In the year 2015, our cities are increasingly safe, clean and green. Yet, the NY Times points out new challenges that cities around the world now face. Example #1 is Jeju, South Korea. This article sketches the recent trend that large numbers of wealthy Chinese tourists are visiting this island. This is a tale of "too much growth".
"The Japanese imperial era is long over, but Mr. Shin and many residents of this subtropical resort island say they are now worried about what some call a new foreign “invasion” — waves of Chinese tourists and investors sweeping into Jeju, famous for its honeymooners, palm trees and golf courses overlooking a turquoise sea.
“Planeload after planeload of them arrive, some buying up land around here,” Mr. Shin said, as he and his wife packaged strawberries in their greenhouse. “I sometimes wonder whether this island this time is not turning into a Chinese colony.”"
...
Of the 6.1 million Chinese tourists who visited South Korea last year, nearly half visited Jeju, a fivefold increase from 2011. The Chinese have also become Jeju’s biggest foreign investors. They recently broke ground for what was billed as Asia’s largest family theme-park and casino complex. And Chinese business people are building or have announced plans for several high-rise hotels and condominium developments, which local people fear will be snapped up mainly by Chinese.
Although Chinese-owned land in Jeju is still less than 1 percent, it has grown to 2,050 acres last year from just five acres in 2009. More than 70 percent of $6.1 billion in foreign investments in Jeju announced between 2010 and last year came from China."
So, would South Korea prefer that fewer tourists visit? How would the Jeju economy be doing without their new Chinese friends? Suppliers need customers! Paul Krugman always writes about the need for greater aggregate demand and China represents "aggregate demand".
Example #2 comes from NYC and the infected Doctor who set off great concern about bring Ebola to a very dense city. Craig Spencer has written a piece for the New England Journal of Medicine presenting his recent autobiography about his ordeal handling being infected with Ebola. He was stigmatized and labeled as a "Typhoid Mary" as fear of epidemic spread.
But, his case does raise an interesting Coasian issue related to public health in cities. Who has the property rights here? After he treated people in Africa, he was at risk of catching the disease. Is he presumed to be "innocent or guilty" here? In an ideal world, he should have been sent to some "clean quarantine site" until doctors cleared him for release into the general population. Yes, this isolation would be annoying and it does represent a tax on those who commit themselves to fight rare diseases in exotic places. BUT, at the same time it reduces the probability of a major public health disaster (i.e Typhoid Mary). Given how risk averse we are, is this tradeoff so terrible? The population could reward doctors such as Dr. Spencer by investing in pleasant "clean quarantine sites" so that it does not feel like a prison.