The Methodology of Poverty in Hong Kong
Hong Kong is the world’s most expensive city according to Mercer’s 2018 cost of living survey. For the poor, how far is Hong Kong the new land of milk and honey?
Joanne Tay
2/18/20192 min read
Glitzy skyline of Hong Kong (Photo: Unsplash)
The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) government has looked to its esteemed expert-led Commission of Poverty to tackle poverty issues since 2005. It declared its fundamental aim is to alleviate but not eradicate poverty in Hong Kong because “poverty eradication is impossible” [1].
Is it really that impossible? For starters, let us consider several definitions of poverty [2].
Monetary approach measures poverty with a monetary indicator, such as income, as a satisfactory proxy of one’s utility.
Capabilities approach and social exclusion concept views poverty vis-à-vis how deprived one is to engage in, respectively, necessary and usual social-cultural activities.
Participatory method addresses poverty by inclusion wherein the poor themselves can solve their own problems.
Using the monetary approach, the Commission set the poverty line at half the median preintervention income by household size. It found that a total of 1.3 million people or 20% of its population fell below the poverty line in 2016 [3]. As little or no income is the pivot, the natural choice of remedy is to strengthen poor people’s incentive to work. And as long as income inequality exists, there will always be people below the median income level – hence essentially “impossible to eradicate poverty”. That said, I am relieved to hear that some constraints on the poor have been loosened such as the controversial bad son statement [4].
Such a rationally cold methodology also ignores the Hong Kong Chinese context. Literature points at the value placed in the daily material and social needs of Hong Kongers (e.g. giving red packet money at celebrations) as well as the bottom-up inclusion of the poor instead of leaving their fate to high-flying experts [5]. To further illustrate – Hong Kong’s dire housing situation of extreme prices for tiny living spaces. What is the point of striving beyond the poverty threshold, only to find that one still cannot live comfortably?
Indeed, it is worth considering the alternative methodologies to provide qualitative policy-relevant information on Hong Kong’s poor. But whether they can truly tackle the root causes of poverty shall be left for discussion on another day.
Moving on to possible politics behind it, let me quote: “China’s leaders were deeply suspicious of the British colonial administration’s social programmes, which they believed were unaffordable and thus a danger to the financial well-being of the HKSAR. At the end of British rule, welfare spending was still under attack from senior Mainland officials.” [6]
One could only wonder if this is a case of protecting its iron rice bowl (铁饭碗) at the expense of the poor – under the pro-liberal or pro-meritocratic guise pushing for the generation of private income that made Hong Kong the land of milk and honey, perhaps?
---
References:
[1] Wong, H. (2015). Is Poverty Eradication Impossible?: A Critique on the Misconceptions of the Hong Kong Government. China Review, 15(2), 147-169.
[2] Ruggeri-Laderchi, C., R. Saith and F. Stewart. (2003). Does it Matter that we do not agree on the Definition of Poverty? A Comparison of Four Approaches. Oxford Development Studies 31(3), 243-274.
[3] Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. (2017). Hong Kong Poverty Situation Report 2016. Census and Statistics Department.
[4] https://www.scmp.com/news/hongkong/ education-community/article/2063272/policy-address-cy-leung-abolishes-controversial
[5] Lau, M., Pantazis, C., Gordon, D., Lai, L., & Su_on, E. (2015). Poverty in Hong Kong. The China Review, 23-58.
[6] Goodstadt, L. F. (2014). Poverty in the midst of affluence: How Hong Kong mismanaged its prosperity. Hong Kong University Press.