Using Western know-how and bureaucracies, he wants to build modern metropolises in one of the most challenging areas of the world: Africa...The idea is to create city-states along the coast of Africa that can become economic hubs (or maybe more realistically- clusters) for the region and at the same time be insulated from the continent's notorious corruption and political chaos. In a sense, it's what the British did with Hong Kong in the 19th century when China was relatively unstable.What does one make of this? Is it wishful thinking and or well meaning paternalism? Successful city-states have largely been self-organized and self-governed, spawning them in a hierarchical top-down manner remains to be seen.
Zimbabwe is the second most-failed state in the world, after Somalia
-
Would you plan a holiday to Somalia…? I wouldn’t. All I know of Somalia are
the images I see on 24 hour news channels: gun-toting bandits shooting from
th...
54 minutes ago



2 comments:
The article makes it sound very paternalistic but it's more interesting than it seems.
If one forgets for a second the part about western know-how or bureaucracies (and the authoritarian insistence on viewing Hong Kong a perfect model), there's something interesting about cities and most importantly ports being attractive because of the (relative ?) economic and legal security they provide. The objections about diversity in the article don't make much sense since ports are notoriously diverse and since a city-state would be insulated from most of the ethno-political tensions anyway.
But it is wishful thinking as there would be millions of possible objections.
african capitales are already state in the state...
sorry 4 my poor english
Post a Comment