本論文運用艾里森（Graham T. Allison）三種決策模式來分析，發現美國的香港政策決策是一個複雜的過程。「理性行為者模式」對布希政府的香港政策起到一定的解釋作用，但不全面，因為布希政府雖然也是基於各種利益審酌立法的必要性和法案內容，但是行政部門是回應者而非倡議者，換句話說，布希政府是在國會的壓力下參與立法決策。如果將國會、行政部門、國內外智庫、利益團體都視為組織，則「組織行為模式」最能解釋「1992年美國－香港政策法」之決策。惟因艾里森的「組織行為模式」著重在說明行政部門內不同機構因受制於標準工作程序而導致之決策差異，故筆者認為帕斯特（Robert A. Pastor）強調行政與立法部門互動關係的「跨部門政治研究法」以及希爾斯曼（Roger Hilsman）主張的由政治系統內有權力的行為者互動造成的「政治過程模式」更能完善詮釋。至於以官僚政治為主體的「政府政治模式」，則因布希總統的謹慎個性、共識要求以及對中國政策的關注和投入，使得官僚拔河現象在布希的中國政策決策上極為罕見，因此「政府政治模式」模式無法解釋布希的香港政策決策，是以筆者改採「總統管理模式」及「小團體思維」理論來闡釋。因此「1992年美國－香港政策法」是理性、跨部門/政治過程、總統管理/小團體思維三種模式在決策過程中綜合起作用的結果，當然不同的模式起的作用不同，對決策的影響力也有差異。大體為：理性行為者模式可以解釋美國的香港政策。政治過程模式最能彰顯法案決策特色。總統管理模式較能解釋布希團隊決策。
The purpose of this dissertation is trying to understand George H.W. Bush Administration’s policy toward Hong Kong, the formulation of the U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, and the roles and influence of the Executive branch, Congress, think tank, interest groups and even foreign countries.
The passage of the U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 （hereinafter referred as “the Act”）enhanced the world’s （certainly including Hong Kong residents）confidence on Hong Kong’s future and accordingly helped to stabilize the political, social, and economic situation in Hong Kong during more-than-a-decade-long transition period before the 1997 handover. However, the making of the Act, so far, has not been very much deliberated academically.
This paper attempts to make some contributions on this subject by probing into the evolution of the Act through investigating the following determining factors: the U.S. predominance in the post-Cold War international community, the development of U.S. domestic politics, and the individual characteristics of decision makers. For these factors, Graham T. Allison’s three decision-making models（i.e. Rational Actor model, Organizational Behavior Model and Governmental Politics Model）, were first explored. Yet it is found that together with Rational Actor model, intra-branch approach/political process model, and presidential management model/ groupthink theory, better facilitate the analysis of the making of the Act. The Act was actually the product of the interaction of the above-mentioned three models. Each could explain the formation of the Act. However their functions are not equal.
Rational Actor model is workable to find out the reason why the United States needs this policy. The Bush Administration had some, though not many, alternatives to deal with Hong Kong issue. It could do nothing. The U.S.-Hong Kong status quo relationship would thus have totally changed after 1997. The U.S. government should treat Hong Kong the same as China since it then became one of the Chinese territory. Should the U.S. continue to develop its multifaceted relationship with Hong Kong? Should the U.S. support Hong Kong’s participation in international organizations? Should the U.S. help to safeguard Hong Kong people’s human rights? Would all of the above be interpreted as interference in China’s exercise of sovereignty? How should the U.S. do if its sanctions on China would bring a negative effect upon Hong Kong? Having finished this complicated cost-benefit analysis, and based on its policy goal toward Hong Kong (to safeguard human rights and prosperity of Hong Kong, and among others, to help promoting Chinese democratization), the Bush Administration endorsed the Act submitted by Congress. With some amendments, the Act met the Administration’s policy goal and the U.S. interests both in China and Hong Kong.
Intra-branch approach/political process model serves best to highlight legislative decision. The Act was initiated by Congress, yet sponsored by certain other power centers. There have been tensions between President Bush and Congress owing to different views concerning Chinese issues, such as MFN treatment, student immigration and response to Tiananmen incident. However, the Administration agreed with the spirit of the Act. The State Department officials, think tank scholars, and interest group professionals, both domestic and foreign, attended hearings many times, consulting and discussing with senators, representatives and Congress staffs article by article, making some amendments. The lengthy legislative process of the Act demonstrated that the decision-making power of the Administration‘s policy toward Hong Kong was shared by President Bush, Congress and interested parties.
Presidential management model/ groupthink theory, compared with other theories, can explain the feature of President Bush’s national security teamwork. Having been American ambassador in Beijing, President Bush has a lot of experience dealing with Chinese. He dominated all China policy decisions during his term. NSC staffs and other bureaucrats tend to be silent and follow him in China affairs (including Hong Kong issue).
To sum up, the main theme of this paper is: The Act is made for promoting American value, sustaining the U.S. world leadership, and enlarging its strategic, economic and political interest in Hong Kong. Also the United States’ Hong Kong policy is one part of its China policy. It will eventually influence Sino-American relations.