GOLD Report I - UCLG

METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE274United Cities and Local GovernmentsThe metropolitanregionsof Los Angelesand Paris contrastwith theircounterparts in theSouth in theirreliance onstronger localinstitutions,particularly thosecommanding thegreater resourcesavailable to townsoutside the urbancenterslises that are neither state nor national capitals(Johannesburg and Los Angeles). Thecomparative table of the Appendix focuseson the main organizations charged withcarrying out policy implementation in ninesectoral domains, including the distributionof public and private responsibilities.Regional geopolitical fragmentation by itselfimposes similar problems for all of thesedifferent governmental structures. As istypical of other metropolises, the centralcity in these cases contains between 19%and 67% of the metropolitan population. Inevery case – even Johannesburg in thewake of the recent metropolitan reforms–the local governments across the metropolitanarea divide into multiple units. If weinclude the infra-local district governance inJohannesburg, then every configuration ofgeneral-purpose governments includesboth some local units and a second layer ofunits that takes the obligations of the entiremetropolitan area into account. In eachcase, under both unitary and federal states,an intermediate unit of government at theregional level stands between the nationallevel and these local arrangements.Even more striking similarities among metropolitaninstitutions emerge from thebreakdown of specific sectors of policy. Forexample, a similar configuration of agenciesand firms addressing needs at national,metropolitan and local levels carriesout transit services. Roads administration isalso divided among national agencies responsiblefor big state and national roads,local governments charged with maintaininglocal roads and other governments forthe roads in between. Municipal and interlocalarrangements manage most trashcollection and land use planning sectors.Against a backdrop of national legislation inall six countries, local or metropolitangovernments are often given the job ofimplementing environmental policies.These common trends reflect a transnationalunderstanding of best practices, as wellas common influences at work within eachsector.Of course, there are significant contrasts.In Seoul and in the Southern metropolitanareas, the examples demonstrate howpublic corporations tied to national or otherhigher-level governments play a more pervasiverole in many areas. National publiccompanies in all of these countries exerciseexclusive control over all airports. Nationalor state-held development companies playa leading role in land-use planning androads. National or provincial governmentscarry out secondary and – except in Mumbai– primary education. Even where localgovernments bear much of the responsibility,there is less evidence of active interlocalarrangements or local initiatives inFrench and U.S. metropolitan areas. Especiallyin the rapidly developing areas outsidethe main urban centers, local governmentcapacities remain weak.The metropolitan regions of Los Angelesand Paris contrast with their counterparts inthe South in their reliance on stronger localinstitutions, particularly those commandingthe greater resources available to townsoutside the urban centers. Yet Los Angelesand Paris differ significantly in their patternsof organizational fragmentation. To afar greater degree than that seen in Los Angeles,the 1584 communal governments ofmetropolitan Paris exemplify a polycentricmodel espoused by Public Choice proponentsof territorial fragmentation. In trash collection,water or sewage and land-use planning,inter-governmental arrangements inParis have proliferated more or less in waysthat Public Choice theory would prescribe.Even in these domains, however, multiplemunicipalities often depend on unified centralizedagencies or companies. Before thedecentralization of the 1980s in France,even land use and planning were carried outby national field offices.By comparison, the 180 municipalitiesand five counties of greater Los Angelespresent a less fragmented organizationallandscape of general purpose localgovernments. However, numerous sectorsthat are centralized in France are decentrali-