For richer, for poorer

Forget aid—people in the poorest countries like Haiti need new cities with different rules. And developed countries should be the ones that build them

by Paul Romer / January 27, 2010 / Leave a comment

Published in February 2010 issue of Prospect Magazine

Lacking electricity at home, students work under the dim lights of a parking lot at G’bessi Airport in Conakry, Guinea

On the first day of TEDGlobal, a conference for technology enthusiasts in Oxford in July 2009, a surprise guest was unveiled: Gordon Brown. He began his presentation with a striking photograph of a vulture watching over a starving Sudanese girl. The internet, he said, meant such shocking images circulated quickly around the world, helping to mobilise a new global community of aid donors. Brown’s talk ended with a call to action: developed countries should give more aid to fight poverty.

When disaster strikes—as in the recent Haiti earthquake—the prime minister is right. Even small amounts of aid can save many lives. The moral case for aid is compelling. But we must also remember that aid is just palliative care. It doesn’t treat the underlying problems. As leaders like Rwandan president Paul Kagame have noted, it can even make these problems worse if it saps the innovation, ambition, confidence, and aspiration that ultimately helps poor countries grow.

So, two days later, I opened my own TED talk with a different photo, one of African students doing their homework at night under streetlights. I hoped the image would provoke astonishment rather than guilt or pity—for how could it be that the 100-year-old technology for lighting homes was still not available for the students? I argued that the failure could be traced to weak or wrong rules. The right rules can harness self-interest and use it to reduce poverty. The wrong rules stifle this force or channel it in ways that harm society.

The deeper problem, widely recognised but seldom addressed, is how to free people from bad rules. I floated a provocative idea. Instead of focusing on poor nations and how to change their rules, we should focus on poor people and how they can move somewhere with better rules. One way to do this is with doz…

YOU’VE HIT THE LIMIT

You have now reached your limit of 3 free articles in the last 30 days.
But don’t worry! You can get another 7 articles absolutely free, simply by entering your email address in the box below.

When you register we’ll also send you a free e-book—Writing with punch—which includes some of the finest writing from our archive of 22 years. And we’ll also send you a weekly newsletter with the best new ideas in politics and philosophy of culture, which you can of course unsubscribe from at any time

Prospect may process your personal information for our legitimate business purposes, to provide you with our newsletter, subscription offers and other relevant information.

Click to learn more about these interests and how we use your data. You will be able to object to this processing on the next page and in all our communications.

821692845c076f25debdb6.76954120

Go to comments

London's 24-hour comedown

Aimee Cliff / September 21, 2018

Sadiq Khan wanted to make London a "24-hour-city." As clubs close, is the dream over?

This is what peak inequality looks like

Daniel Dorling / June 28, 2018

This is an era of gross unfairness. But it will slowly come to an end

Share with friends

Comments

OLEG_BOLDYREV
January 30, 2010 at 22:41
I was hesitating, before I saw this line "Is it better to have a group of rich nations, or a multinational body like the EU, play the role"... And then it all came clear - the powers that could define such charter city must be ruthless and arrogant way beyond the dithering and indecisive governments of the present. It did take a colonial mindset and a willingness to impose one's own ideas that the current age simply doesn't have.
J Huddleston
February 6, 2010 at 16:53
In simple summary, the idea is to put an island of people who work in a sea of people who steal. Cost of island covered by charity, overseas aid, expectation investment returns, savings on illegal/economic immigrant costs to 'working'nations. An airstrip seems necessary, and legal provision for the chance need of military defence. Freedom of intermarriage, and of all faiths and none, to be guaranteed. Better than watching hopeless millions shuffling around the planet to fight for a crust. More rational than expecting there to arise decent government in Afghanistan Burma Chad Iraq Tibet NKorea Zimbabwe etc. Worth venturing half-a-dozen trials. Perhaps with one EU/US 'menu' of rules common to all. The planet most urgently needs growth in decent toilers, decay in thieving despots.
butseriously
February 6, 2010 at 22:02
I have a better, cheaper proposal. Let's spend a few million on intelligence, both satellite and on-the-ground, and then announce that the CIA or military will whack anyone above a certain level of government in any third-world country that is on the take. We have reliable intelligence as to who is on the take, and we take them out. End of problem. After all, if the cities work then it will mean the end of politicians on the take anyway. So they might figure out how to get around the rules or make the cities fail, thus forcing citizens to continue to be bilked and oppressed by them. But what are they not getting around? Predator drones, baby. Seriously. You don't think the poor people in their countries ALREADY want them dead?
mason mckibben
February 7, 2010 at 05:43
Mmmm. Perhaps this age and it's denizens are not so ill equipped. Time may tell. Let's keep our eyes open! Mmmmm? Oleg, yours in hesitancy, consternation, amazement and horror, mason
Al Brown
February 7, 2010 at 11:38
Great idea. Hong Kong is an incredible success story. But it was imposed by a foreign power. The local despots who benefit from the current short term oriented rules aren't going to voluntarily give foreigners the opportunity to show how things are supposed to be done. Maybe the developed countries could also benefit from the same idea. A foreign power like China could set up a city near New Orleans with Hong Kong rules that be free of the oppressive rules and taxes currently burdening the people of New Orleans. Then they could develop to their full potential. Not a chance in hell? Thought not.
Pawel D.
February 7, 2010 at 12:45
Original and interesting, I'd love to be convinced. But am afraid that maintaining internal law & order, and external security might be tough. Hong Kong was a special case. Communist China was not a failed states, and did not have an interest in destabilizing the state. A city island of prosperity will not only tempt those of the criminal inclination, but will prove irritating to those powers who benefit from the failures next door...
Beso
February 8, 2010 at 06:18
"Imagine that a government in a poor country set aside a piece of uninhabited land. It invites a developed country to enter into a new type of partnership, in which the developed country sets up and enforces rules specified in a charter." Sorry, that's as far as I made it. In what world do you imagine poor countries inviting developed countries to set up colonies of moral authority? Cloud Cuckoo Land?
Jack Cunningham
February 9, 2010 at 13:12
One of the most imaginative approaches to this problem I've ever come across. (Via Prospect's Facebook page)
David Tittle
February 9, 2010 at 14:01
Oh dear. Top-down, idealistic, planning imposed from outside. Have we learnt nothing in the 20th Century? Why not start by trying to understand cities around the world; all the positive things that happen in them, and why. A few small interventions and policy tweaks to accentuate the positive are worth a thousand grand schemes.
adam
February 9, 2010 at 18:32
Where's the photo credit? I remember that photo from a NY Times story a few years ago...
James
February 10, 2010 at 01:04
When I think of a developing country with problems that we (Americans) have a huge interest in addressing, Mexico immediately comes to mind. Were it not for a stagnant economy riddled with corruption, fewer Mexicans would be seeking to enter the U.S. by any desparate means. Would any of the coastal resort cities in Mexico qualify as an example of what you're talking about? They're not "chartered" or instituted by a treaty, obviously, but do they include any of those features you cited, like a positive spillover effect on nearby areas?
Ludwig Von Mises
February 10, 2010 at 10:39
I direct your attention to the lessons of history as nothing you have proposed here is of any originality as I see it. "Fordlandia" was just such a city as you are proposing. It was contsructed in 1929 and was built in the middle of the Amazon.It was a typical American city; very modern with all of the amenities and conveniences; hospital, dance hall, library, shops and restaurants. It even had lovely housing for its inhabitants. I suggest you read about this dismal failure before trying this sort of thing again.
Ariel
February 10, 2010 at 11:41
Not to be too fool hardy, but this sounds a lot like a return to imperialism. Aren't most of these urban settings in Africa a result of European "new rules" countries? Who says people would want to move to such accommodations? How would you explain this to the nomadic people in some countries? I agree, slums are a horrible problem, but I don't think new cities with more pollution and urban sprawl are the answers.
Elizabeth Kirkwood
February 10, 2010 at 13:07
@ Adam: All our photos are given full credit details in the print version of Prospect.
Rocky
February 10, 2010 at 13:12
This is imperialism, nothing else. You've completely omitted the brutal colonial history between England and China that made Hong Kong possible. Literacy, liberality, modernity and democracy can only come about in two ways: when a people decide to make it so, or when they've suffered totalizing defeat at the hands of an implacable enemy who then lifts them out of misery with massive investment.
LP
February 10, 2010 at 15:47
Interesting thought, but considering the tiny amounts of money that constitute aid (Relative to the economies of developed countries, or even just compared to defense budgets.) it seems unrealistic to expect the US or EU to devote the billions it would take to build up a single new city, to say nothing of more than one. It goes against human nature: we over-react to threats and under-react to opportunities. And since everybody bases their actions on the same overblown perceptions of threat, it's very hard to break that dynamic. Also, desalinization is a very expensive way to provide water, and without investment in infrastructure to connect these new cities to the national transport network you'd end up with small "principalities", divorced from the country as a whole and not bringing any benefit to those outside the gates for reasons of family ties, tradition or personal finance (If someone's truly destitute, how will they move hundreds or thousands of miles to settle in these new cities?). Interesting thought experiment, but too expensive to be realistic, IMHO.
White Crow
February 10, 2010 at 16:01
Wasn't this idea the premise for Brazilia? Back in the late 50s early 60's they did built a city of the future that was to become the capital of Brazil with all sorts of similar promises as this proposal. But, it ended up abandoned. Not that it isn't a good idea but it would be important to know exactly what caused Brazilia to fail before another experiment is idealized.
Matthew
February 10, 2010 at 16:44
Interesting proposal. I couldn't help but think of old medieval and early modern European cities, where a royal or imperial charter protected nascent cities from predatory local nobility.
Carl Bankston
February 10, 2010 at 18:25
Is this a Swiftian "modest proposal?" Apparently, it is just a breathtakingly bad idea. Even those of us who believe that the old imperialism did have some good consequences (such as the economic health of Hong Kong) should balk at the casual dismissal of the sovereignty of developing nations. We have no business governing any parts of nations that do not elect our government(that's why I'd like to see Puerto Rican statehood). From the perspective of developed nations, this would mean that we would not only be responsible for our own problems (of which we have no shortage), but also for those of the most troubled parts of the world. With that responsibility, we would also receive the blame when we fail, along with new attacks resulting from the blame.
Tim Wiebe
February 10, 2010 at 19:03
I think Charter Cities are a great idea for many reasons. My country, Canada, has a head of state, our Governor General, who is from Haiti. Developed countries like Canada poach a lot of the educated talent from the Third World. Just when a country like Haiti is struggling to build the infrastructure for a decent life for it's people, along come well meaning Canadians, allowing immigration from less developed countries. From a purely selfish point of view, I'm happy with this. It helps Canada a lot. But I recognize that it's not fair to developing countries, who are at the stage in their development where they need all the homegrown talent they have, and can't afford to lose their best people. So now my position on immigration is, I'm in favor of it unless it hurts the country we are drawing immigrants from. Charter cities are a way to reverse that brain drain. On a practical level, most educated people from the First World who might think of living in Haiti in theory, would never do so in practice, because the standard of living in Haiti is too low. However, Charter Cities in Haiti would attract educated people from all over the world, and would help Haiti retain them, so they could help develop their country. I could see educated Haitians from Canada being drawn back to the old country if they had a nice place to live, and that would help Haiti. Canada has a wonderful multi-cultural policy. My native city, Toronto, is the most ethnically diverse city in the world, and it is prosperous, and works well, and can hold it's head up to any city in the world. Why not apply the same model to Haiti? Haitians are welcome in Canada. Given the right leadership and equal human rights, I'm sure white Canadians would be welcome in Haiti, so long as everyone of any skin color or religion is treated equally and fairly before the law. Charter Cities are a great idea and would work well, and there is no better model and proof of that than Toronto. It's one of the reasons I'm proud to be Canadian.
Tom Crispin
February 10, 2010 at 20:18
Pournelle and Niven have discussed this idea in their novel "Oath of Fealty"
Hugh Gilman
February 10, 2010 at 20:34
I find it continually fascinating that some (usually designated \US\ or \WE\) can find such simple solutions for how others (usually designated \THEY\ or \THEM\) can/should improve their lives.
Russell Johnston
February 10, 2010 at 21:32
For a long time I've been thinking along similar lines, but I would add that such cities should be placed along national borders with both land and treaties on both sides; to ensure they can't be economically besieged or held to ransom in the future. Along a border at the coast, or at the junction of three borders would be even better. Long ago, I argued that small agricultur-less nations such as Hong Kong held a large advantage in that their technical exports must always be relatively cheap; since trade is relative, that is countries must export what they do best regardless of how productive they are in absolute terms. With technology forging ahead, this sets such islands of industry up well for the future (although food may be quite expensive in the beginning.)
jerrymaiers@norsehorsepark.com
February 10, 2010 at 21:38
Now here's a different approach, but what about the issue of population control?
Josh Strike
February 11, 2010 at 04:45
This notion is great, except that the people without power -- the people who are not writing the rules for these extraterritorial first-world cities -- will always have grounds to claim their exclusion from the process, the usurpation of their national resources, the subordination and emasculation of their national identity to foreign power, and a powerful alienation from the one-world culture invoked through these schemes, with which to unite all and sundry among an increasingly marginalized rural population to rebellion against what they (perhaps rightly) would view as a neo-colonial project. Certainly there is no way to guarantee that such charter cities would not unfairly exploit and degrade the surrounding countryside and undermine the sovereignty of any nation which chose to host them. It seems to me that while this scheme might solve certain problems for some people, it will only exacerbate the existing problems of nations which have continually failed to build a rule of law and a space for the keeping of contractual obligations; and if anything, perhaps, introduce more contracts ripe for violation and more money ripe for the hands of corrupt officialdom in the outlying territories.
Diogenes
February 11, 2010 at 04:53
This utopian nonsense all sounds so "nice". For most of the world beyond Long.20E and below Lat.43N the idea of conflict of interest does not exist. Primary and tribal relationships will trump Lockean ideas of a civil society every time. Read Weber for chrissake.
stevador39
February 11, 2010 at 05:22
The United States has uncounted millions of its own citizens on the streets, the foreclosures cost millions their homes. The U.S. can't provide its own people with a national health care program. So only degenerates and perverts want to send money for social programs abroad.
LCC
February 11, 2010 at 11:49
I found this article extremely interesting but it did make me wonder about one thing. Macau seems to have many of the same qualities as Hong Kong in terms of creating a charter city - and yet was far less successful economically. I wonder if you have any thoughts about why this may have been so?
J Huddleston
February 11, 2010 at 13:34
I like Butseriously's idea, but it's illegal to assassinate individuals unless they're a key part of a military threat to 'my' country. So US (eg) would have to show (eg) the Somali Top Doggy-Poop to be a direct threat, a la Security Council. Of course the Somali people would be eternally grateful, just like most Iraqis are happy to be rid of Sod Him He's Sane ...... I disagree mightily with Beso. Some poor countries certainly WOULD invite Anzac/BRIC/EU/US officials to set up a charter city. They would have the hope of robbing it blind, and 'we' would have the certainty of driving them out at great cost to them, or of converting them to rule-based social living standards.
Voxi Heinrich Amavilah
February 11, 2010 at 18:02
Now a case for Haiti. Not yet convinced why charter city won't work for Port-au-Prince! Things can't be worse than they already are, and there is that 50% probability they may turn out better.
Taeho Paik
February 12, 2010 at 10:37
One forgets to ask in the first place - why these kids need to study at night at all. In view of the desperate need for global energy conservation it's a question that we all need to ask. Why do we push our own energy exhausting development models by trying to bring poor countries into the global market, only to find that no matter what they do, these countries remain the under class of a cruel and crazy world? Surely Independence means self-determination. I agree that direct aid is not the answer but nor is indirect aid. Enough with aid, full stop! Let's say good-bye to colonialism once and for all. Just cancel the debts and leave it at that. For goodness sake, let's learn to stop feeling sorry for the poorer brethren, mind our own businesses, leave one another in peace and let nations decide their own fates!
Subhadra Mukherjee
February 12, 2010 at 20:03
I agree completely with the idea of giving poor people a chance and having a place where developed countries can set the rules. for them to live in. However, I don't think that place should be in the poor country. Colonialism by the west has left huge scars all over the world that all dveloping nations are still fighting. Nobody wants a repeat. So the new cities should be in the developped world. I think the huge American continent is best suited for it with the vast strech of land in the middle of the country. The greatest migration of our age should be of the poorest people from India, Africa and elsewhere to new cities in the middle of America!
john
February 14, 2010 at 02:25
Paul Romer lives in a dream world. In his dream, countries like Haiti pull themselves up and become productive, efficient countries that provide a proper place for their citizens to live. It's not going to happen in Haiti. Why not move the residents back to Africa, make the country a nature preserve and move on?
Clarsen
February 16, 2010 at 05:28
Quite possibly the worst article about world poverty I've ever read, and the comments are EVEN WORSE. Those who disagree claim that poor people are "too tribal" etc. to develop. When something is wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to start. First it's painfully obvious this "decorated economist" doesn't know or care about the massive rape and pillage of the 3rd world by the 1st that led to the current balance of wealth. "Hong Kong helped reform China... so British intervention there did more to reduce world poverty than all the official aid programs..." Read LATE VICTORIAN HOLOCAUSTS... British policies in India and China led to the deaths of almost 100 million, and the long-term impoverishment of those regions. China's "success" in monopolizing the production of semi-useless crap (at the cost of the world's environment and apparently their social safety net as well) has little to do with Hong Kong, as the Chinese model is far from "free market." Throughout it's history the GOVT OWNS ALL LAND in Hong Kong, a fact that allows it to tax other transactions at a lower rate. Hong Kong has always been semi-socialist, with most of the population receiving subsidized housing and "medical, education, and social welfare payments" making up the other of the formal "four pillars" of Hong Kong's society. Far more importantly, Hong Kong and Singapore were strategically located to be 1st world companies' headquarters for their exploitation / business with East Asia. To suggest that there are a very large number of such headquarters needed in the world is naive. To establish another Hong Kong one has to confront the fact that there already is a Hong Kong, etc. Yeah, that's just one sentence. I'm just getting started.
Clarsen
February 16, 2010 at 05:38
When you see an article that starts by addressing the biggest (semi)natural disaster in the history of the Western Hemisphere (Haiti) by declaring "Forget Aid," you know you're dealing with a special kind of sociopath... It must be an establishment economist. The kind of people who've plunged the world into it's most frightening economic period since the days of Hitler. He invokes the analogy of kidnapper murdering his victims to represent elected leaders who don't honor contracts to foreign companies (possibly signed onto by dictators). Later he mentions that the Mauritius experiment failed where others succeeded because "the government already provided good utilities and infrastructure." That's right, the GOVT PROVIDED good services, allowing private companies to add value after. This is the same model that Korea, Japan and Taiwan all followed, but not the model Romer advocates. He wants "developed countries to impose new rules by force, as they did in the colonial period." The contempt for history is staggering. The French extorted $20 billion from Haiti (after having raped and pillaged it for over a century), and the US continued to "impose rules by force" thereafter until today. For example Haiti was forced to privatize it's telecom, cement, and flour industries, which ran significant profits for the state which were being funneled back into social spending under the first years of Aristide. When these businesses were sold to foreign companies, the flour mills promptly went bankrupt, the telecoms greatly increased the difficulty for Haitians of getting phone access, and the cement company also shut down, leaving Haiti now "unable" to provide the cement for it's own reconstruction (or flour for it's hungry people). The "free-marketing" of rice (and other foods) has been even more deadly. Haitian peasant rice agriculture made very efficient use of their land, but was eradicated when SUBSIDIZED US rice was allowed (by force) to enter without tariffs. (Chicken and milk faced similar obstacles.) Thus Haiti was made "unable" to feed itself. PLEASE READ THIS AND THINK!!!
Clarsen
February 16, 2010 at 05:52
This will be my last one. I really hope these get approved and that it adds to the discussion. I am not entirely against the "charter" idea... the UN's Millenium Villages in Africa have similar (though less nakedly neoliberal) motivations. The problem is really a refusal to tie the 1st world back to their OBLIGATIONS to the majority of the world, not only because they severely immiserated these places in their thirst for greed, but also because it's in our own self-interest as human beings to ensure that severe poverty ends within our lifetime (and before coming resource crises provoke that into genocide). "Charitiable" aid and (even worse) "white man's burden" privatization ("piratization") economics are not the answer. What's needed is reparations, not only for moral reasons but to keep the world from falling apart. When we spend over a TRILLION DOLLARS a year on military spending that actually provokes terrorism and endangers us all, then it's obvious that money exists (or could even be created) to address the relatively much smaller issues of extreme material poverty. When you realize the PEANUTS we throw to aid, and how most of this aid is political and doesn't really help the people in need (for example we're the only nation that won't buy food aid from local farmers)... Then the extreme cruelty and stupidity of Romer's quote come into focus: " the practical and moral limits of aid." We're no where near either. We haven't even scratched the surface. What doesn't exist is sufficient intellectual sincerity to address the roots of poverty and the alternatives to neo-pillaging "mainstream" consensus. PS - BRASILIA was not a "failure." Wikipedia informs that "Right from the beginning, the growth of Brasília exceeded expectations." Planning problems, such as traffic, were mostly from an underestimation of future growth. Brasilia has the HIGHEST per capita GDP of any place in Brasil, about $30,000. That doesn't quite relate with the author's intentions though, as Brasil was planned by a THIRD WORLD state and is managed by a "Worker's Party" and not to serve the thinly-veiled mercenary interests of "kidnapped" US corporations.
Jason
February 16, 2010 at 06:12
The comments here are some of the most unhelpful and anti-intellectual i've ever read outside of youtube! Thanks to Paul Romer for an interesting insight. This idea is a classic example of revitalsing a flagging idea (aid) by tying it to a genuine social force (in this case internal migration/urbanisation). Charter schools raise similar debates about paternalistic approaches, but the results speak for themselves. Obviously, charter cities operate on a different level of complexity. Most obviously, the relationships between the city and the land around it seems to be fraught. The more the city succeeds, the more it is in danger. There's a reason city states of old existed behind tall city walls. I don't doubt that people would want to move to a city flying both US and Senegalese flags, just south of Dakar. I don't doubt that it could be a success. Three or four companies could each be encourgaed to set up a small suburb of accommodation to market to immigrants. Commercial real estate companies could establish markets and ports. This would have to be subsidised partly and guaranteed wholly, to get the first project off the ground... Then, with an influx of immigrants, the city could begin to grow organically. If success was deemed very likely, willing immigration might exceed capacity, and slums or turning people away would be the only answer. Either of these would not play well as an aid outcome. In some ways the problems caused by success would be a nice problem to have, they need to be anticipated for the whole idea not to be judged an eventual failure. The questions would be how to manage the democracy. As Romer states and most people have ignored, the rules of the country would be established by its citizens. Huddleston's idea of an EU/US menu of rules would be acceptable only if it was a la carte, not a set menu. History offers as many warning lights as it does encouraging beacons for this idea. Against Hong Kong we set Liberia. Against Mauritius we set the democracy and rules bequeathed to PNG. The idea is not one dooomed to failure, but certainly one at risk of failure. In this way it is like all new ideas, and not worth dismissing. My last point is that perhaps prototypes of these new cities full of hopeful migrants exist in the many UN refugee camps. Many of these are on land noone wants and have become permanent. Could they perhaps be transformed in the manner suggested? It might be easier in many cases to create a place people are willing to stay in than to resettle them.
Jezza67
February 17, 2010 at 06:41
Thank you for this article. It's nice to have a new perspective on a excruciatingly stubborn problem. While I am not qualified to endorse or rebut it as a whole, I believe that it is self-evident that the first steps out of poverty are universal adherence to the rule-of-law and the substitution of zero-sum philosophy for that of mutual benefit. These can only exist when administered by a disinterested third-party. It is also worth noting that this is a very long-term strategy. The Australian Government liberated PNG in 1975 before these concepts had been fully adopted by the inidigenous population. 35 years, countless billions of aid and many failed hopes later, the country is still a mess because it lacks these two fundamental underpinnings. Similarly, a charter city must have some inherent economic value. I quote again from my own country's failures to our aborigines. Similar, free-state type townships have been set up to assist the Traditional Owners to pull themselves out of poverty but these are abject failures because nobody wants to invest in a dust-farm 1000 km from the nearest infrastructure. I would appreciate further comments as I am keen to discuss this idea. Thanks again for the article.
Jason
February 18, 2010 at 04:50
This article and my response got me thinking and I've written a piece considering some of the potential pitfalls for charter cities: http://thomasthethinkengine.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/charter-cities-an-idea/ Hope it inspires some more commentary!
J Green
February 18, 2010 at 09:58
I often read with interest articles of this sort normally the heart is in the right place but the undertones of condescention betray the arrogance behind such claims. All things are connected, contrary to popular opinion, one cannot exist an island, especially a land-locked one. Desalination, how will it get there. Who would gladly relinquish their already stolen land. What industries shall the people make their living from, trade what? Sand? The moral fibre of the average inhabitants from most of these 3rd world countries should not be called into question. In many parts of the world there is a sense of community, and it is when you start destabilising this through external pressures that it suffers. If one is in these places, there is a lot of trickery however one also must have their smarts about them, and they will generally know who a friend is. Money is the international ruse which destroys otherwise ethical souls. So to think that we must impart a free-trade system built on nothing is rather naive at best, especially when here we are bemoaning the passing of community, and belonging. How do you suppose the surrounding countries would feel at these upstart cities springing up from nothing and (if it were to happen) have unimaginable amounts of money pumped into them, I doubt the governments of these countries would react kindly either. Finally, America has a constitution, all economically-developed countries have laws too, arguably certain rich despotic countries have even more prevelent rules, however does this guarantee cohesive abidance...most certainly not. People are ruled by 'self-interest' immigrants from surrounding areas shall come, and those from farther afield, with a rise in international trade, the oldest trades will flourish as well, as has been seen by the rise of human-trafficing from the East and the Far East. Instead, I suggest, we do what we advocate, perhaps we ought to insist that certain companies abide by higher standards, so as not to disturb the economies of these countries, this could start by agreeing on draconian measures against those that profit from illegal dumping, deforestation, and deep sea trawling. These are issues which will keep many of the poorer nations in a sustainable and profitable lifestyle. Especially in this age of post-industrialisation where we are lookign towards sustainability, and technology.
Populuxe
February 19, 2010 at 01:37
I find it very difficult to see how any kleptocratic corrupt third world state would willingly give any authority to a foreign power on its own soil. The whole idea, no matter how altruistic, smacks of imperialism, and is somewhat patronising. And in any case, I am firmly of the belief that OECD states should be sorting out their own infrastructure and internal poverty before prancing into Africa like the second coming.
Pajevic Petar
February 19, 2010 at 03:36
awesome article. though i must humbly point to the naiveté of believing a sovereign nation would give up an are of land, however uninhabited. since the prince the rule has been clear: don't bring a powerful player to your back-yard. this idea reflects well because of its basic utopia premise. if those in power chose to limit the use thereof, there would be an authority alike to a sleeping dragon with some sort of book or something on it with instructions. and while the basic idea is great, i would like to point out that its not the ideas presented on the scales that make a city. and while the rules would be understood upon seeking citizenship of these cities, who would enforce them? i lived in the Sudanese capitol, Khartoum for roughly three years and noticed much emigration to it from the south. how do you think the Sudanese government would respond to someone taking the cheap workforce away and empowering these, in their mind, inferior citizens economically. in fact, it seems the situation much the same all-over. the rules are not clear because the first to stray from them is the first to have an advantage either politically or militarily.
Jezza67
February 19, 2010 at 14:13
Back again. I'm a touch concerned by the use of the terms "imperialism" and "colonialism" to describe this idea. They both have very specific meanings and neither could be applied to the charter city idea. Colonialism is the military conquest of an area to force the natives to provide resources for, and consume the products of, a domestic economy. This is clearly an inversion of the concept forwarded here wherein an advanced economy sponsors a less-advanced one and shares technology and other IP without compensation. Imperialism is the military conquest of an area to incorporate it into an existing state. Once again, not applicable. I'm happy to discuss the idea but recoil from knee-jerk responses. Regards
stuart munro
February 22, 2010 at 06:46
Perhaps you might consider why England, the one time world leader in entrepot city creation, almost always established them on islands. For defence, and perhaps to facilitate control of the workers and tradesmen. There is something in your idea - but America's constant rejection of missions civilatrice - 'nation building' - unfits it for this experiment.
Freedom over Wealth
February 22, 2010 at 09:02
the idea is not new - its been done before ... (sir) thomas roe negotiated just such a charter city, in surat, India ... Look at the history of East-India companies of England, France, Netherlands, Sweden ( Gothenburg), Denmark ( Trankebar) etc ...it always started with a private bunch of folks who promised a "richer tomorrow to the local folks, in exchange of special trading rights in a demarcated zone" , who started colonisation ...the hired goons, the guns & the king's armies came much later ... No nation will offer its land to another, even for economic reasons - its completely unrealistic. Richer nations just dont have the intellect to define the right rules in any nation which is 10 year+ in age .. the "definition of law" is very much a part of "culture" , everywhere in the world..Check out AJ Gurevich's books like "Categories of Medieval Culture" - In hindsight, the 3 most important concepts of medieval culture that stand out are - space and time; law; the attitude work, wealth & poverty ....
Voxi Heinrich Amavilah
February 26, 2010 at 21:35
Paul is talking about rules that work, and that automatically excludes colonialism and imperialism because both isms failed for the same reasons Haiti is having a hard time - bad rules.
Saqib Khan
March 3, 2010 at 20:41
My first instinct is to dismiss this as some neo-liberal, ultra-capitalist dream where you can take a third world country, create a safe investment zone for multinationals, and discard everything you don't want. An island of safe economic climate midst misery and corruption. Even taking this idea seriously, (and I will stick to Pakistan where I live) I fail to see what the purpose of this exercise is. If the purpose is to squeeze out a way for the unlimited growth required by capital then fine, you can do this (among other forms of exploitations). But if the purpose is to impact the majority of the country's people favorably then this falls short on many counts. In Pakistan, there is an ever widening economic class disparity with a small middle class and an even smaller upper ruling and controlling the country. This will further cater to that disparity phenomena where only people from certain class will want to or be able to move to these cities. So essentially you would end up creating economic apartheid in a very literal sense. When you talk about creating a corruption free, process, system, infrastructure enabled environment, you would need to set this up working with the same corrupt politicians and power brokers who are running the anti-thesis of the above. Their interest is in maximizing their wealth and hold on power. Couple that with companies moving in to maximize their own return. That leaves the rest of the country and its people exactly where? This is a conference room type theoretical idea which in my opinion would be quite a disaster for people in countries such as Pakistan. Solutions are needed that target the economically disenfranchised, not cater to the already well-off.
Tiyor Mirzokandov
September 30, 2010 at 04:12
I liked the idea of colonization as a base to establish well rules within occupied colony. At the begging of creation of USSR, former soviet forces entered into what’s now called Tajikistan. The main reason of intervention was to bring all center Asia countries together in order to form one state. As a result the colonized Tajikistan turned into one of the USSR colony. The colonization of Tajikistan was beneficiary for both Tajik and Russian at that time. Russian would gain access to massive Tajikistani cotton and minerals resources, and in return they would establish a government that is based on communism regulation. From this newly formed communist regulation Tajik’s have gain a lot of benefits. Fist, massive labour forced has boosted economic structure of Tajikistan, while providing job to a lot of people. The unemployment rate was dramatically reduced. People who never had opportunity to work under the sultan regime have now for first time had jobs, which would maintain their basic needs. Second, large educational institutions were built in most capital cities of Tajikistan. These educational institutions were run accordingly to the Russian knowledge. This changed ordinary people life by giving them access to higher knowledge. Finally, massive infrastructure change has taken place within most cities of Tajikistan. A newly designed building would attract attention of many people living in villages, which in fact promoted growth in urbanization. These buildings were well designed in term of water supplies and sewer system. Moreover, roads were built between villages and large cities making it convenient to ship goods out of the state. In conclusion, the intervention of soviet forces has improved people life up to this date. The same regulation and infrastructure that were created years ago has now given rise to economic and political structure of Tajikistan.
casino en ligne
October 5, 2010 at 15:42
It's well known that the life conditions in the countries of the third world is lamentable. And there are a lot of people who care about it and trying to improve the situation. But the problem is not about the knowing about the problem (photograph of a vulture watching over a starving Sudanese girl) or the will to help. It's about opportunity to help. To provide help for all the people who need it citizens of the "rich" countries will have to give up the 70% of their property!
Meat Slicer
January 21, 2011 at 21:14
why doesn't someone go to these villages built in the middle of a dessert and help them by moving them closer to a city that can provide food and work instead of wasting money on mosquito nets ans bulk bags of rice.
How to get rid of pimples fast
January 28, 2011 at 13:29
I really don't understand the unbalance of economic situations in this world. These poor people live without what we would consider necessities, and they have little hope for a 'successful' future. It's heart breaking, but at the same time its anger provoking considering the wasteful spending that goes on in America today!
Coffee Maker
February 11, 2011 at 00:15
Its an excellent idea to build a new city in these locations.This will help people financially and economically.
Information Security Masters Degree
February 14, 2011 at 00:18
Where does all these millions and millions of dollars that are donated go to.I think by now a very nice city could have been built and many starving children fed.
Chromatography Service
March 10, 2011 at 23:19
I agree its better to teach people how to make their own money especially when there helping to build a city to live in.
European Fuel Cards
April 8, 2011 at 11:47
It would seem more proper for Multi-National organizations to step in this initiative and develop pickets within under-developed countries. The immediate cause for such a response from the MNC organizations could be in terms of their overall philanthropic commitments and also an ability to educate and nurture talent for the future. While most developed countries' Governments would be an ideal fit for such a role, there is bound to be a reluctance to share their riches with the have-nots.
Personal Development
April 10, 2011 at 21:24
In Katrina’s aftermath, New Orleans became a virtual laboratory for a broad array of social service initiatives, resulting in unparalleled reforms of the city’s educational and housing infrastructures. It is not clear what the future holds for Haiti.
Colon Cleansing
November 2, 2011 at 17:01
It's a shame that so many funds are wasted on bad projects when there are children like this that could see a life changing difference from just a fraction of what is thrown at other bad programs. We really need to find a way to help these people.
Coffee Maker Reviews
November 21, 2011 at 23:47
couldn't agree any more. true help goes beyond 'merely' donating some money. Helping people to learn help themselves goes way beyond. Making knowledge accessible would definitely be a first step towards the right direction.
Bab29
December 15, 2011 at 05:53
Sorry, but this is neo-Imperialist garbage. What nation would activly petition another nation to violate its soverignty, especially a former colonial subject to a fomer colonial power. That's ludacris. In addition, Hong Kong was not created becuase China begged GB to take it; it was created becuase GB wouldn't sign the peace treaty without some foothold in China. Even if it was an option, there is no way that Europe and the U.S. would stay out of it, which would be the major impediment to implementing this kind of thing anyway. It's a really sweet idea but its never going to happen in this lifetime.
Ataner
July 3, 2012 at 23:44
A truly great idea. I can't believe the cynicism. This would provide opportunity that hard working people want and many don't have.