The Debate on Constitutional Standing and Greater Autonomy for Cities: Lessons from The Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macao

The last few decades have seen a global boom in urban agglomeration due to improved economic opportunities. In the early 1900s, only 10% of the world’s population lived in cities, compared to approximately 50% today. It is estimated that this will increase to 70% by 2050. Despite being major population hubs and dominant economic players, cities are noticeably absent from national constitutions. They are typically creatures of the federal or provincial government and depend on these political units for their functioning and existence. Because of this reality, it is argued that constitutionalism may become irrelevant to a large share of a countries population if cities are left unaddressed. Without constitutional standing and greater autonomy, it is believed that cities are unable to address issues such as income inequality, housing, population density, immigration, environment, etc. Their lack of autonomy and constitutional standing also makes them susceptible to corporate capture. In recent years, a commonly proposed response has been to overhaul the existing statist framework by emancipating cities and providing them with constitutional standing and greater autonomy. These suggestions have not been limited to academic circles but have also been the focus of political and social discussions in both Global South and Global North countries. While this may seem like a straightforward fix, very few examples exist to assist us in envisioning this alternative reality. Even in cases where some cities have constitutional standing and/or considerable autonomy, this was typically granted by federal or provincial governments to further specific economic-political agendas or administrative ease. In these cases, the federal or provincial government dictates the terms, not the constitution. None of these examples are centered on the constitutional recognition of cities as an autonomous or distinct government order. The statist system is still intact. Constitutionalism in Greater China is seen as a niche subfield by traditional constitutionalists and rarely enters broader global discussions. However, Greater China’s experience with the Special Administrative Regions (SARs) of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) – Hong Kong SAR (HKSAR) and Macao SAR (MSR) – and the ‘one country, two system’ principle defining their governance structure – has more to contribute to the emerging debate of cities’ constitutional autonomy than any other case study. Subsequently, this chapter studies the SARs intending to examine whether (1) constitutional standing and greater autonomy for cities translate into the outcomes hoped by advocates of the same (2) and if yes, whether a potential way to envision cities with constitutional standing and greater autonomy is through a ‘one country, two systems’ model.