GOLD Report I - UCLG

More documents

Recommendations

Info

235Table 1Governmental and Country CharacteristicsName Canada United StatesInhabitants (thousands) 31,362 288,205Area (km2) 9,984,670 9,631,420Inhabitants/km2 3 30GDP/capita € 35,758 € 42,623National Federal Government Federal GovernmentIntermediate Provinces (10), States (50)Territories (3)Local:Upper Tier: Counties, Regions, Counties (3,034),Districts (199)consolidated CitiesLower Tier: Cities, Towns, Townships/towns (some states) (16,504)Villages,Municipalities (Cities, Boroughs,Townships (3731) Villages) (19,429)Special Districts (48,558)Note: Population and GDP data for 2002; Area (land and water) for 2006; Canada (Upper tier), United States),2006 (Canada (lower tier).Sources: (area) CIA World Factbook (retrieved December 10, 2006 athttps://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html); (population and GDP) OECD Statistics Portal(retrieved December 10, 2006 athttp://www.oecd.org/statsportal/0,2639,en_2825_293564_1_1_1_1_1,00.html); (governments) Rivard andCollin 2006, p. 5; Commonwealth Local Government Forum 2002a, p. 2; Commonwealth Local GovernmentForum 2002b, p. 3; U.S. Census Bureau (2002), p. 3.vary widely. Single-tier local governmentspredominate in all but three provinces ofCanada, Ontario, Québec, and British Columbia.Local government consolidation andinter-local governance. Recent trendstoward new regional arrangements or localgovernment consolidation in much of Europehave had mixed resonance in NorthAmerica. Part of the reason for this may bethe roles that established governmentalunits –Canadian provinces and territories,U.S. states, and U.S. counties and townships–have played in providing regionaland inter-local governance. Especially inthe United States, informal and specializedinter-governmental arrangements haveoften taken the place of formal and general-purposeinstitutions.In Canada, consolidation of local governmentunits took place in Québec, NovaScotia, Ontario and a number of metropolitanregions since 2000 (Rivard and Collin2006). More recent initiatives have rolledback some of these reforms in Québec andelsewhere. In the United States, the
NORTH AMERICA236United Cities and Local Governmentsdegree of consolidation has always variedwidely by regions. In recent decades consolidationand annexation of territory bylocal governments have been commonplacein faster growing areas of the South andWest, but have remained more limited orexceptional in the Northeast and otherareas of older settlement. On the whole,recent counter-trends toward creation ofnew municipalities have offset countertrendstoward consolidation. From 1992to 2002, the number of municipal governmentsincreased by 150 to 16,504 (U.S.Bureau of the Census 1992, 2002).Much more than in Canada and other countries, inter-localgovernance in the United States has taken place throughseparate, special-purpose district governments that areindependent of local governmentsLocal government consolidation has beenonly one of several types of arrangementsthat could foster inter-local governancewithin metropolitan regions. Anupper tier of local government or a newform of functional cooperation amongmunicipalities may also provide mechanismsfor this task. Practical moves inthis direction over the past decade havetaken a variety of forms.Canadian provinces and municipalitieshave undertaken some of the most far-reachingreforms in metropolitan governance.Mainly in eastern Canada, reorganizationsin most metropolitan areas haveproduced more encompassing metropolitanunits of governance. Alongside theconsolidations of municipalities, regionalbodies have been formed in three provinces,and metropolitan planning initiativeshave taken place in a number of the largestmetropolitan areas (Rivard and Collin).Such a move is less apparent in the UnitedStates. Only a few of the large metropolitanareas, such as Portland, Oregon,and Minneapolis-St. Paul in Minnesota,have developed distinct metropolitan institutions.County governments like KingCounty in metropolitan Seattle, Washington,and Pima County in metropolitanPhoenix, Arizona, have encompassed largeportions of the metropolitan area, andhave often addressed issues on a metropolitanscale. In a few small-to-mid-sizedmetropolitan areas, such as Jacksonville,Florida, and Sacramento, California, consolidationof city government into countygovernment has created what amountsto a metropolitan government (Lelandand Thurmaier 2004). Advisory regionalcouncils of governments, a legacy offederal requirements for transportationplanning, frequently provide a basis forcoordination of planning issues. Moststates also authorize cooperation amonglocal governments (Richardson, Goughand Puentes 2003).Much more than in Canada and other countries,inter-local governance in the UnitedStates has taken place through separate,special-purpose district governments thatare independent of local governments.The largest number of these (13,506 in2002) administered separate public schoolsystems across the country. Others dealwith water and sewers, hospital services ortransportation. Although the total numberof these districts (48,588), as counted bythe U.S. Census of Governments, exceedsthe number of traditional local governments(35,933), the actual number of specialty,inter-local districts is probablyhigher. The number of school districtsdeclined slightly (900) from 1992 to 2002,typically due to consolidation among municipalitieswithin metropolitan areas. Butthe number of other special districts increasedby 3,500 over the same period. InCanada too, most primary and secondaryeducation is administered by school boardsindependent of local government, and anumber of agencies, boards, and commissionssee to special functions jointly sharedamong municipalities. Unlike their U.S.,counterparts, however, these boards donot have independent powers of taxation.
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:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
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 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 236 and 237: NORTH AMERICA(CANADA AND THE UNITED
Page 238 and 239: 233I. IntroductionThis chapter comp
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 283 and 284: METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE278 United C
Page 285 and 286: CONCLUSION280 United Cities and Loc
Page 291 and 292:
CONCLUSION286 United Cities and Loc
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?