Symposium Introduction Economic Consequences of Urbanisation and Urbanisation Policy in China JOSEF C BRADA 1 , BELTON M FLEISHER 2 , SCOTT ROZELLE 3 & JOHAN SWINNEN 4 1 Arizona State University and Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Department of Economics, Arizona State University, Box 873806, Tempe, AZ, 85287-3806, USA. E-mail: josef.brada@asu.edu 2 The Ohio State University, Center for Human Capital and Labor Market Research Central University of Finance and Economics , and IZA, Department of Economics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA. E-mail: fleisher@econ.ohio-state.edu 3 Freeman Spogli Institute of International Studies, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-6055 USA. E-mail: rozelle@stanford.edu 4 Katholik University Leuven, LICOS, Hogenheuvelcollege, Naamsestraat 69, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. E-mail: Jo.Swinnen@econ.kuleuven.ac.be Comparative Economic Studies (2009) 51, 281–283. doi:10.1057/ces.2009.3 The Chinese government for many years followed a relatively restrictive policy towards urbanisation, in part by means of policies that sought to limit rural– urban migration. Some authors have attributed this policy to ideology, reflecting the ideological and political antipathy of Mao and of the Communist Party to the growth of the urban population and of their broader cultural biases against urban intellectuals (Ma, 1977; Lo, 1987; Tang, 1997) or perhaps to some broader systemic factors (Zhang and Zhao, 2003). Another set of explanations focused on the interaction of China’s development strategy with urbanisation. As the government sought to maximise the pace of industrialisa- tion, limiting urbanisation was seen as having the advantage of reducing the need for large investments in urban housing infrastructure, thus allowing more investment to flow to industry (Kirkby, 1985; Chan, 1992). Of course, such a policy of limiting urbanisation came at a cost, the inability to fully capture the social and economic benefits of urban agglomeration. As a result, restrictions on urban–rural migration were gradually eased; currently the Comparative Economic Studies, 2009, 51, (281–283) r 2009 ACES. All rights reserved. 0888-7233/09 www.palgrave-journals.com/ces/