3 ms·
Its 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
by tacostakohashi 10y ago
Its 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.