This paper examines whether a more compact urban spatial structure improves internal migrants’ employment outcomes and through which channels. We develop a search-and-matching framework in which compactness increases migrants’ effective matching intensity by strengthening local job creation (job-supply channel) and reducing commuting and information frictions (job-accessibility channel). Empirically, we construct a novel city–year compactness index from nighttime light imagery and match it to individual data from the China Migrants Dynamic Survey (2012–2018). Exploiting China’s 2014 hukou reform as a quasi-natural experiment, we estimate difference-in-differences models with city and year fixed effects. The heterogeneous-exposure difference-in-differences estimates show that cities with lower baseline compactness experienced larger post-2014 improvements in migrants’ employment outcomes than cities with higher baseline compactness, while the event-study estimates reveal no statistically significant differential pre-trends. Separate fixed-effects estimates using the annual compactness index also show a positive relationship between urban compactness and migrants’ employment and job stability. Heterogeneity analyses indicate larger effects for high-educated migrants, within-province migrants (proxying stronger social ties and connectivity), and migrants in more inclusive cities measured by policy-text scoring. Mechanism tests suggest that compactness is associated with greater job creation (new firm registrations and employment growth) and improved accessibility (denser transport provision and better internet-based information access). This paper contributes by translating classic urban agglomeration insights into a micro-level mechanism linking urban form to migrant employment through job arrival and offer-acceptance processes. While the empirical setting is China, the underlying mechanisms are relevant to rapidly urbanizing developing countries with large internal migrant populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: