Abstract
Controversies ring about the impacts of housing welfare on people’s responsibility and morale to help themselves and others. On the one hand, exchange theory predicts that receiving public welfare triggers responsibility to raise morale for returning favors to the public. On the other hand, the reception may weaken responsibility and morale through stigmatization. To address the controversies, this study analyzes survey data on 1088 adults in Hong Kong, China. Results reveal the contributions of receiving the housing loan, rental public housing, and purchased public housing to personal responsibility and morale. The contributions persist in various conditions, such that the contributions did not significantly vary across age, gender, and others. These findings thus warrant exchange theory concerning the reciprocation of housing benefits. This warrant implies the worth of strengthening housing welfare to benefit people and society.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
The impacts of housing welfare received from the government on personal responsibility and morale as a future-oriented well-being indicator are controversial while mostly uncharted. This controversy concerns the salutary versus harmful effects of welfare received due to benefit and stigmatizing, respectively (de Koning, 2007). The harmful effect may notably involve the erosion of personal responsibility by welfare received (Shapiro, 2007). Such erosion is vital as housing welfare is a capital investment crucial for asset building, citizenship, stakeholding, and other political concerns (Forrest & Xian, 2018; van Gent, 2010). Clarifying the impact of housing welfare on morale through personal responsibility is thus necessary through the present study of the case in Hong Kong, China.
Housing welfare includes the provision of a homeownership loan, subsidies for housing repair, and public housing for rental or homeownership. Such welfare offers a sizable discount on housing payments, including price, rental, and mortgage interest. In Hong Kong, the government offers a loan for first-time homeownership with low-interest rates and builds public housing for rental or sale (Lau & Wei, 2018; Li & Shamsuddin, 2022). Notably, the rental and price of housing represent welfare as they are much lower than those in the market (Lau & Wei, 2018). Because of the shortage of public housing, getting public housing is a windfall in Hong Kong (Lau & Murie, 2017). Housing welfare is supposedly necessary to respond to public demand and sustain citizenship (Forrest & Xian, 2018; van Gent, 2010).
Meanwhile, citizenship comprises the right and responsibility to live well personally and socially (Chenoweth, 2021). Such citizenship through housing is crucial as housing is a costly commitment or investment necessary for daily life to characterize social position (King, 2003). The investment represents an asset of capital to realize homeownership, which supposedly underlies personal and social responsibility (Prabhakar, 2019). Housing is also valuable as the seed for family and community to maintain autonomy, independence, love, privacy, security, and social harmony (King, 2003). The family requires housing to maintain caring and cohesion (Wilkinson & Ortega-Alcazar, 2017). Community underlies social integration, necessitating social participation such as working (Arthurson & Jacobs, 2009). Working, in turn, requires accommodation or housing for refreshment and health maintenance to sustain productivity (Kane, 2019).
Housing also counts as an entitlement in citizenship, involving homeownership for the higher class and rental housing for the lower class (Wilkinson & Ortega-Alcazar, 2017). Such entitlement necessitates housing welfare to uphold housing accessibility, adequacy, affordability, and privacy (Yung & Lee, 2014). Nevertheless, housing welfare represents reluctant welfare in capitalism, which thrives on privatizing expensive housing (Fahey & Norris, 2011). Moreover, housing welfare is not the priority because it is less conspicuously imminent than deprivation or poverty in food, health, or money (King, 2003). Housing welfare tends to the helpless needy based on residualization (Rosenberg, 2011). The impacts of housing welfare are thus mostly neglected and uncharted.
Personal responsibility felt for living, concerning one’s self-control and performance, is a controversial but uncharted impact of housing welfare (Kane, 2019; Prabhakar, 2019; Shtudiner et al., 2017). Such responsibility is socially desirable for independent and sustainable living without drawing resources from others (Shamir, 2008). Personal responsibility is thus prosocial and virtuous in realizing citizenship (de Groot & Steg, 2009). Moreover, personal responsibility is and should be natural to demonstrate individuality in existence (Shamir, 2008). Personal responsibility is also treasurable as a basis for a fair and liberal society without hurting others (Cappelen & Norheim, 2006; Shamir, 2008). That is, freedom without responsibility is unsustainable (Shamir, 2008). Such responsibility is becoming more feasible with technological development, which enables autonomy, independence, self-sufficiency, and personal capability (He, 2019).
Morale for life, including work, sociality, and other social aspects such as investment and social functioning, is another controversial but uncharted impact of housing welfare, which is supposed to buttress productivity (Arthurson & Jacobs, 2009; Preece et al., 2020). This impact is worthy of investigation because of the value of morale to the person and society, involving devotion, loyalty, sacrifice, respect, and trust (Peterson et al., 2008). Morale is thus a dimension of well-being or life quality appraisal conducive to production and future development (Cheung & Leung, 2011; Efklides et al., 2003). Such development is notably sustainable due to personal commitment to ensure continuity and quality (Zhu et al., 2020). The developmental contribution thus characterizes morale as socially desirable.
2 Contributions of Housing Welfare Received
The contributions of housing welfare received to personal responsibility and morale successively are likely to embody exchange theory. This theory presumes rationality in weighing benefits and costs to derive gains and their reciprocity and fairness (Corcoran, 2013; Smith & Hamon, 2012). Crucially, reciprocity can happen in generalized and long-term forms involving various parties, including the government and others in society (Pretsch & Ehrhardt-Madapathi, 2018). Gain and reciprocity are the principal determinants of further actions and feelings, including affiliation, cohesion, cooperation, exchange, sharing, and trust (Carter, 2016; Floyd, 2019; Lawler et al., 2016). Notably, the gain and its rational basis rest on self-interest or concern about personal conditions (Adongo et al., 2019; Stafford, 2015). Hence, the gain declines with the existing or cumulative stock, following the principle of satiation or diminishing marginal return in exchange theory (Carter, 2016). Conversely, the gain rises with its need, which thus raises the influence of the gain (Noller, 2006).
Exchange theory applies to relationships among housing welfare received, personal responsibility, and morale when they involve gains and their reciprocation. Housing welfare is likely to be a gain, as the loan, subsidies, and provisions for housing are benefits with low costs financially to register a gain. Meanwhile, morale as prospective conduct and personal responsibility as reflective conduct benefit others instead of burden others (Arthurson & Jacobs, 2009; de Groot & Steg, 2009; Preece et al., 2020). Morale and responsibility thus qualify as social returns to social welfare to realize reciprocity. Such reciprocity applies to gaining from and benefitting society, which publicly sponsors housing welfare.
More specifically, housing welfare received is likely to raise morale for reciprocating the gain in society according to exchange theory. This theory explains the salutary effects of gain, covering affection and success or its opportunity equitably or fairly (Floyd, 2019; Lively, 2017). Moreover, receiving benefits can generate gratitude to be salutary (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2014). Benefits received can also cover income and knowledge to enhance capability for health and well-being maintenance (Sirgy, 2012). Housing wealth strengthens livability or living conditions to be salutary (Liao et al. 2005; Sirgy, 2012). Herein, homeownership is a salutary resource (Granzin & Haggard, 2000). Similarly, access to living conditions, including amenities, safety, security, services, supplies, transportation, and utilities, has been salutary (Zhan et al., 2022; Ziersch et al., 2005). In addition, welfare received is salutary because of its contribution to financial adequacy (Graham et al., 2010; Horsewood & Doling, 2004).
Housing welfare received is also likely to enhance personal responsibility through reciprocating the gain, according to exchange theory (Tomasello, 2019). Such reciprocity can apply to cooperation, which entails personal responsibility for contributing to collective and personal gains, such as social security (Rudolph and Popp 2009; Tomasello, 2019). In addition, welfare reception enables the capability for personal responsibility (Gelissen, 2002). Similarly, personal responsibility increases with financial resources subsidized by welfare (He, 2019; Ireland and Kim, 2001).
Personal responsibility is likely to raise morale, considering the self-interest principle of exchange theory (Adongo et al., 2019; Stafford, 2015). Accordingly, morale springs from its expected gain based on self-interest, which, in turn, increases with personal responsibility or its fulfillment. Meanwhile, exchange theory posits that responsibility arises from and reflects the exchange for benefits or rights received (Tomasello, 2019). Hence, personal responsibility is likely to raise morale as a return to gain from welfare reception. Taking personal responsibility has lifted well-being, which includes morale as a prospective activating orientation (Diener et al., 2009; Veenhoven, 1998). Moreover, responsibility has been activating, socially and prosocially as well (de Groot & Steg, 2009). As personal responsibility is likely to be a return to housing welfare reception and a contributor to morale, the responsibility is likely to mediate between the reception and morale.
3 Harms of Housing Welfare Received
Housing welfare received is likely to reduce personal responsibility and morale, according to the view about welfare harm. The harm arises from stigmatizing in welfare reception and the enhancement of dependency rather than personal responsibility (Reeskens & Vandecasteele, 2017; Stoesz, 2018). In housing welfare, dependency on benefits from payment reduction is obvious. Moreover, dependency grows like addiction to or miring in welfare, as welfare is immediately and momentarily gratifying (Hofferth et al., 2005). Moreover, dependency ensues from the incapability to live independently and leave welfare (Zhan & Pandey, 2004). Hence, welfare reception has eroded responsibility and satisfaction with various life aspects (Bruch et al., 2010; Colburn, 2021). Dependency furthermore results from stigmatization due to welfare reception to erode morale (Taylor & Barusch, 2004). In Hong Kong, stigmatization can happen because housing welfare is visible in public housing, which is discernible from private housing. Thus, housing welfare reception implies economic hardship based on means testing and second-best housing (Colburn, 2021; Groves et al., 2014). Herein, stigmatization registers blame, discrimination, disempowerment, distancing, distrust, and exclusion to fabricate inferiority (Emlet, 2005; Haynes-Lawrence 2008). Stigmatization arises from the controlling, disciplining, punitive, and residualizing practices of reluctant welfare provision to discourage welfare reception (Fives, 2008; Manzi, 2010). Therefore, stigmatization received, dependency, and eroded responsibility can be demoralizing (Gundelach & Kreiner, 2004; Kemper, 2014).
4 Hypothesis Testing
The clash between the contribution and harm views of housing welfare necessitates the test of the following hypotheses about the Hong Kong resident, predicated on exchange theory. Housing welfare covers the loan on first-time homeownership, housing repair subsidy, and rental and purchased public housing provision.
-
1.
Housing welfare received raises morale.
-
2.
Housing welfare received raises personal responsibility.
-
3.
Personal responsibility raises morale.
The test of the hypothetical impacts requires controlling for background characteristics, possibly confounding the impacts. Background characteristics include age, gender, education, marital status, native status, family size, family income per capita, and housing experience. Generally, welfare reception is more likely when being female, older, lower in education or income, in a larger family, not locally born, not married, or not in an owned home (Colburn, 2021; Urbatsch, 2014). Meanwhile, morale is more likely to be higher when being female, younger, married, locally born, higher in education or income, in an owned home, or in a smaller family (Chan & Wong, 2022; Lydon-Staley et al., 2019). In addition, personal responsibility has been higher when being male, older, or higher in education or income (He, 2019; Jakobsen, 2010).
The study of Hong Kong is valuable for advancing knowledge internationally because of the bridging position of Hong Kong. This position builds on the cultural, economic, and sociopolitical compatibility of Hong Kong with the Chinese and Western parts of the world (Forestier & Crossley, 2015). Such compatibility evolves from Chinese inheritance, globalization, and Westernization to run a capitalistic, semi-democratic international metropolis (Liu, 2019). Herein, Hong Kong has been a special administrative region of China after British rule since 1997. Hence, Hong Kong is the hub of international economic activities, particularly concerning finance (Yu, 2020).
Regarding welfare, Hong Kong shares with other developed places in following liberal and neoliberal practices for welfare conditionality and residualization (Fung, 2014; Yau, 2011). Meanwhile, Hong Kong has its distinctiveness for refining knowledge internationally. Besides mixing Chinese and Western cultural and sociopolitical features, Hong Kong displays compact urbanization with dense housing and population (Chan & Wong, 2022). Notably, its housing welfare is generous and pervasive, rather than following neoliberal austerity (Lau & Murie, 2017). Housing welfare in Hong Kong is thus a prominent case for informing the world.
5 Method
Data for the analysis came from a random-sample household survey of 1088 Chinese adult residents (aged 18 + years) in Hong Kong, China. The random sampling proceeded with telephone numbers drawn from the directory for approaching households and selecting their adult members for survey interviewing. This survey ran on weekday evenings and weekend daytime and evenings before the COVID-19 outbreak. In three months, survey interviewers tried many times to approach the selected households to lobby their members’ participation in the survey. Eventually, the interviewers approached 3432 households to yield a response rate of 31.7%. This rate outperformed the average response rate of 25%, which is typical for a telephone survey without offering an incentive (Keeter et al., 2006). Moreover, the rate was comparable to the rate of 38% in a telephone survey conducted by another research team in Hong Kong (Hou et al. 2015). The resultant sample afforded to test a weak effect (r = 0.085) with 95% confidence and 80% statistical power. Post-survey weighting aligned the sample with the population in the joint distribution of age and gender based on the Hong Kong census to represent the Hong Kong adult population.
5.1 Participants
Participants or survey respondents had an average of 42.8 years in age, 10.6 years in education, and 4.1 members in the household (see Table 1). Among them, 73.6% were natives or locally born, 54.3% female, 66.9% married, and 17.8% having lived in purchased private housing. Regarding housing welfare, 25.1% got first-time homeownership loans, 6.9% housing repair subsidies, 23.2% rental public housing, 25.1% purchased public housing, and 66.8% receiving any of them in their lives.
5.2 Measurement
The survey interspersed multiple rating items to measure morale in the recent month and previous year and personal responsibility in the past semi-year (see Table 2). These items generated scores on a 0–100 scale. Some of them were negatively keyed items requiring reverse scoring to lessen acquiescent response bias.
Morale in the recent month combined five items such as “investing in some things” and “not offending strangers” (MacGregor, 2005). As such, morale focused on one’s future with others. The internal consistency reliability (α) was 0.658.
Morale in the previous year combined five items such as “investing in some things” and “not offending strangers” (MacGregor, 2005). The internal consistency reliability (α) was 0.641.
Personal responsibility in the past semi-year combined six items such as “doing your duty well” and “not minding taking responsibility” (Smagorinsky & Taxel, 2005). As such, personal responsibility focused on one’s present performance. The internal consistency reliability (α) was 0.666.
5.3 Analysis
Data analysis proceeded with confirmatory factor analysis to identify the trait factors of recent and earlier morale and personality responsibility for structural relation analysis (Muthen and Muthen 2006). The former analysis identified the trait factors comprising their respective items, given the method factor underlying all items (Podsakoff et al., 2003). These trait factors were thus immune to the bias of the method factor, as constrained to be independent of the trait factors. Based on the trait factors, morale increase was the residual of morale in the recent month, regressed on morale in the previous year. The trait factors were suitable for structural relation analysis for hypothesis testing involving housing welfare received and background characteristics. This analysis also examined the impacts of morale in the previous year on morale and personal responsibility later. Furthermore, the analysis assessed the robustness of the impacts of housing welfare received, earlier morale, and personal responsibility on morale and personal responsibility across different conditions. Such assessment meant examining the additional effects of interactions computed as the products of standard scores to avoid the problem of multicollinearity in the analysis (Dunlap & Kemery, 1987). An additional robust test of Hypothesis 3 was controlling for the endogeneity between morale increase and personal responsibility using the two-stage least squares estimation in regression analysis. This estimation worked when holding background characteristics as instrumental variables (Jaeger, 2008).
6 Results
Morale and personal responsibility, on average, were moderately high (based on raw scores, not factor scores, M = 64.8–72.0 on the 0–100 scale, see Table 1). This level echoed people’s inclination to maintain positivity or well-being (Cummins et al., 2009).
Initially, confirmatory factor analysis identified the three trait factors of recent and earlier morale and personal responsibility, given the method factor for all ratings (see Table 2). The analysis thus distinguished trait factors from the method factor, warranted by the good fit of the analysis (L2 (465) = 4187, SRMR = 0.090, RMSEA = 0.024, CFI = 0.937, Marsh et al., 2004). Notably, loadings on the method factor were not negligible, indicating the need for distinguishing the trait factors from the method factor. Based on the trait factor, morale increase and personal responsibility was moderately correlated (r = 0.274, p < 0.001). Such trait factors were then suitable for structural relation analysis to examine impacts on morale and personal responsibility for hypothesis testing.
Hypothesis 1 witnessed support from the significant positive effects of the housing loan, rental public housing, and purchased public housing provided on morale in the recent month (β = 0.112–184, see Table 3). Notably, each of the effects was even stronger than the effect of purchased private housing (β = 0.088). Hence, housing welfare represented by the three provisions, except the housing repair subsidy, generally raised morale (β = 0.207, based on the change in R2). Additionally, the housing loan was distinctive in significantly raising morale increase from the previous year to the recent month (β = 0.099).
Hypothesis 2 gathered support from the significant positive effects of the housing loan, rental public housing, and purchased public housing provided on personal responsibility in the recent month (β = 0.104–240, see Table 3). Any one of the effects was even stronger than the effect of purchased private housing (β = 0.101). Hence, housing welfare represented by the three provisions, except the housing repair subsidy, generally raised personal responsibility (β = 0.249, based on the change in R2).
Hypothesis 3 attained support from the significant positive effect of personal responsibility in the past semi-year on morale increase in the recent month (β = 0.285, see Table 3). This effect was net of those of background characteristics. Additionally, Hypothesis 3 obtained support from the significant positive effect of personal responsibility on morale increase after controlling for their endogeneity with the two-stage least squares estimation (β = 0.563, p < 0.001).
The effects of housing welfare received and personal responsibility on morale were robust across various conditions. Accordingly, all interaction effects, except one involving housing welfare received and personal responsibility, were nonsignificant. The only exception was a significant but negligible negative effect of the interaction between the housing loan received and native status (β = − 0.027, see Table 4), meaning that the loan had a weaker effect on the native than the migrant. This interaction effect was too small to erase the main effect of the loan (β = 0.112, see Table 3) on the native.
The effects of housing welfare received on personal responsibility were robust across different conditions. Accordingly, all interactions except one involving housing welfare received were nonsignificant. The only exception was the effect of the interaction between rental public housing and purchased public housing provided (β = − 0.064, see Table 4), meaning that the combination of the two provisions reduced the effect of each other. Another significant interaction effect involved the same predictor, previous morale, showing the negative quadratic effect of previous morale on personal responsibility (β = − 0.071). This quadratic effect indicated the diminishing marginal effect of morale, such that the effect weakened when morale was higher.
Background characteristics were necessary control variables when they significantly affected morale and personal responsibility. Most notably, morale and personal responsibility were higher in the native than in the migrant (β = 0.193 & 0.181, see Table 3). Furthermore, morale and personal responsibility decreased with family size (β = − 0.149 & − 0.145) and increased with purchased private housing experience (β = 0.088 & 0.101). In addition, morale increased with age (β = 0.093, see Table 4). Notably, family income per capita boosted morale increase (β = 0.103). By contrast, receiving any housing welfare did not substantially moderate the effect of any predictor on morale and personality (|β|< 0.064, see Tables 4 & 5). Hence, receiving housing welfare unlikely introduced a bias in the predictions.
7 Discussion
The contribution view about housing welfare is preferable to the harm view, considering the contributions of housing welfare received to morale and personal responsibility and mutual contributions between morale and personal responsibility. Such welfare covers providing a loan on first-time homeownership and rental and purchased public housing. The contributions of housing welfare follow the reciprocity principle in exchange theory concerning reciprocating benefits from society or life more generally. Such following indicates that housing welfare is beneficial and thus worthy of reciprocating because housing welfare is sizable and meets the great demand for housing (Lau & Wei, 2018; Li & Shamsuddin, 2022). Conversely, housing welfare does not generate stigmatizing and trapping effects to discourage morale and personal responsibility. These effects do not hold, possibly because of the pervasive and decent housing welfare in Hong Kong (Lau & Murie, 2017). Hence, housing welfare is beneficial rather than punitive there.
The contributions of housing welfare are evident when comparing the house repair subsidy and the provision of the loan or public housing. Accordingly, the former is much smaller and shorter than the latter, making the former not recognized as beneficial to induce reciprocation. Herein, recognition is the rational basis for reciprocity in exchange theory (Corcoran, 2013),
The contributions of housing welfare applied to all conditions except in two instances. One indicates the weaker contribution of the housing loan to the native’s morale than to the migrant’s morale, and another reveals a negative interaction effect due to the combination of rental and purchased public housing provisions on personal responsibility. These exceptions reflect the contingency of recognized benefit, such that it is lower to the native than to the migrant or in the combination of welfare provisions. The recognized benefit is lower for the native because the native has lower disadvantages and needs for welfare than the migrant (Fridberg & Kangas, 2008). Alternatively, the native had higher morale and personal responsibility (see Table 3) and thus a lower need for housing welfare to boost morale and personal responsibility. Meanwhile, the recognized benefit of combined welfare provisions is lower because of the diminishing marginal benefit (Molm, 1997). Hence, the benefit of a double provision is less than the sum of each provision. Such diminishing also happens in the negative quadratic effect of previous morale on personal responsibility. When previous morale is excessive, its contribution to personal responsibility diminishes.
7.1 Limitations and Future Research
The present findings are not internationally conclusive because of the study’s limitations in a cross-sectional survey in a single metropolis. This survey cannot capture unbiased measurement, ensuring the temporal order required to affirm causality. That is, self-report measurement, particularly about the past, is vulnerable to subjective and retrospective biases. Meanwhile, the single metropolis forbids generalizing findings worldwide, considering peculiarity, including pervasive housing benefits, in Hong Kong. The pervasiveness would erase the distinguishing of housing welfare reception and thus its stigmatizing effect (Kurzban & Leary, 2001). Conversely, the pervasiveness would champion a normative effect to consolidate the contributions of housing welfare (Adongo et al., 2019). Given such limitations and peculiarity, future research needs to corroborate and scrutinize the present findings for their generalizability. The corroboration requires the integration of survey and experimental designs to ensure valid measurement over time. Whereas the survey design reveals real-life findings, the experimental design, such as manipulating housing welfare provision, ensures causality in a controlled setting. For the concern about generalizability, future research needs to include samples representative of various contexts worldwide. Such inclusion will enable the analysis of the contextual moderation of housing welfare effects to gauge their generality and specificity.
Future research can also enrich exchange theory by substantiating its mechanisms of reciprocity and satiation or diminishing marginal benefit. Accordingly, reciprocity and satiation will be explicit factors mediating housing welfare received and morale and personal responsibility. Examining the mediations also entails identifying the benefit or gain received and its need for reciprocation. Future research can thus demonstrate the cascading effects of need, satiation, benefit or gain, and reciprocation mediating between housing welfare received, personal responsibility, and morale.
7.2 Implications
Based on the case in Hong Kong, housing welfare is advisable to boost residents’ personal responsibility and morale or dispel their discontent (Forrest & Xian, 2018). The strengthening is to meet the intense housing demand and interest in housing investment (Lau & Wei, 2018; Li & Shamsuddin, 2022). Such investment particularly realizes the asset or capital approach to housing welfare to secure homeownership and its payoff (Fahey & Norris, 2011; Prabhakar, 2019). More broadly, housing welfare and its contributions achieve the commonweal in society and familial well-being (King, 2003; Yung, 2007). To realize the contributions, housing welfare needs to weigh as beneficial or gainful, possibly through loans, public housing provisions, or other substantial subsidies. The weighing implies the value of disregarding housing as an entitlement to boost the sense of benefit or gain and gratitude (van Gent, 2010). Gratitude is thus worth encouraging to raise morale (Watkins, 2016). This valuation echoes the promotion of responsibility to acquire housing and realize citizenship more generally (Kane, 2019). Such promotion inevitably tempers capitalist interests and domination (Fahey & Norris, 2011). Overall, strengthening housing welfare is necessary to refute discourses advocating stopping or shortening welfare (Arthurson & Jacobs, 2009; Preece et al., 2020).
Additionally, needs for sustaining morale and responsibility are higher in residents who are migrants or younger, have more household members, or do not live in owned or public housing (see Table 3). Moreover, these residents have a higher need for housing than others (Chen et al., 2013; Shamsuddin & Campbell, 2022). Housing welfare is one means to meet these residents’ needs (Thin, 2012).
References
Adongo, R., Kim, S., & Elliot, S. (2019). Give and take: A social exchange perspective on festival stakeholder relations. Annals of Tourism Research, 75, 42–57.
Arthurson, K., & Jacobs, K. (2009). Discourses about Australian social housing, social exclusion and employment: indications of the post-welfare state? Housing, Theory & Society, 26(3), 179–192.
Bruch, S. K., Ferree, M. M., & Soss, J. (2010). From policy to polity: Democracy, paternalism, and the incorporation of disadvantaged citizens. American Sociological Review, 75(2), 205–226.
Cappelen, A. W., & Norheim, O. F. (2006). Responsibility, fairness and rationing in health care. Health Policy, 76, 312–319.
Carter, M. J. (2016). Microsociologies: Social exchange, trust, justice, and legitimacy. In S. Abrutyn (Ed.), Handbook of contemporary sociological theory (pp. 369–386). Springer.
Chan, S. M., & Wong, H. (2022). Housing and subjective well-being in Hong Kong: A structural equation model. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 17(3), 1745–1766.
Chen, Li., Zhang, W., Yang, Y., & Jianhui, Yu. (2013). Disparities in residential environment and satisfaction among urban residents in Dalian, China. Habitat International, 40, 100–108.
Chenoweth, E. (2021). Civil resistance: What everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press.
Cheung, C. K., & Leung, K. K. (2011). Neighborhood homogeneity and cohesion in sustainable community development. Habitat International, 35, 564–572.
Colburn, G. (2021). The Use of markets in housing policy: A comparative analysis of housing subsidy programs. Housing Studies, 36(1), 46–79.
Corcoran, K. E. (2013). Divine exchanges: applying social exchange theory to religious behavior. Rationality & Society, 25(3), 335–369.
Cummins, R. A., Lau, A. A. L. D., Mellor, D., & Stokes, M. A. (2009). Encouraging governments to enhance the happiness of their nation: Encouraging governments to enhance the happiness of their nation: Step 1: Understand subjective wellbeing. Social Indicators Research, 91, 23–36.
de Groot, J. I. M., & Steg, L. (2009). Morality and prosocial behavior: The role of awareness, responsibility, and norms in the norm activation model. Journal of Social Psychology, 149(4), 425–449.
de Koning, J. (2007). Is the changing pattern in the use of active labour market policies consistent with what evaluations tell us about their relative performance. The evaluation of active labour market policies, measures public private partnerships and benchmarking (pp. 23–45). Edward Elgar.
Diener, Ed., Lucas, R. E., Schimmack, U., & Helliwell, J. F. (2009). Well-being for public policy. Oxford University Press.
Dunlap, W. P., & Kemery, E. R. (1987). Failure to detect moderating effects: Is multicollinearity the problem? Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), 418–420.
Efklides, A., Kalaitzidou, M., & Chankin, G. (2003). Subjective quality of life in old age in greece. European Psychologist, 8(3), 178–191.
Emlet, C. A. (2005). Measuring stigma in older and younger adult with HIV/AIDS: An analysis of an HIV stigma scale and initial exploration of subscales. Research in Social Work Practice, 15(4), 291–300.
Fahey, T., & Norris, M. (2011). Housing in the welfare state: Rethinking the conceptual foundations of comparative housing policy analysis. International Journal of Housing Policy, 11(4), 439–452.
Fives, A. (2008). Political and philosophical debates in welfare. Palgrave, HV31.F548, 84–77.
Floyd, K. (2019). Affectionate communication in close relationships. Cambridge University Press.
Forestier, K., & Crossley, M. (2015). International education policy transfer-borrowing both ways: The Hong Kong and england experience. Prometheus, 24(4), 389–403.
Forrest, R., & Xian, S. (2018). Accommodating discontent: Youth, conflict and the housing question in Hong Kong. Housing Studies, 33(1), 1–17. d22-2.2.
Fridberg, T., & Kangas, O. (2008). The Welfare State, poverty and social exclusion. In H. Ervasti, T. Fridberg, M. Hjerm, & K. Ringdal (Eds.), Nordic social attitudes in a European perspective (pp. 22–47). Elgar.
Fung, K. K. (2014). Financial crisis and the developmental states: A case study of Hong Kong. International Journal of Social Welfare, 23, 321–332.
Gelissen, J. (2002). Worlds of welfare, worlds of consent? Public opinion on the welfare state. Brill.
Graham, C., Soumya, C., & Mario, P. (2010). The easterlin and other paradoxes: Why both sides of the debate may be correct. In Ed. Diener, J. F. Helliwell, & K. Daniel (Eds.), International differences in well-being (pp. 247–288). Oxford University Press.
Granzin, K. L., & Haggard, L. M. (2000). an integrative explanation for quality of life: Development and test of a structural model. In Ed. Diener & D. R. Rahtz (Eds.), Advances in quality of life theory and research (pp. 31–64). Kluwer Academic.
Groves, J. M., Siu, K., & Ho, W. Y. (2014). The post-80s generation: Young night drifters and the construction of a generic youth subject in Hong Kong. Journal of Youth Studies, 17(6), 829–846.
Gundelach, P., & Kreiner, S. (2004). Happiness and life satisfaction in advanced European countries. Cross-Cultural Research, 38(4), 359–386.
Haynes-Lawrence, D. (2008). Home Visitors’ Perceptions of Teen Mothers: Using Qualitative Research to Explore Labeling Theory. Children & Youth Service Review 30, 1386–1394.
He, A. J. (2019). Long-term care service needs and planning for the future: A study of middle-aged and older adults in Hong Kong. Ageing & Society, 39(2), 221–253.
Hofferth, S. L., Stanhope, S., & Harris, K. M. (2005). Remaining off welfare in the 1990s: The influence of public policy and economic conditions. Social Science Research, 34, 426–453.
Horsewood, N., & Doling, J. (2004). Repayment risk and european home owners: The interplay of housing markets, labour markets, financial markets and social security systems. Housing Studies, 19(3), 433–446.
Hou, W.K., Halld, B.J., Canettig, D., Laua, K.M., Nga, S.M., and Hobfoll, S.E. (2015). Threat to democracy: physical and mental health impact of democracy movement in Hong Kong. Journal of Affective Disorders 186(1):74–82.
Iceland, J., & Kim, J. (2001). Poverty among working families: New insights from an improved poverty measure. Social Science Quarterly, 82(2), 253–266.
Jaeger, M. M. (2008). Does left-right orientation have a causal effect on support for redistribution? Causal analysis with cross-sectional data using instrumental variables. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(3), 363–374.
Jakobsen, T. G. (2010). Public versus private: The conditional effect of state policy and institutional trust on mass opinion. European Sociological Review, 26(3), 307–318.
Kane, E. W. (2019). Beliefs about family policy among us mothers in publicly-subsidised housing: Collective responsibility or individual self-sufficiency. Journal of Poverty & Social Justice, 27(3), 333–349.
Keeter, S., Kennedy, C., Dimak, M., Best, J., & Craighill, P. (2006). Gauging the impact of growing nonresponse on attitudes from a national RDD telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(5), 759–779.
Kemper, T. D. (2014). Status, power and felicity. In J. E. Stets & J. H. Turner (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of emotions (Vol. 2, pp. 155–177). Springer.
King, P. (2003). A social philosophy of housing. Gower.
Kurzban, R., & Leary, M. R. (2001). Evolutionary origins of stigmatization: The functions of social exclusion. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 187–208.
Lau, K. Y., & Murie, A. (2017). Residualisation and resilience: Public housing in Hong Kong. Housing Studies, 32(3), 271–295.
Lau, M. H. M., & Wei, X. (2018). Housing size and housing market dynamics: The case of micro-flats in Hong Kong. Land Use Policy, 78, 278–286.
Lawler, E. J., Thye, S. R., & Yoon, J. (2016). The problem of social order in nested group structures. In A. Seth (Ed.), Handbook of contemporary sociological theory (pp. 149–166). Springer.
Li, X., & Shamsuddin, S. (2022). Housing the poor? A comparative study of public housing provision in New York, Hong Kong, and Shenzhen. Housing Policy Debate, 32(4–5), 678–696.
Liao P-S., Fu Y-C., & Yi C-C. (2005). Perceived quality of life in Taiwan and Hong Kong: an intra-culture comparison. Journal of Happiness Studies 6, 43–67.
Liu, W. (2019). The belt and road initiative: A pathway towards inclusive globalization. Routledge.
Lively, K. J. (2017). The sociology of emotion. In K. O. Korgen (Ed.), The cambridge handbook of sociology: Specialty and interdisciplinary studies (Vol. 2, pp. 218–228). Cambridge University Press.
Lydon-Staley, D. M., Zurn, P., & Bassett, D. S. (2019). Within-person variability in curiosity during daily life and associations with well-being. Journal of Personality, 88(4), 625–641.
MacGregor, M. G. (2005). Designing student leadership programs: transforming the leadership potential of youth. Youthleadership.
Manzi, T. (2010). Promoting responsibility, shaping behaviour: Housing management, mixed communities and the construction of citizenship. Housing Studies, 25(1), 5–19.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320–341.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2014). An attachment perspective on resilience to stress and trauma. In K. Martha, M. C. Davis, & J. W. Reich (Eds.), The resilience handbook: Approaches to stress and trauman (pp. 156–168). Routledge.
Molm, L. D. (1997). Coercive power in social exchange. Cambridge University Press.
Muthen, L.K., & Muthen, B.O. (2006). Mplus User’s Guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
Noller, P. (2006). Bringing it all together: A theoretical approach. In A. L. Vangelisti & P. Daniel (Eds.), The cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 769–789). Cambridge University Press.
Peterson, C., Park, N., & Sweeney, P. J. (2008). Group well-being: morale from a positive psychology perspective. Applied Psychology, 57, 19–36.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Prabhakar, R. (2019). A house divided: asset-based welfare and housing asset-based welfare. International Journal of Housing Policy, 19(2), 213–231.
Preece, J., Hickman, P., & Pattison, B. (2020). The affordability of “affordable” housing in England: Conditionality and exclusion in a context of welfare reform. Housing Studies, 35(7), 1214–1238.
Pretsch, J., & Ehrhardt-Madapathi, N. (2018). Experiences of justice in school and attitudes towards democracy: A matter of social exchange? Social Psychology of Education, 21(3), 655–675.
Reeskens, T., & Vandecasteele, L. (2017). Economic Hardship and well-being: Examining the relative role of individual resources and welfare state effort in resilience against economic hardship. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18(1), 41–62.
Rosenberg, J. (2011). Social housing, community empowerment and well-being: Part one—Empowerment practice in social housing. Housing, Care & Support, 14(4), 113–122.
Rudolph TJ, & Popp E. (2009). Bridging the ideological divide: trust and support for social security privatization. Political Behavior 31, 331–351.
Shamir, R. (2008). The age of responsibilization: On market-embedded morality. Economy & Society, 37(1), 1–19.
Shamsuddin, S., & Campbell, C. (2022). Housing cost burden, material hardship, and well-being. Housing Policy Debate, 32(3), 413–432.
Shapiro, D. (2007). Is the welfare state justified? Cambridge University Press.
Shtudiner, Z. E., Klein, G., & Kantor, J. (2017). Who is responsible for economic failures? Self-serving bias and fundamental attribution error in political context. Quality & Quantity, 51(1), 335–350.
Sirgy, M. J. (2012). The psychology of quality of life: Hedonic well-being, life satisfaction, and eudaimonia. Springer.
Smagorinsky, P., & Taxel, J. (2005). The discourse of character education: Culture wars in the classroom. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Smith, S. R., & Hamon, R. R. (2012). Exploring family theories. Oxford University Press.
Stafford, L. (2015). Social exchange theories: Calculating the rewards and costs of personal relationships. In D. O. Braithwaite & S. Paul (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 403–415). CA: SAGE.
Stoesz, D. (2018). Pandora’s dilemma: Theories of social welfare for the twenty-first century. Oxford University Press.
Taylor, M. J., & Barusch, A. S. (2004). Personal, family, and multiple barriers of long-term welfare recipients. Social Work, 49(2), 175–183.
Thin, N. (2012). Social happiness: Theory into policy and practice. Polity.
Tomasello, M. (2019). The moral psychology of obligation. Behaviour & Brain Science, 43, e56–e56.
Urbatsch, R. (2014). Families’ values: How parents, siblings, and children affect political attitudes. Oxford University Press.
van Gent, W. P. C. (2010). Housing policy as a lever for change? The politics of welfare, assets and tenure. Housing Studies, 25(5), 735–753.
Veenhoven, R. (1998). Quality-of-life in individualistic society: A comparison of 43 nations in the early 1990s. Social Indicators Research, 48, 157–186.
Watkins, P. C. (2016). Positive psychology. Springer.
Wilkinson, E., & Ortega-Alcazar, I. (2017). A home of one’s own? housing welfare for ‘young adults’ in times of austerity. Critical Social Policy, 37(3), 329–347.
Yau, Y. (2011). On the anti-social behaviour control in Hong Kong’s public housing. Housing Studies, 26(5), 701–722.
Yu, H. (2020). The guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau greater bay area in the making: Development than and challenges. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 34(4), 481–509.
Yung, B. (2007). An interplay between western and confucian concepts of justice: Development of Hong Kong housing policy. Housing Theory & Society, 24(2), 111–132.
Yung, B., & Lee, F.-P. (2014). ‘Equal right to housing’ in Hong Kong housing policy: Perspectives from disadvantaged groups. Journal of Housing & the Built Environment, 29(4), 563–582.
Zhan, D., Kwan, M.-P., Zhang, W., Chen, Li., & Dang, Y. (2022). The impact of housing pressure on subjective well-being in urban China. Habitat International, 127, 102639.
Zhan, M., & Pandey, S. (2004). Economic well-being of single mothers: Work first or postsecondary education? Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 31(3), 87–112.
Zhu, J., Liang, C., Lucas, J., Cheng, W., & Zhao, Z. (2020). The influence of income and social capital on the subjective well-being of elderly Chinese people, based on a panel survey. Sustainability, 12(11), 4786.
Ziersch, A. M., Baum, F. E., MacDougall, C., & Putland, C. (2005). Neighborhood life and social capital: The implications for health. Social Science & Medicine, 60, 71–86.
Acknowledgements
The paper evolves from a research grant from the City University of Hong Kong.
Funding
Open access publishing enabled by City University of Hong Kong Library's agreement with Springer Nature.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Authors declare no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
Authors declare that the study complied with human research ethics.
Informed consent
Authors declare that respondents showed their informed consent to the survey.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Cheung, Ck. Housing Welfare, Personal Responsibility, and Morale in Hong Kong. Soc Indic Res 171, 905–919 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-023-03288-2
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-023-03288-2