April 9, 2026 · 《Ming Pao》
Recently, news and discussions about Hong Kong’s version of a five-year plan have been lively. The consensus across the board is that Hong Kong should focus on developing the “Four Centres and One Highland” (international financial, shipping, trade, and innovation and technology centres, and a highland for international high-end talent), leveraging Hong Kong’s strengths to serve the country’s needs and promoting Hong Kong’s integration into and service to the country’s overall development.
The purpose of Hong Kong’s plan is naturally to align with the country’s 15th Five-Year Plan framework, while also accommodating the characteristics of Hong Kong’s market economy under “One Country, Two Systems”. The country has very rich experience in medium- and long-term planning and is naturally an important reference for Hong Kong’s version of the five-year plan. In my earlier column article (“Hong Kong’s Five-Year Plan Maiden Voyage: Building a More Mature and Open Space for Public Policy Discussion”, 2026.2.26), I emphasised that the country’s model for formulating five-year plans is highly rigorous, developed through the broad participation of the “whole government”, the “whole society”, and the “whole process”. The planning process begins with in-depth research by hundreds of research institutions, universities, and think tanks to form basic ideas; then the National Development and Reform Commission and various levels of government build the specific framework; the State Council then drafts the outline and conducts public consultation; and finally, the National People’s Congress approves it. In that article, I advocated: “Drawing on the country’s valuable experience in formulating five-year plans, Hong Kong’s five-year plan should also be built on a solid research foundation and fully incorporate the views of stakeholders and think tanks.”
1. How Capitalist Market Economies Carry Out Five-Year Planning
While China’s planning model is certainly important, China is not a capitalist country and lacks experience in planning under a capitalist market. Under the premise of “One Country, Two Systems”, many commentators emphasise that Hong Kong’s version of the five-year plan should be an organic combination of a “proactive government” and a “flexible market”; however, there is little more concrete discussion of how to achieve this ideal organic combination. In fact, many capitalist market economies in the world also carry out five-year plans or medium- and long-term planning, and their models can provide important reference experience for Hong Kong.
France began implementing “indicative planning” as early as 1947 and is the originator of medium- and long-term planning in capitalist economies. Its model is generally considered to have contributed to France’s post-war economic take-off. Subsequently, many East Asian economies, including Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Malaysia, drew on the French experience to implement five-year plans or medium- and long-term planning, which became an important part of the East Asian economic miracle and the East Asian economic model.
2. The Evolution of Planning in Capitalist Market Economies
France’s “indicative planning” was not implemented through mandatory orders, but rather through negotiations between the government and major chambers of commerce and enterprises, making forecasts about the future development of key industries, with the government guiding enterprises to invest in line with the national strategic direction through subsidies or loan incentives. France later abandoned five-year planning in 2006, mainly because of the rise of neoliberalism opposing government intervention at the time, the privatisation of many French state-owned enterprises, and, moreover, as the EU economy gradually became highly integrated, individual national governments’ ability to control their own economies declined accordingly. Neoliberal economic thinking emphasised that, with France’s post-war economic development over many years, the country’s enterprises and market environment had become highly mature, and enterprises themselves could predict future market changes and respond appropriately, without needing lay officials to dictate to entrepreneurial insiders.
Whether highly mature markets need no economic planning is, in fact, open to question. Even in highly developed markets, there are still many cases of “market failure”; in principle, government intervention or economic planning can remedy market inadequacies. Moreover, with the rapid disintegration of the global security order and economic order today, small and medium-sized economies can no longer rely on the globalisation order under the “Pax Americana” of the past; they need to prepare to face multiple risks of supply chain disruption and economic order chaos. In such circumstances, the role of government and economic planning in capitalist market economies may become even more important.
3. The Planning Experience of South Korea and Singapore
Both Singapore and South Korea are highly open economies that rely on foreign trade and investment, similar to Hong Kong’s economy, and their models are particularly worthy of Hong Kong’s reference. South Korea’s Park Chung-hee government had a relatively high degree of directive economic planning during the era of economic take-off, with strong government intervention and the picking of winners. However, later, after the economy developed to a high level, South Korea’s five-year plans gradually evolved into macro-level strategic blueprints — that is, indicative planning.
Singapore has a variety of five-year, ten-year, or longer-term plans targeting different areas of the social economy, such as ten-year land-use plans, ten-year or longer industrial transformation blueprints, and five-year “Research, Innovation and Enterprise” plans, which constitute the country’s scientific research strategy, focusing on the four major areas of advanced manufacturing, healthcare, sustainable development, and the digital economy.
Both Singapore and South Korea carry out indicative rather than directive economic planning. For example, the plans of both countries are mainly strategic guidelines without legal force, mainly committing the government to invest certain resources (such as investment in infrastructure or scientific research) and promising financial, tax, or policy support for emerging or designated special industries, but they do not specify the output of particular industries or enterprises, nor do they have GDP targets. This is mainly because the international market environment is changing rapidly, and the government cannot achieve specific GDP growth rates or specific industry production volumes through planning instruments.
4. What the Two Countries’ Planning Experience Tells Hong Kong
In fact, Hong Kong also has a variety of medium- and long-term plans targeting different areas of the social economy, a situation quite similar to Singapore’s medium- and long-term plans. Hong Kong’s medium- and long-term plans include land, transport, housing strategies (such as “Hong Kong 2030+”, the “Transport Strategy Blueprint”, and the Ten-Year Housing Strategy), innovation and technology development, fintech development, and the international education hub, reflecting that Hong Kong already has a certain foundation in spatial planning, industrial layout, and livelihood development. However, the Singapore government’s quality and efficiency are superior, and its foresight in discerning issues, ability to build social consensus, and effectiveness in implementing decisions far surpass those of Hong Kong.
Currently, Hong Kong’s commentators and political parties have quite different understandings of how detailed Hong Kong’s version of the five-year plan should be or what areas it should cover. Some commentators believe that, as a highly marketised economy, Hong Kong’s economic planning should be directional and should not be too tightly or rigidly regulated, nor should it have GDP targets. However, other commentators and political parties believe that Hong Kong’s five-year plan should not only have GDP targets, but should also refer to the indicators and timetables of the country’s 15th Five-Year Plan in various areas, establishing comprehensive and clear targets; for example, how many square feet of per capita living space should be achieved in Hong Kong within five and ten years, rebuilding 500 old buildings in five years, 1,000 old buildings in ten years, achieving a population increase to 8 million to 8.5 million in five years, and over 9 million in ten years (see the BPA’s recommendations on aligning with the 15th Five-Year Plan for details).
The planning experience of South Korea and Singapore shows that, although the two countries’ governments’ ability to intervene in the economy far exceeds that of Hong Kong, neither country has sufficient means and ability to achieve specific GDP targets; in such circumstances, requiring the Hong Kong government to have the ability to achieve these targets is likely to be looking for fish in a tree (i.e., unrealistic).
The Hong Kong government’s annual Budget estimates the real growth rate for the next few years, with the latest estimate being 3% per year; this is an estimate, not a target. The difference between the two is that the government has a responsibility to achieve its targets, but no responsibility or need to achieve its forecasts. Similarly, the Singapore government also makes forecasts for future economic growth, for example, the official forecast for 2026 GDP growth is between 1% and 3%. This forecast range is very wide, reflecting that for small open economies like Singapore or Hong Kong, facing the rapidly changing world market, the uncertainty of GDP growth rates is very high, and accurate prediction is not easy, let alone achieving hard growth targets. Turning forecast numbers into targets is simply impractical.
Singapore’s and South Korea’s medium- and long-term plans do not focus on GDP or individual industry output indicators, but on long-term structural issues, including competitiveness, industrial transformation, innovation and technology strategy, sustainable development, and inclusive development. In an era of geopolitical turbulence, both countries’ development plans unanimously emphasise the need to strengthen risk preparedness and enhance resilience and flexibility. The experience of the two countries shows that these issues should also be the core issues of Hong Kong’s version of the five-year plan. The essence of Hong Kong’s five-year plan lies in focusing on a practical and feasible strategic blueprint, rather than listing a large, jumbled and all-encompassing “wish list”. Hong Kong’s five-year plan should highlight the main contradictions, clarify the priority of key objectives, and focus on leveraging core strengths.
“Stones from other mountains can polish jade” — although Singapore’s Prime Minister Lawrence Wong has very rich experience in economic planning, he still visited Hong Kong in order to gain an in-depth understanding of Hong Kong’s five-year plan and the development of the Northern Metropolis. Therefore, Hong Kong’s leaders should be even more proactive in drawing on the planning experience of Singapore and other East Asian economies.
(Translation supported by AI)
