2.

1 Introduction
a metropolitan government aims at promoting two important values namely
participation and efficiency in the urban services governance as success of it rests
on popular participation that is encouraged by the notions of proximity to
decision-makers and local institutions. And presence of an organization that is
appropriate for locality sensitive urban services and functions enhances the
efficiency of metropolitan government

there exists an intrinsic linkage between urban basic services, spatiality and urban
governance that contributes directly to the wider process of spatial growth and
transformation in the metropolis.

2.2 Urban basic services, spatiality and urban governance: an

intrinsic link

Urban basic services such as gas, electricity, water, telecommunications, power,

transport, fire service etc. provide the much-needed infrastructural base to the

21
functioning of present day socio-economic systems. Urbanites(person living in city)
are connected to these services through extensive physical networks of pipes, wires,
roads, telephone links etc. Households, organizations and firms plying (travel
regularly over a route) in the cityscape are essentially dependent on these service
networks.

Urban basic services are regarded as both technical and social systems since these
supports the flow of electricity, water supply, information etc. to city dwellers and
assists their incorporation into city’s socio- economic structures. through the
respective spread networks, such services hold together the contemporary city
society. Urban systems are today more dependent on intense and entwine(twist
something together) network of these services than before - without which,
functioning of a contemporary city would be impossible. Such an all-encompassing
role of basic services refers to respective relevancy and significance to urban living,
economic development as well as to the proliferation (rapid increase in the number or
amount of something) of social relations in city sphere

urban basic services are multifaceted(bohumukhi) and ever changing systems that
provide crucial foundations to city’s production as well as consumption link and the
progress of which is intrinsically(in a natural way) related to the advancement and
regulation of the society. Thus, their importance to economic, social and spatial
development of cities and urban regions are well based.

The cost, quality, availability and reliability of services are indispensible

features .Urban basic services not only refers to roads or ducts or wires linking
consumers to service but features that considerably underpins(somorthon kora)
the spatial footprint of cities and are the basic elements of place-based capital that
builds city economy and creates employment opportunities . Development,
expansion and maintenance of urban basic services inevitably require investments
over long periods in large amounts that differ between cities or areas. This feature
crafts the scope to contend that urban basic services are dependent on space-
specific capital. Conceptually, such characteristic compels(force) these to be
deeply reliant on the economic and political status of the concerned localities –
thereby attributing with a spatial character.

22
 With regard to the relationship between urban governance, urban services and
spatiality, on a broader perspective, urban governance is about delivering services
to the urbanites that are daily, direct and locality specific.

The widely visible nature of services entails citizens to decide on the success level
of the governance arrangement i.e. delivery and management. This direct
relationship between citizens and urban governance makes city government
distinctive. urban services governance is about reflecting on the values, attitude and
behavior pattern of the users and the service providers. And effectiveness of it
requires reliance on building a mutually supportive relationship between servers
and the served. it is normally the servers’ delivery pattern, organizational structure,
management practice that builds this relationship and from that perspective, urban
governance is about managing city fabric by responding to the service
requirements of the citizenry.
a sound understanding of this capital intensity, geographical scale and the
operational sphere of the services are important in developing a better perception
of the relationship between urban basic services, spatiality and city governance.
Cox (1993) interpreted this relationship as following –

“Governance arrangement determines the functioning of urban basic services as well as the degree to
which these can overcome the vulnerabilities inflicted(caused) by their dependencies on economic and
political conditions of single localities”. শাসন ব্যব্স্থা শহুরে ম ৌলিক পলেরেব্াগুলিে কার্যকালেতা লনর্যােণ করে এব্ং মসই সারে একক
এিাকাে অেযননলতক ও োজননলতক অব্স্থাে উপে তারেে লনর্য েতা দ্বাো সৃষ্ট (সৃষ্ট) েুব্যিতাগুলি কাটির়ে উঠরত পারে।"

Thus, basing on the above theoretical connotations, it can be concluded that the
process of urban governance is primarily aimed at the operation, management
affairs of urban basic services and ultimately outlines the characteristics of the
concerned urban footprint or cities.

2.3 Nature and scope of metropolitan government

A metropolitan government is enacted(প্রণীত) to perform a number of diverse

activities that resonates the dynamism of its governance focus and role in the
society.
1. it is entitled to provide a number of city services,
2. acts as the agency of central government through promulgating(declare)
and implementing regulations that complies with the broader perspectives
of the former’s policies,
3. authorized to formulate strategies and plans relating to various urban

23
 services that are meant for contributing towards metropolitan
development,
4. representing the locality in various forums,
5. dealing with other government units to seek financial support,
6. authorized to regulate and control activities such as land-use zoning and
building codes,
7. operating business enterprises such as markets and utilities.
the degree and relative significance of these activities differ from one country to
another over time – based on the concerned governance philosophies of local
government. For instance, there exists variation between countries in the manner
local governments acts as an agency of central government.

governance of basic services are the most visible activities of a metropolitan

government. These require most of urban government’s fund, and a supervisory
arrangement involving majority of its workforce

the limitations of existing city governance structures - to a considerable extent -

are related to urban basic services governance, principles of delivery and
management of these services in effective and efficient manner largely forms the
basis of framing new governance structure. Classifications of different types
based on particular academic perspective are available in this regard.. six types of
services namely protective services.

1. environmental/linear/system

2. maintenance/trunk services,

3. personal services,

4. cultural and recreational services,

5. trading operations.

Of the six categories, environmental/linear/system-maintenance/trunk services

require the highest amount of monetary investment –for development, delivery,
maintenance - and relatively greater intervention by the concerned government
unit/s in the form of policy directives, management guidelines etc. Consequently,
contribution of metropolitan government in the form of improvement is thus
higher for these types of basic services in comparison to others .

there are four categories of urban government namely

general-purpose representative,

24
special-purpose representative,
general-purpose non-representative, and
special-purpose non-representative.

General-purpose governments are bestowed with supportive legislations to

perform all or most of the local government functions while special purpose
governments perform only one or a few of these in a designated area.
Representative governments are directly elected by the concerned citizenry
while non-representative governments are those that are imposed upon the
local level by the central government. The general-purpose representative
arrangement is the ultimate form of metropolitan government favored
addressing general-purpose metropolitan

25
government as a multi-functional arrangement since it has “the capacity to reach to
solutions that are critically different from a single functional organization because
these possess wide-ranging concern across functions, a concern for place” “the multi-
functional local authority can achieve integrative solutions that are either impossible
to attain or out of scope for single-functional organizations” .

the expertise and capacities of a metropolitan government are place specific and
function-generalist whereas, special-purpose governments are meant to be
function specialist i.e. water supply, urban roads etc. However, focusing on the
functional domain, achieving coordination between a number of special purpose
authorities remains a rhetoric as these are quite prone to lose the overall service
perspective i.e. administering an organization instead of possessing a community
serving attitude; and the aspirations, requirements of individual localities may
well emerge as secondary to these agencies.

an archetypal account of metropolitan government from the perspective of

production-consumption nexus. The conceptual emergence of metropolitan
government largely rests on the effectiveness, efficiency, equity and
responsiveness issues concerning the provisioning and management of urban
basic services such as water supply etc. – implying that at its infancy, a
metropolitan government is largely dominated by the politics of production.
However, consumption-oriented services such as housing and education
become significant – only as metropolitan government matures. Even then
production-oriented functions such as water supply, roads and highways, urban
planning retains the major focus.
another important approach to explain the anatomy of metropolitan government
by emphasizing different types of policy formulation ideologies of local urban
government namely professionalism, partisanship(pokkho kora), managerialism
and localism. special-purpose bodies resonate(Protidhoni) the character of
professionalism as these are concerned for relatively slender(thin) span of policy
affairs - not the external consequences. A general-purpose metropolitan
government reflects the features of managerialism and partnership. Specially, its
area-wide functional paradigm often finds itself

26
trying to rise above localism. From that point of view, categorizing metropolitan
government as “metropolitanism” which refers to the “scale of experience” and
it “is defined by the day-to-day activities of people in the ordinary business of
their lives” (p. 252). Mentionably, localism connotes an
ideology that advocates policies focusing to a particular place in a metropolis and
its interests.

Proponents(probokta) of the metropolitan government contended(debate) that the

advantages of the arrangement includes promotion of democracy and
accountability in the service governance realm, facilitation of coordination
amongst many functions of similar policy scopes within a specific area, reduction
of fiscal imbalances between central cities and suburbs, development of
organizational capacity to formulate strategic plans for the city or city-region etc.
Metropolitan government calls for assimilating(ekotrito kora) various affairs of
urban basic services governance namely territorial, technical, financial and
institutional under its single canvas. This capacitates the institutional arrangement
to view urban matters from a wider perspective and to act for greater metropolitan
interest i.e. comprehensive planning of urban basic service provisions,
formulating management responsibilities and pooling of resources of all kinds to
achieve scale economics in service development, management etc. such
integration is aimed at clear benefits e.g. better urban basic services governance;
and proceeds on strengthening institutional capabilities. Without active
supervision– which the metropolitan government arrangement promotes - strong
coordination between service providers remains rhetoric and eventually results
with the emergence of degraded living environment, loss of business potentials
etc.in the city. the aspect of integration additionally takes into account the
wider framework of regional development priorities.

Metropolitan government – functionally - reorients the governance approach of

urban basic services to be more participatory in nature allowing various actors to
contribute duely. In this connection, it is worth of

27
mentioning here that community involvement in the governance
paradigm(example) and metropolitan wide service provisioning are the two
crucial elements of this arrangement as the former induces sense of
belongingness and creates a net of collective interests while the later provides a
spatial identity as well as defines a sense of place. Only a general-purpose
metropolitan government is usually being found embracing community
participation in the service governance process and responsive across the
metropolis. Experiences form the United States, Canada and Asia reveal that in a
general-purpose metropolitan government, the concerned community
representatives retain the controlling authority over the bureaucrats
and ensures that they are accountable to the electorate (nirbachokmondoli). In other
words, a general-purpose metropolitan government is about ensuring due
representation of community aspirations in the services decision- making process.

the role of guiding the city in terms of basic services governance, a metropolitan
government requires appropriate and adequate capacity building through carefully
designed, phased and promoted training programs meant for the officials, elected
representatives. Further, political support is necessary for ensuring allocation of
resources and commitment for implementation, operation and maintenance of
mandated services. Following the orientation towards municipal development,
metropolitan government not only needs to be fully based on the local context, but
also be located in a broader, planned framework, though the linking of policy
levels should be attempted in a flexible way (Benz, 2001).
Hence, based on the fundamental underpinnings laid above, it can be stated that a
general-purpose metropolitan government emerged as the type that fully embodies
the ideals and objectives of local urban government.

2.4 Intellectual origins and evolution of the concept

Historical account reveals that the concept of metropolitan government has

witnessed a number of ups and downs throughout the Twentieth century.
Throughout the last century, a number scholars of urban affairs i.e. political
scientists, economists, geographers, planners; set forth arguments in favor of
metropolitan government .The premise for such government reorganization
28
was as following – the core city should constitute the sole governing unit and
be the general service provider for the entire metropolitan area . In the ensuing
sub-sections, the conceptual evolution - starting from late nineteenth century
until the end of twentieth century - has been described.

2.4.1 The early years

The broad intellectual premise(protigga) of metropolitan government rests on the

antecedents(previous) of reform(purify) ideas related to accountability
enhancement, strengthening of democracy and corruption elimination from local
government advocated mostly by Woodrow Wilson (1885) along with Frank J.
Goodnow (1900), Fredric Taylor (1911) etc. in the United States between 1880
and 1920. Wilson argued that “local government mechanism should be organized
in an integrated command structure in accordance with the hierarchical principle”.
Proponents of metropolitan government were strongly influenced by the scientific
management movement put forward by Fredric Taylor (1911) and others
and thus came up with the three normative principles of the proposed arrangement,
namely “i) each major urban area should be governed by a single government, ii)
the electorate in each major urban area should be called upon to elect the policy-
making body, iii) the work of metropolitan administration should be carried out by
trained public servants”

By 1930’s, scholars of urban affairs were in alignment to the notion that described
metropolitan area as “an integrated economic and social unit with a large
population base, encompassing a significant expanse of geographical
territory” .During the early decades of last century, the conceptual base was
developed on the premise of achieving efficiency and effectiveness in urban
services. In 1912, John Nolen put forward the idea of establishing a metropolitan
planning board for Boston metropolitan area to ease the urban service problems
that surfaced due to the active presence of several local government units.

“The city as a political entity is not identical with the

metropolitan community as a social and economic fact and so like
a house divided against itself, the metropolitan district finds itself
obliged to struggle for civic achievement amid the conflicts,
dissensions, and divergences of its several component
jurisdictions”.

29
active presence of several political governmental units in the metropolis was
incongruous(incompatible) and conflicting and should be replaced by the
implementation of integrated government arrangement.

metropolitan area is a single economic and social entity and thus should be
overseen and managed by a single metropolitan-wide democratic authority. in the
United States central city along with its adjoining fringes collectively establishes a
single community of similar social and economic character, which is artificially
separated into special districts and counties on political ground – or in other
words, fragmented. such an arrangement resulted with governmental intricacies
(complication) namely outmoded(outdated) state laws concerning the
establishment, functioning of local governments and designation of decision-
making powers pertaining(regarding) to inclusion and annexation(dokhol kora) at
local level that are not directed by any superior authority or comprehensive plan to
control urban growth. the practice of fragmenting local government units in the
metropolitan area hinders the growth of an ideal political organization for the
metropolis. Fragmentation fundamentally prohibits the city dwellers from
perceiving themselves as inhabitants of a large community. The result is -

“A great variation in municipal regulations in force in different

sections of the metropolitan area, and in the standards of the
services maintained, in sectional treatment of problems which are
essentially metropolitan, in radical inequalities in the tax resources
of the several political divisions, and in jurisdictional conflicts.
The political subdivisions are jealous of each other and proceed in virtual
independence. It is difficult under these conditions to bring about concerted
action throughout the metropolitan area.
Consequently it is often well-nigh impossible to solve effectively
municipal problems

the natures of resultant problems are largely similar for all metropolitan areas.
These include inconveniences concerning utilities or system- maintenance services
i.e. water supply, power supply, sewerage, public health etc.; that spans all over
the metropolitan jurisdiction. Nonetheless, political integration in the metropolitan
area is necessary as the collective community needs in it cannot adequately be met
by a collection of fragmented local government units that possesses weakened
authority over urban services. Rather, public wellbeing within the entire urban

30
area can be adequately attended by the enactment of an integrated government
structure for the whole metropolitan area. Also, other scholars of urban affairs
favored the formation of metropolitan government as a way out of urban services
problems. Nonetheless, by 1930’s, there was an extensive agreement amongst
scholars of urban affairs that fragmentation of local government structure was the
fundamental difficulty of metropolis that causes service complications along with
the lack of metropolitan-wide political perspective, conflicts between local
governments and the perceived remedy was the enactment of a metropolitan
government.

2.4.2 The trend between 1940’s and 1970’s

a metropolitan government would facilitate the development of metropolitan wide

civic leadership concerning urban planning, urban development and
redevelopment and basic service activities.
basic problem of the metropolis is the fragmented, divided form of local
government comprising a number of general and single purpose authorities.
Secondly, this fragmented governance by multiple service authorities causes
inefficiencies, ineffectiveness and inadequacies. Thirdly, active presence of a
number of local government units is a barrier towards ensuring democratic or
community control and accountability in service governance realm. Fourthly, the
arrangement fosters a significant discrepancy(omil) of fiscal resources among
government units

. During 1950’s, metropolitan government concept functioned as the medium for

inducing city government reform.
“(1) aggravates the mismatch between resources and social needs (2) makes the
solution of metropolitan social problems i.e. service equity and poverty reduction;
more difficult (3) inhibits efficient administration of services” (National Research
Council, 1975; p. 51).

2.4.3 Late 1970’s and 1990’s : retreat and resurgence of the concept

By the late 1970’s, the concept pulled back considerably due to worldwide
political opposition. In this period, influenced by neo-liberalism that
professed(nam matro) market solutions for basic services provisioning ,
fragmented mode of urban governance became “more fashionable” world-

31
wide .The conceptual foundation of this mode is couched on public choice theory .
During that time, worldwide governments were in the process of cutting short
respective public commitments. Scholars of urban affairs were more into
“metropolitan governance” rather than “metropolitan government” – a notion
persuaded and spread by public choice scholars such as defined the term
“metropolitan governance” as following –

“Metropolitan governance involves the governing of a

metropolitan area without formal metropolitan government.
Instead, reliance is placed on special-purpose bodies, the joint
efforts of the local government and arrangements between levels
government. There is a considerable fragmentation - both
functional and territorial- and it is only by means of an array of
institutional arrangements among the various agencies and
governments that coordination is achieved. Metropolitan
governance, therefore, is a system of governing in which
intergovernmental relations - in the broadest sense - plays a major
role.”

a new generation of reformers started rallying behind the concept of metropolitan

government again citing the necessity for a city-wide cooperation or coordinated
decision-making paradigm specially, in urban basic services provisioning to
realize economic growth leading towards social equity. Interestingly, in this
period, scholars of urban affairs from different ideological cloth - including those
of the public choice school - agreed with the reform advocates that urban basic
services specially, “those categorized as system-maintenance or as engineering
one such as electricity, telecommunications, master planning, arterial highways,
traffic management, public transport, general utilities, recreation areas, refuse
disposal, fire and environmental protection etc. should be delivered in an
integrated fashion on grater scale because of their operating character and benefits
derived out of economics of scale”. Moreover, fiscal equivalence(a match
between those who receive the benefits of a collective good and those who
pay for it), spillover effects (the effect on the economy of a country from

unrelated events happening in another country), redistributive effects(The

outcome when money received from one group is given to

or invested in others by government, as through taxation)

32
etc. concerns also supported the idea that the above class of urban basic services
would be better governed under an integrated arrangement.

2.5 Justification of metropolitan government

theoretical justification of general-purpose metropolitan government revolves

around efficiency, effectiveness, equity and responsiveness issues.

2.5.1 Equity

Distributional equity of urban services had been another motor of the conceptual
emergence and resurgence of metropolitan government, the concern is about
allowing the governance realm to achieve equity in the distribution of services
and associated management.

Conceptually, equity refers to an even distribution of services in relation to the

needs, preferences and service standards of each . theoretically the idea of equity
is an extension of social equity theory. The issue tends to focus on differences,
namely in the standards of services provided across different geographies and
citizens capacity of coming in contact with much needed services
Reflecting on how urban basic services are accessed and utilized, distributional
equity as a core issue, in that people can rationally expect such services will be
distributed across geographical boundaries in a way that is receptive to their
location. Such a focus on equity necessarily seeks consideration on citizens
location in relation to space, that can be thought of as one containing the flows of
everyday life.
a general-purpose metropolitan government possesses “higher potentials for
vertical and horizontal equity on the ground of ability-to-pay”. He reasoned that
the governance arrangement in this regard creates relatively unambiguous
channels of accountability, which allows citizens to have an upper hand in
supervising service officials - whether or not they are working to ensure equitable
distribution of municipal basic services. In the western industrial economies,
specially, in Britain and in the United States, the middle class moved out of
central part of the urban areas to peripheries of the city
that belonged to separate municipality after the Second World War (Barlow, 1991).
The motivations in this connection were to escape high taxes of central city,
relatively lower standard of public housing etc. Central cities were left to low
wage earners who shouldered the burden of central place functions, social stress

33
and a depleted tax base .As a remedy, the American Advisory Commission on
Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR, 1973) suggested that if central city and
suburban jurisdictions are merged and allowed to function under the canvas of a
single unit of government, a more equitable distribution of services and taxes
could be achieved.

2.5.2 Effectiveness

Metropolitan government enhances effectiveness of urban basic services delivery

and management as wider municipal boundaries render positive affects to the
spheres of such services operation (such as water supply) and with the
establishment of mechanisms for coordinating delivery and planning functions.

urban planning endeavors - to be truly effective and useful - must have to be

linked to the wider decision making process of the concerned city government
which will eventually facilitate in resources allocation as well as award political
weight to it .a transformation in city planning philosophy - “planning is not
merely a matter for professional planners but is a highly political process,
involving important decisions about who gets what.

proponents of fragmented urban basic services governance were strongly favoring

the concept under the contention that the arrangement fosters inter-city
competition i.e. fragmented arrangement is well poised in attracting businesses
and enterprises from unified or consolidated settings as it offers an array of
competitive urban services options, thus facilitating the consumers to match and
choose the one that satisfies their requirements.
in reality, mismatched scenario surfaced between the needs of economic
development and the political incentives or policies in fragmented metropolitan
areas. In pursuit of attracting investments from other destinations or in stimulating
new enterprises from within, the policies of fragmented local governments –
specially, those concerning to urban linear or engineering services that are
essential for establishing and operating businesses - have emerged as less
effective. This lead to a growing consensus amongst all scholars of urban affairs
in the 1990’s that metropolitan wide integrated decision-making on urban basic
services of linear category is necessary for ensuring effective governance that
eventually fosters planned spatial growth and development.

2.5.3 Efficiency
34
efficiency is enhanced through the realization of scale economies in public
services and when there are no inter-jurisdictional spillovers in their benefits.

in the early days of metropolitan government formation, a number of its

proponents were comparing and explaining the benefits of it with manufacturing
process where higher production volume of products normally cuts down unit
cost. Conceptually, reformists contended that with a relatively bigger service area
coverage and integrated governance realm, metropolitan government arrangement
would be capable of meeting the requirements - both in qualitative and
quantitative terms - of a large number of citizens and this has been one of the
notions of efficiency concern that advanced the concept further. These
connotations about efficiency postulates that the scholars favoring metropolitan
government saw it contributing the governance realm of urban basic services with
both allocative and technical efficiency .the argument of efficiency has
emerged as one of the motors of conceptual resurgence in the 1990’s.

2.5.4. Responsiveness

Metropolitan government enhances the responsiveness of the urban basic services

as the arrangement thrives on pooling and sharing of resources of all kinds i.e.
manpower, logistics, expertise, finances etc. between service departments of the
organization which quintessentially embeds the governance realm with the
availability of necessary support base to respond effectively and promptly to users’
need - linking responsiveness to efficiency - argued such sharing eventually
strengthens allocative efficiency.
Institutionally, large-scale units are more responsive to community needs since
these are bestowed with greater powers, wider functional base and more local
control over policy matters in the decision-making realm.
higher service responsiveness is positively related to greater community
wellbeing .

Functionally, the issue of responsiveness postulates that a broader stretch of

35
service end-users representing different socio-economic background be served as
well as wastage of unproductive and underproductive components be eliminated.
Additionally, since the arrangement promotes large community participation in the
governance realm, this in turn acts as a pressure for the service officials to be more
responsive to citizens requirement . higher responsiveness of the service
governance arrangement also bears the potentials to increase tax realization.

2.6 Institutional dynamics

the institutional foundations of metropolitan government namely unified

bureaucracy, functional and territorial consolidation, professionalization and
autonomy contributes duel in achieving efficiency, effectiveness, equity and
responsiveness in urban services governance. the institutional realm enhances city
governments ability to reduce disparity between the needs of economic
progression and social development i.e. relating infrastructure developed
initiatives with social and political priorities.

2.6.1 Unified bureaucracy

The argument for unified bureaucracy can be traced back to scientific management
that acted as an additional stimulator in forwarding the concept of integrated urban
services governance under metropolitan government. “For the parts of the
organization to function efficiently, in a coordinated manner, there must be a
unified command at the top of the system -
i.e. hierarchy is required.” The basis of this contention remains with the notion
that better control over bureaucratic discretion at the lower tier of the concerned
governance realm results positively. In operational terms, unified bureaucracy
rests on a premise - postulating that bottom-up mode of information
channelization assists the higher-ups or policy-planning domain to formulate the
necessary policies and have those circulated to the lower orders either in the form
of operational directives or plans (Sager, 2004). In support of unified bureaucracy,
organizational structure, facilitating unified operation of a number of actors with
similar policy concerns under a single canvas, is the key to rational efficient
administration of urban basic services. Additionally, referring to the empirical
evidence from his evaluation of integrated land use and transport policies in Swiss
urban areas, unity of command by a single supervisory arrangement is crucial for
effective and efficient governance. In context of urban system-maintenance or

36
environmental services, supervision by multiple authorities produces perplexity
and conflict. the proposition of unified bureaucracy postulates that a systematic
planning is necessary within administrative operation as it empowers concerned
governance realm to develop the essential organizational prudence for long term
prosperity.

2.6.2 Functional and territorial consolidation

This refers to assimilation of a number of service functions as well as areal

jurisdiction under a single administrative umbrella such an assimilation facilitates
city government to achieve higher level of competency in managing technical,
financial and institutional affairs related to trunk or linear services. Operationally,
the arrangement seeks to integrate the planning, development, maintenance,
implementation functions of urban basic services delivery and management
within its single institutional domain, which enables sharing of resources
integration of operational and spatial jurisdiction under a single canvas facilitates
unification of service bureaucracy as well as finance and budgeting affairs. In
broad perspective, functional and territorial consolidation leaves the city
government to a relatively better position to be engaged in metropolitan wide
strategic plan development (Sager 2004; Vogel, 1997). Institutionally, such a
consolidated arrangement provides citizens with better opportunities to be
satisfied with interdependent services i.e. without reliable power supply,
improvement in water supply delivery remains a rhetoric (Siddique, 2005).
Additionally, assimilation of this kind is necessary for stretching the tax base of
city government which eventually creates the scope for higher volume of tax
realization (Bird and Slack, 2007; Vojnovic, 2000). This potential of higher tax
realization ameliorates city government to reduce its financial dependency on
central government. Bahl and Linn (1992) contended that functional and territorial

37
consolidation under metropolitan government is a requisite for the service
governance realm to achieve enhanced operational coordination, greater
responsiveness to end-users, public accountability and more rational decision
making.

2.6.3 Professionalization

The notion of professionalism has its roots in “the progressive faith, born out of
positivist philosophy and an awareness of the wonders fashioned by technology -
as informed by science - could be successfully applied to the problems facing
society” (West, 1995; p.5). This connotation can be elaborated using Haas’s (1990)
concept of “epistemic communities” which “is a network of professionals with
recognized expertise and competence in a particular domain and a comprehensive
claim to policy relevant knowledge within that domain or issue-area” (p.38). In
this connection, Sabet and Klingner (1993) argued that professionalism is about
sharing of skills and expertise that can be of considerable assistance in reaching
agreements on service policy concerns of similar scopes across the official
municipal boundaries.

According to Keating’s (1995) contention, since metropolitan government

arrangement thrives on greater power, functional and territorial consolidation,
more local control over policy affairs, it eventually assumes a stronger
institutional authority. In particular, Bird (2003) stated that the debate on reform is
partly based on the notion of having a stronger local government that would
assume more professional character in governing urban basic services. In this
connection, one of the ways of measuring strength of the city government could
well be the level of successes achieved concerning service related targets which –
to a considerable extent- rests on the quality or caliber of the councilors of both
elected and appointed category (Keating, 1995). It was widely asserted by Bird
and Slack (2007), Sager (2004), Lowery (2003), Keating (1995) that fragmented
arrangement fails to attract first rate professionals since organizational
parochialism compels councilors to remain occupied with insignificant matters.
Whereas, metropolitan government - that assumes larger size and emphasizes on
greater use of strategic planning – creates opportunities for councilors to
contribute more on broad policy matters instead – thus attracting better caliber

38
professionals (Keating,1995). According to Bird and Slack (2007), having the
expertise or services of better quality professionals is critical for “achieving higher
effectiveness and responsiveness in different affairs of basic services governance
i.e. technical, finance, administration etc.; which eventually shapes the physical
and social character of city-regions” (p.733). The quality of city government
professionals affects both the quantity and the quality of local public services and
the efficiency with which they are delivered (Slack, et al, 2003).

2.6.4 Autonomy

Autonomy refers to the type of flexibility in which the administration can act as
a self-reliant negotiating partner in the decision-making process (Sager, 2004).
Keating (1995), Barlow (1991) argued that autonomy in metropolitan government
refers to bureaucratic discretion set out by the political leadership. It eventually
enhances democratic legitimacy. According to the proponents of metropolitan
government, service policies i.e. water supply, power supply, sewerage network
etc.; due to their perceived nature of contribution to the citizens, requires technical
experts to rely on community opinion regarding the type of services required,
demands, fixing service tax or surcharge etc (Blomquist and Parks,1995). In other
words, such a mode of operation entails governance realm to translate and
interpret community aspirations through effective installation, maintenance and
responsive usage of service infrastructures (Feulner, et al, 2005; Post, 2002).
Therefore, the operational affairs of urban basic services is normally being carried
out by the executive branch of the governance realm that is guided by and
responsible to legislative authority of the metropolitan government which is an
autonomous body representing the community (Sager,2004). Bird and Slack (2007)
argued that the organizational autonomy in the metropolitan government
arrangement postulates that services decision making ought to be carried out by
the level of government that is closest to the individual citizen in order to ensure
better responsiveness or allocative efficiency and accountability. This crafts the
scope for the governance realm to align more towards redistributive policies and
sustain the same (Lowery, 2003; Keating, 1995; DeHoog, et al, 1992). In
metropolitan areas, “ensuring effective services along these lines requires publicly
elected and responsible mayors and councils to possess a substantial degree of
organizational independence and full responsibility in as open and transparent a

39
way as possible, for managing all affairs of urban basic services” (Bird and Slack,
2007; p.736).

2.7 Accrued benefits of metropolitan government

The benefits of governing urban basic services under a metropolitan government

include efficiency gain, greater tax sharing, community representation and wider
service catchment area (Leland and Johnson 2004).The ensuing sub-sections
sketches a detailed account of these accrued benefits -

2.7.1 Efficiency gain

Leland and Johnson (2004) as well as Leland and Thurmaier (2000) stated that
efficiency gains under metropolitan government arrangement accumulates through
the combination of four factors. Firstly, scale economics is achieved in the
development, maintenance and management of basic services infrastructure
through the formulation of integrated plans and programs. Such services typically
include those that are linear in nature namely water supply, power supply,
sewerage or drainage network etc. Secondly, efficiency is enhanced through
developing more publicly accountable governance structures. This can accrue
through developing a council headed by an elected mayor and represented by
public representatives as well as appointed officials possessing the necessary
authority to decide on day-to-day administrative affairs and moving from a
personnel system based on patronage to one based on merit. According to Leland
and Johnson (2004), with the authority of recruiting its own staffs as well as
upgrading their professional capacity through training and skill development
endeavors, it eventually develops a work force that is more capable of carrying out
the assigned responsibilities efficiently i.e. prompt response to end-users service
requirements, accountable administrative operation, transparency in budget
preparation and spending etc. Thirdly, merger of linear or engineering services
under the single governance canvas solves the problem of services responsibility
overlapping. Finally, the above efficiency gains render positive support in
achieving higher service responsiveness or allocative efficiency i.e. distribution of
services of better quality and adequate quantity to the end-users.

These efficiency gains accrue through the possession of two types of specialist

40
knowledge - namely functional and area spatial (Barlow, 1991). According to
Leland and Thurmaier (2000), functional specialization comes at the cost of
acquaintance of other functions and area specialization amasses at the expense of
knowledge of other areas. Functional specialization takes place at higher-levels of
metropolitan government through the assembly of specialist service division or
department. While, area specialization occur at the lower levels of government
where detailed knowledge on the geographies or spatial footprints under its
jurisdiction builds up through the information support by the ground staffs. Such
specialization serves mutual purposes – higher level finds the lower level
dependable for much needed area specific knowledge in formulating service
policies while lower level can rely on higher level for function-specialist
knowledge that is necessary for developing operational directives (Leland and
Thurmaier, 2000). Leland and Johnson (2004) contended that the main implication
of these techno-administrative underpinnings of metropolitan government
structure is that in order to be function-generalist – it must have a broad span of
control over as many functions as possible that stretches in a wider area base.

2.7.2 Greater tax sharing

The second advantage of having a general-purpose metropolitan government has

been that it reaches to those who have deserted the central city to share
responsibility for metropolitan wide taxation (Leland and Johnson, 2004; Leland
and Thurmaier 2000). Metropolitan government essentially “erodes free ridership
that steams from buffer zones between fragmented locales” (Kübler, 2002; p. 4).
And, through this elimination of free-ridership, the arrangement positions itself in
a better situation to realize higher volume of service fees (Leland and Johnson,
2004; Post, 2002; Downs 1994). Rusk (2003) advocated metropolitan government
as a solution to city governments that are fraught with diminishing tax base. He
reasoned that the arrangement – by inducing elasticity on city’s areal jurisdiction –
enlarges it, which in turn allows for absorbing much of the sub-urban growth
within its municipal sphere. In addition to that, such elasticity also permits the
central city to be able to expand as well as capture much of the suburban growth
within its municipal sphere. All these advantages allows the city government to
tap on to broader tax base (Bird and Slack, 2007; Hamilton, et al, 2004; Rusk,
2003). Having a broader tax base facilitates the city to rely more on its own

41
resources for addressing local service requirements.

2.7.3 Community representation

The third benefit steaming out of metropolitan government arrangement is

community representation, which is about allowing a wide range of service
recipient groups - irrespective of their socio-economic backgrounds – to be part of
the service governance realm. Leland and Johnson (2004) are more inclined to
recognize this particular feature as connection between political structure and
service governance policies. Lowery (2000) argued that the institutional paradigm
of this arrangement aims at safeguarding broader community interest which
essentially embraces the issue of community representation as well as “pays
attention to the class composition of the society” (p.41). According to Advisory
Council for Inter-government Relations (1984), catchment area of each
metropolitan government usually “ensures the provision of a centre of power and
authority which is easily accessible, representative of and identifiable to all
citizens” (p.7l); each metropolitan government “attempts to promote and enhance
democratic citizenship”(p.70).

Leland and Johnson (2004), Brierly (2004) contended that the success of a
metropolitan government in embracing community representation in the service
governance realm largely remains within its ability to absorb or represent the
extent of community diversity and providing the citizens with necessary
information, which they can use in making inquiries about service affairs,
composition of the governance arrangement etc. Barlow (1991) argued that
population size directly affects this particular concern. Additionally, a
metropolitan government is normally established to contain a contagious
community and a boundary that demarcates the catchment area of the service
functions. These feature in turn capacitates the same to be a true envoy of
communities and responsive of its requirement, to be governed for safeguarding
its interests, to foster a sense of local identity and local belongingness amongst the
service recipients (Hamilton, et al, 2004).

2.7.4 Wider spatial stretch

Wider spatial stretch or service area coverage is the fourth advantage of

42
metropolitan government that, according to Barlow (1991), facilitates in the
attainment of efficiency, greater tax sharing and community representation.
Hamilton (1999) argued that as the spatial stretch of an urban entity extends, the
necessity of enacting a metropolitan government reinvigorates. He reasoned that
broader spatial limit is a prerogative for containing the metropolitan system and
providing area wide functions more effectively to realize economic growth and
social equity. The basic understanding has been that larger jurisdictions possess
the advantage of exploiting economies of scale in the provisioning of urban
services, internalizing related policy externalities i.e. coordination between service
providing departments of the metropolitan government; that facilitates with more
proficient addressing of social equity issues (Bird and Slack, 2007; Barlow, 1991).
Additionally, enhancement of tax realization and reducing tax imbalances between
central and suburbs through tax sharing scheme, increased capacity in developing
strategic plans for the city region, cost saving in the construction and management
of large-scale infrastructure projects are more apparent in wider jurisdictions of
metropolitan government (Leland and Johnson, 2004; Vogel, 1997).

Few problems and processes stop at municipal boundaries and most feasible
solutions require larger geographical units that increase access to a large pool of
resources - both human and financial – which are less likely to be at the disposal
of small local governments (Bird and Slack, 2007). Bigger areal jurisdiction is
necessary if cities are to take full advantage of the potential opportunities for
economic cooperation, enhancing productivity and city competitiveness (Bird,
2003; Hamilton, 1999). Barlow (1991) opinionated that the service area of a
metropolitan government depends on the threshold requirements of it’s functional
scope. The greater the number of functions, the larger is the size required -
depending on the kinds of public services involved (Leland and Cannon, 1997).
For instance, in achieving technical gain, greater tax sharing for trunk or linear
services i.e. water supply, sewerage, power supply; bigger spatial stretch is
preferred (Leland and Johnson, 2004). Reform pursuits are also intrinsically
related to principles regarding the shape of metropolitan areas as most urban
services require a continuous geographic boundary for their activities and some -
such as fire protection - needs relatively compact spheres of operation (Barlow
l98l). According to the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations,
(1996) a metropolitan government area “should be so constituted that it has the

43
capacity to perform . . . functions with the greatest possible efficiency, efficiency
being understood in terms of economies of scale, specialization and the
application of modern technology” (p.277). Experiences from Calcutta, India
(Barman, 1999); Santiago, Chile (Nickson, 2005); Lexington-Fayette county,
Kentucky (Lowery, 2003); Cokurova, Turkey (Sayinalp, 2001); Metro of Oregon
(Ross Stephens and Winkstrom, 2001) reveal that benefits of this kind are offered
by the institutional dynamics that is founded on justifications of metropolitan
government. Schematically, the process can be explained as following –

Institutional
Figure 2.1: Linkage between conceptual justification, institutional dynamics and accrued
Justification of dynamics
benefits of metropolitan government Accrued benefits
metropolitan Efficiency
government Unified
Source: Devised by the author based on Leland andgain
bureaucracy Johnson (2004).
Efficiency Greater tax
Functional and sharing
territorial
Effectiveness consolidation
Community
representation
Equity Professionalization
2.8 Forming a metropolitan government : the strategies
Wider spatial
Responsiveness Autonomy stretch
Over the years, a number of strategies have been resorted to in pursuit of enacting
metropolitan government. These include city-county consolidation, annexation,
merger of municipalities, city-county separation and establishment of a
comprehensive urban county (Ross Stephens and Winkstrom, 2001). However, the
commonly practiced approaches include city county consolidation, annexation and
two-tier government. In the following sub-sections, these three approaches of
forming metropolitan government have been discussed-

2.8.1 City county consolidation

City-county consolidation involves the merger of the core city government with
the intended county that results with the emergence of a single government unit –

44
thus abolishing political fragmentation and its problems(Ross Stephens and
Winkstrom, 2001). The resultant city government is empowered to serve the
requirements and interests of metropolitan area such as facilitating citizens
proximity to urban services, achieving scale economics in the development of
urban basic services infrastructure through necessary legislative means (Leland
and Johnson, 2004). Carr (2004) argued that consolidation approach alters the
configuration of local governance - motivating the governance realm to emphasize
more on citywide issues and enhances the role of elected as well as appointed
officials in enlightening the citizens about the public decisions. Consolidated
government is presumed to allow for greater consideration of regional interests,
rather than narrow territorial ones (Carr, 2004). Carr and Feiock (2004; 2002)
claimed that city county consolidation is conducive for achieving efficiency as it
reduces the local government unit’s administrative cost as well. This accrued
efficiency gain in turn encourages local government to reduce property taxes thus
raising the competitiveness of the locality (Leland and Johnson, 2004; Rusk, 2003,
1993; Pierce, 1993). Such abridged government costs as well as reduced tax
scenario achieved through consolidation are conducive for residential and business
growth in a locality that has otherwise been stagnant (Leland and Johnson, 2004).

2.8.2 Annexation

Annexation involves the core city incorporating adjacent suburban territory and
providing the newly arrogated areas with city services (Ross Stephens
and Winkstrom, 2001). During the early phases of metropolitan development,
annexation occurred when settlements grew together spatially, or, with the merger
of distinct local jurisdictions, such as town or village governments, into a single
municipality (Brierly, 2004). In later phases, annexation policies became crucial
for determining a maximum area for the core city and for determining the long-
term potential of a metropolitan area (Brierly, 2004; Rusk, 2003)

The politics of development creates a history of boundary expansion in which

annexation has been utilized by central core cities to expand and define control
over urban settlements (Brierly, 2004; Rusk, 2003). According to Gurwitt (2000)
certain annexations are for the purposes of expanding a metropolitan area. In other
contexts, annexation is seen as a way for consolidating territory under a single

45
government (Gurwitt, 2000). An annexation policy provides a direct solution to
metropolitan fragmentation problem through the reduction in the number of
independent municipalities thus reducing the pressure on local finances related to
core urban services (Brierly, 2004). This enables the newly formed bigger city
government to impose equal service tax across the region (Bird, 2003).

Historically, developers promoted area wide growth through both central city
annexation and mergers with smaller jurisdictions (Ross Stephens and Winkstrom,
2001). Historical motives of the approach had been to promote metropolitan
growth - accomplished through area wide comprehensive planning so that
municipal officials could plan developments and build infrastructures (APA 2001).
Promotion of real estate investment and extension of public services into these
annexed territories were also the other key concerns (APA 2001).

2.8.3 Two-tier government

The two-tier model consists of an upper tier governing body (usually a region,
district, or metropolitan area), encompassing a fairly large geographic area, and
lower tier or area municipalities such as cities, towns, villages, townships, wards
(Bird and Slack, 2007; Ross Stephens and Winkstrom, 2001). In principle,
normally under this arrangement, the upper tier formulates policies pertaining to
services meant for region-wide benefits, acts to reduce policy externalities and
strives for achieving economies of scale in urban basic services governance (Bird
and Tarasov, 2004; Vogel, 1997). The lower tier delivers city services at the
neighbourhood or city level (Bird and Slack, 2007; Brierly, 2004; Vogel, 1997).
Bird (2003) pointed out that under the two-tier system, service charges are levied
at an equal rate across the region, which in turn facilitates redistribution of fiscal
resources from municipalities contributing with higher volume of taxes to those
possessing a relatively small tax bases.

Two-tier government appeared as a relatively superior arrangement over the one-

tier model in ensuring accountability, efficiency, and service responsiveness (Bird
and Slack, 2007). Establishing a two-tier metropolitan government does cater a
number of advantages namely spillovers and boundary problems are reduced,
scale advantages can be gained by means of an area-wide government yet local

46
democracy and community control can be retained and local requirements can
well be met by lower-tier of the government (Barlow, 1991). The arrangement has
been quite successful in ensuring the economic competitiveness, social cohesion
and fiscal viability of city-regions in the global economic setting (Bird and
Tarasov, 2004). Proponents of this approach contended that it captures the benefits
of metropolitan government without incurring disadvantages.

Experience of developed as well as developing countries from the 1990’s

reveals that the approach has been extensively resorted to (Madrid, Spain; Calcutta,
India; Jakarta, Indonesia etc.) under the name of “comprehensive urban
government” that postulates merger of several special purpose authorities i.e.
strengthening through the integration of service functions, fiscal, managerial and
areal boundaries of several service providers under the canvas of a single local
government enabling it to perform as a general purpose metropolitan government
for the city or city region (Sayinlap, 2001; Barman, 1999; IUIDP, 1996). In these
contexts, the upper tier of the arrangement has been left with the responsibilities of
framing service strategies and guidelines whereas the lower tier executes service
decisions under the guidance of upper-tier. The lower tier is also assigned with the
duty of channelizing information pertaining to ground reality concerning the
service affairs to the upper tier to facilitate in the formulation of development
policies, plans and operational guidelines (Sayinlap, 2001; Barman, 1999; IUIDP,
1996). Considering the comparative advantages, Barlow (1991) asserted that the
creation of a two-tier structure is advantageous for dealing with political
fragmentation since it can involve a sufficient degree of reorganization to deal
effectively with the problems, while accommodating local interests and needs
sufficiently for it to be politically acceptable and feasible.

2.9 Public Choice School and fragmented governance: the

alternative to metropolitan government

As highlighted in sub-section 2.4.3, late 1970’s witnessed a resurgence of

fragmented governance arrangement in the metropolitan service affairs. The
conceptual foundation of this resurgence was laid in the 1960’s when Vincent
Ostrom, Charles M. Tiebout, and Robert Warren took a stance against the
metropolitan government concept and put forward arguments in favor of

47
polycentric or fragmented mode of urban basic services governance - the basis of
which remains with public choice theory (Ross Stephens and Winkstrom, 2001).
Ostrom (et al 1961) - supporting Tibeout’s (1956) contention – came up with the
argument that fragmented governmental structure stimulates competition between
service providers and facilitates citizens by voting with their feet - as he phrased
it-to choose for their place of residence, which best meets their private and public
needs. The era witnessed the emergence of doubt about the potentials of large size
governments to contribute towards social and economic developments (Auerbach,
2007; Keating, 1995).The outright reasons were the two oil crises that exposed the
weaknesses of large scale governments and uncertainties over the outcomes of
long-term planning. Governments were scaling back from respective public
commitments instead of expanding (Keating, 1985). Eventually, metropolitan
government movement came to a halt and even reversed. Examples of Greater
London, Metropolitan Barcelona (Morata, 1991) and the Rijnmond in the
Netherlands (Netherlands Scientific Council, 1990) can be cited in this connection.

2.9.1 Philosophical base of fragmented governance

Broadly, the basis of fragmented governance - promulgated by public choice

theory - rests on the tenets of self-government, democratic administration and the
economic approach to the study of politics (Ross Stephens and Winkstrom, 2001).
According to Ostrom (et al, 1961), the principles are –

i. citizens reserve the right to choose their local government and change it,

ii. the process of changing government proceeds through a constitutional

arrangement that is driven by the philosophy “majority must be granted”,

iii. local government units ought to be obliged to comply with the

constitutional requirements of the country,

iv. local governmental authorities should share power with private sector
and enjoy less authoritative control,

v. each unit of local government constituency should possess a number of

service authorities plying within that area thus facilitating the citizens to
choose from that array,

48
 vi. decision making in a local governmental unit ought to be divided
amongst diverse concerns,

vii. the legal and political competence of each unit of government is limited
in relation to other governments and individuals are citizens of several
governments, and

viii. discords amongst government units concerning respective jurisdiction,

constitutional exercise of authority and the provision of public services
are subject to a judicial remedy.

The economic principles of studying politics - also known as the political

economy approach –contributed significantly in framing the public choice
perspective as well as the framework of fragmented urban basic services
governance mode. The assumptions of economic approach include-

i. individuals are primarily motivated by rationality and self-interest,

ii. individual behavior should constitute the basic unit of analysis,

iii. individuals adopt maximizing strategies to realize their private as well as

public goals, and

iv. leve1 of information that an individual citizen possesses pertaining to a

particular decision varies considerably from complete certainty to
uncertainty. (Ostrom, et al, 1961)

Collectively these political and economic principles undergird the public choice
argument concerning metropolitan governance.

2.9.2 Theoretical basis of fragmented urban basic services governance and

contradictions with metropolitan government concept

Ostrom, Tiebout, and Warren’s (1961) support for the polycentric or fragmented
character of local government in the metropolis rests on the premise that
interaction between government units active in metropolis under fragmented
arrangement is less muddled than generally depicted. On the contrary, fragmented

49
arrangement constitutes a system-

"To the extent that they (governments) take each other into account
in competitive relationships, enter into various contractual and
cooperative undertakings or have course to central mechanisms to
resolve conflicts, the various political jurisdictions in a
metropolitan area may function in a coherent manner with
consistent and predictable patterns of interacting behavior. To the
extent that this is so, they may be said to function as a “system.”
(cited in Ross Stephens and Winkstrom, 2001; p.108)

Ostrom, Tiebout, and Warren (1961) also contended that the biggest obligation of
a government – be it a central or local – is to support its citizenry with goods and
services that are public in nature and are needed for preserving the desired
condition of community affairs. They advanced their argument by insisting that
the production of public goods and services needs to be differentiated from the
respective delivery to the citizenry (Ross Stephens and Winkstrom, 2001). Ostrom
(et al, 1961) pointed out that a city government may provide a service to the
citizenry that can be contracted out to another government unit or to a private
vendor for production instead. Moreover, the areal jurisdiction - in which a service
is meant to be provisioned - should be chalked out basing on the criterias of
control, efficiency, political representation and local self-determination (Ostrom,
et al, 1961). Based on such principles, Ostrom (et al, 1961) argued that urban
areas need different scale of governmental units for delivering citizens with an
array of basic services. They quite successfully produced perplexity over the
important assertions of reform arguments –fragmented governmental structure in
metropolis causes the surfacing of an inefficient situation in the urban basic
services governance and a single, area wide government is more capable of
effective and efficient management of the same (Ostrom, et al, 1961).

In criticism of metropolitan government, Warren (1964) contended that the utility

of fragmented governmental arrangement has been considerably misjudged
whereas the prospects of metropolitan or integrated government have been
overrated. The prophecy that governmental fragmentation will guide the services
governance towards breakdown and failure have inflicted considerable amount of

50
qualm on the validity of the concept (Warren, 1964).He also defended fragmented
nature of government in the metropolis by arguing that it provides the potential
service recipients with an array of options from which they can opt those that
meets their criteria. According to Warren’s (1964) opinion, active existence of
multiple service providers in the urban sphere does not infer that a production
inefficiency scenario will be inevitable and the arrangement is incapable of
addressing regional issues. Hirsch (1968) added further weights to Ostrom,
Tiebout, and Warren's (1961)contention by stating that individual service requires
different geographical boundaries to achieve efficiency and effectiveness i.e.
distribution and management. Principles such as economics (scale economy),
politics (people government), and administration (multifunctional jurisdictions
sufficient in scope to resolve conflicting interests) ought to be considered in
deciding the responsibilities of government service organizations (Hirsch, 1968).
Alongside these issues, he also contended that spatial benefits, cost spillovers and
income redistribution deserves due consideration in this regard. Finally, basing on
these connotations, Hirsch (1968) suggested that urban services should be
governed by an array of public as well as private organizations - differing in
services area coverage and organizational size.

Vincent Ostrom’s (1973) theoretical premise on public choice argument surfaced

as a major support to fragmented mode of urban services governance. He
defended the idea by arguing that existence of a range of service governance units
enhances scale economics in service provisioning. Ostrom (1973) claimed that -

"Optimal size will vary with the boundary conditions of different

fields of effects inherent in the provision of different public goods
and services. Under these conditions, optimality can be attained
only by reference to multiple agencies and overlapping
jurisdictions." (Cited in Stephens and Winkstrom, 2001; p.113)

According to Ostrom’s (1973) assertion, fragmented governance of urban services

- enhancing competition between service providers - in turn promotes
effectiveness, efficiency, and citizen responsiveness in the respective
governance realm. Bish and Ostrom (1973), in another account, contended that
individual citizens are primarily motivated by rationality and self-interest, but
possesses a

51
diverse combination of service predilections and their motivations to bear the cost
of the services, validate respective preference. They further asserted that smaller
organizations that are responsible for fewer services acts more precisely to
represent community demand compared to larger units – thus, justifying the
rationale of service provisioning by multiple organizations.

Bish and Ostrom(1973) - criticizing the proponents of reform arguments - insisted

that a general-purpose metropolitan government is rather a dictating arrangement
with less encouragements for efficient operation, innovation, cost reducing or to
be widely responsive to citizens requirements related to urban services – thus
constricting the opportunities for competition in service governance. Davis and
Ostrom (1980), Bish and Ostrom (1973) claimed that, such competition between
service governance units might well be encouraged through electoral contests.
They concluded that multiple and overlapping service jurisdictions are well poised
to exploit the diverse economies of scale in urban services provisioning.

Elinor Ostrom and Vincent Ostrom further advanced the concept in 1977 when
they introduced the theory of coproduction of services within public choice
literature. Their argument was based on the premise that the presence of a higher
number of service providers in turn encourages coproduction. Elinor and Vincent
Ostroms (1977) argument in this connection found its base on one of Olson’s
(1965) assertion – “a local public economy is a compilation of service generating
and distributing units that collectively constitutes a system of service governance”
(Cited in Ross Stephens and Winkstrom, 2001; p.116). It is worth of citing here
that coproduction of public services is an arrangement in which consumers
contribute in some ways to the production of the service with which they are
connected to – thus encouraging a mixed approach in this regard (Whitaker, 1980).
Examples of coproduction includes consumers seeking government assistance,
consumers providing assistance to the government, consumers and government
officials reaching to an agreement concerning policy decisions through mutual
adjustment process (Whitaker, 1980). As per Percy’s (1984) assertion,
coproduction facilitates with (1) higher level of services (2) lower cost of services
(3) enhanced responsiveness of service agencies to citizens preference and needs
(4) increased citizen participation in other areas of local governments.

52
In summary, polycentric or fragmented character of urban government have been
defended by it’s proponents in the following manner –

i. existence of a variety of local governments is more responsive to various

service needs and preferences of the community than one metropolitan
government,

ii. as a rational being, citizens act on self-interest which facilitates them to

decide their place of residence that meets their service and other
preferences best,

iii. presence of a variety of service providers in individual localities of

different spatial size within metropolis is more conducive in ensuring
service responsiveness and attaining economics of scale,

iv. existence of multiple service governance units motivates citizens to

contribute in the coproduction of public services

v. it induces competition between service providers in delivery affairs,

eliminates monopoly in service provisioning, and

vi. communication between governments establishes a system of

metropolitan governance that can be more competent in responding to
area wide service policy challenges. (cited in Ross Stephens and
Winkstrom, 2001; p. 117-118)

2.10 Justifications of fragmented urban services governance

Theoretically, the justifications of fragmented or polycentric arrangement rest on

the following three premises –

2.10.1 Decentralization

Existence of multiple urban basic service providers under fragmented arrangement

- theoretically – favors decentralized bureaucracy that is perceived to reduce the
complexity in service management and would be more transparent in public
action (Scott and Meyer, 1991). The arrangement awards decision powers to the
service officials and it is argued by Sager (2004) that such, in turn, establishes
market

53
structures in service administration realm thus attempting to ensure that more
options are available for citizens. Scott and Meyer (1991) argued that when
decision power is bestowed amongst service providers that are operational in flat
hierarchies, it enables the same to come into close contact of its actual clientele
and becomes more capable of matching their preferences. And when more
individual preferences are met, it results with the attainment of higher public
wellbeing (Osborne and Ted, 1992).

2.10.2 Self-administration

The notion of self-administration has thrived out of the idea that individual
preferences are best matched when these are not filtered by professional expertise
in the actual public service delivery (Sager, 2004). The argument rests on the
citizen-client conceptual premise of new public management literature that defines
urban public services in terms of demand stimulated by the clientele (Kettl, 2000;
Lane, 2000). Fischer (1990) claimed that the assimilation of citizens group who
are affected by a certain policy and thus contradicts with government’s right to
define service objectives and policy experts definition of service problems, is
attained through public participation in specialist’s work (participatory policy
analysis). The idealistic outcome, thus, would be self-administration by those who
would define and provide their service requirements. Osborne and Ted (1992; p.
47) argued that proponents of an “entrepreneurial public sector” in line with public
choice theory, anticipate city governments to “measure the performance of their
service agencies, focusing not on the inputs but on outcomes. They are driven by
their goals - their missions - not by their rules and regulations.” This perceptional
transformation in service governance realm from the supply to the demand side
changes the functional orientation of the corresponding bureaucrats – from
generalist to specialist (Sager, 2004).

2.10.3 Control of the bureaucracy by the clientele

Regarding the notion of control of the bureaucracy by the clientele, Osborne and
Ted (1992; p.47) brought the argument into the spotlight by stating that
“(Polycentric local governments) empowers citizens by pushing control out of the
bureaucracy, into the community.” Niskanen (1971) contended that clientele
control is about introducing the institutional framework of fragmented service

54
governance to the notion that citizens are entitled to choose from a range of
service option and thus developing the organizational operation culture
accordingly as it is being perceived as “a mechanism for allowing individuals
maximum scope for choice” (p.123). As per this notion, when multiple institutions
actively ply in a service environment, these would be bound to maintain extensive
public or clientele accountability to uplift their profile in order to be competitive
(Osborne and Ted, 1992). According to Weingast and Moran (1983), the concept
of clientele accountability has its base on principal agent theory in which
legislature is being viewed as principal and the public administration as agent.
Jones (1995) contended that due to the administration’s specialization, the
information indiscretion problem has to be addressed by the principal. Proponents
of the new public management favor contracting - both outside as well as inside
the administration- in order to advance clients privilege of selecting service
providers. “The idea behind proposing contracts is that failure of the agent to
comply with the agreements in the performance contract would allow the principal
with the right to act on the basis of the employment contract, including the
possibility of firing the agent” (Lane, 2000; p.11). Thus, in short it can be asserted
that the notion of clientele control implies that the more a bureaucrat relies on
clientele base, the more responsive he or she will be to their preferences.

2.11 Criticisms of fragmented urban basics services governance

Though, conceptually fragmented governance emerged as an alternative to

metropolitan government, however, evidence suggests that the idea is embedded
with substantial drawbacks. The arrangement lost its appeal to a considerable
extent in the later decades of the last century on following grounds-

Parks and Oakerson (2003), Vogel (1997) and Keating (1995) - based on
empirical evidences - contended that in fragmented arrangement, excess
importance has been placed on the assumption that citizens select their residences
based on their sagacity and self-interest. Referring to their general political
behavior and their request to maximize public goods, Keating (1995) argued that
the premise “humans are rational individual utility maximizers” is not a constant
phenomenon (cited in Ross Stephens and Winkstrom, 2001; p. 119). As an
evocative declaration of human impetus, it has been palpably false. According to

55
Keating (1995; p. 62), individuals’ notion of interest is also “a difficult one to
comprehend as they tend to govern it in many ways by the structure in which they
find themselves”. He asserted that emotive i.e. place attachment; and pedestrian
factors are more influential other than rationality and self-interest when citizens
make political, policy and residential choices. Vogel (1997) and Keating (1995)
strongly opposed the notion that citizens choose their place of residence based on
the motive of maximizing policy preferences. Rather, monetary, work place and
other considerations exert constrains upon citizens in this connection.

The second criticism of fragmented governance remains with the notion that it has
not been successful to come up with an alternative mechanism whereby citizens
are given more opportunities to convey their service preferences directly to the
elected representatives. According to Jones and Hart (1985; p. 193), the “critical
problem of fragmented arrangement is to devise a valid and reliable signaling
mechanism of individual preferences comparable to the way the monetary system
operates in the perfectly competitive private market place.” Empirically, the
concept lacks proof that it is competent enough an arrangement to ensure
effectiveness and efficiency (Vogel, 1997; Jones and Hart, 1985). The
deficiency steams from the difficulties of measuring the performance.

Fragmented urban governance has long been criticized for promoting inequity,
and inefficiency under the shadow of competitiveness (Rusk, 2003; Mitchell, 1999;
Vogel, 1997). Also pointed out by Vogel (1997), fragmented governance of urban
basic services creates it’s own public goods problem as it promotes externalities in
service governance i.e. lack of coordination between operators and service
financing; that fosters distributional inequality. And according to Warner and
Hefetz (2002), Lowery (2000), market solutions promulgated by fragmented
arrangement are not outfitted with the apparatus i.e. governance mechanism; to
resolve such problems. Rather, empirical evidence suggests that the mechanism -
to a considerable extent - has been an overstated one as Vogel (1997) opinionated
that erosion in service quality, lack of competition and high cost of contracting
and monitoring are common. Moreover, Bird and Slack (2007), Warner and
Hefetz (2002), Hamilton (1999) criticized fragmented governance for
promulgating non-coordination between services of similar scopes that leads to
non-achievement of scale economics in the development and maintenance services.

56
Fragmented government spreads a narrow notion of publics engagement (Parks
and Oakerson, 2003; Warner and Hefetz, 2002). According to Warner and Hefetz
(2002), market based approach of provisioning and managing urban basic services
treats all citizens as consumers and those failing to produce effective demands
must drop their voice. The arrangement encourages the notion of profit
maximization more amongst urban services providers which – according to Hefetz
and Warner’s (2002) view - might well compel sacrificing of broader social goals
or objectives i.e. providing qualitative urban basic services to dwellers irrespective
of their socio-economic backgrounds to promote social equity.

The arrangement is also criticized for assuming a too restricted countenance in

terms of territorial and functional aspects that dictates the formulation of policy
agendas in slender terms (Warner and Hefetz2002; Ross Stephens and Winkstrom,
2001). In support of this criticism, Parks and Oakerson (2003), Ross Stephens and
Winkstrom (2001) pointed out that the narrow political emphasis bestowed upon
service governance crafts scope for developing parochial local leadership.
Additionally, its functional postulation professing that individual services are
better off being governed by multiple agencies, has been criticized by Ross
Stephens and Winkstrom (2001), Vogel (1997), Barlow (1991) for putting in
excessive trust on the ability of the officials of service providing organizations
who are likely to be guided by the organizational preferences i.e. profit
maximization; rather than notion of promoting greater community wellbeing.

With regards to citizens involvement in coproduction of services, empirical

evidence by Hefetz and Warner (2002) have demonstrated that the advantaged
citizens are much more pertinent to practice coproduction than their disadvantaged
counterparts. Percy (1984) argued that coproduction might produce some negative
outcomes on service equity unless intervention by the city government in the form
of compensation strategy is adopted.

Parks and Oakerson (2003; 2000) came up with a more serious criticism of the
fragmented urban basic services governance –existence of multiple service
providers is incomprehensible to the average citizen. This condition is non-
conducive for strengthening local democracy and accountability.

57
Fragmented arrangement does not permit for redistributive policies (Ross
Stephens and Winkstrom, 2001; Keating, 1995). Parks and Oakerson (2003; 1989)
noted that the difficulty remains with the fact that the arrangement takes no notice
of the political process by which such policies are formed and sustained.
According to Siddique (2005) and Parks and Oakerson (2003), redistribution takes
place when the political and social process upholds the notion of unity and
common interest/s in which individual feels the sense of responsibility for
community. Fragmented local government dissuades the presence of political and
social necessities by compelling communities to go into competition and inducing
politicians to stress on particular rather than common interests (Hefetz and Warner,
2002; Keating 1995). Hefetz and Warner, (2002) contended that public choice
approach is founded on narrow local politics that prevents municipalities to
involve in inter-jurisdictional competition.

According to Keating (1995), public choice theory encourages fragmented urban

basic services governance to perceive that consumers (citizens) are mainly focused
on qualitative issues. However, Hefetz and Warner (2002), Keating (1995)
reported that in practice, preferences are determined by necessities - families with
children need education, old people need special health and social services, people
without cars need public transport. Thus, service choice is not decided by the
preferences of a uniform electorate, but by the necessities of specific groups which
can be classified by income class, generational terms (Hefetz and Warner, 2002;
Keating, 1995).

Keating (1995) argued that fragmented governance makes comprehensive urban

planning unlikely as under this arrangement, it is difficult to relate land use
planning to social and political priorities. Fragmented urban basic services
governance policies disintegrate metropolitan area into functionally defined policy
communities where each determines its own preferences (Ross Stephens and
Winkstrom, 2001; Keating, 1995).

Hefetz and Warner (2002), Lowery (2000) Keating (1995) in their empirical
studies demonstrated that fragmented governance of urban basic services approach
increases power and authority of bureaucrats over local representatives in service
governance realm. This is because citizens in reality do not have “the time or

58
inclination to gather all the information necessary to decide their policy choices”
(Keating, 1995; p.127). In particular, when professional bureaucrats control the
service production arrangements, not only they assume the authority to decide the
types of service to be delivered but also define the service problems as well as
how these are to be addressed (Hefetz and Warner, 2002; Lowery, 2000; Keating,
1995).

Rusk (2003) asserted that fragmented urban basic services governance promotes
inflexible service jurisdiction that are compressed between increasing service
requirements and eroding incomes. This compels the same to rely on government
grants and loans, which eventually curtails local governments’ authority and
increases central governments control in service affairs.

2.12 Conceptual resurgence in the 1990’s

After a pause, 1990’s witnessed a resurgence of metropolitan government -

majorly in the United States instigated by David Rusk’s work titled “Cities
without Suburbs” (1993). Increasing level of economic, social segregation in the
metropolitan areas across United States that confined the poor and other
underprivileged groups in the core cities persuaded Rusk to revive conceptual
resurgence of metropolitan government single handedly – literally. He argued –

"[A] metro area in which local government is highly fragmented is

usually incapable of adopting broad, integrating strategies.
Conversely, a metro area in which key planning and zoning powers
are concentrated under a dominant local government has the
potential to implement policies to promote greater racial and
economic integration if that government has the courage and vision
to do so.” (p. 47)

Pierce (1994) also reflected Rusk’s view during the same period as he asserted,
with reference to American cities - that –

“The third great disability city-states are their common lack of

coherent governance - either formal or informal. The result is that
fundamentally public decisions on every question from air quality

59
 to transportation to solid waste disposal to assuring a competent
workforce for the future, are reached in piecemeal, often haphazard
fashion, or worse still are never made at all.” (cited in Ross
Stephens and Winkstrom, 2001; p. 48)

Pierce (1994) argued that almost all categories of urban problems – be it the
strategic economic development, environmental services provision and protection,
transportation, recreations, parks, urban growth management can be handled by an
are wide metropolitan government with adequate power. Alongside, Rusk (1993),
Pierce (1994), other scholars namely Cisneros (1994), Dodge (1996) also
contributed to this conceptual resurgence through their writings that contended a
stronger local government with capacities to serve a wider areal base can
positively contribute to the governance of urban basic services. The principal
components for the resurgence of metropolitan government concept - according to
their opinion - were as following-

i. decentralized or fragmented character of local government unit is the

fundamental problem of metropolises that results with inefficiencies and
ineffectiveness in the governance of urban services,

ii. spread of wealth difference among communities inflicted notable amount

of inequality in the local public services,

iii. fragmented governance is non-conducive towards developing a

metropolitan wide leadership that is sensitive to the well-being and
interests of the areas within its areal boundary - specially, regarding to the
governance of urban services, and

iv. to cure these ills, a metropolitan wide governmental structure should be

established in every large urban region with authority over various
aspects of urban basic services. (cited in Ross Stephens and
Winkstrom, 2001)

Moreover, in the 1990’s, relatively intense areal expansion of cities,

unprecedented technological advancement, struggle of polycentric urban
governance arrangement with regards to financial as well as intellectual
competences in generating policies to confront the problems that arose due to lack

60
of functional and territorial integration in the era of globalization have positioned
metropolitan government back in the saddle (Lefèvre 1998; Stein, 1993). Lefèvre,
(1998) argued that globalization of economy has emerged with a different
meaning for metropolises –

“…economy and functional considerations are factors which make

the introduction of metropolitan government necessary, no longer
to provide urban services, but infrastructures and facilities that a
world metropolis ought to possess to make its presence noticed in
the international sphere” (p.22).

Jouve and Lefèvre, (1997), Sharpe (1995) and Stein (1993) contended that either
through providing services for consumptions such as housing or serviced lands for
other uses or economic support for infrastructure building/rebuilding or achieving
political consensus with numerous stakeholders to formulate as well as
successfully implement area-wide policies of similar scope, the cities need to keep
their places in international competition. From this inevitability, Lefèvre (1998)
claimed that in the 1990’s, metropolitan areas have rather emerged as a complex
web of social relations that are dependent on economic and technological factors
more than ever before since -

“…on the one hand, these elements establish that the search for
metropolitan authorities is a matter of certain territories finding the
necessary tools to provide them with the government structures
which will, in the long term, arm them better than others to face
and benefit from these developments. On the other, such changes
mean that new actors must be introduced (local governments,
citizens’ associations, business community, for example) and
mobilized if area-wide governmental structures are to be set up” (p.
9).

Thus, as evident from the above citation, in 1990’s, the idea of institutionalizing
integration or the spirit of metropolitan government by impelling the ingredients
of good governance into action have eventually inclined towards introducing,
mobilizing and realizing a harmony between the all concerned actors on shared
purposes (Lefèvre, 1998; Jouve and Lefèvre, 1997).

61
This resurgence of metropolitan government concept surfaced with new promises
- notably in its notion of the institution or institutional policies and the methods of
implementation (Sharpe, 1995). To the proponents of such resurgence,
metropolitan government arrangement offers a more functional vision of the urban
area than before and the focus now is more on values of negotiation, partnership
and flexibility in the constitution of new structures (Jouve and Lefèvre, 1997;
Stein, 1993). Thus, it emerged as the result of a constitutive process with a
profoundly different idea of institutionalization (Jouve and Lefèvre, 1997). This
very emphasis on institutionalization has been the motivation behind the
enactment of metropolitan government in a number of Italian (Bologna, Turin,
Rome), German (Stuttgart, Dresden) metropolises where the leadership has been
elected through adult franchise and being bestowed with the responsibilities of
important services namely strategic planning, public transport, waste management
and economic development (Hoffman-Martinot, 1994). In this regard, Lefèvre
(1998) noted that metropolitan territory is perceived as the scale i.e. areal stretch;
on which the central cities could rely. With this process, metropolitan government
arrangement has become both a necessary instrument and an advantage in
attaining respective objectives (Lefèvre, 1998).

Another interesting feature of this conceptual resurgence in the 1990’s has been
that a number of developing countries across all the continents have resorted to
metropolitan government mechanism to cure the urban ills similar to those that
emerged in the cities and metropolitan areas of the United States throughout the
last century. The outcome of such an adoption has been positive –the ills have
either been eradicated or brought to minimum. The following sub-sections
explains some of the core factors that contributed to this conceptual resurgence of
metropolitan government.

2.12.1 Institutional edge

The resurgence of metropolitan government is largely indebted to its institutional

edges over fragmented governance. The edges came into scholars notice after a
series of comparative experiments between these two arrangements. According
Parks and Oakerson (2003), local democracy, citizens’ satisfaction, metropolitan-
wide problem solving are the key institutional edges that contributed significantly

62
in this resurgence during 1990’s. In the following sub-sections, these features are
discussed –

A. Local democracy
Metropolitan government in two ways promotes local democracy (Parks and
Oakerson2003). The first emphasizes on the significance of citizens possessing
correct information. For a true or effective democratic control over the local urban
government, citizens ought to possess the exact knowledge about its functions as
well as its level of competency in executing these. Lyons, Lowery and DeHoog
(1990 – cited in Parks and Oakerson, 2003) – by comparing citizens level of
awareness about service provisions between general purpose integrated and
fragmented settings - demonstrated that respondents from the former arrangement
make less mistake in recognizing the service providers on whom they rely. In this
connection, Parks and Oakerson (2003) suggested that as an informal but
widespread norm in fragmented arrangement, service officials are quite practiced
at impugning to other levels within for unimpressive service performance while
demanding recognition for good performance no matter how distant or unrelated
they have been with it. These findings also indicate that service governance under
fragmented arrangement is likely to craft scopes for more of such manipulation
that might cause fading of local democracy. The second way is related to citizens’
pattern of reactions when they become dissatisfied with service provision under
fragmented setting. Lyons and Lowery (1989; 1986) have assembled these
reactions on two dimensions namely, an active-passive and a constructive-
destructive dimension – basing on Hirschman’s (1970) theoretical discourse of
exit voice and loyalty. The responses they analyzed relate to situations that
citizens confronted in case of a fading quality of city services. Lyons and Lowery
(1989; 1986) categorized voice as an active-constructive response and conceived it
as an endeavor by the citizens to alter policies that causes dissatisfaction. Exit -
the active-destructive retort to negative satisfaction -has been viewed as a
translation of Tiebout’s (1956) voting with one’s feet. Neglect has been classified
as a passive-destructive answer expressing hopelessness with the changes thus
instigating citizens to take away their support from the city government while
dwelling within the metropolitan boundary. And loyalty - the passive-constructive
response - has been viewed as a way of rendering incessant support for the local
governments with the expectation that it will work on to improve the service

63
governance.

Constructive Destructive

Active Voice Exit

Passive Loyalty Neglect

Figure 2.2: Matrix of citizens response regarding their satisfaction with local government

Lyons and Lowery (1990) asserted that local or city government structure caters
powerful – though not direct – influence on the way citizens craft these responses.
They claimed that citizens psychological attachment to the community tends to be
higher in general purpose integrated metropolitan settings than fragmented
arrangements. Based on their findings, they further suggested that such an
attachment made citizens constructive answers to negative satisfaction through
voice and loyalty more probable and the destructive responses in the form of exit
and neglect less likely.

B. Citizens’ satisfaction
DeHoog, Lyons, and Lowery (1992) have found in their empirical study that
citizens are at least in two ways satisfied with metropolitan government mode of
urban services management. In their study, they examined an array of
hypothesized determinants of citizen satisfaction including individual-level,
jurisdictional-level and city specific variables from two opposite urban
arrangements of Kentucky namely, Louisville-Jefferson County under fragmented
and Lexington-Fayette County under integrated metropolitan settings (also cited in
Parks and Oakerson, 2003). They found that citizens were more satisfied in
receiving and paying for more services. And more services are provided by
general purpose integrated metropolitan government. Additionally, DeHoog,
Lyons, and Lowery (1992) argued that citizens psychological attachment is higher
in integrated metropolitan settings. Kelleher and Lowery (2001) claimed that the
structure of city government does cater a direct influence on the variance of
citizens satisfaction – though not on mean. In their experimental research also on
Louisville-Jefferson county and Lexington-Fayette county, they found that the
satisfaction variance was significantly higher under fragmented government.

64
Kelleher and Lowery (2001) categorized this outcome as a contradiction to the
public choice argument on the premise that by providing citizens with diverse
flavor to match their choices to an array of tax-service packages offered in
fragmented settings, most citizens should be equally satisfied. Instead, Kelleher
and Lowery (2001) contended that service preferences do not differ significantly
between consumers. Rather, the issue of equal access to services - by both the
wealthy and poor community - differs significantly in fragmented settings. Thus,
fragmentation - in contradiction to integrated arrangement - works to ensure that
some will be much more satisfied with local services than others (Parks and
Oakerson, 2003; Lowery, 1999).

C. Metropolitan-wide problem solving

Critics of fragmented urban services governance argue that the arrangement is not
capable enough to resolve metropolitan-wide problems (Parks and Oakerson,
2003). This is not a new criticism for fragmented arrangement. It, along with the
notion of service efficiency, partly stimulated the reformists to cultivate their
arguments in favor of metropolitan government for decades (Parks and Oakerson,
2003; Savitch, and Vogel, 2000). Precisely, Social Stratification-Government
Inequality (SSGI) thesis played major role in drawing scholars attention in this
connection. The SSGI thesis by Hill (1974) and Neiman (1976) argued that
service providers under fragmented arrangement are responsible for inducing
income inequality within metropolitan sphere by meticulously mismatching
resources and needs of the citizenry. Parks and Oakerson (2003), Lowery (2000;
2000) claimed that Social Stratification-Government Inequality (SSGI) thesis -
though revised in many ways over time (Kelleher and Lowery 2001; Lowery 1999;
Massey and Denton 1993) – however, possesses a major challenge for fragmented
urban services governance and forms one of the major arguments for the
resurgence of metropolitan government concept. Scholars – influenced by the new
regionalism - have often opinionated that a general-purpose metropolitan
government arrangement is better positioned in comparison to address
environmental problems such as water supply, drainage, sewerage etc. through
achieving effective coordination under an integrated institutional framework
(Savitch and Vogel 2000; Rusk 1995; Downs 1994). In response to these
arguments, public choice scholars have been favoring intergovernmental
agreements/relations and higher level government interventions to fill in the voids

65
(Parks and Oakerson, 2003, 2000; Ostrom, 1972). But Parks and Oakerson (2003)
– referring to the economic tools of public choice theory – asserted that
intergovernmental agreements/relations possesses less potentials to render
solutions in this connection since it involves higher transaction costs, conflicts of
interests, framing and even distortion of preferences while attempting to adopt
coordinated policy responses in fragmented setting and thus “a tragedy of
commons is far more likely than effective service governance” (quoted by Parks
and Oakerson 2003; p.4 from Lowery 2001, 1998 and Downs, 1994).

2.12.2 New regionalism

1990’s resurgence of metropolitan government is also indebted to the growing

interest on new regionalism. Willis (1994) termed this growth in interest as “third
wave” of regional governance movement (cited in Altshuler, 1999; p.124).
Scholarly works by Rusk (Cities Without Suburbs, 1993), Pierce, Johnson and
Hall (Citystates: How urban America can prosper in a competitive world, 1993)
are widely credited for offering the foundational literature base in this connection
(Savitch and Vogel, 1996). And implicitly, these have favored the rejuvenation of
metropolitan government concept (Ledebur and Barnes, 1994). Although no clear
definition of new regionalism is available, however, its relevance on metropolitan
government can be traced back to Peirce’s (1993) argument relating to governance
of regions in the United States-

“A region simply must have some form of umbrella regional

governance structure. At a minimum, such an organization needs
the power to resolve disputes between different authorities of the
region that are responsible for various services. At a maximum, it
would assume direct control of, and coordinate, the major cross-
regional functions . . . now performed by independent special
authorities” (p.319).

As evident from the above contention, regional governance - to a considerable

extent - simply aligns with the formal definition of metropolitan government set
forth by Singh (et al, 1996) – provided in chapter one of this thesis. Furthermore,
Altshuler (1999) argued that regional government is merely a shift of terminology
from metropolitan government. Precisely, he asserted that -

66
 “Areas in which the central city is highly elastic - that is, comprises
a high proportion of metropolitan area population - can be
considered to be examples in some sense of a regional government.
Single-county metropolitan areas with strong county governments
can also be considered highly regionalized. And in some cases,
multipurpose regional government exists through explicit city-
county consolidation or through other means” (p. 129).

With such characterization, regional government further blends in with

metropolitan government since - according to Rusk (2003, 1993) and Lefèvre
(1998) - one of the iconic features of the later concept is central city elasticity.
Additionally, Savitch and Vogel (1996) viewed metropolitan government
arrangement as one way of forming regional government.

Notably, the pretext for the emergence of new regionalism in the 1990’s –
according to Savitch and Vogel, (1996; p. 2) - is engrained in the following
propositions –

i. mounting disparities in social and economic aspects within cities,

ii. joining of central cities and suburbs together under an institutional

form is the best way to counter local disparities, and

iii. such joining enhances the potentials of economic prosperities through

forming common policies combining the strengths of cities and
suburbs.

Operationally, Collins (1994) argued that the new regionalism is about enhancing
functionality of cities or city-regions. To test this argument, Savitch and Vogel
(1996) examined regional/metropolitan government of ten cities across the United
States. Basing on the results, they concluded that the conceptual connotations of
new regionalism is couched in regional economics that thrives on politics of
governing cities and city-regions with particular focus on achieving excellence in
protecting the environment, building or rebuilding service infrastructures,
delivering new or better services to the citizenry. Attainment of these goals helps
cities or city-regions to concentrate jobs or economic activities in central urban

67
areas on one hand. And on the other, facilitates a considerable number of such job-
holders to move to cheaper destinations at the periphery through effective
stretching of services across the metropolitan regions (Savitch and Vogel, 1996).
Such locales surface under a governance framework in which intensive vertical
and horizontal relationships of formal nature between bodies responsible for
various services are operational (Savitch and Vogel, 1996).

Savitch and Vogel (1996) also noted in their examination that cities with less
inequalities had more inclination towards comprehensive formalized relationships
between various interests – which is synonymous to metropolitan government
arrangement. Nonetheless, Swanson (1996), Nelson (1996), Stowers (1996) –
referring to the experience of Jacksonville, Metro of Portland and Miami –
contended that functioning as defecto regional government, metropolitan
governments in these cities have been able to avoid conflicts of interest between
various locales, achieve better co-operations between stakeholders, attain greater
success in formulating and implementing economic development strategies,
develop information base on the local government structure, numbers, types etc.
that becomes easily accessible and comprehensible to the citizenry.

2.12.3 Functional edge

The arrangement surfaced with some functional advantages in the 1990’s that did
not accrue during the 1960’s and 1970’s. According to Feiock (2004), it in this
period city leaders, managers and concerned scholars came to the realization that
the arrangement reduces information costs, can internalize development spillover
effects that can reduce the demands for unnecessary subsidies to business.
Additionally, in the 1990’s, scholars started reasserting that metropolitan
government arrangement is well positioned to formulate, implement and manage
comprehensive basic services planning on a city wide basis which is one of the
prerequisites for coordinated urban development (Rusk, 2003; Hawkins, Ward,
and Becker, 1991). Additionally, metropolitan government also emerged as
supportive towards public-private cooperation in addressing development
challenges, reducing the time and cost necessary to gain approval for new
developments. The later feature provides a mechanism to streamline the regulatory
and development approval process - thereby effectively eliminating confusion,

68
delays, and uncertainties that results from the need of obtaining development
approvals from multiple departments and agencies (Feiock, 2004; Feiock, and
Jeong 2002). Hawkins, Ward, and Becker (1991) argued that integrated
metropolitan government could better address problems of multijurisdictional
economic decline and geographically uneven development than fragmented
arrangement. The inherent reason being that metropolitan government fosters
inter-operator dependence thereby enhancing the environment for cooperation and
coordination in urban services governance that in turn caters opportunities for
achieving greater economic development thereby generating jobs and offering a
reasonable quality of life to the citizenry.

2.13 Conclusion

Thus, the conceptual underpinnings, retreat and resurgence of metropolitan

government quite obviously established the fact that the appeals of the
arrangement are very much active. In fact 1990’s conceptual reemergence does
carry a special meaning – no matter how advanced a city is, integrated
management of urban services – specially, those of linear or engineering character
- is favorable. Additionally, the appeal also started to attract developing nations as
these seek to attain economic prosperity by providing better business opportunities
as well as improved living conditions. In the proceeding chapter contexts as well
as benefits of adopting metropolitan government mechanism in the developing
nations have been discussed in detail.

69