Contemporary issues in the government and administration of Latin American megacities

ADMINISTRAÇÃO PÚBLICA

Contemporary issues in the government and administration of Latin American megacities

Peter M. Ward

Department of Sociology Professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, University of Texas, Austin and Director of the Mexican Center

RESUMO

Este artigo é o primeiro a analisar e comparar, de modo sistemático, as estruturas dos governos e administrações municipais das sete maiores cidades da América Latina: quatro megalópolis (população superior a 10 milhões de habitantes) e três capitais nacionais. A análise da estrutura dessas administrações tem como contraponto as encontradas nos Estados Unidos e Reino Unido. As estruturas governamentais na América Latina apresentam características e tendências importantes: 1. carência de autoridade regional (cruzamento de jurisdições); 2. existência de prefeitos fortes e vereadores fracos; 3. partidarismo; 4. sobreposição de burocracia ao invés da interligação delas; 5. pressões a favor da privatização dos serviços municipais, além da contínua tensão entre a iniciativa privada e o poder público; 6. maior autonomia fiscal; 7. contínua marginalização da participação pública no governo das megalópolis. Apesar dessas características, muitas cidades (a despeito de seu tamanho e localização) estão se esforçando para desenvolver estruturas de governo mais eficazes, responsáveis e democráticas.

Palavras-chave:estruturas de governo, administração municipal, megalópolis, América Latina.

ABSTRACT

This paper is the first to systematically analyze and compare the structures of city governance and administration for seven major cities in Latin America, four of which are megacities (population of over 10 million), and three others are large national capitals. U.S. and U. K. models of city administration are reviewed as baseline models against which differences in Latin American may be explored. Structures of Government in Latin America show several important features and trends: 1) the lack of metropolitan (cross jurisdictional) authority; 2) the existence of strong mayors and weak councils"; 3) high levels of partisanship; 4) overlapping rather than interlocking bureaucracies; 5) pressures towards the privatization of city services, but continuing tension over the desirability of public versus private control; 6) greater fiscal responsibility and autonomy; and 7), a continuing marginalization of public participation in megacity governance.In spite of these features, many cities throughout the region (regardless of whether they are megacity size or national capitals), are actively intensifying their efforts to develop more effective, accountable and democratic governance structures.

Key words:structures of government, city governance, megacities, Latin America.

Texto completo disponível apenas em PDF.

Full text available only in PDF format.

A preliminary version of this paper was first presented at a meeting on "Latin American Megacities" organized by United Nations University in Mexico City in November 1993.

1. SASSEN, S. The global city: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991.

2. O'NEILL, H. and MOSS, M. Reinventing New York: competing in the next century's global economy. New York: Urban Research Center, 1991.

3. FATNSTEIN, S., GORDON, I. and HARLOE, M. Divided cities: New York and London in comparative perspective. Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.

4. One of the exceptions that prove the rule is ZICCARDI, Alicia. Ciudades y gohiernos locales en America Latina en los noventa. Mexico: Miguel Angel Pomla, 1991.

5. STANYER, J. Understanding local government. London: Fontana, 1976.

6. POHLMANN, M. Governing the postindustrial city, London: Longman, 1993.

7. WADE, R. Politics and graft: recruitment, appointment, and promotions to public office in India, in WARD, P. Corruption, Development and Inequality. London: Routledge, 1989, 73­109.

8. PATEMAN, C. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.

9. PITKIN, H. Representation. New York: Atherton Press, 1969.

10. SILVERMAN, J. Public sector decentralization: economic policy and sector ínvestment programs. Washington D.C.: World Bank Technical Paper No. 188, 1988.

11. RODRIGUEZ, V. and WARD, P. The New PRI: Recasting Its Identity, in AITKIN, R., at. alii. Dismantling ttie Mexican State? MacMillan, 1996.

12. CASTELLS, M. The urban question. London: Edward Arnold, 1976.

13. ________. The city and the grassroots. London: Edward Arnold, 1983.

14. This gives residents in those sub-areas (also called cities) considerable local autonomy. Its weakness is that it favours the creation and maintenance of affluent subunits and discriminates against those that are poor. It may lead to a "balkanization" of homonegenous - rich and poor ­autonomous sub-areas of the larger urban or metropolitan area.

15. London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield and Tyneside.

16. Even administration in Rio used to be divided across two separate states, Guanabara and Rio de Janeiro.

17. PIRIZ, P. EI municipio y la organization del estado en Argentina, in: Medio Ambiente y Urbanizacion, 28, 1989.

18. RODRIGUEZ, V. and WARD, P. Op. cit.

19. JACOBI, P. Alcances y limites de los gobiemos locales progresistas en Brasil. Las alcaldias petistas, Revista Mexicana de Sociologia, n.2, 1995, p.143-62.

20. LONDONO DE LA CUESTA, I. Problemas, instituciones y finanzas para el desarrollo de Bogota: algunos interrogantes, in: Problemas y Soluciones. Bogota: Departamento de Planeacion, 1992 pp. 13-38.

21. Idem, ibidem.

22. ROTH, G. The private provision of public services. Washington: Oxford University Press and World Bank, 1987.

23. POHLMANN, M. Op. cit.

24. JACOBI, P. Op. cit.

25. LONDONO DE LA CUESTA, I. Op. cit.

26. WARD, P. Op. cit.

27. A recent (November 1995) experiment in Mexico's Federal District to elect citizen counsellors in each of the 16 delegaciones failed badly when only 15% of those registered to vote went to the polls, This high level of abstentions contrasts markedly with the relatively high voter participation rates for local government elections elsewhere in Mexico. It was due to the government's insistence that, uniquely in the Federal District, candidates be elected along civic (citizen) rather than party political lines.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  17 July 2012
• Date of issue
  Sept 1996