The Impact of Higher Education Expansion on Subjective Well-Being during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence from Chinese Social Survey
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The present manuscript utilizes a Difference-in-Differences (DID) model to examine the impact of the Higher Education Expansion (HEE) policy on Subjective Well-Being (SWB) during the COVID-19 pandemic based on China Social Survey (CSS) data. The study finds that HEE policy positively affects SWB, which is mediated through the mechanism of social class mobility. Overall, the study's novel findings and timely data analysis contribute to policy-making and suggest promising directions for future research. However, some minor issues need to be addressed before the paper can be accepted.
(1) In the literature review, please add some existing studies related to the pandemic, HEE, and SWB in China, highlighting their strengths and limitations.
(2) To improve clarity and precision, the author should use the full name of an abbreviation when it is first introduced and then use the abbreviation consistently throughout the article. For example, "subjective well-being" in line 86, MMI, EMI and FJH in lines 150-151, SES in line 250, difference-in-differences in line 297, PSM-DID in line 413, and BK in line 446.
(3) Make a minor correction in line 535, which should be "columns (1) to (4)".
Author Response
Reviewer 1’s comments:
The present manuscript utilizes a Difference-in-Differences (DID) model to examine the impact of the Higher Education Expansion (HEE) policy on Subjective Well-Being (SWB) during the COVID-19 pandemic based on China Social Survey (CSS) data. The study finds that HEE policy positively affects SWB, which is mediated through the mechanism of social class mobility. Overall, the study's novel findings and timely data analysis contribute to policy-making and suggest promising directions for future research. However, some minor issues need to be addressed before the paper can be accepted.
Point 1: In the literature review, please add some existing studies related to the pandemic, HEE, and SWB in China, highlighting their strengths and limitations.
Response 1 : We appreciate the reviewer's insightful suggestion. We have taken into account the existing studies while making the necessary additions to the literature review. The literature related to the pandemic, HEE, and SWB in China has been incorporated into the manuscript. Based on the structure of the article, we have highlighted the strengths and limitations of these literatures when mentioning the contribution of the manuscript to the research field. The text has been revised accordingly, and we hope that the literature review is now clearer. Please refer to page 3 of the revised manuscript, lines 101-108, and page 2, lines 81-94 for further details. The revised text is as follows:
Over the past few decades, there has been abundant literature on the happiness effect of college education. Most researchers believe that college education is positively associated with happiness, and individuals who have received a college education usually have a higher level of happiness than those who have not (Liu et al., 2012[1]; Hu, 2015[2]; Hu and Gao, 2019[3]; Fitz Roy and Nolan, 2020[4]; Yang et al., 2022[5]). Although the positive effect of higher education on SWB has been widely confirmed, we know surprisingly little about how such an effect may vary in an era of higher education expansion (HEE), especially under the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
On the one hand, HEE increases the number of college graduates, thus giving rise to the overall level of happiness under the pandemic. On the other hand, the lowered college selectivity raises the extent of heterogeneity in the composition of college students, reasonably ‘‘diluting’’ the value of an educational credential as well as its contribution to subjective wellbeing. In light of the worldwide trend of HEE (Schofer and Meyer 2005)[6], it is necessary to investigate how the association between higher education and happiness has changed under credential proliferation and the impact of pandemic.
The contributions of this paper are threefold. First, unlike the focus of previous literature on the employment or income of college graduates, this paper evaluates the pros and cons of the HHE policy during the epidemic from the perspective of SWB. Second, most extant studies focus on the average happiness-enhancing effect of educational attainment. In this article, along with the average effect, we see how the extent of heterogeneity in the pro-happiness effect of a college degree changes within HEE, thus depicting a more comprehensive picture relative to that of previous studies. Third, China witnessed unprecedented economic success in the past decades, but people’s perceived quality of life did not grow concomitantly. On the contrary, previous studies underscored a decline in people’s SWB in the Reform Era (Brockmann et al. 2009[7]; Yu 2008[8]). The findings of this study shed practical light on public policies during the pandemic and can serve as a basis for governmental departments to mitigate the negative impact of the pandemic through the policy tool of HEE. This may also be enlightening for other developing nations where both rapid economic growth and declining SWB are observed.
Point 2: To improve clarity and precision, the author should use the full name of an abbreviation when it is first introduced and then use the abbreviation consistently throughout the article. For example, "subjective well-being" in line 86, MMI, EMI and FJH in lines 150-151, SES in line 250, difference-in-differences in line 297, PSM-DID in line 413, and BK in line 446.
Response 2 : Thank you for pointing out such an important potential issue. We have made modifications to the abbreviation by presenting its full name upon initial introduction and subsequently utilizing the abbreviation consistently throughout the article. For example, we have changed "subjective well-being" in line 86 to “SWB”, “MMI, EMI, and FJH” in lines 150-151 to “Maximally Maintained Inequality, Effectively Maintained Inequality, and Lipset-Zetterberg hypothesis”, “SES” in line 250 to “socioeconomic status (SES)”, “difference-in-differences” in line 297 to “DID approach”, “PSM-DID” in line 413 to “propensity score matching (PSM) method”, and “BK” in line 446 to “Baron and Kenny (1986) method”.
Point 3: Make a minor correction in line 535, which should be "columns (1) to (4)".
Response 3 : Thanks for noticing. We have changed the original text "columns (1) to (3)" in line 535 to "columns (1) to (4)".
[1] Liu, J., Xiong, M., and Su, Y. (2012). National sense of happiness in the economic growth period: a study based on CGSS data. Soc. Sci. China 12, 82–102.
[2] Hu, A. (2015). The Changing happiness-enhancing effect of a college degree under higher education expansion: evidence from China. J. Happ. Stud. 16,669–685. doi: 10.1007/s10902-014-9528-1
[3] Hu, H., and Gao, N. (2019). Education and happiness: direct effect and mediating effect. Educ. Res. 11, 111–123.
[4] FitzRoy, F. R., and Nolan, M. A. (2020). Education, income and happiness: panel evidence for the UK. Emp. Econ. 58, 2573–2592. doi: 10.1007/s00181-018-1586-5
[5] Yang, D., Zheng, G., Wang, H., and Li, M. (2022). Education, income, and happiness: evidence from China. Front. Public Health 10:855327. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.855327
[6] Schofer, E., and Meyer, J. (2005). The world-wide expansion of higher education in the twentieth century. American Sociological Review, 70, 898–920.
[7] Brockmann, H., Delhey, J., Welzel, C., and Yuan, H. (2009). The China puzzle: Falling happiness in a rising economy. J. Happiness. Stud. 10, 387–405.
[8] Yu, W. (2008). The psychological cost of market transition: Mental health disparities in reform-era China. Social Problems. 55(3), 347–369.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, thanks for submitting your paper, which is well prepared and interesting. To increase the quality of the paper the following comments are suggested:
Conclusion (page 1): the information provided repeats the information from the introduction part, but should include the conclusions of the study, this part should be revised accordingly. Please explain the main contributions of the paper in this section,
Conclusion (page 1): "The study reveals that happiness comes from relative success, while unhappiness results from relative deprivation."
Introduction (page 2): "That is, happiness comes from relative success in actualizing expectations, while unhappiness arises from relative failure (Kahneman and Tversky, 1974)."
The order of sections is not clear: page 7 - "3.3. Variables", page 9 - "4.1. Baseline regression". The structure of the paper should be revised carefully,
Conclusions: the limitations of the study should be explained, the recommendations for future studies should be provided.
Author Response
Reviewer 2’s comments:
Dear authors, thanks for submitting your paper, which is well prepared and interesting. To increase the quality of the paper the following comments are suggested:
Point 1: Conclusion (page 1): the information provided repeats the information from the introduction part, but should include the conclusions of the study, this part should be revised accordingly. Please explain the main contributions of the paper in this section,
Conclusion (page 1): "The study reveals that happiness comes from relative success, while unhappiness results from relative deprivation."
Introduction (page 2): "That is, happiness comes from relative success in actualizing expectations, while unhappiness arises from relative failure (Kahneman and Tversky, 1974)."
Response 1: Thank you for your kind words and suggestions on how to improve the paper. Following your advice, we have rewrite the conclusion(page 1). The revised text is as follows:
Conclusion: The study reveals that the level of an individual's happiness depends largely on whom they are compared with. This implies that the key focus of HEE policy is to stimulate individuals' potential and motivation for upward social mobility, ultimately enhancing their overall sense of well-being.
Point 2:The order of sections is not clear: page 7 - "3.3. Variables", page 9 - "4.1. Baseline regression". The structure of the paper should be revised carefully.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing out this issue. Taking your comments into account, we have carefully rearranged the sections to provide readers with a more comprehensive understanding of the article. Please refer to the revised manuscript for further details.
Point 3: Conclusions: the limitations of the study should be explained, the recommendations for future studies should be provided.
Response 3: Thank you for your professional advice. We agree with the reviewer that it would be helpful to outline the limitations of the study and provide proposals for future research, and we have incorporated them into the conclusions. Please refer to pages 18- 19 of the revised manuscript, lines 599- 613 for further details. The revised text is as follows:
However, several limitations of this study must be mentioned. First, HEE can function as a ladder for upward social mobility for members of society, but it can also solidify social mobility through social reproduction. Therefore, HEE can impact an individual's educational decisions, making it challenging to clarify the pure effect of education on social class mobility and individual SWB. Second, the educational decisions made by individuals with varying unobserved and missing variables, such as their personal aptitudes and family background, and the model's strong endogeneity pose a challenge to examining the impact mechanisms of HEE on SWB. Therefore, further research will be necessary to establish the causal effects through experimental design and effective instrumental variables. Third, there is a lack of empirical research on reference points, particularly on the mechanisms of individual decision-making based on different reference points under uncertainty. An obvious extension to the general analysis would be to specifically examine whether our findings remain unchanged when using various approaches to define reference groups. This should be explored in greater depth for further investigation, which is beyond the scope of our study.
Reviewer 3 Report
Article eligible for direct publication
Author Response
Reviewer 3’s comments:
Article eligible for direct publication
Response: Thank you very much for your kind words.
Reviewer 4 Report
It is an interesting topic and this topic is meaningful in the context of China.
However, in the manuscript two key variables were not explainded very well.
In P7 the authors said that ??????? is a binary 301 variable taking the value of one if individual i is affected by the pandemic (that is, t>2020), and zero otherwise. ????? is a dummy variable indicating whether an individual is af-fected by the HEE policy. What does it mean by the words " affected by the pandemic"? and "affected by the HEE policy", it means their income decreased ? and they were not enrolled into the postgraduate programs?
The authors need to describe it more and make it clear.
Author Response
Reviewer 4’s comments:
It is an interesting topic and this topic is meaningful in the context of China.
Point 1:However, in the manuscript two key variables were not explained very well. In P7 the authors said that ??????? is a binary 01 variable taking the value of one if individual i is affected by the pandemic (that is, t>2020), and zero otherwise. ????? is a dummy variable indicating whether an individual is affected by the HEE policy. What does it mean by the words " affected by the pandemic"? and "affected by the HEE policy", it means their income decreased ? and they were not enrolled into the postgraduate programs? The authors need to describe it more and make it clear.
Response 1: Thank you for your kind words and suggestions on how to improve the paper. In the revised manuscript, we have further explained how these two key variables were structured to address your concerns and hope that it is now clearer. Please refer to page 7 of the revised manuscript, lines 315- 330 for further details. The revised text is as follows:
It is necessary to further explain the treatment group and the control group. Given the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic at the end of 2019, the level of SWB reported by individuals after 2019 is subject to the pandemic. Based on the data from the 2019 and 2021 waves of the CSS, we define as 1 if the observations occurred in 2021 and 0 otherwise. Considering that the HEE policy was implemented in 1999, in accordance with the Law of the People's Republic of China on Compulsory Education, individuals are typically 18 years old if they have completed nine years of compulsory education , three years of high school education, and have taken the college entrance examination. Drawing on Hao and Zhang's (2020), is defined as the difference between whether a sample has received higher education (including undergraduate education, college/vocational education, and graduate education) and whether their birth year is greater than or equal to 1981. In other words, this paper assumes that those born in 1981 or later and have received higher education are affected by the HHE policy, and therefore define as 1 and 0 otherwise. This paper focuses on the coefficient of . If is significantly positive, it indicates that the HEE can improve an individual's SWB under the pandemic shock.
Reviewer 5 Report
The work contributes to the area of research in which the authors specify. The thoroughness of the operations involved are detailed in the descriptions mentioned. The conclusions are related to the results obtained.
Author Response
Reviewer 5’s comments:
The work contributes to the area of research in which the authors specify. The thoroughness of the operations involved are detailed in the descriptions mentioned. The conclusions are related to the results obtained.
Response: Thank you very much for your kind words.
