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