Introduction
As China continues its profound socioeconomic transformation that began in the 1980s, subjective wellbeing (SWB) of its people has become a focal point of interest for both researchers and policy makers. This concern arises from the apparent discrepancy between China's economic development and its low ranking on the Happiness Index (Helliwell et al., 2019). While some scholars report a disconnection between the levels of wellbeing and income in China (Burkholder, 2005; Crabtree & Wu, 2011; Easterlin et al., 2012; Kahneman & Krueger, 2006), others highlight signs of increasing SWB (Clark et al., 2019; Graham et al., 2017). Understanding SWB in China is challenging due to the country's rapid socioeconomic transformation, significant urban-rural divide, and large regional variations. Existing studies have focused on individual or national levels of SWB, leaving gaps in our understanding of how SWB varies across space. This paper aims to address these gaps by examining SWB differences across the urban and rural contexts.
The “happiness turn” (Frawley, 2015) has prompted a shift towards SWB as an alternative measure of wellbeing, distinct from traditional economic indicators (Veenhoven, 2002; Goff et al., 2018; Helliwell & Putnam, 2004). There is now a very large literature on SWB (see reviews by Ryan & Deci, 2001; Powdthavee, 2007; Veenhoven, 2015; Frawley, 2015; Lijadi, 2018), highlighting its ability to capture aspects of well-being that are beyond income and consumption (Diener, 1984, 2000). However, most research on SWB has been aspatial in approach and has focused on predicting factors at the national and individual level, with limited attention to subnational regions and local variations (Morrison, 2011). Challenges in measuring SWB at local levels have contributed to this gap (Ballas & Dorling, 2013). There is also a debate about whether there are in fact differences in SWB across cities and between rural and urban contexts. While Ballas and Tranmer (2012) concluded that SWB varies mostly by people and not by place, others argue for the importance of local and regional factors in SWB (e.g., Morrison, 2011, 2020; OECD, 2014; Veneri & Edzes, 2019). Limited studies on geographical effects predominantly examine rural-urban differences rather than differences across city sizes and rural areas (Berry & Okulicz-Kozaryn, 2011; Ferrer-i-Carbonell & Gowdy, 2007).
Since the 1980s, China has been transitioning from a centrally planned economy towards a market economy, achieving impressive economic growth but also facing significant income and wealth inequality (Xie & Jin, 2015; Xie & Zhou, 2014). The urban-rural divide, shaped by the Household Registration (hukou) System, is a major component of this inequality. There is also significant inequality at provincial and city level resulted from China's economic development strategies, fiscal decentralization, and entrepreneurial local governments (Fan & Sun, 2008; Oi, 1995). Local governments, especially since the fiscal reform in 1994, are increasingly responsible for providing public services and welfare benefits (Tsui & Wang, 2004), and thus significantly shape wellbeing at the local level. Although economic growth has been a primary focus in the last few decades, policy objectives in China have recently shifted towards creating a “harmonious society” and achieving “common prosperity”, demonstrating a greater concern for reducing income inequality and promoting wellbeing (Graham et al., 2017). Some local governments have even adopted happiness indexes as additional measures of development (Liu & Shang, 2012; Zhou & Yu, 2017).
In this study, we address the need for more research on the geography of wellbeing outcomes by focusing on the role of locality. Specifically, we aim to enhance our understanding of SWB between and within urban and rural contexts. We recognize China's transitional economy is characterized by significant regional inequality, making it an ideal context to examine geographical effects on SWB. Our study seeks to uncover the patterns of SWB across various levels of geography and examine how regional variations in socioeconomic conditions and local government behaviors and policies shape SWB at the local level. To achieve this, we begin a concise review of the existing literature on SWB, both in the West and China. We then establish a multilevel multi-dimensional place-based conceptual framework that lay down the foundation for us to empirically examine the influence of environmental factors at different spatial contexts in shaping SWB in China. This study will fill the research gap and provide valuable insights into the complexities of SWB across diverse urban and rural settings in China.
Conclusion
This study makes a significant contribution to the growing body of research on China's transitional society, focusing on SWB. Conceptually, it offers a multi-level, multidimensional, place-based perspective that enhances our understanding of the complexity and spatiality of SWB. By addressing the importance of "place" and analyzing contextual factors in SWB, this study contributes to the ongoing debate on the importance of "place" vs. "people" and answers the call for spatial analysis of SWB (Veneri & Edzes, 2019; Morrison, 2011, 2020; OECD, 2014). Empirically, this study reveals a rising trend in wellbeing in China, accompanied by significant spatial variations across urban and rural contexts and different geographic scales. Findings demonstrate both similarities with the West and the unique dynamics of SWB in China. Individual factors such as age, marital status, health, employment, and commuting all have effects consistent with the Western literature; however, migrants, rural women, and educated individuals experience lower levels of SWB in China due to the hukou system, patriarchal traditions in rural areas, and the rapid transformation of the society. Furthermore, individual affluence in various forms is found to be beneficial to SWB, indicating a relatively low level of individual affluence in China compared to Western societies.
More importantly, this study demonstrates the critical roles played by the physical, social, and economic environments in shaping SWB in institutionally distinct urban and rural contexts. Physical infrastructure, such as green space coverage in cities and road conditions in the countryside, and social infrastructure, including the accessibility and quality of schools and hospitals, all contribute positively to SWB. While the "urban paradox" appears to be true in China, economic growth promotes wellbeing while the absolute level of economic development has a negative effect on wellbeing, but this phenomenon is specific to rural areas. Furthermore, income inequality and the perception of income inequality have negative effects on SWB especially in urban areas.
These findings provide compelling evidence for the critical role the government can play in promoting wellbeing. To enhance SWB in urban areas, the Chinese government can continue to invest in both physical and social infrastructure, such as green space coverage, schools, and hospitals, to increase their accessibility and improve their quality. The government can also promote wellbeing by reducing unemployment, increasing income level, reducing income inequality, and improving housing affordability and promoting homeownership. Moreover, reforming the hukou system to ensure equal treatment of migrants and local residents in cities can significantly enhance migrants' wellbeing. In rural areas, similar investment in physical and social infrastructure at both the administrative city and provincial level can be beneficial. In addition, the government can promote economic growth and gender equality, and address income inequality through government transfers and poverty reduction measures to foster wellbeing. These initiatives will contribute to a happier China, aligning people's wellbeing with China's economic standing in the world.
This paper does have some limitations. While it provides a multi-year trend in SWB, the multilevel analysis focuses on a single time point. Future research should consider longitudinal multilevel analysis. This study analyzes urban and rural areas separately due to their distinctly different institutional environments. While the importance of the institutional environment is emphasized, the measurement of the institutional environment at the city and provincial level was limited by data availability, preventing a direct assessment of how institutional environments contribute SWB disparities between and within urban and rural contexts. Additionally, an important environment - neighborhood - was not assessed in this national study. Nonetheless, this paper contributes to the literature by introducing a multilevel, multi-dimensional, place-based perspective on SWB, accounting for wellbeing disparities between and within urban and rural contexts, and by highlighting the critical role of local infrastructure and various environments in shaping SWB in transitional China.
编辑 | 人格与社会课题组徐前
