The impact of neoliberalism in higher education has been widely discussed and debated, yet most analyses have viewed the changes on university governance and academic work in different countries as slavishly bound by more global neoliberal factors without paying sufficient attention to the local contextual factors. This empirical study foregrounds the local dimension by examining how the actual quotidian effects of RAE 2020 operate within higher education institutions and on working academics in Hong Kong. The paper reports on an interview-based study with 15 education academics from two government-funded universities in Hong Kong. Neoliberal forms of university governance based on a set of RAE-defined performance indicators were identified; academics’ divergent forms of ‘practice of freedom’ in coping with RAE 2020 were delineated. This study discusses why the universities displayed strong ‘reactivity’ to RAE 2020 and explains academics’ practicality and resilience in coping with policy changes by drawing upon Hong Kong's colonial history, government-university relationship and institutional culture in the specific academic environment. This article calls for greater flexibility in assessment regimes to restore trust and autonomy to the professions and development of alternative patterns of academic prestige to elicit a healthy diversity of policy responses. Copyright © 2022 Taylor & Francis.

• The review essay discusses Wing-Wah Law's Politics, Managerialism and University Governance: Lessons from Hong Kong under China's rule since 1997. • The book recounts the rise of managerialism and performativity in Hong Kong's high quality universities, and their enfolding in demands for democratic reforms. • The One Country Two Systems formula,cannot manage a cleavage over national identity and loyalty. • The differences between China and Hong Kong go to the distinction between neo-coloniality and decoloniality and the fundamentals of political culture. • A wholly Western-style university is no longer fully viable in Hong Kong and ways need to be found to develop a more hybrid approach. The review essay introduces and discusses Wing-Wah Law's 2019 book Politics, Managerialism and University Governance: Lessons from Hong Kong under China's rule since 1997, in the context of the position of Hong Kong as a formerly colonised Western enclave within a Sinic political culture, and expands on the associated issues. The book recounts on one hand the rise of managerialism and performativity in Hong Kong's high quality universities, and on the other their enfolding in demands within the Special Autonomous Region for democratic reforms, tending towards independence from mainland China. Issues of corporatism and issues of political stability and control have coincided in disputes over the role and character of the governing councils, over senior appointments, and in relation to the freedoms of faculty and student activists. The One Country Two Systems formula, while broadly implemented, is not infinitely elastic and cannot manage a cleavage over national identity and loyalty. The differences between China and Hong Kong are more deep-seated than a tally of democratic activism and party-state repression would suggest. They go to the distinction between neo-coloniality and decoloniality and the fundamentals of political culture. The review argues that a wholly Western-style university

Set against broader theoretical debates regarding the role of the developmental state in driving social and economic developments in Asia, particularly in higher education and research, the present article critically examines the synergies between government, enterprise and universities in China, in promoting innovation-centric entrepreneurship. The example of Shenzhen, China, including its response to the Greater Bay Area initiative, highlights how new governance modalities have emerged to embrace multiple actors and diverse non-state/non-government sectors in support of innovation-centric entrepreneurial ventures. Our analysis reveals new forms of network governance. These include hybrid organisations that have become more proactively engaged in fostering a spirit of entrepreneurship, including in the higher education sector, albeit against a backdrop of tensions in the mainland governance model, between the drive for innovation and re-assertion of Party control. Copyright © 2019 Association for Tertiary Education Management and the LH Martin Institute for Tertiary Education Leadership and Management.