ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Unequal benefits: housing provident fund and happiness among China's migrant and non-migrant populations.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examines whether China's Housing Provident Fund (HPF) improves subjective wellbeing equitably across urban populations. Using data from the China Household Finance Survey (CHFS), we ask two questions: (1) Does HPF participation enhance individuals' happiness? (2) Do its effects differ between migrant and non-migrant residents? Employing multivariate regression models with rich socioeconomic controls, we find that HPF participation is positively associated with overall happiness. However, this association is uneven: a statistically significant positive relationship is observed for non-migrants, while no statistically meaningful association is found for migrants. Mechanism analyses indicate that this disparity stems from migrants' limited ability to utilize HPF benefits, particularly housing loans, due to unstable employment and shorter job tenures that hinder eligibility and savings accumulation. These findings reveal that a policy designed as a universal housing support system produces unequal welfare outcomes. By shifting attention from average effects to distributional consequences, this study advances the literature on housing policy and subjective wellbeing and demonstrates how universal programs can reinforce existing social stratification in rapidly urbanizing societies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.