Beijing’s Great Hall of the People is again in the spotlight as this year’s two sessions get underway. This year’s meetings coincide with the opening of the 15th Five-Year Plan (2026-30) period. They have set the growth target for 2026 and are endorsing the development blueprint that will guide policy through 2030.

Against this backdrop, the challenge for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is to clearly define and proactively communicate how it will leverage its unique strengths to advance national development goals, particularly in innovation and improving livelihoods.

The new national blueprint, which is expected to be adopted by the end of the two sessions, seeks to promote high-quality development in the country with concrete and actionable policies. For Hong Kong, it is vital to correctly interpret how the plan guides the city’s evolving role in supporting the nation’s modernization.

Over the past decade, China has been shifting from the old model of growth to a more sustainable one, with an increasing emphasis on high-quality development. What is emerging now is a new stage of high-quality development that puts new quality productive forces, innovation and security alongside employment, income growth and stronger safety nets at the center, backed by stronger policies and institutions. 

In that context, the draft 15th Five-Year Plan puts new quality productive forces at the center of its agenda, bringing together advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence, green technologies and digital infrastructure, which will be woven into a coherent strategy that couples technological upgrading with improvements in jobs, public services and social protection that people feel in education, healthcare and elderly care.

The Government Work Report delivered by Premier Li Qiang on Thursday has set China’s 2026 GDP target at 4.5 percent to 5 percent, sending an important signal about how Beijing balances ambition with realism. But the real signal lies in how fiscal, financial and regulatory tools are deployed to support the new priorities. Rather than relying on broad stimulus, policymakers are likely to focus on targeted fiscal measures, more refined industrial policies, and more efficient channels to direct capital into strategic sectors that can lift productivity and household incomes together.

A central pillar of this strategy is the drive to build a unified national market. By cutting back overlapping rules, reducing local protectionism and aligning data regulations, the objective is to increase productivity without dulling competition or innovation. At the same time, the familiar call to “prevent and defuse risks” is evolving from a defensive slogan into a guiding principle for the behavior of local governments, financial institutions and enterprises as they cope with debt, an aging population and expectations for better services.

From Hong Kong’s perspective, the city’s success has relied on its ability to serve as a bridge between the Chinese mainland and the rest of the world, channeling capital, information and talent in both directions. But that role is evolving. It is no longer simply about connecting markets; increasingly, Hong Kong is expected to translate national priorities into projects, platforms and financial structures that are intelligible and attractive to global investors. Under the emerging policy playbook, the bridging function is being upgraded. Achieving those targets will require patience, long-term capital, more sophisticated risk-management tools and clear rules of engagement. These are widely regarded by global investors as Hong Kong’s core strengths — complemented by deep and liquid capital markets, world-class professional services, and a legal system that international investors recognize and trust.

Hong Kong must treat the outcomes of the two sessions as an actionable plan and take concrete steps to play an essential role in national development by turning headline strategies on innovation and risk management into visible improvements in work, income and public services

As the central government stresses the importance of managing risks in a more volatile global environment, the emphasis is increasingly on building systems that can identify, price and distribute those risks transparently across the market. For Hong Kong, this presents an opportunity to look beyond a narrow focus on initial public offerings or fund inflows, and instead position itself as a testing ground for financial instruments that underpin the new growth model. Green and transition finance, for example, can help direct capital toward decarbonization, energy efficiency and low-carbon infrastructure.

Bonds can finance a wide range of investments across industrial, commercial, and strategic development initiatives. Insurance and reinsurance mechanisms can distribute climate, supply chain and technology risks across multiple institutions, rather than concentrating them on a single balance sheet. At the same time, robust dispute resolution frameworks give cross-border investors greater assurance that, should difficulties arise, they will have both reliable market access and clear legal recourse.

This aligns closely with what is needed to support national planning and the themes of the two sessions. If China wants growth that is more innovative and less fragile, it will need stronger mechanisms to understand and distribute risk. The HKSAR is well placed to do that work — but only if it aligns its priorities with the direction set at the national level.

The Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area is the obvious testing ground. As the 15th Five-Year Plan pushes for deeper integration and a more unified domestic market, the region can serve as a pilot zone for crossborder capital flows, data use and professional services. For Hong Kong, this involves developing a clearer understanding of its role, including how to finance housing, health, and eldercare projects that matter to residents on both sides of the border.

The Northern Metropolis is a good example of how the city can align with national goals in innovation, advanced manufacturing, and logistics, enabling the city’s regulatory strengths and Shenzhen’s tech ecosystem to work together. Cross-boundary wealth management, insurance and fintech programs can be calibrated to support households and institutions that want to invest in “new quality productive forces” sectors and in initiatives that raise living standards.

On the other hand, the space economy highlights an area where Hong Kong is still feeling its way rather than setting the pace. As Beijing signals that it will give greater weight to aerospace and related industries over the next five years, and as several Greater Bay Area cities move quickly to anchor commercial space ventures, develop supply chains, and attract dedicated funding, Hong Kong’s response has been limited and mostly exploratory to date. Industry figures and policy advisers are now pressing the HKSAR government to set up a dedicated space industry office to coordinate policy and provide a one-stop interface for mainland and overseas players. So far, Hong Kong has not mapped out a clear plan for how it fits into the mainland’s rapidly expanding space sector, nor has it defined where it intends to compete within the broader NewSpace value chain.

A comparable shortfall is visible in deep tech and startups. Although the Shenzhen-Hong Kong-Guangzhou cluster performs strongly in global innovation rankings, Hong Kong itself has struggled to scale locally founded technology companies to the same extent as the world’s leading innovation centers.

These examples make the main point clear: Hong Kong must treat the outcomes of the two sessions as an actionable plan and take concrete steps to play an essential role in national development by turning headline strategies on innovation and risk management into visible improvements in work, income and public services.

The author is an international partner and member of the Global Advisory Board, MilleniumAssociates AG.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.