1. 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

2. 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

3. Policy Challenges in the Metropolis Wealth generation Socio-economic diversity Institutional complexity in local government systems Democratic governance Geography and resource disparities

5. 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

6. 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?

7. Research Method Comparative Case Studies - Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, the United States and Venezuela Exploratory and broad brush Applied policy research framework

8. Architecture of Governmental Structures Federalist vs Unitary Governments Creating new tiers Centralized vs decentralized structures Intergovernmental relations

9. 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 currently process of centralization

10. Metropolitan Initiatives, Institutions and the Country Context ArgentinaBrazilCanadaMexicoVenezuelaUSA Frequency of Initiatives FewFew but increasingFrequent Few, moderately increasing Rare Frequent Strength of municipalities/loca l governments WeakIncreasing strengthStrongModest increase Weak and weakening Strong and highly fragmented State/provincial government authority over local governments SignificantLimitedParamountSignificantMarginalParamount Functional areas of state/provincial in local government interactions Regulation of some intermunicipal services 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 Core-suburban conflicts High urban inequality Core-suburban conflicts

11. Policy Focus and Organization Form of Initiatives Establishing categories Frequency of use Explaining choices within and between countries

12. Frequencies of Metropolitan Initiatives by Policy Focus

13. 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

14. Classification of Organization Form of Initiatives Collaborational—voluntary but enabled Organizational—building on existing structures Institutional—creating new spaces for government and the public

15. 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

16. 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

17. Dynamics of Change Constitutional provisions and pressures for state reform Jurisdictional geography of local government

18. 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

19. Jurisdictional Geography of Metropolitan Areas by Country ArgentinaBrazilCanadaMexicoVenezuelaUSA Large, single jurisdiction Calgary, Ottawa, Quebec Ciudad JuárezBarquisimetoHouston, Miami Polynucleated municipalities Mendoza Porto Alegre Santos Vitoria VancouverTolucaPortland Dominant core with small adjacent municipalities Cordoba Rosario Natal Salvador Edmonton Montreal Winnipeg MaracaiboSt. 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 AiresBrasiliaOttawaMexico CityCaracasWashington, DC

20. 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

21. 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