Abstract
Carolyn T. Adams provides a knowledgeable and compassionate perspective of the City of Philadelphia. Equipped with deep familiarity and a critical mind, Adams uses Philadelphia as a case study to tell the story of modern urban America. The book would be of great interest to scholars of public administration, urban geographers, urban sociologists, as well as nonprofit students. This complex book tells the story of urban blight, dwindling municipal influence and resources, and over-reliance on a variety of quasi-governmental, private, and nonprofit actors that ultimately determined and paved the way for urban development in the past 15 years. Mayors in Philadelphia and City Council members cannot on their own rejuvenate and reverse years of decline and are thus forced to bridge the city with the suburbs and the state. It is a complex duality between key local politicians and influential outside players that determines what and when will be developed. When local mayors, especially entrepreneurial mayors, realize that their time in office is short and resources are almost entirely committed, one of the only recourses left to them is to bring in outside organizations and money. According to Adams, in the process, the city compromises with the preferences of outside participating actors to the detriment of the citizenry.
This book provides many examples of external players and independent bodies carrying out development projects. In doing so, it raises a critical question regarding the ability of modern American cities to govern their affairs. The reliance on outsiders compromises the basic principles of local democracy. Residents’ wishes and city council priorities are both stifled by empty coffers. Those that are called to fill the gap, such as regional authorities, the state, wealthy private individuals, foundations, large nonprofit organizations, and private firms, can be viewed as villains who force their way on the City or as saviors answering the call to save it. Adams most often sees them as villains.
Adams contends that with the weakening of city government, the influence and power of regionalism grows. The suburbs and the state see Philadelphia as important, they wish the city to prosper, they have the resources, and they shape development in the city as they see fit. Hence, the title of the book From the Outside In. Adams states in the introduction, “This book presents evidence from greater Philadelphia to show how outside actors from the suburbs and from state government have intervened during the past fifteen years to redevelop the central city in ways that bolster the region” (p. 3). These actors invest mostly in the Center City district and a few other specific areas that are important for the region as a whole but not necessarily for Philadelphians. According to Adams, there are two big losers from this regionalism: The municipal government is weakened and the rest of the city—not part of Center City—is neglected. Indeed, Philadelphia’s last three mayors show preferences for Center City development, some intentionally and some reluctantly. In each of these three mayoral elections, some candidates proclaimed to represent other neighborhoods, but none of them were elected or came close to being elected.
The chapters that deal with Philadelphia developments in the past 15 years may seem irrelevant to many readers. Yet they provide essential information surrounding the big players that have shaped Philadelphia’s past and future. Readers from other cities would probably be able, though, to find comparable local examples for similar projects in their own cities—state-related authorities that carried out major land developments (rail, port, and roads) and other local developments (arts, science buildings, and educational facilities) done by universities, museums, and hospitals. Surprisingly, Adams does not discuss the private sector’s impact on the city through new towers like the one built in Center City by Comcast. Without the impact of private corporations and entrepreneurs, Adams’s claim that independent bodies (“third-sector organizations” in Adams’s language) are unique in influencing the city’s development presents only part of the full picture of the forces that decimate the role of democracy at the municipal level.
Adams refers to the many bodies that influence the city as “third-sector organizations.” In her words, I argue that the geographical shift in influence is directly related to the shift in sectoral boundaries; it is the proliferation of Third-Sector entities blending private and public resources that has made possible the expanding influence exerted by outsiders on the city’s infrastructure. (p. 10)
She further claims that “By assuming leadership positions in nonprofit institutions, public corporations, and quasi-public authorities, they are influencing the future development of the city . . .” (p. 9). In a later chapter, she demonstrates that a large proportion of the board members of these organizations come from the suburbs, mostly from affluent Montgomery County. By referring to all these as “third-sector organizations,” Adams is lumping together many types of organizations. The perception of the three sectors as distinct and totally separate from each other is long overdue for a correction. We know that way more hybrid organizations exist than pure ones. Furthermore, many of the organizations that are described in the book are not really third-sector organizations but are hybrids of public entities. Adams is aware of this imprecise labeling and acknowledges that organizations such as the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA, which runs all commuter rail, busses, and trolleys in the city) are not nonprofit organizations. Yet she keeps her criticism focused on third-sector organizations. It would have been more accurate to label all these organizations as “non-municipal organizations,” a term that is closer to the key thesis of the book regarding the demise of local public control in city affairs.
When reading Adams’s book, it becomes clear that there are several important reasons for the reliance on many “non-municipal organizations.” First and foremost is the city’s inability to carry out major projects on its own. The city is poor. For decades, affluent residents moved to the suburbs along with their tax money. The city’s school system is broken, and too many people are in jail. To carry out innovative and transformative projects such as the paving of I-676 that eases access from New Jersey or the formation of an arts center that can attract tourists and suburbanites, the city needs partners. Banks were and still are reluctant to loan money to the city. The options faced by Philadelphia leaders are stagnation or network governance. By bringing in the state, quasi-public authorities, foundations, rich donors, and the universities, mayors in Philadelphia introduced vitality to their city. I cannot believe, for example, that the reemergence of Northern Liberties (a reimagined industrial area along the Delaware River east of downtown) as a good place to hang out and live would have happened without outsiders’ heavy interference in City affairs. Another reason mayors favored working with outside organizations is their ability to meet deadlines, not to be paralyzed by labor unions, and relative simplicity of decision making. Furthermore, these many actors are not limited by the need to maintain and repair. Public officials in most cities are forced to spend large sums of money on maintaining streets, parks, public buildings, libraries, and so forth. These non-municipal authorities and actors, with few exceptions like SEPTA, are not charged with maintenance of decaying infrastructures and can focus all their resources and attention on new projects. Finally, these authorities and other powerful actors are not limited by election results or term limits. They can plan and operate long-term and carry out their visions even when administrations change. Philadelphia’s mayors’ horizons are limited by the 8-year term-limit while the “non-municipal organizations” are more patient and can afford long-term approaches. For many American city leaders at the early part of the 21st century, these are luxuries that cannot be easily ignored. One can hope that affluent people will flock to big cities, and the tax base will be enhanced to the point of allowing local elected officials to retake control of the city’s development. The view for the near future is not optimistic.
Was it much different in the past? Outsiders have always shaped Philadelphia’s history. Historically, the city’s financial leaders and the city’s shapers came to work from the commuter suburbs along the Pennsylvania Railroad’s Main Line in Montgomery County and went back to their homes along the Main Line after conducting their businesses in Center City. Furthermore, as Digby Baltzell (1979) demonstrated, from the days of Benjamin Franklin and Stephen Girard down to the present time, self-made men who were born outside of Pennsylvania often carried out Philadelphia’s leadership. Similarly, Bass Warner (1987) documented that the trend in Philadelphia to rely on and form new associations to solve problems is two centuries old. Yet I strongly agree with Adams that, currently, our democracy is further weakened by relying on big money and on the interests of large outside organizations. When the city is poor, it becomes reactive, while new initiatives come from other players that can push their own agenda before that of the city.
Adams may have taken a radical approach in her criticism of the non-municipal players, but she sheds a crucial light on a process that is seldom documented and almost never discussed. Most nonprofit scholars who are interested in public–private relationships focus on contracting out. Hundreds of studies have been conducted on nonprofit organizations that rely on public contracts and substitute for the government in supplying services. This scholarly field is important and constantly in flux. Adams looked at the public–private relationships from the opposite angle. She studied rich and influential nonprofit organizations (mostly foundations and universities) as well as many quasi-governmental authorities that controlled needed resources and shaped local development. She looked at the city’s government as the disadvantaged partner. This is an original viewpoint and one that should be taken very seriously. Adams opened a new line of research that portrays city government both as a leader and follower. There are very few books that kept me thinking even days after I finished them; this is one such book.