“While the interventions championed by the effective altruist community today are rightly well-regarded as effective anti-poverty tools, their impact pales in comparison to long-run economic growth.” Effective altruists should support charter cities: https://innovativegovernance.org/2019/07/01/effective-altruism-blog/ …
If a charter city boosts GDP growth above the host country's growth rate by 1.5%, in 50 years it will be a more cost-effective intervention than any recommended by GiveWell. If it only boosts GDP by 0.5%, it's still competitive with GiveDirectly.
-
-
For comparison, "China introduced four new SEZs in 1980, which grew on average at 58 percent (Shenzhen), 32 percent (Zhubai), nine percent (Shantou), and 13 percent (Xiamen) per year, while China as a whole grew at 10 percent on average per year over the same four-year period."
-
Does this model take into account the (un)likeliness of any given charter city creation attempt actually resulting in a successful city? The fact that we still don’t have any such cities argues that they’re far from a sure thing.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.