Is Hong Kong’s Free Economy a Myth?

Hong Kong has been known as the freest economy in the world.

But skeptics argue that such claims may not be accurate as Hong Kong’s capitalist political economy may have been shadowed by cronyism.

Writes Eddie Leung and Pepe Escobar at the Asia Times,

For the Heritage Foundation is a matter of routine to rank Hong Kong as the freest economy in the world - with a whopping overall score of 89.9 compared with a world average of 59.5. This Milton-Friedmanesque paradise is extolled for "small government, low taxes and light regulation".

Much is made of "business freedom" and "labor freedom". True - you can open a business in three days; you just need a Hong Kong ID, a form and US$350. But depending on the business, you will be squeezed by monopolies and oligopolies in no time. And if you are "labor", chances are in most cases you can only aspire to some sort of glorified slavery.

Heritage researchers may be excused for losing the plot between dinners at the Mandarin Oriental and partying in Lan Kwai Fong, both favored drinking and dining spots near the central business district. Behind all those luxury malls and the best bottles of Margaux, real life Hong Kong has absolutely nothing to do with a free economy encouraging competition on a level playing field. It's more like a rigged game.

The dark secret at the heart of Hong Kong is the unmitigated collusion between the government and a property cartel - controlled by just a few tycoons; the Lis, the Kwoks, the Lees, the Chengs, the Pao and Woo duo, and the Kadoories (more about them on part 2 of this report). These tycoons and their close business associates also happen to dominate seats on the 1,200-member Election Committee that chooses Hong Kong's chief executive…

We should be back again to a Chinese maxim: land is power. All the conglomerates controlled by Hong Kong tycoons are fattened on owning land. The local government is the sole supplier of land. So no wonder it keeps a vested interest in the property market - and that's a huge understatement - as it pockets fortunes from land sales and premiums on so-called "lease modifications".

As for the maxim that prevails across the city's property market cycles, it's always been the same: "Buy low and sell high".

Read the rest here.

Hong Kong has certainly not been an ideal laissez faire economy as no country in this world has been.

But rankings of economic freedom, whether by Heritage Foundation or by the Fraser Institute, has been relatively established and have not been measured on absolute terms.

It is also important to note that for as long as the distribution of any resources are politically determined, the natural outcome will be one of collusion, horse trading, favoritism and corruption.

Virtuous or moral government is an illusion more than Hong Kong’s free economy is a myth.

Government officials are human beings too limited by knowledge problem, cognitive biases, value preferences (determined by education, religion, culture, ideologies, family values and etc…), peer pressure, social standings, career ambitions and etc...

While some of Hong Kong’s wealthiest may have made their fortunes from cronyism (or politicized real estate policies), the above critics who resort to claims of “oligopolies and monopolies” that leads to “high prices land policy” and “glorified slavery” fails to recognize that Hong Kong’s property boom has also been influenced by the US Federal Reserve policies via the US dollar peg.

Also Asia’s increasing social mobility has been an influence to Hong Kong’s property market.

Hong Kong has been the second hottest property market in the world according to MSNBC.com

The growing wealth of mainland Chinese, coupled with China’s property restrictions, has led to an influx of mainland buyers into Hong Kong’s residential market in recent years. According to industry estimates, three in 10 deals in Hong Kong’s luxury property markets are done by mainland Chinese buyers.

Property restrictions too add to the politicization of Hong Kong’s real estate market.

Finally the above authors seem to have misunderstood the meaning of competition by which they ascribe to flawed neo-classical concepts of oligopolies and monopolies through “captive markets” or “limited competition”.

Let me quote the explanation of Austrian economist Dr. George Reisman (bold emphasis mine)

Actual price competition is an omnipresent phenomenon in a capitalist economy. But it is completely unlike the kind of pricing envisioned by the doctrine of "pure and perfect competition." It is not the product of a mass of short-sighted, individually insignificant little chiselers, each of whom acts to cut his price in the hope that his action won't be noticed by any of the others. The real-life competitor who cuts his price does not live in a rat's world, hoping to scurry away undetected with a morsel of the cheese of thousands of other rats, only to find that they too have been guided by the same stupidity, with the result that all have less cheese.

The competitor who cuts his price is fully aware of the impact on other competitors and that they will try to match his price. He acts in the knowledge that some of them will not be able to afford the cut, while he is, and that he will eventually pick up their business, as well as a major portion of any additional business that may come to the industry as a whole as the result of charging a lower price. He is able to afford the cut when and if his productive efficiency is greater than theirs, which lowers his costs to a level they cannot match.

The ability to lower the costs of production is the base of price competition. It enables an efficient producer who lowers his prices, to gain most of the new customers in his field; his lower costs become the source of additional profits, the reinvestment of which enables him to expand his capacity. Furthermore, his cost-cutting ability permits him to forestall the potential competition of outsiders who might be tempted to enter his field, drawn by the hope of making profits at high prices, but who cannot match his cost efficiency and, consequently, his lower prices. Thus price competition, under capitalism, is the result of a contest of efficiency, competence, ability.

Price competition is not the self-sacrificial chiseling of prices to "marginal cost" or their day by day, minute by minute adjustment to the requirements of "rationing scarce capacity." It is the setting of prices perhaps only once a year — by the most efficient, lowest-cost producers, motivated by their own self-interest. The extent of the price competition varies in direct proportion to the size and the economic potency of these producers. It is firms like Ford, General Motors and A & P — not a microscopic-sized wheat farmer or sharecropper — that are responsible for price competition. The price competition of the giant Ford Motor Company reduced the price of automobiles from a level at which they could be only rich men's toys to a level at which a low-paid laborer could afford to own a car. The price competition of General Motors was so intense that firms like Kaiser and Studebaker could not meet it. The price competition of A & P was so successful that the supporters of "pure and perfect competition" have never stopped complaining about all the two-by-four grocery stores that had to go out of business.

I agree that there have been accounts of cronyism in Hong Kong. But Hong Kong’s largely open economy has also been materially influenced by external forces (monetary transmission and mainland immigration and or speculation), focusing on one at the expense of the other only exposes of analytical bias and would signify a big mistake.

Thus to conclude that Hong Kong’s political economy has veered towards an oligarchic-monopolistic environment would “currently” seem exaggerated as there has been little evidence of the deficiency of price competition in the context of the promotion of efficiency, competence and ability.

I say “current” because Hong Kong seems to have taken the slippery slope towards China’s mixed economy (by the introduction of minimum wages) which may change the incumbent political economic setting.

Hong Kong may not be a laissez faire or classical liberal paradise, but relatively speaking, I don’t think that Hong Kong’s free market has been a myth, especially not when compared to the Philippines.