A journey outside of one鈥檚 own borders can be a reminder of why certain places function better than others.
During a recent trip to Hong Kong, I met a plethora of civil servants, some politicians and a few businesspeople, all with an obvious interest in the future of that region. My purpose was simple: to get a sense of how the former territory has held up in the face of massive change in China.
In Hong Kong, the pressures of population, pollution and corruption all exist, even though the administrative region is governed by its own partly appointed, partly elected legislature, and it has control over its borders and internal policies.
Some difficulties, such as pollution, are obviously cross-border; that one will only be solved as (mainland Chinese) governments and business hew more closely to the polluter-pay principle, and as technology and regulation advance. Others, such as corruption in China, can be guarded against internally in Hong Kong by keeping its own institutions strong.
In general, the Hong Kong mandarins and politicians I met were remarkably clear and unapologetic about two things: First, they want Hong Kong to stay capitalist. (Imagine a bureaucrat in Ottawa stating that as a goal!) Second, they were determined to ensure the region continues to be governed according to the rule of law.
The clarity in Hong Kong might well result from being next door to China. For example, the Chinese justice system, bureaucracy and, indeed, both government and the private sector, are shot through with corruption and crony capitalism (as opposed to the useful, rules-based and merit-based type of capitalism).
The Chinese problems on such matters result in part because of inadequate attention to the rule of law and to property rights, which are weakly enforced. As evidence, when its legal system and property rights were measured by my colleagues, out of 153 jurisdictions measured by the Fraser Institute鈥檚 Economic Freedom of the World Index, China was in 77th place. (That compares to Hong Kong, higher, at 24th spot, and Canada, at the 11th position.)
The numbers are backed by anecdotes: One Hong Kong businessman told me the most important thing China could do in the near-term is to clean up its corrupt judiciary.
China aside for a moment, here is the other useful thing about travel: a reminder that one鈥檚 own country should not be taken for granted.
While in Hong Kong, I kept up with latest news on the Senate scandal, including RCMP allegations that attempts were made to water down Senate reports on misbehaving senators. While pressuring senators to weaken reports does not rise to the level of a criminal offence, it does reveal a culture tempted to bend 鈥渋n-house鈥� rules to gain partisan advantage or to avoid critical headlines.
Such revelations came out the week I met officials from Hong Kong鈥檚 Independent Commission Against Corruption, an independent investigative body set up in the 1970s to combat corruption then perceived to be widespread in the police, government and business.
The contrast is obvious: Here was Hong Kong, attempting to inoculate itself from lousy governance next door, and yet the temptation to bend the rules is a constant temptation regardless of where one lives.
If the importance of the rule of law seems blindingly obvious, it would be a mistake to think 鈥渙bvious鈥� and 鈥渦nlikely to happen鈥� are the same thing. (Think of all the graft uncovered in Quebec鈥檚 construction and municipal governments this year.)
One critical difference between a well-functioning city-state on the periphery of East Asia, or a country like Canada, or China, is the degree to which rules are predictable and enforced. Obvious or not, those tempted to bend or break the rules should recall such distinctions, as should the rest of us.
Mark Milke is a senior fellow with the Fraser Institute.
