Multi-tier local government systems
adopted in many parts of the world
By Mayraj Fahim, Local government adviser*

10 April 2005: Anyone living in a region where there are counties, or similar counterparts with different terminology, and municipal units is familiar with what can be termed a federated (multi-tier) local system. However, what is not commonly known is that from the 1950s onwards, integrated federated frameworks were, and still are, being increasingly adapted for local regions.

The main reason for this rise is that by the 1950s populations generally started moving from rural to urban regions. Integrated frameworks allow both for an efficient interconnected system and one that is also more grass roots- oriented, particularly when put into effect within the context of a city system that tends to deliver greater systemic equity across a region. Such systems have been established either by the linking up of neighboring units or by devolution. Integrated federated frameworks have been applied in citywide, countywide and multi-county frameworks.

Concrete examples of integrated federated systems include the following: the new system in Montreal, Canada, (as well as its predecessor, the Montreal Urban Community); Birmingham, UK, with its new changes, as well as the features it introduced in the 1980s; Paris (France) and London (UK); Miami-Dade County (Florida) and the Twin Cities Metro system (Minnesota); the non-urban county-district-parish county framework within the UK; the new changes in the city government structure of Los Angeles (California); the Toronto, Canada, region; Sydney, Australia; and the many regional councils and councils of government in the US. All of the foregoing reflects applications of the methodology applied in different contexts in amplified and limited modes of operation.

However, the first integrated federated local system, which inspired other variations, was introduced in the latter half of the 18th Century. In the latter half of the 19th Century, England was the first nation to adapt its framework; and to also do so in the rural context in addition to London’s urban example, while further establishing an integrated link between neighborhood (parish) councils and the two-tiered framework of the pioneering foreign model adapted by England. To this day, England and its former colonies are the regions where this methodology has been most extensively applied. In fact, all the five new systems implemented between 2001 and 2003 were implemented either in England or her former colonies and/or by natives of her former colonies. Nonetheless, it is in the nation of the pioneering 18th Century example that the most diverse reflections of this methodology can be found, with other nations mostly adapting parts of the same - though some adaptations possess features not found in the nation of origin.

These frameworks have been introduced in both incremental and wholesale efforts, with the five new systems implemented between 2001 and 2003 in five countries reflecting both sides of the spectrum. The way to identify an incremental phase is to see whether it can be evolved into a more amplified and substantial framework.
For instance, Birmingham’s current changes involve building on the neighborhood offices it put in place during the 1980s. Sydney, Australia, is establishing neighboring offices; and part of the new Los Angeles changes involves the setting up of sub-regional city government offices. However, neither Sydney nor Los Angeles is at the place that Birmingham is now evolving into.

Evolution
In essence, integrated federated systems have two main variations that have spawned others.

Substantial frameworks
The first citywide framework has inspired variations that establish substantial area-wide systems with defined powers and power sharing between the constituent parts. Today, such frameworks are no longer merely confined to city regions – they are also applied in countywide and multi-county regional arrangements. In the US, the largest regional system - the Twin Cities, Minnesota, system - has delivered one of the principal features of this methodology: greater equity across the spectrum. In 30 years, it has been noted that the inequality in the per-capita tax base between the rich and poorer halves has been reduced from a ratio of 50-1 to 12-1. Other US states have in modified ways endeavored to emulate the Minnesota example. To the degree they have done so, they have moved the US system towards more integrated frameworks. At the moment the US is characterized by having a majority of transitional mechanisms with a handful of more substantive frameworks.
 
Interlocal cooperative mechanisms
An 1890 introduction of intergovernmental cooperation units in the same nation (which now has over 18,000 such mechanisms) led to the later adaptation of such mechanisms in nations that were looking for a mechanism more limited in scope. Australia’s Tasmania regional council (1920s introduction) was an early foreign adaptation of this mechanism. Australia’s neighbor New Zealand has also implemented intergovernmental cooperative mechanisms following its lead in the region. But the United States leads in the implementation of such mechanisms implemented in the 1950s and thereafter, with US examples being more numerous and diverse in their roles and composition. In the US, these mechanisms carry such terms as regional councils, councils of government and others. As in the nation of origin, the US mechanisms do not uniformly have the same role.

The largest US mechanism is the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG’s efforts to deliver a plan for the regional units, that has been tried several times and failed to secure willingness, also reveals the limitations of this mechanism in delivering substantive change. In the nation of origin the recognition of this weakness is demonstrated by the fact that it introduced in the mid –20th Century regional bodies that incrementally gained power and are now elected bodies that form a unit of government above the county level.

In the US, two regions have managed to upgrade their intergovernmental cooperative mechanisms to establish a region-wide system. These are the Portland Metro system of Oregon (that covers three counties) and the Twin Cities Metro system of Minnesota (that covers seven counties). As regional experts in the US like Anthony Downs of Brookings have noted, more US regions could benefit if the examples of the exceptions were emulated.
 
Failed Examples and Challenged Examples:
In general such a framework has performed optimally when it is sufficiently integrated and fails when it is not. Further, it is important to maintain the right balance in the power dynamics within the region, and to recognize when growing pains require modification to address changing ground conditions.

New York City
Today, with its city council, borough presidents and community boards, New York City can be said to have the carcass of a federated system framework without its substance. It is ironic that this first pioneering effort in North America is in a region where successful and enduring examples exist both in the United States and Canada.

London
London is currently having its structure scrutinized for changes. This is not the first time this has taken place. London is facing the same challenges that Toronto, Canada, and Winnipeg capital Region, Manitoba, faced in the migration of population from the center to the periphery. In addition, London’s top tier government’s powers were trimmed in the 1960s and post-1960s reforms that have hamstrung the Mayor’s ability to deal effectively with area-wide concerns.

Whether the present London Commission is able to redress the problems of the past is something that will only be illuminated with the passage of time.

Developing County Examples
At present, there are two different types of developing county examples, both in former English colonies. The older system is a rural-based one that is a reflection of the first English system - the non-urban county, district and parish council framework. Another example, implemented a few years ago, is an urban and rural system that has greater grass roots orientation through a representational framework that is bottom-up, starting from the parish council level (a pioneering change added to this ever-evolving methodology) with high integration with common leaders between tiers (a feature in modified forms also seen in the changes in the new Birmingham, UK, and a staple of Canadian systems).

Integrated federated local systems provide a structural answer to the changing ground conditions of growing urban regions that thereby also need to provide inclusive decision-making frameworks and more grass roots-oriented systems. For this reason, there is a rising trend in their implementation among those familiar with its methodology.

*Mayraj Fahim, the author of this article, is a local government adviser. Her occupational focus in local government has been in the areas of municipal finance in the United States and in municipal finance monitoring internationally. She also advises on local government reorganization in the United States and internationally. The full version of this article can be obtained free of charge by emailing info@citymayors.com, with 'Federated system' in the subject line.