Disaster, Order, and Prosperity: Comparing the Crescent City and the Empire City

Until recently social control, public order, and the comparative safety of the citizenry in various cities was a topic of concern only to a small cadre of historians, including Roger Lane, James F. Richardson, Erik Monkonnen, and Robert Fogelson.  Their assumptions have been that the organization of police, the definition of criminality, the changing nature of impropriety, and the evolution of punishment have been important but have not affected the comparative trajectory of cities themselves, whose fortunes have been determined mostly by geography, politics, transportation, technological innovation, and business entrepreneurship.

This paper hypothesizes that crime and the perception of order are in fact independent variables, and that the decline of some municipalities and the success of others has been in definable measure the result of a larger framework that ensures safety and security in the everyday personal world.  This analysis focuses on New York City, once the poster child of the uncontrollable urban jungle, and New Orleans, once favored by tourists and visitors because of a relaxed social, behavioral, and sexual attitude.  In the last quarter of the twentieth century, however, perceptions changed.  Gotham came to symbolize glamour, glitz, wealth, and safety, while New Orleans suffered under the public perception of a city out of control, where human life was not valued, politicians were routinely corrupt, and police were unreliable. Global comparisons will enter into this discussion. London and Singapore, for example, prospered as they became known for safety and order, while Moscow, Sao Paulo and Johannesburg, among others, went through periods of disinvestment and decline because visitors became fearful for their safety.   Thus, public order and private security became not just subjects of academic debate, but in fact explanations for differential property values, demographic shifts, and business development.