The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty (2010) • Hacker News Board

Re: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty (2010)

#11

Post by hodgesrm » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 4:22 PM UTC

This idea is brilliant. The problem of finding outside countries to run the cities is perhaps less difficult that it seems. The Hanseatic League and Lombard League cities prospered in large part because they were free from feudal control and could develop local, non-agrarian industries. The cities need enough outside control to allow the economy to develop but not necessarily complete sovereignty like Hong Kong.

As for making it economically worthwhile for the "overseer" nation and particularly individuals, perhaps that could be solved by sharing in the high economic growth rates that successful charter cities would achieve. If you get that right there would definitely be takers give the current low growth rates in most industrialized nations.

(Paul Romer is one of my favorite economists of all time so maybe I'm biased.)

Re: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty (2010)

#12

Post by vslira » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 4:22 PM UTC

The concept of smart cities just seems like an excessively convoluted way of adopting more successful countries' institutions, governance and laws. Which can be great of course, but begs the question: is the host country government (current or the set of most influential parties, assuming it's a democracy) interested in adopting this foreign system at all?

Re: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty (2010)

#13

Post by ForHackernews » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 4:23 PM UTC

This American Life & Planet Money did a follow-up on this idea three years later: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/483/s...

Against the odds, Honduras was actually willing to give the "charter city" model a go, but the project turned into a disaster before it even got started. Mostly because Paul Romer is an egotistical, antisocial control freak and nobody could work with him.

There's a lesson here for silicon valley types: Being a genius with a great idea doesn't count for anything if you can't work with other humans to bring your idea into reality.

Re: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty (2010)

#14

Post by gwright » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 4:25 PM UTC

douche wrote: post #4

Assuming this ever worked, and produced good results, what happens when ten or fifteen years later, the corrupt local dictator takes over, all of the administrators flee before the mobs take their lives or nationalize all of their property, and all of the expertise and institutions that kept things going evaporate. Because we have a lot of examples of that happening.

Your scenario doesn't seem to be a flaw unique to charter cities. It seems like Venezuela is an example of this happening at the level of an entire sovereign state.

Re: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty (2010)

#15

Post by tacostakohashi » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 4:25 PM UTC

douche wrote: post #4

Assuming this ever worked, and produced good results, what happens when ten or fifteen years later, the corrupt local dictator takes over, all of the administrators flee before the mobs take their lives or nationalize all of their property, and all of the expertise and institutions that kept things going evaporate. Because we have a lot of examples of that happening.

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.

Re: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty (2010)

#16

Post by raintrees » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 4:25 PM UTC

2010. I thought maybe it had come along further because it was on HN again, but this article is dated.

Re: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty (2010)

#17

Post by adrianratnapala » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 4:26 PM UTC

jkot wrote: post #8

> WHEN ROMER EXPLAINS charter cities, he likes to invoke Hong Kong. For much of the 20th century, Hong Kong’s economy left mainland China’s in the dust, proving that enlightened rules can make a world of difference. Charter cities are only possible because they concentrate capital, trade and workforce from mother country. It can not be done globally, entire China can not turn into Hong Kong

China's government is far from perfect, but ever since Deng took over, it has been been implementing policies that resemble British Hong Kong more than they resemble Maoist China -- and it's working just fine.

Life is not a zero-sum game. Rich places get rich not by stealing the cream, but rather by being less evil and stupid as other places.

Re: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty (2010)

#18

Post by eropple » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 4:27 PM UTC

briholt wrote: post #10

CPLX wrote: post #2

Shorter version: Create corporatist deregulated cities in corrupt third world countries and assume that rather than enriching multinationals via lax oversight the project will make poor people less poor. Hard to see what could go wrong with that plan.

Thank you. I just couldn't force myself to read through articles that are so padded with fluff.

What you're describing as "fluff", most people describe as "long-form writing." If you're reading purely for brrt-brrt-clank-insert-information-into-meatbot-head, you're missing out.

Re: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty (2010)

#19

Post by douche » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 4:30 PM UTC

adrianratnapala wrote: post #17

jkot wrote: post #8

> WHEN ROMER EXPLAINS charter cities, he likes to invoke Hong Kong. For much of the 20th century, Hong Kong’s economy left mainland China’s in the dust, proving that enlightened rules can make a world of difference. Charter cities are only possible because they concentrate capital, trade and workforce from mother country. It can not be done globally, entire China can not turn into Hong Kong

China's government is far from perfect, but ever since Deng took over, it has been been implementing policies that resemble British Hong Kong more than they resemble Maoist China -- and it's working just fine. Life is not a zero-sum game. Rich places get rich not by stealing the cream, but rather by being less evil and stupid as other places.

Most things work better than Maoist China... Getting away from actively sabotaging your industrial and agricultural output with ideologically, rather than reality-based five year plans is a good start. Leaves a lot less dead bodies, too.

Re: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty (2010)

#20

Post by CPLX » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 4:33 PM UTC

tacostakohashi wrote: post #15

douche wrote: post #4

Assuming this ever worked, and produced good results, what happens when ten or fifteen years later, the corrupt local dictator takes over, all of the administrators flee before the mobs take their lives or nationalize all of their property, and all of the expertise and institutions that kept things going evaporate. Because we have a lot of examples of that happening.

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…

And 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.