intergovernmental collaboration in metropolitan areas: the case of the federalist americas
Post on 20-Feb-2016
35 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Intergovernmental Collaboration in Metropolitan Areas:
The Case of the Federalist Americas Robert H. Wilson
LBJ School of Public AffairsUniversity of Texas at Austin
andWoodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Washington, DC
Improving the Quality of Public ServicesA Multinational Conference
27-29 June 2011Moscow, Russia
Overview• Why metropolitan governance?• Policy challenges in the metropolis• Metropolitan growth in the Americas• Research questions and methods• The six federalist cases• Categorizing metropolitan initiatives • Dynamics of change: government reform and
geography
Policy Challenges in the Metropolis
• Wealth generation• Socio-economic diversity• Institutional complexity in local
government systems• Democratic governance• Geography and resource disparities
Metropolitan Growth in the Americas:The North and the South
Differences• Phasing of industrialization• Urban primacy
Commonalities• Conurbation process• Demographic slowdown• Migratory streams and growth of
second tier metropolitan areas• Increasing economic and social
heterogeneity
Research Questions
Are governance systems being constructed to meet the challenges of collective life in metropolitan areas?
What are the key characteristics of metropolitan initiatives?
What forms do metropolitan initiatives take and what policy areas addressed?
What factors, especially the national institutional context, shape the emergence and dynamics of these systems?
Research Method
• Comparative Case Studies - Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, the United States and Venezuela
• Exploratory and broad brush
• Applied policy research framework
Architecture of Governmental Structures
• Federalist vs Unitary Governments
• Creating new tiers
• Centralized vs decentralized structures
• Intergovernmental relations
The Six CasesCanada--Provincial governments are primary tier; relatively disposed to metropolitan initiatives
USA--State governments are central put federal government has role, highly fragmented local government structure
Brazil--Municipalities have constitutional recognition; despite some institutional weaknesses, consortia are common
Mexico--Dominate federal leadership; decentralization neglected state-local relations. Weak local governments, but being strengthened
Argentina--Weak local governments; provinces unlikely to decentralize; partisanship an impediment
Venezuela--Experience with strong municipalities but currently process of centralization
Metropolitan Initiatives, Institutions and the Country Context
Argentina Brazil Canada Mexico Venezuela USAFrequency of Initiatives Few Few but increasing Frequent Few, moderately
increasing Rare Frequent
Strength of municipalities/local governments
Weak Increasing strength Strong Modest increase Weak and weakening
Strong and highly fragmented
State/provincial government authority over local governments
Significant Limited Paramount Significant Marginal Paramount
Functional areas of state/provincial in local government interactions
Regulation of some intermunicipalservices
Manages some service systems-e.g. public transportation
Establishes powers of local government
Regulation of some intermunicipal services and finances
NA
Establishes powers of local government,fiscal equalization for public education
Political systems at local Level
Local political parties dependent on state parties
Local political competition; timid efforts with metropolitan legislative-like bodies
Competitive local politics; regional variation in political culture
Increasing competition in local politics, undermining effective metro-level government
National party tending to dominate local governments
Vast range of local political processes; regional variation in political culture
Other significant factors
High urban inequality
High urban inequality
Core-suburban conflicts
High urban inequality
High urban inequality
Core-suburban conflicts
Policy Focus and Organization Form of Initiatives
• Establishing categories• Frequency of use• Explaining choices within and between
countries
Frequencies of Metropolitan Initiatives by Policy Focus
Explaining Frequencies of Initiativesby Policy Focus
• Management of infrastructure system• Economies of scale in service delivery• Fiscal topography interferes with metropolitan
provision of redistributive policies (i.e. poor local governments and wealthy local governments in metropolitan area)
• Strength of local governments positively correlated with frequency of initiatives
Classification of Organization Form of Initiatives
• Collaborational—voluntary but enabled• Organizational—building on existing
structures • Institutional—creating new spaces for
government and the public
Frequency of Use of MetropolitanInitiatives, by Form and Country
Collaborational Organizational Institutional
Argentina ▫
Brazil Canada Mexico ▫
USA Venezuela a a
- Primary initiative(s) - Secondary initiative▫ - Absent; a - but only Caracas
Explaining Frequencies of Initiativesby Organizational Form
• As voluntary arrangements, collaborational initiatives require exercise of local leadership
• Organizational most likely when state/provincial governments extend authority. Affected by decentralization process
• Infrequent use of institutional initiatives reflects resistance of political systems
• Strength of local governments positively correlated with frequency of collaborational initiatives, but have limited public accountability features and not used for redistributive policies
Dynamics of Change
• Constitutional provisions and pressures for state reform
• Jurisdictional geography of local government
Constitutional Provisions and Pressures for State Reform
• Weak local governments undermine metropolitan collaboration
• Reform of the state and decentralization does not necessarily reach local governments
• Revising constitutions to permit metropolitan governance is not a promising option
• Intergovernmental incentives to induce collaboration• State and provincial governments must be engaged
Jurisdictional Geography of Metropolitan Areas by Country
Argentina Brazil Canada Mexico Venezuela USA
Large, single jurisdiction
Calgary, Ottawa, Quebec Ciudad Juárez Barquisimeto Houston, Miami
Polynucleated municipalities Mendoza
Porto AlegreSantosVitoria
Vancouver Toluca Portland
Dominant core with small adjacent municipalities
Cordoba Rosario
NatalSalvador
EdmontonMontrealWinnipeg
Maracaibo St. Louis
Dominant core with adjacent secondary-core municipalities
Buenos Aires
Belo Horizonte,Campinas
Recife Rio de Janeiro
São Paulo
Toronto Monterrey Guadalajara Caracas
New York City, Dallas-Fort Worth
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Federal districts Buenos Aires Brasilia Ottawa Mexico City Caracas Washington, DC
Jurisdictional Geography of Local Government
• The single municipality encompassing entire metropolitan area has significant advantages
• Tax base disparities across municipalities means metropolitan redistribution is unlikely
• Dominant jurisdiction with small neighbors may impede collaboration
• Multi-nucleated jurisdictions may enhance collaboration
• Multiple states and even multiple nations further complicates collaboration
• Presence of federal districts creates opportunity for more effective architecture but it is rarely realized
Conclusions• Metropolitan governance is following distinct paths across
the six countries but, in general, the challenges are not being met
• Urgent need to create structures that enable development of metropolitan-wide policy agendas, especially for policies affecting the spatial socio-economic disparities
• Local governments rarely achieve success acting on their own
• Given indifference on the part of most federal governments, state/provincial governments are key to creating incentives for metropolitan collaboration
top related