One country with two systems: The characteristics and development of higher education in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area

The paper situates the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area (GBA) within the global context of prominent bay areas (San Francisco, New York, Tokyo) whose higher education (HE) sectors have advanced through collaboration and integration. Following Hong Kong and Macau’s return to China and subsequent regional policies, notably the 2019 Outline Development Plan for the GBA and the 2020 Plan for HE Cooperation, the GBA aims to become a world-class city cluster and an international hub for talent and innovation by 2035. The GBA’s distinct configuration—'one country, two systems', with 'three customs territories' and 'three legal systems'—creates unique complexities for HE integration. Existing scholarship on HE in the GBA is mostly in Chinese and lacks empirical depth. This study addresses three research questions: What are the characteristics of HE in the GBA? What challenges does it face? How might it develop? It contributes empirical evidence through policy/literature review and interviews with academics and managers across the region.

The review contrasts the GBA with other major bay areas. While the GBA is largest by area (≈56,098 km²) and population (≈86.17 million), it lags on tertiary industry share (66.1%) and GDP per capita (US$23,116) compared with San Francisco, New York, and Tokyo. Other bay areas host clusters of elite universities (e.g., Stanford/UC Berkeley; Ivy League; University of Tokyo). In the GBA, five Hong Kong universities ranked in QS Top 100 (2021). The development trajectory of the GBA dates to proposals in the 1990s, with milestones including the 2017 Framework Agreement and the 2019 Outline Plan. China’s broader regional integration experiments (Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei; Yangtze River Delta; Chengdu-Chongqing) provide policy precedents. Two theoretical lenses frame HE regionalisation: Knight’s FOPA model (functional, organisational, political approaches) and the Triple Helix (university-industry-government). FOPA emphasises cooperative mechanisms (mobility, QA platforms, agreements) and multilevel governance; Triple Helix highlights innovation roles of universities within regional ecosystems, exemplified by Silicon Valley’s university-industry-government interactions. These frameworks inform analysis of the GBA’s HE development under its unique institutional arrangements.

A qualitative design combined documentary analysis and semi-structured interviews. Documentary sources comprised 92 texts (municipal, regional, national) from official websites (State Council, Ministry of Education, Guangdong Provincial Government, Hong Kong SAR, Macau SAR). Approximately two-thirds focused on HE, innovation hubs, and talent development. A systematic Chinese-language literature search in CNKI (CSSCI) since 2019 identified 493 records containing 'GBA'; 90 concerned HE; 65 included both 'HE' and 'GBA' for full-text review; and 20 with 'HE' and 'university' were included for focused analysis. Additional sources were drawn from Google Scholar and university libraries. Sixteen academics/managers across Guangdong, Hong Kong, and Macau were interviewed (7 female, 9 male), using snowball and purposive sampling with maximum variation in roles and locales. Interviews were conducted face-to-face in participants’ mother tongue between July 2021 and January 2022, lasting 40–70 minutes, focusing on personal experiences and perceptions rather than institutional-level data. Transcripts were translated to English and thematically analysed using Nvivo following stages of familiarisation, inductive coding, theme review, and definition. Three themes and thirteen codes emerged, capturing the characteristics and challenges of HE development in the GBA.

Three major, interrelated themes emerged: - HE within one country and two systems: The GBA’s coexistence of 'one country, two systems', 'three legal systems', and 'three customs territories' creates complex conditions for HE integration. Governance, autonomy, funding, and cultural-identity differences persist among Guangdong (lower university autonomy; government-dependent funding) versus Hong Kong and Macau (higher autonomy; mixed funding; higher tuition). Strengthening shared cultural identity and aligning policies are necessary to deepen cross-border HE cooperation. - Imbalanced profile in quality and quantity of HE provision: HE resources are uneven. Guangdong Province has 154 HEIs, of which 127 are in the 9 mainland GBA cities; Hong Kong has 22; Macau has 10. Within cities, distributions vary (e.g., Guangzhou 82, Shenzhen 8). Five QS Top 100 universities (2021) are in Hong Kong; none in Guangdong or Macau. Guangdong benefits from integration with manufacturing/IT industries but has lower internationalisation than Hong Kong/Macau. Key node cities (e.g., Zhaoqing, Jiangmen, Zhongshan) lag behind core cities (Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Hong Kong, Macau) in HE investment and research infrastructure. - Progressing partnerships from co-operation to strategic co-ordination to resource sharing: Cross-border HE collaboration has evolved from informal, project-based cooperation to more standardised, policy-supported coordination and resource sharing. Examples include CUHK-Shenzhen and joint PhD programmes (e.g., SUSTech-HKUST; SUSTech-University of Macau). The Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau University Alliance (est. 2016) grew to 40 member universities by 2021 (24 Guangdong, 9 Hong Kong, 7 Macau) and launched 11 professional associations to pool research and internationalisation strengths. Policies envisage initial integration of industry-education by 2025, with increased cross-border co-authorship and research collaboration aligning with the region’s innovation strategy. Overall, the GBA’s multi-core model leverages complementary strengths to build a world-class HE and innovation cluster.

The findings address the research questions by showing that the GBA’s HE development is shaped by its unique institutional pluralism and uneven resource distribution, while demonstrating a trajectory toward deeper, more structured regional collaboration. The 'one country, two systems' arrangement creates both barriers (legal, customs, currency differences; cultural/value divergences; varied autonomy and funding) and opportunities (policy frameworks; complementary strengths across cities). The imbalance in institutional capacity and internationalisation underscores the need for targeted strategies to uplift non-core cities and leverage Hong Kong’s research excellence for regional benefit. The evolution from informal cooperation to policy-enabled coordination and resource sharing illustrates maturation toward a regional HE system consistent with Knight’s FOPA model—combining functional mechanisms (mobility, joint programmes; QA), organisational arrangements (alliances; cross-border campuses), and political instruments (plans, agreements). In line with the Triple Helix, stronger university-industry-government linkages—especially leveraging Shenzhen’s technology ecosystem—are pivotal to transforming HE collaboration into innovation outputs. Lessons from the EU (e.g., funding incentives like Erasmus and multi-country consortia) suggest that strategic frameworks and financial 'carrots' can accelerate cross-system alignment in the GBA despite governance differences.

This study synthesises empirical evidence on the characteristics, challenges, and developmental trajectory of HE in the GBA. It identifies the region’s distinctive cross-system context, significant imbalances in HE capacity and quality, and a clear movement from ad hoc cooperation toward strategic coordination and resource sharing via alliances, joint programmes, and cross-border campuses. The paper highlights the necessity of integrating functional, organisational, and political approaches to build a world-class, multi-core HE cluster that supports the GBA’s ambition as an international hub for talent and innovation. Policy implications include enhancing university autonomy where appropriate, harmonising cross-border procedures, incentivising collaborative research and mobility, and deepening Triple Helix interactions to align HE with industrial and societal needs. Future research should track the effectiveness of policy instruments, the impact of alliances on research and talent outcomes, the diffusion of internationalisation beyond core cities, and the long-term realisation of the GBA’s innovation-centre goals.

The study relies primarily on qualitative data and documentary analysis, with interviews of 16 academics/managers focusing on individual perceptions rather than institutional performance metrics, which may limit generalisability. Much of the reviewed literature is in Chinese, and English-language scholarship on the topic remains limited. Documentary analysis largely covers the period 2019–2021, so subsequent policy changes may not be captured. The cross-sectional design does not measure longer-term outcomes of HE initiatives in the GBA.