人情支出是家庭负担吗——中国城镇居民的人情支出变化趋势与负担假说
|
摘要
在中国社会,人情支出是大部分城镇居民日常消费开支中非常重要的组成部分,它已成为衡量中国居民社会网络关系、社会地位、社会互动乃至经济交易等社会事实的重要指标。不过,随着社会生活水平的提升,诸多研究发现人情支出的数额逐年增长,成为家庭负担,不利于社会的良性运行。围绕"人情支出负担"假说,本研究通过使用五期重复横截面调查数据,分析人情支出在过去十年的变化趋势,结论表明,人情支出逐年增长,呈现"棘轮效应",其在家庭总收入中的占比增长明显,家庭人情年支出的增长速度相对快于家庭总收入增长速度;人情支出与主观幸福感、生活满意度之间存在正相关关系,但有部分受访者认为人情支出已成家庭负担并呈现较低的主观幸福感和生活满意度。人情支出存在显著的城乡二元差异,与城镇户籍或居住在城镇地区的居民相比,农村户籍或居住在农村地区/社区的居民具有更低金额的人情支出,但却有更高比例的人情——总支出占比。随时间发展,人情支出成为家庭负担的可能性在减弱,同时它还受到人情——总支出、家庭总收入、居住社区类型、主观社会经济地位、家庭规模、年龄、性别、是否为党员等多因素的共同影响。
In China,gift spending accounts for an unneglectible portion of most urban residents' expenditure. Gift spending has become an important indicator of the social facts such as social network relations,social status,social interaction and economic transactions of Chinese residents. However,with the improvement of living standard in China,many studies have found that the amount of gift spending has increased year by year and become a burden on the family,which is not beneficial to a healthy society development. To clarify and to enrich our understanding of the hypothesis that "gift spending has become an expenditure burden to families",this study analyzes the change trend of gift spending in the past decade by using five repeated nationwide survey data. It is found that:( 1) Gift spending has been increasing year by year,showing "ratcheting effect". The ratio of gift spending in family total income has also been increasing significantly,which implies that gift spending increases at a higher speed than that of family total income.( 2) On average,higher gift spending is associated with higher subjective well-being and satisfaction of life. But there are respondents who believe that gift spending has become a family burden and show a lower subjective well-being and life satisfaction.( 3) There is a significant difference on gift spending between urban and rural residents. Households with rural household registration or living in rural areas/communities have a lower amount of gift spending than urban residents or households residing in urban areas,but have a higher proportion of gift spending over total expenditure;( 4) The possibility of gift spending becoming a family burden has been weakening along the time. It is also evidenced that gift spending is affected by many factors such as total family expenditure,total household income,whether being located in a rural community,subjective socioeconomic status judgment,family size,age,gender,Chinese Communist Party membership etc.
In China,gift spending accounts for an unneglectible portion of most urban residents' expenditure. Gift spending has become an important indicator of the social facts such as social network relations,social status,social interaction and economic transactions of Chinese residents. However,with the improvement of living standard in China,many studies have found that the amount of gift spending has increased year by year and become a burden on the family,which is not beneficial to a healthy society development. To clarify and to enrich our understanding of the hypothesis that "gift spending has become an expenditure burden to families",this study analyzes the change trend of gift spending in the past decade by using five repeated nationwide survey data. It is found that:( 1) Gift spending has been increasing year by year,showing "ratcheting effect". The ratio of gift spending in family total income has also been increasing significantly,which implies that gift spending increases at a higher speed than that of family total income.( 2) On average,higher gift spending is associated with higher subjective well-being and satisfaction of life. But there are respondents who believe that gift spending has become a family burden and show a lower subjective well-being and life satisfaction.( 3) There is a significant difference on gift spending between urban and rural residents. Households with rural household registration or living in rural areas/communities have a lower amount of gift spending than urban residents or households residing in urban areas,but have a higher proportion of gift spending over total expenditure;( 4) The possibility of gift spending becoming a family burden has been weakening along the time. It is also evidenced that gift spending is affected by many factors such as total family expenditure,total household income,whether being located in a rural community,subjective socioeconomic status judgment,family size,age,gender,Chinese Communist Party membership etc.
引文
[1]李伟民:《论人情──关于中国人社会交往的分析和探讨》,载《中山大学学报(社会科学版)》1996年第2期。
[2]阎云翔:《礼物的流动》,上海:上海人民出版社2000年版。
[3]刘军:《农村人情消费的经济学思考》,载《消费经济》2004年第4期。
[4]Duesenberry,J S.Income,Saving and the Theory of Consumer Behavior,Harvard University Press,1959.
[5]周广肃、马光荣:《人情支出挤出了正常消费吗——来自中国家户数据的证据》,载《浙江社会科学》2015年第3期。
[6]李源:《中国农村居民人情支出行为研究:基于微观数据的实证分析》,载《山西财经大学硕士论文》2013年版。
[7]费孝通:《乡土中国》,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店2005年版。
[8]王鹏:《生命历程、社会经济地位与生育性别偏好》,载《山东社会科学》2015年第1期。
[9]马春波、李少文:《农村人情消费状况研究——鄂北大山村调查》,载《青年研究》2004年第12期。
[10]翟学伟:《人情、面子与权力的再生产——情理社会中的社会交换方式》,载《社会学研究》2004年第5期。
[11]黄光国、胡先缙:《人情与面子——中国人的权力游戏》,载《党政干部参考》2005年第7期。
(1)本论文使用数据来自中国社会科学院和中国社会科学院-上海市人民政府上海研究院资助的“中国社会状况综合调查”。该调查由中国社会科学院社会学研究所执行,项目主持人为李培林。此外,此文还得到国家社科基金重大项目“中国社会质量基础数据库建设”资助。感谢上述机构和基金的协助,本论文内容由作者自行负责。
(1)五次CSS调查社区性质的选项不同,为统一标准,我们将社区进行二元化处理,只区分农村选项与非农村选项。农村选项是明确的“农村”,而非农村选项则包括老城区、单位社区、商品房小区、集镇社区、城中村、别墅区等。
(2)主观社会经济地位,是社会个体通过与周围环境/群体的比较而形成对的自己社会经济地位的评估。绝对社会经济地位(SES)可以通过相关指标估算出来,相对客观但不能完全反映社会经济地位对受访者的影响。自伊斯特林悖论提出以后,研究者非常关注受访者对自身社会经济地位的主观评估,并由此产生的影响。本研究采用CSS调查中的"主观社会经济地位"评估指标。该调查参照李克特量表的设计原理,以及收入五等分组的计算原理,将主观社会经济地位划分五个层次。
[2]阎云翔:《礼物的流动》,上海:上海人民出版社2000年版。
[3]刘军:《农村人情消费的经济学思考》,载《消费经济》2004年第4期。
[4]Duesenberry,J S.Income,Saving and the Theory of Consumer Behavior,Harvard University Press,1959.
[5]周广肃、马光荣:《人情支出挤出了正常消费吗——来自中国家户数据的证据》,载《浙江社会科学》2015年第3期。
[6]李源:《中国农村居民人情支出行为研究:基于微观数据的实证分析》,载《山西财经大学硕士论文》2013年版。
[7]费孝通:《乡土中国》,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店2005年版。
[8]王鹏:《生命历程、社会经济地位与生育性别偏好》,载《山东社会科学》2015年第1期。
[9]马春波、李少文:《农村人情消费状况研究——鄂北大山村调查》,载《青年研究》2004年第12期。
[10]翟学伟:《人情、面子与权力的再生产——情理社会中的社会交换方式》,载《社会学研究》2004年第5期。
[11]黄光国、胡先缙:《人情与面子——中国人的权力游戏》,载《党政干部参考》2005年第7期。
(1)本论文使用数据来自中国社会科学院和中国社会科学院-上海市人民政府上海研究院资助的“中国社会状况综合调查”。该调查由中国社会科学院社会学研究所执行,项目主持人为李培林。此外,此文还得到国家社科基金重大项目“中国社会质量基础数据库建设”资助。感谢上述机构和基金的协助,本论文内容由作者自行负责。
(1)五次CSS调查社区性质的选项不同,为统一标准,我们将社区进行二元化处理,只区分农村选项与非农村选项。农村选项是明确的“农村”,而非农村选项则包括老城区、单位社区、商品房小区、集镇社区、城中村、别墅区等。
(2)主观社会经济地位,是社会个体通过与周围环境/群体的比较而形成对的自己社会经济地位的评估。绝对社会经济地位(SES)可以通过相关指标估算出来,相对客观但不能完全反映社会经济地位对受访者的影响。自伊斯特林悖论提出以后,研究者非常关注受访者对自身社会经济地位的主观评估,并由此产生的影响。本研究采用CSS调查中的"主观社会经济地位"评估指标。该调查参照李克特量表的设计原理,以及收入五等分组的计算原理,将主观社会经济地位划分五个层次。