I am so honored and excited to embark on a Fulbright-Nehru Fellowship over the next 4 months. Thanks to the Indian Institute of Management in Bangalore Center for Public Policy for serving as my host institution!

What’s the Project Thesis?

The world’s metropolitan regions are increasingly functioning as the primary economic unit for growth and productivity globally. However, unlike nation states, the spatial boundaries of metro areas are more fluid, and many megacities are continuously expanding their spheres of influence. In many parts of the world, urban areas are evolving into sprawling megaregions which raises concerns that regional equity–in terms of income inequality or citizen political enfranchisement–may not be adequately addressed as metro areas continue to shift outward. In order to continue to remain globally competitive, research is showing that metro areas need to focus on establishing 21^st century regional governance structures that ensure three key factors: adequate infrastructure to and from growing areas, a culture of innovation for businesses and new ideas, and social inclusivity.

On the first point of infrastructure, not only is the scale of the resources regional by nature (movement of goods and workers) but also issues around transportation, water and environment are more likely to find common purpose among constituents at a megaregional level. For the second point of innovation, both public sector and the private sector technology-led innovations contribute to a region’s economic competitive edge as jobs and investments “accrue” in places that signal support for adaptation and change (Tomer & Puentes 2014). Finally, as megaregions continue to grow, attention to civic inclusivity and equal opportunity for businesses and residents fosters economic competitiveness by reducing disparities and improving overall quality of life.

While these might be the aims of megaregions for economic growth, regional governance structures may not be equipped to define and support this vision. In the US, for example, there are many variations of regional governance yet very few examples of strong, institutional regional authority. With a long history of local home rule, particularly with respect to land use controls, small municipalities in the US have a lot of power to site or not site various land uses within their jurisdictions; environmentally noxious uses often locate in jurisdictions with the least resources resulting in an unequable distribution among vulnerable populations. The devolved nature of power also makes regional decision-making challenging. Even if critical issues are megaregional in scale, the policy decisions, particularly with respect to funding, are done through local, state, and federal intergovernmental relations. Starting in the 1990’s, transportation funding began to be regionalized to metropolitan planning organizations to bring greater congruence between land use patterns and infrastructure investments across jurisdictions. Many policy makers have advocated for stronger regional governmental authority, through regional elected governments such as in Portland, Oregon (Orfield 1998).

More recent research has shown that the form of government is not as critical as the presence of interconnected networks of metropolitan leaders – mayors, business and labor leaders, educators, and philanthropists—who steer city policies and investments (Katz & Bradley 2013). In regions where a broad range of representatives from the public and private sector play a lead role forming these networks, civic actors from multiple sectors of the economy de facto participate in regional governance and ultimately set the context for greater innovation.  The impetus for innovation within metropolitan areas comes from growing demand for more effective service delivery in the face of limited and declining public sector resources available to address difficult problems (Sorenson & Torfing 2012). Collaborative innovation among multi-sector actors within a metro area is a process that moves from interaction to collaboration to innovation. In order to progress through the stages of that process, data sharing as a management strategy can help establish inclusive knowledge among potential collaborators (Iyer 2015). Data that measures effectiveness of city services and improvement in quality of life can promote citizen participation by demonstrating how use of data can establish a democratic space for engagement.

For some of the methods I’ll be using to help answer some of these questions, visit this google doc (subject to ongoing updates!)

Why Bangalore?

Metropolitan regions have become the geographic scale and economic unit in the global competitive marketplace. In often separate sectors of metropolitan areas, advocates for civic and social equity have sought to build new forms of political authority or cooperation at a regional scale to better address issues of inequality. In many ways, multi-sector actors who might appear to be working at cross-purposes are in agreement with respect to the scale at addressing key regional issues. For seemingly unlikely allies within a region, while the structure of government (more regional vs. more decentralized) can have important impacts on both competitiveness as well as equity, it’s the results or outcomes of regional governance that ultimately determine the effectiveness of any approach. For example, infrastructure improvements often involve access to resources outside the region; the region’s ability to leverage resources (power and/or funding) from national and global entities can be assessed through strong intergovernmental relations (i.e. how federal dollars and governing laws flow). The region’s capacity to innovate can be measured by the breadth and interconnectedness of regional networks whose multi-sector actors work together to move forward urban policies and priorities. Finally, inclusivity throughout the region can show both spatial and socioeconomic disparities; community based indicators help multi-sector actors monitor if policies are reducing disparties. This research contributes to the growing body of work around megacities, smart cities, and/or sustainable cities that helps identify the key outcomes of political and planning processes across all metropolitan areas.

The Bangalore metro region presents a current case-study of the relationship between regional economic competitiveness and political restructuring. Since the 1990’s, the region has grown economically through advancements in the technology sector in particular; it is ranked 16^th among Asian cities in terms of competitiveness (EIU 2012). In 2014, the Government of Karnataka commissioned a task force/expert committee to provide recommendations for the restructuring of the current Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike (BBMP-Bangalore Municipal Corporation) to better manage the needs of and services to the rapidly growing metropolitan area. The expert committee delivered recommendations on July 13, 2015 to maintain an overall regional structure through a Greater Bangalore Authority, but devolve administrative responsibilities through municipal corporations and foster greater citizen engagement via many smaller wards. The stated purpose of the restructuring is to increase responsiveness to citizen concerns, promote accountability and transparency both fiscally and with respect to service provision, and build capacity for local planning practices for coordination across the public sector. Although not stated specifically, economic competitiveness is mentioned roughly as a concern raised that the restructuring should not interfere with the global “Bengaluru Brand”.

Bibliography

BBMP Restructuring Committee (2015), “Bengaluru: Way Forward” Government of Karnataka http://www.bbmprestructuring.org/wp/the-final-bbmp-restructuring-report/

Iyer, Seema D. (2015) “Barriers to Data Sharing for Inclusive Knowledge Management: Why WatershedStat in Baltimore City Failed” in Innovations in the Public and Nonprofit Sectors: A Public Solutions Handbook, Patria de Lancer Julnes & Ed Gibson, eds., M.E. Sharpe Press. Pp. 91-109.

Katz, B., & Bradley, J. (2013). The Metropolitan Revolution. [electronic resource] : How Cities and Metros Are Fixing Our Broken Politics and Fragile Economy. Washington, D.C. : Brookings Institution Press, 2013.

Orfield, M. (1998). Metropolitics: A regional agenda for community and stability. Washington, D.C. : Brookings Institution Press ; Cambridge, Mass. : Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1998.

Tomer, Adie & Robert Puentes (2014), “Getting Smarter About Smart Cities,” Brookings Institution Research Brief.  Accessed online April 2016 http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2014/04/23-smart-cities-puentes-tomer

Sorenson, Eva & Jacob Torfing (2012), “Collaborative Innovation in the Public Sector” in The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, Vol 17, no 1, pp. 1-14.