Metro-Matrix Theory » Metropolitan Governance » Metro-Governance Essentials
 |
What if Metros were Nations? |
 |
|
| Metropolises are enormous machines of production. Economies of scale accumulation of knowledge and innovation coupled with location advantages and collective intelligence make of metropolis the leading force of evolution and improvement in the world. Not nations anymore. But metropolises, as a very recent phenomenon, feared both by nations and cities, lack the required government institutions to play their role. If Metropolises would become independent they would be among the top nations of the world. Nations don’t want to grant management capacity in fear of their power. Should multilaterals play the game of 200 years old nations, as instruments of these, or should acknowledge a new world equilibrium that will impose itself before 50 years? Should metropolises be nations? | |
 |
|
Metropolitan Governance stripped naked |
 |
|
| Metropolises are a new phenomenon that their administrations do not know how to handle. This discussion goes on with multiple examples of attempts and alternatives. Due to the factors involved and their possible combinations, the number of such alternatives rises to the hundreds, if not thousands. We must strip down all these dead leaves.
Metropolises are not cities. Their DNA is different; it makes them more like national structures than municipal ones. The multiplicity of issues, sectors and stakeholders that they encompass requires a dialogue that more reflects complex national political mechanisms than the unitary municipal ones. There are three basic kinds of national administration systems: unitary, federal and confederate (e.g. France, USA, and Europe, respectively). Actual efforts among metropolises, backed by national and multilaterals interests, are pushing for confederated development. This path, however, has a limit, which is sovereignty. The national unitary approach can be the path to decentralization or devolution. National governments do not like metropolitan management, either because there is limited political benefit or because metropolises can represent large portions of national power. A federal system for metropolises, with direct accountability to the metropolitan population, is within the scope of interest of neither the municipalities involved nor national governments. We have a long and winding road ahead, but let’s at least remove the slippery leaves from it. |
|
|
|
|
Metropolitan Institutions and Policies |
 |
|
| Do you choose a tool before you know what is the task? Then why do you set up Metropolitan Governance systems before you have defined what they have to perform? First define what has to be done in the Metropolis, then design the Institutions that have to run it.
Keep in mind Metropolises are as complex as States and decision making is much more the result of balance among Economic Efficiency, Social Equity and Environmental Sustainability than a simple result of an Urban Master Plan. You have to Plan, but in a different manner. Not hierarchical, you have to Plan through dialogue among many players: a Matrix Dialogue. And remember as well: you have to overcome the disjointed incrementalism of a Confederate System and break down the retractable delegation of the Unitary State. Good luck! |
|
|
|