4 ms·
Assuming this ever worked, and produced good results, what happens when ten or fifteen years later, the corrupt local dictator takes over, all of the administra
by douche 10y ago
Assuming this ever worked, and produced good results, what happens when ten or fifteen years later, the corrupt local dictator takes over, all of the administrators flee before the mobs take their lives or nationalize all of their property, and all of the expertise and institutions that kept things going evaporate. Because we have a lot of examples of that happening.
- gwright 10y agoYour scenario doesn't seem to be a flaw unique to charter cities. It seems like Venezuela is an example of this happening at the level of an entire sovereign state.
- tacostakohashi 10y agoIts a good point. To put it another way, Romer focusses heavily on the system of rules in place, and that is no doubt import in attracting migrants and capital investment, but what about defense? Nobody is going to want to build factories, ports, and the like, unless they are well defended. The reason Hong Kong worked well wasn't merely the system of rules, it was also the presence and backing of the British military. In the charter city setup, the risk of changing regimes in the host country, and the bad press if the governing country were to intervene, is just too great.
- CPLX 10y agoAnd the British civil service, which regardless of what you think about colonialism have a deserved reputation as one of the most efficient and least corrupt administrative organizations in history.
- kybernetikos 10y agoInterestingly the modern British civil service was based on the Chinese system.
- douche 10y agoIt also helps that Hong Kong was essentially founded as a drug smuggling entrepot, which generated truly obscene amounts of profit.
- hodgesrm 10y agoMaybe the solution is to locate them in countries that are sufficiently weak militarily that they cannot take over the charter cities easily. A lot of places currently meet that criterion. Medieval cities had walls which were generally enough to keep the feudal overlords out. They were individually quite weak militarily. In Italy at least they succumbed quickly to foreign powers like France after 1494. It's probably bigger outside powers you want to worry about.
- Trundle 10y agoIs giving up sovereignty of a city not the politic speak way to say that a foreign government will rule it with military might? Seems like a toothless leasing of brand name if not. Being able to say "a corrupt dictator won't steal your factory if you build it here" and have it believed is half the point, no? Can't do that without military presence.
- jernfrost 10y agoThe losses from that would probably still be a lot lower than the development aid wasted today. Anyway the locals might actually want to defend their city as they might recent their countries corrupt dictator more than a benevolent foreign power.