{
"authors": [
"Milan Vaishnav",
"Justin Sandefur"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "SAP",
"programs": [
"South Asia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"South America"
],
"topics": [
"Economy"
]
}
Source: Getty
Honduras has altered its constitution to open the way to building a new “Special Economic Zone," but this charter city raises some important questions.
Source: Center for Global Development
CGD has close ties to this idea. Romer is a CGD non-resident fellow, and CGD president Nancy Birdsall and senior fellow Michael Clemens are both associated with the Transparency Commission that will oversee the Honduran experiment. CGD does not take institutional positions though, and as anyone who’s visited an internal seminar or staff lunch knows, there’s room for vigorous debate.
Back in April, the members of the Transparency Commission met here in DC, and over lunch CGD staff had a chance to hear them explain their ideas for the city and ask questions. Since then, there’s been an active debate in the hallways here about the charter city model. We want to take that debate into the public domain. To kick things off, here are three questions that we think proponents of the Honduran initiative need to grapple with.
Our musings on these questions got a bit long for the blog, so we’ve posted them as a CGD essay where we explain some of our concerns in more detail and offer a couple of ideas to address them.
This article originally appeared at the Center for Global Development.
Director and Senior Fellow, South Asia Program
Milan Vaishnav is a senior fellow and director of the South Asia Program and the host of the Grand Tamasha podcast at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His primary research focus is the political economy of India, and he examines issues such as corruption and governance, state capacity, distributive politics, and electoral behavior. He also conducts research on the Indian diaspora.
Justin Sandefur
Center for Global Development
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
The debate over AI and work too often centers on displacement. Facing aging populations and shrinking workforces, East Asian policymakers view AI not as a threat, but as a cross-sectoral workforce strategy.
Darcie Draudt-Véjares, Sophie Zhuang
In its version of an AI middle power strategy, Seoul is pursuing alignment with the United States not as an endpoint but as a strategy to build industrial and geopolitical leverage. Whether this balance holds remains an open question.
Darcie Draudt-Véjares, Seungjoo Lee
China’s rapid technological progress and its first-rate infrastructure are often cited as refuting the claim that China has been systematically overinvesting in non-productive projects for many years. In fact, as the logic of overinvestment and the many historical precedents show, the former is all-too-often consistent with the latter.
Michael Pettis
On March 10, 2026, India’s Union Cabinet approved amendments to Press Note 3, a regulation that mandated government approval on all foreign direct investment (FDI) from countries sharing a land border with India. This amendment raises questions primarily about whether its stated benefits will materialize and if the risks have been adequately weighed. This piece will address the same.
Konark Bhandari
AI could hollow out jobs, reshape them gradually, create entirely new ones—or do all three at once. The case for starting to act now doesn’t depend on knowing which.
Teddy Tawil