Andrew Work and Andrew Shuen will quit their jobs if they can raise HK$1 million.

The money will underwrite the two young men in conducting full-time research to develop policy proposals based on free-market principles.

Hong Kong's troubles, in the opinion of the two Andrews, stem from rising populism overtaking a heritage of bootstrap entrepreneurship.

``People in government genuinely want things to work. They want to be free market,'' says Work, an earnest 32-year-old native of Canada who moved to Hong Kong in 1996. ``I think if we put the facts in front of them, they will go along.''

Work and Shuen are now approaching potential donors for funds for their new think tank, called the Lion Rock Institute after an old Roman Tam song that hailed the struggle of penniless immigrants who fled here to build new lives after the Communist revolution. The pair, who each work as investment advisers, have raised HK$70,000 so far.

Despite their bright-eyed enthusiasm, Work and Shuen face a difficult road. Over the past decade and a half, a line of idealists has set off on the same path, churning out forests of in-depth analyses of the problems facing the territory and well-reasoned solutions only to lose steam in the face of government and donor indifference.

Before 1997, bureaucrats in London handled the grunt work of policymaking for the territory and took an outwardly pragmatic, apolitical approach.

With little preparation, the SAR government took on the full weight of these responsibilities amid multiplying challenges such as the demise of local manufacturing, integration with the mainland, viral outbreaks, swings in the property market, rising unemployment and worsening air pollution.

Huge policy stumbles were almost inevitable. But they have been magnified by increased media scrutiny and growing interest group activism. As a result, the public lost faith in the wisdom of government.

``It's unfortunate,'' says Ho Lok-sang, director of the Centre for Public Policy Studies at Lingnan University. ``As a policy analyst, I would like the government to pay attention to my work. We want our ideas to be looked at critically. [But] the government doesn't seem to be very interested,'' he says wistfully. ``I haven't seen any signs that [think tanks] have influenced the government significantly.''

Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa has acknowledged the need for better policy research. ``Public policy research is not being pursued vigorously within the government and in the community, and there are not enough experts in this area,'' he declared in his annual policy address this year. He promised a new initiative to promote research.

Nothing has emerged from Albert Road yet but some energised policy wonks are broadening their target audience and moving to implement ideas on their own. Fresh groups such as Lion Rock and the Roundtable are organising to promote new viewpoints. The think tanks may not have the government's ear now, but they see signs that it may turn their way.

Hong Kong's first think tanks thought they could shape the ear. In 1988, Legislative Councillor Stephen Cheong set up the Hongkong Foundation, identified in one study as the territory's earliest think tank, with the intention of generating policy papers that would form the platform for a slate of political candidates.

At the time, Hong Kong had no political parties or direct elections. The idea of a think tank seemed a logical stepping stone towards forming a party.

The introduction of direct elections in 1991 ushered in what Civic Exchange chief executive Christine Loh calls Hong Kong's first ``golden age'' of politics. Loh, a member of Legco through most of the 1990s, joined with colleagues to channel public demands into new legislation on issues such as gender discrimination in New Territories property inheritance laws and reclamation in Victoria Harbour. Newly established think tanks chimed in with more proposals.

But it all came to an abrupt end with the 1997 handover as the Basic Law largely stripped Legco of the power to propose laws and trapped political parties in an immature developmental stage. As the new political system accorded neither Legco nor the parties a major role in policymaking, neither developed significant research capabilities.

Independent researchers have strained to make an impact. Financing has been a perennial challenge.

Wealthy individuals and large companies, primary sources of funding for research centres abroad, have felt little inclination to underwrite think tanks in the territory. Hong Kong tycoons are accustomed to expressing their views and wishes personally to government officials, says Shui On Holdings chairman Vincent Lo. They feel little need to bankroll briefing-paper factories.

``Hong Kong is a small place,'' says Lo, a second-generation property magnate who started the Business and Professionals Federation think tank in 1990. ``So basically everybody knows everybody else.''

Take out the prospect of any think tank leaders rising to cabinet rank and the tycoons have little to gain from currying their favour. Given Hong Kong's low tax rates, deductible donations hold no significant appeal either.

Academia hasn't filled the gap. The SAR's university system funds and promotes faculties who publish papers in top-tier international journals, nearly all of which are theoretically oriented. The few, such as Ho of Lingnan, who conduct Hong Kong policy research have already secured tenure.

``Many locally relevant issues do not get addressed,'' says Shiu Sin-por, executive director of the independent One County Two Systems Research Institute. ``We are wasting resources on theoretical research with no relevance to the local population.''

To generate funding, several think tanks have taken on commission research work for the government's Central Policy Unit (CPU) or other departments. Often, however, the government bypasses local scholars in favour of international consulting firms or teams from renowned foreign universities.

Those who win government work face the prospect that their independence might seem compromised. The potential taint looms still larger in accepting funding from foreign governments and organisations. As a result, some, such as the Democratic Foundation, rely on members to volunteer their time to conduct research, restricting the scope of possible projects.

Money hasn't been the only problem. Wary of providing ammunition to critics, the government has made limited data available to researchers, particularly regarding socio-economic conditions, says Peter Cheung, a professor of public administration at the University of Hong Kong and a former CPU research director.

Until recently, independent researchers themselves were scarce as the SAR had just two fully fledged universities and offered high pay for faculty jobs, leaving few stray PhDs available.

``Running a think tank in Hong Kong is not easy,'' says Anthony Cheung, a former Legco member and government official who now teaches public administration at City University. Cheung was a co-founder of the Policy Research Institute in 1995 and founded the SynergyNet think tank three years ago.

The greatest source of frustration among think tanks is apathy. Ho, of the Centre for Public Policy Studies, tells of sending out a paper on public housing policy to a gamut of government departments and every political party, then sitting by a silent phone waiting for questions. ``I didn't get any feedback,'' he says.

Sometimes the government just tosses policy research reports in with public consultation comments submitted by members of the community. ``The government should be able to tell the difference,'' huffs Ho. ``This is our profession. I think we deserve more attention.''

One obstacle to acceptance is that, in the government's eyes, work by a number of Hong Kong's think tanks is tainted by their stance in favour of democratic political reform, according to Allen Choate, who promotes research development as the local programme director for the United States-based The Asia Foundation. But even commissioned research can end up gathering dust.

Think tank leaders can point to few cases where their research has shaped policy. James Sung, a City University lecturer, says that reports by the Social and Economic Policy Institute he chairs have had an impact on vocational training policy. George Cautherley, vice-chairman of the Democratic Foundation, cites the government's move last year to adopt a more sophisticated budget accounting system as a victory for his group.

The colonial government paid little attention to work by the One Country Two Systems centre, says executive director Shiu, as it was seen as tainted by links to Beijing. Under Tung, however, Shiu says the centre has influenced decisions taken regarding the Macau-Zhuhai bridge project and the 24-hour opening of Shenzhen border crossings.

Tung's policy address comments reflect a growing realisation that the government would benefit from encouraging more policy research.

According to a spokeswoman for the CPU, which Tung charged with finding ways to promote research, the agency will hold a seminar next month with Radio Television Hong Kong, the University of Hong Kong and Chinese University to generate ideas. Sung says he has heard that the CPU may propose setting up a social sciences academy to co-ordinate projects and muster resources.

In the meantime, some think tank leaders are finding new ways to have an impact. The Policy Research Institute plans to focus on co-operative and solo ventures on the mainland, says chairman Paul Yip, in a bid to combine the principles of Western scientific learning with traditional Chinese values in addressing policy problems.

Moving beyond research, Civic Exchange, with support from The Asia Foundation, organised forums on transport policy that pulled together taxi drivers, bus company representatives, railway executives, fuel suppliers and other parties.

With the government explicitly wary of acting on anything without ``consensus'' among powerful local interests, such forums may set the groundwork for new policies by bringing the spectrum of involved parties together to find common ground.

Part of the idea, says Loh, is to target influential folks who often have seats on official advisory boards. ``The government pays a lot of attention to the elite,'' she says.

Civic Exchange has also stepped beyond research into hands-on implementation with projects to clean up Ngau Tau Kok's housing estates and Hong Kong's beaches as a way to test its policy ideas. ``We are a public policy `think and do tank','' declared the group's 2002 annual report.

It helps that Civic Exchange takes a long view of success. Based on her experience, Loh says it can take two years just to get a few people interested in an idea. Similarly, Stephen Brown, a director of the group, wrote in one report that Civic Exchange should be judged by whether it promotes ``informed debate about issues that are pertinent to our society'', not the number of its proposals the government accepts.

``I think we have been phenomenally successful,'' says Loh, who founded Civic Exchange in 2000 rather than seek re-election to Legco even though she was widely expected to easily retain her seat. Given Legco's loss of policymaking influence, she bet that she could make more of an impact with a think tank.

She points to a report that her group will soon publish on the proposed merger of the MTR and KCR rail systems as evidence that her decision was right. The report started with a phone call she received from a senior government official who suggested that such a study would be valuable.

Of course, the government and the companies are doing their own studies, but the call illustrates the administration's awareness that rail service is a public issue, especially given that fare levels are a frequent lightning rod for protest. Independent research could help shape the broader debate.

Business leaders are also recognising the growing power of public pressure by directing more of their position papers toward the media. Research staff at the Business and Professionals Federation, the Employers' Federation and the General Chamber of Commerce are all producing and distributing papers on topics such as abolition of estate taxes and extension of the Cepa trade agreement with the mainland.

Tycoons not yet enamoured of this mechanism have taken to speaking out publicly on issues rather than relying on their private conversations of old. Witness comments this month by Henry Cheng of New World Development regarding land-auction policy, or commentary over the past year from others about the construction of new container port facilities and the bridge to Macau.

There may be more debate in the open but any golden age for Hong Kong think tanks lies well ahead. ``They don't have the capacity and strength they should have,'' says James McGann, who directs a global research programme on think tanks at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia in the United States. He's been monitoring developments here for several years and says what's still lacking is the leadership and entrepreneurship to launch a think tank on a secure foundation.

Choate of The Asia Foundation agrees, pointing to a shortage of marketing savvy among the think tanks, a flaw that can sink an idea in Hong Kong. ``This is a town that knows what salesmanship is all about,'' he says.

zach.coleman@globalchina.com