The limited democratization in Hong Kong has been on-going for more than three decades. Unlike typical democratizations as the abrupt breakdown of authoritarian regimes, the case of Hong Kong is characterized by gradual and incremental changes under a constitutional framework. The process, involving actors such as the Chinese government, colonial government, and local democratic forces, provides a wide variety of forms of institutional changes. By utilizing concepts from the literature on institutional change, namely path dependence, layering, and conversion, important junctures of democratization in Hong Kong are analyzed. It is found that the case can be suitably explained by the framework of institutional change. This research carries implications for the study of central-regional interactions, democratization, and Hong Kong politics.
AcemogluDRobinsonJ (2006) Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
BeramendiPRuedaD (2014) Inequality and institutions: The case of economic coordination. Annual Review of Political Science17: 251–271.
3.
CaseW (2008) Hybrid politics and new competitiveness: Hong Kong’s 2007 chief executive election. East Asia25: 365–388.
4.
CheibubJAGandhiJVreelandJ (2010) Democracy and dictatorship revisited. Public Choice143(1): 67–101.
5.
CheungPTY (2012) The changing relations between Hong Kong and the mainland since 2003. In: LamWMLuiPLWongW. (eds) Contemporary Hong Kong Government and Politics, pp. 325–347.
6.
DahlR (1972) Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
7.
EkiertGHansonS (eds) (2003) Capitalism and Democracy in Central and Eastern Europe: Assessing the Legacy of Communist Rule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
FongB (2017) In-between liberal authoritarianism and electoral authoritarianism: Hong Kong’s democratization under Chinese sovereignty, 1997–2016. Democratization24(4): 724–750.
9.
GhaiY (1999) Hong Kong’s New Constitutional Order: The Resumption of Chinese Sovereignty and the Basic Law. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
10.
GoodinR (1996) Institutions and their design. In: GoodinR (ed.) The Theory of Institutional Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–53.
11.
HackerJ (2004) Privatizing risk without privatizing the welfare state: The hidden politics of social policy retrenchment in the United States. American Political Science Review98(2): 243–260.
12.
HallPTaylorR (1996) Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies44: 936–957.
KapsteinEConverseN (2008) Why democracies fail. Journal of Democracy19(4): 57–68.
15.
LevitskySWayL (2002) The rise of competitive authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy13(2): 51–65.
16.
MaN (2013) Negotiating democracy and ‘high autonomy’: The 2010 political reform. In: RayY (ed.) Negotiating Autonomy in Greater China: Hong Kong and Its Sovereign Before and After1997. Copenhagen: Nordic Institute of Asian Studies, pp. 242–268.
17.
MagaloniB (2008) Credible power-sharing and the longevity of authoritarian rule. Comparative Political Studies41(4/5): 715–741.
18.
MahoneyJThelenK (2010) A theory of gradual institutional change. In: MahoneyJThelenK (eds) Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency and Power. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–37.
19.
MinersN (1986) Plans for constitutional reform in Hong Kong, 1946–1952. China Quarterly107: 463–482.
20.
NorthDWeingastB (1989) Constitutions and commitment: The evolution of institutional governing public choice in seventeenth-century England. Journal of Economic History49: 803–832.
21.
PiersonP (1994) Dismantling the Welfare State? Reagan, Thatcher, and the Politics of Retrenchment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
PiersonP (2000a) The limits of design: Explaining institutional origins and change. Governance13(4): 475–499.
23.
PiersonP (2000b) Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review94(2): 251–267.
24.
PrzeworskiAAlvarezMECheibubJALimongiF (2000) Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950–1990. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25.
RezvaniD (2012) Dead autonomy, a thousand cuts or partial independence? The autonomous status of Hong Kong. Journal of ContemporaryAsia42(1): 93–122.
26.
RustowD (1970) Transitions to democracy: Toward a dynamic model. Comparative Politics2(3): 337–363.
27.
SchicklerS (2001) Disjointed Pluralism: Institutional Innovation and the Development of the U.S. Congress. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28.
SewellWH (1996) Three temporalities: Toward an eventful sociology. In: McDonaldTJ (ed.) The Historic Turn in the Human Sciences. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp. 245–280.
29.
SingM (2004) Hong Kong’s Tortuous Democratization: A Comparative Analysis. London: RoutledgeCurzon.
30.
Sing Tao Daily (1992) 25 November.
31.
SlaterD (2010) Altering authoritarianism: Institutional complexity and autocratic agency in Indonesia. In: MahoneyJThelenK (eds) Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency and Power. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 132–167.
32.
StreeckWThelenK (2005) Introduction: Institutional change in advanced political economies. In: StreeckWThelenK (eds) Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–39.
33.
ThelenK (2003) How institutions evolve: Insights from comparative historical analysis. In: MahoneyJRueschemeyerD (eds) Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 208–240.
34.
VogelS (1996) Freer Markets, More Rules: Regulatory Reform in Advanced Industrial Countries. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
35.
WongSHW (2012) Authoritarian co-optation in the age of globalisation: Evidence from Hong Kong. Journal of Contemporary Asia42(2): 182–209.
36.
WongMYH (2014) The politics of the minimum wage in Hong Kong. Journal of Contemporary Asia44(4): 735–752.
37.
WrightJ (2008) Do authoritarian institutions constrain? How legislatures affect economic growth and investment. American Journal of Political Science52(2): 322–343.
38.
ZhangB (2011) Democratizing Hong Kong: Functional representation and politics of institutional change. Pacific Affairs84(4): 643–664.
