GOLD Report I - UCLG

METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE270United Cities and Local GovernmentsFlexible structuresto coordinate localparticipationaround targetedinitiatives arecommon, and havebecome more soover the past fewyearsmany municipalities and counties in UnitedStates metropolitan regions.Under these types of agreements, territorialfragmentation persists, but specific sectorbasedintegration overcomes it in the performanceof specific, sometimes narrowlydefined sectors, such as water and sanitation,electricity, transportation and wasteprocessing. The resulting arrangements areexpected to realize economies of scale for themanagement of capital-intensive services.The two main agencies of Metro Manila arethe Metropolitan Waterworks and SewerageSystem, and the Light-Rail Transit Authority.The Karachi Metropolitan Corporation specializesin economic development projects in thelargest of Pakistan’s cities, the Karachi DevelopmentAuthority manages property andinfrastructure and the Karachi Water Supplyand Sewerage Boards preside over their respectivetasks. Another example of inter-communitycooperation is seen in the Dhakametropolitan area of Bangladesh. There specializedagencies operate in parallel both inthe City of Dhaka, and with a set of municipalities(pourashavas) and 42 state services.Among these, the most important are RAJUK(Capital Development Authority), the DhakaCity Corporation and the partly state-controlledDhaka Water and Sewerage Authority.Similar arrangements may be found in othermajor metropolitan regions from Los Angelesto Sao Paulo (see Appendix).Flexible structures to coordinate local participationaround targeted initiatives are common,and have become more so over thepast few years. The State of Sao Paulo, forinstance, has initiated a number of thesearrangements since the 1990s. In conjunctionwith an NGO, the Metropolitan Forumfor Public Safety created the institute “SaoPaulo Contra a Violência.” The state alsoestablished a system of governance for riverwatersheds, incorporating a variety of localstakeholders (Abers and Keck 2006).Especially in the South, many metropolitanareas have weak intra-metropolitan coordination:in some cities there, none at all. Lackof sufficient local autonomy or capability oftencontributes to this problem. In Nigeria,Ethiopia and Tanzania, the urban authoritieshave rarely experienced a level of autonomythat would allow them to manage their ownpolicies, much less forge cooperative agreementswith neighboring local governments.In Nigeria, disputes over the proper applicationof existing governmental and professionalskills have impeded intra-city cooperation.It was only in 2003 that the decentralizationbegun by Ethiopian state authorities gaveAddis-Ababa a new charter with the expressaim of ending a century of centralized development.In Tanzania, decentralization in the1970s was simply a de-concentration exercise.Dar el-Salaam’s new municipal structure,operational since February, 2000, followed along period of technocratic and centralizedmanagement of the town. In all three of theseAfrican metropolitan towns, territorial parcelingthrough the creation of new administrativeunits contrasts with the unificationprocess seen in South Africa.Intervention by higher level governmentscan also supplant metropolitan cooperation.In Israel, for instance, despite the high proportionof its population living in the fourmetropolitan areas of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem,Haifa and Beer Sheva, there are very fewmetropolitan governance mechanisms. Inthe Tel-Aviv metropolitan area most intercommunityefforts are organizationally weak.At least in part, this is because centralauthorities maintain strict control over territorialdevelopment, transport and regionalinfrastructures (Razin and Hazan 2005).V.3. Democratic depthThe citizens’ role in the appointment andcontrol of metropolitan authorities varieswidely. Although electoral institutions aloneare rarely sufficient to ensure responsivenessor democracy, recent local electoralreforms in many countries have been intendedto extend opportunities for electoral participation.The growing size, complexity andterritorial connectedness of metropolitan