GOLD Report I - UCLG

265may be found in a flexible solution with avariable scale of inter-municipal cooperation.In this case results can be manifestedin different ways. The advantages of suchquasi-formal cooperation have been emphasizedin many empirical studies.By the end of the 1970s, disenchantmentwith conurbation institutions became apparentin many countries. In Great Britain thesuppression of urban counties and the GreaterLondon Council took place in 1986; thesame year saw the dissolution in the Netherlandsof the Rotterdam and Eindhovenconurbation bodies. At about the same time,Australian authorities acknowledged the failureof repeated federal and state attemptsto consolidate local authorities, and in Spainmetropolitan governments in Valencia andBarcelona were dismantled. The French calledan early halt to an urban communities’ institutionalizationprocess, the Italian effort tocreate metropolitan areas failed to get offthe ground and in Germany consolidationexperiments such as the Umland VerbandFrankfurt and the Kommunalverband Ruhrgebietproved disappointing.However, the concept of metropolitan areagovernment itself has substantially changedin the past 20 years. Most of the modelsenvisaged or experimented with in the1980s are now seen from the perspective ofgovernance, rather than government. Moreover,governance is no longer confined to thebuilt-up areas of distinct urban conurbations;it now extends to vast multi-polarurban regions that continue to expand andchange.This new trend toward a more flexible, polycentricform of governance, described inNorth America as new regionalism, is firstlyassociated with the global decentralizationprocess. This approach seeks to strengthenlocal authorities at the expense of large,supra-municipal organizations, especially inareas of the world that are on the path todemocracy. At the same time, the form,pace and scale of contemporary metropolitantransformations has made traditionalforms of metropolitan government seem increasinglyinadequate.It is therefore not appropriate to speak ofsimple replacement or of the substitution ofone model by another over time. Rather it ismore useful to envision increased differentiationamong a variety of mixed systems ofgovernment. This movement can be observedin most countries, both in the North andin the South.How can these new forms of metropolitan governancebe characterized? Analysis of recentinstitutional experience reveals five particularlysignificant aspects:• Pragmatic responsiveness in execution.State governments tend not to imposetheir ideas any more; instead they takegreat care to consult, listen, put into perspective,harmonize and reconcile. Ratherthan propose a single institutional modelfor all urban areas, they work carefully ona “made-to-measure” solution. Decisionsto undertake reform respond to specificchallenges related to the management ofurban growth (Downs 1994).This view makes it easier to understandthe changes in governance of the Tokyoregion. The Tokyo Metropolitan Government(TMG), became one of many players– prefectures, regional ministerial offices,Japan Railway, private companies – involvedin regional governance. In a similarfashion, the recently created Greater LondonAssembly appears to be a relativelysuperficial mechanism. It cannot exerciseany real influence except in strict collaborationwith the boroughs, privately ownedpublic service companies (special purposeagencies), two regional developmentagencies, and several central governmentdepartments. Canada, throughout thesecond half of the 20th Century a leader inintegration of metropolitan governments,has now turned toward a polycentric neoregionalism.This shift comes in the wakeof spectacular de-fusion measures followingreferenda among municipalitiesGovernance is nolonger confined tothe built-up areasof distinct urbanconurbations; itnow extends tovast multi-polarurban regions thatcontinue to expandand change