Executive-Legislative Disconnection in the HKSAR: Uneasy Partnership Between Chief Executives and Pro-Government Parties, 1997–2016

  • Brian C.H. FongEmail author
Part of the Studies in the Political Economy of Public Policy book series (PEPP)


Since the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) on 1 July 1997, “governance crisis” has become the most popular term used by local politicians and academics to describe the politics of post-colonial Hong Kong. If “governance” is defined as “the capacity of government to make and implement policy” (Pierre and Peters 2000: 1), then it is obvious that Hong Kong is experiencing a general decline in the quality of governance under Chinese sovereignty: The HKSAR Government has appeared to be incapable of assembling a stable legislative majority for its policy initiatives and in face of criticisms and challenges from the Legislative Council postponement, and even withdrawal of legislative proposals is not uncommon (SynergyNet 2014, 2012).


  1. Ames, Barry 2001. The Deadlock of Democracy in Brazil. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blondel, Jean, and Maurizio Cotta. 1996. Party and Government: An Inquiry Into the Relationship Between Governments and Supporting Parties in Liberal Democracies. New York: St. Martin’s Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cheibub, Jose Antonio. 2007. Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cheung, Anthony B. L. 2002. “The Changing Political System: Executive-dominant Government or ‘Disabled’ Governance?” in Siu-kai Lau (ed.), The First Tung Chee-hwa Administration, Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, pp. 41–68.Google Scholar
  5. Cheung, Anthony B. L. 2007. “Executive-led Governance or Executive Power “Hollowed-out”-The Political Quagmire of Hong Kong.” Asian Journal of Political Science, 15(1): 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheung, Anthony B. L. 2010. “Restoring Governability in Hong Kong: Managing Plurality and Joining Up Governance,” in Anthony B. Julia Tao, L. Cheung, Martin Painter, and Li Chenyang (eds.), Governance for Harmony in Asia and Beyond, New York: Routledge, pp. 158–185.Google Scholar
  7. Lane, Jan-Erik. 2000. The New Institutional Politics: Performance and Outcomes. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lau, Siu-kai. 1999a. “The Making of the Electoral System,” in Hsin-chi Kuan, Siu-kai Lau, Timothy Ka-ying Wong, and Louie Kin-Sheun (eds.), Power Transfer and Electoral Politics: The First Legislative Election in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, pp. 3–35.Google Scholar
  9. Lau, Siu-kai. 1999b. “From Elite Unity to Disunity: Political Elite in Post-1997 Hong Kong,” in Gungwu Wang and John Wong (eds.), Hong Kong in China: the Challenges of Transition, Singapore: Times Academic Press, pp. 47–74.Google Scholar
  10. Lau, Siu-kai. 1999c. “The Rise and Decline of Political Support for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government.” Government and Opposition, 34(3): 352–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lau, Siu-kai. 2000. “The Executive-dominant System of Governance: Theory and Practice,” in Siu-kai Lau (ed.), Blueprint for the 21st Century Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, (in Chinese). pp. 1–36.Google Scholar
  12. Lau, Siu-kai. 2002. “Hong Kong’s Partial Democracy under Stress,” in Yue-man Yeung (ed.), New Challenges for Development and Modernization: Hong Kong and the Asia-Pacific Region in the New Millennium, Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, pp. 181–205.Google Scholar
  13. Li, Pang-Kwong. 2001. “The Executive-Legislature Relationship in Hong Kong: Evolution and Development,” in Y.S. Cheng Joseph (ed.), Political Development in the HKSAR, Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong, pp. 85–100.Google Scholar
  14. Lijphart, Arend. 1984. Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-one Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Lijphart, Arend. 2008. Thinking About Democracy: Power Sharing and Majority Rule in Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Ma, Ngok. 2007a. Political Development in Hong Kong: State, Political Society and Civil Society. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Ma, Ngok. 2007b. “Political Parties and Elections,” in Lam Wai-Man, Percy Luen-tim Lui, Wilson Wong, and Ian Holiday (eds.), Contemporary Hong Kong Politics: Governance in the Post-1997 Era, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, pp. 117–134.Google Scholar
  19. Milner, Helen V. 1997. Interests, Institutions and Information: Domestic Politics and International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Pierre, Jon, and B. Guy Peters. 2000. Governance, Politics and the State. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
  21. Saiegh, Sebastian M. 2004. Government Defeat: Coalitions, Responsiveness, and Legislative Success, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Politics, New York University.Google Scholar
  22. Samuels, David. 2003. Ambition, Federalism and Legislative Politics in Brazil. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Scott, Ian. 2007. “Legitimacy, Governance and Public Policy in Post-Handover Hong Kong.” Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 29(1): 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shull, Steven A. 2006. “Enduring Rivals: Presidential Success and Support in the House of Representatives.” Congress and the Presidency, 33(2): 21–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sing, Ming. 2002. “Legislative-Executive Interface in Hong Kong,” in Christine Loh and Civic Exchange (eds.), Building Democracy: Creating Good Government for Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, pp. 27–34.Google Scholar
  26. Sing, Ming. 2009. “Hong Kong at the Crossroads: Public Pressure for Democratic Reform,” in Ming Sing (ed.), Politics and Government in Hong Kong: Crisis Under Chinese Sovereignty, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, pp. 112–135.Google Scholar
  27. South China Morning Post. 2016. Five Reasons the Hong Kong Copyright Bill Failed. Hong Kong. March 4.Google Scholar
  28. SynergyNet. 2012. Review of the Governance Performance of the HKSAR Government 2012. Hong Kong: SynergyNet.Google Scholar
  29. SynergyNet. 2014. Review of the Governance Performance of the HKSAR Government 2014. Hong Kong: SynergyNet.Google Scholar
  30. Tsebelis, George. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. New York: Russell Sage; Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Xiao, Weiyun. 2001. One Country, Two Systems: An Account of the Drafting of the Hong Kong Basic Law. Beijing: Peking University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Academy of Hong Kong StudiesThe Education University of Hong KongTai PoHong Kong

Personalised recommendations