of spatially “extended metropolitan regions” (EMRs) (McGee 1991; McGee and
Robinson 1995). This dimension of challenge to urban governments and governance
introduces the idea of “rescaling,” where it is argued that as urban populations
increase both in numbers and in territory, this should be reflected into the systems
of government because urban-derived issues increase their importance at the national
level (Brenner 1999, 2006). This shifts the focus of the urban government challenge
to the issue of how governmental systems can be developed that manage and govern
these regions. While there are many examples of different types of metropolitan
government, the majority have a limited responsibility that involves strategic planning and the provision of services such as transportation, water, and sewerage. Yet
these regions are part of ecosystems and economic systems that are functionally
integrated. Spatially, these metropolitan regions are characterized by a high degree
of political fragmentation, unequal resource base, and considerable social inequality
between and among the many cities that are part of the region. These factors
emphasize the sharp socioeconomic differences in space. Thus, in the large metropolitan region, spatial restructuring often involves the upgrading of city cores and the
expansion of urban activity, such as residential settlement and industry into the urban
fringes, all of which creates urban regions that have “islands” of social exclusion
(Wu 2003; Harvey 1989).
This would suggest that a major policy priority should be to create an effective
management system for more efficient, environmentally adapted, and socially just
cities. But the existing urban government systems are ill-equipped to take up this
challenge because of the problems of institutional embedding we have already
discussed. The most obvious policy solution is to seek greater collaboration between
the fragmented political units of the metropolis. The major incentive for such
development is generally a desire to create greater economic competitiveness as
seen for example in the creation of the “economic circles” in Chinese mega-urban
regions, such as lower Yangzi delta, aimed at creating increased economic collaboration within the region. But the growing environmental challenges of these regions
suggest that other forms of collaboration must be developed to help adapt to these
environmental challenges. The most obvious policy solution is to seek greater
collaboration between the fragmented political units of the metropolis and to develop
administrative regions that encompass the ecosystem of which the metropolitan
region is part.
Such a solution can be labeled eco-governance. It is not always necessary that
such institutional arrangements need to replace existing political administrations
managed by different levels of government. They could be formed by the collaborative membership of existing political units (municipalities/cities) as is true of
Metro Vancouver (Kellas 2010), or coalitions of interest groups that act as a form
of advisory body on the environmental health of a region, or a single region-wide
authority (e.g., transportation). These collaborative forms of governance are greatly
facilitated by the digital forms of communication that are a major resource of the
twenty-first century.
In order to understand how collaboration might be developed, it is important to
distinguish between government and governance. These are, of course, “ideal types”
28
T. G. McGee and K. Mori
Robinson 1995). This dimension of challenge to urban governments and governance
introduces the idea of “rescaling,” where it is argued that as urban populations
increase both in numbers and in territory, this should be reflected into the systems
of government because urban-derived issues increase their importance at the national
level (Brenner 1999, 2006). This shifts the focus of the urban government challenge
to the issue of how governmental systems can be developed that manage and govern
these regions. While there are many examples of different types of metropolitan
government, the majority have a limited responsibility that involves strategic planning and the provision of services such as transportation, water, and sewerage. Yet
these regions are part of ecosystems and economic systems that are functionally
integrated. Spatially, these metropolitan regions are characterized by a high degree
of political fragmentation, unequal resource base, and considerable social inequality
between and among the many cities that are part of the region. These factors
emphasize the sharp socioeconomic differences in space. Thus, in the large metropolitan region, spatial restructuring often involves the upgrading of city cores and the
expansion of urban activity, such as residential settlement and industry into the urban
fringes, all of which creates urban regions that have “islands” of social exclusion
(Wu 2003; Harvey 1989).
This would suggest that a major policy priority should be to create an effective
management system for more efficient, environmentally adapted, and socially just
cities. But the existing urban government systems are ill-equipped to take up this
challenge because of the problems of institutional embedding we have already
discussed. The most obvious policy solution is to seek greater collaboration between
the fragmented political units of the metropolis. The major incentive for such
development is generally a desire to create greater economic competitiveness as
seen for example in the creation of the “economic circles” in Chinese mega-urban
regions, such as lower Yangzi delta, aimed at creating increased economic collaboration within the region. But the growing environmental challenges of these regions
suggest that other forms of collaboration must be developed to help adapt to these
environmental challenges. The most obvious policy solution is to seek greater
collaboration between the fragmented political units of the metropolis and to develop
administrative regions that encompass the ecosystem of which the metropolitan
region is part.
Such a solution can be labeled eco-governance. It is not always necessary that
such institutional arrangements need to replace existing political administrations
managed by different levels of government. They could be formed by the collaborative membership of existing political units (municipalities/cities) as is true of
Metro Vancouver (Kellas 2010), or coalitions of interest groups that act as a form
of advisory body on the environmental health of a region, or a single region-wide
authority (e.g., transportation). These collaborative forms of governance are greatly
facilitated by the digital forms of communication that are a major resource of the
twenty-first century.
In order to understand how collaboration might be developed, it is important to
distinguish between government and governance. These are, of course, “ideal types”
28
T. G. McGee and K. Mori