Conceptions of 'soft' and 'hard' policy are now commonly discussed in the policy literature concerned with multi-level systems of governance (Abbott et al., 2000; Torenvlied et al., 2004; Cini, 2001; Hertin et al., 2003; Koulaimah-Gabriel et al., 1997). Such conceptions have been useful ways of delineating different incentives, pressures and motivations for policy implementation. On the one hand implementation can be directed by legislation and regulatory monitoring with the possibility of sanctions for non-compliance ('hard' policy) or it can come in the form of recommendations, education campaigns and strong advocacy ('soft' policy). The application of these conceptions to education policy making is relatively new (Fok, Kennedy and Chan, 2005; Chan, Kennedy and Fok, 2005). It is clear from this work that the concepts of 'hard' and 'soft' policy are useful in understanding aspects of education policy implementation by focusing on the nature of policy and its potential to influence subsequent implementation outcomes. It is equally clear that some adaptation needs to be made to the original meanings underlying these constructs if the full potential of the ideas are to be exploited. The purpose of this paper is to reinterpret the meanings of 'hard' and 'soft' policy with reference to particular case studies of curriculum reform and in particular to focus on the Hong Kong context that provides a unique set of influences governing both curriculum policy and its implementation.

It is common in times of restraint for governments to look for areas to reduce expenditure and balance budgets. Policymaking in most Western countries over the past two decades has been strongly influenced by expenditure reduction strategies as a means of rendering the public sector more efficient as well as reducing its size. In addition, “small” government has become a mantra in contexts where free market economics has been adopted as the guiding economic ideology. Such an approach to policymaking views expenditure as a cost, a balanced budget as evidence of prudent financial management, and the reduced size of government as a public good. It has not been uncommon in many countries for educational expenditure to be reduced in recent times or for private sources of funding to replace previously public funded education. This paper will argue that recent developments in theories of economic growth suggest that such a strategy is likely to be counterproductive. What is more, the identification of the role education can play in economic policy is not inconsistent with broader social policy objectives. To achieve both sets of objectives, education needs to be seen as an investment rather than a cost. It not only adds value to human capital, as suggested in traditional human capital theory, but it also contributes directly to economic growth by producing new knowledge and innovation that fuels technological change. Without such change, “new economies” will neither develop nor grow. The conditions under which education can contribute to economic growth in the “new economy” will also be explored in this paper since education needs to be accompanied by appropriate external conditions. There is no a consensus concerning these conditions among economists, but from an educational perspective, teachers, the school curriculum and the structure of the education system itself are important areas to consider. Each of these will be reviewed in light of the potential role they can play

Policy-making can be viewed as a process of social construction, with policy issues and solutions based on different policy-makers' definitions of, and the claims they make about, social problems. This process of "claims-making" can in turn be viewed as a process of persuasion, convincing others that a particular definition of a problem and a particular solution is valid. In this respect, the process of persuasion in policy-making can in turn be seen as containing the elements of argumentation and evidence. This paper attempts to account for Hong Kong citizenship education policy-makers' use of evidence, argument, and persuasion in promoting their version of policy solution for their definition of a social problem. Specifically, it compares arguments made by legislators and government officials in 1990 and 1997 Education (Amendment) Bill debates over the restriction and control over political education in Hong Kong's schools.