The changing determinants of homeownership amongst young people in urban China

Figures & data

Figure 1. The conceptual framework of four ‘housing opportunity patterns’ in transitional China.

Table 1. Housing tenure distribution of young Chinese people.

	Housing tenure	N	code as	%
Owners	Interviewee + parents/children	17	Independent homeowners	40.0%
	Interviewee	580
	Children	3
	Parents	565	Dependent homeowners	37.7%
Non-owners		335	Not homeowners	22.3%
Missing		273
Total		1773	Total N	1500

Data source: CGSS 2010U_18-35.

The use of the data has been permitted by Chinese Soicial Open Database, CSSOD. http://www.cssod.org/

Table 2. Definition of explanatory variables.

Variables	Definition
Demographic
Age categories	Age categories
Marriage	Marriage status
Parenthood	Parenthood status
Political affiliation
Political involvement	Most powerful political party status between husband and wife
Cadre status	Most powerful cadre status between husband and wife
Political involvement of parents	Most powerful political party status between father and mother when the interviewee was 14
Cadre status of parents	Most powerful cadre status between father and mother when the interviewee was 14
Organisational affiliation
Work unit type	Most powerful work unit type between husband and wife
Work unit sector	Most powerful work unit sector between husband and wife
Work unit size	The work unit size of the interviewee (number of employees)
Work unit type of parents	Most powerful work unit type between father and mother when the interviewee was 14
Work unit sector of parents	Most powerful work unit sector between father and mother when the interviewee was 14
Territorial affiliation
Hukou type	The highest hukou type status between husband and wife
Hukou site	Migration movements since original hukou registration
Hukou transfer	Hukou transfer status
Market ability
Education level	The highest education level between husband and wife
Employment status	The highest employment status between husband and wife
Household annual income	Household annual income by category
Personal annual income	Personal annual income by category
Education level of parents	The highest education level between father and mother when the interviewee was 14
Employment status of parents	The highest employment status between father and mother when the interviewee was 14

Table 3. Frequencies of homeownership by explanatory variables.

Variables and categories		Not homeowners		Dependent homeowners		Independent homeowners		Missing value
		N	%	N	%	N	%	N
Demographic
age_category	18–25	116	35	238	42	65	11
	26–36	219	65	327	58	535	89
Marriage	Not in marriage	140	42	278	49	76	13	2
	In marriage	195	58	285	50	524	87
parenthood	Not in parenthood	172	51	337	60	153	26
	In parenthood	163	49	228	40	447	75
Political affiliation
political involvement	Has no political party membership	280	84	496	88	431	72
	Has political party membership	55	16	69	12	169	28
cadre status	Has no cadre status	319	95	541	96	533	89
	Has cadre status	16	5	24	4	67	11
political involvement of parents	Has no political party membership	276	82	415	73	406	68
	Has political party membership	59	18	150	27	194	32
cadre status of parents	Has no cadre status	318	95	504	89	529	88
	Has cadre status	17	5	61	11	71	12
Organisational affiliation
work unit type	No work unit	216	65	373	67	247	41	10
	Enterprise	79	24	136	24	211	35
	Government	38	11	49	9	141	24
work unit sector	No work unit	83	27	200	38	185	33	120
	Private and collective	143	47	194	37	159	29
	Foreign or joint	36	12	70	13	144	26
	State	40	13	61	12	65	12
work unit size	0	121	36	229	41	187	31	*
	1–50	108	32	167	30	178	30
	<50	106	32	169	30	235	39
work unit type of parents	No work unit	191	58	216	39	258	44	37
	Enterprise	76	23	167	30	152	26
	Government	61	19	169	31	176	30
work unit sector of parents	No work unit	167	55	238	46	271	48	117
	Private and collective	64	21	89	17	76	14
	Foreign or joint	50	17	139	27	154	28
	State	22	7	55	11	58	10
Territorial affiliation
hukou type	Rural	125	37	107	19	119	20
	Urban	210	63	458	81	481	80
hukou site	Inter-municipality migrants	153	47	42	7	94	16	6
	Intra-municipality migrants	75	23	124	22	142	24
	Local	98	30	399	71	359	60
hukou transfer	Born as urban or local	50	15	270	48	159	27
	Remain as rural or non-local	175	52	154	27	181	30
	Transferred to urban or local	110	33	141	25	260	43
Market ability
education level	Elementary education	109	33	138	24	151	25	1
	Secondary education	86	26	189	34	124	21
	Higher education	140	42	237	42	325	54
employment status	No formal employment	37	11	137	24	47	8
	Formal employment	206	61	330	58	377	63
	Employer or self-employment	92	27	98	17	176	29
household annual income (¥)	0—15,630	40	15	62	13	54	10	237
	15,631–26,054	51	19	100	21	77	15
	26,055–40,000	51	19	108	23	95	18
	40,001–70,000	54	20	106	22	137	26
	67,001—6,00,000	77	28	97	21	154	30
personal annual income (¥)	0–2500	34	13	81	18	53	11	275
	2501–9999	50	19	114	25	87	17
	10,000-18,000	32	12	84	18	60	12
	18001—30,000	66	25	97	21	145	29
	30,001–6,000,000	84	32	80	18	158	31
education level of parents	Elementary education	223	67	317	56	383	64	10
	Secondary education	88	27	185	33	154	26
	Higher education	20	6	61	11	59	10
employment status of parents	No formal employment	178	53	190	34	276	46
	Formal employment	104	31	287	51	274	46
	Employer or self-employment	53	16	88	16	50	8

Note: *502 cases are missing, or ‘not applicable’. Since the question is ‘How many employees your work unit has?’ We assume these cases have no work unit therefore code it as ‘0’.

Table 4. Results of Logistic regression models.

Variables and categories	A	B	C
Demographic
Age group (ref = 18–25)
26–36	1.2	0.4**	2.2***
Marriage (ref = not in marriage)
In marriage	4.2***	2.1*	2.2**
Parenthood (ref = has no children)
Has children	1.2	0.7	1.8**
Political affiliation
Political involvement (ref = has no political party membership)
Has political party membership	1.1	0.6	1.9**
Political involvement of parents (ref = has no political party membership
Has political party membership	2.0**	1.8*	1.1
Organisational affiliation
Work unit type of parents (ref = no work unit)
Enterprise	1.1	1.5	0.8
Government	1.6	2.1**	0.8
Territorial affiliation
Hukou type (ref = agricultural)
Non-agricultural	1.5	2.8**	0.5**
Hukou site (ref = inter-municipality migrants)
Intra-municipality migrants	4.2***	6.0***	0.8
Local	7.2***	16.0***	0.5
Hukou transfer (ref = born as urban or/and local)
Remain as rural or non-local	1.4	1.2	1.0
Transferred as urban or/and local	0.9	0.5**	1.8**
Market ability
Employment status (ref = no formal employment)
Formal employment	0.9	0.5*	2.0**
Employer or self-employment	0.7	0.3**	2.4**
Personal income (ref = deviation)
0–2500	0.7	1.1	0.8
2501—9999	0.8	1.1	0.7*
10,000–18000	1.0	1.3	0.7
18,001—30,000	1.3	1.0	1.3*
30,001—6,000,000	1.3	0.7*	1.7**
Constant	0.1***	0.3	0.3*
N	741	698	933
Percentage correct	65.9–74.9	63.8–78.6	52.3–71.1
−2 Log pseudolikelihood	760	664	1037
Nagelkerke's R^2	0.314	0.412	0.318

Notes: Model A compares independent home owners versus non-homeowners. Model B compares dependent home owners versus non-homeowners. Model C compares independent home owners versus dependent homeowners.

***p < 0.001.

**p < 0.01.

*p < 0.05.