The launch of Hong Kong’s first five-year plan — announced alongside the 2026 Policy Address — marked the special administrative region’s formal entry into a new governance phase centered on medium- to long- term planning. The deeper meaning of this institutional shift is clear: Hong Kong is stepping out of century-old governance inertia and constructing a framework capable of responding to the realities of the SAR, the nation, and the wider world.

Hong Kong’s governance model, shaped during British rule, relied heavily on market spontaneity with government intervention only as a supplement. While this model delivered efficiency during periods of rapid economic expansion, it also produced structural contradictions: chronic housing shortages, a narrow industrial base, high operating costs, widening inequality and limited upward mobility for young people.

After the 1997 handover, the government introduced various sectoral blueprints, yet lacked a comprehensive, cross-departmental and continuous planning mechanism. This weakened policy coherence and long-term coordination. The five-year plan fills this institutional gap. It signals a shift from “market-led, government-supplemented” governance to a model where “government leads, markets collaborate” — a necessary evolution for Hong Kong’s transition from stability to prosperity.

As a highly open and externally dependent economy, Hong Kong is deeply embedded in global systems. Today’s geopolitical restructuring, deglobalization, technological fragmentation and supply chain realignment have eroded the stable and predictable external environment Hong Kong once relied upon.

Hong Kong must redefine its functional role in the global landscape and strengthen institutional resilience. The five-year plan provides the strategic tool for Hong Kong to maintain growth, enhance resilience and preserve fairness amid global volatility, while reinforcing its strengths in finance, trade and logistics.

During the early decades of the Chinese mainland’s reform and opening-up, Hong Kong served as a window for capital, technology and international connectivity. But its engagement was largely reactive. Today, the national 15th Five-Year Plan (2026-30) embeds Hong Kong’s long-term stability and prosperity into the nation’s overall strategic architecture. Hong Kong’s own blueprint represents a proactive institutional alignment with national priorities.

The Global Development Initiative, Global Security Initiative, Global Civilization Initiative and Global Governance Initiative promoted by the nation offer the SAR unprecedented opportunities to leverage its unique strengths. The city must shift from being a “connector” to becoming a “harbor, hub and headquarters” — a wealth harbor for global capital, a functional node for global governance, a headquarters base for multinational firms and a cultural oasis for civilizational exchange.

Hong Kong should also evolve from a superconnector to a super value-adder, a “super-partner” and ultimately a “super initiator” — not merely responding to national needs, but articulating what the SAR can contribute to national development. Within the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area’s regional framework, Hong Kong can serve as a strategic pivot for the nation’s new development paradigm, a demonstration zone for high-quality growth and a leading platform for Chinese-style modernization.

A plan is only as valuable as its execution. Hong Kong must build a precise and coordinated implementation system: chief executive-level steering, bureau-led coordination, cross-departmental task forces and constructive executive legislative interaction. Planning targets must be embedded into annual policy and budget cycles through clear task, project and responsibility lists.

Deepening Hong Kong-Shenzhen cooperation is essential. Hong Kong should institutionalize alignment with Hetao, Qianhai and Nansha, and advance the proposed “Twin Cities Special Zone” along both sides of the Shenzhen River — leveraging the unique “brackish water” institutional interface to create a mangrove-like ecosystem for institutional innovation.

Governance must remain executive-led, but with broader participation from business, professional sectors and young people. Hong Kong should strengthen expert consultation, scientific decision-making and the role of civil think tanks in policy research and public narratives. The Legislative Council’s composition could be refined by allocating 10 seats from the Election Committee Constituency to a new Professional Constituency, allowing major professional bodies to nominate and elect representatives directly. To enhance policy coordination, the Chief Executive’s Policy Unit could be expanded to include a “Hong Kong Law Reform Commission” — a dedicated platform for institutional reform.

Monitoring and evaluation are the backbone of implementation. Hong Kong should establish full-cycle management and closed-loop supervision, tracking core indicators in industry development, innovation, education, livelihoods and regional integration. Mid-term and final evaluations should guide policy adjustments.

Corrective mechanisms are crucial. When necessary, the government should revise plans, such as the ongoing adjustments to the Northern Metropolis core area. A multilayered oversight system — government inspection, LegCo scrutiny, third-party evaluation and public monitoring — should link assessment results to resource allocation, policy refinement and performance appraisal.

The Northern Metropolis is Hong Kong’s development anchor for the next two decades. Yet its two flagship projects — the Innovation and Technology Park and the University Town — face structural and spatial deficiencies. The 150-hectare fishpond area in San Tin North lacks direct rail access; the nearest station — 1 kilometer away from this new innovation and technology plot — will only become operational after 2034. For innovation firms, accessibility is nonnegotiable. A tech park that begins with transport delay risks losing tenants. The University Town plan is fragmented and lacks strategic coherence. Land allocation resembles piecemeal distribution rather than holistic institutional design. A world-class university district requires a dedicated development corporation, integrated planning, global academic partnerships and alignment with Hong Kong’s future industrial needs. A “Northern Metropolis Authority” and “Northern Metropolis Development Corp” need to be established, led by a deputy secretary-level commissioner, to manage the hectic and complex cross-discipline, cross-boundary and cross-departmental coordination. The Northern Metropolis must be built not only through engineering, but through institutional integration of space, transport, innovation and education.

Hong Kong must tackle three structural bottlenecks: land and housing, innovation translation and factor mobility. Land development in the Northern Metropolis and urban renewal must proceed in tandem, guided by an “Urban Regeneration 3.0” model. Innovation requires integration of talent, capital, industry and research chains, with Hetao serving as a cross-boundary innovation engine. Factor mobility demands deeper alignment with international rules, strengthening Hong Kong’s traditional advantages while expanding green finance and wealth management.

The Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area is the primary arena for Hong Kong’s five-year plan. Hong Kong should deepen cooperation in industrial chains, functional roles, regulatory alignment and factor flows, forming a complementary and mutually reinforcing regional structure.

Hong Kong stands at a historic turning point. The five-year planning marks the beginning of a governance paradigm built on institutional foundations, strategic coherence and national alignment.

The author is chairman of Doctoral Exchange, a Hong Kong-based think tank.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.