Introduction
Why do eligible individuals not claim social welfare benefits? Welfare stigma is a prominent factor in the decision to claim social welfare benefits and is a psychological cost that prevents people from applying (Moffitt, Reference Moffitt1983; Baumberg, Reference Baumberg2016). In this study, we examined how welfare stigma interacts with financial and childcare needs to influence low-income parents’ decisions to claim social welfare benefits in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (hereafter: Hong Kong). We paid particular attention to how children factor into parents’ decisions when they weigh the stigma of accepting social welfare benefits against the financial and childcare needs that push them toward it. We further explored the relational consequences of claim decisions on the parent-child relationship between claimants and non-claimants.
Welfare stigma and its interactions with needs in the decision to claim social welfare benefits
Participation in social welfare programmes has been associated with characteristics such as laziness, personal failure, and dependency, which can lead to social rejection, devaluation, and discrimination (Goffman, Reference Goffman1963; Somers and Block, Reference Somers and Block2005). The multidimensional layers of welfare stigma are manifest in various ways, such as self-stigma, anticipation of stigmatisation, claim stigma, and social stigma. Self-stigma occurs when individuals internalise shame, believing their identity to be devalued because they claim benefits. Anticipated stigma is the expectation of discrimination based on welfare recipient status (Lasky-Fink and Linos, Reference Lasky-Fink and Linos2022). Claim stigma reflects an individual’s sense of shame during the process of claiming benefits (Kühner and Chou, Reference Kühner and Chou2025) that can arise due to a lack of privacy and poor treatment from front-line officers (van Oorschot, Reference van Oorschot1995). Policy design, such as the nature and extent of means-testing, is also linked with claim stigma (Sen, Reference Sen1995). Social stigma refers to stereotypes, prejudices, and discriminatory attitudes held by the public toward those who receive social welfare benefits (Gilens, 1999). It is deeply ingrained in broad cultural and societal norms related to the work ethic and self-reliance (Janssens and Van Mechelen, 2022).
The level of need is a pivotal factor that interacts with welfare stigma to jointly shape people’s decisions to claim social welfare benefits. Previous literature has considered needs as antidotes to stigma in the decision to claim social welfare benefits (Lister, Reference Lister2004; Ritchie and Matthews, Reference Ritchie and Matthews1982). Some even regard welfare stigma as a way to deter those with less-pressing needs (Stuber and Schlesinger, Reference Stuber and Schlesinger2006). Latimer (Reference Latimer2006) showed that a common strategy used by social welfare recipients to manage welfare stigma was to emphasise their needs.
The extent to which welfare stigma and needs interact to influence decisions to claim social welfare benefits is a particularly pertinent question in liberal welfare regimes such as the UK, the US, and Ireland, where poverty is often viewed as a personal failure and social welfare provision is limited by strict means-tested rules that incentivise employment (Bolton et al., Reference Bolton, Whelan and Dukelow2022). Among the five deservingness criteria – control, reciprocity, identity, attitude, and need (CRIAN) – proposed by Oorschot (Reference Oorschot2000), need has been found to be a predominant criterion in liberal welfare regimes (Laenen et al., Reference Laenen, Rossetti and Van Oorschot2019), in contrast to reciprocity in conservative welfare regimes and equality/universalism in social democratic regimes (Taylor-Gooby et al., 2019).
The role of welfare stigma in shaping individuals’ claim decisions has been acknowledged in the existing literature – both quantitatively (e.g., Baumberg, Reference Baumberg2016; Kühner and Chou, Reference Kühner and Chou2025) and qualitatively (e.g., Li and Walker, Reference Li and Walker2017; Powell et al., Reference Powell, Amsbary and Xin2015). However, why certain individuals perceive their needs as more legitimate, and how these perceived needs interact with welfare stigma to ultimately influence decisions to accept or forgo benefits in a liberal context has not been comprehensively explored.
Children as a consideration in the interplay between welfare stigma and needs in the decision to claim social welfare benefits
The growing body of empirical literature on welfare stigma and the decision to claim social welfare benefits focuses primarily on individuals. However, for many welfare programmes, welfare status is attached to the entire family, leading to ‘courtesy stigma’ and ‘associative stigma’ directed toward recipients’ family and friends (Corrigan and Miller, Reference Corrigan and Miller2004; Reupert et al., Reference Reupert, Gladstone, Helena Hine, Yates, McGaw, Charles and Foster2021). The fear of welfare stigma extending to family members, especially children, may discourage parents from claiming social welfare benefits.
Conversely, parents may prioritise their children’s needs, justifying their decision to claim social welfare benefits in the name of the children’s development (Ridge, Reference Ridge2002). Previous studies have shown that the inability to provide basic material goods, such as clothing for their children, takes an emotional toll on parents, making them feel guilty, angry, and frustrated when they cannot fulfill their parental duties as society expects (Ali et al., Reference Ali, Sensoy Bahar, Gopalan, Lukasiewicz, Parker, McKay and Walker2018; Yang et al., Reference Yang, Walker and Xie2019). Therefore, it is essential to explore the decision to claim social welfare benefits as a decision that goes beyond the individual.
While current literature on the decision to claim social welfare benefits has largely overlooked children as a key stakeholder, studies on household financial decisions revealed that the presence of children affects households’ asset accumulation strategies by shaping parents’ preferences and biases. In families with limited resources, parents may sacrifice their own needs to prioritise those of their children. Children may even be directly involved in the family’s purchase decisions (see Kim et al., Reference Kim, Gutter and Spangler2017, for a review). Thus, in addition to affecting how parents weigh need versus welfare stigma, children may also be directly involved in the decision to claim social welfare benefits by advocating their views.
Factoring children into decisions to claim social welfare benefits is particularly salient in societies such as those in East Asia that place considerable emphasis on reciprocal kinship obligations to provide welfare care (Sutton et al., Reference Sutton, Pemberton, Fahmy and Tamiya2014). Strong societal expectations of parental and familial responsibility in child-rearing may intensify welfare stigma, further complicate the interplay between welfare stigma and need in decisions to claim social welfare benefits.
Relational consequences of decision to claim social welfare benefits: welfare stigma, work–family conflict, and parent-child relationship
The decision to claim benefits profoundly affects low-income individuals, and many studies have examined feelings of shame and stigma experienced by those who choose to claim social welfare benefits and their strategies to manage stigma (Ali et al., Reference Ali, Sensoy Bahar, Gopalan, Lukasiewicz, Parker, McKay and Walker2018; Baker Collins et al., Reference Baker Collins, Smith-Carrier, Gazso and Smith2020; Evans, Reference Evans2022; Fin and Murphy, 2022; Garthwaite, Reference Garthwaite2016; Jun, Reference Jun2022; Li and Walker, Reference Li and Walker2017; Patrick, Reference Patrick2014; Wong and Lou, Reference Wong and Lou2010; Yang et al., Reference Yang, Walker and Xie2019). According to Family Systems Theory (Bowen, Reference Bowen1978), the family is an interconnected system in which members are interdependent in terms of cognition, emotion, behaviour, and shared experiences. The negative emotional reactions associated with welfare stigma – experienced by both parents and children – can significantly influence the parent‒child relationship within families receiving social welfare benefits. Concealment is one common welfare stigma management strategy; a recent study in Canada found that some parents conceal their family’s social welfare status from their children, believing that ‘their children’s minds weren’t ready for that’ (Baker Collins et al., Reference Baker Collins, Smith-Carrier, Gazso and Smith2020). How might this concealment affect the parent-child relationship? If the concealment is eventually revealed, could it increase tensions within the relationship? Scholars have called for more research to examine the relational consequences of stigma and to explore questions, such as what psychosocial tendencies do individuals with stigmatised identities bring to their relationships (Doyle and Barreto, Reference Doyle and Barreto2023). The relational impacts of welfare stigma, in particular, appear to be under-explored.
For low-income parents who choose not to claim benefits, factors such as long working hours and material deprivation can add additional stress that undermines the parent–child relationship (Ho et al., Reference Ho, Li, Cheung, Luo, Xia and Chung2022). While the impact of work‒family conflict on parent‒child relationships has been well documented (e.g., Orellana et al., Reference Orellana, Schnettler, Miranda-Zapata, Poblete, Lobos, Lapo and Adasme-Berríos2021). However, how this dynamic operates within the context of low-income families that avoid claiming social welfare benefits due to concerns about welfare stigma remains relatively less understood.
Research questions
This study addressed the following research questions: How do welfare stigma and needs perception interact to influence low-income parents’ decision to claim social welfare benefits? How does the presence of children factor into the interplay of welfare stigma and needs in this decision-making process? How does the choice to claim or not claim benefits impact the parent‒child relationship?
By answering these questions, we address two key research gaps in the literature on social welfare claimants. First, we move beyond an individualistic framework by considering how having children influences the decision to claim social welfare benefits. Second, we examine the under-explored relational consequences, focusing on how these decisions affect parent‒child relationships.
The study context: Hong Kong
Work ethics, and a residual and liberal welfare model
Hong Kong’s social welfare model has been classified as a residual welfare model, where the government intervenes only when market mechanisms and family support ‒ the two primary channels – fail to meet the needs of the people (Chan, Reference Chan1998). Hong Kong’s welfare model closely resembles the ‘liberal welfare regime’ in Esping-Andersen’s classification (1990: 26), characterised by the dominance of means-tested assistance, limited universal transfers, and modest social insurance.
In such a liberal welfare city, a strong work ethic and self-sufficiency are deeply ingrained, jointly shaped by cultural and historical factors. Traditional Chinese culture emphasises hard work and diligence (Siu, Reference Siu2003), while Hong Kong’s economic miracle from the 1960s to the early 1990s provided opportunities for upward mobility, reinforcing the belief that hard work will be rewarded. Hong Kong also upholds Confucian values and adopts a productivist approach to social policy. Confucian beliefs, such as filial piety and parental benevolence, emphasise the family network and kinship as the primary sources of support (Goodman and Peng, Reference Goodman, Peng and Esping-Andersen1996). Under a productivist framework, social policy is subordinate to economic growth. As a result, areas such as education and healthcare are prioritised to enhance citizens’ labour market competitiveness (Holliday, Reference Holliday2000). Together, these Confucian values and productivist principles reinforce norms of self-reliance and a strong work ethic.
Comprehensive Social Security Assistance
In this study, we examine low-income parents’ decisions to claim Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA), Hong Kong’s public assistance programme. CSSA is a means-tested programme designed to bring the income of those who cannot support themselves to a prescribed level high enough to meet their basic needs. Eligibility for the CSSA scheme requires applicants to be Hong Kong residents for at least one year while meeting strict income and asset thresholds. Designed as a last-resort poverty alleviation measure, CSSA has stringent eligibility rules, targeting those who have exhausted other forms of assistance from family and the market. Applicants may submit claims either directly at their local social security field unit or through referrals from government agencies or non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The Social Welfare Department (SWD) then verifies each application through a rigorous process involving office interviews and home visits to assess the applicant’s circumstances.
As Hong Kong lacks unemployment insurance or means-tested unemployment assistance, the CSSA functions as a buffer against unemployment risk, providing some degree of protection for the unemployed. Given the prevalent work ethic and pronounced emphasis on self-sufficiency, existing research consistently documents both widespread societal stigma toward CSSA recipients and high levels of self-stigma among recipients themselves (Oxfam Hong Kong and Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 2007; Wong and Lou, Reference Wong and Lou2010). The existence of CSSA provides a unique opportunity to investigate how different types of welfare stigma affect low-income parents’ decisions to claim a highly means-tested social assistance programme in a liberal welfare society with Confucian and productivist features.
Working Family Allowance and childcare support
Another means-tested household cash benefit in Hong Kong is the Working Family Allowance (WFA). To further alleviate the financial burden of low-income families with children, the government introduced the Low-Income Family Allowance in 2016, which was renamed the WFA in 2018. The amount of the allowance is determined based on household income levels and working hours. To encourage greater self-reliance, households that meet longer working hour requirements are eligible for higher payments. Additionally, to help break the cycle of intergenerational poverty, each qualifying child may also be entitled to a child allowance.
Childcare support is essential for families with children, especially for low-income parents who are often constrained by limited resources. In Hong Kong, childcare centres (mainly for children under 3) and kindergartens (for children aged 3 to 6) are operated by private institutions and non-governmental organisations. While 73 per cent of the kindergarten places are subsidised through the government’s Kindergarten Education Scheme (Legislative Council Secretariat, 2024), only 23.6 per cent of the Childcare centre places are subsidised by the government (Social Welfare Department of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, 2024). The availability of accessible and affordable centre-based childcare in Hong Kong is insufficient. Furthermore, the distribution of childcare places is uneven, with the childcare place-to-population ratio ranging from 1:271 in Taipo District to 1:13 in Eastern District (Legislative Council Secretariat, 2023). Moreover, most childcare centres operate on a half-day basis. While fee remission schemes are available for low-income families, applying for fee remission for full-day childcare services requires passing a social test (e.g., being a dual-working family) to demonstrate their needs. Such policy designs reflect liberal characteristics, emphasising the family as the primary provider of childcare, with government assistance available only when the family is unable to fulfill these needs.
Methods
Participants and sampling
Using a purposive sampling method, participants were recruited between September 2019 and September 2020 through the research team’s collaboration with four non-governmental organisations serving low-income families in Hong Kong. We used the following inclusion criteria: individuals who were (1) in their 40s or 50s. This age cohort was selected to capture midlife parents navigating the intersection of caregiving responsibilities and employment precarity; (2) had at least one dependent child; and (3) were living or had lived in poverty.Footnote 1 We recruited participants until data saturation was achieved. The final sample comprised seventeen participants, and their socio-demographic characteristics are presented in Table 1. Although we recruited for diversity, our sample consists of more females and migrants from Chinese Mainland (called ‘migrants’ hereafter). Half of them were single parents due to divorce or widowhood. Most had obtained secondary education and were engaged in part-time or full-time employment. At the time of the interview, three were receiving CSSA, six had previously received CSSA, and eight had never received CSSA. The duration of receiving CSSA ranged from 0.5 to 9 years. Non-recipients are individuals who were eligible for CSSA but did not take it up.
Socio-demographic characteristics of research participants (N = 17)
#Migrants who have legally resided in Hong Kong for at least 7 years are eligible to apply for permanent residency in Hong Kong.
Data collection
Trained social work researchers conducted the semi-structured interviews in Cantonese at locations where participants felt comfortable sharing their experiences. Prior to each interview, participants were informed about the research purpose and signed an informed consent form. The interviews were guided by the following questions: (1) basic family information, their experiences of living in poverty, and their coping strategies for financial difficulties. (2) For those receiving or having received means-tested government benefits (e.g., CSSA and WFA), their reasons for enrolling in each respective benefit programme. Those who had never received benefits were asked whether they had considered applying and their reasons for not doing so. All participants were asked whether and how welfare stigma affected their decision to claim social welfare benefits. (3) Social welfare recipients were asked about their experiences as benefit recipients, with particular focus on welfare stigma. (4) We asked whether their children were aware of the family’s poverty or welfare status, as well as their children’s understanding of welfare stigma. Participants could refuse to answer any question and were free to withdraw from participation at any time. Modest cash incentives were offered at the end of each interview. Interviews ranged from 1.5 to 2 hours. Ethical approval was obtained from The Human Research Ethics Committee, The University of Hong Kong (Reference number: EA1701047).
Data analysis
The interviews were audio-recorded and later transcribed. All the respondents’ names were replaced with pseudonyms to protect their privacy. The research team constructed an initial coding frame based on the literature to perform thematic analysis. The first author deductively coded the transcripts line-by-line following the initial coding frame. New codes that emerged during the coding were added to the frame. The first author reviewed the codes created, discussed them with the research team, identified patterns, and combined the codes into themes. A codebook was developed. Then, a research assistant coded the transcripts deductively following the codebook. Any discrepancy was resolved through discussion and further refinement of the codebook and the thematic structure.
Findings
The different shades of welfare stigma
Anticipated self-stigma shaped by perceived deservingness
A predominant theme across the interviews was that low-income families’ perceptions of their deservingness significantly influenced their anticipated self-stigma, including feelings of shame and low self-esteem they expected to experience if they accepted social welfare. This anticipated self-stigma, in turn, influenced whether they decided to claim social welfare benefits.
Participants mentioned that one’s ability and availability to work are the primary criteria for assessing who deserves to receive CSSA. They held negative judgements and beliefs toward those they deemed less deserving. The findings suggested a three-tiered hierarchy of deservingness among CSSA recipients: (1) those who lose their ability to work due to factors out of their control, (2) those who can work but are unable to do so due to caregiving responsibilities, and (3) those who have the ability and availability to work but choose not to. The first group, usually the older adults and people with disabilities or illness, was considered the most deserving and was the least stigmatised: ‘There are many different situations, and not all of them [CSSA recipients] are lazy. Some of them are due to illness or immobility, some are old’ (04 Zia, nonrecipient, female, 54, married, one son). ‘There is nothing wrong with them [receiving CSSA]’ (13 Frank, nonrecipient, male, 46, married, two children).
The second group, which usually comprised parents with limited availability to work due to childcare duties, ranked second in terms of welfare deservingness:
If a single mother is taking care of two children and she applies for CSSA, I think it is reasonable. I know many single-parent cases. However, if we take my family as an example, with two parents and two children, unless the father lost the ability to work due to long-term illness, it is a bit excessive to receive welfare subsidies (13 Frank, nonrecipient, male, 46, married, two children).
Unlike the first two groups, those who had both the ability and availability to work but choose not to were considered the least deserving. Most interviewees held a strong stigma toward this group, depicting them as ‘taking advantage of the government’ and ‘relying on the government.’ Others had a more benevolent perspective, describing them as ‘losing the fighting spirit’ and that accepting social welfare was ‘better than stealing and robbing.’ Others described such recipients as ‘lazy,’ ‘greedy,’ or ‘immoral.’
Interviewees who perceived themselves as being undeserving expressed higher levels of anticipated self-stigma. Victoria tried to apply for CSSA when her husband was unemployed for six months. However, her husband was strongly against it because receiving CSSA would make him feel ashamed and lose face. Victoria also perceived herself as not deserving of the assistance: ‘CSSA is for those who are disadvantaged, for example, those who are sick. …We are able and capable of working’ (nonrecipient, married, two children). Grace also perceived herself as undeserving: ‘I am not 70 or 80 years old, nor am I unable to work or support myself. I am not that old, and I don’t have any disabilities.’ She expressed her anticipated self-stigma: ‘It would make me feel ashamed. It would make me feel useless and inferior and have low self-esteem’ (05 Grace, nonrecipient, female, 49, married, one son).
In contrast, some CSSA recipients, particularly single parents, justified their choice by emphasising their deservingness. When describing their decision to apply for aid, these participants hardly mentioned anticipated self-stigma. Jasmine, Daisy, and Zoey, all single mothers with young children, emphasised their unavailability to work: ‘When they were born, I had to take care of them all by myself, so I left my job. I would leave CSSA once my children were old enough to go to school’ (11 Zoey, current recipient, female, 41, single, two daughters). Ruby, a single mother, left her job after being diagnosed with depression. ‘I was unable to work and had no choice; receiving CSSA was my only option’ (05 Ruby, current recipient, female, 51, divorced, three children).
Anticipated stigmatisation toward parents and children
Interviewees also expressed fear of being labeled and treated negatively by others for receiving CSSA, and fear of being mocked and looked down upon deterred some interviewees from applying. Daisy received CSSA for six months when she divorced in 2014. She quit after quarrelling with a social worker. This experience has prevented her from applying for CSSA again, despite a desire to do so:
At night, I sometimes think about why I don’t just apply for CSSA. But when I wake up and go to work during the day, I tell myself to forget about it. The decision keeps getting postponed. I have a friend who often suggests we apply for CSSA together, but I always say, ‘Maybe next month.’ When I’m feeling upset, I think I should just apply, yet I’m afraid people will look down on me. This fear is a significant psychological barrier. If it weren’t for that fear, I would apply for CSSA, and my life would be much easier (02 Daisy, former recipient, 45, female, divorced, one son).
Some interviewees also expressed concerns about being looked down on by their children. Zia shared that twice she could have applied for CSSA. The first time was when her husband became unemployed, and she was working part-time, with a son in primary school. The other was when her husband turned 65 and could apply for old-age CSSA. In both instances, she chose not to enroll for fear her son would look down on her: ‘I don’t want my son to tell me that it is the government raising him, not me’.
While interviewees expressed concern about anticipated welfare self-stigma, their greater fear appeared to be welfare stigma toward their children. Zia said she was afraid that her son would be spurned: ‘I did not apply. I didn’t want my son to be looked down upon. … I didn’t want to apply for that because it wouldn’t be good for my son if people found out that his father received CSSA’ (04 Zia, nonrecipient, female, 54, married, one son).
Classmates and teachers were the interviewees’ primary concern with regard to welfare stigma toward their children. Carol, a 55-year-old single mother with four children, was temporarily unemployed and could have applied for CSSA when her husband went missing in 2013. However, she refused to do so because her children were bullied by other students at school due to her migrant status, and one of her children began to exhibit self-harm and was diagnosed with depression. Carol was afraid that receiving CSSA would impose a double stigma on her children and cause their mental health condition to further deteriorate.
I am afraid that my children would be looked down upon by others at school. When we first arrived in Hong Kong from Chinese Mainland, my children were looked down upon by their classmates. Moreover, they did not perform well in school. They were unhappy. My daughter got depressed. She thought about many times to (kill herself) and cut her hands many times (16 Carol, nonrecipient, 55, husband missing, four children).
Some interviewees’ children were also concerned about discrimination at school and opposed applying for CSSA. Carol said she once suggested to her children that she might apply for CSSA. They replied, ‘Mom, do not apply. My classmates who received CSSA were being gossiped about by other students’ (16 Carol, nonrecipient, 55, husband missing, four children). Another interviewee shared similar concerns from their children: ‘My children said they don’t want to get CSSA, no matter what life is like. They don’t want to get CSSA because the school knows about it’ (15 Tina, nonrecipient, 41, female, separated, four children).
Claim stigma
A few interviewees found the process of applying for CSSA to be intrusive and said that they felt ‘awkward’. Jack, who was unemployed in 2015, said he visited the SWD to learn about the CSSA application process and the information required, such as working history, assets, and past expenditures. Jack said he understood the necessity of means-testing, but it made him feel ‘uncomfortable’ and that he was ‘being watched’ and was ‘begging for help’. Ultimately, he decided not to apply: ‘Now, you [referring to himself] are seeking help, to put it bluntly, you are asking for help. No one will give you money for no reason. Therefore, it is crucial to clearly state your request and make a convincing case to the other party’ (08 Jack, male, 45, married, one daughter).
Another interviewee complained about the complicated application process and described the welfare officer’s attitude as ‘better to do less than to do more’.
The welfare officer I met in SWD had a very poor attitude. He was the type of public servant who was unwilling to go the extra mile. He rigidly followed protocol, often responding with, ‘This is not allowed’ and ‘That is not allowed’. I felt powerless and had no other option but to accept his statements as fact and comply (11 Zoey, current recipient, female, 41, single, two daughters).
Work ethic, the social norm that reinforces welfare stigma, and its benefits for the parent–child relationship
The participants’ perspectives on welfare stigma seem to be shaped by their deep-rooted work ethic. They demonstrated a strong sense of self-reliance and willingness to work: ‘If you have hands and feet, you should go to work’ (17 Ruby, former recipient, female, 51, separated, three children). ‘Working has become a habit for me. If I do not go to work, I feel anxious and have a sense of insecurity’ (02 Daisy, former recipient, 45, female, divorced, one son).
Beyond monetary benefits, the interviewees also recognised and valued the non-monetary advantages that working could bring to their relationship with their children. Many believed that working, rather than relying on social welfare benefits, can serve as a role model for their children and earn their respect: ‘When the children grow up, they will learn from their parents to be self-reliant as well.’ (17 Ruby, former recipient, female, 51, separated, three children). Some interviewees said that working enhanced their relationships with their children.
I believe that working is essential for learning important life lessons and for passing them on to my children. If I stayed home all day as a housewife, only buying groceries and cooking, I would becomeisolated from the outside world. I would have little to share with my children beyond hurried reminders to finish their homework. By working, however, I can absorb society’s cultural values and gain valuable experiences – such as learning how to handle a rude customer (15 Tina, nonrecipient, 41, female, separated, four children).
Figure 1 summarizes the different types of welfare stigma that discourage low-income parents from applying for CSSA.
To claim or not to claim: welfare stigma versus unmet financial and childcare needs
While welfare stigma discouraged low-income individuals from applying for CSSA, unexpected life events that significantly disrupt the balance between working and childcare responsibilities forced them to decide whether to take social assistance benefits. The two most common unexpected life events among interviewees were the breadwinners becoming unemployed and the individuals becoming single parents.
Unexpected life event: the breadwinner becomes unemployed
Several respondents were compelled to make a choice about applying for CSSA when the household breadwinners became unemployed. Ann, Zia, and Victoria were housewives taking care of their sons or working part-time, while their husbands were the primary breadwinner of the family. When their husbands became unemployed, these mothers faced the choice between finding a job and applying for CSSA. Of the three, only Ann applied for assistance. The decision was shaped by the relative strengths of financial and childcare need versus the fear of stigmatisation.
Ann’s husband was in his 70s and unemployed due to cancer. Meanwhile, her two-year-old son had Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Autism Spectrum Disorder. She spoke about her struggle to choose between seeking employment and applying for CSSA. For her, obtaining a job appeared to be an unrealistic option:
Some wealthy mothers said to me, ‘Just go out and work if you need money, it’s better than relying on welfare. It’s not good to take it. My daughters’ classmates whose families claim CSSA are being excluded by their teachers and classmates.’ I deliberated whether to apply for CSSA. If I went out to work, who would take care of my husband and my son? […] I don’t want to rely on the government’s assistance if I can earn it myself, but I have no choice. My son often gets sick and has to take leave from school frequently. No one can take care of him. If someone else helps me take care of him, it costs $50 per hour, which I can‘t afford. I earn less than $50 per hour (12 Ann, current recipient, female, 43, widowed, one son).
For Ann, financial and childcare needs outweighed the fear of welfare stigma, while for Zia and Victoria, fear of welfare stigma dominated their other needs. Zia’s and Victoria’s husbands were both laid off when their sons were in primary school. The women’s financial difficulties proved temporary, as their husbands were actively seeking new employment. By contrast, Ann’s financial needs were more persistent and her family’s caregiving needs were greater, as her husband had cancer and her young son had special needs. Both Zia and Victoria worried about welfare stigma. Zia anticipated stigmatisation toward and from her son in primary school. Victoria’s husband had a strong sense of anticipated self-stigma that receiving CSSA would make him lose face and he was highly against it. Although Ann also anticipated welfare stigma toward her two-year-old son, she felt he was still too young to understand it.
Some interviewees were the sole breadwinners for their families, and financial and childcare needs outweighed the taint of welfare stigma. Henry’s wife was unable to work due to a disability, and Ruby was a single mother. When they lost their ability to work, they had no choice but to claim CSSA. Henry worked in construction and became unemployed after an injury when his daughter was two years old. Ruby was diagnosed with depression and had to quit her job. Although her two children were teenagers, one of them had ADHD and required constant care and attention. These interviewees mentioned concerns of welfare stigma less than other study participants.
Unexpected life event: became a single parent
Another common scenario was divorce or separation, creating challenges in balancing work and childcare, particularly when children were young and required constant care. Although single parents may be capable of working, their availability to work is greatly affected. For example, Jasmine, Daisy, and Olivia’s ex-husbands were all the breadwinners in their marriages. When they divorced, they were emotionally distressed and faced difficulties finding jobs. Adding to these challenges, they each had young children to care for. Consequently, they all applied for CSSA. In these interviews, welfare stigma was mentioned less than in other interviews. Similarly, Zoey broke up with her boyfriend after giving birth to her twin daughters. As a single mother, she had to quit her job to care for her babies. Without any other financial support, she had no choice but to apply for CSSA. Although she mentioned the claim stigma encountered during her application, the push forces of financial and childcare needs were stronger.
Carol’s case presents a contrast to those of Jasmine, Daisy, and Zoey. Her husband went missing in 2013, and she became a single mother with four teenage children. She decided not to apply for CSSA for two reasons: First, teenagers do not require intensive childcare, and second teenaged children are more concerned about welfare stigma. One of her children persuaded her not to apply for CSSA.
The push and pull dynamics of the decision to claim social welfare benefits
For the interviewees, the decision to claim CSSA was jointly shaped by financial and childcare needs that pushed low-income parents toward social welfare and the anticipated welfare stigma that prevented them from claiming assistance. We proposed a framework to explain these dynamics (see Figure 2). Financial need was influenced by the number of adults in the household capable of working. Among the interviewees, it was perceived as highest when the sole breadwinner lost their job or became unable to work (e.g., 10 Henry and 17 Ruby). This was followed by situations where the primary breadwinner lost the ability to work (e.g., 12 Annie) or left the household due to divorce or separation (e.g., 01 Jasmine, 02 Daisy, 11 Zoey) or disappearance (e.g., 16 Carol), but another adult in the household remained capable of working. Financial need was perceived to be lowest when the primary breadwinner was unemployed but able to work, and another adult in the household was also capable of working (e.g., 04 Zia and 09 Victoria).
Different types of welfare stigma.
Pull force of welfare stigma and push forces of financial and childcare needs.
The level of childcare needs, which dictated availability to work, was affected by the age and any special needs of children, particularly the youngest children. Young children with special needs were perceived as requiring the most caregiving, followed by young children or teenagers with special needs. Teenagers without special needs were considered to require the least caregiving.
As children grew, anticipated welfare stigma increased. As individuals move into adolescence, they become more self-aware and conscious of their actions, thoughts, and emotions, making them more sensitive to welfare stigma. We applied the framework to each type of case and visualised them in Figure 3.
The take-up decision of the interviewees.
The impossible triangle of being a good parent: different claim choices, similar emotional tolls on the parent‒child relationships
Building on the discussion of welfare stigma and perceived needs in the decision to claim social welfare benefits participation outlined earlier, we found that low-income parents in Hong Kong are caught in an ‘impossible triangle’ of being a good parent that involves three competing demands. They struggle to balance financial responsibilities (e.g., providing for basic needs), parental responsibilities (e.g., caregiving, involvement in schooling, and spending time with their children), and the need to uphold the role of self-reliant role models while protecting their children from welfare stigma. As financial responsibilities fulfill fundamental survival needs, parents are often forced to choose between meeting their parental obligations and being role models (see Figure 4). Regardless of the final choice, accepting or not accepting CSSA has a profound impact on parents’ relationships with their children.
The impossible triangle of being a ‘good’ parent and the relational consequences of claim decisions.
Not receiving aid: unfulfilled parental duties, sacrificed emotional needs, and guilt
Low-income parents who choose not to accept CSSA may have served as self-reliant role models but typically had to work multiple jobs to make ends meet, which increased work‒family conflict. Their limited resources of time and attention were primarily allocated to their jobs, leaving less available to invest in their children. As they struggled to care for their children, pick them up from school, and attend parent–teacher meetings, their parenting responsibilities were compromised. Consequently, the children’s emotional bonds and sense of security in the parent‒child relationship were weakened. Furthermore, the parents’ feelings of guilt become ingrained in their interactions with their children.
Daisy, who works at a supermarket, is a 45-year-old single mother with a 9-year-old son. According to Daisy, her son often implored her to pick him up after school during work hours: ‘Mom, I’ll give you all the money in my piggy bank. Please come pick me up after school.’ […] Mom, please apply for CSSA so you can come pick me up.’ Her son was unaware of the meaning and welfare stigma implications of CSSA and just wanted his mother to pick him up from school. Daisy shared her feelings of confusion and upset:
I felt very sorry for him. If I were receiving CSSA, I could have picked up my son after school; if I were receiving CSSA, I wouldn’t have to leave my son at the tutorial centre. I sometimes doubt myself. My son often says that I only care about going to work and asks me whether he or my job is more important. He frequently asks me such questions. I feel like he lacks a sense of security (02 Daisy, former recipient, 45, female, divorced, one son).
The guilt of not fulfilling their duties in the parent‒child relationship is long-lasting for the parents. Zia, whose son was in college at the time of the interview, recalled two instances when she could have applied for CSSA but did not. For nearly a decade, she held two jobs, working at a clothing factory Monday through Friday, and as a domestic helper on Wednesday nights and Sundays. She felt guilty for not having spent enough time with her son. This feeling of guilt triggered her to engage in remedial behaviours to compensate for her absence from her child, such as psychological compensation by refraining from disciplining them.
This is my regret, that I rarely spent time with him [during his childhood]. Yes, I didn‘t take him out to play very often, not at all, and I always left him at home alone all day. I never met his teacher. I feel somewhat inferior as a parent. This is my regret, but I can’t make up for it now. I felt like I needed to treat him better. I dare not speak loudly to him. I hope to improve our relationship (04 Zia, nonrecipient, female, 54, married, one son).
Like Zia, those who chose not to claim social welfare benefits appeared not to fully consider the emotional consequences on their children when making that decision. The sense of self-reliance and the fear of welfare stigma were so overwhelming that they have overlooked the less visible and tangible emotional consequences. Reflecting on the past, Zia did not harbor regret over not receiving CSSA; however, she wishes she had spent more time with her son. She perceives herself as an inadequate or ‘inferior’ parent, falling short of the standard of being a good parent.
Accepting aid: unfulfilled role models, hiding, and miscomprehension
Parents may choose to receive CSSA to provide financial support for their families so they may spend more time caring for their children. Jasmine, a single mother with a 9-year-old son, received CSSA for six months in 2016. She said that during this time, she could afford to occasionally take her son out for lunch, which made him happy. Ruby, a single mother with three children, was on CSSA for five years from 2008. CSSA allowed her more time to engage in activities such as volunteering with her son. Claiming CSSA reduced the financial burden on these families and increased the time they could spend with their children, fostering emotional closeness and intimacy in their relationships.
However, the positive impact on the parent–child relationship was often achieved by not discussing their welfare status with their children. Interviewees expressed lingering concerns about not being self-reliant role models for their children. Many of the parents interviewed adopted a strategy of concealment. Olivia, a single mother with two sons (9 and 7 years old), had been on CSSA since 2011. She chose to conceal the family’s CSSA status from her young children: ‘I didn’t tell them we were receiving CSSA. I didn’t want them to know that because receiving a government subsidy is not a good thing’. Furthermore, she emphasised her diligence in completing household chores and intentionally portrayed a self-reliant image in front of her children. Similarly, Jasmine did not tell her 9-year-old son that they were on CSSA, but his son overheard her discussing it despite her deliberate attempts to conceal it: ‘I am so annoyed. I don’t want him to know that we were receiving government subsidy’, she said.
A strategy of concealment and avoidance may not be feasible for parents with older children. Children fear being stigmatised, leading to a desire to discontinue receiving CSSA. This wish was sometimes expressed openly and was sometimes projected onto their parents, creating a conflict of interest within the family. Such mismatched desires – parents wanting to maintain the assistance for financial stability, while children wished to quit to avoid welfare stigma – lead to arguments and heightened tensions within the parent–child relationships.
When Cameron applied for CSSA in 2013, her eldest daughter was 21 years old and her youngest was five. Because her eldest daughter was already working, she was not counted as a household member in the CSSA application and, therefore, was technically not a CSSA recipient. However, knowing her mother and younger sibling were on CSSA still made her feel she was losing face. She blamed Cameron: ‘Why do you receive CSSA? People will laugh at you!’ Out of embarrassment and fear of ridicule from others, she argued with Cameron, and ultimately chose to leave home.
Olivia, another interviewee, and her 7- and 9-year-old sons were receiving CSSA. Her 21-year-old son, who worked the night shift as a security guard, was not considered a household member in the CSSA application. Olivia indicated that her eldest son looked down on her, and once stated, ‘You don’t have to work and [are reliant on the government]. You don’t have to stay up at night [like me]’.
Both Cameron and Olivia felt aggrieved that their eldest children scorned them and expressed that they would not receive CSSA if they had other choices: ‘But I had needs. I needed to take care of her younger siblings’.
Discussion
Work-related criteria in the decision to claim social welfare benefits: the paradox of deservingness and undeservingness
In a liberal welfare society like Hong Kong, where a strong work ethic and self-reliance are highly valued, the ability and availability to work have been used to gauge social welfare deservingness for social assistance. Low-income parents assess their financial and childcare needs according to these work-related criteria when making claim decisions. Lower perceived needs reduced parents’ sense of deservingness and increased self-stigma. Studies from other liberal welfare regimes, such as the UK and Canada, similarly show that those who avoid working face being stereotyped as ‘lazy’ and ‘moochers’ (Baker Collins et al., Reference Baker Collins, Smith-Carrier, Gazso and Smith2020; Patrick, Reference Patrick2014; Whelan, Reference Whelan2021). Our findings indicate that in liberal welfare regimes, need is not only the dominant criterion that the public adopts to justify social welfare distribution (Laenen et al., Reference Laenen, Rossetti and Van Oorschot2019), but is also used by eligible social welfare recipients themselves.
A broader question is whether those labelled as ‘undeserving’ – those who have the ability and availability to work – truly do not deserve social assistance. As Hong Kong lacks unemployment insurance or means-tested unemployment assistance, CSSA functions as a buffer against unemployment risk, providing some degree of protection for the unemployed. However, the public appears to be less aware of CSSA’s role in mitigating unemployment than its function as a safety net, leading to a crisis of legitimacy among the unemployed. Many of our interviewees who faced unemployment were deterred by the welfare stigma associated with CSSA. When unemployment benefits operate through a contribution-based insurance system or means-tested unemployment assistance, claimers are regarded as legitimate users and less likely to face welfare stigma. However, when it is delivered as an integral part of the public assistance scheme, which, in general, is designed to support the most vulnerable groups, labels such as ‘dependency’ and ‘laziness’ are attached to the unemployed.
One fundamental way to resolve the issue of welfare stigma toward the unemployed is to dismantle the stigma attached to the so-called ‘undeserving’, emphasising access to CSSA as a social right for all eligible individuals, irrespective of moral judgement about ‘worthiness’. However, deep-rooted societal norms may be difficult to change. Another solution would be to establish a dedicated unemployment benefit scheme, which would help address the legitimacy crisis by shifting perceptions of the unemployed from undeserving to deserving. While such proposals have been under discussion for more than two decades, the government remains concerned about the potential disincentives to work they may create and the potential increase in the cost of doing business, which could both undermine the work ethic and the principles of a liberal economy that the government upholds (Legislative Council Secretariat, 2021; Pun et al., Reference Pun, Jin and Yang2022).
Children’s role in the decision to claim social welfare benefits: The impossible triangle of being a good parent
Our findings confirmed that children are indispensable actors in the decision to claim welfare benefits. Both anticipated welfare stigma – either from children or directed toward them – and the level of need for childcare influenced low-income parents’ decisions to claim social welfare benefits. Due to fears of stigmatisation, some children encouraged their parents to refrain from applying for CSSA. Similar to household financial decisions, the presence of children both directly and indirectly impacted the decision to claim social welfare benefits (Kim et al., Reference Kim, Gutter and Spangler2017). As children grew, their childcare needs decreased, and parental concerns about potential welfare stigma increased.
The decision to claim social welfare benefits, influenced by the interactions of welfare stigma, financial need, and caregiving needs, presents a trilemma for low-income parents. While claiming benefits can provide essential financial support and serve as a model of self-reliance, those who choose not to apply often juggled multiple work and family commitments, which can weaken emotional bonds with their children. In a Confucian society characterised by strong societal expectations of parental responsibility in child-rearing (Lin et al., Reference Lin, Mikolajczak, Keller, Akgun, Arikan, Aunola and Roskam2023), failing to meet these obligations can lead to feelings of guilt and the pursuit of compensatory measures. Guilt about the parent‒child relationship and the practice of compensatory parenting have also been observed among rural-urban migrant mothers with left-behind children (Li, Reference Li2023) and parents experiencing work–family conflicts in Chinese Mainland (Wang et al., Reference Wang, Shi, Liu, Zhang and Zheng2023).
In contrast, parents claiming the social welfare benefit fulfilled their financial and parental responsibilities but failed to establish themselves as a self-reliant role model and placed their children at risk of welfare stigma. Similarly, the findings of Baker Collins et al. (Reference Baker Collins, Smith-Carrier, Gazso and Smith2020) in Canada, highlighted how some parents chose to hide or refrain from discussing their welfare status with their young children to prevent negative perceptions and to avoid instilling a sense of inferiority in their children. Social welfare benefits alleviate the family’s financial burden, allowing parents to afford small luxuries such as eating out. Such ‘special’ expenditures satisfy both the needs and wants of their children, validate the parents’ identity as financial providers (Sykes et al., Reference Sykes, Križ, Edin and Halpern-Meekin2015), and foster emotional closeness and intimacy in their relationships with their children. However, among families unable to conceal their receipt of assistance from their children, conflicting desires – parents wished to continue receiving support for financial stability, while children preferred to discontinue it to avoid welfare stigma – often resulted in increased arguments and heightened tensions within the parent‒child relationships. In summary, either way, the decision to claim or not claim CSSA takes an emotional toll on the parent‒child relationship in low-income families.
Having a working subsidy is one possible means of resolving the impossible triangle. Some interviewees who chose not to apply for CSSA did apply for the means-tested WFA, introduced by the government in 2016 to alleviate the financial burden of the working poor. The anticipated stigma from receiving WFA was low among interviewees due to its work-related nature: ‘It won’t make others look down on you. I have a job and I rely on some government assistance because my income is low. I believe that it is fair and reasonable’ (04 Zia, nonrecipient, female, 54, married, one son). However, WFA incentivises the poor to work longer because the benefits are stratified by working hours; thus, recipients face a trade-off between providing care and working longer hours (Au-Yeung, Reference Au-Yeung2023). Although WFA may reduce financial strain, it is unlikely to reduce the workload of the working poor with families, or allow them to spend more time with their children to fulfill, or break the impossible triangle.
The government’s reluctance to separate unemployment assistance from CSSA and its promotion of extended working hours in WFA may stem from the assumption that poverty emanates from individual factors, such as having a poor work ethic. However, with the influence of globalisation, the emergence of artificial intelligence, and the concomitant volatility of employment, the attribution of poverty to individual factors is increasingly being questioned (Li, Reference Li2019). This shift underscores the necessity for the government to reassess its policy direction to accommodate the changing macroeconomic landscape.
Intersectionality of migration status, and gender
The intersectional approach to welfare acknowledges that individuals may perceive and respond to stigma differently, and the variation may be based on their underlying characteristics (Van Laar and Levin, Reference Van Laar and Levin2006). In our findings, when deciding whether to claim social welfare benefits, both local participants and migrants anticipated self-stigma, stigmatisation, and claim stigma. However, migrants and their children demonstrated greater sensitivity to welfare stigma. Receiving CSSA may intensify the discrimination they already face due to their migration status (Chan, Reference Chan2025), creating a ‘double stigma’ effect.
Research on welfare stigma has also explored the norms surrounding gender roles. A body of studies has extensively documented how gendered stigma operates for ‘welfare mothers,’ particularly through the devaluation of caring labour and the notion of ‘bad motherhood’ (e.g., Evans, Reference Evans2022; Jun, Reference Jun2022). Emerging research, such as the study by Hatton et al. (2024), reveals that male Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants in the US report experiencing greater welfare stigma than their female counterparts. This disparity likely stems from cultural constructions of masculinity that fundamentally associate male identity with employment in the US context. In our findings, both male and female participants adopted work-related criteria, the ability and availability of work, to evaluate their needs and deservingness. For some female participants (e.g., 09 Victoria), the anticipation of welfare stigma is much stronger for their husbands than for themselves. This may be attributed to the norms of the male breadwinner (Tam and Kwan, Reference Tam and Kwan2024). When making claim decisions, single mothers tended to emphasise their deservingness and lack of availability to work as strategies to resist and reduce self-stigma (e.g., 11 Zoey; 05 Ruby). Similarly, both low-income fathers and mothers grappled with the trilemma of being a good parent. However, the emotional consequences of claiming social welfare – or the decision to forgo it – on parent-child relationships were more frequently discussed among mothers than fathers.
Conclusion
This study is a qualitative attempt to depict how the competing forces of welfare stigma and needs jointly shape the decision to claim social welfare benefits among low-income families with children, complementing the predominantly quantitative literature. Several limitations should be noted. First, despite recruiting for diversity, the participants were primarily female and migrants. Our sample, consistent with prior research in this area, comprised predominantly female participants (e.g., Patrick, Reference Patrick2016; Jordan, 2025). This is likely because we recruited participants through NGOs, and women are typically the family members who interact with these services and are more available and willing to participate in research. Second, the perspectives of children were not assessed directly but were instead inferred from parents’ perceptions. Third, in addition to unemployment and single parenthood, various other life events can impact the decision of low-income families claim social welfare benefits.
Despite these limitations, the findings contribute to the literature in several ways. First, it examines how different types of welfare stigma interact with financial and caregiving needs to dynamically determine families with children’s decisions to claim social welfare benefits. In liberal welfare regimes that place a high cultural value on work ethic and self-reliance, the criteria of ability and availability to work directly influence whether people anticipate self-stigma and assess their own needs. Second, the findings extend the analysis of welfare stigma and need in decisions to claim social welfare benefits from an individualistic perspective to a family-level approach. We found that both the fear of welfare stigma experienced by children and the stigma children direct toward their parents intensify parental concerns about welfare stigma when deciding whether to claim social welfare benefits. Third, the term ‘the impossible triangle of being a good parent’ was coined to encapsulate the trilemma faced by low-income parents. They are unable to simultaneously meet the family’s financial needs, fulfill parental responsibilities, and serve as self-reliant role models. Whether benefits are claimed or not, the decision takes an emotional toll on the parent–child relationship.
Our findings suggest two policy directions. First, considering an increase in the generosity of WFA alongside a reduction in work-hour requirements could allow low-income parents to spend more time with their children, thereby helping to resolve the impossible triangle. Second, the government could explore implementing child allowance programmes or enhancing childcare subsidies, which would help to support families and reduce reliance on CSSA.
Our findings open several avenues for future research. First, future studies on the decision to claim social welfare benefits could adopt a family approach, moving beyond the individual perspective to consider the fear of welfare stigma and the needs of all household members. Methodological innovations – such as interviewing both parents and children – could be incorporated. Second, while the interaction between welfare stigma and need is more prominent in liberal welfare regimes, in view of the neo-liberal reform in many Western countries (Lavee, Reference Lavee2017), it would be interesting to explore how needs and welfare stigma interact in other welfare regimes and whether the ‘impossible triangle of being a good parent’ also exists for low-income families there.
Data availability statement
All data and materials support the published claims and comply with field standards.
Author Contributions: CRediT Taxonomy
Chenhong Peng Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
Julia Shu-Huah Wang Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Writing – review & editing.
Tianming Zhang Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing
Xi Zhao Writing – review & editing.
Funding
This research was supported by the Start-up Fund (Grant No. 006029001), the University of Hong Kong; Hong Kong Research Grants Council Early Career Scheme (Grant No. 27611517); the Taiwan Science and Technology Council (Grant No. 112-2628-H-002-008-); and Yushan Young Scholar Program (Grant No. NTU-112V1018-2) by the Taiwan Ministry of Education.
Competing interests
No conflicts of interest
