Automation Impacts on China's Polarized Job Market

Haohui 'Caron' Chen; Iyad Rahwan; Manuel Cebrian; Morgan Frank; Weipan Xu; Xiaozhen Qin; Xun Li

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Automation Impacts on China's Polarized Job Market

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Chinese cities split into two opposite automation trajectories based on central-government backing, producing a Simpson's paradox in the city-size effect.

desk verdict First city-level automation risk map for China with a polarization finding worth debating; the unaudited GCO-SOC mapping is the load-bearing soft spot. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05518 v1 pith:PHBBL3SI submitted 2019-08-15 econ.GN q-fin.EC

Haohui 'Caron' Chen , Xun Li , Morgan Frank , Xiaozhen Qin , Weipan Xu , Manuel Cebrian , Iyad Rahwan This is my paper · ORCID

classification econ.GNq-fin.EC

keywords automationrisktechnologicalunemploymentChinacitysizeoccupationaldiversitySimpson'sparadoxcentralplanningoccupationspace

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that automation risk in Chinese cities cannot be read from city size alone: government-favored cities and non-favored cities move in opposite directions as they grow. Using automation probabilities estimated for U.S. occupations, the authors map China's 413 occupational categories to those probabilities and compute expected job impact rates for 102 cities, averaging 79% at high risk. They find that large cities on the premium or elite side—those with central-government research and transport investments or higher administrative rank—become more diversified and more resilient to automation, while large specialty cities on the other side become more specialized and more susceptible. The aggregate city-size relationship is flat, which the paper interprets as a Simpson's paradox. If correct, this means central planning, not market-driven organic growth, shapes which Chinese workers face the greatest automation exposure.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is the division of cities into two groups—premium versus non-premium by k-means clustering on centrally allocated resources (universities funded by national projects and daily bullet-train frequency) and elite versus non-elite by administrative rank. On that division the paper layers a transfer of U.S. automation probabilities to Chinese occupations through a title-based correspondence between China's Grand Classification of Occupations and the U.S. Standard Occupational Classification. Diversity is measured by normalized Shannon entropy over 413 occupations and 95 industries, and the evolution story is carried by an occupation space, a network of 413 occupations connected by co-location proximity, with service and professional occupations at the core and farming and production at the periphery. The opposing scaling slopes within the two city groups are interpreted through Simpson's paradox.

What would settle it

Re-estimate city impact rates using task-based automation probabilities built from Chinese occupational task data, or compare the 2010 cross-sectional rankings with realized employment changes through 2020: if the opposing slopes within advantaged and non-advantaged cities vanish, the polarization is an artifact of the mapping rather than a property of China's job market.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that Chinese cities follow two distinct industrial trajectories set by the state's allocation of resources and administrative rank, and these trajectories reverse the usual U.S. pattern of large-city resilience to automation. Among advantaged cities—direct-controlled municipalities, sub-provincial cities, provincial capitals, and cities receiving premium resources such as centrally funded universities and high-frequency bullet-train service—larger size brings a more diversified job market and lower expected automation impact. Among non-advantaged cities, larger size brings deeper specialization in farming, mining, or manufacturing and higher expected impact. The opposing slopes within the two groups cancel out in the pooled data, producing the Simpson's paradox (a pooled trend that is absent or reversed within subgroups). The paper reports, for example, Beijing at 64% expected job impact versus Nanyang at 83%, despite both being very large.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that U.S. automation probabilities, transferred to Chinese occupations through a title-based mapping, describe the real automation exposure of Chinese jobs; if the mapping is wrong, city-level rankings and the polarization result are wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

City-level automation risk in China should be reported separately for advantaged and non-advantaged cities; a flat national city-size slope hides opposite and large effects.
The most exposed workers are in large specialty cities—farming, mining, and manufacturing centers—so automation policy should target those cities first, not the megacities.
Diversification is the protective channel: policies that broaden the industry mix of non-advantaged cities would likely lower their automation impact.
Distance from elite cities matters: non-advantaged cities near elite cities diversify more, while distant ones lose population and stay specialized, so spatial policy and infrastructure matter for automation exposure.
Existing vocational education resources grow only linearly or sublinearly with city size in non-advantaged cities, so the places with the largest automation exposure have the weakest retraining capacity.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A direct test would use realized employment changes between the 2010 census and a later census: if high-risk specialty cities did not lose jobs faster, the cross-sectional risk ranking may not translate into actual job losses.
The same two-population logic could change estimates of urban scaling in planned economies: pooled scaling exponents may average over an organically diversifying group and a state-specializing group, so existing agglomeration elasticities for China may be mixtures.
The pattern suggests a portfolio view of industrial policy: assigning each city a single specialty creates correlated automation risk at the city level, so a diversified national portfolio may come at the cost of concentrated local shocks.
A testable extension would construct an automation-risk concentration index from the occupation space and see whether concentration predicts slower wage or employment growth within non-advantaged cities over time.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First, the new thing: this is the first city-level automation impact map for China, and the polarization result—large government-favored cities become more resilient with size while large non-favored cities become more susceptible—is a genuine empirical finding. The two independent grouping schemes (premium resources, administrative rank) and the Simpson's paradox presentation make the pattern worth taking seriously. The occupation-space construction and the comparison with U.S. cities are also useful context. The authors are transparent about sample and task-data limits; that helps.

Where the soft spots are. The load-bearing premise is the manual mapping from China's GCO occupations to the U.S. SOC codes. That table is not released, was built by three students plus author adjudication, and has no inter-rater reliability or validation against Chinese task data. One explicit judgment—assigning zero automation risk to leaders of political/state-owned entities because no SOC match was found—is exactly the kind of choice that could inflate the resilience of Beijing and other administrative centers. The city-level impact rates, the diversity regressions, and the polarization slopes all sit on top of that mapping, so a robustness check with alternative mappings or a task-based approach is needed before I'd treat the point estimates as solid. The RCA formula in Eq. 4 is wrong as printed: the denominator is city employment share, not the national share of that occupation. Probably a typo, but it needs fixing. The sample is 102 of 295 cities, a convenience sample, and the authors say so. And the causal language about central government master planning goes beyond what the correlational evidence can support, though they do hedge with 'might.'

On balance, this is not a fatal set of problems. The polarization is visible under two different grouping schemes and is consistent with the job-diversity result, which is at least partially independent of the mapping. The paper deserves a serious referee. The referee should push for the mapping to be released, for a sensitivity analysis around the zero-risk political/leader choice, and for the RCA fix. I would cite it as the first China city-level study, with a caveat on the mapping.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper estimates automation-driven job impact rates for 102 Chinese cities by combining occupational employment shares from the 2010 Census with Frey-Osborne automation probabilities, transferred to Chinese occupations through a manually constructed GCO-to-SOC correspondence table. The authors report that Chinese cities do not show the overall negative city-size–impact relationship found for U.S. cities; instead, when cities are split into premium/elite (government-favored) and non-premium/non-elite groups, larger advantaged cities show lower impact rates while larger disadvantaged cities show higher impact rates, producing a Simpson's paradox. They attribute this polarization to central-government industrial planning, which creates diversified service centers on one side and specialized farming/mining/manufacturing cities on the other. The paper also constructs a Chinese occupation space and argues that premium cities move toward the resilient core while non-premium cities move toward the susceptible periphery.

Significance. If the central findings hold, this would be the first city-level study of automation impacts in China and would substantially extend the U.S.-centric literature by showing that administrative rank and central resource allocation can invert the usual city-size resilience pattern. The paper makes productive use of census microdata, proposes a concrete two-group division (premium/elite vs. non-premium/non-elite) that is independently motivated by Chinese institutional facts, and offers falsifiable policy recommendations regarding vocational education allocation. The occupation-space analysis, though preliminary, is a useful descriptive tool. However, the significance is conditional on the validity of the GCO-SOC mapping and on the correctness of the RCA computation, both of which are currently not sufficiently supported.

major comments (5)

[2.1] The manual GCO-to-SOC correspondence table is the load-bearing foundation for every impact-rate estimate, yet the paper reports no inter-rater reliability statistic, no validation against Chinese task data, and no sensitivity analysis. The explicit decision to assign a zero automation probability to 'leaders of political or state-owned entities' solely because no mapping was found is particularly concerning: relevant SOC categories such as chief executives and legislators carry nonzero Frey-Osborne risk, and cities with many such leaders (notably Beijing) are exactly the large advantaged cities whose resilience is central to the polarization claim. Because the same p_auto(j) values feed the city impact rates, the diversity-impact regressions, and the Simpson's-paradox interpretation, the authors should either release the full correspondence table with per-occupation mapping rationale or provide robustness checks under alternative mappings, including a nonzero assignment for the unmatched leadership occupations.
[2.3, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) for revealed comparative advantage appears dimensionally incorrect. The standard RCA is (x_{m,j}/Jobs_m) divided by (Σ_m x_{m,j} / Σ_m Jobs_m), the national average occupation share. As printed, the denominator is Jobs_m / Σ_m Jobs_m, which is the city's employment share, not the national occupation share. This makes the RHS units inconsistent and would change which occupations are classified as advantaged (RCA > 1), thereby affecting the proximity matrix, the occupation space in Figs. 4-5, and the claimed 'evolution paths' of premium vs. non-premium cities. Please correct the equation and verify that the occupation space results are unchanged under the correct formula.
[4, Section 2.1] The sample of 102 cities is a convenience sample of those local governments that made paper-form census data available, and the authors acknowledge this in the Limitations section. However, they do not assess whether these 102 cities are representative of the full 295-city population along the dimensions that matter for the main result—administrative level, city size, industrial structure, and the premium/non-premium division. A selection bias test (e.g., comparing means of these variables between the 102-city sample and the 193 excluded cities using available aggregate statistics) would materially strengthen the claim that the observed polarization is not an artifact of which cities chose to publish their census data.
[3.2, Figs. 1b and 1c] The central Simpson's-paradox result is presented through regression slope estimates, but the text does not report standard errors, confidence intervals, or R² values for the within-group regressions. Given that the entire policy conclusion rests on the sign and significance of the premium vs. non-premium size slopes, the paper should provide full regression tables (coefficient, standard error, p-value, R²) for the models behind Fig. 1b, Fig. 1c, Fig. 3a, Fig. 3b, and Fig. 5c. This would also help readers assess whether the apparent paradox is statistically robust or driven by a small number of influential cities (e.g., Beijing or Nanyang).
[2.1, Eq. (1)] The impact rate E_m is treated as a deterministic quantity, and the regression analyses use it as an outcome without accounting for measurement error in the Frey-Osborne probabilities or in the GCO-SOC mapping. While this is common in the related literature, the lack of any uncertainty quantification is a substantive gap here because the entire paper is built on a crosswalk that the authors themselves describe as partially judgment-based. At a minimum, the authors should discuss the direction and plausible magnitude of bias from the zero-risk assignment for political/state-owned leaders, and ideally report sensitivity analyses that perturb the mapping for the unmatched occupations.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and Discussion] There is an inconsistency in the number of cities: the Abstract and Section 1 say 102 cities, but the Discussion says '112 Chinese cities.' Please reconcile.
[2.1] The word 'predator' in the Methods section ('the coefficient of the predator') should be 'predictor'.
[Figure 1 caption] The caption says 'We build linear regression models using log10(city size) as instrumental variables and job impact rate as responses.' These are explanatory variables in an OLS regression, not instrumental variables in the econometric sense. Please rephrase.
[2.1 and Table S1] The data availability statement says that 'All data needed to evaluate the conclusions in the paper are present in the paper and/or the Supplementary Materials,' but the full correspondence table and the raw city-level employment counts are not included. Please provide these files or state clearly where they can be obtained.
[Section 3.1] The sentence 'Susceptible large cities have long been regarded as “specialty cities”' is vague regarding the time frame and source; a citation or more precise definition would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the automation probabilities, city grouping, and diversity metrics are independent inputs; the central polarization and Simpson's-paradox results are empirical correlations, not constructions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against external inputs. City impact rates E_m (Eq. 1) are weighted averages of Frey-Osborne automation probabilities p_auto(j), which are adopted from an external study (ref 1); no parameter is fitted to the Chinese city-level impact rates or to the diversity-impact relationship. The GCO-to-SOC mapping and the zero-risk assignment for political/state-owned leaders are stated assumptions that could introduce bias, but they are inputs, not outputs, and no equation reduces the central claims to these inputs. The premium/non-premium and elite/non-elite splits are defined by administrative rank, universities, and bullet-train frequencies, independent of impact rates and diversity. The negative diversity-impact correlation (Fig. 3b) is not tautological: diversity and E_m are both functions of occupational shares, but with external p_auto weights there is no mathematical identity forcing the observed slope. The self-citation to Frank et al. (ref 7) supplies the US comparison and the estimation template, but the template originates from Frey and Osborne (ref 1) and is externally published, so it is not load-bearing. The paper also states its own limitations (no task-based estimates, 102-city sample), which further supports treating the results as empirical rather than constructed. No circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or conceptual entities; its main assumptions are transferability of automation probabilities across countries, data quality, and exogeneity of government resource allocation. The free parameters are clustering and network cutoffs chosen by the authors.

free parameters (2)

k (k-means clusters) = 2
City polarization into premium/non-premium and elite/non-elite groups is imposed by choosing k=2; the central Simpson's paradox depends on this binary grouping.
Occupation space proximity threshold = 0.66
Links with phi greater than 0.66 are added to the occupation network; this cutoff affects the core/periphery structure, though not the main regression.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Frey-Osborne computerization probabilities apply to Chinese occupations through title-based GCO-SOC mapping.
Eq. 1 in Section 3.1 assigns p_auto from U.S. data to Chinese occupations; if mapping misses task differences, all city impact rates shift.
domain assumption Employment distributions from the 2010 Census for 102 cities are accurate and comparable.
All diversity and impact estimates use these counts; paper-form conversion may introduce transcription errors and the sample is one-third of all cities.
domain assumption Administrative level and premium resource allocation are exogenous indicators of central government planning.
Causal attribution in Section 3.2 requires that premium/elite status is not driven by the same economic outcomes being explained.
standard math Standard normalized Shannon entropy and PCA are valid for measuring diversity and industrial structure.
Equations 2 and 3 rely on standard methods previously used in urban science.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Automation Impacts on China's Polarized Job Market." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PHBBL3SI

@misc{pith2026190805518,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Automation Impacts on China's Polarized Job Market},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PHBBL3SI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05518}
}

read the original abstract

When facing threats from automation, a worker residing in a large Chinese city might not be as lucky as a worker in a large U.S. city, depending on the type of large city in which one resides. Empirical studies found that large U.S. cities exhibit resilience to automation impacts because of the increased occupational and skill specialization. However, in this study, we observe polarized responses in large Chinese cities to automation impacts. The polarization might be attributed to the elaborate master planning of the central government, through which cities are assigned with different industrial goals to achieve globally optimal economic success and, thus, a fast-growing economy. By dividing Chinese cities into two groups based on their administrative levels and premium resources allocated by the central government, we find that Chinese cities follow two distinct industrial development trajectories, one trajectory owning government support leads to a diversified industrial structure and, thus, a diversified job market, and the other leads to specialty cities and, thus, a specialized job market. By revisiting the automation impacts on a polarized job market, we observe a Simpson's paradox through which a larger city of a diversified job market results in greater resilience, whereas larger cities of specialized job markets are more susceptible. These findings inform policy makers to deploy appropriate policies to mitigate the polarized automation impacts.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

[1]

C. B. Frey, M. A. Osborne, The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change. 114, 254–280 (2017)

work page 2017
[2]

Arntz, T

M. Arntz, T. Gregory, U. Zierahn, The Risk of Automation for Jobs in OECD Countries: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS. OECD Social, Employment, and Migration Working Papers; Paris (2016), pp. 0_1,3–5,7–34

work page 2016
[3]

C. B. Frey, M. A. Osborne, C. Holmes, E. Rahbari, Technology at work v2. 0: the future is not what it used to be. Citi GPS: Global (2016) (available at http://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv:76273)

work page 2016
[4]

National Bureau of Statistics of China, Sixth National Population Census of the People’s Republic of China (2011), (available at http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/pcsj/rkpc/6rp/indexch.htm)

work page 2011
[5]

Y. Xie, X. Zhou, Income inequality in today’s China. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 111, 6928–6933 (2014)

work page 2014
[6]

Brelsford, J

C. Brelsford, J. Lobo, J. Hand, L. M. A. Bettencourt, Heterogeneity and scale of sustainable development in cities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 114, 8963–8968 (2017)

work page 2017
[7]

M. R. Frank, L. Sun, M. Cebrian, H. Youn, I. Rahwan, Small cities face greater impact from automation. J. R. Soc. Interface. 15 (2018), doi:10.1098/rsif.2017.0946

work page arXiv 2018
[8]

L. M. A. Bettencourt, J. Lobo, D. Helbing, C. Kü hnert, G. B. West, Growth, innovation, scaling, and the pace of life in cities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104, 7301–7306 (2007)

work page 2007

Show all 32 references

[9]

Gar-on Yeh, F

A. Gar-on Yeh, F. Wu, The transformation of the urban planning system in China from a centrally-planned to transitional economy. Prog. Plann. 51, 167– 252 (1999)

1999
[10]

Economist, China pushes towns to brand themselves, then regrets it

T. Economist, China pushes towns to brand themselves, then regrets it. The Economist (2017), (available at https://www.economist.com/news/china/21732826-officials-beijing-fret-local- boosters-are-getting-carried-away-china-pushes-towns-brand)

2017
[11]

Duranton, D

G. Duranton, D. Puga, Diversity and Specialisation in Cities: Why, Where and When Does it Matter? Urban Stud. 37, 533–555 (2000)

2000
[12]

S. Zhu, C. He, Y. Zhou, How to jump further and catch up? Path-breaking in an uneven industry space. J. Econ. Geogr., lbw047 (2017)

2017
[13]

Jolliffe, in International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science, M

I. Jolliffe, in International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science, M. Lovric, Ed. (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2011), pp. 1094–1096

2011
[14]

Chiesura, The role of urban parks for the sustainable city

A. Chiesura, The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landsc. Urban Plan. 68, 129–138 (2004)

2004
[15]

Zhu, Data envelopment analysis vs

J. Zhu, Data envelopment analysis vs. principal component analysis: An illustrative study of economic performance of Chinese cities. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 111, 50–61 (1998)

1998
[16]

Lixu, China’s higher education reform 1998–2003: A summary

L. Lixu, China’s higher education reform 1998–2003: A summary. Asia Pacific Education Review. 5, 14–22 (2004)

2004
[17]

Jiang, J

Y. Jiang, J. Shen, Measuring the urban competitiveness of Chinese cities in
[18]

Zheng, M

S. Zheng, M. E. Kahn, China’s bullet trains facilitate market integration and mitigate the cost of megacity growth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 110, E1248–E1253 (2013)

2013
[19]

E. H. Simpson, The Interpretation of Interaction in Contingency Tables. J. R. Stat. Soc. Series B Stat. Methodol. 13, 238–241 (1951)

1951
[20]

Krugman, Scale Economies, Product Differentiation, and the Pattern of Trade

P. Krugman, Scale Economies, Product Differentiation, and the Pattern of Trade. Am. Econ. Rev. 70, 950–959 (1980)

1980
[21]

Bessen, Learning by Doing: The Real Connection Between Innovation, Wages, and Wealth (Yale University Press, 2015)

J. Bessen, Learning by Doing: The Real Connection Between Innovation, Wages, and Wealth (Yale University Press, 2015)

2015
[22]

C. A. Hidalgo, B. Klinger, A.-L. Barabá si, R. Hausmann, The product space conditions the development of nations. Science. 317, 482–487 (2007)

2007
[23]

there” from “here

R. Muneepeerakul, J. Lobo, S. T. Shutters, A. Gomé z-Lié vano, M. R. Qubbaj, Urban economies and occupation space: can they get “there” from “here”? PLoS One. 8, e73676 (2013)

2013
[24]

Brynjolfsson, A

E. Brynjolfsson, A. McAfee, The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies (W. W. Norton & Company, 2014)

2014
[25]

Spitz‐Oener, Technical Change, Job Tasks, and Rising Educational Demands: Looking outside the Wage Structure

A. Spitz‐Oener, Technical Change, Job Tasks, and Rising Educational Demands: Looking outside the Wage Structure. J. Labor Econ. 24, 235–270 (2006)

2006
[26]

P. C. Melo, D. J. Graham, R. B. Noland, A meta-analysis of estimates of urban agglomeration economies. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 39, 332–342 (2009)

2009
[27]

Strano, V

E. Strano, V. Sood, Rich and Poor Cities in Europe. An Urban Scaling Approach to Mapping the European Economic Transition. PLoS One. 11, e0159465 (2016)

2016
[28]

D. H. Autor, Why Are There Still So Many Jobs? The History and Future of Workplace Automation. J. Econ. Perspect. 29, 3–30 (2015)

2015
[29]

Kumar, V

U. Kumar, V. Kumar, J. N. Kapur, NORMALIZED MEASURES OF ENTROPY. Int. J. Gen. Syst. 12, 55–69 (1986)

1986
[30]

Eagle, M

N. Eagle, M. Macy, R. Claxton, Network Diversity and Economic Development. Science. 328, 1029–1031 (2010)

2010
[31]

Peng et al., Environment

C. Peng et al., Environment. Building a “green” railway in China. Science. 316, 546–547 (2007). Acknowledgments: We thank Esteban Moro (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid) and Lijun Sun (McGill University) for helpful suggestions and comments on this study. We also thank the ano...

2007
[2000]

27, 307–314 (2010)

Cities. 27, 307–314 (2010)

2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

C. B. Frey, M. A. Osborne, The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change. 114, 254–280 (2017)

work page 2017

[2] [2]

Arntz, T

M. Arntz, T. Gregory, U. Zierahn, The Risk of Automation for Jobs in OECD Countries: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS. OECD Social, Employment, and Migration Working Papers; Paris (2016), pp. 0_1,3–5,7–34

work page 2016

[3] [3]

C. B. Frey, M. A. Osborne, C. Holmes, E. Rahbari, Technology at work v2. 0: the future is not what it used to be. Citi GPS: Global (2016) (available at http://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv:76273)

work page 2016

[4] [4]

National Bureau of Statistics of China, Sixth National Population Census of the People’s Republic of China (2011), (available at http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/pcsj/rkpc/6rp/indexch.htm)

work page 2011

[5] [5]

Y. Xie, X. Zhou, Income inequality in today’s China. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 111, 6928–6933 (2014)

work page 2014

[6] [6]

Brelsford, J

C. Brelsford, J. Lobo, J. Hand, L. M. A. Bettencourt, Heterogeneity and scale of sustainable development in cities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 114, 8963–8968 (2017)

work page 2017

[7] [7]

M. R. Frank, L. Sun, M. Cebrian, H. Youn, I. Rahwan, Small cities face greater impact from automation. J. R. Soc. Interface. 15 (2018), doi:10.1098/rsif.2017.0946

work page arXiv 2018

[8] [8]

L. M. A. Bettencourt, J. Lobo, D. Helbing, C. Kü hnert, G. B. West, Growth, innovation, scaling, and the pace of life in cities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104, 7301–7306 (2007)

work page 2007