GOLD Report I - UCLG

More documents

Recommendations

Info

187Table 4 Municipal responsibilities in Latin AmericaBasic services Food distribution Urban planning Social services Economic development City safetyUO W DW SS SL Cem M B P RI TRNS T PS PHC H SS C S/L ED J Tourism CS FB RP EArgentinaX X S S X X X X X S X S S X X X S S S X XBoliviaX X X X X X X X X S X S S S X X S X X XBrazilX X X X X X X X S X S X X X X X X S S S S S X SChileX X X X X X X S X X S S S S S X S S S S S S SColombiaX X X X X X X X X X X S S S S S X X S X S S XCosta RicaX X * X X X X X S X S S XDominican Rep.X X X X X X X X O X X O OEcuadorX X X X X X X X X X ConvConv XEl SalvadorX X Pil exp X X X X X X C XGuatemalaX X X X X X X X X X X S XHondurasX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XMexicoX X X X X X X X X X X X X XNicaraguaX X S S X X X X X X X S X X X X X S XPanamaX X X X X XParaguayX X S S X X X X X S S X XPeruX X X X X X X X X X S S X S X S S SUruguayX X X X X X X X X X X S X X X X X XVenezuela, R. B.X X X X X X X X X X S X X X X X X X XS: Shared; O: Optional; Pil exp: pilot experiencies; Conv: convention; UO: Urban ownership ; W: waste; DW: Drinking water; SS: Sewer system; SL: Street light; Cem: Cemetery; M: Market;B: Butchery, slaughterhouse; P: Urban planning -land regulation and territorial planning; RI: Road infrastructure; TRNS: Transport; T: Traffic; PS: Primary school; PHC: Primary health care;H: Housing; SS: Social services ; C: Culture; S/L: Sport and leisure; ED: Economic development; J: Job offer; Tourism: Tourism; CS: City safety; FB: Fire brigades; RP: Risk prevention; E: Environment.* In rural areas.
LATIN AMERICA188United Cities and Local GovernmentsIn Mexico, the state institutions and occasionallyfederal ones intervene in the deliveryof local services. Responsibility fordrinking water, the management of townplanning, roads and the collection of taxeshas often been taken over by the states.The participation of local governments inadministering education is limited to themaintenance of certain infrastructures. Bycontrast, since 1997 the financing of socialprograms has been decentralized. Thegranting of services to the private sector isless common than in other Latin Americancountries.In Bolivia, a uniform strategy of decentralizationhas been applied to all public services,including health, education, roadwaysand micro–irrigation. Most are now allocatedto the municipalities. Since 2001, thedecentralization policy in Ecuador has optedfor voluntary transfers of responsibilitiesthrough the signing of individualagreements between the central governmentand the municipalities involved. Newresponsibilities of special interest to localgovernments are: the environment, tourism,social welfare and, to a lesser extent,education, housing and health 42 .In Paraguay, the municipalities provide alimited number of basic services 43 . The centralgovernment assures the provision ofmost of the services, in particular drinkingwater, education and public transport 44 . InUruguay, these services are delivered at thedepartmental level, including more andmore social services (primary health care),environmental protection and cultural development.In Central America, with the exception ofGuatemala, the majority of local governmentstake on the basic services with difficultyand, in many cases, in precariousconditions. The activities that involve greaterresponsibility and require greaterinvestment –education, health, social wellbeing, housing, aqueducts and sewers–are delivered at the national level, in themajority of cases.The municipalities frequently take on responsibilitiesnot anticipated in the legislation.The municipality of San Pedro Sula inHonduras allocates resources for the maintenanceof the hospital and payment of salariesto doctors, nurses and skilled workers,in addition to providing refuse collection servicesto the hospitals free of charge. In severalcountries, the municipalities take part inthe construction and maintenance of thebasic infrastructures of education andhealth. In Honduras, water management,previously in the hands of a state company,was decentralized in 2003 45 .Regrettably, there are few studies thatmake it possible to measure the impact ofall these processes of transfer on accessto, or quality of basic services. Nevertheless,the existing data is promising: inEcuador, for example, it is calculated thatsince the beginning of decentralization the42. Fernando Carrión, “El proceso de descentralización en Ecuador,” July 2006. Interest in new responsibilities for local governments iscentered on three topics: environment 31.5%, tourism 24.6% and social well being 23.3%. To a lesser extent, education at 7%, andhousing and health at 4%.43. Hygiene, waste management, public lighting, slaughterhouses, markets, cemeteries, transport terminals.44. At the end of the 1990s, agreements were made between the Ministry of Health, the departments and the municipalities to createdepartmental and local health councils with limited responsibilities in planning and management. In 2005, only 25% of themunicipalities had signed agreements with the Ministry of Health. In 1996, the Department of Itapúa created a Rotating Fund forMedication for Social Pharmacies, which administers 70 social pharmacies in 30 municipalities (2002). Paraguay File.45. In El Salvador, around 15 pilot projects have been set up transferring the management of water to mancomunidades or localcompanies. In Nicaragua, there are municipal companies or franchises at the municipal or regional level. Also in El Salvador andNicaragua, in the social areas, a limited direct de-concentration is taking shape, aimed at the community and designed centrally(Ministries of Education, Health, Public Works). Ex: EDUCO program –Education with Community Participation”– in rural zones of ElSalvador, and Co-management of Education and Health in Nicaragua.
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 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
EUROPE134 United Cities and Local G
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142: EUROPE138United Cities and Local Go
Page 170 and 171: L ATIN AMERICAMARI O ROS ALESSALVAD
Page 172 and 173: 167I. IntroductionLatin America is
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 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 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?