GOLD Report I - UCLG

METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE266United Cities and Local GovernmentsMetropolitangovernmentscan usefully beclassified by theamount of territorywhere they havejurisdiction,their institutionaldepth, and theirdemocraticintensitygrouped within metropolitan areas. Thedevelopment of “lighter” governancestructures built around regional districtsand metropolitan municipalities has followed.• The adaptation of existing territorial unitsand governments above the municipal levelto manage emerging challenges ofmetropolitan regions. For large urbanregions, such as Tokyo, Paris and Sao Paulo,a regional or federal unit of governmentprovides administration at a scalebeyond the local government itself. Similarly,in the United States county governments,which are a higher level thanlocal municipalities, often provide a moreencompassing administrative frameworkfor carrying out planning or providing socialservices across municipal boundaries.American advocates of metropolitangovernance increasingly look to coalitionsamong representatives of cities and suburbsin the legislative and policymakingarenas of state and federal governmentsas a source of metropolitan policy (Dreier,Mollenkopf and Swanstrom 2004).• Strengthening democratic legitimacy. Forthe supporters of new forms of metropolitangovernance, direct popular electionof legislators and government executiveshas a double purpose: enhancing localautonomy and strengthening the linkbetween citizens and their political representatives(responsiveness). The directelection of the leadership for Metro Torontobegan in 1988. In Stuttgart, whenthe political parties offered lists of candidatesfor election to the Stuttgart RegionalCommunity (Verband Region Stuttgart)founded in 1994, party leaders took careto include the smallest possible numberof local representatives. This tactic limitedpolitical ties to parties in existing localgovernments, further empowering theregional assembly. Since 2000, the GreaterLondon Assembly and the mayor areelected directly by the people. Unlike theformer Greater London Council, the GLAhas adopted a strategy to encouragecompetition and social cohesion ratherthan simply to supply services directly(Harloe 2003).• The primacy of mission over management.The metropolitan administration iscommitted above all to planning, coordinatingand integrating policies set bymetropolitan area local authorities. Truemanagement tasks remain limited. As aconsequence, expert and scientific analysisof the metropolitan problem is morenuanced and pluralistic than it was 20years ago. Rather than agencies of strategicdirection, the new structures ofmetropolitan governance are necessarilylighter: The Greater London Authority haslittle more than 600 employees.• Close association with the private sector.At all stages in the process of institutionalmaturity, the strong influence of privatesector leaders and organizations can beseen. In Europe as well as the UnitedStates, chambers of commerce and associationsof enterprises are particularlyprevalent. In some countries, the role ofthe private sector is determined by legislation.V. Panorama of existing metropolitangovernance arrangementsWorldwide there is great variety in metropolitangovernance. As illustrated in Table 1,metropolitan governments can usefully beclassified by the amount of territory wherethey have jurisdiction, their institutionaldepth, and their democratic intensity. Theposition of metropolitan regional governmentsin the overall governmental hierarchy,including national and other systems, alsoinfluences the effectiveness and significanceof metropolitan governance. Additionally,the specific governmental functions assumedby the institutions of metropolitangovernance reveal global similarities andcontrasts, as do any trans-national arrangementsthat address the challenges of de factointernational metropolitan governance.