Hong Kong Culture and Society. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2012. xiii, 266 pp. (Figures, tables.) US$25.00, paper. ISBN 978-988-8083-50-3.
Post-1997 Hong Kong governance faced a huge challenge. The governability of the newly established Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) of the People’s Republic of China was severely crippled by various incidents, such as the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, the outbreaks of avian influenza (bird flu) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Many Hong Kong scholars and observers explained the governance problem of post-handover Hong Kong using a socio-political approach in which the cultural and identity clashes between Hong Kong and the mainland inspired the central-HKSAR dispute and confrontation for local autonomy. Contrary to these studies, this collaborative volume takes a political economy perspective to explain the governance of HKSAR, and argues that the neo-liberal approach for the economic success of colonial Hong Kong is no longer effective in the post-handover era because of changing state-capitalist-society relationships. This book advocates the need for a political deliberative process to be established as a pillar for the HKSAR governance problem by reshuffling the state-capitalist-society relationships through incorporating public input into the government institution.
This volume begins with Peter B. Evans’s chapter reviewing the economic success of developmental states due to state-capitalist cooperation. However, a robust economy brings social conflict and tension. The exclusion of society from the policy process leads to governance gridlock, whereas the inclusion of it through the exercise of political deliberation is essential for the sustainability of developmental states. In the chapter by Alvin Y. So and Stephen Wing-kai Chiu, the authors use South Korea as an example to demonstrate the growing path of developmental states as defined by Evans. At the same time, they indicate the Korean dilemma, which involved balancing the influence of chaebol (the big corporations), and question whether the Korean case has proven that the political inclusion of society through deliberation exercises can resolve social conflict.
Following the revisiting of development theories by Evans, the chapters by Ma Ngok, Tai-lok Liu and Stephen Wing-kai Chiu shed light on the evolution of state-capitalist relationships from the colonial era to the establishment of the HKSAR, delineating the displacement of British capitalists by local Chinese capitalists. James Kin-ching Lee’s chapter further argues for the presence of collusion between the Hong Kong government and the real estate developers, who are dominated by local Chinese capitalists. The laissez-faire and positive non-interventionism of the Hong Kong government creates opportunities for the local Chinese business elite to dominate the market. However, the state-local Chinese link is fragile and, as argued by Ma, appears in the form of “organizational feudalism.”
Is the emergence of local Chinese capitalists a result of the handover of Hong Kong’s sovereignty? As discussed in Peter Tsan-yin Cheung’s chapter, Hong Kong has been heavily dependent on the mainland market. Will Hong Kong’s further economic integration into the mainland market lead to the state-mainland capitalist collaboration in the HKSAR? Particularly, the new chief executive, C.Y. Leung, hinted at a tendency to reshuffle the state-local capitalist relationships when running the election, as the domination of local Chinese big businessmen is regarded as the major source of social tension. He may shift to political support from the mainland elite for the sake of the economic development of Hong Kong and, hence, reconfigure the central-HKSAR relationships because the mainland capitalists will most likely serve the central interests instead of that of the locals. Importantly, since his relationships with some local tycoons are in doubt, he may seek external aid from the mainland. The dynamics between HKSAR, the local Chinese, and mainland capitalists will have to be a future chapter in the study of state-capitalist cooperation in Hong Kong.
The chapters by Agnes Shuk-mei Ku and Eliza Wing-yee Lee focus on state-society relationships. Ku argues that the state-capitalist governance approach leads to social inequality, and that while democracy through universal suffrage is not a solution, the rearticulation of political citizenship through deliberative processes may be. Echoing Ku’s argument, Lee proves the synergy of state-society cooperation for local governance with a case study of the H15 Redevelopment Project through which the success of political deliberation is demonstrated.
The impact of the success of the H15 Redevelopment Project on district administration may not entirely prove the capability of the political deliberation model in Hong Kong governance. Activists for the project campaigned very hard using demonstrations, protests and hunger strikes. Plus, due to the relatively weak HKSAR government following the resignation of Tung Chee-Hwa, the Hong Kong government may have to step backward to avoid political confrontation. This could further hurt its legitimacy as the real-estate developers may shift to other projects rather than sticking to this one. As noted in the case of South Korea, discussed by So and Chiu in this volume, the South Korean government initiated political deliberation with the inclusion of public input in making policy after the 2008 financial tsunami partly because of its legitimacy. When the South Korean economy became revitalized, the state-capitalist ruling alliance was re-established. Is political deliberation a contingency to the legitimacy problem of the state; can it be sustainable in the regime once introduced? Surely, the H15 Redevelopment Project is a step forward in the possible success of political deliberation; however, more case studies are needed to prove its sustainability in the HKSAR regime. Yet, this book is a good starting point for understanding HKSAR governance through a state-capitalist-society relationship, whereas further research works are needed to prove the political deliberation model.
Overall, this volume uses a new perspective to explain the governance problem of HKSAR and gives a theoretical contribution for the understanding of the evolution of developmental states. Not only Hong Kong observers but also researchers of developmental states will find it useful and inspiring for the theorization of state-capitalist-society relationships in developmental states.
Eilo Wing-yat Yu
University of Macau, Taipa, China
pp. 142-144