In a superb essay in today's New York Times, Nicholas Kristof draws attention to the fact that in recorded history -- though not previously, of course -- it has been cities, not nations, which have been the great economic stimulants.
He writes of Ur, Thebes, Persepolis and Kaifeng among others, even Baghdad, which was one of the most vibrant cities in the world -- economically and scholastically -- at around 1000AD. Let me not quibble that he doesn't mention some of the great cities of Europe which got the industrial revolution going, such as Amsterdam, Manchester and Birmingham. (And, briefly, while their economic prosperity lasted, they were cities of great artistic, musical and literary accomplishment.)
Nicholas Kristof is rediscovering the findings of the great Canadian economist, Jane Jacobs, who first pointed out in The Death and Life of Great American Cities that what gets economic growth going are not countries but relatively small groups of innovators who happen to become concentrated in cities. These innovators are not just brilliant individuals but, by meeting with one another frequently, they are able to raise even more abundant sparks from one another.
Also, Jenny Uglow, in the recently published The Lunar Men, describes what a relatively small group of men meeting once a month during the full moon (in order to find their way around the dark streets of Birmingham) were able to achieve. Individuals like Matthew Boulton, James Watt, Josiah Wedgewood, Erasmus Darwin (the grandfather of Charles) and Joseph Priestly, members of the Lunar Society, laughed, drank and conversed together -- and kick-started the industrial revolution in England to boot.
Nicholas Kristof has obviously not yet had the chance of reading a proof copy of Keniche Ohmae's The Next Global Stage which will be published in August -- but which I have been lucky enough to do. Otherwise, Kristof would modify his essay somewhat. It isn't China as a whole which is lifting-off at present and threatening to displace America as the world's leading economic power. It isn't even the 350 million rapidly-prospering Chinese who live along the eastern coastal strip. It is six distinct economic regions of about 50 million people each, clustered around individual cities such as Dalian in the north, Shanghai in the middle and Hong Kong in the south, and in each of these there is a relatively small group of exceptionally gifted individuals who are driving these cities forwards.
And it may now be beginning to happen in America, even as Kristof continues his jaunt through China. Since Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger persuaded the Californian electorate to put up $3 billion for research into genetics and stem cell technology then the mayor of San Francisco -- the chosen city for the research headquarters -- is receiving scores of enquiries from the best research biologists of America.
We must wait and see what San Francisco will achieve in the years to come. Stem cell research and technology is developing so quickly that even Schwarzenegger's initiative may yet fall flat relative to other groups. There are now hundreds of brilliant research groups all round the world, mostly in Asia. In South Korea alone, where the latest breakthrough in human cell cloning was announced a few days ago, there are 400 other researchers in the same field.
As I pointed out in my posting No.738, stem cell research is not only one of the most stimulating challenges in science but it could lead -- and probably will lead -- to the most profitable consumer goods in the whole existence of mankind.
But it could be much more than the mere replacement of ageing or defective human organs such as kidneys. Genomic technology could entirely displace the energy-intensive 'metal-bashing' technology which underlies the economic system of the present era, dependent as it is on fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas..Manufacturing technology could be of the soft biological variety and dispersed everywhere where there are sufficient solar inputs (yes, the sun will shine even if an Ice Age dawns) and not just in great cities.
The problem then will be: How do great minds meet together and stimulate one another as they have done in the coffee houses of cities in times past? Well, perhaps for the first time in history, cities will not be necessary as video technology over the Internet becomes sufficiently sophisticated that actually meeting together physically will not be required. Just as young lovers in their own beds at home today speak to their sweethearts perhaps many miles away in their own beds via the mobile phone, scientists can see one another and chat at breakfast-time (though not breakfast time for all if they are far distant!) over video links to stimulate their day.
Well, this is looking forward a very long way into a future of which I have little left personally. I am 70 years old today and have reached my Biblical span, so I thought I'd give a birthday present to myself by being cheerful and rather less critical of events than I usually am. And now, having relieved myself of my daily addiction, I will be spending the rest of the day playing croquet with my grand-daughters (if the weather holds) and jointly trying to complete a 1,500-piece jigsaw of the Bavarian Alps which, so far, seems impossible to my rotting brain.
Keith Hudson
<<<<
CHINA, THE WORLD'S CAPITAL
Nicholas D. Kristof
Kaifeng -- Kaifeng, an ancient city along the mud-clogged Yellow River, was by far the most important place in the world in 1000. And if you've never heard of it, that's a useful warning for Americans -- as the Chinese headline above puts it, in a language of the future that many more Americans should start learning, "glory is as ephemeral as smoke and clouds."
As the world's only superpower, America may look today as if global domination is an entitlement. But if you look back at the sweep of history, it's striking how fleeting supremacy is, particularly for individual cities.
My vote for most important city in the world in the period leading up to 2000 B.C. would be Ur, Iraq. In 1500 B.C., perhaps Thebes, Egypt. There was no dominant player in 1000 B.C., though one could make a case for Sidon, Lebanon. In 500 B.C., it would be Persepolis, Persia; in the year 1, Rome; around A.D. 500, maybe Changan, China; in 1000, Kaifeng, China; in 1500, probably Florence, Italy; in 2000, New York City; and in 2500, probably none of the above.
Today Kaifeng is grimy and poor, not even the provincial capital and so minor it lacks even an airport. Its sad state only underscores how fortunes change. In the 11th century, when it was the capital of Song Dynasty China, its population was more than one million. In contrast, London's population then was about 15,000.
An ancient 17-foot painted scroll, now in the Palace Museum in Beijing, shows the bustle and prosperity of ancient Kaifeng. Hundreds of pedestrians jostle each other on the streets, camels carry merchandise in from the Silk Road, and teahouses and restaurants do a thriving business.
Kaifeng's stature attracted people from all over the world, including hundreds of Jews. Even today, there are some people in Kaifeng who look like other Chinese but who consider themselves Jewish and do not eat pork.
As I roamed the Kaifeng area, asking local people why such an international center had sunk so low, I encountered plenty of envy of New York. One man said he was arranging to be smuggled into the U.S. illegally, by paying a gang $25,000, but many local people insisted that China is on course to bounce back and recover its historic role as world leader.
"China is booming now," said Wang Ruina, a young peasant woman on the outskirts of town. "Give us a few decades and we'll catch up with the U.S., even pass it."
She's right. The U.S. has had the biggest economy in the world for more than a century, but most projections show that China will surpass us in about 15 years, as measured by purchasing power parity.
So what can New York learn from a city like Kaifeng?
One lesson is the importance of sustaining a technological edge and sound economic policies. Ancient China flourished partly because of pro-growth, pro-trade policies and technological innovations like curved iron plows, printing and paper money. But then China came to scorn trade and commerce, and per capita income stagnated for 600 years.
A second lesson is the danger of hubris, for China concluded it had nothing to learn from the rest of the world - and that was the beginning of the end.
I worry about the U.S. in both regards. Our economic management is so lax that we can't confront farm subsidies or long-term budget deficits. Our technology is strong, but American public schools are second-rate in math and science. And Americans' lack of interest in the world contrasts with the restlessness, drive and determination that are again pushing China to the forefront.
Beside the Yellow River I met a 70-year-old peasant named Hao Wang, who had never gone to a day of school. He couldn't even write his name - and yet his progeny were different.
"Two of my grandsons are now in university," he boasted, and then he started talking about the computer in his home.
Thinking of Kaifeng should stimulate us to struggle to improve our high-tech edge, educational strengths and pro-growth policies. For if we rest on our laurels, even a city as great as New York may end up as Kaifeng-on-the-Hudson.
New York Times -- 22 May 2005
>>>>
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
