Metropolitan Governance in the Federalist Americas (Gobernabilidad en las areas metropolitanas de américa latina) Peter M. Ward LBJ School of Public Affairs & Dept. of Sociology, University of Texas at Austin, USA Presented at the IX Seminario de Investigación Urbano –Regional Universidad Piloto de Colombia Bogotá de Octobre, 2010

Overview Why metropolitan governance? Metropolitan growth in the Americas Research questions and methods The Architecture: Federalist vs unitary systems The six federalist cases Categorizing metropolitan initiatives Dynamics of change Democratic governance and equitable development Unanswered questions: The research agenda The way forward

Toluca and Monterrey, Mexico

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 forms and structures of metropolitan initiatives What factors shape the emergence and dynamics of these systems To what extent are these forms acquiring political legitimacy, and are they offering opportunities for democratic governance?

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 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 now process of centralization

Classification 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 CollaborationalOrganizationalInstitutional Argentina  ▫ Brazil  Canada  Mexico  ▫ USA  Venezuela aa  aa - Primary initiative(s)  - Secondary initiative ▫ - Absent; a - but only Caracas

Sources of Change Constitutional provisions and pressures for state reform Jurisdictional geography of local government The technical and organizational characteristics of service delivery systems The nature of political systems and their praxis Dynamics of demographic and economic pressures The nature of engagement with national and supranational economic processes

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 Tax base disparities across municipalities means metropolitan redistribution is unlikely

Jurisdictional Geography of Local Government The single municipality encompassing entire metropolitan area has significant advantages 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

The Characteristics of Service Delivery Systems Economies of scale in service delivery Management of infrastructure system Fiscal topography interferes with metropolitan provision of redistributive policies

The Nature of Political Systems and their Praxis Political systems dampen prospects of metropolitan initiative Lack of metropolitan elections is disincentive for political parties Metropolitan leaders (officials) are rarely elected But political culture may facilitate metropolitan initiatives (Vancouver, Portland, Minneapolis-St. Paul

Democratic Governance and Equitable Development in the Metropolis Context and triggering events launching metropolitan initiatives Selection of leadership and legitimacy Citizen perceptions concerning visibility and effectiveness Networked infrastructure vs. social policies and poverty alleviation Fiscal incidence of metropolitan initiatives Metropolitan initiatives in federalist and unitary governmental systems

Unanswered Questions: The Research Agenda Studies of the political dynamics of the introduction of metropolitan initiatives Citizens attitudes toward metropolitan governance Urban service delivery in metropolitan areas: the details of efficiency and costs Comparing metropolitan governance in federalist vs unitary systems

The Way Forward: Making Metropolitan Governance a Reality The unlikely future of a fourth tier; why the top down process is a dead end or do not wait for federal leadership Engaging political parties: Is it worthwhile? The necessity of strong and autonomous municipalities; creating the proper incentives Municipal cooperation: an incremental approach Whose vision of “metropolitan”: creating a shared vision