Download Presentation Title Here

Intergovernmental Collaboration in
Metropolitan Areas:
The Case of the Federalist Americas
Robert H. Wilson
LBJ School of Public Affairs
University of Texas at Austin
and
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Washington, DC
Improving the Quality of Public Services
A Multinational Conference
27-29 June 2011
Moscow, 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 Cases
Canada--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 statelocal 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
Frequency of
Initiatives
Few
Few but increasing
Frequent
Few, moderately
increasing
Rare
Strength of
municipalities/loca
l 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
intermunicipal
services
Manages some
service systemse.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
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
High urban
inequality
Core-suburban
conflicts
High urban
inequality
High urban
inequality
Core-suburban
conflicts
Political systems
at local Level
Local political
parties dependent
on state parties
Other significant
factors
High urban
inequality
USA
Frequent
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 Initiatives
by 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 Metropolitan
Initiatives, 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 Initiatives
by 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
Large, single
jurisdiction
Canada
Mexico
Calgary, Ottawa,
Quebec
Ciudad Juárez
Toluca
Venezuela
Barquisimeto
USA
Houston, Miami
Polynucleated
municipalities
Mendoza
Porto Alegre
Santos
Vitoria
Vancouver
Dominant core
with small
adjacent
municipalities
Cordoba
Rosario
Natal
Salvador
Edmonton
Montreal
Winnipeg
Toronto
Monterrey
Guadalajara
Caracas
New York City, Dallas-Fort
Worth
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Ottawa
Mexico City
Caracas
Washington, DC
Dominant core
with adjacent
secondary-core
municipalities
Buenos Aires
Belo Horizonte,
Campinas
Recife
Rio de Janeiro
São Paulo
Federal districts
Buenos Aires
Brasilia
Portland
Maracaibo
St. Louis
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