It's not just politically incorrect, it's also incorrect. Hong Kong was not setup as a place for the british to run, the british came in and controlled it. There's a difference - because the british were absolute law and order. There were not two voices.
A more apt comparison would be suzhou. Areas of it were developed under singaporean authority. The singaporeans ended there with huge losses, and I don't think they are interested in doing such anymore.
And singapore and china are relatively close culturally - if for example china were to setup cities in Africa, diaster would occur. You can see the same happening with current chinese ventures there: they are run and managed solely by chinese and employ chinese. I was watching a BBc documentary the other day about some chinese companies in Angola, and an Angolan man complained: "Why do they need to bring people from China here to drive trucks?" The answer is simple - if you have people from two different countries and two different cultures where one is driving a truck and the other is managing his work, then productivity will sink massively.
A country administering a town in another country will be constantly beset by these cross-cultural problems. There will be conflicting interests, conflicting cultures and conflicting work attitudes. One side will resent the other, and instead of new booming towns, there will be wastage and empty buildings.
The current system is better, where a country simply sends its people to build infrastructure and then walks away. Perhaps even build the entire physical infrstructure and buildings of a city, but the actual management has to be separate, I'd think.
The problems in Angola aren't cross-cultural, they're just cultural. Like a lot of Africa, there is no concept of good governance there. Starting up a business with locals would be a nightmare.
If you were trying to remotely build a business in Angola, how would you avoid having it stripped bare by staff corruption? The politicians would use bullying to push the 'wrong' people away from applying for jobs there, and look for opportunities to make payoffs to get their people hired into the structure. Their people have grown and been fed by corruption, and would perpetuate the practice.
I think your comment is just horrible. You seem to be implying that African culture is simply more corrupt and somehow inferior, which is really not nice of you to say.
"Starting up a business with locals would be a nightmare."
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but many companies from many countries are successfully creating businesses in Africa. And they are getting rich at it. But people like you undermine the entire growth process of africa - because you just lump everything together into a single bundle, and then condemn it to be a place nobody should ever invest in. That's just horrible.
The problems ARE cross-cultural. You know why? European & American companies trying to set up shop in Africa do indeed face the problems you are describing above (probably because they come in with your mindset), but south african companies are making billions selling goods to consumers. Things like satellite TVs, Mobile Phones, etc are making billions in profits, without it being 'stripped bare by staff corruption'.
Why's that? It's because they understand the cultural issues and don't expect western style personal responsibility.
Just like in china things have to be done the chinese way, in africa, things have to be done the african way. Those who know how to do it that way are making money in the continent with the highest growing GDP.
People like you, however, who make these blanket statements about how it can never be improved and should never be invested in, should indeed stay out - but best of all would be if you don't discourage others from investing.
It is truly interesting how people from the west assume everywhere else is just an inferior or (when they wish to be more politically correct) "less developed" version of the west. It is just inconceivable that Asia, Africa, etc. might have different ways that are also valid and successful.
In lots of Africa, there is an extremely poor standard of governance. I'd expect South Africa to be much stronger than average, and Botswana too.
In preparing my earlier comment, I originally typed out and then deleted a long section saying that we need language that allows us to distinguish regions of India, Brazil, South Africa where it's straightforward to do business, and to distinguish that from places where it's not. That the term "third world" is too broad.
People like you, however, who make these blanket
statements about how it can never be improved
You misunderstand. South African companies are doing business in WEST AFRICA. Celtel from a Sudanese guy is very successful everywhere. What you have suggested in this other post is even MORE offensive. You've doubled down and said that you want to elevate those countries into a new category and put the African countries even lower in the list.
You have basically no idea about how business runs in Africa or what are the countries. That's why you're pointing out the old mainstays of SA and Botswana. That's not where the growth is in Africa.
You, my friend, are prejudiced. Yes, I'm using the word correctly, because you have formed opinions about places and things before you actually have information and facts about them.
We don't need language to further categorize African countries into a fourth world or however you'd like to describe it. Rather, we should get rid of the terminology that even categorizes countries as a lower kind of world.
Your refusal to engage in sensible, evidence-backed prejudice is leading you to bizarre conclusions.
You have basically no idea about how business runs
in Africa or what are the countries.
I don't, and neither do the Chinese investors. Like them, if I could make a business work by bringing my own people in now, I'd do it. Much better than running the gauntlet with the known governance problems and the predictable chaos it would cause my business.
Rather, we should get rid of the terminology that
even categorizes countries as a lower kind of world.
Language should reflect the way things are, not a politically correct perspective. Otherwise we could be encouraged towards ridiculous ideas, such as that it's as easy to put a team together in Angola as in Japan or Germany (or South Africa!).
I do business in Africa, I work with chinese companies doing business in Africa, I do business in Germany, in China also. I've spent many years in those countries. You don't, you just have this prejudice without any justification. It's not evidence. I have experience, you have a bunch of articles you read on the net.
People like YOU are the greatest problem Africa faces. I'm glad the chinese are not like you, but go where money can be made.
"If people are willing to live as legal or illegal immigrants, with rights that range from limited to none, then logically, they should be even more eager to move to a Romerplex, which would promise most of the economic gains of uprooting to another continent while allowing migrants to stay closer to their families and cultures."
I think this is one of the stronger arguments- given that's it's better than living as an illegal immigrant in a far away nation, some people in their current living situation would choose this. I definitely agree with you that differences as a result of culture are huge and not to be underestimated. But a lot of these countries are clearly desperate enough to try stuff (similar the Green Revolution when India had problems with extreme hunger), and it's conceivable that this could work.
Thanks for mentioning the example of the Singapore zone in Suzhou. I had not previously heard of that, and its apparent initial failure is instructive.
A more apt comparison would be suzhou. Areas of it were developed under singaporean authority. The singaporeans ended there with huge losses, and I don't think they are interested in doing such anymore.
And singapore and china are relatively close culturally - if for example china were to setup cities in Africa, diaster would occur. You can see the same happening with current chinese ventures there: they are run and managed solely by chinese and employ chinese. I was watching a BBc documentary the other day about some chinese companies in Angola, and an Angolan man complained: "Why do they need to bring people from China here to drive trucks?" The answer is simple - if you have people from two different countries and two different cultures where one is driving a truck and the other is managing his work, then productivity will sink massively.
A country administering a town in another country will be constantly beset by these cross-cultural problems. There will be conflicting interests, conflicting cultures and conflicting work attitudes. One side will resent the other, and instead of new booming towns, there will be wastage and empty buildings.
The current system is better, where a country simply sends its people to build infrastructure and then walks away. Perhaps even build the entire physical infrstructure and buildings of a city, but the actual management has to be separate, I'd think.