Intergovernmental Collaboration in Metropolitan Areas: The Case of the Federalist Americas Robert H....
-
date post
21-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
2
Transcript of Intergovernmental Collaboration in Metropolitan Areas: The Case of the Federalist Americas Robert H....
![Page 1: Intergovernmental Collaboration in Metropolitan Areas: The Case of the Federalist Americas Robert H. Wilson LBJ School of Public Affairs University of.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d585503460f94a37b58/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
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
![Page 2: Intergovernmental Collaboration in Metropolitan Areas: The Case of the Federalist Americas Robert H. Wilson LBJ School of Public Affairs University of.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d585503460f94a37b58/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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
![Page 3: Intergovernmental Collaboration in Metropolitan Areas: The Case of the Federalist Americas Robert H. Wilson LBJ School of Public Affairs University of.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d585503460f94a37b58/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Policy Challenges in the Metropolis
• Wealth generation• Socio-economic diversity• Institutional complexity in local
government systems• Democratic governance• Geography and resource disparities
![Page 4: Intergovernmental Collaboration in Metropolitan Areas: The Case of the Federalist Americas Robert H. Wilson LBJ School of Public Affairs University of.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d585503460f94a37b58/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
![Page 5: Intergovernmental Collaboration in Metropolitan Areas: The Case of the Federalist Americas Robert H. Wilson LBJ School of Public Affairs University of.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d585503460f94a37b58/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
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
![Page 6: Intergovernmental Collaboration in Metropolitan Areas: The Case of the Federalist Americas Robert H. Wilson LBJ School of Public Affairs University of.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d585503460f94a37b58/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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?
![Page 7: Intergovernmental Collaboration in Metropolitan Areas: The Case of the Federalist Americas Robert H. Wilson LBJ School of Public Affairs University of.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d585503460f94a37b58/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Research Method
• Comparative Case Studies - Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, the United States and Venezuela
• Exploratory and broad brush
• Applied policy research framework
![Page 8: Intergovernmental Collaboration in Metropolitan Areas: The Case of the Federalist Americas Robert H. Wilson LBJ School of Public Affairs University of.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d585503460f94a37b58/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Architecture of Governmental Structures
• Federalist vs Unitary Governments
• Creating new tiers
• Centralized vs decentralized structures
• Intergovernmental relations
![Page 9: Intergovernmental Collaboration in Metropolitan Areas: The Case of the Federalist Americas Robert H. Wilson LBJ School of Public Affairs University of.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d585503460f94a37b58/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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
![Page 10: Intergovernmental Collaboration in Metropolitan Areas: The Case of the Federalist Americas Robert H. Wilson LBJ School of Public Affairs University of.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d585503460f94a37b58/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Metropolitan Initiatives, Institutions and the Country Context
Argentina Brazil Canada Mexico Venezuela USA
Frequency of Initiatives
Few Few but increasing FrequentFew, moderately increasing
RareFrequent
Strength of municipalities/local governments
Weak Increasing strength Strong Modest increaseWeak 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
![Page 11: Intergovernmental Collaboration in Metropolitan Areas: The Case of the Federalist Americas Robert H. Wilson LBJ School of Public Affairs University of.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d585503460f94a37b58/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Policy Focus and Organization Form of Initiatives
• Establishing categories
• Frequency of use
• Explaining choices within and between countries
![Page 12: Intergovernmental Collaboration in Metropolitan Areas: The Case of the Federalist Americas Robert H. Wilson LBJ School of Public Affairs University of.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d585503460f94a37b58/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Frequencies of Metropolitan Initiatives by Policy Focus
![Page 13: Intergovernmental Collaboration in Metropolitan Areas: The Case of the Federalist Americas Robert H. Wilson LBJ School of Public Affairs University of.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d585503460f94a37b58/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
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
![Page 14: Intergovernmental Collaboration in Metropolitan Areas: The Case of the Federalist Americas Robert H. Wilson LBJ School of Public Affairs University of.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d585503460f94a37b58/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Classification of Organization Form of Initiatives
• Collaborational—voluntary but enabled• Organizational—building on existing
structures • Institutional—creating new spaces for
government and the public
![Page 15: Intergovernmental Collaboration in Metropolitan Areas: The Case of the Federalist Americas Robert H. Wilson LBJ School of Public Affairs University of.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d585503460f94a37b58/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
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
![Page 16: Intergovernmental Collaboration in Metropolitan Areas: The Case of the Federalist Americas Robert H. Wilson LBJ School of Public Affairs University of.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d585503460f94a37b58/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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
![Page 17: Intergovernmental Collaboration in Metropolitan Areas: The Case of the Federalist Americas Robert H. Wilson LBJ School of Public Affairs University of.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d585503460f94a37b58/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Dynamics of Change
• Constitutional provisions and pressures for state reform
• Jurisdictional geography of local government
![Page 18: Intergovernmental Collaboration in Metropolitan Areas: The Case of the Federalist Americas Robert H. Wilson LBJ School of Public Affairs University of.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d585503460f94a37b58/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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
![Page 19: Intergovernmental Collaboration in Metropolitan Areas: The Case of the Federalist Americas Robert H. Wilson LBJ School of Public Affairs University of.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d585503460f94a37b58/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
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
MendozaPorto Alegre
SantosVitoria
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
TorontoMonterrey
GuadalajaraCaracas
New York City, Dallas-Fort Worth
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Federal districts Buenos Aires Brasilia Ottawa Mexico City Caracas Washington, DC
![Page 20: Intergovernmental Collaboration in Metropolitan Areas: The Case of the Federalist Americas Robert H. Wilson LBJ School of Public Affairs University of.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d585503460f94a37b58/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
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
![Page 21: Intergovernmental Collaboration in Metropolitan Areas: The Case of the Federalist Americas Robert H. Wilson LBJ School of Public Affairs University of.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d585503460f94a37b58/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
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