GOLD Report I - UCLG

More documents

Recommendations

Info

167I. IntroductionLatin America is made up of a large group ofcountries located in the territory extendingfrom Mexico’s Río Bravo in the north to Tierradel Fuego at the southernmost tip ofSouth America. Latin America for the purposesof this report is divided into four subregions:Mesoamerica, including Mexico andthe Central American nations of Belize, CostaRica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua,Panama and El Salvador; the Antilles withCuba and the Dominican Republic 1 ; SouthAmerica, which comprises the Andean countriesof Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, andRepública Bolivariana de Venezuela; andthe Southern Cone, which encompassesArgentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay andUruguay.An estimated 540 million people live in LatinAmerica. Predominant cultures includethose embodied by descendants of NativeAmericans, Spanish and Portuguese colonizers,African slaves and successive wavesof European immigrants during thepast two centuries. It is the most urbanizedof the developing regions. Althoughlevels of urbanization vary between 93%in República Bolivariana de Venezuela and42% in Haiti (see Table 1), an estimated77.8% of all Latin Americans live in cities.Latin American countries present very differentdegrees of development. While theaverage regional GDP is $4,044 (CEPAL,2005), it is a continent with great inequalityin the distribution of wealth. Almost40% of the population lives below the povertyline. The inequality has an unfavorableimpact on the advance of democracyand full exercise of citizenship (HumanDevelopment <strong>Report</strong>, UNDP, 2005).The forms of states are diverse as wouldbe expected in a vast area containing 100states or provinces in federal countries,250 regions or departments, and morethan 16,000 local governments —municipalities,districts or cantons— across thesubcontinent. Several countries, includingBrazil, Mexico, Argentina and RepúblicaBolivariana de Venezuela, have adopteda federal system with at least two levelsof sub-national government. The othercountries have unitary state systems.In Latin America, the presidential regimeis the most prevalent form of governance,with a clear predominance of the nationalexecutive over other state powers.From 1980 onward, the authoritarian regimesthat dominated the area for generationshave slowly given way to democraticgovernments that foster popular electionof local authorities.A few Latin American countries did havedemocratically elected local governmentsbefore 1980, and now all of the nationshave municipal governments elected byuniversal suffrage (see Table 2). Themajority of the countries are democratizingand reforming their statesthrough institutional, political and legaltransformations, of which decentralization2 and strengthening of sub-nationalgovernments are part 3 .In Latin America,the presidentialregime is the mostprevalent formof governance,with a clearpredominanceof the nationalexecutive overother state powers1. The English-speaking countries (Antigua, Barbados, Granada, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago) are not included in this study.Nor is Puerto Rico or the overseas territories of France, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Only brief mention will be made ofHaiti.2. The notion of decentralization is broadly understood as the process of transfer of power and functions from the central state to theintermediate and local levels of government and administration. We make a distinction between political decentralization or devolution—with the transfer of responsibilities and resources in the framework of local autonomy— and administrative decentralization or“deconcentration,” which refers only to the transfer of functions and resources without autonomy. Both processes are accompanied byvarying degrees of fiscal decentralization, i.e., the capacity to establish, collect and administer financial resources, to fulfill functions andprovide services. Complex forms arise from the various combinations of these three processes.3. Valadés, Diego and Serna, José María, 2000; Carbonell, Miguel 2004; Fix, Héctor and Valencia, Salvador, 2005.
LATIN AMERICA168 United Cities and Local GovernmentsTable 1Development Indicators in Latin AmericaCountry Type of state GDP per GDP per inhabitant IHD ranking % population % urbaninhabitant PPP 2006 * below poverty populationin $ US in $ US line 2005Argentina Federal 4.747 13.298 36 26.0 91,8Bolivia Unitary 990 2.720 115 63,9 64,2Brazil Federal 4.250 8.195 69 36,3 83,4Chile Unitary 7.085 10.874 38 18,7 86,6Colombia Unitary 2.663 7.256 70 46,8 76,6Costa Rica Unitary 4.632 9.481 48 21,1 62,6Cuba Unitary 2.797 ------ 50 --- 76,1Ecuador Unitary 2.761 3.963 83 48,3 62,8El Salvador Unitary 2.469 5.041 101 47,5 57,8Guatemala Unitary 2.492 4.313 118 60,2 50,0Haití Unitary 454 1.892 154 --- 41,8Honduras Unitary 1.139 2.876 117 74,8 47,9Mexico Federal 7.239 9.803 53 35,5 76,5Nicaragua Unitary 896 3.634 112 69,3 56,9Panama Unitary 4.797 7.278 58 33.0 65,8Paraguay Unitary 1.201 4.813 91 60,5 58,4Peru Unitary 2.841 5.678 82 51,1 72,6Dominican Rep. Unitary 3.815 7.449 94 47,5 65,6Uruguay Unitary 4.860 9.421 43 18,8 91,9Venezuela, R. B. Federal 5.275 6.043 72 37,1 92,8Latin America 4.471 39,8 77,8Source: CEPAL, 2006; United Nations Development <strong>Report</strong>, 2006.* Index of Human Development: High is from 1 to 63; Medium is from 64 to 146; Low is from 147 to 177.
Page 1:
Decentralizationand local democracy
Page 5 and 6:
UCLG wishes to acknowledge the Supp
Page 7 and 8:
© 2008 United Cities and Local Gov
Page 9 and 10:
FOREWORD8 United Cities and Local G
Page 11 and 12:
PREFACE10 United Cities and Local G
Page 13 and 14:
EDITORIAL PROJECT12 United Cities a
Page 15 and 16:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS14 United Cities and
Page 17 and 18:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS16 United Cities and
Page 19 and 20:
INTRODUCTION18 United Cities and Lo
Page 21 and 22:
INTRODUCTION20 United Cities and Lo
Page 24 and 25:
AFRI C AMUSTAPHA BEN LETAIEFCHARLES
Page 26 and 27:
23I. IntroductionAfrica encompasses
Page 28 and 29:
25CCountry Political Type of state
Page 30 and 31:
27and local governments are defined
Page 32 and 33:
29torical context from which they e
Page 34 and 35:
31aid. In some cases, central gover
Page 36 and 37:
33suffrage. Metropolitan councillor
Page 38 and 39:
35Table 3 Responsibilities of local
Page 40 and 41:
37taxation. VAT has been establishe
Page 42 and 43:
39disbursements to local government
Page 44 and 45:
41Table 4 Human resource situationC
Page 46 and 47:
43Table 5 Portrait of local democra
Page 48 and 49:
45view and approve executive bodies
Page 50:
47V. ConclusionThis overall picture
Page 53 and 54:
ASIA-PACIFIC50 United Cities and Lo
Page 55 and 56:
ASIA-PACIFIC52United Cities and Loc
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 96 and 97:
EURASIAT. Y. K HABRIE VA(C HIEF RES
Page 98 and 99:
95I. IntroductionThis chapter analy
Page 100 and 101:
97Table 1General Information and Te
Page 102 and 103:
99The constitutions of several stat
Page 104 and 105:
101vote. Rather, control of local m
Page 106 and 107:
103Capitals and Metropolitan AreasT
Page 108 and 109:
105losing their local, own sources
Page 110 and 111:
107Table 3Local Finance Indicators
Page 112 and 113:
109Education. In the majority of st
Page 114 and 115:
111Table 4Functions of Local Govern
Page 116 and 117:
113execution of their duties munici
Page 118 and 119:
115State Formation of local Local e
Page 120 and 121:
117State Formation of local Local e
Page 122 and 123: 119On the whole, local elections in
Page 124 and 125: 121neighborhood, part of a resident
Page 126 and 127: 123corporate) persons may be resolv
Page 128: 125fragile, in part due to complica
Page 131 and 132: EUROPE128 United Cities and Local G
Page 133 and 134: EUROPE130United Cities and Local Go
Page 137 and 138: EUROPE134 United Cities and Local G
Page 170 and 171: L ATIN AMERICAMARI O ROS ALESSALVAD
Page 174 and 175: 169Nevertheless, the depth of the r
Page 176 and 177: 171America (see graph 1). The feder
Page 178 and 179: 173initially appointed by the natio
Page 180 and 181: 175nicipal (Municipal Budget Regime
Page 182 and 183: 177and generate significant demogra
Page 184 and 185: 179Table 3Evolution and Distributio
Page 186 and 187: 181where it is the responsibility o
Page 188 and 189: 183BoxTransfer Systems in Latin Ame
Page 190 and 191: 185tection was organized for the un
Page 192 and 193: 187Table 4 Municipal responsibiliti
Page 194 and 195: 189percentage of houses connected t
Page 196 and 197: 191partments or regions held electi
Page 198 and 199: 193cipation funds. The oversight co
Page 200 and 201: 195Table 6Associations of Municipal
Page 202 and 203: 197about renewal of leadership and
Page 204: 199Despite advancesin decentralizat
Page 207 and 208: MIDDLE EAST / WESTERN ASIA202 Unite
Page 209 and 210: MIDDLE EAST / WESTERN ASIA204United
Page 223 and 224:
MIDDLE EAST / WESTERN ASIA218United
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
MIDDLE EAST / WESTERN ASIA222 Unite
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
MIDDLE EAST / WESTERN ASIA228 Unite
Page 236 and 237:
NORTH AMERICA(CANADA AND THE UNITED
Page 238 and 239:
233I. IntroductionThis chapter comp
Page 240 and 241:
235Table 1Governmental and Country
Page 242 and 243:
237Decentralization has attracted t
Page 244 and 245:
239preparedness and security. Even
Page 246 and 247:
241years, however, local government
Page 248 and 249:
243reflect the consequences of syst
Page 250 and 251:
245years. In the U.S. there are oft
Page 252 and 253:
247tion of Canadian Municipalities
Page 254 and 255:
249One of the most important roles
Page 256:
251V. ConclusionIn both Canada and
Page 259 and 260:
METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE254 United C
Page 261 and 262:
METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE256United Ci
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE278 United C
Page 285 and 286:
CONCLUSION280 United Cities and Loc
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
POSTFACE304 United Cities and Local
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 320 and 321:
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Page 322 and 323:
317AfricaBanque Mondiale, 2003, Ré
Page 324 and 325:
319International Monetary Fund, 200
Page 326 and 327:
321EurasiaAdministrativnaya reforma
Page 328 and 329:
323Regulirovanie voprosov organizac
Page 330 and 331:
325Guérin-Lavignotte, E., Kerrouch
Page 332 and 333:
327--- Descentralización, transfer
Page 334 and 335:
329Middle East and West AsiaUnited
Page 336 and 337:
331North AmericaSaudi Ministry of R
Page 338 and 339:
333Laubach, T., 2005, Fiscal Relati
Page 340 and 341:
335Metropolitan GovernanceU.S. Bure
Page 342 and 343:
337Kübler, D., 2005, Problems and
Page 344 and 345:
339ConclusionAalborg C., 1994, Char
Page 346:
341Rothblatt, D. N. and Sancton A.
show all

GOLD Report I - UCLG

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?