Made in Hong Kong: Transpacific Networks and a New History of Globalization

Studies of the Weatherhead East Asian Institute, Columbia University

by Peter E. Hamilton

Between 1949 and 1997, Hong Kong transformed from a struggling British colonial outpost into a global financial capital. Made in Hong Kong delivers a new narrative of this metamorphosis, revealing Hong Kong both as a critical engine in the expansion and remaking of postwar global capitalism and as the linchpin of Sino-U.S. trade since the 1970s.

Peter E. Hamilton explores the role of an overlooked transnational Chinese elite who fled to Hong Kong amid war and revolution. Despite losing material possessions, these industrialists, bankers, academics, and other professionals retained crucial connections to the United States. They used these relationships to enmesh themselves and Hong Kong with the U.S. through commercial ties and higher education. By the 1960s, Hong Kong had become a manufacturing powerhouse supplying American consumers, and by the 1970s it was the world’s largest sender of foreign students to American colleges and universities. Hong Kong’s reorientation toward U.S. international leadership enabled its transplanted Chinese elites to benefit from expanding American influence in Asia and positioned them to act as shepherds to China’s reengagement with global capitalism. After China’s reforms accelerated under Deng Xiaoping, Hong Kong became a crucial node for China’s export-driven development, connecting Chinese labor with the U.S. market.

Analyzing untapped archival sources from around the world, this book demonstrates why we cannot understand postwar globalization, China’s economic rise, or today’s Sino-U.S. trade relationship without centering Hong Kong.

Genres: History, China, Nonfiction

440 pages, Hardcover

Published January 5, 2021

Reviews

[Cornelius]

This monograph demonstrates that “the origins of today's gargantuan Sino-US trading relationship lie in older pre-1949 histories of transpacific circulation that survived transplantation to Hong Kong and then expanded over the Cold War” (p. 265).

After the Second World War, the decaying British Empire was dismantled, and Hong Kong was no exception. It was decolonized in all but name, with the United States as the facilitator. British control of Hong Kong was merely a veneer, skin deep. Capital and trade opportunities mainly came from the US. Those who still believed Britain retained any meaningful prestige were living in a dying fantasy, and those who aligned themselves with Britain would find they had bet on the wrong horse.
The collapse of the Nationalist government led to the flight of Chinese elites who already had strong links to the US. Some were naturalized Americans, while others had attended American universities or universities funded by the Americans. They had forged formidable transpacific networks that ultimately defined modern Hong Kong.

Using publicly available but previously ignored records, the author convincingly supports his thesis. His account of the history of the second university in Hong Kong is absolutely revelatory. He shows how it was funded by the US Government (including the State Department and the CIA) and was quintessentially a product of the Cold War. Likewise, the numerous Christian missionaries operating in Hong Kong also had a decidedly political bent. The stories behind great American oil companies investing in Hong Kong’s electricity supplier and the largest housing estate at the time are fascinating in their own right.

The social capital (i.e., the connections between the America-affiliated Chinese elites and America, and those among themselves) that the book laboriously, if not tediously, describes sometimes resembles good old cronyism. Some practitioners were frequently self-serving, hypocritical, and morally questionable. While these connections helped Hong Kong tap into the lucrative American markets (e.g., toy manufacturing and container shipping) and spurred its rise, the accompanying wanton and rampant neoliberal capitalism inevitably fomented inequity, discord, and discontent.
This transpacific connection fostered Hong Kong into a truly international city. It also became its raison d’être. It played a pivotal role in “incorporating mainland China into Hong Kong’s networks after the reopening of Sino-U.S. trade in 1971” (p. 214). Hong Kong’s business elites helped China gain access to the US and, subsequently, global markets. China also needed the know-how to modernize and increase productivity. The book clearly shows how China relied on Hong Kong to implement its modernization at the time. However, it can be argued that it also led to the turmoil in China in the late eighties.

I grew up in Hong Kong in the eighties and witnessed its rise and opulence (some would say decadence). This book makes what I saw make sense. It is revisionist. It shatters the myth of Britain being the foundation of modern Hong Kong. It also indirectly points out that modern Hong Kong is a product of its time and contingent upon the vagaries of geopolitical trajectories. Four stars.

[Yunling]

了解到香港，原來受美國，影響這麼深。

第一章 華人以協力外商、跨商、聯姻爲主要爬升手段。唐炳源家族，利用資本人脈逃到香港，南洋紗廠，與日本協力，追求海外教育。美國的加州淘金熱。陳光甫，上海商業儲蓄銀行，示範現代銀行與紡織業在上海、天津的關係密切。利舜英，利希慎鴉片和地產商的女兒，嫁給美國史迪威，利用婚姻打入白人優勢的社會。

第二章 美國基督教對香港的影響。北角衛理堂。透過宗教教育加速美國文化推展，以全球資本主義體系爲重鎮。

第三章 香港教育的國際參與。歐偉國建設崇基，得到美國的大力資金。新亞書院則不是基督徒，錢穆、盧鼎，得美資金但未干涉。浸會書院等難民學校得林子豐之力，美國和華人浸信會的支持，傳教意味重。

第四章 李卓敏與香港中文大學，跨商的競爭，使其排名往前。

第五章 1960年，香港製造業興起，匯豐渣打也水漲船高。沈熙瑞，第一位華人董事總經理。
李震之崇英，唐家崇美；台灣聯亞是唐驥千來台與李國鼎談的。

第六章、第七章：利豐集團。

第八章：現在的情況，中國共產的廵禮。

第九章 ：東方的熱內亞～

[anchi]

作者是香港嶺南大學歷史系的助理教授，譯者也對相關問題有所研究，我個人覺得本書讀來非常像學術研究，因此不太適合像我這種入門級別的讀者閱讀，再加上我對於書裡提及的諸多人名不慎熟悉，因而讀得很慢。整題來說，書裡聚焦在討論港美跨太平洋網路對於香港近代的發展，若對於香港近代史有興趣且有基礎知識的讀者可以嘗試看看。