GOLD Report I - UCLG

NORTH AMERICA234United Cities and Local GovernmentsThe evolution of local governmentstructures in Canada and the United Statesneeds to be understood in relation to thedistinctive model of local decentralizationthat has long prevailed in these countriesferent U.S. states have established avariety of legislative frameworks, there aresome fifty American local governmentsystems. Even within states, the diversityof local arrangements has produced moreheterogeneous systems of local institutionsthan elsewhere. Most of the largest citiesin the United States, as well as Montreal,Winnipeg, Vancouver and Saint John inCanada, have individual charters fromtheir respective state or provincial governments.Expansion of localpowers has beenonly one of severallocal governmentreforms. Along withenhanced localpowers, legislationin both countrieshas articulated localresponsibilities in greater detail, and hasspecified mechanisms for accountability in avariety of specific functional domains, suchas local educational services, environmentalregulation, and planning. In the United Statesbut much less frequently in Canada, privatizationhas emerged as a more recurrentstrategy in service delivery. In various ways,local governments have also evolved practicesto address the growing horizontal interconnectednessof localities and regions. InCanada these reforms have often taken theform of inter-governmental consolidation ormetropolitan governance; in the United States,informal inter-local cooperation andspecial district governance have proliferated.In both countries, state or provincial governmentsas well as local governmentsthemselves, have been the sources of reforms.The extent of recent reform generallyhas fallen short of the comprehensivereforms passed in New Zealand or parallelreforms in Australia. But local governmentsin Canada and the United Statesalready possessed many of the powers recentlygiven to local governments in thetwo Australasian nations.II. Local Government Structuresand Their EvolutionThe evolution of local government structuresin Canada and the United States needs tobe understood in relation to the distinctivemodel of local decentralization that haslong prevailed in these countries. On theone hand, the national and other higher levelgovernments have generally grantedlocal governments limited legal authoritycompared with that permitted in continentalEuropean countries, and less financialsupport from above. On the other hand,local governments are also less subject tothe direct local supervision of territorialfield offices or prefectures, and enjoy highlevels of local fiscal autonomy comparedwith counterparts in Europe and Asia(Sellers 2006; Sellers and Lidström 2007).In recent years, the elaboration of policymakingin North America, both at local andhigher levels, has changed this model inseveral functional areas. Higher levelgovernments have introduced new responsibilitiesin many of these areas. Althoughthis trend can be seen as a move towardcentralization in one sense, new activitiesand often new powers and fiscal resourcesfor local governments have often accompaniedit.Local government takes a variety of forms,with a different nomenclature in eachcountry (Table 1). In the United States,local government in many states has atleast two traditional tiers of government:counties and towns. Counties play animportant role in every state outside ofNew England as major providers of generalservices like courts, jails, land records,welfare, health, and roads. A number ofeastern and Midwestern U.S. states havealso maintained an intermediate level oftown or township governments betweencounties and municipalities. The legal statusof the town level varies considerablyaccording to state laws. In Canada countiesand their equivalents generally haveless power and are only present in someprovinces, but the types of municipalities