In an article on charter cities in The Atlantic, Sebastian Mallaby has a good summary of how the Hanseatic League of cities emerged in the Middle Ages from what was arguably the first charter city.
When Henry the Lion founded Lübeck, he wrote a charter that specified “a set of ‘most honorable civic rights,’ calculating that a city with light regulation and fair laws would attract investment easily.” The city itself was a dramatic success. It also spawned clone cities that copied its charter. See the article for the details in this remarkable historical episode. (It even has pirates!)
In the discussion of the modern proposal for charter cities, the article picks up the language of “neo-colonialism” that some charter city critics use in an appeal to emotion. Yet, the article uses the term dispassionately and gets the logic exactly right: If it’s neo-colonial for a family to move from a poor country to a charter city, it’s also neo-colonial for the same family to move to Vancouver. In the end, the important ethical question is whether people from poor countries should have more choices about where to live.
If the critics who appeal to emotion want to frame the debate in terms of colonialism, we should distinguish the coercive brand of colonialism that the British used to invade India from the opt-in brand of colonialism that Indians employ when they migrate to London.
If you’re interested in additional background after reading The Atlantic article (and don’t mind a less lively and readable style), you can refer to a paper I wrote for the Center for Global Development.
About
Exactly, Mr. Romer.
Build a better city and the world will beat a path to your door (to update an old phrase).
Of course, the city must have rules for its citizens—rules that are clearly and consistently enforced.
I fear that those who would use “colonialist” as a cudgel would again take up the club at the insistence of rules of behavior.
— G.M. Palmer · Jun 10, 10:00 PM · #
“If the critics who appeal to emotion want to frame the debate in terms of colonialism, we should distinguish the coercive brand of colonialism that the British used to invade India from the opt-in brand of colonialism that Indians employ when they migrate to London.”
Oh, for heaven’s sake, Romer! You’re almost there. The social contract is nonsense. What about posterity? Do they also ‘opt-in’?
The British, by the way, build a better city in India. The downfall of British India was the result of the internal politics in Britain, not the resentment of coercion.
— josh · Jun 11, 04:56 AM · #
The problem is not inside the city. It is the flux of people from outside. China has a government that limits entry. India just cannot. But a more pertinent idea is this. What should be the size of such a city? Would a small one a few thousands strong work? If so why not have a ship anchored off coast in international waters? Could provide low wage option with ease of exchange of people but with control. Most importantly the emotions of colonialism do not come in. A ship of the size of queen elizabetn could easily accommodate a couple of thousand faamilies
— S T Lakshmikumar · Jun 11, 09:31 AM · #
Thanks for the link to the essay, I came here looking for more information. I heard you on Econtalk a few weeks ago and I read the article on The Atlantic’s website yesterday. As an undergrad econ/math major who intends to study economics in grad school, your work is very interesting to me.
In your TED talk, you hint that you’d like academics to explore the idea of charter cities. Do you know of anyone besides yourself who has researched charter cities? I’d like to read more but there doesn’t seem to be much information aside from the articles related to you. If no specific reading on charter cities exists, then do you know of anything in a broader field that might further my understanding of how charter cities would work?
Thanks for getting your ideas out. Keep up the good work!
— Jarrod Phillips · Jun 15, 10:27 AM · #
The problem with your idea is that <a href=“http://lorenzo-thinkingoutaloud.blogspot.com/2010/06/paul-romers-charter-cities-not-medieval.html”>it is not medieval enough</a>. The medieval example was about entrenching local rule, not allowing foreign enclaves. It is a modernised version of the Lubeck Charter you should be aiming for, not new Hong Kongs that are never going to happen.
— Lorenzo from Oz · Jun 25, 08:09 PM · #
Jarrod,
The people who have been working on topics closest to this are the economic historians, Avner Greif and the trio of North, Weingast and Wallis. Another interesting line of work is on the role of norms. Search for recent papers by Guido Tabellini or Greif and Tabellini. Ed Glaeser, who writes for Economix at the NYTimes has also written extensively on the economic value of cities and the governance challenges that cities pose.
— Paul Romer · Jun 30, 12:20 AM · #