Hui, E C M (1999) Hong Kong's public housing policy: A new perspective on government intervention and rationale. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 4(3), pp. 5-28. ISSN 1366-4387
Abstract
This paper traces the development of government intervention from the 1950s to the 1990s with a view to bringing out the shortcomings and offering a new perspective of the underlying reasons of government intervention in Hong Kong. It sets up an analytical framework within which to challenge conventional wisdom and to offer a new perspective on the debate on government intervention. It particularly addresses three important questions. First, what have been the rationales behind government housing initiatives in Hong Kong over the past forty years or so? Second, what are the possible shortcomings in policy development as a result? Third, what are the underlying reasons for the ways of government intervention, particularly in the context of policy planning effort and political environment? This paper also serves a refreshing contribution to debate on choices between public and private provision, particularly before and after Hong Kong reverted to Chinese rule.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Hong Kong, housing, housing policy, housing rent |
| Index terms: | analytical framework, housing, housing policy, public housing, Hong Kong |
| Subjects: | data analysis and analytics, construction type, public policy, Geography |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Research Practice, Construction Technology, Governance |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here