IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v10y2023i1d10.1057_s41599-023-01755-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Young people’s perceptions of the challenges and opportunities during the Mainland China–Hong Kong convergence

Author

Listed:
  • T. Wing Lo

    (Caritas Institute of Higher Education)

  • Gloria Hongyee Chan

    (City University of Hong Kong)

  • Gabriel Kwun Wa Lee

    (City University of Hong Kong)

  • Xin Guan

    (City University of Hong Kong)

  • Sharon Ingrid Kwok

    (Western Sydney University)

Abstract

Since the handover of the sovereignty of Hong Kong from Britain to China in 1997, convergence between Mainland China and Hong Kong has gradually emerged. During this process, young people have engaged in demonstrations to express their dissatisfaction with government policies and limited socio-economic progression. However, the underlying reasons for their dissatisfaction have not been fully investigated. This study investigates their perceived challenges and opportunities during the convergence, with the objective of identifying the factors affecting the Mainland China–Hong Kong convergence and examining young people’s perceived challenges and opportunities during the convergence. Mixed research methods of focus groups and a survey were adopted. Ten focus groups with 83 participants were conducted to collect qualitative data on the factors relating to convergence. Based on the qualitative data, a questionnaire was constructed to investigate young people’s perceived challenges and opportunities during the convergence, using a sample of 1253 young people. Ordinary least-squares regression was applied to analyse the relationships among identified factors. The study found that Hong Kong’s youth tended to regard the Mainland China–Hong Kong convergence as an opportunity for socio-economic progression, and they identified three challenges during the convergence. It also revealed that young people’s higher education, perceived housing challenges, and perceived socio-economic challenges are negatively related to the convergence, whereas their perceived challenges associated with entrepreneurship and innovation are positively related to the convergence. The development of more well-balanced and mutually beneficial policies that satisfy the needs of young people will lead to a higher acceptance of the convergence. As such, young people will be more willing to embrace the opportunities and face the challenges brought about by the convergence, resulting in a more harmonious society and socio-economic progression.

Suggested Citation

  • T. Wing Lo & Gloria Hongyee Chan & Gabriel Kwun Wa Lee & Xin Guan & Sharon Ingrid Kwok, 2023. "Young people’s perceptions of the challenges and opportunities during the Mainland China–Hong Kong convergence," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-14, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:10:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-023-01755-2
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-023-01755-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-023-01755-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-023-01755-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bjørnskov, Christian & Dreher, Axel & Fischer, Justina A.V. & Schnellenbach, Jan & Gehring, Kai, 2013. "Inequality and happiness: When perceived social mobility and economic reality do not match," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 75-92.
    2. Charles Ka Yui Leung & Joe Cho Yiu Ng & Edward Chi Ho Tang, 2020. "Why is the Hong Kong housing market unaffordable? Some stylized facts and estimations," ISER Discussion Paper 1081, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    3. Alesina, Alberto & Di Tella, Rafael & MacCulloch, Robert, 2004. "Inequality and happiness: are Europeans and Americans different?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(9-10), pages 2009-2042, August.
    4. Jing Li, Victor, 2016. "Housing Policies in Hong Kong, China and the People’s Republic of China," ADBI Working Papers 566, Asian Development Bank Institute.
    5. Stephen Machin & Kjell G. Salvanes & Panu Pelkonen, 2012. "Education And Mobility," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 10(2), pages 417-450, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Clark, Andrew E. & D'Ambrosio, Conchita, 2014. "Attitudes to Income Inequality: Experimental and Survey Evidence," IZA Discussion Papers 8136, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Martin Schröder, 2018. "Income Inequality and Life Satisfaction: Unrelated Between Countries, Associated Within Countries Over Time," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 1021-1043, April.
    3. Bjørnskov, Christian & Dreher, Axel & Fischer, Justina A.V. & Schnellenbach, Jan & Gehring, Kai, 2013. "Inequality and happiness: When perceived social mobility and economic reality do not match," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 75-92.
    4. Milovanska-Farrington, Stefani & Farrington, Stephen, 2021. "Happiness, Domains of Life Satisfaction, Perceptions, and Valuation Differences Across Genders," IZA Discussion Papers 14270, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Long Yang & Haiyang Lu & Meng Li, 2023. "Multidimensional Inequality and Subjective Well-Being in China: A Generalized Ordered Logit Model Analysis," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 165(3), pages 1021-1052, February.
    6. AMENDOLA, Adalgiso & DELL'ANNO, Roberto & PARISI, Lavinia, 2015. "Happiness, Inequality and Relative Concerns in European Countries," CELPE Discussion Papers 136, CELPE - CEnter for Labor and Political Economics, University of Salerno, Italy.
    7. Justina A.V. Fischer & Benno Torgler, 2013. "Do Positional Concerns Destroy Social Capital: Evidence From 26 Countries," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(2), pages 1542-1565, April.
    8. Adam Okulicz-Kozaryn & Joan Maya Mazelis, 2017. "More Unequal in Income, More Unequal in Wellbeing," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 132(3), pages 953-975, July.
    9. Yongwei Chen & Dahai Fu & Xinyue Ye, 2021. "Income comparison and happiness: The role of fair income distribution," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 41-63, March.
    10. Gehring, Kai, 2013. "Who Benefits from Economic Freedom? Unraveling the Effect of Economic Freedom on Subjective Well-Being," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 74-90.
    11. Teresa María García Muñoz & Juliette Milgram Baleix & Omar Odeh Odeh, 2022. "System Justification Beliefs and Life Satisfaction. The role of inequality aversion and support for redistribution," ThE Papers 22/15, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    12. Antonino Callea & Dalila De Rosa & Giovanni Ferri & Francesca Lipari & Marco Costanzi, 2022. "Can Emotional Intelligence promote Individual Wellbeing and protect from perceptions' traps?," CERBE Working Papers wpC39, CERBE Center for Relationship Banking and Economics.
    13. Jesper Rözer & Gerbert Kraaykamp, 2013. "Income Inequality and Subjective Well-being: A Cross-National Study on the Conditional Effects of Individual and National Characteristics," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 113(3), pages 1009-1023, September.
    14. Sibylle Puntscher & Janette Walde & Gottfried Tappeiner, 2016. "Do methodical traps lead to wrong development strategies for welfare? A multilevel approach considering heterogeneity across industrialized and developing countries," Working Papers 2016-01, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    15. Stefani Milovanska-Farrington & Stephen Farrington, 2021. "Happiness, Domains of Life Satisfaction, Perceptions, and Valuation Differences across Genders," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 1128, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    16. Knight, John & Gunatilaka, Ramani, 2022. "Income inequality and happiness: Which inequalities matter in China?," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    17. John Knight & Ramani Gunatilaka, 2020. "Income inequality and happiness: perceived or actual, widely or narrowly defined, fair or unfair, self- or community-centred inequality?," Economics Series Working Papers 922, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    18. Lewis Davis, 2019. "Growth, Inequality and Tunnel Effects: A Formal Mode," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 1103-1119, April.
    19. Florian Dorn & Christoph Schinke, 2018. "Top income shares in OECD countries: The role of government ideology and globalisation," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(9), pages 2491-2527, September.
    20. Jesper Rözer & Bram Lancee & Beate Volker, 2022. "Keeping Up or Giving Up? Income Inequality and Materialism in Europe and the United States," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 159(2), pages 647-666, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:10:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-023-01755-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.