10 ms·
Are cities the new countries?
- ekianjo 11y ago> "When we talk about countries, it's often about what separates us, language and culture. But when you talk about cities, we face very similar challenges." Yeah, and big consumer companies (FMCG and the like) have already noticed that for a while and approach regional markets with high density populations the same way - they are are indeed many more shared needs than differences. Once you go out of the metropolitan areas, however, you see way more differences driven by local cultures.
- afsina 11y agoI wish we can have real city states as I think they have a lot of advantages over large-central states. Easier accountability of the governments, easier mobility and probably less trade restrictions.
- davidiach 11y agoWhen you think that the New York Metropolitan Area has a bigger GDP than Russia, what you are suggesting (real city states) starts to actually make sense.
- afsina 11y agoWhy so?
- davidiach 11y agoDon't you think that an economy greater than Russia deserves to govern itself, or at least have much greater autonomy?
- conistonwater 11y agoWouldn't that argument work in reverse too? How much autonomy does Vermont (lowest gdp) need anyway?
- ethagknight 11y agoOr that perhaps the key to New York's success is dependent upon the existing government framework?
- afsina 11y agoI doubt that. Singapore, Monaco and Luxembourg are doing just fine without the blessing of a big state.
- pjc50 11y agoMonaco and Luxembourg both are inside the EU and exist very much as a result of cooperation with France (and the Treaty of Utrecht). They both have ceremonial militaries only, and subsist by facilitating tax avoidance for the nearby elites.
- smcl 11y agoI'm not so sure these are very good examples. Monaco is effectively a tiny gated community of France for the super rich that produces little-to-no goods or services. Luxembourg is heavily dependent on support and the existance of the EU (receiving approximately €3,000 per person, the highest in the entire EU). Singapore is probably the best example of a city-state succeeding outside the framework of a larger state, but the size of their public debt is a little frightening for such a small country - and would be slightly less so if it was within a larger body.
- afsina 11y agoThere are also Andorra, Lichtenstein and probably Macao and Hong Kong (They could be just fine without England and China).
- conistonwater 11y agoWhere are you seeing this? I got California > Russia > New York State: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=new+york+gdp%2C+california+gdp%2C+russia+gdp http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=new+york+gdp%2C+califor...
- darpa_escapee 11y agoMetro area includes parts of NJ, PA and CT but not all of NY state.
- conistonwater 11y agoI see. Still appears to be less than Russia: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=new+york+metro+area+gdp%2C+new+york+gdp%2C+russia+gdp http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=new+york+metro+area+gdp... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._metropolitan_areas_by_GDP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._metropolitan_area...)
- ceras 11y agoDepending on how you define it, the NY metro area extends into NJ, CT, and PA. I still don't think it surpasses Russia, but it does surpass the vast majority of countries, including Spain: http://www.usmayors.org/metroeconomies/2013/201311-report.pdf http://www.usmayors.org/metroeconomies/2013/201311-report.pd...
- davidiach 11y agoNew York Metropolitan Area GDP (or GMP) in 2015: $1,573.8 billion http://www.statista.com/statistics/183808/gmp-of-the-20-biggest-metro-areas/ http://www.statista.com/statistics/183808/gmp-of-the-20-bigg... Russia GDP in 2015: $1,235.858 billion http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2015/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=67&pr.y=8&sy=2013&ey=2020&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=922&s=NGDPD&grp=0&a= http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2015/02/weodata/weor...
- hobs 11y agoWhat evidence do we have that any of those things would occur? The pre-modern city states really did not have better accountability or less trade restrictions, as far as I know they were characterized by kings and tariffs, and were at war almost all the time.
- m_mueller 11y agoI'm not saying it would be a particularly good system to copy, but the old Swiss confederacy is probably the prime example of self governed city states bound only in an alliance, i.e not through a monarchy. What came out of it (after some Republicanism was forcefully infuced by Napoleon) is something most Swiss are very fond of - a federal Republic with a very modest central government and checks and balances on steroids (via direct democratic participation that can overrule anything the elected leaders can come up with). Governance as local as possible makes sense for many things - not all though.
- hobs 11y agoFair point, forgot about those sensible Swiss.
- m_mueller 11y agoWell, if you look at the Old Confederacy, you were only really wrong in one account: the assumption that it needs to be a monarchy. These fellas were rather fond of going into battle, it's just that all out war has somehow been avoided since the mid 17th century.
- mxfh 11y agoEffectively Switzerland is pretty much a one-dimensional (only 30 to 70 km in width) multi or triple center city-(cluster) state due to it's economically usable geography wedged in between the Jura and alpine Mountain ranges. This 300 km long plateau only covers about 30% of the Swiss total land area. Geneva plus Lac Léman region (Lausanne, Montreux) on the one end. Seperated by the "Röstigraben" from the German part of the Swiss Plateau, which itself is culturally divided by the Brünig-Napf-Reuss line[2]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Plateau https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Plateau [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br%C3%BCnig-Napf-Reuss_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br%C3%BCnig-Napf-Reuss_line [2]
- flexie 11y agoFunny. I sometimes wish we had a global "state" with general rights to move freely, vote on global issues etc. Then people could organize in tiny city states or whatever within the global state. (now when we are talking fantasies)
- Brakenshire 11y agoThat's in some ways how the EU is working out, although the global state is smaller and the city states are more like regions. The EU provides a single market, a customs area, freedom of movement and to some degree a currency. Most of the former Communist states are a lot smaller than 19th century imperatives would have dictated. In the EU and EU accession countries, there's Poland (40m), Romania (20m), and then all other countries are 11 million and below. And in Western Europe the independence movements are about spin-offs of similar populations. Scotland is 5 million, Catalonia is about 7.5 million (5 million in Barcelona), Brittany is about 4.5 million, the Italian city states a bit smaller. That's the way things are going.
- vinceguidry 11y agoA state exists primarily to defend its polity against other states. It takes a lot of resources to maintain a military, accomplish geopolitical objectives, pursue a coherent foreign policy. Let's say we found aliens living in the next solar system. That would be the beginning of the global human state. Even if they're not hostile, humanity as a whole world need to band together to figure out just what to do about them. What you're looking for is pan-national governmental institutions. There are plenty of those.
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoIsn't that an oxymoron - multiple pan-national states? You're only supposed to need one. Anyway, I predict when other people are discovered in another solar system, then each nation on Earth will attempt to have a relationship with them and it will be business as usual. Why would America or China agree on the best policy vs interstellar trade? They agree on so little else!
- s_kilk 11y agoInteresting. My group of friends seem to routinely come back to the topic of the UK becoming a federation of city-states. Seems we're not the only ones thinking that way.
- elthran 11y agoPerhaps not a federation of city states, but I would definitely be in favour of a federation of England/Scotland/Wales/NI/Dependencies - perhaps even with London as a separate federal part
- s_kilk 11y agoCertainly, that alone would be a move in the right direction. > London as a separate federal part Not the first time I've heard the suggestion of ejecting London from the Union :)
- nkoren 11y agoMy first real introduction to UK politics was listening to an only mildly tipsy ex-London mayor rant about how if he could, he'd gladly "pay the rest of the UK £10 billion to go fuck itself, and get us towed out into the mid-Atlantic and declared an independent city state." This impressed me on several levels. :-)
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- djaychela 11y agoThere was a portion of a recent TED Radio Hour which referenced this: http://www.npr.org/2016/01/08/462281067/how-are-mayors-better-poised-to-get-things-done http://www.npr.org/2016/01/08/462281067/how-are-mayors-bette...
- ajuc 11y agoCities grow by drawing in people from around them. They can exist only thanks to the unproductive rural regions. If we separate cities from their region - it just means the money generated in cities won't be used (among other things) for fixing problems in the countryside. It's just hiding the externalities. Also from history I know of at least 3 unifications of small states and it was beneficial in all cases (at least for the people involved) - see Polish, German, and Italian unification. Why do we think it's different now?
- Jtsummers 11y agoThe article isn't about rural versus urban. But even so, a question: why does the countryside have to be unproductive for people to leave? From what I've seen it's more often that it's productive, but too efficient. The people aren't needed for working the land. Or, fewer people are needed to work larger plots of land.
- ajuc 11y agoI meant it's by its nature less productive per square meter than cities. Modern country could manage with <5% of population working the land, but I don't think we have any countries where 95% live in cities. And I don't think it's obviously good idea to force them to migrate (by putting a border between them and their jobs).
- pjc50 11y agoI don't think we have any countries where 95% live in cities. Suprisingly we do, and not just microstates. Belgium is listed at 97.5%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_by_country If you set the threshold at 90% instead of 95%, that includes much of South America: Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Venezuela.
- jessriedel 11y agoIt doesn't seem to bother anyone that folks in poor rural countries with no functional cities are separated from their potential jobs by a border. Why would we care more about rural New York State'ers being excluded from NYC than we would about Haitians being excluded from Davenport, Iowa? The latter exclusion has a much higher humanitarian cost, and most of the justifications for strong national borders can be used in a hypothetical world where the NYC metro area was sovereign, just like they are already used for city-states like Singapore and Monaco.
- nkoren 11y agoYes. Countries were relevant back in the days when territory was the most prized thing and war was the best means of acquiring it. Countries evolved as a means of ensuring territorial integrity, via means both explicit (borders enforced by militaries) and implicit (cultural/linguistic homogeneity, leading to xenophobia and other such barriers). But territories are no longer the most prized thing: economies are. And economies are produced by cities, not countries.[1] Moreover, the rise of the importance of cities is genuinely a challenge to the institutions of countries, not something that is merely happening in parallel to the ongoing importance of countries. This is because the factors which allow cities to thrive -- internal diversity and external trade -- are almost diametrically opposed to the factors which allow countries to maintain their territorial integrity. Of these two forms of power, I'm betting on cities. 1: http://www.zompist.com/jacobs.html http://www.zompist.com/jacobs.html
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoAll you folks in the city will learn your lesson pretty quick once the food stops flowing in. Don't get too uppity!
- Zach_the_Lizard 11y agoIn the US, less than 2% of the population works on farms. That's roughly 6 million people at a full 2%, less than the population of NYC alone. Should farmers decide to not ship out food for some reason, it would be easy for cities to keep them in line if they are facing an existential crisis.
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoNo, it would be impossible to get farmers to farm if they decide not to. And equally unlikely that city folks could do the job, cold. It'd be mass starvation and revolution.
- Zach_the_Lizard 11y agoIf farmers don't grow, they might not get to live either. They don't get medicine, farming equipment, fertilizer, gasoline, electricity, cell phones, the Internet, clothes, or anything else they've come to depend on. A lot of farming is automated, using GPS and other systems to drive tractors with extreme accuracy. Without gasoline alone it would be impossible for many farmers to find the labor to grow what they do. Farming is a lot more high tech than you might think. In short, farmers are just as dependent on cities as cities are on them. They trade not out of the goodness of their hearts but for selfish reasons. Even farmers themselves must trade, as not all farmers grow food, and not all farmers that grow food can live on just what they grow. A cotton farmer in Alabama is going to have just as hard a time eating as a banker on Wall Street.
- legulere 11y agoThe problem is that cities are very dependent on the land around them: Water, Food, natural Resources.
- osoti 11y ago10 Most Powerful Militaries in The World http://goo.gl/PmwkSr http://goo.gl/PmwkSr
- vlehto 11y agoCountry is essentially a political tool. Historically borders have been drawn so that tax collection and defense is easy. There is no reason to assume anything else for the future. With rising costs of defense tech and automation allowing small crews, defense is about money. Tax money to be specific. Bitcoin is making money transactions difficult to follow. International banking and tax havens are also a thing. Either we are going to see private armies and private countries, or countries shift taxation away from income and transactions. And start to tax something more traceable. Location is prized and traceable. Water, electricity, internet bandwidth, everything that moves through fixed cable is also good candidate. Then comes traffic. If we rely on liquid fuels, road traffic could be taxed without tracing. But planes and ships are probably going to see some tax entering/exiting a port. The article seems to be right for the wrong reasons. Country formation is usually very Machiavellian business.
- transfire 11y agoSomeone should draw a map of the U.S. if city-states were to rise to power.
- nkoren 11y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaregions_of_the_United_States#/media/File:MapofEmergingUSMegaregions.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaregions_of_the_United_Stat...
- flubert 11y agoInteresting, but linking Seattle, Boise, and the Tri-cities into one mega-region seems to decrease the seriousness of the concept to me.
- loopdedoo 11y agoI made an attempt at something like this a while ago! http://spacesurrounding.blogspot.com/2013/10/rise-of-city-states-of-america.html http://spacesurrounding.blogspot.com/2013/10/rise-of-city-st...
- wj 11y agoWhen I submitted the (exact) same article last night I thought about how this topic was covered in a book I read titled, Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making. Part of the premise was that people in some of the large (and prosperous) cities of the world have more in common with each other than they might with the many of the people of their own country. Due to the mobility offered by airlines, the concentration of successful people going to relatively few universities, and the global reach of their companies, many New Yorkers might know more people living in London than they knew living in the majority of U.S. states. http://www.amazon.com/Superclass-Global-Power-Elite-Making/dp/0374531617/ref=pd_sim_14_5?ie=UTF8&dpID=51Rr-qrkJOL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR100%2C160_&refRID=1QBKGWQ2X1MQXCT4BN26 http://www.amazon.com/Superclass-Global-Power-Elite-Making/d... Personally I have always felt that people who live in large cities have a much easier time navigating foreign large cities (even if they don't speak the language) than people from smaller towns in the same country. Using a subway for instance.
- Spooky23 11y agoThat's a great example of the endgame of income inequality will transform the world. I find it sad, as that is the cynical world my children will inherit.
- clamprecht 11y agoHonest question: Did you believe this before you had children, or did you realize it afterwards?
- Spooky23 11y agoMore afterwards. For me, getting acquainted with schools again has made academic discussion more real. Also, watching the changes in industries I interact with at work over the last decade has been eye opening.
- flubert 11y agoYou may also like: "Dead Souls: The Denationalization of the American Elite" http://nationalinterest.org/print/article/dead-souls-the-denationalization-of-the-american-elite-620 http://nationalinterest.org/print/article/dead-souls-the-den... "Debates over national identity are a pervasive characteristic of our time. In part, they raise rhetorical questions, but they also have profound implications for American society and American policy at home and abroad. Different perceptions--especially between the citizenry and the more cosmopolitan elites--of what constitutes national identity generate different national interests and policy priorities. The views of the general public on issues of national identity differ significantly from those of many elites. The public, overall, is concerned with physical security but also with societal security, which involves the sustainability--within acceptable conditions for evolution--of existing patterns of language, culture, association, religion and national identity. For many elites, these concerns are secondary to participating in the global economy, supporting international trade and migration, strengthening international institutions, promoting American values abroad, and encouraging minority identities and cultures at home. The central distinction between the public and elites is not isolationism versus internationalism, but nationalism versus cosmopolitanism."
- wink 11y agoMaybe they have a lot in common with other big cities, but I'm not sure it's accounting for more than other factors. Anecdotal example: When talking to people from other countries (but same professional background and income bracket, tech conferences for me specifically) the differences are often very visible and also major than talking to someone from the countryside. Sure, there's always stuff that's different (and the ribbing under friends and colleagues of "quality of life/size of your house" versus "only 30mins to work instad of 60+/small apartment" never gets old - at least here in Germany) So yes - for exactly the topics mentioned: transportation, housing, etc it's absolutely true - but not necessarily for most aspects of life.
- ommunist 11y agoThere already was a page in the world history when struggle between cities was more important than power play between countries. Genova vs Venice was way more important for Europe and the Midfle East than London vs Paris in its time.
- nvahalik 11y agoAnyone else think of franchises when they read this title?