Paper presented at the World Planning SchoolsCongress- WPSC, Perth 2011

1. Metropolitan Regions in Brazil:
Institutional Arrangements and Innovative Experiences
Susan Eghrari, Architect, Ph.D. Student
Programa de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação – Faculdade de Arquitetura e Urbanismo (PPG-FAU)
Universidade de Brasília(UnB)
Brasília – DF, Brazil
e-mail: susaneghrari@gmail.com
Paper presented in Track 6 (National, Regional & Local Planning Globalization) at the
3rd World Planning Schools Congress, Perth (WA), 4-8 July 2011
1

2. Metropolitan Regions in Brazil:
Institutional Arrangements and Innovative Experiences
ABSTRACT: Metropolitan regions in Brazil have entered a global competition and are
within the competence of the state governments, since the country’s new Constitution was
approved in 1988, when a retraction of the federal government on metropolitan issues
occurred. This paper focuses on the institutional arrangements and innovative experiences of
Brazilian metropolitan regions, which currently count over thirty, whether their management
structure obey a vertical model or inter-municipal consortia. Through a comparative method
research of some recent metropolitan experiences, analyzed issues include: a) representative
structure, b) governance structure and c) urban planning and management competences.
Providing this background, this paper addresses innovative forms of metropolitan
institutional arrangements and proposals that can be constructed.
Keywords: metropolitan regions (Brazil), institutional arrangements, metropolitan structure,
governance structure
1 Introduction
Metropolitan regions, metropolitan areas, metropolises in all continents, within their
dynamic governance relationships, face the challenge of planning and managing their
jurisdiction areas. Globalizing forces, in the last two decades, have impacted differently on
the course of development of these metropolitan areas, resulting either in a sustainable and
inclusive growth or a lack of inter-institutional cooperation in metropolitan governance.
As Kubler and Heinelt (2005) affirm the twenty-first century will be metropolitan.
Globalization of economic, social and cultural processes are present in metropolitan areas,
which ―play the role of nodal points where human activities concentrate‖ (Kubler and
Heinelt, 2005). A common denominator analyzing the process of metropolization, according
to Klink (2008) is the fact that central cities grow beyond their original limits and transform
into complex systems which have intense interdependencies – social, economic,
environmental and political-administrative – and are part of the overall agglomeration.
There are recurrent problems which affect many of the metropolitan regions all over the
world, in Latin America, and in Brazil specifically, as urban congestion, air and water
pollution, deteriorating infrastructure, urban mobility, expectations on job creation and
income polarization.
2

3. The rapid growth of the urban population in Brazil compared to the total population of the
country, from 1940 to 2000, indicates that the former showed a growth three times the
Brazilian population growth in the same period of 60 years1. Urban population approached 80
percent of total national population in 1996 and presents different concentrations of urban
agglomerations among the five macro-regions of the country2 (Monte-Mór, 2000). Already
by the year 2000, the rate of urbanization had reached 81.2 percent of the Brazilian
population of 170 million people (Rezende and Garson, 2006).
According to Gouvêa (2005) this sudden growth explains the continuous aggravation of a
series of urban problems such as housing shortages, leading to formation of slums and
shantytowns, transportation gridlock, inadequacy of basic urban services like public
transportation, water supply, sewage system, or equipment such as hospitals, schools among
others.
The disorganized city growth and economic stagnation process (in the 1980s in Brazil),
contributed to increase unemployment rates, criminality, environmental degradation and
urban violence in most of Brazilian metropolitan areas.
An issue that concerns scholars and researchers is related to the limits of a metropolitan area.
How common services, taxing power, urban growth, urban sprawl, gentrification,
intergovernmental relations, the appropriation of natural resources, among other themes on
debate, find their place in the boundaries of metropolitan areas. Monte-Mór (2000) opens a
different vision about this matter. The author argues about frontiers in a metropolitan area,
which represent the ―third position between the rich and the poor, the developed and the non-
developed, the civilized and the un-civilized‖. Indeed the concentration of both wealth and
poverty in metropolitan regions has deepened the socio-spatial fragmentation and class
confrontations within the urban fabric (Monte-Mór, 2000).
There are thirty-one metropolitan regions (MRs) and Integrated Development Regions
(RIDE) in Brazil. During the 1970s the Federal government institutionalized nine MRs and
the remaining was created in the 1990s through initiatives of state governments.
1
Between 1940 and 2000, Brazil‘s growth population increased 312 percent, while the urban population grew
by 971 percent (Gouvêa, 2005)
2
The least urbanized region, the Northeast, already had 69% of its population living in urban areas, at the year
2000(Rezende and Garson, 2006). The Southeast region was the most highly urbanized — with 90,5% (in 2000)
of the population being classified as urban.
3

4. Figure 1 Metropolitan Regions in Brazil and the first eight institutionalized MRs
(Source:Observatório das Metrópoles)
In fact the institutionalization of metropolitan areas in Brazil in the 1970s, although
authoritarian in its shape, recognized the concept of metropolitan interest and aroused
discussions on services related to urban land use which benefitted its planning and
standardization. (Azevedo and Mares Guia, 2010). This system created an institutional
structure and availability of financial resources that resulted in the implementation of
projects mainly in the areas of sanitation, and urban traffic transport (Azevedo and Mares
Guia, 1999). This period formally worked, the metropolitan institutions produced master
plans for the municipalities located in the peripheral area of the metropolises. Despite a top-
4

5. down model and governance with authoritarian traits, but due to a great amount of financial
resources, as the Metropolitan Developing Funds3, this model of metropolitan management
admitted distinct institutional forms in each place (Lopes, 2006).
In order to understand metropolitan issues which affect Brazilian metropolises presently and
the metropolitan areas, a research was conducted, not only pointing out the overall problems
and their dynamics in the tripod of social-economic-environmental development interface,
but aims to peel away the layers of management and structure which govern these
metropolitan areas.
This paper draws upon the institutional arrangements and its innovative experiences in the
management of metropolitan areas in Brazil. The next section briefly reviews the process of
Brazilian urbanization and then presents two periods of institutionalization of the
metropolitan areas. The first period, under military rule, a top-down decision, when ―sub-
national levels took no part in the decision‖ (Souza, 2005). The second period, after the
approval of 1988 Constitution, when a decentralized institutional arrangement for
metropolitan areas was under the jurisdiction of the states. The third section describes new
arrangements in metropolitan areas after the 1988 redemocratization period. This section
describes some urban legal framework , after the 1988 Constitution as the Statute of the
City Law, Participatory Budgeting, Public Consortia Law and how some metropolitan areas
presented innovations in practice. The fourth section provides two cases of metropolitan
governance, one of inter-municipal consortia, other as a hybrid model and highlights some
dimensions of their institutional structure. The fifth section offers some concluding remarks.
2 Vertical model in the management of metropolitan areas
2.1 Background – urbanization in Brazil
The process of urbanization in Brazil had its growth from 1930s when – in the simplified
perspective of ―late industrialization" – economic policy founded on industrialization grounds
attracted contingents of rural population for better living conditions in the cities. As Souza
(2005) points out Brazilian urbanization grew extremely fast and in the 1970s the country
3
For financing purposes, the Urban Development Trust was created, prioritizing municipalities that accepted
closer collaboration with federal and state government initiatives.
5

6. became more urban than rural. The author presents how urbanization growth rates evolved: in
1940, 31.2% of the population lived in urban areas4, in 1960, 45%, in 1970, 55.9%, in 1991,
75.5% and in 2000, 81%.
In the period between the 1940s and 80s, interventionism has expanded continuously in
Brazil, with the State operating as a regulator of the economic system and as a direct investor,
primarily in the industrial sector (Gouvêa, 2005).
2.2 Institutionalization of metropolitan areas: first period
Under the military regime in Brazil (1964-1985), metropolitan management was imposed to
municipalities, structured in a centralized basis. Although metropolitan regions had legally
come to existence through the Constitution of 1967, after seven years, a federal law issued in
1973(amendment n.14/73), defined eight5 Metropolitan Regions (MRs) and their constituent
municipalities, and in 1974 one more6 MR was included. Amendment 14 dealt with these
metropolitan regions homogeneously by enforcing compulsory participation of
municipalities in metropolitan management, with the intent to services of common interests,
which would not take in their regional specificities and needs. It gave priority to the use of
central and state funds, including loans, to municipalities that participated in integrated
projects and services (Rezende and Garson, 2006), and a significant flow of resources was
mobilized especially for the housing and urban development sectors(Klink,2008). For the
military regime, these regions have played a key role in consolidating the country's
development and most of them were composed of state capitals in which the first outbreak
of industrialization occurred.
In that same Law the establishment of two agencies for each MR were designated: a
Deliberative Council and an Advisory Council as decision-making forums for metropolitan
problems, determining the form and content of these representative bodies, and defining its
powers as separate management bodies of the metropolitan areas. The competencies of the
Deliberative and Advisory Councils of each metropolitan area was related to the services,
common to all municipalities involved, being the Deliberative Council responsible for
coordinating and implementing these services, and the Advisory Council responsible for
4
At that time Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo had a population of more than one million each.
5
The eight metropolitan regions institutionalized in 1973 were: Belém, Fortaleza, Recife, Salvador, Belo
Horizonte, São Paulo, Curitiba and Porto Alegre.
6
Metropolitan region of Rio de Janeiro (Amendment n.20/74).
6

7. orientation by means of suggestions. The services of metropolitan interest were: social
development, sanitation, metropolitan land use, production and distribution of canalized gas;
use of water resources and pollution control and others which could be included as a
competence of the Deliberative Council by federal law.
As to the structure of management of the metropolitan areas in this period, the definition of
the Deliberative Council itself is not very clear as a metropolitan entity, which manages the
common interests of all the municipalities involved. The decisions of the Deliberative
Council should bind the municipal plans on behalf of metropolitan interest. This Council was
composed of five members, which three were nominated by the state governor, one by the
mayor of the state capital and only one representing all the other mayors. The Advisory
Council members were composed by all the mayors of the metropolitan municipalities, but
with no decision power.
As to the increasing authoritarian feature of metropolitan agencies in that period, Souza
(2005) describes it when ―virtually all state governors, mayors of the state capitals and
mayors of municipalities belonging to MRs were unelected‖. As the federal government
established the areas which would be considered in the institutionalization of the MRs, these
areas would have preference in obtaining federal and state resources to its municipalities.
For Rezende and Garson (2006) this system of metropolitan administration was seriously
weakened as to
the difficulty in developing projects adapted to specific regional demands, the lack of a forum for
the municipal constituents to discuss their demands, and the political and economic crisis at the
turn of the seventies (Rezende and Garson, 2006).
A political crisis permeated the military regime, ―the focus on planning was lost, and the
funds for urban areas became increasingly scarce‖ (Rezende and Garson, 2006). Faced with
external and internal crises, the economic growth of the early 1970s faltered in the 1980s, to a
decade of stagnation ( Moraes and Cidade, 2010). Rezende and Garson (2006) describe this
period when
Brazil suffered through a series of plans to stabilize the economy, in an attempt to bring the
macroeconomic situation under control. Between the periodic crises, episodic inflation sometimes
raced out of control, eroding not only the currency and the ability to plan, but also rendering the
budgetary instruments useless.
7

8. A conclusion can be drawn from this first period of institutionalization, that this model of
metropolitan governance lacks a crucial element: creation of incentives for cooperation
between the state and its municipalities or among bordering municipalities (Souza, 2005).
A second period would start, with open elections in 1982, and a new process of
―redemocratization‖ 7 (Moraes and Cidade, 2010) when the Constitution of 1988 was drawn.
This period would define an institutional basis for dealing with the metropolitan regions
(Rezende and Garson, 2006).
2.3 Institutionalization of metropolitan areas: second period
The Constitution of 1988 represented a definite impact towards decentralization into
political, administrative and financial terms. A retraction of the federal government on
metropolitan issues occurred and metropolitan management was, under the Constitution, by
amendment, within the competence of the state governments. The states had the right to
―establish metropolitan regions in order to integrate the organization, planning and operation
of public functions of common interest of the states and their respective municipalities‖
(Rezende and Garson, 2006).
A new balance among the three governing entities, federal, state and municipal, contributed
to the emergence of more individualized decisions, with greater decision–making autonomy
to states and local governments (Moraes and Cidade, 2010). The new arrangement of the
Constitution is that the status of the municipalities in the Brazilian federation was equal to the
federal and state entities and it ―has granted, in relative terms, more financial resources to the
municipalities than to the states‖ (Souza, 2005). A more intense pace in the creation of
municipalities was achieved. Between 1988 and 2000, 1438 new municipalities were
generated – 25% of all municipalities in Brazil (Tomio, 2005), out of 5506 existing
municipalities, in the year 2000.
The strengthening of the municipal autonomy had, in one hand, weakened the position of the
state governments related to metropolitan management. Klink (2008) observes that
the transition to redemocratization in Brazil, have resulted in a federal system of relatively
independent and fragmented local governments with few built-in mechanisms for intermunicipal
and intergovernmental cooperation.
7
The word ‗redemocratization‘ has been chosen by Souza (1996), because the struggle of Brazilian society against military
rule focused on a return to the democracy which had existed between 1946 and 1964.
8

9. In the 1990s, due to the compartmentalized and competitive nature of the Brazilian
federation, local and state governments facilitated competitive bidding wars (Klink, 2008) the
so called ‗fiscal war‘. Also known as ‗war of places‘ it consisted on the development of
neoliberal policies at the states level, in order to attract international investment, when a
number of Brazilian states offered tax exemptions for the implementation of industries.
These competitive and aggressive policies and dispute among the states led to spatial changes
in the municipalities where new plants were established, or just moved to another state, and
had implications on the territorial configuration of various regions (Moraes and Cidade,
2010).This policy has been implemented for nearly 20 years, has no national coordination
and increases more the present regional inequalities.
With the 1988 Constitution there was a tendency that municipalities would incline towards a
horizontal institutional model approach. That would refer to the association of local
governments as to the organization of metropolitan management. In the 1988 Constitution
there are provisions for associated management of public services and the constitution of
public consortia with that aim (Pires, 2010).
Table 1 shows the first eight metropolitan areas institutionalized in 1973, number of their
constituent municipalities in the year of their creation, and the number of municipalities after
1988. It includes the name of the management institution and the year which these
institutions officially started. The percentage of population concentrated in each central
municipality of the MR in 2007 and managing metropolitan agency, presents aspects of each
metropolitan region.
Table 1- Institutional arrangements of the first eight MRs
Metropolitan Number of Number of Percentage -Managing Metropolitan institutional
Region(MR) constituent constituent of the MR metropolitan management agencies,
municipaliti municipaliti population agency municipalities agencies
es in 1973 es in the central -Year of and innovations
after municipality creation/modificat
the1988 (2007) ion/ending
Constitution -new agency
Deliberative Council of
Emplasa(Paulista Greater São Paulo
Metropolitan Planning (CODEGRAN ),
São Paulo 37 39 55,99% Company SA) Greater São Paulo
1974-1988 Metropolitan Consultative
1989-1994-2005 Council for Integrated
Development
9

10. (CONSULTI), Paulista
Metropolitan Planning
Company SA
(EMPLASA), linked
to the Economy and
Planning Secretariat of the
State of São Paulo, and
Development Council, of a
normative and deliberative
nature.
-PLAMBEL Metropolitan Development
Superintendencia da Deliberative Council,
Região Metropolitana Metropolitan Development
de Belo Horizonte Agency, Metropolitan
(Planning Authority of Development Fund, State
the Metropolitan Secretariat of Regional
Region of Belo Development and Urban
Belo
14 35 48,24% Horizonte)
Planbel Policy,Metropolitan
Horizonte
1971/1974/1995 Governance Group,
-AMBEL RMBH Metropolitan
(Metropolitan Forum, Association of
Assembly of Belo RMBH Municipalities and
Horizonte) 1996 Mineiro Forum for Urban
Reform
Association of
Municipalities of Greater
Porto Alegre(GRANPAL)
1985.
Institutionalization
State Foundation for
(mid 1960s- 12
Metropolitan and Regional
Porto Alegre 14 31 35,14% municipalities)
Planning
METROPLAN(1975-
(METROPLAN),a
1989-1995)
technical support entity of
the RMPA Deliberative
Council. Participatory
Budget(1989)
Metropolitan Management
System (SGM), which
includes the Metropolitan
Region of Recife‘s
Development
Council(CONDERM), a
CONDERM(1974) deliberative and
Conselho de consultative body; the
Desenvolvimento da Metropolitan Region of
Recife 9 14 41,55% Região Metropolitana Recife‘s
do Recife Development Foundation
1994- new (FIDEM), an executive
CONDERM secretariat for technical
support; and the
Metropolitan
Region of Recife‘s
Development
Fund(FUNDERM).
Conder(1967-1974-
Bahia State Urban
1988-1992)
Salvador 8 13 79,63% Development Company
Conder(1992-
(CONDER )
subordinated to the
10

11. state)
Curitiba Metropolitan
Region Coordination
COMEC -Curitiba Agency(COMEC),
Metropolitan Region Consultative and
54,84% Coordination Agency Deliberative Councils,
Curitiba 14 25
From 1998 relevancy Municipal Secretariat
on environmental (Curitiba) for Metropolitan
issues Issues(SMAM), RMC
Association of
Municipalities (ASOMEC)
Belém 2 5 68,44% N/D Metropolitan Council,
which contains a General
Secretary, and the
Metropolitan Region of
Belém Development Fund
Fortaleza 5 13 70,76% N/D Consultative and
1975 Deliberative Councils,
1999 Development
Fund,Sectorial Technical
Chambers
(Source: adapted from Rocha and Faria,2010, Klink, 2008 and other Observatorio das Metropoles
sources)
In fact, Table 1 summarizes many of the aspects already presented in the previous sections of
this paper. The creation of new municipalities in the country after 1988 is evidenced by the
increase in number of municipalities after that period in many MRs, although there was an
increase of the territorial area, part of a MR as well. All the eight metropolises in Table 1
were state capitals at the 1970s and continue to be. Five of them concentrate more than 50 per
cent of the population in the central municipality, the city of Salvador, state of Bahia, located
in the northeast Brazilian macro-region outstands with almost 80 per cent of the population of
Salvador Metropolitan Region. In 1980 Salvador Metropolitan Region had a population of
1.8 million, and 1.5 million in the state capital. In 2000, a little more than 3 million, and close
to 80 per cent living in the city of Salvador.
The metropolises of São Paulo, Belo Horizonte, Porto Alegre and Salvador had their own
institutionalization, with an original structure, before the federal 1973 Amendment, which
11

12. practically uniformized the MRs, conceived as strategic areas of political and economic
control by the government.
The metropolitan regions of Belo Horizonte , Recife and Belem have their own Metropolitan
Fund, being created after the 1988 Constitution.
3. New arrangements in Brazil’s redemocratization period
3.1 Participatory Budgeting
What has become known as ‗participatory budgeting‘ , hereinafter called PB, in Brazil
stems from an initiative taken by local governments which began in 1989 with the metropolis
of Porto Alegre. Although a ‗top-down‘ governmental initiative, it is decided locally and
organized in different local formats. The main objective of PB is to put members of the local
community together to participate in the budget writing process and to decide on the
allocation of a given amount of resources, generally destined for infrastructure in poor areas
(Souza, 2005). This process of conjoint decision, through local community representatives
and local governments actually decide on the final allocation of public investment in their
cities on a yearly basis.
The model of Porto Alegre, the best and longest known example of participatory budgeting
practice has inspired other models in Brazil. For example, in Recife civil society participation
in PB has begun since 2001.In meetings and by internet, during the whole year, citizens
suggest measures for the city and follow them during their implementation. Priorities are
defined in 15 areas, as culture, education and youth. Residents decide the priority in their
neighborhoods: to pave a street, open a health center or social housing.
In Belo Horizonte since 1993, areas such as infrastructure, health, sport, education, culture,
housing, welfare, sanitation and environment are included in PB. A voting system has been
created to be used with a toll-free number and internet. It articulates with a municipal
program for digital inclusion and has 270 public points for voting in several places in the city
with 800 trained monitors. Inspection of construction works already approved by the PB
opens to civil society representatives the right to inspect and charge from the local
government actions of the PB.
Angeles(2010) in her research from other authors points out that participatory budgeting is
successfully practiced in 250 cities and municipalities around the world, which includes 130
12

13. Brazilian cities that adopted various versions, data of 2004. This practice, the author
continues,
has positive benefits for favela8 residents in terms of providing better public goods and
services, improving the quality of governance and public participation, creating vehicles for
citizen education, bringing improvements in vital infrastructure and services to poor
communities, minimizing corruption, and fostering an open ended civic discourse among the
urban poor (Angeles, 2010).
PB is not established by decree and there is no law that institutionalizes its operational
frameworks and channels of citizen participation. The process has been systematized in terms
of its institutional framework, cycle and discussion methods by many local and state
governments in Brazil.
3.2 Statute of the City
The 1988 Constitution gave prerogative to the state members to establish Metropolitan
Regions and create laws of organization of those MRs that would come to be
institutionalized. The Constitution, regarded as a pro-municipality enactment, opened up new
possibilities for metropolitan arrangements. As the municipalities had the same political
status as the states and federal government , as entities, there was no interest for this
municipalities to create metropolitan management based on cooperation, on an horizontal
model.
The autonomy of municipalities combined with globalization and neoliberal forces in the
1980s and 1990s, cities in general in Brazil suffered from lack of coordination towards local
land use management and master planning.
There was hardly any coordination and exchange of information among cities regarding the
elaboration of their master plans; in practice, the municipalities of the metropolitan regions have a
kaleidoscope of disconnected local plans(Klink, 2010).
The Statute of the City legislation empowers local governments to resolve issues of local
land use, land dispute, squatter settlements and land speculation; elaboration of masters plans
with more leverage over private land markets through such instruments as progressive
property taxes, development fees and inclusionary zoning clauses (Klink, 2010).
8
Shanty towns and slums in Brazil.
13

14. Created in 2001, this Law has a general guide for urban issues, tools for urban politics and
democratic management for the city, but does not address metropolitan and regional issues in
details. There are some references in the Statute of the City towards metropolitan regions:in
chapter tools of Urban Policies, the Law refers to planning of metropolitan regions, it also
refers to master plan (plano diretor) being obligatory to municipalities which are part of
metropolitan regions. In chapter referring to Democratic Management, it says that the
management agencies of metropolitan regions an urban agglomerations, will obligatory
include a significant participation of the population and representative associations of the
diverse segments of the community, so as to guarantee the direct control of their activities
and the practice of citizenship.
According to Denaldi et al (2010) there is still a difficulty in planning the elaboration and
revision of urban master plans with regional-level strategies. The authors affirm that
In practice, local managers were not only faced with enormous challenges in applying the new
mechanisms of the City Statute Law toward social and spatial inclusion, largely due to the historic
strength of real estate capital in Brazilian cities, but they also failed to mobilize themselves to
discuss and address these challenges at the metropolitan level(Denaldi et al, 2010).
3.3 Public Consortia Law
The Public Consortia Law was regulated by the federal government in 2005 and it addresses
the legal precariousness of existing consortia, up to that point governed by private law.
Before the law was passed, consortia were not able to take on legal obligations or carry out
inspections, make regulations or engage in planning activities (Dias, 2006 apud Denaldi et al,
2010).
Regarding some aspects of public consortia Angeles(2010) explains that as
a form of inter-jurisdictional cooperation, public consortia can operate horizontally (between
local governments or other local public agencies within a region), or vertically (between
hierarchical levels of government). The emphasis on the public nature of consortia suggest
little role for the private sector, thus consortia are different from public private partnerships,
in which the private sector performs a service, builds or operates a facility, etc., for one or
more public government body(Angeles, 2010).
The approach of this law seeks the participation and involvement of local actors, a state
protagonism reflected in a series of initiatives in many Brazilian states, such as Minas Gerais,
Pernambuco, Rio Grande do Norte and Paraná, among others.
14

15. A linkage between participatory budgeting practice and Public Consortia Law is provided by
Angeles(2010) as to new forms of governance related to social inequalities.
What is certain is that there is still little analysis of how the Public Consortia Law may
capitalize on Brazilian cities‘ experiences with participatory budgeting and solidarity
economy to create public consortia between municipalities and other levels of government in
order to promote more effective and collaborative forms of regional governance to address
urban poverty, social exclusion and social inequality(Angeles, 2010).
4.Horizontal and hybrid models: the ABC consortium and Belo Horizonte Metropolitan
Region
During the mid-1990s, new arrangements in the management of metropolitan regions in
Brazil began to arise. With the end of the military regime and the ‗neo-local‘ perspective that
dominated shortly after 1988, the policy arena was revitalized with both the emergence of
new actors and the re-definitions of roles played by classical actors (Azevedo and Mares
Guia, 2010).
The innovative aspect of the involvement of representatives of civil society marked this new
phase which
combined different forms of compulsory associations, such as river basin management
committees and covering several cities including those within metropolitan boundaries,
various forms of voluntary associative models. This marked the birth of consortia among
municipalities as a means to jointly address or manage specific issues related to
transportation, sanitation and environmental protection, among others.
The horizontal model presented above or inter-municipal consortia is represented by the
ABC region consortium , created in 1998, much before the Public Consortia Law.
Another metropolitan management model , occurs in Belo Horizonte Metropolitan Region,
which defines an hybrid governance model sustained on vertical and horizontal mechanisms
of a democratic governance, having created its institutional arrangements in 2006.
These two models are under pressure from transformations of the urbanized spaces as a result
of forces of globalization and reorganization of the productive economic structure tending to
fragmentation. Each responds differently towards the challenges of new territorial and
competitive role of metropolitan areas.
15

16. 4.1 The ABC regional consortium
The ABC consortium, was created in the 1990s by the initiative of seven municipalities9
inserted in the city of São Paulo southern fringe. This area, an urbanized region bordering the
metropolis of São Paulo, concentrated the bulk of industrial investment during the period of
Brazilian import substitution, including motor vehicle industry and during the 1970s could be
considered as Brazil‘s industrial heartland .With combination of trade liberalization and
deregulation, without compensating industrial and technological policies , and not benefiting
from the regime of protected market policies, the result was a crisis which led to
unemployment, poverty, deteriorated quality of living and the incapacity of the institutional
structures to face the challenges of the city region(Klink, 2008).
The Consortium started with an interest on the management of water resources, its ground
zero being in 1990, when the Intermunicipal Watershed Consortium of Alto Tamanduateí
and Bilings was founded (Machado 2009).The area of these seven municipalities is located
near to important reservoirs that supply water for Greater São Paulo region. These
municipalities have common identities based on a historic, economic and political elements
(Klink, 2008). The Consortium expanded its interests towards socio-economic issues for the
development of the region.
It is important to note as the ABC Consortium region is part of São Paulo Metropolitan
Region, which for its turn comes from a vertical top-down management imposed in the
1970s, so the Consortium is part of a larger agglomeration composed of 39 municipalities.
When the state of São Paulo, established in 1994 its metropolitan management, the state
created a development council with an equal composition between state and municipalities.
The ABC Region has had one of the longest-run consortiums under the old legal framework.
Basically the ABC Consortium – a network partnership, an association of these seven
municipalities – is structured on an administrative organization formed by a Municipal
Council, Audit Council, Consultive Council and Executive Secretariat. The presidency of the
Consortium is rotating and held by one of the mayors among the seven municipalities, elected
among its peers, for a one-year term. The involvement of civil society was consolidated in
1994, with the Citizen Forum of Greater ABC which led to the Greater ABC Chamber, in
1997, an intergovernmental and social planning forum which elaborates and implements
9
The Consortium comprises the municipalities of Santo André, São Bernardo do Campo, São Caetano do
Sul,Rio Grande da Serra , Diadema,Mauá and Ribeirão Pires.The area is known as ABC, after three of its towns‘
initials.
16

17. public policies as well. In 1998 a regional chamber, Greater ABC Chamber and a regional
development agency, Greater ABC Development Agency led to collaborative arrangements,
as regional articulation and integration between different stakeholders which, according to
Klink(2010) facilitated regional strategic planning, and also triggered limited but focused
investments in infrastructure and economic development.
4.2 Belo Horizonte Metropolitan Region - RMBH
The state of Minas Gerais, which the city of Belo Horizonte is the state capital, defined the
metropolitan issue as a priority before the institutionalization of the RMBH as a metropolitan
region by the military regime in 1973. With a specific working team the state government
defined the development of a Metropolitan Plan for Belo Horizonte in charge of the
metropolitan management agency PLAMBEL, Planning Authority of the Metropolitan
Region of Belo Horizonte.
As shown in previous sections of this article
In practice, both the federal and the state governments stepped away from metropolitan
management, leaving the issues related to public functions of common interest to the sovereign
municipalities and hoping that they could implement collaborative solutions. However, larger
municipalities were unwilling to subsidize poorer municipalities and increasingly withdrew from
the process. As a result, the metropolitan management system fell apart (Pires, 2010).
That is the case which occurred to Belo Horizonte as many other Brazilian metropolises.
State efforts to improve metropolitan management were done during the 1990s as to the need
to ‗position the metropolitan region more effectively on the regional, national and
international scenes‘(Pires, 2010). As to the hegemony of municipalist ideology at all costs –
more power to the municipalities and less to the state and big core-cities – it also permeated
the RMBH.
In 2003, with changes in political elections for state governor and in 2004 for mayor of the
city of Belo Horizonte, an administrative reform was made the state level with the support of
the local level (Machado, 2009). The increase of social and infra-structure problems resulted
from the institutional disarticulation of RMBH was an important factor to legitimate , from
2003 on, the return of state participation in metropolitan governance(Pires, 2010).
17

18. Some landmarks started in 2003 as to the creation of the State Secretariat for Regional
Development and Urban Policy (SEDRU). In November of the same year, the Legislative
Assembly of the State of Minas Gerais (ALMG) hosted a seminar to provide an opportunity
for metropolitan governmental and non-governmental groups to participate in the debate
about alternatives for better management of Metropolitan Regions in Minas Gerais (Pires,
2010). The State Constitution adopted a hybrid institutional model, which mixed a top-down
approach, i.e., the organization of the metropolitan region by the state, independently of the
municipalities, with a ‗concerted approach‘ (concertação) to decision making(Pires, 2008).
The institutional structure for two metropolitan regions, RMBH and Vale do Aço, in the state
of Minas Gerais consists of a Metropolitan Development Deliberative Council – with
participation of representatives of civil society – the so-called democratic management.
Metropolitan Development Agency and Metropolitan Development Fund in 2006, State
Secretariat of Regional Development and Urban Policy. The RMBH has as well:
Metropolitan Governance Group, RMBH Metropolitan Forum and Association of RMBH
Municipalities .There is also present a more complex management structure which is the
Metropolitan Assembly of the Metropolitan Region of Belo Horizonte (AMBEL) inspired by
the Paris metropolitan parliament.
The choice of this hybrid model, with vertical and horizontal dimensions in its structure,
Pires(2010) explain that it follows global tendencies and derives from the concepts of cross-
sectoral interaction and discussion (consensus-based administration), a new trend in the
academic studies of state management(Pires, 2010).
According to Machado (2009) two elements are important to mention which compose the
RMBH and differently than the ABC Consortium. First, concerning the interest of the 34
municipalities which compose the RMBH, is very heterogeneous in economic and
demographic terms. Three municipalities, Belo Horizonte, Contagem and Betim, concentrate,
87% of the IGP of all the MR. The other municipalities have diverse economic profiles. The
ABC Consortium municipalities are part of the same watershed. The RMBH has three
environmental distinct complexes based on physical-economic-geographic parameters.
Besides, the ABC region is part of São Paulo Metropolitan Region, while Belo Horizonte
polarizes the region.
18

19. 5.Conclusions
The first period of institutionalization of the metropolitan regions in Brazil had a top-
down management, imposed by the federal government , but with funding for planning and
its execution in a uniformized model. There was little or no participation of local actors in the
decision-making process.
Since the new Constitution approval in 1988, a retraction of the federal government on
metropolitan issues occurred, passing to the states competences, the result being an
institutional vacuum when a municipalist ideology also reigned. The funding ceased and new
governance experiences began to take shape.
New arrangements surged in Brazil‘s redemocratization period and three were presented:
Participatory Budgeting, Statute of the City and Public Consortia Law which open
arrangements that include regional considerations, cooperative and participative management
and continuity in implementation of actions. There is not a domination of the government in
the decision making process but an articulation between the different tiers.
In this sense, different solutions and management ‗models‘ coexist in Brazilian metropolitan
regions for planning and executing common public interests: inter-municipal consortia and a
hybrid governance management, as case examples of the ABC Region Consortium and the
Metropolitan Region of Belo Horizonte. The former initially focused on the management of
water resources and have a common identity and purposes comprising seven municipalities.
The latter, has a management from the state administration, 34 municipalities and diversified
interests. Both models try to build consensus, on a democratic and participative management,
but many elements put pressure on this governance. Both governance models put their action
towards economic and social development, bringing new actors to the urban decision-making
arena, despite the many urban issues that for decades has been dramatically increasing in
Brazil as mentioned in this introduction section.
There are many questions on how to shape metropolitan governance: should federal state be
more present in regulation and legislation of urban issues, should there be institutionalization
of the metropolitan regions, how can vertical and horizontal methods of governance coexist
in the management of MRs? How to strength participation and cooperation in these same
methods of governance?Of course there is no better governance management model,
experiences have to be examined and evaluated , in a continuous dynamics, creating new
possibilities and arrangements for a more just and collaborative governance.
19

20. Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Universidade de Brasilia, Decanato de Pesquisa e Pós-graduação(DPP)
for partially funding my trip to the 3rd World Planning Schools Congress in Perth, Australia. I
am grateful to my advisor in the PhD program at Universidade de Brasilia, Prof. Dr. Lucia
Cony F. Cidade, for mostly encouraging me in my thesis project and her valuable
observations for this paper.
REFERENCES
Angeles, L.C. (2010) ‗Democratic Governance and Inter-Jurisdictional Collaboration in
Urbanizing Countries‘. In: Terry McGee and Erica de Castro(org.), Inclusion, Collaboration and
Urban Governance: challenges in metropolitan regions Brazilian and Canadian experiences,The
University of British Colombia, Ed.PUC-Minas, Observatório das Metropoles.
Azevedo, S, Mares Guia, V.F.(2010) ―The ‗Two Sides of the Coin‘ of a Proposal for Metropolitan
Governance: The Virtue and Fragility of Public Policies‖. In: Terry McGee and Erica de
Castro(org.), Inclusion, Collaboration and Urban Governance: challenges in metropolitan regions
Brazilian and Canadian experiences,The University of British Colombia, Ed.PUC-Minas,
Observatório das Metropoles.
Davoudi, S; Evans, N; Governa, F; Santangelo, M.(2008) ‗Territorial governance in the making:
Approaches, methodologies, practices‘, Boletín de la A.G.E, Associación de Geógrafos Españoles
n.46.
Denaldi,R.,Klink, J.J., Souza, Claudia (2010) ‗Housing, Social Inclusion and Collaborative
Urban Governance‘. In: Terry McGee and Erica de Castro(org.), Inclusion, Collaboration and
Urban Governance: challenges in metropolitan regions Brazilian and Canadian experiences, The
University of British Colombia, Ed.PUC-Minas, Observatório das Metropoles.
Gouvêa, R.G.(2005) A questão metropolitana no Brasil, Rio de Janeiro: Editora FGV.
Klink, J. J.(2010) ‘Globalization, Territorial Restructuring and the Challenge of Collaborative
Metropolitan Governance: Recent Evidence and Perspectives in Brazilian City Regions‘. In: Terry
McGee and Erica de Castro(org.), Inclusion, Collaboration and Urban Governance: challenges in
metropolitan regions Brazilian and Canadian experiences, The University of British Colombia,
Ed.PUC-Minas, Observatório das Metropoles.
Klink, J. J. (2008) ‗Recent Perspectives on Metropolitan Organization, Functions and Governance‘.
In: Eduardo Rojas; Juan R. Cuadrado-Roura; José Miguel Fernández Güell. (Org.) Governing The
Metropolis - Principles and Cases, pp: 77-134, Cambridge: David Rockefeller Center for Latin
American Studies - Harvard University.
Kubler, D. and Heinelt, H. (2005) ‗Metropolitan Governance: capacity, democracy and the dynamics
of place‘, Introduction, pp 1-25, London: Routledge.
20

21. Lopes, A. (2006) ‗Gestão Metropolitana no Brasil: Da Coerção Simétrica ao Voluntarismo sem
Modelo‘, em busca da responsabilidade política com resultados. In: Silva, C.A.,Freire, D.G,
Oliveira, F.J.G(Org.), Metrópole: governo, sociedade e território, Rio de Janeiro: D.P&A, Faperj.
Machado, G. G. (2009) Gestão Metropolitana e autonomia municipal: dilemas das transações
federativas, Belo Horizonte: Ed. PUC-Minas, Observatório das Metropoles.
Magalhães,J.Q.,Souza, T.R. (2007) ‗A titularidade da Gestão Metropolitana‘ Revista Jus Vigilantibus,
08 out. 2007, available from http:// http://jusvi.com/artigos/28923
Monte-Mór,R.L.M (2000) New Urban Frontiers: contemporary tendencies in Brazil’s urbanization.
Paper presented to the International Conference Mozambique in the Commonwealth:
Urban and Environmental Realities After the Flooding, promoted by the Institute of
Commonwealth Studies, University of London. London, 9-10 of October, 2000.Preliminary
version.
Moraes, S.Eghrari.,Cidade, Lucia C.F (2010) Public policies and territorial development in the State
of Goias, Brazil: is there a place for local governance? Paper presented at the Canadian Political
Science Association Annual Conference, Montreal, Canada, June 2010. Preliminary version.
Pires , M.Coeli S. (2010) ‗The Institutional Arrangement for the Administration of the Metropolitan
Region of Belo Horizonte and the Challenge of Building Consensus‘. In: Terry McGee and Erica
de Castro(org.), Inclusion, Collaboration and Urban Governance: challenges in metropolitan
regions Brazilian and Canadian experiences,The University of British Colombia, Ed.PUC-Minas,
Observatório das Metropoles.
Rezende, F., Garson, S. (2006) ‗Financing metropolitan areas in Brazil: political, institutional and
legal obstacles and emergence of new proposals for improving coordination‘, Rev. Econ. Contemp.
[online], Vol.10, N.1: 5-34.
Rocha,C.A.V.., Faria,C.A.P. (2010) ‗ Federalism, Intergovernmental Relationships
and Metropolitan Management in Brazil‘. In: Terry McGee and Erica de Castro(org.), Inclusion,
Collaboration and Urban Governance: challenges in metropolitan regions Brazilian and
Canadian experiences,The University of British Colombia, Ed.PUC-Minas, Observatório das
Metropoles.
Souza, Celina. (2005), ‗Brazilian metropolitan regions: regime change and governance vacuum‘,
Public Administration and Development, 25: 341–350.
______(1996) ‗Redemocratization and Decentralization in Brazil: The Strength of the Member States‘
Development and change, 27, 3: 529.
Tomio, F,R.L.(2005) ‗The Creation of Municipalities after the 1988 Constitution‘, Revista Brasileira
de Ciências Sociais vol. 17 n. 48,São Paulo.
21