The Myth of the International City: What Hong Kong’s Lead Reveals About Globalization

Hong Kong has solidified its position as Asia’s most international city, with a widening gap between itself and Singapore. However, beneath this metric lies a complex web of factors that raise more questions than answers about what it truly means to be an “international” city.

The Asian Cities Internationality Index, developed by the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce, has been a benchmark for measuring major Asian hubs’ competitiveness. Critics argue that its methodology and implications are flawed, as it focuses on narrow metrics such as business and economy, human capital diversity, and innovation exchanges. This creates a narrative that reinforces the interests of multinational corporations and wealthy elites.

Hong Kong’s performance in these areas is not surprising, given its history as a British colony and subsequent handover to China. The city’s economic system has been designed to maintain the favor of global investors, with policies prioritizing laissez-faire economics and minimal government intervention. This has created an environment where businesses can thrive, but at the cost of exacerbating income inequality and eroding social cohesion.

A closer examination reveals that Hong Kong’s international credentials come at a significant cost to its residents. The city ranks poorly in cultural interaction, government and legal systems for business, and quality of life. This is not simply a trade-off between economic growth and social welfare; rather, it reflects a fundamentally flawed approach to development.

The Chamber’s chairman, Jacob Kam Chak-pui, credits Hong Kong’s universities and scientific institutions for driving innovation exchanges and attracting top talent. However, this ignores the city’s reliance on cheap labor from mainland China, which has been a key factor in its economic success. The “talent admission schemes” touted by Kam mask the broader issue of how internationalization is often used as a euphemism for exploitation – not just of workers but also of local cultures and environments.

Singapore fares better in some areas but struggles with its own set of challenges. Its focus on technology investment has attracted significant foreign capital, but this comes at the expense of creative industries and small businesses. The rivalry between Hong Kong and Singapore serves to distract from the larger issues facing Asia – namely, the uneven distribution of benefits from globalization and the erosion of national sovereignty.

The index’s fixation on narrow metrics overlooks the changing nature of internationalization in the 21st century. As more countries adopt policies prioritizing domestic development and regional integration, Hong Kong’s model is beginning to look outdated. The city’s inability to adapt to these shifts – evident in its stagnant innovation and ideas scores – raises questions about its long-term viability.

As Asia continues to grow and evolve, it is time for a new approach to measuring internationality that prioritizes human needs and local contexts over the interests of global elites. This requires a fundamental shift in how we think about development – one that recognizes the complexities of cultural interaction, social welfare, and environmental sustainability alongside economic growth.

Ultimately, Hong Kong’s lead in the Asian Cities Internationality Index serves as a warning sign for what happens when cities prioritize globalization above all else. The costs are hidden in plain sight: from exploited workers to eroded local cultures, the consequences of internationalization without accountability are far-reaching and devastating.