3 ms·

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 charte

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

notch656a 5y ago
Your beef then is with the kind of governance within the charter city, not charter city itself. I could make the same argument for nation-state governments, which commonly result in very poor track record for ensuring the "good of the [common] locals." An egalitarian charter city inside of a brutal autocracy might be great (relatively). The inverse, not so much.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  No my issue is with foreign controlled exclaves which can exert disproportionate influence on the locals without being accountable to the locals whose lives they control. This is colonialism, and the world has broadly agreed its a bad idea - even if a handful of colonies worked out fine, and we slap it with a fun new brand. If you disagree that colonialism is a bad idea, we can talk about that, but we should first call it what it is. > An egalitarian charter city inside of a brutal autocracy might be great (relatively). As a peer reply stated, its success threatens the brutal autocracy and will be crushed. Like HK. The incentives are all wrong in this model.
  - lmm 5y ago
    > This is colonialism, and the world has broadly agreed its a bad idea - even if a handful of colonies worked out fine, and we slap it with a fun new brand. If you disagree that colonialism is a bad idea, we can talk about that, but we should first call it what it is. There are clearly major differences between this and colonialism. Most or all of the agreed downsides of colonialism are not about the existence of exclaves containing foreign people, they're about e.g. people being governed from afar without any local representation.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      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. > Most or all of the agreed downsides of colonialism are not about the existence of exclaves containing foreign people, they're about e.g. people being governed from afar without any local representation. That's exactly what Romer is proposing. The foreign guarantor would administer the region and control its laws, judiciary and immigration policy. These aren't intended to be comprised solely of foreigners. I suspect like past exclaves, they would bring in foreign overseers to enforce their vision.

notch656a 5y ago

Your beef then is with the kind of governance within the charter city, not charter city itself. I could make the same argument for nation-state governments, which commonly result in very poor track record for ensuring the "good of the [common] locals." An egalitarian charter city inside of a brutal autocracy might be great (relatively). The inverse, not so much.

arcticbull 5y ago
No my issue is with foreign controlled exclaves which can exert disproportionate influence on the locals without being accountable to the locals whose lives they control. This is colonialism, and the world has broadly agreed its a bad idea - even if a handful of colonies worked out fine, and we slap it with a fun new brand. If you disagree that colonialism is a bad idea, we can talk about that, but we should first call it what it is. > An egalitarian charter city inside of a brutal autocracy might be great (relatively). As a peer reply stated, its success threatens the brutal autocracy and will be crushed. Like HK. The incentives are all wrong in this model.
- lmm 5y ago
  > This is colonialism, and the world has broadly agreed its a bad idea - even if a handful of colonies worked out fine, and we slap it with a fun new brand. If you disagree that colonialism is a bad idea, we can talk about that, but we should first call it what it is. There are clearly major differences between this and colonialism. Most or all of the agreed downsides of colonialism are not about the existence of exclaves containing foreign people, they're about e.g. people being governed from afar without any local representation.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    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. > Most or all of the agreed downsides of colonialism are not about the existence of exclaves containing foreign people, they're about e.g. people being governed from afar without any local representation. That's exactly what Romer is proposing. The foreign guarantor would administer the region and control its laws, judiciary and immigration policy. These aren't intended to be comprised solely of foreigners. I suspect like past exclaves, they would bring in foreign overseers to enforce their vision.