Ministry Of Defense Future Scenarios 2007-2036,

[jcf]

DCDCD Global Strategic Trends 2007-2036

I found this particularly interesting:

Cities Challenge States
Successful, internationally networked cities, as engines of economic development and
opportunity, could increasingly assert their independence and new found status in contrast
to their backward, less developed and burdensome hinterlands.  The formation of new
city-states would challenge the major assumption that underpins the current international
system - the sovereignty and integrity of the nation-state.  Recognition of city-states'
sovereignty could cause wider secession and new alignments, leading to uncertain
diplomacy and a heightening of international instability.

Thoughts?


Cheers, Jon

p.s. Found the link on SF author Ken Macleod's blog:

Ken Macleod

[Maverick]

Bit of a throwback to ancient Greece and more recent Italy I guess.  Bugger for all of those of us living in rural areas but I guess the concept is plausible enough esp. in the States.  I know many people with a poor understanding of the political nicieties often refer to states by their captial cities....

Mav

[GeorgeC]

With increasing globalisation and migration, some cities are becoming quite different from their hinterlands, London being a typical example of one of these potential 'global' cities.  Such a city, or certainly its most prosperous or influencial members, could eventually find its economic, social and even cultural links are closer to Frankfurt, New York or even Shanghi.  I am not sure this would translate into conventional military confrontation, but some form of insurgency or SF/intelligence clash might be likely.  On the other hand, perhaps the City of London might just buy out New York using private venture capital  

[jcf]

Bit of a throwback to ancient Greece and more recent Italy I guess.  Bugger for all of those of us living in rural areas but I guess the concept is plausible enough esp. in the States.  I know many people with a poor understanding of the political nicieties often refer to states by their captial cities....

Mav

Extremely doubtful in the USA as, regardless of regional differences, the idea of the 'American Nation' and personal identification as an 'American' is pounded into the heads of the polity from day one.

I do see it as possible model for developing or marginal states, less so for the developed nations of the West.

Cheers, Jon

[Jennings]

This is the same group of people who in the late 1950s stated emphatically that missiles would take over from manned aircraft by 1960.  Now unmanned aircraft are taking over from missiles (take that, Duncan Sandys!)

Their crystal ball is no better than mine

J

[Maverick]

Jon,

That's one true advantage in the States, a true sense of being "American", unfortuantely such sentiments are few & far between here in Aus.  Our diversity, whilst similar I guess to the US is our failing point as to national identity.  In fact, many will identify with the State they live in rather than the nation as a whole.

Mav

[Jennings]

In fact, many will identify with the State they live in rather than the nation as a whole.

As do most Americans.  When people ask where I'm from when I travel abroad, I never say "America".  I always say "Virginia".  

While there is a fairly strong sense of national identity in the United States (nobody here says "America" btw..), there is a much stronger identification by most people with the state or large city metropolitan area where they live.  Some areas (like Virginia and California, for example) have become "Balkanized".  People from Northern Virginia (the greater Washington DC area) don't any more identify with my part of Virginia than I do with theirs.  It's like two separate worlds, even though we're governed by the same governor and state legislature in Richmond.  It's much the same with the Tidewater area of Virginia (Hampton, Norfolk, Virginia Beach).  It's a megalopolis that's an entity unto itself.  There are many other examples in the US.

In the end, we're all Virginians, and we're all Americans though, and it very much depends on the context as to which one a person most identifies with at a given moment.

J

[Madoc]

Mav,

I think this is more about the "developing world" than the "developed world."  In countries like the US, UK, Aus, France, etc., there is already a strong sense of national identity _and_ a well developed national infrastructure.  The national governments of such countries are also strong enough to enforce the nation's laws on a national level as well.

In much of the "developing world" those things are simply not the case.  In those cases, the cities themselves are already much like the ancient Greek city states - it's just that they're so damn poor they've not been able to exert their own agendas.  As economics change and wealth flows into certain locations this has changed.  Thus you see the rise in power of a particular city occur faster than the national level government can adapt to.  Throw in racial, ethnic, and/or religious differences and there might be exceptional incentive for the newly powerful city to go its own way.

I read a similar analysis of this bit about cities last year.  It pointed out the number of such places that have most, if not all, the modern infrastructure of traditional cities - access to the Internet, international phone call access, electricity, access to international travel, access to international shipping, yet for a variety of reasons are essentially in a state of anarchy.  The national level governments either don't exist or are too weak and the cities themselves lack sufficient political control to police themselves either.

The perfect breeding, recruiting and hiding places for international terrorists.

Anyway, fascinating bit of reading here.  I do agree with Jennings though, these are but prognostications done in nice colorful graphics.  Aside from those pretty colors they're but guesses.  Perhaps well thought out guesses but guesses none-the-less.

Madoc

[Maverick]

Ok, now I'm in the picture.  I agree, developing nations would be a perfect ground for such development as it seems that the cities in those nations have little regard for the rest of their population (a generalisation admittedly, but borne out by facts).  The machinations of any in power usually leave quite a bit to be desired which would certainly move things along too, one would think.

Mav

[Sisko]

That is very true of China

You spend a week in Shanghai or Beijing and then go out into the more rural areas and the difference is so dramatic it like being in another country.

In fact you actually need permission to move to big cities in China. If you are found by the authorities living in say Shanghai and you are not supposed to be there they will deport you back to where ever you came from.

Seems harsh but if you see how overcrowded and polluted it is there you would understand.

City states would never really work in this day and age because to compete against rapidly developing big economies like India and China, you need large trading blocks with many member countries to offset their huge economic power.

Bigger not smaller the way of the future.

[jcf]

Bigger not smaller the way of the future.

In economic and military-political terms, yes, but not necessarily in geographical terms.

Alliances between regional city-states for reasons of common benefit could be a likely scenario.

Cheers, Jon

[Geoff]

Unless a megacorporation "owned" the city in question.  

[jcf]

Unless a megacorporation "owned" the city in question.

Or multiple corporations and families vis. Singapore.

Cheers, Jon

[Joe C-P]

From a US perspective:

Metropolis, the possible eventual conglomeration of Boston-NYC-Philly-Baltimore-Washington.

Upstate NY doesn't like having to "support" NYC; if there was enough push, the city and its immediate suburbs might split off as a separate state.

New Jersey's cities here suck up fnancial resources seemingly far beyond their percentage of the state's population. (This may be common across the US, and maybe the world.) What if the suburbs' state representatives got together and said "No more?"

The US also has a situation where political power on the federal level is not evenly apportioned - the larger states have proportionally, by population, fewer representatives in the House, so that the smaller states have greater power in both houses. What if this were corrected, so that the House were apportioned strictly by population? The larger states tend to a more liberal policy, so there would be a significant shift in the US federal government.

[jcf]

From a US perspective:

Metropolis, the possible eventual conglomeration of Boston-NYC-Philly-Baltimore-Washington.

Upstate NY doesn't like having to "support" NYC; if there was enough push, the city and its immediate suburbs might split off as a separate state.

New Jersey's cities here suck up fnancial resources seemingly far beyond their percentage of the state's population. (This may be common across the US, and maybe the world.) What if the suburbs' state representatives got together and said "No more?"

The US also has a situation where political power on the federal level is not evenly apportioned - the larger states have proportionally, by population, fewer representatives in the House, so that the smaller states have greater power in both houses. What if this were corrected, so that the House were apportioned strictly by population? The larger states tend to a more liberal policy, so there would be a significant shift in the US federal government.

Apportionment of Representatives to the US House is done purely by population size, the only number that matters, and has been since 1790.

Link to the 200 census apportionment.
Apportionment Population and Number of Representatives, by States: Census 2000
The larger the population, the greater the number of seats.

As to the 'cities sucking up financial resources', the cities are generally the financial powerhouses of most states and thus tend to generate the highest proportion of state income. The suburbs exist because of the cities, not the reverse.