Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Income Inequality and Political Participation: A District-Level Analysis of Hong Kong Elections

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Income inequality has long been suggested as a crucial factor in determining political participation. This study focuses on the case of Hong Kong, a city with notoriously high level of inequality. To examine the effect of inequality on participation, we construct a novel District Income Inequality dataset that estimates inequality at the local district level, providing a more nuanced and accurate analysis of the level of inequality experienced by individuals on a daily basis, instead of the region-wide situation. By focusing on the election-to-election change in district-level inequality, it is found that inequality depresses participation in legislative elections. The results are also robust at the individual-level, with survey data demonstrating that people living in districts with higher inequality were less likely to vote.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The underlying data used in this study (DII) will be deposited on the authors’ personal website upon publication of the study.

Notes

  1. District Council elections are not included in the analysis below.

  2. In the 2016 survey a more fine-grained classification was used (e.g., the < 6000 group became < 2000, 2000–3999, and 4000–5999). The same adjustment method is applied.

  3. Using 1.5 as the adjustment weight instead will return substantively similar results (available upon request).

  4. In District Council elections, some districts might have more contested elections with higher turnout; others might not have an election due to the lack of competition.

  5. Most districts have one polling station. Figures for districts with more than one stations are calculated manually. No polling station cuts across two districts.

  6. As the census survey cycle is not the same as election cycle, the DII data are matched with their closest legislative elections in the analysis (2001/2003; 2006/2007; 2011/2011; 2016/2015).

  7. Homeownership statistics by district are not available.

  8. The results are largely unchanged if the logged term is used instead.

  9. From a possible of 492. Districts are dropped if the election is uncontested. Districts that have undergone “redistricting” will be treated as a new case as long as the constituency is renamed, which is usually the case if the redistricting is substantial. Minor redistricting is also possible but unfortunately cannot be accounted for here.

  10. The figure is higher for the fixed effects model since it does not exclude districts with non-consecutive data, as in the main models.

  11. Results are similar if a continuous variable is used instead.

  12. Controlling for homeownership has no impact on the results, and its coefficient is not significant.

  13. There are a number of reasons why district Gini would still be significant. For example, the respondent might be unconscious about the implicit effect of inequality (thus not assigning a greater importance to inequality). In addition, respondents were asked to pick three (out of 15; full list in the appendix) most important problems facing Hong Kong. Even if one regards inequality as serious, he/she might have other more pressing concerns (e.g., civil liberties; unemployment) and did not select inequality as one of them. The bottom-line here is that the analysis confirmed that inequality is at least partially responsible for the results.

References

  • Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2000). Participation in heterogeneous communities. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 847–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvaredo, F., Chancel, L., Piketty, T., Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (eds.). (2018). World inequality report 2018. Harvard University Press.

  • Andersen, R., & Fetner, T. (2008). Economic inequality and intolerance: Attitudes toward homosexuality in 35 democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 942–958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. J., & Beramendi, P. (2008). Income, inequality, and electoral participation. In P. Beramendi & C. Anderson (Eds.), Democracy, inequality, and representation: A comparative perspective (pp. 278–311). Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armour, P., Burkhauser, R. V., & Larrimore, J. (2016). Using the Pareto distribution to improve estimates of topcoded earnings. Economic Inquiry, 54(2), 1263–1273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Autor, D. H., Katz, L. F., & Kearney, M. S. (2008). Trends in US wage inequality: Revising the revisionists. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 90(2), 300–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, L. (2008). Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age. Princeton University Press.

  • Brady, HE. (2004). An analytical perspective on participatory inequality and income inequality. Social Inequality, 667–702.

  • Cappelen, A. W., Konow, J., Sørensen, E. Ø., & Tungodden, B. (2013). Just luck: An experimental study of risk-taking and fairness. American Economic Review, 103(4), 1398–1413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, C. P., & Leung, B. (2000). The voting propensity of Hong Kong Christians: Individual disposition, church influence, and the China factor. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 39(3), 297–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chavanne, D. (2016). Redistributive preferences and the dimensionality of self-determination and luck. Review of Behavioral Economics, 3(3–4), 359–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, E. W. (2016). Street politics in a hybrid regime: The diffusion of political activism in post-colonial Hong Kong. The China Quarterly, 226, 383–406. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305741016000394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, S. W., & Lui, T. L. (2004). Testing the global city-social polarisation thesis: Hong Kong since the 1990s. Urban Studies, 41(10), 1863–1888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denton, G. L. (2016). Political behavior within ten Asian countries. In Political participation in Asia: Typologies of political behavior across democratizing states. World Scientific.

  • Devarajan, S., & Ianchovichina, E. (2017). A broken social contract, not high inequality, led to the Arab Spring. Review of Income and Wealth. Online First.

  • Fong, B. C. (2013). State-society conflicts under Hong Kong’s hybrid regime: Governing coalition building and civil society challenges. Asian Survey, 53(5), 854–882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodin, R., & Dryzek, J. (1980). Rational participation: The politics of relative power. British Journal of Political Science, 10(3), 273–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, E. (2011). Patronage as institutional choice: Evidence from Rwanda and Uganda. Comparative Politics, 43(4), 421–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurr, T. R. (1970). Why men rebel. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, J. S., & Pierson, P. (2010). Winner-take-all politics: Public policy, political organization, and the precipitous rise of top incomes in the United States. Politics & Society, 38(2), 152–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hlasny, V., & Verme, P. (2016). Top incomes and the measurement of inequality in Egypt. World Bank Economic Review, 32(2), 428–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho, L. S., Wei, X., & Wong, W. C. (2005). The effect of outward processing trade on wage inequality: The Hong Kong case. Journal of International Economics, 67, 241–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, C., Chang, S., & Yip, P. (2017). Individual-, household-and neighbourhood-level characteristics associated with life satisfaction: A multilevel analysis of a population-based sample from Hong Kong. Urban Studies, 54(16), 3700–3717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, C., Chang, S., Lee, E., & Yip, P. (2015). Geography of suicide in Hong Kong: Spatial patterning, and socioeconomic correlates and inequalities. Social Science & Medicine, 130, 190–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huckfeldt, R. (1983). Social Contexts, Social networks, and urban neighborhoods: Environmental constraints on friendship choice. American Journal of Sociology, 89(3), 651–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65, 19–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasara, K., & Suryanarayan, P. (2015). When do the rich vote less than the poor and why? Explaining turnout inequality across the world. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 613–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleiner, T. (2018). Public opinion polarisation and protest behaviour. European Journal of Political Research, 57, 941–962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, W. M. (2004). Understanding the political culture of Hong Kong: The paradox of activism and depoliticization. M. E. Sharpe.

  • Lawrence, E. D., & Sides, J. (2014). The consequences of political innumeracy. Research & Politics, 1(2), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, F. L., & Chan, J. M. (2008). Making sense of participation: The political culture of pro-democracy demonstrators in Hong Kong. The China Quarterly, 193, 84–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemieux, T. (2006). Increasing residual wage inequality: Composition effects, noisy data, or rising demand for skill? American Economic Review, 96(3), 461–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. (1997). Unequal participation: Democracy’s unresolved dilemma presidential address. American Political Science Review, 91(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindgren, K. O., Oskarsson, S., & Persson, M. (2019). Enhancing electoral equality: Can education compensate for family background differences in voting participation? American Political Science Review, 113(1), 108–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lister, M. (2007). Institutions, inequality and social norms: Explaining variations in participation. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 9(1), 20–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lui, H. K. (2013). Widening income distribution in post-handover Hong Kong. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mahler, V. A. (2002). Exploring the subnational dimension of income inequality: An analysis of the relationship between inequality and electoral turnout in the developed countries. International Studies Quarterly, 46(1), 117–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meltzer, A. H., & Richard, S. F. (1981). A rational theory of the size of government. Journal of Political Economy, 89(5), 914–927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miners, N. (1995). The government and politics of Hong Kong, Fifth Edition (With updated additions for the mid-1990s). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, B. J. (2014). My poor friend: Financial distress in one’s social network, the perceived power of the rich, and support for redistribution. Journal of Politics, 76(1), 126–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, B. J., Johnston, C. D., & Lown, P. L. (2015). False consciousness or class awareness? Local income inequality, personal economic position, and belief in American meritocracy. American Journal of Political Science, 59(2), 326–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, C. (2004). Runaway state building: How political parties shape states in postcommunist Eastern Europe. World Politics, 56(4), 520–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otero-Bahamon, S. (2019). Subnational inequality in Latin America: Empirical and theoretical implications of moving beyond interpersonal inequality. Studies in Comparative International Development, 54, 185–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, B., & Uslaner, E. M. (2005). All for all: Equality, corruption, and social trust. World Politics, 58(1), 41–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solt, F. (2008). Economic inequality and democratic political engagement. American Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 48–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solt, F. (2010). Does economic inequality depress electoral participation? Testing the Schattschneider Hypothesis. Political Behavior, 32(2), 285–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solt, F. (2015). Economic inequality and nonviolent protest. Social Science Quarterly, 96(5), 1314–1327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solt, F., Hu, Y., Hudson, K., Song, J., & Yu, D. E. (2017). Economic inequality and class consciousness. Journal of Politics, 79(3), 1079–1083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stockemer, D. (2017). What affects voter turnout? A review article/meta-analysis of aggregate research. Government and Opposition, 52(4), 698–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stockemer, D., & Scruggs, L. (2012). Income inequality, development and electoral turnout–New evidence on a burgeoning debate. Electoral Studies, 31(4), 764–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veg, S. (2017). The rise of “localism” and civic identity in post-handover Hong Kong: Questioning the Chinese nation-state. The China Quarterly, 230, 323–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verba, S., Schlozman, K.L., & Brady, H.E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard University Press.

  • Winkler, H. (2019). The effect of income inequality on political polarization: Evidence from European regions, 2002–2014. Economics & Politics, 31(2), 137–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfinger, R. E., & Rosenstone, S. J. (1980). Who votes? Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, M. Y. H. (2017). Helping the rich get richer: A re-assessment of the income distributional trend in Hong Kong. Asian Studies Review, 41(2), 191–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, M. Y. H. (2021). Democracy, hybrid regimes and, inequality: The divergent effects of contestation and inclusiveness. World Development, 146, 105606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, M. Y. H., Khiatani, P., & Chui, W. H. (2019). Understanding youth activism and radicalism: Chinese values and socialization. Social Science Journal, 56(2), 255–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, S. H. W. (2014). Resource disparity and multi-level elections in competitive authoritarian regimes: Regression discontinuity evidence from Hong Kong. Electoral Studies, 33, 200–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, S. H. W., & Wan, K. M. (2018). The housing boom and the rise of localism in Hong Kong. China Perspectives, 2018(3), 31–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yagci, A. H. (2017). The great recession, inequality and occupy protests around the World. Government and Opposition, 52(4), 640–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, Y. J., & Jin, S. (2018). Inequality and political trust in China: The social volcano thesis re-examined. The China Quarterly, 236, 1033–1062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was partially funded by the Research Grant Council, General Research Funding Scheme (First Author; 18601120).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

    Mathew Y. H. Wong

  2. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China

    Stan Hok-Wui Wong

Authors
  1. Mathew Y. H. Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stan Hok-Wui Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mathew Y. H. Wong.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 2050 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wong, M.Y.H., Wong, S.HW. Income Inequality and Political Participation: A District-Level Analysis of Hong Kong Elections. Soc Indic Res 162, 959–977 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02863-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02863-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation