Cross-border healthcare: analyzing the phenomenon of Hong Kong residents seeking care in the Greater Bay Area in Mainland China

Hong Kong used to be a destination for higher-end healthcare for many Chinese Mainland residents (Ye et al., 2012, 2013). In recent years, however, the reverse flow of Hong Kong residents traveling to the Mainland, especially to neighboring cities in the Greater Bay Area (GBA) for healthcare services has become increasingly noticeable. Ever since the lifting of pandemic travel bans, this trend has become very prominent with Hong Kong residents traveling to Shenzhen not only for leisure on the weekends but also for various types of healthcare services. Receiving healthcare services in the Chinese Mainland was once confined to emergencies and low-cost alternatives for the low-income, has now become a regular practice for many. While this may initially seem incidental, it actually highlights deeper systemic issues within Hong Kong’s healthcare sector, and such developments could have far-reaching implications for Hong Kong residents’ healthcare accessibility as well as health services development in the GBA.

This article explores the motivations and implications of cross-border healthcare utilization by Hong Kong residents. It first examines the Hong Kong healthcare system as well as the system in the Mainland side. Three key areas where this phenomenon is most evident — dental care, long-term care, and expensive drugs — are analyzed. Other healthcare services in GBA that are also getting popular with Hong Kong residents include health check, non-urgent radiography, endoscopy, and aesthetic medicine. By examining both “push” factors from within Hong Kong’s healthcare system and “pull” factors offered by services across the border, this research aims to uncover not only the immediate drivers of such phenomenon but also the broader policy implications for Hong Kong and the rest of the Greater Bay Area.

Hong Kong’s healthcare system operates on a dual-track model, comprising a heavily subsidized public sector and a privately funded alternative. The public healthcare system is dominated by the Hospital Authority (HA), overseeing over 90 percent of hospital beds and delivers 30 percent of outpatient services in Hong Kong. Primarily funded through general taxation, public hospital services are available at highly subsidized rates — approximately HK$120 per inpatient day — rendering public healthcare services highly affordable to the majority of the population. The private sector delivers around 70 percent of outpatient visits, and around 10 percent of inpatient services, financed mostly privately by out-of-pocket payments and private health insurance (Yuen, 2014).

Despite being one of Asia’s most developed economies, Hong Kong is facing structural challenges in its tax-funded public health infrastructure. While the government is committed to Universal Health Coverage, the public system, in recent years, has struggled to meet the growing demand in light of a rapidly ageing population and the proliferation of new drugs and new health technologies. Long waiting times for specialist consultations and elective procedures have become commonplace. For instance, the median waiting times for joint replacement surgery could exceed 56 months in some New Territories clusters (Hospital Authority, 2025a). Additionally, limited public provision for essential services — such as dental care and high-cost life-saving medications — has caused hardship for many (SCMP, 2020).

The situation is further worsened as the territory faces ongoing budget deficits since the COVID-19 pandemic, with the 2024-2025 fiscal year projected to exceed HK$85 billion in deficit (HKSAR Budget, 2025). A shrinking labour force further undermines the sustainability of the current tax-based model, raising concerns about the long-term viability of health financing in the city. Public dental clinics, for instance, offer only emergency extractions and pain relief care with limited quotas to the general public (Chu et al., 2013; HKU Faculty of Dentist, 2024). Many high-cost cancer drugs are designated as “self-financing drugs” in public hospitals, requiring the patient to bear the full cost unless their income qualifies them for charitable funding schemes such as Samaritan Fund (SF) and Community Care Fund (CCF) (Hospital Authority, 2025b; Social Welfare Department, 2025). Long-term care is also plagued by multi-year waitlists, and poor-quality care in many residential care institutions (Yuen, 2014).

Mainland China’s healthcare system has undergone rapid transformation in the past two decades. Through the introduction of universal basic insurance schemes — the Urban Employee Basic Medical Insurance (UEBMI), Urban Resident Basic Medical Insurance (URBMI), and the New Rural Cooperative Medical System (NCMS) — over 95 percent of the population now has some form of medical coverage (Zhang and Yuen, 2016; Huang and Gan, 2017). Pilot programmes for long-term care (LTC) insurance have also been launched in 49 cities, including Guangzhou in the GBA, supporting institutional and home-based care for elderly residents (Luk et al., 2022; Cousins, 2025). While benefit levels and service quality vary by region, the massive scale of the system produces significant cost advantages. The Mainland healthcare system has rapidly expanded in both scale and sophistication. Supported by state and big corporate investment, and a massive domestic market, Mainland providers are increasingly able to offer high quality services at a fraction of the cost found in Hong Kong’s private sector. These advantages are further reinforced by infrastructure improvements and policy developments that support regional integration across the GBA.

The Greater Bay Area (GBA) initiative, launched by the State Council of the People’s Republic of China in 2019, to enhance economic and social integration across 11 cities — including Hong Kong, Macao, and key Mainland cities like Guangzhou and Shenzhen — presents a unique opportunity for regional health cooperation (Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, 2018). Shared infrastructure and geographical proximity offer fertile ground for cross-border service provision. The area has a world-class intra-region infrastructure that supports the concept of a “one-hour living circle”, with efficient transit options such as superhighways, bridges, high-speed trains, and airports.

GBA has a population of over 86 million, with a GDP of RMB14 trillion, and has an economic output that surpasses that of Australia. The healthcare sector has experienced rapid growth in recent years, with the number of outpatient visits reaching 652 million and inpatient visits 14 million in 2023 (PwC and The GBA Healthcare Group, 2024).

In terms of healthcare infrastructure, cities in GBA such as Shenzhen have a growing number of high-end hospitals, some of them with dedicated VIP wings catering to affluent or cross-border patients. The streamlined border controls further facilitate access for Hong Kong residents, many of whom live less than an hour away from these Shenzhen health facilities.

However, integration is not without barriers. Licensing and credentialing of medical professionals differ across jurisdictions. Financing models are incompatible: Hong Kong public healthcare providers receive block-grants from the government where “money does not follow the patient”, while in the Mainland providers receive income mainly from the social insurance reimbursement and patient copayment. Governance, legal liability, quality assurance, and data interoperability all pose practical and political challenges.

Nevertheless, isolated schemes suggest that pragmatic cooperation is possible. For example, many Mainland hospitals now accept Hong Kong private medical insurance; Elderly Health Care Vouchers (EHCV) for Hong Kong elderly residents are also accepted in 19 major hospitals and clinics in GBA cities designated by the Department of Health (2025); some Mainland licensed healthcare professionals are also able to work in Hong Kong operating under special GBA licensing arrangements; and some Hong Kong non-governmental organizations (NGOs) also operate care homes in GBA. But overall, policy harmonization remains limited and fragmented.

The following sections examine the factors in Hong Kong and in GBA that led to the current growth in cross-border healthcare consumption.

This research adopts a push-pull framework to conceptualize why Hong Kong residents seek care across the border. “Push” factors include the gaps in public sector service coverage and high cost of private healthcare in Hong Kong. “Pull” factors encompass lower prices, faster access, and good customer service provided by healthcare facilities in some GBA cities. Similar studies have been carried out by Wang et al. (2025) investigating cross-border healthcare seeking behavior from Myanmar to China, and internal migration of elderly within China by Gu et al. (2022). Other studies conducted in Denmark and Poland have also employed the push-pull framework to examine the factors influencing destination choices for acquiring health services abroad (Lokdam et al., 2016; Godlewska et al., 2023).

This dynamic development is especially visible in three domains: dental care, long-term residential care, and costly pharmaceuticals. The following sections examine in greater detail the push and pull factors in these three areas. The discussion section analyzes the deeper policy implications associated with these developments.

Dental care: Notwithstanding that Hong Kong has one of the best dental schools in the world (QS, 2025), dental care in Hong Kong remains one of the most underserved components of its healthcare system. The extensive public hospital network providing health services to its residents does not include regular dental services. Government subsidized dental clinics offer only emergency procedures — typically pain relief and tooth extractions (Department of Health, 2024). Even these limited services are delivered with tight quotas and long queues, making them inaccessible to many residents in practice. Normal dental care such as check-ups, scaling, fillings, and more complex procedures like root canals, dental prosthetics and implants are generally excluded from public provision. As a result, residents must turn to private practitioners, where fees can be prohibitively high (Kong and Wong, 2024). According to multiple media reports and policy briefings, a root canal in a private Hong Kong clinic may cost between HK$30,000 and HK$50,000. The extraction of a wisdom tooth — one of the most common procedures — can range from HK$8,000 to HK$10,000, not including consultation, X-rays, or medications (Navigator Insurance, 2025). These costs are rarely covered by private insurance.

This scarcity of affordable dental care is a clear “push” factor driving patients to seek treatment in Shenzhen. Across the border, public and private dental providers offer a full range of services, often at less than one-tenth the cost. For example, media reports reveal that the root canal procedure in Shenzhen may cost approximately RMB4,000 (around HK$4,300), while comprehensive treatment packages — including consultations, imaging, and post-op medication — can be completed within a single visit. Basic scaling is available for RMB180 to 500 per session, and dental fillings range from RMB300 to 1,500 depending on materials and complexity (Vickong Dental, 2025).

In addition to affordability, Shenzhen offers greater service availability and convenience. Clinics often have extended opening hours and short appointment wait times. Some clinics employ Cantonese-speaking staff and accepting mobile payment platforms commonly used in Hong Kong. Given the geographical proximity — less than an hour’s travel from most areas in Hong Kong — and efficient border infrastructure, accessing dental care in Shenzhen is relatively frictionless.

Long-Term Care (LTC): The provision and financing of long-term care (LTC) services in Hong Kong are facing serious problems. Community long-term care is provided predominantly by NGO’s receiving funding mostly from Government, supplemented by donations and users’ fees. As for residential care services, they are delivered by a mix of NGO’s and private providers. Some NGOs receive heavy subsidies from Government, covering almost full operating expenses, capital costs and the provision of premises. Many NGOs and private providers operate on a self-financing basis. Government also has a programme to subsidize residents to stay in privately run facilities, known as the “bought place scheme”. In general, the quality of care is higher in government subsidized homes than the self-financing homes. However, over 70 percent of the homes are privately operated, and waiting time for a place in a subsidized home is long (Yuen, 2014).

As the population ages rapidly — with nearly more than 36 percent of the population projected to be aged 65 or above by 2046 (Census and Statistics Department, 2023) — the demand for residential and community-based elder care has far outpaced the city’s capacity to supply it. Despite the government’s commitment to “ageing in place”, Hong Kong still faces huge shortage of both subsidized and private home care options.

As of 2023, Hong Kong had approximately 79,100 residential care places. Of these, 41 percent were directly subsidized by the government operated either by subvented social organizations or certain private care homes subsidized via Enhanced Bought Place Scheme (“EBPS”) and RCS Voucher Scheme, while 58 percent were in private homes where fees must be paid entirely out-of-pocket (LegCo, 2024). Demand far exceeds supply: over 40,000 individuals remain on waiting lists for subsidized care homes. The average wait time ranges from 29 to 41 months, and an estimated 5,000 people die each year before securing placement. The availability of community-based services, such as home care packages, is equally strained, with over 10,000 people on waitlists and an average waiting time of 13 months (LegCo, 2024).

Quality is another critical concern. Many private LTC homes operate with minimal oversight and face chronic shortages of trained personnel. Limited floor space, low wages for care workers, and outdated facilities further compound the challenges. The situation is unsustainable, both economically and morally, and has created a compelling “push” factor for families seeking timely, affordable, and decent care for ageing loved ones (Law and Fong, 2022).

Increasing numbers of Hong Kong residents have turned to options in Shenzhen and other nearby cities within the Greater Bay Area. The “pull” factors here are clear: lower land costs, lower labour costs, and growing availability of modern facilities. Some Hong Kong-based NGOs have even begun operating or co-managing care homes in Shenzhen, offering culturally familiar environments and bilingual staff tailored to the needs of elderly Hong Kong residents (LegCo, 2024). Many families have found this option both economically viable and emotionally acceptable, particularly when compared to the uncertainty and delay associated with waiting for local subsidized care.

One early mover is the Hong Kong Jockey Club–funded residential facility operated by the Hong Kong Society for Rehabilitation in Yantian, Shenzhen. The home provides nursing care, rehabilitation services, and social support at rates far below those charged in Hong Kong’s private market (Hong Kong Society for Rehabilitation, 2025). A recent government initiative, the Residential Care Services Scheme in Guangdong (GDRCS) allows Hong Kong elderly on the waiting list for subsidized care in Hong Kong to opt for designated care homes in Guangdong. This scheme provides monthly subsidies to eligible low-income elderly who opt to retire in Guangdong and reside in designated facilities. The number of homes participating in the GDRCS has increased, with places available in Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Foshan, Zhongshan, Zhaoqing, and Jiangmen (LegCo, 2025).

Furthermore, with the introduction of long-term care insurance pilot programmes in cities like Guangzhou, it has boosted the supply of long-term care services throughout the Mainland (Luk et al., 2022).

The growing trend of seeking LTC in the Mainland is likely to accelerate, especially in the absence of major reform within Hong Kong’s own long-term care financing and delivery systems. This reflects a broader failure in policies and planning on the part of Hong Kong to match financing and service provision with demographic realities.

Expensive cancer drugs: Among the most financially devastating gaps in Hong Kong’s healthcare system is access to lifesaving but expensive cancer drugs. Recent years have witnessed a concerning surge in cancer diagnoses in Hong Kong, underscoring a growing public health crisis (Hong Kong Cancer Registry, 2023).

While public hospitals provide diagnosis and treatment for most conditions under a highly subsidized model, certain categories of expensive medications — particularly targeted therapies for cancer and rare diseases — fall under the “self-financing drug” list. These medications are not covered by the government and must be paid for entirely out of pocket, unless patients qualify for charitable assistance through schemes like the Samaritan Fund or the Community Care Fund. Self-financed cancer drugs in Hong Kong can be as high as HK$270,000+ per month for one patient. Without additional financial support, it has been estimated that nearly 50 percent of patients may be unable to afford these treatments (Legco, 2019).

This exclusionary structure creates a heavy burden for many families, especially those who fall into the so-called “missing middle”: individuals whose incomes are too high to qualify for charity support but who lack the financial means or private insurance coverage to pay for the treatment, often for an indefinite period. As of 2024, over 32,000 patients in the Hospital Authority system were using self-financing drugs, incurring an estimated collective out-of-pocket expenditure exceeding HK$1.1 billion annually (Lo, 2024).

Faced with such costs, many patients and their families are increasingly looking across the border for more affordable options. The Mainland Chinese pharmaceutical market offers a clear “pull” factor. Leveraging its vast population size and centralized purchasing system, China is able to negotiate significantly lower prices for drugs manufactured overseas (Zhu et al., 2019). Additionally, the emergence of competitive domestic pharmaceutical companies has resulted in lower-cost, bioequivalent alternatives to brand-name treatments. Media reports and case studies have highlighted stark price differentials. For example, a lung cancer drug priced at over HK$40,000 per cycle in Hong Kong may cost less than one-third that amount in Shenzhen. In many instances, identical brand-name medications are available at pharmacies in the Mainland for a fraction of the price charged in Hong Kong. For patient’s ineligible for Hong Kong’s limited subsidy schemes, this pricing gap can mean the difference between getting the necessary medicine and forgoing treatment (SCMP, 2020). There have been calls for the Hospital Authority to purchase these expensive drugs from the Mainland using the Mainland price. However, in view of the “One Country Two Systems” principle, so far not much progress has been made.

Many hospitals in the Mainland, apart from treating patients under the basic medical insurance schemes, offer higher-end services via their “international departments” or “VIP clinics”, providing nicer amenities, shorter waiting times, multilingual staff, and streamlined services aimed at medical travelers from Hong Kong. In some cases, patients report completing diagnostic tests, purchasing medication, and receiving follow-up care all in a single trip.

However, this form of cross-border medicine raises important governance questions. At present, there is no formal mechanism for Hong Kong government to subsidize the care received outside Hong Kong (apart from a limited amount from the EHCV scheme), nor are there systems in place to ensure continuity of care or pharmacovigilance for drugs obtained outside Hong Kong. While the authority does permit the import of certain medications with documentation for personal use, such cross-border care remains largely individual patient-driven and unregulated.

Meanwhile, Hong Kong’s middle-class residents also express concerns about the quality of healthcare services in the Mainland, viewing them as less favorable compared to those in Hong Kong. Many in this demographic feel uncertain about navigating the different healthcare systems, which can create discomfort and hesitance. Negative portrayals in local media, such as reports about the overuse of antibiotics and a lack of patient-centered care, contribute to these perceptions. As a result, even when they have private healthcare insurance that could cover treatments in the Mainland, many middle-class residents prefer to return to Hong Kong for medical attention (Yan and He, 2023). This tendency suggests that their concerns about service quality may outweigh financial considerations. Ultimately, perceptions of quality and safety play a crucial role in shaping the healthcare decisions of Hong Kong’s middle class when it comes to seeking services in the Mainland.

Nonetheless, the overall trend of cross-border healthcare is expected to continue — if not expand — particularly as high-cost, precision medicine becomes more central to cancer treatment. For thousands of cancers and rare disease patients, Shenzhen is not merely an affordable alternative; it is a lifeline.

The following sections discuss the broader underlying systemic problems in Hong Kong that contribute to the above developments and propose possible way forward.

A failing tax-based Universal Health Coverage System: Hong Kong claims to have Universal Health Coverage for its residents, and the frequently used official phrase that “no one is deprived of medical care because of lack of means” is actually written in the law (Hospital Authority Ordinance 1990, Section 4(d)). Analyses above show serious inadequacies in the area of dental care, long-term care and expensive drugs. Population ageing and the proliferation of new drugs have exacerbated the problems. While Hong Kong has one of the highest per capita GDP in the world and spends close to 10 percent of its GDP on healthcare (Health Bureau, 2024), it seems unacceptable that so many Hong Kong residents are denied of the needed care in these three areas.

A closer examination suggests that there are major structural deficiencies in Hong Kong’s healthcare financing system. The current system is flawed with allocative inefficiencies and X-inefficiencies, which could account for, to a large extent, government’s inability to find sufficient resources to fund these needed services. Allocative Efficiency means putting resources in areas that bring the most benefits, while X-efficiency means using the resources allocated in a most effective manner. There is plenty of evidence of both allocative inefficiencies and X-inefficiencies in the Hong Kong public healthcare sectors. Regarding allocative efficiency, it is generally accepted that government spending in primary healthcare is highly cost-effective. In Hong Kong, however, the government underspent significantly in primary care when compared to other high income country groups. The average percentage of government spending on primary care in 2022 for high income country group was 36 percent, while Hong Kong government’s percentage was only 17 percent, less than half of what other countries are spending (Hanson et al., 2022; Health Bureau, 2024).

In 2022-23, the Hong Kong government spent HK$150.7 billion on healthcare, with 56.1 percent of government’s health dollars spent on hospital services, while spending on ambulatory care and residential long-term care were only 8.2 percent and 10.2 percent respectively. One study found that 46.8 percent of all public hospital admissions were found to be of ambulatory care sensitive conditions (Our Hong Kong Foundation, 2021) which could be treated on an outpatient basis at a much lower cost. Treating this huge number of patients who do not need to be hospitalized is extremely wasteful. Treating these patients on an outpatient basis will save money, manpower, and space. The savings could be diverted to deliver more needed care including dental care, long-term care and expensive drugs.

X-efficiency is the organizational inefficiency mostly due to lack of competition and poor incentive structure. Regarding X-efficiency, the block grant funding system to public hospitals in Hong Kong does not promote X-efficiency. In Hong Kong, a budget, mostly historical based, is given to public hospitals at the beginning of the year, regardless of demand or performance. Money does not follow patients. In fact, under this system, good services that can attract more patients are not given more resources. On the other hand, poor services that deter patients from the hospital are not penalized, as the hospital gets to keep the funding already allocated. There are no incentives for public hospitals to be efficient. One of the results of such system is long waiting time for non-urgent conditions. For example, in 2023-24, the median waiting time for joint replacement in Hong Kong public hospitals ranges from 9 to 52 months (Hospital Authority, 2025a), while the OECD average for hip replacement was 3.7 months (OECD, 2023), despite the fact that public hospitals in Hong Kong already receive the lion share of public healthcare resources from government. This inefficiency is pushing many Hong Kong residents to cross the border to seek care. Shenzhen and other GBA cities, on the other hand, offer short waiting times, dramatically lower costs, wider service coverage, good customer service, and modern infrastructure. It is not surprising that the GBA healthcare system is becoming a de facto extension of care for those whom Hong Kong’s system cannot adequately serve (Zhou and Wang, 2024).

Two major structural reforms are badly needed in Hong Kong to address the above-mentioned inefficiency problems and to better make use the opportunities available in the GBA.

Centralize health governance and funding: To solve the problem of allocative inefficiency, the current silos of different public funded services need to be broken down, and resources centralized to allow a gradual shift of resources from the Hospital Authority to the other less expensive and more effective providers. A central Health Authority should be created to take over the services currently controlled by different bodies — Hospital Authority, Department of Health, Primary Health Commission, Elderly care section within the Labour and Welfare Bureau — putting prevention, early detection, ambulatory services, hospital services, and long-term care under a single body. This body will have full government authority, own all of those facilities, employ all of the staff in those facilities, and provide funding. Only then, can resources be deployed away from acute care facilities to primary care and long-term care in an orderly and gradual manner. This move should result in huge savings, which could be used to fund the currently underfunded services.

Separate financing from provision: Currently the Hospital Authority is responsible for both financing and provision of hospital services. Under this block-grant model, “money does not follow the patient”, and those who seek care elsewhere must bear the full financial burden —even when this approach may reduce system-wide costs or improve health outcomes. While there are talks about more strategic commissioning of services, the current financing structure only allows such practices to happen at the margin, mostly for new services with very limited impact on the overall cost. To have a major impact on costs, even core services should be subjected to outsourcing. Private providers in Hong Kong can provide services to eligible Hong Kong residents at an agreed rate. Public hospitals will not be given a block grant at the beginning of the year, and they have to compete amongst themselves and with private hospitals in Hong Kong or in GBA for patients. They will first have to deliver the services to patients and get reimbursement subsequently. Public hospitals that are unable to attract enough patients will go out of business. Patients will be empowered to choose providers. Money follows patients. The newly created Health Authority will establish a unit to purchase services. All hospitals and clinics, public and private, become providers that have to earn income after delivering services. X-efficiency should go up significantly under this system.

A cross-border regulatory and governance framework needs to be set up: A formal policy framework should be established to integrate, orchestrate, harmonize, and regulate all providers who wish to participate in cross-border care between Hong Kong and other cities in the GBA. Similar models exist in the European Union, where citizens can receive care in other member states with reimbursements processed through structured agreements (European Commission, 2025). This framework could involve:

• ‐ Creating a registry of GBA providers eligible to treat Hong Kong residents

• ‐ Mutual recognition of medical credentials and facility standards

• ‐ Bilateral agreements on malpractice liability and dispute resolution

• ‐ Cross-jurisdiction data exchange with privacy protection for continuity of care

• ‐ Agreements on the metrics for evaluating quality, accessibility, and efficiency for all participating providers

The growing trend of Hong Kong residents seeking healthcare services in Mainland China —particularly for dental care, long-term residential care, and expensive cancer drugs — reflects a critical and structural development in the region’s healthcare landscape. Far from being an isolated or temporary phenomenon, cross-border healthcare has emerged as a practical, rational response to persistent gaps in Hong Kong’s health system, particularly in areas where services are either inaccessible, unaffordable, or unavailable altogether.

These policy innovations align directly with the strategic goals of the GBA initiative: intra-regional cooperation, resource optimization, service integration, and mutual benefit. Health should be recognized as a key dimension of social infrastructure integration within the GBA development framework, positioned alongside finance, technology, and human capital to support broader welfare ambitions (Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, 2019; Pang, 2022). A regionally integrated, patient-centric model of healthcare planning would not only serve Hong Kong residents more effectively but also reinforce the GBA as a platform for innovation and public goods delivery.

The existing cross-border institutional developments — such as the University of Hong Kong–Shenzhen Hospital — demonstrate viable models for public–private partnerships that deliver healthcare across the Hong Kong-Mainland boundary (Wang et al., 2020). Regulatory gap analyses further underscore the necessity of coordination in provider accreditation, financing alignment, and data interoperability to realize meaningful integration (Wu, 2025).

As the GBA continues to evolve into an economic powerhouse with a highly connected and interdependent components within the region, health policymakers must begin to treat cross-border healthcare seriously. Only with appropriate institutional reforms in Hong Kong and the establishment of a proper cross-border healthcare framework, can Hong Kong transform patient mobility into a source of relief for its strained healthcare system, and the region transforming itself into a world-class medical hub, benefiting the people of Hong Kong and the GBA and beyond.

This paper forms part of a special section “Special Issue on Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (GBA) in China: building a world-class finance, innovation and technology hub”, guest edited by Prof Roger C.K. Chan, Prof Peter K.W. Fong and Dr Alice Y.C. Te.