Rural origin, teaching and occupational status in China

Research question

How does rural origin relate to the occupations graduates hold in China, and do occupational standing and labour income tell the same story?

I expected rural-origin graduates to have lower occupational-status scores. Instead, the adjusted association was positive. That led me to examine the occupations behind the scores, particularly teaching, and compare status with prestige and labour income.

Selected findings

Occupational standing. Among 1,613 graduates, the unadjusted rural–urban difference is 1.21 ISEI points. After adjustment for qualification tier, parental schooling, sex and age, the rural-origin coefficient is 3.56 points (HC3 95% confidence interval: 1.75 to 5.37). Alternative ISEI and prestige scores also give positive adjusted associations.

Income. For the same 1,347 current workers with usable positive income, separate models give a positive ISEI coefficient and a negative log-income estimate. The income interval includes zero with province-clustered inference; survey weights and province indicators also weaken the evidence. This does not establish a stable rural earnings penalty.

Occupational composition. Teaching is more common among rural-origin graduates in this sample. Primary and secondary teaching receive relatively high scores on the occupational scales used here. This makes the mix of occupations relevant to interpreting the status comparison.

Data and methods

The Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS) 2017 sample includes graduates aged approximately 25–60 who completed their highest reported junior-college, bachelor’s or postgraduate qualification and have usable occupational and background information. Origin means registered place at age 14, not current residence.

In R, I map ISCO-08 occupations to two versions of the International Socio-Economic Index of Occupational Status (ISEI) and to the Standard International Occupational Prestige Scale (SIOPS). These are scores attached to occupations, not individual earnings. The main estimates use unweighted ordinary least squares with HC3 standard errors. The income comparison uses the same respondents for both outcomes; further checks vary scoring, samples, survey weights and province specifications. A separate teaching model adjusts for background characteristics.

Interpretation and limits

The comparison starts after unequal access to higher education has already shaped who becomes a graduate. Hao, Hu and Lo (2014) document educational inequalities associated with hukou and rural schooling; Wu and Treiman (2007) show why selective entry into urban registration matters for interpreting occupational comparisons. Selection into this graduate sample is a plausible explanation, not a mechanism identified here.

The income comparison also differs from Wang and colleagues’ (2024) study of graduates’ first-job monthly wages: it uses annual labour income across a wider age range and a different definition of origin.

These cross-sectional associations do not establish causal effects, intergenerational mobility or a general rural labour-market advantage. The data do not identify teachers’ recruitment pathways. Income refers to 2016, while occupation was recorded in 2017; the full survey design has not been reconstructed from the available identifiers.

Selected references

Hao, L., Hu, A. and Lo, J. (2014). ‘Two Aspects of the Rural-Urban Divide and Educational Stratification in China: A Trajectory Analysis’. Comparative Education Review, 58(3), 509–536.

Wu, X. and Treiman, D. J. (2007). ‘Inequality and Equality under Chinese Socialism: The Hukou System and Intergenerational Occupational Mobility’. American Journal of Sociology, 113(2), 415–445.

Wang, H., Cousineau, C., Boswell, M. and Li, H. (2024). ‘Estimating the Impact of Rural Hukou Status on Earnings for College Graduates in China’. The China Quarterly, 259, 677–695.