Does studying in Hong Kong affect the ideological preferences of Chinese mainland undergraduates?

Chong, Terence Tai Leung and Zeng, Hanrui (2018): Does studying in Hong Kong affect the ideological preferences of Chinese mainland undergraduates? Published in: Economic and Political Studies, , Vol. 6, No. 4 (1 December 2018): pp. 431-444.

Abstract

This paper investigates the ideological preferences of Chinese undergraduate students in relation to where they attend university. 101 survey responses are collected, and propensity score matching is used to filter the raw data. Regression results of ideological preferences on different dimensions using the ordinary least squares method reveal suggestive evidence that studying in Hong Kong will significantly liberalise the ideological preferences of Chinese mainland students in the political, economic, and cultural dimensions.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Ideological preferences; propensity score; Caliper matching; China; Hong Kong SAR
• Subjects: I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I2 - Education and Research Institutions > I21 - Analysis of Education; P - Economic Systems > P5 - Comparative Economic Systems > P51 - Comparative Analysis of Economic Systems

References

Bobbio, Norberto. 1996. “Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Brown, Kerry. 2012. "The communist party of China and ideology." China: An international journal 10.2: 52-68.. Caliendo, Marco, and Sabine Kopeinig. 2008. "Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching." Journal of economic surveys 22.1: 31-72. Hail, Henry Chiu. 2015. "Patriotism abroad: Overseas Chinese students’ encounters with criticisms of China." Journal of Studies in International Education 19.4: 311-326. Huber, Martin, Michael Lechner, and Andreas Steinmayr. 2015. "Radius matching on the propensity score with bias adjustment: tuning parameters and finite sample behaviour." Empirical Economics 49.1: 1-31. Klar, Samara. 2014. "A multidimensional study of ideological preferences and priorities among the American public." Public Opinion Quarterly 78.S1: 344-359. Nathan, Andrew J., and Tianjian Shi. 1996. "Left and right with Chinese characteristics: issues and alignments in Deng Xiaoping's China." World Politics 48.4: 522-550. Pan, Jennifer, and Yiqing Xu. 2018. "China’s ideological spectrum." The Journal of Politics 80.1: 254-273. Political Compass. 2017. The UK Election and The Political Compass. Compass Counterpoint. Available from: https://www.politicalcompass.org/counterpoint-20170610 Randolph, Justus J., Kristina Falbe, Austin K. Manuel, and Joseph L. Balloun. 2014. "A step-by-step guide to propensity score matching in R." Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 19.18: 1-6. Rosenbaum, Paul R., and Donald B. Rubin. 1983. "The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects." Biometrika 70.1: 41-55. Rosenbaum, Paul R., and Donald B. Rubin. 1985. "Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score." The American Statistician 39.1: 33-38. Taneja, Harsh, and Angela Xiao Wu. 2014. “Does the Great Firewall really isolate the Chinese? Integrating access blockage with cultural factors to explain Web user behavior.” The Information Society 30.5: 297-309. Tang, Wenfang. 2005. Public opinion and political change in China. Stanford University Press.- Tansey, Stephen, and Stephen D. Tansey. 2004. Politics: the basics. New York, NY: Routledge. Tausanovitch, Chris, and Christopher Warshaw. 2013. "Measuring constituent policy preferences in congress, state legislatures, and cities." The Journal of Politics 75.2: 330-342. Tausanovitch, Chris, and Christopher Warshaw. 2014. "Representation in municipal government." American Political Science Review 108.3: 605-641. Wu, Angela. 2013. “Ideological Polarization Over a China-as-Superpower Mindset: An Exploratory Charting of Belief Systems Among Chinese Internet Users, 2008-2011”. International Journal of Communication, 8: 2243–2272.