Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to systematically analyze the neoliberal challenges and problems facing public schools in the particular Hong Kong context.Design/methodology/approach: Based on a systematic and critical analysis on the history and socio-political context of Hong Kong's school policies and practice as well as the official documents and statistics, this paper examines the impacts of neoliberalism in four main aspects of school education in Hong Kong: school governance, accountability, privatization and government expenditure.Findings: Convergence, as well as deviation, on neoliberal globalization occurs in the particular Hong Kong context. School bureaucracy has irresistibly expanded. Policymakers have placed increasing emphasis on instrumentally evaluating schools while decentralizing, diversifying and privatizing education. School leadership has become focused solely on succeeding within those imposed performance management and metrics, pulling ahead of school competitions and prioritizing easily quantifiable and measurable tasks. Teachers have faced a potential threat from the loss of autonomy through the market logic and consumerist metrics. The rise of privatized education has further intensified school practices based on competitiveness and performativity. On the other hand, resource cutbacks and financial constraints – problems that are generally inflicted by neoliberal discourse – have rarely occurred in Hong Kong.Research limitations/implications: This study is part of concerted efforts in research that adopts the comparative and critical perspectives emerging from different social contexts to consider and flesh out how neoliberalism look across the school systems, how it challenges the systems differently, and how it evokes various responses from within the systems (Apple, 2001). Taken all the efforts together, a finely nuanced understanding of the trails of neoliberalism can help collectively re-discover school education as a social good

This article explains why the massification of higher education in Hong Kong has, contrary to the predictions of received wisdom, failed to enhance the upward social mobility of the youth in the city. Building upon recent literature in political science, it argues that massification can take different forms, which in turn determine the effects of massification on various social groups. Through exploring three critical phases in the city’s higher education reform, this article demonstrates how higher education policies have been heavily shaped by the interests of the city’s elites, who, on the one hand, see the expansion of higher education as a solution to such social and economic problems as unemployment and regional integration but, on the other, remain reluctant to increase public spending on the education sector. As a result, higher education has expanded almost exclusively in the private sector. Due to poor planning and implementation, graduates from self-financed programmes are severely disadvantaged in terms of employability, resulting in wage compression and unemployment. The findings of this study shed light on the regressive nature of higher education.
[Copyright © 2015 Routledge.]

University entrepreneurialism has been adopted as a way of promoting quality education in Hong Kong. In light of the role of the state in Hong Kong's changing higher education governance, this article critically reviews the rationale for privatising and corporatising the university sector. With a focus on the current trends of privatisation and corporatisation, the article discusses and examines how the entrepreneurial culture has changed university governance in Hong Kong and whether these changes have boosted Hong Kong's academic diversity, particularly when the Hong Kong government has set as its vision the promotion of the city as a regional hub of higher education.
[Copyright of Asia Pacific Journal of Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02188790701591543]

Hong Kong has undergone a series of educational reforms since the mid 1990s in response to the tidal wave of globalisation. This article tries to examine the recent education reforms in Hong Kong's higher education within the global context, by putting into perspective a discussion of its policy implications of marketisation, privatisation and corporatisation, through the examination of three important dimensions of education governance, namely: regulation, provision and financing. It finally concludes that the higher education governance in Hong Kong is transforming itself with a new state–education relationship under the impact of globalisation.
[Copyright of Globalisation, Societies & Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767720601133504]

It has been a global trend, since the 1980s, that the process of marketisation has been influential in the decision making of social policies around the world, and that this tidal wave is now crossing over to the Asia–Pacific region as well. Education policy, as one of the important social policies for many developing countries, has been influential in the forefront of national development in terms of manpower training, as well as in other arenas of economic and social developments. In this way, these countries are trying to improve the quality of their educational services so that they can be more competitive in order to cater for the demands in the international markets. One of the outcomes of this global trend is the international quality assurance movement in streamlining the educational institutions as well as in using different coping strategies to promote quality education for all concerned. For the Chinese mainland, it seems that the central government is adopting a policy of decentralisation in getting local governments to use multiple channels of resources and other methods to provide for their own educational services. Hong Kong as a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of China, however, has adopted quite a different approach by employing the principle of managerialism in order to enhance its competitiveness in providing quality education to meet the increasing market demands. Hence, the present study is to compare and contrast the educational reforms and coping strategies that have been adopted by the socialist mainland, on the one hand, and the capitalist Hong Kong SAR, on the other hand, in order to face this new challenge of marketisation.
[Copyright of Comparative Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03050060020020417]