Hong Kong is China’s global science gateway – but it may not remain so

China’s latest “Two Sessions” – the annual meetings of the National People’s Congress and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference – once again highlighted Beijing’s determination to strengthen science, technology and higher education as engines of national development.

The events, which took place earlier this month, resulted in pledges to increase research investment, support for world-class universities and cultivation of high-level scientific talent. This all underlines China’s well-known ambition to become a global scientific powerhouse.

Yet one important contributor to achieving that ambition lies partly outside mainland China’s university system. Hong Kong’s universities – including the University of Hong Kong, the Chinese University of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology – continue to operate in a separate policy and regulatory framework even as collaboration with the mainland increases in projects such as the Greater Bay Area initiative to streamline links between Hong Kong, Guangdong and Macao.

There was a time, not so long ago, when Hong Kong universities far outperformed their mainland counterparts. Their English-language research environment, international faculty and long-standing partnerships with institutions in North America, Europe and Asia enriched their campuses and enhanced their research performance. Now, Peking and Tsinghua (12th and 13th respectively) significantly outrank the territory’s most prestigious institution, the University of Hong Kong (33rd in Times Higher Education’s latest World University Rankings). And mainland universities as a whole have expanded rapidly in funding, infrastructure and research output over recent decades, making China one of the world’s leading producers of scientific knowledge.

But this picture of China’s rapid rise overlooks a crucial point. Scientific leadership today is not defined only by domestic capacity: it also depends on how deeply a system is embedded in the global knowledge networks that shape access to collaboration, participation in global research agendas and reputational legitimacy. Even highly capable national systems risk losing competitiveness if they become disconnected, if only partially, from international knowledge flows.

That is why, at a time when geopolitical tensions are increasingly shaping international scientific collaboration, Hong Kong’s status as a bridge between China and the West may become more strategically important than ever.

It is true that Hong Kong’s higher education system is small; a handful of universities cannot act as literal intermediaries or brokers between China and the wider world. But Hong Kong’s significance should not be measured in scale. In global science, influence often derives from network position rather than size. By virtue of signalling ongoing openness and international engagement, Hong Kong’s universities can reassure their own international partners that collaborating with the wider Chinese system is not as risky as they – and, especially, their governments – might otherwise assume.

Of course, signalling openness alone may not fully overcome security concerns, especially in a limited number of sensitive research areas. But in most fields, where risks are less acute, perceptions and institutional credibility still matter a great deal. In that sense, signalling – if backed by consistent practices – can help sustain confidence and keep collaboration viable.

Up to a point, that signalling is louder if Hong Kong universities are seen as part of the Chinese system, in the sense that they can thereby project themselves as representatives of a benign whole. In addition, from China’s perspective, deeper integration with mainland China is desirable because it can strengthen regional innovation by linking research with industrial capacity.

On the other hand, Hong Kong’s global gateway role also depends on what demonstrably distinguishes it from the mainland: institutional autonomy, internationally recognisable governance practices and unrestricted openness to global collaboration. The more Hong Kong converges with mainland models, the greater the risk that it loses this distinctiveness – and with it, its strategic importance to China.

Even if Hong Kong’s universities retain autonomy in practice, their global position depends heavily on international perception. As doubts grow about the durability of the “one country, two systems” framework, questions have arisen about the territory’s academic freedom and research governance. And that has led to increasing concern that collaborating with Hong Kong may not only pose reputational concerns but also run up against regulatory constraints – such as export controls, data restrictions and research security regulation – and other practical barriers to joint research and mobility, such as visas and compliance bureaucracy.

Competition from alternative East-West hubs – particularly Singapore – is intensifying. At the same time, geopolitical tensions are making international collaboration in general more selective and cautious. If Hong Kong is perceived as losing its openness, global partners will not wait for clarity. They will shift elsewhere – and once collaboration networks move, they are difficult to rebuild.

What is at stake extends beyond Hong Kong. It reflects a wider challenge for higher education globally: can universities remain internationally connected while operating within increasingly nationalised and geopolitically contested systems?

Whether Hong Kong can sustain that role depends on how integration with China is managed. This includes maintaining transparent governance practices, protecting institutional autonomy in research and sustaining openness in faculty recruitment and collaboration. Conversely, moves that reduce procedural transparency, constrain academic exchange, or align too closely with more restrictive mainland models may undermine international confidence.

If this balance can be achieved, Hong Kong will remain a critical gateway in a fragmented global knowledge system. If not, its role will diminish – not because it no longer matters to China but because the global system will move on without it.

Futao Huang is a professor in the Research Institute for Higher Education at Hiroshima University, Japan.