Article
The India AI Impact Summit offers a timely opportunity to experiment with and formalize new models of cooperation.
Lakshmee Sharma, Jane Munga
{
"authors": [
"Milan Vaishnav",
"Justin Sandefur"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "SAP",
"programs": [
"South Asia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"South America"
],
"topics": [
"Economy"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Three Questions about Honduras’s New Charter City
Honduras has altered its constitution to open the way to building a new “Special Economic Zone," but this charter city raises some important questions.
Published on Jun 14, 2012
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.
- Democracy: Is the charter city model at odds with principles of accountability and democracy?
- Time inconsistency: Can Honduras credibly commit to investors that the rules of the zone won’t change?
- History and context: Is it realistic to talk about creating an institutional blank slate in the Honduran jungle?
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.
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.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- South-South AI Collaboration: Advancing Practical Pathways
- Taking the Pulse: Can the EU Attract Foreign Investment and Reduce Dependencies?Commentary
EU member states clash over how to boost the union’s competitiveness: Some want to favor European industries in public procurement, while others worry this could deter foreign investment. So, can the EU simultaneously attract global capital and reduce dependencies?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- The Trump-Modi Trade Deal Won’t Magically Restore U.S.-India TrustCommentary
Washington and New Delhi should be proud of their putative deal. But international politics isn’t the domain of unicorns and leprechauns, and collateral damage can’t simply be wished away.
Evan A. Feigenbaum
- From Loss and Damage to Climate Mobility ActionCommentary
Senior climate, finance, and mobility experts discuss how the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage could unlock financing for climate mobility.
Alejandro Martin Rodriguez
- Europe Falls Behind in the South Caucasus Connectivity RaceCommentary
The EU lacks leadership and strategic planning in the South Caucasus, while the United States is leading the charge. To secure its geopolitical interests, Brussels must invest in new connectivity for the region.
Zaur Shiriyev
