Unequal benefits: housing provident fund and happiness among China's migrant and non-migrant populations

TL;DR

A study finds that China's housing provident fund boosts happiness more for non-migrants than for migrant workers due to unequal access to benefits.

Contribution

The study reveals how a universal housing policy can unintentionally reinforce social inequality by benefiting non-migrants more than migrants.

Findings

HPF participation is linked to higher happiness for non-migrants but not for migrants.

Migrants face barriers to HPF benefits due to unstable jobs and limited savings.

The policy's unequal impact highlights broader social stratification in urban China.

Abstract

This study examines whether China's Housing Provident Fund (HPF) improves subjective wellbeing equitably across urban populations. Using data from the China Household Finance Survey (CHFS), we ask two questions: (1) Does HPF participation enhance individuals' happiness? (2) Do its effects differ between migrant and non-migrant residents? Employing multivariate regression models with rich socioeconomic controls, we find that HPF participation is positively associated with overall happiness. However, this association is uneven: a statistically significant positive relationship is observed for non-migrants, while no statistically meaningful association is found for migrants. Mechanism analyses indicate that this disparity stems from migrants' limited ability to utilize HPF benefits, particularly housing loans, due to unstable employment and shorter job tenures that hinder eligibility and savings accumulation. These findings reveal that a policy designed as a universal housing support system produces unequal welfare outcomes. By shifting attention from average effects to distributional consequences, this study advances the literature on housing policy and subjective wellbeing and demonstrates how universal programs can reinforce existing social stratification in rapidly urbanizing societies.

Figures