The Urban Situation: Cities' Place in Decentralized Government Frameworks

• Author: Michael Castle Miller
• Position: Is working for a boutique international investment legal consulting firm that focuses exclusively on drafting legislation for special economic zones ('SEZs') in developing countries
• Pages: 1047-1062

e Indonesian Journal of International & Comparative Law

ISSN: 2338-7602; E-ISSN: 2338-770X

http://www.ijil.org

© 2014 e Institute for Migrant Rights Press

1047

e Indonesian Journal of International & Comparative Law

ISSN: 2338-7602; E-ISSN: 2338-770X

http://www.ijil.org

© 2014 e Institute for Migrant Rights Press

THE URBAN SITUATION

CITIES’ PLACE IN DECENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT FRAMEWORKS

MICHAEL CASTLE MILLER

American University Washington College of Law

E-mail: michaelrmiller80@gmail.com

is paper compares how several developing, emerging market, and former socialist

countries’ laws classify or rank city governments in relation both to other tiers of

subnational government (e.g., state-, province-, and county-level governments) and

to other cities. It primarily focuses on the laws of Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Ghana,

Senegal, Nigeria, Kenya, India, Pakistan, Nepal, Egypt, Iran, Morocco, China,

Vietnam, Philippines, Russia, Poland, and Kazakhstan.

Keywords: local government, administrative law, devolution, regional autonomy

law and development.

I. INTRODUCTION

Over the past four decades, many developing and post-Soviet countries have

shifted away from central rule and embraced sweeping decentralization

reforms. ese reforms were largely driven by the idea that greater

autonomy at the local level would make government more responsive and

accountable to local concerns and more eective at addressing the special

The Indonesian Journal of International & Comparative Law Volume I Issue 4 (2014) at 1047–1062

Michael Castle Miller

1048

public-service demands of particular areas.1 Since dierent localities

have dierent concerns, service needs, and service-delivery capacities,

many countries decentralized by conferring more autonomy, or more

responsibilities, to some local governments than others.

is paper studies two aspects arising from this phenomenon aecting

the legal position of cities in Latin America, Sub Saharan Africa, Southern

Asia, Middle East/North Africa, East Asia, and Eastern Europe/Central

Asia.2 To start, it examines the tiers of subnational government in these

regions and analyzes the position of cities within each hierarchy relative to

other sub-national governments. It then looks within the tiers and studies

the ways cities are classied in relation to each other.

ese studies have yielded the following observations: First, while

most of the countries studied place cities in a xed tier in their subnational

hierarchy (normally the third tier below state/provincial governments

and the central government), East Asian and former Soviet-block nations

tend to place cities at various tiers, giving some cities autonomy from

traditionally “higher” tiers of government. e most diverse placements

of cities are found in East Asian countries (especially China) where strong

centralized governments have strategically used local autonomy to enable

certain cities to more eectively respond to global economic opportunities.

Secondly, with the exception of Latin American countries, most

countries studied assign dierent statuses to their cities based on

population, development indicia, or a combination of factors. Several

countries, including Poland, Kenya, Ghana, Nepal, Morocco, Iran,

Pakistan, and the Philippines, have adopted clear criteria for classifying

cities. e large decentralized nations of India, Russian Federation,

and China have instead opted to merely partially codify criteria for city

classication and leave the rest to the discretion of central or regional

government ocials. Other countries leave city classication almost

entirely up to the discretion of the national government or state/provincial

government, or they do not classify cities at all.

1. See generally, T W B, T P E  D

R ().

2. Specically, the paper draws examples from the countries of Brazil, Argentina,

Chile, Ghana, Senegal, Nigeria, Kenya, India, Pakistan, Nepal, Egypt, Iran,

Morocco, China, Vietnam, Philippines, Russia, Poland, and Kazakhstan.