HOS mania
This paper that I am writing now is really driving me nuts. Since I don't feel ready to put down my thoughts on the all-too-sterile word interface, I would try to delineate my thoughts here and, hopefully, my train of thought would clear up a little bit.
My statement, as stated in the second assignment, is that the HOS/ PSPS schemes did serve their role in late 70s and early 80s as an 'intermediate step' for middle class families who cannot afford private housing units in the market. However, they became increasingly obsolete as their capability to generate capital gains for middle class families is diminishing during the gradual course of economic restructuring throughout the 90s. Nonetheless, the government continued to carry out overarching HOS/ PSPS schemes due to a 'housing shortage' demonstrated by the market.
From this statement it seems logical that my paper should be structured as follows:
1. introduction: the whole epic about the seven hapless pink towers should be delivered as a pretext to what has really gone wrong with HOS/PSPS, before I propose the aforesaid statement in the second paragraph.
2. What is HOS/ PSPS exactly? I should mention the government's LTHS (background, history, how it shifts the government's primary housing focus from paternalistic housing provision for the extremely poor to MacLeos' vision of transforming Hong Kong into a somewhat welfare-based society...), which was subsequently executed by the HA in 1976. When was the HA restructured again? I might have to go through Castell's Shek Kip Mei Syndrome a little bit in order to recap what I have missed. what does all this have to do with my statement? The definition of middle class jumps in at this point: the socio-economical cause and significance of an emerging middle class in Hong Kong - who are they? How did they come up? Their wealth was apparently buoyed by a robust economic growth cycle that lasted for 20 years or so.
3. Real analytical stuff comes in now. this is where I am stuck ah.....
Apparently this foolish excercise is not helping me at all. Sorry for another boring post.....
My statement, as stated in the second assignment, is that the HOS/ PSPS schemes did serve their role in late 70s and early 80s as an 'intermediate step' for middle class families who cannot afford private housing units in the market. However, they became increasingly obsolete as their capability to generate capital gains for middle class families is diminishing during the gradual course of economic restructuring throughout the 90s. Nonetheless, the government continued to carry out overarching HOS/ PSPS schemes due to a 'housing shortage' demonstrated by the market.
From this statement it seems logical that my paper should be structured as follows:
1. introduction: the whole epic about the seven hapless pink towers should be delivered as a pretext to what has really gone wrong with HOS/PSPS, before I propose the aforesaid statement in the second paragraph.
2. What is HOS/ PSPS exactly? I should mention the government's LTHS (background, history, how it shifts the government's primary housing focus from paternalistic housing provision for the extremely poor to MacLeos' vision of transforming Hong Kong into a somewhat welfare-based society...), which was subsequently executed by the HA in 1976. When was the HA restructured again? I might have to go through Castell's Shek Kip Mei Syndrome a little bit in order to recap what I have missed. what does all this have to do with my statement? The definition of middle class jumps in at this point: the socio-economical cause and significance of an emerging middle class in Hong Kong - who are they? How did they come up? Their wealth was apparently buoyed by a robust economic growth cycle that lasted for 20 years or so.
3. Real analytical stuff comes in now. this is where I am stuck ah.....
Apparently this foolish excercise is not helping me at all. Sorry for another boring post.....
posted by ckdw at 9:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home