Abstract
Jerome Hodos presents a detailed and engaging portrait of the development of two industrial cities – Manchester and Philadelphia – in the wake of globalization and their longtime roles as what he calls ‘second cities’. He tells the stories of these two cities through a series of illuminating examples – for example, Manchester’s manipulation of the global cotton industry, and Philadelphia’s railroad race over the Appalachians – that demonstrate how they sought to become premier cities, while nonetheless existing in the shadows of London and New York. But, in considering what this book is really about, perhaps the title and subtitle should have been reversed – Manchester and Philadelphia: Globalization and Local Politics in Second Cities. This book is, first and foremost, a comparative and historical case study of the two cities, with a particular focus on the 19th century. As an urban biography, its attention to detail and narrative coherence are on a par with works like Cronon’s Nature’s Metropolis. In contrast, the theoretical development of the ‘second city’ as a new concept in globalization plays a more minor role. To be sure, there is much to like about the idea of second cities, but as a contribution to the theory of cities and globalization, it raises at least as many questions as it answers.
The biographies of these cities begin not after they had emerged as industrial centers, as a specifically economic history might, but much earlier with their common 17th-century origins as destinations for radical, dissenting Protestants. Following Weber, Hodos argues that this set both Philadelphia and Manchester down the path of industriousness and industrialism, although via markedly different routes. Manchester emerged as the world’s cottonopolis, but within a political context of virtual impotence; the city did not receive its charter and autonomous local control until 1841. In contrast, Philadelphia served as an early political and banking center, but later shed these functions following bank failures and political fragmentation, retaining only its industrial (manufacturing, primarily in textiles and shipbuilding) functions. Hodos views this focus on manufacturing, which both cities acquired early in their development and have maintained to the present, as one of the hallmarks of a second city, distinguishing them from finance-focused cities like New York or London.
From these origins, Hodos then traces how developments in four domains – migration, innovation, infrastructure, and cultural events – placed Philadelphia and Manchester in, though not at the center of, a global network of cities. In the case of migration, these cities never played the role of gateways for foreign immigrants, but instead occupied more internal positions in an urban network, fueled by the domestic migration of minorities. Similarly, the development of transportation infrastructure allowed Philadelphia and Manchester to participate in, but not dominate, global exchanges of commodities. For example, although the Erie Canal provided New York businesses with access to territory west of the Appalachians first and thereby sealed New York’s preeminence, the Pennsylvania Railroad nonetheless allowed Philadelphia to compete with other cities (e.g. Baltimore, Boston) for a seat at the table. And, in both the 19th and 20th centuries, large-scale cultural events offered these cities an opportunity to attract global attention. Manchester, for example, by hosting the largest art exhibition to date (in 1857) and by securing bids for the 1996 and 2000 Olympics and 2002 Commonwealth Games, showed the world that it could compete, perhaps not with London, but with Barcelona and Florence as a cultural center.
These examples do not tell a wholly new story. The creation of an urban hierarchy through information and banking has been recounted by Pred (1973) and Conzen (1977); the story of the Pennsylvania Railroad mirrors the story of the Chicago-Alton-St Louis Railroad told by Cronon (1991); and Zukin (1995) among countless others have examined the role of arts-based redevelopment in placemaking. Indeed, more broadly, the existence of second tier cities that serve distinctly different functions is a cornerstone of central place theory. Through these case studies, Hodos does not so much tell a completely new story as much as he carefully weaves several existing stories together into a coherent narrative about the formation of two specific places. This is one of the book’s central strengths, for which Hodos is to be commended, and which make this book an ideal complement to existing discussions like those noted above.
From this narrative, Hodos takes the initial steps toward defining second cities as a new theoretical type. Second cities, in his formulation, are distinguished by four characteristics: (1) an economy grounded in production rather than finance, (2) migration from internal rather than international sources, (3) middle-class and pragmatic cultural specializations, and (4) a second city identity expressed through cultural projects, local discourse, and comparisons with other places. At least as important as the theoretical explication of second cities, Hodos also introduces the concept of Municipal Foreign Policy (MFP), which he defines as ‘the efforts of cities, particularly city governments or the local state, to take action on their own behalf in search of greater global integration and global prominence or recognition’ (p. 15). The concept of MFP is important because it provides a way of thinking about how cities, as opposed to nation-states, can be actors in the process of globalization. Thus, it allows the development of a city-based approach to globalization that is independent of, and perhaps even a reaction to, world systems theory.
These theoretical innovations – second cities and MFP – are powerfully illustrated in the comparative case studies, but at the same time raise several additional questions. Perhaps the most obvious question raised by his notion of second cities is, second to what? That is, what is the appropriate comparison case when considering their second-ness? Throughout the book, Philadelphia and Manchester are compared to New York and London, as archetypal world cities. However, when it comes to world cities, New York and London are extreme outliers; any city, including those widely regarded as world cities in their own right like Tokyo or Paris, would appear secondary compared to NYLON. Philadelphia and Manchester may not look so different if compared to a more ‘average’ world city like Chicago. Related to this question, while Hodos clearly recognizes that cities can rise and fall in urban hierarchies, why do some places remain second cities while others rise above? For the bulk of its history, Chicago had all the characteristics of a second city: focus on production rather than finance (stockyards), dependence on internal migration (from the south), prominence through transportation infrastructure (canal and railroad), and identity through cultural projects (1893 world’s fair). Only in the last 20 years has anyone taken Chicago’s claims of world city status seriously. What accounts for the difference between Chicago and Philadelphia or Manchester, and more fundamentally, what is the difference?
The notion of MFP engages the age-old debate of structure versus agency, and in so doing, raises questions of its own. First, Hodos argues that ‘structuralist urban scholars tend to view cities as powerless in the face of globalization’ (p. 184). This seems to mischaracterize all but the most extreme structuralists, many of whom would contend that structure constrains, but does not determine, outcomes. Indeed, in his discussion of the role of transportation infrastructure networks, Hodos seems to subscribe to this perspective. Thus, it is important to ask: how do structural constraints shape cities’ ability to deploy MFP? More generally, however, viewing cities as actors with agency (for example, to deploy MFP) is potentially problematic. Although Hodos is careful to avoid reifying cities, and although he clarifies that when he speaks of the city as an actor he in fact has in mind city governments, he seems to confuse two levels of analysis. Claiming that a city’s agency resides in its government focuses attention on the city proper, while examples of MFP (e.g. airport expansion) focus attention on entire metropolitan regions that cross jurisdictional boundaries. Can cities really act, and if so, at what level?
In Second Cities, Hodos tells the story of two industrially focused cities as they confront a process of globalization in which they play neither central nor marginal, but secondary roles. As carefully woven urban biographies, those with an interest in (particularly 19th-century) urban development will find much to like. Additionally, he takes several important, but preliminary, steps toward a theory of second cities and municipal foreign policy. As a result, this book not only brings to life the contributions of Philadelphia and Manchester to the contemporary global urban system, but also opens the door for an exciting new way of thinking about cities in globalization more broadly.