CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG

VALUES AND CHOICES IN PUBLIC

AND SOCIAL POLICY

Dr. Ian Scott

FIRST ASSIGNMENT:

CONCEPTUAL ESSAY, Globalization and Policy-Making

LUJAN ANAYA, Raul Alejandro

Student No. 52915639

Semester A/ 2012-2013

October 2012

Globalization and Policy Making:

How does Globalization affect the domestic policies of States? How does it

apply to Hong Kong (HKSAR/ SAR)?

[Word Count. Main body: 1900 subtotal, approx.;

Notes, references and bibliography: 780 subtotal.]

In this paper, I’m planning to analyze the impact and extent on which the socio-political

phenomenon of Globalization affects the act and process of policy-making in States,

specifically applied to the case of HKSAR, considering and comparing the view of

Michael Howlett, as he addresses the first question in his book Designing Public Policies:

Principles and Instruments (2011).

On a first instance, it’s necessary to define the concept of Globalization: in a socio-

political context, it can be understood, as Howlett defines using the words of Held et

al. (1999), as (a phenomenon or process of integration which implies) “the

extensification and intensification… of cross-border interactions. While much of this process

comprises trade and economic interactions, it also includes cultural, political, military and

ideational relations among others” [1]. Under this broad definition, it can be considered

that such relations can be given among individuals and/or moral persons (private

corporations or public entities); however for matters of this essay, the scope of this

definition is applicable only to States (such as USA, Mexico, the People’s Republic, PR,

of China… or in this case, the HKSAR [2], etc.), and at more limited extent, to other

entities that enjoy international representation (ie. the United Nations, the European

Union, the Vatican ‘State’, etc.).

I consider it’s somehow obvious, or at least belongs to conventional knowledge among

scholars who study and possess expertise about public policy, the fact that this

integration process, as described above, affects the domestic policies of States, in one

way or another… It’s evident in the sense that right now we are living in a world of

socio-political networks that can connect people across remote points on the planet

and tend to get tighter, thanks to the development of massive media, postmodern

communications, and real-time technology that let us know what on Earth is happening

right now: from Alaska to New Zealand, passing through Berlin, Cairo, Delhi, and of

course, Hong Kong; a world in which, as Howlett refers from ideas of Hood and

Margetts (2007): “the development of modern information and communications technologies

have had a serious impact in which individuals and organizations interact and organize

themselves” [3] but also States, in the words of Lynn (1980) and Vogel (2001), “be they

national or sub-national, do not just react to changes in their international environments but

also are very much still involved in the design and implementation of policies expected to

achieve their ends” [4]. In this tenure, I think the question to be addressed shall be: At

what extent, does really this phenomenon affect policy-making of States in our time?

It has been long debated how much does Globalization determine domestic policy

making within States. In this debate, the view of Howlett is that “the actual impact of

globalization on domestic state policy design is much less than often alleged… international

constraints on policy designs typically cited by proponents of globalization thesis have largely

been confined to cross-border economic exchanges and do not cover much of what

governments do and how they do it” [5]. Even though Howlett provides more or less

strong arguments to support his own conception [6], it’s a conservative one which I

don’t share: I do think that Globalization, in fact, has tended to exert every time

stronger influence on policy designing and making within States, and even though we

can also understand this concept in socio-economic terms as a “neo-liberal agreement

among States”, derived from the ‘Washington Consensus’, as Williamson (1989)

described it as a set of economic-policy prescriptions that constituted a ‘standard’ reform

package promoted for developing countries by Supranational Institutions, such as the World

Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the US Treasury Department in matters of

economic stabilization [7], for matters of this paper, I’d rather see it as a concept that

was being foreseen and devised within this last two centuries (20-21st) with the

accelerated development of newer trade patterns, transportation and communications,

such as TV and radio, and more recently, Internet and social networks… This

corollary becomes more evident for the case of Hong Kong, when we consider the

fact that this City-State has come to be within the last 30 years, a city of global

perspective and world-class ambitions; one of the most important financial and trade

ports on the planet, a major (multi)cultural capital; and one gravity center of

“technocratic” governance (understood as the rule and policy running of technician-

managers under the principles of ‘small government’ and ‘efficient management’, officers

and civil servants which have been more or less “encouraged to be entrepreneurial and to

cut through the red tape” [8] and even when it has tended recently to become more

responsive, this latter value “remains as subsidiary to that of efficiency”[9]) in Asia; thus

deserving to be placed among the top 20 world-cities on Earth: New York, London,

Shanghai, Tokyo, Paris, Frankfurt and Mexico, among others [10].

Why have I decided to adopt this view? Because the long hand of Globalization has

reached matters far from mere economic-political aspects, such as: domestic and

cross-border security (ie. the “war against terrorism” started since 9/11, or the “war

against drugs” taking place across the American Continent); the promotion of human

rights and conflict of laws (with the creation of multilateral bodies like the Council of

Europe, or the Hague Conference on International Law, which the PR of China is part

of); cultural cooperation and social development (ie. the ASEAN league, or the

Commonwealth of Nations), just to provide some examples.

For the case of Hong Kong, I consider Globalization has affected policy-making in

matters such as human rights; both economic policy and political economy, like the

Asian Financial Crisis of 1997-1998 which eventually led to some 1998-2000 public

sector and revenue reforms in the SAR [11]; and has even caused impact in the field of

its political transition towards democracy (in specific, the implementation of universal

suffrage in 2017)… Regarding matters of human rights and the legitimacy question, a

case which draws my attention and I think is of great historical significance, is how

both 1966 Kowloon and 1967 Hong Kong riots, drove the colonial regime to reassess

its policy on management of social crises and leading to changes which sought to build

a more solid and closer relationship between the government and its subjects, policies

that tended to be more considerate towards human rights, such as the delivery of

better quality public services, consider the points of view of vulnerable stakeholders in

society, and the concern for improving the way of life of Hongkongers (which

eventually led to the economic bonanza of the SAR in the last 30 years, along with its

exponential growth of income per capita). Of course I don’t think it was casual or a

mere coincidence the fact that such social uprisings happened at a time when other

revolts of this kind were taking place in America, Asia and Europe: there you had in

New York and Singapore, 1964; London, 1965; Paris and Mexico, 1968 [12]. Something

which I think can be explained in its most, thanks to modern media and the promotion

of new social values: at that time, many societies were awakening from their innocence

(as it was reflected in the birth of revolutionary ideas in that time like the Hippie

subculture, the International Non-Alignment Movement or the Theology of Liberation

doctrine within the Catholic Church, as reactions that surged against the growing

ideological and military polarization worldwide that was taking place during the Cold

War) as many young citizens were decided to question the values that determined

policy-making and the way of exercising politics at that time, thus challenging the status

quo with a clear message: “we will not concede any more social conformism and

intolerance [13], we demand a concrete and measurable commitment by our

governments, to safeguard our basic freedoms and our birthright to self-determination

in society, we want to think by ourselves about what is right and wrong in our

community, not ‘Daddy Government’ anymore”…

After a long path of changes that occurred within the last 40 years, history is now

repeating itself in this 2000’s era, but this time it’s been happening in the HKSAR with

the dilemma of implementing “National Security” legislation (2003), which sought to

“deal with subversion, treason, sedition, and the theft of state secrets under Article 23 of the

Basic Law (of HKSAR)” [14] and the issue of “National and Moral Education” (2008,

2012) both efforts that have been persistently blocked by the people of Hong Kong, in

a struggle of pressure groups and common people confronting both the Hong Kong

government (which has been hardly hit on its most vulnerable point: its lack of

legitimacy) and the Central Government of China (which has been alleged to be acting

as a ‘puppet-master’ in this conflict of interests and values), a struggle which, in the

first case, ultimately led the implementation of “National Security” legislation to be

undefinitely postponed; and in the latter, forced the implementation of National

Education within the primary and secondary schools of the SAR to be postponed “until

2015” [15]. On the other hand, we can consider the fact that this time the context has

changed, since now we are living in the middle of another major war happening

throughout the planet, a war that’s not being fought with sword, but with mind and

spirit: a war in which common people with revolutionary ideas willing to challenge the

status quo once again, are struggling against educational censorship, the restriction and

manipulation of contents in mass media, and the surveillance of real-time

communications, a struggle which gets reflected in the birth of even newer ideas like

the Wikileaks project by the Australian journalist Julian Assange; the creation of the

Neo-Democratic movement within the politics of Hong Kong; and in a more radical

fashion, the Anonymous activist group, which was recently looking to make its presence

known in Asia and, by the way, is a tough critic of the government apparatus in the PR

of China [16]: a fight in which, we common citizens that have educated ourselves,

worked in benefit of our Nations and exercised responsibly our rights and duties, seek

to exercise our birthright to self-determination again: this time we decided that we

have the right to choose how to educate ourselves and our families, to know the truth

on what’s happening with our governments, what on Earth are they doing with the

money we entrust them as taxes, and hold civil servants accountable as well for their

performance, since they are our employees; on top of that, not only we are

stakeholders, but also “shareholders” of the State: if it can be understood (as it works

in private corporations) like we shall act as proprietors which possess an interest, and a

right to obtain a benefit return that is proportional to the efforts we have contributed

for common wellbeing… So I need not to explain further my conclusion, I just dare

say that all of us citizens of the planet have the choice of actively taking part of this

integration process, in the same way that policy mechanisms and actors in Hong Kong

are and will remain closely involved in it, make no mistake about that.

Thank you for your Attention!

Notes and References:

[1] Howlett, Michael. Designing Public Policies: Principles and Instruments. Routledge. New York

(2011), p. 149;

[2] Even if under the scope of Public International Law, HKSAR can’t be considered as a

sovereign State, since it’s an inalienable part of the PR of China under the “One Country, Two

Systems” regime, as the Basic Law stipulates so, I think it can be considered as a State anyways,

at least for didactical purposes of this paper, considering that Article 151 of its Basic Law,

prescribes that “HKSAR may on its own, using the name ‘Hong Kong, China’, maintain and develop

relations and conclude agreements with foreign states and regions and relevant international

organizations in the appropriate fields, including the economic, trade, financial and monetary, shipping,

communications, tourism, cultural and sports fields”, a situation which in fact grants HKSAR

international recognition, thus allowing it to legally interact vis-à-vis, with other States, even if

that international recognition is limited to very specific matters and purposes only;

[3] Howlett, Michael. Designing Public Policies: Principles and Instruments. Routledge. New York

(2011), p. 8;

[4] Ibid., p. 6;

[5] Ibid., p.7;

[6] In this tenure, Howlett states that “the direct international constraints on policy designs typically

cited by proponents of the globalization thesis have largely been confined to cross-border economic

exchanges and do not cover much of what governments do and how they do it” (Ibid., p. 7), even

though in his same book, Howlett recognizes that not only economic, but also diplomatic,

military and aid-related relations among nations do influence in choices of policy tools and

mechanisms (Ibid. p. 6); a position which I think its contradictory in itself, since diplomacy,

military affairs and social aid (among other matters, such as the procurement of human rights

and basic freedoms) are some of fundamental and strategic tasks to be carried out by the State

and that should be generally considered by the government in its policy-making and in its

sacred duty of procuring the general wellbeing of its subjects;

[7] “Washington Consensus”; Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_consensus

[8] Scott, Ian. The Public Sector in Hong Kong: Policy, Government, People. Hong Kong University

Press (2008), p. 58,

[9] Ibid., p. 255;

[10] “Global City”; Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city

[11] On October 9, 2012, I had a guided visit and lecture at the Efficiency Unit of the HKSAR

government (EUHKG), together with the other full-time and part-time students of MAPPM

course of CityU, which was organized by our dear professor, Dr. Mark Hayllar, in which the

Head of EUHKG, Mr. Kim Salkeld, referred us in that lecture, among other things, that the

Asian financial meltdown caused impact in Hong Kong’s economy, and made patent a need for

reforms in matter of public service and revenue system, which were eventually carried out

between the years of 1998-2000, and reflected on measures like cuts of wages and personnel,

outsourcing in the provision of services, the grant of budgetary discresion to the Principal

Officials, and the merge of diverse bureaux with departments; however, a set of measures

which intended the reduction of the great civil service machinery within the SAR;

[12] “List of Riots (1960’s)”; Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots#1960s

[13] “Campus Revolts in the 1960’s”; Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society:

http://www.faqs.org/childhood/Bo-Ch/Campus-Revolts-in-the-1960s.html

[14] Scott, Ian. The Public Sector in Hong Kong: Policy, Government, People. Hong Kong University

Press (2008), pp. 38-39;

[15] “Moral and National Education”; Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Education

[16] “Anonymous Message to Chinese Government”; Youtube, Broadcast Yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INCF_oTagVw&feature=related

Bibliography, Support Material and Additional References:

• Howlett, Michael. Designing Public Policies: Principles and Instruments. Routledge. New York

(2011);

• Scott, Ian. The Public Sector in Hong Kong: Policy, Government, People. Hong Kong University

Press (2008);

• Basic Law of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of the People`s Republic of China:

http://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/index.html

• Personal experience regarding public affairs, considering that I entered pro-bono social

work for year and a half, as counselor of legal and political maters in “Fundacion Innovacion

Social”, A.C., a non-governmental organization based in Mexico City, where I had the

opportunity of working for socially vulnerable sectors of my country, in projects like the

provision of legal services and basic goods (food and clothing), as well as promoting the

values of social responsibility between communities;

[Website: http://www.wiser.org/organization/view/43535e0620d37c2f348b52427df91008]

• “One Country, Two Systems”; Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_country,_two_systems

• “Diplomacy”; Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy

• “Globalization”; Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization

• “Campus Revolts in the 1960’s”; Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society:

http://www.faqs.org/childhood/Bo-Ch/Campus-Revolts-in-the-1960s.html

• “Anonymous (Group)”; Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group

• “Anonymous Message to Hong Kong”; Youtube, Broadcast Yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP9zZhDNp7Q&feature=relmfu

• “Neo Democrats”; Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo_Democrats

• “Shareholders”; Investopedia, Educating the World about Finance:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shareholder.asp