It seems that nearly every magazine over the last month or so has featured London in the run-up to the Olympics. As a result, I have recently found myself comparing the UK capital and Hong Kong quite a lot. The differences and the similarities got me thinking that both cities could usefully learn from each other. At the same time, it seems to me that there is more than one correct way for a city to do things - and there is more than one wrong way to do things that create particular problems.

The main similarities between the two cities are probably quite well known to most of us: they each have around 7 million people; they are both major financial centers; and they both like to think of themselves as globally important and cosmopolitan. (All these are true about New York City as well, but it is London that is getting all the publicity right now.)

One of the major differences is that London really is extremely international. It has significant communities - often clustering in particular neighborhoods - of, among others, Bangladeshis, Nigerians, Koreans, Latin Americans, Middle Easterners, Turks, Eastern Europeans, and so on, including of course Hong Kong and mainland Chinese and people from Western Europe and the rest of the English-speaking world. A third of the city's population was born outside the UK. Some boroughs - equivalent to Hong Kong's districts - are over 50 percent ethnic minorities.

Apart from New York, nowhere in the world comes close to such a mix. Hong Kong is easily the most cosmopolitan city in China, yet we are 95 percent Chinese. We think of Hong Kong as international because we undoubtedly have representatives of people from all around the world, and the label "Chinese" here of course includes all sorts of people who carry various passports and may be culturally mixed.

Where we are most cosmopolitan is in our leading economic activities; international financial institutions and other professional services businesses include people from all over Asia and the West. But much of Hong Kong society is not mixed much at all. Recent publicity concerning the impact of mainlanders into Hong Kong and possible permanent residency for Southeast Asian domestic helpers showed that many Hong Kong people even prefer it that way. Some surveys have shown that some local residents have quite racist views - often without entirely realizing it. London's internationalism is an eye-opener, and we could probably learn something from it.

Another difference is that while Hong Kong enjoys the best and most modern infrastructure, London badly needs repair work. Its transport and water distribution systems are particularly outdated - many of these networks dating not from the last century but the one before. Hong Kong also scores highly in terms of convenience, being concentrated - although the downside is that we do not have the spaciousness and large urban green spaces found in London.

One thing both cities (and New York) have in common is a serious wealth gap. The Gini coefficient, which measures wealth distribution, is pretty much the same for all three cities. Hong Kong's is more widely discussed because this statistic is usually used to compare countries or territories rather than individual cities. Hong Kong undoubtedly has a serious problem in terms of social mobility and income gaps. But London faces broadly similar problems, and the riots and looting that broke out in the city in the summer of 2011 give an idea of the scale of the problem, with a significant underclass of youngsters who apparently have no hope at all for the future and no feeling of belonging to their community.

We would all hate to think that Hong Kong could end up like that, and that is why we should all be concerned about creating a more economically fair society. Hong Kong does at least have the resources necessary to tackle the wealth gap and poverty, and I think we already have some advantages as we do more to help the less well-off improve their lives. Our public housing provision is broader; our crime rate is far lower; our public-sector schools produce better academic results; half the workforce pays no salary tax, and the cost of basic food, clothing and transport is generally lower here. We also have a lower unemployment rate and significant budget surpluses. I believe that, with the new administration now in office, Hong Kong will become a more compassionate place for the underprivileged. In the UK, the government has no choice but to cut spending on things like welfare.

One thing London and Hong Kong have in common is a serious shortage of affordable housing. Traditionally, most British homes are houses with back yards, and usually the back yards come with a small shed for things like garden tools. Recent satellite photos of London show that many back yards now have much larger sheds, and it seems that these are often unregistered dwellings for migrant workers and the less well-off. Here in Hong Kong, we have subdivided apartments and even people sleeping in vans.

In fact, that is true on a larger scale. We hear about how Asia is rising and the West is in decline, but that is an over-generalization. The Olympics is raising London's profile worldwide for a few months, and what I see is an extremely vibrant and cosmopolitan center. It has some serious problems that Hong Kong is fortunate not to share. But where it gets things right, we should probably see the city as our main benchmark.

The author is a HK NPC deputy.

(HK Edition 07/27/2012 page3)