
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty (2010) - aminok
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-politically-incorrect-guide-to-ending-poverty/308134/?single_page=true
======
poof131
Seems like we’ve entered some sort of post-modern neocolonialism. How do we
“fix” the broken countries of the world. The neocons under Bush tried to
remake the middle east by invading Iraq.[1] Debated with someone here who felt
we just needed more time in Afghanistan so a generation could understand good
governance.[2] In this article, the thrust seems to be benevolent foreign
powers and businesses will lead the way to prosperity. All seem like
colonialism without the name and all seem to totally disregard secondary
effects.

Read a great article awhile back on HN that talked about the impulse to fix
other people’s problems far away from your own.[3] Seems that SV and Stanford
could do a lot more to fix the issues closer at hand in the Bay Area
(homelessness, unaffordable living, rising inequality) and the US in general
before solving all the worlds problems. Lead by example sort of stuff. Instead
my main takeaway from the article is get rich in the startup lottery then
proselytize your grand vision and plans from your bubble of prosperity. Sell
the dream but don’t look in the mirror.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Life_in_the_Emerald_C...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Life_in_the_Emerald_City)

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11412172](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11412172)

[3]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10884840](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10884840)

~~~
auganov
I'm expecting a resurgence in colonialist-like approaches. Especially in the
context of the Middle East. It's exactly failures like Afghanistan and Iraq
that make some consider solutions involving total governance for much more
than just a few years. A case can be made for the US having been morally
obliged to basically colonize Iraq (and Afghanistan tho I'm less familiar with
that one).

~~~
tim333
I chatted to some educated Afghanis and they thought the period of greatest
peace and prosperity in their life times was the Russian occupation which the
US went to some effort to end. I sometimes wonder if western policies to bring
democracy to Islamic areas by bombing them really do much good. We could
perhaps just bribe the dictators to up their human rights a bit.

Syria is an ongoing case where there remain options. I think our tactful new
foreign secretary may have the right idea that we should hold our noses and
work with "the linchpin of a vast post-Soviet gangster kleptocracy" who looks
"a bit like Dobby the House Elf" and the "manipulative tyrant Assad".
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/1...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/12036184/Lets-
deal-with-the-Devil-we-should-work-with-Vladimir-Putin-and-Bashar-al-Assad-in-
Syria.html)

~~~
auganov
Yea the big problem with "opening up" the colonization game is you'll have
people fighting over who's the colonizer (tho it's still sort of happening
anyways). No doubt Russia might have been decent for them.

Pretty sure he'll back off from that after getting briefed [possibly by Israel
if internally won't be enough]. I'd assume the same for Trump if he wins.

Operation Orchard [0] is a good example that Assad's nastiness wasn't just an
internal issue that could be ignored. Unless of course he somehow promises to
behave this time.

Everyone realizes the "rebels" could turn out to be even nastier guys so no
Western power has a clear interest in letting any of the 3 parties win.

As such a ground invasion makes little sense if you have to cede power
eventually - there's no guarantee some "good guys" will magically emerge, they
won't.

That's were establishing an international colony comes in. Or as some suggest
just an international safe zone on some portion of Syrian territory.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard)

~~~
tim333
We'll see. The UK doesn't have much power in the region compared to the US,
Turkey, Iran, Israel et al so what Boris thinks probably won't affect things
much. Still a US, Turkey, Assad Putin deal could probably bring some sort of
peace and we could still bomb Assad if he tries to get nukes.

------
CPLX
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.

~~~
asuffield
Well, it sort of works: massively increasing the wealth of any third world
country will shift it from "if you're poor then you starve and die" to "if
you're poor then you are begging on the street and sometimes working a lousy
job for little money".

It's not much of an aspiration, but it is, strictly speaking, an improvement.
It's also not a hypothetical: supply-side economic demonstrably works, to some
extent. It just doesn't work very well, and we should be able to do better.

~~~
whyenot
Two counter examples to your first statement about positive benefits of
massive increases in wealth: Nigeria and Venezuela.

~~~
dave_sullivan
To be fair, the failings there had to do with the source of wealth being
natural resources, rather than innovation per se. I'd also add Russia and
Brazil to that list, but there are others. See
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse)

Personally, I think it's the difference in mentality between lottery winners
and builders of successful products (who often work within difficult
constraints and have to become very good at problem solving to succeed).
There's a reason why lottery winners do not typically compound their success.

------
hodgesrm
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.)

------
ForHackernews
This American Life & Planet Money did a follow-up on this idea three years
later: [http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/483/s...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/483/self-improvement-kick?act=2)

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.

~~~
hodgesrm
This is character assassination. I've met Paul Romer and have followed his
work for decades. People ignore his ideas at their peril. You can't blame him
for not being an outstanding administrator at the same time.

It does not really sound as if this project would have worked under any
circumstances due to the political issues.

~~~
tacostakohashi
It's basically a political project, so political issues seem like a
fundamental problem, rather than some external factor to blame.

~~~
hodgesrm
That's a fair criticism of Romer's idea and one that deserves careful
scrutiny.

It does beg the question, however, exactly what political problems stopped the
Honduras project from going forward. The Podcast cited above focused on the
personalities and personal resentments but there was clearly more going on
behind the scenes. Romer himself was very circumspect about what actually
happened.

For example in the Atlantic article Romer suggests driving things through non-
US countries. This might not be pure coincidence.

------
jkot
> _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

~~~
adrianratnapala
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.

~~~
douche
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.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Someone should try this in the US.

Of course it's called "off-shoring" not "Maoism", but the effects on US
industry have been very similar.

------
douche
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.

~~~
tacostakohashi
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.

~~~
CPLX
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.

~~~
kybernetikos
Interestingly the modern British civil service was based on the Chinese
system.

------
milesskorpen
This is particularly relevant because it appears Romer will be the chief
economist at the World Bank soon:
[http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/07/it-...](http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/07/it-
seems-paul-romer-will-be-chief-economist-at-the-world-bank.html) [edit for a
better link]

~~~
SmallBets
Yes I wonder if taking the World Bank job indicates an end of this effort, or
a platform to push it harder?

------
jernfrost
Interesting to see this actually advocated as this is exactly the thing I tell
my wife when we solve world problems at the kitchen table.

The Syrian refugee crisis got me thinking. Why on earth should so many people
travel so far to get to European style rule and safety. If that is what they
want, why could we not provided it where they already are?

The current system of dealing with refugees doesn't scale. There ought to be a
way where you can allow in a lot of poor people without bringing severe
economic strains on a rich country.

The problem when Syrians come to a rich country in Europe is that so many of
their valuable skills can not be utilized even marginally, much due to
different traditions, language requirements, procedures etc. However if there
was a European enclave in Syria which they could move to, that could function
using Syrian language and customs combined with European rule at the top.

Obviously Syrians would not naturally want to be ruled by Europeans but that
is what they volunteer to when they move to Europe. A European enclave in
Syria would be the same. You don't have to move there, but if you do, you have
to accept European rule. The benefit is that, while not democracy it means
freedom and rule of law.

Hong Kong was never a democracy but people there had freedom. Freedom and
democracy is frequently mixed up, but they are not the same. By Freedom I mean
that there is a free press, independent courts which apply the same law to all
people, not just for the benefit of the rich and cronies of the rulers.

------
mc32
The idea if carried out, likely would work, I think, but would be fraught with
many issues centered around power and influence.

This neocolonialist idea would likely not sit well with lots of the same
people who have issues with capitalism and historical colonialism. The specter
of European colonialism would be hard to escape.

Then there is power and influence. These new cities would who up the host
country and would be the envy of the non neocolonial zones. And further has to
potential of subverting local culture for a western, Chinese or Japanese one,
in a more immediate manner.

So, I feel there are too many cultural factors we would find hard to ignore,
even if in practice, the result would be a net positive for the local
population. In other words, politics would get in the way of practicality.

Imagine, Baja becoming a US state, in a few decades, it could be like New
Mexico, not the richest state but a lot better than it is now. Now imagine how
locals would take to the idea (even if individually they might like to
immigrate into the US). And then how the Mexican government would take to the
idea -a non starter.

~~~
IndianAstronaut
>Baja becoming a US state

Baja is already well to do.

Try that with Chihuahua and maybe I can agree with these proposals.

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

------
vslira
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?

~~~
tacostakohashi
Right - it's a little bit like a design for a perpetual motion machine, using
some convolution to distract from the simple reasons for it not working.

The things that make cities open and successful are fairly clear to those who
study these things, it's not a secret or a mystery. The things that have
prevented potential host countries from adopting those practices successfully
on their own (political instability, corruption, whatever) will also prevent
them from being a good place for anybody to set up a charter city there.

------
littletimmy
Here's a politically incorrect thought: we don't need to develop Africa.

We shouldn't assume that everyone has to be like us to be happy. We shouldn't
try to "civilize the barbarians" \- to use a colonial phrase. Let them live as
they live and let them develop themselves at their own pace.

Over the next decade, Africa's population is poised to explode. The great
wilderness of Africa will all but disappear, and Africa might become just
another blob of concrete, mining, and agribusiness. Desirable? Good for the
human species? I think not.

------
greesil
"Enlightened foreign powers", who might that be?

------
known
I prefer
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_around_the_worl...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_around_the_world)
AND
[https://www.givedirectly.org/efficiency](https://www.givedirectly.org/efficiency)

------
akvadrako
If anyone is interested in the main webpage for the project, I think it's
this:

[http://marroninstitute.nyu.edu/programs/new-
cities](http://marroninstitute.nyu.edu/programs/new-cities)

------
wolfgke
Another way to end poverty in the third world would be to convince the poor
people simply not to breed anymore.

------
ChrisNorstrom
1st Problem of this article: How do WE "over here" fix THEM "over there".

You cannot "fix" another group of people in another country. They have to fix
themselves and go through the necessary procedures to stabilize, weed out
problems and corruption, and change their culture, people, social mindset, and
traditions. All the stable rich countries of today were once violence,
corrupt, and environmentally dirty during their earlier years, suggesting a
sort of "puberty period" that all nations go through.

One group cannot build a country, achievements, stability for another group.
If they try it is almost always only a temporary success, followed by complete
failure as soon as the original "building" group pulls out. Google "the white
foreigner effect"
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268115...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268115000906)
the most horrifying side effect is that natives purposely handicap themselves
to signal need to an outside charity. This leads to dependency.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/25/world/africa/mosquito-
nets...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/25/world/africa/mosquito-nets-for-
malaria-spawn-new-epidemic-overfishing.html)

[http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123758895999200083](http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123758895999200083)

In the short term good is done and hearts are warmed but in the long term a
nation doesn't develop an immunity to its problems. A charter city would be no
different. People would become dependent on the charity, funds, resources, and
achievement coming out of the foreign created character city. What incentive
do they have to create their own city? If they tried how could they compete
with the foreign city?

2nd Problem: The solution and problem in the article is based on an emotional
desire to uplift another group of people. Don't you think they want to lift
themselves up? Do you believe they want you to lift them up?

What the article suggests, which is basically "nation creation communism" will
actually do more damage to a country than good. Because now the native
original people of a country cannot compete with the success, wealth, and
power of the "colonizers" who are trying to uplift them out of poverty. This
is the same series of ideas that sound good and make you feel good but
actually cause damage. Countries grow and mature and stabilize on their own at
their own natural rate. Trying to artificially "fix" each country ahead of its
time, I believe, is immoral. That's like giving your kid steroids because you
want them to hurry up and grow faster.

~~~
jernfrost
Your arguments are against the current development model not against charter
cities.

The problem with the present arrangement is that western powers are not in
charge, they merely give the money. This is causing the dependency you speak
of. They are trying to solve the development problem merely with money. That
fails for exactly the reasons you quote.

A charter city doesn't need to offer money. The idea of a charter city isn't
about pouring money into a foreign country it is about offering western
quality rule and regulations. Hong Kong was not an expense for Britain. It was
an income. Hong Kong did not prosper because Britain poured money into it but
because Britain ran it.

That is a big difference. People would not depend on charity, funds or
resources from the charter city because it would not provide any of that. It
would only provide the rule of law and uncorrupt government without red tape.
That means people can go to the charter city to start a business without being
tied down. You know in your average developing country setting up just a
simple bakery legally requires over a hundred days of full time work dealing
with bureaucracy. That is no joke, you can read Peruvian economist Hernando de
Soto about the subject.

------
simbalion
tl;dr: good discipline reduces poverty.

