DSE Econ 時事 第9週（2026年）

Ask students to draw a demand and supply diagram for student housing (short-run), show the effect of an increase in non-local student intake on equilibrium price (rent) and quantity, then show how hotel-to-hostel conversions shift supply; include calculation style sub-questions using hypothetical numbers and an evaluation (efficiency and distributional effects).

Provide data (or ask students to use the article’s shortfall figure) and ask them to explain why a shortage arises, calculate the magnitude of shortage given supplied and demanded quantities, and evaluate market and non-market solutions (price changes, conversions, government subsidies, caps) with pros and cons.

Set a scenario where a hotel earns X per room-night as a hotel and Y per bed-month as student housing; ask students to calculate the opportunity cost of conversion, explain qualitatively which factors (occupancy rates, contract length, regulation) affect the decision, and evaluate whether conversion maximizes the firm’s objective.

Ask students to discuss how being a state-owned conglomerate might change investment objectives (profit vs policy alignment), use the article to evaluate how SOE involvement can affect competition, market confidence and pace of supply response, and require a short evaluative judgement on welfare implications.

Exam-style: Using a diagram, show the market for taxi services with a negative externality from emissions. Explain the welfare loss and evaluate two policy responses (e.g. emission standards vs subsidies for EV taxis), including their likely effectiveness and distributional effects in Hong Kong.

Exam-style: Given demand and supply schedules for taxi purchases, calculate the impact of a per-unit subsidy for EV taxis on equilibrium quantity, price paid by taxi owners, government expenditure and deadweight loss; then evaluate the policy’s pros and cons in the Hong Kong context (e.g. small licence owners, charging access).

Exam-style: Explain how economies of scale in battery production and charging infrastructure reduce average costs as output (fleet size) grows. Discuss whether Hong Kong’s industry structure (many small licence owners) could create diseconomies and how policy could help realise scale economies (e.g. coordinated procurement, public charging hubs).

Exam-style: Classify types of charging infrastructure (fast-charge hubs, curbside chargers, private depot chargers) as private, club or public goods. Evaluate who should provide them in Hong Kong (government, private firms, PPP) and the economic rationale using free-rider and congestion arguments.

Ask students to draw and explain a supply-and-demand diagram showing the effect of cancelled flights on equilibrium price and quantity for remaining seats and for substitute routes; evaluate short-run impacts on consumer and producer surplus and show how waiver of rebooking fees or refunds shifts outcomes.

Give a scenario with numerical price changes for alternative flights and ask students to calculate price elasticity of demand, then discuss how differing elasticities across passenger types affect airline pricing and the burden of additional costs following cancellations.

Provide data on ticket prices, refund amounts and out-of-pocket costs (hotels, alternate tickets) and ask students to compute changes in consumer and producer surplus and to assess deadweight loss; require evaluation of whether monetary compensation or provision of care is more efficient in this context.

Ask students to classify the airline market (e.g., oligopoly/monopolistic competition) and explain how market structure and barriers to entry influence Cathay’s refund/rebooking policy; include an evaluative question on whether regulation (like EU261-style rules) should be adopted in Hong Kong and the likely effects on consumer welfare and airline costs.

Ask students to explain qualitatively and with a short diagram how e‑payments can raise labour productivity for taxi drivers; evaluate welfare effects for drivers and passengers and consider distributional impacts on older drivers less comfortable with technology.

Give a demand–supply diagram and ask candidates to show the likely short‑run impact on equilibrium fares and quantity of taxi rides when e‑payments reduce friction and when platforms start charging fees; explain assumptions and comparative statics.

Provide hypothetical elasticities and ask students to calculate the extent of pass‑through of a per‑ride fee to consumers versus absorbed by drivers; include evaluation of which groups (tourists vs locals, peak vs off‑peak) have different elasticities.

Prompt an essay-style question: explain the concept of network externalities using the taxi e‑payment rollout, discuss possible market failures, and evaluate policy options (mandates, transitional enforcement leniency, fee regulation) to manage the transition.

Ask students to explain how limited supply of single-letter plates creates scarcity and to diagram the effect on equilibrium price and quantity compared with a market where many letters are available.

Have students evaluate the role of clear transferable rights in enabling an auction market and ask them to discuss potential pros and cons of government-managed allocation versus other systems (first-come, fixed price, lottery).

Provide data from the article (reserve and final prices) and ask students to calculate shifts or draw demand/supply diagrams, explain why prices rose so sharply, and identify factors that could shift demand or supply for such plates.

Ask students to explain how high prices at auction perform rationing and signalling roles; include an evaluative part on whether this allocation is efficient and whether equity concerns might justify alternative policies.

Ask students to draw a supply and demand diagram showing the short‑run impact of the ordinance on rent and quantity of legal flats; explain who is better/worse off and evaluate two government measures (e.g., transitional flats or rental subsidies) to restore equilibrium, using welfare language (consumer/producer surplus).

Give a short data‑based question: using qualitative or supplied numerical figures (e.g., 220,000 affected tenants, 4,000 reserved transitional flats), calculate the magnitude of unmet demand and discuss two likely market and non‑market consequences of the shortage for low‑income households.

Set an essay question asking students to assess how clear property rights and contract enforcement influence housing market outcomes here, discuss the opportunity cost for tenants facing eviction, and recommend policy changes to balance owners’ rights and tenant protections.

Ask students to evaluate the ordinance using efficiency, externalities and equity criteria: identify the externality corrected, analyse deadweight or transitional welfare losses, and propose two policy options that trade off efficiency and equity (e.g., targeted subsidies vs. increased transitional supply), justifying which is preferable.

Ask students to explain and diagram the positive externalities from these study tours, and evaluate whether government subsidies or promotion are justified to correct under-provision; include short-run vs long-run effects on social welfare.

Require an analysis of whether these AI-themed summer programmes should be funded privately or publicly: define private and public goods, classify the programme elements, and evaluate policy options (scholarships, subsidies, price discrimination) with justification.

Pose an essay question asking students to assess how study tours might affect the supply of skilled labour in Hong Kong, using labour mobility concepts and considering short-run enrolment effects and long-run retention of graduates; evaluate economic benefits and costs to Hong Kong.

Give a data-response or short-answer task asking students to identify and quantify potential opportunity costs of running these programmes (e.g., alternative local uses of halls, research activities), and to discuss trade-offs when allocating university resources.

Ask students to draw supply and demand diagrams showing how an increase in premium supply and a shift in preferences toward modern offices affects equilibrium rent and quantity for (a) premium office space and (b) secondary office space, and explain the resulting rent concessions and vacancy.

Provide data from the article (e.g., falling overall rents and rising premium take-up) and ask students to identify whether the secondary office market faces a shortage or surplus, explain the market signals, and evaluate short-run landlord responses such as rent concessions and asset conversion.

Request students estimate and compare price elasticity scenarios: how would a percentage rent cut affect quantity demanded in secondary vs premium offices? Ask them to discuss how differences in elasticity influence landlords' decisions on rent concessions, upgrading, or converting space.

Set an evaluation question: assess whether converting several underutilised floors into co‑working or student accommodation is likely to produce economies or diseconomies of scale for a small landlord, considering costs (management, marketing, refurbishment) and potential revenue gains.

Ask students to draw supply and demand diagrams showing a leftward shift of supply (or a simultaneous fall in demand) and analyse effects on equilibrium price, quantity, consumer/producer surplus and welfare; include short-answer on how temporary vs prolonged disruptions change market outcomes.

Give numerical elasticities and ask students to calculate revenue changes when fares change or when airlines waive rebooking fees; evaluate whether fares should be raised/lowered in the short run given different elasticity scenarios.

Require an evaluative response: identify the negative externalities, explain why the market may fail to internalise them, and ask students to assess policy responses (travel advisories, airspace bans, subsidies/compensation) using welfare arguments.

Pose a calculation-based question where students compute the opportunity cost of cancelling a set of flights (using given revenue and cost figures) and then ask for a short evaluative judgement on the firm's profit-maximising decision under uncertainty.

Ask students to draw and explain supply and demand diagrams showing the effect of increased compliance costs (and an enforcement grace period) on the market for subdivided flats; include effects on equilibrium rent, quantity traded, and short-run versus long-run adjustments.

Give students data (e.g., a 15% rent rise and observed occupancy change) and ask them to calculate price elasticity of demand, then interpret whether total rental revenue rises or falls and which tenant groups are likely more price-sensitive.

Provide cost figures (renovation costs HK$30,000 vs HK$400,000, expected rent increases, and recovery time estimates) and ask students to compute break-even time, profit-maximising output or whether a landlord should renovate, apply for grace period, or exit under short-run vs long-run analysis.

Ask students to explain with an average cost diagram how fixed certification and compliance costs create economies of scale for large landlords; include a comparative calculation of average cost per unit for a small owner versus a large operator.

Ask students to classify Pop Mart products (e.g., blind-box Labubu, Merodi) as private goods and explain how features like scarcity, collectibility and exclusivity affect demand and market behaviour; include a short data item about sold-out releases vs unsold stock and ask for evaluation.

Provide a demand schedule before and after a celebrity endorsement and ask students to calculate price elasticity of demand, explain revenue effects of a price change under different elasticity regimes, and evaluate how marketing can alter elasticity.

Require students to identify and explain the sources of monopoly power Pop Mart enjoys (IP protection, brand, network effects of celebrity endorsements), and assess whether such power is sustainable or likely to be eroded.

Ask students to explain why Pop Mart’s share price might rise despite weak initial sales of a new IP, linking product demand expectations, future profitability and investor speculation; include a short calculation of percentage share-price change given data.

Ask students to draw and explain a supply-demand diagram showing the effect of increased tourist demand on equilibrium price and quantity for hotel rooms or Peak admission; include short calculations using the 49.9m → 53.8m (8%) projection and ask for likely short-run supply constraints.

Give data (e.g. Jan arrivals 4.81m with 76% from mainland, and the 8% projected rise) and ask students to discuss or calculate the price elasticity of demand for tourism services hypothetically — e.g., how should hotels adjust pricing if demand is price-elastic vs inelastic — and evaluate revenue implications.

Pose a sourcing and funding question: classify the new light show as public, private or club good and evaluate government funding options (direct provision, subsidies, sponsorships). Ask students to assess efficiency and equity trade-offs and draft a short policy recommendation.

Ask students to identify and illustrate positive and negative externalities from increased tourism, then propose and evaluate two policies to internalise these externalities (e.g., tourist taxes, congestion pricing, subsidies for supporting services).

Ask students to explain how bond issuance finances public capital projects, calculate impacts on debt-to-GDP using the given figures (current 14.4% rising to 19.9%), and evaluate advantages and risks (interest burden, crowding-out, intergenerational equity); include a short data task using the HK$700bn→HK$900bn change.

Require students to classify elements of the Northern Metropolis project as public, private or club goods, discuss positive externalities (agglomeration, employment, tax base) and explain financing options (public provision via bonds vs private provision), then evaluate whether bond-financed provision is efficient and equitable.

Set a scenario where teachers give budget figures (e.g., additional HK$200bn borrowing, kindergarten grant shortfall ~HK$40,000 per preschool) and ask students to identify and quantify opportunity costs of choosing large-scale infrastructure over education subsidies, and discuss alternative uses of funds.

Have students identify which quoted sentences are positive vs normative, state what empirical evidence would be needed to test the positive claims (debt servicing forecasts, ROI of projects), and write a short evaluative paragraph weighing the normative concerns (risk preferences, equity between generations).

Ask students to explain how scarcity and the three basic economic problems force a government to reallocate spending between kindergarten and tertiary education; include a short-data interpretation using the reported enrolment figures (e.g., 105,800 toddlers, 79,000 in subsidised kindergartens) to justify reallocation decisions.

Pose an evaluation question: calculate or discuss the opportunity cost of diverting HK$4.5 billion (and the forgone HK$2,500 pupil grant) to other education programmes; require students to identify alternative uses and weigh short-term vs long-term benefits using human-capital reasoning.

Provide a supply-and-demand scenario for a subsidised kindergarten market and ask students to show diagrammatically and numerically the effects of subsidy removal on price paid by parents, quantity of places, and changes in consumer and producer surplus; include distributional incidence (who bears the burden).

Design a 12-mark evaluation question: assess whether cutting kindergarten subsidies is justified on efficiency and equity grounds, asking students to discuss positive/negative externalities from early education, short-run vs long-run efficiency, and propose compensating policies (targeted grants, means-testing) with pros and cons.

Ask students to draw a production possibility curve (PPC) or government budget-choice diagram showing the opportunity cost of increasing I&T and housing spending at the expense of environmental and broadcasting budgets; evaluate the short- and long-term costs and benefits of this reallocation in 8–12 marks (include normative/positive distinctions).

Set an essay/structured question requiring students to explain how the 2026–27 budget addresses the three basic economic problems, using specific budget items (Wang Fuk Court resettlement, I&T, cuts to environmental programmes) and to assess whether the chosen allocation is equitable and efficient (10–15 marks).

Design a data-response question: present numbers of posts before and after (e.g., total posts and bureau changes) and ask students to analyse effects on public-sector labour supply, possible pressure on wages, reallocation of labour to time‑limited projects, and implications for productivity and service delivery (6–10 marks).

Ask students to classify services mentioned in the article as private or public goods and explain the free‑rider problem; then evaluate two policy options the government could use to ensure adequate provision (direct provision, subsidisation or targeted funding) and justify which is more appropriate for the environment or public broadcasting (8 marks).

Ask students to explain, with a short diagram or written reasoning, how an increase in workplace happiness could shift the labour productivity curve or raise marginal product of labour; evaluate the likely impact on firm revenues and costs and assess employer policies (non‑wage benefits, job design) to raise productivity.

Give students data (e.g., 47% happy, 44% burnout) and ask them to analyse how persistent low job satisfaction might shift the market labour supply (or individual labour supply) curve; include effects on equilibrium wages and employment and ask for evaluation of trade‑offs between higher wages versus improved working conditions.

Set a data‑response question asking students to discuss how elevated turnover from low workplace happiness raises firms' recruitment and training costs, illustrate the effect on firms' short‑run and long‑run labour demand, and evaluate policies (e.g., retention strategies, clearer career paths) that reduce mobility costs.

Ask an essay question: assess how widespread low workplace happiness could create allocative and productive inefficiencies in Hong Kong's labour market; require students to recommend employer and policy interventions and to weigh benefits versus costs using economic efficiency criteria.

Ask students to explain how bond issuance would finance the University Town: draw a simple bond market diagram or loanable funds model, calculate annual interest payments given a principal and a suggested 3% rate (short numerical part), and evaluate pros and cons of bond finance versus direct government loans or UGC funding (considering credit risk and speed).

Give students numbers (e.g., HK$5bn bond at 3% for 4 years) and ask them to compute total interest cost and annual payments; then ask how a rise in market interest rates would change bond prices/yields and universities’ borrowing decisions (diagram + short explanation).

Frame a 10–15 mark data-response question: use a welfare diagram showing positive externalities from higher education, explain market failure, and evaluate whether government-backed bonds or direct public funding is a better policy to correct underprovision (include equity and efficiency arguments).

Ask students to draw a long-run average cost curve showing economies then diseconomies of scale, and explain how expected cost savings might influence universities’ decision to expand and their preferred financing method (bond finance vs incremental expansion).

Ask students to calculate percentage changes in net and underlying profit from given figures, explain reasons for differences between net profit and underlying profit (e.g., property revaluations), and discuss how SHKP might set prices or output (launch schedules) to maximize profit in the Hong Kong housing market.

Require students to draw supply and demand diagrams showing the effect of SHKP’s increased completions on equilibrium price and quantity, and evaluate how simultaneous demand-side factors (interest-rate cuts, easing tensions, investor optimism) might shift demand and alter outcomes.

Ask students to explain which cost advantages SHKP could gain from scale (lower average cost per unit), give examples from the article, and evaluate possible diseconomies (management complexity, coordination) when completing millions of sq ft annually.

Prompt students to compare internal expansion (as used by SHKP) with external expansion methods, discuss short- and long-term microeconomic implications for market competition, and ask which method might better suit a large developer given landbank and market conditions.

Compose a 15-mark HKDSE-style essay: contrast laissez-faire and interventionist economies, use the Hong Kong budget measures (Exchange Fund transfer and directed infrastructure investment) as examples, and evaluate whether the shift improves allocative efficiency and equity. Include one positive and one normative statement in your answer.

Provide a data-response question: using given figures (previous max debt-to-GDP 16.5% rising to 19.9%; HK$150bn taken from Exchange Fund = 3.6% of fund), calculate the percentage point change in debt-to-GDP and discuss two likely microeconomic implications for private sector borrowing and investment decisions.

Ask students to classify three announced projects as public good, private good, or mixed good, justify each classification, and explain why government provision or funding might be warranted using market failure reasoning.

Design a 12-mark question requiring a welfare diagram to show how subsidies or public investment correct positive externalities from R&D; ask students to evaluate pros and cons of using Exchange Fund transfers versus ongoing subsidies.

Ask students to draw a supply‑and‑demand diagram for sports events or athlete training services showing the effect of a per‑unit subsidy; calculate changes in equilibrium quantity, consumer/producer surplus and deadweight loss given numerical values; then evaluate the efficiency and equity trade‑offs of using subsidies versus alternative policies (e.g. vouchers, public provision).

Set a question where students explain how better coaching and training shifts the marginal product of labour for athletes, illustrate with a marginal product diagram or production function, and assess implications for wages, selection into professional sport and government justification for investing in human capital.

Ask students to use a long‑run average cost (LRAC) curve to explain how hosting more events and consolidating services at venues like KTSP could lower average costs (economies of scale) and to discuss circumstances that create diseconomies; include an evaluation of whether public funding should be used to capture these scale economies.

Require students to identify and diagram private versus social benefits/costs for hosting a mega‑event, quantify the welfare gap if figures are given, and evaluate policy responses (subsidies, taxes, regulation) used in the article such as the M Mark system and targeted training support.

Ask students to evaluate the merits and risks of financing infrastructure via (a) bond issuance and (b) a large transfer from the Exchange Fund; include diagram(s) or calculations showing effects on government debt-to-GDP and discuss likely impacts on Hong Kong's credit rating and interest costs.

Pose a question requiring students to identify and quantify (qualitatively or with simple numeric assumptions) the opportunity cost of the HK$150bn transfer — e.g., foregone Exchange Fund investment returns or inability to provide immediate consumption vouchers — and assess whether the long-term benefits justify the cost.

Have students discuss whether elements of the Northern Metropolis (infrastructure, public housing, innovation hubs) should be treated as public goods or private goods, explain the rationale for government provision/finance, and evaluate funding options and efficiency/equity trade-offs.

Ask students to illustrate with supply and demand diagrams how removing the tax concession will affect EV demand and market outcomes, identify the positive externalities involved, and suggest alternative policy instruments (subsidies, tax credits, regulation) to internalise externalities and evaluate their efficiency.

Ask a data-response or essay question: 'Explain how private property rights affect residents’ ability to retrieve belongings after the Wang Fuk Court fire; evaluate the government's restriction of access on efficiency and equity grounds.'

Set a short data-based question: 'Using the Wang Fuk Court case, identify three scarce resources and explain with brief reasons how these constraints could be allocated fairly and efficiently.'

Design an HKDSE-style calculation/analysis: 'Explain the opportunity cost of making multiple trips to retrieve items versus accepting the government's buy-back; illustrate your answer with a simple cost–benefit table or ranked list of items.'

Ask an evaluative question: 'Using the three basic economic problems, analyse and criticise the government’s resettlement options for Wang Fuk Court residents, and suggest an alternative allocation rule.'

Ask students to draw and explain a supply and demand diagram showing the effect of a government subsidy to firms in the tech sector, calculate short-run changes in equilibrium price and quantity, and evaluate the subsidy’s effectiveness given funding from the Exchange Fund (include efficiency and distributional points).

Set a data-based problem asking how a new transaction tax on virtual assets shifts supply (or demand), ask for diagrams to show incidence of the tax, and include an evaluation of potential impacts on market activity and Hong Kong’s goal to be a digital-asset hub.

Write an essay question asking students to classify the light show and replacement projections as public, private or club goods, explain the free-rider problem, and assess government provision versus private provision with reference to local tourism objectives.

Pose a policy-evaluation question that asks students to identify and quantify opportunity costs of financing the Northern Metropolis (e.g., foregone healthcare or education spending), and to argue whether the long-term benefits justify the trade-offs.

Data-based question: use given figures (e.g. stamp duty HK$99.5bn, bond issuance HK$155bn, bond repayments HK$51.69bn) to calculate the consolidated surplus/deficit excluding bond proceeds, then evaluate the microeconomic implications of financing public investment via bond markets (effects on interest rates, crowding out, investor demand for sovereign vs corporate bonds).

Essay-style evaluation: assess whether issuing bonds to finance infrastructure (public goods) is justified from an efficiency and equity perspective, asking students to discuss long-run benefits, externalities, and the distinction between financing capital vs current expenditure.

Short-answer/structured question: identify the opportunity costs of (a) using Exchange Fund investment income for government spending and (b) expanding annual bond issuance, and evaluate the potential long-term costs (e.g. higher debt servicing, reduced fiscal flexibility).

Critical-thinking task: provide extracts and ask students to label sentences as positive or normative, justify their choices, and then write a short normative policy recommendation (with supporting positive evidence) on whether Hong Kong should continue the bond-heavy strategy.

Ask students to identify two competing budget items from the article and explain the opportunity cost of increasing spending on one (use the article’s stated allocations), including a qualitative evaluation of who gains and who loses.

Require students to classify three items mentioned in the article as private, public or merit goods, justify their classification using public goods characteristics (non-excludability/non-rivalry), and discuss why government provision or subsidy is appropriate.

Give a short data-based question where students draw supply and demand diagrams to show the effect of a per-unit subsidy described in the article on equilibrium price, quantity, consumer/producer surplus and government expenditure; ask for welfare analysis and deadweight loss implications.

Pose an evaluation question: using the article’s policy measures, assess whether the budget improves equity and whether any measures create efficiency gains or losses; require students to balance efficiency vs equity with specific policy examples from the article and justify a normative recommendation.

Ask students to illustrate with a supply and demand diagram the effects of removing the per-unit subsidy: show shifts, new equilibrium price and quantity, and explain how consumer/producer surplus and government spending change. Include a short calculation using hypothetical numbers (e.g., subsidy HK$100,000) to compute welfare effects and deadweight loss.

Design an exam question asking students to explain why a private market for quotas formed, illustrate the welfare implications (who captures surplus), and evaluate legal/transaction risks and how this differs from a government-issued quota.

Provide data (e.g., pre- and post-policy prices or a 40% predicted fall in quantity) and ask students to calculate and explain percentage changes, relate these to price elasticity of demand, and predict short-run vs long-run sales responses.

Ask students to discuss the justification for the original subsidy using externality diagrams, evaluate whether market conditions (more models, lower prices) justify ending the subsidy, and recommend alternative policies (e.g., targeted subsidies, taxes on polluting cars).

Ask students to draw and label supply and demand diagrams showing the effect of an increased demand from mainland buyers and the likely short‑run impact of the higher stamp duty on equilibrium price and quantity; then evaluate whether the duty will reduce prices or transactions, using reasons from the article.

Provide data (e.g., change in tax rate from 4.25% to 6.5%, number/value of recent deals) and ask students to discuss how price elasticity of demand for luxury housing determines the effect of the tax on quantity demanded, tax revenue and burden; include an evaluative question on how elasticity might differ across buyer groups.

Request an analysis comparing the effects of an ad‑valorem tax (like the stamp duty) with a per‑unit tax on consumer surplus, producer surplus and tax revenue in the luxury housing market; include a numerical mini‑calculation estimating government revenue from the policy given figures in the article.

Pose a short essay question asking students to explain the equity argument for higher stamp duties on ultra‑luxury properties, weigh equity against efficiency trade‑offs, and evaluate alternative policy tools (e.g., progressive property taxes, capital controls) that could address distributional concerns.

Ask students to identify which factors of production are constrained for Hong Kong AI start-ups, explain how improved access to supercomputing and university R&D changes production possibilities, and evaluate the opportunity cost of government funding for the committee versus alternative public uses.

Require students to use a long-run average cost framework to explain how access to shared supercomputing and data can lower average costs (economies of scale) for AI firms, and evaluate whether government provision/subsidy of such resources is justified to overcome diseconomies of small market size.

Pose an essay question asking students to analyse how weak IP protection and restricted data access affect incentives to innovate in Hong Kong, and to assess policy options (stronger IP laws, regulatory sandboxes, data-sharing agreements) the committee could pursue, weighing efficiency and equity implications.

Ask students to illustrate with a monopoly/oligopoly diagram how dominant platforms can cause welfare loss and create entry barriers, and evaluate how government negotiation or attracting rival firms could alter market structure and outcomes for Hong Kong start-ups.

Ask students to draw a supply and demand diagram for subsidised kindergarten places, show the effect of removing the grants (a reduction in subsidy), and analyse impacts on price, quantity (enrolment), producer and consumer surplus and deadweight loss; include numerical welfare calculations using the HK$40,000 figure as a per-school change.

Require evaluation using labour supply and demand: show how reduced funding shifts labour demand for preschool teachers, discuss short-run employment and wage effects, elasticities and labour mobility, and assess policy options to protect employment (retraining, redeployment, wage supports).

Pose a normative/positive question asking students to explain the opportunity cost of reallocating funds between early childhood and tertiary education, and to evaluate government priorities using scarcity and budget constraint reasoning (use given percentage changes in subsidies across education sectors).

Ask students to explain why positive externalities justify subsidies, use a diagram to show divergence between private and social benefit, and critically assess whether current subsidy policy (cuts vs targeted support) is likely to correct market failure in Hong Kong.

Ask students to use supply-and-demand diagrams to show the effect of a two-quarter HK$500 rate concession and a temporary tax waiver on market equilibrium; give figures (e.g. HK$3.5bn revenue loss, HK$22bn total measures) and ask them to calculate changes in equilibrium price/quantity, government revenue, and deadweight loss.

Provide a numerical demand and supply schedule (or elasticities) and ask students to compute the change in consumer and producer surplus after the tax/allowance changes, and to explain which groups (e.g. tenants vs landlords, SMEs vs large firms) gain most.

Give hypothetical elasticities for housing supply and demand and require students to calculate tax/subsidy incidence (how much of the HK$500 cap benefits tenants versus landlords), and evaluate how elasticity assumptions change policy effectiveness.

Set a data-response or evaluative question asking students to compare the distributional impact of a flat temporary tax ceiling (e.g. up to HK$3,000) versus means-tested extra payments (one-month CSSA top-up), and to recommend whether the budget is progressive, regressive or proportional with justification.

Ask students to draw and label supply and demand diagrams showing the effects of increased demand and limited supply on second‑hand home prices and rents; include numerical interpretation using the article's percentage changes (e.g., 0.53% m/m, cumulative 5.79%) and evaluate short‑run vs long‑run outcomes and policy options (e.g., increasing supply, transaction taxes).

Give students data from the article (monthly and cumulative % changes) and ask them to explain qualitatively how inelastic short‑run housing supply leads to larger price increases, or quantitatively estimate demand/supply elasticity scenarios and discuss implications for price volatility and tax incidence.

Set an exam question asking students to explain the transmission mechanism from lower interest rates to higher house prices and transaction volumes, and calculate the change in monthly mortgage payments for a simple loan example to show how reduced rates raise borrowing capacity and demand.

Ask students to evaluate how prices allocate housing in Hong Kong, discuss equity vs efficiency (who gains/loses from price rises), and assess alternative interventions (rent controls, subsidies) with diagrams and likely unintended consequences.

Ask students to explain and evaluate two types of expansion illustrated by the article (organic investment in technology/staff vs. acquisition/privatisation of Hang Seng), and discuss short-run and long-run microeconomic effects on costs, competition and consumers in Hong Kong.

Require students to analyse how the Hang Seng buyout could generate economies of scale (lower average costs) and identify possible diseconomies; use cost-savings figures from the article to calculate hypothetical changes in average cost.

Ask students to evaluate the microeconomic trade-offs of maintaining a 50% dividend payout while suspending buy-backs, and to calculate implications for shareholder income using the reported per-share dividends and earnings figures.

Have students discuss how investment in technology and training affects labour productivity and short-run vs long-run production possibilities for HSBC’s Hong Kong operations, and link this to observed revenue and profit changes.

Ask students to explain with a diagram how clustering in the technopole can create economies of scale (e.g. shared infrastructure, specialised labour pools) and identify potential diseconomies; include an evaluative part asking whether large-scale public investment is justified to realise these scale advantages (8–12 marks).

Set a data-response question where students draw private vs social benefit curves to show market failure, then evaluate policy options mentioned (direct funding, subsidies, public company) showing effects on equilibrium and welfare; include a short calculation of deadweight loss removed by a subsidy (10–12 marks).

Ask students to compare advantages and disadvantages of government-owned development firms versus private provision in delivering the technopole (efficiency, costs, incentives, speed), and evaluate which ownership form is preferable in the Hong Kong context using examples from the article (6–8 marks).

Pose an essay-style question requiring students to identify at least two alternative uses of the budget surplus (e.g. healthcare, housing), explain the opportunity costs of choosing the technopole, and assess whether the expected economic returns (jobs, HK$250bn GDP) justify the allocation (6–8 marks).

Ask students to classify the innovation hub and aerospace infrastructure as public, private or club goods, draw supply/demand or provision diagrams, and evaluate government provision vs private provision using efficiency and equity criteria.

Set a question requiring students to illustrate positive production/externality with diagrams (private vs social marginal benefit/cost), calculate deadweight loss from underinvestment, and assess whether subsidies or direct public provision are more appropriate policy responses.

Ask students to explain how stronger IP protection alters incentives, market structure and innovation output; include an application question asking for short-run impacts on consumer/producer surplus and potential trade-offs (e.g., higher prices vs increased innovation).

Design a question asking students to analyse how increased demand for high-skilled workers shifts labour demand, the effect on wages and employment in Hong Kong, and to evaluate government policies (visa/talent schemes, training subsidies) that aim to improve labour mobility and fill skills gaps.

Ask students to explain and illustrate the opportunity cost of allocating additional government reserves to HKIC rather than to alternative uses (e.g., public services or tax cuts). Require a short diagram and an evaluative paragraph weighing benefits (crowding‑in, long‑term growth) against costs (foregone public expenditure, political risk).

Require students to analyse how HKIC’s activity could affect the supply and demand for long‑term capital in Hong Kong (use a market diagram), explain the concept of ‘crowding‑in’ versus ‘crowding‑out’, and assess impacts on interest rates, asset prices and ownership stakes in projects.

Ask students to identify the positive externalities associated with HKIC’s focus sectors, draw a diagram showing private versus social benefit, and evaluate whether a government‑backed investment vehicle is an appropriate policy tool compared with alternatives (subsidies, tax incentives, R&D grants).

Prompt students to classify HKIC’s expanded role using types of expansion (e.g., related diversification/strategic expansion), discuss potential economic advantages and risks (risk diversification, mission‑creep, governance issues), and evaluate implications for efficiency and accountability.

Ask students to identify which announced measures are public goods vs private goods, explain free‑rider problems, and evaluate whether direct government provision or subsidising private provision is more efficient using welfare arguments and simple diagrams.

Pose an exam question requiring students to explain the opportunity cost of tapping the Exchange Fund, compare two alternative uses (e.g., infrastructure vs maintaining fiscal reserves), and assess the short-run and long-run macroeconomic implications in a structured evaluation.

Require students to draw labour supply diagrams to show how a reduction in personal income tax (up to a capped amount) might change labour supply, discuss elasticity implications for different groups, and evaluate whether the measure improves labour market outcomes.

Ask students to explain market failure from positive externalities in R&D, show how subsidies, public provision or IP tax deductions could correct the failure, and evaluate the likely effectiveness and possible unintended consequences of the budget measures.

Ask students to classify specific Northern Metropolis projects (e.g., shared laboratories, data storage, university campuses) as public, private or merit goods, explain the rationale for government provision or subsidies, and evaluate the use of capital injections and PPPs versus full public provision using cost-benefit and equity arguments.

Require students to draw a marginal social benefit (MSB)/marginal private benefit (MPB) diagram for R&D activities, show the welfare loss from under-provision, and evaluate how a HK$10bn subsidy or government-funded infrastructure can correct the market failure; ask for advantages and limitations of subsidies and PPPs in internalising these externalities.

Set a question where students analyse how easier cross-boundary movement shifts the labour supply curve for the Northern Metropolis, illustrate effects on wages and employment for local versus cross-border workers, and evaluate policy trade-offs (local hiring quotas, training, wage impacts).

Ask students to explain using LRAC diagrams how government investment in shared infrastructure can lower average costs (shift LRAC down), identify potential diseconomies as the parks grow, and evaluate whether public capital injections are justified to achieve lower industry costs and higher competitiveness.

Ask students to explain how scarcity necessitates these allocation choices and to illustrate with a production‑possibility/frontier or budget‑constraint diagram; evaluate whether channeling capital into targeted property and tech yields an efficient allocation compared with alternatives (e.g., selling sites or broad fiscal stimulus).

Pose an essay or data‑response question requiring students to identify and quantify (qualitatively or with given figures) the opportunity costs of the policy, then assess whether the expected benefits justify the sacrifice using microeconomic criteria (marginal benefit vs marginal cost, externalities).

Ask students to classify HKIC’s move as horizontal/vertical/diversification expansion, analyse potential microeconomic effects (risk sharing, economies of scope, agency problems), and evaluate the likely impact on market competition and resource allocation.

Design a short‑answer question asking students to explain how secure private property rights influence investment decisions, rental markets and vacancy rates, using the HKIC example to evaluate how government investment could complement or crowd out private ownership incentives.

Ask students to illustrate with a production possibility frontier or opportunity-cost calculation: evaluate the cost of using the Exchange Fund for Northern Metropolis versus preserving it for currency defence or future fiscal shocks; discuss short- and long-term trade-offs and normative implications for fiscal policy.

Set a data/graph question: explain how increased government bond issuance could affect interest rates, private investment (crowding out), and demand for bonds; ask students to analyse who buys these bonds (e.g., HKIC, local banks, retail) and evaluate implications for financial markets in Hong Kong.

Require a diagram: show how long-run average cost may change as firms cluster, explain sources of internal and external economies of scale, and evaluate potential diseconomies (congestion, higher land/labour costs); ask students to assess whether government intervention is justified to capture these benefits.

Pose an evaluative question: identify the positive externalities from AI and I&T clusters, analyse policy tools (subsidies, public R&D centres, regulation) to internalise externalities, and discuss measurement challenges and possible unintended consequences (e.g., ethical risks, displacement of labour).

Ask students to identify and quantify the opportunity cost using figures from the article: calculate the percentage of last year’s Exchange Fund income (HK$330bn) being transferred each year and in total, then evaluate alternative uses and their likely benefits and costs (short-run vs long-run).

Construct a 10-mark question asking students to explain why the Northern Metropolis qualifies as a public good (non-excludability/non-rivalry elements or positive externalities), assess whether government financing from the Exchange Fund is efficient, and discuss distributional implications and possible alternative financing methods (taxation, bonds, PPP).

Devise a data-response question where students explain the role of the Bond Fund and Government Bond Programme, calculate the Bond Fund’s accumulated surplus (use HK$150bn balance and HK$37bn surplus stated), and evaluate how transferring bond surpluses to consolidated revenue might affect future government bond issuance, interest rates and market liquidity.

Ask students to analyse the positive and negative externalities associated with the Northern Metropolis project, explain why government intervention is warranted, and evaluate whether using Exchange Fund income is a suitable policy response compared with targeted taxes/subsidies or regulations.

Ask students to calculate the dividend payout ratio and the likely effect of a US$1.5bn buyback on EPS and share price (use given EPS US$2.297, final dividend US$0.49, total dividend US$0.61, and buyback amount); then evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of buybacks versus dividends for shareholders and the bank (10–12 marks).

Require students to explain, using the bank’s figures (operating income US$20.89bn, net interest income US$11.18bn, bad debt charge US$676m), how revenue growth and increased provisions affect short‑run profit maximization, and evaluate whether the bank’s actions (diversify revenue, buybacks) are consistent with profit maximization objectives (8–10 marks).

Ask students to identify features of an oligopoly shown in the article (interdependence, non‑price competition such as wealth management/digital services), draw a diagram illustrating oligopoly behaviour (e.g., kinked demand or models of non‑price competition), and discuss implications for consumer welfare and market efficiency in Hong Kong’s banking sector (10 marks).

Provide data from the article (NIM 2.03% vs 2.06% year earlier; net interest income US$11.18bn) and ask students to explain how changes in market interest rates and NIM affect bank profitability and lending behaviour, including a supply–demand diagram for loanable funds or a bank’s interest margin illustration; evaluate policy implications for the HKMA (6–8 marks).

Ask students to draw and explain a supply-demand diagram for the catering/retail sector showing the impact of a consumption voucher or subsidy: show changes in equilibrium price/quantity, calculate changes in consumer and producer surplus, and discuss who benefits and possible deadweight loss and cost to government.

Set a data-based scenario where the government funds an IP academy; ask students to explain the positive externalities, illustrate socially optimal output versus market output using diagrams, and evaluate policy options (subsidies, public provision, regulation) to correct market failure.

Require students to compare financing a budget deficit by selling bonds versus using reserves: explain effects on government debt, discuss implications for private sector borrowing (crowding out), and analyse normative trade-offs between current spending and future tax burdens.

Pose a short-answer question asking how raising child allowances or offering tax relief for families with domestic workers might change the labour supply decisions (e.g., female participation, hours worked); use labour supply curves to show income versus substitution effects and evaluate distributional consequences.

Ask students to draw and explain a labour supply and demand diagram for scaffolding workers after a rise in high-profile accidents; require analysis of compensating wage differentials, a shift in supply, and a short numerical part calculating the new equilibrium wage and employment level.

Construct a short-run production question asking how investment in safety equipment (e.g. safety belts, supervision) would change marginal product of labour, illustrate with marginal product curves, and evaluate effects on short-run output and cost curves.

Require students to diagram private versus social cost of employing workers in risky tasks, explain the welfare loss, and evaluate policy instruments (regulation, fines, mandatory equipment, subsidies for safety training) to internalise the externality, discussing efficiency and enforceability.

Set a 12-mark evaluative question asking whether policy priority should be stricter enforcement of safety rules or expanded compensation/insurance for victims, asking candidates to distinguish positive and normative statements and to assess distributional impacts on workers, firms and taxpayers.

Ask students to explain how stronger IP protection and patent evaluation change incentives for innovation and resource allocation, and evaluate (with diagrams) whether public funding for an IP academy is justified to correct market failures related to property rights.

Provide a short case where a firm obtains a patent and ask students to analyse welfare effects: draw supply/demand or monopoly diagrams to show changes in price, output, consumer/producer surplus and deadweight loss; discuss trade-offs between dynamic efficiency (innovation incentives) and static inefficiency.

Ask students to evaluate how targeted training (supply of skilled labour) shifts labour productivity and output in the IP sector; include effects on wages, labour supply, and long-run growth, and ask for policy recommendations.

Give students a scenario describing Hong Kong’s IP trading market and ask them to classify the market structure, justify their choice using characteristics, and analyse implications for competition, entry barriers and government intervention (e.g., academy, evaluation centre).

Short essay (10–12 marks): explain why secure private property rights are important for investment and long‑run efficiency; use a diagram to show how the risk of expropriation can shift investment incentives and evaluate the likely effects on foreign direct investment into Panama and similar economies.

Data‑response question (15 marks): given hypothetical pre‑ and post‑takeover share prices and expected cash flows from the concession, calculate the change in firm valuation and discuss how political risk is priced into share and bond markets; evaluate how such events affect minority shareholders and cross‑border M&A.

Essay or policy evaluation (12–15 marks): define private, public and quasi‑public goods and argue for or against state control of critical infrastructure like major ports on efficiency and equity grounds; include an evaluation of trade‑offs using real‑world stakeholder perspectives (government, operator, users).

Short answer with diagram (8–10 marks): identify sources of monopoly power in port services (natural monopoly characteristics, control of strategic location, sunk costs) and assess how market power might be affected by a state takeover or by entry of global operators such as APM/MSC.

Ask students to explain scarcity and opportunity cost in this context: calculate the opportunity cost for a parent who pays HK$100,000 for a bribe versus other uses (e.g. purchasing ESF bond, private tutoring, or saving); evaluate how scarcity of places could be addressed (increase supply, change allocation rules) with pros and cons.

Set a data‑response or essay question that asks students to contrast allocation by price versus non‑price methods (priority rules, lottery) using a supply–demand diagram to show shortage; evaluate whether introducing a price (or regulated fee) would be efficient and/or equitable and discuss likely unintended consequences (black markets, reduced access for low‑income families).

Produce an evaluation question: assess the trade‑off between equity and efficiency in ESF’s current priority system and possible reforms (e.g. remove bond priority, use lotteries, increase means‑tested quotas); require normative judgement supported by microeconomic reasoning (incidence, winners/losers, short‑run vs long‑run effects).

Ask students to analyse the incentive effects of offering priority to bond purchasers: explain how the bond operates as a non‑tuition price, compute implied cost per year of guaranteed priority (given bond amount and expected return), and evaluate whether this is an efficient or equitable allocation tool compared with alternatives.

Ask students to explain why basic research can be treated as a public good, show using a diagram the implications for market provision, and evaluate two government approaches (direct funding like InnoHK vs subsidies/grants) to increase provision, considering efficiency and equity.

Require students to diagram private vs social marginal benefit for R&D, calculate/explain the welfare loss from underinvestment, and evaluate policy instruments (e.g., subsidies, public labs, tax incentives) Hong Kong could use to internalise these positive externalities.

Ask students to analyse how increased R&D funding and internationalisation change the supply and quality of factors (human capital and capital equipment) in Hong Kong, and discuss short- and long-run effects on productive capacity and comparative advantage in higher education.

Prompt students to explain mechanisms by which university R&D and international partnerships raise labour productivity, then evaluate the likely impact on Hong Kong’s long-run economic growth and labour market (including possible distributional effects).

Ask students to draw and label a supply-and-demand diagram showing the recent demand shift; explain how equilibrium price and quantity change, incorporate the dampening effect of excess completed-but-unsold supply, and evaluate short-run vs long-run outcomes using the banks' numeric forecasts (e.g., +10–15%).

Set a calculation/problem question where students estimate quantity response given assumed elasticity values (e.g., if price rises 10% and demand elasticity is -0.5 vs -1.5); or ask an evaluative question comparing elasticity for luxury housing vs typical flats and implications for revenue and market volatility.

Require a short essay: define scarcity and distinguish it from temporary oversupply, use the 23,000 unsold units figure to assess whether housing scarcity persists, and evaluate policy options (e.g., release of land, tax/immigration measures) and their likely microeconomic effects.

Pose a 10–12 mark applied question: explain how price signals and incentives operate in Hong Kong’s housing market, discuss advantages and equity concerns, and evaluate non-price interventions (subsidies, price controls) that the government could use to address allocation and distributional issues.

Ask students to classify the different uses of the site (public promenade, paid exhibitions, F&B areas) as public, private, club or common-pool goods, draw labeled diagrams showing excludability/rivalry, and explain implications for who should provide and fund each part (government vs private operator).

Provide a diagram showing private versus social benefits/costs for the operator’s events and ask students to evaluate possible government interventions (subsidies, regulation, zoning or taxes) to correct externalities and justify which instrument is most suitable in the Hong Kong context.

Set a data-response question where students must identify and compare opportunity costs of (a) short-term tenancy activation, (b) long-term commercial redevelopment, and (c) full public park conversion; ask them to evaluate which option maximises social welfare given brief cost/benefit indicators (economic, social, environmental).

Ask students to discuss how different ownership structures (state-backed vs private local firms) might affect competitive outcomes, transparency in tenders, and policy concerns; include an evaluation of whether ownership should influence tender scoring (technical vs price weightings) in Hong Kong’s public land use decisions.

Ask students to show with a diagram how raising the quota (from a lower cap to 40% and then 50%) affects the market for non-local student places (quantity of places and any implicit price effects), and to evaluate welfare effects (producer/consumer surplus, deadweight loss) and policy objectives (revenue vs access).

Set a data-based question: using given figures for non-local student growth and a supplied demand elasticity, calculate the likely change in equilibrium tuition revenue and number of non-local students; include a diagram and discuss how shifts in demand (ASEAN/Belt and Road interest) interact with supply changes from quotas or expanded capacity.

Ask students to analyse how an increase in non-local student intake could affect Hong Kong’s labour supply in the medium term (labour market diagrams), and to evaluate short-run and long-run impacts on wages, employment opportunities for locals, and human capital (assess assumptions about students staying and labour market integration).

Require students to identify and illustrate positive and negative externalities from increased non-local enrolment, show on a diagram the divergence between private and social benefits, and evaluate policies (subsidies, quotas, promotional events) that could internalise externalities.

Ask students to illustrate with a labour supply and demand diagram how an increase in the supply of graduate workers (due to larger non-local student quotas and post-study work visas) affects equilibrium wage and employment; evaluate short-run and long-run effects on local graduates and suggest policy responses.

Pose an evaluative question asking how higher labour mobility from international students can benefit or harm Hong Kong’s labour market and firms, using examples of skill transfer, brain gain vs brain drain, and considering frictions that affect mobility.

Require students to draw a private vs social benefit diagram for higher education, explain the presence of positive externalities, and evaluate government policies (subsidies, scholarships, industry partnerships) that could correct underinvestment.

Ask students to classify higher education within the private/public goods framework, justify the classification, and assess the merits and drawbacks of increasing public university places for non-local students from efficiency and equity perspectives.

Ask students to classify elements of the project as public, private or quasi-public goods and to draw/label a diagram showing government provision; evaluate the economic rationale for government provision and subsidy versus private delivery (short essay, 10–12 marks).

Pose a data-response or short essay: explain how weakened/altered property-rights protections or stronger government control could affect investment incentives, land-use efficiency and transaction costs; assess trade-offs using examples from the article (8–10 marks).

Provide a short calculation/analysis question: given alternative projects and estimated returns (students provided figures), calculate the opportunity cost of the HK$30 billion allocation and evaluate whether the government’s choice is justified on economic grounds (6–8 marks).

Ask students to draw and explain supply–demand diagrams for oil and for gold showing short-run shifts, then analyse the likely effects on equilibrium price and quantity, and discuss short-run impacts on Hong Kong consumers and firms (e.g., higher transport costs, imported inflation).

Provide price-change and elasticity estimates and ask students to calculate the change in total expenditure and to explain how inelastic vs elastic demand would change the burden of higher fuel prices for Hong Kong households and businesses (include short-run vs long-run differences).

Pose a data‑interpretation question where students explain how large capital inflows would affect bond yields, stock prices and the Hong Kong dollar (under a peg), and evaluate policy options the government or HKMA could use to manage financial risk.

Ask students to calculate amounts and evaluate effects: e.g. given an IPO that raises US$1.81bn with cornerstone tranches making up 50%, calculate funds provided by cornerstones; then explain advantages and disadvantages for both issuers and cornerstone investors (fundraising certainty, lock-ups, signalling, dilution, liquidity) and assess whether heavy cornerstone participation is welfare-improving.

Design a 12-mark short essay: describe how an IPO and cornerstone allocations alter ownership and control, illustrate potential agency problems and changes in monitoring, and evaluate the trade-offs for founders and government-linked owners when choosing a Hong Kong IPO versus staying private or listing elsewhere.

Require diagram and explanation: draw supply and demand for an IPO showing how large cornerstone demand (and reduced retail clawback) shifts and stabilises the pre-listing demand curve, changing equilibrium price and expected volatility; include a numerical part using the article’s change in locked-up share (from ~14% to ~49%) to discuss short-run supply available to public investors.

Ask students to draw supply and demand diagrams showing the effect of the FRT subsidy on price, quantity and welfare (consumer surplus, producer surplus, government expenditure, deadweight loss), then explain consequences of removing the subsidy and propose a targeted subsidy for commercial vehicles with justification.

Require analysis of negative and positive externalities from petrol vs electric commercial vehicles, ask for a diagram of social vs private marginal costs/benefits and to evaluate whether subsidy, regulation or infrastructure investment is the most efficient policy to internalize externalities in Hong Kong's context.

Give students data (e.g., number of EV registrations before/after subsidy, changes in FRT amounts) and ask them to estimate price elasticity of demand for private EVs and discuss how elasticity differences between private buyers and commercial operators affect the optimal size and targeting of subsidies.

Ask students to draw a demand and supply diagram for Cambodia tourism from Hong Kong, show the leftward shift in demand due to safety concerns, and analyse the effect on equilibrium quantity, price (tour package revenue), and producer surplus; then evaluate how the visa‑free pilot or promotional visits would shift demand back and the likely short‑run vs long‑run effects.

Produce an exam question asking students to explain qualitatively whether demand for trips to Cambodia from Hong Kong is likely price elastic or inelastic and why, calculate % changes using given data (e.g. arrivals down ~31.4% Q3 yoy; Hong Kong arrivals fell from ~13,000 to ~62), and discuss cross‑elasticity with rival destinations (Vietnam, Japan) and implications for tourism revenue when policies change (visa waiver, exchange rates).

Ask students to illustrate the negative externality from scam centres with a welfare diagram (private vs social benefit), explain the resulting market failure, and evaluate policy responses mentioned in the article (legal reform, forced shutdowns, information campaigns) in terms of effectiveness, costs and possible unintended consequences for the tourism market.

Ask students to draw labelled supply and demand diagrams showing the effects of increased global demand for AI-related products and tariff-related timing of shipments on equilibrium quantity and price of Hong Kong exports; explain impacts on trade balance and show short-run vs seasonally adjusted changes.

Give data (e.g. exports +33.8%, global GDP growth ~3%) and ask students to evaluate whether export growth implies high income-elasticity; pose a calculation question using hypothetical price/tariff changes to determine how total export revenue would change given specified price elasticities.

Require students to classify examples from the article (AI chips, electronic components) as consumer or producer goods, explain implications for demand volatility and inventory replenishment, and evaluate how a shift toward producer goods exports affects Hong Kong’s trade sustainability.

Ask students to classify ‘A Symphony of Lights’ and the proposed district projection shows as public, private or club goods, explain government rationale for funding using public‑goods arguments, and evaluate alternative delivery methods (direct provision, grants to private firms, user fees) — include efficiency/equity judgement (10–12 marks).

Provide the budget figures from the article and ask students to identify the opportunity cost of increasing HKTB funding by 35% (or of the HK$200m rural pilot), construct a simple PPC or cost‑benefit style argument, and evaluate whether the marginal benefits justify the marginal costs—answer to include normative judgement (12–15 marks).

Require students to identify positive and negative externalities associated with the light‑show revamp and rural tourism, show on supply/demand diagrams how a subsidy/marketing campaign could correct under‑provision, and evaluate policy mix (subsidies, taxes, regulation, provision) with Hong Kong examples from the article (12–15 marks).

Ask students to analyse how increased issuance of offshore yuan bonds in Hong Kong would affect bond yields, demand for yuan deposits and firms’ financing costs, and to evaluate the effectiveness of policy supports (HKMA–PBOC swap line and the 200 billion yuan lending facility) in developing the market.

Set a question requiring students to identify and explain types of business expansion (international, horizontal, vertical) using a mainland firm listing in Hong Kong as a case study, and evaluate the advantages (access to capital, reputation, investor base) and disadvantages (regulatory compliance costs, listing requirements) for firms.

Provide a diagram task asking students to draw a long-run average cost curve showing economies then diseconomies of scale and explain, with reference to a Chinese firm using Hong Kong finance, the sources of cost savings (bulk purchasing, specialised finance) and potential diseconomies (coordination, regulatory complexity) when expanding.

Ask students to draw supply and demand diagrams showing the effect of the import suspension on equilibrium price, quantity, consumer and producer surplus; include a quantitative part using the article’s import figures to estimate the percentage drop in supply and calculate likely price effects under different price elasticities of supply and demand.

Have students compare the economic effects of an absolute import ban (quota) with a tariff or improved inspection policy: use diagrams and written evaluation to show impacts on domestic producers, consumers, government revenue (zero for quota), and welfare; optional calculation: estimate the lost import volume and discuss who captures any price premium.

Pose an evaluative essay question requiring students to explain the market failure (externality), assess whether an import ban is the appropriate policy response compared with alternatives (quarantine, testing, subsidies for domestic biosecurity), and weigh efficiency versus equity and public health considerations.