Silicon Valley investors and technology entrepreneurs are exploring something bigger than another startup: creating new cities, special economic zones and potentially new forms of political organisation.
The idea is to build small, productive enclaves where new technologies, economic systems and governance models can be tested without first having to reform an entire country.
This is already more than theory. Próspera in Honduras is an operating special economic zone backed by technology investors. Balaji Srinivasan's Network State project proposes digitally connected communities establishing physical territory and, eventually, political recognition. Network School is bringing internationally connected tech communities together in physical locations. Other initiatives include Praxis and proposed charter cities.
The proposition is simple: rather than trying to make one political system work for everyone, create smaller places where different systems can be tested. Experiment with AI administration, robotics, energy, housing, healthcare, education, taxation and regulation. If something works, others can adopt it. If it fails, the experiment is contained.
There is historical precedent. Shenzhen became China's first Special Economic Zone in 1980, providing a designated area to test economic reforms and attract investment. It grew into a major manufacturing and technology centre. Singapore, while not a privately governed enclave, shows how a small jurisdiction can pursue a focused development strategy and become globally significant.
Look further back and Venice offers both inspiration and warning. It was a powerful maritime trading republic whose commercial networks and institutions made it a major centre of trade. But between 1297 and 1323, the Serrata progressively made membership of its ruling Great Council hereditary, closing political access and entrenching a wealthy oligarchy.
That is the central tension. Could these new enclaves become laboratories for technologies and institutions that improve life far beyond their borders? Or will they become privately controlled company towns, where residents have little say and investors capture most of the gains?
The positive case deserves consideration. Existing systems can be slow, bureaucratic and resistant to change. Political cycles undo long-term projects. Reaching consensus across entire populations is difficult. A small jurisdiction with clear rules, investment and room to experiment may develop solutions faster than a national government.
If billions already face poverty, instability, climate pressures and technological disruption, is it necessarily better to keep repairing the existing system rather than testing alternatives? The status quo is not a risk-free option either.
The safeguards matter: democratic accountability, enforceable rights, genuine freedom to leave, protection for local communities, and ways for successful innovations to spread rather than be monopolised.
This is not an argument that billionaires should own countries. It is an argument that civilisation may benefit from having more than one model to test. The goal should be competitive experimentation, not miniature kingdoms.
The real test: can these enclaves create broadly useful advances, and will ordinary people elsewhere share in the gains?
Further reading / getting involved:
The Network State: The Network StateNetwork School — community and applications: Network SchoolPróspera — project information and visits: PrósperaFinancial Times — reporting on tech entrepreneurs building private cities (2025): Financial Times investigationWorld Bank — China's Special Economic Zones: World Bank reportPuga & Trefler — Medieval Venice and institutional change (Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2014)