Download Social Quality in Hong Kong: Who cares? Which quality?

Social Quality in Hong Kong:
Who cares? Which quality?
Raymond K H CHAN
City University of Hong Kong
Social Quality
‘the extent to which people are able to participate in the social and
economic life and development of their communities under conditions
which enhance their wellbeing and individual potential’ (van der Maesen
& Walker, 2005:11-12)
Domains and Sub-domains of Social Quality
Socio-economic Security
Financial resources
Housing and the environment
Health and care
Work and education
Social cohesion
Trust
Other integrative norms and values
Social networks
Identity
Social inclusion
Citizenship rights
Labour market
Services (public and private)
Social networks
Social empowerment
Knowledge base
Labour market
Openness & supportiveness of
institutions
Personal relations
Hong Kong Context
• Centralized administrative state with limited democratic
participation but supplemented with many consultative
committees
• Faith in free market and liberalism
• High level of economic and ‘social’ development
• Service economy
• Ethnic Chinese dominated society though claimed to be an
international city
• Conservative Confucian cultures on family and individual
roles
Socio-economic Security
• Satisfactory performance
• Relatively low unemployment rate and reasonable income to the majority
• Situation for the vulnerable labor groups – low skill, low education, low
income, middle-aged
• Elementary worker: 496,800 (1995)  627,100 (2005), i.e. 18% of the
workforce
• Low income workers: increased by 48.7% from 1995 to 2005
• Casual worker: 2.4% / Part time worker: 5.3% of the total workforce
• Flexible labor market emphasized with lesser employment protection
• Their livelihood protected by the heavily subsidized public housing (half
of the population living in subsidized housing), health and education
services through taxation, at a living standard comparable to lower class
Social Inclusion
• Access to housing basically maintained, though family applicants have to
wait for 2 years on average for PRH
• Caring and housing for elderly is a problem (limited caring institution, lack
of retirement protection, no public health insurance scheme)
• Majority of Hong Kong people have citizenship and therefore access to
public services
• Majority of them have the right to vote, but only 60% register and among
them less than 60% did vote which reflects a lack of interest / trust on the
political system
• Ethnic minority (esp. South / Southeast Asians) living condition received
more attention in recent years
• Lacking concept of social citizenship (responsibilities > rights) though
more services are enjoyed on the basis of citizenship
Social Empowerment
• Access to education is satisfactory except higher education
• Access to information is satisfactory but problem of digital
divide is there
• No excessive control on rally, demonstration, public
meetings
• Low participation in trade union and social organizations
• Political system still highly centralized with limited
democracy
• No effective mediating organizations that helps to integrate
different parts together vertically
Social Cohesion
• A growing sense of attachment and local identity
since mid-1980s
• Social tension and political crisis since 1997
• Low level of generalized trust and low level of social
participation
• More contend with their family and peer networks
• Might sponsor the idea of collectivism and social
responsibility but do not have proportional actions
Performances of Social Cohesion
Subjective component
(attitudes)
Objective component
(behavioral manifestation)
Horizontal
dimension
(cohesion in
civil society)
Rather strong sense of cohesion but
general trust not pervasive
Respondent did not act as cohesively,
and help seeking behaviour and
participation in social organizations is
not common.
Helping behavior index – 3.54
Social involvement index – 2.00
Vertical
dimension
(society-state
cohesion – how
people feel
about
government)
Confidence – lost trusts in political
institutions in general and the
executive branch in particular:
Confidence in political institution
index – 4.96
Confidence in the administration of
justice index – 7.33
Reciprocal index – 5.89
Commitment index – 6.68
Respondents were concerned about
politics but with fair level of
participation in action.
Political concern index – 6.60
Political participation index – 6.02
Source: Chan & Chan, 2006: 640
Note: score above 5.5 represents a satisfactory level
Who care? Which quality?
• More concern on socio-economic security
than the others, though more sensitive to the
issues -- social cohesion, inclusion and
participation
• A highly divided and stratified society
• Neo-liberalism  reform the policy from mere
protection to productivist
Social Risk Management Strategy
• Lacking a collective orientation and preference to
individual / family > collective / public sector
• Support a traditional / residual welfare orientation as
risk management strategies
• Support for private account > social account
• Welfare system sustainable as long as individual
can sustain
• No strong sense of ‘social’