GOLD Report I - UCLG

More documents

Recommendations

Info

53Table 2Global Ranking of Metropolitan Areas in the Asia-Pacific RegionRank Name English Name Country Population Remarks1 Tokyo Tokyo Japan 33,600,000 (Greater Tokyo Area) incl. Yokohama, Kawasaki, Saitama2 Seoul (Soul) Seoul Korea 23,400,000 incl. Bucheon, Goyang, Incheon, Seongnam, Suweon5 Mumbai Bombay India 21,600,000 incl. Bhiwandi, Kalyan, Thane, Ulhasnagar6 Delhi Delhi India 21,500,000 (National Capital Territory) incl. Faridabad, Ghaziabad9 Shanghai Shanghai China 17,500,00010 Osaka Osaka Japan 16,700,000 (Osaka Metropolitan Area) incl. Kobe, Kyoto12 Kolkata Calcutta India 15,700,000 (Kolkata Metropolitan Area) incl. Haora13 Manila Manila Philippines 15,600,000 (Metro Manila) incl. Kalookan, Quezon City14 Jakarta Jakarta Indonesia 15,100,000 (Jabotabek Metropolitan Area) incl. Tangerang15 Karachi Karachi Pakistan 15,100,00016 Guangzhou Canton China 14,700,000 incl. Foshan19 Beijing Beijing China 12,800,00020 Dhaka Dacca Bangladesh 12,600,00028 Shenzhen Shenzhen China 9,150,00029 Krung Thep Bangkok Thailand 8,650,00030 Wuhan Wuhan China 8,650,00033 Nagoya Nagoya Japan 8,250,00036 Tianjin Tiensin China 8,000,00037 Lahore Lahore Pakistan 7,950,00038 Chennai Madras India 7,850,000 (Chennai Metropolitan Area)40 Bangalore Bangalore India 7,350,000 (BMRDA)41 Hyderabad Hyderabad India 7,150,00043 Hong Kong (Xianggang) Hong Kong China 7,100,000 (S.A.R.) incl. Kowloon, Victoria44 Taipei (T’ai-pei) Taipei Taiwan 6,700,000 (Taipei-Keelung Metropolitan Area)46 Chongqing Chungking China 6,200,000Source: The principal agglomerations of the World (2007-09-03).City population, http://citypopulation.de/World.html.
ASIA-PACIFIC54United Cities and Local GovernmentsEach country of theregion has madesignificant stridesover the pastseveral decades inthe creation of astrengthenedinstitutionalframeworkin support ofdecentralizationin the case of India and Malaysia, it is generallyleft to the state or provincialgovernment to determine the scope oflocal government in these countries. Thus,it is not surprising that perceptible differencesin local government practices existacross the federated states within thesame country. The system of election forlocal councils in Australia, for example,varies from state to state. In India, fiscaland administrative decentralization is unevenlyimplemented across the states comparedwith political decentralization, whilelocal democracy is also at varying levels ofdevelopment across the Indian states. Incontrast, local government variation in Malaysiaand Pakistan is slight.Local governments in unitary states comprisethe only sub-national layers of government,thus putting local governmentdirectly under central government oversight.Theoretically speaking, unitary governmentsmay incline towards centralismand constrain local autonomy. The experiencein the region shows that this is notnecessarily so. Robust local governmentsand local democracy exist in unitary systemslike Japan, New Zealand and Philippines,as is also the case in federal Australia.China, though unitary, exhibits a variety oflocal government practices between provincesowing to the sheer size of thecountry. This is true to a lesser extent inIndonesia.Local governments in all countries exercisepowers by virtue of ultra vires. The powers,roles and responsibilities are set outin specific legislation or acts promulgatedby national or state level government, withsome countries having more or fewer localpowers and functions assigned to them.Japan is markedly different on this as localgovernments in this country operate on thebasis of the general competence principle.But as reforms continue to characterizeintergovernmental relations in the Asia-Pacific countries, the political and functionalbases of local government continue tobe redefined. Australia, for instance, ismoving to a less prescriptive approach inregard to the councils’ roles and functions,albeit subject to greater public accountabilityand stricter requirements for corporateplanning and reporting. The recent localgovernment reforms, particularly the LocalGovernment Act 2002, undertaken by NewZealand have broadened the responsibilitiesof local councils practically giving themthe power of general competence. Philippinelocal governments have their powersand responsibilities specifically defined inthe Local Government Code. Significantly,the general welfare clause in the Codeallows local governments to do practicallywhatever they think will promote the wellbeingof people and community, limitedonly by expressed prohibition of law. Inany case, the scope of powers and functionsassumed by local governments in theregion varies from country to country, andeven among local governments within thesame country. These practices had beenshaped by the respective country’s historicaltraditions, and increasingly by political,economic and fiscal considerations as evidencedby the decentralization programsbeing implemented by countries in the region.In most countries, local governmentsperform wide-ranging functions to addresslocal needs and promote economic and socialwell-being of citizens and local areas.The functions of local governments in theregion will be discussed at length in SectionIII.1.II.2. Legal Frameworkfor Local GovernmentThe legal framework for local government inthe Asia-Pacific region is contained either innational constitutions or in separate laws.Major local government legislation in theselected countries is shown in Annex 1.Most countries recognize local governmentin their constitutions as well as having separatelaws for local government. However,local government in Australia is recognizednot in the Commonwealth Constitution butin comprehensive Local Government Actspassed by individual state parliaments and
Page 1:
Decentralizationand local democracy
Page 5 and 6: UCLG wishes to acknowledge the Supp
Page 7 and 8: © 2008 United Cities and Local Gov
Page 9 and 10: FOREWORD8 United Cities and Local G
Page 11 and 12: PREFACE10 United Cities and Local G
Page 13 and 14: EDITORIAL PROJECT12 United Cities a
Page 15 and 16: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS14 United Cities and
Page 17 and 18: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS16 United Cities and
Page 19 and 20: INTRODUCTION18 United Cities and Lo
Page 21 and 22: INTRODUCTION20 United Cities and Lo
Page 24 and 25: AFRI C AMUSTAPHA BEN LETAIEFCHARLES
Page 26 and 27: 23I. IntroductionAfrica encompasses
Page 28 and 29: 25CCountry Political Type of state
Page 30 and 31: 27and local governments are defined
Page 32 and 33: 29torical context from which they e
Page 34 and 35: 31aid. In some cases, central gover
Page 36 and 37: 33suffrage. Metropolitan councillor
Page 38 and 39: 35Table 3 Responsibilities of local
Page 40 and 41: 37taxation. VAT has been establishe
Page 42 and 43: 39disbursements to local government
Page 44 and 45: 41Table 4 Human resource situationC
Page 46 and 47: 43Table 5 Portrait of local democra
Page 48 and 49: 45view and approve executive bodies
Page 50: 47V. ConclusionThis overall picture
Page 53 and 54: ASIA-PACIFIC50 United Cities and Lo
Page 55: ASIA-PACIFIC52United Cities and Loc
Page 59 and 60: ASIA-PACIFIC56United Cities and Loc
Page 96 and 97: EURASIAT. Y. K HABRIE VA(C HIEF RES
Page 98 and 99: 95I. IntroductionThis chapter analy
Page 100 and 101: 97Table 1General Information and Te
Page 102 and 103: 99The constitutions of several stat
Page 104 and 105: 101vote. Rather, control of local m
Page 106 and 107:
103Capitals and Metropolitan AreasT
Page 108 and 109:
105losing their local, own sources
Page 110 and 111:
107Table 3Local Finance Indicators
Page 112 and 113:
109Education. In the majority of st
Page 114 and 115:
111Table 4Functions of Local Govern
Page 116 and 117:
113execution of their duties munici
Page 118 and 119:
115State Formation of local Local e
Page 120 and 121:
117State Formation of local Local e
Page 122 and 123:
119On the whole, local elections in
Page 124 and 125:
121neighborhood, part of a resident
Page 126 and 127:
123corporate) persons may be resolv
Page 128:
125fragile, in part due to complica
Page 131 and 132:
EUROPE128 United Cities and Local G
Page 133 and 134:
EUROPE130United Cities and Local Go
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
EUROPE134 United Cities and Local G
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 170 and 171:
L ATIN AMERICAMARI O ROS ALESSALVAD
Page 172 and 173:
167I. IntroductionLatin America is
Page 174 and 175:
169Nevertheless, the depth of the r
Page 176 and 177:
171America (see graph 1). The feder
Page 178 and 179:
173initially appointed by the natio
Page 180 and 181:
175nicipal (Municipal Budget Regime
Page 182 and 183:
177and generate significant demogra
Page 184 and 185:
179Table 3Evolution and Distributio
Page 186 and 187:
181where it is the responsibility o
Page 188 and 189:
183BoxTransfer Systems in Latin Ame
Page 190 and 191:
185tection was organized for the un
Page 192 and 193:
187Table 4 Municipal responsibiliti
Page 194 and 195:
189percentage of houses connected t
Page 196 and 197:
191partments or regions held electi
Page 198 and 199:
193cipation funds. The oversight co
Page 200 and 201:
195Table 6Associations of Municipal
Page 202 and 203:
197about renewal of leadership and
Page 204:
199Despite advancesin decentralizat
Page 207 and 208:
MIDDLE EAST / WESTERN ASIA202 Unite
Page 209 and 210:
MIDDLE EAST / WESTERN ASIA204United
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 236 and 237:
NORTH AMERICA(CANADA AND THE UNITED
Page 238 and 239:
233I. IntroductionThis chapter comp
Page 240 and 241:
235Table 1Governmental and Country
Page 242 and 243:
237Decentralization has attracted t
Page 244 and 245:
239preparedness and security. Even
Page 246 and 247:
241years, however, local government
Page 248 and 249:
243reflect the consequences of syst
Page 250 and 251:
245years. In the U.S. there are oft
Page 252 and 253:
247tion of Canadian Municipalities
Page 254 and 255:
249One of the most important roles
Page 256:
251V. ConclusionIn both Canada and
Page 259 and 260:
METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE254 United C
Page 261 and 262:
METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE256United Ci
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE278 United C
Page 285 and 286:
CONCLUSION280 United Cities and Loc
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
POSTFACE304 United Cities and Local
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 320 and 321:
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Page 322 and 323:
317AfricaBanque Mondiale, 2003, Ré
Page 324 and 325:
319International Monetary Fund, 200
Page 326 and 327:
321EurasiaAdministrativnaya reforma
Page 328 and 329:
323Regulirovanie voprosov organizac
Page 330 and 331:
325Guérin-Lavignotte, E., Kerrouch
Page 332 and 333:
327--- Descentralización, transfer
Page 334 and 335:
329Middle East and West AsiaUnited
Page 336 and 337:
331North AmericaSaudi Ministry of R
Page 338 and 339:
333Laubach, T., 2005, Fiscal Relati
Page 340 and 341:
335Metropolitan GovernanceU.S. Bure
Page 342 and 343:
337Kübler, D., 2005, Problems and
Page 344 and 345:
339ConclusionAalborg C., 1994, Char
Page 346:
341Rothblatt, D. N. and Sancton A.
show all

GOLD Report I - UCLG

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?