Soc Indic Res (2009) 92:295–335 DOI 10.1007/s11205-008-9349-x

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong Ming Sing

Accepted: 6 October 2008 / Published online: 4 November 2008
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract The AsiaBarometer of 1,000 respondents shows that Hong Kong people have a great desire for materialistic attainment, and such an emphasis on materialism bodes ill for their quality of life. Negative assessments of the public life sphere, which encompasses the natural environment, the social welfare system, and the democratic system, also detract from the experiences of happiness, enjoyment, and accomplishment in Hong Kong. Surprisingly, access to digital communication devices helps Hong Kong people to experience a greater quality of life. Keywords Happiness

Hong Kong
Quality of life
Democracy
Asia
AsiaBarometer


1 The Quality of Life in Hong Kong Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of China. It consists of Hong Kong Island, the Kowloon Peninsula and the New Territories. Located to the east of the Pearl River estuary on the south coast of China, the region is bordered by the Kwangtung province of China on the north and the South China Sea on the east, south, and west.1 Historically, Britain colonized Hong Kong in the nineteenth century and returned it to China in 1997. Given its past colonial background and the dominance of Chinese residents (95%), Hong Kong currently uses both Chinese and English as its official languages. According to the World Bank, the 2006 population in Hong Kong was estimated to be seven million and growing at 1% annually. The life expectancy of Hong Kong people was estimated to be 82 years, with males averaging 79 years and females, 84 years. The percentage gross

1

Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http://search.eb.com.ezproxy.ust.hk/eb/article-9106286, accessed on February 19, 2008.

M. Sing (&) Hong Kong University of Science & Technology, Kowloon, Hong Kong e-mail: [email protected]

123

296

M. Sing Various objective indices of human development

Table 1 a

Indicator

Hong Kong

Ranking from the top

Human Development Index (HDI) Value 2005b

0.927

21

Life Expectancy at Birth (Year) 2004b

81.80

2

Adult Literacy Rate (% Ages 15 and Older) 2004c

93.50

67

GDP per Capita (PPP US$) 2004a

30822

12

Overall Globalization Index 2005d

NA

a

b

2 c

Sources: Estes (2007), United Nations Development Programme (2006), Adult Literacy Rate is unavailable in the case of Hong Kong. Listed is the literacy rate 2004 from the United Nations Development Programme (2006), d http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/ 10-22-2007/0004686818&EDATE

school enrollment ratio for tertiary, secondary, and primary education was 31, 87, and 105% respectively, while the adult literacy rate stood at 94%.2 Economically, Hong Kong, together with South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan, represents one of the most successful regions for achieving industrialization and socioeconomic modernization in a single generation. Between 1947 and 1952, massive influxes of labor, capital, and entrepreneurs into Hong Kong from mainland China allowed the Hong Kong government and business to successfully implement labor-intensive industrialization and export-led growth strategy (Sung in Corbo et al. 1985, pp. 117–121). Between 1960 and 1982, Hong Kong’s annual economic growth rate was 7%, the fifth highest rate in the world. Its GDP grew by 6.7% annually during the 1980–1992 period. Further evidence of Hong Kong’s economic vibrancy is its 6.7% annual average growth rate in GDP between 1980 and 1992 (World Bank 1984, p. 163). After 1970, Hong Kong diversified its economic base from consumer manufacturing to financial services and developed into the third largest financial center in the world. According to International Monetary Fund statistics, in 2007 Hong Kong ranked sixth in the world in terms of per capita GDP, with US$41,613 per capita in parity purchasing power. Hong Kong’s unemployment and inflation rates in 2006 were as low as 4.8 and 2.0%, respectively (Table 1).3 Decades of sustained economic development in Hong Kong have freed its people from the miseries of poverty and illiteracy and enabled them to live longer and better. According to the 2007–2008 United Nations’ Human Development Index, which measures life expectancy, adult literacy, and GDP per capita, Hong Kong ranks first of all Asian societies.4 According to the 2008 Index of Economic Freedom published by the Heritage Foundation, Hong Kong is the freest economy in the world.5 It is also a society with a high degree of global connections. According to the 2005 Globalization Index, which surveyed 2

See World Bank, World Development Indicator online www.worldbank.org/data/.

3

See International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics online www.imfstatistics.org/.

4

See United Nations, Human development index 2007/2008 online http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/.

5

The index has been based on 10 specific freedoms that are vital to national and personal prosperity and development. Those 10 freedoms include business freedom, trade freedom, fiscal freedom, government size, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, property rights, freedom from corruption, and labor freedom, and they are equally weighted in order to generate an overall score. See the Heritage Foundation online http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm.

123

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong

297

Table 2 Corruption perception index (CPI) 2007 Country

Score

Ranking of 180 societies

Hong Kong

8.3

14

South Korea

5.1

43

Taiwan

5.7

34

Singapore

9.3

4

Japan

7.5

17

China

3.5

72

Note: 10 = ‘‘highly clean’’, 0 = ‘‘highly corrupt’’ Source: Transparency International (TI) 2007 corruption perceptions index (CPI) http://www.icgg.org/ corruption.cpi_2007.html

72 countries, Hong Kong was the second most globalized country in the world.6 In the economic and personal contact dimensions of the Globalization Index, Hong Kong was at the very top. Its extensive connections with China could explain the large and increasing volume of tourism, direct investment, and trade.7 Hong Kong’s enviable track record in socioeconomic development and globalization has been paralleled by good governance and a low level of corruption (Sing 2006). According to Transparencies International, which monitors and compares perceived levels of corruption across the globe, only thirteen of 180 societies are less corrupt than Hong Kong, and it is the least corrupt society in Asia (see Table 2). Furthermore, Hong Kong has ranked high on five of the World Bank’s six indicators of good governance,8 scoring a perfect 100 out of 100 on regulatory quality, a 94 on government effectiveness, a 93 on control of corruption, an 89 on political stability and absence of violence, and a 65 on voice and accountability. This last is significantly lower than the same score for South Korea and Taiwan but higher than Singapore’s score in this category. This score indicates that Hong Kong’s political system remains a partial democracy although its government performs admirably. Hong Kong’s low level of democracy merits more discussion as it can adversely affect the quality of life. Between 1984 and 1997, the British Government gradually and proactively launched various democratic reforms and established an institutional foundation for electoral democracy. One key way it did this was through the incremental election of legislature members.9 As soon as China became Hong Kong’s new master, it began a reversal to 6

See WASHINGTON, Oct. 22/PRNewswire/. Source: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl? ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/10-22-2007/0004686818&EDATE= accessed on November 12, 2007. The index is published in the November/December issue of Foreign Policy, 2007. The top twenty societies are: 1 Singapore, 6 Denmark, 11 Sweden, 16, New Zealand, 2 Hong Kong, 7 United States, 12 United Kingdom, 17 Norway, 3 Netherlands, 8 Canada, 13 Australia, 18 Finland, 4 Switzerland, 9 Jordan, 14 Austria, 19 Czech Republic, 5 Ireland, 10 Estonia, 15 Belgium, 20 Slovenia.

7

See WASHINGTON, Oct. 22/PRNewswire/. Source: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl? ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/10-22-2007/0004686818&EDATE= accessed on November 12, 2007. The index is published in the November/December issue of Foreign Policy, 2007.

8

See World Bank, governance data online http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance/govdata/.

9

At least in principle, the Chinese government promulgated in an international document that it would give Hong Kong government a degree of autonomy over all domestic affairs except national defense and foreign affairs Sing (2004), Overholt (2004), Ma (2007) and Scott and Leung (2004).

123

298

M. Sing

Rating of Hong Kong's Democracy Status from 19922007 (Indicated by Total Sum of Scores of Civil Liberties & Political Rights) 10 9

Competitive, partically illiberal

Total Score

8 7 6 5

Semicompetitive, partialy pluralist

4 3 2 1 0

1991- 1992- 1993- 1994- 1995- 1996- 1997- 1998- 1999- 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 20061992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year Fig. 1 Ratings of Hong Kong’s democracy from 1991 to 2007

authoritarian rule by reducing popular participation in the electoral process and amending the electoral system in a direction that deters the participation of pro-democratic forces in the electoral process. Specifically, the Chinese government reduced the size of the functional constituencies from over two million to around 200,000 for the elections of the nine new legislative seats reserved for various professionals. It also installed the proportional representation system for selecting the twenty directly elected seats and made it difficult for pro-democratic forces to be represented in the legislature. Those measures have depressed Hong Kong’s level of democracy, as evidenced by the decreased levels of civil liberties and political rights as measured by the Freedom House (see Fig. 1). This brief account of Hong Kong’s political history and past development is offered as a background for an analysis of how Hong Kong people perceive the quality of life they experience on a daily basis and what factors shape their perceptions of life quality. We will first introduce the AsiaBarometer survey conducted during the months of July and August 2006 and analyze the demographic characteristics of the survey respondents and their lifestyles. Then we will analyze their value orientations and assessments of life quality from the perspectives of life as a whole and its specific domains. On the basis of these analyses, we will explore the factors powerfully shaping their assessments of overall life quality, as well as its components of happiness, enjoyment, and achievement. Finally, we will highlight key findings of our study and explore their policy implications.

2 Demographic Profile of Respondents The database of this study is the AsiaBarometer survey (ABS) conducted in Hong Kong from July 11 to August 3, 2006. For this survey, a total of 1,000 Hong Kong residents between the ages of 20 and 69 were randomly selected for interviews with professionally trained interviewers. Table 3 reports the gender, age, and six other characteristics of the respondents. The sample is nearly evenly distributed between the two genders with 48% male and 52% female. A plurality of 40% lives in the New Territories; 31% live on the

123

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong

299

Table 3 Demographic features of the respondents Demographic profile

Gender Age group

Educational attainment

Household annual income

ABS 2006

Religion

%

Frequency number (’000)

%

48

Male

484

48

3270

516

52

3587

52

20–29

215

22

975

14

30–39

258

26

1128

17

40–49

268

27

1329

19

50–59

156

16

954

14

60–69

103

10

486

7

Low education

420

42

2532

46

Mid education

419

42

1641

30

High education

159

16

1313

24

Low income

380

41

960

43

Mid income

466

50

667

30 27

91

10

600

Single

302

30

1921

32

Married

631

63

3424

58

Other

67

7

580

10

Catholic

28

3

–

–

105

11

–

–

1

0

–

–

131

13

–

–

Sikh

1

0

–

–

Taoism

3

0

–

–

Shintoism

1

0

–

–

None

728

73

–

–

HK Island

203

20

1268

19

Kowloon Peninsula

311

31

2020

29

New Territories

486

49

3574

52

Other Christian Muslim (Sunnah) Buddhist (Mahayana)

Region

Frequency

Female

High income Martial status

HK census 2006

Note: For both ABS and Hong Kong statistics, ‘‘Other’’ refers to divorced/separated/widowed/other, ‘‘Low education’’ no formal education, primary school, and lower secondary school, ‘‘Mid education’’ senior secondary school and matriculation, ‘‘High education’’ college/university or above, ‘‘Yes’’ refers to those belong to a particular religion including Catholic\ Other Christian\ Muslim\ Buddhist\ Sikh\ Taoism\ Shintoism

Kowloon Peninsula, and the remaining 20% on Hong Kong Island. The average age of the respondents is 41. The 20–49 age group accounts for 74% of the total respondents, and the 50–69 age group accounts for 26%. As regards to education, 42% of respondents possess a low level of education, 42% have reached the senior secondary school or matriculation level, and 16% have achieved the college or university level. Regarding income, the lowincome group, or those with an annual household income of less than HK$150,000, makes up 41% of the sample. The middle-income group, which earns between HK$150,000 and HK$350,000 annually, makes up another 40%, and the high-income group, which has an annual household earning of more than HK$350,000, makes up 10% of the sample. Most

123

300

M. Sing

respondents, i.e., 63%, are married, while 30% are single and 7% are widowed or divorced. The majority of respondents, i.e. 73%, reports having no religion. Among those who profess to have religious beliefs, Buddhists are the most popular, totaling 13%, followed by non-Catholic Christians, totaling 11% and Catholics, totaling 3.0%. To determine the representativeness of the sample, we compared its demographic characteristics with those from the 2006 Hong Kong census.10 The proportion of males and females in the survey matches that of the census, which shows males accounting for 48% and females, 52% of the total population of 6,827,000. The census data also fits the ABS surveys in regards to age, except the categories of education and income. Concerning education, the ABS sample has 12% more respondents who fall in the middle category than does the census, while the less-educated and the more-educated are underrepresented in the ABS sample by 4 and 8% respectively. Married citizens are overrepresented by 5% in the ABS sample. The middle-income group also seems to be overrepresented in the ABS survey, while it seems to under-represent those in the high-income group. However, it should be noted that the ABS and Hong Kong census defined income levels differently, with the ABS using lower maximum amounts for each level (e.g. In Hong Kong’s census data, ‘‘low income’’ refers to annual household incomes less than HK$179,988, while the ABS defined ‘‘low income’’ as an annual household income of less than HK$150,000.).

3 Lifestyles: Leading a Global, Digital, Secular and Diversified Life What kind of lives do people in Hong Kong lead? What are their families like? What sort of homes do they have? Are they religious? Are they politically active? Materialistically minded? How do they feel about their careers? Are they concerned with world affairs or only their communities? To discover the answers to these and similar lifestyle questions, this section examines Hong Kong people’s perceived identities; their place of residence, household composition, and eating habits; their access to public utilities and digital communication technology; their interactions with the outside world; their religiosity or secularism; their involvement in politics; and their perceived standard of living. It also examines whether lifestyles vary significantly across the different socio-demographic groups of Hong Kong people. The analysis presented below reveals that sustained economic development and increasing trade and services in recent decades have allowed Hong Kong people to lead highly globalized, secularized, and digitalized lives, regardless of their national identification as a Chinese or resident of Hong Kong, i.e. a Hong Konger. 3.1 Subjective Identifications To determine how Hong Kong people identify themselves, the ABS Hong Kong surveys asked whether they perceived themselves as a Chinese or a resident of Hong Kong. Respondents were highly divided over their own national identity, an understandable finding considering the country’s colonial history. A bare majority of 53% perceived themselves as Chinese, while 45% identified themselves as Hong Kongers. How respondents answered was tied to their placements in different demographic groups. For example, respondents between the ages of 20 and 29 were more likely to perceive themselves as 10

See HKSAR government, Statistics and Census Department online http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/.

123

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong

301

Hong Kongers than as Chinese (54% vs. 43%), while those in the oldest age group of 60– 69 were much more likely to perceive themselves as Chinese (69%) than as Hong Kongers (29%). Married people were more than likely than unmarried people to perceive themselves as Chinese, which makes sense considering married people tend to be older than unmarried. Those with low and high levels of educational attainment were also more likely to perceive themselves as Chinese than as Hong Kongers (Table 4). The survey also asked respondents whether they identified with any transnational groups. Forty-two percent of respondents identified themselves as Asian, 27% as having no particular group, 24% as a language group, 4% as an ethnic group that has a common genealogy or ancestry, 2% as a religious group, and 1% as any other transnational identity. Within gender, more males than females, identified themselves as Asian (46% vs. 38%). In terms of age group, those falling within the 20–29 group are more likely to identify themselves as Asian than are those between the ages of 40 and 49 (47% vs. 38%). Also interestingly, between 24 and 30% of those between the ages of 20 and 49 identify themselves with a language group. As for education and household income, the higher the education and household income, the more likely the respondents will identify themselves as Asian. In terms of national pride, a majority of respondents (75%) are very or somewhat proud of Hong Kong. The group with the largest proportion of very or somewhat proud respondents was the high-household income group with 81%, while the group with the lowest proportion of proud respondents was males (71%). When respondents were asked if they can recite the national anthem by heart, half said yes and half said no. Interestingly, more males (52%) than females (48%) said yes, they could. In terms of education, those with a high level of education (60%) were significantly more likely to say they could recite the anthem than those with a middle (48%) or low level of education (47%), and those without any religious belief were more likely to say they could recite it (54%) than were those who belonged to a particular religion (48%). Marital status and household income level made is no substantial difference. 3.2 Patterns of Living and Eating Hong Kong has been notorious for its high population density and pricey residential accommodations. This has strongly affected how and where residents live. As shown in Table 5, nearly one-half (47%) of Hong Kong people has four to five persons in their household, reflecting the fact that expensive housing has forced many to live with family members or relatives. About two-fifths (41%) of households have two to three persons, and only 5% are single-person households. For each demographic variable, those most likely to live alone are those between the ages of 30 and 39 (7%), those with a high educational level (8%), those with a low household income (8%), those who are single (12%), and those who belong to a particular religion (5%). Those who are most likely to live in a sixto-nine-person household are those between the ages of 20 and 29 (7%), those with a low educational level (8%), those with a high household income (10%), those who are married (8%), and those who are non-religious. Concerning housing type, there is a near even split between those who live in public residential units and those who live in private residential units (52% vs. 48%). This indicates that the Hong Kong government has played a major role in providing public housing. As expected, a greater proportion of low-income (57%) and low-education (57%) people live in public housing than those with a high income (43%) and a high level of education (54%).

123

123

Religion

Martial status

Household annual income

Educational attainment

54

53

Yes

58

Other

None

56

52

High

Married

49

Mid

44

57

Low

Single

49

High

69

60–69

50

55

50–59

Mid

53

40–49

58

55

30–39

Low

43

53

20–29

Female

Gender

Age group

53

53

Male

Entire sample

Chinese

Sub-category

45

44

40

42

52

45

49

41

49

48

40

29

44

45

44

54

45

44

45

Hong-Konger

Self identification (ID)

Identification

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

Other

Table 4 Distribution of identification by demographics, %

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

3

1

2

1

2

2

No Self-ID

43

38

45

40

45

47

41

39

48

45

36

41

46

38

39

47

38

46

42

Asian

3

7

5

5

3

9

3

5

4

4

4

5

5

4

5

3

5

4

4

Ethnic group

25

22

22

23

28

28

31

18

26

27

21

14

18

26

30

24

25

23

24

Language group

0

6

0

2

2

2

1

2

5

1

1

0

3

1

2

3

2

2

2

Religious group

Identification with transitional group

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

Other

27

27

27

30

21

13

23

35

16

23

36

39

28

30

24

21

30

24

27

Not with particular group

76

72

81

75

74

81

76

74

78

74

75

79

76

72

75

779

79

71

75

Very\ somewhat proud

24

28

19

25

26

19

24

26

22

26

25

22

24

28

25

23

21

29

25

Not really\ not proud

National proud

48

54

40

50

51

51

49

50

60

48

47

54

53

45

46

56

48

52

50

Yes

52

46

60

50

50

50

51

50

40

52

53

46

47

55

54

44

52

48

50

No

Recite national anthem by heart

302 M. Sing

Religion

Martial status

Household annual income

Educational attainment

4

5

Yes

15

Other

None

1

Married

2

High

12

4

Mid

Single

8

8

High

Low

5

6

60–69

Mid

4

50–59

4

4

40–49

Low

7

30–39

3

4

20–29

Female

Gender

Age group

5

7

Male

Entire sample

41

43

37

52

40

40

30

40

46

40

47

36

49

37

40

45

38

40

42

46

52

30

51

42

58

49

41

45

43

53

39

53

50

42

51

49

46

47

4–5 Persons

7

7

3

8

6

10

8

5

6

6

8

7

7

7

6

7

9

5

7

6–9 Persons

1 Person

Sub-category

2–3 Persons

Numbers of family members living in household

Household

Table 5 Distribution on housing characteristics by demographics, %

30

29

36

30

29

14

25

39

20

26

37

39

33

27

30

27

32

27

30

Public rental

2

4

2

2

3

0

2

4

4

1

3

3

2

3

2

4

3

2

3

Public owned

4

3

5

3

5

7

3

3

9

4

1

1

3

3

3

6

4

3

4

Subsidized sales flat (rent)

Housing ownership

16

14

3

18

15

22

17

11

13

18

15

10

15

19

17

14

14

17

16

Subsidized sales flat (owned)

10

10

15

9

12

7

12

9

11

13

7

2

8

8

14

14

9

11

10

Private rental

38

40

40

39

36

51

41

34

43

38

36

46

39

40

34

36

37

39

38

Privately owned

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong 303

123

304

M. Sing

3.3 Eating Habits Table 6 shows that how Hong Konger eat depends upon their placement in various sociodemographic groups. For example, 31–37% of people between the ages of 20 and 49 would buy ready meals for breakfast, while only 16–20% of older people would. Married people (24%), those with a low level of education (24%), and those with a low income (20%) are also less likely to buy ready meals for breakfast than others in their individual categories. In terms of eating habits, 58 and 56% of respondents usually eat breakfast at home and at restaurants respectively. In contrast to breakfast, an overwhelming majority of respondents (92%) usually eat dinner at home, while 63% usually eat dinner at restaurants. For both breakfast and dinner, more females (breakfast, 63% and dinner, 94%) usually eat at home than males (breakfast, 52% and dinner, 89%). Those between the ages of 20 and 29 (41%), those with a high education (49%), those who are single (41%), and those with a high household income (47%), are less likely to eat breakfasts at home than others in their individual categories, and they are more likely to eat dinner at restaurants. Those between the ages of 30 and 59 (59–62%), those with a middle level of education (61%), those with a middle household income (59%), those who are married (59%), and those who are religious (58%) are more likely to eat breakfast at restaurants than others in their individual categories. 3.4 Eating Ethnic Foods Hong Kong cuisine is famous for its variety and high quality. According to statistics provided by the Hong Kong Tourist Board, there are more than 9,000 restaurants in Hong Kong, and they serve all kinds of food: Chinese, Asian, Western, Halal, Hong Kong delicacies, and fast food.11 Examining the eating habits of Hong Kong people reveals more than their culinary preferences; it offers insights into their views of family and tradition. The survey found more Hong Kong people are fond of dim sum (69%) than any other ethnic food. Following dim sum in popularity are sushi (46%), pizza (32%), Beijing duck (26%), hamburgers (24%), sandwiches (23%), curry (23%), instant noodles (21%), Pho (17%), Kimchi (14%), and Tom-Yum-Goong (11%). Females (51%) love sushi far more than males (40%). While people belonging to the 20–29 age group are fond of sushi (74%), they also like pizza (58%) and dim sum (57%). Of those between the ages of 60 and 69, a large percentage (88%) likes dim sum, while few (3%) are fond of hamburgers. People with higher education are less likely to like dim sum than are those with lower educations (60% vs. 79%), and they are more likely to favor sushi (61%), pizza (45%), hamburgers (30%), and sandwiches (29%) than are those with lower educations. Singletons are more likely to like sushi (67%) than dim sum (52%), while a large proportion of married people like dim sum (76%). It seems fitting that older and married people like dim sum as they are more family-oriented, and dim sum is a staple among Chinese families at public gatherings. Meanwhile, a greater proportion of the younger generation and of those with middle or high levels of education like sushi, pizza, and hamburgers because members of these groups have a high acceptance of Western culture and have more reason to value efficiency (Table 7).

11

See, Hong Kong Tourist Board, Discovery Hong Kong online http://www.discoverhongkong.com.

123

Religion

Martial status

Household annual income

Educational attainment

61

57

Yes

57

None

Other

47

High

66

52

Mid

Married

67

Low

41

50

High

Single

68

79

60–69

50

69

50–59

Mid

60

40–49

Low

54

30–39

63

Female

41

52

Gender

20–29

58

Male

Entire sample

Age group

Eat meals at home

31

24

30

24

39

35

36

20

37

31

24

16

20

31

31

37

27

31

29

Buy prepared meals

10

14

16

10

12

6

11

12

13

9

12

16

10

10

8

14

14

8

11

Eat instant food at home

Usual eating patterns for breakfast

Sub-category

Dinning habit

Table 6 Distribution of dinning habits by demographics, %

58

49

43

59

51

54

59

51

46

61

54

50

59

62

60

43

49

63

56

Eat out at restaurant

8

7

8

8

7

8

7

9

7

9

7

4

10

9

7

7

6

9

8

Eat out at food stalls

3

4

6

3

3

7

3

4

3

2

5

7

3

1

3

5

4

3

3

Other

10

10

8

8

17

18

10

8

15

13

6

4

5

6

12

21

11

9

10

Don’t eat

92

92

91

96

83

91

90

94

87

89

97

98

96

95

89

85

94

89

92

Eat meals at home

17

15

21

12

24

11

19

15

18

18

14

15

12

13

21

19

13

19

16

Buy ready meals

8

7

8

10

4

7

5

10

3

5

13

14

7

12

5

4

9

7

8

Eat instant food at home

Usual eating patterns for dinner

64

61

51

60

72

75

71

51

76

72

50

44

56

60

68

74

61

65

63

Eat out at restaurant

1

3

2

1

2

2

2

1

2

1

2

1

1

0

2

2

2

1

2

Eat out at food stalls

2

2

0

2

2

1

1

3

1

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

1

2

2

Other

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

Don’t eat

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong 305

123

123

24

27

Yes

30

None

Other

28

High

29

28

Mid

Married

25

Low

21

28

High

Single

27

18

60–69

26

38

50–59

Mid

27

40–49

Low

24

14

16

11

12

13

18

19

17

11

15

20

8

4

12

12

17

21

17

12

47

42

34

37

67

44

51

39

61

55

30

10

21

42

54

74

51

40

46

Sushi

25

22

16

21

32

26

26

22

30

27

18

3

20

23

25

36

23

25

24

Hamburgers

24

21

24

24

22

24

25

21

25

27

20

13

25

28

22

23

23

23

23

Curry

32

33

27

25

49

37

36

28

45

40

20

7

17

29

34

58

34

31

32

Pizza

11

10

15

10

13

14

12

11

13

14

7

2

10

12

11

16

14

8

11

Tom Yum Goong

69

70

78

76

52

60

69

72

60

62

79

88

78

72

63

57

69

69

69

Dim sum

15

21

16

17

16

22

18

14

18

17

16

12

17

18

17

15

18

15

17

Pho

21

29

33

23

23

28

24

23

29

23

22

19

16

26

26

24

24

23

23

Sandwiches

20

22

10

21

23

18

21

21

23

22

18

9

14

23

24

24

17

24

21

Instant noodles

7

5

6

5

8

8

5

7

8

5

6

5

5

9

7

3

5

7

6

None of the above

Note: Beijing duck, kimchi, sushi, curry, Tom-Yum Goong, dim sum, pho, and instant noodles are considered Asian food, meanwhile hamburgers and sandwiches are considered Western food

Religion

Martial status

Household annual income

Educational attainment

24

25

Female

30–39

28

Gender

20–29

26

Male

Entire sample

Age group

Beijing duck

Sub-category

Kimchi

Liking for ethnic foods

Ethnic foods:

Table 7 Distribution on liking for ethnic foods by demographics, %

306 M. Sing

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong

307

3.5 Extensive Use of Utilities in Hong Kong Thanks to rapid and sustained economic development in Hong Kong, the government has been able to provide citizens with all the necessary utilities including a public water supply, electricity, liquid petroleum gas or piped gas, fixed-line phone service, mobile phone service, facsimile service, and cable television. In terms of public access to utilities, Hong Kong has demonstrated a high degree common to modern metropolises. The average number of utilities used by the public is 5.4 out of 7. Excluding facsimile and cable television, access to the remaining five types of utilities is available to at least 95% of Hong Kong’s families, regardless of demographic groups. Also, about one-third of Hong Kong households (31%) have subscriptions to cable television. The percentage is higher among those with a high household income (43%) and among those between the ages of 20 and 49 (32–33%). These two groups have great consumption power and a fondness for the highquality, tailor-made, fee-based television programs. Owing to the rapid development of such communication tools as email, facsimile use is less common (16%) in Hong Kong (Table 8). 3.6 A Moderate to High Degree of Digitalization: Leading a Deepening Digital Life As a vibrant modern metropolis and financial center of the Asia-Pacific region, Hong Kong has established a strong communication infrastructure that enhances a high level of public Table 8 Distribution on utilities usage by demographics, % Utilities usage

Access to public utilities

Sub-category

Public water supply

Entire sample Gender Age group

Educational attainment

Electricity

LPG\piped gas

Fixed-line phone

Mobile phone

Facsimile

Cable television

100

100

99

95

99

16

31

Male

100

100

100

94

99

17

32

Female

100

100

99

96

99

16

31

20–29

100

100

100

92

100

16

33

30–39

100

100

100

95

100

16

32

40–49

100

100

99

96

99

15

32

50–59

100

100

99

95

99

23

30

60–69

100

100

99

99

96

11

25

Low

100

100

99

95

98

13

25

Mid

100

100

100

94

100

19

36 35

High

100

100

99

96

100

21

Household annual income

Low

100

100

99

94

98

12

24

Mid

100

100

100

96

100

18

34

High

100

100

99

97

100

23

43

Martial status

Single

100

100

100

94

100

15

33

Married

100

100

99

96

99

18

32

Other

100

100

100

91

97

10

21

None

100

100

100

97

99

17

28

Yes

100

100

99

94

99

16

32

Religion

123

308

M. Sing

access to electronic communication technologies. For instance, 52% of the public use computers to access the Internet and 42% to write emails at least several times a week, while 33% read or write text messages by mobile phones. Interestingly, those who never view the Internet (31%), who never use email (40%), and who never read/write text messages by mobile phones (33%) are quite common in Hong Kong. Males (56%), those between 20 and 29 (85%), people with a high education (94%), people with a high household income (69%), singletons (82%), and those having a religious belief (53%) are more likely to view Internet web pages by computers and to use email than others in their categories. These findings point to the different needs and/or capacity across demographic groups with respect to digital access. The fact that the younger and more educated people are more likely than their counterparts to have used digital devices suggests Hong Kong will experience a deepening digital life in the future (Table 9). 3.7 Global Life To explore how globally connected Hong Kong people are, the survey asked respondents how frequently they travel internationally, whether they have relatives and family members living abroad, how much they communicate online with people overseas, how many international job contacts they have, and how much they watch foreign programs on television. One would expect Hong Kong to be at least fairly globalized as this former British colony prides itself on maintaining a cosmopolitan character in an Asian setting, and Hong Kong meets this expectation. One key reason is because many people who emigrated from Hong Kong before the handover to China and then returned afterward have maintained overseas ties since resettling in Hong Kong. The survey finds that 17% of Hong Kong citizens indicate they have traveled abroad three times in 3 years. The overseas traveling is significantly higher for those with a high education (30%) and those with a high household income (32%) than for those with a low education level (10%) and those with a low household income (12%). In terms of foreign contacts, 36% of Hong Kong residents say they have family and relatives living abroad, while 13% indicate they have friends living abroad. The demographic variables that are most strongly correlated with having family or relatives abroad are a high level of education (51%), a high household income (45%), being single (31%), and being between the ages of 20 and 29 (38%). Regarding online communication with overseas people, 11 % of the entire sample reported having this communication, while 7% reported having foreign job contacts. Across various demographic groups, higher frequencies for both are found among those with a high education (33% for communication, 23% for contacts), those between the ages of 20 and 29 (21 and 11%), those with a high income (19 and 14%), and singletons (19 and 12%). Concerning the habit of watching foreign television programs, 29% of respondents have done so. Again, as expected, lower frequencies of this experience are found among people between the ages of 60 and 69 (9%) and those with a low level of education (18%). Such findings reflect that members of these groups are less likely to be able to speak and/or make sense of foreign languages. On Hong Kong people’s ability to speak fluent English, the better educated (87%), those between the ages of 20 and 29 (52%), singletons (51%), and those with high household income (51%) outperform the average of the entire sample (27%). Given Hong Kong’s improvements in education and increased globalization throughout the world, future generations in Hong Kong will likely experience more and stronger connections to the outside world (Table 10).

123

Religion

Martial status

Household annual income

Educational attainment

36

41

Yes

28

None

Other

60

High

28

51

Mid

68

22

Low

Married

81

Single

49

2

60–69

High

17

50–59

Mid

34

40–49

15

47

30–39

Low

73

37

20–29

Female

Gender

Age group

40

43

Male

Entire sample

12

11

13

2

12

15

9

15

10

13

18

6

1

7

12

19

12

11

13

6

6

5

6

7

4

3

5

8

1

9

4

4

5

7

6

5

6

6

11

12

10

14

6

4

8

16

1

9

17

11

10

18

11

5

13

10

11

Seldom

Several times a month

Almost every day

Sub-category

Several time a week

View internet web pages by computer

Digital access

Table 9 Distribution on digital access by demographics, %

30

33

54

40

8

23

22

44

4

15

58

83

61

28

18

5

34

28

31

Never

31

30

15

20

56

57

40

13

71

38

7

1

12

21

37

61

26

35

30

Almost every day

13

9

6

10

16

9

15

9

18

16

5

2

4

12

18

14

11

12

12

Several time a week

6

7

0

6

8

10

7

8

4

10

3

2

6

6

7

7

6

7

6

Several times a month

13

10

12

12

10

24

10

13

3

15

11

3

10

15

13

12

12

12

12

Seldom

Read\write emails by computer

38

45

67

52

9

100

29

57

4

20

74

92

69

46

25

6

45

35

40

Never

19

18

8

10

39

30

24

8

40

24

5

1

4

10

24

43

16

22

19

Almost every day

15

14

6

11

25

18

17

11

22

19

7

2

10

12

15

27

15

14

15

Several Time a week

12

10

12

11

13

8

14

11

12

17

6

5

6

16

14

10

11

12

12

Several times a MONTH

25

17

21

26

16

23

21

25

18

23

24

8

26

27

26

17

22

23

23

Seldom

29

41

54

43

7

22

24

45

8

16

58

85

53

35

21

3

36

29

33

Never

Read\write text messages by mobile phones

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong 309

123

123

Religion

Martial status

Household annual income

Educational attainment

18

18

13

40–49

50–59

60–69

15

18

None

Yes

13

Other

High

17

32

Mid

20

19

Low

Married

12

High

Single

20

30

Mid

10

19

30–39

Low

17

20–29

17

Female

Gender

Age group

17

18

Male

Entire sample

Traveled abroad 3 times in 3 years

36

34

33

34

40

45

38

31

51

42

24

30

33

37

36

38

35

36

36

Family or relative lives abroad

Which statement applies to you?

Sub-category:

Global life

Table 10 Distribution on global life by demographics, %

13

16

8

11

20

23

14

10

31

13

7

4

10

11

15

21

13

13

13

Friends from other countries

11

10

8

7

19

19

15

4

33

12

1

2

5

7

12

21

10

12

11

Online communication with abroad

7

7

3

5

12

14

8

3

23

6

1

1

4

5

9

11

6

7

7

Contacts with abroad in job

30

28

21

25

40

32

33

23

44

34

18

9

19

29

32

42

27

32

29

Watching foreign programs on television

41

40

54

45

28

0

37

47

15

32

58

63

49

42

36

27

43

38

41

None of the above

27

30

46

36

7

14

19

43

0

6

60

69

47

31

15

7

31

25

28

Not at all

47

40

37

47

43

35

47

46

13

65

37

25

41

48

55

42

46

45

45

Very little

23

25

12

14

44

39

30

10

67

27

2

6

10

16

27

46

21

26

23

Speak well enough

4

5

5

3

6

12

5

1

20

1

0

1

3

5

3

6

3

5

4

Speak fluently

How well do you speak English?

310 M. Sing

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong

311

Table 11 Distribution on secularization by demographics, % Secularization

Belong to a particular religion

Frequency of praying\meditation

Sub-category:

Yes

None

Daily

Entire sample Gender Age group

Educational attainment

Household annual income Martial status

Religion

Weekly

Monthly

On special occasions

Never

27

73

7

3

2

10

78

Male

24

76

6

3

2

9

80

Female

30

71

8

3

2

12

76

20–29

25

75

7

2

2

14

75

30–39

28

73

6

3

2

9

81

40–49

23

77

9

3

1

9

78

50–59

30

70

6

3

2

12

78

60–69

36

64

7

4

1

7

82 82

Low

30

70

6

2

1

9

Mid

23

77

6

3

2

10

79

High

32

69

11

6

2

14

67

Low

25

75

6

3

2

12

77

Mid

27

73

6

3

2

9

81

High

31

69

13

3

0

7

77

Single

23

78

6

3

2

11

78

Married

29

71

7

3

2

11

78

Other

31

69

13

2

0

6

79

None

–

–

22

10

4

19

46

Yes

–

–

1

0

1

7

90

3.8 Secular Life When asked about their religious affiliation, nearly three-quarters (73%) of Hong Kong people declare no affiliation with any particular religion. This pattern of secular life is found across various demographic groups. The groups whose members are most likely to have religious beliefs are the 60–69 age group (36%), the highly educated (32%), and the high-household-income group (31%). Greater than three-quarters (78%) of the entire sample claim that they do not pray or meditate. Interestingly, those who do not formally belong to any religion are more likely to pray or meditate (54%) at least sometimes than those who belong to a religion (10%). This finding reveals that despite a low level of formal affiliation with a religion among Hong Kong residents, many do appeal to supernatural forces for peace and well-being (Table 11). 3.9 Political Life Due to a lack of opportunities to participate in the political process, Hong Kong people have long held a sense of political powerlessness. The limited power of elected politicians in the legislature and local councils continues to pose formidable barriers to any significant elevation of public involvement. This context helps explain why less than half of Hong Kong people have voted in territory-wide elections (40%) or local elections (46%). After excluding those who do not have the right to vote, the proportion of respondents in the

123

312

M. Sing

survey who have voted in legislative council and district council elections jumps to 54% and 60% respectively, numbers that exceed the actual turnout rates of the latest 2004 legislative council elections (56%) and the 2007 district council elections (39%).12 All others group show a greater than 50% vote in legislative council elections. Interestingly, most demographic groups show a voting rate greater than 50% in legislative council elections, except females (48%), those between the ages of 20 and 39 (47%), those with a low level of education (49%), those with a low household income (46%), and singletons (50%). In contrast, only those between the ages of 20 and 29 (48%) show a less than 50% voting rate in local elections (Table 12). 3.10 Perceived Standard of Living While the rapid and continuous economic development of Hong Kong over the last four decades has, as the first section of this paper reported, dramatically raised the objective standard of living and life quality among Hong Kong people, rapidly escalating social inequality, life stresses, and a pervasive sense of cronyism especially during the posthandover period have caused a less impressive perceived standard of living for many Hong Kong people. Therefore, three-quarters (75%) of respondents to the ABS survey describe themselves as having an only average standard of living, and only 12% believe they have a relatively high standard of living. Those between the ages of 20 and 39 (17%) are more likely to be content with their standard of living than are people between the ages of 60 and 69 (11%). As one would expect, those with a high education level (28%) and those with a high household income (24%) are more likely to consider their living standard as high or relatively high (Table 13). On the whole, rapid and sustained economic development in Hong Kong over the last four decades has improved public access to utilities and turned Hong Kong into an increasingly digital and globalized as well as secular society. However, because of the Chinese government’s repeated objections to Hong Kong’s democratization, Hong Kong has not achieved any major democratic breakthrough.

4 Value Priorities This section examines how Hong Kong people value and prioritize various life attributes that affect quality of life. The ABS survey asked respondents to choose five life attributes that they considered most important out of a list of 25. Chosen items are then classified into four types, materialism, post-materialism, familism, and other, for a more refined analysis (Table 14). The top five priorities across various demographic groups are shown below in Table 15. By far the most prized life attribute is personal health. An astounding 82% of respondents considered ‘‘being healthy’’ important. The next most popular choice, ‘‘having a comfortable home,’’ garnered votes from 59% of respondents, while 44% of respondents chose ‘‘having a job.’’ ‘‘Being healthy’’ is a post-materialistic value; a comfortable home, a familial one; and having a job, a materialistic one. The fourth and fifth most important life attributes pertain to familism and are ‘‘spending time with my family’’ (36%) and ‘‘having enough to eat’’ (34%). These top five values all address 12

See the Hong Kong, Registration and Electoral Office online http://www.elections.gov.hk.

123

Religion

Martial status

Household annual income

Educational attainment

25

21

Yes

27

None

Other

29

High

23

23

Mid

Married

19

Low

18

28

Single

22

30

60–69

High

30

50–59

Mid

25

40–49

20

17

Low

14

30–39

18

Female

20–29

26

Age group

22

Male

Gender

6

8

3

8

6

10

7

6

8

6

7

5

9

8

5

8

7

7

7

11

11

6

11

12

12

12

9

18

9

10

7

13

11

11

11

10

12

11

7

7

5

7

8

7

8

7

8

7

7

5

8

7

7

7

6

7

7

Rarely

Entire sample

Sometimes

Every time

Sub-category

Most of the time

Frequency of vote in legislative council elections

Politicization:

Table 12 Distribution on politicization by demographics, %

28

28

30

27

29

18

26

30

22

27

31

22

24

28

29

32

32

24

28

Never voted

27

22

30

24

28

25

24

29

16

29

26

31

17

22

31

28

27

24

26

No right to vote

24

28

27

27

20

29

26

22

28

22

24

35

31

29

20

16

23

27

25

Every time

9

7

9

9

7

10

9

9

8

6

9

6

13

10

8

7

8

10

9

Most of the time

12

14

10

13

12

14

14

11

18

9

12

10

12

14

12

12

12

13

12

Sometimes

7

7

5

7

8

8

9

7

8

7

6

5

10

7

8

7

6

9

7

Rarely

Frequency of vote in district council elections

23

24

24

22

26

17

21

25

22

27

25

18

18

22

24

31

26

20

23

Never voted

25

19

25

22

27

23

22

27

16

29

24

27

16

19

28

27

25

22

24

No right to vote

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong 313

123

314

M. Sing

Table 13 Distribution on living standard by demographics, % Wellness

How would you describe your standard of living

Sub-category

High\relative high

Average

Low\relative low

Entire sample Gender Age group

Educational attainment

Household annual income

Martial status

Religion

13

75

11

Male

13

76

11

Female

13

75

12

20–29

17

75

8

30–39

16

75

9

40–49

9

78

13

50–59

13

73

14

60–69

11

74

16

Low

9

73

18

Mid

12

81

7

High

28

66

6

Low

8

73

20

Mid

16

78

6

High

24

71

4

Single

18

76

7

Married

11

76

13

Other

12

67

21

None

12

78

11

Yes

14

75

12

basic needs of life. The next five value priorities also address basic concerns. In decreasing order of importance, these five values are ‘‘earning a high income’’ (29%), ‘‘living without fear of crime’’ (29%), ‘‘raising children’’ (27%), ‘‘having access to good medical care’’ (27%), and ‘‘being on good terms with others’’ (26%). These rankings reflect the pursuit of a better standard of living, physical safety, family welfare, and strong interpersonal relationships. The next five important needs ranked from eleventh to fifteenth are a mixture of post-materialistic and materialistic values: ‘‘being successful at work’’ (15%), ‘‘safe and clean environment’’ (13%), ‘‘pleasant community in which to live’’ (12%), ‘‘owning lots of nice things’’ (12%), and ‘‘enjoying a pastime’’ (12%). Less than 10% of respondents embrace the following, mostly post-materialistic, values: ‘‘having a good government’’ (9%), ‘‘express personality/use talents’’ (8%), ‘‘having access to higher education’’ (7%), ‘‘freedom of expression/association’’ (5%), ‘‘being devout’’ (4%), ‘‘appreciating art and culture’’ (3%), ‘‘contributing to community/society’’ (3%), ‘‘being famous’’ (3%), and ‘‘dressing up’’ (1%). Even when the sample is broken into various socio-demographic subgroups, ‘‘being healthy’’ and ‘‘having a comfortable home’’ consistently rank as the top two values. However, different groups choose different values for the third, fourth and fifth slots. More males (49%) stress ‘‘having a job’’ than females (38%), which reflects traditional gender roles and subsequent gender-based differences. Likewise, ‘‘spending time with family’’ is more important to females (38%) than males (34%). On the whole, this analysis shows that despite rapid and sustained economic development in Hong Kong over the last 40 years, materialistic and familial values still trump post-materialistic ones. This prioritization differentiates Hong Kong from most Western

123

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong

315

Table 14 Distribution of life circumstance considered important, % Life circumstance

Classification

Percent

Rank

Being healthy

Post-materialism

82

1

Having a comfortable home

Familism

59

2

Having a job

Materialism

44

3

Spending time with your family

Familism

36

4

Having enough to eat

Materialism

34

5

Earning a high income

Materialism

29

6

Living without fear of crime

Post-materialism

29

7

Raising children

Familism

27

8

Having access to good medical care

Materialism

27

9

Being on good terms with others

other values

26

10

Being successful at work

Materialism

15

11

Safe and clean environment

Post-materialism

13

12

Pleasant community to live

Post-materialism

12

13

Owning lots of nice things

Materialism

12

14

Enjoying a pastime

Post-materialism

12

15

A good government

Post-materialism

9

16

Express personality/use talents

Post-materialism

8

17

Having access to higher education

Materialism

7

18

Freedom of expression/association

Post-materialism

5

19

Being devout

don’t belong to any category

4

20

Appreciating art and culture

Materialism

3

21

Winning over others

Post-materialism

3

22

Contributing to community/society

Post-materialism

3

23

Being famous

Materialism

3

24

Dressing up

Materialism

1

25

societies, where sustained economic development has contributed to the prevalence of post-materialistic and self-expression values (Inglehart and Welzel 2005). The greater emphasis placed on materialistic and familial values among Hong Kong people may explain the absence of large-scale democratic, environmental, and spiritual movements in Hong Kong, especially when the economy is in good shape.

5 Overall Quality of Life This section deals with overall quality of life, which is comprised of happiness, enjoyment, and accomplishment. The analysis will ascertain levels of these feelings and reveal both the socio-demographic group that is the most likely and the group that is least likely to experience these components of a high-quality life. While only 3% of respondents claim to be unhappy, as many as 46% of Hong Kong people say they are neither happy nor unhappy. Moreover, 38% of people claim that they rarely or never experience enjoyment, and 44% say they have very little or no accomplishment. Noticeably, 51, 62, and 56% of Hong Kong people experience some measure of happiness, enjoyment and accomplishment, respectively.

123

316

M. Sing

Table 15 Top five concerns of life circumstances by demographics, % Top five concerns 1st Entire sample Gender Age group

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

Health (82) Home (59) Job (44)

Family (36)

Eat (34)

Male

Health (82) Home (59) Job (49)

Family (34)

Eat (34)

Female

Health (83) Home (59) Job (38)

Family (38)

Eat (33)

20–29

Health (79) Home (55) Job (43)

Income (40)

Good terms with others (36)

30–39

Health (83) Home (61) Job (52)

Income (34)

Eat (31)

40–49

Health (81) Home (58) Job (45)

Family (38)

Children (37)

50–59

Health (83) Home (59) Job (45)

Family (42)

Eat (39)

60–69

Health (86) Home (63) Family (51) Eat (51)

Educational Low attainment Mid

Live w/o fear of crime (37)

Health (84) Home (62) Family (41) Job (40)

Eat (37)

Health (84) Home (60) Job (48)

Income (33)

Eat (31)

High

Health (69) Home (46) Job (43)

Good terms Family (36) with others (43)

Household annual income

Low

Health (84) Home (61) Job (45)

Eat (39)

Family (36)

Mid

Health (83) Home (60) Job (43)

Family (34)

Income (32)

High

Health (71) Home (56) Job (52)

Income (36)

Family (35.0) and eat (35)

Martial status

Single

Health (77) Home (56) Job (49)

Income (38)

Good terms with others (36)

Married Health (84) Home (61) Job (42)

Family (40)

Children (37)

Other Religion

Health (73) Home (51) Family (37) Children (36)

Job (34.0) and eat (34)

None

Health (77) Home (55) Family (39) Eat (39)

Job (36)

Yes

Health (83) Home (66) Job (46)

Eat (32)

Family (35)

The groups whose members are least likely to experience happiness are the 60–69 age group (38%), the low-education group (38%), the low-household income group (41%), and singletons (59%). Those three groups are also more likely to have a relatively low income and therefore a lower living standard, poorer life chances, and self-esteem. Concerning life enjoyment, the people who are least likely to enjoy life are those between the ages of 30 and 39 (58%), those with a low level of education (56%), and those with a low household income (57%). Higher job tensions may have undermined the enjoyment of those between the ages of 30 and 39. Those who are least likely to feel accomplishment include those between the ages of 20 and 29 (55%), those with a low level of education (49%), those with a low household income (49%), and singletons (52%). Interestingly, out of all the age groups, those between the ages of 20 and 29 are the most likely to enjoy life (71%) and feel happiness (63%) even though they are the least likely to feel accomplished (55%). This may be due to not having so many family pressures and lack of accomplishment at their jobs owing to their short time in the workforce. On happiness, singletons (59%), those with a high level of education (70%), and those with a high household income (69%) are more likely to feel happiness than the married (48%), those with a low level of education (39%), and those with a low level of income (41%). To measure respondents’ overall quality of life composed of happiness, enjoyment, and accomplishment, we constructed a summative 7-point scale ranging from a low of 0 to a

123

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong 25.00%

317

24%

21% 20.00%

20% 19%

15.00%

11% 10.00%

5%

5.00%

2% 0.00% Score 0 (Lowest)

Score 1

Score 2

Score 3

Score 4

Score 5

Score 6 (Highest)

Fig. 2 Distribution on the 7-point overall life quality index, %

high of 6. Figure 2 shows that on this scale, the overall average score for quality of life is 2, which is just below the midpoint of 3. This overall average score implies that the majority of Hong Kong people do not have a high overall quality of life. In fact, 64.5% of them scored a 2 or less. Those who are most likely to report a low quality of life include those with a low level of education (71%), those with a low household income (68%), those between the ages of 30 and 39 (67%) and 60 and 69 (67%), and singletons (66%). In contrast, those who are most likely to report a high overall quality of life, i.e. those scoring 4 and above on the 7point scale, are those with a high level of education (26%), those with a high household income (25%), those between the ages of 60 and 69 (19%), females (20%), and nonreligious people (19%). All of these percentages are greater than the percentage of respondents reporting a high overall quality of life for the entire sample (17%). Comparing the overall average scores for various groups shows no significant difference between different genders, ages, marital statuses, and religious beliefs. However, education level has a definite impact on quality of life, as those with a low education level score 1.7, those with a middle education level score 2.1, and those with a high level of education score 2.5. Similarly, those with a low income score significantly less than those with a middle income or high income (1.8, 2.1, 2.5, respectively). These findings that people with a low income and low education are more likely to have an overall lower quality of life aligns well with the earlier finding that Hong Kong people place a high value on materialistic pursuits (Table 16).

6 Satisfaction with Life Domains This section compares the extent to which people feel satisfied with sixteen specific life domains, which are classified into the five spheres of ‘‘personal life,’’ ‘‘interpersonal life,’’

123

123

50

51

Yes

37

Other

None

59

48

69

High

Single

56

Mid

Married

41

70

High

Low

55

38

60–69

Mid

44

50–59

39

48

40–49

Low

53

30–39

62

64

56

62

65

76

65

57

69

67

56

60

63

61

58

71

63

62

62

Enjoyment (often and sometimes)

56

56

48

59

52

62

60

49

68

58

49

56

56

56

55

55

57

54

56

Accomplishment (some and a great deal)

20

19

27

21

16

9

16

28

9

16

28

26

24

21

19

13

20

20

20

0 = Lowest

20

22

23

20

23

21

20

21

18

22

21

19

19

18

26

22

21

21

21

1

24

24

18

22

28

22

28

19

28

24

21

21

20

26

22

27

22

25

24

2

20

15

12

19

18

22

21

17

21

21

16

14

20

18

17

22

18

19

19

3

10

12

9

11

10

15

10

10

12

12

8

11

10

10

10

12

11

10

10

4

7-Point index values on overall life quality

Note: ‘‘#’’ implied that the means comparison for the 7-point overall life quality is statistically significant

Religion

Martial status

Household annual income

Educational attainment

63

12

20–29

Female

Gender

Age group

51

11

Male

Entire sample

Happiness (quite and very happy)

Types of assessment (%)

Table 16 Patterns on the overall life quality by demographics

5

6

9

5

5

8

5

5

10

4

4

7

5

5

4

5

5

5

5

5

2

2

2

2

1

3

2

1

3

2

1

2

2

2

2

1

3

0

2

6 = Highest

2.0

2.0

1.9

2.0

2.0

2.5#

2.1#

1.8#

2.5#

2.1#

1.7#

1.9

2.0

2.0

1.9

2.2

2.1

2.0

2.0

Overall average

318 M. Sing

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong

319

Table 17 Assessment of life domains, % -2 to ?2 Scale points (%) 2

Mean

Very/somewhat satisfied (A%)

Very/somewhat dissatisfied (B%)

PDI

-2

-1

0

1

(A - B)

Education

1

12

51

35

2

0.58

37

12

25

Job

1

8

50

39

3

0.71

42

9

33

Health

1

6

34

55

5

1.07

60

7

53

Personal life sphere

Interpersonal life sphere Family life

0

2

40

53

5

1.08

58

3

55

Friendships

0

2

25

62

10

1.32

73

2

70

Marriage

0

2

26

60

13

1.30

72

2

71

Neighbors

1

7

57

34

1

0.61

35

8

28

Material life sphere Standard of living

1

8

54

36

2

0.65

38

9

29

Household income

2

13

52

32

1

0.48

33

15

18

Housing

1

10

35

50

5

0.93

55

11

44

Non-material life sphere Leisure

1

6

45

42

7

0.84

49

7

42

Spiritual Life

0

6

51

39

4

0.76

43

6

37

Public safety

0

7

40

49

4

0.95

53

7

46

Environment

0

7

51

40

2

0.74

42

7

34

Welfare system

1

12

57

29

2

0.45

30

13

17

Democratic system

2

9

52

35

2

0.59

37

11

26

Public life sphere

Note: -2—very dissatisfied, -1—somewhat dissatisfied, 0—neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, ?1—somewhat satisfied, ?2—very satisfied

‘‘material life,’’ ‘‘non-material life,’’ and ‘‘public life.’’ The sixteen life domains are (1) housing, (2) friendships, (3) marriage, (4) standard of living, (5) household income, (6) health, (7) education, (8) job, (9) neighbors, (10) public safety, (11) the environment, (12) social welfare system, (13) democratic system, (14) family life, (15) leisure, and (16) spiritual life. The sixteen life domains incorporate a wide spectrum of potential needs among Hong Kong people, including those envisaged as important to their lives (Table 17). By estimating the number of satisfied and dissatisfied domains for various socio-demographic groups, this section will identify which life domains the Hong Kong people find the most and least satisfying. In addition, this section will explore which life domains and spheres are most pertinent to experiencing a life of happiness, enjoyment, and accomplishment. To start, satisfaction with life domains is measured on a 5-point scale, running from very dissatisfied (-2) through neither dissatisfied nor satisfied (0) to very satisfied (?2). Among the sixteen life domains, most Hong Kong people are satisfied with their friendships (73%) and marriages (72%), two domains that belong to the interpersonal life sphere. The third most satisfying life domain is health (60%), which belongs to the personal life sphere. In contrast, the most unsatisfying life domains are household income (15%), the

123

320

M. Sing

welfare system (13%), and education (12%), which are associated with the material, public, and personal life spheres, respectively. The Percentage Difference Index (PDI) measures the percentage difference between those who are very/somewhat satisfied and very/somewhat dissatisfied within each life domain. A big difference implies that the domain is far more satisfying than unsatisfying. For example, the PDI score for marriage is 71, which means the percentage of respondents who find marriage satisfying is 71% points higher than the percentage of respondents who find marriage unsatisfying. Marriage has the highest PDI score, followed by friendships (70), and family life (55). The lowest PDI scores are for the welfare system (17), household income (18), and education (24). Grouping the domains into the aforementioned five life spheres shows that the interpersonal life sphere is the one with which people are most likely to feel satisfied (60%), while the sphere of material life is the one most likely to arouse feelings of dissatisfaction (11%). On the whole, the level of satisfaction is different among various domains, and people are more satisfied than dissatisfied along each life domain. Table 18 presented the top one and two most satisfying and dissatisfying domains for various socio-demographic groups. In addition, it reports the PDI scores for the most satisfying and most dissatisfying items. Overall, friendships and marriage are by far the most satisfying domains, as they fill both top slots for fourteen of the eighteen sociodemographic groups. Also appearing in the top two slots are health and education, leisure, and housing. These domains also have the highest PDI scores. Concerning the most and second most dissatisfying domains, the survey analysis shows household income, welfare system, democratic system, education, health, family life, and job to be the most dissatisfying. The differences between satisfaction and dissatisfaction levels for various life domains reveals that interpersonal life spheres have on the whole yielded the greatest satisfaction, while the spheres of public life, material life, and personal life spheres have much room for improvement. Considering the differences among various socio-demographic groups reveals that although men and women both choose friendships and marriage as their most satisfying domains, they differ in which domains they find dissatisfying. Males are most likely to be dissatisfied with household income (14%) and the welfare system (12%), while females are most likely to be dissatisfied with education (16%) and household income (15%). Even more than gender, age impacts which domains Hong Kong people find the most and least satisfying. For those between the ages of 20 and 59, marriage (ranging from 71 to 86%) and friendships (ranging from 64 to 86%) are either the most or second most satisfying domains, but for people between the ages of 60 and 69, the two most satisfying domains are marriage (67%) and family life (61%). The five age groups also differ in the domains they label the most dissatisfying, which include the welfare system, democratic system, household income, education, and health. Such diverse findings indicate that different age groups have different values and pursuits. Regardless of their levels of education and household income, respondents chose friendships and marriage as either the most or second most satisfying life domains. The two most dissatisfying life domains for those with a low education and a low household income are household income (22 and 25%, respectively) and education (17 and 15%, respectively). However, for those with a middle or high level of education, and those with a middle or high household income, the most and second most dissatisfying domains are either the democratic system (13, 15, 12 and 9%, respectively) or the welfare system (12, 17, 12, 8%, respectively). Such findings go far to confirm the theory of post-materialism and self-expression values, which conjectures that the more

123

Age group

Marriage (71.3)

Marriage (71)

40–49

50–59

Marriage (67)

Friendships (76)

30–39

60–69

Friendships (86)

20–29

Female Marriage (73)

Friendships (73)

Gender

Male

Friendships (73)

Entire sample:

Family life (61)

Friendships (64)

Friendships (69)

Marriage (76)

Marriage (85)

Friendships (73)

Marriage (72)

Marriage (72)

Household income (22)

Education (18)

Household income (16)

Household income (14)

Welfare system (12)

Education (16)

Household income (14)

Household income (15)

Friendships (70) Friendships (84) Marriage (74)

Marriage (66)

Friendships (60)

Marriage (71) Marriage (85) Friendships (74) Friendships (69) Marriage (70)

Household income (15) Household income (11) Democratic system (13) Welfare system (13)

Health (16)

Friendships (57)

Friendships (71)

Marriage (71)

Welfare system (12)

Marriage (65)

Friendships (70)

Marriage (71)

Welfare system (13)

Welfare system (16)

2nd

1st

PDI most (very/somewhat) satisfied (%)

2nd

1st

1st

2nd

Most (very/somewhat) dissatisfied (%)

Most (very/somewhat) satisfied (%)

Types of domain

Table 18 Most satisfied and dissatisfied life domains by demographics, %

Household income (1)

Education (16)

Welfare system (10)

Neighbors (20)

Neighbors (18)

Welfare system (14)

Welfare system (21)

Welfare system (17)

1st

Education (12)

Welfare system (17)

Household income (13)

Welfare system (22)

Welfare system (20)

Household income (15)

Household income (22)

Household income (18)

2nd

PDI most (very/somewhat) dissatisfied (%)

1.36#

1.04#

1.30

1.22#

1.49#

6.94#

7.54#

7.53

6.91#

7.32#

1.30#

1.14#

7.59#

6.75#

1.25

7.25

Very/ Very/ somewhat somewhat satisfied dissatisfied

Average number of domains

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong 321

123

123

Household annual income

Friendships (78)

Marriage (92)

Marriage (68)

Friendships (81)

Marriage (84)

High

Low

Mid

High

Marriage (66)

Friendships (78)

Marriage (75)

Friendships (61)

Friendships (89)

Marriage (78)

Friendships (61)

Friendships (87) Friendships (58) Marriage (74)

Marriage (92) Marriage (64) Friendships (80)

Democratic system (15) Education (15) Welfare system (12)

Friendships (74)

Friendships (77)

Marriage (78)

Welfare system (12)

Marriage (84)

Friendships (57)

Marriage (63))

Education (17)

Democratic Welfare system (9) system (8)

Democratic system (12)

Household income (25)

Welfare system (17)

Democratic system (13)

Household income (22)

2nd

1st

PDI most (very/somewhat) satisfied (%)

2nd

1st

1st

2nd

Most (very/somewhat) dissatisfied (%)

Most (very/somewhat) satisfied (%)

Types of domain

Mid

Educational Low attainment

Table 18 continued

1.13#

0.94#

1.53#

1.08#

0.62#

7.42#

8.61#

6.32#

7.74#

8.65#

Neighbors (21)

Neighbors (21)

1.49#

Welfare system (25)

Welfare system (18)

Very/ Very/ somewhat somewhat satisfied dissatisfied

Education (8) 6.57#

2nd

Democratic system (28)

Neighbors (24)

Household Education income (-2) (13)

Welfare system (18)

Welfare system (18)

Household income (2)

1st

PDI most (very/somewhat) dissatisfied (%)

Average number of domains

322 M. Sing

Friendships (73)

Marriage (73)

None

Yes

Friendships (73)

Marriage (70)

Housing (52)

Other

Friendships (60)

Leisure (62)

Married Friendships (69)

Household income (15)

Household income (13)

Household income (29)

Household income (15)

Marriage (68)

Friendships (71)

Friendships (67) Friendships (57) Friendships (70) Marriage (72)

Job (14)

Job (24)

Education (14) Welfare system (13)

Leisure (42)

Leisure (60)

Health and education (53)

Friendships (82)

Democratic System (14)

Family life (14)

Health and education (60)

Friendships (82)

Single

2nd

PDI most (very/somewhat) satisfied (%) 1st

2nd

1st

1st

2nd

Most (very/somewhat) dissatisfied (%)

Most (very/somewhat) satisfied (%)

Types of domain

Note: ‘‘#’’ implied the means comparison is statistically significant where 1%, 5%, and 10% respectively

Religion

Martial status

Table 18 continued

Welfare system (18)

Welfare system (15)

Household income (18)

Household income (18)

Household Job (-2) income (-8)

Democratic system (18)

Democratic system (17)

Public safety (16) Household income (17)

2nd

1st

PDI most (very/somewhat) dissatisfied (%)

1.93

1.33

1.23

7.20

7.27

1.24

7.53#

5.75

1.13

7.02#

Very/ Very/ somewhat somewhat satisfied dissatisfied

Average number of domains

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong 323

123

324

M. Sing

wealthy and educated people become, the more concerned they become with such postmaterialistic concerns as democracy and social equality (Inglehart and Welzel 2005).

7 Determinants of Life Quality This sections assesses and compares the direct and independent effects of lifestyle, value priorities, domain assessments, and demographic factors on the overall quality of life and its three components—happiness, enjoyment, and accomplishment. It seeks to answer the question, what makes people feel happy, satisfied, and accomplished? By comparing the answers we find to this question to what is known in the West, we may further explore the distinguishing characteristics of quality of life in Hong Kong. The implications of these findings include methods for improving the people’s wellbeing. This section uses multivariate regression analysis in which the dependent variables consist of the overall life quality index, happiness, enjoyment, and accomplishment. The independent variables total thirty-seven and belong to four categories: (1) socio-demographic factors, (2) lifestyle, (3) value priorities, and (4) life satisfaction variables.13 Tables 19, 20 present the statistical findings on beta and standardized regression coefficients from OLS regression estimates for the entire sample and the one for married people respectively with the STATA statistical software. Nine variables that were found consistently insignificant across all four dependent measures have been deleted. Those variables are self-identification as a Hong Konger, number of family members living in a household, number of ethnic foods liked, access to public utilities, religious background, satisfaction with household income, welfare system, democratic system, and spiritual life. This revision had little affect on the r-squares but the F-statistics showed significant increases, ranging from the smallest 11.19–24.93.

8 Interpretation of Regressions of Determinants on Subjective Well-being After adding demographic factors, lifestyle variables, value priorities, and domain assessments in the regression analysis, the total variance explained for the overall quality of life is 40%. Further results are elaborated as follows: First, Table 19 shows that with an estimated beta of 0.13, the subjectively perceived standard of living has the greatest influence on happiness, followed by satisfaction with family life (0.12), satisfaction with friendship (0.10), satisfaction with leisure (0.09), satisfaction with standard of living (0.08), fluency of spoken English (0.08), satisfaction with housing (0.07), number of international contacts (0.06), and average political involvement (0.05). Considering the above results, these rankings reflect that one’s subjectively perceived standard of living, interpersonal relationships, and leisure are of primary importance in shaping happiness in Hong Kong. For enjoyment, digital access is the most powerful predictor (0.19), meaning that the use of digital technology can prominently shape life enjoyment. The percentage of materialistic (-0.16) and post-materialistic (-0.10) items mentioned as important value

13

For data coding and description, see Appendix I.

123

0.08

Value priority

Life domain

% of Families

Wellness

Housing, scale 1–5

% of Post materialism

% of Materialism

Average political involvement, scale 1–5

Living standard, scale 1–5

Politicization

Praying\meditation frequency, scale 1–5

Fluency of English speaking, scale 1–4

Secularization

0.06

No. of international contacts, scale 0–6

Global life

0.07

**

0.07

-0.10

-0.16

0.08

-0.01

0.11

0.03

0.00

–0.07

0.10

0.19

0.03

0.02

0.07

0.06

-0.04

-0.03

0.14

-0.03

Beta

-0.06

***

*

*

**

*

*

Sig

1–4

Enjoyment

0.02

0.13

0.05

0.01

0.05

Average access, scale 1–5

Digital access

0.04

0.01

Recite national anthem, 1 = yes, 0 = no

Tenure type, 1 = private, 0 = public\subsidized

0.04

National proud, scale 1–4

-0.05

-0.05 -0.01

Education, scale 1–6

Income, scale 1–20

Transitional group, 1 = no, 0 = yes

-0.05 -0.03

Beta

OLS estimates

Sex dummy, 1 = male, 0 = female

1–5

Scale

Age, scale 20–69

Happiness

Dependent variable

Household

Identification:

Lifestyle:

Demographic

Entire sample

Sample

Table 19 Determinants of quality of life for all respondents

*

*

***

***

***

***

**

*

***

Sig

0.10

-0.03

-0.13

-0.06

0.16

0.11

-0.07

0.08

0.04

0.10

0.10

0.00

0.03

-0.01

-0.04

-0.01

0.15

-0.08

Beta

1–4

***

**

***

***

**

*

**

***

***

***

Sig

Accomplishment

0.12

-0.04

-0.14

-0.05

0.17

0.09

-0.02

0.02

0.10

0.14

0.09

0.01

0.04

0.02

-0.05

-0.03

0.09

-0.06

Beta

0–6

Overall quality

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

**

**

Sig

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong 325

123

123 Beta

OLS estimates

0.12 0.09

Family life, scale 1–5

Leisure, scale 1–5 16.18*** 0.32

F statistic

R2

906

0.03

N observation:

-0.01

Public safety, scale 1–5

0.01

Neighbors, scale 1–5

Environment, scale 1–5

0.05

Job, scale 1–5

-0.02

0.05

Health, scale 1–5

Education, scale 1–5

0.08

Standard of living, scale 1–5

Marriage, scale 1–5

0.10

1–5

Scale

Friendships, scale 1–5

Happiness

Dependent variable

**

***

**

**

Sig

0.28

15.02***

906

0.14

-0.01

0.04

-0.05

-0.01

0.08

-0.03

-0.03

0.16

0.10

Beta

1–4

Enjoyment

***

**

***

***

Sig

0.28

12.64***

907

0.06

0.09

-0.01

-0.05

0.05

0.08

0.02

-0.09

0.09

0.03

Beta

1–4

**

**

**

**

Sig

Accomplishment

Note: OLS standardized beta is reported where two-tailed test, *** indicates statistical significance at 1%, ** 5%, and * 1% respectively

Satisfaction

Entire sample

Sample

Table 19 continued

0.40

24.88***

905

0.11

0.09

0.03

-0.06

0.03

0.09

-0.01

-0.05

0.13

0.09

Beta

0–6

Overall quality

***

**

*

***

*

***

***

Sig

326 M. Sing

0.05 0.11

No. of international contacts, scale 0–6

Fluency of English speaking, scale 1–4

Global life

Life domain

% of Families

% of Materialism

Value priority

Housing, scale 1–5

% of Post-materialism

-0.02 -0.05

Living standard, scale 1–5

Wellness

0.05

0.03

0.09

0.04

Average political involvement, scale 1–5

Politicization

0.02

Praying\meditation frequency, scale 1–5

Secularization

0.03

Average access, scale 1–5

Digital access

0.09

-0.01

0.05

Tenure type, 1 = private, 0 = public\subsidized

Recite national anthem, 1 = yes, 0 = no

National proud, scale 1–4

-0.06

-0.03 -0.04

Education, scale 1–6

Income, scale 1–20

Transitional group, 1 = no, 0 = yes

-0.08 -0.03

Beta

OLS estimate

Sex dummy, 1 = male, 0 = female

1–5

Scale

Age, scale 20–69

Happiness

Dependent variable

Household

Identification

Lifestyle

Demographic

Married sample

Sample

Table 20 Determinants of quality of life for married respondents

*

**

**

**

Sig

0.06

-0.08

-0.17

-0.06

0.09

0.05

0.00

–0.05

0.05

0.17

0.05

0.09

0.04

0.05

-0.01

-0.02

0.10

-0.05

Beta

1–4

Enjoyment

**

*

***

**

**

Sig

0.07

-0.06

-0.18

-0.13

0.16

0.09

-0.06

0.14

0.03

0.09

0.11

0.00

0.01

-0.04

0.01

-0.04

0.06

-0.06

Beta

1–4

*

**

*

***

**

***

*

***

Sig

Accomplishment

0.08

-0.05

-0.19

-0.09

0.16

0.07

-0.02

0.08

0.06

0.12

0.11

0.02

0.02

0.00

-0.02

-0.03

0.06

-0.06

Beta

0–6

Overall quality

*

**

***

**

***

***

*

Sig

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong 327

123

123 0.13 0.13

Family life, scale 1–5

Leisure, scale 1–5 11.93*** 0.36

F statistics:

R2

561

0.10

Environment, scale 1–5

N observations:

-0.05

0.04

Neighbors, scale 1–5

Public safety, scale 1–5

0.04

Job, scale 1–5

***

**

**

-0.06

-0.04

0.01

Education, scale 1–5

Health, scale 1–5

0.16

0.05

0.07

0.31

11.06***

562

0.15

-0.04

0.03

-0.06

0.00

0.09

-0.09

0.16

Standard of living, scale 1–5

***

Beta

0.04

Sig

0.14

Beta

OLS estimate

1–4

Friendships, scale 1–5

1–5

Scale

Enjoyment

Marriage, scale 1–5

Happiness

Dependent variable

***

*

**

***

***

Sig

0.31

11.41***

562

0.11

0.09

0.02

0.00

0.09

0.06

-0.02

-0.09

0.00

0.12

-0.02

Beta

1–4

**

*

**

**

**

Sig

Accomplishment

Note: OLS standardized beta is reported where two-tailed test. *** indicates statistical significance at 1%, ** 5%, and * 1% respectively

Satisfaction

Married sample

Sample

Table 20 continued

0.46

21.77***

561

0.12

0.08

0.07

-0.06

0.06

0.06

-0.06

-0.08

0.07

0.21

0.04

Beta

0–6

Overall quality

***

*

*

*

**

*

***

Sig

328 M. Sing

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong

329

priorities are ranked second and eighth in terms of explanatory power for enjoyment. The negative estimates imply that the pursuit of these values decreases the life enjoyment of Hong Kong people. The other most powerful predictors arranged in descending order of importance are satisfaction with standard of living (0.16), with leisure (0.14), age (0.14), satisfaction with friendship (0.10), international contacts (0.10), satisfaction with job (0.08), with housing (0.07), and national pride (0.07). The aforementioned rankings indicate that greater access to digital life, less emphasis on materialistic values, and more satisfaction with one’s standard of living and with leisure are the most crucial determinants for enjoyment. Concerning accomplishment, the perceived living standard is the most powerful predictor (0.16), followed by age (0.15) and percentage of materialistic items mentioned as an important value (-0.13). Again, the negative estimate for the last item implies a higher emphasis on materialistic values will decrease feelings of accomplishment. The remaining relatively powerful predictors, arranged in descending power of explanation, are political involvement (0.11), digital access (0.1), satisfaction with housing (0.1), with standard of living (0.09), with family life (0.09), with health (-0.09), with job (0.08), MALE OR FEMALE? gender (-0.08), fluency of spoken English (0.08) and praying (-.07). These rankings reveal that a stronger perceived living standard, older age, less emphasis on materialistic terms and higher political involvement count most in shaping accomplishment. For overall life quality, the most powerful explanatory variables are perceived living standard (0.17), followed by percentage of materialistic items mentioned as an important value (-0.14) and access to digital life (0.14). The other significant items are satisfaction with standard of living (0.12), with housing (0.12), with leisure (0.11), frequencies of international contacts (0.10), satisfaction with friendships (0.09), with one’s job (0.09), with family life (0.09), political involvement (0.09), private tenure household (0.09), OLDER OR YOUNGER? age (0.09), and satisfaction with health (-0.05). Overall, a better perceived living standard, less emphasis on materialistic items, and a higher access to digital life will raise the life quality. What is also remarkable is that level of secularization, national identification, satisfaction with education, with neighbors, and with the environment has no explanatory power at all to elucidate quality of life in Hong Kong. Table 20 reports the estimates for the sample of married respondents, and it shows some divergence from the entire sample. After adding demographic factors, lifestyle variables, value priorities, and domain assessments to the regression analysis, the total variance explained for the overall quality of life is 46%, and other results are elaborated further below: Some special features of this sample are worthy of our attention. First, the percentage of materialistic items mentioned as an important value priority is ranked the most powerful predictor for enjoyment (-0.17) and accomplishment (-0.18), and ranked the second most important predictor for overall quality of life (-0.19). These findings suggest that greater emphasis on materialistic values does not bode well for a subjective sense of enjoyment, accomplishment, and life quality among the married. Second, satisfaction with marriage is one of the most powerful explanatory variables explaining happiness, enjoyment, accomplishment, and life quality. It is the variable with the greatest effect on overall life quality (.21) and happiness (0.14), the third greatest on enjoyment (0.16) and the fifth greatest on accomplishment (0.12). Third, besides satisfaction with marriage, satisfaction with leisure is the only independent variable out of twenty-eight that can improve overall quality of life and its three components, happiness,

123

330

M. Sing

enjoyment, and accomplishment. Fourth, digital access among married people is tied to greater enjoyment (0.17). accomplishment (0.09), and overall life quality (0.12), as it is among the general sample. Finally, for married respondents, the most powerful predictors for quality of life when arranged in descending order of importance are satisfaction with marriage (0.21), percentage of materialistic items perceived as an important value (-0.19), perceived living standard (0.16), digital access (0.12), and satisfaction with leisure (0.12). 8.1 Overall Discussion on Determinants of Subjective Wellbeing Based on the aforementioned data, several interesting observations can be made on determinants of subjective wellbeing. First, when explaining happiness, enjoyment, accomplishment, and overall quality of life for the entire sample, the socio-demographic factors of education and household income are unexpectedly irrelevant. Given that enormous emphasis has been laid by Hong Kong people on education and household income, under the assumption that the subjective wellbeing will be enhanced as a result, this has debunked some myths about Hong Kong people. Second, the strongest explanatory variables for both the entire sample and the sample of married people are ‘‘perceived standard of living’’ and ‘‘satisfaction with marriage.’’ Since ‘‘perceived standard of living’’ means different things to different people and can cover materialistic, post-materialistic and familial values, it is of little use in drawing any practical conclusions. However, for both the entire sample and the sample of married respondents, the second most important item in terms of explanatory power is the ‘‘percentage of materialistic items mentioned as an important value,’’ which shows a negative beta value. In short, the greater the emphasis that Hong Kong people lay on materialistic concerns, the worse their quality of life. When other relatively powerful explanatory variables are included, such as satisfaction with leisure and friendship, these variables further corroborate the finding that the more the respondents feel satisfied with non-materialistic items, the higher the overall quality of life they will feel. Third, public satisfaction with the condition of the environment, social welfare system, and democratic system are found to be statistically insignificant in shaping the overall quality of life or its components of happiness, enjoyment, and accomplishment. This should partially explain why Hong Kong lacks sustained and large-scale rallies for further democratization, for greater social welfare, or for a better environment.

9 Conclusion The rapid and continuous economic development of the former British colony of Hong Kong has transformed the area from a sordid fishing village and industrial center to a postindustrial, modern financial hub of the Asian-Pacific region. To sustain economic growth, the government and private enterprise has encouraged further globalization and digitalization of Hong Kong. As unfolded above, digital access has become a most important ingredient shaping enjoyment, accomplishment, and overall life quality in Hong Kong. Thus how to maintain and advance further digitalization is a question of importance not only for Hong Kong’s economy but also the quality of life of its people.

123

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong

331

Furthermore, the Westernization and decolonization of Hong Kong has induced many Hong Kong people to study, migrate, or do business abroad. Their return to Hong Kong after its handover to China has contributed to a high level of global life, which is positive for peoples’ happiness, enjoyment, and overall life quality. Last, but not least, Beijing’s constant top-down dampening of the Hong Kong people’s campaigns for greater democracy have stalled its tortuous democratization. Continuous opposition from Beijing to this process has led to a pervasive sense of political powerlessness among Hong Kong people in shaping public policies (Sing 2004). Its citizens have thus been driven to pursue materialistic, familial, or post-materialistic priorities for bettering their life quality. Hong Kong’s incomplete democratization has in part explained the lack of relationship between participation in democracy movements and the people’s life quality. Generally speaking, despite rapid and nearly continuous socioeconomic development since the 1960s, the majority of Hong Kong people do not feel content with their quality of life. Only a minority of them feel satisfied with their happiness, enjoyment, achievement, and overall life quality. The overall quality of life that Hong Kong people experience does not match the high level of objective indicators of development under which they live as elaborated in Section I. Finally, people have been most satisfied with their interpersonal life sphere but less satisfied with the public life sphere, material life sphere, and personal life sphere. The following practical and theoretical implications can be drawn from this study. 9.1 Practical Implications of this Research for Hong Kong Several implications can be derived from this research for promoting subjective wellbeing in Hong Kong: This research has shown that Hong Kong people have a great desire for materialistic attainment, but an emphasis on those concerns bodes ill for enjoyment, accomplishment, and overall quality of life. Therefore, if the primary goal of individuals is to raise their subjective wellbeing, they should place greater emphasis on non-materialistic concerns such as leisure, a satisfying marital relationship, and friendship. Among the non-materialistic items, those pertaining to public life, i.e. environment, social welfare system, and democratic system, are irrelevant to overall quality of life, happiness, enjoyment, and accomplishment. Leaders who strive to promote the environment, democracy, and social welfare are thus confronted with the challenge of showing Hong Kong people how these public concerns can improve their subjective wellbeing. Also, interestingly, ‘‘access to electronic communication technologies’’ or digital access has the surprising distinction of being the most important factor in shaping enjoyment, and the second most important factor influencing overall quality of life. Increasingly, Hong Kong people tend to live a digital life by using many kinds of information and communication technologies. In this digital world that is increasingly connected by all kinds of seamless electronic communication technologies, it is striking to see the relative explanatory power of this item on three major subjective senses of wellbeing. It is also important to note the correlation between digital access and age, education, and income are -0.62, 0.63 and 0.33, respectively, indicating that younger, more educated, and richer people tend to have greater access to electronic communication technologies. Hence, in the highly developed metropolis of Hong Kong where the Internet and other communication technologies can be easily utilized, the greater access some groups have to those technologies has contributed to divergent levels of enjoyment.

123

332

M. Sing

To promote the subjective wellbeing of the entire population, steps need to be taken to narrow the digital divide between the rich and poor, young and old, and less- and welleducated. Finally, the variable of perceived ‘‘standard of living’’ has stood out as the single most important explanatory factor for happiness, accomplishment, and quality of life. As the term can denote both materialistic and non-materialistic elements in the Hong Kong context, more research is called for to clarify just what ‘‘standard of living’’ means in the public’s mind. This clarification may effectively help to improve the subjective wellbeing in Hong Kong and elsewhere. 9.2 Theoretical Implications If greater stress on materialistic concerns lowers enjoyment, accomplishment, and quality of life, why do Hong Kong people tend to stress materialistic rather than post-materialistic concerns? One possible way to explain such a seeming paradox is ‘‘aspiration theory’’ (Cheung et al 2002). The theory states that a heavy emphasis on materialistic values raises aspirations to such a high level that they become hard to attain and therefore a heavy materialistic emphasis results in more dissatisfaction. A similar finding has been made in research on East-Asian happiness (Ng 2002), which shows that those who stress extrinsic goals, such as wealth, more than intrinsic goals, such as personal development and community, are less likely to feel happiness. The aspiration theory has received indirect support from this research and more effort should be made to put this theory to test. In addition, this study corroborates cross-national research that has found family satisfaction is positively related to life satisfaction, especially in wealthier nations (Oishi et al 1999). There is, however, a paucity of research relating families to the study of quality of life (Shek et al. 2005)14 in the general literature. This paper has found that satisfaction in family life ranked second, fifth, and eighth in terms of explanatory power for explaining happiness, accomplishment, and quality of life, respectively. More vigorous scrutiny is needed to understand precisely which dimensions of family life really matter for public satisfaction with families, and in turn happiness, accomplishment, and their quality of life. Also, cross-national research needs to be conducted to show whether familism exists to different degrees in Asian and non-Asian societies, and if so, the implications on the quality of people’s subjective wellbeing. Moreover, the finding of both this research and other international studies that married couples have greater quality of life than singles (Frey and Stutzer 2002; Bjornskov et al. 2006; Diener et al. 2003; Ng 2002) is further evidence that the relationship between families and subjective wellbeing is worth exploring. More studies should therefore be made to decipher the effects various dimensions of families have on subjective wellbeing. Finally, some literature has portrayed religious belief as playing an important role in people’s quality of life (Ng 2002; Shek et al. 2005), yet there is a lack of detailed crosscultural studies about the effects either religion or spirituality has on quality of life. In this research, Asian religions have yielded no causal impact on quality of life. More studies need to be conducted to look deeper into the role of religions in Asia and elsewhere on quality of life.

14 The following recent literature on Hong Kong’s quality of life has not studied in details impact of family life on quality of life. See Estes (2005), Siu and Shek (2005), Chan et al. (2005), Wan and Law (2005), Wong (2005).

123

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong

333

Appendix I Regression variables coding Demographic

Lifestyle Identification

Sex dummy, 1 = male, 0 = female Age, range 20–69 Education, scale 1–6 Income, scale 1–20

Ethnic liking

Self, 1 = HongKonger, 0 = otherwise Transitional group, 1 = no, 0 = yes National proud, scale 1–4 Recite national Anthem, 1 = yes, 0 = no No. of family members, range 1–9 Tenure type, 1 = private, 0 = public\subsidized How many like, range 0–8

Utilities usage

How many use, range 3–7

Digital access

Average access, scale 1–5

Global life

No. of international contacts, range 0–6

Household

Politicization

Fluency of English speaking, scale 1–4 Have religion, 1 = yes, 0 = none Praying\meditation frequency, scale 1–5 Average political involvement, scale 1–5

Wellness Value priority

Living standard, scale 1–5 % Familism

Secularization

% Materialism

% Post materialism

Recoding from ABS F1 Drawing from ABS F2 … from ABS F3_HK … from ABS F8_HK

Recoding from ABS Q17 … from ABS Q19 Reversed coding from ABS Q18 Recoding from ABS Q20 Drawing from ABS Q43 Recoding from ABS Q42 Generated from summing the no. of Asian food (ABS Q41_1 to Q41_11) being liked. Generated from summing the no. of public utilities access (ABS Q1_1 to Q1_7) being mentioned. Reversed coding from ABS Q2_1 to Q2_3, which is the average frequency of digital access. Generated from summing the no. of international contacts (ABS Q3_1 to ABS_7) being mentioned. Drawing from ABS F4 Recoding from ABS F9 Reversed coding from ABS Q23 Reversed coding from ABS Q33_1 and Q33_2, and generated from averaging the frequency of local and national elections involvement (no right to vote is considered as never vote). Reversed coding from ABS Q8 Generated from ABS Q9, reflecting the % of familism items (see Table 14) chosen as important. … reflecting the % of materialism items (see Table 14) chosen as important. … reflecting the % of post-materialism items (see Table 14) chosen as important.

123

334

M. Sing

Appendix continued Demographic

Life satisfaction

Sex dummy, 1 = male, 0 = female Age, range 20–69 Education, scale 1–6 Income, scale 1–20

Recoding from ABS F1 Drawing from ABS F2 … from ABS F3_HK … from ABS F8_HK

Housing, scale 1–5 Friendships, scale 1–5 Marriage, scale 1–5 Standard of living, scale 1–5 Household income, scale 1–5 Health, scale 1–5 Education, scale 1–5 Job, scale 1–5 Neighbors, scale 1–5 Public safety, scale 1–5 Environment, scale 1–5 Welfare system, scale 1–5 Democratic system, scale 1–5 Family life, scale 1–5 Leisure, scale 1–5 Spiritual life, scale 1–5

Reversed coding from ABS Q7a … from ABS Q7b … from ABS Q7c … from ABS Q7d … from ABS Q7e … from ABS Q7f … from ABS Q7g … from ABS Q7h … from ABS Q7i … from ABS Q7j … from ABS Q7k … from ABS Q7l … from ABS Q7m … from ABS Q7n … from ABS Q7o … from ABS Q7p

Note: All variables are coded in a positive manner that means a higher score suggested a larger satisfaction\involvement\fluency\numbers\value\percentage

References Bjornskov, C. et al. (2006). Cross-country determinants of life satisfaction: Exploring different determinants across groups in society. Political Economy and Public Policy Series PEPP/21, STICERD, LSE. Chan, Y. K., Kwan, C. C., & Shek, T. L. D. (2005). Quality of life in Hong Kong: The CUHK Hong Kong quality of life index. Social Indicators Research, 71, 259–289. Cheung, C. K., et al. (2002). Postmodern and modern value orientations and life satisfaction among Hong Kong Chinese. Social Behavior and Personality, 30(7), 697–708. Diener, E., et al. (2003). Are Scandinavians happier than Asian? Issues in comparing nations on subjective well-being. In F. Columbus (Ed.), Politics and economics of Asia. New York: Nov Science Publishers. Estes, R. J. (Ed.). (2005). Social development in Hong Kong: The unfinished agenda. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. Estes, R. J. (2007). Asia and the new century: Challenges and opportunities. Social Indicator Research, 82, 375–410. Frey, B., & Stutzer, A. (2002). Happiness and economics: How the economy and institutions affect wellbeing. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Ma, N. (2007). Political parties and elections. In W. M. Lam, P. L. T. Lui, W. Wong & I. Holliday (Eds.), Contemporary Hong Kong Politics: Governance in the Post-1997 Era. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Ng, Y. K. (2002). The East-Asian happiness gap: Speculating on causes and implication. Pacific Economic Review, 7(1), 51–63. Oishi, S., et al. (1999). Cross-cultural variations in predictors of life satisfaction: Perspectives from needs and values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 980–990.

123

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong

335

Overholt, W. (2004). The Hong Kong legislative election of September 12, 2004—Assessment and Implications. Testimony presented to the Congressional-Executive Commission of China. http://www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/2004/RAND_CT232-1.pdf. Scott, I., & Leung, J. (2004). Dysfunctional elections and political system in Hong Kong. Asian Journal of Political Science, 12(2), 1–30. Shek, D. T. L., et al. (2005). Quality of life in the global context: A Chinese response. Social Indicators Research, 71, 1–10. Sing, M. (2004). Hong Kong’s tortuous democratization: A comparative analysis. London: Routledge Curzon. Sing, M. (2006). The legitimacy problem & democratic reform in Hong Kong. Journal of Contemporary China, 15(48), 517–532. Siu, A., & Shek, D. (2005). Relations between social problem solving and indicators of interpersonal and family well-being among Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong. Social Indicators Research, 71, 517– 539. Sung, Y. W. (1985). Economic growth and structural change in the small open economy of Hong Kong. In V. Corbo, A. O. Krueger & F. Ossa (Eds.), Export-oriented development strategies (pp. 111–154). Colorado: Westview. United Nations, United Nations Development Programme. (2006). Human development report. Reported dated 2006. Wan, P.-S., & Law, K. W. K. (2005). Subjective well-being. In S. Lau et al., (Eds.), Indicators of social development: Hong Kong 2004 (pp. 201–228). Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong Press. Wong, H. (2005). The quality of life of Hong Kong’s poor households in the 1990s: Levels of expenditure, income security and poverty. Social Indicators Research, 71, 411–440. World Bank. (1984). World development report. Reported dated 1984.

123