DC, Home Rule, and Statehood

(A response to a conversation from yesterday)

Gerschenkron's seminal article "economic advantages of backwardness,"* points out the advantages that "later developing societies" have in terms of being able during industrialization to adopt the latest technologies, rather than because of massive legacy investments (fixed or "sunk" costs), limit the adoption of innovative technology.

Similarly, while it is true that DC has only had significant control of municipal government and management (Home Rule) for 31 years, arguably, since the nation is just over 400 years old, in terms of the development of political institutions within the nation, one could argue that a home rule DC shouldn't start from a position that is completely ignorant and disconnected from American history and the history of municipal, county, and state political development within that context.

Therefore, DC should do be able to do better...

While I don't necessarily believe in statehood for DC--it has to do with my belief in efficiencey, and as it is, I think that Delaware should be merged into Maryland, Rhode Island into Connecticut, North and South Dakota should become one state, etc.--I think that if the city is serious about advocating for statehood it should work to make the city a national showcase for excellently functioning governmental processes at the level of both the executive and legislative branches, and every function and department within these branches of government.

Since that is laughably far from reality, I think we need to renew our focus on developing excellence in our own city first and foremost.

--------
* From Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective: A Book of Essays (emphasis added):

Gerschenkron's analysis is conspicuously anti-Marxian. It rejected the English Industrial Revolution as the normal pattern of industrial development and deprived the original accumulation of capital of its central force in determining subsequent expansion. It is likewise anti-Rostovian. There were no equivalent stages of economic growth in all participants. Elements of modernity and backwardness could survive side by side, and did, in a systematic fashion. Apparently disadvantageous initial conditions of access to capital could be overcome through new institutional arrangements. Success was indicated by proportionally more rapid growth in later developers, signaled by a decisive spurt in industrial expansion.

In this case, to make it analogous to civic development, I'd rewrite the last two sentences:

Apparently disadvantageous initial conditions of municipal political and civic development could be overcome through new institutional arrangements. Success was indicated by proportionally more rapid adoption of highly functioning processes and political development, growth in the quality and success of political and civic engagement, signaled by a decisive spurt in social, political, and economic success.