Charter Cities: Curing poverty or neo-imperialism?
Image of Haitians after the recent earthquake (Image by United Nations Photo (cc: by-nc-nd))
Instead of pouring aid into poverty-stricken countries like Haiti, Stanford economist Paul Romer thinks building new "charter cities" is a better option.
This story is adapted from a broadcast audio segment; use audio player to listen to tracks by the artists featured in this segment.
The biggest problem facing the people of Haiti -- or any poor country -- is the rules, says Stanford economist Paul Romer. Good rules can keep people safe. Bad rules can harm society.
Rather than trying to change the rules inside of existing countries, Romer believes it would be easier to create entirely new cities with new and transparent rules. Romer explained his idea in Prospect Magazine:
How would such a city work? 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. Citizens from the poorer country, and the rest of the world, would be free to live and work in the city that emerges. It could create economic opportunities and encourage foreign investment, and by using uninhabited land it would ensure everyone living there would have chosen to do so with full knowledge of the rules.
The cities would be "a modern, voluntary version of what happened under imperialism in places like Hong Kong," according to Here & Now host Robin Young. But Romer insists idea is to give people more choice. He tells "Here & Now:"
"Many people around the world would leap at the chance to just go some place where they could be safe, their kids could get an education and they could get a job."
Romer believes these new charter cities may be their best chance.
You can also watch Romer explain his idea below:
"Here and Now" is an essential midday news magazine for those who want the latest news and expanded conversation on today's hot-button topics: public affairs, foreign policy, science and technology, the arts and more. More "Here and Now"
The main issue to consider is that where people live, or removal to another destination, is not an unemotional choice.
Cities are expressions of people in their situation. Instead of creating news cities, effort must be focused on improvement and revitalization. There are wonderful plans presented by geographers and planner on city improvement, but city managers and politicians cite many reason against them.
Cities are organisms that evolve over time that depend on culture, policy, public participation and collective responsibility. There are few places in the world where new cities have emerged in the last generation. Cities must be sustainable economically, socially and ecologically.
It seem easier and cheaper to review current urbanization process, identify positive determinants and develop policies for a sustainable strategy for the future that provides for long term cost effectiveness in resource management and infrastructure development/maintenance.
Thanks for your comments. To be sure, efforts at improving the local options in the countries where people live should continue. My point is merely that we should offer many more people another option, to move to another jurisdiction with different rules from those that prevail at home.
If you are well educated, you can take it for granted that you have the option to move to another country and take your family with you. But hundreds of millions of parents with little formal education don't have this option. The places where they live can be horrendous. Many of them have to leave their families behind to go work elsewhere. Many others can't move at all.
If we are committed to the idea that all people should have a choice about how they live their lives, we need to find a practical way to offer many more choices. This is what charter cities can do.
Post your comment