Lui Tai-lok, Professor of Sociology at Hong Kong University, Hong Kong. I must say that I read this book proposal with mixed feelings. On the one hand, I do like to see another research monograph on social class in East Asia in print form. This is an under-published area and a lot of exciting research questions have been cropping up in the region. On the other, this proposal is still largely an un-revised Ph.D. thesis, with little updates to address new issues and concerns. In order to proceed to the next stage, the author does need to do more rewriting. On the broader context of the case study (i.e., contemporary Hong Kong), the author would need to come up with a stronger defense of the relevance of globalization and neoliberalism. Given Hong Kong's former colonial status, these are not new features. So, the author needs to explain why s/he would like to underline the so-called Hong Kong's globalized neoliberal era. Did it begin in the 1980s? Is s/he suggesting that his/her respondents (given the author's emphasis on the significance of understanding their childhood) grew up in a different socio-economic environment? What are the differences? How do they impact on different social classes? I assume the analyses developed in Chapters 3 and 4 (i.e., on childhood and work) would be further elaborated in Chapter 5. These three chapters are expected to be closely connected with each other and class experiences in the family and work contexts would shape the respondents' political orientation. But what I see in the outline of Chapter 5 is a shift towards a discussion of the respondents' sense of political efficacy. It seems to me that the author has changed his focus of analysis on political efficacy from a class-based approach (as promised by him/her) to that emphasizing effects of the political environment (perception of political reform or absence of expected reform). If this is the case, is this really a class-based analysis of politics? The author would also try to connect class identification with class politics. But then the format of discussion seems to have gone back to the more conventional agenda of the existence of a clearly defined class identity or otherwise. Then, towards to the end of the text, the author suggests that perhaps generational differences and life course are significant factors in shaping class politics in Hong Kong. This is exactly the problem I raised at the beginning of this review report. The author is expected to have moved beyond his/her Ph.D. thesis and have continued to work on his/her analyses. Hong Kong has undergone a lot of changes between 2006-07 (the years of the author's fieldwork) and 2014. Growing regional integration between China and Hong Kong has posed new questions along class cleavages.
