On Being Appalled by Racism, Sexism and Anti-Beerism

Whilst being mildy irritated that The Patriarchy meant that I’m not manly for liking beer with a taste I came across this article on the Recolonsation of Africa. 

The article is bad enough. The comments appalled me. (1)

I’m not sure which offends me most; the fact-free rhetoric that Africa is getting worse and is ultimately doomed or the explicit statement that this is because black Africans are genetically inferior to white men.

The debate in the comments seemed to be about whether colonising Africa for the good of the Africans or just leaving them to die was the greater kindness.

 Nah, what actually offended me was the lack of dissenting voice. No one suggested that actually black African IQ’s didn’t average out at 85 or that some African countries have GDP growth rates that Barack Obama would give his left bollock for. Or that maybe invading a whole country to help its people might be an ethically complex issue.

Africa surely has a lot of problems but I think the idea that it is a hopeless and irredeemably broken place just doesn’t fit with the evidence of places like Tanzania, Kenya, Botswana and Namibia. Or with the general trend on infant mortality. Or the progress made on democratising politics.

 

(1) My favourite comment was one that boldly asserted that if the whole continent was properly run it could, maybe, support a billion people easily. Current population of Africa is 1.1 billion people.

Or perhaps my favourite was “that an important part of altruism is the what’s-in-it-for-me element.”

On Building New Jerusalem, Fahsands of 'em.

So, whilst pondering whether the leave Africans to die in their own cesspools or to bravely and selflessly take on the mantel of running their continent question for them I stumbled on the idea of Charter Cities proposed by Paul Romer.

The idea is that a developing country sings a treaty with one or more developed countries to create a city in (more or less) unoccupied land.  The developing nation gives the land for the city and the developed nation gives the rules, the enforcement of the rules and the guarantee that the rules won’t be changed after individuals and corporations have made difficult to back out of investments in the city.

The idea is based on the observation that rules matter. That one of the greatest barriers to developing countries developing is that they have bad and / or indifferently enforced rules that are subject to arbitrary change (1).

To give the city administration a long term stake in improving the lot of its citizens they own all the land and lease it to, well to whomever want to lease it. If they want to increase rents they have to increase the ability of people to pay rent by making them better educated, more productive, healthier, free-er. No gouging because anyone can leave at any time to either return home or move to one of the other Charter Cities.

People, either only from the host country or from all over the world can move in. They accept the rules of the charter city and get on with earning a living.  If the Charter City offers them a better life than they currently have, they will move there. If it doesn’t they won’t. This would be a third option alongside immigration, possibly illegal, to a place that doesn’t necessarily want me or stay in country that has a low standard of living and isn’t improving quickly enough for me.  A hoped for side effect is that with local competition for citizens local despots and kleptarchs, or local trying really hard but struggling to build consensus would pull their fingers out.

The benefits to the host country are that they end up with a well-run, prosperous city nearby which wants to buy its products and services and in turn wants to sell goods and services. The benefits to the administrative country are altruistic and a hoped for reduction in aid costs and security costs. The people who live in the city, well they benefit because they live prosperous lives in a well-run city. If they find they’re not living in a prosperous city, then they leave.

So, I’m wondering what could go wrong? That’s a serious question.(2)

(1) often as a result of the country being a kleptarchy but not necessarily.

(2) and I'd be obliged if your responses did not use the words Libertarianism or Colonialism.  I want to know what's wrong with Mr Romer's idea, not a straw man.

Some Links for those with a more than passing interest.

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/for-richer-for-poorer/ 

Article by Paul Romer in Prospect

http://chartercities.org/concept 

The Web Page for Romer's foundation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jul/27/paul-romers-charter-cities-idea 

A Critical - but in my view not very good article in the Guardian. The comments are more useful.

http://chartercities.org/blog/66/new-systems-versus-evolution

 Romer discussing systems.  (If widgetfox is reading this he may also mention hair and shoes)

http://www.freakonomics.com/2009/09/29/can-charter-cities-change-the-world-a-qa-with-paul-romer/

 A bit of a Q&A by Freakonomics

http://chrisblattman.com/2009/10/14/charter-cities-debate-round-2/

Part of a debate between a sceptic of the idea and Romer - the rest are findable.