Honduras Is Not For Sale (2021)(hondurasisnotforsale.org)
hondurasisnotforsale.org
Honduras Is Not For Sale (2021)
https://www.hondurasisnotforsale.org
86 コメント
While I can understand the kneejerk reaction to a bunch of foreign folks coming and building up land, especially as it sounds like there was little local stakeholder involvement, I think this presents a seriously one-sided view of the project. I personally always thought the idea of Prospera was interesting if not particularly economically compelling (I'm much more of a fan of building charter cities more fore locals and really focusing on fulfilling their needs like what the folks at Talent City Nigeria are doing) and would hate for it to be brought down or damaged to a point where it hurts the whole movement and of course, the economic opportunities that FDI can bring to locals. All that said, I think that this is relatively old as it refers to the President as Juan Orlando Hernandez who was replaced in late 2021 during the latest presidential election.
Why on earth would anyone support charter cities? Cities are a community of people and should be owned, operated, legislated by and accountable to the community, not outsiders.
This is not even a new idea, and it ended really poorly last time - see the Concessions in Shanghai. [1] Having a huge disparity in the power of the so-called guarantor country as compared to the local host country is just a new take on colonialism.
[edit] However the biggest issue seems to be that it was found unconstitutional, then the judges were evicted and replaced (in what the UN described as an attack on democracy), and then all of a sudden it was constitutional. Telling the locals you know better than they do about how their region should be administered, while giving yourself the ability to exploit the living crap out of them thanks to your privileged position of being a foreigner is roughly how colonialism was carried out.
[edit] It's particularly relevant that Paul Romer proposed this at a Ted talk and then talked the Hondurans into it - citing Hong Kong as an example of a well-run charter city. Remember what happened there two years ago through present? [2] If that's your contemporary flagship... Yeah, that's pretty much what's going to happen to all of these soon-to-be-catastrophes.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_International_Settlem...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_city_(economic_develop...
This is not even a new idea, and it ended really poorly last time - see the Concessions in Shanghai. [1] Having a huge disparity in the power of the so-called guarantor country as compared to the local host country is just a new take on colonialism.
[edit] However the biggest issue seems to be that it was found unconstitutional, then the judges were evicted and replaced (in what the UN described as an attack on democracy), and then all of a sudden it was constitutional. Telling the locals you know better than they do about how their region should be administered, while giving yourself the ability to exploit the living crap out of them thanks to your privileged position of being a foreigner is roughly how colonialism was carried out.
[edit] It's particularly relevant that Paul Romer proposed this at a Ted talk and then talked the Hondurans into it - citing Hong Kong as an example of a well-run charter city. Remember what happened there two years ago through present? [2] If that's your contemporary flagship... Yeah, that's pretty much what's going to happen to all of these soon-to-be-catastrophes.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_International_Settlem...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_city_(economic_develop...
> Cities are a community of people and should be owned, operated, legislated by and accountable to the community, not outsiders.
Isn't that exactly what a charter city is? A city that's accountable to its own community, not to outsiders in the rest of the country.
> It's particularly relevant that Paul Romer proposed this at a Ted talk and then talked the Hondurans into it - citing Hong Kong as an example of a well-run charter city. Remember what happened there two years ago through present? [2] If that's your contemporary flagship... Yeah, that's pretty much what's going to happen to all of these soon-to-be-catastrophes.
Or you could have a country that respected the rule of law more than the CCP does (not a high bar), and was willing to accept the loss of control in return for the advantages of this kind of city.
Isn't that exactly what a charter city is? A city that's accountable to its own community, not to outsiders in the rest of the country.
> It's particularly relevant that Paul Romer proposed this at a Ted talk and then talked the Hondurans into it - citing Hong Kong as an example of a well-run charter city. Remember what happened there two years ago through present? [2] If that's your contemporary flagship... Yeah, that's pretty much what's going to happen to all of these soon-to-be-catastrophes.
Or you could have a country that respected the rule of law more than the CCP does (not a high bar), and was willing to accept the loss of control in return for the advantages of this kind of city.
Romer's charter cities relevant here [1] are not the same as for instance US charter cities [2], they just happen to share the name.
Per Wikipedia:
> Or you could have a country that respected the rule of law more than the CCP does (not a high bar), and was willing to accept the loss of control in return for the advantages of this kind of city.
The question is of course, why? If it were built for the good of the locals it would just be built by the host government without an outside power, through partnerships and investment. When a foreign power looks to create such an exclave its generally because they can't get away with what they're trying to do at home.
If it genuinely is well-intentioned for the "good of the locals" then of course, well-off foreigners coming in and telling the locals what's what has a very long, and very poor track record. See: uh, basically anywhere.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_city_(economic_develop...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_city
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordlândia
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1740_Batavia_massacre
Per Wikipedia:
A charter city is a type of city in which a guarantor from a developed country would create a city within a developing host country. The guarantor would administer the region, with the power to create their own laws, judiciary, and immigration policy outside of the control of the host country.
The town had a strict set of rules imposed by the managers. Alcohol, women, tobacco and even football were forbidden within the town, including inside the workers' own homes. Inspectors would go from house to house to check how organised the houses were and to enforce these rules. The inhabitants circumvented these prohibitions by paddling out to merchant riverboats moored beyond the town jurisdiction, often hiding contraband goods inside fruits like watermelons. A small settlement was established 8 kilometres (5 mi) upstream on the "Island of Innocence" with bars, nightclubs and brothels.
In 1930, the native workers grew tired of the American food and revolted in the town's cafeteria. This became known as the Breaking Pans (Portuguese: Quebra-Panelas). The rebels proceeded to cut the telegraph wires and chased away the managers and even the town's cook into the jungle for a few days until the Brazilian Army arrived and the revolt ended. Agreements were then made on the type of food the workers would be served.
> Or you could have a country that respected the rule of law more than the CCP does (not a high bar), and was willing to accept the loss of control in return for the advantages of this kind of city.
The question is of course, why? If it were built for the good of the locals it would just be built by the host government without an outside power, through partnerships and investment. When a foreign power looks to create such an exclave its generally because they can't get away with what they're trying to do at home.
If it genuinely is well-intentioned for the "good of the locals" then of course, well-off foreigners coming in and telling the locals what's what has a very long, and very poor track record. See: uh, basically anywhere.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_city_(economic_develop...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_city
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordlândia
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1740_Batavia_massacre
Most forms of governance have horror stories as well as success stories (you've already mentioned Hong Kong; Irvine was also a corporate-planned city and by all accounts that has made it a very nice place to live). Unless you have a controlled analysis showing that locally administered cities are less effective on the whole than national administration, I don't think historical anecdotes (as terrible as they are) add up to much.
> If it were built for the good of the locals it would just be built by the host government without an outside power, through partnerships and investment.
There are plenty of reasons a host government might want or need to credibly commit to noninterference. Areas with endemic corruption have had success appointing judges or administrators from far away who don't have local family/clan ties. Countries with weak credit that want to attract foreign investments will often issue debt in foreign currency and/or under foreign law. Countries with major divisions may invite foreign peacekeepers. Etc.
> If it genuinely is well-intentioned for the "good of the locals" then of course, well-off foreigners coming in and telling the locals what's what has a very long, and very poor track record. See: uh, basically anywhere.
Local government in these places also has a long and poor track record.
I'm sure there are good and bad charter cities, but I don't see any reason to think the concept is inherently terrible.
> If it were built for the good of the locals it would just be built by the host government without an outside power, through partnerships and investment.
There are plenty of reasons a host government might want or need to credibly commit to noninterference. Areas with endemic corruption have had success appointing judges or administrators from far away who don't have local family/clan ties. Countries with weak credit that want to attract foreign investments will often issue debt in foreign currency and/or under foreign law. Countries with major divisions may invite foreign peacekeepers. Etc.
> If it genuinely is well-intentioned for the "good of the locals" then of course, well-off foreigners coming in and telling the locals what's what has a very long, and very poor track record. See: uh, basically anywhere.
Local government in these places also has a long and poor track record.
I'm sure there are good and bad charter cities, but I don't see any reason to think the concept is inherently terrible.
> I'm sure there are good and bad charter cities, but I don't see any reason to think the concept is inherently terrible.
Has there been a good charter city? I can't think of a single one. So, with that in mind, what has changed?
The proposed governance model is a foreigner gets control over a section of domestic soil, domestic individuals, makes the laws, and can bring in their overseers. This sounds like every other attempt at colonialism.
I'm just advocating for a government accountable to its people. A government not accountable to its people, sounds to me like an inherently poor idea.
Would you be ok with a CCP run charter city in the Nevada desert to mine for minerals? How about a CCP state-run enterprise controlled charter city in the Nevada desert? Or a Russian Gazprom controlled charter city in Alaska? How about one put up by a Russian oligarch? Each with their own immigration policy where the state and federal governments have limited oversight. Why is it distasteful here? I'm sure they would each argue the governance in rural America doesn't have the best track record.
Has there been a good charter city? I can't think of a single one. So, with that in mind, what has changed?
The proposed governance model is a foreigner gets control over a section of domestic soil, domestic individuals, makes the laws, and can bring in their overseers. This sounds like every other attempt at colonialism.
I'm just advocating for a government accountable to its people. A government not accountable to its people, sounds to me like an inherently poor idea.
Would you be ok with a CCP run charter city in the Nevada desert to mine for minerals? How about a CCP state-run enterprise controlled charter city in the Nevada desert? Or a Russian Gazprom controlled charter city in Alaska? How about one put up by a Russian oligarch? Each with their own immigration policy where the state and federal governments have limited oversight. Why is it distasteful here? I'm sure they would each argue the governance in rural America doesn't have the best track record.
> Has there been a good charter city? I can't think of a single one.
This precise kind of charter city is a new kind of thing, but plenty of the closest existing or historical analogues have been successful, in as much as they've been more prosperous and more pleasant places to live than comparable cities that don't have such special treatment. Hong Kong. West Berlin. Danzig. Singapore. Shenzen. Shannon.
> The proposed governance model is a foreigner gets control over a section of domestic soil, domestic individuals, makes the laws, and can bring in their overseers. This sounds like every other attempt at colonialism.
If an unaccountable foreign entity really was running it as a possession, I agree that would be just as bad as you say it is. The positive version is if the city has first-class representation in that foreign governance. Compare somewhere like la Reunion, which is more prosperous and a better place to live than its comparable neighbours, because it's part of France, in a sense that I think is not usually understood as colonial (at least, one that is seen by its residents as positive, in a way that colonialism generally isn't).
> I'm just advocating for a government accountable to its people. A government not accountable to its people, sounds to me like an inherently poor idea.
I agree that accountability is important. I don't think central governments in developing countries are particularly good at it, to the point that I find it very plausible that a foreign-involved charter city could end up with better accountability.
> Would you be ok with a CCP run charter city in the Nevada desert to mine for minerals? How about a CCP state-run enterprise controlled charter city in the Nevada desert? Or a Russian Gazprom controlled charter city in Alaska? How about one put up by a Russian oligarch? Each with their own immigration policy where the state and federal governments have limited oversight. Why is it distasteful here? I'm sure they would each argue the governance in rural America doesn't have the best track record.
They would argue that, but they'd be wrong, wouldn't they, at least relatively speaking. The reason those examples are distasteful is, as hard as it is to make this argument without sounding naive, that the CCP and Russia have a poor track record of running governments for the benefit of their citizens, worse than rural America. Sometimes the details matter and we have to actually make a judgement about which actors are good and which are bad. I'd be perfectly OK with e.g. Norway or Switzerland sponsoring a charter city in Nevada.
This precise kind of charter city is a new kind of thing, but plenty of the closest existing or historical analogues have been successful, in as much as they've been more prosperous and more pleasant places to live than comparable cities that don't have such special treatment. Hong Kong. West Berlin. Danzig. Singapore. Shenzen. Shannon.
> The proposed governance model is a foreigner gets control over a section of domestic soil, domestic individuals, makes the laws, and can bring in their overseers. This sounds like every other attempt at colonialism.
If an unaccountable foreign entity really was running it as a possession, I agree that would be just as bad as you say it is. The positive version is if the city has first-class representation in that foreign governance. Compare somewhere like la Reunion, which is more prosperous and a better place to live than its comparable neighbours, because it's part of France, in a sense that I think is not usually understood as colonial (at least, one that is seen by its residents as positive, in a way that colonialism generally isn't).
> I'm just advocating for a government accountable to its people. A government not accountable to its people, sounds to me like an inherently poor idea.
I agree that accountability is important. I don't think central governments in developing countries are particularly good at it, to the point that I find it very plausible that a foreign-involved charter city could end up with better accountability.
> Would you be ok with a CCP run charter city in the Nevada desert to mine for minerals? How about a CCP state-run enterprise controlled charter city in the Nevada desert? Or a Russian Gazprom controlled charter city in Alaska? How about one put up by a Russian oligarch? Each with their own immigration policy where the state and federal governments have limited oversight. Why is it distasteful here? I'm sure they would each argue the governance in rural America doesn't have the best track record.
They would argue that, but they'd be wrong, wouldn't they, at least relatively speaking. The reason those examples are distasteful is, as hard as it is to make this argument without sounding naive, that the CCP and Russia have a poor track record of running governments for the benefit of their citizens, worse than rural America. Sometimes the details matter and we have to actually make a judgement about which actors are good and which are bad. I'd be perfectly OK with e.g. Norway or Switzerland sponsoring a charter city in Nevada.
I think you make a lot of interesting points.
Minor quibble re: Singapore, it wasn't exactly a model until it was kicked out of Malaysia (gaining sovereignty against its own will for what I believe is the first and only time ever) and was catapulted into modernity by Lee Kwan Yew.
> I'd be perfectly OK with e.g. Norway or Switzerland sponsoring a charter city in Nevada.
I think you'll find that a very unpopular opinion. America's dead set on not ceding Point Roberts after all - a tiny chunk of nothing accessible only via Canada that happens to be American due to a penmanship artifact. They get water from Canada and use the Canadian fire department. [1] Let alone carving out a portion of the contiguous states for the Norwegians.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_Roberts,_Washington
Minor quibble re: Singapore, it wasn't exactly a model until it was kicked out of Malaysia (gaining sovereignty against its own will for what I believe is the first and only time ever) and was catapulted into modernity by Lee Kwan Yew.
> I'd be perfectly OK with e.g. Norway or Switzerland sponsoring a charter city in Nevada.
I think you'll find that a very unpopular opinion. America's dead set on not ceding Point Roberts after all - a tiny chunk of nothing accessible only via Canada that happens to be American due to a penmanship artifact. They get water from Canada and use the Canadian fire department. [1] Let alone carving out a portion of the contiguous states for the Norwegians.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_Roberts,_Washington
All of Canada started out as a charter and to this day that shows in how Canadians are effectively boxed in on all sides in a continent sized corporation. Canada is rife with 'company town' like constructs including a whole raft of artificially created monopolies.
... right, a colony. That's the whole point I'm making, that charter cities are colonialism redux. And if you'll recall it didn't go well for the people already there at the time - the other point I'm making.
I am also aware of several Vancouver businesses (some of which are technically in other cities like Delta) that would also strongly oppose Point Roberts being ceded. It makes it easy to offer non-international shipping to US customers, by way of driving into it, dealing with customs in person (which can be less headache then the customs broker services offered by post or parcel services), and then finally sending from the post office, or one of the couriers in the US itself.
The same system can also be used in reverse, for people who live nearby. This is especially useful for buying things from company that won't ship internationally at all, or who charge excessive fees for shipping internationally.
The same system can also be used in reverse, for people who live nearby. This is especially useful for buying things from company that won't ship internationally at all, or who charge excessive fees for shipping internationally.
I'm not sure the UPS store is the one holding it back. There have been off and on bilateral negotiations for 100 years.
> I'd be perfectly OK with e.g. Norway or Switzerland sponsoring a charter city in Nevada.
-Oh, Norway's already got Wisconsin, the Dakotas and Minnesota sorted - not to mention parts of Washington.
(It was surreal first time I found myself in Minnesota and a shop clerk accidentally toppled the bag she was filling with my purchase. -'Uffda!' she exclaimed, and I quizzically inquired, in Norwegian, whether she spoke Norwegian.
A second's blank stare followed, before she giggled and asked me whether I had assumed she was Scandinavian. Hence I learned of that Norwegian bit of cultural imperialism, 'Uff da!') [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uff_da
-Oh, Norway's already got Wisconsin, the Dakotas and Minnesota sorted - not to mention parts of Washington.
(It was surreal first time I found myself in Minnesota and a shop clerk accidentally toppled the bag she was filling with my purchase. -'Uffda!' she exclaimed, and I quizzically inquired, in Norwegian, whether she spoke Norwegian.
A second's blank stare followed, before she giggled and asked me whether I had assumed she was Scandinavian. Hence I learned of that Norwegian bit of cultural imperialism, 'Uff da!') [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uff_da
Don't know about the rest, but West Berlin wouldn't have been viable without massive financial support from West Germany. So it was successful because it had to be successful as a showcase of capitalism, but left to its own devices (even without being blockaded by the soviet army) it would have quickly failed...
How about the 99 year long leased city-state of Hong Kong? Seems to have worked out quite well during the lease, not so much after it ended.
Have you actually read Prospera's code? It's available online. Prospera is most definitely accountable.
Have you actually read Prospera's code? It's available online. Prospera is most definitely accountable.
Hong Kong Island wasn't on lease, it was ceded in perpetuity in the Treaty of Nanjing. It's the New Territories that were on lease. When the lease ran out, it was deemed impossible to consolidate the population from the peninsula onto the island.
Your beef then is with the kind of governance within the charter city, not charter city itself. I could make the same argument for nation-state governments, which commonly result in very poor track record for ensuring the "good of the [common] locals."
An egalitarian charter city inside of a brutal autocracy might be great (relatively). The inverse, not so much.
An egalitarian charter city inside of a brutal autocracy might be great (relatively). The inverse, not so much.
No my issue is with foreign controlled exclaves which can exert disproportionate influence on the locals without being accountable to the locals whose lives they control. This is colonialism, and the world has broadly agreed its a bad idea - even if a handful of colonies worked out fine, and we slap it with a fun new brand. If you disagree that colonialism is a bad idea, we can talk about that, but we should first call it what it is.
> An egalitarian charter city inside of a brutal autocracy might be great (relatively).
As a peer reply stated, its success threatens the brutal autocracy and will be crushed. Like HK.
The incentives are all wrong in this model.
> An egalitarian charter city inside of a brutal autocracy might be great (relatively).
As a peer reply stated, its success threatens the brutal autocracy and will be crushed. Like HK.
The incentives are all wrong in this model.
> which can exert disproportionate influence on the locals without being accountable to the locals whose lives they control.
Yes you're taking issue with a form of government inside the charter city that you would disagree with, not charter city itself. Government structures of course may take locals into account, and they may not.
> success threatens the brutal autocracy and will be crushed. Like HK.
HK wasn't crushed until it was no longer a charter city. You're actually proving the point that at least there was some window of time when there was a charter city that things were better.
Yes you're taking issue with a form of government inside the charter city that you would disagree with, not charter city itself. Government structures of course may take locals into account, and they may not.
> success threatens the brutal autocracy and will be crushed. Like HK.
HK wasn't crushed until it was no longer a charter city. You're actually proving the point that at least there was some window of time when there was a charter city that things were better.
HK is as much a Chinese charter city today as it was a British charter city before. PRC nationals need an entry permit to visit HK.
[edit] They also have their own passports (HKSAR passports), speak their own language (Cantonese vs. Mandarin) and have their own script (Traditional vs. Simplified). [1] ... and their governance did not change. Basic Law has been the law of the land in HK since 1997 at the point of the handover. Sovereignty and nationality and so on are complicated things. At some point 20 years in, the guarantor decided they didn't like how things were going.
HK folks weren't 'Chinese' nationals for over 150 years until 1997.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Special_Administrati...
[edit] They also have their own passports (HKSAR passports), speak their own language (Cantonese vs. Mandarin) and have their own script (Traditional vs. Simplified). [1] ... and their governance did not change. Basic Law has been the law of the land in HK since 1997 at the point of the handover. Sovereignty and nationality and so on are complicated things. At some point 20 years in, the guarantor decided they didn't like how things were going.
HK folks weren't 'Chinese' nationals for over 150 years until 1997.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Special_Administrati...
The point is that HK became much less of a charter city in 1997 (today it's not so much a "Chinese charter city" as a "Chinese regular city") and this is closely correlated with it becoming a lot worse for its residents.
HK is definitely not a Chinese charter city, that doesn't even make sense. China is not 'foreign' to China.
>HK folks weren't 'Chinese' nationals for over 150 years until 1997.
Yes until they were no longer inside of a charter city.
>They also have their own passports (HKSAR passports), speak their own language (Cantonese vs. Mandarin)
Does that make American Samoa a charter city?
> and their governance did not change
Lol
>HK folks weren't 'Chinese' nationals for over 150 years until 1997.
Yes until they were no longer inside of a charter city.
>They also have their own passports (HKSAR passports), speak their own language (Cantonese vs. Mandarin)
Does that make American Samoa a charter city?
> and their governance did not change
Lol
> This is colonialism, and the world has broadly agreed its a bad idea - even if a handful of colonies worked out fine, and we slap it with a fun new brand. If you disagree that colonialism is a bad idea, we can talk about that, but we should first call it what it is.
There are clearly major differences between this and colonialism. Most or all of the agreed downsides of colonialism are not about the existence of exclaves containing foreign people, they're about e.g. people being governed from afar without any local representation.
There are clearly major differences between this and colonialism. Most or all of the agreed downsides of colonialism are not about the existence of exclaves containing foreign people, they're about e.g. people being governed from afar without any local representation.
A charter city is a type of city in which a guarantor from a developed country would create a city within a developing host country. The guarantor would administer the region, with the power to create their own laws, judiciary, and immigration policy outside of the control of the host country.
That's exactly what Romer is proposing. The foreign guarantor would administer the region and control its laws, judiciary and immigration policy.
These aren't intended to be comprised solely of foreigners. I suspect like past exclaves, they would bring in foreign overseers to enforce their vision.
Again your beef is that there isn't local representation. There isn't some law of the universe that a charter city can't allow the locals to influence policy of the guarantor. You have an issue that government doesn't always work the way you want it, and it's a valid concern that governments often (if not always) are bad for the locals.
You can't point at North Korea and say "Look, when you have a nation-state everyone ends up with essentially zero influence by common locals." But this is essentially what you're doing with charter cities.
>foreign guarantor
Better terminology would be 'formerly foreign guarantor.' They are domestic to the charter city.
You can't point at North Korea and say "Look, when you have a nation-state everyone ends up with essentially zero influence by common locals." But this is essentially what you're doing with charter cities.
>foreign guarantor
Better terminology would be 'formerly foreign guarantor.' They are domestic to the charter city.
My beef is with a system that allows foreign guarantors.
> Better terminology would be 'formerly foreign guarantor.' They are domestic to the charter city.
Do they surrender their home country nationality? If not...
> Better terminology would be 'formerly foreign guarantor.' They are domestic to the charter city.
Do they surrender their home country nationality? If not...
Understood
>No my issue is with foreign controlled exclaves which can exert disproportionate influence on the locals without being accountable to the locals whose lives they control.
It's interesting that I could swap "foreign controlled exclaves' with 'federal government' here and suddenly many would be outraged. Your argument fits in pretty neatly with anti-federalism and anti- other structures that serve to dilute the power of locals.
It's a valid point to be concerned about loss of local power. I'm skeptical that there is any practical difference here for exploitations of locals (charter-city vs non-charter-city) other than an OPPORTUNITY for competing governments models to prove themselves in a way that lets those in a constrained geographic area compare many governance models to see which works. I can see using charter cities to INCREASE local power, by creating a 'foreign guarantor' that is actually a representation of the locals, ousting much federal power.
>No my issue is with foreign controlled exclaves which can exert disproportionate influence on the locals without being accountable to the locals whose lives they control.
It's interesting that I could swap "foreign controlled exclaves' with 'federal government' here and suddenly many would be outraged. Your argument fits in pretty neatly with anti-federalism and anti- other structures that serve to dilute the power of locals.
It's a valid point to be concerned about loss of local power. I'm skeptical that there is any practical difference here for exploitations of locals (charter-city vs non-charter-city) other than an OPPORTUNITY for competing governments models to prove themselves in a way that lets those in a constrained geographic area compare many governance models to see which works. I can see using charter cities to INCREASE local power, by creating a 'foreign guarantor' that is actually a representation of the locals, ousting much federal power.
> Or you could have a country that respected the rule of law more than the CCP does (not a high bar), and was willing to accept the loss of control in return for the advantages of this kind of city.
Isn't the reason that Hong Kong has been vulnerable to increased mainland China control because it hasn't maintained many current advantages from the national government's point of view? Once mainland China was also full of wealthy and productive cities, the national government had less to lose by cracking down on Hong Kong.
Isn't the reason that Hong Kong has been vulnerable to increased mainland China control because it hasn't maintained many current advantages from the national government's point of view? Once mainland China was also full of wealthy and productive cities, the national government had less to lose by cracking down on Hong Kong.
My view is that Hong Kong was still very valuable to the Chinese people, but unfortunately the national government's interests are not so closely aligned with that these days.
> Why on earth would anyone support charter cities? Cities are a community of people and should be owned, operated, legislated by and accountable to the community, not outsiders.
What if the outsiders are better at governance and development than the locals? As a Bangladeshi, I’d rather have Americans administering Bangladesh than Bangladeshis. Though I’d rather have Germans administer America than Americans…
> Telling the locals you know better than they do about how their region should be administered, while giving yourself the ability to exploit the living crap out of them thanks to your privileged position of being a foreigner is roughly how colonialism was carried out.
Hong Kong turned out pretty nicely before China took it back.
What if the outsiders are better at governance and development than the locals? As a Bangladeshi, I’d rather have Americans administering Bangladesh than Bangladeshis. Though I’d rather have Germans administer America than Americans…
> Telling the locals you know better than they do about how their region should be administered, while giving yourself the ability to exploit the living crap out of them thanks to your privileged position of being a foreigner is roughly how colonialism was carried out.
Hong Kong turned out pretty nicely before China took it back.
> Why on earth would anyone support charter cities? Cities are a community of people and should be owned, operated, legislated by and accountable to the community
You answered your own question. There are many places in the world that have unaccountable governments with terrible legal systems. The idea of charter cities is to have better civic software that what is available locally.
> Remember what happened there two years ago through present?
Hong Kong did fine as long as CCP respected the One Country, Two Systems policy. Things only got bad when they tried to crack down on it. I don't see how it advances your arguments.
You answered your own question. There are many places in the world that have unaccountable governments with terrible legal systems. The idea of charter cities is to have better civic software that what is available locally.
> Remember what happened there two years ago through present?
Hong Kong did fine as long as CCP respected the One Country, Two Systems policy. Things only got bad when they tried to crack down on it. I don't see how it advances your arguments.
In the case described here, a corrupt Honduran govenrment brings in foreign investors to create, govern and by many definitions, exploit areas within Honduras, against the consent of the locals.
Doesn't sound that great, but easy to hide with a flag of "good intentions".
There are different kind of charter cities. Concessions in Shanghai you mentioned was ran by the colonist and work for the colonist. The locals were either rejected or not interested in participating. That was the problem.
Hong Kong was successful because it was ran by local Hongkongers. It began as much as like other colony. But Hong Kong become successful because it was cut out of the the colonist UK's control after WW2. It was a territory in the middle of a communist. The governor need local support in order to sustain their power. So they starts to adapt locals into the power structure. At the end, local Hongkongers were highly participating the society. But it become catastrophic in last two years because the new host country China does not like that.
In that sense, I agreed that charter city did not work, because a successful charter city will be doomed to destroy by the host country. It could either become a country or being absorbed. A colonist style charter city were problematic to start with.
But it is a good method to test new governing idea before a full adaptation to the whole country. It is like startup for government. In that sense, it is a good idea, and Hong Kong was a great experiment. China created Shenzhen based on that.
Hong Kong was successful because it was ran by local Hongkongers. It began as much as like other colony. But Hong Kong become successful because it was cut out of the the colonist UK's control after WW2. It was a territory in the middle of a communist. The governor need local support in order to sustain their power. So they starts to adapt locals into the power structure. At the end, local Hongkongers were highly participating the society. But it become catastrophic in last two years because the new host country China does not like that.
In that sense, I agreed that charter city did not work, because a successful charter city will be doomed to destroy by the host country. It could either become a country or being absorbed. A colonist style charter city were problematic to start with.
But it is a good method to test new governing idea before a full adaptation to the whole country. It is like startup for government. In that sense, it is a good idea, and Hong Kong was a great experiment. China created Shenzhen based on that.
I think that's fair, but there's a lot we're willing to ignore because it 'won't happen here.' Can you imagine the uproar if a Chinese state-run mining company wanted to start a charter city in the Nevada desert with its own immigration policy, own laws, and own system of government? oof. How about a Russian charter city in the middle of England? You know, to dry-run totalitarianist pseudo-communism?
Even Shenzhen doesn't match the Romer definition which involves a foreign benefactor. Shenzhen is in China, administered by the Chinese. That may be why it works.
Even Shenzhen doesn't match the Romer definition which involves a foreign benefactor. Shenzhen is in China, administered by the Chinese. That may be why it works.
A Russian or Chinese charter city would be viewed negatively because these are hostile states. A charter city in the US composed of people from Canada would not be viewed in this way. Charter cities will not work in hostile cultural environments. I understand that from your perspective, Americans are hostile foreigners rather than friendly foreigners, and many people obviously share that view. Charter cities are an interesting concept, but the cultural environment is a critical factor in the viability of real-world cases.
This isn’t a “knee jerk reaction” for Honduras. It’s literally their entire modern history: foreign “investors” showing up and taking their land.
You should read the Fish that Ate the Whale. Honduras has a long history of being exploited. I can’t blame them at all for opposing this.
You should read the Fish that Ate the Whale. Honduras has a long history of being exploited. I can’t blame them at all for opposing this.
I think they're also upset with people who live in some city taking their land away through legal trickery.
These areas probably don't produce many lawyers.
These areas probably don't produce many lawyers.
Could you describe said "trickery"?
Eminent Domain is one thing, but people paying eachother for land is as old as time, as is being butthurt about the price.
Eminent Domain is one thing, but people paying eachother for land is as old as time, as is being butthurt about the price.
Often the deals aren't limited to cash. There are promises of economic development, education, healthcare etc.. as well.
You might agree to give your land away to a verbal deal where promises are made, only to discover later that the detailed text contains contingencies that give your counterparty an out of one or more major promise that you had taken for granted as part of the deal.
You might agree to give your land away to a verbal deal where promises are made, only to discover later that the detailed text contains contingencies that give your counterparty an out of one or more major promise that you had taken for granted as part of the deal.
One could write a book about all the different forms of legal trickery that have been used to expropriate lands from people who have lived on it for generations but don't necessarily have all the "proper" paperwork. Or even if they do. I live in a backwater in Brazil and I have seen lots of this. Even "gringos" are often victims because they don't know all the hoops you have to jump through to get the proper paperwork, and no infrequently the lawyer they hire turns out to be a thief.
The problem comes when the people selling the land don't have the cleqr legal rights to do so. The problems get far more complicated when the land being sold is owned collectively by a group of indigenous people.
Deposing your supreme court when they rule against your new law, and replacing them with ones that reverses that decision goes well past legal trickery into coup territory.
Deposing your supreme court when they rule against your new law, and replacing them with ones that reverses that decision goes well past legal trickery into coup territory.
The essay describes the trickery. Replacing Supreme Court justices with those more compliant, for one.
I'm sorry, but this doesn't sound like an argument. It sounds like wishful thinking. I get it, I like the promise of the project, but if true, then the project is stillborn
[deleted]
This seems pretty old since the newest piece of "news" on the site is fairly old. Also the top article is from 9 years ago...
I'm also unclear on how narcos are involved in this.
In general this seems like "FUD".
I'm also unclear on how narcos are involved in this.
In general this seems like "FUD".
My immediate thought is that Honduras has been rumored in the past few days to be on the verge of announcing bitcoin as legal tender, following El Salvador.
That could be the source of the sudden renewed interest in the country.
That could be the source of the sudden renewed interest in the country.
I'm not sure why the homepage's top site (https://mundo.sputniknews.com/20210521/las-ciudades-modelos-..., though I don't trust Sputnik News), and news page (https://www.hondurasisnotforsale.org/news)'s second site (https://criterio.hn/maestros-en-roatan-exigen-alto-al-saqueo...), is from 2021, but the news page's top site (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/08/honduras-city-...) is from 2012.
I was thinking I was out of the loop and this was a reference to when Trump talked about buying Greenland. Maybe I’m even more out of the loop than I thought.
The same model as the ZEDEs, with some of the same people is coming to the UK, branded as "free ports".
https://bakerstreetherald.com/2020/09/case-2-private-governm...
Within the ZEDEs it seems like democracy won't really be a thing - this isn't a model we would want to see anywhere, let alone expanded.
https://bakerstreetherald.com/2020/09/case-2-private-governm...
Within the ZEDEs it seems like democracy won't really be a thing - this isn't a model we would want to see anywhere, let alone expanded.
That article seems to say that residents of Roatan won't receive the same treatment as the residents with this spectre of potential civil liberties violations. That wouldn't be good, but what supports that case?
Wouldn't it be likely that the ZEDE would welcome local merchants? I dunno about anyone else but I prefer produce/meat/etc from "nearby" rather than by boat or plane. So we gotta be missing something here.
Wouldn't it be likely that the ZEDE would welcome local merchants? I dunno about anyone else but I prefer produce/meat/etc from "nearby" rather than by boat or plane. So we gotta be missing something here.
Since most of the laws are dismantled and the institutions that that serve them, who do residents go to if there are issues ?
They seek redress with their government, not with the the economic zone.
If enough people screw over the local residents they'll have created their own economic blockade which ultimately won't help them.
W.r.t development, we don’t really have a democracy anyway. 999 people want more homes, 1 files a complaint due to the project endangering their sea view. In city development, we are only able to pass motions that _nobody_ opposes - which has lead to a supply crisis on an astronomical scale
What an eye-opening article. Thanks for posting.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/honduras-econ...
https://newrepublic.com/article/120559/ive-seen-sorts-horrif...
What I got from the most unbiased sources I could find is that the Honduran government is undergoing a program called ZEDE that is making charter cities, almost like Shenzhen, that are independent of the rest of the state administratively and financially. This is at the behest of a panel of Reaganites, Chicago boys all over again. Their side insists they aren't expropriating land from residents, but that isn't extremely clear cut in a country like Honduras.
I have mixed feelings on this, these projects are surely to disrupt ways of life there and defy the notion of democracy, but they are also probably necessary given the accumulated grift and narcoviolence Honduras faces; the only way out is accelerating to cyberpunk corporate cities. I got to visit Honduras and Roatan on a family trip in 2004 - it's a lovely country that has obviously struggled mightily since then, judging by its near worst murder-per-capita rate and emigration. If only the state structures that made this a necessity weren't so sticky.
What I got from the most unbiased sources I could find is that the Honduran government is undergoing a program called ZEDE that is making charter cities, almost like Shenzhen, that are independent of the rest of the state administratively and financially. This is at the behest of a panel of Reaganites, Chicago boys all over again. Their side insists they aren't expropriating land from residents, but that isn't extremely clear cut in a country like Honduras.
I have mixed feelings on this, these projects are surely to disrupt ways of life there and defy the notion of democracy, but they are also probably necessary given the accumulated grift and narcoviolence Honduras faces; the only way out is accelerating to cyberpunk corporate cities. I got to visit Honduras and Roatan on a family trip in 2004 - it's a lovely country that has obviously struggled mightily since then, judging by its near worst murder-per-capita rate and emigration. If only the state structures that made this a necessity weren't so sticky.
One more for you (long):
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/prospectus-on-prospera
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/prospectus-on-prospera
I have mixed feelings too. I am from the country next to Honduras.
On one hand our countries would definitely benefit from places with more straightforward regulations. I believe some successful cities in China are special economic zones and that's where they are copying the idea from.
Our day to day regulations in Central America make even cross border investment very complicated. They are simply not written in a way that are inviting for foreign investment.
Both El Salvador and Honduras have had this Special Economic Zones proposed.
They were opposed by the left wing in Honduras, and opposed by the right wing in El Salvador.
I'm not sure what will happen to them now that the left win won in Honduras.
On one hand our countries would definitely benefit from places with more straightforward regulations. I believe some successful cities in China are special economic zones and that's where they are copying the idea from.
Our day to day regulations in Central America make even cross border investment very complicated. They are simply not written in a way that are inviting for foreign investment.
Both El Salvador and Honduras have had this Special Economic Zones proposed.
They were opposed by the left wing in Honduras, and opposed by the right wing in El Salvador.
I'm not sure what will happen to them now that the left win won in Honduras.
How do these compare to the other Latin American economic free zones, for instance Colón in Panama?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Col%C3%B3n_Free_Trade_Zone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Col%C3%B3n_Free_Trade_Zone
A microcosm of how employees will be treated in the Charter City/ZEDE model can be seen with the recent P & O sackings in the UK
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/03/po-and-the-t...
Indeed DP world, who owns P & O, is in the running to run a free ports in the UK.
I don't see how it what they have done is legal: sacking their employees then asking them to come back, to an agency they own for way less than the UK minimum wage, to a UK based company, but there is no appetite to enforce the law.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/03/po-and-the-t...
Indeed DP world, who owns P & O, is in the running to run a free ports in the UK.
I don't see how it what they have done is legal: sacking their employees then asking them to come back, to an agency they own for way less than the UK minimum wage, to a UK based company, but there is no appetite to enforce the law.
There is no law to enforce, the Tories have specifically avoided enacting policies against fire-and-rehire practices. https://labourlist.org/2021/10/tory-mps-defeat-barry-gardine...
Thats what outsourcing is, thats old news.
I think this is old. Prospera, the charter city it is opposing, has already broken ground.
https://prospera.hn
https://prospera.hn
The controversy started when actual properties started to be bought and used as part of this plan. Prospera operations are not subject to Honduran laws or taxes. Instead of enabling the locals to prosper they have been pushing them off their land. What was supposed to be egalitarian and empowering has turned out in practice to be just another ugly example of colonialism.
But the properties were bought and everything was done in legal agreement with the government, no? Do you have any sources for the claim that they are "pushing them off their land?" I kept semi up to date with the project and news around it until a few months ago and I don't remember ever seeing any substantiated claims about that, although from articles and things like this it is obvious that not everyone is happy about the situation.
> But the properties were bought and everything was done in legal agreement with the government, no?
The same could be said of when the US forced out indigenous people off of their lands. A government pretending their theft is legal doesn't make that theft OK.
Here's one source that talks about how the Garifuna people have been treated: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-honduras-landrights-garif...
The same could be said of when the US forced out indigenous people off of their lands. A government pretending their theft is legal doesn't make that theft OK.
Here's one source that talks about how the Garifuna people have been treated: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-honduras-landrights-garif...
The claims seem to be similar to what we're facing with NIMBYism in San Francisco, which often seems to be based in Xenophobia.
It would be one thing if they were destroying a several hundred year old city but that doesn't seem like its the case.
It would be one thing if they were destroying a several hundred year old city but that doesn't seem like its the case.
I would recommend spending more time in thousands of year old rainforest islands with some of the most pristine coral in the world. That's not xenophobia, it looks like they're dropping a crappy american city on that and making it clearly less inviting to the local's ability to afford living there than anything else I've seen in a while like this.
Americans love to do stuff on islands like this which wrecks the coral, they won't stop flushing toilet paper or other stuff like washing all their cosmetics and stearyl alcohol soaps which wreck everything in every reef near where people settle bringing these things. It'll go from some of the world's most pristine intact scenery to trash in no time.
It's not a san francisco backyard bruh
Americans love to do stuff on islands like this which wrecks the coral, they won't stop flushing toilet paper or other stuff like washing all their cosmetics and stearyl alcohol soaps which wreck everything in every reef near where people settle bringing these things. It'll go from some of the world's most pristine intact scenery to trash in no time.
It's not a san francisco backyard bruh
That is ridiculous and deeply offensive. I hope you simply aren't familiar with the facts here. (It so, here is a starting point to learn more:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-honduras-landrights-garif...)
It is not "NIMBYism" when people complain that land which they own is sold without their consent. When those people are a poor ethnic group with indigenous history on the land that is being taken away, often with force, to be sold to rich people of another ethnicity, we have moved so far away from ”NIMBYism" that we passed all the way through "gentrification" and are starting to approach "ethnic cleansing".
It is not "NIMBYism" when people complain that land which they own is sold without their consent. When those people are a poor ethnic group with indigenous history on the land that is being taken away, often with force, to be sold to rich people of another ethnicity, we have moved so far away from ”NIMBYism" that we passed all the way through "gentrification" and are starting to approach "ethnic cleansing".
So eminent domain type things are being used?
Imagine you live in Chicago, and the federal government just decided that businesses that are based in Milwaukee don't have to pay their employees federal minimum wage.
Prospera's minimum wage is higher than the Honduran national minimum wage.
ok, so then don't work for Milwaukee based businesses, seems fairly straightforward.
So what does Chicago look like after all the jobs move to MKE?
Even bigger as everyone from Milwaukee flees for higher wages.
The cynic in me was correct, it is for sale
But either way, kind of crazy that the head of state can dismiss supreme court appointees
But either way, kind of crazy that the head of state can dismiss supreme court appointees
Who appoints them?
If accurate, this is a huge red flag for investors. Ignore at your peril. That which begins in chicanery will continue that way. Such cities could only survive intact if everything is above board from the start. There is no time where things will suddenly move from sketchy to transparent.
This is really unfortunate because it seems like there might be some good value in the idea of charter cities, but this particular example used the idea to steal land for doing crooked stuff. Many of those involved appeared to want to do good, but the idealized commercial center they conceived of seems to need more structure, transparency, and rules in order to function as intended. With so much money on the line one might think that there would be a hard nosed focus on making things really work, but the oversight of the project seemed to work in a manner similar to a monastic order. Oh, well, but hopefully people keep working with these ideas, maybe in an alternative form like a specialized zone or neighborhood incorporated with an existing city.
I disagree. The nation state evolved when and where it did for good reason. Charter cities and minor polities not loyal to the central government is a good way to leave your nation in ruin. I’m obviously referring to Germany and how it faced a demographic and political collapse following that war.
Having a country/city literally chopped in half between two superpowers with opposing economic systems is quite a bit different. Hong Kong turned out perfectly fine, arguably better on its own apart from mainland China. Singapore is more or less a city-state, and world history has plenty of examples of city-states functioning just fine for centuries, even when belonging to broader federations (such as the Greeks).
I was referring to the thirty years war and the Treaty of Westphalia which gave the first real definition of nations not as land owned by some king but as the people who inhabit them. Germany was the center of the struggle between catholic and Protestant powers (since Germany had a north south divide between religions.) The war saw 1/3 of all Germans killed and the rise of the Dutch and Swedes as Protestant great powers who halted and reverted the Habsburg empires growth. Our modern idea of states is very much based around being the antithesis of what allowed the Habsburg monarchy to control pretty much all of Western Europe but France.
I feel like an idiot I wasn’t even thinking of Germany during the Cold War, but that’s obviously what people will think when you mention it being divided and losing a third of its territory. No when these 33% went it wasn’t to a different polity: it was to a horrible early grave as the armies of all sides believed their opponents to be working for the literal devil.
I feel like an idiot I wasn’t even thinking of Germany during the Cold War, but that’s obviously what people will think when you mention it being divided and losing a third of its territory. No when these 33% went it wasn’t to a different polity: it was to a horrible early grave as the armies of all sides believed their opponents to be working for the literal devil.
What are you talking about?
When Germany was a fragmented host of smaller principalities and free cities, before the Prussians "unified" most of it, it was in fact prospering quite nicely!
When Germany was a fragmented host of smaller principalities and free cities, before the Prussians "unified" most of it, it was in fact prospering quite nicely!
If you mean the time right before, when France forced the dissolution of the HRE then I suppose you could come up with a definition of prospering. But whatever definition you come up with would have been unbearable as “prospering” to any one but the Wittlesbachs. But I suppose that’s all a bit of a derail.
These ZEDES seem bad. But what do you want hacker news to do? It seems like illegal real estate development and stealing of people's land, but that is different than narco traffickers taking over your government. Can you give more info about what is happening to connect the pieces? In the us we sometimes have politically connected companies trying similar 'steal the land' for some commercial purpose, it's terrible, it's not drug smugglers taking over.
The key difference is that this land is not just being stolen, but also being given special legal status that exempts it from national laws. This is being done in a country where the cartels have more power than the corporations, in an area that had a long history of being used by smugglers and drugs traffickers.
[deleted]