Abstract
Due to the national importance of metropolitan areas, central governments seek to make them as attractive and competitive as possible. In many cases, this is done through state control over metropolitan areas and their governance arrangements. This article examines the relationship between state control and metropolitan governance capacity based on a comparative case study of four metropolitan areas: Auckland, Dublin, Montreal and Oslo. These areas represent different models of metropolitan governance, as well as different forms of state control. We studied state control by focusing on political and administrative decentralization: how independently can the metropolitan government make decisions and perform its tasks? The conclusion is that the different dimensions of decentralization are connected to capacity, but not straightforwardly. This study indicates that state involvement through different forms of control can increase metropolitan governance capacity, but only if it is combined with mandate and supportive policy actions.
Highlights
Metropolitan areas have an important role to nation states, as they are the nodes of human activity and they drive the economy.State governments aim to enhance the development of metropolitan areas
We examine the state’s role in building metropolitan governance capacity by comparing four metropolitan governance structures that face different manifestations of state control
It is possible to draw conclusions about the dynamics between state control and metropolitan governance capacity using this analysis, because the cases serve as examples or ideal types of different manifestations of the relationship
Summary
Metropolitan areas have an important role to nation states, as they are the nodes of human activity and they drive the economy (see e.g., Kübler and Heinelt 2005, p. 1; OECD 2015a, p. 12). Metropolitan governance addresses several different challenges, which include multi-layered and multi-leveled social and spatial issues (Walsh and Williams 2013). Metropolitan governance structures represent the efforts of national and subnational authorities to close the gap between socioeconomic areas and administrative jurisdictions (cf Brenner 2003; Davoudi 2008). Contextual factors, such as administrative traditions, cultures and structures, as well as historical progressions and political power relations, determine what are viewed as suitable, realizable and/or desirable governance structures in different metropolitan areas (cf Jouvé 2002). This article contributes to the theory of metropolitan governance by discussing the relationship between the state and a metropolitan area through four ideal types of governance capacity. We respond to the question: What is the role of state control in building metropolitan arrangements’ governance capacity?
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
