Social structure and support networks in Beijing and Hong Kong

Abstract

This study examines personal support networks in Beijing and Hong Kong, based on survey data collected in 2000. It was found that these two Chinese cities, which share a common Confucian cultural heritage, are similar in many aspects of social support. The supportive roles of spouse or partner are prominent and diffuse. Other close relatives are more involved in instrumental than emotional support. Non-kin primary ties specialize in emotional support. Neither extended kin support nor institutional support is significant. Nonetheless, the two cities differ in certain aspects of social support, reflecting their differences in such macro social-structural forces as economic modernization, urbanization and the social organization of work. Compared to the Hong Kong Chinese, the Beijing Chinese are more likely to seek support from close kin or coworkers, but less likely to rely on institutional help. Sources of support in both cities are also affected by the micro social-structural positions people occupy, particularly marital status and household income. It is noted that about 10% of the respondents in both cities reported “no one” to turn to for support. Among the various types of support, emotional comfort is the most difficult to find.

Introduction

This paper compares two Chinese cities, Beijing and Hong Kong, with regard to the composition of people's social support networks. Both social-structural and cultural factors are taken into consideration in analyzing a person's choice of sources for social support, i.e., the kinds of people he/she would turn to for support in times of need or crisis. It should be underscored that the two cities under study belong to “one country” but they represent “two systems” (Kuan and Lau, 2002, So, 2003). Beijing is the capital of China and is a socialist society, while Hong Kong is a special administrative region of China and is a capitalist society. These two Chinese cities share a common heritage of cultural traditions, but they are quite different in social-structure. Comparing the two cities would allow us to have an effective assessment of the impact of social-structure on people's social networks and social support.

Research on personal or ego-centered social networks and their social support functions have become a major topic in social science studies in recent decades (see, for instance, Cohen and Syme, 1985, Finch, 1989, Fischer, 1982, Freeman and Ruan, 1997, Gottlieb, 1981, Hollinger and Haller, 1990, House et al., 1988, Kogovsek et al., 2002, Lai, 2001, Litwak and Szelenyi, 1969, Marsden and Lin, 1982, Newman, 2003, Schweizer et al., 1998, Thoits, 1982, Wellman et al., 1988). It is generally postulated that when an individual is related to others to form a social network, the interpersonal ties and their embedded resources constitute the focal individual's social capital which can help him/her not only for pursuing political or economic goals but also for coping with crises or emergencies (Baron et al., 2000, Bian and Ang, 1997, Levy and Pescosolida, 2002, Lin, 2001, Marsden and Lin, 1982, Thoits, 1992, Thoits, 1995). The question is: who would turn to whom for what kinds of support under what social–cultural conditions?

Sources of support to the focal individual may include a variety of people or institutions, such as spouse, parent, child, sibling, friend, neighbor, colleague, as well as the various kinds of professionals and work organizations. These various sources of support can be broadly classified in terms of close kin (e.g., spouse, children, parents and siblings), extended kin (e.g., uncles and aunts), non-kin primary groups (e.g., friends, neighbors and coworkers) and secondary groups (e.g., professionals, voluntary agencies and government departments). Different sources of support may serve different support functions for the focal individual, such as financial aid, job finding, household assistance, care during sickness, social companionship, emotional comfort, advice on family problems, elderly care and baby sitting (Cohen and Syme, 1985, Thoits, 1982, Vaux, 1988, Veiel and Baumann, 1992). What kinds of support the focal individual obtains from which sources would depend not only on the structural characteristics of his/her personal social network (Laireiter and Baumann, 1992, Marsden, 1987, van der Poel, 1993a, Wellman, 1992), but also on macro social–cultural forces, such as economic modernization, urbanization and cultural orientations (Hollinger and Haller, 1990, Wellman, 1979).

It is commonly postulated that in the course of economic modernization and urbanization, kinship ties are loosened while non-kin relations tend to gain importance in personal social networks (see, for instance, Fischer, 1982, Hollinger and Haller, 1990, Wellman, 1979). It is not only the non-kin primary groups such as friends, colleagues and neighbors, but also the secondary groups such as professionals, voluntary associations and government agencies that would emerge as a major source of support to individuals in times of need or emergencies. It has been explained that increased geographic mobility, the separation of workplace from residence, the growth of professionalism, the expansion of public services and bureaucratic divisions of labor and the increased freedom for people to choose and shape their own social ties are some of the key factors in the changing composition of people's social networks in modern urban societies (Castells, 1976, Fischer, 1976, Hollinger and Haller, 1990, Kornhauser, 1968, Nisbet, 1969, Wellman, 1979, Wirth, 1938).

However, the above propositions about changes in sources of social support during economic modernization and urbanization have yet to be confirmed and specified. Findings from recent studies in the West have revealed that the importance of kinship ties has not declined (Hollinger and Haller, 1990, Litwak and Szelenyi, 1969, Shorter, 1975, Wellman, 1979). Relatives continue to serve important support functions in personal networks even in many of the highly modernized and urbanized societies in Europe or America. Specifically, close kin appear to be no less, if not more, important than before in providing all kinds of social support, and it is the extended kin that decline in importance. Previous studies in the West have also found that while the role of kin is rather diffuse in supportive relations, non-kin primary groups such as friends and neighbors tend to play an active role in some specialized support functions (Fischer, 1982, van der Poel, 1993a, Wellman and Wortley, 1990). For instance, friends are often turned to for emotional help or social companionship, while neighbors are often asked to help in meeting with some short-term practical needs such as lending a piece of equipment or looking after the house, children or pets. It was, however, discovered that the supportive function of coworkers is marginal and secondary social institutions have yet to be used by people as a major source of support (Burt, 1990, Finch, 1989, Hollinger and Haller, 1990, Wellman and Wortley, 1990).

A question of concern is whether or not the pattern of personal social support networks in Chinese societies today differs from those in many contemporary Western societies. Previous studies on Chinese kinship ties reveal that the family or close kin play a prominent role in social support networks in contemporary Chinese societies including, for instance, Hong Kong (Lau, 1981, Mitchell, 1969), Singapore (Wong and Kuo, 1979), Taiwan (Hsung, 1994, Hsung, 1999), Shanghai (Lai, 2001), Tianjin (Freeman and Ruan, 1997) and the northeastern region of China (Yan, 1996). It should be reported that from a sample survey in 1993 of adult residents in Tianjin, the third largest city (after Shanghai and Beijing) in China, Ruan et al., 1996, Ruan et al., 1997 observed that in Chinese social networks, close kin play a stronger role in instrumental support than in emotional support. Chinese people prefer turning to non-kin such as friends and coworkers when confronting emotional issues. A comparison by Freeman and Ruan (1997) of the Tianjin data with survey findings from eight Western nations, including Austria, Australia, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, the United States and West Germany, confirms that Chinese familial roles are less diffuse than in the West and that they tend to specialize in the provision of instrumental support. It was explained that the relatively weak function of the Chinese family in providing emotional support is probably due to a central feature of Chinese family tradition, i.e., the strict hierarchy of age, sex and generation (King and Bond, 1985, Parish and Whyte, 1978, Yang, 1959). The paternalistic and hierarchical kinship structure in China may discourage the sharing of emotional problems among close relatives (Freeman and Ruan, 1997).

Previous studies on the Chinese Mainland have found evidence of not only cultural influence but also social-structural influence on personal support networks, that is, the influence of the socialist organization. From their 1986 and 1993 surveys of adult residents in the City of Tianjin, Ruan and coworkers found that unlike their counterparts in the West, coworkers in socialist China play an active role in providing both instrumental and emotional support to their colleagues (Ruan, 1993, Ruan et al., 1997). It was suggested that the prominence of coworkers in Chinese social support networks is due to a macro social-structural force, i.e., the work unit system, in socialist China.

In traditional China, the family was a unit of production, distribution and consumption. From cradle to grave, most people worked, lived and played largely with members of their own families (Freedman, 1979, Lang, 1946, Yang, 1959). After the Communist revolution, however, people are no longer confined to their family circles. They have been organized into work units called “danwei” in Chinese. The work unit is officially established and managed. It owns property and is organized around a production, service or administrative function. It is, however, more than an economic enterprise; it carries a wide range of social–political and welfare functions (Bian, 1994, Shaw, 1996). It is a mechanism of social control and also a mechanism of distributing valued resources to individual workers and their families. It assigns work duties and determines wages, and it also provides housing, school, health care, nursery, recreation and consumer goods. Workers and their families usually spend their whole life in the same work unit. It is the place for them to work and make a living, and is also the place for them to play and live with each other. Workers and their families usually reside on the land occupied by the work unit and thus become neighbors (Walder, 1986). The work unit is thus a multifunctional work organization. Under such a system, people tend to develop strong workplace ties and rely on coworkers, most of whom are also their neighbors, for various kinds of support in times of need or emergencies (Ruan, 1993).

The above discussion suggests that cultural and social-structural differences between socialist China and the West might have led to certain differences in the composition of personal support networks. Close kin in both China and the West continue to play an important role in social support networks, but their roles are less diffuse in China than in the West. While friends are important for emotional support in both China and the West, coworkers and neighbors are more important for the Chinese on the Mainland than for the westerners in providing the various support functions.

The introduction of the Open-Door Policy coupled with the marketization and globalization of the economy since 1978 have brought a wide range of social and cultural changes on the Mainland. Socialist China has changed, becoming less and less socialist over the last one to two decades. The entire country is increasingly opening up to world markets and foreign investments and is rapidly undergoing industrial transformation and urban expansion (Choe, 1998, Yeh and Xu, 1996, Yeung, 1998). There has been a marked increase in import–export trades, tourism and many forms of foreign investment, resulting in a substantial growth in the national economy and a marked improvement in people's living standards, especially in the coastal cities (Chow, 2002, Watson, 1992, Yeh and Xu, 1996). Alongside economic accomplishments are changes in community life, a decline of the state sector and the emergence of numerous social problems such as industrial disputes, unemployment and underemployment, environmental degradation, traffic congestion and overcrowding, inadequate care for elderly, crime and corruption and economic inequality between regions, classes and individuals (Bakken, 2000, Barrett and Li, 1999, Bian, 1994, Khan et al., 1999, Solinger, 2002, Yeung, 2000, Zhou, 2000). The above-mentioned studies of personal support networks in China were all conducted during or before the early nineties when the Mainland was in the early stage of social and economic reform. It is important to update our knowledge and ask: how has the composition of personal support networks in China changed after a couple of decades’ rapid economic reform and urban growth? In this paper, we aim to shed some light on this question by reporting on the situation in Beijing and by comparing it with the situation in Hong Kong at the beginning of the 21st Century.

Beijing is the national capital of China. It has been the country's center of socialist economy. Like the rest of the country, Beijing has been undergoing market-led economic reforms and urban development over the last two decades (Lu, 1997, United Nations, 1989, Yeung, 1998). It has rapidly grown to a giant metropolis of about 11.5 million by 2000 and its urban boundary has also been expanding. The market reform has led to a general decline of the state sector and an amazing growth of the private sector, bringing a good deal of economic opportunities but also social ills to city dwellers (Gu and Liu, 2002). It would be interesting to find out in what ways these macro-level structural changes have affected the micro-level interpersonal ties in the city.

Hong Kong is a densely populated Chinese city with about seven million people. It was a British colony for about one and a half centuries until the reclaiming of its sovereignty by China in 1997. It has emerged as a highly modernized commercial and financial center in East Asia, playing a vital role in the global economy (Chiu et al., 1997). Despite the rising awareness of social and environmental problems and the increasing volume of social movements and political conflict (Lau et al., 2003, Leung, 1996), Hong Kong has established itself as a world city, well recognized not only for its laissez-faire economic achievements but also for its urban development and management systems (Yeung, 1998). Studies in the 1960s and 1970s reported that the family played a central role in Hong Kong people's support networks (Lau, 1981, Mitchell, 1969). In this paper, we assess the extent to which nowadays the Hong Kong Chinese still turn to their kin rather than non-kin in times of need or emergencies.

Since (1) Hong Kong and Beijing are both Chinese cities sharing for many centuries the Confucian cultural tradition with a great emphasis on collectivism, paternalism and family ties (Hsu, 1953, King and Bond, 1985, Lang, 1946), but (2) Hong Kong has emerged as a highly modernized world city, much more so than Beijing (Beaverstock et al., 1999, So et al., 2001, Yeung, 1998), we consider it important to find out how the Chinese in these two cities differ in the composition of their social support networks. For instance, as Hong Kong has achieved a higher degree of modernization and urbanization, would the Chinese people there be less likely to rely on kin support, but more likely to count on non-kin or secondary group support in times of need? Comparing two cities with similar cultural traditions, but different degrees of modernization and urbanization can help to shed light on the impact of social-structural change on support network composition.

It should be noted that the two Chinese cities, Hong Kong and Beijing, also differ in other social-structural conditions. While Hong Kong is a highly capitalistic society, Beijing remains basically a socialist city. Like other parts of the socialist China, the multifunctional work unit has been a salient feature of urban life in Beijing for several decades. Although rapid market reforms and privatization in recent years might have led to a decline of the coworker's supportive role on the Chinese Mainland (Lai, 2001, Ruan et al., 1997), a comparison of Beijing with Hong Kong would reflect the impact of work organization on personal social networks in the Chinese cultural context. It is expected that the Beijing Chinese are more likely than the Hong Kong Chinese to turn to their coworkers for support in times of need.

In short, this paper attempts to identify patterns of personal support network by taking into consideration both social structure and culture. By comparing two Chinese cities with a common cultural heritage, we can reveal how social-structural variations – such as economic growth, urban development and organizations of work – may affect people's social support networks.