mayraj fahim's presentation at international workshop on citizen-governance integration for...

Local Government as an Economic and Environmental Tool

Mayraj FahimSenior Fellow, City Mayors Foundation

International Workshop on Happy Vaishali, Healthy VaishaliSaturday, May 12, 2012

Personal background

City Mayors Foundation

Established in 2003, The City Mayors Foundation is an international think tank dedicated to urban affairs. It consists of professionals working together in Europe, North and South America, Asia and Africa to promote strong and prosperous cities as well as good local government.

Contact Details:In the UK:

London SW1In Germany:79100 FreiburgInternational telephone:+44 (0) 20 7630 0615Email: [email protected]: www.citymayors.com

www.worldmayor.com

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim 2

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.citymayors.com/

http://www.worldmayor.com/

India needs to modernize its local systems for a number of pressing reasons

Outdated systems are deteriorating governance. An example is in the “Too many cooks in each other’s way for the urban services kitchen” the apt title of an article by Ramesh Ramanathan, founder of the Bangalore NGO Janaagraha on the confusion of urban agencies. [December 23, 2004. Financial Express.]

Rural migration is stressing an already vulnerable system.

Investment in India and its economy is being hampered by the condition of the urban environment.


Early Beginnings and Evolution of Urban Governance in India

The first modernized urban system of India, the Madras municipal corporation introduced in 1688 was implemented to better manage deteriorating conditions.

Changing conditions in India and Britain led to the changes in the forms of urban systems.

The actions and omissions of the British in the colonial era and Indian governments in the post-Independence era have produced the present conditions.


THE CONSTITUTION (SEVENTY-FOURTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1992 is a small step forward.

There is room for further evolution to match the changing conditions.

The states are given inadequate guidance.

The 74th CAA provides a very basic framework. [Example no variations in forms for large and small cities. The metropolitan mechanism form offers only one type.]

Outside India, developing countries were implementing modern urban systems for large cities by the 1980s and 1990s. [Examples: Columbia (Bogota) Turkey (Metropolitan Municipalities), South Africa (Metropolitan Municipalities) and of course China (the country where the most massive changes took place )]

Given its limitations, Indian states should treat the 74th CAA as a minimum standarad.


THE CONSTITUTION (SEVENTY-FOURTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1992 allows room for devising governance structures.

7@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

Metropolitan Committees under THE CONSTITUTION (SEVENTY-FOURTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1992

“243ZE. Committee for Metropolitan planning.-(I) There shall be constituted in every Metropolitanarea a Metropolitan Planning

Committee to prepare a draft development plan for the Metropolitanarea as a whole.”

That can mean different types of mechanisms, see for example EU METREX report

Intra-metropolitan polycentricity in practice -Reflections, challenges and conclusions from 12 European metropolitan

areasFinal report of the METREX - Expert Group

on Intra-Metropolitan Polycentricity, September 2010

URL: http://www.eurometrex.org/Docs/Expert_Groups/Polycentricity/METREX_IMP_final_version.pdf

Metro Governing Body Variations, pg. 25

http://www.eurometrex.org/Docs/Expert_Groups/Polycentricity/METREX_IMP_final_version.pdf

Indians shouldn’t be wary of researching foreign systems and modernization

Most systems are implemented after studying foreign systems. The number of variations in operation require careful study of different types of systems and even more the different variations of same type of system (regional systems of federated/integrated governance-a rising force in our era).

First modernization of urban government was reflected in the Madras municipal corporation introduced in 1688.

Its form followed contemporary British municipal structure of the period.

It was seen as a solution for managing the growing conservancy problem in Madras.

Sir Josiah Child, head of the East India Company who sought to modernize the system understood that governance structures need to change to match changing ground conditions.

11@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

Modern understanding of local government is that different types of

structures affect economic performance and environmental quality.

There is a silent revolution on federated/integrated governance that has been a steadily rising force since the 1950s, although early beginnings can be traced to the 18th century.

India was the second region to get a form of this type of system in the rural 3 tier framework implemented under Lord Ripon. However, most systems are urban/metropolitan systems today.



Presented at: the One‐day ConferenceDating GameCourting Regional PartnershipsWednesday, November 7, 2007Lewiston, Maine[Edited version included for this workshop.]

Federated Government Frameworks: A Worldwide Perspective

A discussion of a rising force in local governance

Early Beginnings, Evolution and Implementation Issues

Early Beginnings

Most modern examples implemented in the post World War II era to cope with the challenges of urbanization and/or globalization.

Earlier examples were introduced first in France during the French Revolution-the 3 tier rural system and the urban decentralized system of Paris established by in a spontaneous development (when the 60 Districts of Paris evolved from polling areas to take on municipal functions in 1790); and by Great Britain ( inspired by the French developments at a time when reforms were needed due to the pressures of the Industrial Revolution and the Enclosure Movement).

To coordinate the challenge of municipal fragmentation (in 1890 French Governmentintroduced the first generation of inter-municipal coordination bodies in a country where 40,000 municipal units operated under 83 county governments (termed Departments in French terminology).



Evolution

Prior to the mid-20th century such systems were generally rare.

Suburbanization and metropolitan growth, economic changes and desire for the development of metropolitan regions has spurred the growth of examples since.

Most examples are in urban regions.

Most examples are inter-municipal cooperation arrangements of various types in Western countries. Developing countries such as the Philippines and Latin American nations have started such arrangements as well under guidance from Europe and Canada. Other developing countries have established more structured systems (e.g.: Turkey, South Africa, China). Also, in certain developed and developing countries regional systems in capital city districts are related to this form of local governance. Such developing country systems are structurally flawed, dysfunctional and facing mounting challenges.

In mega city regions, a rising trend of systems contains decentralized city cores, semi-autonomous/autonomous suburban units in a unitary framework (e.g.: China, Japan –The Tokyo Metro Government, South Korea- the Seoul Metro Government) or one involving inter-municipal cooperative arrangements (e.g.: France, Quebec’s Montreal area reforms) is developing.



Implementation Issues

From the early period, seeking guidance from pre-existing examples has been the most commonly shared route, even as local expression has reflected local dynamics and choices made.

In the era of choice, discrimination is required in system design that respects both local needs and dynamics and the fit of the identified model type.

Expectations from the implementation of the new system should shape the design of the new system.

The level of integration and the weighting of the levels are factors to consider as they can be potential pitfalls for reformers who desire to change the same in the new local system.

The weaknesses of the adopted model should be reduced or corrected in the new local system.

The strengths of the adopted model should be enabled.



The Benefits of Implementation

The primary benefits achieved by productive federated systems are:

Cost savings

Productive investments for the area

Regional improvement

Reduction in intra-unit or inter-unit inequity

More inclusive grassroots governance


U.S. Examples

Decentralized unitary city/county systems

Miami Dade County, Florida

Shortly after the Canadian introduction of the Toronto Metro system for Toronto and 12 suburbs, Miami Dade County and its municipalities established the closest U.S. approximation of the same approach. The County home rule charter was established by the amendment of the Florida State Constitution in 1956.

Political power was divided between the county and municipal governments. Area-wide issues were to be the purview of the county government. Municipal units held both concurrent powers - exercisable by the county as well as by themselves; and residual powers - those essentially local in range and effect.


Decentralized unitary city/ county systems

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

The first ‘modern’ style city-county consolidation that came into effect in 1949 (and was approved by voters in 1947), pioneered the two major innovations of the differential tax and service districts and the option for existing suburban units to remain autonomous within the county .

The sub-municipal autonomous units relation to the consolidated government is not closely integrated and retains the arms length relations of an earlier predecessor: the New England Town systems’ incorporated villages, villages districts and boroughs.

New York City, New York

The 1898 Consolidation of 40 area governments into the 5 boroughs of Greater New York established Borough Presidents in the only consolidated decentralized system of its time in the United States. 1975 charter changes added 59 community boards, whose predecessors were the 12 community planning councils introduced as an experiment in 1951 by the Manhattan Borough President and the 62 community planning boards included in the City Charter by 1963. Increasing centralization has been this system’s defining characteristic over time.

New England Town FormThis New England institution allowed for the existence of some sub-municipal bodies of limited powers for the provision of services and the issuance of bonds to finance infrastructure. This regional institution revealed that by the 19th century local leaders had started applying the mechanism of subsidiarity within units.


Multi-unit formulations

Soft-form arrangementsSoft-form arrangements as opposed to more structured frameworks have a wide variety in operation, some of reflections of which can be found in the United States.

Voluntary Metropolitan Councils

These were underway in the U.S. by the 1950s. An early foreign example was the Tasmanian RegionalCouncil of Australia, introduced in 1922. Such councils in the US conduct studies, submit reports, urge the adoption of legislation and provide a forum for discussing common problem. They have no enforcement powers;but can lay the foundation for governmental actions.

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Created in the 1970s by the U.S. Congress to address growing transportation challenges in metro regions. Several regional councils and associations have also been designated MPOs and have deepened their functions.

Intergovernmental Agreements

These local agreements in the U.S. include informal arrangements, service contracts or joint agreements.Such agreements are popular in Europe, where the cooperation has included a wider array of functions andresponsibilities than may be found in the U.S. Europe has had a longer experience with this form, as the first single function body was established by 1890.


Multi-unit Formulations

Structured systems

Twin Cities Metro System, Minnesota

The 7 county regional council has a 17 member council of state appointed officials. It was established in 1967. it is a regional planning agency and provides area-wide services in the twin cities region. Its main fundingsources are intergovernmental aid, followed by user fees and a percentage of property tax.

operates the region's largest bus system collects and treats wastewater engages communities and the public in planning for future growth provides forecasts of the region's population and household growth provides affordable housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income individuals and families provides planning, acquisitions and funding for a regional system of parks and trails provides a framework for decisions and implementation for regional systems

including aviation, transportation, parks and open space, water quality and water management.

This system enabled further cooperation such as the regions pioneering of the concept of tax base sharing in 1971and remains the largest example in the country, which has reduced the disparities within the region.


Multi-unit Formulations

Structured systemsPortland Metro, OregonIn the 3 county Portland metro region with 25 cities, Portland has the only elected regional government body in the country. It was established in 1978 with the merger of the Metropolitan Service District and theColumbia Regional Association of Governments. Voters approved the election of its representatives.The Metro’s president and auditor are elected region-wide; and the councilors are elected by district.Funding sources include service charges, intergovernmental aid and local bonds.

In 1995, the voters approved a broad home rule charter for the regional government, now called Metro, to provide region-wide planning, policymaking and the services needed to preserve and improve the region’s quality of life. Overtime the functions of the region have expanded. As noted on its website: it is “a regional resource, problem solverand leader.”

Metro's planning program is the subject of extensive public participation.Its portfolio of regional responsibilities include solid waste disposal, transportation planning, regional visitor facilities.


A Family Tree with Many Branches

Federated frameworks may be city based, county based or regional; or all of the foregoing.Sub-municipal/sub-regional offices and inter-municipal cooperation of various types may be the foundation of further evolution along the federated spectrum.

Such systems may be urban (as most are) or rural. France, the United Kingdom and the countriesof South Asia where rural formula was implemented by the British have rural systems as well as urban ones.


Modified Examples and Beginning Formulas

Bogota, ColombiaBogota has 20 districts and a population of over 6 million (expanding from over 700,000 in the 1950s). Each of the 20 districts is governed by an administrative board elected by popular vote, constituted of no less than seven members, as determined by the District Council. The Principal Mayor of Bogota designates local mayors from a trio proposed by the respective administrative board. The decentralized system of Bogota was provided for in the 1991 Constitution of Colombia, with subsequent city laws in1992-93dividing the city into 20 districts and establishing other aspects of the city’s new structure.

Bogota has an uncommon system for Latin America; and when compared to other decentralized systems in foreign countries, it is amodified form. However, Bogota exemplifies the fact that a modified system can still be productive in the presence of the will to exploitthe structure permitted.

Bogota has been subject to migration from the war torn parts of the country, which has taxed its systems ability to providefor its constituents. The district mayors are responsible for implementing within their districts the city mayor's programs for tacklinghunger, improving public health, curbing child labor, reaching universal education and pushing a program to create new sources ofincome for poor people in this city of 9 million.

The city has implemented a civic culture though civic participation with the advent of the first mayor under thenew system: Anatanas Mockus ( an academic who as a educator had focused on the subject of local reform). His first experimentaddressed water usage illustrated how regular exchange of information between the city and its residents could reduce water usage.



The Seoul Metropolitan Government, South KoreaThere are 25 autonomous districts/wards (the "Gu“) in Seoul, divided into 522 administrative sub-units atthe neighborhood level, (the "Dong“), that are essentially sub-district offices. Previously, the Gu was underthe control of the Seoul Metropolitan government until 1988. Currently, the Gu as a subunit of governmentexecutes both autonomous administrative functions and those delegated by the City as a self-governing local administrative unit. "Dong" offices provide close, first-hand services for the residents. The Gu mayors have been elected since 1995. Unlike some other systems Seoul has no councils operating to complement the electedmayors of the Gus. There is also no representation at the neighborhood level.



As the examples of Seoul’s Gus and Bogota’s sub-district mechanisms reveal, even less amplified sub-municipal mechanisms than others can add value. The availability of a sub-municipal mechanismcombined with the will to exploit the opportunity brings results.

The neighborhood city halls are part of a growing trend including the cities of: Sydney ( Australia), Japan in the recent wave of municipal consolidations, Hamburg and Berlin (Germany), Seoul (South Korea), Birmingham (United Kingdom) and major Chinese cities.

In Birmingham (United Kingdom), the country’s second largest city, neighborhood officespreceded further devolution by decades. Neighborhood offices were established by the 1980s, further devolution followed in the 21st century (with some guidance from French sister city Lyon).


Decentralized Unitary City Systems

Bogota, the cities of Quebec that have decentralized upon consolidation of urban multi-unit arrangements, are part of a larger trend of decentralized city cores. This has been a major trend in Europe and Asia, with some African countries also permitting decentralized city systems.

In Europe, a wave of devolution since the 1980s has also affected large city systems.

Amongst European Cities, 3 basic models exist:

Capital cities of federal states that have state powers and are insubordinate to any state government, e.g.: Brussels, Berlin, Hamburg and Vienna.

Cities with a 2nd tier responsible for delivery of a wide range of services which manage their own budgets, e.g.: London, Rome, Paris (arrondissement first formally established in 1795), Lyon (arrondissement first formally established in 1852). [Marseilles has the 3d large city system in France. Here the 16 arrondissments are combined into 8 secteurs each of which has a mayor and council] .

The Scandinavian examples of cities that provided wide range of community services and have further reformed their systems to be even closer to the citizens, e.g.: Stockholm, Copenhagen and Helsinki.

Some other cities fall somewhere in between: a particular result of national history and the trend towardsdevolution in Europe.



European Cities

Some European city systems:

AmsterdamAmsterdam has a Mayor (appointed by the national government) and an ExecutiveCommittee constituted of Alderman selected primarily from the city council. In the 1980s the city was divided into districts. The number was set to 15 by the 1998 elections. Fourteen of the districts have theirown powers, budgets and civil servants and elected mayors and councils; while one district is managed bythe city government.

Athens Athens has 3 layers of governments. In 1985 the Athens Authority was established as an independentcoordinating body for the region. The region has 4 prefectures. 2 of those- Athens and neighboring Piraeus havea joint authority. This authority is subordinate to the Athens Authority and has no direct relation to the municipal governments. It’s role isthe economic, social and cultural development of the region. The Athens Prefecture has 3 districts subdivided into 11 municipalities, of which the city of Athens is one in the Athens Metropolitan Area District. Athens has an elected mayor and city council.

BerlinBerlin has the status of both a federal state and a city government. It’s suburbs are contained in a neighboring State with which there was a failed attempt to merge. As a state it has a bicameral legislature. The Mayor iselected by the House of Representatives and who then proposes the Senators who are elected individuallyby the House. In 2001 the number of boroughs was reduced from 23 to 12. The boroughs do not raise theirown revenues; but are granted state government funds. The Senate maintains a supervisory role; but, consultsthe mayor and council on matters pertaining to the city that are legislative and administrative in nature.



European Cities

Copenhagen

The city of Copenhagen is both a city and a county. It is part of the Copenhagen Metropolitan area whichcontains 3 counties and two municipalities for which the Greater Copenhagen Authority was established by lawin 1999 to handle strategic matters. Transport, tourism, regional planning, culture and cooperation with thesouthern region of Sweden are the domains of the Authority funded by its constituent local units.

BirminghamBirmingham undertook the most far reaching devolution amongst the cities of the United Kingdom, until Manchester formed the Greater Manchester Combined Authority in 2011.

Birmingham City Council further localized the city government by building on the reforms implemented during the 1980s,when neighborhood offices and neighborhood forums, ward committees and advisory boards were established andappointed part time officers added to support local activities. Since 2001 city government has worked on devolving powersto 10 constituencies and parish councils “ to encourage ways of governance and management which are more appropriate to local area”, as noted in a city document. Each Constituency is run by a Constituency Committee,consisting of the twelve councilors from the four wards in each Constituency, which meets in public ona regular basis. The Constituencies are responsible for a range of services including some that they manage directlyand others that are managed through Service Level Agreements with corporate or external service providers suchas street and environmental services, and parks. Over £100m of service budgets, and 2,500 staff were 'liftedand shifted' according to the city from centralized service departments and re-focused to meet the needs of service users and localcommunities.



Benefits:Decentralized city systems by enabling sub-regional turnaround increaseproductivity for the system as a wholeThe London borough of Camden underwent a dramatic turnaround by changing from being very badly managed to becoming the United Kingdom's best performing local unit. Camden’s example was not possible for Brooklyn(a borough of New York that was once one of the 15 largest cities in the US), with a system that is centralized as opposed to being substantively federated.

Individual units can be hubs of innovation and laboratories for changeIn Seoul, one of its Gu’s became an e-government leader. In China, the township of Zeguo in the city of Wenling, introduced a participatory budgeting experiment. In London, boroughs experiment with changes that can be local and/or nationally followed such as e-voting.

Such systems inhibit the “dual city” syndrome, whereby there is biased provision of services in favor of elite areas.



Asia

Amongst Asian countries, county-level formulas are the exclusive South Asia model where,irrespective of whether the system has self-governance to 2nd or 3rd level, the cities have countylevel status. South Asian systems are more common at the rural level, as that was how the Britishintroduced them to it. Generally South Asian systems have not yet delivered the results deliveredelsewhere. They have an older history; but, have suffered from state/national unwillingness tosupport and/ or maintain them.

The West Bengal rural system in India has illustrated that consistent state support can deliver productive results to a limited extend. Neither the rural nor the urban system in West Bengal has realized the benefits of productive systems outside India.

In South East Asia the systems tend to be exclusively urban, although can contain rural areas. In South East Asia, the county level city is the lower level, cities also have regional and provincial/state level competencies. In this part of Asia, the greatest variety is in China and South Korea.

In urban cores of the cities of China city offices and neighborhood councils constituted of residentsalso exist. [China and France have the most networked systems.]



South East Asian Cities

China

The most extensive use of federated systems in South East Asia is in China, where they formed the base of its newurban industrial economy. Subdivisions generally have own government units. Majority of these systems wereimplemented in the post-1978 reform era when it opened its economy. Early, preceding developments included the1950s allowance for cities to govern counties. To expedite urbanization counties changed their status to cities(accounting for 70% of cities) rising from 245 by 1982 to 517 by 1992.

Cities covering regions rose from 112 in 1982 to 244 by 2000, when a number of regions were given city designation.Prefecture-level cities nearly always contain multiple counties, cities that govern counties or counties whosedesignation is now changed to that of a city, plus towns, townships and other local sub-divisions. A limited number ofcities have provincial status the designation of most being of older origin save for the city of Chongqing.



Stratified, Bottom-Up and Top-Down common representational frameworks

Separate representation formulaIn general, stratified or separate representation between tiers is the most common variation. This formulation tends to reinforce the powerdistribution in the system. In UK, throughout the history of operation there have been complaints about one side dominating the other(or others).

Common Representation FormulasA rising trend is common representation across the tiers.

In Europe, where inter-municipal and regional bodies tends to have representation from constituent municipal bodies there has beendiscussion about the legitimacy that comes from direct election. On the other hand, direct elections have also led tofriction between units that can lead to dissolution. A dispute resolution mechanism is advisable for inclusion in such systems, if the formula ischanged.

Top-Down arrangementsThe Halifax/Toronto framework of city councilors sitting in community councils in the areas from which elected offers a top-down alternative.Outside Canada, both Los Angeles and Birmingham also have this feature included in their recent systemic reforms.

In Birmingham , the city councilors also serve as councilors in the sub-regions, with delegated powers provided to parish councils.

Birmingham has taken the Halifax formula introduced following consolidation ( later also seen in Toronto formula) to its greatest level ofdevolution. 3 tier urban systems in Kolkata, Pakistan (during the Musharraf era) and in Birmingham are urban reflections of the rural systems in South Asia and UK. This is unlike France, where a neighborhood (quartier level exists; but, It has no formal rule in the governance systems.



Stratified, Top-Down and Bottom-Up a common representational frameworks

Common representation formulasBottom-up arrangementsThe bottom-up representational framework is the oldest arrangement dating back to the timeof the 60 Districts of Paris. The decentralized large city formula of Paris, Lyon and Marseille reflects a continuation in France of this arrangement. In Canada, the recent Quebec reforms of cities also have a bottom-uparrangement. When the U.S. introduced a beginning framework for Baghdad, the bottom-up frameworkwas reflected there as well. China’s urban systems have also follow this dynamic.

The distinction is in the weightings of the different levels, and how many layers there are. As the reach ofthe systems deepen, so do the layers contained within them.


Multi-Unit Formulations

Addressing the challenges of coordination and cooperation

In Europe the need for coordination is most acutely felt at the peripheries of large cities. Variousefforts to address this dilemma are:

1) Consolidation (not as popular today, due to resistance)2) Area wide functions provided by special legislation to upper tier level not specially created (e.g.: Stockholm,

Vienna, Geneva, Berlin, Hamburg, Bremen)3) Creation of special authorities (e.g.: Brussels, Helsinki, Valencia, French urban communities, Athens, Salonica,

Hanover, Brunswick, Frankfurt, Saarbruken, cities of the Ruhr District, Lisbon, Oporto, metropolitan cites of Italy, jt. authorities of UK such as for the Greater Manchester (on dissolution of county govt. in the area))

4) Traditional inter-municipal cooperation which involves delegation of some powers to a jt. authority (e.g.: Austria. Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Poland)

5) Special administrative bodies dependent on central government6) Delegation of certain power municipalities to the core city7) Less formal, arrangements (e.g.: various French forms, some Swiss city regions: Lausanne, Bern, Zurich,

Austria, Germany, UK, Norway, Finland, and Ireland)

In Europe there are also cross border cooperative systems across countries. This trend was pioneered by the Dutch-German border region in the 1950s.



Most popular form:Inter-municipal cooperation owing to autonomy concerns. The benefits of such arrangements -

Can be more specifically designed to address local problems, as urban areas can vary in structure, character and the problems they face.They can evolve over time with support from the upper level of Government-as revealed in evolving systems of the regional districts of British Columbia in Canada.

In Europe, the forces driving integration can be summarized as:Creation of the European Community- opened individual areas of various countries to competition from others, which increased their sense of vulnerability.Some enterprising regions saw opportunity in joining up with their neighbors.The national government was retreating from dominant provision of welfare and services.Suburbanization was growing Manufacturing regions were decimated.EU began to promote greater integration of regions in the interests of economic productivity and improvement.Since 1890, France’s use of inter-municipal cooperative bodies to integrate the largest number of local units in Europe, which evolved over the course of years since then, provided a ready source of guidance and inspiration nearby.



The nation with old roots in municipal cooperation: Inter-communal cooperation in France

Source -French website: http://www.auvergne.pref.gouv.fr/collectivites/intercommunalite/index.php

Inter-municipal cooperation has been gradually organized from the nineteenth century with: - Law of 22 March 1890 on the establishment for a single purpose (SIVU)- Decree of 20 May 1955 on the establishment of unions mixed - Law of January 5, 1959 on the establishment for multiple purposes (SIVOM) and urban districts, - Law of December 3, 1966 on the establishment of urban communities - Law of 10 July 1970 to facilitate the establishment of new settlements, - Law of January 5, 1988At this stage of inter-communal forms, two forms of cooperation stand out, both for their purpose and their method of financing:An association developed mainly in rural areas, consisting of the SIVU, SIVOM and mixed unions, and allowing municipalities to manage all activities or utilities from a funding from the budgetary contributions of Communes or taxed from own sources; or,a federal urban community, consisting of neighboring districts, cities and towns, with mandatory functions and skills to manage its affairs and financed through direct taxation

(continued on next slide)


http://www.auvergne.pref.gouv.fr/collectivites/intercommunalite/index.php


Inter-municipal cooperation then accelerated at the end of the twentieth century

*The Agglomeration community – a soft-form formulationA more integrated inter-communal grouping provided for under the Cheve・nement Law of 1999.

An agglomeration community ( communauté d'agglomération) is a metropolitan governmental structure which is the second most integrated form after the urban community.Agglomeration communities consist of a commune of at least 15,000 inhabitants (or a prefecture with less than 15,000 inhabitants) and its independent suburbs.By 2007, there were 163 agglomeration communities in France.

Their population has ranged from almost 600,000 (Greater Toulouse) to almost 30,000 (Pays de Flers).

*For those unfamiliar with French, Wikipedia has some discussion of some French mechanisms.



Urban Communities

An urban community is composed of a commune and its independent suburbs. This arrangement was providedfor by the law passed by Parliament in 1966. Originally there were only four and were found in the metropolitan areasof Bordeaux, Lille, Lyon and Strasbourg. Later, others were created in other metropolitan areas. The purpose of theurban communities was to achieve cooperation and joint administration between large cities and their independentsuburbs. This step often followed failed attempts to merge the communes within a metropolitan area. The status ofthe urban communities was modified by the Cheve・nement Law of 1999.

These are not soft-form arrangements. They are far outnumbered by soft-form arrangements.

By January 2007, there were 14 urban communities in France.

[Note: In Canada, similar arrangements were established that linked cities with their suburbs, such asthe Montreal Urban Community; the regional municipalities of Ontario-with the pioneering Toronto system even

preceding implemented in France.]*For those unfamiliar with French, Wikipedia has some discussion of some French mechanisms



Urban Communities- an example:The Nantes Urban Community*

On 7 April 2000, a majority of 21 member Communes voted for the transfer of powers and of related resources, human and financial, to the Nantes Urban Community. (After that, its area expanded to include the three new Communes of Brains, Saint-Léger-les-Vignes and Mauves-sur-Loire.) Powers of municipal services since then have encompassed such items as social action and integration, culture and social activity, and the family, including early childhood, youth associations, and the elderly.

The Nantes Urban Community’s powers comprise statutory responsibilities. These include City policy; cultural, economic and social development; socially balanced housing; management of services; the environment and preservation and improvement of quality of life. There are also additional ones, such as electricity and gas; facilities for higher education and research; and transport and telecommunication.

The structure of the Nantes Urban Community consists of, first, the Chairman. As the Community’s executive, the holder of this office prepares and implements the resolutions of the Council and the Bureau.

(continued on next slide)



(continued from previous slide)Urban Communities

Nantes Urban CommunityThe highest deliberating body is the Community Council. It votes on and oversees implementations of the Budget, and decides local business taxes and the administration of Communal services. It has 113 Municipal Councilors or member towns and cities, allocated according to population. The Community Council thus has 49 elected representatives from the Nantes Municipal Council.

Below the Community Council is the Bureau. With 32 Vice-Chairmen, including 24 Mayors, who deliberate on topics delegated by the Council, it also includes eight commissions and bodies whose duties include preparing studies and making proposals.

There is also a Development Council, with 100 members, which liaises with social and economic circles and associations of the Urban Community.

Relations between the Urban Community and its member communes are governed by an Operating Charter. The Urban Community has ten centers of operation, it also assigns Community and local representatives to local commissions. Its primary function, however, is to manage is services such as roads, street lighting and waste management. It also holds a Mayor’s Conference, and pursues long-term co-development contracts. There are seven such centers in the Communal Territory of the City of Nantes: three in central Nantes, and the rest in certain Nantes neighborhoods( the “quartiers”) and outlying communes.

The various bodies – associations, corporations, institutions, and so on – within the City structure have, under elected representatives, continued to function for local purposes since the creation of the Urban Community and the transfer of powers previously held by the City.*Source:City Mayors.com



Plane Commune - an inter-municipal cooperation amongst some Paris suburbsInitially set up in 1999 amongst 5 municipal units in a rust belt suburb of Paris to try to improve their conditionsthrough cooperation. By 2004 two more units joined.

Following the construction of the stadium Stade de France, succeeded by a commercial and residential boom, thecommunities wanted to manage this development sustainably. What makes it work is the desire to exploit the benefitsof development, to have a substantial voice in the debate over development and the willingness to share tax income.

The Euro District of Alsace- a cross border planA recent French initiative is the Euro District of Alsace. This new initiative falls in the category of efforts that growover time such as the establishment of regional bodies that started in the 1950s.

INTERREG-An EU initiative fostering cross border cooperationUpper Rhine Center-South program at the borders of France, Germany and Switzerland

This region has had lots of informal cooperation before it became the subject of an INTERREG programAlmost 300 projects funded with EU support.



South East Asian inter-municipal frameworks Cross Border urban growth in the Yangtze River Delta RegionWith local units maxing out their own resources, some have moved to manage growth via joint development zones.This has involved transfer of administrative power of a development zone from one unit to another.

Two patterns of cross-border urban growth in the region:

Shared benefits from development of land: Hangzhou and HainingIn 2002, Hangzhou Municipal Government purchased land,, from its neighboring city Haining. In this case, Hangzhou Municipal Government obtained not only the rights of land development and land use from Haining, but also the administrative powers of the area. All benefits generated from the land development would belong to Hangzhou Municipal Government. But, Haining Municipal Government would still keep some administrative powers, such as industry and business registration and levying local revenue generated.

Transfer of administrative power between cities: Jingjiang and Jiangyin, Jiangyin and Suining

China’s first examples have much room for evolution. However, it is a new beginning for inter-local cooperation in thisregion of the world not aided by foreign support (e.g.: Philippines).


Hybrid Decentralized Unitary and Multi-unit Formulations

In large regions there is a growing trend of decentralization and regionalism with a network of links between corecities, and their surrounding regions. Some examples:

Canada- the Montreal regionWhere there co-exists a decentralized city system for Montreal, an agglomeration council with its immediate suburbs-(established on their secession post-consolidation) and the Montreal Urban Community, the regional body for this urban area.

France- Lyon and MarseillesWhere there exists decentralized a urban core, plus inter-communal arrangements with suburbs and a regional body.

Other European examples.


The Implications of Adapting Different Integration Levels

What must be kept in mind in this context is that different frameworks involve respecting different dynamics whenupgrading or adapting different variations. From one generation to the next, new decision-makers can fail when theydo not take that into account.

The London exampleSince the 1960s, the London system has been stuck in an inhibiting systemic framework when the British reformersimplemented a formulation of the type introduced for the Toronto Metro region. In so doing they reduced the integration level of the London system and limited the role of the top tier without compensating for it.

The shortcomings of that development remains present to challenge the Mayor of London who has vocalized hisfrustrations recently by saying that the boroughs should be drastically reduced in number.

The economic costs of this systemic flaw was revealed by a recent study financed by the British Government, whichfound that in ranking of European cities that contributed the most to their national GDP, London ranked 23rd. Pariswas 3rd on this list.


Pros and Cons of Different Applications

Intergovernmental Cooperation mechanismsAllows for more flexibility in devising solutions for the needs of an area.For optimal productivity they need a committed superior government level (ex: British Columbia, France, EU), otherwise they may notevolve and may even dissolve.

Multi-Unit Integrated FrameworksIntegration levels vary; and different levels of integration influence operations.They can facilitate a longer lifespan and are more conducive to evolution than the cooperative type that without adequate support candissolve or not evolve.

These require sensitivity about the power at the various levels; that proper revenue sources are available; and, there is a vehicle formanaging potential sources of friction. For regions where metropolitan growth exceeds territorial bounds, that fact should be addressed foroptimal productivity.

Consistent state support can help overcome the challenge of lack of capacity in a developing country context. Lack thereof, can becounterproductive or deliver little or no benefit. In India this is illustrated by the results achieved by the West Bengal systemcompared to other systems in other states.

Unitary decentralized systemsThe friction from the challenge of coordination is most reduced in this model.As South East Asian systems illustrate fast development can be undertaken more easily by utilizing this approach.


Conclusion

There has been a tremendous rise in the implementation of federated systems in the post-World War II era.

These systems are mechanisms for managing the modern challenges of metropolitan growth and fragmentation; andthey can also be used to promote economic development.

However, systemic evolution and improvement is still possible, even for those delivering productive results.All countries and local units applying this methodology can learn from one another in relation to their successes,innovations and errors. The most active appliers have used this skill to evolve their systems and to innovate.

Some systems have passed the centenary mark or lasted for decades so far; whereas, others have been transient.Shorter lived systems have either evolved to another mode of greater or lesser amplification; or have dissolved altogether.

The passage of time has illustrated that dissolution can take place for various reasons, such as: the failure to fit theframe to the locality in question, or the failure to have the necessary support needed; or, because of competitivehostility within the system or from a superior source of power. New systems can learn from this and try to avoid thepitfalls experienced by earlier efforts. This requires that leaders promulgating such systems widen their net ofknowledge.


mayraj fahim's presentation at international workshop on citizen-governance integration for...

Documents

local systems

modern urban systems

forms of urban systems

foreign systems

evolution of urban governance

metropolitan committees

modernizationmost systems

urbanmetropolitan systems