As Hong Kong advances from stability to prosperity, the demand for human resources increases simultaneously. However, because of a general decline in the population, Hong Kong is witnessing a fall in its student numbers, raising concerns about the sustainability of the labor force. Establishing Hong Kong as an education hub serves as a potential solution.

     The notion of an education hub was initially adopted as a policy concept for reversing cross-border student flows to the West by Malaysia and Singapore. Other countries subsequently established education hubs for various objectives. Scholar Jane Knight divided contemporary education hubs into three categories: student hubs, skilled workforce training hubs, and knowledge and innovation hubs.

     Student hubs focus on educating and training local and overseas students, intending to internationalize domestic education institutions, generating revenue and increasing access to higher education for local students.

     Skilled workforce training hubs build on student hubs but with the overarching goal of developing a skilled workforce and retaining foreign students for career development purposes.

     Knowledge and innovation hubs broaden their mandate beyond education and training to include the production of knowledge and innovation for a knowledge-service-based economy, attract renowned scientists and foreign direct investment, and increase regional economic competitiveness.

     Before establishing itself as an education hub, Hong Kong must define its intended objective: Is it to generate revenue, train and attract talent, or lay the foundation for an innovation-driven economy?

     The central government positions Hong Kong as an international innovation and technology hub, and the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area serves as a corridor for Hong Kong to serve the needs of the country by leveraging its strengths. Moreover, Hong Kong houses internationally prestigious universities, offering high-quality courses in line with international standards, with five universities ranked among the top 100 in the world. With a unique status in the country’s “dual circulation” development pattern and the blessing of multiculture advantages, Hong Kong should embrace its capacity to establish an education hub that pivots toward the functions of a knowledge and innovation hub to fulfil its mission as a creator and disseminator of innovation and technology knowledge, not only to inject impetus into Hong Kong’s economy but also for the development of the country.

     To develop a knowledge and innovation hub, scholars Henry Etzkowitz and Loet Leydesdorff encapsulated different approaches in the Triple Helix framework, analyzing the relationships between government, industry and academia in an education hub.

     The framework can be elaborated in three configurations: statist, laissez-faire and balanced. In the statist configuration, the government leads the collaboration and creates an approving policy environment for industry and academia to achieve its goals. Conversely, intervention by the state is limited in the laissez-faire configuration. The balanced configuration orientates on fostering a more equal partnership between government, industry and academia, in which academia leads in the transition to a knowledge economy. Hong Kong has traditionally adhered to the free-market principle when establishing the education hub, although certain progress has been made, to accelerate the development. Instead of relying predominately on individual efforts, Hong Kong should shift to a balanced configuration, where the government coordinates between industry and academia, connecting specific market demands with corresponding experts, while nourishing a favorable policy environment for businesses and universities to collaborate on their own terms and conditions.

     To achieve this, the government, industry and academia should examine the approaches to internationalization, marketization and privatization of the education hub together, the three macro pillars of any successful education hub. The number of international students studying locally has become an indispensable indicator for aspiring education hubs. In Hong Kong, the quality of teaching, the learning environment and the social and cultural environment are all very suitable for overseas students. At present, the enrollment of nonlocal students in University Grants Committee-funded universities has not reached the 20 percent ceiling, and there are still places in self-financing post-secondary institutions. Hong Kong has endured a steady reduction in the proportion of overseas students enrolling in international schools, from 75.5 percent in 2018-19 to 65.9 percent currently, below the statutory requirement of 70 percent. Thus, there is room to absorb international students into the respective institutions.

     The deficiency of the other pillars might be harmful to the current situation, particularly in marketization, where Hong Kong lacks systemic efforts in promoting the education hub to the world. Singapore addresses marketization not just through institutional branding, but by devising strategies for universities to achieve international rankings. This top-down approach also applies to privatization where public sector universities are “corporatized” and answerable to the government. Malaysia, on the contrary, gives universities relatively free rein to develop, which generates innovative international agreements. Employing the balanced configuration, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government should coordinate a global campaign for the education hub, backed by key performance indicators for universities to enhance international reputations, while offering incentives for industry and academia to collaborate in innovation and technology on their own terms and conditions to avoid excessive intervention.

     In addition, according to scholar Cameron Richards, affordability, infrastructure and quality of education are the key to sustaining the macro pillars of the education hub model. As discussed, Hong Kong offers world-class education and facilities, but affordability remains a potential issue. Because of a land shortage, the inadequacy of student dormitory facilities is the biggest obstacle for institutions to admit nonlocal students. Furthermore, although certain employment regulations were relaxed in 2014, the law still imposes relatively stringent restrictions on nonlocal students being employed, thereby limiting their streams of income, and this may discourage some overseas students from choosing Hong Kong. The government may formulate policies to alleviate some financial burdens for international students, including accommodation, loosening some employment regulations and granting scholarships to those in need.

     To conclude, Hong Kong should embrace its capacity to establish an education hub that pivots toward a knowledge and innovation hub to fulfil Hong Kong’s mission as an international innovation and technology hub, and inject impetus into Hong Kong’s economy. To accelerate the progress, Hong Kong should adopt a balanced configuration, where the government coordinates the industry and academia, nourishing a favorable policy environment for them to collaborate. This balanced configuration also applies to the marketization and privatization of the education hub, where the government should lead a global campaign on the hub while offering incentives for industry and academia to research and develop innovation and technology on their own terms and conditions.

     Lastly, although Hong Kong offers world-class education and facilities, affordability remains a potential issue, the government should formulate policies to alleviate some financial burdens of international students to attract the brightest foreign talents.