Household savings in Hong Kong
Over-abundance of information
The primary key of this report is to make a summary. The author, therefore, should come up with a
Concise and forthright piece of information. The information should, thus, be organized, determined, and presented in a manner such that it represents clarity of information. This information must have been established such that the fundamental point is conveyed with ease and precision. It should include lengthy explanations that would be discussed in great detail later in the discussion.
From the introduction narrated by the author: the author has crowded the introductory with too much information. The author has employed too many details that are drawn from several books cited. The opening paragraph is hence, too comprehensive.
The author, therefore, has burdened the reader of the report with a lot of additional detailed citations. This kind of narrative almost always, if not at all times, discourages the reader as one is bombarded with too much literature that needs to be decoded.
A good literature review must be related to the title, be specific and direct. In most cases, a good report starts with an inverted triangle kind of analogy-where the start is given a general view as it slowly degenerates to a more specific ending. It is also worth noting that the author has personalized information; for instance, there is the use of words such as ‘we found out’ ‘we analyzed’ ‘we concluded.’ A good literature report should have refrained from such.
Suitability of research objectives
The research question is perfectly suitable for the research objective stated in the last lines of the introduction. One of the purposes is to identify the significant attributes of the Household saving behavior and recommend suitable approaches to improve savings. This is well addressed with the second, third, and fifth questions.
This is so because the questions seek to correctly answer the objectives/goals of the research quite ideally. If the questions of savings motives, determinants, various ways of addressing private savings are addressed, then the author’s prime objectives will be well established.
Problems in sampling methods
- It is tedious and time-consuming:
There is a consensus of thoughts among social scientists regarding the difficulty of collecting household savings data, and scientists aware that the data quality problems are even more severe in individual economies such as Hong Kong where privacy is highly valued (Poon, 2015). This method of collection of data is cumbersome as a large number of students belonging to a particular course of study are selected to act as enumerators. There is no guarantee that the data derived from such a large number will be reliable. In fact, in most instances, where a large amount is involved cases of misinformation are rampant, it is, hence, unwise to select such a method.
There is also the use of a telephone interview, the information given over the phone in most cases are unreliable as one can misinform another since one is not there to validate.
- It is difficult to classify;
Each kind of population into clearly distinct classes. Separating and clearly distinguishing the community into class/middle class, mortgage, and non-mortgage owners is hectic as individuals will not open their financial positions; this renders this method as challenging to put in use.
Sampling method proposed
Simple random sampling.
In this case, each individual is chosen entirely by chance, and each member of the population has an equal chance or probability of being selected.[cite]Since we are determined to establish the level of savings in this population, a significant number of the people must be put to the test and hence this selection method.
The steps in a simple random sample are (a) define the population (b) choose your sample size correctly (c) List the population your studying (d) assign numbers to the units you depend on (e) finding random numbers, these random numbers can be determined either by using number tables or computer programs that will generate the numbers with ease to the user and finally one is supposed to select one sample. This will involve mathematically choosing random numbers from a random number table. Going by the above steps, the appropriate amounts will, therefore, be determined by step (e) where the sample selection is made. This is where the selection of the number of participants in this method is carefully undertaken.
Criteria should be that everyone that falls within the bracket is included, and one that does not fall within is excluded. This is fairness to ensure that the report is not compromised. This method aims at reducing the potential for bias in the selection of cases.
Evaluate the measurement of the study
Content validity refers to the extent to which the items on the list are reasonably representative of the entire domain the test seeks to measure. This entry discusses origins and definitions of content validation, methods of content validation, and the role of content validity, evidence invalidity arguments, and unresolved issues in content validation.
According to Carmines and Zeller (1987) and Perry (1996), reliability focuses on the extent to which the empirical indicator provides consistent results across repeated measurements and validity concerns the area to which the instrument measures what it purports to measure (Poon, 2015).
From the literature with regards to the validity (Ferrer et al. 1996) or the degree to which the survey result will be valid if it can be determined that there is no significant difference between the official statistics estimates and the estimates that have been provided by the research figures. Failure to verify this, the particular result would be rendered invalid, and according to this literature, the validity of the households’ savings survey conducted by the author is acceptable. In this regard, the author has succeeded in formulating a mechanism that can be well used to determine the questions that the introductory part of the research seeks to answer. Therefore, after verifying the reliability and validity, we can proceed to analyze the data protected
to answer the research questions regarding disparity, saving motives, to save determinants, life cycle, and adequacy of savings across the respondents of Households in Hong Kong.
Content validity is essential as it is often seen as a prerequisite to criterion validity because it is a good indicator of whether the desired trait is measured. Validity is important because it determines what survey question to use and helps ensure that researchers are using items that genuinely measure the issue of importance. The validity of a survey is considered to be the degree to which it measures what it claims to measure.
Measurement of respondents’ household saving pattern
The problem is that the privacy of an individual saving plan has been compromised. Each resident of Hong Kong covered /included in the survey has to reveal their savings, expenditure, and even income to the researchers. Now a substantive question will arise as to what amount of income do you earn, and one is required to provide a kind of evidence showing that they are also supposed to give an expenditure such that the correct amount saved can be established. Well, this is a problem – It is a question wrongly asked as it has gone to the level where it has compromised the privacy and independence of the respondent. When the respondent gives such data/information, it tends to provide details of their private life, and that is why this is a problem.
If the respondent feels insecure/ threatened and decides to give unreliable information, this will pose a significant danger to the people surveying because they are highly likely to give or instead give a report which is ill-informed and thus containing a misinformed data analysis of such data gives conclusive and hence a poorly formulated report. Looking at the coefficient of variation, it is less than 10%, suggesting that the information is somehow not entirely right.
One would propose that the question be changed and give a more relevant question which respondent can feel much more comfortable answering. A more pertinent question provides the respondent with a little bit of freedom and therefore answer with ease with no fear of consequence. This thus gives a sincere and valid answer, a logical explanation is always accurate, and accuracy is the measure of the correct report; hence this will be highly desirable.
The substantive problem in the question
It is difficult to tell whether or not your immediate family member is adequately contributing to her household savings or not. Income distribution to an individual is varying, as indicated in the literature paper. The amount of expenditure that is available at each one disposal is also wide-ranging. One is, therefore, not confident and cannot give any valid response in regards to their relative amount that is saved, not to mention whether it is adequate or not.
This is, therefore, a poor question formulation method. A question structured in such a manner will, in most cases, not be able to give adequate and desired responses to the researcher. The quality of data plays a significant role in its analysis. The analysis will, therefore, be negatively impacted depending on how well the questions directed to the respondent are formulated.
Proposed changes
It would be appropriate if a question to this measurement is well formulated so that it covers the scope of relevance, reliability, and validity. The question should be more open-ended instead of being rigid. A rigid question is more difficult to answer as it fixes the respondent to an edged. In contrast, an open-ended question gives leeway to the respondent to comfortably provide a valid response. This provides the validity desired in the report.
Unit Root Test
Variable
ADF Test Statistics
Order of Integration
Lgcf
-3.671
I(1)
Lgns
-3.891
I(1)
Intr
-8.570
I(1)
Inf
-5.169
I(1)
Sdr
-5.663
I(1)
Lgdp
-4.300
I(1)
Lad
-4.351
I(1)
The result of the unit root test is presented above from the result, all of the variables are non-stationary series, but they are all stationary at the first difference; they are all I (1) series, that is, they are all integration order one. The condition for testing for co-integration has been met. The idea behind integration is that even if some variables are not stationary, their linear combination may be stationary after all. The existence of co-integration confirms that co-movements among the variables are consequently long-run relationships existing among variables. This test is hence suitable to establish the relationship between a saving motive and a saving determinant.
References
Poon, C. a. (2015). Household savings in Hong Kong. A Statistical Analysis. Journal of family and economic issues.