There's a common belief that India has had low rates of internal migration. But it seems India > China in the % of internal migrants in the total pop. I imagine partly because of hukou. I don't know a direct comparison but crude available data suggest this. China versus India

( This is perhaps obscured by the fact that China's coastal regions are much more dynamic than any of India's most dynamic regions, and by the fact that so much literature on India focuses on frictions/barriers to migration. )

@ZhangSupremacy (3) However, crude data suggest Indians seem to move to jobs/opportunities at least as much as Chinese, but (4) by second implicatoion, the opportunities for employment are just not as good as those in China!

Since some people are not understanding the larger point I'm making, these replies should clarify:

@twst12612648 If you don't start putting out soon I will start talking about distances in internal British, French, and German migrations and how small they were on average...

@twst12612648 “comparing 19th century distances with 21st century” Well, you're the one who cited 'classic industrialisation experience'... (One can do cost- and time-adjusted distances. That's been done.) But never mind.

@twst12612648 The other point, of course, is that migration is endogenous. People assume there have been low rates of migration & assume cultural reasons are the cause. But for all we know, if India had as much industrial activity as China has had, there might be more migration!

@twst12612648 ( this is part of my recent revolt against always-supply-side-all-the-time explanations in development economics )

( And yes, I am aware that % of internal migrants does not account for distances travelled. Maybe Chinese migrants travel much farther away from home provinces/districts than Indians. That's why I used hedge words like 'seems' and 'crude' and 'suggests' )

( And yes, I am aware that % of internal migrants does not account for distances travelled. MAYBE Chinese migrants travel much farther away from home provinces/districts than Indians do. That's why I used hedge words like 'seems' and 'crude' and 'suggests'. )

@twst12612648 In China, the majority of migrants have moved within a single province, not between provinces.

@twst12612648 At least for 2000 and 2010, the migrant populations in for most of the top 50 Chinese cities were 1-2% or less. It's only in the top 10 that you exceed 3%.

@twst12612648 At least for 2000 and 2010, the migrant populations in most of the top 50 Chinese cities were 1-2% or less. It's only in the top 10 that you exceed 3%.

In 2010, the migrant populations in most of the top 50 Chinese cities accounting for >70% of all internal migrants, were 1-2% or less. It's only in the top 10 cities that you exceed 3%. & most Chinese migrants (~2/3) moved within province. Is this radically different from India?

@WilfirdLaurier perhaps the columns are confusing but the first column after city name is migrant share of the city population and the 2nd column is the city's share in the national total.