households were then randomly sampled in each neighborhood, with 500 local resident and 500 migrant households sampled in each city.<sup>37</sup> Detailed work history and other information were collected for all adult members of each household. One strength of the CULS is that it surveyed migrants (including rural migrants and urban migrants) and local residents in an identical fashion, and it collected enough observations per city to calculate city-level aggregates for these groups. One disadvantage is that migrants were sampled through neighborhood committees, so that unregistered migrants and those living in collective forms of housing (e.g., factory dormitories, construction sites) may be underrepresented.

Descriptive statistics for key variables used in the analysis are summarized in Table 5, with summary statistics for all adults aged 18 to 60 shown in Panel A, and those for the subset who are employed workers are shown in Panel B. In models examining participation in employer-based social insurance programs, the analysis sample is restricted to the population that is potentially eligible for the program (e.g., working-age respondents with wage employment). As seen in the descriptive statistics and in Figure 2, participation in employer-based pensions remains somewhat higher for men than women in 2010, and as is evident from Figure 4, the same pattern also holds for health insurance coverage. Relative to 2005, among wage-earning migrant workers both men and women are participating in pension programs at higher rates, reaching nearly 30 percent by 2010.<sup>38</sup> As suggested in Figure 2, some of this increase may be attributed to participation in urban residents’ programs, and rural and commercial pension programs, but most of the gain in coverage is driven by greater participation in employer-based pensions.

The average working age and marital status of migrants suggests that migrants in the CULS sample are relatively well established, which is not surprising as the five capital cities surveyed have higher costs of living than coastal towns where young unmarried migrants may have their first jobs. Among all workingage migrants, 80 percent were married in 2005 and 75 percent in 2010 (Table 5, Panel A), but migrants employed for a wage had somewhat lower rates of marriage at 71 and 68 percent in 2005 and 2010, respectively (Table 5, Panel B).<sup>39</sup> These marriage rates are nevertheless significantly higher than those reported in the RUMiC surveys (e.g., Akay et al, 2012) which include small and medium-sized cities as

> 37The sampling approach differed somewhat in the first 2001 wave, when 600 local households were surveyed and 500 migrant individuals. Due to differences in comparability of social insurance programs and sampling, we do not use the first wave.

> 38Descriptive evidence from official yearbooks on unemployment and disability insurance coverage is provided in Appendix Tables A.1 and A.2. While a worker receiving one employer-provided benefit will not necessarily receive all of them,  participation in each of the four employer-based programs is strongly associated, and so we concentrate here on pension participation in basic pension for employees (城镇职工基本养老保险), and further discuss results for participation in health and unemployment insurance programs.

> 39Cai (2011) argues that the costs of moving into major cities acts as a screening device such that higher ability (and perhaps more established) migrants are able to settle in them.

19