GOLD Report I - UCLG

ASIA-PACIFIC52United Cities and Local GovernmentsThe term ‘localgovernment’ isgenerically usedin all countriesto refer tosub-state/sub-provincialunitsThis chapter reviews the results of twelvecountry case studies of decentralizationand local democracy from the region:Australia, China, India, Indonesia,Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan,Philippines, Korea, Thailand and Vietnam(Table 1). The sample reflects themore developed and faster growing nationsof the region but also those wherethere is a more active program of decentralization,albeit of widely varying patterns.The chapter draws on otherpublished material on these countries aswell as the authors' own knowledge of theregion.The Asia-Pacific region embraces themost highly developed features of globalurbanization and already contains 23 ofthe 40 largest metropolitan areas in theworld (Table 2). Of the top 100 metropolitanareas, China has 15 (with a combinedpopulation of 96.2m), India has 9 (with acombined population of 80.1m) andJapan has 3 (with a combined populationof 49.1m).With such a diversity of population size,per capita income, historical experienceand political system, it is not surprisingthat models of decentralization and subnationalgovernance should also varyconsiderably. As a result of this lack ofhomogeneity, it is both difficult and questionableto make sweeping generalizationsabout the Asia-Pacific region as a whole. Infact, the recent experience of decentralizationand local democracy in the region hasbeen quite diverse. Nevertheless, there aresome common themes and issues acrossthe region, which are addressed in thischapter. Four of the sample countries–Australia, India, Malaysia and Pakistan–have federal systems of government thataccord states a greater or lesser degree ofautonomy. Since, within a federal system,local government is generally a state matter,this can produce a wide diversity ofpractice within a country with regard tolocal governance. This is certainly true inAustralia and India but less so in Malaysiaand Pakistan. The enormous size of Chinameans that, although it is a unitary state,there is a considerable diversity of practiceamong provinces. To a lesser extent, this isalso true in Indonesia.II. Territorial organizationII.1. Delineating Local GovernmentsWhile local governments are generally understoodas units of government responsiblefor providing direct services toinhabitants in a given territorial jurisdiction,their classification and location in thesub-national government vary across theAsia-Pacific countries. The term ‘local government’is generically used in all countriesto refer to these sub-state/sub-provincialunits. In a few countries, other terms areused such as ‘councils’ in Australia andNew Zealand, and district administrationin Malaysia. In Japan, the preferred termis ‘local autonomy’ to indicate freedomfrom central control in making decisionsand self-responsibility in managing localaffairs. Depending on population size,income and location, local governments inthe region are variously categorized aswards, districts, communes, shires, counties,municipalities, cities, prefectures andprovinces. And although all these forms aregenerally considered local governments,their classification also varies such that amunicipal unit in one country (Indonesia)may be much bigger than an intermediatelocal government unit in another one(for example a province in the Philippinesor Vietnam).In federal countries like Australia, India,Malaysia and Pakistan, local governmentsin general comprise the lowest level ofgovernment. In these countries, local governmentsare a function of the intermediatelevel of government such as thestates in Australia, India and Malaysia andprovinces in Pakistan. While there may besome general provisions in federal constitutionsconcerning local governments, as