These concerns deserve a serious response.
For Hong Kong, the purpose of a five-year plan is not to remake an open international city in the image of another development model. Rather, within the framework of “one country, two systems”, it is to place Hong Kong’s strengths, national strategic opportunities and local challenges within a coherent road map.
Hong Kong’s past success rested on an open and flexible market, its free-port status and extensive links to global capital. Yet these advantages have been expressed mainly through its capacity to connect and allocate resources, rather than to create new economic structures. When land remains scarce, the industrial base is narrow and research outcomes struggle to reach the market, flexibility alone does not produce a new growth curve.
This reflects what economist Douglass North described as path dependence. The more efficient a system becomes at performing its functions, the more its participants are incentivised to optimise them for short-term gain. Over time, the system can become locked into an established model, limiting its willingness to explore alternatives.
Unless Hong Kong’s traditional strengths are placed within a longer-term policy framework, government initiatives may fail to generate cumulative impact in the face of a flexible but impatient market. International capital values free flows, but also predictability. Talented people look not only at current opportunities but also at prospects. New industries require coordination across land, research, education, finance and institutions.
