Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41822423›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Unequal benefits: housing provident fund and happiness among China's migrant and non-migrant populations.

Yutong Wu, Weijun Li, Mingzhi Hu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Yutong WuSchool of Finance, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan, China.
Weijun LiSchool of Business, Anhui University of Technology, Ma'anshan, China.
Mingzhi HuChinese Academy of Housing and Real Estate, School of Management, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Chinaequalityhappinesshousing provident fundmigrant

Identifiers

PMID41822423
PMCPMC12977074

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.