Skip to content
Advertisements

Sharing sovereignty

July 27, 2010

Paul Romer has argued that the solution to African and Asian prosperity is to set up ‘Charter Cities’ where foreign companies set up business, imparting skills, employment and expertise. Developing countries would give up sovereignty in return for more wealth.

Aditya Chakrabortty writes in the Guardian that Romer’s idea:

smacks of colonialism

Aditya is right. This kind of argument fails to appreciate what it might be like to have someone else run your country. Romer underestimates the importance of agency; that successful policy needs popular support. People who do not have any influence over policy won’t support them, however technically ‘correct’.

It reminds me of when I was working in the Solomon Islands. Francis Fukuyama had just written an article suggesting that the government consider sharing sovereignty with Australia because, in the wake of a civil war, the Solomon Islands government couldn’t run its own affairs.

Fukuyama’s proposal was naive, because many Solomon Islanders already resented the already large Australian-led presence (donor spending was bigger than the government’s). Ceding yet more powers to Canberra would have risked further social unrest. Fukuyama had clearly forgotten how unpopular British rule was, despite it having ended only three decades earlier.

And Fukuyama had got the country’s political economy almost in reverse. The problem was not that the central government in Honiara was incompetent and to be remodelled on the Australian system, it was that people in the islands other than Guadalcanal didn’t feel that the regime represented them. People saw a lumbering giant wallowing in aid money, little of which reached them. Politicians helped themselves to the pot and served the interests of their extended families. Most Solomon Islanders quite rationally went about their own business, working on a subsistence level to support their own families. Any notion of contributing to national economic life was secondary.

Distancing the state yet more by ceding powers to Australia would further undermine the legitimacy of the state. However ‘correct’ or academically rigorous the proposal was, it wouldn’t do anything to integrate Solomon Islanders into national decision-making. Indeed it would do the opposite, marginalising the central government and eroding many people’s faith in the Solomon Islands as a nation.

What was needed (and still is), is a credible get-out strategy whereby donors build government autonomy rather than take it away. Apart from the enormous task of building productive capacity so that government can generate its own tax revenues, this would involve much more genuine ‘capacity building’ and training, as well as allowing the government to make mistakes, and to take responsibility for them.

Romer might use economic theory to argue that Charter Cities will create employment and promote learning-by-doing, technology transfer and so on, but if people are not in control of these Charter Cities, they will be disenfranchised and won’t participate as fully as they might. Democracy is not just a luxury; it is essential to make sure that economic policy works well.

Charter cities, like most forms of shared sovereignty, won’t work.

Advertisements
One Comment leave one →
  1. Contrarian permalink
    August 5, 2010 8:12 am

    Perhaps the populations concerned should be widely and honestly consulted before these proposals are implemented? Some may not care for who administers, whatever the colour of their skin may be, as long as they administer well. Whereas others, perhaps because of ideas of nationalism, may prefer a ruler who is of their skin no matter how badly they rule?

    In places once ruled by people from faraway I have had ordinary people, far too young to remember, wish for the return of those rulers or look back as those days of something of a golden age compared to today in which their lives are limited by the cancer of corruption and its associated maladies of incompetence, disregard and even disdain. I somehow doubt they wished for people from faraway to come back to takeover administration simply because of the colour of their skin and their strange language. Rather I suspect it is they associate those people and those days with relatively better administration (whether it was and whether it was really in their interest is perhaps to some degree a matter of perception). If participatory planning and policymaking are universal principles, rather than employed when they are useful to support a particular programme or project, then it would be interesting to let the people meaningfully participate, with equal and full access to all relevant information communicated in ways which are compatible with their culture education and experience, in deciding how and who should administer their communities in whose interest and to what ends. Sounds a bit like electoral politics? Perhaps, but at least it is not prescriptive, suggesting that this way or that way is better or politically correct simply based on human constructs of race, ethnie and language?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: