1. Introduction

In recent years, the talent introduction policy, as a public issue, has attracted wide attention and become the focus of many scholars’ discussion. The talent introduction policy is that a country or region adopts appropriate ways and methods to attract talents according to its own development needs, to make up for its lack of talent cultivation [1]. As an important means and method to promote economic development, talent introduction policy has attracted more and more attention and research. However, in practice, it is not difficult to find that there are still some problems in the implementation of the talent introduction policy, especially in housing, by studying the published documents. Although Shenzhen, China, is the gathering place of high-level talents in China, the talent introduction policy is not perfect. Only by changing the policy thinking and absorbing good new ideas, can Shenzhen, China, have more talent competitive advantages in the world. Talent introduction policy has always been the focus of academic research. At present, the academic community has made many high-quality studies on talent introduction policy, mainly focusing on the talent introduction policy research in developed countries and the national housing policy research in developed countries. These studies are of great significance for analyzing and improving talent introduction policy. However, there is a lack of research on talent introduction policies for China’s national conditions and comparative analysis of policies between different countries and regions, as well as a lack of comparative research on the unilateral policy of talent housing. This paper will be divided into three main parts, respectively study the talent introduction policy and current situation in Shenzhen, China and Singapore, and focus on the comparative analysis of the two to get the problems and final solutions of talent introduction in housing. This study aims to provide a theoretical basis and practical guidance for the reform of talent introduction policy in housing, to better promote the construction of China’s talent team and economic development. By using the method of documentary analysis, this paper focuses on the comparative analysis with Singapore’s housing policy, that is, the housing policy. It uses the Gradualism model to explore the development process of Shenzhen’s talent introduction policy in China’s housing sector and compares the similarities and differences between Singapore and Shenzhen in China’s talent housing sector. It also points out the reasons for the slow progress and puts forward corresponding countermeasures and suggestions.

2. Introduction to Talent Introduction Policy in Shenzhen, China

2.1. Policy Philosophy and Policy Objectives

In recent years, Shenzhen, China, has issued many talent policies, including the “peacock plan” for overseas high-level talents, the “talent housing project”, the “industrial development and Innovation Talent Award” and the “Peng Cheng talent plan”. These policies have attracted many talents from all kinds who come to (stay) in Shenzhen for entrepreneurship and employment, accelerated the development of Shenzhen, brought huge economic benefits, and attracted talents from all over the country. Because of these innovative enterprises and new talents, Shenzhen’s development is now in the forefront of the country [2]. The implementation of Shenzhen’s talent introduction policy is conducive to accelerating the construction of an important talent center and innovation highland in the world and achieving the goal of deeply implementing the strategy of strengthening the country with talents in the new era. The talent housing policy provides housing support for qualified talents, which is conducive to serving the construction of the “four centers”, promoting economic and social development, and ensuring and improving people’s livelihood. However, the policy may face uneven distribution, so it may not achieve the goal of ensuring equality for all [3].

2.2. Policy Makers, Executors and Policy Audiences

The main policy makers are the government, human resources and social security departments and other relevant institutions, and the executors are Shenzhen human resources guarantee department and district human resources department. The policy audiences are outstanding talents who meet the requirements of Shenzhen’s high-level talent recognition method, domestic leading talents (including national leading talents, local leading talents and reserve talents) and overseas high-level talents (including class A, class B and class C talents).

2.3. Specific Measures of the Policy

To protect the rights and needs of talents, Shenzhen gives talents face-to-face subsidies in housing, children’s education, life, medical insurance and so on, and gives different degrees of preference according to different levels of talents.

The Shenzhen talent introduction policy was first launched in 2002. On June 18th, 2002, the Shenzhen Municipal Personnel Bureau issued the implementation measures of the provisions on the introduction of domestic talents to work in Shenzhen. After 20 years of development, in practice, the talent introduction policy in Shenzhen has changed again and again in the implementation process. Since the 117th executive meeting of the fifth session of the Shenzhen Municipal People’s Government deliberated and adopted the measures of Shenzhen Municipality on the safe housing of talents in 2014, this is the first time that policies related to the concept of talent housing have appeared. Subsequently, in 2018, a turning point occurred. The Shenzhen Municipal People’s government issued the opinions on deepening the reform of the housing system and accelerating the establishment of a housing supply and security system with multi-agent supply and multi-channel security, which officially appeared the idea of “talent housing”. On this basis, in April 2019, The Shenzhen Municipal Bureau of housing construction, together with the Shenzhen Municipal Bureau of other departments, drafted the measures for the construction and management of talent housing in Shenzhen (Exposure Draft), which defined the meaning of “talent” and “talent housing”. So far, the “talent housing” in Shenzhen has been officially defined. This policy has remained unchanged until April 6, 2023, when the Shenzhen Municipal Bureau of planning and natural resources (hereinafter referred to as “the planning bureau”) issued it According to the Shenzhen land price calculation rules (Revised Draft), Shenzhen has abolished the original housing types such as comfortable living commercial housing and talent housing, and added new housing types such as indemnificatory rental housing (subdivided into two types: government organization rent and social subject rent), and co ownership housing. [Shenzhen human resources and Social Security Bureau, “the 14th five-year plan for the development of human resources and social security in Shenzhen” [4]. For example, Shenzhen, China’s housing policies for high-level personnel are divided into four categories according to talent levels, as shown in the table 1 below:

Table 1: List of current housing policies for high-level talents in Shenzhen.

3. Introduction to Singapore’s Talent Introduction Policy

3.1. Policy Philosophy and Policy Objectives

As a small country that became independent only in 1959, Singapore, after more than three decades of rapid development, has become one of the developed countries since 1996 and is considered one of the most competitive countries in the world. Singapore’s success lies in the concept of “talent country” and “elite rule” [5]. Among them, Singapore’s housing policy, the “HDB system” (Housing Development Board), is the most significant for the study of talent introduction policy. Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put forward the slogan of “Home Ownership Scheme” at the beginning of the founding of Singapore, aiming at solving the serious housing problem, ensuring that Singapore residents enjoy the right to equal housing, and improving the living environment of residents. At the same time, it is conducive to the all-round cultivation, introduction and utilization of talents and accelerating the construction of a world-important talent center and innovation highland, supporting, and leading the high-quality development of the economy more effectively, and continuously enhancing Singapore’s influence and attractiveness in the global competition for talents.

3.2. Policy Makers, Implementers, and Policy Audiences

According to the Singapore Constitution, Singapore is a parliamentary republic with the President as the head of state. The Prime Minister is the overall administrator of the parliamentary republic and therefore the HDB policy is formulated by the Prime Minister and implemented by the government, human resources and social security departments and other relevant agencies. The audience of the policy is the Singapore residents who need housing and the high-level talents who are interested in the topic of Talent Acquisition and are planning to stay and work in Singapore and the policy provides ideas for the researchers, policy makers and practitioners of human resource management who are interested in Talent Acquisition policy.

3.3. Specific Measures of the Policy

The Singapore government set up the Housing Development Board (HDB) on February 1, 1960, to specialize in the planning, construction, and management of residential new towns. HDB flats are public housing undertaken by HDB and built by the government for rental and sale to Singapore citizens and permanent residents.

In terms of Singapore’s current level of development, as a developed country and as one of Asia’s four major financial centers, its territory is only 719 square kilometers. The characteristics of a small country dictate that Singapore cannot rely entirely on the market to solve its housing problem. Therefore, the Singaporean Government is deeply aware that housing is a livelihood issue, not an ordinary commodity or investment. This dictates that the housing problem cannot be solved entirely by market mechanisms.

A very important feature of the supply of HDB flats in Singapore is that they are built in response to demand and are in adequate supply. In terms of the application process, the HDB usually announces the plan to build flats, and if the number of people applying to buy during the application period reaches 65% to 70% of the plan, the HDB will start building. If the number of applicants is insufficient, the plan will be revised. Therefore, apart from waiting for construction, there is almost no queuing period for waiting. From the point of view of the strictness of the implementation of housing policies, Singapore not only has clear rules on the pricing of HDB flats, but also has strict limits on the age, income and private property status of applicants. In the allocation process, the Government gives priority to first-time applicants and “special groups” such as the elderly, the infirm and the multi-generational [6].

From the point of view of controlling land costs, the Singapore Government has stipulated that newly built HDB flats purchased from the Government must be self-occupied, must not be used for commercial operations and must not be resold within five years. If the purchaser transfers the HDB flat, he or she is required to pay a premium equal to half of the selling price as land premium. If the purchaser resells it to someone else, he or she will also have to pay an amount equivalent to half of the land premium. Therefore, when buying or selling an HDB flat, purchasers must provide detailed information or face a fine of up to S$5,000 or six months’ imprisonment, or both, if found guilty of misrepresentation. From the point of view of land alienation, Singapore’s Land Acquisition Act also provides for “utilization of land as a residential, commercial or industrial area” to qualify for nationalization, in addition to nationalization in the public interest. The price of expropriation is suppressed in a specific set of algorithms for the price of compensation. This has led the Singaporean government to control the cost of land to a great extent [7].

4. Comparative Analysis

4.1. Comparative Policy Differences and Reasons

A comparative study of the housing policies of Singapore and China’s Shenzhen region on the introduction of talents reveals that the reasons for the differences in the implementation of the policies of the two regions lie in the differences in policy concepts and objectives. In addition to the differences in population size, demographic structure, land area and other objective factors brought about by the different levels of economic development, the main point of differentiation lies in the strength of the government’s macro-control, which includes Singapore’s more stringent implementation of the HDB policy, while strictly controlling the cost of land. Singapore’s “Home Ownership Scheme” policy objective guarantees the basic housing needs of new residents, while for the Shenzhen area, this policy objective is more difficult to achieve. The reason is that China’s real estate market has turned talent housing into a means of attraction, giving it a competitive connotation, and is not designed to guarantee basic housing for all talents, or even for the benefit of real estate. Shared ownership housing is for some residents of large cities to solve the housing difficulties have a certain role, but shared ownership housing cannot completely replace the commodity housing and cannot meet the housing needs and expectations of all people.

Although Shenzhen’s talent housing policy has undergone several revisions and refinements, it has maintained its commitment to previous policies and has emphasized the overall goal of attracting talent for economic development by examining the shortcomings of previous policies to emphasize the mutual accommodation of the overall goal of attracting talent for economic development and the policies that preceded it. To a considerable extent, this emphasis also reflects the fact that the gradualist model is more conservative and applicable to a more stable and less volatile environment and is generally better for current policymaking. However, this model does not explain some special cases. The modifications and slowdowns advocated by the gradualist model do not play an important role when social conditions and environments change dramatically, or when radical changes are needed to previous decisions; and the modifications and slowdowns advocated by the gradualist model may be an obstacle to major change when old decisions are widely supported or generally accepted [8].

4.2. Recommendations to Address Issues

The talent housing policy in Shenzhen should improve the waiting system, strengthen supervision, and ensure policy fairness. Because the talent policy covers a wide range, but the affordable housing resources provided by the government are limited, so there is no way to meet the housing needs of all talents at one time. It is necessary to design a reasonable waiting system, reference the contribution of high-level talents, personal income level, family situation, etc., and complete the full coverage of talent housing in a fair and orderly manner. At the same time, the integrity mechanism should be made good use of, including the process of personal application, community review, and media publicity for resumes. The applicant’s personal information, housing and family situation should be reviewed, and the resume file system should be established. Information sharing among departments should be strengthened to improve the efficiency and accuracy of information review. A three-level linkage mechanism between streets, community committees, and municipal governments should be established, from review to publicity to supervision and reporting, to strengthen social supervision [9].

Policies rationally use urban renovation resources to meet the demand for talent housing. In the renovation and construction of old urban areas, talents’ housing will be considered, and some abandoned factories and demolished houses will be transformed into affordable housing for talents. According to the different needs of talents, different housing types will be built. As the renovated open space is relatively spacious, supporting infrastructure can be increased, such as family medical hospital, education for children to enter the school nearby, including subway transportation, etc., which can be well planned [10].

All districts should unify the system of requirements for talent housing policy. During the survey, it was found that the talent housing policy in Shenzhen, China, is a zoning system, and each district has adjusted its own policies in combination with the actual situation of the district. For example, Baoan District has added a “1:1” high-level talent subsidy policy to the municipal level incentives and subsidies. Taking overseas class C talents as an example, on the basis of receiving 1.6 million yuan of incentives and subsidies at the municipal level, if they choose to develop in Baoan District, they can also receive an additional 1.6 million yuan of district subsidies [5].

4.3. Expectations and Shortcomings

The study proposes improvement measures for the current situation of Shenzhen’s talent housing policy, which may be one-sided and uncertain whether it is practicable and operable, making it more difficult to implement. Since China’s Shenzhen talent policy categorizes imported talents to different degrees, and each class is treated and favored differently, it may not achieve the expected results in the borrowed sense, and it is difficult to form a unified policy that meets everyone’s expectations.

5. Conclusion

This study investigates the development history of the changes in Shenzhen’s housing policy regarding personnel through a comparative analysis of Shenzhen’s talent housing policy in China and Singapore’s HDB policy utilizing the gradualist model. During the study, the shortcomings of Shenzhen’s talent introduction housing policy were found through the analysis of Singapore’s HDB policy. That is to say, in addition to the objective factors such as national conditions, population structure and number, the key reasons that caused the development of the housing policy for the introduction of talents in Shenzhen to encounter obstacles and not as smooth as the development of Singapore’s HDB system are the policy concept of the Shenzhen government, the strength of the government’s macro-control and the difference in the degree of strictness of the policy being implemented. Singapore’s housing policy is based on the concept of “Home Ownership Scheme”, which seeks to maximize the basic housing needs of new residents. The Shenzhen Municipal Government, on the other hand, is faced with a resident population of nearly 20 million and has difficulty in balancing land and other resources with housing needs. Therefore, the Shenzhen Municipal Government needs to develop a talent housing policy that is more in line with China’s national conditions and socialism with Chinese characteristics. The Shenzhen Municipal Government should further strengthen the supervision to ensure the fairness of the policy implementation. At the same time, the Shenzhen municipal government should also cooperate with various parties in society to establish a housing system with multi-principal supply, multi-channel guarantee, and combined rental and purchase. Based on rational use of urban resources to prioritize the solution of guaranteed housing, effectively solve the housing problems of residents of large cities to promote the further improvement of the talent housing policy, and will be the Shenzhen City, each jurisdiction of the talent housing application and requirements system unification, to protect the implementation of the policy of the public nature. These measures will be conducive to the retention of talents in Shenzhen, promote the implementation of the strategy of strengthening the country with talents, create an equal and harmonious social environment, and promote the future development of Shenzhen. There is a scarcity of relevant literature resources in the process of writing this paper, especially in the field of comparative research between regional policies to be improved in developing countries and better policies in developed countries, which has relative limitations. At the same time, the improvement measures proposed in this study for the current situation of Shenzhen’s talent housing policy may be one-sided and uncertain whether they are practical and operable, which makes it difficult to realize. Therefore, it is expected that in the future research, this issue can be explored from a more innovative perspective, to put forward suggestions with reference value for the policy of talent introduction in Shenzhen.

Authors Contribution

All the authors contributed equally, and their names were listed in alphabetical order.