[영문]This article aims at contributing to a better understanding of welfare legitimacy in different institutional contexts. It examines whether or not emotions are important for welfare legitimacy by using survey findings from a representative sample of Chinese residents in Hong Kong. It follows a Dutch study of a similar nature, but finds that the Chinese exhibit a different response pattern towards the emotional motives of moral obligation and empathy and the non-emotional motives of self-interest, probably as a result of the perception of the residual nature of the Chinese welfare system. In the Chinese case, personal characteristics carry different effects compared with those found in the Dutch study. A further finding is that both emotional motives and self-interest motives are significant for hypothetical choices of welfare alternatives. But their effects are marginal, though striking in comparison with other determinant variables. In conclusion, the article argues that reciprocal self-interest is progressive, an idea that is unlikely to be honoured by many welfare state theorists such as Richard Titmuss