(1999) Social Development Issues, 20(1), pp.1-11.
The Public Perception of Social Welfare in Hong Kong: Implications for Social Development
Timothy Ka-ying Wong & Chack-kie Wong
Abstract
This study employs James Midgley’s conceptual framework of social welfare, which is grounded on a social development perspective, to systematically examine Hong Kong people’s attitudes toward the condition of social welfare in Hong Kong. Based on the data of a telephone survey, the study finds that behind the remarkable economic progress of Hong Kong, the people there show varying degrees of dissatisfaction with the control of social problems, the fulfillment of human needs, and the maximization of social opportunities. Correlation analysis also indicates that those who are socially disadvantaged are significantly more dissatisfied with all three dimensions of social welfare. Several implications can be drawn from this study. Firstly, economic development does not necessarily promise social well-being. To promote social well-being, a conscious social development approach to welfare that integrates social and economic processes is needed. Secondly, Midgely’s multidimensional conceptual framework is useful to reveal the complexity of the condition of social welfare. Thirdly, the socially disadvantaged groups are usually left behind by economic progress; social development programs should take special care of the needs of these people so as to ensure social equality and justice. Finally, by using an international perspective to study the condition of social welfare in Hong Kong, this study could serve as a basis for cross-national comparisons.
Introduction
The notion of social welfare is central to the concept of social development, which can be defined as “a process of planned social change designed to promote the well-being of the population as a whole in conjunction with a dynamic process of economic development” (Midgley, 1995:25). In simple terms, social development is the promotion of social welfare or social well-being, a condition that is not necessarily guaranteed by mere aggregate economic growth. Theoretically, social welfare provides citizens with a relatively safe environment, overall satisfaction of basic needs and maximized mobility opportunities, so that they can freely develop their potentials, be actively involved in creative activities, and contribute to the society to which they belong (Adriaansens, 1994; Fraser and Gordon, 1994; Midgley, 1995). Social welfare is, therefore, one of the most important concerns of modern society, in which citizens are supposedly endowed with various rights to realize their potentials as social beings (Hill and Fee, 1995; Wong, 1998). Whether the condition of social welfare is good or not deeply affects the full realization of modern citizenship.
As a result of continuous rapid economic growth over the past several decades, the overall living standard of the society of Hong Kong has improved dramatically. Many socioeconomic indicators such as per capita GDP, life expectancy, average education level and average calorie intake have all caught up with or even surpassed those of many developed countries (Patten, 1996:14-15). However, at the same time, the social welfare condition in Hong Kong is often openly criticized by local academics and social welfare professionals for overemphasizing economic growth but failing to ensure social equality, showing insufficient concern and care for the socially disadvantaged groups in particular (Leung, 1995; Chiu, 1996; Ngan, 1997). The development is thus distorted (Midgley, 1995:2-7).
In fact, a quick glance at some of the objective official figures indicates that the recent social development in Hong Kong is rather controversial. For instance, the Gini Coefficient, an important composite measure of income inequality, in the past twenty years has continued to rise, from 0.43 in 1976 to 0.453 in 1986 and to 0.518 in 1996 (Hong Kong Government Census and Statistics Department, various years). Such figures are much worse than those of many developing countries. The government expenditure on social welfare before 1993, including areas of social security, housing, medical care and education, never exceeded one-tenth of Hong Kong’s GDP, while in the West the average social security expenditure alone was 14.1 percent of GDP in the period between 1985-89 (Wong, 1995:206). The comparatively low welfare state spending suggests that Hong Kong has not taken the opportunity offered by a growth economy for a substantial expansion in public welfare. In fact, according to the Hong Kong Council of Social Service’s estimation, there were a total of 250,000 households (15.5 percent of all households) or 650,000 people (11 percent of the population) living in absolute poverty in Hong Kong in 1996 (Ngan, 1997:418). Such a situation clearly shows that the rapid economic development in Hong Kong has not been accompanied by a concomitant level of social development.
In recent years, there have emerged quite a number of local studies on the condition of social welfare in Hong Kong (Lau, 1994; Chan, 1994; Mok, 1994; Leung, 1995; Wong 1995; Yuen, 1997; Ngan, 1997; Lui, 1997; Kwan, 1997).[1] Yet, these studies rarely explored the complex meaning embedded in the concept of social welfare and its relation to social development. In addition, most of them mainly focused on various specific aspects or items of social welfare such as poverty, unemployment, education, public housing, medical care, protection for the elderly, life quality and so on, while lacking a comprehensive, systematic assessment of the whole problem itself. This paper sets to link the concept of social welfare to social development by arguing that social development is the process by which social welfare (well-being) is promoted. As such, it employs the conceptual framework of social welfare extracted from the current western social development literature to examine Hong Kong people’s attitudes toward the condition of local social welfare as well as the impacts of their social and demographic backgrounds on such attitudes. In brief, it is a systematic study of the public perception of social welfare in Hong Kong. Since the public are the only object of social welfare, their perception of social welfare should be an extremely important angle for understanding the problem, especially in the sense that it reveals how people evaluate their own needs in relation to particular social and economic developments. As the study is both conceptual and empirical, it should also serve as a valuable basis on which more comprehensive social welfare measures can be developed and improved. Unless otherwise noted, the data used here are from a telephone survey conducted during October 14-16, 1997.[2]
A Conceptual Framework of Social Welfare
Social welfare is an ambiguous, albeit old, concept carrying different meanings (Midgley, 1995, 1997). In its broadest sense, it means the state of human well-being, while in its narrowest meaning, it only refers to the charitable activities or government social programs for the poor. Between the broadest and the narrowest, Midgley defines the concept in more precise terms, which can be turned into a useful framework for empirical study in the general area of social development. For him, social welfare is a state or condition of human well-being that exists when social problems are managed, when human needs are met, and when social opportunities are maximized. In other words, whether social problems are controlled, individual needs are satisfied, and social mobility opportunities are guaranteed are the three major dimensions by which social welfare is measured and examined (Midgley, 1995:14, 1997:5). The importance of this definition lies not only in its conceptual clarity but also in its direct linkage to social development. According to Midgley, social welfare is not a natural product of economic development, but the result of social development, a planned process in which social well-being is consciously promoted in accordance with economic progress. Hence, the study of social welfare presupposes a social development perspective. Examining the condition of social welfare is identical with assessing the success or failure of social development.
There are other approaches to social welfare, such as the social administration approach, the social philanthropy approach and the social work approach (Midgley, 1995:15-23). The social administration approach seeks to promote people’s welfare by creating governmental social programs that enhance the well-being of citizens through providing a variety of social services (MacPherson, 1982; George, 1988; Jones, 1990; Hefferman, 1992). It is inextricably linked to the contemporary welfare state (Walker and Wong, 1996). The social philanthropy approach relies on private donations, voluntary efforts and non-profit organizations to provide social private goods and services to needy people in the form of charity. The social work approach is an organized approach for promoting social welfare and uses professionally qualified personnel to deal with social problems. While all these three approaches for promoting people’s welfare are widely adopted throughout the world, they suffer from various weaknesses. First of all, the three approaches define only certain specific domains of social welfare as their focus of promotion, such as by providing individuals with goods or services or by treating or rehabilitating them, and lack a wholistic approach to the issue. The social philanthropy and social work approaches also only cater to needy individuals; they fail to seek to enhance the well-being of the whole population. Furthermore, all three approaches are primarily concerned with maintaining adequate levels of welfare instead of treating the promotion of social welfare as a developmental process (Midgley, 1995:23).
In contrast, Midgley’s conceptual framework is more wholistic and developmental. In his conceptual framework, control of social problems focuses on social members’ living environment; satisfaction of needs on their healthy existence; and maximization of social mobility opportunities on the space for the development and realization of their potentials and talents. Altogether these three aspects constitute the basic framework for human beings to maintain their well-being, and none of them can be sacrificed. The framework is thus wholistic. Moreover, as pointed out earlier, Midgley approaches social welfare from the perspective of social development in conjunction with the dynamic process of economic development. Hence, social welfare is viewed as developmental instead of static, since social development constantly pushes for improvement in social welfare for the population as a whole.
In view of all the above merits, this study chooses to employ Midgley’s definition of social welfare as its conceptual basis to examine the public assessment of social welfare in Hong Kong. In other words, the study focuses on Hong Kong people’s attitudes toward the condition of social problems, satisfaction of needs and social mobility opportunities in Hong Kong and, on this basis, sketches the general picture of their perception of social welfare in relation to Hong Kong’s social development. It is, however, noteworthy that when constructing measurement indicators for the definition, reference to other scholars’ studies is also taken.
Control of Social Problems
Regarding the control of social problems, we asked the respondents about three aspects: poverty, crime and public safety, and unemployment, and the results are listed in Table 1. These three aspects of social problems directly threaten individual citizens’ physical existence and the successful management of them is certainly the basis on which citizens pursue their individuality and well-being. They are also the aspects most often covered in social welfare or social problem studies (Midgley, 1997; Kwan, 1997; Dahrendorf, 1994; Chan, 1994; Townsend, 1993).
(Table 1 here)
Poverty
The respondents were asked to give their opinions on the seriousness of poverty, the seriousness of the polarization between the poor and the rich, and the principal cause of poverty. As Table 1 shows, 78 percent of the respondents thought that the problem of poor/rich polarization in Hong Kong is serious or very serious, while only 16.2 percent thought the opposite; 60.9 percent of the respondents thought the problem of poverty in Hong Kong is serious or very serious, while 31.6 percent thought otherwise. These two sets of figures indicate that the majority of Hong Kong people affirm the seriousness of the two respective problems, especially the problem of poor/rich polarization. Such affirmation is ironic considering Hong Kong’s rapid economic growth in recent years. It shows Hong Kong people feel that economic and social developments are not harmonized and that the benefits of economic progress do not reach the population as a whole.
Regarding the principal cause of poverty, 14.9 percent of the respondents answered that it is the person himself/herself who is responsible for his/her own poverty, while 59.6 percent answered that it is society. As social openness and hard-work have long been considered to be the major determinants of social mobility in Hong Kong (Tsang, 1992; Lau and Kuan, 1988), the findings witness a fundamental change in the public perception of the matter in recent years. Rapid economic development has not enhanced, but reduced, social mobility. If this negative turn remains unchanged or even continues to deepen, it may generate a great deal of social discontent among the public in the near future, which will surely set back economic development.
Crime and Public Safety
The respondents were asked to assess the seriousness of the crime problem both in Hong Kong as a whole and in the local district in which they live, as well as the adequacy of public safety. The differentiation between the whole of Hong Kong and the local district in which the respondents live aims to gauge the possible variations in the subjective perception of crime in individual local districts vis-à-vis the larger society of Hong Kong. The question of public safety focuses on how the Hong Kong public evaluates the government’s ability to maintain public order and safety. As Table 1 shows, 37.1 percent of the respondents thought that the existing crime problem in Hong Kong as a whole is serious or very serious, while 56.9 percent thought otherwise. On the other hand, only 14.8 percent of the respondents thought that the existing crime problem in the district in which they live is serious or very serious, while 81.3 percent thought otherwise. In addition, 30 percent of the respondents answered that the existing public safety is inadequate or very inadequate, while 62.9 percent answered the opposite. Obviously, Hong Kong people are quite concerned with the seriousness of the crime problem and the condition of public safety in Hong Kong as a whole, but much less so with the seriousness of the crime problem of the district in which they live. The difference is perhaps due to the fact that the frequency of crime occurrences in the whole of Hong Kong must be far higher than that in any single local district, thereby easily producing some form of perceptual disparity. Anyway, in so far as the general public perception is concerned, the public safety in Hong Kong is to some extent alarming and should be improved so as to be in line with its economic progress.