Access to and Use of Social Capital among Married Couples in Hong Kong Gina Lai and Danching Ruan Department of Sociology Hong Kong Baptist University May 30, 2008 Presentation at the International Social Capital Conference, Taipei, Taiwan, May 29-30, This research is supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Project No. HKBU2032/02H).

Research Background 1.Marriage and network change a.Network integration Bridging function of marital partner and cross-network linkages Affective interdependence and mutual friendship Benefits Marital identity Marital satisfaction Marital stability Enhanced access to social capital b.Network restructuring Tendency towards gender homogeneity of social ties 2.Network structure and social capital a.Network diversity (Erickson, Lin) b.Importance of male ties (Erickson)

Research Issues 1.How might the network changes induced by marital coupling influence the access to spouse’s social capital? Getting into the spouse’s social network + access? Change in the gender composition of social ties 2.Would the access to spouse’s social capital promote the use of it? 3.Any gender differences?

Data 1.Sample 801 Chinese married couples residing in Hong Kong at the time of the survey 2.Sampling method: Two-stage random sampling a.Households b.Married couples 3.Data collection method a.Separate face-to-face interviews with husbands and wives b.July to September, 2005

Individual CharacteristicsHusbandsWives Age (mean years)*** Born in Hong Kong (%)** Education (%)** Junior high or below Senior high or non-degree courses University or above Employed (%)*** Religion (%) No religion Chinese religion / Buddhism Other religion Socioeconomic Characteristics of Couples. * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<0.001

Spousal Characteristics Age difference (mean years)3.71 Birth place (%) Both born in Hong Kong62.90 Both not born in Hong Kong19.40 Only husband born in Hong Kong39.10 Only wife born in Hong Kong5.50 Education (%) Same54.20 Husband > wife27.60 Husband < wife18.20 Employment status (%) Both employed54.20 Both non-employed4.20 Only husband employed39.10 Only wife employed2.50 Religion (%) Same religion27.70 Both no religion57.30 Different religions (including cases in which one partner has no religion)15.00 Studied in the same school before7.20 Worked in the same firm before19.20

Marriage Characteristics Length of marriage (%) 5 years or less years years years years18.00 More than 25 years13.40 Duration of marriage (mean year)15.74 Number of children (mean)1.65 Children aged 12 or under (%)44.19

KinHusbandsWives Acquaintance with spouse’s kin (%) Know almost all of them Know most of them Know about half of them Know very few of them3.60 Hardly know any of them Contact with kin (%)*** Mainly with husband’s kin Mainly with wife’s kin / Joint participation in activities with spouse’s kin (%) Often Sometimes Seldom Never * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<0.001 Getting into Spouse’s Social Network: Kin Ties.

FriendsHusbandsWives Acquaintance with spouse’s friends (%)** Know almost all of them Know most of them Know about half of them Know very few of them Hardly know any of them Contact with spouse’s friends (%) Often Sometimes Seldom Never No acquaintance at all * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<0.001 Getting into Spouse’s Social Network: Friendship Ties.

Network ChangeHusbandsWives Network size (%) Increased a lot Increased a bit No change Decreased a bit Decreased a lot Number of male friends (%)*** Increased a lot Increased a bit No change Decreased a bit Decreased a lot Number of female friends (%)*** Increased a lot Increased a bit No change Decreased a bit Decreased a lot Changes in Personal Network.

Measurement of Social Capital 1.A modified version of Lin’s Position Generator suitable for the local context 2.A list of 15 occupations spanning across the structural hierarchy a.Whether they know a kin, friend, and/or an acquaintance in the occupation b.Whether they know a man and/or woman in the occupation c.Whether they know the person(s) directly or indirectly through their spouse 3.Network diversity: Number of social positions reached

Access to Social Positions (ISEI) (%)HusbandsWives Secondary school teacher (69)** Electrician (40)*** Medical doctor (88) Domestic helper (16)*** Functional manager (61)*** Accountant (69) Waiter/waitress (34) Salesperson (43)*** Construction worker (30)*** Government administrator (77) Police (50) Engineer (73)* Street vendor (29) Lawyer (85) Clerk (45) * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<0.001 Access to Social Capital.

Access to Social PositionsHusbandsWives Number of positions reached (mean) Number of positions reached through spouse (mean) Percent of positions reached through spouse (%) Number of positions reached through male ties (mean)*** Number of positions reached through female ties (mean)*** Percent of positions reached through male ties (%)*** Percent of positions reached through female ties (%)*** Highest occupational prestige (ISEI) reached (mean) Highest occupational prestige (ISEI) reached through male ties (mean) Highest occupational prestige (ISEI) reached through female ties (mean) Highest occupational prestige (ISEI) reached through male and female ties (mean)* Highest occupational prestige (ISEI) reached directly (mean) Highest occupational prestige (ISEI) reached through spouse (mean) * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<0.001 Access to Social Capital.

Predicting the Access to Social Capital through Spouse 1.Duration of marriage 2.Parental status 3.Relative status a.Education b.Employment status c.Birthplace d.Religion e.Age gap 4.Getting into spouse’s social network a.Acquaintance with spouse’s kin b.Contact with kin c.Joint activities with spouse’s kin d.Acquaintance with spouse’s friends e.Contact with spouse’s friends 5.Change in the numbers of male and female friends

Regression of Number of Social Positions Reached through Spouse. Independent VariablesHusbandsWives Education (ref=both senior high) Both junior high or below-.09 (-.03).05 (.02) Both university.94 (.15)***1.03 (.16)*** Respondent > spouse.33 (.09)*-.002 (.000) Respondent < spouse.15 (.03).44 (.12)** Contact with kin (ref=mainly with own kin) Mainly with spouse’s kin-.04 (-.01)-.14 (-.03) 50/ (-.12)**-.19 (-.07) Birthplace (ref=both born in Hong Kong) Only respondent born in Hong Kong-.31 (-.07)*-.06 (-.01) Only spouse born in Hong Kong-.18 (-.03)-.15 (-.03) Both not born in Hong Kong-.30 (-.08)*-.18 (-.05) Acquaintance with spouse’s kin.10 (.06).19 (.11)** Joint participation in activities with spouse’s kin.28 (.14)***-.01 (-.01) Acquaintance with spouse’s friends.22 (.14)***.26 (.17)*** Increase in the number of male friends-.16 (-.07).26 (.14)*** Increase in the number of female friends.23 (.11)**-.10 (-.05) Constant-1.34**-1.31** R2R Adjusted R N790794

Regression of Proportion of Social Positions Reached through Spouse. Independent VariablesHusbandsWives Education (ref=both senior high) Both junior high or below.02 (.04).03 (.08) Both university.11 (.13)***.14 (.15)*** Respondent > spouse.04 (.07).02 (.04) Respondent < spouse.04 (.07).06 (.11)** Employment status (ref=both employed) Only respondent employed-.03 (-.08)*.01 (.01) Only spouse employed.01 (.01) Both non-employed.04 (.04).03 (.03) Birthplace (ref=both born in Hong Kong) Only respondent born in Hong Kong-.04 (-.07).001 (.001) Only spouse born in Hong Kong-.04 (-.05).003 (.004) Both not born in Hong Kong-.04 (-.09)*-.01 (-.03) Acquaintance with spouse’s kin.02 (.09)*.03 (.13)*** Joint participation in activities with spouse’s kin.03 (.12)**-.004 (-.01) Acquaintance with spouse’s friends.02 (.09)*.04 (.16)*** Increase in the number of male friends-.02 (-.08)*.03 (.12)** Increase in the number of female friends.02 (.07)-.03 (-.09)* Constant-.14**-.19*** R2R Adjusted R 2.09 N789787

Getting Help from Spouse’s Social Ties in the Past Year Sources of HelpMenWomen Family and relatives Friends.13.12

Predicting the Likelihood of Getting Help from Spouse’s Social Ties 1.Duration of marriage 2.Parental status 3.Relative status a.Education b.Employment status c.Birthplace d.Religion e.Age gap 4.Getting into spouse’s social network a.Acquaintance with spouse’s kin b.Contact with kin c.Joint activities with spouse’s kin d.Acquaintance with spouse’s friends e.Contact with spouse’s friends 5.Change in the numbers of male and female friends 6.Number and proportion of social positions reached through spouse

Independent VariablesHusbandsWives Education (ref=both senior high) Both junior high or below-.60*-.44 Both university Respondent > spouse Respondent < spouse Religion (ref=both no religion) Both Chinese traditional Chinese religion/Buddhism.58*.26 Both other religion Different religions Joint participation in activities with spouse’s kin.28.44** Contact with kin (ref=mainly with own kin) Mainly with spouse’s kin ** 50/ Contact with spouse’s friends.45**.11 Logistic Regression of Getting Help from Spouse’s Kin Ties in the Past Year

Independent VariablesHusbandsWives Employment status (ref=both employed) Only respondent employed Only spouse employed * Both non-employed Birthplace (ref=both born in Hong Kong) Only respondent born in Hong Kong Only spouse born in Hong Kong Both not born in Hong Kong * Religion (ref=both no religion) Both Chinese traditional Chinese religion/Buddhism ** Both other religion Different religions Contact with kin (ref=mainly with own kin) Mainly with spouse’s kin / * Acquaintance with spouse’s friends.44**.32 Contact with spouse’s friends.35*1.25*** Increase in the number of male friends ** Increase in the number of female friends * Logistic Regression of Getting Help from Spouse’s Friends in the Past Year

Summary of Findings 1.Both men and women are able to get into their spouse’s social network. a.Men tend to know more of their spouses’ friends than do women. a.But respondents are more likely to have contact with their own kin ties than their spouses’ kin. b.Respondents also tend to have limited contact with their spouses’ friends. 2.There is no gender difference in the access to social capital, directly or indirectly through spouse. 3.Getting into the spouse’s social network would facilitate the reach of social capital through spouse. 4.Change in the gender composition of social ties due to marriage brings differential impacts on the access to social capital through spouse for men and women. 5.Network integration would facilitate the use of resources embedded in spouse’s social network, but the access to social capital through spouse does not encourage the use of it.

Concluding Remarks 1.Marriage tends to promote the sharing of social capital between husband and wife, particularly among better-educated couples. 2.Due to the gendered change in network composition associated with marriage, women may have a greater reliance on marriage for access to social capital than do men. 3.Access to social capital through spouse does not seem to generate a tendency to use it. a.Personal networks resourceful enough b.Difficulties in mobilizing spouses’ social ties c.Proximity or availability of helper is more important 4.A more refined classification of social relationships is needed to ascertain the social bridging role of spouse.