« 5 noteworthy happenings of 2007 for cities | Home | Starbucks - revitalizing force or more “generica” »
January 8, 2008
The origins of the Federation of North American City States
What could happen if the divide between federal, state and provincial government policy and the needs of metropolitan areas is not resolved soon? How will future historians write about political organization in North America (and the world) during the early 21st century?
Here’s some “social science fiction” - a hypothetical student history paper from the year 2108.
The emergence of the Federated City States of North America in 2027 had roots dating back to the early years of the 21st century.
In the United States elections were fought over distractions and not the real issues facing the country. The war in Iraq, although misguided, tragic and costly was not the biggest threat to the wellbeing of the United States. Nor was terrorism nor abortion rights nor Chinese imports or illegal immigrants from Mexico.
The biggest threats — recognized by many at the time, and also since — were that (1) American citizens and businesses were falling out of sync with the global economy and (2) that the nation’s cities were unsustainable and did not support prosperity as well as those elsewhere in the world. From approximately 2000 onwards, America rapidly became uncompetitive; the dividends from more than a century as a global economic leader were exhausted in a matter of just a few years.
Before we go further some background is required here on what went wrong. America’s 20th century economic strengths had come from its impressive post-secondary education system and ability to be innovative at creating and especially marketing new technology. Open immigration policies in the early 20th century brought motivated, entreprenurial people from around the world to Americas cities. The USA also avoided having international wars fought on its own soil, contributing to a peace and prosperity dividend that lasted several generations.
However, because of its size, the American population and political leaders (and even many academics) tended to view the United States as an isolated “exceptional” island in the world. By the end of the 20th century most of the population either ignored global trends or believed that they didn’t apply to the United States. (Elementary education had also begun to falter such that most Americans could not find other major countries on a map anyway.)
Using fear rather than facts, politicians, the media and others in the early 21st century convinced too many voters that economic survival required the country to close its doors to immigration and to enact barriers to foreign imports — albeit with a few exceptions such as televisions, video game consoles and oil. The latter of which the government subsidized in order to offer voters continued cheap gasoline, which allowed the nation’s political leaders to avoid addressing the need for new styles of urban design as well as transportation systems.
High debts from the growth of government and wars launched during the Bush administration eventually required higher taxes. Public education at all levels saw funding decline. Without immigrants or home grown educated people, innovation fell. Without global competition, and partially because of subsidies, production costs escalated. Soon, the USA wasn’t producing much that anyone else in the world wanted, and global investors became uninterested in the US dollar, dumping them on the market. By 2012 it took $5 US dollars to buy one Euro and the dollar fell to parity with the Chinese Yuan.
City governments meanwhile were trying to offer better services to citizens, in order to create isolated pockets of prosperity. However, replacing the aging road, water, sewer and electrical infrastructure was proving almost impossible. The federal and state governments had no funds to offer and because of trade barriers and protection measures, US cities had to pay twice what those in other countries did for steel, copper, and cement. Without drastically increasing property taxes and/or introducing other levies US cities could not maintain their infrastructure nor improve upon education systems. The few cities — such as Eugene Oregon and Austin Texas — that managed to convince residents and voters that the tax hike was the only way, saw their populations decline drastically.
Meanwhile, infrastructure was decaying and collapsing, everywhere. The most notable events were: the super-earthquake of 2012 that destroyed the Golden Gate Bridge along with numerous highways in the Bay area. A less severe shaker in 2014 took out so much freeway and opened a large fault line such that it split the Seattle metro area in half, with those in Northern suburbs like Redmond and Bellevue virtually unable to reach downtown Seattle by car. A tornado took out two sections of freeway in Dallas in 2013, cutting off the airport . Five Chicago area overpasses simply collapsed in 2014. FEMA collapsed when faced with so many disasters (and decades of mismanagement).
The federal government helped with initial rescue and clean up efforts, but quickly recognized that they could not afford to help rebuild everything and make payments on the debt and continue to fight for oil abroad. Private enterprise helped in some places — it soon cost $50 to cross from Redmond to Seattle on the one repaired section of freeway.
Whether fleeing taxes or escaping from dead infrastructure (or looking for health care), the most talented and hardest working Americans fled — almost one million Americans departed for Canadian cities in 2015 alone (creating both a strain and a tremendous economic boost in Edmonton, Montreal, Toronto, Kitchener, Calgary and Vancouver in particular), and nearly as many departed for other major cities around the world that year. Microsoft moved its global headquarters from Redmond Washington to Vancouver and Richmond BC. American Express went to Toronto from New York. The Bay area also saw an exodous of corporations and their talented workers: Google for example relocated its global headquarters to Kitchener-Waterloo just outside of Toronto, merging with Research in Motion in the process.
Desperate to revitalize their cities, urban political, business and community leaders along with ordinary citizens began proposing solutions.
The Mayor of New York held secret meetings with many of the city’s business and political elite for several years and on July 4, 2016 issued a Declaration of Independence to be voted on in November and take effect January 1, 2018. Although it was uncertain whether the federal government would acknowledge the results, over 80 percent of New Yorkers voted in the referendum and 75% voted in favour of independence.
Bogged down fighting for oil in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Kazakhstan the government in Washington decided it couldn’t fight a war against Americans as well and allowed New York to separate. The city of New York would now have its citizens income taxes and businesses corporate taxes with which to operate the city. Surrounding areas in Pennsylvania, New Jersey quickly voted to join New York. By 2020 the New York metro area had morphed into an independent country. Los Angeles and San Francisco soon followed, first amalgamating the many city-suburbs into one super-metro region, and then enacting independence in 2022 and 2023 respectively.
Able to control their own immigration policies, these cities immediately invited anyone to come, having lost thousands and even millions of people over the previous decade. They also had no reason to restrict trade as they needed cheaper steel, concrete, and other products to rebuild and move forward. Thousands decided to return, lured by cheap real estate and a chance to come home to the cities in which they grew up. Establishing universal health care coverage was also a lure in convincing many aging generation x’ers and millennials to relocate to their former home towns, or a new one.
Why did Canadian cities do so well initially, and then collapse much later? In Canada in the early 21st century a series of minority parliaments meant that governments had to play to cities’ needs in order to gain the urban vote. Numerous effective band-aid solutions occurred, typically in the form of cash infusions to major cities. Major metro areas improved their transit, air quality, and lifestyle amenities such as parks, recreation and entertainment facilities. The federal early childhood education strategy emerged that offered money but delegated management to metro areas. Public education received further funding, and top global test scores that Canadian students were achieving helped to draw people from around the world who wanted to give their children opportunities. This kept Canada together through 2025 while the US split into city-states.
However once the massive (re-)migration south began in 2020, Canadian cities struggled to compete for talented workers , and the corporations that hired them. Begging for federal dollars and grants to build and maintain infrastructure was highly inefficient in comparison to city-states like San Francisco and New York that could budget and plan based on income and sales taxes.
In 2023 when the former US-cities proposed a new federation agreement, modeled after the European Union and Euro currency system, residents in many Canadian cities saw this as a solution. The Greater Toronto Area, which by this time included much of the Golden Horseshoe–followed the New York model and succeeded from the Canadian federation in 2024, joining the Federation the same year. By 2027 the remaining major metro areas of Canada had followed suit and joined the Federation.
Residents of satellite cities and hinterlands gradually voted to join one city-state or another.
What was remarkable in this period was how fast North American cities were transformed into sustainable entities when unshackled from a slow, conflict ridden federal government.
The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.
- Alexis de Tocqueville in 1840
Topics: national politics, urban history, transportation, economic development, attracting talent |
January 8th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
[…] The origins of the Federation of North American City States In 2023 when the former US-cities proposed a new federation agreement, modeled after the European Union and Euro currency system, residents in many Canadian cities saw this as a solution. The Greater Toronto Area, which by this time … […]
January 9th, 2008 at 5:53 am
This is something I’ve idly thought about before and it’s interesting to see someone else pontificate about what an archipeligo of North American city states might look like. I do wonder, though, what would happen to those places way out in the boonies too far away to join the nearest city-state. How would non-city states like, say, the Republic of Labrador, Greater Dakota, or Navajo Nation relate to this FNACS? I don’t see how they could hack independence on their own, so would they at least get to have associate membership? And who know’s how to make a map? I bet it would look pretty cool.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Wendy:
Neat entry, and again, Robert Kaplan talks about this in his books. He seems to think, however, that the feds might have a limited role handling defense, and things like that.
Scott
January 9th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Patrick … I thought a lot about that too. I don’t know what would happen to Labrador. I could see North Dakota perhaps becoming part of the republic of Winnipeg.
And, in some cases I could see the political boundaries for states and provinces not changing that much from what we have now. Rather than be their own country, much of Oregon might choose to be part of the Republic of Portland, for example.
What do you think about the US North East? Would it amalgamate into something around Boston?
January 9th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Scott… I should check out Kaplan’s work — what book is it in?
I agree that defense (and currency policy) are two areas where independent city-states would be challenging; that’s why I created the “Federation.”
January 10th, 2008 at 5:37 am
The relevant books:
1.) An Empire Wilderness
2.) The Coming Anarchy
There’s also a blog at “cominganarchy.com” that sometimes considers the issue, such as:
http://cominganarchy.com/2007/01/24/urban-fragmentation-and-gated-counties/
January 11th, 2008 at 8:03 am
Wendy, my thinking on this subject was largely influenced by reading “Cities and the Wealth of Nations” by Jane Jacobs. Basically her central thesis is that it is cities rather than nation states that are the generators of macroeconomic development. But what makes a healthy city economy? not necessarilly any old agglomoration of human beings. Rather, a city has to have the ability to replace it’s imports with local production and generate new exports consistently over time, and ability that precious few North American cities seem to possess these days. Furthermore, the influence of a city does not stop at the city limits or even with the exurban fringe. Rather, a city’s influence extends to a wider city region, aka a hinterland, that includes towns, villages, and farms that form a unit for the city economy. Regions that aren’t part of a city region, meanwhile, are part of a supply region that are dependent on distant cities but lack an import-replacing city of it’s own. They rely on exporting one or two chief extraction-based products, say beef in Uruguay or coalbed methane from Wyoming.
In any case, the borders of these regions don’t necessarilly mesh with existing political borders, so the eastern part of Oregon, for instance, might look to Boise rather than Portland should Boise ever become an import replacing city, or perhaps eastern Oregon is and would continue to be a supply region.
Since I’m not sure I’m doing this thesis proper justice I now turn the analysis over to this website:
http://www.portifex.com/BSPages/Cities&Wealth.htm#Jump
January 12th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
[…] The origins of the Federation of North American City States - Speculative social fiction from All About Cities […]
June 19th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Wendy,
I was quite impressed by your post – it’s the first logical explanation of how Canada and the US could become one politically entity I’ve read in a long time. However, I have to question your assumptions:
1) Would the States really let New York go? Last time someone tried that, we got the Civil War…
2) If the Canadian-American border is any indication, wouldn’t a thick New York-American border be horrible news for NY?
3) NY would have more control over its taxes, but would the overall tax burden on the citizens be any less? (A city-state rules out the economies of scale larger nations get), and
4) Where will NY find the right leader?
Read my full piece: blog.minchin.ca/2008/05/north-american-union.html
Thank you for your ideas; I look forward to reading more on your blog.
- MinchinWeb
June 19th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Hi MinchinWeb,
Good questions. You’ve given this impressive thought. My piece was designed as “social science fiction.” So, certainly there are details that don’t have answers.
On your questions I would say that for #1, I’m assuming that the US would let New York go — too bogged down in other issues to challenge the vote of the region’s people.
#2 - I’m not convinced you’d need a tight border. Look at Western Europe — you can move almost seamlessly from country to country.
#3 - My understanding of taxation is too weak to comment. In my social science fiction world the tax experts and economists would solve this.
#4 - a leader would emerge. There are millions of people there, presumably a few of them are qualified and would do a great job.
November 2nd, 2008 at 1:45 pm
What about Mexico, South of the border? How will the cities there will respond to this North American phenomenon and how will they be affected or will affect the whole scenario?
I know that Guadalajara always tried to challenge Mexico City’s political and economical supremacy, and that Monterrey being the most industrialized and developed has always looked North across the border for inspiration…
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Silvestre: good questions. For Monterrey, it would depend upon how Texas gets reorganized. Monterrey could be the hub city of a region that stretches to the Laredos and along the current border. Or, it might be more of a subject city to a city-state dominated by Austin_San Antonio or Dallas or maybe Houston. Either way, I agree with you in seeing it being pulled North, not South.
Guadalajara would probably centre a Western / North West Mexico City-state, although some current border communities would likely join city-states like Los Angeles and Phoenix instead of Guadalajara.
Mexico City would be what it has been for centuries, the hub city and centre point of a meso-American empire and later for global commerce and cultural exchanges broadly defined. In fact, the Aztec empire provides a good example of how city-states might work as hubs of trade for commerce and culture.
In a Guadalajara-Mexico City rivalry, I’d have a hard time betting against Mexico City. The spirit and resilience there is amazing.
December 9th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
A 60-inch water main break in Franklin Township had a ripple effect on residents in Somerset, Middlesex and Union counties today, prompting school closings and a boil water advisory. As a precaution, New Jersey American
April 26th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
I have just begun learning more about this trend in America. I enjoyed the article and have commented on my blog that the most important part about this idea is how easy it is to imagine it happening.
I hope that you don’t mind but I linked to your article on my Tumblr Blog: http://thebob.tumblr.com/post/92955536/the-fragmentation-of-america
May 17th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Heres the thing, in 2012, President Obama will allow two new states in the Union; New Columbia (DC), and Puerto Rico. Because of constant econimic woes, there will be a vote by Congress and Parliament too expand a federation of states to compete with the EU and an Asian Economic Union. This will happen aroung 2015. There will be three political parties in the US at this time, Democrats, Republicans, and Moderate Whigs. I believe that Sen. Amy Klubachar (DFL) (MN) will become the 45th President of the US in 2017. She will have a difficult choice to make and it be the begining of the North American Federation, which will include the Bahama’s, Canada, the US, and former Br. Depen.; Bermuda, Turks & Caicos, the Cayman Is., and the Br. Virgin Is.
Because of this Fed., the States of AL, MS, TN, TX, OK, UT, WY, and ID, will leave the States. They, will form and new nation of the United Conservative States of America. They will have very finacial difficulties and eventualy return.
Because of these states leaving, there will be two new States to form in the Federation, Franklin (southern Utah) and Lincoln (the pan-handle of Idaho). Another new State will form made from northern Florida that will join the Conservative States. Long Island and New York City will form a new state called New Holland (a state in the Fed. St.). Other staes in the Fed.; Nunavut in Canada will join with Kalaalit Nunaat (Den.) to form a semi-auton. state of Kalaalit Nunavut. The Maritimes will join to form the Commonweath of the Maritime Provinces. Yukon and the Northwest Terr. will form Yukon-Aurora. Guam, Am. Samoa, and the N. Mariana’s will become the State of Pacifica. Bermuda, the Cayman’s and Turks and Caicos will become a joint state. The indiginous tribal groups will become the United Indiginous Tribal Land and will have semi-autonmous status.
There is much more to come for America and the world. New changes all around, whether we like it or not.