Home › Blogs › Joel's blog

Would a new era of reform colonialism improve Third World economies?

Fri, 06/11/2010 - 08:40 — Joel

That's a question we've wrestled with from time to time here at Infinite Monkeys -- sometimes heatedly (yes, I was the heated one) -- and as it happens, The Atlantic this month has a profile of Paul Romer, who advocates kind of a colonialist approach. Citing Hong Kong as an example, he advocates that underdeveloped countries turn over a swath of land -- a "charter city" -- to a rich country that would provide low taxes, enlightened rules and the security to make it all happen.

It's an intriguing idea, and Romer nearly got the chance to put it into practice in Madagascar. But not quote.

Even as Romer was meeting with Ravalomanana, the president’s main political opponent was sniping at the proposed lease of farmland to Daewoo, and the idea of giving up vast swaths of territory to foreigners was growing increasingly unpopular. The arrangement was denounced as treason, and public protests gathered momentum, eventually turning violent. In late January 2009, protesters tossed homemade grenades at radio and TV stations that Ravalomanana owned; looters ransacked his chain of supermarkets. In February, guards opened fire on marchers in front of the presidential palace, killing 28 civilians. At this, units of the army mutinied. Soon, Ravalomanana was forced out of office.

The first action of the new government was to cancel the Daewoo project, and Romer’s plans in Madagascar were put on hold indefinitely.

I don't know that this is an apples-to-apples comparison to the kind of enlightened imperialism that's been casually advocated around here. But it does signal some rather unsurprising challenges to such a project, doesn't it? No one wants to see their country under some other country's thumb -- even if it's for their own good.

Bookmark/Search this post with:
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • Magnoliacom
  • Newsvine
  • Furl
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • Twitter
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Buzz Up!
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati
  • Icerocket

Trackback URL for this post:

http://blog.infinitemonkeysblog.com/?q=trackback/7288

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 06/11/2010 - 10:49 — Wry Mouth

Thumb-in-Mouth Disease

I would be interested in seeing the development (hah) of the Madagascar/Daewoo plan... is that Daewoo the country, or Daewoo the corporation?

Did Daewoo "invade" Madagascar, Romer riding in on a magnificently ornate elephant, retinue trailing behind? Or was this some sort of backroom deal wherein the President of the country unilaterally decided to give Daewoo (the corporation, not the nation) rule over a part of the nation?

You can see that "selling" the idea properly has to be part of the campaign? And perhaps that private company =/= nation?

A more interesting case would be if we could persuade Mexico to let us run their crappy little border-towns for a few decades, let's say, about 10 miles into their nation. We unload on them all of the tax structures, infrastructure, security, republican representation sans graft, and lack of heads rolling in the streets, etc.

Then, after 20 years, let the lease run out and let the Mexican government have the towns back.

You want to talk about migration northward? That would be a sight to see, on the eve of the handing-back ceremonies.

But of course this can never happen, because of MECHA and the whole Aztlan movement. They're still pissed off that California got away from them. ;o/

Fri, 06/11/2010 - 11:30 — Joel

Re: "Thumb in mouth"

You can see that "selling" the idea properly has to be part of the campaign? And perhaps that private company =/= nation.

The piece actually gets in to the difficulty of recruiting rich countries to be the, er, colonizers.

But, uh, Wry: It's not like private enterprise has never been the mechanism for imperialism before.

Fri, 06/11/2010 - 12:23 — Wry Mouth

Re: Thumb-n-Hoof

Joel: didn't click on the link, yet (am at work, on my work-issued 286 computer), but can guess: Dole Pineapple? Union Carbide? Boston Tea?

The idea, as I see it, is to refine the model, rather than repeat the horrors of previous iterations.

I mean -- if we're going to entertain the notion at all. There is always the "live and let live" model, I suppose.

I'm thinking of going down to El Paso or you know, Ciudad Juarez to see how the lassez-faire thing is working out.

Is there an "Imperialist" model that posits voluntary temporary stewardship in conjunction with local leadership, with the long-term goal of reverting an improved state back to control of the citizenry? That might be cool.

Fri, 06/11/2010 - 12:32 — Joel

Re: Re: Thumb-n-hoof

Close! Dutch East India Company! But I like your examples too! They remind me of The Godfather Part II.

Fri, 06/11/2010 - 13:14 — mono impalito

Thumb-n-Nose

"No one wants to see their country under some other country's thumb -- even if it's for their own good. " ~ Joel

I agree and have felt that way about the United States and the US Government for quite some time. I'm a little tired of "just a little more government" from our government.

As for border area economic zones, I thought we already did the hand-over in California. How's that working out?

Fri, 06/11/2010 - 16:25 — Capuchin the Wry

Thumbs in Ears

Mono: well, you see, I think what happened was, we ended up handing off large swathes of the US to Mexico for governance and economic reshaping.

It's an easy and understandable error, to be sure. I think they just read the memo backwards, in a mirror, or something.

Anyways, the point is, the model works swell! California is almost entirely economically as viable as Mexico now! The graft issues we had a head-start on and all, what with the Willie Brown legislature in place from a few years back, and the severed-head-rolling is on track to begin in 2011 as the Mexican drug cartels push north of Temecula.

*I'm* just saying that maybe it could work in reverse. You know, 3rd-to-1st world, instead of the other way around, but maybe that violates the 2nd Law of Thermo-Economics.

Mon, 06/14/2010 - 07:43 — Khabalox

Hey, you're back :)

Any new thoughts on DADT?
http://infinitemonkeysblog.com/?q=node/7205

Mon, 06/14/2010 - 18:00 — mono impalito

DADT ~ Still a BAD idea

DADT has always been a bad idea because, like the President that spawned it, deception and deceit are the central tenants. Repealing it in favor of open service is an even worse idea, of course. For starters, this President is against homosexuals getting married. How could he, as Commander in Chief, allow for homosexuals in the military to get married?

Why is that important? Well if you are a chaplain in the military and you are told to perform a homosexual marriage, are you going to disobey an order based on your religious beliefs? How will the UCMJ and military courts address this matter? What other religious exceptions to military order must be made and where will it stop because all cannot be accommodated.

Also remember that pay and benefits change according to marital status. These things matter and have a great impact on the living status of military families. In defense of married homosexuals, what happens to homosexuals married in a state that allows for such unions but relocation moves them to one of the majority of states that do not? And before you suggest that these things can be worked out within the military, just remember that the extra pay and benefits for dependents comes from the tax payer. Homosexual marriage is not a popular topic in most locales, even in California, based on recent ballot initiatives.

Bottom line: There is a war raging that should take precedent over another President willing to ask Congress to toy with the UCMJ for purposes of placating a special interest constituency at the cost of doing great damage to the armed forces.

Shall we continue this in another thread? (I don't care to hijack this one)

Tue, 06/15/2010 - 09:21 — Khabalox

Link for your convenience

Here is my reply, in the original DADT thread.

http://infinitemonkeysblog.com/?q=node/7205#comment-24452

Sat, 06/12/2010 - 01:18 — john 2000

It's a bad idea

... unless we could use it to export domestic problems such as acorn, seiu, and americorp.

Mon, 06/14/2010 - 07:42 — Khabalox

OK, I'll bite....

What's wrong with Americorp?

Mon, 06/14/2010 - 18:10 — mono impalito

The same as with most other large government entities...

There is an awful lot of fraud, waste and abuse in Americorps. There's also the very disturbing premise that "volunteers" providing community "service" should be compensated. Is that "service", "volunteerism", or simply another paid or otherwise compensated government social worker?

Tue, 06/15/2010 - 09:49 — Khabalox

Waste and Fraud in Americorps?

There is an awful lot of fraud, waste and abuse in Americorps.

Source? And define "awful lot".

There's also the very disturbing premise that "volunteers" providing community "service" should be compensated. Is that "service", "volunteerism", or simply another paid or otherwise compensated government social worker?

Again, source? How much are Americorps volunteers paid? This article says that they are eligible for a $4725 grant to pay for college, but it doesn't mention how long they serve. I have an email in to my sister who did Americorps back in the 90s, so I'll see if I can get some firmer answers, but I recall that she served for at least a summer. $4725 for 3 months seems like a pretty good deal (for the taxpayer).

In 2007, President Bush congratulated Americorps on reaching 500,000 volunteers. In a press release it was noted that:

AmeriCorps members have provided more than 637 million hours of service since the first members began serving in 1994. Using Independent Sector’s estimate of the dollar value of a volunteer’s time, those hours equate to more than $11.9 billion in value. In addition to their direct service, AmeriCorps members have proved to be a powerful force multiplier for volunteer efforts. In 2006 alone, members recruited and managed 1.4 million community volunteers.

I found budget numbers for some years (in millions):
2001 $766
2002 $735
2003 $786
2004 $935
2005 $927
2006 $921
2007 $884
2008 $856
2009 $890
The mean is about $850 million for those years. It was surely lower in the 1990s, but I can't find exact numbers. Even is we use the obviously too high $850 figure, we still got more back ($11.9 B) than we invested ($11.09 B) by $800 million or about 7%.

Thu, 06/17/2010 - 09:58 — Khabalox

More on Americorps

Here's my sister's email on Americorp compensation and her experience (emphasis on the silly parts mine).

You get "compensated" but not really paid - we got about 8000 a year - enough to get by on. Luckily my program helped find us cheap housing, but that is very rare. Many times people lose money during the year or have to live with family - especially if they're in an expensive town like Boston. In addition to the 8000 you get 4725 in an educational award - it can be only used for education or to pay ed loans - I used it to pay off my ed loans. The only problem with the way it works is that they give you a misc income tax form and so you have to pay taxes on it, but they won't take the taxes out of the award. So some lower income people who do Americorps can't use the award because they can't afford the taxes on it.

I wouldn't say it's a waste of money. In some cases it's encouraging middle class kids to take a year and have an eye opening experience while getting some job experience. In other cases, it's helping low income kids get some job experience while sometimes working in their own neighborhoods. Some Americorps programs are aimed at HS kids or HS dropouts - and they'll help the kids get their GED.

The way it works for the Americorps State/National Programs (what I did) is that non-profits apply to have Americorps workers (get more labour) - they pay a percentage of the stipend and the government pays the rest.

It is a bit of a weird way to get the work done, but it works. Personally I'm more for the government doing more of the social services completely rather than giving all these tax credits to non-profits for doing it.

So, back to the compensated part - you break even - and you lose out if you think of all the savings you could have made otherwise and social security you would have put in, IRA contributions I could have made had I been making more money. But it's totally worth it - I learned so much about poverty, South Boston, and since I know I can make it on 8000 - anything more makes me feel so rich!