. 2004. “Orphans in Africa: Parental Death, Poverty, and School Enrollment.” Demography 41 (3): 483–508. Chan, Chris King-Chi, and Khalid Nadvi. 2014. “Changing Labour Regulations and Labour Standards in China: Retrospect and Challenges.” International Labour Review 153 (4): 513–34. Chen, Baizhu, and Yi Feng. 2000. “Determinants of Economic Growth in China: Private Enterprises, Education, and Openness.” China Economic Review 11 (1): 1–15. Chen, Guifu, and Shigeyuki Hamori. 2009. “Economic Returns to Schooling in Urban China: OLS and the Instrumental Variables Approach.” China Economic Review 20 (2): 143–52. Cheng, Henan. 2009. “Inequality in Basic Education in China: A Comprehensive Review.” International Journal of Educational Policies 3 (2): 81–106. Conti, Gabriella, James Heckman, and Sergio Urzua. 2010. “The Education–Health Gradient.” American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings 100 (2): 1–5. De Brauw, Alan, and Scott Rozelle. 2008. “Reconciling the Returns to Education in Off-Farm Wage Employment in Rural China.” Review of Development Economics 12 (1): 57–71. Démurger, Sylvie. 2001. “Infrastructure and Economic Growth: An Explanation for Regional Disparities in China.” Journal of Comparative Economics 29 (1): 95–117. Démurger, Sylvie, Marc Gurgand, Shi Li, and Ximing Yue. 2009. “Migrants as Second-Class Workers in Urban China? A Decomposition Analysis.” Journal of Comparative Economics 37 (4): 610–28. Deng, Quheng, and Shi Li. 2010. “Wage Structures and Inequality among Local and Migrant and Urban Workers.” In The Great Migration: Rural–Urban Migration in China and Indonesia, edited by Meng Xin, Chris Manning, Shi Li, Tadjuddin Noer Effendi, and Gadjah Mada. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Di Paolo, Antonio, and Aysit Tansel. 2015. “Returns to Foreign Language Skills in a Developing Country: The Case of Turkey.” The Journal of Development Studies 51 (4): 407–21. Dinda, Soumyananda, P. K. Gangopadhyay, B. P. Chattopadhyay, H. N. Saiyed, M. Pal, and P. Bharati. 2006. “Height, Weight, and Earnings among Coalminers in India.” Economics and Human Biology 4 (3): 342–50. Duraisamy, Palanigounder. 2002. “Changes in Returns to Education in India, 1983–1994: by Gender, Age-Cohort, and Location.” Economics of Education Review 21 (6): 609–22. Dustmann, Christian, and Francesca Fabbri. 2003. “Language Proficiency and Labour Market Performance of Immigrants in the UK.” Economic Journal 113 (489): 695–717. Elu, Juliet U., and Gregory N. Price. 2013. “Does Ethnicity Matter for Access to Childhood and Adolescent Health Capital in China? Evidence from the Wage–Height Relationship in the 2006 China Health and Nutrition Survey.” Review of Black Political Economy 40 (3): 315– 39. Fang, Hai, Karen N. Eggleston, John A. Rizzo, Scott Rozelle, and Richard J. Zeckhauser. 2012. “The Returns to Schooling: Evidence from the 1986 Compulsory Education Law.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 18189. Fasih, Tazeen, Harry A. Patrinos, and Chris Sakellariou. 2013. “Functional Literacy, Heterogeneity and the Returns to Schooling: Multi-Country Evidence.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 6697. l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u a d e v / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 3 6 1 8 0 1 6 4 4 1 6 5 a d e v _ a _ 0 0 1 2 4 p d . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 104 Asian Development Review Fleisher, Belton M., and Jian Chen. 1997. “The Coast–Noncoast Income Gap, Productivity, and Regional Economic Policy in China.” Journal of Comparative Economics 25 (2): 220– 36. Fleisher, Belton M., Keyong Dong, and Yunhua Liu. 1996. “Education, Enterprise Organization, and Productivity in the Chinese Paper Industry.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 44 (3): 571–87. Fleisher, Belton M., Haizheng Li, Shi Li, and Xiaojun Wang. 2005. “Sorting, Selection and Transformation of Return to College Education in China.” Ohio State University Working Paper No. 07. Fleisher, Belton M., and Xiaojun Wang. 2001. “Efficiency Wages and Work Incentives in Urban and Rural China.” Journal of Comparative Economics 29 (4): 645–62. _____. 2004. “Skill Differentials, Return to Schooling, and Market Segmentation in a Transition Economy.” Journal of Development Economics 73 (1): 315–28. _____. 2005. “Returns to Schooling in China under Planning and Reform.” Journal of Comparative Economic 33 (2): 265–77. Frijters, Paul, Leng Lee, and Xin Meng. 2010. “Jobs, Working Hours, and Remuneration Packages for Migrants and Urban Residents.” In The Great Migration: Rural–Urban Migration in China and Indonesia, edited by Meng Xin, Chris Manning, Shi Li, and Tadjuddin Noer Effendi, 47–73. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. Gao, Wenshu, and Russell Smyth. 2010. “Health Human Capital, Height, and Wages in China.” Journal of Development Studies 46 (3): 466–84. _____. 2015. “Education Expansion and Returns to Schooling in Urban China, 2001–2010: Evidence from Three Waves of the China Urban Labor Survey.” Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy 20 (2): 178–201. Ge, Suqin, and Dennis Tao Yang. 2011. “Labor Market Developments in China: A Neoclassical View.” China Economic Review 22 (4): 611–25. Gertler, Paul, David I. Levine, and Minnie Ames. 2004. “Schooling and Parental Death.” Review of Economics and Statistics 86 (1): 211–25. Giles, John, Emily Hannum, Albert Park, and Juwei Zhang. 2003. “Life-Skills, Schooling, and the Labor Market in Urban China: New Insights from Adult Literacy Measurement.” The International Centre for the Study of East Asian Development Working Paper No. 21. Giles, John, Albert Park, and Meiyan Wang. 2008. “The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, Disruptions to Education and Returns to Schooling in Urban China.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4729. Gregory, Robert G., and Xin Meng. 1995. “Wage Determination and Occupational Attainment in the Rural Industrial Sector of China.” Journal of Comparative Economics 21 (3): 353–74. Grossman, Michael. 2008. “The Relationship between Health and Schooling: Presidential Address.” Eastern Economic Journal 34 (3): 281–92. Gustafsson, Björn, and Shi Li. 2000. “Economic Transformation and the Gender Earnings Gap in Urban China.” Journal of Population Economics 13 (2): 305–29. Hanushek, Eric A., Guido Schwerdt, Simon Wiederhold, and Ludger Woessmann. 2015. “Returns to Skills around the World: Evidence from PIAAC.” European Economic Review 73 (C): 103–30. Harmon, Colm, and Ian Walker. 1995. “Estimates of the Economic Returns to Education for the UK.” American Economic Review 93 (5): 1799–812. Hauser, Seth M., and Yu Xie. 2005. “Temporal and Regional Variation in Earnings Inequality: Urban China in Transition between 1988 and 1995.” Social Science Research 34 (1): 44– 79. l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u a d e v / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 3 6 1 8 0 1 6 4 4 1 6 5 a d e v _ a _ 0 0 1 2 4 p d . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Returns to Education and English Language Skills in the PRC 105 Heckman, James J. 1979. “Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error.” Econometrica 47 (1): 153–61. Heckman, James J., John Eric Humphries, Greg Veramendi, and Sergio S. Urzua. 2014. “Education, Health, and Wages.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 19971. Heckman, James J., and Xuesong Li. 2004. “Selection Bias, Comparative Advantage, Heterogeneous Returns to Education: Evidence from China in 2000.” Pacific Economic Review 9 (3): 155–71. Heckman, James J., and Junjian Yi. 2012. “Human Capital, Economic Growth, and Inequality in China.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 18100. Heineck, Guido. 2008. “A Note on the Height–Wage Differential in the UK: Cross-Sectional Evidence from the BHPS.” Economics Letters 98 (3): 288–93. Ho, Samuel P. S., Xiao-Yuan Dong, Paul Bowles, and Fiona Macphail. 2002. “Privatization and Enterprise Wage Structures during Transition: Evidence from Rural Industry in China.” Economics of Transition 10 (3): 659–88. Hübler, Olaf. 2006. “The Non-Linear Link between Height and Wages: An Empirical Investigation.” IZA Discussion Paper No. 2394. Hung, Fan-sing. 2008. “Returns to Education and Economic Transition: An International Comparison.” Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 38 (2): 155–71. Imbens, Guido W., and Donald B. Rubin. 1997. “Estimating Outcome Distributions for Compliers in Instrumental Variables Models.” Review of Economic Studies 64 (4): 555–74. Jamison, Dean T., and Jacques Van der Gaag. 1987. “Education and Earnings in the PRC.” Economics of Education Review 6 (2): 161–66. Johnson, Emily N., and Gregory C. Chow. 1997. “Rate of Return to Schooling in China.” Pacific Economic Review 2 (2): 101–13. Kang, Lili, and Fei Peng. 2012. “Sibling, Public Facilities, and Education Returns in China.” MPRA Paper No. 38922. Knight, John, and Lina Song. 1991. “The Determinants of Urban Income Inequality in China.” Oxford Bulletin of Economic and Statistics 53 (2): 123–54. _____. 1993. “Why Urban Wages Differ in China.” In The Distribution of Income in China, edited by Keith B. Griffin and Renwei Zhao. New York City: St. Martin’s Press. _____. 1995. “Toward a Labor Market in China.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 11 (4): 97–117. _____. 2003. “Increasing Wage Inequality in China: Extent, Elements and Evaluation.” Economics of Transition 11 (4): 597–619. _____. 2005. “Wages, Firm Profitability, and Labor Market Segmentation in Urban China.” China Economic Review 16 (3): 205–28. Kuepié, Mathias, and Christophe J. Nordman. 2016. “Where Does Education Pay Off in Sub- Saharan Africa? Evidence from Two Cities of the Republic of Congo.” Oxford Development Studies 44 (1): 1–27. Leslie, Derek, and Joanne Lindley. 2001. “The Impact of Language Ability on Employment and Earnings of Britain’s Ethnic Communities.” Economica 68 (272): 587–606. Lewbel, Arthur. 2012. “Using Heteroscedasticity to Identify and Estimate Mismeasured and Endogenous Regressor Models.” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 30 (1): 67– 80. Li, Haizheng. 2003. “Economic Transition and Returns to Education in China.” Economics of Education Review 22 (3): 317–28. l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u a d e v / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 3 6 1 8 0 1 6 4 4 1 6 5 a d e v _ a _ 0 0 1 2 4 p d . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 106 Asian Development Review Li, Haizheng, and Yi Luo. 2004. “Reporting Errors, Ability Heterogeneity and Returns to Schooling in China.” Pacific Economic Review 9 (3): 191–207. Li, Hongbin, Pak Wai Liu, Ning Ma, and Junsen Zhang. 2005. “Does Education Pay in Urban China? Estimating Returns to Education Using Twins.” Chinese University of Hong Kong Discussion Paper. No. 00013. Li, Hongbin, Pak Wai Liu, and Junsen Zhang. 2012. “Estimating Returns to Education Using Twins in Urban China.” Journal of Development Economics 97 (2): 494–504. Li, Hongbin, Pak Wai Liu, Junsen Zhang, and Ning Ma. 2007. “Economic Returns to Communist Party Membership: Evidence from Urban Chinese Twins.” The Economic Journal 117 (523): 1504–20. Li, Hongbin, Lingsheng Meng, Xinzheng Shi, and Binzhen Wu. 2012. “Does Attending Elite Colleges Pay in China?” Journal of Comparative Economics 40 (1): 78–88. Li, Qiang, Alan De Brauw, Scott Rozelle, and Linxiu Zhang. 2005. “Labor Market Emergence and Returns to Education in Rural China.” Review of Agricultural Economics 27 (3): 418– 24. Liu, Elaine, and Shu Zhang. 2013. “A Meta-Analysis of the Estimates of Returns to Schooling in China.” University of Houston Department of Economics Working Paper No. 201309855. Liu, Minquan, Luodan Xu, and Liu Liu. 2004. “Wage-Related Labour Standards and FDI in China: Some Survey Findings from Guangdong Province.” Pacific Economic Review 9 (3): 225–43. Liu, Zhiqiang. 1998. “Earnings, Education and Economic Reforms in Urban China.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 46 (4): 697–725. Maurer-Fazio, Margaret. 1999. “Earnings and Education in China’s Transition to a Market Economy. Survey Evidence from 1989 and 1992.” China Economic Review 10 (1): 17– 40. Maurer-Fazio, Margaret, and Ngan Dinh. 2004. “Differential Rewards to and Contributions of Education in Urban China’s Segmented Labor Markets.” Pacific Economic Review 9 (3): 173–89. Mendolicchio, Concetta, and Thomas Rhein. 2014. “The Gender Gap of Returns on Education across West European Countries.” International Journal of Manpower 35 (3): 219–49. Meng, Xin, and Michael P. Kidd. 1997. “Labor Market Reform and the Changing Structure of Wage Determination in China’s State Sector during the 1980s.” Journal of Comparative Economics 25 (3): 403–21. Meng, Xin, Kailing Shen, and Sen Xue. 2013. “Economic Reform, Education Expansion, and Earnings Inequality for Urban Males in China, 1988–2009.” Journal of Comparative Economics 41 (1): 227–44. Meng, Xin, and Junsen Zhang. 2001. “The Two-Tier Labor Market in Urban China: Occupational Segregation and Wage Differentials between Urban Residents and Rural Migrants in Shanghai.” Journal of Comparative Economics 29 (3): 485–504. Messinis, George. 2013. “Returns to Education and Urban-Migrant Wage Differentials in China: IV Quantile Treatment Effects.” China Economic Review 26: 39–55. Mishra, Vinod, and Russell Smyth. 2013. “Economic Returns to Schooling for China’s Korean Minority.” Journal of Asian Economics 24: 89–102. _____. 2015. “Estimating Returns to Schooling in Urban China Using Conventional and Heteroskedasticity-Based Instruments.” Economic Modelling 47: 166–73 Murray, Michael P. 2006. “Avoiding Invalid Instruments and Coping with Weak Instruments.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 20 (4): 111–32. l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u a d e v / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 3 6 1 8 0 1 6 4 4 1 6 5 a d e v _ a _ 0 0 1 2 4 p d . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Returns to Education and English Language Skills in the PRC 107 Parish, William L., Xiaoye Zhe, and Fang Li. 1995. “Nonfarm Work and Marketization of the Chinese Countryside.” The China Quarterly 143: 697–730. Peng, Yusheng. 1992. “Wage Determination in Rural and Urban China: A Comparison of Public and Private Industrial Sectors.” American Sociological Review 57 (2): 198–213. Psacharopoulos, George, G. 1994. “Returns to Investment in Education: A Global Update.” World Development 22 (9): 1325–43. Psacharopoulos, George, and Harry Anthony Patrinos. 2004. “Returns to Investment in Education: A Further Update.” Education Economics 12 (2): 111–34. Qian, Xiaolei, and Russell Smyth. 2008a. “Measuring Regional Inequality of Education in China: Widening Coast–Inland Gap or Widening Rural–Urban Gap?” Journal of International Development 20 (2): 132–44. _____. 2008b. “Private Returns to Investment in Education in China: An Empirical Study of Urban China.” Post-Communist Economies 20 (4): 483–501. Qiu, Tian, and John Hudson. 2010. “Private Returns to Education in Urban China.” Economic Change and Restructuring 43 (2): 131–50. Qu, Zhaopeng, and Zhong Zhao. 2017. “Glass Ceiling Effect in Urban China: Wage Inequality of Rural-Urban Migrants during 2002–2007.” China Economic Review 42: 118–44. Ren, Weiwei, and Paul W. Miller. 2012. “Changes over Time in the Return to Education in Urban China: Conventional and ORU Estimates.” China Economic Review 23 (1): 154– 69. Sakellariou, Chris, and Zheng Fang. 2016. “Returns to Schooling for Urban and Migrant Workers in China: A Detailed Investigation.” Applied Economics 48 (8): 684–700. Salike, Nimesh. 2016. “Role of Human Capital on Regional Distribution of FDI in China: New Evidences.” China Economic Review 37: 66–84. Schultz, T. Paul. 2002. “Wage Gains Associated with Height as a Form of Health Human Capital.” American Economic Review 92 (2): 349–453. _____. 2003. “Wage Rentals for Reproducible Human Capital: Evidence from Ghana and the Ivory Coast.” Economics and Human Biology 1 (3): 331–66. Silles, Mary A. 2009. “The Causal Effect of Education on Health: Evidence from the United Kingdom.” Economics of Education Review 28 (1): 122–28. Su, Yaqin, and Zhiqiang Liu. 2016. “The Impact of Foreign Direct Investment and Human Capital on Economic Growth: Evidence from Chinese Cities.” China Economic Review 37: 97–109. Trostel, Philip, Ian Walker, and Paul Woolley. 2002. “Estimates of the Economic Return to Schooling for 28 Countries.” Labour Economics 9 (1): 1–16. Wang, Le. 2012. “Economic Transition and College Premium in Urban China.” China Economic Review 23 (2): 238–52. _____. 2013. “How Does Education Affect the Earnings Distribution in Urban China?” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 75 (3): 435–54. Wang, Xiaojun, Belton Fleisher, Haizheng Li, and Li Shi. 2007. “Access to Higher Education and Inequality: The Chinese Experiment.” IZA Discussion Paper No. 2823. Wei, Xin, Mun C. Tsang, Weibin Xu, and Liang-Kun Chen. 1999. “Education and Earnings in Rural China.” Education Economics 7 (2): 167–87. Whalley, John, and Chunbing Xing. 2014. “The Regional Distribution of Skill Premia in Urban China: Implications for Growth and Inequality.” International Labour Review 153 (3): 395– 419. Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. 2002. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u a d e v / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 3 6 1 8 0 1 6 4 4 1 6 5 a d e v _ a _ 0 0 1 2 4 p d . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 108 Asian Development Review Xie, Yu, and Emily Hannum. 1996. “Regional Variation in Earnings Inequality in Reform-Era Urban China.” American Journal of Sociology 101 (4): 950–92. Yang, Dennis Tao. 1997. “Education and Off-Farm Work.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 45 (3): 613–32. _____. 2005. “Determinants of Schooling Returns during Transition: Evidence from Chinese Cities.” Journal of Comparative Economics 33 (2): 244–64. Yang, Juan, and Muyuan Qiu. 2016. “The Impact of Education on Income Inequality and Intergenerational Mobility.” China Economic Review 37: 110–25. Yang, Jun, Xiao Huang, and Xin Liu. 2014. “An Analysis of Education Inequality in China.” International Journal of Educational Development 37: 2–10. Zhang, Chuanchuan. 2011. “Empirical Analysis on Impact of Health Change on Labor Supply and Income.” Economic Review 4: 79–88. Zhang, Junsen, Pak-Wai Liu, and Linda Yung. 2007. “The Cultural Revolution and Returns to Schooling in China: Estimates Based on Twins.” Journal of Development Economics 84 (2): 631–39. Zhang, Junsen, Yaohui Zhao, Albert Park, and Xiaoqing Song. 2005. “Economic Returns to Schooling in Urban China, 1988–2001.” Journal of Comparative Economics 33 (4): 730– 52. Zhao, Wei, and Xueguang Zhou. 2002. “Institutional Transformation and Returns to Education in Urban China: An Empirical Assessment.” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 19: 339–75. Zhong, Hai. 2011. “Returns to Higher Education in China: What is the Role of College Quality?” China Economic Review 22 (2): 260–75. Zhou, Xueguang. 2000. “Economic Transformation and Income Inequality in Urban China: Evidence from Panel Data.” American Journal of Sociology 105 (4): 1135–74. Zhu, Rong. 2015. “Heterogeneity in the Economic Returns to Schooling among Chinese Rural– Urban Migrants, 2002–07.” Economics of Transition 23 (1): 135–67. l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u a d e v / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 3 6 1 8 0 1 6 4 4 1 6 5 a d e v _ a _ 0 0 1 2 4 p d . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Appendix Table A1. Distribution of Sample Individuals by Work Status In Labor Not in Waged Work Waged Work Force but Labor (Agricultural) (Nonagricultural) Employed Unemployed Force Self- N Without age limitation Female: 16–55 years old Male: 16–60 years old Full sample 11,724 6,079 Female 5,645 Male 7,173 Urban 4,551 Rural Full sample 8,644 4,279 Female 4,365 Male 5,363 Urban 3,281 Rural 24.9% 25.1% 24.8% 4.4% 57.2% 24.5% 25.5% 23.6% 4.0% 58.1% 29.0% 23.2% 35.2% 39.0% 13.2% 38.1% 31.8% 44.2% 50.7% 17.5% 9.8% 7.5% 12.3% 12.4% 5.7% 12.5% 10.1% 15.0% 15.7% 7.4% 6.7% 6.3% 7.1% 7.3% 5.7% 7.2% 6.9% 7.5% 8.1% 5.8% 29.6% 37.9% 20.6% 36.9% 18.2% 17.7% 25.7% 9.7% 21.5% 11.2% Continued. Returns to Education and English Language Skills in the PRC 109 Appendix Table A1. Continued. In Labor Not in Force but Labor N (Agricultural) (Nonagricultural) employed Unemployed Force Waged Work Waged Work Self- Female: 25–55 years old Male: 25–60 years old Full sample 7,747 3,809 Female 2,938 Male 4,745 Urban 3,002 Rural 26.3% 27.3% 25.4% 4.5% 60.9% Source: Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS). 38.2% 31.6% 44.6% 51.7% 16.8% 13.3% 10.8% 15.6% 16.9% 7.6% 7.2% 6.9% 7.4% 8.1% 5.6% 15.0% 23.4% 7.0% 18.8% 9.1% Appendix Table A2. Descriptive Statistics for Waged Workers Monthly employment income (renminbi) Personal characteristics Years of experience Female* Minority* Nonagricultural hukou* Currently married* Schooling and cognitive skills Years of education (years of schooling) Level of education: Bachelor and above* Semibachelor* Senior secondary* Junior secondary* Primary and below (base group)* Good English skills* Health capital Height (centimeters) Self-reported health status: Bad* Normal (base group)* Good* Body mass index (BMI): BMI < 18.5, underweight* 18.5 (cid:2) BMI < 25, normal (base group)* 25 (cid:2) BMI < 30, overweight* BMI (cid:3) 30, obese* Excluded instruments (IV model) EducationFather (in years) EducationMother (in years) Parent died when respondent was 14 years old* Labor force participation identifying variable (Heckman model) Nonlabor income received from bequest (renminbi) Mean SD 1,631.37 2,283.98 27.86 0.43 0.09 0.40 0.89 9.70 0.11 0.11 0.19 0.30 0.29 0.11 165.38 0.12 0.21 0.67 0.07 0.72 0.19 0.02 5.27 3.38 0.03 10.06 0.49 0.29 0.49 0.31 4.45 0.31 0.31 0.49 0.46 0.45 0.32 7.49 0.32 0.40 0.47 0.25 0.45 0.39 0.14 4.61 4.30 0.18 30.15 707.22 Continued. l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u a d e v / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 3 6 1 8 0 1 6 4 4 1 6 5 a d e v _ a _ 0 0 1 2 4 p d . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 110 Asian Development Review Appendix Table A2. Continued. Geographic location Rural* Eastern region* Central region* Western region* Mean 0.46 0.38 0.34 0.28 SD 0.50 0.48 0.47 0.45 IV = instrumental variable, SD = standard deviation. Note: *indicates dummy variables equal to 1 if true, and otherwise equal to 0. Sources: Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS) and authors’ calculations. Appendix Table A3. First Stage Regression of Instrumental Variable and Heckman Models (full sample estimates only) IV First Stage (individual’s schooling) Heckman First Stage (labor force participation) Personal characteristics Age Age squared Female Minority Nonagricultural hukou Currently married Schooling and cognitive skills Years of education Good English skills Health capital Height (centimeters) Self-reported health status: Bad Good Body mass index (BMI): BMI < 18.5, underweight 25 (cid:2) BMI < 30, overweight BMI (cid:3) 30, obese 0.035 (0.72) −0.001 (1.50) −0.801*** (5.84) −0.109 (0.66) 2.241*** (16.34) 0.315* (1.93) 2.454*** (14.62) 0.024*** (2.64) −0.827*** (4.67) 0.108 (0.89) −0.203 (1.05) 0.130 (1.06) −0.379 (1.12) 0.044*** (12.90) −0.001*** (14.01) −0.181*** (15.89) −0.001 (0.01) −0.016* (1.81) −0.005 (0.48) 0.005*** (5.07) 0.061*** (5.09) −0.001 (0.30) −0.039*** (3.33) 0.029*** (3.38) 0.001 (0.07) −0.023** (2.49) −0.021 (0.79) Continued. l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u a d e v / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 3 6 1 8 0 1 6 4 4 1 6 5 a d e v _ a _ 0 0 1 2 4 p d . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Returns to Education and English Language Skills in the PRC 111 Appendix Table A3. Continued. IV First Stage Heckman First Stage (individual’s schooling) (labor force participation) Family background (instruments) Parent died when respondent was 14 years old (yes = 1) EducationFather(years) EducationMother (years) Labor force participation identifying variable Nonlabor income received from bequest (renminbi) Geographic location Rural Eastern region Western region Constant Adjusted R-squared/Pseudo R-squared Number of observations F-test of significance: parental death only F-test of significance: parental education variables only −0.857*** (3.00) 0.138*** (9.60) 0.122*** (7.71) −1.682*** (12.19) 0.535*** (4.43) −0.497*** (3.98) 4.394** (2.38) 0.54 4,223 19.03*** 151.61*** −0.012*** (3.93) 0.106*** (11.98) 0.005 (0.54) 0.026*** (2.85) 0.17 6,618 IV = instrumental variable. Notes: *, **, and *** indicate significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively. Early parental death along with father’s and mother’s education are used as excluded instruments in the IV model. Nonlabor income received from bequest is used as an excluded identifying variable in the Heckman model. Sources: Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS) and authors’ calculations. l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u a d e v / a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 3 6 1 8 0 1 6 4 4 1 6 5 a d e v _ a _ 0 0 1 2 4 p d . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3
Scarica il pdf