Hong Kong in the world: continuities and changes

Abstract

Purpose To fill the gap in the existing literature on the 20th anniversary of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), the purpose of this paper is to critically reflect upon the continuities and changes of the city’s relations with the world. Design/methodology/approach The paper has adopted a generic approach to shed light on the factors behind the evolution of the international status of Hong Kong from a by-product of geopolitics to a global city in its own right, to understand how the city has been perceived by traditional western partners after 1997 and to investigate how China has made use Hong Kong’s international status. Findings It has shown that Beijing’s strategy toward Hong Kong has been marred by the inherent tensions between “becoming Chinese” and “remaining global.” The official discourse of functionalism, according to which economic and professional ties are both the most acceptable and therefore the least resisted pathways available for the development of Hong Kong’s external relations, has the opposite effect of expanding Beijing’s control over the city. Originality/value In contrast to the HKSAR Government’s belief that Hong Kong will certainly benefit from the emergence of China, the city has found itself on a shorter leash than ever. It has therefore pinpointed the pitfalls of the logic of functionalism which has dominated the existing literature as much as the policy-making process.

Global pedigree and national imperative: Hong Kong universities’ response to China’s grand strategies

“…We argue that this skepticism reveals the fundamental conflict between the internationally shaped and nationally oriented approaches. According to the internationally shaped approach, the international profile of Hong Kong (Duara 2016;Chan 2019) as well as that of its HE sector (Wong 2005;Chou 2010) is a by-product of geopolitics during the Cold War and colonial era as Hong Kong experienced dramatic transformations. This profile radiates cultural hybridity as well as political ambiguity.…”

“…(p. 160) However, they go on to emphasize that the city needs to strike "a balance between being global and being Chinese by building an institutional structure" that would fit both sides (Chiu and Lui 2009, p. 162). This delicate balance between "becoming Chinese" and "remaining global" generates tensions through ideological differences, the anxieties over being marginalized in interurban competition, and the eagerness to capture the opportunities brought about by the rise of China (Chan 2019). The tenuous nature of this balance with its historical, cultural, and political dimensions confronts Hong Kong's HE as it navigates a complex future.…”