01631pab a2200157 454500008004000000100002500040245008000065260000900145300001500154362000800169520114600177650003801323650003401361650002601395773005201421180718b2012   xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d  aCheung, Anthony B.L.  aOne country, two experiences: Administrative reforms in China and Hung Kong  c2012  ap.261-283.  aJun  aNeither Hong Kong nor mainland China is a democracy, yet both have been active administrative reformers, having achieved significant changes but continuing to operate within systematic and institutional constraints, shaped by path-dependence. Within three decades, China has been transformed from a centrally planned economy into a thriving market economy in the name of socialism with Chinese characteristics a form of market authoritarianism. Hong Kong, meanwhile, had prospered as part of the ﾑEast Asia miracleﾒ, and been an enthusiast of public sector reform in the ﾑnew public managementﾒ fashion. Their path and logic of reform have never been entirely straightforward, displaying compromises and uneasy hybrids  (more so in mainland China). Though confronted with rising political challenges to governance, both are arguably still ﾑsuccessﾒ types in their own right. The two reform trajectories have run in arguably totally different political contexts, but there is one similarity - administrative reforms were implemented in an authoritarian setting and had embraced a strong agenda of substituting political reforms. -  aAdministrative reform - Hong Kong  aAdministrative reform - China  aAdministrative reform  aInternational Review of Administrative Sciences