By Lipton Matthews

Bryan Cheang’s Economic Liberalism and the Developmental State is a timely and intellectually daring book that enters the long-standing debate over the East Asian economic miracle with clarity, rigor, and a revisionist sensibility. Rather than choosing sides between neoliberal praise of market freedom and statist acclaim for technocratic planning, Cheang proposes a more careful reading of the historical and institutional differences between Hong Kong and Singapore. His conclusion is arresting: Hong Kong’s relatively laissez-faire colonial legacy fostered a more productive, innovative, and entrepreneurial society than Singapore’s developmental state.

To understand why Hong Kong outperformed Singapore in key areas of long-term development, Cheang begins by reexamining the colonial origins of both city-states. In contrast to post-colonial narratives that treat imperialism as a purely extractive venture, Cheang emphasizes the institutional benefits left behind by British rule—particularly the enforcement of private property rights, legal impartiality, and economic openness.

One pivotal figure in this historical account is Sir Stamford Raffles. Raffles—influenced by liberal Enlightenment ideals—established Singapore as a free port in 1819. His policies were explicitly anti-monopolistic, pro-free trade, and designed to attract a diverse population of merchants and settlers. As Cheang notes, these reforms were not arbitrary but grounded in a vision of economic liberty—a legacy that, for a time, gave Singapore the foundations of market-led development.

However, as the book progresses, it becomes clear that these liberal origins were preserved and expanded in Hong Kong far more consistently than in Singapore. The colonial administration in Hong Kong under figures like Sir John Cowperthwaite actively resisted economic planning, believing the market to be a better allocator of resources. This principled non-interventionism would later define Hong Kong’s economic model.

Building on this institutional foundation, Cheang turns to the role of the Chinese entrepreneurial elite, who flourished in both cities but under very different conditions. In Hong Kong, Chinese business people—many of them migrants........

© Eurasia Review