INTRODUCTION

This essay embarks on a comparative analysis, examining the impact of land-based policies on urbanization, development, and social welfare in two distinct island territories—one in the Caribbean and the other in the Indian Ocean. Despite their geographical separation, both islands share a long history of conflicts stemming from the era of colonialism.

            Our goal is to forge a bridge of understanding and solidarity by delving into the real-world consequences of regulations in these two seemingly unrelated parts of the world. This exploration aims to facilitate mutual learning from different yet parallel situations. The objective is to empower these islands to collectively resist policies that fail to benefit their local communities in favor of settler logic.₁

            In 2012, Puerto Rico implemented a set of tax laws known as Act 20/22, now known as Act 60. These laws provide significant tax incentives for residents, shielding them from federal income taxes and offering exemptions on Puerto Rico-sourced income. Additionally, property taxes in Puerto Rico are considerably lower than those on the U.S. mainland, creating a tax haven. However, this has led to economic activity and investments benefiting outside interests while offering little in return to the island.

            Mauritius, still grappling with the enduring effects of colonialism, has adopted the concept of Smart Cities Scheme. This scheme may inadvertently harm lower-middle-class citizens, farmers, essential workers, and island refugees in the long run. The impending deadlines for international developers to submit land acquisition proposals raise concerns about the consequences of this approach. Access to smart technology is limited, primarily benefiting the privileged elite, and reinforcing post-colonial hierarchies.

            The connection between Puerto Rico’s Act 20/22 (Act 60) and the Mauritian Smart Cities Scheme lies in the fact that both are economic development programs implemented in distinct post-colonial settings to advance “progress”. These programs share certain similarities in their objectives and strategies, which make it crucial to study them.

            In terms of Economic Development, both frameworks are designed to stimulate economic growth and development in their respective territories. They aim to attract foreign investment, create job opportunities, and boost economic activity. 

            This is done through providing incentives for foreign investment. In Puerto Rico, Act 20 provides tax incentives to companies that export services, while Act 22 offers tax benefits to individuals who relocate to the island. In Mauritius, the Smart Cities Scheme targets foreign investors interested in real estate development within designated smart cities.

            Both programs seek to promote improvements in the quality of life for residents. But which residents? We ask. The Smart Cities Scheme in Mauritius specifically focuses on creating sustainable, well-planned urban environments with a work-life-leisure balance. Similarly, Puerto Rico aims to attract individuals looking for the same type of “higher” quality of life through its tax incentives. The measure has triggered many online platforms with step-by-step instructions on how a foreign investor can become a resident by buying a property, in order to comply with the requirements to benefit from it. 

            Puerto Rico and Mauritius both grapple with economic and cultural challenges rooted in their colonial histories, carrying the legacy of colonial measures that can lead to economic disparities, social inequalities, and power imbalances. Examining programs like Act 20/22 and the Smart Cities Scheme is crucial as it sheds light on how post-colonial territories address these challenges through economic policies. By understanding these program similarities, we can analyze their effectiveness in addressing historical and structural issues inherited from colonial rule and critically assess whether they inadvertently perpetuate or challenge elements of colonialism, including the favoring of the privileged and the maintenance of cultural disparities, while also considering their impact on power dynamics and economic dependency on foreign investments.




            We argue that Puerto Rico’s Act 20/22 (Act 60) may inadvertently perpetuate modern forms of colonialism, whereas the Mauritian Smart Cities Scheme, though not inherently exploitative, needs to place a more significant emphasis on social welfare. In the case of Mauritius, ensuring equitable access to the benefits of the Smart Cities Scheme, irrespective of economic status, should be a top priority for societal improvement. Prioritizing the humanistic and social dimensions of smart cities becomes crucial, given that existing research predominantly concentrates on economic and sustainability aspects. In the case of Puerto Rico, lack of sovereignty opens opportunities, like Act 60, for the privileged to take advantage of available land, leaving fewer options for low-income locals. This necessitates collective action across multiple disciplines to prevent the suppression of marginalized inhabitants and the expropriation of natives through coercive means.

            Considering the aforementioned concerns and inquiries, we make a call for action towards a comprehensive social analysis of Puerto Rico’s Act 20/22 (Act 60) and the Mauritian Smart Cities Scheme. It is imperative that these policies are thoroughly scrutinized to ensure they genuinely serve the best interests of local communities, rather than inadvertently reinforcing neocolonial agendas that predominantly benefit the privileged few. As designers, researchers, and planners with a deep understanding of the intricacies of spatial politics, we acknowledge that land embodies more than mere soil—it encapsulates notions of property, regulatory frameworks, zoning laws, and territorial boundaries, all susceptible to the influences of neoliberal-capitalist forces. Being natives of these islands, our individual research endeavors have unveiled striking parallels within these regulatory frameworks, leading us to the following argument.

            Raising awareness of regulations that may lead to detrimental developments and urbanization patterns underscores the importance of interconnectivity and solidarity between post-colonial and still-colonized islands. While these regulatory processes may appear economically sound, they often exhibit cultural imbalances, prompting us to question their true impact on urbanization and social well-being in these respective islands. We critically explore whether these policies genuinely promote progress or inadvertently favor the privileged, potentially perpetuating colonial influences. 

We believe that fostering such solidarity can catalyze broader cross-continental and cross oceanic support. As Puerto Ricans and Mauritians, we begin by advocating for the reevaluation and reform of regulations that seem to fail to benefit local communities in both islands. This is why we are interested in exploring whether “progress” should continue to guide post-conflict city planning or if it requires a reevaluation. If so, how should we develop resilient responses to environmental changes, precarity, vulnerability, state-produced risks, and political instability, especially when addressing the traumatic impact on communities following modern forms of colonialism? 

            Lastly, it is crucial to acknowledge the geographical and historical contexts of both Mauritius and Puerto Rico. Mauritius (also known by it’s indigenous name Moris) is part of the Mascarene Islands archipelago situated in the Indian Ocean, which includes several significant islands, with the most prominent ones being Mauritius, Réunion, and Rodrigues. This archipelago, situated in the Indian Ocean, also encompasses smaller islets and coral atolls. While Puerto Rico (also known by it’s indigenous name Boriken) forms part of the Antilles archipelago, encompassing several islands and islets. Puerto Rico (Often referred to as Isla Grande), Vieques (Often referred to as Isla Nena), Culebra (Often referred to as Isla Chiquita), Isla de Mona, Isla  Desecheo, Isla Caja de Muerto, Isla de Culebrita, Isla de Lobos, Palomino, Icacos, Isla Ratones (Cabo Rojo), Isla de Cardona (Ponce), Isla de Gilligan (Guanica), Isla de Gatas (Ponce), Isla de Matia (Vieques), Isla de Ramos (Vieques), Isla de Chiva (Culebra). These distinct regional and geographical characteristics significantly contribute to the unique socio-economic and historical landscapes of both territories. For the sake of academic writing and search engines, we use the terminology of “islands” for both settings.


PUERTO RICO: ACT 20/22 (ACT 60)

Let us start by considering some contextual information. In 2012, Governor Luis Fortuño of Puerto Rico, who was in favor of statehood for the territory, introduced two significant Acts. Firstly, Act number 20 was enacted to create a world-class service center in Puerto Rico by providing tax credits and exceptions to businesses involved in eligible activities. Secondly, Act 22 was implemented to encourage investors to relocate to Puerto Rico to foster wealth and economic development on the island. These Acts garnered attention because they offered incentives for highnet-worth U.S. citizens to move to Puerto Rico, potentially allowing them to reduce their federal income tax rate from 39.6%, along with any applicable state tax, to a much lower range of 0% to 4% under Puerto Rico’s tax system. Interestingly, just three years later, in June 2015, the acting Governor at that time, Alejandro Garcia Padilla, who supported the territory’s commonwealth status, held a press conference to declare Puerto Rico’s staggering $72 billion debt as unpayable.

            Then in 2016, the U.S. Federal government took action by enacting PROMESA, which stands for the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act. This legislation was a collaborative effort, with support from President Obama as well as nominations from both Republicans and Democrats. PROMESA had several key provisions: it established a financial oversight board, created a framework for restructuring the island’s debt, and streamlined the approval process for critical infrastructure projects. All these measures were designed to address the ongoing financial crisis faced by the Puerto Rican government.

            The oversight board, locally known as “La Junta,” consists of seven members, none of whom were elected by the people of Puerto Rico. Only two of these members are residents of Puerto Rico, while the rest hail from the economic sector. Notably, the national debt of Puerto Rico has now reached approximately $74 billion, and it has never undergone a comprehensive audit. Nevertheless, Act 20/22, the legislation designed to attract investors to Puerto Rico, remains in effect and plays a significant role in the context of PROMESA.

            Act 20 is a program aimed at encouraging Puerto Rican companies to expand their services to other jurisdictions. While not exclusive to foreign corporations; it extends its tax benefits to a wide range of businesses. These incentives are quite comprehensive, offering a guaranteed rate structure for a two-decade period and the possibility of renewal for an additional 10 years, subject to certain conditions. The benefits encompass a 4% corporate tax rate, a 100% tax exemption on dividends, a 60% exemption on municipal taxes, and no federal taxes on income sourced within Puerto Rico. Additionally, specific export service businesses may also qualify for a 100% property tax exemption for the initial 5 years and a 90% exemption thereafter.2



Figure 2. (Left)“W” Hotel Entrance in Vieques, Puerto Rico. Figure 3. (Right) Hacienda Tamarindo in Vieques, Puerto Rico. Property purchased by Brock Pierce.

            On the other hand, Act 22 is a program designed to attract individuals to relocate to Puerto Rico. Under this Act, individual investors stand to gain significant tax advantages by establishing residency on the island. Once residency is established, individuals become eligible for various tax benefits, including a 100% exemption on both short-term and long-term capital gains, a 100% tax exemption on interest and dividends, and the potential to avoid dealings with the IRS.₃ Despite Puerto Rico’s status as a U.S. territory, bona fide residents are not subject to IRS rules and regulations. As a resident, you are exempt from federal taxation and only need to pay taxes on income earned outside of Puerto Rico. So, what is the fundamental purpose behind these Acts?

            While both Acts promote distinct economic activities with varying impacts on the economy, they are often used interchangeably. Act 20 businesses and Act 22 individuals contribute to Puerto Rico’s tax revenue through various means, including property taxes, the Sales and Use Tax (SUT), and income taxes, among others. On one hand, Act 20 enables companies established in Puerto Rico, whether with local or non-local capital, to export services at favorable tax rates and enjoy additional benefits. The New Incentives Code governs these companies, allowing for their operation and service delivery from outside Puerto Rico.

            On the other hand, Act 22 offers an opportunity for individuals residing outside Puerto Rico to establish their residence on the island and receive preferential tax treatment, primarily applicable to passive income. This program is not limited to the Puerto Rican diaspora; it is also open and not limited to U.S. nationals and foreign investors.

            Ultimately, these two programs cannot be equated, but their combined utilization provides the greatest economic benefit. For instance, if an Act 22 individual establishes a business operation in Puerto Rico that exports services to other jurisdictions, the synergy between both acts drives economic growth. The intended audience for this information would likely include individuals and businesses interested in understanding the potential economic benefits and tax incentives associated with Act 20 and Act 22 in Puerto Rico. But who is the intended audience?

            The comprehensive response outlined in the policy report indicates that the target audience primarily consists of individual investors, a category that extends beyond U.S. nationals and encompasses members of the Puerto Rican diaspora as well as foreign investors. To put it more succinctly, the short answer is that these incentives are available to any investor who is not currently residing on the island.





            To qualify for the tax incentives offered by Act 22, individuals must demonstrate their strong ties to Puerto Rico during the tax year to establish themselves as bona fide residents. Meeting these criteria entails being physically present in Puerto Rico for more than half of the tax year, which equates to at least 183 days. Additionally, it involves actions such as obtaining a Puerto Rico voter’s registration, refraining from owning a permanent home in the United States, opening a personal bank account in Puerto Rico, and purchasing property on the island. Furthermore, various other personal ties come into play when determining bona fide residency, including the location of one’s belongings, ownership of vehicles, affiliations with social and political organizations, official document addresses, and other pertinent factors.₄ It is worth noting that the reception to these requirements has been mixed.

            Let us delve deeper into how these measures have an impact across various levels, ranging from the highest federal jurisdiction down to the urban and regional scales, ultimately influencing communities. The insights presented in the government report reveal a significant interconnection between both programs. For instance, numerous Act 20 companies have recruited top executives from other regions to oversee their export operations, while multiple Act 22 individuals have initiated service exports from Puerto Rico, utilizing local resources. These businesses predominantly operate within the services sector, which facilitates seamless and efficient connections both forward and backward in the supply chain. What is particularly noteworthy here is the multiplier effect generated by these synergies, serving as the driving force behind sustained economic development over the medium and long term.

            The report further underscores that the economic influence of both Acts extends well beyond the immediate outcomes of job creation and real estate investments. It asserts that participants in these programs actively contribute to the local economy, resulting in tangible and intangible advantages, including increased fiscal revenues, the creation of new jobs, investments in real estate, active participation in the local entrepreneurial ecosystem, collaboration with native businesses, and the injection of capital into fresh opportunities for local enterprises. This integration with the U.S. economy also affords local companies the chance to export services more competitively by capitalizing on cost advantages compared to average U.S. salaries.

            While Act 20 companies can be either domestic or foreign entities, their primary operations are typically conducted within Puerto Rico, rendering them, from an economic standpoint, effectively “local.” In essence, these beneficiaries deliver their services from Puerto Rico, relying on local human resources and utilizing other goods and services sourced within the region to run their businesses. However, the report confines the term “local” to companies in which the majority of capital ownership rests with Puerto Rican residents. This category encompasses businesses established in Puerto Rico prior to the enactment of the decree, which also actively provided goods and services to the local economy. Additionally, it includes recently formed companies whose core operations, capital investments, and primary contacts are all based within Puerto Rico. Intriguingly, among the entire pool of Act 20 grantees, only 35% are estimated to fall under the category of locally owned businesses.₅

On the other hand, the government contends that Act 22 is designed with a focus on diaspora engagement, potentially serving as an incentive to encourage Puerto Ricans residing on the U.S. mainland to relocate back to Puerto Rico. This category may include retirees, medical professionals, entrepreneurs, and others. Notably, a parallel objective-driven program in the U.S. known as the EB-5 Program shares similar goals. However, the EB-5 Program mandates a minimum investment of $500,000 for visa eligibility. Furthermore, the government suggests that Puerto Ricans residing in the U.S. with a net worth exceeding $1 million might consider the advantages offered by Act 22 as a motivating factor to relocate, retire, or actively contribute to the local economy.

            Act 22 has garnered praise from prominent figures such as José Pérez Riera, Alberto Bacó Bauqé, and current Secretary Manuel A. Laboy Rivera, all of whom have held the position of Secretary of Economic Development and Commerce in Puerto Rico. They view the act favorably, describing it as a potential solution for Puerto Rico’s economic challenges and years of persistent recession.₆

            However, Act 22 has faced criticism from detractors, including Jeffrey Farrow, a former White House official during the Clinton administration, and John Buckley, a former tax counsel for the Democratic Party on the United States House Committee on Ways and Means. These critics have characterized the act as a means to transform Puerto Rico into a tax haven.₇ Additionally, Toby Roth, a former Republican congressman and lobbyist with extensive experience in Puerto Ricorelated issues, has raised questions about the Law 22 program in Congress. He has voiced concerns about the decision to attract hedge fund managers to the island rather than focusing on retaining young Puerto Ricans. Roth emphasized that unless Puerto Rico generates employment opportunities to retain its talented youth, the presence of hedge fund managers may have limited significance.₈ These differing viewpoints and debates surrounding Act 22 raise questions about its impact on urbanization and the broader socio-economic landscape.

            Numerous sources have provided real-life examples shedding light on the practical outcomes of these Acts. The Centro de Periodismo Investigativo (CPI) has extensively documented various instances that illustrate how the Act has, in some cases, failed to achieve its primary objectives.₉ For instance, developer Keith St. Clair initially announced ambitious investments exceeding $200 million for the island. However, six years later, several of his promised projects, including four hotel ventures and a film district, remain unfinished due to multiple legal disputes related to money laundering, financial disagreements with contractors, and complaints filed with the Department of Consumer Affairs. The question arises: why have such situations occurred?

            The article highlights a concerning aspect, noting that, “in almost 10 years, the Department of Economic Development and Commerce (DDEC) has never audited the 3,311 individuals covered by Law 22, even though it had an obligation to do so since 2015, according to the statute.” Strikingly, our research has not uncovered any organized effort to document all the properties acquired by beneficiaries of the Act. This lack of auditing and documentation remains a significant enigma.

            Furthermore, the CPI investigation presents findings from a random sample study of 304 beneficiaries of this incentive, representing only 10% of the total 3,040 decrees granted since its inception in 2012 until June 2020. These findings suggest that a substantial number of beneficiaries have a limited job creation record and contribute minimally to the local economy. Additionally, the investigation reveals a diverse mix of registered companies among the beneficiaries, including small financial advisory firms, investment management entities, and real estate businesses involved in property transactions ranging from houses and apartments to land. Notably, the data also highlights that 27% of the 400 identified companies in the sample were canceled shortly after their creation. Furthermore, 115 beneficiaries, equivalent to 37%, do not have any businesses registered under their names with the State Department.

            We had the privilege of engaging in discussions with several aspiring architects employed by local firms in Puerto Rico, although, for the sake of protecting their professional interests, they chose to remain anonymous. These conversations revolved around “20/22 investors,” colloquially referred to as “Los de la 20/22” within the local community. These investors and their corporate entities are specifically active in the Old San Juan and Ocean Park region.

            When questioned about their modus operandi, their response was elegantly straightforward: Act 20/22 simplifies matters for them in a significant way. Their process typically begins with the utilization of Act 22, wherein they establish themselves as beneficiaries and subsequently proceed to create a company under the provisions of Act 20, specializing in real estate development services. In some instances, these individuals may already possess corporations operating in other mainland U.S. states, necessitating only the relocation of their corporate address to Puerto Rico.

            Their strategic approach involves the acquisition of abandoned properties within the region or employing economic pressures to persuade property owners to sell. Once ownership is secured, an extensive property renovation process ensues, aligning with the municipality’s building codes and standards. This not only enhances the property but also garners tax benefits, as these properties fall within the purview of “zonas especiales” (special zones) under the prevailing zoning code. Subsequently, these revitalized properties are placed on the market, often finding their niche in the Airbnb sector. However, due to the increased rental costs, many local residents find themselves priced out, leading to a predominantly tourist-driven occupancy pattern that contributes to a gentrification dynamic.

            At present, we lack precise data regarding the exact number of properties transformed by this phenomenon. However, our conversations with architects have revealed that some companies have an extensive portfolio, with over 200 projects of a similar nature on their records, and they express intentions to continue developing more properties. Simultaneously, the response from residents living in Old San Juan is nuanced. On one hand, this phenomenon revitalizes a city that had largely fallen dormant due to the economic crisis. Yet, on the other hand, concerns arise regarding the associated costs of this reactivation and the practices of transient occupants who lack a sense of attachment to the city. San Juan has always had a lively social scene, but in recent years, the Airbnb situation has grown increasingly unmanageable. One resident expressed apprehension about the current situation, highlighting that there are now more interactions with “gringos” (foreigners) than with fellow Puerto Ricans. There is a genuine fear that the city’s identity is being overshadowed by the influx of foreigners.

This phenomenon extends beyond Old San Juan and encompasses other areas, including the island municipality of Vieques, where land is actively marketed for resort and hotel developments, offering individuals the opportunity to discover their own piece of paradise in Puerto Rico. A seasoned professional with 30 years of experience, Bob Gevinski, a real estate broker and longtime Vieques resident, has leveraged Act 20/22 benefits to invest in the sales and marketing sector.

            In a 2020 article, Gevinski outlined how the challenges posed by the pandemic were anticipated to have a minimal impact on the real estate market and, in fact, might even facilitate its progress. He noted that “There are positive signs for the Puerto Rico real estate market despite this pause. Interest rates are at historic lows, making home purchases more affordable. Furthermore, the difficulties in accessing medication during the COVID-19 outbreak in the mainland U.S. have prompted efforts to bring pharmaceutical production back to Puerto Rico. This initiative is expected to reactivate factories and create new employment opportunities, subsequently driving demand for property purchases. The continued presence of Act 20/22 and Opportunity Zone incentives will further stimulate investment in Puerto Rico.”₁₀ These remarks succinctly capture the essence of how the system operates, offering insight into the scalability of the issue. To illustrate this relationship between Act 60 beneficiaries and the government, it is akin to having a school project where the teacher studies and even takes the exams for the students.

Vieques is gradually transforming, evolving from an island once used as a Navy bombing practice site to becoming a sought-after vacation destination. In late January 2022, Bitcoin billionaire Brock Pierce made headlines by acquiring a 150-room oceanfront hotel in Vieques, formerly known as the “W Vieques.” Additionally, he purchased a well-known local Hacienda called “Tamarindo” and initiated a development project for Roosevelt Roads in Ceiba. Pierce’s presence in Puerto Rico garnered attention following a New York Times article detailing his vision to establish a crypto utopia in the region.₁₁ Pierce’s endeavors benefit from favorable regulatory provisions as he is an Act 22 (now Act 60) beneficiary, enjoying tax incentives that entice wealthy individuals to invest in properties such as the W hotel in Puerto Rico. This trend contributes to making the region more appealing to foreign investors while potentially limiting access for residents.  Consequently, while Vieques experience increased development activity, questions persist regarding who can participate in this transformation and who ultimately benefits from these market regulations. This situation exemplifies how regulations can influence land market behavior, shaping urbanization dynamics within the context of the free market.

            Considering the complex dynamics surrounding land market regulations, urbanization, and the influence of incentives like Act 22 (now Act 60) in Puerto Rico, one must consider the broader implications for the island’s development and its people. With this in mind, how does the Puerto Rican experience with such incentives inform our understanding of similar schemes, such as the Mauritian Smart Cities Scheme, and their potential impact on land use, economic development, and the overall well-being of local communities?






MAURITIUS: MAURITIAN SMART CITIES SCHEME

Mauritius, an African island nation in the Indian Ocean, stands as a multicultural post-colonial entity, having gained independence from British colonial rule in 1968. The nation’s economy has flourished, rooted in diverse sectors ranging from sugarcane agriculture, and industry, to more recent ventures in finance, information and communication technology (ICT), and tourism. Similar to the analytical approach used to scrutinize Puerto Rico’s Act 20/22 (Act 60), we make a critical assessment of the Smart Cities Scheme in relation to Mauritius’ existing communities, particularly the underprivileged Mauritian population who might face unexpected consequences as Smart Cities proliferate. In this part, we aim to raise awareness, with cultural intimacy, about the sociological and unforeseen repercussions of introducing the Smart City concept on a post-colonial island in the Global South, offering a close examination of the complex interplay of colonial history, post-colonial dynamics, racialization, urban and suburban development, and lifestyle disparities tied to geographic location.

            With implications of colonization and post-colonization, we cannot dismiss the effects on racialization, urban/suburban development, or lifestyle access with respect to location. We have to take into consideration the actors of the Smart Cities Scheme and, with an understanding of the complexion of Mauritius, attempt to identify the true benefactors of this Scheme and make comparisons with the Puerto Rican Act 20/22. 

            As Mauritius’s demographics become increasingly diverse, they are putting elites on edge.₁₂ This transformation raises concerns, especially among the island’s elite, colloquially known as FrancoMauritians. This elite class traces its roots to the colonial era, with connections to the French colonial rulers and a legacy of land ownership and ex-enslaved proprietors. Some members also hail from British colonial descendants who chose to stay on after Mauritius’ independence.  Consequently, a significant wealth gap persists, primarily driven by historical land claims: land ownership (or rather, colonial land claim) that has been passed down through generations.₁₃

            Before Mauritius’ independence, the white Mauritian population held dominant political and social sway.₁₄ And since gaining independence, Mauritius has been dubbed a paradise and tax haven for the other rich: immigrant/expatriates — white South Africans, and Europeans. However, the island’s international acclaim as a paradise and a tax haven for wealthy immigrants and expatriates, particularly white South Africans and Europeans, tends to overshadow the nation’s relatively young post-colonial status, or what we call the lingering presence of colonial margins. The aftermath of rapid urban development has not come without costs, as it led to environmental degradation and unchecked changes to the island’s built environment, often overlooked in the planning processes. It can be speculated that the concept of Smart Cities is an attempt to mitigate the repercussions of years of environmental neglect and degradation.

            The concept of a Smart City finds its origins in IBM’s early vision of “smarter cities,” which formed a part of their broader Smarter Planet initiative back in 2008.₁₅  According to IBM’s perspective, a Smart City is one that is “interconnected, instrumented, and intelligent”.₁₆ While various interpretations of a Smart City abound, the overarching aim of this concept is to transform a city into a thriving financial center that offers seamless access to technology. It also seeks to create job opportunities and enhance citizen satisfaction, presumably by delivering a high quality of life.₁₇ In this quest to define a Smart City, the term “social” emerges as a recurring keyword, with one source suggesting that Smart Cities are designed to improve policies, boost social and economic wellbeing, and maximize social inclusion.₁₈

            In its specific context, the Smart City Scheme took root in 2014 when then-Prime Minister of Mauritius, Navinchandra Ramgoolam, conceded electoral defeat to the Mouvement Socialiste Militant (MSM), led by Sir Aneerood Jugnauth. Subsequently, in February 2015, Ramgoolam faced arrest on grounds of “conspiracy and money laundering,” culminating in a high-profile international political scandal.₁₉ The unveiling of the Smart Cities Scheme occurred later that same year, and it was marketed as an economic marvel.₂₀ This strategic move aligns with Naomi Klein’s concept of the Disaster Capitalism Complex, where reconstruction efforts following tragedies, wars, or political crises are harnessed for profit.₂₁ Hence, the Smart City Scheme could be seen as a calculated maneuver to shift the public’s attention from the Ramgoolam scandal to the realm of urban innovation.

            The implementation of the Mauritian Smart Cities Scheme followed in 2015, as outlined by the Economic Development Board (EDB) of Mauritius.₂₂ The scheme was described as an ambitious economic development program with the aim of solidifying Mauritius as an international hub for business and finance. It sought to achieve this by establishing optimal conditions for working, and living, and stimulating investment through the creation of Smart Cities across the island, integrating the latest advancements in urban planning and digital technologies. By August 2021, a total of twelve (12) Smart Cities had gained approval from the EDB.₂₃

            The Mauritian Smart Cities Scheme entices, with a meticulously crafted array of incentives designed to draw foreign citizens and investors into its fold. At its core, this initiative offers the alluring promise of foreign citizenship—a tantalizing prospect allowing individuals to secure coveted Mauritian citizenship following a minimum two-year residency and a substantial investment in a Smart City project, where the minimum investment threshold stands at a commendable USD 5 million. Participants in this exclusive venture are graciously granted the privilege of land ownership within the designated Smart City boundaries.

            Beyond the promise of foreign citizenship, the Smart Cities Scheme extends a generous tax incentive—a 15% income tax “holiday” during the initial eight years of residence. This tax haven status enhances its appeal, making it an attractive prospect for eligible participants seeking favorable financial terms. To sweeten the deal further, developers engaged in Smart City projects are treated to an enticing VAT recovery mechanism, allowing them to recover Value Added Tax (VAT) on expenses related to building and capital goods, in alignment with prevailing regulatory guidelines. The scheme is nothing short of accommodating, offering master developers the freedom to sell serviced land to other companies for the development of specific components within the Smart City project, opening doors to myriad possibilities and enhancing its appeal.

            Intriguingly, the Smart Cities Scheme mirrors aspects of Puerto Rico’s Act 60 by offering tax incentives to the Mauritian diaspora. However, its primary allure lies in its magnetic pull toward non-citizens, including retirees, who yearn for an urban, secure, and sustainable haven.₂₄

Foremost, the scheme acts as a catalyst, igniting a fervent surge in economic activity within the confines of the designated Smart Cities. Investment flows generously, and businesses blossom, promising financial prosperity. Foreign investors play a pivotal role in this narrative, actively contributing to the strengthening of the country’s foreign currency reserves. Their contributions underpin economic stability, creating an environment ripe for fruitful investments. The scheme maintains the aim to generate job opportunities for local residents, amongst others, security, IT, or service work. The pressing employment needs within Smart City projects find their solutions within this scheme, claiming growth and open-ended opportunities for the local populace of Mauritius. For technical expertise, the Smart City Scheme aims to attract professionals adept in areas critical to the nation’s development, including sea-level rise mitigation, shoreline protection, and the preservation of the island’s indigenous fauna and flora, fortifying the island’s ecological resilience.

And then, there is the tantalizing prospect—a gradual path toward the acquisition of land along the shores of Mauritius. However, this privilege is reserved for those who obtain Mauritian citizenship and embrace the technical requirements of the scheme. In essence, the Mauritian Smart Cities Scheme extends a siren’s call, beckoning with irresistible incentives and benefits. It stands as a testament to the island’s commitment to fostering economic growth, championing sustainable development, and elevating the living standards of all who venture into its embrace— so long as one can afford to.

From those incentives and benefits drafted, the implications and consequences of the Smart Cities Scheme are paramount for analysis. One must scrutinize the expected social outcomes of implementing a scheme that even beckons individuals belonging to the Mauritian diaspora. The guidelines provided by the Economic Development Board (EDB) of Mauritius, which stipulate the sale of a minimum of 25% of residential properties to citizens of Mauritius or members of the Mauritian Diaspora, prompt contemplation on whether this perpetuates existing power structures, favoring privileged foreign investors.₂₅ Notably, the EDB offers a dedicated website for the privilege club, reinforcing an agenda that appears skewed towards elites at the expense of the working class.

Evaluating potential scenarios stemming from the influx of Western settlers and understanding the implications of such, the Dependency Theory, while rooted in Marxism, gains relevance within the context of Smart Cities.₂₆ The pre-established framework of the Smart Cities Scheme, designed for the enrichment of the wealthy elite and exploitation of the working class (in this case, Mauritians), aligns with the foundational ideas of the Dependency Theory. Within this context, it is not necessary to endorse the Dependency Theory or delve into the realm of a socialist Mauritius, but it is crucial to consider certain aspects within the broader context of Smart Cities. Mauritius, being a developing nation, confronts the dilemma of potentially depending on external investments to bolster its economic growth. Simultaneously, it faces the prospect of breaking free from historical reliance on Western colonial powers. The Smart Cities Scheme can be redesigned to mitigate the scenarios cautioned against by Dependency theorists.

Alternatively, the Smart Cities Scheme can be critically viewed as a means for investors to lawfully colonize segments of the island, where more affluent and influential entities extend their reach into underdeveloped regions. This interpretation holds parallels to the colonial plantation system, resulting in the colonial reassertion of dominance by foreign elites in Mauritian Smart Cities—a situation that challenges the trajectory of post-colonial Mauritius, which should ideally be moving away from such dynamics. Within this highly critical and provocative perspective, Smart Cities across the island can be perceived as small yet self-sustained colonies, exercising their influence within legal bounds, aiming to extract culture from various social classes (end of the scenario). However, even within this lens, some form of neo-colonization is inevitably witnessed due to the forces of globalization and postcolonialism, particularly in institutionalized and globalized land acquisition practices.₂₇

            Furthermore, it is essential to delve into the intersecting themes of coloniality and migration. As underscored by Le Petitcorps and Desille, remnants of coloniality persist, particularly in the dynamics of power and racial distinctions within former colonies.₂₈ They emphasize the dual role of migration in rejuvenating and perpetuating racial dichotomies within ex-colonies, particularly within the Mauritian context. Salverda’s study accentuates the complexity of race and its enduring influence on society, especially among the elites, notably the Franco-Mauritians.₂₉ In parallel, Schinkel’s exploration of immigration to the West reveals the intricate interplay between capital and race on a global scale, engendering surplus populations, a labor force available at a low cost, and human expulsions.₃₀ This analysis also yields insights when examining the reverse scenario, whereby the Western population relocates to the Global South. In such situations, a comprehensive understanding of historical contexts, historical narratives, and a social science lens is indispensable to grapple with the notion of coloniality.



In the broader context of the preceding discussion, the Mauritian Sugar Industry Efficiency Act 20/2001 - Part V: Land Conversion, specifically Section (2A), becomes a pivotal reference point.₃₁ This legislation outlines the conditions under which a landowner can convert agricultural land to non-agricultural use, particularly if the land in question has not been under cultivation at any point in the past 10 years. This provision essentially allows landowners to make a declaration to the Ministry, following a form stipulated by the Minister, expressing their intention to transition the land to non-agricultural purposes.

Within the discourse concerning the Smart Cities Scheme and its potential consequences, this legislation introduces a critical dimension. The Act sets the stage for a significant shift in land usage, potentially impacting the overall landscape in Mauritius. As Smart Cities emerge, the utilization of land becomes a central concern, particularly when considering the potential transformation of previously agricultural areas into urban developments, parallel cities. While the Act may enable landowners to convert to residential plots for sales or transition their unused agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes, it raises questions about the implications of this transition, especially in the context of the Smart Cities Scheme.

The Act’s relevance becomes more pronounced as we contemplate the scenarios outlined in the preceding discussion. The interplay between land conversion, land ownership, and the potential for foreign investment within Smart Cities takes on a more nuanced dimension. For example, it prompts questions about the motivations of landowners seeking to convert their land, the impact of such conversions on the social fabric and existing communities, and the broader consequences for Mauritius as it navigates its post-colonial trajectory.

Considering the Mauritian Sugar Industry Efficiency Act 20/2001 adds depth to the dialogue on Smart Cities, colonial legacies, and the potential outcomes for Mauritian society.₃₂ As Smart Cities continue to develop and the landscape evolves, the Act’s provisions will play a role in shaping the socio-economic landscape and warrant ongoing analysis within the broader context of the discussion.

            While we cannot ignore the multitude of advantages that come with designing Smart Cities, their implementation in Mauritius requires a distinct reevaluation. Forecasts for the precise impact on Mauritian residents remain somewhat uncertain, yet we can make a compelling argument about potential side effects by adopting sociological and anthropological perspectives. In the development of Smart Cities, two types of risks emerge: those related to establishing sustainable, technologically advanced urban systems of living and those concerning issues like data breaches and national security, especially regarding minors.




            The multifaceted benefits of Smart Cities in enhancing urban and suburban living cannot be disregarded. However, it is imperative to scrutinize how this implementation affects the existing social fabric and population. The risks considered in this context pertain to sociology and the specific socio-cultural and historical context of Mauritius, including elements reminiscent of coloniality.

            Drawing from Porter and Yiftachel, who discuss coloniality, we can recontextualize their arguments to Mauritius,  

            “The settler city is often portrayed as a symbol of a ‘new world’, a space of liberalism and democracy, a hub of globalization, a magnet for international migration, or a center of investment and corporate power – all dominant discourses that conceal their ongoing colonial nature. Such cities are symbols of the profound displacement, erasure and often destruction of Indigenous histories and geographies and are at the same time precisely the form that keeps that displacement hidden.”₃₃

            The term “settler city,” when compared to a smart city, sheds light on certain keywords – “globalization,” “international migration,” and “investment” – that draw parallels between the experiences of indigenous peoples and historically marginalized Mauritian communities, the working class, or local farmers who may see their lands transformed into smart plots for sale. As highlighted in the Truth and Justice Commission report of 2011, it is predominantly the Creole population, descendants of enslaved mainland Africans, that bears the consequences of rapid urbanization._{34, 35}

            While the Smart Cities Scheme purports to create better living conditions and sustainable urban development, it is essential to investigate the intended beneficiaries. Are the primary stakeholders adequately consulted throughout the planning stages, or are decisions made based on assumptions and a neo-colonial approach to urban planning? Is the Smart Cities Scheme concealing a form of social control or a means for historically dominant Western interests to assert authority over Mauritian locals? As mentioned earlier, the government has plans to build 12 Smart Cities, most of which will be constructed from the ground up. This approach to development may appear utopian to some, but culturally incompatible to others.

Like the developments in San Juan, Tamarin in the southwest of Mauritius straddles historical significance with contemporary development. An examination of the erasure of critical elements of Mauritian history, such as the Les Salines salt pans, for the sake of commercial profit and land ownership, is essential. Tamarin, nestled between the shoreline and Rempart Mountain, was initially home to a Franco-Mauritian community, which has now evolved into a community of white South African expatriates. Over the last decade, Tamarin has undergone extensive urban development, with a notable example being Cap Tamarin: Smart City (refer to Figure 5). This initiative plans to eliminate the iconic Salt Pans of Tamarin, which had traditionally provided employment to local Creole Mauritians, in favor of substantial mixed-use developments catering to Cap Tamarin. Despite local protests directed towards the Chief Council of the Black River district in an effort to preserve the salt pans, this part of the history of colonial rule is at the cusp of being erased. Tamarin, particularly Cap Tamarin, draws parallels to Levittown, Pennsylvania, United States, regarding the economic and racial homogeneity of the city’s demographics. Frequent site visits reveal that Tamarin has transformed into a city where only English or French is spoken in high-end boutiques and fresh seafood markets, despite Mauritian Creole being the native tongue. Therefore, Tamarin not only serves as a contemporary example of Levittown but also perpetuates a culture of non-ethical dominance by eradicating cultural heritage in favor of a Western-centric cultural hub.₃₆



Cities like Tamarin can indeed be designed to become technologically smart, but at what expense? Who ultimately bears these costs? The advantages of Smart Cities, as mentioned earlier, are appealing, especially from the perspective of foreign investors with foreign currency, who find attractive incentives to obtain Mauritian citizenship and land ownership. However, concerning the interests of Mauritians, it is imperative to weigh these benefits against the associated costs. Addressing this requires an examination of which class of Mauritians is likely to be more adversely affected, a factor that, as previously indicated, correlates with colonial legacies.

            Once a foreign national attains naturalization, they gain the privilege of acquiring any property or land in Mauritius, including sea-front properties. Taking into consideration the relatively modest requirement of $5 million and a mere two-year timeline to become a naturalized Mauritian citizen, it becomes unsurprising that the composition of Mauritius may gradually resemble that of Madagascar, where most cultivated land is foreign-owned.₃₇ Although research on the impact of foreign investment on post-colonial countries is limited, Mauritian researchers, in collaboration with Brooks et al., present compelling arguments regarding the detrimental consequences, including the eventual “pricing out” and displacement of locals from prime land, as seen in their study of IRS and RES schemes, which are foreign investment and luxury urbanization initiatives that predate the Smart Cities Scheme.

            Delving into the demographics of Smart City investors, it is crucial to identify the individuals incentivized to invest in Mauritius. Insights from Macek, Jerman, & Horvat reveal that “not all focus group participants attribute significant importance to smart solutions in their investments. Their primary concern remains the return on investment rather than the societal and environmental impact.”₃₈ This finding prompts us to question the implications for Mauritian society. How are Mauritians benefiting from investors who prioritize financial returns over their investment’s impact on the society they are ostensibly integrating into? The long-term ramifications of a scheme implemented by a government that grants citizenship to investors of a particular class are also uncertain. Although immigration to Mauritius is ethnically diverse, the majority of expatriates originate from France and South Africa, according to the most recent population census in Mauritius_.39

The Smart Cities Scheme necessitates a reconsideration that takes the multi-ethnic context of Mauritius into account, adopting a Mauritian-centric approach that is considerate of the non-white population. While the recontextualization and revision of the scheme may not immediately affect the upcoming twelve smart cities, this comparative analysis with Puerto Rico’s Act 20/22 aspires to influence policies currently centered on economic gain at the expense of non-elite citizens. The deeply entrenched power structures rooted in decades of colonization must acknowledge the potential pitfalls of misinvesting in Smart Cities to prevent causing more harm than good. This entails decentering colonial paradigms and recognizing the existing structures that certain segments of the population cannot benefit from.




FINAL REMARKS

We have engaged with numerous architects and contractors who have readily accepted proposals from Act 20/22 beneficiaries or projects under the Mauritian Smart City Scheme. While financial opportunities are persuasive, they prompt a crucial ethical inquiry into the practitioner’s role and the broader architectural profession’s responsibilities. This ethical contemplation extends to questioning the social impact of such projects and whether architects should exercise discernment in accepting, or declining them. Furthermore, it raises the issue of who, aside from a select group of scholars, planners and unconstrained designers, is actively scrutinizing the implications of these urbanization initiatives.

In recognizing the need for a more comprehensive perspective, it becomes evident that a crossdisciplinary call to action is not only relevant but also more achievable when bolstered by a network of solidarity. Critical practice within the realms of design, architecture, urban planning, and law has played a significant role in shaping the existing built environment and land distribution. However, it has often occurred without due consideration of power dynamics and the socio-political tensions entwined with land.

Consequently, this call to action necessitates a reevaluation of policies, schemes, and acts that have perpetuated long-standing colonial systems, as exemplified by the ones under discussion. It advocates for a practice that, instead of merely constructing physical structures, focuses on the thoughtful design of procedural interactions. Moreover, it compels us to scrutinize the intricate nature of the public/private binary concerning land ownership and assess who stands to benefit from this arrangement at every scale.

To what extent does the Smart Cities Scheme genuinely prioritize foreign investments for the advancement of smart solutions, and to what degree does it rely on foreign investment as a means to enhance the well-being of the Mauritian population? How do our two islands, each shaped by distinct colonial histories, find themselves subjected to dominant Act/Scheme strategies that, as argued, may hold a future of adversity for the working-class residents? 

While we have acknowledged the advantages of the Puerto Rican Act 20/22 (Act 60) and the Mauritian Smart Cities Scheme, our endeavor has been to explore the potential drawbacks, which, as elucidated, possess inherent colonial undertones. As individuals deeply connected to the cultures and aspirations of Puerto Rico and Mauritius, we approach the examination of these Acts and the Scheme from an intimately informed perspective. Our aim is to stimulate reflection among policymakers and investors, encouraging them to reconsider these policies with the well-being of local communities, like ours, at the forefront of their considerations.

In our research endeavor and the pursuit of reconciliation, we theorize that this dilemma revolves around issues of sovereignty. Our essay seeks to delve into the complexities surrounding land use conflicts stemming from fragmented sovereignties, a legacy of colonial control. Sociologist Diane Davis provides valuable insights into these intricate dynamics, framing them within a spectrum of global, national, regional, and urban sovereignty. When we apply this framework to urban spaces, it draws attention to territorial areas that may find themselves subject to control or dominance by entities beyond nation-states, such as cities or other localized domains.₄₀

Furthermore, Davis prompts us to grapple with the critical question of whether strategies to reduce risk by enforcing resilience at one of these scales might negatively affect another. For Puerto Rico and Mauritius, instigating a discourse on the matter of sovereignty assumes paramount significance. This discourse unveils intricate interconnections across various scales and resonates with other nations in the Caribbean and the Indian Ocean grappling with analogous constraints. By adopting this analytical framework, stakeholders gain the capacity to scrutinize and amplify the often-intangible external forces that exert influence on urbanization processes, such as those witnessed in the Puerto Rican Act 20/22 (Act 60) and the Mauritian Smart Cities Scheme.

While our study refrains from drawing definitive conclusions regarding specific remedies or preventive measures for the discussed challenges, one thing remains evident: a series of amendments are requisite to pave the way for transitional justice. These amendments are envisioned as essential steps toward fostering more equitable and financially robust cities that can confidently assert their urban sovereignty.

Since there is not enough substantial research on the humanistic and social effects of Smart Cities, we are trying to warn against the effects of rapid development and social consequences of such a hike in foreign emergence, fiscal influx, and power. In the case of Puerto Rico, the lack of sovereignty opens opportunities for the privileged to take advantage of the available land. There must be social mobilizations to avoid the subsequent suppression of disenfranchised inhabitants and the foreseeable expropriation of natives through coercive methods. 

Comparing Puerto Rico and Mauritius alike reminds us that neo-liberal capitalist forces have acquired a globalized force upon less advantaged nations. It is no coincidence that we mended both our research: the neo-colonial evidence we respectively found and the similarities in the consequences of unconscionable development called upon us to expose and warn the public. In attempting to outline our homes’ endangered developments, we also resulted in a cross-oceanic network of solidarity from the Indian Ocean to the Caribbean and one that we hope builds agency for other scholars and activists. Based on the above and stated questions, our culturally intimate recommendations for both of our countries is a call to action for a more social analysis of the Puerto Rican Act 20/22 (Act 60) and the Mauritian Smart Cities Scheme, all before it is too late to enact or retract policies that could further a neo-colonial agenda that favors the privileged above the working-class citizens that have built up both islands. 

The exploration of whether the guiding principle of “progress” in post-conflict city planning warrants a fundamental reevaluation necessitates a nuanced and multi-scalar approach to policy analysis, underpinned by a series of critical questions. Commencing with an examination of the historical trajectory of planning endeavors across diverse contexts, including those marred by modern forms of colonialism, the inquiry delves into how the pursuit of progress has historically molded urban development and exerted an enduring influence on communities. By scrutinizing specific case studies, the investigation unearths both success narratives and instances where progress may have inadvertently exacerbated extant issues or perpetuated entrenched inequalities.

Incorporating community engagement into the decision-making fabric, particularly among those directly impacted by these measures, solicits invaluable perspectives on the nuanced conceptions of progress and the imaginative realm of resilient responses to multifaceted challenges. Collaboration with interdisciplinary experts, spanning urban planning, sociology, environmental science, and political science, underscores the depth and breadth of perspectives that inform the elusive notion of progress. However, community engagement should stand above all the aforementioned. This can take various forms: Community Working Groups, Community Partners, and Technical Advisory Groups that participate in the decision-making process. 

The analysis extends to the realm of environmental challenges, with a keen focus on natural calamities, rising sea levels, extreme meteorological events, and resource scarcity, each potentially altering the landscape and presenting opportunities to recalibrate relationships with land. Concurrently, disaster preparedness extends its purview to encompass not only physical resilience but also strategies to counter coercive land transactions like the ones triggered by these measures. After a climatic disaster, land becomes susceptible to being bet on, while landowners become financially vulnerable and desperate to accept speculators’ offers. 

This takes us to examine economic precarity and how this entails a meticulous evaluation of the efficacy of economic development policies, including those under scrutiny while contemplating the feasibility of alternative economic models such as community cooperatives and sustainable agriculture to engender greater economic stability. These already exist in both islands but need better support from the state.

Consequently, the social fabric comes under scrutiny to unravel vulnerabilities, ranging from disparities in land access and homeownership. Simultaneously, strategies are devised to fortify social equity and inclusivity, potentially through targeted social interventions and the promotion of affordable housing initiatives, instead of building new developments for the highest bidder. 

An in-depth analysis confronts the role of the state in precipitating risks for marginalized communities, parsing the impact of governmental policies on vulnerability indices and discerning opportunities for policy reforms. This comprehensive exploration inexorably traverses the interplay between political instability and post-conflict city planning, dissecting the contributions of governance structures, political institutions, and civic engagement in the cultivation of political resilience, which in this case have been exercised as radical resistance towards the state inefficiency to represent citizens’ rights. 

Acknowledging the often-overlooked but profound implications, attention is directed toward addressing the traumatic toll on communities through the provision of mental health support, community-driven healing initiatives, and the creation of spaces conducive to dialogue and reconciliation vis-à-vis these policies. The iterative process entails a continual juxtaposition of outcomes stemming from progress-centric city planning against alternative paradigms that prioritize communal well-being, cultural preservation, and environmental sustainability.

Ultimately, predicated on research findings and community input, the synthesis of policy recommendations materializes, delineating a nuanced, holistic approach that accounts for the critical reappraisal of progress and the advancement of resilience in the face of multifarious challenges. Such a nuanced inquiry facilitates a profound interrogation of whether “progress” remains a viable paradigm for post-conflict city planning, prompting essential questions such as “What is progress, and for whom?” This approach concurrently cultivates the blueprint for the development of resilient responses capable of navigating environmental transformations, mitigating precarity, alleviating vulnerability, mitigating state-induced risks, and addressing political instability, all while attending to the traumatic aftermath of policies affecting communities marked by modern forms of colonialism.

➔ Return to:
Capetillo: Revista para tallerear futuros



Kenismael Santiago-Pagán and       Shane Ah-Siong, “Cross-Oceanic [Post] Colonial Implications: The Puerto Rican Act 20/22 (Act 60) and Mauritian Smart Cities Scheme,” Capetillo: Revista para tallerear futuros No. 1, (2025), 10-19.


Notes

    1. Settler logic is the colonial framework that justifies the displacement, elimination, and replacement of Indigenous peoples to establish and sustain settler sovereignty over land and resources. Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1), 1-40.
    2. The Government of Puerto Rico. Act No. 20 to Promote the Export of Services. Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico. San Juan: 2012
    3. The Government of Puerto Rico. Act No. 22 Act to Promote the Transfer of Investors to Puerto Rico.
Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico. San Juan: 2012.
    4. Morazzani, Jorge, and Jose Osorio. “Income Tax Exemption Granted to Nonresidents Who Establish Domicile within a Specified Timeframe.” Global Watch International Assignment Services. 2012.
    5. Estudios Técnicos Inc. “Performance of Incentives Programs [Act 20-2012] [Act 22-2012].” San Juan Puerto Rico. 2019.
    6. The Board of Directors of Invest Puerto Rico. “Invest Puerto Rico.” Investpr.org. target="_blank">Investpr.org. 2019.
    7. La Roche, Julia. “This New Puerto Rican Law Makes Wealthy People Want to Move There To Avoid Taxes.” Insider. 2013.
    8. Marino, John. “Law 22 Attracting Millionaire Investors to Puerto Rico.” Caribbean Business. 2013.
    9. Valentín Ortiz, Luis J., Joel Cintrón Arbasetti, and Dalila M. Olmo López. “Fracasa La Excención Contributiva De La Ley 22.” Centro de Periodismo Investigativo. 2021.
    10. Givenski, Bob. “OpEd: Puerto Rico Real Estate Market Takes Pause during COVID-19.” News in My Business. 2020.
    11. Bowels, Nellie. “Making a Crypto Utopia in Puerto Rico.” New York Times. 2018.
    12. Salverda, Tijo. “Who Belongs to the Elite? Insights from the Study of the Franco-Mauritians.” Zeitschrift Für Ethnologie (ZfE) / Journal of Social and Cultural Anthropology (JSCA) 141 (1): 123–42. 2016.
    13. Deerpaul, Vivekah. “Smart City Schemes Are Contributing to Homelessness in Mauritius.” Africa at LSE, August. 2022.
    14. Salverda, Tijo. “Who Belongs to the Elite? Insights from the Study of the Franco-Mauritians.” Zeitschrift Für Ethnologie (ZfE) / Journal of Social and Cultural Anthropology (JSCA) 141 (1): 123–42. 2016
    15. Puri, A. “What Are Smart Cities?” The Hindu, August. 2014.
    16. Gavin. “Smart City: Smart Story? - Smart City Hub.” Smart City Hub - Cutting Edge Intelligence For Smart City Leaders, June 24, 2022.
    17. Economic Development Board Mautitius. “Smart Mauritius.” 2020.
    18. Gorini, Maria. “What Exactly Is a Smart City?” Blog de Bismart, Data Analysis, Business Intelligence, IA, Big Data. October 2023.
    19. Arouff, Jean Paul. “Ex-Mauritius PM Ramgoolam Arrested in Conspiracy Probe.” Reuters, February.
2015.
    20. Ah-Vee, Alain. “All the Dangers Lurking Behind the ‘Smart Cities’ Strategy.” Lalit Mauritius, December. 2015.
    21. Klein, Naomi. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. 1st ed. New York City: Metropolitan Books Henry Holt and Company. 2007.
    22. Economic Development Board Mautitius. “Smart Mauritius.” 2020.
    23. Groëme-Harmon, Aline. “Smart Cities: Le Club Des 12.” Lexpress.Mu. target="_blank">Lexpress.Mu. 2021.
    24. Economic Development Board Mautitius. “Smart Mauritius.” 2020.
    25. Ah-Vee, Alain. “All the Dangers Lurking Behind the ‘Smart Cities’ Strategy.” Lalit Mauritius, December. 2015.
    26. Farny, Elisabeth. “Dependency Theory: A Useful Tool for Analyzing Global Inequalities Today?” University of Leicester, November. 2016.
    27. Zoomers, Annelies. “Globalisation and the Foreignisation of Space: Seven Processes Driving the
Current Global Land Grab.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 37 (2): 429–47. 2010 .
    28. Le Petitcorps, Colette. Desille, Amandine. “La Colonialité Du Pouvoir Aujourd’hui: Approches Par l’étude Des Migrations.” Migrations Société 182 (4). 2020.
    29. Salveda, Tijo. “Embodied Signs of Elite Distinction:Franco-Mauritians’ White Skin-Colour in the Face of Change.” Brill: Comparative Sociology 10 (4): 54870. 2011.
    30. Schinkel, Willem. “Against ‘Immigrant Integration’: For an End to Neocolonial Knowledge Production.” Comparative Migration Studies 6 (31). 2018.
    31. The Government of Mauritius. “Mauritian Sugar Industry Efficiency Act 20/2001 - Part V: Land Conversion.” 2001.
    32. The Government of Mauritius. “Mauritian Sugar Industry Efficiency Act 20/2001 - Part V: Land Conversion.” 2001.
    33. Porter, Libby, and Oren Yiftachel. 2019. “Urbanizing Settler-Colonial Studies: Introduction to the Special Issue.” Settler Colonial Studies 9 (2): 177–86. 2019.
    34. Mauritius Truth and Justice Commission. “Report of Truth and Justice Commission.” 2011.
    35. Deerpaul, Vivekah. “Smart City Schemes Are Contributing to Homelessness in Mauritius.” Africa at LSE, August. 2022.
    36. Porter, Libby, and Oren Yiftachel. 2019. “Urbanizing Settler-Colonial Studies: Introduction to the Special Issue.” Settler Colonial Studies 9 (2): 177–86. 2019.
    37. Brooks, Chris. Lamport, Matthew. Padachi, Kesseven. Sannassee, Vinesh. Seetah, Keshav. Seetanah, Boopen. “The Impact of Foreign Real Estate Investment on Land Prices: Evidence from Mauritius.” Wiley. March. 2017.
    38. Maček, Anita. Jerman, Majcen. Bobek Vito, Suzana. and Horvat, Tatjana. “Smart City Concept in Mauritius.” Journal of Innovative Business and Management 1 (12): 18–25. 2020.
    39. The Government of Mauritius. Mauritius Census 2011.
    40. Davis, Diane. “City, Nation, Network: Shifting Territorialities of Sovereignty and Urban Violence in Latin America.” Urban Planning 5 (3): 206–16. 2020.

References
    Ah-Vee, Alain. “All the Dangers Lurking Behind the ‘Smart Cities’ Strategy.” Lalit Mauritius, December. 2015.
    Arouff, Jean Paul. “Ex-Mauritius PM Ramgoolam Arrested in Conspiracy Probe.” Reuters, February. 2015.
    Bowels, Nellie. “Making a Crypto Utopia in Puerto Rico.” New York Times. 2018.
    Brooks, Chris. Lamport, Matthew. Padachi, Kesseven. Sannassee, Vinesh. Seetah, Keshav. Seetanah, Boopen. “The Impact of Foreign Real Estate Investment on Land Prices: Evidence from Mauritius.” Wiley. March. 2017.
    Davis, Diane. “City, Nation, Network: Shifting Territorialities of Sovereignty and Urban Violence in Latin America.” Urban Planning 5 (3): 206–16. 2020.
    Deerpaul, Vivekah. “Smart City Schemes Are Contributing to Homelessness in Mauritius.” Africa at LSE, August. 2022.
    Economic Development Board Mauritius. “Smart Mauritius Brochure.” 2020.
Economic Development Board Mautitius. “Smart Mauritius.” 2020.
    Estudios Técnicos Inc. “Performance of Incentives Programs [Act 20-2012] [Act 22-2012].” San Juan Puerto Rico. 2019.
    Farny, Elisabeth. “Dependency Theory: A Useful Tool for Analyzing Global Inequalities Today?” University of Leicester, November. 2016.
    Gavin. “Smart City: Smart Story? - Smart City Hub.” Smart City Hub - Cutting Edge Intelligence For Smart City Leaders, June 24, 2022.
    Givenski, Bob. “OpEd: Puerto Rico Real Estate Market Takes Pause during COVID-19.” News in My Business. 2020.
    Gorini, Maria. “What Exactly Is a Smart City?” Blog de Bismart, Data Analysis, Business Intelligence, IA, Big Data. October 2023.
    Groëme-Harmon, Aline. “Smart Cities: Le Club Des 12.” Lexpress.Mu. 2021.
    Klein, Naomi. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. 1st ed. New York City: Metropolitan Books Henry Holt and Company. 2007.
    Maček, Anita. Jerman, Majcen. Bobek Vito, Suzana. and Horvat, Tatjana. “Smart City Concept in Mauritius.” Journal of Innovative Business and Management 1 (12): 18–25. 2020.
    Marino, John. “Law 22 Attracting Millionaire Investors to Puerto Rico.” Caribbean Business. 2013.
    Mauritius Truth and Justice Commission. “Report of Truth and Justice Commission.” 2011.
    Morazzani, Jorge, and Jose Osorio. “Income Tax Exemption Granted to Nonresidents Who Establish Domicile within a Specified Timeframe.” Global Watch International Assignment Services. 2012.
    Le Petitcorps, Colette. Desille, Amandine. “La Colonialité Du Pouvoir Aujourd’hui : Approches Par l’étude Des Migrations.” Migrations Société 182 (4). 2020.
    Porter, Libby, and Oren Yiftachel. 2019. “Urbanizing Settler-Colonial Studies: Introduction to the Special Issue.” Settler Colonial Studies 9 (2): 177–86. 2019.
    Puri, A. “What Are Smart Cities?” The Hindu, August. 2014.
    La Roche, Julia. “This New Puerto Rican Law Makes Wealthy People Want to Move There To Avoid Taxes.” Insider. 2013.
    Salveda, Tijo. “Embodied Signs of Elite Distinction:Franco-Mauritians’ White Skin-Colour in the Face of Change.” Brill: Comparative Sociology 10 (4): 54870. 2011.
    Salverda, Tijo. “Who Belongs to the Elite? Insights from the Study of the Franco-Mauritians.” Zeitschrift Für Ethnologie (ZfE) / Journal of Social and Cultural Anthropology (JSCA) 141 (1): 123–42. 2016.
    Schinkel, Willem. “Against ‘Immigrant Integration’: For an End to Neocolonial Knowledge Production.” Comparative Migration Studies 6 (31). 2018.
    The Board of Directors of Invest Puerto Rico. “Invest Puerto Rico.” Investpr.org. 2019.
    The Government of Mauritius. “Mauritian Sugar Industry Efficiency Act 20/2001 - Part V: Land Conversion.” 2001.
    The Government of Mauritius. Mauritius Census 2011. 2011.
    The Government of Puerto Rico. Act No. 20 to Promote the Export of Services. Legislative Assembly of
Puerto Rico. San Juan: 2012
    The Government of Puerto Rico. Act No. 22 Act to Promote the Transfer of Investors to Puerto Rico. Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico. San Juan: 2012.
    Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1), 1-40.
    Valentín Ortiz, Luis J., Joel Cintrón Arbasetti, and Dalila M. Olmo López. “Fracasa La Excención Contributiva De La Ley 22.” Centro de Periodismo Investigativo. 2021.
    Zoomers, Annelies. “Globalisation and the Foreignisation of Space: Seven Processes Driving the Current Global Land Grab.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 37 (2): 429–47. 2010