4 ms·

Why on earth would anyone support charter cities? Cities are a community of people and should be owned, operated, legislated by and accountable to the community

Why on earth would anyone support charter cities? Cities are a community of people and should be owned, operated, legislated by and accountable to the community, not outsiders. This is not even a new idea, and it ended really poorly last time - see the Concessions in Shanghai. [1] Having a huge disparity in the power of the so-called guarantor country as compared to the local host country is just a new take on colonialism. [edit] However the biggest issue seems to be that it was found unconstitutional, then the judges were evicted and replaced (in what the UN described as an attack on democracy), and then all of a sudden it was constitutional. Telling the locals you know better than they do about how their region should be administered, while giving yourself the ability to exploit the living crap out of them thanks to your privileged position of being a foreigner is roughly how colonialism was carried out. [edit] It's particularly relevant that Paul Romer proposed this at a Ted talk and then talked the Hondurans into it - citing Hong Kong as an example of a well-run charter city. Remember what happened there two years ago through present? [2] If that's your contemporary flagship... Yeah, that's pretty much what's going to happen to all of these soon-to-be-catastrophes. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_International_Settlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_International_Settlem... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_city_(economic_development) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_city_(economic_develop...

lmm 5y ago
> Cities are a community of people and should be owned, operated, legislated by and accountable to the community, not outsiders. Isn't that exactly what a charter city is? A city that's accountable to its own community, not to outsiders in the rest of the country. > It's particularly relevant that Paul Romer proposed this at a Ted talk and then talked the Hondurans into it - citing Hong Kong as an example of a well-run charter city. Remember what happened there two years ago through present? [2] If that's your contemporary flagship... Yeah, that's pretty much what's going to happen to all of these soon-to-be-catastrophes. Or you could have a country that respected the rule of law more than the CCP does (not a high bar), and was willing to accept the loss of control in return for the advantages of this kind of city.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  Romer's charter cities relevant here [1] are not the same as for instance US charter cities [2], they just happen to share the name. Per Wikipedia: A charter city is a type of city in which a guarantor from a developed country would create a city within a developing host country. The guarantor would administer the region, with the power to create their own laws, judiciary, and immigration policy outside of the control of the host country. Think Fordlandia, in Brazil. [3] The town had a strict set of rules imposed by the managers. Alcohol, women, tobacco and even football were forbidden within the town, including inside the workers' own homes. Inspectors would go from house to house to check how organised the houses were and to enforce these rules. The inhabitants circumvented these prohibitions by paddling out to merchant riverboats moored beyond the town jurisdiction, often hiding contraband goods inside fruits like watermelons. A small settlement was established 8 kilometres (5 mi) upstream on the "Island of Innocence" with bars, nightclubs and brothels. In 1930, the native workers grew tired of the American food and revolted in the town's cafeteria. This became known as the Breaking Pans (Portuguese: Quebra-Panelas). The rebels proceeded to cut the telegraph wires and chased away the managers and even the town's cook into the jungle for a few days until the Brazilian Army arrived and the revolt ended. Agreements were then made on the type of food the workers would be served. Or the time the Dutch East India Company owned all of Indonesia and went a-massacrin'. [4] > Or you could have a country that respected the rule of law more than the CCP does (not a high bar), and was willing to accept the loss of control in return for the advantages of this kind of city. The question is of course, why? If it were built for the good of the locals it would just be built by the host government without an outside power, through partnerships and investment. When a foreign power looks to create such an exclave its generally because they can't get away with what they're trying to do at home. If it genuinely is well-intentioned for the "good of the locals" then of course, well-off foreigners coming in and telling the locals what's what has a very long, and very poor track record. See: uh, basically anywhere. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_city_(economic_development) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_city_(economic_develop... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_city https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_city [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordlândia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordlândia [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1740_Batavia_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1740_Batavia_massacre
dollop43 5y ago
There are different kind of charter cities. Concessions in Shanghai you mentioned was ran by the colonist and work for the colonist. The locals were either rejected or not interested in participating. That was the problem. Hong Kong was successful because it was ran by local Hongkongers. It began as much as like other colony. But Hong Kong become successful because it was cut out of the the colonist UK's control after WW2. It was a territory in the middle of a communist. The governor need local support in order to sustain their power. So they starts to adapt locals into the power structure. At the end, local Hongkongers were highly participating the society. But it become catastrophic in last two years because the new host country China does not like that. In that sense, I agreed that charter city did not work, because a successful charter city will be doomed to destroy by the host country. It could either become a country or being absorbed. A colonist style charter city were problematic to start with. But it is a good method to test new governing idea before a full adaptation to the whole country. It is like startup for government. In that sense, it is a good idea, and Hong Kong was a great experiment. China created Shenzhen based on that.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  I think that's fair, but there's a lot we're willing to ignore because it 'won't happen here.' Can you imagine the uproar if a Chinese state-run mining company wanted to start a charter city in the Nevada desert with its own immigration policy, own laws, and own system of government? oof. How about a Russian charter city in the middle of England? You know, to dry-run totalitarianist pseudo-communism? Even Shenzhen doesn't match the Romer definition which involves a foreign benefactor. Shenzhen is in China, administered by the Chinese. That may be why it works.
  - theskypirate 5y ago
    A Russian or Chinese charter city would be viewed negatively because these are hostile states. A charter city in the US composed of people from Canada would not be viewed in this way. Charter cities will not work in hostile cultural environments. I understand that from your perspective, Americans are hostile foreigners rather than friendly foreigners, and many people obviously share that view. Charter cities are an interesting concept, but the cultural environment is a critical factor in the viability of real-world cases.
unmole 5y ago
> Why on earth would anyone support charter cities? Cities are a community of people and should be owned, operated, legislated by and accountable to the community You answered your own question. There are many places in the world that have unaccountable governments with terrible legal systems. The idea of charter cities is to have better civic software that what is available locally. > Remember what happened there two years ago through present? Hong Kong did fine as long as CCP respected the One Country, Two Systems policy. Things only got bad when they tried to crack down on it. I don't see how it advances your arguments.
- noselasd 5y ago
  In the case described here, a corrupt Honduran govenrment brings in foreign investors to create, govern and by many definitions, exploit areas within Honduras, against the consent of the locals. Doesn't sound that great, but easy to hide with a flag of "good intentions".
rayiner 5y ago
> Why on earth would anyone support charter cities? Cities are a community of people and should be owned, operated, legislated by and accountable to the community, not outsiders. What if the outsiders are better at governance and development than the locals? As a Bangladeshi, I’d rather have Americans administering Bangladesh than Bangladeshis. Though I’d rather have Germans administer America than Americans… > Telling the locals you know better than they do about how their region should be administered, while giving yourself the ability to exploit the living crap out of them thanks to your privileged position of being a foreigner is roughly how colonialism was carried out. Hong Kong turned out pretty nicely before China took it back.

lmm 5y ago

> Cities are a community of people and should be owned, operated, legislated by and accountable to the community, not outsiders. Isn't that exactly what a charter city is? A city that's accountable to its own community, not to outsiders in the rest of the country. > It's particularly relevant that Paul Romer proposed this at a Ted talk and then talked the Hondurans into it - citing Hong Kong as an example of a well-run charter city. Remember what happened there two years ago through present? [2] If that's your contemporary flagship... Yeah, that's pretty much what's going to happen to all of these soon-to-be-catastrophes. Or you could have a country that respected the rule of law more than the CCP does (not a high bar), and was willing to accept the loss of control in return for the advantages of this kind of city.

arcticbull 5y ago
Romer's charter cities relevant here [1] are not the same as for instance US charter cities [2], they just happen to share the name. Per Wikipedia: A charter city is a type of city in which a guarantor from a developed country would create a city within a developing host country. The guarantor would administer the region, with the power to create their own laws, judiciary, and immigration policy outside of the control of the host country. Think Fordlandia, in Brazil. [3] The town had a strict set of rules imposed by the managers. Alcohol, women, tobacco and even football were forbidden within the town, including inside the workers' own homes. Inspectors would go from house to house to check how organised the houses were and to enforce these rules. The inhabitants circumvented these prohibitions by paddling out to merchant riverboats moored beyond the town jurisdiction, often hiding contraband goods inside fruits like watermelons. A small settlement was established 8 kilometres (5 mi) upstream on the "Island of Innocence" with bars, nightclubs and brothels. In 1930, the native workers grew tired of the American food and revolted in the town's cafeteria. This became known as the Breaking Pans (Portuguese: Quebra-Panelas). The rebels proceeded to cut the telegraph wires and chased away the managers and even the town's cook into the jungle for a few days until the Brazilian Army arrived and the revolt ended. Agreements were then made on the type of food the workers would be served. Or the time the Dutch East India Company owned all of Indonesia and went a-massacrin'. [4] > Or you could have a country that respected the rule of law more than the CCP does (not a high bar), and was willing to accept the loss of control in return for the advantages of this kind of city. The question is of course, why? If it were built for the good of the locals it would just be built by the host government without an outside power, through partnerships and investment. When a foreign power looks to create such an exclave its generally because they can't get away with what they're trying to do at home. If it genuinely is well-intentioned for the "good of the locals" then of course, well-off foreigners coming in and telling the locals what's what has a very long, and very poor track record. See: uh, basically anywhere. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_city_(economic_development) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_city_(economic_develop... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_city https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_city [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordlândia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordlândia [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1740_Batavia_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1740_Batavia_massacre

dollop43 5y ago

There are different kind of charter cities. Concessions in Shanghai you mentioned was ran by the colonist and work for the colonist. The locals were either rejected or not interested in participating. That was the problem. Hong Kong was successful because it was ran by local Hongkongers. It began as much as like other colony. But Hong Kong become successful because it was cut out of the the colonist UK's control after WW2. It was a territory in the middle of a communist. The governor need local support in order to sustain their power. So they starts to adapt locals into the power structure. At the end, local Hongkongers were highly participating the society. But it become catastrophic in last two years because the new host country China does not like that. In that sense, I agreed that charter city did not work, because a successful charter city will be doomed to destroy by the host country. It could either become a country or being absorbed. A colonist style charter city were problematic to start with. But it is a good method to test new governing idea before a full adaptation to the whole country. It is like startup for government. In that sense, it is a good idea, and Hong Kong was a great experiment. China created Shenzhen based on that.

arcticbull 5y ago
I think that's fair, but there's a lot we're willing to ignore because it 'won't happen here.' Can you imagine the uproar if a Chinese state-run mining company wanted to start a charter city in the Nevada desert with its own immigration policy, own laws, and own system of government? oof. How about a Russian charter city in the middle of England? You know, to dry-run totalitarianist pseudo-communism? Even Shenzhen doesn't match the Romer definition which involves a foreign benefactor. Shenzhen is in China, administered by the Chinese. That may be why it works.
- theskypirate 5y ago
  A Russian or Chinese charter city would be viewed negatively because these are hostile states. A charter city in the US composed of people from Canada would not be viewed in this way. Charter cities will not work in hostile cultural environments. I understand that from your perspective, Americans are hostile foreigners rather than friendly foreigners, and many people obviously share that view. Charter cities are an interesting concept, but the cultural environment is a critical factor in the viability of real-world cases.

unmole 5y ago

> Why on earth would anyone support charter cities? Cities are a community of people and should be owned, operated, legislated by and accountable to the community You answered your own question. There are many places in the world that have unaccountable governments with terrible legal systems. The idea of charter cities is to have better civic software that what is available locally. > Remember what happened there two years ago through present? Hong Kong did fine as long as CCP respected the One Country, Two Systems policy. Things only got bad when they tried to crack down on it. I don't see how it advances your arguments.

noselasd 5y ago
In the case described here, a corrupt Honduran govenrment brings in foreign investors to create, govern and by many definitions, exploit areas within Honduras, against the consent of the locals. Doesn't sound that great, but easy to hide with a flag of "good intentions".

rayiner 5y ago

> Why on earth would anyone support charter cities? Cities are a community of people and should be owned, operated, legislated by and accountable to the community, not outsiders. What if the outsiders are better at governance and development than the locals? As a Bangladeshi, I’d rather have Americans administering Bangladesh than Bangladeshis. Though I’d rather have Germans administer America than Americans… > Telling the locals you know better than they do about how their region should be administered, while giving yourself the ability to exploit the living crap out of them thanks to your privileged position of being a foreigner is roughly how colonialism was carried out. Hong Kong turned out pretty nicely before China took it back.