The model appears to be very ideal, to curb the problem of brain drain of Hondurans and to revitalise the Honduran economy by creating these charter cities governed by other countries to bring in jobs and create economic growth.
It is an amazing model that the government is looking into to build its economy again. Yet, there are issues that ought to be discussed before rushing into the conclusion that charter cities are 'the way to go'.
Building a charter city involves countries establishing themselves in the host country, which TED members raised the issue of neocolonisation. In ways that it seems like it, Chris Burl provided a better analysis:
I do agree that your concern about neocolonization is warranted, but I do not believe the original idea proposed here is a wolf in sheeps clothing. That however does not ensure those with the deep pockets have the host countries and populations best interest at heart. You are right to point out that this is a buyer beware situation and profit driven organizations do not have the same motivations that the speaker attempts to exhibit in his original premise of giving individuals more choice.
To the locals, it is a chance to improve their standard of living. From another perspective, the host country may risk its citizens being exploited by other countries in this venture, although Romer did emphasise the freedom of choice by the locals to choose where they preferred to work.
This view actually reminds me of globalisation issues that I studied in JC human geography class, whereby transnational corporations exploited locals working in their out-sourced production factories, otherwise known as sweatshops. (See this, and this.)
Another TED member, Chris Ke-Sihai, gave insight too, which I agreed to a large extent:
If you think of this project as a zone in which a city *could* be built, and the rules as being the smallest most concise set possible, things get a bit easier.
You move to the zone, and suddenly all the regulations and permits disappear. So you start a business quickly and easily, become successful, and use some of the money to build. In a few decades there is a thriving, lightly-regulated city.
Meanwhile, the country around it is impoverished due to the city sucking in all the resources. Or the country is enriched by the outflow of goods and services from the city, in payment for the things it buys from rural producers.
I see a logical issue here. If the host country is not competitive, for whatever reason, and the city is independent then it won't import from the host country but will find a more competitive supplier. The net effect will be a drain of capital and expertise from the host country, unless the country can reform itself.
If you see the city as an alternative to the existing system in the country, then it's in competition with it. If the city is simply an experimental zone, and the country implements the lessons learned, then it's a beneficial project even if the city fails.
More cities means more experiments, more choices for capital and expertise. The cities will have to compete, innovate, improve the opportunities on offer and the benefits to their hosts. One city alone can not do this. But I suppose someone has to go first.
So after all, it is an experiment that we shall wait and see how it turns out. To what extent of involvement does the host country have in the charter city? Does the charter city still abide by the law of the host country? Might the charter city over time represent a socially exclusive enclave that segregates the country?
Many issues abound. Administration will be difficult as differences between the charter city and the rest of the country emerge. Will there be more upheavals and protests against the ruling government? Will the host country be split up and losing its sovereignty, with foreign countries taking several charter cities, as though being carved out like a pizza?
Lastly, Romer contends that these charter cities be built out of uninhabited land. Aaron Thierry, a TED member, argued:
Can't help but think about all those hundreads of thousands of acres of green honduran countryside and then imagining Manhattan, this is followed by shudders running down my spine. Are we really expected to constantly think of the world as a building site? Do we really want to smother the earth in concrete?
My objection is to the notion of building huge new cities on uninhabited land, not against people living in the cities which already exist. If we must, then we should develop existing towns or cities to improve standards of living there, not start afresh on unspoilt wildernesses or crucial agricultural landscapes.
There lies the balance and compromise between the protection of the environment and the pursuit of economic growth. I hardly like the idea of vast grasslands turning into a "building site" either.
Ultimately, this model should remind us of the importance of good governance and good city and nation planning. This helps me to better appreciate our City in the Garden, Singapore. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment