Intergovernmental Collaboration in Metropolitan Areas: The Case of the Federalist Americas

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. 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 Overview

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

5. 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 Metropolitan Growth in the Americas:The North and the South

6. 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 Questions

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

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

9. 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 The Six Cases

10. Metropolitan Initiatives, Institutions and the Country Context

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. 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 Explaining Frequencies of Initiativesby Policy Focus

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 MetropolitanInitiatives, by Form and Country -Primary initiative(s) - Secondary initiative ▫ - Absent; a- but only Caracas

16. 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

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

18. 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 Constitutional Provisions and Pressures for State Reform

19. Jurisdictional Geography of Metropolitan Areas by Country

20. 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 Jurisdictional Geography of Local Government

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