Soc Indic Res (2011) 103:145167

DOI 10.1007/s11205-010-9702-8

Coupling Social Solidarity and Social Harmony

in Hong Kong
Chau-kiu Cheung Stephen Kan Ma

Accepted: 22 August 2010 / Published online: 4 September 2010

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract The various forms of social solidarity are empirically uncharted, especially in
relation to social harmony. With respect to resource exchange theory, inclusive solidarity
or intergroup acceptance is more conducive to social harmony than mechanical, organic,
distributive, and dialogic forms of solidarity. The theoretical prediction holds in the present
study that surveyed 1,093 Hong Kong Chinese. Importantly, ones experience of inclusive
solidarity tended to contribute to ones practice of social harmony and experience of
societal social harmony. Moreover, results show that experiences of organic, distributive,
and dialogic solidarity also appeared to induce the practice of social harmony. In contrast,
mechanical solidarity did not seem to be helpful for sustaining social harmony. Different
forms of solidarity thereby exhibit differential impacts on social harmony.
Keywords

Social solidarity
Social harmony
Resource exchange theory

1 Introduction
Assessing and advancing social solidarity and social harmony are necessary for the
common mission of crafting social quality of life or flourishing (Phillips 2006; Sturm
1998). Social solidarity refers to social interaction in society to bind people together for
common interest, whereas social harmony refers to a desirable, healthy state of relationships among people in society. The two concepts are differentiable because social interaction does not necessarily ensure relationship quality. Nevertheless, their necessity for
common concern evolves from the communitarian vision of social development (Crow
2002; Robinson 2005). This vision is particularly salient in collectivistic or socialist settings, while it is also prevailing in Western societies as a countercurrent to individualism
and liberalism (Christopher 1999; Veenhoven 1998). Essentially, promoting social harmony or harmony in society is the official developmental ideal of China, including Hong
Kong (Ho and Chan 2009; Pramod 2008). A clue to the promotion would center on social
C. Cheung (&)
S. K. Ma
City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong
e-mail: ssjacky@cityu.edu.hk

123

146

C. Cheung, S. K. Ma

solidarity, in view of the stronghold of theoretical and research traditions underlying social
theory, such as mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity (Durkheim 1893; Lockwood
1992). The traditions originated to tackle problems of social disharmony, or its manifestations as anomie and alienation. In their progression, the traditions have unfolded five
forms of social solidarity, including distributive solidarity, inclusive solidarity, and dialogic solidarity, in addition to the older forms. Their assessment, particularly in relation to
social harmony, is an empirical void that summons the present study. Accordingly, the
study aims to clarify the conceptualization of social solidarity and its relationship with
social harmony, which are experiences or practices reported by Hong Kong Chinese. The
study specifically examines the uncharted relationships between the five forms of social
solidarity and social harmony demonstrated by oneself and society. Viewed thoroughly, the
relationships examined include the (1) contributions of social solidarity to social harmony,
(2) contributions of social harmony to social solidarity, (3) contribution of ones social
harmony to societal social harmony, (4) contribution of societal social harmony to ones
social contribution, and (5) impacts of social class on social harmony and social solidarity.
These relationships are explainable in a parsimonious and pervasive way by resource
exchange theory.
The import of studying and thus championing social solidarity and social harmony
primarily rests on communitarian and allied philosophies and research findings. Communitarianism holds that people are capable of, voluntary for, engaged in, and benefiting
from socializing, social interaction, connection, interdependence, responsibility, even love
for each other (Sturm 1998; Woolcock and Narayan 2000). Essentially, such communitarian practice is beneficial to all people involved, as it is not a zero-sum game (Sturm
1998). Opposites to social solidarity and social harmony, including anomie and alienation,
are undesirable and dysfunctional as they deviate from human nature (Devine and Roberts
2003; Stewart 1989; Sturm 1998). Communitarianism or communitarian practice is also
meritorious for establishing moral order and caring in the community to safeguard healthy
and quality life (Robinson 2005). The philosophical basis for communitarianism in turn
rests on the premises that people develop their values, notably the virtues of solidarity and
loyalty, before making their personal choices and they are susceptible to conditioning in
the community (Ellis et al. 2006). An instance is the young childs affiliation with his or
her parent. These premises imply that community influence precedes and takes primacy
over individualistic, liberal action. The import of communitarianism in turn lies in its
facilitation of support for policy for the commonwealth of the community (Schlesinger
1997). In addition, communitarianism is important for delineating and upholding morality,
and is functional to the maintenance of order and even innovation, and good society as a
whole (Etzioni 1996; Frazer 1999; Lee 1996). Accordingly, so long as morality hinges on
social relationships and commonwealth, morality needs to take root in a community, where
communitarianism applies and prevails.
Social solidarity and social harmony are also important because of their functions or
benefits. In theory, they are helpful in maintaining political stability and economic growth
(Berger 2002; Maloutas and Maloutas 2004). Social solidarity and social harmony are
therefore worth investment, and their leverage is attributable to their reduction of transaction cost (Stanley and Smeltzer 2003). Furthermore, the investment is valuable in
boosting the return to social capital, characterized by potentially helpful social relationships (Dayton-Johnson 2003). Social capital is distinguishable from social solidarity and
social harmony in that the former is the social resource drawn from social networks,
whereas the latter are experiences and practices generating resources in society (Crow
2002; Friedkin 2004; Ostrom 2009). However, although social solidarity and social

123

Coupling Social Solidarity and Social Harmony in Hong Kong

147

harmony are not social resources from which one draws benefits in an instrumental way,
social solidarity and social harmony are salutary in a social or intrinsic way (Kawachi and
Berkman 2001; Mullins and Dugan 1991). The salutary effect is justified by humanist
theory, which posits that social solidarity and harmony are integral to human nature and
therefore conducive to human well-being (Sheldon and Kasser 2001).
Social solidarity and social harmony are of contemporary concern because of the orientation of public policy in both Chinese and Western societies (Chan and Chan 2006; Ho
and Chan 2009; Kearns and Forrest 2000; White 2003). Such policy aims to tackle
problems of socioeconomic inequality, social fragmentation, and decline in morality
(Duhaime et al. 2004; Forrest and Kearns 2001; Maloutas and Maloutas 2004). Hence, the
policy informs education, propaganda, and community building for the promotion of social
solidarity and social harmony in the West and China (Brady 2009; Crow 2002; Green et al.
2003; Pramod 2008). Of particular policy concern is the impact of social class on social
harmony and solidarity, given the assumption that poorer or lower-class people experience
and practice a lower extent of social harmony and solidarity (Ho and Chan 2009; Letki
2008). The assumption prompts the examination of class differences in social harmony and
solidarity as a basis for targeting policies to the segment in society that requires the
restoration of social harmony and solidarity.

1.1 Pentangular View of Social Solidarity

Remarkably, social solidarity demonstrates its importance through substantial traditions in
social theory and research. The traditions have identified five forms of social solidarity,
pertaining to mechanical, organic, distributive, inclusive, and dialogic ones (see Table 1).
This typology is a product of a wealth of works epitomized in some latest theoretical
treatises (Calhoun 2002; Crow 2002; Duhaime et al. 2004; Houtman 2000; Sturm 1998;
Wilson 2006). It expands the original, functionalist typology, which differentiates
mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity (Durkheim 1893). Mechanical solidarity is the
sharing of ideas, beliefs, values, norms, and teachings among people to reach a consensus.
It has a long history, probably salient in feudal or traditional societies, through the
preaching of religion, education, family sanctioning, and other means of socialization. The
sharing of norms in mechanical solidarity in effect creates a culture for people that
becomes institutionalized and enduring. This form of solidarity and reflects functionalist
theory such that the sharing of norms would consistently contribute to the common
functioning of the whole (Kingsbury and Scanzoni 1993; Siisiainen 2003). Mechanical

Table 1 Conceptualization of social solidarity

Ingredient

Mechanical

Organic

Distributive

Inclusive

Dialogic

Object

Idea

Work

Resource

Affection

Idea

Action

Agreeing

Production

Consumption

Socializing

Conversation

Theory

Functionalist

Functionalist

Materialist

Interactionist

Critical

System

Culture

Economy

Polity

Community

Community

Policy

Education

Trading

Welfare

Civil

Media

Principle

Consensus

Complementarity

Equality

Commonality

Plurality

Resource

Agreement

Collaboration

Material

Acceptance

Understanding

123

148

C. Cheung, S. K. Ma

solidarity is most notable in the form of team spirit, when all members uphold the same
goal (Burroughs and Eby 1998). This form of solidarity hinges on the principle of consensus, which regards dissent or inconsistency as divisive and counterproductive (Swenson
2004). However, division can be the condition for the second form of solidarity, organic
solidarity, which relies on the division of labor. Collaboration instead of consensus on
ideas and values is the glue to reach solidarity. This is a more modern form of solidarity
than the mechanical one and is a crux of capitalist production. The economy, business, or
work sector or organization is the major field for the operation of organic solidarity. This
solidarity relies on the automatic adjustment of the parts, even without a common norm or
regulation. It reflects functionalist theory such that the parts help each other in the
maintenance of the whole. This is the manifestation in trading in which partners exchange
resources to securing mutual benefits. The principle of complementarity applies to organic
solidarity to realize the mutual benefits (Lane 1991). The analogy to an organism is
relevant to describe the collaborative workings of each of the organs for the survival and
functioning of the organism.
Distributive solidarity means equal access to resources, principally based on government or public provision. The solidarity has a basis on materialist theory, which posits the
primacy of livelihood, as emphasized by Marx and Engels (Crow 2002). Consumption or
satisfaction of basic needs for livelihood is the crucial concern for maintaining distributive solidarity. This solidarity requires and commonly leads to the welfare policy for the
supply of social welfare to divert discontent (Kearns and Forrest 2000; Sturm 1998). Such
discontent, provoked by inequality, industrialization, capitalism, and class consciousness,
demands the government to distribute or redistribute resources to citizens (Crow 2002;
Wilson 2006). Such solidarity does not require absolute equality in resource distribution,
as it hinges on the distribution of resources and opportunities in a fair way to lessen
inequality (Green et al. 2003; Stanley 2003). Moreover, inclusive solidarity distribute
symbolic feelings such as affection and friendliness and rather than material resources,
when it aims to eliminate discrimination. Inclusive solidarity or social inclusion means
interacting and accepting people across groups in community or civil society (Turner
et al. 2007). This solidarity builds on the emphasis of symbolic-interactionist theory on
facilitating social interaction through the sharing and circulation of symbolic meaning
(SunWolf 2008; Turner 1988). A valuable symbol for social inclusion is a shared identity
(Levine et al. 2005). Thus, social inclusion is conducive to building a common identity or
commonality across groups for resisting prejudice and discrimination (Esses et al. 2001;
Turner et al. 2008). Rather than creating common symbolic meaning, dialogic solidarity
simply applies the symbolic tool of language to facilitate communication across parties in
society. Achieving mutual understanding through communication is the principal goal of
dialogic solidarity (Ellis et al. 2006). This solidarity is vital for societal integration
according to critical theory or communicative action theory in particular (Braaten 1991;
Habermas 1981). Accordingly, communicative action, aimed at securing mutual understanding, is the norm and glue for social order and progress. The main tool for communicative action is validation, in comprehending messages, and identifying legitimacy,
sincerity, and truthfulness of the messages communicated. Communicative action does
not need to ensure a consensus, as it allows for difference or plurality. This is the stand of
multiculturalism and feminism (Hulse and Stone 2007; Sturm 1998). As such, dialogic
solidarity preserves the value of each party in society (Sturm 1998). Dialogic solidarity
also presupposes an ideal speech situation, which is free of oppression and power
differential.

123

Coupling Social Solidarity and Social Harmony in Hong Kong

149

1.2 Contributions of Social Solidarity to Social Harmony

Resource theory or specifically resource exchange theory provides a parsimonious
explanation for the contributions of the five forms of social solidarity to social harmony.
The theory principally maintains that exchanges of similar resources are normative and
satisfactory (Foa et al. 1993; Tornblom and Vermunt 2007). Essentially, the theory
delimits resources to six kinds, love, service, goods, money, information, and status, with
varying degrees of particularism and concreteness. Like exchange theory in general,
resource exchange theory upholds the principles of reciprocity and fairness, which
underlie the need for exchange. These principles mandate that one needs to reciprocate
resources of a similar kind in exchange for resources received. With respect to the theory,
a common thrust of the five forms of social solidarity is the tendering of resources of
various kinds. The resources are others agreement from mechanical solidarity, collaboration from organic solidarity, materials from distributive solidarity, acceptance from
inclusive solidarity, and understanding from dialogic solidarity (see Table 1). Translated
into the terms in resource exchange theory, agreement and understanding represent
information, collaboration represents service, materials represent goods and money, and
acceptance reflects love. In exchange, social harmony by persons who experience social
solidarity and obtain its provided resources is a response to the solidarity. Social harmony
means a positive social relationship involving tolerance and love (Hwang 2000). With
respect to resource exchange theory which posits the exchange of the same kind of
resources, social harmony is most likely a response to inclusive solidarity for exchanging
love. Such exchange would happen in the one who experiences social solidarity and other
people in society supposed to experience the solidarity as well. The contribution of social
solidarity to social harmony is consistent with existing research findings (Ho and Chan
2009; Ridgeway and Johnson 1990). In particular, those findings about the contributions
of experiences with tolerance, interdependence, and grouping champion the merit of
inclusive solidarity. Additionally, mutual support and public welfare are also contributors
to social harmony, in line with the functions of organic solidarity and distributive solidarity. The following hypotheses reflect the view that social harmony is a response to
social solidarity.
Hypothesis 1.

Social solidarity (including its mechanical, organic, distributive, inclusive

and dialogic forms) contributes to social harmony (by one or society).
Hypothesis 1.1. Inclusive solidarity particularly contributes to social harmony (by one or
society).
1.3 Contributions of Social Harmony to Social Solidarity
Resource exchange theory again anticipates the contribution of social harmony to social
solidarity such that the solidarity is an exchange response to the harmony. Accordingly,
inputs of various resources would help the maintenance of social solidarity, which facilitates the return of resources. Existing research findings have found that peoples tolerance,
sociability, friendship, and organizational involvement contribute to social solidarity in
general (Houtman 2000; Letki 2008). These characteristics can represent alternative
indicators of social harmony. Moreover, cooperation as an instance of organic solidarity, is
partly a response to cooperation expected (Mulford et al. 1998). This response is a
reflection of exchange, as envisioned by resource exchange theory. Similarly, aid given,
including volunteer service, is also likely a response to aid received (Molm 2006; Wilson

123

150

C. Cheung, S. K. Ma

2000). This may reflect the formation process of distributive solidarity in sharing goods
and services. Another instance of the exchange effect is in friendship making and even
marriage, as a result of positive social contact (Rosenfield 2005; SunWolf 2008). Social
harmony is particularly a supposed way to enhance tolerance or social inclusion (Weissberg 2008). All these would present cases in the formation of inclusive solidarity. Hence,
the following hypothesis is suitable.
Hypothesis 2. Social harmony (by one or society) contributes to social solidarity
(including its mechanical, organic, distributive, inclusive and dialogic
forms).
1.4 Reciprocal Influences Between Ones and Societal Social Harmony
Resource exchange theory can have a further application to the prediction of reciprocal
influences between ones and societal practices of social harmony. Accordingly, one and
others in society are engaged in an exchange of harmonious practice. One is therefore
likely to show social harmony as the reciprocation of social harmony tendered by other
people in society. However, the social harmony of society as a whole may not be so easily
susceptible to a single persons social harmony, because of influence by many other
people. The hypothesized influence is thus mainly from the masses social harmony to a
single persons social harmony, rather than vice versa.
3. Societal social harmony contributes to ones social solidarity.
1.5 Social Class and Background Impacts
The impacts of social class and other background characteristics on social harmony and
social solidarity are relevant to public policy as well. Social class, in a generalized way,
reflects a person social position based on production and consumption, according to the
integration of Marxian and Weberian approaches (Baugher 2003; Wright 1997). The
production component of social class primarily consists in productive relations, which
involve employers, employees, self-employed, unemployed, and non-employed (e.g.,
homemakers or students) persons. In addition, the consumption component of social class
commonly involves income, including personal income and family income, and family
expense, notably on food (Joassart-Marcelli 2005). The usual expectation is that social
class is conducive to social solidarity and social harmony (Letki 2008). However, the
opposite view is that because people of higher class have more substitutes for social
relationships, they would have lower social solidarity and harmony (Sharabany 1994).
Besides, background characteristics may affect both social solidarity and harmony. Such
influences on such experience and practice can emanate from age, education, marriage,
and being a native and nonreligious person (Erickson 2004; Healy et al. 2007; Letki 2008;
Shapiro and Keyes 2008). The social experience and practice may also decline or increase
with time, according to different studies (Hawdon et al. 2000; McPherson et al. 2006). In
the former case, social solidarity and harmony may be higher in a person surveyed at an
earlier time. Background characteristics are at least necessary to be control variables to
highlight the net effects of social solidarity and harmony. In the prediction of social
harmony, social harmony of the past year is also an important control variable to reveal
changes due to social solidarity and other predictors.

123

Coupling Social Solidarity and Social Harmony in Hong Kong

151

1.6 Uniqueness and Relevance of Hong Kong

A study in Hong Kong may offer insights concerning the coupling of social harmony and
solidarity for other metropolises, in view of their similarities with and dissimilarities from
Hong Kong. Their similarities include economic development, the Western form of
sociopolitical systems, globalization, and Manhattanization (Cartier 2008; Forrest et al.
2004; Tsang 1999). As such, Hong Kong is susceptible to as well as influential on other
global cities (Ho and Chan 2009; Hoover and Stokes 2003). Nevertheless, Hong Kong is
typically different from other global cities in cultural tradition and geographic properties
(Kuan and Lau 2002). Hong Kong accordingly still shares some Chinese cultural tradition
and close relationships with other Chinese and East Asian places (Estes 2005). Importantly,
Hong Kong also has some features that may moderate the coupling of social harmony and
solidarity. Such features include income inequality, racial homogeneity, and living density
(Green et al. 2003; Letki 2008; Schulenberg 2003). When the influences from these features are strong, they may preempt other influences on social harmony and solidarity.
These features are all exceptionally high in Hong Kong (Chiu and Lui 2004; La Grange
and Pretorius 2002). Hence, social harmony and solidarity may be less predictable in Hong
Kong than in other places. Hong Kong then enables a conservative test regarding the
coupling of social harmony and solidarity.

2 Methods
From 2008 to 2009, a random-sample telephone survey collected data from 1,093 Hong
Kong Chinese adults, aged 18 or above. The sampling frame for the initial step of random
sampling was all household telephone numbers in Hong Kong. With each household
contacted through the randomly selected telephone numbers, the next step of random
sampling select an adult member randomly, using the most-recent-birthday method
(Salmon and Nichols 1983). The telephone survey took place in weekday evenings, conducted by trained interviewers recruited from a university. This survey yielded a response
rate of 34.7%, which fell within the usual range from 25 to 50% in other telephone surveys
(Keeter et al. 2006).
The major sample characteristics were as follows. Regarding demographic characteristics, the respondents had an average age of 40.8 years, 57.2% of them being women,
56.1% being married, 39.2% being never married, 64.0% being nonreligious, and 74.4
being locally born (see Table 2). Their major social class characteristic was being an
employee (59.2%). In contrast, few of them were unemployed, self-employed, employers
only, or both employers and employees. People who were both employers and employees
were upper-middle class people who afforded to employ others, such as domestic helpers.
They were different from people who were purely employers or capitalists, in terms of
experience with productive relation. On average, food expense accounted for 24.4% of
family income. The higher the share of food expense, the worse the social class position
would be (Joassart-Marcelli 2005).
2.1 Measurement
Measures of the five forms of social solidarity, social harmony by oneself and society each
employed multiple indicators. These indicators were all rating items interspersed within the
three sections in the questionnaire to minimize anchor and contrast effects between

123

152

C. Cheung, S. K. Ma

Table 2 Means and standard

deviations

Scoring

SD

Age

Years

40.8

Female

0, 100

57.2

17.5
49.5

Never married

0, 100

39.3

48.9

Divorced/separated

0, 100

2.2

14.7

Married

0, 100

56.1

49.7

Widowed

0, 100

2.3

15.0

Family size

Persons

2.8

1.4

Nonreligious

0, 100

64.0

48.0

Education

Years

10.6

4.4

Residency

Years

34.3

16.5
43.6

Locally born

0, 100

74.4

Survey time

Years

2,008.6

0.5

Monthly income

US$

466.7

2,002.5

Monthly family income per capita

US$

570.0

1,226.6

Employer only

0, 100

5.8

23.4

Employee only

0, 100

59.2

49.2

Both employer and employee

0, 100

2.3

15.0

Self-employed

0, 100

2.2

14.7

Unemployed

0, 100

1.5

12.3

Not in employment

0, 100

29.0

45.4

Food expense portion

24.4

17.6

adjacent items of similar content (Tourangeau et al. 2000). One section included items
about social solidarity experienced in the recent 6 months. Another section contained items
about social harmony practiced by oneself and other people in society in the recent month.
A third section comprised items about social harmony practiced by oneself and other
people in society in the previous year. The items contained both positively phrased and
negatively phrased to minimize the bias due to the acquiescence response set. Responses to
the items ranged from very little to very much, on a five-point scale. These items
were adapted from various sources, including those for social harmony (Harpham et al.
2002; Noronha 2002) and social solidarity (Leach et al. 2008; Lowenstein and Daatland
2006; Scott et al. 1989). Each set of the multiple indicators formed a composite measure by
means of factor analysis, which was also useful for partialling out the effect of the
acquiescence response set. Because of the use of factor analysis, all composite measures
had a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1.
2.1.1 Social Harmony by Oneself
A measure was about social harmony in the recent month, and another was about social
harmony in the previous year. Each of the two measures had six items. The positively
phrased items were Conversing with strangers harmoniously; Forgiving others in
socializing; Going along harmoniously with people of different backgrounds. In
addition, the negatively phrased and inversely scored items were Refusing to help
strangers; Offending strangers; and Being in disharmony with people in society. The
composite reliability coefficients were .618 and .595 for ones practice of social harmony

123

Coupling Social Solidarity and Social Harmony in Hong Kong

153

in the recent month and previous year respectively, based on the logic of factor analysis
(Bollen 1989; Raykov and Grayson 2003).
2.1.2 Societal Social Harmony
A measure was about social harmony perceived in Hong Kong society in the recent month,
and another was about social harmony in the previous year. Each of the two measures had
six items. The positively phrased items were People in society helping each other;
People in society tolerating each other; Harmony in society. In addition, the negatively phrased and inversely scored items were People in society rowing with each
other; Fragmentation in society; and Conflict in society. The composite reliability
coefficients were .663 and .740 for current for societal social harmony in the recent month
and previous year respectively.
2.1.3 Mechanical Solidarity
Six items combined to measure mechanical solidarity. The positively phrased items were
Sharing the same beliefs with neighbors; Sharing the same beliefs with government
officials; and Sharing the same beliefs with the younger generation. In addition, the
negatively phrased and inversely scored items were Having conflicts with the elder
generation about beliefs; Having conflicts with the mass media about beliefs; and
Having conflicts with the masses in society about beliefs. The composite reliability
coefficient was .597.
2.1.4 Organic Solidarity
Six items combined to measure organic solidarity. The positively phrased items were
Collaborating with others to complete something; Helping each other in practice; and
Complementing each other in practice. In addition, the negatively phrased and inversely
scored items were Competing with others; Having practices destroyed by others; and
Having conflicts with others practice. The composite reliability coefficient was .632.
2.1.5 Distributive Solidarity
Six items combined to measure distributive solidarity. The positively phrased items were
Sharing public venues (e.g., parks, swimming pools) with others; Enjoying the same
life as others; and Having something that the majority in society have. In addition, the
negatively phrased and inversely scored items were Envying others belongings;
Living harder than others; and Not affording a life that the average person has. The
composite reliability coefficient was .714.
2.1.6 Inclusive Solidarity
Five items combined to measure inclusive solidarity. The positively phrased items were
Socializing with people of high social status; Socializing with people of different
strata; and Socializing with people of different backgrounds. In addition, the negatively
phrased and inversely scored items were Being rejected in society; and Being isolated
in society. The composite reliability coefficient was .664.

123

154

C. Cheung, S. K. Ma

2.1.7 Dialogic Solidarity

Five items combined to measure dialogic solidarity. The positively phrased items were
Communicating with people of higher status; Communicating with people of lower
status; and Communicating with the mass media. In addition, the negatively phrased
and inversely scored items were Having opinions ignored by others; and Having
difficulties in communicating with people in society. The composite reliability coefficient
was .558.
2.1.8 Acquiescence
A composite measure combining all rating items indicated the acquiescence response
tendency. It had a higher score when the ratings of all items were consistently higher,
regardless of the content and phrasing of the items. This measure was useful as a control
variable to minimize bias due to rating (Zagorski 1999).
2.2 Analytic Procedure
Structural equation modeling via Mplus was useful for examining relationships and testing
hypotheses based on a holistic model, especially required when they involved reciprocal
relationships and emergent variables (Cohen et al. 1990; Muthen and Muthen 2006). The
basic holistic model (Model 1) regarded social harmony and social solidarity as endogenous variables and specified their structural equations, also including background characteristics as exogenous predictors. Hence, there were nine structural equations for
predicting the four social harmony and five social solidarity variables. This model did not
specify reciprocal influences between social harmony of oneself and society in the recent
month. In contrast, another model (Model 2) estimated such reciprocal influences by using
social harmony of oneself and society in the previous year as instrumental variables (see
Fig. 1). Accordingly, the model regarded social harmony of oneself in the previous year as

Social
harmony,
oneself

Societal social
harmony, past
year
Social solidarity
Mechanical
Organic
Distributive
Inclusive
Dialogic
Social harmony,
oneself, past year

Societal
social
harmony

Background characteristics
Age, gender, education, never married, nonreligious, locally born, residency, social class,
acquiescence, survey time

Fig. 1 Schematic analytic model with reciprocal effects (Model 2)

123

Coupling Social Solidarity and Social Harmony in Hong Kong

155

a predictor of social harmony of oneself in the recent month but not as a predictor of
societal social harmony in the recent month. Similarly, the model held societal social
harmony in the previous year as a predictor of the same harmony in the recent month but
not as a predictor of social harmony of oneself in the recent month. For examining the
effect of social class as a whole, structural equation modeling identified emergent or
induced variables (i.e., not latent variables) (Alwin 1988; Cohen et al. 1990). The emergent
variable was effectively an aggregate of social class indicators, including income, family
income per capita, being an employer, employee, both employer and employee, selfemployed, unemployed, and food expense as a proportion of family income. Such an effect
was the sheaf coefficient in the convention of regression analysis (Heise 1972). By
imposing constraints, structural equation modeling could estimate one single sheaf effect
on any combinations of social harmony and solidarity.

3 Results
Correlations among indicators of social harmony and solidarity revealed that these indicators were distinct from each other (see Table 3). The strongest correlation (r = .599),
was that between inclusive solidarity and dialogic solidarity. This correlation was not
overly strong to indicate redundancy in the two forms of solidarity. Regarding the five
forms of solidarity, confirmatory factor analysis did not favor a single-factor model,
because of the inadequate fit of the factor model (L2(5) = 115, SRMR = .067,
RMSEA = .142, CFI = .878).1 To manifest a fit, the standardized root-mean-square
residual (SRMR) should be less than .05, the root-mean-square of approximation error
(RMSEA) should be less than .07, and the Comparative Goodness-of-Fit Index (CFI)
should be greater than .95 (Hu and Bentler 1999). The inadequate fit suggested that the five
forms of social solidarity did not represent a single dimension. Nevertheless, factors
loadings of the five forms ranged from .276 to .759, showing that they were indicators of
social solidarity in general. This general social solidarity, however, was not an adequate
representation of the five indicators. In sum, the indicators of social harmony and solidarity
were preferably separate variables for subsequent analyses.
Subsequent analyses were the fitting of Models 1 and 2 by structural equation modeling.
The fit was perfect for Model 1, because this was a saturated model with no degree of
freedom. Similarly, the fit of Model 2 was close to perfect (L2(1) = 19, SRMR = .004,
RMSEA = .128, CFI = .994). Model 2 had one degree of freedom, because it was
unreasonable to estimate the residual correlation between social harmony by oneself and
by society, given their reciprocal effects. The very good fit of the models warranted the
credibility of estimated effects in the models.

The single-factor model was unsuitable because the factor loadings of three of the five forms of solidarity
were lower than .30. Although a two-factor model with oblimin rotation showed a good fit (p = .517), the
factor loadings of mechanical and distributive solidarity on one were lower than .30, when organic solidarity
was the only one having a strong loading on another factor. The low factor loadings suggested the inadequacy of the two-factor model. A three-factor model was also unfavorable because organic solidarity had
high loadings on two of the three factors. Furthermore, a four-factor model was unfavorable because none of
the solidarity indicators loaded highly on the fourth factor. Hence, none of the factors models was empirically and theoretically sound.

123

156

C. Cheung, S. K. Ma

Table 3 Correlations
Correlate

Mechanical
solidarity

Mechanical

1.000

Organic
solidarity

Distributive
solidarity

Inclusive
solidarity

Dialogic
solidarity

Harmony:
self

Organic

.261

1.000

Distributive

.130

.372

1.000

Inclusive

.201

.243

.327

1.000

Dialogic

.185

.274

.301

.599

Harmony: self

.141

.377

.283

.254

.233

1.000

Societal harmony

.123

.210

.050

.023

-.006

.301

1.000

p [ .05; otherwise, p \ .05

3.1 Predicting Social Harmony

Four of the five indicators of social solidarity during the previous 6 months were significant positive predictors of social harmony practiced by oneself in the recent month (see
Table 4). The significant solidarity indicators were inclusive solidarity, distributive solidarity, dialogic solidarity, and organic solidarity in a descending order of effect. The
significant effects held in both Models 1 and 2, with and without reciprocal influences
between social harmony by oneself and society. Both models also included and thereby
controlled for previous social harmony and background characteristics. These significant
findings were supportive of Hypothesis 1. Furthermore, the strongest positive effect of
inclusive solidarity lent support to Hypothesis 1.1 (b = .134 or .117). In contrast,
mechanical solidarity was not significant in predicting social harmony by oneself.
Inclusive solidarity was also significantly predictive of societal social harmony experienced during the recent month (b = .135 or .138, see Table 4). This finding was in line
with Hypothesis 1 and particularly supportive of Hypothesis 1.1. In contrast, the other four
forms of social solidarity during the previous 6 months were not significant predictors of
societal social harmony. Hence, whereas Hypothesis 1.1 received consistent support
regarding social harmony by oneself and society, Hypothesis 1 attained most support only
with respect to social harmony by oneself. By contrast, mechanical solidarity failed to be a
significant predictor of social harmony by oneself or society. Mechanical solidarity was
clearly not a predicator in line with Hypothesis 1.
Societal social harmony was significantly predictive of social harmony by oneself, when
both happened in the recent month (b = .133, see Model 2 in Table 4). The effect held
with the control for prior social harmony, social solidarity, and background characteristics.
This finding was supportive of Hypothesis 3. Similarly, societal social harmony in the
previous year was also significantly predictive of social harmony by oneself (b = .080, see
Model 1 in Table 4). In contrast, social harmony by oneself was not significantly predictive
of societal social harmony (b = .031 and .005, see Models 1 and 2 in Table 4). Hence, the
counterpart of Hypothesis 3, which transposed causal roles in the two forms of social
harmony, did not find support.
Other significant predictors of social harmony in the recent month included corresponding social harmony in the previous year. In addition, being never married, family
size, and low income were significant predictors of the experience of societal social

123

Coupling Social Solidarity and Social Harmony in Hong Kong

157

Table 4 Standardized effects on social harmony

Predictor

Mechanical solidarity

Harmony: self

Societal harmony

Model 1

Model 2

-.008

-.011

Organic solidarity

.065*

.066*

Distributive solidarity

.070**

.073**

Inclusive solidarity

.134***

.117***

Dialogic solidarity

.062*

.069*

Harmony: self, past year

.452***

Societal harmony, past year

.080**

.456***

Model 1

Model 2

.048

.049

.015

.021

-.034

-.031

.135***
-.036
.031

.138***
-.035

.368***

.374***

-.428***

-.436***

Acquiescence

-.130***

-.069*

Age

-.081

-.080

.005

.003

.036

.040

-.015

-.015

Female
Never married

-.024

-.030

Divorced/separated

-.009

-.007

.070*
-.021

.069*
-.021

Family size

.011

.001

.089***

Nonreligious

.026

.024

.022

.020

Education

.005

.006

-.030

-.031

Residency
Locally born
Survey time

.088***

.067

.068

-.013

-.012

-.040

-.033

-.052

-.052

.002

.002

Income

-.036

-.026

Family income per capita

-.034

-.033

-.004

-.005

.000

-.001

-.002

-.002

Employer only
Employee only
Both employer and employee
Self-employed

.002

.002

-.071*

-.071*

.007

.000

.045

.046

-.040

-.040

-.005

-.006

.025

.025

.002

.002

Unemployed

-.007

-.001

-.043

-.042

-.032

Food expense portion

-.028

Societal harmony

Harmony: self

R2

.401

.133**

.017

.409

.322

.016

.005
.322

Model 1 did not specify reciprocal effects between ones social harmony and others social harmony,
whereas Model 2 specified the reciprocal effects
Reference categories were being female, married, non-locally born, and not in employment
* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

harmony, but not social harmony by oneself. Their effects, even if significant, were quite
negligible (b \ .10, see Table 4). Hence, background characteristics posed little influence
on social harmony by oneself and society.
3.2 Predicting Social Solidarity
Social harmony by oneself during the previous year was significantly predictive of all the
five forms of social solidarity during the previous 6 months (b = .128.335, see Table 5).

123

158

C. Cheung, S. K. Ma

Table 5 Standardized effects on social solidarity

Predictor

Mechanical

Organic

Distributive

Inclusive

Dialogic

Harmony: self, past year

.128***

.335***

.261***

.242***

.223***

Societal harmony, past year

.172***

.130***

.006

.082**

.109***

.119***

-.127***

-.006

Acquiescence
Age
Female
Never married
Divorced/separated
Family size

-.026
.078*
-.062

.044

.409***

.029

-.113*

.027

.011

-.001

-.063

.035

.005

.036

.017

-.006

-.020

Nonreligious

-.038

-.003

Education

-.028

.027

Residency

.018

-.073

.304***
-.150**
-.085**
-.057

-.047

.013

.004

-.060*

.019

.022
.018

.037

.023

.123***

.102**

.127***

.031

.062

.043

Locally born

-.059

.022

.033

.038

.028

Survey time

.001

-.001

.001

.000

-.001

.009

-.001

.016

.029

-.007

.145***

.111

.067*

.014

.019

-.014

-.009

Income
Family income per capita

-.038

Employer only

-.012

-.049

Employee only

-.026

-.019

.028

.030

Self-employed

-.007

.061

Unemployed

-.062*

-.068*

-.049

-.030

-.062*

Food expense portion

.013

.009

-.022

-.021

.025

R2

.095

.208

.143

.313

.243

Both employer and employee

.065*

-.061
-.134***
-.008
.089**

.054*
.007

.059*
.031

Estimates came from Model 2

Reference categories were being female, married, non-locally born, and not in employment
* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

Moreover, societal social harmony in the previous year was significantly predictive of four
of the five forms of social solidarity (b = .082.172, see Table 5). The effects held with
the control for background characteristics. These effects were in line with those stated in
Hypothesis 2, and this hypothesis therefore obtained support. Only distributive solidarity
did not significantly predictable by societal social harmony.
Other significant predictors of social solidarity included education, family income per
capita, not being unemployed, being self-employed, being both an employer and employee,
and not being an employee only. These predictors, nevertheless, did not exhibit a significant effect on the five forms of social solidarity consistently. The strongest and most
consistent effect sprang from education, which was significant on distributive, inclusive,
and dialogic solidarity.
3.3 Social Class Effects
Social class effects referred to the combination of effects of income, family income per
capita, being an employer, employee, both employer and employee, and self-employed,
unemployed, and food expense as proportion of family income. The unconstrained effects
were those obtained by estimating each social class effect in a separate model, whereas

123

Coupling Social Solidarity and Social Harmony in Hong Kong

Table 6 Standardized effects of
social class

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01;
*** p \ .001

159

Outcome

Unconstrained Constrained

Social harmony: self, recent month

.067

Societal harmony, recent month

.074

.055

Social harmony: self, past year

.094*

.009

Societal social harmony, past year

.113

.034

Mechanical solidarity

.081*

.011

Organic solidarity

.122*

.085**

Distributive solidarity

.218***

.210***

Inclusive solidarity

.152***

.135***

Dialogic solidarity

.114*

.076*

Any one of social harmony and

solidarity

.048

Any one of social harmony

.030

Any one of social solidarity

.106**

.041

constrained effects were those obtained by estimating all social class effects in one model.
In other words, constrained effects were those from a single emergent variable to represent
one social class, whereas unconstrained effects were those multiple emergent variables to
represent multiple ways to form a social class. With reference to the unconstrained effects,
social class was significantly predictive of social harmony by oneself during the previous
year and all the five form of social solidarity (see Table 6). Alternatively, the constrained
effect of social class was significant on distributive, inclusive, organic solidarity, and
dialogic. As a whole, the constrained effect of social class on social solidarity in general
was significant (b = .106, see Table 6). This effect typically reflected that the experience
of social solidarity was higher in one with higher income, being both an employer and
employee, and being self-employed rather than being unemployed. Such class effect
seemed to be comparable to that of education on social solidarity (compare with Table 5).
In contrast, social class did not make a significant difference in social harmony in general.

4 Discussion
Support for Hypothesis 1 is clear in terms of the significant contributions of various forms
of social solidarity on ones practice of social harmony. Particularly, Hypothesis 1.1
receives full support when inclusive solidarity is the stronger predictor of social harmony
by oneself and other people in society. Hypothesis 2 attains support in view of the significant contributions of earlier social harmony by oneself and society on the various forms
of social solidarity. The finding about the contribution of societal social harmony to social
harmony by oneself lends support to Hypothesis 3. Hence, all the hypotheses muster
support from findings, and they in turn illustrate the explaining power of resource exchange
theory. In light of the theory, social harmony and solidarity provide resources for
exchange, according to the principles of reciprocity and fairness. When one gets resources
from the experience of social solidarity, one is obliged to return resources in the form of
social harmony. The pertinent resource for fair exchange common in both social solidarity
and social harmony tend to be social in nature, comprising social support, acceptance, or
love. Hence, when inclusive solidarity particularly renders such a social resource, it is most
likely to trigger harmonious social behavior in return. Also based on the exchange

123

160

C. Cheung, S. K. Ma

principles, social harmony would foster or perpetuate social solidarity and social harmony
itself. Essentially, social harmony propagated in society would initiate ones social harmony practice in return. Generation of social harmony and social solidarity therefore
engages in a virtuous circle, according to resource exchange theory.
Deviating from the general prediction of resource exchange theory are findings that
mechanical solidarity did not significantly contribute to social harmony and only inclusive
solidarity was significantly predictive of social harmony created in society. The former
finding most simply echoes the thesis of modernization about the declining binding force
of mechanical solidarity, proposed by Durkheim and others (Calhoun 2002; Durkheim
1893). In this connection, modernization means detraditionalization, secularization, and
the erosion of common beliefs, values, and virtues. Specifically, industrialization and the
corporation replace families and other traditional institutions and lead to smaller compartments including individuals. Individualization, egoism, and desire for distinctiveness
easily take the place of tradition for motivating social action (Brewer and Pierce 2005;
Godoy et al. 2007; Mastain 2007; Portes 1998). The new or current form of institutionalism
and its culture for sustaining social order, therefore, do not rely on a consensus (Beck et al.
1994). Meanwhile, normative consensus is difficult to take root in modern urban society
(Schulenberg 2003). Reduction in norms and consensus also tends to be a concomitant of
decline in authoritarianism (Mouffe 1999). All these trends explain the irrelevance of
mechanical solidarity. In contrast, only inclusive solidarity appears to be conducive to both
the individuals and societal social harmony. This is mostly in line with resource exchange
theory about the important exchange of similar affection. Furthermore, the theory states that
exchange of particularistic resources such as affection or acceptance especially follows the
rule of reciprocity (Tornblom and Nilsson 1993). This statement of the theory would also
explain the unimportance of exchange of other resources, offered by organic, distributive,
and dialogic solidarity for maintaining societal social harmony. Besides, the contribution of
social solidarity to societal harmony is less salient than that to the individual practice of
social harmony may be because of heterogeneity and diversity in society. Heterogeneity
suggests that as people are different, they would respond to solidarity differently (Muller
1994). In response, diversity purports that people have different exposures and responses
other than social solidarity and harmony. Heterogeneity and diversity are both consistent
with the erosion of norms and consensus (Schulenberg 2003). People in society therefore
may not display social harmony as a common response to social solidarity.
The finding about the insignificant effects of societal social harmony on distributive
solidarity is also noteworthy. Conceivably, the finding is explainable by resource exchange
theory in terms of the dissimilarity of resources exchanged between social harmony and
distributive solidarity. The resource offered in distributive solidarity, including money,
goods, and services, may be too concrete and universalistic that does not match the
resource provided by social harmony. Moreover, societal social harmony may induce a
crowding out effect that lessens distributive solidarity (Ruiter and De Graaf 2006; van
Oorschot and Arts 2005). The effect happens when redistribution of resources is a way to
reduce social disharmony and thus the redistribution is not required for the case of societal
social harmony (Clemence 2001; Svallfors 1991). This crowding out effect also occurs
when exchange of concrete resources is not relevant at societal level, although it is relevant
at individual level. At individual level, ones practice of social harmony may receive
concrete rewards from others. However, at societal level, rewarding is difficult due to
uncertainty about benefactors and beneficiaries. Because of the neutralization of the
negative, crowding-out effect and the positive, resource-exchange effect, societal social
harmony did not appear to affect distributive solidarity significantly.

123

Coupling Social Solidarity and Social Harmony in Hong Kong

161

Social class makes a difference in social solidarity but not social harmony practiced and
experienced. Notably, family income per capita tended to raise the experiences of distributive solidarity, dialogic solidarity, and organic solidarity and the unemployed person
was lower in the experiences of organic solidarity, mechanical solidarity, and dialogic
solidarity. These class differences in social solidarity are consistent with extant research
(Kilburn and Maume 2000; Letki 2008). They may be explainable by resource exchange
theory when social class provides resources for weaving social solidarity. Particularly,
social class makes the greatest difference in distributive solidarity. This is consonant with
resource exchange theory regarding the exchange of similarly concrete resources between
social class and distributive solidarity. In contrast, social class induces the least difference
in mechanical solidarity. This finding reflects the discrepancy of beliefs and values or class
interest and consciousness in general among classes (Marsh 2003; Marshall et al. 1988).
However, class or income tends to generate a negative effect on social harmony in some
instances, such as on trust, cooperation, support for economic redistribution, public
spending, and social inclusion (Houtman 2000; Link and Oldendick 1999; Kluegal and
Bobo 2001; Pescosolido et al. 2001; Silverstein and Parrott 2001; Taylor-Gooby et al.
2003; Wilson 2001). Meanwhile, class or income is conducive to some aspects of social
harmony, including conformity, helping, charity, donation, and gift giving (Bekkers 2008;
Chen 2006; Foster et al. 2001; Godoy et al. 2007; Ulbig 2002). The presence of both
negative and positive effects would result in a null effect.

4.1 Further Research

Limitations of the study are clear in its reliance on peoples report about social harmony
and solidarity in experienced in society. Such experiences are not objective social facts,
which are definitely essential for further research dealing with macroscopic issues. The
present findings therefore only reveal microscopic relationships regarding social harmony
and solidarity at individual level. Such microscopic relationships may not fully reflect
those happening at societal level. Another limitation is the cross-sectional, retrospective
design, which cannot ascertain temporal order in causal inference. The present findings
only indicate the possibility of causal relationship specified in the structural equation
model. They require substantiation by a panel design in further research that preferably
obtains repeated measurements over time. To substantiate causal influences, analysis of
panel data needs to control for measurements obtained at an earlier time. A third limitation
applies to the restriction of the study of a sample of Hong Kong Chinese. This sample, at
best, is only representative of the adult population in Hong Kong. The findings are
therefore not generalizable to all people. Further research can extend or examine the
generalizability of the findings by incorporating people from diverse sociocultural contexts. Importantly, further research can analyze how different contexts make a difference in
the findings, and what contextual factors contribute to the difference. Contextual factors
can be culture (e.g., Chinese culture vs. others), economic inequality, racial homogeneity,
and residential density, which may affect both social harmony and solidarity (Green et al.
2003; Letki 2008; Schulenberg 2003). Analysis of the contextual effects would allow for
the estimation of the generalizability of the findings to places with different configurations
of contextual factors. Notably, the analysis can reveal if the contextual characteristics of
Hong Kong, such as economic inequality, racial homogeneity, and residential density
weaken the coupling of social harmony and solidarity and thus provide a conservative
estimate of the coupling.

123

162

C. Cheung, S. K. Ma

Apart from enhancing methodological rigor, further research is obliged to verify the
relevance of resource exchange theory to explaining the coupling of social harmony and
solidarity. Essential to the verification of the theoretical application is the measurement of
resources in exchange and adherence to the norms of reciprocity, and fairness in terms of
similarity in particularism and concreteness, involved in social harmony and solidarity (see
Table 1). Further research can then examine if social harmony and solidarity provide
resources for exchange, according to the norms of reciprocity and fairness or the similarity
of resources exchanged. Specifically, further research can scrutinize if the exchange is
stronger when people have higher adherence to the norms and the resources exchanged are
more similar. The research can also explore if exchange of particularized, affective
resources is more likely than exchange of universalized resources such as goods (Tornblom
and Nilsson 1993).

4.2 Implications
Promotion of social harmony can benefit from the promotion of social solidarity and vice
versa. The promotion of inclusive solidarity or social inclusion is particularly helpful.
Accordingly, this involves the promotion of intergroup acceptance, openness, interaction, a
common identity, and a sense of community (Guan et al. 2009; Wilson 2006). Besides,
promoting organic solidarity, distributive solidarity, and dialogic solidarity is helpful to a
lesser extent. This is to facilitate the opportunities of collaboration, access to public
resources, and dialogue, especially across groups. By contrast, promoting mechanical
solidarity or the consensus in beliefs, values, or norms, or creating a common culture
would not be helpful for strengthening social harmony. Forging a consensus in society is
not only difficult, but also unhelpful to enhancing social order (Beck et al. 1994; Schulenberg 2003). In return, social harmony is also a basis for various forms of social solidarity. Social harmony and solidarity would therefore reinforce each other in a virtuous
circle.
Raising peoples income or class location, such as removing unemployment, can promote social solidarity but cannot strengthen social harmony. Economic development is
therefore a basis for weaving social solidarity. In contrast, economic development can have
a risk of instigating social disharmony, although it can also sustain community development (Bornschier et al. 2005; Midgley and Livermore 2005). Given the opposite effects,
economic development would not boost social harmony. Hence, wealth or poverty would
have little direct impact on social harmony, although income or social class can have an
indirect and very weak impact on social harmony through mediation by social solidarity. It
implies that alleviation of poverty may not be a way to foster social harmony. This echoes
the view that poverty does not undermine social and public life, in terms of the availability
of social resources and support (Small and McDermott 2006; Wilcox et al. 2004).

References
Alwin, D. F. (1988). Structural equation model in research on human development and aging. In
K. W. Schaie, R. T. Campbell, W. Meredith, & S. C. Rawlings (Eds.), Methodological issues in aging
research (pp. 71170). New York: Springer.
Baugher, J. E. (2003). Caught in the middle? Worker identity under new participatory roles. Sociological
Forum, 18(3), 417439.

123

Coupling Social Solidarity and Social Harmony in Hong Kong

163

Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive modernization: Politics. Tradition and aesthetics in the
modern social order. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Bekkers, R. (2008). Straight from the heart. Advances in Medical Sociology, 10, 197221.
Berger, S. R. (2002). Considering social cohesion in quality of life assessments: Concept and measurement.
Social Indicators Research, 58, 403428.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Bornschier, V., Herkenrath, M., & Konig, C. (2005). The double dividend of expanding education for
development. International Sociology, 20(4), 506529.
Braaten, J. (1991). Habermass critical theory of society. New York: State University of New York Press.
Brady, A.-M. (2009). The Beijing Olympics as a campaign of mass distraction. China Quarterly, 197, 124.
Brewer, M. B., & Pierce, K. P. (2005). Social identity complexity and outgroup tolerance. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(3), 428437.
Burroughs, S. M., & Eby, L. T. (1998). Psychological sense of community at work: A measurement system
and explanatory framework. Journal of Community Psychology, 26(6), 509532.
Calhoun, C. (2002). Imagining solidarity: Cosmopolitanism, constitutional patriotism, and the public sphere.
Public Culture, 14(1), 147171.
Cartier, C. (2008). Culture and the city: Hong Kong, 19972007. China Review, 8(1), 5983.
Chan, J., & Chan, E. (2006). Charting the state of social cohesion in Hong Kong. China Quarterly, 635658.
Chen, C. (2006). Does the completeness of a household-based convoy matter in intergenerational support
exchanges? Social Indicators Research, 79, 117142.
Chiu, S. W. K., & Lui, T.-l. (2004). Testing the global city-social polarisation thesis: Hong Kong since the
1990s. Urban Studies, 41(10), 18631888.
Christopher, J. C. (1999). Situating psychological well-being: Exploring the cultural roots of its theory and
research. Journal of Counseling & Development, 77(2), 141152.
Clemence, A. (2001). Social positioning and social representations. In K. Deaux & G. Philogene (Eds.),
Representations of the social: Bridging theoretical traditions (pp. 8395). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Cohen, P., Cohen, J., Teresi, J., Margaret Marchi, C., & Velez, N. (1990). Problems in the measurement of
latent variables in structural equations causal models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14(2),
183192.
Crow, G. (2002). Social solidarities: Theories. Identities and social change. Buckingham, UK: Open
University Press.
Dayton-Johnson, J. (2003). Social capital, social cohesion, community: A microeconomic analysis. In
L. Osberg (Ed.), Economic implications of social cohesion (pp. 4378). Toronto, Canada: University of
Toronto Press.
Devine, F., & Roberts, J. M. (2003). Alternative approaches to researching social capital: A comment on van
Deths measuring social capital. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6(1), 93100.
Duhaime, G., Searles, E., Usher, P. J., Myers, H., & Frechetti, P. (2004). Social cohesion and living
conditions in the Canadian Arctic: From theory to measurement. Social Indicators Research, 66,
295317.
Durkheim, E. [1893] 1933. The division of labor in society (G. Simpson, Trans.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Ellis, R. D., Fischer, N., & Sauer, J. B. (2006). Foundations of civic engagement: Rethinking social and
political philosophy. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Erickson, B. (2004). The distribution of gendered social capital in Canada. In H. Flap & B. Volker (Eds.),
Creation and returns of social capital: A new research program (pp. 2750). London: Routledge.
Esses, V. M., Dovidio, J. F., & Armstrong, T. L. (2001). The immigration dilemma: The role of perceived
group competition, ethnic prejudice, and national identity. Journal of Social Issues, 57(3), 389412.
Estes, R. J. (2005). Quality of life in Hong Kong: Past accomplishments and future prospects. Social
Indicators Research, 71, 183229.
Etzioni, A. (1996). A moderate communitarian proposal. Political Theory, 24(2), 155171.
Foa, U. G., Tornblom, K. Y., Foa, E. B., & Converse, J., Jr. (1993). Resource theory in social psychology. In
U. G. Foa, J. Converse Jr., K. Y. Tornblom, & E. B. Foa (Eds.), Resource theory: Explorations and
applications (pp. 110). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Forrest, R., & Kearns, A. (2001). Social cohesion, social capital and the neighborhood. Urban Studies,
38(12), 21252143.
Forrest, R., La Grange, A., & Yip, N.-m. (2004). Hong Kong as a global city? Social distance and spatial
differentiation. Urban Studies, 41(1), 207227.
Foster, V., Mourato, S., Pearce, D., & Ozdemiroglu, E. (2001). The price of virtue: The economic value of
the charitable sector. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Frazer, E. (1999). The problems of communitarian politics: Unity and conflict. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

123

164

C. Cheung, S. K. Ma

Friedkin, N. E. (2004). Social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 409425.

Godoy, R., Reyes-Garcia, V., Huanca, T., Leonard, W. R., Olvera, R. G., Bauehet, J., et al. (2007). The role
of community and individuals in the formation of social capital. Human Ecology, 35, 709721.
Green, A., Preston, J., & Sabutes, R. (2003). Education, equity and social cohesion: A distributional
approach. Compare, 33(4), 453470.
Guan, Y., Bond, M. H., Huang, Z., Zhang, Z., Deng, H., Hu, T., et al. (2009). Role of personal endorsement
of outgroup members distinctive values and need for cognitive closure in attitude towards the outgroup. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 12, 5462.
Habermas, J. [1981] 1987. The theory of communicative action, Vol. 2: Lifeworld and system: A critique of
functionalist reason (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Harpham, T., Grant, E., & Thomas, E. (2002). Measuring social capital within health surveys: Key issues.
Health Policy & Planning, 17(1), 106111.
Hawdon, J., Ryan, J., & Mobley, C. (2000). An evaluation of community antiviolence programs: Implications of some preliminary findings. Research in Community Sociology, 10, 165187.
Healy, K., Hayne, M., & Hampshire, A. (2007). Gender, social capital and location: Understanding the
interactions. International Journal of Social Welfare, 16, 110118.
Heise, D. P. (1972). Employing nominal variables, induced variables, and block variables in path analysis.
Sociological Methods and Research, 1(2), 147173.
Ho, S. S. M., & Chan, R. S. Y. (2009). Social harmony in Hong Kong: Level, determinants and policy
implications. Social Indicators Research, 91, 3758.
Hoover, M., & Stokes, L. O. (2003). Hong Kong in New York: Global connections, national identity, and
film representations. New Political Science, 25, 509532.
Houtman, D. (2000). The working class and the welfare state support for economic redistribution, tolerance
for nonconformity and the conditionality of solidarity with the unemployed. Netherlands. Journal of
Social Sciences, 36(1), 3755.
Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 155.
Hulse, K., & Stone, W. (2007). Social cohesion, social capital and social exclusion: A cross-cultural
comparison. Policy Studies, 28(2), 109126.
Hwang, K.-k. (2000). Chinese relationalism: Theoretical construction and methodological considerations.
Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 30(2), 155176.
Joassart-Marcelli, P. (2005). Working poverty in southern California: Towards an operational measure.
Social Science Research, 34, 2043.
Kawachi, I., & Berkman, L. F. (2001). Social ties and mental health. Journal of Urban Health, 78(3),
458467.
Kearns, A., & Forrest, R. (2000). Social cohesion and multilevel urban governance. Urban Studies, 37(5/6),
9951017.
Keeter, S., Kennedy, C., Dimak, M., Best, J., & Craighill, P. (2006). Gauging the impact of growing
nonresponse on attitudes from a national RDD telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70,
759779.
Kilburn, J. C., Jr., & Maume, M. O. (2000). The paradox of neighborhood association existence and
membership. Research in Community Sociology, 10, 327344.
Kingsbury, N., & Scanzoni, J. (1993). Structural-functionalism. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa,
W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual
approach (pp. 195217). New York: Plenum.
Kluegal, J. R., & Bobo, L. D. (2001). Perceived group discrimination and policy attitudes: The sources and
consequences of the race and gender gaps. In A. OConnor, C. Tilly, & L. D. Bobo (Eds.), Urban
inequality: Evidence from four cities (pp. 163213). New York: Russell Sage.
Kuan, H.-c., & Lau, S.-k. (2002). Between liberal autocracy and democracy: Democratic legitimacy in Hong
Kong. Democratization, 9(4), 5876.
La Grange, A., & Pretorius, F. (2002). Private rental housing in Hong Kong. Housing Studies, 17(5),
721740.
Lane, R. E. (1991). The market experience. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Leach, C., van Wayne, M., Zomeren, S., Vliek, M. L. W., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B., et al. (2008).
Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group
identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 144165.
Lee, S.-h. (1996). Liberal rights or/and Confucian virtues? Philosophy East & West, 46(3), 367379.
Letki, N. (2008). Does diversity erode social cohesion? Social capital and race in British neighbourhoods.
Political Studies, 56, 99126.

123

Coupling Social Solidarity and Social Harmony in Hong Kong

165

Levine, M., Prosser, A., Evans, D., & Recher, S. (2005). Identity and emergency intervention: How our
group membership and inclusiveness of group boundaries shape helping behavior. Personality &
Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 443453.
Link, M. W., & Oldendick, R. W. (1999). Call screening: Is it really a problem for survey research? Public
Opinion Quarterly, 63, 577589.
Lockwood, D. (1992). Solidarity and schism: The problem of disorder in Durkheimian and Marxist sociology. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
Lowenstein, A., & Daatland, S. O. (2006). Filial norms and family support in a comparative cross-national
context: Evidence from the OASIS study. Ageing & Society, 26, 213223.
Maloutas, T., & Maloutas, M. P. (2004). The glass menagerie of urban governance and social cohesion:
Concepts and stakes/concepts as stakes. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(2),
449465.
Marsh, R. M. (2003). How important is social class identification in Taiwan? Sociological Quarterly, 44(1),
3759.
Marshall, G., Rose, D., Newby, H., & Vogler, C. (1988). Social class in modern Britain. London: Unwin
Hyman.
Mastain, L. (2007). A phenomenological investigation of altruism as experienced by moral exemplars.
Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 38, 6299.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Brashears, M. E. (2006). Social isolation in America: Changes in core
discussion networks over two decades. American Sociological Review, 71(3), 353375.
Midgley, J., & Livermore, M. (2005). Development theory and community practice. In M. Weil (Ed.),
The handbook of community practice (pp. 153168). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Molm, L. D. (2006). The social exchange framework. In P. J. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 2445). Stanford, CA: Stanford Social Sciences.
Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research, 66(3), 745758.
Mulford, M., Orbell, J., Shatto, C., & Stockard, J. (1998). Physical attractiveness, opportunity, and success
in everyday exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 103(6), 15651592.
Muller, H.-P. (1994). Social differentiation and organic solidarity: The division of labor revisited. Sociological Forum, 9(1), 7386.
Mullins, L. C., & Dugan, E. (1991). Elderly social relationships with adult children and close friends and
depression. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6(2), 315328.
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2006). Mplus users guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
Noronha, C. (2002). Chinese cultural values and total quality climate. Managing Service Quality, 12(4),
210223.
Ostrom, E. (2009). What is social capital. In V. O. Bartkus, J. H. Davis, & E. Elgar (Eds.), Social capital:
Reaching out, reaching in (pp. 1738). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Pescosolido, B. A., Tuch, S. A., & Martin, J. K. (2001). The profession of medicine and the public:
Examining Americans changing confidence in physician authority from the beginning of the health
care crisis to the era of health care reform. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42(1), 116.
Phillips, D. (2006). Quality of life: Concept, policy and practice. London: Routledge.
Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of
Sociology, 24, 124.
Pramod, C. R. (2008). The spectacle of the Beijing Olympics and the dynamics of state-society relationship
in PRC. China Report, 44(2), 111137.
Raykov, T., & Grayson, D. (2003). A test for change of composite reliability in scale development.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 38(2), 143159.
Ridgeway, C., & Johnson, C. (1990). What is the relationship between socioemotional behavior and status in
task groups? American Journal of Sociology, 95(5), 11891212.
Robinson, D. (2005). The search for community cohesion: Key themes and dominant concepts of the public
policy agenda. Urban Studies, 42(8), 14181427. (75231).
Rosenfield, M. J. (2005). A critique of exchange theory in mate selection. American Journal of Sociology,
110(5), 12841325.
Ruiter, S., & De Graaf, N. D. (2006). National context, religiosity, and volunteering: Results from 53
countries. American Sociological Review, 71(2), 191210.
Salmon, C. T., & Nichols, J. S. (1983). The next-birthday method of respondent selection. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 47, 270276.
Schlesinger, M. (1997). Paradigm lost: The persisting search for community in U.S. health policy. Journal of
Health Politics, Policy and Law, 22(4), 937992.
Schulenberg, J. L. (2003). The social context of police discretion with young offenders: An ecological
analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice, 127157.

123

166

C. Cheung, S. K. Ma

Scott, W. A., Scott, R., & Stumpf, J. (1989). Adaptation of immigrants: Individual differences and determinants. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Shapiro, A., & Keyes, C. L. M. (2008). Marital status and social well-being: Are the married always better
off. Social Indicators Research, 88, 329346.
Sharabany, R. (1994). Intimate friendship scale: Conceptual underpinnings, psychometric properties and
construct validity. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 11, 449469.
Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (2001). Goals, congruence, and positive well-being: New empirical support for
humanistic theories. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 41(1), 3050.
Siisiainen, M. (2003). One concept, two approaches: Bourdieu and Putnam on social capital. International
Journal of Contemporary Sociology, 40(2), 183203.
Silverstein, M., & Parrott, T. M. (2001). Attitudes toward government, policies that assist informal caregivers. Research on Aging, 23, 349374.
Small, M. L., & McDermott, M. (2006). The presence of organizational resources in poor urban neighborhoods: An analysis of average and contextual effects. Social Forces, 84(3), 16971724.
Stanley, D. (2003). What do we know about social cohesion: The research perspective of the federal
governments social cohesion research network. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 28, 517.
Stanley, D., & Smeltzer, S. (2003). Many happy returns: How social cohesion attracts investment. In Lars.
Osberg (Ed.), Economic implications of social cohesion (pp. 231240). Toronto, Canada: University of
Toronto Press.
Stewart, M. J. (1989). Social support: Diverse theoretical perspectives. Social Science and Medicine, 28(12),
12751282.
Sturm, D. (1998). Solidarity and suffering: Toward a politics of relationality. Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press.
SunWolf, (2008). Peer groups: Expanding our study of small group communication. Los Angeles, CA:
Sage.
Svallfors, S. (1991). The politics of welfare policy in Sweden: Structural determinants and attitudinal
cleavages. British Journal of Sociology, 42(4), 609634.
Swenson, D. (2004). A neo-functionalist synthesis of theories in family sociology. Lesiston, NY: Edwin
Mellin.
Taylor-Gooby, P., Hastie, C., & Bromley, C. (2003). Querulous citizens: Welfare knowledge and the limits
to welfare reform. Social Policy & Administration, 37(1), 120.
Tornblom, K. Y., & Nilsson, B. O. (1993). The effect of matching resources to sources on their perceived
importance and sufficiency. In U. G. Foa, J. Converse Jr., K. Y. Tornblom, & E. B. Foa (Eds.),
Resource theory: Explorations and applications (pp. 8196). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Tornblom, K. Y., & Vermunt, R. (2007). Towards an integration of distributive justice, procedural justice,
and social resource theories. Social Justice Research, 20, 312335.
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tsang, S.-k. (1999). The Hong Kong economy: Opportunities out of the crisis? Journal of Contemporary
China, 8(20), 2945.
Turner, J. H. (1988). A theory of social interaction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2007). Reducing explicit and implicit outgroup prejudice via
direct and extended contact: The mediating role of self-disclosure and intergroup anxiety. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 93(3), 369388.
Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., Voci, A., & Vonofakou, C. (2008). A test of the extended intergroup contact
hypothesis: The mediating role of intergroup activity, perceived ingroup and outgroup norms, and
inclusion of the outgroup in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(4), 843860.
Ulbig, S. G. (2002). Policies, procedures, and people: Sources of support for government? Social Science
Quarterly, 83(3), 789809.
van Oorschot, W., & Arts, W. (2005). The social capital of European welfare states: The crowding out
hypothesis revisited. Journal of European Social Policy, 15(1), 526.
Veenhoven, R. (1998). Quality-of-life in individualistic society: A comparison of 43 nations in the early
1990s. Social Indicators Research, 48, 157186.
Weissberg, R. (2008). Pernicious tolerance: How teaching to accept differences undermines civil society.
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
White, D. (2003). Social policy and solidarity, orphans of the new model of social cohesion. Canadian
Journal of Sociology, 28(1), 5176.
Wilcox, P., Quisenberry, N., Cabrera, D. T., & Jones, S. (2004). Busy places and broken windows? Toward
defining the role of physical structure and process in community crime models. Sociological Quarterly,
45(2), 185207.

123

Coupling Social Solidarity and Social Harmony in Hong Kong

167

Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 215240.

Wilson, G. (2001). Support for redistributive policies among the African American middle class: Race and
class effects. Research in Social Stratification & Mobility, 18, 97115.
Wilson, L. (2006). Developing a model for the measurement of social inclusion and social capital in regional
Australia. Social Indicators Research, 75, 335360.
Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development theory, research, and
policy. World Bank Research Observer, 15(2), 225249.
Wright, E. O. (1997). Class counts: Comparative studies in class analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Zagorski, K. (1999). Egalitarianism, perception of conflicts, and support for transformation in Poland. In
S. Svallfors & P. Taylor-Gooby (Eds.), The end of the welfare state? Responses to state retrenchment
(pp. 190217). London: Routledge.

123

Copyright of Social Indicators Research is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.