The Governance of Metropolitan Areas:

Problems and Alternatives in the Spanish Case

Joaquın Martın Cubas and Antonio Montiel Marquez

In federalist thinking, a constant is the tension in defining optimal levels of

government, its territorial scope and functions. These questions are particularly

difficult at the local level. This is where we find that the differences between various

forms of structuring local governments are vast. This is the case from the point of

view of their legal status. In Spain, for example, we find municipalities, provinces,

island authorities, counties, metropolitan areas, communities, consortia, local

entities below the municipal level and other juridical forms. However, it is also

the case from the point of view of their socioeconomic characteristics. Thus, for

instance, it is difficult to compare cities such as Madrid or Barcelona, with several

million inhabitants, with those localities that do not even reach 100 residents.

Recently, this debate has gained some prominence in Spain. The economic crisis

has forced cuts in government expenditures. In one way or another, with varying

intensity, the main political parties have made proposals that would have the effect

of removing some of the local authorities listed above. In particular, the most

noteworthy proposals include the suppression of municipalities with fewer than

500 inhabitants and the elimination of Provincial Councils in a manner that is

consistent with the Constitution of Spain.

J. Martın Cubas (*) • A. Montiel Marquez

Facultad de Derecho, Departamento de Derecho Constitucional y Ciencia Polıtica, Universidad de

Valencia, Avda. de los Naranjos s/n, 46071 Valencia, Spain

e-mail: joaquin.martin@uv.es; Antonio.Montiel@uv.es

This communication has been made under the research project “Environmental and Social

Sustainability in metropolitan areas: the case of the metropolitan area of Valencia”

(reference CSO2010 sub-6E06-20481) funded by the Ministry of Science and Innovation

(Plan Nacional I þ D þ i 2008–2011). This article would not have been possible without

the collaboration of Marcos Soler who kindly assisted us in the revision of the English

translation. Marcos Soler is Director of Research and Strategic Initiatives for the Civilian

Complaint Review Board (CCRB) and adjunct professor of government at the John Jay

College of Criminal Justice in New York.

A. Lopez-Basaguren and L. Escajedo San Epifanio (eds.), The Ways of Federalismin Western Countries and the Horizons of Territorial Autonomy in Spain, Vol. 2,DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-27717-7_60, # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

891

None of these proposals addresses, however, the possibility of establishing

metropolitan governments as a functional alternative to the current local and

municipal structure. In our opinion, this state of affairs is paradoxical. Given their

characteristics, metropolitan authorities provide the best conditions for real savings

in public spending and greater efficiency in the management of certain public

functions. The purpose is not to eliminate municipalities. First, this would be

something difficult to fit in the constitutional structure. Second, metropolitan

areas consist of municipalities. Third, from the point of view of identity politics,

such an initiative is likely to find strong opposition. Rather, the objective is to

explore the development of alternative forms of local authority. It is to move the

management of many of traditional local functions from local bodies to the metro-

politan authority. The reason is that the current management by municipal

authorities multiplies bureaucracy, lacks coordination, and fails to generate cost-

saving economies of scale in areas such as metropolitan transportation, water, or

waste management.

In this paper, we aim to first, discuss the relevance of the notion of good

governance within the government of metropolitan areas; second, describe the

historical development of this political and administrative institutions in Spain;

third, evaluate the current state of affairs on metropolitan areas and their gover-

nance from a legal perspective; fourth, assess models of metropolitan governance

from a comparative perspective; fifth, analyze the situation of Spain’s major

metropolitan areas in the light of the foregoing considerations; and sixth, propose

guidelines on metropolitan governance for the future of Spain.

The Metropolitan Area as a Community of Interests

The White Paper on European Governance defines the term governance as the

capability of societies to provide themselves with systems of representation,

institutions, processes and social bodies as an instrument of democratic control,

participation in decision-making, and collective responsibility. It is evident that

large urban agglomerations and their metropolitan areas generate demands for

governance. They demand answers that are to be conceived from the logic of a

common interest. The goal is to maximize functionality and consistency, efficiency

and effectiveness, and ultimately, the welfare of citizens.

For Joaquin Farinos, since the early 1980s, space and territory are two key

factors in understanding governance. They are positioned as a strategic element

of the first order that ensures the development and quality of life for residents. It

leads to a new approach in making sense of the development of territories—one that

is based on the notion of government intelligence. This is a new tool for managing

information and knowledge at the service of good governance. If, in the past, the

dimension of policy and politics were differentiated, they now come together. We

argue that the current challenge is to tailor public policy to the territory and not theopposite. In Spain, however, urban planning and economic approaches that empha-

size municipal or regional solutions rather than holistic approaches continue to

892 J. Martın Cubas and A. Montiel Marquez

dominate the debate. They fail to put the emphasis on territorial governance of a

supramunicipal character. There are neither specific governmental institutions for

our metropolitan areas nor territorial culture of the metropolitan area. At this

juncture, many are the authors who have stressed the need to take “neo-institutionalist approaches, with greater presence of the public powers” (Farinos

2005, pp. 219–235).

From our perspective, the old and new contradictions and problems facing the

major metropolitan areas compel us to think about the design of strategies and

governments around the notion of a shared common good for a metropolitan area.

However, to be sure, this does not mean that a territorial authority with responsi-

bilities and powers must always be implemented. Thus, for instance, Bernard Jouve

argues that, for a long time, the question of governance of the metropolis has been

narrowly treated from an institutional perspective. This form of analysis looks for

the streamlining of the administrative and political map of the metropolis. Yet,

innovative ways of thinking about analysis and action have evolved very clearly in

a different direction. His argument suggests that we can identify different types of

metropolitan governance and, then, analyze their effects. At that point, we can

determine whether or not these models have been able to establish causal links

between modes of governance, economic competitiveness, and internal coherence.

Furthermore, we see that the absence of an institutional form of authority can be the

source of innovative forms of social mobilization (Jouve 2005: p. 89).

Institutional and noninstitutional innovative forms of metropolitan governance

are not prevailing in Spain. In our country, traditional approaches continue to

dominate urban and municipal economic planning. This is consistent with the

style and culture of Spanish regional economic planning. Metropolitan strategic

plans are infrequent. They deal rarely with metropolitan concerns. Their primary

objective is not to address a sustainable development of the territory by bringing

about a comprehensive rather than sectional approach (Farinos et al. 2005: p. 126).

Furthermore, the most alarming aspect of the field of planning in Spain is the lack of

innovation in thinking about our country’s metropolitan areas.

The History of Metropolitan Governance in Our Country (Spain)

In Spain, neither in the past nor in the present have we been able to fix indisputable

objective criteria defining what a metropolitan area is from a functional point of

view. The criteria that are normally used are population and the interdependence

between the urban areas. However, from a juridical standpoint, it has been a

constant, until the 1980s, the consideration of four major metropolitan areas,

namely, Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, and Bilbao. In any case, the definition of

these areas as local authorities is very recent. It was not done until the 1970s. Prior

to that point, they did not have that character. It was management by state-run

agencies of certain functions or services. These agencies provided a venue for

the involved municipalities to raise their concerns in a very limited fashion.

The Governance of Metropolitan Areas: Problems and Alternatives in the. . . 893

For example, for the purposes of urban planning, agencies were created in the GranMadrid (1944), the Gran Bilbao (1945), and the Gran Valencia (1946). For the

management of water, a body, Canal Isabel II, was created in 1851 for the Madrid

area. In 1955, a similar body was created for the area of Barcelona. In the field of

transportation, specific plans were approved for Madrid (1956) and Barcelona

(1957). Finally, in 1963, in the area of Madrid, an autonomous state organ was

established, the Planning and Coordination Committee of the Metropolitan Area ofMadrid (COPLACO). The goal was to perform these functions.

In fact, the first metropolitan area established as a local government entity was

the Metropolitan Authority of Barcelona. It was created by Decree Law of August

24, 1974. It preceded the setting of metropolitan municipal authorities under Law41/1975 of November 19, 1975. The law was never implemented and was repealed

in 1978. The reason was a twist of fate. The end of the Franco regime (franco dies

on November 20, 1975) and the early days of the transition to democracy delayed

the development of metropolitan governments. With the creation of a federalized

government, which consists of Comunidad Autonomas (autonomous communities),

for the regions and nationalities expressly recognized in the Constitution of 1978,

the focus shifted towards the new political institutions—the autonomous commu-nity. The metropolitan areas were not even mentioned in the new Constitution,

except for an indirect reference in Article 141.3: “different networks of

municipalities, which are different, from the province can be set.”

One has to wait for the approval of Law 7/1985 of April 2, 1985, which regulates

the Basis of Local Government, to experience some revitalization of the idea of a

metropolitan area. The law put forth three ideas. First, the law proclaims in Article

43.1 that the autonomous communities (after hearing from the central administra-

tion, municipalities, and provincial councils) can create, modify, and/or delete, by

Law, metropolitan areas, according to the provisions of their Statutes. Second,

metropolitan areas will consist of local governments and municipalities

representing large urban centers. Two conditions applied. Economic and social

linkages must exist among the population, and joint planning and coordination of

certain services and public works is required. Finally, the legislation of each

autonomous community determines the governance and management of the

municipalities within the metropolitan area. It will also establish the economic

and operational framework. This will ensure the participation of all municipalities

in decision-making and the fair distribution of costs between them. It will also

determine the allocation of services and public works within the metropolitan area.

The independence of the autonomous communities to regulate metropolitan

areas resulted in various forms of government and different models of governance.

For example, the Madrid metropolitan area, or at least the largest part, became an

autonomous community. This gave it a government with broad powers. In the case

of Barcelona, it is a true institutional metropolitan area since 1974. In the case of

Valencia, in 1986, Gran Valencia was eliminated. At that time, Law 12/1986 of

December 3, 1986, created the Metropolitan Consell de l’Horta. This is the

governing body of the metropolitan area of Valencia. Finally, in the case of Bilbao

and its area, the institution of Gran Bilbao was dismantled in 1980. There was no

894 J. Martın Cubas and A. Montiel Marquez

replacement. However, the Consorcio Aguas del Gran Bilbao, now called

Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao-Bizcaia, continued to exist. It supplies water and

sanitation services throughout the territory of Biscay. In addition, BilbaoMetropoli-30 has been recently created representing a private association of public

institutions involved in the ongoing strategic evaluation of the area.

The different paths taken conceal a fundamental problem common to all areas.

This problem has been confirmed by the crisis and the demise of the two metropoli-

tan areas that, in the strict sense of the term, were established in the 1980s. There are

different analyses, but Rodrıguez Alvarez has provided with the best compilation of

reasons. As he notes, there were recurring problems for the institutionalization of

metropolitan areas everywhere. They included fear of the municipalities in the

periphery to be in a position of subordination to the central city or—the opposite of

the previous phenomenon—fear from the central city; fear from the other levels of

government, whether autonomous communities or the central state, in creating a

political counterweight; the existence of different type of political majorities that

were less inclined to political consensus with the municipalities they served; the

possible existence of an imbalance in the development of the rest of the state; or an

overly technocratic approach resulting in a subsequent distancing from the citizens,

which created distrust towards the metropolitan governments (Rodrıguez 2005).

It was precisely in the 1990s, partly for the reasons mentioned above, partly

because metropolitan areas emerged as a kind of political counterpart to the

respective regional governmental areas, that the metropolitan areas of Barcelona

and Valencia were suppressed by the governments of Catalonia, first, and the

Valencia. After that, they were replaced by single-purpose entities with a

specialized form of management. In Barcelona (1987), the Metropolitan Transportof Barcelona, consisted of 18 municipalities, and the Metropolitan Water Servicesand Waste Management, which is later known as the Metropolitan Municipalitiesof Environment, grouped 32 municipalities. In Valencia (2001), the MetropolitanWaste Treatment consisted of 5 municipalities, and the Metropolitan WaterServices consisted of 51 municipalities.

We would like to add that, in the case of Barcelona, about 30 municipalities

created in 1988, following the abolition of the metropolitan area, the Association ofMunicipalities of the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona. Years later, in 2009, this

group turned into a consortium. This was a voluntary association of municipalities

with fewer functions than the previous authority. It could handle neither transpor-

tation nor water nor waste management. On the other side, the municipality of

Barcelona laid out the design of a Metropolitan Strategic Plan with the involve-

ment of 35 municipalities and many other political and social actors in the area.

This was the situation that Spanish cities faced at the turn of the century. With

the change of government in 2004 and the push for reform of the statutes of

autonomous communities, we saw the emergence of the current models of metro-

politan governance in Spain. We explore them in the next section.

The Governance of Metropolitan Areas: Problems and Alternatives in the. . . 895

The Regulatory Framework in Spain After the Reforms

of the Statutes of the Autonomous Communities of 2006

The reforms of the Statutes of the autonomous communities occurred from 2005 to

2010. They dealt with new perspectives regarding the functional articulation of

relations between different levels of government. It is therefore important to

analyze the idea of a metropolitan area in light of these reforms.

The first reform to take place was the reform of the Statute of the autonomous

community of Valencia. The previous 1982 Statute, which was approved by Law 5/

1982 of July 1, 1982, regulated the then local government in Articles 44–47 of Title

IV. It is appropriate to draw attention to short reference that is made the regulation

of local governments, as it was also the case in the rest of statutes of autonomous

communities of that time. The main objective of the various state legislators was to

ensure the autonomy of the emerging communities from the central organs of state.

Thus, the Statute of 1982 just defined some of the principles that were to guide the

life of local entities in relation to the autonomous communities. Article 46.3

provided that “groups of metropolitan areas and counties are regulated by law of

the Valencian Parliament to be approved under the same conditions as in the first

paragraph”, after the local authorities affected being consulted.

The reform of the Statute of the autonomous community of Valencia in 2006 has

also affected the statutory regulation of local matters. It does so with less intensity

than the evolution of social, political, and legal events permitted. In terms of new

developments, this law includes the following novel aspects:

a) First is the mandate to the Valencian Parliament, as it is set in Article 63.4, to

promote the creation of forms of association in order to improve the manage-

ment of common interests and to ensure effective service delivery.

b) Also, the new statute, as did the old, in its Article 65 provides for the possibility

of the creation of metropolitan areas, counties, and groups of counties. Their

regulation is required by a law passed by two-thirds majority of Les Corts, after

the local authorities affected by the proposed regulation being consulted.

Regarding the requirement of a qualified majority, this seems consistent with

the party system structure in Valencia. The goal is to achieve stability for these

legal institutions. Paradoxically, the current law increases the difficulty of

forming such entities, which is something that points in the opposite direction

of the intent of the law.

A similar analysis applies to the rest of the statutory amendments that occurred

since then. They devote virtually no attention to the notion of a metropolitan area.

For example, in the case of Catalonia, there is only a reference to the metropolitan

area in Article 93. As in the rest of the statutes of other communities, the article

reiterates the point that the Catalan Parliament can, by law, set the creation,

modification, and/or deletion of a metropolitan area, as well as the establishment

of its legal system. In the case of Aragon, Article 81.2 of the new statute provides

896 J. Martın Cubas and A. Montiel Marquez

the only reference to the idea of metropolitan areas. It states that a law of the

Parliament of Aragon regulates their creation, organization, and functions. In the

case of Andalusia, it is Article 94 that refers to the possibility of a group of

municipalities establishing a law to regulate the functions of metropolitan areas.

In the case of Castilla-Leon, the only reference to the notion of a metropolitan area

is limited to Article 52.1. The article states that the community of Castilla y Leon

encourages association by autonomous local entities to protect and promote their

common interests. These are poor regulations, and they do not bring innovation. In

the vast majority of cases, they just copy the regulations adopted in the first period

of the Spanish Constitutional process.

Contrary to the spirit of the statutory reforms, it is the case of Barcelona and its

metropolitan area. A recent act of the Parliament of Catalonia seems to indicate a

significant change in trend. The act is law 31/2010 of August 3, 2010, concerning

the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona. This act creates an authority that will assume

new powers, Powers that are currently exercised by the entities running metropoli-

tan transportation, water, and waste treatment services. It also includes the current

Association of Municipalities. Finally, it also incorporates a new urban planning

function to comply with a new legislation by the Catalan Parliament concerning

local planning. The adoption of Decree 175/2010, of November 23, 2010, which

has created a Joint Commission between the Government of Catalonia and the

representatives of the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona, calls for a rapid implemen-

tation of the provisions of the new law. The purpose is to propose the establishment

of mechanisms for cooperation and collaboration regarding the implementation of

the Law 31/2010 of August 3, 2010. Law 31/2010 regulates the scope of authority

and functions of the Government of Catalonia. The feasibility of implementation of

this is subject to changes in regional and municipal majorities that have occurred in

recent elections.

The Comparison of Metropolitan Governance Models

We have explored recent juridical and institutional developments in Spain in regard

to the governance of metropolitan areas. We now turn to examine development in

Europe and elsewhere concerning this matter. Our concern is to understand how

metropolitan governments are structured from a comparative perspective. Jouve

and Lefebre have identified five types of institutional settings in relation to the

government of the metropolis:

1. City-State: cities whose regulation is largely due to the state. This is because

either the city is geographically and politically fused with the state, as is the case

in Singapore, or the state retains a central role in regulating urban politics, as it is

the case of Britain and of the Netherlands. The main problems of these cities are,

on the one hand, its reliance on national policy and, on the other hand, a

The Governance of Metropolitan Areas: Problems and Alternatives in the. . . 897

framework for action that is too rigid. In Spain, after the transition to democracy,

the best examples of this model are the cities of Ceuta and Melilla.

2. New Gargantuas: metropolitan areas that are provided with a new common

institutional authority. This is the case either through mergers or through the

creation of new local entities that are superimposed on the existing metropolis.

Good example of this type of configuration would be London, with the Greater

London Authority, or Stuttgart, in Germany. The strength of this approach lies in

the strong presence of local actors As a result, whenever these strong local actors

are not present, as is the case in the metropolitan cities of Italy or the city-

province of the Netherlands, the model has failed. In democratic Spain, the best

example of this model was the establishment of the metropolitan authorities in

the metropolitan areas of Barcelona and Valencia that ended in failure.

3. Mesolevel of government: cities in which the regional political and institutional

authorities assume the role of a metropolitan institution. For example, this is the

case for the cities of Madrid and Zurich. The model has clear advantages. It

reduces institutional fragmentation, minimizes the impact of political checks,

and balances and simplifies decision-making processes. The weakness is the

potential for conflict between functional and institutional spheres within the

metropolis. It results in a gap between policy-making organs and the public.

4. Networked Governance: cities in which the mode of aggregation does not pass

through the creation of a particular institution. Rather, the process of aggregation

works through the setting of alliances and agreements. They take place between

various institutional levels and civil society for the purpose of meeting very

specific needs. Current examples would be cities like Munich or Lyon. In Spain,

only portions of Barcelona and Bilbao have gone down this path. The voluntary

character of the agreement defines the very weakness of this type of governance.

5. Defection and conflict: cities that have not been able to generate mechanisms of

aggregation at the metropolitan level. It does not necessarily mean a total

absence of a dynamic metropolitan product of exhaustion. Rather, it implies

that attempts to regulate the institutional nature have resulted in the defection of

the dominant player. European examples could be Paris or Milan.

There is thus a wide diversity of forms of joint government—and nongovern-

ment entities—within European metropolitan areas. Experience has shown that

these formulas do not have the same consequences in terms of functionality and

effectiveness in all cases.

The Metropolitan Governance Models That Exist in Spain Today

The real process of “metropolization” does not cease in its gradual progress. From

an empirical point of view, there are different criteria and therefore the results in

terms of academic recognition and evaluation. In an Opinion adopted in 2004,

ECO/120, The European Economic and Social Council identifies a total of 83

898 J. Martın Cubas and A. Montiel Marquez

European metropolitan areas, including eight Spanish areas. In order of population

(in thousands, period 1999–2003), they are the following: Madrid (4,709),

Barcelona (3,950), Valencia (1,328), Sevilla (1,074), Malaga (868), Bilbao (735),

Zaragoza (629), and Gijon-Oviedo (628). The Opinion uses as a reference the

thresholds established by METREX (Network of European Metropolitan Regions

and Areas).

From an academic perspective, other thresholds and criteria are available. They

combine the criteria of population density, spatial interdependence, and functional

relationships (basically, mobility residence/work). Based on these additional

criteria, we identify up to 46 metropolitan areas in Spain. This form of analysis

has been done in a broader research project, of which this paper is a part of. The

algorithm used for analysis closely follows the conventional criteria used by the

Office of Management and Budget (the Office of Management and Budget, 2000).However, it is adapted to the specific conditions of the Spanish urban system.

According to the methodology applied in this research work, for example, the

metropolitan area of Valencia now integrates 74 municipalities. For the purpose

of this paper, for reasons of space and time, we only analyze the situation of the

eight metropolitan areas identified by the European Economic and Social Council

following the METREX thresholds.

The metropolitan area, as an alternative form of local government, is a territorial

and functional reality. It has little translation to legal terms because the official data

of the Spanish Ministry of Planning Policy shows that in Spain, there are only four

metropolitan entities legally established. They are all of a sectorial nature, such as

the cases described above for Barcelona and Valencia. To these institutional areas,

we should add the case of the Madrid area. This is the formation of a functional city-

region nearly coincident with the limits of a single-province, autonomous region.

Analyzing the evolution and current status of the remaining areas, the map is

unclear and the routes are quirky. They have a common feature: in searching for

solutions to common problems, these areas have used agencies or forms of action

that avoided the creation of a comprehensive metropolitan authority. They opted for

alternative solutions such as voluntary consortia and associations of variable

“geometry” (as defined in terms of territorial boundaries, composition, and scope

of authority).

In particular, we note that the issue of metropolitan transportation, one of the

basic problems of metropolitan areas, has been largely addressed through the

creation of consortia. Examples are Bilbao (1976), Barcelona (2007), Valencia

(2000), Seville (2001), Malaga (2003), and Zaragoza (2007). Other sectorial

policies such as housing have been addressed through the creation of a consortium.

Instances are found in Seville (2007) and Barcelona (2007). This form of organiza-

tion has extended to other unique cases such as the Development Digital TerrestrialTelevision Local Public Consortium. It applies to the county boundary of Torrent-

TV 35, Valencia (2006).

These informal forms of association have also provided a useful remedy to deal

with some problems affecting multiple localities and/or metropolitan areas. It is not

uncommon for services as diverse as promoting local employment and economic

The Governance of Metropolitan Areas: Problems and Alternatives in the. . . 899

development, social or other services related to culture or sport, to be managed by

associations. This is a dynamic that could be more frequently adopted with the

current financial crisis. It should be considered in the context of the reform of local

government operated by Law 57/2003. The law set in place measures for the

modernization of local government and sought to improve the regulation of the

powers of municipalities.

In Spain, only the metropolitan areas of Barcelona and Valencia can be said to

have come to enjoy a metropolitan government. Their experience seems to be living

proof of the failure of the model designed by the legislation on local governments.

Yet, the case of Barcelona is full of ambiguity. It is difficult to understand the road

that takes from the abolition in 1987 of the Metropolitan Corporation that was

established in 1974 to the recent creation of the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona in

2010. (The recently creation of the area was approved unanimously by all political

groups present in the Parliament by the Law 31/2010 of August 3, 2010.)

Conclusions on the Future of Metropolitan Governments in Spain

As we have seen, different Spanish metropolitan areas have faced, either voluntar-

ily or involuntarily, in a different way, the manner in which they place themselves

in the new network society. Some jurisdictions have real metropolitan

governments. They adopt two possible models. In the case of Madrid, we have an

autonomous community. In the case of Barcelona, we have a “pure” metropolitan

area—which is of recent creation. Other jurisdictions do not have a government as

such. However, they have a strong civil society that considers itself a metropolitan

area. This civil society determines the fate of the government that it really exists.

This is in the case of Bilbao. In other jurisdictions, they have sought solutions

through contractual arrangements in the form of either associations or consortia.

This is the case of Seville, Malaga, and Zaragoza, among others. However, the vast

majority does not have any authority, albeit institutional or social, that functions in

terms of a metropolitan government. The most severe case is the example of

Valencia.

It is in this last situation—the example of Valencia—where we find the greater

risks. It is a situation in which no specific government institutions have been

articulated for a metropolitan area. It also a reality in which a territorial political

culture, which is the basis for a metropolitan area, does not seem to exist. In this

type of conditions, it is where the risk emerges for special interests to exert their

power over the more general metropolitan area as a whole. In that respect, various

authors highlight the need to take “neo-institutionalist approaches, with greater

presence of public authorities” (Farinos 2005: p. 224). We need to adopt these

changes because of the immensity of the socioeconomic changes. Once and for all,

metropolitan governments must be adopted, even as we assume a variety of models

and alternatives.

900 J. Martın Cubas and A. Montiel Marquez

In short, we are faced with the usual lack of coordination and inefficiency of

local and sectorial policies. This is exacerbated by the deep economic crisis

resulting in the questioning of the legitimacy of much of the traditional public

functions. It is a period in which we seem to be avoiding new approaches to

strategic planning and the institutionalization of an agreed formula and flexible

metropolitan governance. This scenario can only limit the implementation of a

better approach in addressing the economic and social changes that are already

taking place. We are losing a historic opportunity for the consolidation of a new

local political system.

References

Farinos, J. 2005. “Nuevas formas de gobernanza para el desarrollo sostenible del espacio

relacional”, Eria 67: 219–235.

Farinos, j. et al tri 2005. “Planes estrategicos territoriales de caracter supramunicipal”, Boletın de

la A.G.E. 39: 117–149.

Jouve, B. 2005. Cuestiones sobre gobernanza urbana. Barcelona: Fundacion Carlos Pi i Sunyer.

Rodrıguez Alvarez, J.M. 2005. “Las areas metropolitanas en Europa: un analisis causal y

tipologico”. Revista de Estudios de la Administracion Local y Autonomica: 298–299.

The Governance of Metropolitan Areas: Problems and Alternatives in the. . . 901