II: Metropolitan Governance Models

Transcription

1 Towards Effective Metropolitan Governance II: Metropolitan Governance Models Financed by 2 of 3 papers in a series produced by Larissa Ardis, M.R.M. for the Centre for Sustainable Community Development. Simon Fraser University. October 18, 2014

2 Metropolitan Governance Models * Classifying governance models according to some of their key distinguishing features helps us understand their diversity. Our typology below is adapted from that of LeFevre. 1 It classifies models as institutional or non- institutional, and roughly orders them from greater to lower levels of institutionalization, political legitimacy, control over its own financial resources, geographic extent, and sectoral complexity. We have broadened it somewhat to include consolidations through amalgamation and annexation, as well as less integrated, monosectoral approaches to metropolitan problems, because these are also widely used Institutional Models of Metropolitan Governance 1.1 One- tier governance results from the amalgamation or annexation of adjacent municipalities into a single governing body. It provides many services and is financed through user fees and taxes across the metropolitan area. 1.2 Two- tier (or supramunicipal) governance results from the introduction of a new tier of government, independent of existing local units. Its five key features are: a) political legitimacy through direct elections of decision- makers; b) a match between jurisdictional territory and functional territory; c) fiscal autonomy; d) relevant responsibilities and competences; and e) adequate staff to elaborate and implement policies. 3 Strong forms (comparatively rare) include all of these; weak forms only a few Intermunicipal joint authorities (IJAs) create new institutions that are dependent for financing and functioning on existing units of government (e.g. municipalities) in the metropolitan area. They are based on cooperation between these units. Cooperation may be voluntary or obligatory. There are at least four subtypes (explained below), based on the degree and nature of cooperation between them Metropolitan- wide IJAs are administered by indirectly elected boards (and thus lack political legitimacy) but show other key elements of two- tier governance, such as a close match between jurisdiction and functional area, their own financial resources, adequate funding, significant responsibilities, and adequate staffing Inframetropolitan intermunicipal IJAs are plurisectoral but cover only parts of the metropolitan area. They vary with respect to responsibilities, powers, and funding Monosectoral IJAs 5 with plurisectoral potential are metropolitan- wide, focus on one sector only, but show potential to move towards the administration of other policy sectors Special districts 6 are monosectoral IJAs established to deliver services across municipal boundaries, usually controlled indirectly by constituent municipal councils and focus on one policy sector only, such as waste management, transit, hospitals, or schools. They may involve many municipalities, but are not necessarily likely to take up administration of additional policy sectors. * This paper is one of three complementary condensed sections of a larger paper titled Towards Effective Metropolitan Governance. It is available in English from the author at larissa.ardis@gmail.com or the Centre for Sustainable Community Development at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada. 1

3 2. Non- Institutional Models of Metropolitan Governance Coordination of existing structures occurs through precise procedures and specific instruments, and is often found in areas without a metropolitan institution. 2.2 Formalized agreements are sometimes used to coordinate policies and voluntarily participating public actors. They are typically monosectoral or limited to specific purposes (such as infrastructure financing). The following table summarizes these types and provides examples of each. Footnotes lead readers to more information about selected examples. Metropolitan Governance Types and Examples Type Subtype Examples 1. Institutional 1.1 One- tier governments formed by amalgamation or annexation Toronto, 8 Bogotá, Caracas 1.2 Two- tier [ supramunicipal ] governments Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid, Intermunicipal joint authorities Metropolitan- wide intermunicipal joint authorities Inframetropolitan intermunicipal joint authorities Monosectoral intermunicipal joint authorities (with plurisectoral potential) Single- purpose districts Metropolitan District of Quito, Greater London Council, Greater London Authority, Metropolitan District of Portland 10 French Communautés urbaines (and communautés d agglomération 11 ) Communauté Métropolitaine of Montreal, São Paulo ABC region German transit federations known as Verkehrsverbund. 12 TransMilenio 13 in Bogotá, Colombia; Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 2. Non- Institutional 2.1 Coordination of existing structures Metropolitan Sydney, Australia Formalized agreements Italy s Acordi di Programma and territorial pacts; Berlin spatial planning. 15 2

4 Notes 1 LeFevre Note that this section does not consider urban areas that are so politically fragmented that they do not exhibit characteristics of governance beyond local boundaries, or efforts to roll back unsuccessful metropolitan structures (as in Winnipeg, Canada). 3 LeFevre LeFevre Note: The term special district is frequently used in the literature to describe monosectoral IJAs without reference to their potential to expand into additional policy sectors (e.g. Klink 2008; Bird and Slack 2008), and synonymously with single- purpose district or single- purpose special district (e.g. Slack and Bird 2008, Feiock 2004, Yaro and Ronderos 2011). 6 Mizany and Manatt 2005 offer an excellent overview of the diversity of special districts as they are understood in the U.S.A. Advantages and disadvantages of special districts are summarized in Slack and Bird 2013 pp Dowding and Feiock (2012) identify another form of governance which we do not consider in this paper due to limited research on occurrence and outcomes in metropolitan areas: policy network structures that emerge unplanned from interactions among institutional actors [and] coordinate complex decisions within formal structures. These are said to preserve full local autonomy, require no formal authority, and complement central authority. According to Dowding and Feiock, their development can be aided by federal and state programs. They indicate that formal authority structures in political systems rely on these informal, self- organized relationships for performance and stability to buffer the system from changing demands; network members interactions over time are said to help them identify reliable allies and build informal enforcement structures that facilitate cooperation across vertical and horizontal institutional boundaries. 8 For information about the effects of Toronto amalgamation, see Slack and Bird 2013, Boudreau et al. 2006, Sancton Cuadrado Roura and Fernández Güell 2008; LeFevre LeFevre Communities over 15,000 people with surrounding independent suburbs may become communautés d agglomeration, with fewer powers and eligibility for lower per- capita budget. 12 Belka 2009; LeFevre Bassett and Marpillero Colomina Acuto 2012; Dodson and Gleeson LeFevre

5 Bibliography Acuto, Michele "Ain't About Politics? The Wicked Power- Geometry of Sydney's Greening Governance." International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 36 (2): doi: /j x. Bassett, Thomas E. and Andrea Marpillero Colomina "Sustaining Mobility: Bus Rapid Transit and the Role of Local Politics in Bogotá." Latin American Perspectives 40 (2): doi: / x Belka, Stefan Transport Alliances: Promoting Cooperation and Integration To Offer A More Attractive And Efficient Public Transport. Sustainable Urban Transport Technical Document # 4. Bonn, Germany: Verband Deutscher Verkehrsunternehmen. td4?download=132:td- ta- en Boudreau, Julie- Anne, Pierre Hamel, Bernard Jouve, and Roger Keil "Comparing Metropolitan Governance: The Cases of Montreal and Toronto." Progress in Planning 66 (1): doi: /j.progress Available at ipam.org/img/pdf/progress_in_planning.pdf Cuadrado Roura, J. R. and J.M. Fernandez Guell Metropolitan Areas and the Challenges of Competitiveness. In Governing the Metropolis: Principles & Cases, edited by E. Rojas, J. Cuadrado Roura, and J. Fernandez Guell, New York: InterAmerican Development Bank. Available in Spanish and English at attribute=en Dodson, Jago Robert and Brendan James Gleeson "New Planning Governance for Regional Sydney: Lessons from Other Contexts." Australian Planner 40 (1): Dowding, K. and R. Feiock "Intralocal Competition and Cooperation." In The Oxford Handbook of Urban Politics, edited by Karen Mossberger, Susan E. Clarke and Peter John, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Feiock, Richard C Metropolitan Governance: Conflict, Competition, and Cooperation. Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press. Klink, J Recent Perspectives on Metropolitan Organization, Functions, and Governance. In Governing the Metropolis: Principles & Cases, edited by E. Rojas, J. Cuadrado Roura, and J. Fernandez Guell, New York: InterAmerican Development Bank. Available in Spanish and English at attribute=en LeFevre, C Democratic Governability of Metropolitan Areas: International Experiences and Lessons for Latin American Cities. In Governing the Metropolis: Principles & Cases, edited by E. Rojas, J. Cuadrado Roura, and J. Fernandez Guell, New York: InterAmerican Development Bank. Available in Spanish and English at attribute=en 4

6 Mizany, K. and A. Manatt. California Water Plan Update 2005: What s So Special About Special Districts? A Citizen s Guide to Special Districts in California (Third Edition). California Senate Local Government Committee. background- whatssospecialaboutspecialdistricts.pdf Sancton, Andrew "The Governance of Metropolitan Areas in Canada." Public Administration and Development 25 (4): doi: /pad.386. Slack, E. and R. Bird Merging Municipalities: Is Bigger Better? Toronto, Ontario: Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance, Munk School of Global Affairs. result- resources/?type_name=10&topic_res_name=- 1&year_name=2013&searchsubmit.x=21&searchsubmit.y=17 Yaro, Roberto, and Ronderos, Nicholas International Metropolitan Government: Typology, Cases and Recommendations. The World Bank Group and Regional Plan Association: Colombia Urbanization Review. 5