Opinion – Claudio Bernardes: Defining the governance model of metropolitan regions is urgent

The complexity and problems of metropolitan regions are well known, and among them is the difficulty with the governance of the region, which is generally composed of a “cluster” of cities characterized by multiple spatial connections and interdependencies.

However, metropolitan regions are formed by municipalities that are independent from the point of view of organization and territorial functioning. The cities that make up these regions are organized into administrative structures without the capacity to deal with the challenges arising from economic, social and demographic realities, which go beyond the dimension of their territory.

Governance plays a critical role in the functioning of metropolitan areas. It can determine, for example, the functioning of public services across municipal boundaries, and how costs are shared across the region.

Metropolitan governance can also determine where and how decisions are made for the entire metropolis and, in this way, decisively influence productivity and development.

The importance of a governance board was demonstrated in research by the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development), which analyzed 275 metropolitan areas, approximately two-thirds of which have some form of metropolitan authority.

The most common model in the governance structures of metropolitan areas evaluated by the OECD is voluntary cooperation between municipalities, resulting in structures devoid of regulatory powers.

Without formal powers, these authorities gain influence through the provision and exchange of information, and the voluntary commitment of member municipalities to implement their decisions.

Approximately one-fifth of all existing metropolitan authorities have formal regulatory or legislative powers to coordinate policies in a metropolitan area, and in some cases even overriding the wishes of individual municipalities for the benefit of the entire region.

In fact, there may be several alternatives for defining the form of governance. Some point to the need for large consolidated metropolitan governments, others suggest a more fragmented system of small local governments. However, the choice of the most appropriate structure must be made based on the definition of the most relevant criteria in the context of each metropolitan area.

The balance between regional and local interests is fundamental. The architecture of regional governance systems must, in some way, allow local interests to be perceived and evaluated. Within this context, it should be considered that the efficient provision of public services requires decision-making within the sphere of government closest to the citizen, for the most efficient allocation of resources.

The economy of scale is another aspect to be examined, together with the possible inefficiency resulting from certain externalities. Thus, it is necessary to design jurisdictions large enough so that all the benefits of a given public service are enjoyed within the boundaries of that jurisdiction, “internalizing” the externalities.

Environmental protection, economic development and social cohesion, for example, would be achieved more practically and cost-effectively if organized on a larger scale, allowing for the internalization of the resulting costs and benefits.

In Brazil, it is urgent to define governance models for metropolitan regions that can efficiently deal with the complexity of this territory. A governance system capable of balancing voluntary cooperation by municipalities, with a metropolitan agency with formal regulatory powers, seems to be the most appropriate solution.