<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Mitrailleuse]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://mitrailleuse.net]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[marklutter]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://mitrailleuse.net/author/marklutter/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Introduction to proprietary&nbsp;cities]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>The Freeman was kind enough to publish a short <a href="http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/introduction-to-proprietary-cities">introduction</a> to the intellectual history of proprietary cities, by yours truly. Here&#8217;s an excerpt.</p>
<blockquote><p>There has been a lot of discussion about what Tyler Cowen calls <a href="http://tinyurl.com/lw9esu4">shareholder states</a>. A shareholder state is a territorial governance structure where the decision-makers have a monetary incentive for performance: Decision-makers would be rewarded for decisions leading to long-term growth. This system contrasts with democracy, where decision-makers rarely think past the next election cycle.</p>
<p>But the discussion has been missing an understanding of the intellectual history of proprietary communities, the “purest” type of shareholder state. A proprietary community is a territorial governance structure under a single owner. This structure more closely approximates private property, giving it an advantage over other governance structures. In a proprietary community, there is a single decision-maker with an interest in property values, which are highly correlated with economic development.</p></blockquote>
]]></html></oembed>