Work commitment among unemployed youth in Hong Kong, Shanghai and Tianjin

Abstract

Work commitment is a way for unemployed youth to engage in employment. In turn, factors leading to work commitment are unclear, particularly in view of the possible variability of the factors across cities. Hong Kong, Shanghai and Tianjin are three Chinese cities for the present study to address the variability. Surveys of 676 unemployed youths in the three cities supplied data for the study. Results unfolded that although the experience of powerlessness and persistent unemployment seemed to discourage work commitment generally, they were less detrimental in Shanghai. Similarly, while education and work skill appeared to contribute to work commitment generally, they were significant only in Tianjin. The results imply that promotion of unemployed youth's work commitment needs to be adaptive to the conditions of the city. For one, human capital development would be an effective means to promote work commitment in Tianjin but not in Shanghai. For the other, reducing social exclusion against the unemployed youth's underclass status would be helpful particularly in Hong Kong.

Keywords:

• work commitment
• unemployment
• human capital
• underclass
• social exclusion

Introduction

Unemployed youth, who are seeking paid jobs but not getting them, comprise a relatively high proportion of the youth labour force internationally (Larsson, 2003). Unemployment tends to be increasing, attributable to the trends of globalisation, restructuring, downsizing, technology and economic volatility (Mills & Blossfeld, 2005). Youth employment is a problem in Chinese society (Ireland, 2002; Marks, 2005; Wu, 2003; Yuji, 2007). Here the rate of youth unemployment hovers around 10% (Wu, 2003). The relatively high rate of youth unemployment is associated with comparatively high rates of other problems, such as dependency on welfare, distress and disengagement from civic life among youth (Corcoran & Matsudaira, 2005; Marks, 2005). Fostering youth employment is therefore worthwhile for preventing many youth and societal problems. One way of fostering employment is the enhancement of young people's desire to work (Meijers & Te Riele, 2004). This means the strengthening of young people's work commitment in order to fit themselves to jobs (Bynner, 1996). Promoting or restoring young people's work commitment is a notable strategy to foster youth employment, especially in view of a decline in work commitment (Bynner & Parsons, 2000).

Work commitment is a component of the work ethic that maintains one's effort and contribution to work (Moore & Keith, 1992). Broadly speaking, it is an element of human capital, which facilitates one's performance, achievement and gain to acquire various resources, including human capital. Various kinds of human capital may contribute to it, according to the human capital theory of work commitment (Moore & Keith, 1992). Supporting this theory are the contributions of education, academic achievement and work experience in fostering commitment (Bynner & Parsons, 2000; Moore & Keith, 1992). Conversely, illness and disability are impediments to work commitment (Bynner & Parsons, 2000). However, a problem posed for theory is that techniques for enhancing human capital do not always result in an increase of work commitment. For instance, training and qualifications have not appeared to raise work commitment in all circumstances (Bynner & Parsons, 2000; Hyggen, 2007); the latter may even impede it (Bynner & Parsons, 2000). Human capital theory may not provide a decisive factor and explanation for work commitment.

Another explanation for work commitment stems from the theory of social integration, social exclusion or underclass (Hyggen, 2007). This theory maintains that integration into society or community is propitious to work commitment, and conversely suffering exclusion from society or community attenuates it. The latter means that the young person who maintains membership of a socially excluded group or place would have low work commitment. Such a group is the underclass, which consists of people with long-term unemployment, welfare dependency and detachment from normal, legitimate activity. Supporting social exclusion or underclass theory is the erosion of work commitment through unemployment, and especially protected unemployment (Bynner & Parsons, 2000; Hyggen, 2007). However, many other social factors have not presented effects on work commitment. Such aberrant observations include the negative effects of marital and family integration on the youth's work commitment (Bynner & Parsons, 2000). Apparently, family integration engenders family obligations that discourage rather than consolidate work commitment (Hyggen, 2007). Hence, both human capital theory and social exclusion theory have not provided consistent explanations for work commitment. Such inconsistency, nevertheless, only emerges from the pooling of findings from different studies, without relying on a common theoretical framework and research method. The present theoretically based empirical inquiry was developed in the light of a need for a clarification of determinants of work commitment to elucidate a strategy to promote work commitment in Chinese societies, specifically of Hong Kong, Shanghai and Tianjin.

A comparative study of the three Chinese municipalities is necessary to elucidate differences in levels and effects of various factors in a way to avoid confusion and overgeneralisation. Confusion and overgeneralisation tends to happen in the case that fails to differentiate contextual factors and outcomes among different loci of study. This has been a problem in research showing differential effects of various factors among cities or other contexts on the youth's employment, success, delinquency, violence, self-consciousness and association with delinquent peers (Asakawa & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Bernardi, Loyte, Schizzerotto, & Jacob, 2000; Elliott et al., 2006; Farrington & Ttofi, 2009; Jessor et al., 2003; Miyazawa, 1993; van Lier, Vitaro, Wanner, Vuijk, & Crijnen, 2005). An instance is that disintegrative shaming seems to be particularly effective in curtailing delinquency in Hong Kong (Vagg, 1998). Moreover, individualism is less conducive to job satisfaction in Hong Kong (Triandis, 2000). The middle-class or female worker in Hong Kong is also particularly less ethical at work, compared with the counterpart in other places (Lam & Shi, 2007). Notably, cultural variation among cities or contexts is responsible for differential effects and the risk of overgeneralisation (Jessor et al., 2003). In the cases of Chinese cities, they are not monolithic, but are remarkably different in various structural and cultural dimensions (Guan, 2001; Huang, 2008). Such contextual differences can affect work commitment (Maetas, 2007).

Contexts of Hong Kong, Shanghai and Tianjin

Although youth unemployment is an issue shared by Hong Kong, Shanghai and Tianjin, the three cities each have their unique features (Bai, 2006; Zhu & Yuan, 2001). These features are likely to underlie different mechanisms for the shaping of youth's work commitment.

Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of China, renowned for its capitalist, liberal and open system (Overholt, 2004; Smart & Smart, 2008). It is a crowded and polluted city (La Grange & Pretorius, 2005). The city mainly relies on the service or tertiary industry, which requires flexible labour (Meng, 2000; Sit, 2004). Although it counts as an affluent city, its socio-economic inequality is exorbitantly high (Delang & Lung, 2010). Probably due to the inequality, social conflict is high and social cohesion is low in Hong Kong (Choi, 2004; Estes, 2002). To assist unemployed and poor citizens, Hong Kong has a well-developed social welfare system and social work services (Chan, 2006; Chow, 2003). Nevertheless, Hong Kong seems to be a risk society, in view of its social as well as environmental problems (Chan, 2006; Estes, 2005). Adding to the problem is the risk in the sustainability of its generous social welfare (Chan, 2004).

Shanghai is a metropolis holding and attracting a large population and capital. It is the most Westernised city in the mainland of China (Orum et al., 2009). Its socio-economic development seems to be comparable to that of Hong Kong a decade ago (Zhu & Yuan, 2001). Nevertheless, Shanghai maintains high education and talents in its population (Cai & Shen, 2002). The metropolis is also outstanding in its entrepreneurship, marketisation and privatisation (Han, 2000; He & Wu, 2005). It is thereby a fluid society, with the emphasis on growth and competition (Law, 2007; Wang & Lau, 2008). Hence, Shanghai is rapidly changing in its structural and cultural textures.

Tianjin is a stronghold in the economic and political order in China. Because of this role, Tianjin is endeavouring to maintain its fabrics in a conservative way (Wei & Jia, 2003). As such, heavy and secondary industry still is dominant in the city, and innovation takes a secondary role. For instance, the city strives to keep its transport to a non-motorised mode, including bicycles (Zacharias & Zhang, 2008). Hence, Tianjin fares as an orderly developing metropolis.

Hypothesised determinants of work commitment

Human capital theory and underclass or social exclusion theory variously justify the effects of a number of determinants of the youth's work commitment. These determinants include the experience of powerlessness, work skill, dwelling size, allowances from parents and social security, unemployment, job loss, working duration, education, gender, age and residency in Hong Kong, Shanghai or Tianjin.

Underclass or social exclusion factors

Underclass or social exclusion theory posits that a disadvantaged social position discourages work commitment, as well as other qualities and performances (Bynner & Parsons, 2000; Hyggen, 2007). The underclass is the lowest in the class hierarchy that signifies the lack of any productive means and thereby bargaining power. Its long-term unemployment status means that even the power of labour is missing in the underclass. Hence, the underclass is notorious for its lack of opportunity, power and resources and its disadvantaged position (Crutchfield & Pitchford, 1997; Upchurch, Aneshensel, Sucoff, & Levy-Storms, 1999). The underclass also implies the contagion and thereby intensification of suffering among its members to entrench its disadvantage (Baumer & South, 2001). Nevertheless, the underclass is a disorganised group that lacks collective power to counteract domination, exclusion and exploitation. The underclass is therefore weak, detached, dependent, destitute, deficient, despondent and dropping out from gainful institutions (Crysdale, King, & Mandell, 1999; Westman, 1994). The emergence of the underclass is a reflection of social exclusion, which rests on the societal trends of economic restructuring and individualisation (MacDonald, Shildrick, Webster, & Simpson, 2005; Raffo & Reeves, 2000). In this connection, social exclusion happens when it regards the underclass or disadvantaged people as unfit to the society, economy or mainstream culture. Meanwhile, social exclusion prevails and triumphs through its Balkanising of the excluded people to keep them disconnected and powerless. Social exclusion also works by denying excluded people's entitlement and collective and inclusive identity (Osler & Starkey, 2001). This deprives the underclass of its resources and morale, as required for bolstering work commitment. Underclass or social exclusion theory thereby highlights constraints or restraints associated with social categorisation and labelling on youth development, including work commitment.

The experience or sense of powerlessness in life and work, according to underclass theory, would preempt work commitment. Powerlessness happens in instances under surveillance, coercion, interference and distortion (Blonna, 2000). It has the connotations of detachment, deprivation of opportunity, alienation, avoidance, failure, exclusion and irresponsibility (Adcidiacono, Procentese, & di Napoli, 2007). One result is disconnection from community, which is a source of power (Zani, Cicognani, & Albanesi, 2001). The deprivation of community or social support would undermine commitment, including that to work. Moreover, powerlessness means inability or demoralisation for realising things and this implies the lack of motivation or commitment (Pearson, 1999). It also means taking a passive, follower's role, instead of commitment to an active, leader's role (Lerner, 2004). Furthermore, powerlessness would foment a sense of unfairness, which discourages participation and commitment (Gurstein, Louato, & Ross, 2003). Powerlessness also impairs resilience and breeds depression, and these effects would interrupt commitment (Conger & Conger, 2002; Ungar et al., 2007). When powerlessness leads to complaint or help seeking, it also prevents one from being committed to taking initiative and responsibility (Kleinman & Kleinman, 1985). One instance of the result of powerlessness is resort to drug abuse, as a way to distract the feeling of powerlessness momentarily (Amaro, Blake, Schwartz, & Flinchbaugh, 2001). This is a case of interruption, counteractive to commitment. To the extreme, powerlessness can be a precursor to suicide, or early abortion of life and its project (Lacourse, Claes, & Villeneuve, 2001). The abortion again withholds commitment.

Unemployment or job loss, suggested by underclass theory, would impair work commitment, and work duration, conversely, would foster work commitment. The youth's unemployment is likely to be associated with churning or shifting jobs, employment and other statuses (Larsson, 2003; Marks, 2005). Characteristic of the unemployment is fluctuation, frustration and hopelessness, which clearly compromise motivation and commitment (Bynner, 1996). Moreover, unemployment has a bearing on immorality, work ethics, crime, prostitution, gang activity and distress (Bynner & Parsons, 2000; Creed, 1999; Cusick, 2002; Klein, 1997; Weatherburn & Lind, 2001; Wyatt, 1990). They are likely to obstruct work commitment, so long as they are opposite to the ethical property of work commitment. Conversely, unemployment also erodes the youth's work identity (Meeus & Dekovic, 1996). As the identity is likely to countenance work commitment, unemployment would be counteractive to work commitment. Work duration, conversely, is protective against delinquency and drug abuse (Crutchfield & Pitchford, 1997; Pacula et al., 2001). As delinquency and drug abuse are subversive toward working, they are likely to weaken work commitment. This reasoning means that work duration can sustain work commitment by defusing delinquency and drug abuse.

Human capital factors

Human capital means ability to generate gains, which in turn grows the capital of various kinds (Rosenbaum, 2001). In addition to forming a cornerstone of work commitment, human capital is vital to help acquire various resources and attainments (Bhattacharya & Currie, 2001). Essential in the contribution of human capital to work commitment is the element of investment posited in human capital theory (Card & Lemieux, 2001). Accordingly, human capital takes time and effort to develop, which means investment and therefore commitment. Working and work commitment is thus an investment in human capital that is gainful for sustaining resources. Central to investment are resources for facilitating the investment, which can include skills, experience, health, ability and well-being. Human capital theory thereby reasons that investment of such resources is a prerequisite for further human capital development, such as the growth of work commitment. The investment of resource and effort would be the generating mechanism for work commitment.

Work skill is likely to contribute to work commitment, in line with human capital theory. The skill is a resource for reaping rewards, such as earnings, promotion and employment at least (Maxwell, 2007). Moreover, the skill is a basis for creativity (Cropley, 2000). In contrast, work skill tends to relieve distress (Bynner, 1996). These positive features of work skill are likely to explain the contribution of work skill to work commitment.

Education is another human capital element shown to underlie work commitment (Moore & Keith, 1992). The contribution of education to work commitment is consistent with other contributions of education to other manifestations of commitment, such as filial piety, entrepreneurship, earnings, occupational aspiration, adaptation and morality (Eisenberg, Carlo, Murphy, & van Court, 1995; Keith, Yamamoto, Okita, & Schalock, 1995; Lowe & Krahn, 2000; Rosenbaum, 2001; Schmitt-Redermund & Vondracek, 2002; Zhan, 2004). Anyway, education embodies an investment of time and effort to persevere in painstaking study, which can last more than a decade (Card & Lemieux, 2001). This investment is likely to underpin work commitment.

Other personal or family factors

Resource theory is the expansion of human capital theory to cover capital or resources other than human capital as well (Farrington & Welsh, 2007; Voydanoff, 2004). Such resources include financial resources or socio-economic status, typically resting on the family. They work in a similar way as human capital to activate youth's effort, including thinking and preparing for work commitment. As such, work commitment would require various resources to form and sustain. For instance, resources are necessary to acquire information, prevent worry and maintain access to employment (Olsson, Bond, Burns, Vella-Brodick, & Sawyer, 2003).

Need theory offers expectations antithetical to those of resource theory. The crux of need theory is that a need for work is the prerequisite for work commitment (Furnham, 1997). Such a need would depend on rewards provided by employment, including remuneration and recognition. The need for remuneration would diminish with the availability of financial resources from home or other non-work sources. Such a diminished need is likely to erode work commitment.

Dwelling size and allowances from parents and social security are likely to be conducive to work commitment, according to resource theory. In this connection, these factors represent resources to facilitate the youth's finding and commitment to work, outside the youth's home. Given that job search requires financial resources, those resources provided from the family is helpful to the search. Support for the resource explanation is the contribution of income to work commitment (Maetas, 2007).

Dwelling size and allowances are likely to reduce the youth's work commitment, according to need theory. That is, these factors erode the youth's need for employment and commitment to it. The need dwindles in the presence of alternative resources, such as those financial resources implied by the factors. Support for the need explanation emerges from the negative effects of family income and welfare reception on work commitment (Gallie & Alan, 2000; Maetas, 2007).

City factors

The influences or variation among the cities, Hong Kong, Shanghai and Tianjin, on work commitment would drawn on the explanations of social exclusion theory, human capital theory, resource theory and need theory. Such explanations can produce consistent and inconsistent predictions as follows.

Social exclusion or underclass theory suggests that the youth's work commitment is lowest in Hong Kong, because of the highest social exclusion, exploitation, or class stratification and inequality in Hong Kong. That is, the societal conditions of Hong Kong impose social exclusion and relegate unemployed youth to the underclass. This happens principally because Hong Kong is a renowned class and capitalist society that boosts economic inequality (Chan, 2004; Lau, 2003). In contrast, Shanghai and Tianjin maintain some socialist, central planning measures to temper class inequality and exploitation (Guo, 2003). Moreover, social exclusion is notable in Hong Kong (Chan, 2001). Because of economic inequality and social exclusion, poverty or the underclass is particularly prominent in Hong Kong (Estes, 2002). One instance is welfare reception and reliance there (Chan, 2006; Sawada, 2004). This contrasts with minimum social security in Shanghai and Tianjin (Leung, 2006). Further, between the two cities in the Chinese mainland, the youth's work commitment is likely to be higher in Shanghai than in Tianjin. This is because social exclusion tends to be higher in Shanghai (Law, 2007). Shanghai also appears to be less socialist in socio-economic structure (Sun & Wang, 2010). In other words, Shanghai tends to be a consumerist society, which champions social equality. Hence, Tianjin is likely to show the highest work commitment and Hong Kong, the lowest work commitment, according to social exclusion theory.

Human capital theory also suggests that the youth's work commitment is lowest in Hong Kong, because of the lowest education among the three cities (Loh & Foong, 2005). In contrast, Shanghai would witness the highest work commitment, because of its highest education and talent composition (Cai & Shen, 2002; Zhu & Yuan, 2001). Hence, Tianjin would occupy a middle position in work commitment, between Shanghai and Hong Kong, based on human capital theory.

Resource theory suggests that Hong Kong would have the highest work commitment because of its most developed infrastructure and socio-economic support (Cartier, 2008; Chow, 2003). The structure and support would facilitate access to employment and provide resources to facilitate job search, training and adaptation. Notably, public resources are available in Hong Kong to encourage and ease people's employment by taking care of various aspects of life (Tang, 2007). In contrast, Shanghai and Tianjin may have weaker work commitment, because of their lower availability of amenities.

Need theory suggests that Hong Kong would have the lowest work commitment, because of the availability of social welfare and alternative resources that displace the need for employment. Generally, the highest affluence of Hong Kong can afford a livelihood without employment (Delang & Lung, 2010). In contrast, social welfare in the two Chinese cities is meagre (Leung, 2006). The less abundant resources would pose a need for maintaining higher work commitment in the Chinese cities. This is an expectation opposite to that based on resource theory.

The three cities may also make a difference in the effects of underclass and human capital factors on the youth's work commitment. Such differential effects reflect the contextual or ecological influence, reinforcement or intensification of the mechanisms of social inclusion and investment. The influence may arise from the following cases.

The underclass factor is likely to be more influential on the youth's work commitment in Hong Kong than in the two mainland cities. This is because Hong Kong is a clearly class-divided city, which polarises the higher classes and underclass (Chiu & Lui, 2004). In Hong Kong, relative poverty and the underclass are prominent issues, which highlight disadvantages associated with the underclass. The fierce socio-economic inequality in Hong Kong would magnify the difference due to underclass. In contrast, the mainland cities enjoy higher social harmony (Willis & Guan, 2009). Moreover, differences in organisational assets in the mainland would dilute differences based solely on class (Lin & Wu, 2009). This would mitigate the adverse impact of the underclass.

The human capital factor is likely to be more influential on work commitment in mainland cities than in Hong Kong, because of the emphasis on meritocracy in the former (Leung & Nann, 1995). In contrast, Hong Kong is resounding as a paradise of opportunity, where credentialed human capital factors are less decisive (Chiu, Choi, & Ting, 2005;DeGolyer, 2001). Hence, the class boundary of Hong Kong tends to be open, fluid and even unstructured, as it does not seriously depends on credentialed human capital. By contrast, the class structure in Chinese cities is rigid and entrenched, as it relies on the buttressing of merit. This would be particularly the case in Tianjin, as characterised by traditional and heavy industries rather than new and fluid ones (Wei & Jia, 2003). New and innovative industries would have greater fluidity in career advancement as they allow for greater flexibility in human capital.

Method

Survey data were available from 676 unemployed youths in three Chinese cities, with 134 (19.8%) in Hong Kong, 295 (43.6%) in Shanghai and 247 (36.5%) in Tianjin. These unemployed youths were aged 16 to 29 years, and wished to have employment but had no employment at the time of the survey. In the sampling of youth in Shanghai and Tianjin, a multistage sampling procedure operated to divide each of the city into four regions and then specified seven sub-regions or neighbours in each region. The sampling proceeded to solicit support form street committees, which were the grassroots administrative branches located in the sub-regions to help locate unemployed youths for the survey. In Hong Kong, the sampling procedure proceeded with a random sample of two major youth service units that provided training to unemployed youth, according to the Youth Pre-employment Scheme formalised by the government of Hong Kong. Youths attending training classes in the units were then respondents to the survey. All the respondents consented to participate in the survey voluntarily.

The average age of the unemployed youths in Hong Kong was lower than were those in Shanghai and Tianjin (M = 18.4 vs. 21.1 and 22.1, respectively; see Table 1). There were roughly equal proportions of young men and women in the three samples (53.0–55.7%). The average level of education of the youths was the lowest in Hong Kong (M = 9.6 years vs. 12.1 and 12.2 years, respectively). Residency in the city was the shortest among the Hong Kong youths (M = 14.8 years vs. 20.4 and 20.4 years, respectively). Working duration was also shortest among the youths in Hong Kong (M = 8.2 months vs. 20.7 and 22.3 months, respectively). The status of unemployment, that is, mainly remaining unemployed in the previous year, appeared in about 70% of the youth. The amount of monthly allowance from parents was highest in Hong Kong, followed by Shanghai and lowest in Tianjin (M = ¥59.3, ¥43.7 and ¥15.4, respectively). In contrast, the amount of allowance from social security was minimal, on average. Dwelling size was largest in Shanghai, followed by Tianjin and smallest in Hong Kong (M = 63.0 m², 48.5 m² and 33.7 m², respectively).

Table 1 Means of the three cities (N = 676).

Variable	Scoring	Hong Kong	Shanghai	Tianjin	η
Age	years	18.4	21.1	22.1	.233***
Female	0, 100	55.7	53.0	54.9	.023
Education	years	9.6	12.1	12.2	.413***
Residency in the city	years	14.8	20.4	20.4	.252***
Working duration	months	8.2	20.7	22.3	.190***
Job loss	times	0.7	8.1	1.7	.196***
Mainly in unemployment	0, 100	79.7	73.5	69.5	.089
Monthly allowance from parents (geometry mean)	¥	59.3	43.7	15.4	.201***
Monthly allowance from social security (geometric mean)	¥	0.1	1.5	0.6	.178***
Dwelling size	m^2	33.7	63.0	48.5	.184***
Acquiescence	0–100	41.2	37.4	37.3	.172***
Work skill	0–100	44.3	39.7	46.9	.165***
Powerlessness	0–100	33.7	26.7	27.4	.152***
Work commitment	0–100	54.2	57.2	62.4	.196***
N		134	295	247
Note: ***p < .001.

Measurement

Measures of work commitment, work skill and powerlessness relied on multiple indicators or question items. The response to each item anchored on a five-point scale, which generated scores ranging from 0 to 100 according to scoring rule: 100 for ‘very much’, 75 for ‘rather a lot’, 50 for ‘average’, 25 for ‘rather little’ and 0 for ‘very little’.

Work commitment combined five rating items about behaviour within the month preceding the survey: working hard incessantly, making effort for one's vocation, putting all the time on what related to employment, idling away the time and trying the best to avoid working (de Goede, de Klaver, van Ophem, Verhaar, & de Vries, 1996; Meeus & Dekovic, 1996). The commitment was still possible in the preceding month among youths unemployed in the preceding week when they had worked earlier. This composite measure attained an internal consistent reliability of .604.

Powerlessness combined four items about experiences in the year preceding the survey (excluding the recent month): working under surveillance, working under coercion having interference by others and having one's true quality distorted by others (Blonna, 2000). These items yielded an internal consistent reliability of .676.

Work skill combined two items, one about ‘having skills for employment’ and another about ‘the grasp of information on employment’ (Huebner, Walker, & McFarland, 2003). The composite reliability was .539.

Acquiescence was the average of all rating items, used as a control factor in the analysis (Zagorski, 1999). It measured the tendency to rate every item highly and indiscriminately. Hence, it was a measure of carelessness or the method artefact. As a control factor, it served to distil the net effects of other factors that were not due to the method artefact of rating.

Analysis

Further to a simple comparison among the three cities, linear regression analysis was the main approach used to examine the impacts of various factors on the youth's work commitment. The regression analysis included powerlessness, work skill, acquiescence, job loss and all other background characteristics as predictors to reveal their net effects on work commitment. Regression analysis applied to combined data of all the three cities and those of each city as well, to discern differential effects among the cities. In the analysis of all the data, regression analysis started with a simple model for a test of city difference, before the entry of all the other predictors into the model.

Results

A simple comparison showed significant differences among the three cities in work commitment, powerlessness, work skill and all background characteristics, except gender and unemployment status (see Table 1). While most of the differences were weak (η < .2), the difference in education was strong (η < .413) and the differences in residency, age and the monthly allowance from parents were moderate (η>.2). Hence, Tianjin showed the highest youth's work commitment, work skill, work duration and age, but the lowest youth's amount of parental allowance. Shanghai displayed the largest dwelling size and number of times of job loss, but the lowest work skill and powerlessness. Hong Kong exhibited the highest amount of parental allowance and powerlessness, but the lowest work commitment, dwelling size, number of times of job loss, work duration, residency in the city, education and age. Apparently, Hong Kong manifested an association between lower work commitment and higher powerlessness. This association echoes social exclusion theory, and it appears to hold particularly in Hong Kong. In contrast, Tianjin witnessed an association between work commitment and work skill. This association is a prediction of human capital theory. Thus, human capital theory seems to apply to Tianjin particularly.

Regression analysis of all the data from the three cities indicated the city difference mainly occurred between Tianjin and Hong Kong (β = 0.228, Model 1 in Table 2). This difference persisted with the control for all other predictors (β = 0.221, Model 2 in Table 2), showing that the difference was independent and not attributable to personal and family differences between youths in the cities. Among the personal predictor, powerlessness offered a significant negative effect on work commitment (β = –0.206). This effect is in line with underclass or social exclusion theory. Being mainly in unemployment also delivered a significant negative effect on work commitment (β = –0.151). This is another instance consistent with underclass or social exclusion theory. In contrast, work skill manifested a significant positive effect on work commitment (β = 0.169). This effect is a case expected by human capital theory. Other background characteristics, apart from acquiescence, did not have significant effects on work commitment.

Table 2 Standardised regression coefficients for predicting work commitment.

Variable	3 cities (1)	3 cities (2)	Hong Kong	Shanghai	Tianjin
Shanghai (vs. Hong Kong)	.087	.099	–	–	–
Tianjin (vs. Hong Kong)	.228***	.221**	–	–	–
Age	–	− .003	.151	− .101	− .262
Female	–	.028	.072	.044	.037
Education	–	.045	.035	.017	.215*
Residency in the city	–	.028	− .282	− .017	.440***
Working duration	–	− .008	.168	.087	− .041
Job loss	–	.049	− 1.589	.027	1.192
Mainly in unemployment	–	− .151***	− .263*	− .083	− .198**
Allowance from parents	–	− .013	.066	− .042	− .038
Allowance from social security	–	.013	.057	.027	.022
Dwelling size	–	− .053	− .034	− .006	− .098
Acquiescence	–	.253***	.365*	.272**	.105
Work skill	–	.169***	.135	.092	.239**
Powerlessness	–	− .206***	− .192	− .134	− .225**
R ^2	.033	.206	.350	.140	.296
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Separate regression analysis of data from each of the cities showed that powerlessness, work skill, education and residency in the city were only significant in predicting work commitment in Tianjin (see Table 2). Among these predictors, powerlessness displayed a negative effect, whereas the others indicated positive effects. In addition, being mainly in unemployment had a significant negative effect on work commitment in both Tianjin and Hong Kong. This means that the unemployment condition did not affect work commitment in Shanghai significantly. In Shanghai and Hong Kong, no other factor exhibited a significant effect on work commitment. Eventually, work commitment was best explainable by the set of predictors in Hong Kong, next in Tianjin and lowest in Shanghai (R ² = .350, .296 and .140, respectively). The unemployment condition was the chief predictor in Hong Kong, whereas city residency was so in Tianjin. In contrast, only powerlessness had some but insignificant effect on work commitment in Shanghai.

Discussion

The mechanisms of social exclusion and human capital investment are relevant to understanding the genesis of work commitment of unemployed youths in three Chinese metropolises, Hong Kong, Shanghai and Tianjin. Accordingly, work commitment would weaken due to the experience of powerlessness and unemployment, which characterise the underclass and social exclusion. In line with underclass or social exclusion theory, the findings echo that the adverse experience of social exclusion has a demoralising effect on the unemployed youth's work commitment. Moreover, work commitment tends to rise with work skill, based on human capital theory. In this connection, work skill would ensure work commitment as a rewarding investment. Apart from the demonstration of the roles of social exclusion and human capital, some other significant findings arise, especially from the comparison of findings across the three cities. The additional findings cover the city difference and differentials in the effects of underclass, human capital factors and other resource factors.

First, Tianjin witnessed the highest youth's work commitment, and this is consistent with both social exclusion theory and human capital theory. This means that the city context of the higher availability of human capital and lower social exclusion would help uplift unemployed youth's work commitment. The crucial point is that such contextual influences persist after controlling for personal characteristics about human capital and social exclusion. It means that the contextual influences occur even without the unemployed youth's personal experience. Conceivably, lower social exclusion and higher human capital in a city would result in greater employment opportunities to justify higher unemployed youth's work commitment. In this connection, unemployed youth are unlikely to feel baffled and hopeless in their attunement to the labour market. Essentially, the availability of human capital in the city is a guarantee of economic growth and hence job creation (Bornschier, Herkenrath, & Konig, 2005; Korenman & Neumark, 2000). Conversely, Hong Kong was the lowest in unemployed youth's work commitment. It reflects its higher social exclusion, social conflict, socio-economic inequality and even the polarisation of the upper and lower classes (Chan, 2001; Chiu & Lui, 2004).

Second, work skill and education were most conducive to work commitment in Tianjin. This finding echoes the expected strength of meritocracy particularly in Tianjin. The upholding of meritocracy in Tianjin is consistent with the conservative development strategy in the metropolis (Wei & Jia, 2003). Accordingly, the development trajectory of Tianjin is orderly, depending on meritocratic criteria. This means that education and skill are certainly rewarding and thus worth investment in the city. In contrast, work skill and education are least consequential on work commitment in Shanghai. It attests to erratic, dramatic and multifarious development in this biggest metropolis in China. The development in Shanghai is therefore vibrant and in a revolutionary form not relying on traditional criteria (Han, 2000; He & Wu, 2005). Hence, meritocracy or human capital is not decisive in employment and work commitment in Shanghai. A mismatch between education and employment is therefore a characteristic in Shanghai (Lee & Warner, 2002).

Third, the experience of persistent unemployment was a hurdle to work commitment especially in Hong Kong, and it was not so in Shanghai. This reflects the stronger adversity of social exclusion in Hong Kong, which makes unemployment a stigmatised and hopeless social condition (Chiu & Lui, 2004). Polarisation and marginalisation found in Hong Kong is likely to aggravate the adverse impact of persistent unemployment. Hence, the entrenchment of social exclusion in Hong Kong would explain the substantially adverse impact of social exclusion the unemployed youth's work commitment. In contrast, such an impact did not hold in Shanghai. This finding reflects that social exclusion is not so entrenched, probably because unemployed youth are not the only scapegoat for social exclusion in Shanghai. Accordingly, there are many fronts of social exclusion, known as intra-ethnic tension, in this biggest city in China (Law, 2007). Ironically, the competition-prone ethos in Shanghai tends to dilute the noxious impact of social exclusion on the unemployed youth's work commitment.

Fourth, residency in the city was particularly favourable to work commitment in Tianjin. In sharp contrast, residency tended to reduce work commitment in Hong Kong. The effect of residency in the city would reflect the effect of the city, as it represents the influence of the city over time. Hence, the contribution of residency to work commitment in Tianjin would embody those of social inclusion and human capital in the city. The converse case is that the negative impact of residency on work commitment in Hong Kong realises the obstacles of social exclusion and inadequate reward to human capital in that city. Hence, residency would aggravate the impairment of work commitment due to the unfavourable conditions of Hong Kong. In other words, residency in Tianjin would be a resource to facilitate work commitment when it strengthens social inclusion and the realisation of the benefit of human capital. This is consonant with the image of Tianjin as an inclusive and cohesive society (Wei & Jie, 2003). This strengthening does not happen in Hong Kong and Shanghai, because they are competitive and socially exclusive (Ku, 2004; Law, 2007).

Fifth, other background characteristics, including age, gender, allowances, dwelling size, work duration and job loss, exerted minimal influences on work commitment. The insignificance of work duration and job loss may be a result their redundancy for the prediction, when unemployment duration was already a better predictor. Ostensible resources such as allowances and dwelling size did not make a difference, probably because they shrink the need for employment and work commitment. Thus, the contradiction between resource theory and need theory would mean a neutralisation of effects of these characteristics.

Overall, the unemployed youth's work commitment is more predictable in Hong Kong and Tianjin than in Shanghai. In the latter, no factor was significantly predictive. This may be due to the fluid, protean and rapidly changing social conditions in Shanghai (Cai & Sit, 2003; He & Wu, 2005; Lu & Alon, 2004). Eventually, both social inclusion and human capital may lose their clout on work commitment. The influence of social exclusion dissipates when social change reshuffles class composition and its related stratification and stigmatisation. Similarly, human capital or least work skill or education is not decisive when other factors contribute to employment, its reward and eventually, work commitment. Probably, talents or human capital other than work skill or education, such as those concerning creativity, speculation, courage, clairvoyance, determination, risk taking and social networking, are more vital (Cai & Shen, 2002). Fortuitous factors, such as those related to marketisation and internationalisation, may alternatively determine career success and work commitment in Shanghai (He & Wu, 2005; Zhu & Yuan, 2001). At any rate, Shanghai seems to the least meritocratic metropolis such that education and work skill are inconsequential on the unemployed youth's work commitment.

Further research

Limitations in the design of the study require further research to corroborate and substantiate findings from the study. Such limitations include the restriction to three cities of China, one-time and single-source measurement, and inadequate specification of social exclusion and human capital processes. First, the three cities are unable to represent the corpus of Chinese societies, not to mention habitats in the whole world. Apart from their Chinese nature, the three cities share the characteristics of bigness, coastal location and relatively autonomous administration, as they are directly under the central government of China. There is thus no thorough variation in city or other contextual factors among the three cities. This would impose a restriction of the estimated effects and generalisation of the findings. Furthermore, the limitation of one-time measurement compromises the ability of study to reveal causal effects, as the study can only assume the temporal order and causal mechanism, without a proof of them. The limitation of single-source measurement means that the findings stem solely from unemployed youth's experience, which may not be objectively veracious. It restricts the practical application of the findings to the management of the youth's experience, which does not necessarily involve changes in the objective environment. These limitations necessitate the broadening of the design, sampling and measurement in further research. Specifically, panel design, sampling of more and diverse cities, and collecting data from multiple sources are preferable. Only by such broadening can further research offer adequate data for contextual analysis formally and explicitly. That is, further research can incorporate contextual factors to conduct multilevel analysis, which can disentangle the profound direct and moderating impacts of contexts.

Another limitation is that the study does not fully illuminate the workings of the theories of social exclusion, human capital, resources and needs. It only relies on discrete factors indicative of the theories, without unfolding the nexuses of the theoretical processes. For instance, the study measures the experience of powerlessness and underclass conditions, but not directly gauge social exclusion and its disempowering, demoralising and disheartening processes. Similarly, the study only measures such basic human capital factors as work skill and education, but it does not tap the way that human capital prompts and facilitates the investment in employment. Such a way would rest on the expectation of reward, in return to human capital invested. The measurement of intermediate process factors is necessary for further research to embody the theoretical mechanisms. Alternatively, qualitative research can be a flexible means to elaborate the detail of the workings of the theoretical mechanisms. Qualitative research is anyhow complementary to quantitative research to furnish findings that are both reasonable and veritable.

Implications

For the promotion of unemployed youth's work commitment, the foremost need is the realisation of the contextual differences in and therefore differential influences on work commitment. This is the basis for formulating strategies pertinent to the context. As such, even though such a social exclusion factor as powerlessness tends to discourage the work commitment of unemployed youth in the three Chinese cities generally, the discouragement is stronger in Tianjin than in Shanghai and Hong Kong. In contrast, another social exclusion or underclass factor, unemployment as the main condition, had only a weak reduction in the work commitment of the unemployed youth in Shanghai. Moreover, the influences of residency on work commitment were diametrically opposite between Tianjin and Hong Kong. Promotion of work commitment in the unemployed youth of different cities can thus depend on different factors. The simplest implication is that the promotion is most imperative for unemployed youth in Hong Kong. More than this, different cities would require the promotion of different factors as follows.

In Hong Kong, promotion needs to erase the adverse impact of the underclass or social exclusion, characterised by persistent unemployment and powerlessness. This would require the dissipation of stigmatisation, marginalisation, exploitation, discrimination and polarisation that are unfavourable to the underclass condition. It alternatively means the strengthening of social inclusion or acceptance of unemployed youth. Ways to boost social inclusion would include building a common identity in society that includes unemployed youth (Oxoby, 2009).

Promoting work commitment in Tianjin would benefit from the diminishing of the underclass or social exclusion factors and the intensifying of human capital. For the latter, raising unemployed youth's education and work skills is pertinent. The increase in education is a natural strategy or response to unemployment, particularly affordable by a large city (Card & Lemieux, 2001). Providing tutoring is a way to help low achievers to advance their education (Farsides & Woodfield, 2003). By contrast, training may not be a definite means to upgrade work skills (Huebner et al., 2003). Instead, reducing the experience of powerlessness can raise work skills, in addition to removing social exclusion (de Witte, Verhofstadt, & Omey, 2007). This is because the development of work skill requires one's job autonomy.

The promotion of unemployed youth's work commitment in Shanghai also needs the reduction of powerlessness. However, the reduction would be less effective than that in Tianjin and Hong Kong. As human capital and social exclusion factors are not crucial in Shanghai, exploration of other effective factors is required.

Acknowledgement

The funding source of the study is the Direct Grant (Project Number 2020876) of the Faculty of Social Science, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.