4.7 Article

Subjective well-being in China, 2005-2010: The role of relative income, gender, and location

期刊

CHINA ECONOMIC REVIEW
卷 48, 期 -, 页码 83-101

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.chieco.2015.12.010

关键词

Happiness; Inequality; Poverty; Unemployment; Well-being

资金

  1. The China Model: Implications of the Contemporary Rise of China (MOHE High-Impact Research Grant) project [UMC/625/1/HIR/MOHE/ASH/03]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We use data from two rounds of the Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS) to study the determinants of subjective well-being in China over the period 2005-2010 during which self-reported happiness scores show an increase across all income groups. Ordered probit regression analysis of well-being reveals large influence of gender, rural residency, and household income. After controlling for demographic attributes, health status, unemployment status, number of children, agricultural hukou (household registration identity) and educational attainment, household assets, the influence of past and future income, and province dummies, we find that women, urban residents, and people with higher income are happier in China. More schooling, better health, and being employed are positively and significantly correlated with well-being. Sub-sample analysis reveals that the rich only care about relative income whereas the effect of absolute income dominates in case of the poorer section. The influence of absolute income is larger among women compared to men and in turn explains why women, despite being poorer, are happier in China, conditional on socioeconomic differences. On the other hand, rural residents are poorer than urban residents so that conditional on having the same income, there is no rural-urban happiness gap. Our results suggest that while further decline in poverty will enhance well-being in China, policies that reduce rural-urban and gender inequalities are also likely to boost well-being. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据