GOLD Report I - UCLG

63ment. In Pakistan, too, although the subdistrictlevel is crucial, union administrationsare local government units of a fairsize and some capacity. In Thailand, thereforms of 1999 and 2003 resulted inmunicipal-level consolidation in cities andboroughs and in the upgrading of sub-districtadministrative organizations into unitsof local self government. These units subsumedthe headmen that until that timehad been elected by the people but subordinatedto the provincial administration.These reforms represent an important steptowards the generalization of municipalgovernment in Thailand – although thegovernment system as a whole remainsrather centralized.The very rapid pace of urbanization in Asia– a seven-fold increase in urban populationsince 1950 (ADB 2006a) – presents hugechallenges for urban governance. At thesame time, decentralization policies inmany countries are increasingly puttingthese challenges into the hands of localgovernments (ibid. p.4). Although city andurban municipal governments are oftensome of the longest-established localgovernments in these countries (somegoing back over a century) they havegenerally been unable to keep pace withthe demands of urbanization. A city ormunicipal government often covers onlythe historic core that spawned a vastmetropolitan area. Although its boundariesmay, in some cases, have been enlarged,this has very rarely been sufficient to keeppace with the rapid urban expansion.As a result, the urban periphery is oftengoverned by a multiplicity of smaller municipalities,town and village councils,without any overall system of metropolitan-widemanagement. The available fiscalresources are often concentrated in thecore city, while the poorly served periphery(where many of the poorest live) is governedby various municipal and village councilsthat have access to minimal resources.This fragmentation of urban governancepresents huge problems in the financingand management of infrastructure and servicesacross the city.A few metropolitan areas (Metro Manila,Bangkok, Tokyo) have a functioning metropolitanlevel of government and in Chinastrong municipal governments thatencompass large rural hinterlands havealways governed the largest cities. In Australia,most of the metropolitan populationslive outside central cities and informalcooperation about planning has served asa means of metropolitan governance. Uniquely,the city government of Brisbaneencompasses the whole metropolitan area(ADB 2006a). In New Zealand, 12 localgovernments representing the largestcities and peripheral districts in the six biggestmetropolitan regions have joined withlocal government associations to developjoint strategies to address governanceissues.Elsewhere, there may only be some formof coordinating mechanism between thevarious municipal governments. But itrarely has the power or resources to tacklemetropolitan-wide infrastructure and serviceneeds. For example, in Jakarta, theremit of the city government (DKI) coversonly what was the metropolitan area untilaround the 1970s. In recent years fouradditional city governments have beencreated in the adjoining areas where mostnew development has taken place.Although there is a planning framework forthe whole metropolitan region (Jabodetabek),this has to operate on the basis ofconsensus among the constituent authorities.A further complication is the multiplicity ofagencies involved in urban development,infrastructure and service provision. Thishas been a particular issue in India wherethere has been a long tradition of specialpurpose agencies (SPAs). Thus, in a citysuch as Bangalore, there is a plethora ofSPAs in addition to the state government,the municipal government and the municipaland village governments in the sur-