Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 1573–1582

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r.com/ locate /ch i ldyouth

The extent of family and school social capital promoting positive subjectivewell-being among primary school children in Shenzhen, China

Maggie Lau a,⁎, Wanxin Li b

a Department of Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong Special Administrative Regionb Department of Public and Social Administration, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Tsinghua Graduate School at Shenzhen,Tsinghua University, China

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +852 2948 6411; fax:E-mail addresses: maggielau@ied.edu.hk (M. Lau), w

wanxin90@tsinghua.edu.cn (W. Li).

0190-7409/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. Aldoi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.03.024

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 16 December 2010Received in revised form 29 March 2011Accepted 29 March 2011Available online 2 April 2011

Keywords:Social capitalRelationshipsSubjective well-beingHukou statusOnly child statusUrban China

This study aimed to examine, first, the extent to which variations in family and school social capital can beexplained by child's differing socioeconomic and demographic background and school characteristics; andsecond, the extent to which family and school social capital in combination might be associated withvariations in child subjective well-being in Shenzhen, China. This study was a cross-sectional survey design,using stratified random sampling. A total of 1306 sixth-grade primary school children and their parents weredrawn from 16 schools, and a self-administered questionnaire was used. The results suggested that genderdifference, the only child status at home and hukou status had impacts on family and school social capitalaccrued among primary school children in Shenzhen. There were also links between child's perception ofconnectedness to their parents, peers, and teachers, and their positive child subjective well-being.

+852 2948 8018.anxin.li@cityu.edu.hk,

l rights reserved.

© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

It is an undeniable fact that well-being of the new generation forthe 21st century has experienced significant changes and the childrenare living in increasingly diverse society nowadays. Previous studieshighlighted effects of radical socioeconomic and demographic changeson the well-being of children and young people. Empirical evidenceshowed associations between child poverty andwell-being (Adamson,Bradshaw, Hoelscher, & Richardson, 2007; European CommissionSocial Protection Committee, 2008), adolescents' health behaviour andtheir parental socioeconomic status (Fergusson, Horwood, Boden, &Jenkin, 2007; Hanson & Chen, 2007), adolescents' health behaviourand their family and peer relationships (Currie et al., 2008; Turbin etal., 2006), family and community social capital and children'seducational achievement (Hango, 2007; Israel, Beaulieu, & Hartless,2001). Hu's study also demonstrated effects of family background onthe attainment of education, party membership and occupation inChina (Hu, 2007).

Chinese people and families put more emphasis on market-oriented development and free competition in light of China's socialand economic transformation. Given China's one-child policy, parentstry their best to let their children attend learning and social activities

so as to be well-equipped for children's future development. Childrennowadays shoulder various degree of parent expectation and thepressure of being his/her family's ‘only hope’ (Fong, 2004; Wang &Fong, 2009). Nonetheless, the opportunity cost of the competitionoriented programs is that children have less time to play together andlearn appropriate social skills that will facilitate building social capitalthrough trust, communication and cooperation with others. It takestime and effort to accumulate social capital. Bian's recent study alsoshowed the growing roles of social networks as channels for new jobsearch and occupational mobility in transitional China (Bian, 2009). AsSun argued, “in the course of economic transformation, a sense of freecompetition, a core concept of market economy, has been strength-ened among Chinese people and families, which is also the case withparents' investment in their children's education….To a certain extent,augmentation of educational investment has improved children'sdevelopment environment and fostered their development, but itsometimes goes to extremes. For example, over-investment onintellect that forces children to attend “interest classes”, with nointerest at all, hasmade it a burden and put more pressure on childrenand, thus, deprived children of light-heartedness as well as time fordeveloping other abilities” (Sun, 2005 (pp.4–5)).

Several studies highlighted relationships between family back-ground and variation of social capital accrued, and effects of social andcultural capital on child and adolescents' well-being in China. Yan andLam's studywas echoed byboth Bian (Bian, 2008) and Lin et al.'s studies(Lin, Ao, & Song, 2009) who found variation of social capitalaccumulated over time associated with differential in social class and

1574 M. Lau, W. Li / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 1573–1582

occupational life. Their study argued that the adolescents' disadvan-taged socioeconomic background in the mainland China, Taiwan andHong Kongmay contribute to the unequal access to the social networksand their embedded resources which affects their employmentopportunities (Yan & Lam, 2009). Children's education engagement inpoor area of China is not only associated with their socioeconomicstatus, but also cultural capital, and family and school social capital (An,2005). In addition, the dualistic household registration (hukou) system1

in China is directly linked to people's life chances affecting theirsocioeconomic status and contributing to differential access to publicservices (Wang, 2008; Zhao & Li, 2006). Wu and Treiman's studyreaffirmed that the hukou system (i.e. rural–urban institutional divide)still plays a significant role shaping stratification andmobility in China'seconomic transformation (Wu & Treiman, 2007). In particular, Liang etal.'s studies showed effects of hukou status on education opportunitiesand health care access for migrant children in urban China (Liang &Chen, 2007; Liang, Guo, & Duan, 2008). Wong et al.'s recent studyhighlighted the protective functions of relationships, social support andself-esteem in the life satisfaction of children of migrants in Shanghai(Wong, Chang, He, & Wu, 2010). Lin's review also argued the issue ofgender inequality in social capital contributing to gender differential innetwork diversity and size (Lin, 2000).

This paper aimed to enrich our understanding of the extent offamily and school social capital promoting positive subjective well-being among primary school children in transitional China. Morespecifically, the current study contributed to the literature on socialcapital by focusing on the rarely studied age group between 11 and12 years old. The study used the concept of social capital to frame theanalysis of (i) the extent to which variations in family and schoolsocial capital be explained by child's differing socioeconomic anddemographic background and school characteristics; and (ii) theextent to which family and school social capital in combination mightbe associated with variations in child subjective well-being inShenzhen, China. All these have implications for life chance of thechildren and the accumulation of human and social capital in theChinese society in the long run.

2. Conceptualization and measurement of child well-being andsocial capital

2.1. Child well-being

The conceptofwell-being refers to thequality of people's liveswhichis regarded as “a dynamic process, emerging from the way in whichpeople interact with the world around them” (Rees, Bradshaw,Haridhan, & Keung, 2010) (p.8). It is widely acknowledged that notionsof child well-being need to be understood as multi-dimensional andecological. The dimensions include material well-being, child health,educational attainment and participation, children's relationships withtheir friends and family, their feelings about their own well-being (i.e.subjectivewell-being), their involvementwithproblembehaviours, and

1 China's hukou system was introduced in 1958. Even though the hukou system hasexperienced multifaceted changes in the past few decades, it still remains adiscrimination institution against non-urban hukou residents (Chan, 2009). Underthe dualistic hukou system, rural migrants are still excluded from access to publicservices in the cities in which entitlements exist only for those with urban hukou.Marginality of rural migrants in the cities also raises awareness of inequalities ofopportunity transmitted across generations. Several studies address the marginality ofmigrant children in the urban Chinese educational system and the disadvantagedsituations of left-behind children in rural China. Few private schools were openedspecially for migrant children but those schools are generally equipped with facilitiesof poor quality, teachers with low qualification and high turnover rates, as well asschool syllabus mismatching with national curriculum. Those left-behind children whoare left with grandparents or relatives, they suffer from a lack of parental supervisionand emotional support that contribute to less desirable educational outcomes (Liang,Guo, & Duan, 2008; Postiglione, 2006; Woronov, 2009).

so on (Bradshaw & Richardson, 2009; Ennett et al., 2008; Land, Lamb,Meadows, & Taylor, 2007; Lau & Bradshaw, 2010). Ben-Arieh et al.argued that individual well-being is influenced not only by personalattributes, but also by the characteristics of the contextual factorsemphasizing the significance of interactions among individuals, family,peers, schools, neighbourhood, the broader community, and society atlarge. The structure and processes of these contexts can facilitate orhinder access to social andmaterial resources which is vital for a child'ssurvival, development, protection and participation (Ben-Arieh et al.,2001a (pp.103–104)).

Well-being can be measured by the use of social indicators (i.e.objective well-being) (Ben-Arieh et al., 2001c; Bradshaw & Richardson,2009) and/or self-report measures (Cummins, 2010; Currie et al., 2008;Huebner & Diener, 2008). Subjective well-being (SWB) includescognitive and affective components. The cognitive component refersto life satisfaction in terms of overall subjective assessment of lifesatisfaction and/or within specific domains. The affective componentconcerns the experience of positive and negative emotions (Diener,1984; Diener, Scollon, & Lucas, 2009). Previous studies demonstratedlinkages between adolescents' perceived satisfaction with life andhealth-related quality of life (Zullig, Valois, Huebner, & Drane, 2005),and associations between adolescents' school engagement and their lifesatisfaction (Huebner &Diener, 2008; Lewis, Huebner,Malone, & Valois,2010). The study of childwell-beingprovides crucial indications ofwhatmatters in their lives and enables us to know their socioeconomicconditions, their health, and their own perceptions of their presentsituation and future aspirations (Bradshaw & Richardson, 2009; Ennettet al., 2008; Land et al., 2007; Zubrick, Williams, Silburn, & Vimpani,2000). Further, subjective well-being is considered as a crucial andvaluable outcome measure for better policy advocacy, planning,monitoring and evaluation (UNICEF, 2001). It is recognised that SWBmeasures should take into account child and young people's ownconceptions of well-being and the complexities of their lives (Fattore,Mason, & Watson, 2009). As Ben-Arieh et al. argued, regular and closermonitoring of the status of children will enable concerned authorities,including government departments, non-governmental organizations,schools and the public, to observe positive and negative childdevelopment (Ben-Arieh et al., 2001b).

2.2. Social capital

Researchers shared similar understanding that social capitalconsists of resources embedded in social relations and social structure.Social capital can be accumulated over time, and bemobilizedwhen anindividual wishes to increase the likelihood of success in a purposiveaction (Bian, 2008; Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1988; Lin et al., 2009;Portes, 2000; Putnam, 1995). Social capital can be categorized into twodimensions, including structural social capital and cognitive socialcapital. Structural social capital (SSC) is an objective and observableconstruct and thus the established roles and networks can facilitatepurposive action. Cognitive social capital (CSC) is a subjective elementand it refers to shared norms, values, trust, attitudes, and beliefs(Grootaert & Van Bastelaer, 2002; Krishna & Shrader, 2002). Previousstudies have suggested that social capital includes both structural andprocess components. The structural component refers to the socialsetting which facilitates or inhibits interpersonal interactions, andaccess to resources. Within the family, family structure and number ofsibling in the household are examples of the structural component.Children living in single-parent households can only accumulate theirsocial capital with one biological parent while the quantity of time andresources that parents can be able to invest in their children tend to bediluted in families with a large number of children. Within the school,school band and school type in terms of school resources and teachers'qualification are two examples of structural attributes. The processelement of family social capital refers to the actual and interpersonalinteractions between parents and their children. It includes parents'

2 All students were well-informed that participation in the survey is absolutelyvoluntary, and they were offered rights not to participate and to quit during any timeof the survey. They were also informed that no personal data will be released and thecollected data were used for statistical analysis only. In addition, the trained datacollectors also invited students to bring home with them parents' questionnaires, andto return the questionnaires within one week after the child survey.

1575M. Lau, W. Li / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 1573–1582

nurturing activities, such as discussing important issues with theirchildren, and parental involvement in children's educational experi-ence (Coleman, 1988; Israel et al., 2001; Sun, 1999). The processattributes of school social capital can be described as the extent ofsocial interactionswith friends and schoolmates (such as participationin social activities with friends), and trust and trustworthiness withpeers and schoolmates (such as willingness to offer help if necessary)and experience of being bullied. Numerous studies also indicated thatquality of family functioning (Lippman, 2004; Rees et al., 2010) andexperiences of being bullied (Coleman, 1988; Currie et al., 2008;Ferguson, 2006; Marin & Brown, 2008; Rees et al., 2010; Wong et al.,2010) have a much stronger association with children and youngpeople's well-being than their socio-demographic status (such aswhether children living in intact families).

This paper confined our discussion to family and school socialcapital accrued among children with differing socioeconomic anddemographic background, and school characteristics. As Portes states,social capital performs functions as sources of family support andbenefits through extrafamilial network (Portes, 1998). Several studiesshowed that close parent-child relationship, peer relationship,teacher–student relationship or/and experience of being bullied areassociated with children of migrants' life satisfaction (Wong et al.,2010); children's well-being (Ferguson, 2006; Huan, Chiang, Huang, &Hu, 2008); adolescent risk behaviour (Ennett et al., 2008; Wright &Fitzpatrick, 2006). Other studies also indicate that relationshipsbetween economic, cultural and social capital and children's educa-tional attainment (An, 2005; Jæger & Holm, 2007; Sandefur, Meier, &Campbell, 2006). Both structural and cognitive social capital can beincorporated into family and school social capital measures. Familyand school social capital can be described at two key dimensions,including: (i) child–parent relationships, including discussing impor-tant issues with parents, interpersonal interactions between childrenand parents; and perception of child–parent relationships; (ii) formaland informal extra familial ties — parental involvement in schoolactivities, interpersonal interactions with friends and schoolmates;perceptions of connectedness to friends, teachers and schools, feelingsof trust and safety. Variations in family and school social capital can beassessed by both (i) socioeconomic background, including familystructure, parents' income and educational level, number of siblings ina household, hukou status; and (ii) school characteristics, includingtype of school, and school band and perception of school safety.

3. Methods

3.1. Sampling procedure and data collection

The subject of the study was drawn from the sixth-grade primaryschool students and their parents. The sixth graders in primaryschools were selected as they have not yet faced the competition inacademic performance, and it is possible to study social capital withthis population in a less distorted environment comparing withsecondary school children. It is also because they are the 11–12 year-old children who are capable to comprehend and answer self-administered questionnaires in plain language.

The study was undertaken in the Nanshan district in Shenzhen,Guangdong province. The sample was drawn from Shenzhen since itwas the first special economic zone in China which has enjoyed rapideconomic growth, but also encountered challenges resulting fromindustrialization and urbanization. Marginality of rural migrants andtheir family members in the urban welfare and educational system isone typical example. In addition, there are a total of 988.9 thousandregular residents in Nanshan district in 2009. It accounts for 50.08%and 49.52% of residents who had and did not have householdregistration in Shenzhen respectively (The Statistical Bureau of theShenzhen Municipality, 2009). This was a major concern of equalaccess to public schools and equal treatment in schools for migrant

children in the city (Wang, 2008). It is also one of crucialsocioeconomic indicators measuring social capital accumulationamong primary school children.

There were altogether 57 primary schools in Nanshan district in2009. In terms of school resources, teacher qualifications and schooltype, the schools have been divided into 4 categories from band A(which is the best) to band D. They include 8, 34, 10 and 5 schools ineach category accordingly. School bands A, C, and D were over-sampled so as to have a meaningful comparison between familieswho have access to those exceptionally “good” and “bad” schools.It randomly selected 3, 7, 3, and 3 schools from each category. Twoclasses were randomly selected in each participant school and all thestudents in both classes and their parents were invited to participatein the study.

In order to have a better understanding of children activitiesorganized by their parents and schools, two separate focus groupdiscussions with teachers and sixth-grade primary school childreneach in school bands A and C were undertaken on 27 November 2009.A focus group discussion with parents of sixth graders was conductedon 27 December 2009. The questionnaires for children and theirparents were constructed based on the five focus group discussionsand previous relevant research studies. Two rounds of pilot interviewswere held in February 2010 to identify and resolve any problems withthe questionnaire before finalizing it and conducting the formalinterviews. The formal interviews were conducted between 22 Marchand 2 April 2010. The stratified random sample comprised of 1306sixth-grade primary school children and their parents in Nanshandistrict, Shenzhen, China. The response rates of surveys with childrenand their parents were 99.62% and 80.86% respectively.2

3.2. Measures

3.2.1. Subjective well-beingChild subjective well-being is composed of three indicators.

Overall life satisfaction is assessed by “self-reported happiness” withanswer options (1 = Very unhappy, 2 = Unhappy, 3 = Happy, and4 = Very happy) provided. Education and health-related well-beingwere assessed by two indicators, including “feel pressured byschoolwork” and “self-rated health status” (Bradshaw & Richardson,2009; Fattore et al., 2009; Ravens-Sieberer et al., 2008). The firstquestion was assessed using a 4-point scale (1 = Strongly disagree to4 = Strongly agree). We reversely coded the responses to these fouritems as 1 = “Strongly agree” to 4 = “Strongly disagree”. The secondquestion was assessed with options (1 = Very poor, 2 = Poor, 3 =Fair, 4 = Good, and 5 = Very good) provided. Total scores werecomputed for analysis by summing up item scores such that higherscore indicating positive subjective well-being.

3.2.2. Family and school social capitalFamily social capital was assessed by both structural and cognitive

components of “bond between children and parents”. They measuredegree of social interactions between children and parents, andperception of child–parent relationships. The structural social capitalcomponent (I — SSC) includes indicators measuring (i) discussingimportant issues between parents and children, and (ii) interpersonalinteractions with parents and children. They were assessed using a5-point scale (1 = Never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 =Most of thetime, and 5=Always). The cognitive social capital component (II— CSC)includes indicators measuring (i) children's perceived parent–child

Table 1Family background and school characteristics of primary school children.

N (%)

GenderMale 728 56.1Female 569 43.9

Household registration in ShenzhenNo 505 48.0Yes 546 52.0

Number of childrenOnly one child 573 50.72 children 359 31.73 or more children 199 17.6

Family structureTwo-parent family 977 93.9Single parent family 64 6.1

Parent's educationJunior secondary or below 291 27.5Senior secondary 304 28.8Non-degree 228 21.6Degree 188 17.8Master degree or above 46 4.4

Monthly family incomeRMBb2000 128 12.5RMB 2000–4999 322 31.5RMB 5000–9999 245 23.9RMB 10,000–19,999 189 18.5RMB 20,000–49,999 101 9.9RMBN50,000 38 3.7

Type of schoolPublic school 997 76.8Private school 301 23.2

School band1 (Best) 330 25.42 457 35.23 235 18.14 276 21.3

1576 M. Lau, W. Li / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 1573–1582

relationshipwith answer options (1=Strongly disagree to4=Stronglyagree) provided, and (ii) level of trust with family members using a5-point scale (1 = Cannot be trusted at all, 2 = Mostly cannot betrusted, 3 = Can be trusted sometimes, 4 = Can mostly be trusted, and5 = Can be trusted a lot).

School social capital was measured by four components measuringdegree of interpersonal interactions with friends and schoolmates,parental involvement in the child's school-related activities, andperceptions of connectedness to friends and teachers, and feelings oftrust and safety. The cognitive social capital component of teacher–student relationship (III — CSC) includes indicators measuring(i) children's perceived teacher–student relationship with answeroptions (1 = Strongly disagree to 4 = Strongly agree) provided, and(ii) level of trust with teachers using a 5-point scale (1 = Cannot betrusted at all to 5 = Can be trusted a lot). The structural social capitalcomponent of peer relationship (IV — SSC) includes items measuring(i) participation in social activities with friends and classmates using a5-point scale (1 = Never to 5 = Always), and (ii) reciprocity and trustwith peers and schoolmateswith answer options (1= Strongly disagreeto 4=Strongly agree) provided. The cognitive social capital component ofpeer relationship (V— CSC) includes indicatorsmeasuring (i) reciprocityand trustwith peers and schoolmateswith answer options (1=Stronglydisagree to 4 = Strongly agree) provided, and (ii) level of trust withfriends and classmates using a 5-point scale (1=Cannot be trusted at allto 5=Can be trusted a lot). The structural social capital component (VI—SSC) includes items measuring parental involvement in school activitiesusing a 5-point scale (1 = Never to 5 = Always).

Variations in family and school social capital were assessed by(i) participant children's socioeconomic and demographic status, and(ii) school characteristics (Aufseeser, Jekielek, & Brown, 2006;Coleman, 1988; Ferguson, 2006; Jæger & Holm, 2007; Lippman,2004; Marin & Brown, 2008; Portes, 2000; Rees et al., 2010; Wang &Fong, 2009;Wong et al., 2010). Gender (male vs. female), hukou status(whether having household registration in Shenzhen), number ofchildren in the household (from only one child to 3 or more children),family structure (two-parent family vs. single-parent family), parent'seducation (from junior secondary or below to master degree orabove), monthly household income (from RMB b2000 toRMBN50,000) were used to describe family background of the studysample. School bands (from 1 (best) to 4), school type (public schoolvs. private school), and perception of school safety (from stronglydisagree to strongly agree) were used to reflect school characteristics.

3.3. Analytical strategy

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used forstatistical analysis. Frequency tables were used to present socioeco-nomic and demographic characteristics of primary school children.Reliability analysis of family social capital, school social capital andchild subjective well-being domains was tested (i.e. Cronbach'salpha). Compare means was performed to examine family and schoolsocial capital accrued among children with differing socioeconomicand demographic background and school characteristics. A correla-tion matrix was computed as a measure of the correlates of thedemographic variables and major variables in this study. Hierarchicalregression analysis was conducted to examine the relative effects ofthe demographic variables, different structural and process compo-nents of family and school social capital on child subjective well-beingin Shenzhen, China.

4. Findings

4.1. Frequency distribution

The socio-demographic background of sixth-grade primary schoolchildren in this study was compiled (Table 1). There were a higher

proportion of male participant children (56.1%) than their femalecounterparts (43.9%). There were 52% of children who havehousehold registration in Shenzhen, compared with 48% who donot. Half of participant children were the only child at home,compared with 31.7% with one sibling and 17.6% with two or siblings.An overwhelming majority of children (93.9%) were living in two-parent families. Seventy-three of either mother or father of thechildren had senior secondary educational level or above. Over three-quarter (87.5%) of respondents had a monthly family income of RMB2000 or above (US$299, with US$=6.69). Over three quarters ofchildren (76.8%) are studying in public schools, compared with 23.2%in private schools. There are one quarter (25.4%) of children studyingin top rank school (i.e. ‘best’), compared with 21.3% who are in thelowest school rank.

4.2. Reliability analysis

Table 2 shows the reliability analysis of family social capitalcomprising of bonds between children and parents (I) and percep-tions of parent–child relationship (II); school social capital includinginterpersonal interactions with peers (IV), bonds between parentsand schools (VI), and perceptions of connectedness to teachers (III),and peer (V); as well as child subjective well-being comprising ofchild's overall life satisfaction, as well as their education and health-

Table 2Reliability analysis of family and school social capital and child subjective well-being.

Alpha if item deleted

Family social capital (20 items) Alpha=0.8434(I) Bond between children and parents — Structural social capital

Discussing important issues with parents — Health .8331Discussing important issues with parents — Relationship with classmates/friends .8298Discussing important issues with parents — Relationship with teacher .8306Discussing important issues with parents — Sports/extra-curriculum activities .8292Discussing important issues with parents — Social events/news .8324Discussing important issues with parents — School work .8348Discussing important issues with parents — Future plan .8337Interpersonal interactions with parents and children — Read or buy books .8328Interpersonal interactions with parents and children — Join extra-curriculum classes .8426Interpersonal interactions with parents and children — Shopping .8417Interpersonal interactions with parents and children — Dinning out .8430Interpersonal interactions with parents and children — Sports .8284Interpersonal interactions with parents and children — Watching movie .8373Interpersonal interactions with parents and children — Playing together .8316

(II) Bond between children and parents — Cognitive social capitalParent–child relationship — Parents understand me .8361Parent–child relationship — Parents care about me .8389Parent–child relationship — Parents respect my opinions .8360Parent–child relationship — Parents do not know my good friendsa .8461Parent–child relationship — Parents care about my study than any other thingsa .8480Level of trust — Family members .8397

School social capital (18 items) Alpha=0.7025(III) Teacher–student relationship — Cognitive social capitalTeacher–student relationship — Teachers cared about them .6879Teacher–student relationship — Teacher treated all the students the same fairly in their schools .6875Level of trust — teachers .6799(IV) Peer relationship — Structural social capitalParticipation in social activities with classmates and friends — Celebrating holidays .6838Participation in social activities with classmates and friends — Celebrating birthdays .6840Participation in social activities with classmates and friends — Sports .6882Participation in social activities with classmates and friends — Watching movie .6896Participation in social activities with classmates and friends — Studying/reading groups .6778Participation in social activities with classmates and friends — In-depth conversations/sharing .7011Participation in social activities with classmates and friends — Inviting friends to one's home .6859Reciprocity and trust with peers and schoolmates — Participate in study group to help each other .6851Reciprocity and trust with peers and schoolmates — I was bullied by other children in schoola .7032(V) Peer relationship — Cognitive social capitalReciprocity and trust with peers and schoolmates — Others will help if I have difficulties in study .6821Level of trust — good friends .6904Level of trust — classmates .6894(VI) Bonds between parents and schools — Structural social capitalParental involvement in school activities — Weekend activities .7075Parental involvement in school activities — Seminars organized for parents .7001Parental involvement in school activities — Parents meetings .7006

Child subjective well-being (3 items) Alpha=0.4130Self-reported happiness .2126Feel pressured by schoolworka .4285Self-rated health status .3522

a Negatively worded item (reverse coded).

1577M. Lau, W. Li / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 1573–1582

related well-being. Cronbach's alpha for these three scales were0.8434, 0.7025, and 0.4130 respectively.

4.3. Family social capital, school social capital and child subjectivewell-beingby family background and school characteristics

Table 3 summarizes the family and school social capital accruedamong children with differing socioeconomic and demographicbackground, and school characteristics. Females had relatively weakinterpersonal interactionswith their parents athome thanmales.On theother hand, girls had strong peer relationships at school than boys. Theonly child status and urbanhukou in Shenzhenwould contribute tohavestrong interpersonal interactions between children and parents, andperception of connectedness to their parents, while those children whoare not the only child at home, and those whose hukou are not in

Shenzhen perceived that they had close teacher–student relationship,and their parents had active involvement in school activities. Familystructure was not significant to family and school social capital accruedamong children. Again, children whose parents with higher educationattainment and monthly family income had close child–parentrelationship, and social interactions with friends than those who werein disadvantaged positions. The latter perceived that they had close tieswith school teachers, and their parents with close connection withschools. Children studying in public schools and top rank schools hadstrong ties with their parents and peers (i.e. both structural andcognitive social capital) whereas children studying in private schoolsand lower rank schools cognitively had close teacher–student relation-ship, and close bonds between parents and schools. Children whoagreed/strongly agreed that “school campus is safety” are those withclose interactionswith parents, friends and peers, their parentswhohad

Table 3Family and school social capital by family background and school characteristics.

N Mean rank Sig. N Mean rank Sig. N Mean rank Sig.

Bond between children and parents (I) Bond between children and parents (II) Teacher–student relationship (III)

Gender .012 .468 .007Male 681 633.00 702 636.58 716 666.49Female 539 582.07 557 621.70 567 611.07

Number of children .032 .001 .000Only one child 549 453.70 556 473.08 564 429.462 or more children 329 415.80 344 414.01 350 502.69

Household registration in Shenzhen .000 .000 .000No 475 449.07 490 471.16 497 572.70Yes 517 540.07 523 540.57 534 463.23

Family structure .955 .309 .595Two-parent family 923 491.87 946 505.83 960 513.24Single parent family 60 493.98 60 466.71 63 493.12

Monthly family income .000 .071 .000RMBb2000 123 405.74 123 438.73 125 558.47RMB 2000–4999 297 456.51 312 481.13 320 550.92RMB 5000–9999 231 491.19 238 515.28 239 511.14RMB 10,000–19,999 178 550.26 179 532.36 183 447.43RMB 20,000–49,999 99 513.42 97 490.78 100 384.36RMBN50,000 36 483.35 38 472.86 38 445.64

Parent's education .000 .000 .000Junior secondary or below 268 399.51 279 423.41 286 599.01Senior secondary 287 509.19 296 525.05 300 534.64Non-degree 217 534.62 219 550.79 225 497.41Degree 183 570.62 182 553.25 183 438.32Master degree or above 41 557.61 44 587.48 44 350.03

Type of school .000 .000 .039Public school 947 632.08 970 664.74 986 630.94Private school 274 538.15 290 515.98 298 680.76

School band .000 .000 .0001 (Best) 317 694.24 320 678.53 325 518.212 435 656.53 448 691.69 453 661.263 219 499.43 225 552.51 234 606.924 250 523.97 267 535.98 272 790.38

School campus is safe .001 .000 .000Strongly disagree 54 522.95 56 395.55 59 290.31Disagree 144 571.10 147 468.61 149 437.96Agree 565 579.85 586 616.06 599 588.07Strongly agree 442 652.76 456 709.62 464 805.42

Peer relationship (IV) Peer relationship (V) Bondsbetweenparents and schools (VI)

Gender .000 .266 .830Male 684 575.27 718 651.48 517 478.22Female 540 659.66 564 628.80 435 474.46

Number of children .933 .487 .005Only one child 542 437.43 567 453.83 488 378.752 or more children 333 438.92 349 466.09 304 424.99

Household registration in Shenzhen .000 .040 .009No 466 455.24 494 497.04 429 479.19Yes 520 527.79 538 534.37 481 434.37

Family structure .950 .907 .557Two-parent family 922 490.36 962 512.77 850 451.24Single parent family 58 492.74 62 508.35 54 472.30

Monthly family income .003 .220 .001RMBb2000 118 406.13 127 504.63 111 533.00RMB 2000–4999 301 456.11 316 489.73 270 457.69RMB 5000–9999 230 520.91 242 494.01 218 421.90RMB 10,000–19,999 174 504.45 182 538.45 173 418.08RMB 20,000–49,999 98 484.26 100 474.07 83 408.39RMBN50,000 37 516.43 38 571.54 35 444.46

1578 M. Lau, W. Li / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 1573–1582

Table 3 (continued)

N Mean rank Sig. N Mean rank Sig. N Mean rank Sig.

Bond between children and parents (I) Bond between children and parents (II) Teacher–student relationship (III)

Parent's education .008 .271 .000Junior secondary or below 270 443.30 286 512.84 251 514.31Senior secondary 288 505.85 298 498.83 268 465.64Non-degree 213 531.63 227 544.16 193 440.89Degree 178 517.22 184 520.98 163 406.18Master degree or above 43 508.17 44 581.18 44 399.08

Type of school .000 .009 .841Public school 943 653.13 983 656.62 739 476.06Private school 282 478.82 300 594.08 214 480.25

School band .000 .002 .0001 (Best) 317 667.37 325 661.37 242 425.602 429 646.05 452 680.05 344 491.663 219 626.49 234 578.78 164 438.344 260 480.82 272 610.01 203 544.67

School campus is safe .000 .000 .002Strongly disagree 55 446.97 59 388.52 39 459.10Disagree 147 542.40 149 535.24 110 381.46Agree 577 594.79 600 587.02 440 480.45Strongly agree 442 675.39 466 766.72 353 489.77

Note: Kruskal Wallis Test.

1579M. Lau, W. Li / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 1573–1582

close ties with school, and cognitively had close child–parent relation-ship, peer relationship, teacher–student relationship.

4.4. Correlations between child subjective well-being, family social capitaland school social capital

Child subjective well-being was positively correlated with child–parent interactions (I) (r=.245, pb .001), perceived child–parentrelationship (II) (r=.434, pb .001), perceived teacher–student relation-ship (III) (r=.337, pb .001), social interactionswith peers (IV) (r=.342,pb .001), and perceived peer relationship (V) (r=.265, pb .001)(Table 4). There were also positive associations between self-reportedhappiness and perceived parent–child relationship (r=.407, pb .001),teacher–student relationship (r=.306, pb .001), social interactionswithpeers (r=.368, pb .001) andperceived connectedness topeers (r=.318,pb .001). Further, there were also links between children felt pressuredby school work and perceived connectedness to their parents (r=.315,pb .001), and to their teachers (r=.237, pb .001).

4.5. Hierarchical regression of child subjective well-being by socioeconomicand demographic characteristics, family and school social capital

A hierarchical regression analysis was performed to examine therelative effects of family background, school characteristics, and

Table 4Correlations between child subjective well-being, and family and school social capital.

(1) (2) (3)

(1) SWB 1 .650⁎⁎⁎ .757⁎⁎⁎

(2) Self-reported happiness 1 .239⁎⁎⁎

(3) Feel pressured by school work 1(4) Self-rated health status(5) Bond between children and parents (I — SSC)(6) Bond between children and parents (II — CSC)(7) Teacher–student relationship (III — CSC)(8) Peer relationship (IV — SSC)(9) Peer relationship (V — CSC)(10) Bonds between parents and schools (VI — SSC)

⁎ pb .05.⁎⁎ pb .01.⁎⁎⁎ pb .001.

family and school social capital on subjective well-being of sixth-grade primary school children in Shenzhen (Table 5). With referenceto previous studies (Israel et al., 2001; Rees et al., 2010; Smyth,Whelan, McCoy, Quail, & Doyle, 2010; Wong et al., 2010), personalcharacteristics, family background, and school characteristics vari-ables were entered in the first, second, and third steps respectively.Interactions with parents and perceived parent–child relationships(i.e. family social capital), and social interactions with peers, parentalinvolvement in school activities, and perceived teacher–student andpeer relationships (i.e. school social capital) whichwere considered tohave significant impacts on child subjective well-being were put intothe fourth and fifth steps accordingly. With reference to model 1,personal characteristics account for 0.5% of the variation (i.e.R2=.005) in subjective well-being of sixth-grade primary schoolchildren. The other four indicators of family background are includedin model 2 and the value increases to 1.0% of the variance in childsubjective well-being. In other words, if personal characteristicsaccount for 0.5%, family background account for additional 0.5%.Model 3 showed that school characteristics explained 8.3% of thevariance in subjective well-being of sixth-grade primary schoolchildren, particularly perceived school safety was found to besignificantly related to child subjective well-being. School character-istics accounted for additional 7.4%. Models 4 and 5 showed theexplained variances of family social capital and school social capital in

(4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

.639⁎⁎⁎ .245⁎⁎⁎ .434⁎⁎⁎ .337⁎⁎⁎ .342⁎⁎⁎ .265⁎⁎⁎ .052

.275⁎⁎⁎ .269⁎⁎⁎ .407⁎⁎⁎ .306⁎⁎⁎ .368⁎⁎⁎ .318⁎⁎⁎ .053

.122⁎⁎⁎ .093⁎⁎ .315⁎⁎⁎ .237⁎⁎⁎ .168⁎⁎⁎ .085⁎⁎ .0291 .193⁎⁎⁎ .174⁎⁎⁎ .165⁎⁎⁎ .213⁎⁎⁎ .202⁎⁎⁎ .035

1 .373⁎⁎⁎ .161⁎⁎⁎ .249⁎⁎⁎ .520⁎⁎⁎ .067⁎

1 .311⁎⁎⁎ .356⁎⁎⁎ .318⁎⁎⁎ .0491 .388⁎⁎⁎ .212⁎⁎⁎ .135⁎⁎⁎

1 .345⁎⁎⁎ .092⁎⁎

1 .0501

Table 5Hierarchical regression of subjective well-being of sixth-grade primary school children by socioeconomic and demographic background, family and school social capital variables.

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Personal characteristicsGender − .050 − .052 − .061 − .022 − .014Number of siblings − .046 − .033 − .027 − .013 − .023

Family backgroundHukou status in Shenzhen − .020 − .039 − .027 − .034Family income − .046 − .046 − .012 − .022Parent's education .064 .043 − .011 .013Whether the parents got divorce − .054 − .057 − .039 − .038

School characteristicsSchool campus is safe .264⁎⁎⁎ .154⁎⁎⁎ .077⁎

Type of school − .038 − .006 .015School band − .078 − .016 − .055

Family social capitalBond between children and parents (I — SSC) .116⁎⁎ .073Bond between children and parents (II — CSC) .401⁎⁎⁎ .326⁎⁎⁎

School social capitalTeacher–student relationship (III — CSC) .157⁎⁎⁎

Peer relationship (IV — SSC) .042Peer relationship (V — CSC) .102⁎⁎

Bonds between parents and schools (VI — SSC) − .020R .070 .099 .289 .520 .553R2 .005 .010 .083 .271 .305Adjusted R2 .002 .001 .072 .260 .291F 1.776 .875 19.123⁎⁎⁎ 91.661⁎⁎⁎ 8.812⁎⁎⁎

R2 change .005 .005 .074 .187 .035

⁎ pb .05.⁎⁎ pb .01.⁎⁎⁎ pb .001.

1580 M. Lau, W. Li / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 1573–1582

child subjective well-being were 27.1% and 30.5% respectively, whichaccounted for additional 18.7% and 3.5% respectively.

5. Discussion and conclusions

The findings showed that variations in family and school socialcapital could be explained by child's differing socioeconomic anddemographic background and school characteristics. Girls, childrenwho are the only child at home, family with household registration inShenzhen, parents with higher education attainment and monthlyfamily income had strong interactions with parents and peers, andalso close perceived parent–child and peer relationships. On the otherhand, children who have two or more sibling and do not havehousehold registration had close perceived teacher–student relation-ship, and their parents had close connections with schools. It could beexplained by the fact that parents are willing to invest more familyresources on boys (Lin, 2000) and the only child so as to ensure theircompetitiveness in transitional China (Sun, 2005). Further, childrenwho are in disadvantaged socioeconomic positions may suffer frominsufficient parental supervision and emotional support at home, andthus need more support from teachers and schools, and their parentsdepend much more on formal and informal extra familial ties (Huanet al., 2008; Liang et al., 2008).

The results also indicated children studying in public schools, toprank schools (i.e. school band), and having good impression of schoolsafety relatively with high level of family and school social capital. It isbecause children who are embedded in rich social networks affecthow they enjoy their school life in terms of better school facilities,quality of teaching, extra-curriculum activities organized (Crosnoe,2004; Huan et al., 2008). In addition, there were associations betweenchildren felt pressured by school work and perceived connectednessto their parents (whether children believed that their parents cared,respect them and had higher education aspiration than any other

things), and to their teachers (whether children perceived that theirteachers cared, and treated them fairly). The current study wasechoed by previous studies (Fong, 2004; Sun, 2005; Wang & Fong,2009) which showed that children nowadays need to shouldervarious degrees of parent/teacher expectations and the pressure,particularly those who are the only child at home and/or are studyingin top-ranking schools.

Apart from parents' human and financial capital, the current studyshowed that the inclusion of the two new predictors — family socialcapital and school social capital (An, 2005; Jæger & Holm, 2007; Parcel& Dufur, 2001; Wright & Fitzpatrick, 2006) — has explained quite alarge amount of the variation in subjective well-being of sixth-gradeprimary school children in Shenzhen. Children who perceived thatthey had close connectedness to parents, teachers and peer decreasedthe likelihood of their negative subjective well-being (Aufseeser et al.,2006; Ennett et al., 2008; Hair et al., 2005; Huan et al., 2008; Rees etal., 2010), and could enhance their further development.

Finally, it is necessary to state that the findings of this study arebased on a cross-sectional survey interview of 1306 sixth-gradeprimary school children and their parents in Nanshan district,Shenzhen, China. The subject of the study mainly focused on 11–12 year-old children and it might ignore significance of children's ageon their feelings about their own well-being (Huan et al., 2008; Wonget al., 2010). Nonetheless, the results of this study contributed to theliterature by enriching our understanding of the extent of family andschool social capital promoting positive subjective well-being amongprimary school children in transitional China. Findings of this analysisprovide evidence for future child and family related service planning.Financial and social support from schools and teachers should beprioritized to children who are in disadvantaged socioeconomicpositions. This is particularly true for migrant children withoutsufficient parental supervision and emotional support. In addition,school teachers can actively engage parents in their children's

1581M. Lau, W. Li / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 1573–1582

educational experience through interactive communication (includ-ing face-to-face, telephone and text messaging).

Acknowledgements

The article is one of research outputs from the research grantfunded by the City University of Hong Kong. The title of the project is"Investing in Social Capital — How Are the Families and SchoolsPreparing Children for Productive Social and Civic Life in Shenzhen,China" (Project 7200154).Wewould like to thank theNanshanDistrictBureau of Education for providing support for data collection, andMr. Dong Jian for assisting the survey interviews. Gratitude is extendedto the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

References

Adamson, P., Bradshaw, J., Hoelscher, P., & Richardson, D. (2007). Child poverty inperspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries. Innocenti Report Card,vol. 7, Florence, Italy: Unicef Innocenti Research Centre.

An, X. H. (2005). Educational engagement, social capital and educational developmentin poor area (in Chinese). Education and Economy, 4, 33–37.

Aufseeser, D., Jekielek, S., & Brown, B. (2006). The family environment and adolescentwell-being. Exposure to positive and negative family influences Washington, D.C. andSan Francisco, CA: Child Trends, and National Adolescent Health Information Center,University of California.

Ben-Arieh, A., Kaufman, H. N., Andrews, B. A., George, R., Lee, B. J., & Aber, J. L. (2001a).How to measure andmonitor children's well-being. In A. Ben-Arieh, H. N. Kaufman,B. A. Andrews, R. George, B. J. Lee, & J. L. Aber (Eds.), Measuring and monitoringchildren's well-being. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.

Ben-Arieh, A., Kaufman, H. N., Andrews, B. A., George, R., Lee, B. J., & Aber, J. L. (2001b).The rationale for measuring and monitoring children's well-being. In A. Ben-Arieh,H. N. Kaufman, B. A. Andrews, R. George, B. J. Lee, & J. L. Aber (Eds.), Measuring andmonitoring children's well-being. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.

Ben-Arieh, A., Kaufman, H. N., Andrews, B. A., George, R., Lee, B. J., & Aber, J. L. (2001c).Measuring and monitoring children's well-being Dordrecht. Netherlands: KluwerAcademic Press.

Bian, Y. J. (2008). The formation of social capital among Chinese urbanities: Theoreticalexplanation and empirical evidence. In N. Lin, & B. H. Erickson (Eds.), Social capital:An international research program. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bian, Y. J. (2009). Urban occupational mobility and employment institutions: Hierarchy,market, and networks in a mixed system. In D. S. Davis, & F. Wang (Eds.), Creatingwealth and poverty in postsocialist China. Stanford, California: Standford UniversityPress.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. New York: Greenwood.Bradshaw, J., & Richardson, D. (2009). An index of child well-being in Europe. Child

Indicators Research, 2(3), 319–351.Chan, K. W. (2009). The Chinese Hukou System at 50. Eurasian Geography and

Economics, 50(2), 197–221.Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal

of Sociology, 94, 94–120.Crosnoe, R. (2004). Social capital and the interplay of families and schools. Journal of

Marriage and Family, 66, 267–280.Cummins, R. A. (2010). Subjective wellbeing, homeostatically protected mood and

depression: A synthesis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 1–17.Currie, C., et al. (2008). Inequalities in young people's health: Health Behaviour in

School-aged Children (HBSC) International Report from the 2005/2006 Survey.Health policy for children and adolescents, no. 5. Copenhagen: World HealthOrganization, Regional Office for Europe.

Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575.Diener, E., Scollon, C. N., & Lucas, R. E. (2009). The evolving concept of subjective well-

being: Themultifaceted nature of happiness. In E. Diener (Ed.), Assessing well-being:The collected works of Ed Diener. Social indicators research series, Volume 39, TheNetherlands: Springer.

Ennett, S. T., Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Hussong, A., Cai, L., Luz, H., Reyes, M., Hipp, J.,Faris, R., & DuRant, R. (2008). The social ecology of adolescent alcohol misuse. ChildDevelopment, 79(6), 1777–1791.

European Commission Social Protection Committee (2008). Child poverty and well-being in the EU: Current status and way forward. Luxembourg: Office for OfficialPublications of the European Communities.

Fattore, T., Mason, J., & Watson, E. (2009). When children are asked about their well-being: Towards a framework for guiding policy. Child Indicators Research, 2(1),57–77.

Ferguson, K. M. (2006). Social capital and children's wellbeing: A critical synthesis ofthe international social capital literature. International Journal of Social Welfare, 15,2–15.

Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., Boden, J. M., & Jenkin, G. (2007). Childhood socialdisadvantage and smoking in adulthood: Results of a 25-year longitudinal study.Addiction, 102(3), 475–482.

Fong, V. L. (2004). Heavy is the head of the “Little Emperor”: Pressure, discipline, andcompetition in the stratification system. In V. L. Fong (Ed.), Only hope: Coming of ageunder China's one-child policy. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Grootaert, C., & Van Bastelaer, T. (2002). Social capital: From definition tomeasurement. In C. Grootaert, & T. Van Bastelaer (Eds.), Understanding andmeasuring social capital: A multidisciplinary tool for practitioners. Washington, D.C:World Bank.

Hair, E. C., Moore, K. A., Garrett, S. B., Kinukawa, A., Lippman, L. H., & Michelson, E.(2005). The parent–adolescent relationship scale. In K. A. Moore, & L. H. Lippman(Eds.),What do children need to flourish? Conceptualizing and measuring indicators ofpositive development. New York: Springer.

Hango, D. (2007). Parental investment in childhood and educational qualifications: Cangreater parental involvement mediate the effects of socioeconomic disadvantage?Social Science Research, 36, 1371–1390.

Hanson,M.D., & Chen, E. (2007). Socioeconomic status andhealth behaviors in adolescence:A review of the literature. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 30, 263–285.

Hu, S.H. (2007). Family Background and Life Chances in Urban China, 1950–1996: PhDThesis, Department of Sociology, Stanford University.

Huan, C. T., Chiang, I. C., Huang, Y. W., & Hu, Y. J. (2008). Study on the relationshipsbetween social capital and wellbeing among junior high school students in TainanCounty (in Chinese). Journal of Health Promotion and Health Education, 29, 27–50.

Huebner, E. S., & Diener, C. (2008). Research on life satisfaction of children and youth:Implications for the delivery of school-related services. In M. Eid, & R. J. Larsen(Eds.), The science of subjective well-being. New York: Guilford Press.

Israel, G. D., Beaulieu, L. J., & Hartless, G. (2001). The influence of family and communitysocial capital on educational achievement. Rural sociology, 66(1), 43–68.

Jæger, M. M., & Holm, A. (2007). Does parents' economic, cultural and social capitalexplain the social class effect on educational attainment in the Scandinavianmobility regime? Social Science Research, 36, 719–744.

Krishna, A., & Shrader, E. (2002). The social capital assessment tool: Design andimplementation. In C. Grootaert, & T. Van Bastelaer (Eds.), Understanding andmeasuring social capital: A multidisciplinary tool for practitioners. Washington, D.C:World Bank.

Land, K. C., Lamb, V. L., Meadows, S. O., & Taylor, A. (2007). Measuring trends in childwell-being: An evidence-based approach. Social Indicators Research, 80, 105–132.

Lau, M., & Bradshaw, J. (2010). Child well-being in the Pacific Rim. Child IndicatorsResearch, 3(3), 367–383.

Lewis, A. D., Huebner, E. S., Malone, P. S., & Valois, R. F. (2010). Life satisfaction andstudent engagement in adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, doi:10.1007/s10964-10010-19517-10966.

Liang, Z., & Chen, Y. C. (2007). The educational consequences of migration for childrenin China. Social Science Research, 36, 28–47.

Liang, Z., Guo, L., & Duan, C. (2008). Migration and the well-being of children in China.Yale-China Health Journal, 5, 2546 (Autumn).

Lin, N. (2000). Inequality in social capital. Contemporary Sociology, 29(6), 785–795.Lin, N., Ao, D., & Song, L. J. (2009). Production and returns of social capital: Evidence

from urban China. In R. M. Hsung, N. Lin, & R. L. Breiger (Eds.), Contexts of socialcapital: Social networks in markets, communities, and families. New York: Routledge.

Lippman, L. (2004). Indicators of child, family, and community connections. WashingtonD.C.: Child Trends.

Marin, P., & Brown, B. (2008). The school environment and adolescent well-being: Beyondacademics. Child trends research brief. Washington, D.C.: Child Trends.

Parcel, T. L., & Dufur, M. J. (2001). Capital at home and at school: Effects on child socialadjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 32–47.

Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology.Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24.

Portes, A. (2000). Social capital: Promise and pitfalls of its role in development. Journalof Latin American Studies, 32, 529–547.

Postiglione, G. A. (2006). Schooling and inequality in China. In G. A. Postiglione (Ed.),Education and social change in China: Inequality in a market economy. Armonk, NewYork: M.E. Sharpe.

Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal ofDemocracy, 6, 65–78.

Ravens-Sieberer, U., et al. (2008). The KIDSCREEN-52 quality of life measure forchildren and adolescents: Psychometric results from a cross-cultural survey in 13European countries. Value in Health, 11(4), 645–658.

Rees, G., Bradshaw, J., Haridhan, G., & Keung, A. (2010). Understanding children's well-being: A national survey of young people's well-being. London: The Children'sSociety.

Sandefur, G. D., Meier, A. M., & Campbell, M. E. (2006). Family resources, social capital,and college attendance. Social Science Research, 35, 525–553.

Smyth, E., Whelan, C. T., McCoy, S., Quail, A., & Doyle, E. (2010). Understanding parentalinfluence on educational outcomes among 9 years old in Ireland: The mediatingrole of resources, attitudes and children's own perspectives. Child IndicatorsResearch, 3, 85–104.

Sun, Y. M. (1999). The contextual effects of community social capital on academicperformance. Social Science Research, 28, 403–426.

Sun, Y. X. (2005). Introduction to Chinese children. In J. Y. Xi, Y. X. Sun, & J. J. Xiao (Eds.),Chinese youth in transition. Aldershot: Ashgate.

The Statistical Bureau of the Shenzhen Municipality (2009). Statistical Communiqueof the Statistical Bureau of the Shenzhen Municipality on the National Economicand Social Development. available from. http://www.sztj.com/main/xxgk/tjsj/tjgb/gmjjhshfzgb/201004265740.shtml [Accessed 16 November 2010]

Turbin, M. S., Jessor, R., Costa, F. M., Dong, Q., Zhang, H., & Wang, C. (2006). Protectiveand risk factors in health-enhancing behavior among adolescents in China and theUnited States: Does social context matter? Health Psychology, 25(4), 445–454.

UNICEF (2001). Speaking out survey 2001. UNICEF.Wang, L. (2008). The marginality of migrant children in the urban Chinese educational

system. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(6), 691–703.

1582 M. Lau, W. Li / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 1573–1582

Wang,Y., & Fong, V. L. (2009). Little emperors and the 4:2:1 generation: China's singletons.Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Child andAdolescent Psychiatry, 48(12), 1137–1139.

Wong, D. F. K., Chang, Y. L., He, X. S., & Wu, Q. B. (2010). The protective functions ofrelationships, social support and self-esteem in the life satisfaction of children ofmigrant workers in Shanghai, China. The International Journal of Social Psychiatry,54(2), 143–157.

Woronov, T. E. (2009). Migrant children and migrant schooling: Policies, problemsand possibilities. In R. Murphy (Ed.), Labour migration and social development incontemporary China. London: Routledge.

Wright, D. R., & Fitzpatrick, K. M. (2006). Social capital and adolescent violent behavior:Correlates of fighting and weapon use among secondary school students. SocialForces, 84(3), 1435–1453.

Wu, X. G., & Treiman, D. J. (2007). Inequality and equality under Chinese Socialism: Thehukou system and intergenerational occupational mobility. The American Journal ofSociology, 113(2), 415–445.

Yan,M. C., & Lam, C.M. (2009). Intersecting social capital andChinese culture: Implicationsfor services assisting unemployed youths. International Social Work, 52(2), 195–207.

Zhao, L., & Li, J. Y. (2006). China's hukou system: Multifaceted changes and institutionalcauses.Discussion Paper, No. 9 (June), China Policy Institute, University of Nottingham.

Zubrick, S., Williams, A., Silburn, S., & Vimpani, G. (2000). Indicators of social and familyfunctioning Australia: Department of Family and Community Services.

Zullig, K., Valois, R. F., Huebner, E. S., & Drane, W. J. (2005). Adolescent health-relatedquality of life and perceived satisfaction with life. Quality of Life Research, 14,1573–1584.