Metropolitan and Peri-Urban Governance in India: Case Study of Chennai Metropolitan Area

Concept of ‘Home Rule’ in Developing a Strategy for Service Delivery in Metropolitan Areas: Learning from Examples

The concept of ‘Swaraj’ or ‘Home Rule’ is an old idea propagated by Mahatma Gandhi in the 20th century. Through this concept, he advocated the spirit of democracy from within (Anjaneyulu, 2003; Parel, 1995).

One of the interpretations of the term Swaraj means that a society or nation is ruled by its own people. Taking a cue from this thinking, it is said that a good government is no substitute for self-government. However, if the self-government is not a good government, and conducive to individual and social progress, it can hardly be termed ‘Swaraj’. Good self-rule can only be called as Swaraj (Mishra, 2006).

The concept of Swaraj, as given by Mahatma Gandhi, was more so in the context of India’s freedom and rural areas. The basic idea behind the thinking was decentralisation, bottom-up approach for development and self-rule, which holds true in case of local bodies present in the peri-urban areas of a metropolis as well.

Also, drawing from Bahl’s (2013, p. 91) concept of ‘Home Rule’ that the budget outcomes are driven by people’s representation in a local body it can be said that annexation and a monocentric government hampers citizen’s control over their own resources.

Bahl and Linn (1992) suggest that under a jurisdictional fragmentation approach (polycentric system) many local governments operate in the same metropolitan area with some degree of independence in choosing their financing arrangements. In some cases, there also is an overlying metropolitan government or region-wide special district, but the emphasis in service delivery is on the role of the lower-tier governments. The advantage of the jurisdictional fragmentation model is that it keeps the government close to the people. However, the welfare gains from this home rule model will come at the cost of economies of scale (i.e., large scale production resulting in lower per capita cost of any goods or services) and operating within a set of boundaries that are arguably too small to allow coordinated service delivery. Coordinated service delivery reduces the per capita cost of providing services such as water supply and sanitation.

The jurisdictional fragmentation or polycentric model best characterises governance in most industrialised countries. The traditions of home rule are particularly strong in the United States. Most urban services are delivered by municipalities or counties, that is, by the lower-level local governments. (OECD, 2009 as quoted in Bahl, 2013, p. 88).

For instance, the Kolkata metropolitan area is governed by three municipal corporations (including Kolkata), thirty-eight municipalities and twenty-four rural local governments. The municipal governments are dominant in terms of service provision and revenue generation. The Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority, an area-wide government, has responsibility for planning and carrying out major infrastructure development in the metropolitan area.

A second approach to metropolitan governance can be that of functional fragmentation, that is, different functions are being carried out by different authorities at the metropolitan level (Bahl & Linn, 1992, p. 67). Under this model, the delivery of a single function such as water supply (or a related grouping of functions) is placed under the control of either a public company or a special district government. The main advantage of functional fragmentation is that the autonomous agency, like Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB), is likely to be more technically efficient because it is specialised. Such bodies, by virtue of being the only entity in the urban area responsible for the function, encounter lesser problems of coordination for that function as against a jurisdictionally fragmented model. The major drawback to this approach is that it is usually under less direct control of local voters (thus not answerable to them) than, for example, an elected municipal council. Political autonomy of these bodies is another factor that needs consideration for their efficient working. Functional fragmentation brings about efficiency in terms of financing metropolitan services as well. Since the services delivered are to be priced for covering their production and delivery costs (e.g., public transportation and garbage collection), user charges provide a base level of revenues. In other cases, the services are partially financed by compulsory transfers from the city budget (OECD, 2007a, p. 45).

Special-purpose agencies can be especially important in managing and financing public service delivery in countries that are not industrialised. India makes use of parastatals, which are public companies operated by various departments within the state government. The twenty-one parastatals operating within Mumbai account for a large share of total infrastructure spending in the metropolitan area and carry out the service delivery function for the metropolitan area.

A third arrangement can be that of a metropolitan government. Under this model most general services are provided by an area-wide metropolitan government. In theory, the metropolitan government would be elected and have significant powers to regulate service delivery and financing. In practice, most area-wide governments share fiscal powers with lower tiers of government or publicly owned companies. The significant advantage of a pure metropolitan government approach is built-in coordination in the delivery of functions. This has the potential for better resource allocation (Bahl & Linn, 1992). On the other hand, this form of governance diminishes the power of local voters to influence the local budget for various services. A second drawback is that metropolitan governance often brings inter-governmental conflict over access to services. It also needs to be financially strong to perform its functions effectively.

Some Canadian metropolitan areas, such as Metropolitan Vancouver, have maintained an emphasis on home rule, that is, a greater number of local bodies, by local jurisdictions but have introduced a mechanism for coordination of service delivery (Bahl, 2013). Home rule and its local voter influence (through the elected representatives in the local bodies) are strongest under a jurisdictionally fragmented system.

There is a requirement of reforms that address the economies of scale that go uncaptured in many fragmented metropolitan areas, address the equity issues with respect to service delivery and reforms that can reduce heavy spillover costs, such as traffic congestion and pollution. The public policy solution lies in finding a way to deliver some services with a degree of local control and financing while delivering others on a region-wide basis and with a broader finance base.

It has been observed in India that at the metropolitan level, the existence of fragmented local governments, along with multiple parastatals having overlapping jurisdictions, gives the governance system the appearance of a ‘polycentric governance system’ endorsed by such scholars as McGinnis (2000), Ostrom (2010) and Ostrom, Tiebout, and Warren (1961). But if we see the case of Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR), an area where a Metropolitan Planning Committee (MPC) has also been in place, it is found that the governance system in MMR, although apparently polycentric, is far from being efficient (Pethe, Gandhi, & Tandel, 2011). Barring Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) and some municipal corporations, all other Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) are too weak to perform even the basic functions expected of them. Pethe, Gandhi, and Tandel (2011), in examining the case of MCGM and Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), show that their relationship is characterised not by cooperation or competition but, rather, by contestations and conflicting stakes and a power imbalance that favours the latter.

Apart from territorial limitations, there are also significant problems with respect to core cities having to reach out beyond their boundaries. In metropolitan areas, the sources of water supply to the city are well beyond the jurisdiction of the core city or even the metropolitan region as in Chennai, Bangalore or Hyderabad. The transport connectivity is another area transcending municipal and metropolitan limits. In all these cases the expansion of municipal boundaries or annexation of areas surrounding the core city has not been an answer. The reasoning that such an annexation results in better service provision for the peri-urban areas has also been refuted by the primary analysis carried out as part of the study. However, people do have a perception that service provision will improve once the core city institution takes over (Primary Survey, 2014). Nevertheless, the issue of low representation of people due to the annexation of peri-urban areas in the core city cannot be denied.

Going for a Polycentric System of Governance in CMA?

Based on the service in question, a local government may both produce and provide a service or there may be another agency producing or providing the service. This other agency can be a metropolitan level authority or a private agency or a cooperation agreement between the local governments. This kind of flexibility is central to the concept of the polycentric system. What has been observed in Chennai is that though there is an overlapping of jurisdictions, some kind of cooperation agreement also exists as in the case of ULBs near Tambaram for water provision and solid waste management (refer Table 2). Other metropolitan regions have also shown cooperation amongst its local bodies for service provision.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Inter-Municipal Sharing of Facilities (Newly Started and Planned), 2013

Metropolitan Region	Urban Local Body Sharing Facility	Type of Facility Being Shared
Chennai	1. Ambattur Municipality 2. Valasaravakkam 3. Thirverakedu 4. Maduravoyal 5. Poonamallee	Dumping site and compost yard extending forty acres at Kuttampakkam
	1. Kattivakkam 2. Manali 3. Madavaram 4. Thiruvottiyur	72-acre compost yard at Thiruvottiyur
	1. Alandur 2. Pallavaram and Tambaram	Water sharing
Bangalore	1. Channapatna 2. Ramanagaram	Disposal site being shared
Kolkata	1. Dum Dum 2. South Dum Dum 1. Baranagar	Joint mechanical compost plant
	1. Champdani 2. Baidyabati 3. Rishra 4. Serampur 3. Uttarpara-Kotrung	Integrated Solid Waste Management Scheme (ISWMS) under Hooghly district.

Source: Smart City Plan for Kolkata (2015) and BDA Revised Master Plan (2015), Primary Survey 2014 in parts of CMA.

Drawing from this it can be said that within a polycentric governance system there can be several scales of service provision, whereby some services are produced and provided at the local body level in a decentralised way and others, either at the metropolitan level or by some arrangement of cooperation amongst the local governments. For example, traffic and transport service, government housing and sourcing of water being provided at the metropolitan level can reduce per capita cost of water provision by capturing economies of scale. The distribution of water at the municipal or village level could be done by the local authority. This approach would help in addressing the economic as well as the equity aspect of service provision.

Planning Metropolitan Regions

The Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act envisages the preparation of a regional plan, a master plan or a new town development plan. All these plans have to be approved by the state government before being notified, which in the process may consult the director of town planning. The Act also requires updating the plan every five years. It is interesting to note here that the state government may vary or revoke a detailed development plan prepared under the Act. The plans in CMA are not being updated every five years (Primary Survey, 2014). One of the reasons for this might be political intervention. A moot question is whether a regional plan, master plan, new town plan or development control plan prepared in accordance with the provisions of a town and country planning acts, which also follow a process of eliciting views from the public should still be subject to the state government’s approval. The Kasturirangan Committee set up to consider a governance framework for Bangalore metropolitan area has expressed the view that it may not be necessary for a plan prepared by a body that partakes a sovereign character to be reviewed by the state government for formal approval. ²

CMDA is the apex planning body in CMA. As far as planning is concerned, for a metropolitan region, it should be integrated planning at the regional level, which should act as broad guidelines for resource identification assessment, environmental aspects, physical spread and economic suitability at the metropolitan level. The local bodies can detail out their respective plans as per the identified agenda that should get integrated at the metropolitan level. The 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts also suggest this kind of a bottom-up planning approach. Thus, the existence of a MPC should be made mandatory for metropolitan areas. In Chennai’s case, though there is an integrated plan for the metropolitan region prepared by the CMDA, the local bodies have no role in detailing out their own plans. This is largely due to the lack of plan-making capacity or skill in designing a plan at the local level and also the absence of an MPC.

The Indian Case: Service Provision and Planning

There are two aspects to be considered here, firstly, giving metropolitan regions an identity of their own. Secondly, it is the issue of de-centralisation or home rule due to the complex nature of metropolitan areas with multiple urban and rural local bodies. The creation of development authorities was the first step towards administrative recognition of the metropolitan dimension. Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority was established in 1970, in Chennai it was in 1972, Mumbai in 1974 and Bangalore and Hyderabad in 1975. There has been a demand for more decentralised governance at the local level since India’s independence. Since the 1950s stress was laid on community development through involvement of the citizens for the efficient provision of services and infrastructure. The demand for decentralised governance got constitutional recognition with the formulation of the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts in 1993. The 74th Constitutional Amendment Act gave provision for the creation of an MPC under Section 243ZE, which addressed both, the issue of metropolitan identity as well as decentralisation within it. However, out of the top five metropolitan regions in India only two, that is, Mumbai and Kolkata have an MPC in place. Chennai, Bangalore and Hyderabad do not have an MPC constituted by the state. MPCs have been set up only in two states—West Bengal (Kolkata) after a delay of five years, and Maharashtra after a delay of sixteen years (Mumbai, Pune and Nagpur). Thus, the legal standing that could have been given to metropolitan areas has largely been denied. Even in the case of Kolkata the MPC has not been reconstituted after elections to the Kolkata Corporation and other municipalities in 2011. In Mumbai the MPC hardly meets and discusses issues at the metropolitan level (Sivaramakrishnan, 2013).

The Planning Regime

At the metropolitan level, the establishment of a proper planning regime becomes an important task. The core city in metropolitan regions discharges the basic responsibility of building controls and also undertakes some land use planning and zoning within their respective limits. This needs to be suitably amplified and coordinated at the metropolitan level. The coordination of plan preparation, their enforcement and the interpretation and adjudication in the event of conflicting plans should be regarded as important metropolitan level tasks. In some cities, the metropolitan level body also assumes the responsibility of preparing plans where either the municipal body is not available or fails to perform this task. This role of a default planner should be revisited. In the case of Chennai, although a planning department exists for the municipalities and town panchayats they do not undertake any planning function and only jobs like removing encroachments are carried out. In the case of Mumbai, it is seen that many of the municipalities are not inclined to undertake planning even though they are designated as planning authority under the Maharashtra Town and Country Planning Act. Thus, if a metropolitan level planning body, like the CMDA, has to remain true to its central tasks, it cannot be overwhelmed by this ‘default planner’ responsibility. Hence, the capacity and responsibility for spatial planning should be developed at the local body level and CMDA should be entrusted with this function. Even the implementation part should be given out to the CMDA. The MPC should be brought in place and it should act as the final consolidation and approving authority (refer Figure 1).

CMA should work towards having an MPC in place. State agencies planning for metropolitan cities are influenced by political decisions and have a short vision that is limited to the greater economic development of the area without any consideration to environmental and social externalities. The Primary Survey points towards how the people in CMA have been struggling with a shortage of water, pollution and overcrowding in these areas. It is thus required that the final consolidation and approval of plans takes place at the MPC level. The entire responsibility of plan-making should be carried out by the local bodies. Moreover, community participation preferably through the e-community platform should be encouraged (refer Figure 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Source: Based on author’s study.

Municipal Consolidation and Service Provision

The next set of metropolitan level tasks relate to the provision of services such as water supply, sanitation, solid waste management, transport, and so on. Here again, the responsibility for reviewing the adequacy of the functional bodies, facilitating the setting up of trans-municipal entities and assisting their operations become an important metropolitan responsibility.

To start with, it is required that the metropolitan areas have some autonomy from the state control so that their development can be guided by forces of economy and decision by the citizens of the peri-urban areas. For better coordination amongst the local bodies, given the fact that the metropolitan areas are large entities and have multiple jurisdictions, some metropolitan level authority such as the CMWSSB (for water supply and sewerage) can be continued with. However, this body needs to be devised in a way that the local bodies in the peri-urban areas have enough say in the matters concerning their fate as far as service delivery, environment, use of land and economic development is concerned (refer Figure 2).

Nevertheless, this does not mean that one has to go back on the issue of functional decentralisation as enshrined in the 73rd and the 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts. The local bodies should have functional as well as financial autonomy. However, there is a lot of disparity when it comes to the financial status of these local bodies because of which the level and quality of service provision vary from settlement to settlement. The metropolitan level body, in this case, the CMWSSB for water supply and sewerage, should be made responsible for easing out these inequalities by way of facilitating equitable resources in the peri-urban areas. Thus, the sourcing, treatment, laying of network and distribution at local body level should be given to CMWSSB (refer Figure 2). TWAD should be limited to areas outside CMA, however, the local bodies adjacent to the CMA should be given some leverage as they will be experiencing a lot of spillover of development from the metropolitan area. The local bodies need to be made responsible for local distribution of water within the local body jurisdiction and also try to reduce the dependence of households on other informal sources, such as groundwater and tankers. Continuous monitoring by the citizens through e-participation should also be encouraged by the local body and CMWSSB (refer Figure 2).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Source: Based on author’s study.

Thus, it is clear that reforms in governance systems are the key to ensuring better outcomes in terms of efficient delivery of public goods and services. A metropolitan system contributes hugely to the state, as well as to the nation as a whole and thus, needs serious attention. The issue is not really a conceptual matter as much as one of political will with respect to the implementation of uncluttered and sharply defined empowered subsystems that work complementarily and cohesively.