Local Government as an Economic and Environmental Tool

Mayraj Fahim Senior Fellow, City Mayors Foundation International Workshop on Happy Vaishali, Healthy Vaishali Saturday, 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 SW1 In Germany: 79100 Freiburg International telephone: +44 (0) 20 7630 0615 Email: info@citymayors.com Internet: www.citymayors.com www.worldmayor.com

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

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Outdated systems are deteriorating governance.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 others 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.

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

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 postIndependence era have produced the present conditions.

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

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.

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

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

@ 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 Metropolitan area a Metropolitan Planning Committee to prepare a draft development plan for the Metropolitan area 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 areas Final 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

Indians shouldnt 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.
@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim 11

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.

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

12

Federated Government Frameworks: A Worldwide Perspective A discussion of a rising force in local governance

Presentedat:theOnedayConference DatingGame CourtingRegionalPartnerships Wednesday,November7,2007 Lewiston,Maine [Editedversionincludedforthisworkshop.]

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

13

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 Government introduced 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).

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

14

Early Beginnings, Evolution and Implementation Issues

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, Quebecs Montreal area reforms) is developing.

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

15

Early Beginnings, Evolution and Implementation Issues

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.

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

16

Early Beginnings, Evolution and Implementation Issues

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

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

17

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.

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

18

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 systems defining characteristic over time.

New England Town Form

This 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.

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

19

Multi-unit formulations Soft-form arrangements

Soft-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 Regional Council 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 and responsibilities 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.

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

20

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 funding sources 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 1971 and remains the largest example in the country, which has reduced the disparities within the region.

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

21

Multi-unit Formulations

Structured systems
Portland Metro, Oregon
In 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 the Columbia Regional Association of Governments. Voters approved the election of its representatives. The Metros 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 regions quality of life. Over time the functions of the region have expanded. As noted on its website: it is a regional resource, problem solver and 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.

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

22

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 countries of South Asia where rural formula was implemented by the British have rural systems as well as urban ones.

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

23

Modified Examples and Beginning Formulas

Bogota, Colombia
Bogota 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 in1992-93 dividing the city into 20 districts and establishing other aspects of the citys new structure. Bogota has an uncommon system for Latin America; and when compared to other decentralized systems in foreign countries, it is a modified form. However, Bogota exemplifies the fact that a modified system can still be productive in the presence of the will to exploit the structure permitted. Bogota has been subject to migration from the war torn parts of the country, which has taxed its systems ability to provide for its constituents. The district mayors are responsible for implementing within their districts the city mayor's programs for tackling hunger, improving public health, curbing child labor, reaching universal education and pushing a program to create new sources of income 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 the new system: Anatanas Mockus ( an academic who as a educator had focused on the subject of local reform). His first experiment addressed water usage illustrated how regular exchange of information between the city and its residents could reduce water usage.

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

24

Modified Examples and Beginning Formulas

The Seoul Metropolitan Government, South Korea

There are 25 autonomous districts/wards (the "Gu) in Seoul, divided into 522 administrative sub-units at the neighborhood level, (the "Dong), that are essentially sub-district offices. Previously, the Gu was under the control of the Seoul Metropolitan government until 1988. Currently, the Gu as a subunit of government executes 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 elected mayors of the Gus. There is also no representation at the neighborhood level.

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

25

Modified Examples and Beginning Formulas

As the examples of Seouls Gus and Bogotas sub-district mechanisms reveal, even less amplified submunicipal mechanisms than others can add value. The availability of a sub-municipal mechanism combined 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 countrys second largest city, neighborhood offices preceded 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).

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

26

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 towards devolution in Europe.

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

27

Decentralized Unitary City Systems European Cities

Some European city systems: Amsterdam

Amsterdam has a Mayor (appointed by the national government) and an Executive Committee 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 their own powers, budgets and civil servants and elected mayors and councils; while one district is managed by the city government.

Athens
Athens has 3 layers of governments. In 1985 the Athens Authority was established as an independent coordinating body for the region. The region has 4 prefectures. 2 of those- Athens and neighboring Piraeus have a joint authority. This authority is subordinate to the Athens Authority and has no direct relation to the municipal governments. Its role is the 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.

Berlin
Berlin has the status of both a federal state and a city government. Its 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 is elected by the House of Representatives and who then proposes the Senators who are elected individually by the House. In 2001 the number of boroughs was reduced from 23 to 12. The boroughs do not raise their own revenues; but are granted state government funds. The Senate maintains a supervisory role; but, consults the mayor and council on matters pertaining to the city that are legislative and administrative in nature.

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

28

Decentralized Unitary City Systems European Cities

Copenhagen The city of Copenhagen is both a city and a county. It is part of the Copenhagen Metropolitan area which contains 3 counties and two municipalities for which the Greater Copenhagen Authority was established by law in 1999 to handle strategic matters. Transport, tourism, regional planning, culture and cooperation with the southern region of Sweden are the domains of the Authority funded by its constituent local units. Birmingham Birmingham 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 and appointed part time officers added to support local activities. Since 2001 city government has worked on devolving powers to 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 on a regular basis. The Constituencies are responsible for a range of services including some that they manage directly and others that are managed through Service Level Agreements with corporate or external service providers such as street and environmental services, and parks. Over 100m of service budgets, and 2,500 staff were 'lifted and shifted' according to the city from centralized service departments and re-focused to meet the needs of service users and local communities.

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

29

Decentralized Unitary City Systems

Benefits: Decentralized city systems by enabling sub-regional turnaround increase productivity for the system as a whole The 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. Camdens 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 change In Seoul, one of its Gus 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.

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

30

Decentralized Unitary City Systems 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 county level status. South Asian systems are more common at the rural level, as that was how the British introduced them to it. Generally South Asian systems have not yet delivered the results delivered elsewhere. They have an older history; but, have suffered from state/national unwillingness to support 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 residents also exist. [China and France have the most networked systems.]

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

31

Decentralized Unitary City 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 new urban industrial economy. Subdivisions generally have own government units. Majority of these systems were implemented in the post-1978 reform era when it opened its economy. Early, preceding developments included the 1950s 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 whose designation is now changed to that of a city, plus towns, townships and other local sub-divisions. A limited number of cities have provincial status the designation of most being of older origin save for the city of Chongqing.

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

32

Decentralized Unitary City Systems

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

Separate representation formula In general, stratified or separate representation between tiers is the most common variation. This formulation tends to reinforce the power distribution in the system. In UK, throughout the history of operation there have been complaints about one side dominating the other (or others). Common Representation Formulas A 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 been discussion about the legitimacy that comes from direct election. On the other hand, direct elections have also led to friction between units that can lead to dissolution. A dispute resolution mechanism is advisable for inclusion in such systems, if the formula is changed.

Top-Down arrangements
The 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 of devolution. 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.

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

33

Decentralized Unitary City Systems

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

Bottom-up arrangements
The bottom-up representational framework is the oldest arrangement dating back to the time of 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-up arrangement. When the U.S. introduced a beginning framework for Baghdad, the bottom-up framework was reflected there as well. Chinas 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 of the systems deepen, so do the layers contained within them.

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

34

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. Various efforts to address this dilemma are:
1) 2)

3)

4)

5) 6) 7)

Consolidation (not as popular today, due to resistance) Area wide functions provided by special legislation to upper tier level not specially created (e.g.: Stockholm, Vienna, Geneva, Berlin, Hamburg, Bremen) 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)) 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) Special administrative bodies dependent on central government Delegation of certain power municipalities to the core city 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.

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

35

Multi-Unit Formulations

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, Frances 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.

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

36

Multi-Unit Formulations

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, 1988 At 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)

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

37

Multi-Unit Formulations

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

*The Agglomeration community a soft-form formulation A more integrated inter-communal grouping provided for under the Chevenement Law of 1999. An agglomeration community ( communaut d'agglomration) 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.

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

38

Multi-Unit Formulations

Urban Communities An urban community is composed of a commune and its independent suburbs. This arrangement was provided for by the law passed by Parliament in 1966. Originally there were only four and were found in the metropolitan areas of Bordeaux, Lille, Lyon and Strasbourg. Later, others were created in other metropolitan areas. The purpose of the urban communities was to achieve cooperation and joint administration between large cities and their independent suburbs. This step often followed failed attempts to merge the communes within a metropolitan area. The status of the urban communities was modified by the Chevenement 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 as the 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

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

39

Multi-Unit Formulations

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-Lger-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 Communitys 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 Communitys executive, the holder of this office prepares and implements the resolutions of the Council and the Bureau.

(continued on next slide)

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

40

Multi-Unit Formulations

(continued from previous slide)

Nantes Urban Community

Urban Communities

The 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 Mayors 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

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

41

Multi-Unit Formulations

Plane Commune - an inter-municipal cooperation amongst some Paris suburbs

Initially set up in 1999 amongst 5 municipal units in a rust belt suburb of Paris to try to improve their conditions through cooperation. By 2004 two more units joined. Following the construction of the stadium Stade de France, succeeded by a commercial and residential boom, the communities wanted to manage this development sustainably. What makes it work is the desire to exploit the benefits of 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 plan A recent French initiative is the Euro District of Alsace. This new initiative falls in the category of efforts that grow over time such as the establishment of regional bodies that started in the 1950s. INTERREG-An EU initiative fostering cross border cooperation

Upper 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 program Almost 300 projects funded with EU support.

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

42

Multi-Unit Formulations

South East Asian inter-municipal frameworks

Cross Border urban growth in the Yangtze River Delta Region With 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 Haining In 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 Chinas first examples have much room for evolution. However, it is a new beginning for inter-local cooperation in this region of the world not aided by foreign support (e.g.: Philippines).

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

43

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 core cities, and their surrounding regions. Some examples: Canada- the Montreal region Where 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 Marseilles Where there exists decentralized a urban core, plus inter-communal arrangements with suburbs and a regional body. Other European examples.

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

44

The Implications of Adapting Different Integration Levels

What must be kept in mind in this context is that different frameworks involve respecting different dynamics when upgrading or adapting different variations. From one generation to the next, new decision-makers can fail when they do not take that into account. The London example Since the 1960s, the London system has been stuck in an inhibiting systemic framework when the British reformers implemented 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 his frustrations 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, which found that in ranking of European cities that contributed the most to their national GDP, London ranked 23rd. Paris was 3rd on this list.

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

45

Pros and Cons of Different Applications

Intergovernmental Cooperation mechanisms Allows 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 not evolve and may even dissolve. Multi-Unit Integrated Frameworks Integration 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 can dissolve or not evolve. These require sensitivity about the power at the various levels; that proper revenue sources are available; and, there is a vehicle for managing potential sources of friction. For regions where metropolitan growth exceeds territorial bounds, that fact should be addressed for optimal productivity. Consistent state support can help overcome the challenge of lack of capacity in a developing country context. Lack thereof, can be counterproductive or deliver little or no benefit. In India this is illustrated by the results achieved by the West Bengal system compared to other systems in other states. Unitary decentralized systems The 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.

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

46

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; and they 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 the frame to the locality in question, or the failure to have the necessary support needed; or, because of competitive hostility within the system or from a superior source of power. New systems can learn from this and try to avoid the pitfalls experienced by earlier efforts. This requires that leaders promulgating such systems widen their net of knowledge.

@ 2012 Mayraj Fahim

47