香港融入國家發展大局是一國兩制的應有之義，也是特區發展的新空間、新動力的關鍵所在。行政長官李家超親自督導香港融入國家發展大局的大計，制定和推行各項政策措施，包括主動對接國家十四五規劃、粵港澳大灣區和一帶一路高質量發展等國家戰略，為香港注入新的發展動能。
特區政府已在內地設立了5個辦事處及11個聯絡處，一直與內地各省、市、自治區政府保持緊密溝通，致力促進兩地高質量發展。香港融入國家發展大局，首先要融入粵港澳大灣區；要融入粵港澳大灣區，首先要與深圳深度融合發展。
深圳與香港地緣相近、人緣相親， 兩地關係密切。兩個城市有不同的歷史背景和特定的比較優勢。如果作非常概括性的簡單比較，兩個城市的差異可作如下分析。
體系、發展、整體和區域規劃異同
在比較優勢方面，在一國兩制下，香港享有高度自治，實行原有的法律制度和司法體系，享有獨立的財政、貿易和金融政策。香港是以普通法為基礎的自由港，與國際發達國家接軌程度高，成就了國際金融、貿易中心的地位。深圳基於特殊政策，被賦予經濟特區、計劃單列市等特殊地位，發展迅速，成就顯著，如今創科產業實力雄厚。
在人口結構方面，香港主要以本地居民為主，新移民佔總人口比例不足15%；深圳則是移民城市，人口組成中超過84%是外來人。香港已進入老齡化社會，深圳則是年輕城市。
香港長期奉行「大市場、小政府」模式，近年積極向「有為政府、高效市場」模式轉變；深圳實行政府主導模式，與香港相比，政府政策的影響力、執行力仍較強。
從區域發展方面，香港傾向由特區政府主導區域的規劃和發展；深圳則更敢於讓企業主導，例如南山區的發展主要由招商局和南油營運管理。
香港開埠至今的發展歷程，通常被形容為「被動地迎接發展機遇」；反觀深圳，自改革開放至今，憑着「敢闖創新、先行先試」的精神，深圳主動抓住發展機遇。
筆者有大膽構想，如果將香港和深圳合併，港深在經濟社會發展具有強烈的互補性，這也是主張港深融合發展的重要理論基礎。
創雙城特區 固港深融通
筆者建議，港深兩地可沿深圳河兩岸，即羅湖、文錦渡、蓮塘／香圍園口岸一帶，建設「深港深度合作發展區」，進行聯動開發「一河兩岸」、「一區兩府」的專區，運用「雙飛地」和「雙總部」概念，利用兩地緊貼的地理空間、制度優勢，創造一個橫跨深港的「雙城特區」。
在「雙城特區」內，內地居民進區不出境；香港居民和外國公民進區不離境。進駐「深港深度合作發展區」的內地、香港和海外企業，可同時設立兩地銀行賬戶，包括人民幣、港幣、外幣賬戶，在預先審核的對內地投資額度內，實現資金自由兌換及跨境進出，實行「雙總部」設置。跨國企業亦可將不同部門，按其功能特徵，在區內設置辦公處所。
以上安排，讓香港部分地域變成深圳的「飛地」，同時讓深圳部分地域變成香港的「飛地」。當然，兩地「雙向飛地」的管轄權、規劃權、稅務分成等問題可待進一步研究探討。
在「雙城特區」內，人員、車輛、貨物、資金、訊息、數據、人才、技術、生物製品等要實現自由流通，ICQS（出入境、海關、檢疫、安檢）跨境安排須力求簡化便捷，為跨境深度合作提供政策保障，打造得天獨厚的新型經濟生態圈。
目前，粵港澳大灣區有四大合作平台，分別是前海、橫琴、南沙和河套，各有不同的發展定位、治理模式和重點產業。設置「深港深度合作發展區」，將鞏固港深融通，促進大灣區成為我國開放程度最高、經濟活力最強的區域之一。
原刊於《文匯報》，本社獲作者授權轉載。
HK-Shenzhen integration should be deepened by a twin-city special zone
The central government has repeatedly emphasized that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’s integration into national development is not only a natural extension of the “one country, two systems” framework but also the key to unlocking new directions, new spaces, and new momentum for the city’s future socioeconomic development.
Since late 2022, Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu has personally overseen Hong Kong’s efforts to align with national plans, including the 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-25), the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, and the Belt and Road Initiative. These efforts have injected fresh impetus into Hong Kong’s development.
The HKSAR government currently operates five offices and 11 liaison units across the Chinese mainland, maintaining close ties with provincial and municipal governments to promote high-quality regional and national development. But to truly integrate into the national agenda, Hong Kong must first deepen its integration into the Greater Bay Area; and within the Greater Bay Area, its closest partner is Shenzhen.
Hong Kong and Shenzhen share geographic proximity and cultural affinity. Yet their development trajectories and institutional frameworks differ significantly, offering fertile ground for complementary collaboration.
The economic systems of the twins are distinctive — with Hong Kong operating under a capitalist free-market economy while Shenzhen features a socialist market economy.
Under the “one country, two systems” framework, Hong Kong retains its common law legal system, independent Judiciary, and autonomous financial and trade policies. Meanwhile, Shenzhen benefits from its status as a national special economic zone and enjoys policy flexibility as a coastal city with direct land border access to Hong Kong, which, in my opinion, demonstrates the institutional advantages of the duo working together.
In terms of demographics, the two cities complement each other. The HKSAR is predominantly a city of locals with less than 15 percent of its population being new immigrants, while Shenzhen is famous for being a “city of newcomers”, with over 84 percent of its population being migrants from elsewhere in the country. The two cities also differ in their age profiles: Hong Kong is aging while Shenzhen is youthful.
Regarding governance philosophy, Hong Kong practices “small government”, whereas Shenzhen’s “big government” model allows for stronger policy execution. Thus, the two uphold different philosophies in pursuing development. The former’s growth has historically been reactive, shaped by external opportunities. The latter, by contrast, has pursued proactive innovation and reform since the establishment of the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone in 1980.
A comparative analysis of GDP structures between Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and Singapore shows that a combined Hong Kong-Shenzhen economy closely resembles that of Singapore. This economic complementarity forms a solid theoretical foundation for deeper integration.
To capitalize on this synergy effect between the neighboring cities, the author proposes the creation of a “Hong Kong-Shenzhen Deep Cooperation Development Zone” along both banks of the Shenzhen River, encompassing the Lo Wu, Man Kam To, and Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai border areas. This zone would be jointly developed under the concept of “one river, two banks; one zone, two governments”.
Mainland residents would enter this envisioned zone without formally exiting the mainland, and Hong Kong residents and foreign nationals would similarly enter without leaving Hong Kong. Companies could register dual entities — one in Shenzhen and one in Hong Kong — each with accounts in renminbi, Hong Kong dollars, and foreign currencies. This arrangement would allow pre-approved cross-border capital flows and currency exchanges, facilitating outbound and inbound investments.
Multinational corporations could allocate different departments across the two jurisdictions based on functional needs, optimizing operational efficiency.
This model effectively transforms parts of Hong Kong into enclaves of Shenzhen, and vice versa. While jurisdictional, planning, and tax-sharing issues require further study, the concept opens the door to unprecedented cross-border collaboration.
The zone would enable seamless movement of people, vehicles, goods, capital, data, talent, technology, and even biological materials. Simplified ICQS (immigration, customs, quarantine, and security) procedures would ensure efficient cross-border operations.
This “brackish water” institutional ecosystem — where two systems meet and blend — could foster a unique economic biosphere.
The Greater Bay Area currently features four major cooperation platforms: Qianhai, Hengqin, Nansha, and Hetao. Each has distinct strategic roles, governance models, and industrial focuses.
The proposed Lo Wu/Northern Metropolis zone would become the fifth cooperation platform, complementing the existing four and collectively driving the Greater Bay Area toward becoming a world-class bay area economy.
原刊於英文版《中國日報》，本社獲作者授權轉載。
