Metropolitan Planning as a Requisite for a Better Future for the MCMA

Contributed by Alfonso Iracheta

The new socio-spatial conditions of metropolitan regions derive from global changes and demand new ideas for their government and administration. We need stable formulas of political and administrative organization beyond mere coordination of the parts of the metropolis. Such formulas must be permanent in order to overcome centralism; it is becoming more obvious that associations composed of local units (municipalities, departments, cantons, etc) to handle common problems is possible and constructive, provided the national and state powers recognize that appropriate redistribution of public expenditure is crucial for each local unit to act according to the demands of the area.

Metropolitan coordination cannot be imposed, but is stimulated by strategic planning, and by rewarding regional organizations instead of interfering and attempting to control them. Coordination, not only among federal entities but also municipalities, is what allows new paths to develop for solving the problems of conurbation. General agreements on the character and direction of metropolitan projects are the basis in order to coordinate and guide the efforts of the parties involved.. Besides this orientation, it is necessary to offer incentives to resolve problems that exceed one particular municipality.

It is the state’s role to correct market deviations and not to follow it; this means new forms of analysis on the development of large cities and the ways to coordinate and correct the action of different social agents that transfer the city on a daily basis.

Environmental sustainability demands a metropolitan vision, since problems and phenomena related to management of natural and environmental resources are not constrained to politico-administrative territories

Metropolitan planning in the Valley of Mexico

Conurbation in the Valley of Mexico is the only one in the country that requires the concurrence of multiple authorities to legislate its structure and functioning as well as implement its plans and programs. The federal government, the governments of the Federal District and the State of Mexico, the municipal governments of the latter as well as the national and local legislative bodies have presence and authority here. In this metropolis the lack of a metropolitan formula exists, to such an extent that it seems that the federal government—and the governments of the Federal District and the State of Mexico—have not operated as if they realized the existence of this large conurbation.

The institutional relationships between the Federal District and the State of Mexico during the last three decades have been characterized by centralism and state sovereignty, disagreement, lack of political will to cooperate and isolation of centralized resolutions, institutional planning and personal decision. The problems of each entity have become more acute and complex as a result of conurbation. From the government’s point of view, the metropolis is made up of two or, even, a multitude of cities. For both the Federal District and the State of Mexico, each city ends when it reaches its corresponding limits, and both consider that the other entity is, in fact, ‘other’ in almost every sense. This attitude has already started to emerge even within these two organizations, in the delegations of the Federal District and in the municipalities of the conurbation belonging to the State of Mexico.

The issues that require metropolitan coordination and agreement are diverse and complex. Little or no progress has been achieved on many of these issues, making life more difficult for the almost 19 million of inhabitants of the MCMA.

Water has been included in the public agenda for decades. Apart from increasing its supply, there is no metropolitan hydraulic project taking advantage of technological opportunities which would reduce risks of supply outages and infrastructure deterioration. Although the Federal District is not growing anymore, population and physical expansion are central matters, since metropolitan municipalities are growing at rates over 2% per year. This shows nearly all demographic increase and urban sprawl will be in the municipalities of the State of Mexico. The distribution of public resources is also an issue that has hindered the two governments from cooperating, since historically the Federal District has been favored with federal investments and educational subsidies that the State of Mexico has not received. Transport and air pollution are issues with higher possibilities of reaching metropolitan agreements, as proved by programs such as Monitoreo Atmosférico, Hoy no Circula, Placa Metropolitana and Proaire. Still, there is a lack of political will to face the problem of air pollution and, above all, to develop a metropolitan policy of traffic and transport linked to policies of general metropolitan development.

The above-mentioned differences between the two entities that share the MCMA have resulted in more, higher-quality infrastructure and equipment for the Federal District. Yet, it is also true that this entity has had more suitable revenue policies and greater government administrative capacity to face the problems of the metropolis, which results in better possibilities to plan and develop projects in different areas . As a consequence, the Federal District has tended to be more influential in the management of metropolitan matters.

Although during the past these differences could be regarded as normal, today they do not meet the needs of a metropolis that is more populated in the metropolitan municipalities than in the Federal District. For that reason, the state and federal government should consider the whole region when making decisions about public resources for the metropolis.

The political distance between the governments of the Federal District and the State of Mexico, which has affected so much the development and management of the MCMA, probably has among its roots the historical difference and inequity in distribution of federal public resources for the big city, rather than other relevant aspects such as the political differences between their governments or between the parties that have ruled these entities of the federation. The Treasury and Public Credit Department and, in general, the federal government have practically disregarded this matter, raising greater problems between the federal entities.

The governments of both the Federal District and the State of Mexico have made statements, in general poorly informed on both sides, concerning the costs incurred by each entity as a result of meeting the needs of the population from the other part of the metropolis. The government of the Federal District has declared that a significant burden upon its economy stems from the ‘use and consumption’ of the City of Mexico by a floating population that mainly comes from the State of Mexico without receiving any compensation for it. Since the 80s, and especially since the end of the 90s, the government of the State of Mexico, in turn, has forcefully demanded from the Federal District to make up for the water that the former exports to the Federal District (although some part goes to the conurbated municipalities), with a greater effort in meeting educational expenses and adjusting the imbalance in the distribution of shares that the federal government gives to the federal entities every year, which come from the state tax collection and represent the greatest part of Mexican states’ budget.

Finally, what is clear for practically every national government should be also clear for the government of Mexico. The financial resources that the national capital requires, especially when in comparison with the rest of the urban system of the country, must also come from the federal government. Until now those resources have been preferentially channeled to the Federal District, neglecting the metropolis as a whole.

The metropolitan problem of the Valley of Mexico is not a local matter anymore since the critical situation faced by its urban development and environment has surfaced in the national policies and social structures. It is crucial to understand this metropolitan issue as a basic condition to reorganize and develop the MCMA. And in so doing, the responsibility for a balanced distribution of national resources to face the needs for infrastructure and equipment falls on the Mexican government.

The two state governments must become more mature in their relationship and in their conception of the large urbanized area of the Valley of Mexico as a metropolis, rather than as two isolated parts in which individual and separate policies are designed without agreement and applied separately without coordination.

The evolution of the metropolitan phenomenon and its spillover towards the central region of the country, building up a megalopolis whose size and complexity causes the need for institutional ways of cooperation, agreement and management of policies and joint projects among the spheres of government responsible for its administration and development.

There are fundamental limitations that prevent policies and actions from reaching a metropolitan level of performance. Such limitations derive from the heterogeneity of legislation and regulations between both entities and the lack of harmonization of diverse policies and norms, which has provoked the disorganization of infrastructures and services that should be, in principle, common.

The design, management, approval and implementation of new ways of metropolitan coordination, which take into account political plurality and joint management by various social groups, is a necessity that has long surpassed the politico-administrative sphere between the governments of the two entities, to become a strategic part of the economic and social development of the great conurbation and the Mexican nation.

Alfonso Iracheta is a researcher at El Colegio Mexiquense AC.