 What got us into studying this problem? China's rapid development fostered huge increase, massive increase, I would say, from rural areas to urban areas, and then internal migration is mainly economically different. The number of rural to urban migrants grew from 26% to 56% so currently, according to the National Statistics Office in China, there may be more or less 240 million people that migrate from rural areas to urban areas, which is more or less 30% of the total working force in rural areas. So we are talking about huge waves of migration that happen specifically after China entered WTO. So as a consequence, we observe huge increase in income inequality and also wage inequality. An urban worker actually performing the same kind of job can earn five times more than a rural worker, right? And many of these workers don't even have work permits. So there is another problem to this situation. It is that in China, there is de facto immigration control, internal immigration control system that is driven by what we call the Huku, which is the household registration system, which imposes restrictions to people in which they can get access to education, food stamps, and also health, public health. So the forecasting of how rural to urban population is gonna increase, you see a massive increase that is actually started to increase exponentially since China entered WTO. Our data is telling us the red bars are actually the number of migrants, rural migrants, that they don't have any access to health, all right? And the blue line is indicated, those migrants that actually have employment. So it's also a very large number of migrants that they don't even have work or only have temporary work. The discomposition of migration by provinces. So those migrants don't have any access to health. Acquiring any urban Huku is highly difficult. It can be obtained only through graduate education or if those migrants get to work for the government or in a state-owned company or if they work for a very high rank level of management. So the majority of migrants are completely excluded from the system, all right? So massive migration without access to health services unless privately provided, I don't have to tell you what kind of issues may cause. The question here is that we don't have a lot of studies analyzing what is the effect of the Huku registration system on health outcomes. For the reasons that the previous speaker highlighted, there is no data availability. The majority of the surveys don't follow those migrants along the time. It's not interesting for China to publish those data as well for obvious reasons. So we have to use data which is available at the ISA Institute by University of Bong. It's a really recent survey. It is very representative. We have more than 30,000 observations, migrants there. And it also is a really rich survey in which we can control for income, education, gender, body mass, weight, height. So it is a very rich survey which allows us to control for other health and socioeconomic variables that may affect health outcomes. So the main objective of the study, as you can probably understood for my presentation, is to study the interconnection in between migrating, limited access to health, and what are the health outcomes for those migrants. To compare them with the urban, the natural born workers. The previous literature, I have resumed all the papers that are available for China. There is only one paper right now currently studying the effect of Huku system by soon from Columbia University. So I know we've been talking about it. She's studying the connection, the causality effect right there, but she's using self-reported health outcomes, all right? So while our study doesn't, it does use self-reported outcomes, but it also uses other proxies for health outcomes. Mainly a study suggests that migrants are reasonably healthy. So there is a celestial problem here. Migrants tend to migrate when they feel healthy enough. And probably they are the best. So that's why they decide to migrate. There is no way right now with the data that we have that we can solve that issue. Hopefully there will be more data availability in the future and we can address those. The issue is once they get into the city, as time passes they get injured, they usually use their internal networks to get treatment. Many of them they don't have enough money to get that access and that spreads over time, creating high risk workplace accidents and contagious diseases. All right, so here the specifics of the survey. So as I already said, survey contains data on socioeconomic indicators so that actually allows us to fit the data into our simple regression and to get better estimators. So from our data, so what you see is important to control for years since migration happened and you see the median is more or less at seven years, all right? So here that's the data we have and what is the body mass index by migrant statutes for urban born, they actually have more body mass than actually something that you observe in your data for another country than those rural migrants. Who has access to health insurance? So the majority of urban born have access to health insurance. Those know is because they have other kind of, they don't rely on the urban huku, they get private insurance through the employers. And as you see the migrants from rural areas, the majority, the immense majority don't have any kind of insurance. They can get private insurance and they take it to good works, the employer can provide those. So that's the part that you see here, the piece of the pie in red, but as you see the majority of our migrants in the survey don't have any access. So when it comes to problems with, it comes to self-reported status, as you will say. Migrants, we see in our sample that migrants have a high likelihood of reporting their health outcomes because they are migrants, they don't want to actually let know, the population know or others know that they may have some health issues because the majority, as I said, don't have work permits and they can be deported back to their regions, all right? So if we compare what the answers of urban-born population on migrants, we see that this is a skew to the left-hand side. All right, we have a very simple model, it's a linear regression as well, in which we are using some proxies for health. We are using the systolic and diastolic pressure with accounts for, it's a reliable predictor of cardiovascular diseases, early mortality, we also have grip students and we compare those results to see if they are robust enough with the self-reported ranking. We control for years of education, sex and years of migration, which is a very important determinant here. I'll just show you in the previous data. All right, and the main important coefficient in which we are interested, it is if the Hukku registration system has any significant and meaningful effect on those health outcomes. I'm going to show you only some regressions here. So for the systolic, so we have two waves, one in 2008 and one in 2009. Unfortunately, those are no migrants at the same amount of migrants. So it's a panel, but we analyze by cross-section. All right, I'm showing you some of the results, which totally makes sense. The most important parameter that has a variable that has an impact on health, it is gender, especially being male, that's a dummy variable. And then the Rurahukku, which has an even larger negative impact than smoking habits. Also, it makes sense, marry people, you see it will have a positive effect on health outcomes, which is very well backed up by the literature. They feel happier, they are more protective, the network is bigger, et cetera. All right, similar results, similar impact when it comes to the Rurahukku, right there, extremely highly significant and negative, all right? As you can see here, the years since migration is so highly significant. However, the impact is not that large. And it's very similar. It doesn't matter what are the health outcomes that we are using as a dependent variable. And let's focus now on grip strength. The Rurahukku increases the beta coefficient. So the impact is even larger. So very robust results, preliminary results, but it's still robust. We have 30,000 observations here. So that's pretty good fit. When it comes to health reported ratings, the coefficient is the lowest of all the regressions. It drops because there is obviously bias on here as we saw, but it's still negative and highly significant. So to conclude, results demonstrate that migrant status is a significant predictor of health outcomes by any kind of metrics that we have used, even the ones that are self-reported. And it has higher impact on health outcomes that other risky behaviors. So the flow of migration is going to be continued. Therefore, we want to prevent any kind of health crisis that may happen in the future. So that's something that has to be addressed. It has been addressed in the past before 1978, but after 1978, the Hukku system started to be enforced really more aggressively. So it is time for the Chinese authorities to actually start thinking about a future problem. There is already a problem, but that more a higher impact problem that they may have in the future. Restricting migrants access to healthcare will have clear negative externalities and productivity of labor productivity, firm productivity as well. And obviously it will increase the gap of image quality that we, by looking at the data, we already seen that within inequality in China, globally, I mean, totally inequality has been declining, but within inequality in China has been increasing. So this is not going to help actually to reduce the gap. And as an image, it's better than 1000 words. This is the working conditions, the living conditions of many rural workers that decided to move to the city. As you can see, it's not very healthy environment. Plus, added, they don't have access to health, okay? Thank you very much.