FinTech innovation and knowledge flows in Hong Kong’s financial sector: a social network analysis approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to examine how financial technology (FinTech) knowledge from foreign firms flows into and among elite commercial banks in Hong Kong’s financial sector to drive innovation. Design/methodology/approach Using social network analysis and regression analysis on a novel database of patents held by Hong Kong’s elite commercial banks, this paper examines the relationships between network position and FinTech knowledge flow. Findings This paper finds four untold patterns of innovation and inequality in Hong Kong’s financial sector: only three banks are responsible for all the FinTech knowledge entering Hong Kong; most foreign FinTech comes from the USA through Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, whereas most FinTech from China enters through Fubon Bank and Development Bank of Singapore; older banks and banks with more connections to firms inside Asia are more likely to import FinTech; the most beneficial sources of FinTech for a bank’s network position are firms from outside Asia. Originality/value Despite the well-documented volumes of cross-border and cross-continental movement of financial institutions in Hong Kong, there is little work on the knowledge flows that underwrite this mobility. This paper addresses this gap by using FinTech knowledge flows to map the distribution of innovation, network position and competitive advantage in Hong Kong’s financial sector.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".