History and Second-Tier Cities

In a discussion of job-creation concerns in India and China, Ashok Bardhan delves into the development and shift to obscurity of cities (h/t Mark Thoma):

Many urban problems in emerging economies have deep historic roots, and Indian cities, in particular, are burdened by two unique legacies. The first has a colonial origin and concerns the location of major urban centers of modern India. Many ancient and medieval nations and empires were primarily land-based. This was true of the military campaigns of Alexander of Macedonia across the Eurasian heartland, or the territorial conquests of Genghis Khan. Many, if not most of the major cities of the time were in the hinterland, controlling access to strategic land assets and straddling vital trade routes. The Mughal Empire in India, or the successive Chinese dynasties, except for the dramatic oceanic adventures of Zheng He during the Ming period, were by and large inward looking and oriented to their vast hinterlands. The rise of seafaring colonial powers led to the development of large coastal cities like Bombay and Shanghai, serving both as the locus of colonial power and as entrepôts for trade.

The geographical distribution of major cities in pre-colonial versus colonial/post colonial India and elsewhere serves as a vivid illustration of how wrenching economic and political changes can affect the urban landscape. Thus appeared the relatively recent Bombays, Calcuttas and Hong Kongs, pushing aside the Agras (Agra, where the Taj Mahal is located, was a major city under the Mughal Empire) and the Kaifengs (one of many capitals of ancient and medieval China). Cities, however, are resilient, living historic monuments and while their prospects may wax and wane, even the neglected ones do not disappear entirely and gently “into that good night” under the churning and dislocating impact of modern economic development. That path dependence and history still matter is borne out by Delhi and Beijing, both historic hinterland cities, and which have retained their importance throughout the colonial and contemporary periods. In any case, it was the pattern of trade and linkages of the colonial periphery with the core that determined urban growth rather than any organic economic process from within. It is this pattern that has left scattered across India a series of second tier cities that present a challenge for urban development, as well as an opportunity to wean away people and resources from the megapolises and their diseconomies of agglomeration.

A question frequently posed at the conference was – Can second tier cities play a positive role, both directly in the urbanization process itself by attracting people from the countryside, but also in helping mitigate some of the overgrowth of the megacities? There is an interesting example right here in the US of “alternative urban centers” that were set up deliberately, albeit with a different set of objectives and in a different context. In 32 states in the US, the state capital is in a second tier city: Albany, Sacramento, Carson City, Salem, Olympia etc., thus separating geographically the economic and political seats of power. It turns out that, by and large, the location choice process was quite idiosyncratic, with differing compulsions and histories, and largely reflected the desire of rural elites to carve out their own sphere of influence. But perhaps a more interesting question is this – what economic impact did this process have historically by creating an alternative focus of urban agglomeration? Did urban and state performance differ over time across these two different sets of states?  The combination of immigration, conquest, and land settlement in the westward move across the US makes its urban history pretty much a unique case, but perhaps there is a lesson here for emerging economies to promote alternative urban centers, given how their main metros are huge agglomerations, and where most provinces/states have just one congested city that is the economic, political and cultural capital, all rolled into one.

I find the historical development of the United States and its cities to be extremely interesting.  As he mentions here, there was an east-to-west pattern in the U.S., but it was more complex and interesting than that.  For example, the eastern seaboard cities first developed as ports for the export of raw materials and the import of manufactured goods for the country.  Then they became the first industrial centers.  After that, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Louisville, St. Louis and New Orleans developed along the Ohio-Mississippi River system.  Then the opening of the Erie Canal made Buffalo a significant place. made San Francisco the principal city on the west coast. The gold rush The railroads made Chicago into a major city.  The steel and auto industries fueled the growth of Cleveland and Detroit into major cities.  Later came growth to Los Angeles, and later still, growth in the Mountain West and South.  It seems that transportation and agriculture first drove growth, then industry, then climate.  It is also interesting how immigration fed and followed such growth.  The waves of Scotch-Irish immigrants in the 1770's into the early 1800's settled in the Appalachian region and started immigrating into the Northwest Territory.  The Irish and Germans followed next, and settled both on the Eastern Seaboard and into the old Northwest, especially in the Cincinnati, Louisville and St. Louis area.  In the 1840's, with the potato famine and 1848 uprisings, these immigrants settled Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota.  By the 1890's through until immigration was limited in the 20's, Eastern Europeans and Italians settled in Chicago, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, South Bend, Toledo, Duluth and other regions which were centers of the auto and steel industries.  Those patterns and unique histories have always intrigued me.  When I hear that Buffalo, New York was the eighth largest city in the United States in 1900, I am intrigued.  What happened to make that change?  It is a fascinating subject to study, and since it is now much smaller, implies some lessons may be learned about the current growth in the South and West.