4.6 Article

A Dissatisfied Generation? An Age-Period-Cohort Analysis of the Political Satisfaction of Youth in Hong Kong from 1997 to 2014

Journal

SOCIAL INDICATORS RESEARCH
Volume 130, Issue 1, Pages 253-276

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11205-015-1175-3

Keywords

Age-Period-Cohort analysis; Youth; Political satisfaction; Hong Kong

Funding

  1. Public Policy Research Funding Scheme of the Central Policy Unit, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region [2015.A4.011.15C]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

For this study, a comprehensive test was conducted on the net effects of age and cohort on political satisfaction in Hong Kong. We use a newly developed methodology of Age-Period-Cohort analysis known as the Cross-Classified Random Effects Model and a pooled dataset of repeated cross-sectional surveys from 1997 to 2014. The findings reveal a U-shaped relationship between age and political satisfaction, in which the level of satisfaction of the youth is between that of the middle-aged and elderly, while the middle-aged express the least satisfaction and the elderly have the highest level of satisfaction. However, cohort effects are relatively weak. There is no evidence that later cohorts are less satisfied than earlier cohorts. These results indicate that the new generation is more politically dissatisfied due to their age rather than their cohort. We also find that period effects interact with age and cohort effects. The recent decline in the political satisfaction of 20-year-olds and of the cohort born in 1986 or later is more pronounced than that of older people and earlier birth cohorts. Under the rule of the current Chief Executive, young people were found to be much more dissatisfied than older people. The rise in the price of housing in recent years has also sharpened the differences in political satisfaction between those of different ages and cohorts.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available