Two other articles from the April 25, NYT offer an interesting comparison between the reaction to the need for aid after the 1906 SF earthquake and the need for aid after the 2005 NO/MS/AL hurricanes. For instance, without a large Federal Aid apparatus, private donations are the primary source of aid for the city. Without the federal government's apparatus, cities and states vie for the "honor" of having contributed the most.

The first article contains paragraph after paragraph of the amounts of money and in-kind contributions raised in cities across the northeast. This is somewhat similar to what we saw after Katrina - people delivering food, diapers, and clothes to the local Salvation Army post - but I don't recall seeing the same "running tally" for cities.

Could we expect to see such a statement in 2006?

Adolphus Busch of St. Louis, who gave $100,000 for the relief of San Francisco, declares that his city must toe the mark in better shape in the matter of financial assistance to the sufferers.

"St. Louis must contribute at least $1,000,000," he said last night, "or stand disgraced among the cities of the United States. If this amount is not raised, other cities will point the finger of scorn at us and say: `Stingy! Stingy!'"

Now, we point the finger at the folks in Washington, DC, and yell "Stingy! Stingy!" as the federal government has substituted their largess for what was once primarily privately funded. The political economy of this redirection of scorn is interesting.

The second article has the following headlines:

500,000 ADDED TO OUR AID FUND.

Local Gifts to San Francisco are now $2,500,000.

Nation's Fund, $14,000,000

More than $2,000,000 Pledged Yesterday - Chicago Gives $700,000, Boston and Philadelphia $500,000 Each.

The not so subtle inter-city rivalry displayed in the headline was almost completely absent during the Katrina aftermath. The 14 million is approximately $293 million in 2004 dollars - and this is less than one week after the event!

The article actually lists the names and amounts of contributions by individuals, companies, and associations. These numbers, if accurate, might provide for an interesting empirical piece. I have my TA coding the data, but here is a small snippet:

The incentives such reporting provide for those who want to see their name listed in the paper, or who might fear repercussions from those who DO NOT see their name in the paper, is also interesting.