GOLD Report I - UCLG

METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE256United Cities and Local GovernmentsAs marketsfor residence andemployment inmetropolitan areasdiversify, affluenthouseholds seizethe opportunity tosort themselvesinto areas withsuperior amenitiesand a better qualityof lifesociety. Still, fundamental differences betweenNorthern and Southern cities makegovernance a significantly different propositionabove and below the equator.Urban growth means territorial expansion aswell as population growth. De facto metropolitanborders push thus farther and fartherout into the surrounding rural area. At thesame time, improved transportation andcommunication technologies have greatlyincreased the mobility of employers and residents.Especially in developed countries,clear dichotomies between city and countrysidehave given way to dispersed, polycentricpatterns of settlement and economicactivity. Many developing areas, such as thePearl River Delta of China, manifest a similarevolution.The problem of horizontal governance acrossan extended area confronts all of these urbanregions. Settlement and economicactivity frequently expand across institutionalizedboundaries, and beyond thereach of stable, pre-existing governancearrangements. This phenomenon presentsseveral potential problems:exception. Yet when the social and economicstructures within a metropolitan regionare interconnected, decisions andactions taken by one community can easilyaffect or even undermine the choices madein a neighboring one. This interconnectednessof metropolitan communities standsat the core of the metropolitan problem.Partly for these reasons, metropolitan governancerequires vertical as well as horizontalrelations among governments. The social andeconomic problems that the higher-levelgovernments of both developed and developingcountries confront – from economic developmentto reducing pollution – are alsoincreasingly the problems of metropolitanregions. Opportunities for governance withinthese regions are often provided by nationalpolicies and institutions. For example, transportationpolicy determined at a higher levelof government can be coordinated with localdecisions about economic development. Similarly,implementation of national or regionalpollution laws can be facilitated by appropriatelocal planning; or an overarching socialwelfare policy can be coordinated with localeducational policy.• Absence of territorial controls and guidance:Urban spread can be limited andrestricted only by co-operative actionamong the affected urban areas. Local governmentsmust look beyond their parochialvision and strategy, and make atleast a minimal effort to acknowledge andaccommodate this crucial spillover dimension;• Shortcomings in management capabilitiesand experience: Small governmentunits find it difficult to attractand develop the administrative andtechnical resources required for territorialmanagement. Pooling resourcescould provide increased efficiency andeconomies of scale;• Lack of structural consultation for solvingcommon problems: Collective actionby local governments is still theOther social and economic dynamics in metropolitanareas compound the need for metropolitangovernance. Recent researchpoints to growing socio-economic disparitieswithin many contemporary metropolitanregions (e.g., Fainstein 2001; Segbers et al.2007). As markets for residence and employmentin metropolitan areas diversify,affluent households seize the opportunity tosort themselves into areas with superioramenities and a better quality of life. Poorhouseholds gravitate toward areas with thelowest housing costs. Especially where theboundaries between affluence and povertycorrespond to boundaries between governmentalentities, such as villages or towns,heightened differences in the number andquality of public services can reinforce socialdisparities. Without public measures toequilibrate the fiscal disparities among locales,governance arrangements can reinforcespatial advantages and disadvantages.