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

1. Social Quality in Hong Kong: Who cares? Which quality? Raymond K H CHAN City University of Hong Kong

2. Social Quality ‘the extent to which people are able to participate in the social and economic life and development of their communities under conditions which enhance their wellbeing and individual potential’ (van der Maesen & Walker, 2005:11-12) Domains and Sub-domains of Social Quality

3. Hong Kong Context • Centralized administrative state with limited democratic participation but supplemented with many consultative committees • Faith in free market and liberalism • High level of economic and ‘social’ development • Service economy • Ethnic Chinese dominated society though claimed to be an international city • Conservative Confucian cultures on family and individual roles

4. Socio-economic Security • Satisfactory performance • Relatively low unemployment rate and reasonable income to the majority • Situation for the vulnerable labor groups – low skill, low education, low income, middle-aged • Elementary worker: 496,800 (1995)  627,100 (2005), i.e. 18% of the workforce • Low income workers: increased by 48.7% from 1995 to 2005 • Casual worker: 2.4% / Part time worker: 5.3% of the total workforce • Flexible labor market emphasized with lesser employment protection • Their livelihood protected by the heavily subsidized public housing (half of the population living in subsidized housing), health and education services through taxation, at a living standard comparable to lower class

5. Social Inclusion • Access to housing basically maintained, though family applicants have to wait for 2 years on average for PRH • Caring and housing for elderly is a problem (limited caring institution, lack of retirement protection, no public health insurance scheme) • Majority of Hong Kong people have citizenship and therefore access to public services • Majority of them have the right to vote, but only 60% register and among them less than 60% did vote which reflects a lack of interest / trust on the political system • Ethnic minority (esp. South / Southeast Asians) living condition received more attention in recent years • Lacking concept of social citizenship (responsibilities > rights) though more services are enjoyed on the basis of citizenship

6. Social Empowerment • Access to education is satisfactory except higher education • Access to information is satisfactory but problem of digital divide is there • No excessive control on rally, demonstration, public meetings • Low participation in trade union and social organizations • Political system still highly centralized with limited democracy • No effective mediating organizations that helps to integrate different parts together vertically

7. Social Cohesion • A growing sense of attachment and local identity since mid-1980s • Social tension and political crisis since 1997 • Low level of generalized trust and low level of social participation • More contend with their family and peer networks • Might sponsor the idea of collectivism and social responsibility but do not have proportional actions

8. Performances of Social Cohesion Source: Chan & Chan, 2006: 640 Note: score above 5.5 represents a satisfactory level

9. Who care? Which quality? • More concern on socio-economic security than the others, though more sensitive to the issues -- social cohesion, inclusion and participation • A highly divided and stratified society • Neo-liberalism  reform the policy from mere protection to productivist

10. Social Risk Management Strategy • Lacking a collective orientation and preference to individual / family > collective / public sector • Support a traditional / residual welfare orientation as risk management strategies • Support for private account > social account • Welfare system sustainable as long as individual can sustain • No strong sense of ‘social’