Empire on the Hudson: Entrepreneurial Vision and Political Power at the Port of New York Authority Book

Fascinating subject matter. After reading "The Box," on the containerization phenomenon, I looked everywhere to read more on the Port Authority. The Port Authority I knew from living in New York was slow, political, inefficient, and generally in the way of progress. Yet 'The Box' showed me an innovative institution that used its unique bi-state, independent status to spur development with efficient business practices.

I was surprised by the dearth of organizational biographies on the PA, and gave this book a chance despite the lack of quality endorsements/reviews I usually require.

I found 'Empire on the Hudson' extremely disappointing. It reads like a 400-page undergraduate essay. The themes which the author continually brings up are obvious, poorly chosen, and add little to the analysis, which is, in itself, unsophisticated and onerous.

The story arc of the Port Authority is cut woefully short by the author just as it -the actual story, not the book- gets interesting: I believe the last 50 years gets 20 or so pages of epilogue. You get a slice of the rise of this fascinating institution (though without the clarity that a political economist might add), and that's about it - the author quickly skips through the PA's decline in montage form before ending with a rumination on what about the PA made him warm and fuzzy.

It's hard to be too critical of the book, because I simply don't believe the author was equipped to give the Port Authority the treatment it deserves. He is clearly a fan of the PA and what it represents - apolitical technocratic progressivism. He is simply isn't able to provide the comparative analysis necessary to understand: what made the Port Authority special, where it succeeded, where it failed, and what lessons in political economy can be derived for the future. His analysis goes no deeper than: 1) apolitical is good, 2) technocratic is good, 3) provincialism is bad, and 4) cooperation is good.

(I can't leave out the cringe-worthy explanations he offers for reconciling the PA with democracy: the type of argument you have to apologize for if you happen to agree with the overall point. The author appears woefully ignorant of basic political theory, and ends up reinventing the wheel ... poorly ... like a square... )

Those hoping to learn lessons from this innovative institution should look elsewhere if at all possible, and if they find no alternative, prepare to brave through 400 tedious pages while collecting meager scraps of institutional characteristics and facts that you can later analyze on your own.

Two stars for scarcity.