This way forward (but don't hold your breath)
The lineage of China's five-year plans can be traced to old-fashioned communism, where the objective was to direct and control every facet of the economy. Times have changed, but the latest five-year plan - the 11th - still contains significant elements of state direction and intervention. So it is understandable that the Hong Kong government's enthusiasm about being included in the plan, for the first time, may have conjured visions of a shift towards a socialist planning mentality here, at the expense of our usual espousal of minimal government engagement in the economy.
In the event, judging from the action agenda produced by the government and its four focus groups, one need not have worried unduly. True, it does contain, from one or two quarters such as logistics and tourism, a few pleas for, or presumptions of, specific support. But that is little different from the usual scramble for dollops of public money to which we are accustomed, usually around the time of the annual policy address or budget.
Aside from that, there are four facets of the agenda that caught my attention.
First, this seems to be a wish list which has been compiled with a view to achieving impressive length, sometimes at the expense of relevant substance. Some of the action points, such as 'speed up construction of new cruise terminal' or 'elevate the overall education standard', appear merely to reiterate existing policy, without any added context in the five-year plan.
Second, in many cases there seems to be tacit admission that the chances of successful execution might be rather slim. Thus, 'dependent on mainland policies' is a recurrent qualification of more than passing significance. Moreover, the time frame is often disappointingly vague: 'long-term strategy to be implemented on an ongoing basis' neither suggests urgency nor inspires optimism over realisation.
Third, the agenda identifies many areas, notably but not exclusively within financial services, where market access and regulatory reform are sought to help Hong Kong firms gain better access to opportunities on the mainland, and in the hope of attracting more mainland entities to conduct business in Hong Kong.
There is nothing wrong with, and nothing to lose from, pressing in those directions. But there is an inherent ambiguity here.
Hong Kong is seeking, when it suits, to be treated as just another Chinese city; and also feels that, as an insider, it should play a part in moulding the mainland's agenda for economic and financial reform. At the same time, however, Hong Kong likes to emphasise to the world at large that it is economically separate under 'one country, two systems'.
There is no harm in hoping for the best of both worlds. But we must be prepared to be disappointed when progress to transform the proposals into actions - which necessarily requires help from mainland authorities - turns out to be, at best, glacial. And we must guard against any temptation to dilute our own standards in the quest to win mainland business.
Fourth, well over half of the action points merely set the stage for more study or chatter, with no more than a hazy vision of what might eventually be delivered.
There is much in the list about organising seminars: rebranding; public relations campaigns; consultative and co-operative initiatives; conducting further research; continuing endeavours to exploit opportunities; and so forth.
By way of a specific example, there is one gem of a proposal, in the transport domain, 'to examine feasible options for the establishment of a high-level, cross-bureaus/departments co-ordination mechanism ...'
One wonders how long the examination of options may take. Even then, we will still only be at the stage of having set up yet another talking shop. And what is the chance of the 'mechanism' subsequently yielding any action? Anyway, why on Earth haven't the relevant bureaus and departments been talking to each other already?
This sort of proposal is a triumph of bureaucratic gobbledygook and procrastination. Little wonder that the compilers of the agenda managed to push the tally of action points to 207.
But let's get back to the more substantive issues. Overall, the action agenda allays any fears one may have had about a possible escalation of formal economic planning. It proposes a host of measures which could remove barriers to business; improve or streamline regulation; and expand market access in both directions across the border, and on many fronts - trade, finance, transport, professional services, and so on.
The challenge now must be to cut through the suffocating layers of bureaucracy on both sides of the border, and move from words and procedural niceties to action. If such actions can achieve at least part of what is hoped for, then the effort may have been worthwhile. But don't underestimate the effort required.
