0w2010 01 RESUM EJECUTIVO 03 DEFcarta ang
26/10/10
19:49
PĂĄgina 68
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 68
United Cities and Local Governments
strong decentralization of responsibility and power, while others have created a more regional approach. Almost all have tried to strike some balance between capturing the efficiencies of area-wide government and maintaining local control. If there is a general conclusion that can be drawn about the choices actually made, it would seem that the sentiments for local control have largely held off the formation of metropolitan governments. Metropolitan areas in some countries emphasize fragmentation with public servicing decisions made by many different jurisdictions. Examples include New York City, Vancouver, and Copenhagen. Among the upper and lower middle income countries, Mexico City and Manila also fit this model. Home rule is emphasized with this approach but coordination and technical efficiency is sacrificed. Another approach to metropolitan governance is functional specialization, where the metropolitan area is serviced by general purpose local governments, and by public or semipublic companies with responsibility for specific functions. Stockholm, Paris, and Madrid emphasize this approach as do Bogota and many of the eastern European cities. This arrangement for delivering services can arguably produce better technical efficiency and coordination for a single service, but it moves decisions a step away from the local population and raises new problems with respect to crossfunction coordination. Another general approach is the creation of metropolitan government. Under this model, general services are provided by an elected, area-wide metropolitan government. While there are a number of area-wide governments in large urban areas, few of them have a wide range of powers. More often, they have a limited range of functional responsibilities, and govern alongside lower tiers of government. London, Tokyo, and Manila have created metropolitan supra governments with area wide
functions. Toronto and Cape Town are closer to being general purpose metropolitan governments. There has been little movement toward metropolitan governance in the U.S., however, or in the historically decentralized European countries. Most countries adopt government structures that mix these models. In fact, it is not unusual to see a metropolitan government, lower tier local government, and public companies all having responsibility for delivering services in the same metropolitan area. The question becomes emphasis.
Financing The general practice in developed countries is to give more taxing powers to subnational governments in comparison to developing countries. The same pattern appears to hold for local governments in metropolitan areas. In addition, special revenue raising powers sometimes are given to metropolitan local governments, especially in the developed countries. Unfortunately, comparative data on metropolitan finance is not available, so this study is forced to rely on a comparative case study approach.
Developed Countries Higher income countries appear to have given more attention to the issues of structuring governance in large metropolitan areas and finding ways of financing these structures. Examples of the “special� financial arrangements that have been put in place include (a) granting metropolitan governments both city and state level status (Tokyo, Berlin), (b) providing for special taxing powers (New York City) and (c) instituting special intergovernmental transfer arrangements (London, Rome). There is great variation in the finance instruments used. The Tokyo metropolitan area