Talk:Economy of Hong Kong
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project! | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
|
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the Project's importance scale. | |
|
Hong Kong To-do:
|
||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments) |
|
More information about this article...
|
|
Contents |
[edit] Debate
One can debate this point. Most regions of China do not have the control over land sales or labor immigration that the HKSAR has.
- but compared to the rest of the People's Republic of China it has a very free economy.
-
- That is also debatable. Hong Kong is a very attractive place to do business because it has good clean courts and a legal system which is absent from the rest of the PRC. A lot depends on what you mean by "free" but if you mean "absence of government" then this doesn't hold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadrunner (talk • contribs) 15:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Roadrunner 04:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Something does not have to be completely free to be more free than something else. Compared to the rest of the world Hong Kong has a very free market. Usually by "free-market" people mean a low amount of coercion either by the government or by criminals. So having a good legal system is usually required to have a free market. Most think tanks rate Hong Kong as one of the freest economies in the world, if not the freest. --Jayson Virissimo (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- That is also debatable. Hong Kong is a very attractive place to do business because it has good clean courts and a legal system which is absent from the rest of the PRC. A lot depends on what you mean by "free" but if you mean "absence of government" then this doesn't hold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadrunner (talk • contribs) 15:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Roadrunner 04:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This is strongly POV-- "The Economy of Hong Kong is widely believed, and some argue incorrectly, to be the most economically free in the world." I am a professional economist based in HK for the past 23 years, and I can't think of a single reliable source that would argue the perception of economic freedom is incorrect. -- DOR (HK) Dec 14, 2007
Some grammer clean-up in the opening section
From this . . . The Economy of Hong Kong is has been claimed to be the most economically free in the world.
To this . . . The Economy of Hong Kong is said to be the most economically free in the world.
From this . . . Even though Hong Kong is said to be a good example of laissez-faire capitalism, there are still many ways in which the government is involved in the economy.
To this . . . Even though Hong Kong is sometimes thought to be an example of laissez-faire capitalism, there are still many ways in which the government is involved in the economy.
And, a more neutral term here: From this . . . The Far East is one of the most economically successful regions of the world -- and Hong Kong’s is a major part of that regional economy.
To this . . . East Asia is one of the most economically successful regions of the world -- and Hong Kong’s is a major part of that regional economy. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Contradiction
Hon
"The economy of Hong Kong has often been cited by people such as Milton Friedman and the Cato Institute as an example of the benefits of laissez-faire capitalism. However, many analysts believe that this characterization of the Hong Kong economy is not entirely accurate"
"However" points to a contradiction, while there isn't any: HK can be an example of the benefits of laissez-faire capitalism without being the perfect model. The words "the benefits of" should be removed to eliminate the contradiction. (Ori)
[edit] Per capita GDP
GDP per capita seems way too high. Anyone have a source on this info? novacatz 01:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- GDP per capita was HK$215,006 in 2006, equal to US$27,565. Source: http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hong_kong_statistics/statistical_tables/index.jsp?charsetID=1&subjectID=12&tableID=030 --- DOR (HK) 17 Aug 2007
Similar results are shown in the CIA World Factbook. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2004.html Rinke 03:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Macro-economic trend
I deleted the last line, 2008, as there is no reference to this being a forecast nor any citation. I refrained from extensively rewriting the entire table on issues such as definitions ("real GDP" in what currency, on what basis, etc), but it is clearly a problem. -- DOR (HK) Dec 14, 2007
-
- Well, I see someone has restored the most absurd part of this article: the table "Average Annual Growth Rate within 5 previous years" has an entry for a year that hasn't even started yet, let alone been completed (i.e., 2008). And, so to prevent people convulsing in fits of laughter at the stupidity of the previous editor, I've once again deleted that line. -- DOR (HK) Dec 19, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.176.69.125 (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I propose rewriting the Macro-economic trend section as below. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hong Kong deliberately began collecting and regularly publishing economy-wide data much later than its East Asian peers. The earliest gross domestic product estimates (for 1961 and subsequent years) were only released in 1973 and other basic data such as for the balance of payments were not compiled until 1999.[1] The chart below shows the change in real and nominal GDP by decades from when data first began to be published.
| Year | Real GDP | Nominal Growth | Change in deflator |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1960s* | 8.7% | 12.7% | 3.7% |
| 1970s | 8.9% | 19.2% | 9.5% |
| 1980s | 7.4% | 16.9% | 8.9% |
| 1990s | 3.5% | 9.0% | 5.3% |
| 2000s ** | 4.7% | 2.8% | -1.8% |
- 1962-69 **2000-07
At the end of 2007, GDP was HK$1,627.5 billion (US$208.7 billion) and GDP per capita was HK$235,134 (US$30,157).
- - - end - - -
[edit] History
I omitted the reference to Taiwan and the cultural revolution as both irrelevant and inaccurate. We already point to the hands-off approach pre-GPCR in Hong Kong, and Taiwan certainly would not be considered in the same laissez-faire class. Footnote also adjusted.(deleted material: "This model was developed in Hong Kong and Taiwan as a response to analyzing the cultural revolution effect in China. The Maoist era forecasted the production of steel, and the inability to produce led to the immediate collapse of the economy[5].") -- DOR (HK) Dec 14, 2007
GDP data also updated, as per new Chained 2005 national accounts. http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hong_kong_statistics/statistical_tables/index.jsp?charsetID=1&subjectID=12&tableID=032 -- DOR (HK) Dec 14, 2007
[edit] Employment in Hong Kong
I have just flagged the Employment in Hong Kong article for copyright violation. It is an almost complete verbatim lift from [1]. I have noticed that the article is linked to various Hong Kong-related articles, including the Hong Kong featured article, via the Economy of Hong Kong navbox. Should a re-write be necessary, some local community help would be welcome and appreciated. Luke! 08:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] CIA factbook
We don't have to copy CIA Factbook's structure exactly you know.....67.0.66.220 04:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Transformation
It is unclear what the second table is measuring: GDP? If so, we have already established that data before 1971 was based on trade. --- DOR (HK) 17 Aug 2007
As there is no further comment, I've deleted this section. -- DOR (HK) Dec 14, 2007
|-
The following table demonstrates which periods in the past exhibited some of the largest growth margins[2].
| Start Period | End Period | Growth Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| 1948 | 1950 | 28.78% |
| 1950 | 1955 | 3.41% |
| 1955 | 1960 | 11.98% |
| 1960 | 1964 | 16.35% |
| 1964 | 1966 | 18.20% |
| 1966 | 1970 | 15.10% |
| 1970 | 1975 | 22.47% |
| 1975 | 1980 | 39.04% |
| 1980 | 1985 | 18.70% |
| 1985 | 1990 | 21.86% |
| 1990 | 1991 | 15.34% |
| 1991 | 1992 | 15.82% |
-
- I see that this completely incomprehensible table has been restored. Does anyone at all have any idea what it is measuring, and what the units might be? Does anyone know what “largest growth margins” [which is not an economic term] is supposed to mean? Does anyone find it odd that – in the same article that clearly states that GDP data from pre-1971 are simply based on trade – this table creates (source?) data as far back as 1948? Isn’t the rule around here that one should post an intention to delete for a while (say, Aug 17, 2007 to Dec 14, 2007, as I did) to allow counter-comment, and if none arises, to go ahead and delete? -- DOR (HK) Dec 19, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.176.69.125 (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I’ve changed the “colonial” label to “pre-War,” since Hong Kong was still a colony in the periods listed below (1950s, etc). I’ll wait for comment before making a second change, which is to replace “Textile manufacturing in particular, dominated all other sector, serving as the backbone for the entire economy,” in the 1950s to 1960s section with “Trade continued to dominate the economy, but manufacturing – particularly textiles – rapidly rose during this period.” Source: Hong Kong Annual Report 1959, p. 366 Appendix VII and VIII (Direction of Trade – Imports and Direction of Trade – Exports), which show 1957 HK$8.2 billion two-way trade. The earliest GDP figures, from 1961, put the total economy at only HK$7,453 million. The level holds through 1959. In addition, Chapter 3: Occupation, Wages and Labour Organization gives a break-down for estimated occupations that has agriculture and fishing (380,000) exceeding “industrial undertakings” (217,367) on p. 28.DOR (HK) (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC) DOR (HK) Jan 24, 2008.
- I readded the pg number and measurement. It is GDP. If you don't think it is appropriate there are plenty of other charts to replace it with. It will take time to research another, certainly not anytime soon (from me anyways). Others may have something more for you. Benjwong (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I’ve changed the “colonial” label to “pre-War,” since Hong Kong was still a colony in the periods listed below (1950s, etc). I’ll wait for comment before making a second change, which is to replace “Textile manufacturing in particular, dominated all other sector, serving as the backbone for the entire economy,” in the 1950s to 1960s section with “Trade continued to dominate the economy, but manufacturing – particularly textiles – rapidly rose during this period.” Source: Hong Kong Annual Report 1959, p. 366 Appendix VII and VIII (Direction of Trade – Imports and Direction of Trade – Exports), which show 1957 HK$8.2 billion two-way trade. The earliest GDP figures, from 1961, put the total economy at only HK$7,453 million. The level holds through 1959. In addition, Chapter 3: Occupation, Wages and Labour Organization gives a break-down for estimated occupations that has agriculture and fishing (380,000) exceeding “industrial undertakings” (217,367) on p. 28.DOR (HK) (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC) DOR (HK) Jan 24, 2008.
-
-
-
-
-
- I've changed the transition table to reflect the leading role of business services. For some reason, my citation doesn't format correctly, so if anyone would like to help out, here it is -- 1950s to 1970s source is Key Indicators of Developing Asian and Pacific Countries, Vol XXII July 1991, Economics and Development Resource Center, Asian Development Bank, p. 140. And, for the rest of the table, source is Hong Kong Census and Statistics, http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hong_kong_statistics/statistical_tables/index.jsp?charsetID=1&subjectID=12&tableID=035 DOR (HK) (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
I proposed replacing the above table with the following:
The following table indicates real economic growth since comprehensive data first began to be published, and corresponding changes in prices.
| Year | Real GDP | Inflation |
|---|---|---|
| 1962 | 14.16% | 1.99% |
| 1963 | 15.71 | 3.77 |
| 1964 | 8.57 | 5.05 |
| 1965 | 14.49 | 2.52 |
| 1966 | 1.75 | 0.60 |
| 1967 | 1.69 | 6.56 |
| 1968 | 3.39 | 3.35 |
| 1969 | 11.29 | 5.59 |
| 1970 | 9.22 | 8.89 |
| 1971 | 7.16 | 7.65 |
| 1972 | 10.53 | 9.22 |
| 1973 | 12.31 | 14.28 |
| 1974 | 2.28 | 11.70 |
| 1975 | 0.41 | 4.66 |
| 1976 | 16.23 | 9.60 |
| 1977 | 11.80 | 3.73 |
| 1978 | 8.38 | 7.99 |
| 1979 | 11.62 | 17.64 |
| 1980 | 10.34 | 15.49 |
| 1981 | 9.39 | 10.26 |
| 1982 | 2.98 | 11.11 |
| 1983 | 5.92 | 10.00 |
| 1984 | 9.91 | 8.59 |
| 1985 | 0.72 | 3.49 |
| 1986 | 11.04 | 3.60 |
| 1987 | 13.41 | 5.64 |
| 1988 | 8.44 | 7.80 |
| 1989 | 2.22 | 10.29 |
| 1990 | 3.90 | 10.19 |
| 1991 | 5.69 | 11.29 |
| 1992 | 6.09 | 9.58 |
| 1993 | 6.04 | 8.74 |
| 1994 | 6.01 | 8.87 |
| 1995 | 2.29 | 9.01 |
| 1996 | 4.19 | 6.27 |
| 1997 | 5.06 | 5.90 |
| 1998 | -6.03 | 2.83 |
| 1999 | 2.56 | -3.96 |
| 2000 | 7.95 | -3.76 |
| 2001 | 0.50 | -1.58 |
| 2002 | 1.84 | -3.12 |
| 2003 | 3.01 | -2.54 |
| 2004 | 8.46 | -0.40 |
| 2005 | 7.12 | 0.93 |
| 2006 | 6.75 | 2.02 |
| 2007 | 6.0 | 2.03 |
Source: Hong Kong SAR Government Census and Statistics Department (GDP: http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hong_kong_statistics/statistical_tables/index.jsp?charsetID=1&subjectID=12&tableID=032; Inflation: http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hong_kong_statistics/statistical_tables/index.jsp?charsetID=1&subjectID=10&tableID=052). Data for 2007 GDP are average rates for the first three quarters; full year data will be available on February 27, 2008. Pre-1981 inflation data are for GDP deflator.
DOR (HK) (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC) DOR (HK) Jan 28, 2008
-
- Thanks. I have now done so, and also made some revisions to other data following release of fourth quarter and full year economic data. Source: Census and Statistics Department; and Speech by the Financial Secretary , moving the Second Reading of the Appropriations Bill 2008 ‘Supplement and Appendices’, 27 February 2008.DOR (HK) (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Present
It is unclear what point is being made in comparing a city to a continent-sized economy. A more useful comparison would be with New York City, London or even Singapore. --- DOR (HK) 17 Aug 2007
-
- Four months later . . . no comments . . . which should indicate I can delete the garbage, right? Nope. It gets put back in! --- DOR (HK) 19 Dec 2007
-
-
- The sections “Present” and “Future” are so full of POV I don’t know where to start. First, we have the mention of the wealth gap (as if this is the most important subject), but no mention as to why this might be important. Second, the gap is compared to the PRC, which is probably the single most unlikely comparsion that might have been made. Why not Puerto Rico? Third, it blandly states that “financial tycoons” oppose “universal suffrage,” without defining either term or explaining what this has to do with Hong Kong’s economy. As for “Future”, we have a statement that the economic future is “far more exposed to the challenges (?) of economic globalization. This seems to suggest economic globalization is a Bad Thing, rather than being one of the greatest contributors to Hong Kong’s success and prosparity. The absurdity gets worse: How does the only international-class business and financial center on the Asian side of the world suffers from some sort of a geographic disadvantage (1500 km!) vis-à-vis Shanghai? How do we determine that Shanghai has “a municipal government that is capable of turning the city into China's main economic center by as early as 2010” ? Why do we accept that “the target is to allow Shanghai to catch up to New York by 2040-2050,” when such a “target” has never been articulated in any official PRC government document? And, why would that belong in an article on Hong Kong’s economy? And, having raised all this doom and gloom (talk about POV!), we then have this: “Until then, Hong Kong is expected to have higher [than what?] overall economic figures yearly.” Frankly, this is embarassing.--- DOR (HK) 19 Dec 2007
- Please wipe this page clean if you have better data. Just remember almost all data between 1970s and 1997 put Hong Kong in the category of a country of its own. So is natural to make that comparison. However the comparison with other major cities and the end of One country two systems are all common things found in economical sources. It would seem overly optimistic to not mention it. Benjwong (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- The sections “Present” and “Future” are so full of POV I don’t know where to start. First, we have the mention of the wealth gap (as if this is the most important subject), but no mention as to why this might be important. Second, the gap is compared to the PRC, which is probably the single most unlikely comparsion that might have been made. Why not Puerto Rico? Third, it blandly states that “financial tycoons” oppose “universal suffrage,” without defining either term or explaining what this has to do with Hong Kong’s economy. As for “Future”, we have a statement that the economic future is “far more exposed to the challenges (?) of economic globalization. This seems to suggest economic globalization is a Bad Thing, rather than being one of the greatest contributors to Hong Kong’s success and prosparity. The absurdity gets worse: How does the only international-class business and financial center on the Asian side of the world suffers from some sort of a geographic disadvantage (1500 km!) vis-à-vis Shanghai? How do we determine that Shanghai has “a municipal government that is capable of turning the city into China's main economic center by as early as 2010” ? Why do we accept that “the target is to allow Shanghai to catch up to New York by 2040-2050,” when such a “target” has never been articulated in any official PRC government document? And, why would that belong in an article on Hong Kong’s economy? And, having raised all this doom and gloom (talk about POV!), we then have this: “Until then, Hong Kong is expected to have higher [than what?] overall economic figures yearly.” Frankly, this is embarassing.--- DOR (HK) 19 Dec 2007
-
[edit] Intro Needs Work
"The Economy of Hong Kong is widely believed, and some argue incorrectly, to be the most economically free in the world. It has often been cited by economists such as Milton Friedman and the Cato Institute as an example of the benefits of laissez-faire capitalism. While the government, both under British and PRC rule, has occasionally intervened in the economy, the free market policy of Positive non-interventionism espoused by former financial secretary John James Cowperthwaite still largely drives economic policy today. It has ranked as the world's freest economy in the Index of Economic Freedom for 13 consecutive years, since the inception of the index in 1995[1][2]. It also places first in the Economic Freedom of the World Report.
However, critics of the view of Hong Kong as a laissez-faire capitalist state point out several flaws in this view of this region's economy. It is argued that the government has intervened to create economic institutions such as the Hong Kong Stock Market and has been involved in massive public works and extensive social welfare spending. All land in Hong Kong is owned by the government and leased to private users. By restricting the sale of land leases, the Hong Kong government keeps the price of land at what some would say are artifically high prices and this allows the government to support public spending with a low tax rate.[1]"
This doesn't really make any sense. Milton Friedman never said that Hong Kong was a perfect laissez-faire economy. He said it was the MOST laissez-faire. This simply means it is more laissez-faire than other comparable economies. This is an idea that is almost universally supported by mainstream economists(it was even mentioned in my undergraduate textbook). This whole section contradicts itself and doesn't really make a valid point either. Does anyone object to a rewrite of the intro? --Jayson Virissimo 19:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- It does not say perfect laissez-faire economy in the article. Are you reading an old revision? Benjwong 03:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- The problem was that the second paragraph contained a straw-man because it claimed critics disagree with people who believe Hong Kong is a laissez-faire capitalist city. No one ever said it was completely laissez-faire, simply that it was the "most" laissez-faire. I went ahead and fixed the paragraph. If anyone doesn't like the new wording let me know on the talk page. Thanks. --Jayson Virissimo (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Economic Freedom
"The Economy of Hong Kong is widely believed, and some argue incorrectly, to be the most economically free in the world."
This seems extraordinarily POV on a subjective issue. Furthermore a number of respected sources argue it is precisely that... which sources suggest it isn't the most economically free in the world? It isn't perfect laissez faire capitalism and it would certainly be false to assert that, but I'm unsure as to which economy is more free. At any rate unless someone brings up a good argument against such an edit, I intend to change the line to, "The Economy of Hong Kong is widely believed to be the most economically free in the world" in the near future. This statement is objectively true and seems more in line with expert consensus than the current version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.147.228 (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC) No arguements, eill try to find the ref's for the quote. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyone notice that Hong Kong has been on top of the economic freedom tables for longer than Bill Gates was on top of the Forbe's billionaire list? DOR (HK) (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Other economic indicators
I've updated some numbers. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)DOR (HK) Jan 22, 2008.
- I'm curious why we have "Unemployment Rate (high)," but not "Unemployment Rate (low)," and don't have similar data for any other indicators. I should also point out that the maximum annual unemployment rate was 7.9% (2003), not 9.0% (I've made the change) and that the maximum three-months unemployment rate (Hong Kong doesn't do monthly data) was 8.8% (May-July 2003 and again in June-August of that year). DOR (HK) (talk) 06:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC) DOR (HK) Jan 27, 2008
A new table, on price changes. Can anyone with more knowledge than I fix the formatting? Thanks. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
