In most countries there is no difference in responsibilities and powers between rural and urban municipalities, but the latter have higher concentration of population, and are more socio-economically diverse, (Sterna and Cameron, 2005).
In fiscal terms bigger municipalities could have greater fiscal autonomy to manage their services (Bird, 1984).
Rio de Janeiro region has 17 municipalities, Sydney has 66.
INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING AND FINANCING: AN OVERVIEW Enid Slack
Metropolitan areas need “hard” infrastructure (roads, sewers, etc) and “soft” infrastructure (parks, libraries, etc) but few countries recognise a metropolitan or regional government structure.
Infrastructure development can be difficult to coordinate as often political and economic boundaries do not coincide.
Some federal states have introduced planning commissions/committees that encompass a series of municipalities. Another approach is to have municipalities cooperate spontaneously (for example in Hamburg).
These metropolitan areas have interdependencies and externalities among jurisdictions (Klink, 2008).
Lefevre (2008) emphasizes four key elements:
political legitimacy through direct election
geographic boundaries that match the functional territory of the metropolitan region
independent financial resources
relevant powers, responsibilities, staff
Financing options could improve cooperation among municipalities, options are:
traditional: taxes, user fees, grants, borrowing,
pooling of municipal debt by a state/provincial agency can lower cost (and improve cooperation among municipalities)
in Western Europe autonomous agencies run on commercial principles assist local borrowing
federal and state grants to pay for infrastructure that crosses municipal boundaries.
PPP can help municipalities in times of constrained funding (Tassonyi, 1997): the risk for private is that the regulatory framework might change and delay the project, for the public the risk is that the services provided are not what the private wants.
value captures (financing tool that uses the increase in private land values for public investment to pay for infrastructure)
development charges: one time levy on developers to cover growth-related capital costs associated with new development/redevelopment
References:
Bird, R.M. & Slack, E. (2007). An approach to Metropolitan Governance and Finance. Environment and Planning: C Government and Policy, 25 (5).
Klink, J. (2008). Recent Perspectives in Metropolitan Organisation, Functions, and Governance. In E. Rojas, J. Cuadrado-Roura, & J.M. Guell, Governing the Metropolis: Principles and Case Studies (pp. 77-134), Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.
Lefevre, C. (2008). Democrating Governability of Metropolitan Areas: International Experiences and Lessons for Latin American Cities. In E. Rojas, J. Cuadrado-Roura, & J.M. Guell (Eds.), Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.
Tassonyi, A. (1997), Financing Municipal infrastructure in Canada’s City Regions. In P.A. Hobson, & F.St-Hilaire, Urban Governance and Finance: A Question of Who does What. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy.
INTEGRATING THE FRAGMENTED METROPOLIS Evert Meijers
Metropolitan areas can either grow via the incorporation mode (like London) or fusion mode (like the Randstad).
European Spatial Development Perpective (1999), adopted by the European Ministers responsible for Spatial Planning had the key concept of Polycentricity
Lisbon Treaty (2007) territorial dimension of the cohesion policy
Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion (2008): analyses the disparity in concentration of economic activities in urban regions.
Territorial Agenda (2011): focuses more on cities and city regions and stresses that cities should look beyond their administrative borders and focus on their functional region.
Source:
The governance of Metropolitan Regions
The governance of Metropolitan Regions- European and Global Experiences (2011),
No comments:
Post a Comment