At this year’s Central Economic Work Conference, held in Beijing on Dec 10 and 11, the central government for the first time elevated three regions simultaneously as international innovation centers: Beijing, Shanghai, and the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area. The announcement has sparked questions in Hong Kong. Some observers worry that if Beijing and Shanghai are both recognized as national innovation hubs, Hong Kong’s role might be diminished or diluted. In reality, the opposite is true. By clarifying the functions of Beijing and Shanghai, the central government has made Hong Kong’s unique advantages stand out more sharply. The three centers are not overlapping competitors but complementary pillars in a multicenter innovation system.
Beijing’s designation reflects its position as the country’s primary base for original research and strategic science. With its dense concentration of national laboratories and leading research institutes, Beijing is tasked with breakthroughs in areas such as quantum science, aerospace, advanced materials, and artificial intelligence. It is the “national engine” for fundamental science, focusing on the leap “from zero to one”. This type of research is highly strategic and often confidential, and it is neither possible nor necessary for Hong Kong to compete in this space. Instead, Hong Kong’s role lies in what comes after: International collaboration, commercialization of research outcomes, and the provision of legal and financial frameworks that allow inventions to move from the laboratory to the market. In short, Beijing initiates, while Hong Kong scales.
Shanghai, by contrast, has been positioned as the country’s platform for industrialization and engineering. Its strengths lie in turning research into viable industries, particularly in biomedicine, semiconductors and AI. Supported by the Shanghai Stock Exchange STAR Market, Shanghai has built a closed loop linking research, capital and industry. It is the national hub for transforming prototypes into large-scale production. Hong Kong does not share this comparative advantage. Instead, it complements Shanghai by serving as the international financing center, the global rules interface, and the arbitration hub for disputes. Where Shanghai focuses on domestic industrialization, Hong Kong provides the bridge to global capital and professional services, helping Chinese mainland technology firms expand abroad.
In the emerging national innovation architecture, Beijing will lead in source innovation, Shanghai in industrialization, and Hong Kong in internationalization and institutional opening-up. That is Hong Kong’s true value in China’s innovation strategy
Hong Kong’s designation as part of the Greater Bay Area innovation center is therefore not about competing in research volume or industrial scale. Its role is to provide the international and institutional functions that neither Beijing nor Shanghai can replicate. Hong Kong’s common law system, its ability to align with international rules, and its established reputation in intellectual property protection, auditing and compliance make it indispensable for cross-border scientific collaboration. It is also the world’s largest offshore renminbi center and the third-largest global financial hub, giving it unparalleled access to international investors. These features allow Hong Kong to act as the gateway for global capital, talent, and ideas.
Equally important is Hong Kong’s partnership with Shenzhen. Together they form a unique “institution plus industry” combination: Hong Kong supplies the legal, financial and international frameworks, while Shenzhen provides engineering capacity, mass production and application scenarios. This cross-border synergy is something Beijing and Shanghai cannot offer. It ensures that the Greater Bay Area innovation center is not just a regional project but a national strategic platform.
Seen as a whole, the division of labor is clear. Beijing drives original innovation, Shanghai anchors industrialization, and Hong Kong delivers internationalization. Rather than competing, the three centers form a chain that runs from fundamental research through industrial application to global integration. The more Beijing’s and Shanghai’s roles are emphasized, the more Hong Kong’s irreplaceable value is revealed. Beijing cannot become a common law jurisdiction; Shanghai cannot transform into an offshore international financial center. Only Hong Kong, under the “one country, two systems” framework, can serve as China’s institutional sandbox for opening up and as its international interface.
Hong Kong’s innovation role should therefore not be measured by scale but by irreplaceability. Its contribution lies in functions that cannot be duplicated by investment or policy alone: The legal system, financial openness, international connectivity and talent mobility. Far from being weakened, Hong Kong’s position has been clarified. In the emerging national innovation architecture, Beijing will lead in source innovation, Shanghai in industrialization, and Hong Kong in internationalization and institutional opening-up. That is Hong Kong’s true value in China’s innovation strategy.
The author is chairman of Doctoral Exchange, a Hong Kong-based think tank.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
