THE HERTIE SCHOOL OF GOVERNANCE
Guadalajara’s pathway towards Metropolitan Governance:
A tale of reforms and institutions.
Efrén Josué Jonatán Osorio Lara
Class 2014 – 116884
Berlin, April 7th, 2014
Thesis Advisor: Prof. Dr. Kai Wegrich
1
Executive Summary
The Mexican City of Guadalajara, during the last decades, has transited from being an
intermediate city to a multi-municipal metropolis, which associates with increasing
challenges to meet the demands and requirements of its inhabitants.
This thesis, recapitulates the path followed by the city of Guadalajara about the different
institutional reforms at the local level since 1940 to nowadays, to move from govern the
city to a development based on the governance of the metropolis, example of a
phenomenon that recurs across Latin America.
To do so, the thesis’ methodology explores six layers or variables in the indicated period.
These are: physical aspects of the city like the continuity of the sprawl and
demographics, the political regime and specifically the partisan affiliation of the
metropolitan municipalities and the Jalisco’s state executive, the legal framework at
national and local level regarding human settlements, formal institutions at the public
sector in the shape of agencies, and informal institutions as such as social movements
and declarations regarding the urban topic.
The myriad of findings can be summarized in the existence of constant legal and
institutional reforms within the public sector, going from hierarchical and rigid
structures led by the Jalisco’s state government, to mechanisms increasingly flexible and
horizontal, led by the local authorities that form the metropolis, and with the aim to be
more inclusive with the civil society.
Despite this, the current scheme of metropolitan governance created under the form of
a System of Metropolitan Coordination, formed by a Board of Political Coordination, a
Metropolitan Planning Institute and a Citizen Council, remains in a process of
consolidation. Therefore, it still has significant challenges related to the integration,
representation, performance and scope, which need to be addressed in the short run, to
demonstrate and strengthen its legitimacy and effectiveness.
2
3
Table of contents
Scope of the present research ................................................................................................6
I.
Introduction .....................................................................................................................8
II.
Conceptual framework: From Governance to Metropolitan Governance ...................10
a.
Governance..............................................................................................................10
b.
Local/Urban Governance .........................................................................................12
c.
Metropolitan Governance .......................................................................................15
III. Background: The Urban Governance towards the metropolitan governance among
cities in Latin America. ..........................................................................................................16
a.
Urbanization in Latin America .................................................................................18
b.
Urbanization in Mexico ............................................................................................20
IV. Methodology .................................................................................................................28
V.
Selected case: The Metropolitan Area of Guadalajara (MAG) ......................................31
VI. Bringing Metropolitan Governance to Guadalajara ......................................................35
a.
1940-1976. Metropolitan Early Development ........................................................37
b.
1976-2000 Metropolis consolidation ......................................................................39
c.
2000-2014 The transition to a better urban governance ........................................44
VII. The new Metropolitan Urban Trinity for Guadalajara ..................................................54
a.
Board of Metropolitan Coordination (BMC)............................................................54
b.
Metropolitan Planning Institute (MPI) ....................................................................55
c.
Metropolitan Citizen Council (MCC) ........................................................................56
VIII. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................60
Bibliography ..........................................................................................................................62
Appendixes............................................................................................................................66
4
List of Illustrations
Illustration 1 Location of the state of Jalisco in Mexico ....................................................................... 31
Illustration 2 Location and municipalities of the Metropolitan Area of Guadalajara .......................... 32
Illustration 3 Location of the Municipality of Guadalajara................................................................... 37
List of Tables
Table 1 Breakdown of indicator of the metropolization process, 1960-2010 ..................................... 23
Table 2 Existing legislation on metropolitan areas in Mexican states ................................................. 27
Table 3 Breakdown of the Metropolitan Area of Guadalajara in 2010 ................................................ 32
Table 4 Time Line of the Urban Governance of Guadalajara ............................................................... 36
Table 5 Time Line of the Urban Governance of Guadalajara in Spanish .............................................. 67
List of Acronyms
CCSM Citizen Council for Sustainable Mobility
CONAPO Mexico’s National Population Council by its acronym in Spanish
COPARMEX Employers Confederation of the Mexican Republic for its acronym in
Spanish
INEGI Mexico’s National Institute of Geography and Statistics for its acronym in Spanish
SEDESOL Mexico’s Secretary of Social Development by its acronym in Spanish
MAG Metropolitan Area of Guadalajara
MC Citizen Movement Party
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PAN National Action Party for its acronym in Spanish
PRD Democratic Revolution Party
PRI Institutional Revolutionary Party for its acronym in Spanish
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNHABITAT United Nations Programme on Human Settlements also known as ONUHabitat
SIAPA Inter-municipal System on Water and Sewerage by its acronym in Spanish
SISTECOZOME Inter-municipal System of Collective Transportation for the Metropolitan
Area of Guadalajara for its acronym in Spanish
5
Scope of the present research
This thesis has the spirit to address the topic of urban governance. It pursue to exemplify
how a city can be affected thru how was and is governed. Through describing how its
formal and informal institutions has changed, with the aim to influence the urban
development of a city when it becomes a metropolitan city or region.
This phenomenon can be observed in the ongoing process of rethinking and
transforming the metropolitan formal institutions of the city of Guadalajara. These
reforms aim to address the even more demanding scenario of the metropolitan
development.
For the above, this research intends to study the case of the city of Guadalajara and to
answer the following research question:
How has the governance of the City of Guadalajara evolved since it began to be
considered a Metropolitan Area?
Therefore, this thesis looks to offer a concise and brief historical account, through the
identification of a set of variables in the city, so the governance development of the city
can be understood.
6
7
I.
Introduction
“…the enormous city that fits in a room three meters square, and endless as a galaxy,
the city that dreams us all, that all of us build, and unbuild and is rebuild as we dream,
the city we all dream, that restlessly changes while we dream it,
the city that wakes every hundred years and looks at itself in the mirror of a word
and doesn’t recognize itself and goes back to sleep…”
-Octavio Paz
I speak of the City
Mexican cities are going through an accelerated urbanization process, consistent with
the same phenomenon as the rest of Latin America. This poses challenges within the
Mexican and the Latin American cities that have to be addressed by the authorities in
the different levels of government. These challenges became even more complex when
an urban sprawl is settled in more than two neighboring municipalities or territories. It is
common to find among the cities of the region, metropolitan regions, with large
commuting among the concentrations of population, functional agglomerated
economies and strong productive, environmental and social linkages.
The sum of the above generates a myriad of preferences and needs that have to be
planed and addressed with an adequate provision of goods and services from the public
sector. In the case of Mexico, has developed a national legal framework that allows local
authorities to come up with their own coordination and association mechanisms to
govern the metropolis.
This set of mechanisms have a crucial role on the urban governance of the metropolitan
areas in Mexico, due to numerous public and non-governmental institutions that are
involved, both formal and informal. To illustrate the foregoing, the case of the
Metropolitan Area of Guadalajara, seems to be a good case to demonstrate how a Latin
American city, that share common challenges with other metropolitan areas along the
region and specially within Mexico, despite cities being unique, has tried to understand
and address the metropolitan subject in the last decades.
To do this, the first part of the thesis will address the conceptual framework related to
urban and metropolitan governance. Secondly, it will briefly describe an overview of the
8
urban development in Latin America and Mexico. Thirdly, it is shown a brief recount of
the governance evolution of the city of Guadalajara since it began to show metropolitan
features until nowadays. In addition, the current public institutions created to attend the
metropolitan subject in the city of Guadalajara are going to be shortly described along
with the risks and challenges associated are going to be presented. Lastly, the thesis will
conclude with the main findings and final considerations.
9
II.
Conceptual framework: From Governance to Metropolitan Governance
a. Governance
The study of governance has been addressed from two different points of view, one
more emphatic on the role of the public sector and another more oriented to a joint
process among the different sector of society. This is a broad debate about what
governance is and means, which has been developing since the nineties among scholars
and international organizations.
On one hand, Kaufmann & Kraay (2008) recalled that the World Bank in 1992, defined
governance with an emphasis on the public sector as:
“[…] the manner in which power is exercised in the management of a country’s
economic and social resources for development […]” (p. 4)
Later in 1997 as:
“[…] the manner in which public officials and institutions acquire and exercise the
authority to shape public policy and provide public goods and services.” (p. 4)
Nevertheless, these definitions condition the concept on the strength of the public
sector but lacks on the role of democratic accountability of governments to their
citizens.
On the other hand, was during the late nineties when the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), released the first policy document as a result of the Governance
Initiative1 leaded by the Agency with the aim to support the Human Development Index
Initiative and in response to the Initiative for Change2. Governance was defined as:
1
Refer to: Governance for sustainable human development. A UNDP policy document. (UNDP, 1997)
Ibid., The United Nations Development Programme UNDP during the early years of the nineteen ninety
lead the Initiative for change, establishing that the goal of governance initiatives should be to develop
capacities that are needed to realize development that gives priority to the poor, advances women,
sustains the environment and creates needed opportunities for employment and other livelihoods, but
the question regarding what governance is, remained not answer.
2
10
“[…] the exercise of political, economic and administrative authority in the
management of a country’s affairs at all levels. It comprises the mechanisms,
processes and institutions, through which citizens and groups articulate their
interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their
differences.” (UNDP, 1997, p. 4)
Two aspects of this definition have to be taken into consideration. First, governance is
not government. It recognizes that governance includes the state, but transcends it by
taking in the private sector and civil society as critical actors of the sustainable –human–
development, derived of their roles on the communities. Second, emphasizes the
process, therefore governance implies no longer a close system, but an open and
participatory mean to achieve good governance, understood as the promotion of
constructive interaction among all three.
Since then, governance as a concept or ideal became popular but it seems to
nevertheless be imprecise (Kaufmann & Kraay, 2008; Aguilar Villanueva, 2013). Despite
this fact, there is a consensus that governance involves working across a myriad of
boundaries. These include within the public sector, between the public sector, and even
either private or voluntary sectors (Wang, 2011).
In terms of this thesis, the idea of involving nongovernmental organization, either social
or private, in the practice of government makes acceptable the idea that is possible to
achieve good governance through the instruments and bureaucracies of the
government.
Aguilar Villanueva (2013) recognizes that the presence of numerous actors with different
ideas, interests and resources in the governmental decision-making processes and
actions, does not increase the directive effectiveness if there is no coordination and
cooperation among the actors, or if these interactions are unstable, partial or
unpredictable.
Hence, the discussion has been directed to the governmental performance and the
capacity to provide effective solutions within governance, rather then to political
11
legitimacy or legality of the ruler’s actions, at least this happened in regimes with
institutions more oriented to democracy (Aguilar Villanueva, 2013).
Due to the fact that this concept recognizes that power exists inside and outside the
formal authorities and institutions of government, meanwhile the hierarchical and
unitary governing operates no longer with efficiency, instead it is interorganizational
governing how governments are commencing to conduct and manage. These
mechanisms tends to be more related to coordination, rather subordination, among the
different public, private and social organizations and all participants in the govern
process, better known as governance.
b. Local/Urban Governance
Governance as a process can be achieved in every level of the state: the national,
regional and local. At the local level, despite rural or urban characteristics, governance
can be undertaken, sometimes in conjunction with civil society or the business sector,
given that the local territory where these actors actually coexist.
In that sense, urban governance is a broad, multi-faceted concept related to the activity
of governing a city. UN-HABITAT (2002) defined this as:
“[…] the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private,
plan and manage the common affairs of the city. It is a continuing process
through which conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and
cooperative action can be taken. It includes formal institutions as well as informal
arrangements and the social capital of citizens.” (p. 14)
This concept, focuses on strategies to behave towards and from the territory of the
urban, not just as a container in which things happen, but as a complex mixture of nodes
and networks, places and flows, in which multiple relations, activities and values coexist, interact, combine, conflict, oppress and generate creative synergy.
12
This concept also considers a complex set of actors within the city sphere, being among
others: the local government and its bureaucracy, the private sector as the productive
element of the city in the shape of industry and market, and society such as organized,
associated or in the shape of movements and last but not least, the common and diverse
citizens.
The governance of this diversity relates to the existence of public spaces where different
groups can debate, listen and work out ways of reconciling diversity and multiplicity of
identities that exist within the urban collectivity (Andrew & Goldsmith , 1998).
Therefore, urban governance is centered on collective action, both in formal
government arenas and informal mobilization efforts, which seek to influence the sociospatial relations of an urban area, for various purposes and in pursuit of various interests
(Healey, 2006). It is concerned with strategy making which seeks to ‘summon up’ an idea
of a city or urban region (Amin, 2002).
Hence, urban governance includes the formal institutions, political procedures and
administrative systems, as well as the informal arrangements and practices in a city. It
involves political authority and the allocation of institutional resources to plan and
manage the common affairs of the city and to tackle its challenges.
In addition, Wang (2011) identifies that urban governance has three major
characteristics. First, it has a flexible local system and organizational structure
arrangement. Second, it can autonomously choose the action process of sustainable
development to establish a strategic cooperation partner relationship between the
government, the private sector and citizen organizations. Third, it depends on a citizenparticipation network corresponding to public affairs. In other words, public and private
sectors will help each other through joint participation during the process of publicprivate partnership or co-production through the spirit of equality, so that finally the
local governance reform will yield an equilateral triangle of power.
13
In this order and in accordance to the World Urban Campaign on Urban Governance3,
the UN-Habitat (2004) definition of good governance at the urban level is related to its
operational experience that confirms that good governance means the difference
between a well-managed and inclusive city and one that is poorly managed and
exclusive.
The UN-Habitat definition of good urban governance, taking in consideration the notion
of an inclusive city, is to promote equal access of all citizens to the benefits of urban
living (Including adequate shelter, safe water, clean environment, sanitation, health,
education, nutrition, employment, public safety and mobility). This concept not only
refers to an inclusive city for the citizens as a vision, but also to the process to
accomplish.
Good urban governance refers to the capacity of cities’ governments and their partners
to operationalize the agreed-upon norms, formulate and implement sound policies and
systems that reflect the interests of local citizens, and to do so in a way that is
transparent and inclusive to those with least power and resources.
Therefore, effective governance covers issues of political leadership and stability,
accountability and relevance, efficient organization and delivery, the quality of laws and
regulations, and the probity of systems and procedures to cover contracts, staff
appointments and related matters.
Finally, in addition to the effective principle, UN-HABITAT (2002) advocates that good
urban governance is characterized by the principles of sustainability, subsidiarity, equity,
transparency and accountability, civic engagement and citizenship security. These
principles are interdependent and mutually reinforcing.
3
UN-HABITAT launched the Global Campaign on Urban Governance in 1999 to support the
implementation of the Habitat Agenda goal of “sustainable human settlements development in an
urbanizing world.” (UN-HABITAT, 2002)
14
c. Metropolitan Governance
The study of metropolitan governance has only recently begun, result of contemporary
trends around the world like the transition to a predominant urban world and growth of
urban agglomerations, environmental degradation and related risks, integration to the
global economy, subsidiarity and self-governance (World Bank, 2011).
Despite the fact that commonly countries have developed their own definition of
urban/metropolitan areas according to functional purposes (OECD, 2010), the
consensual definition is that a metropolis is an urban area composed of more than one
local governmental unit or subdivision of territories; giving origin to multi-jurisdictional
entities (World Bank, 2011; OECD, 2010).
The most common definition relates to the commuting functionality, being defined by
the OECD (2010) as typically large cities with large population density, net commuting
rates and comprised by a number of administrative and adjacent areas where economic
relations are intense.
If considering the above as the most common understanding of a metropolitan area,
therefore governance at the metropolitan level, pose challenges that increase when
more than one territorial jurisdiction faces common public issues and interests. This
fragmentation, usually artificial (Ramírez de la Cruz, 2012), occurs at the urban level
when a city expands its influence within a region or among municipalities, giving place to
the metropolitan area. Therefore, the terms of urban region, metropolitan area and
metropolis are going to be use indistinctly.
In cities that face challenges within local governments and regional development,
acquire a distinct dimension when the metropolitan issue is the result not only of the
extent of the city and the economic and social complexity intrinsic (World Bank, 2011),
but of the fragmentation nature and the multiple jurisdictions that take place in the
metropolis.
15
Thus, this artificial fragmentation can trigger the lack of coordination among the
different jurisdictions of the city, resulting in inefficient service provision, to miss the
opportunity of scale economies, tackle inequities and conflicts between authorities
(World Bank, 2011; Wilson, 2013; UN-Habitat, 2012; Ramírez de la Cruz, 2012; OECD,
2010), and so on.
Oakerson (2014) highlight the fact that is now widely accepted that metropolitan
governance can and does occur without a metropolitan government; and that it can be
effective even when a metro-area is highly “fragmented” among a large number of small
municipalities. (p. 27)
Therefore, metropolitan governance is understood as the inter-jurisdictional and the
management network comprising by the interests groups involved in public issues of
metropolitan interest (Ramírez de la Cruz, 2012).
Metropolitan governance require political clout and leadership within institutions,
recognition of the regional geographic scope of these metropolitan areas, and concerted
efforts that incentivize or mandate cooperation through established and recognized
authority (World Bank, 2011).
To improve governance in a metropolitan area is not just about reforming institutions
and finance; it is also about changing attitudes and the culture of governance. In that
order, more “inclusive” and participatory forms of governance are replacing traditional
“top-down” rule driven system with a “bottom-up” system (OECD, 2006; World Bank,
2011; UN-Habitat, 2012).
III.
Background: The Urban Governance towards the metropolitan governance
among cities in Latin America.
Local governments and cities within Latin America have experienced major changes
since the last 50 years. This is the result of external changes out of their control like the
process of globalization, technology development and complex interdependence
16
(Andrew & Goldsmith , 1998; OECD, 2006). In addition, it is a consequence of the
changes taking place within the nation-state: the privatization of state services; financial,
environmental and democratic crisis, change in the governmental relations and so on
(Wang, 2011; UN-Habitat, 2012; OECD, 2010).
The consequence of this changes faced by the local governments in the region had an
impact in the efficient provision of services and fulfilment of needs of their citizens. The
foregoing resulted in seeking new mechanisms to accomplish their mandates, which
becomes more challenging once the population is agglomerated in its territory forming
increasingly complex and dynamic cities.
Once the human settlements and its interactions configure metropolitan areas, to find
an adequate managerial and planning mechanism becomes an important task for the
local authorities.
In this order, an issue not yet resolved, at least in Latin America, is the urban governance
of the metropolitan areas, due to the ineffective management and the complex
government structures built to address this particular aspect of the urban.
In the particular case of Latin America, the phenomena can be summarized as the
current process of regulating what is real, what is dynamic. As Trotiño Vinuesca (2013)
argues, this not necessarily meant to create new management or government structures
but providing flexible instruments and cooperation/coordination frames to govern these
cities (p. 21).
Urban governance is becoming an increasingly relevant factor in the management and
development of Latin American cities (Montoya, 2013; ONU-Habitat, 2004). Specially in
metropolitan areas, due to the fact that have now become more and more important
because of their dynamic role on the Latin American region and nations economies, and
as a mean to achieve a sustainable development (ONU-Habitat, 2013) that implies a long
run vision and set the need to foresee the challenges (Troitiño Vinuesca, 2013).
17
Achieving sustainable development in a metropolis, directly relates to the result of
governance. In other words, will be a result of good governance. The diversity of urban
situations and experiences among Latin American’s cities, provide a rich laboratory for
exploring the challenges and tensions of developing new arenas and forms of
governance (Healey, 2006).
a. Urbanization in Latin America
Latin America, like the rest of the world, is facing an accelerated process of
‘metropolization’ that is triggering the creation of different supra-municipal mechanisms
that not undertake the administrative powers of the state (Montoya, 2013; ONUHabitat, 2013; Troitiño Vinuesca, 2013; OECD, 2006).
Nevertheless, these mechanisms are constrained by the form of government and the
political system on the national level. In Latin America is possible to identify among the
countries that conforms the region, two governmental and administrative systems, the
federal states and the unitarian states.
According to Wilson (2013), constitutionally, the architecture of governmental
institutions of the federal system differs significantly from the unitarian system at the
time to address the urban issue (p. 38). In the case of the federal systems, the lower
governmental levels have defined rights and relative autonomy from the central level. In
this order, the countries with large populations and/or geography can address better the
issues related to the regional diversity. On the other hand, the Unitarian system, governs
as a unit at the national level in a centralized form at the time of taking care of the needs
and challenges for the inhabitants. This kind of governmental architecture is the most
common in the world and among states with smaller populations.
Despite both systems determine how the urban governance is going to be delivered, for
instance the taxation capacity of the cities and the resource allocation from the national
to the local level differs. In addition, this reflects how both systems can be more or less
decentralized; nevertheless, the trend among the regions is decentralization despite
some differences (Wilson, 2013, p. 40).
18
Independently to which governmental and administrative system the Latin America’s
States have, according to the report on State of the Cities of the Latin America and the
Caribbean (ONU-Habitat, 2012) the region is the most urbanized in the world. The reality
is that the eighty percent of the population live in urban areas, as result of five decades
of sustained demographic growth among the cities, a period since the nineteen forties
to the late nineteen nineties better known as the Latin American “urban explosion”, now
stabilized.
This phenomenon has fostered the emergence of new cities, and consolidated the
existing ones. Currently, is possible to find in the region, around two thousand cities
with more than 20,000 inhabitants. Likewise, the megacities have been formed because
of this explosive phenomenon of urban development. Nowadays, these are eight:
Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro (with more tan 10 million of
inhabitants), Lima, Bogota, Santiago and Bello Horizonte (with a population between 5
and 10 millions), cities that stand out not only for its size, but because they are the
political and economic axes of their respective countries. The Latin American cities that
have a population between one and 5 millions citizens are about 55, meanwhile cities
with less than a million until 20,000 sums around to 1860 cities (ONU-Habitat, 2012, p.
26).
In the region, this urban expansion has fostered the urban sprawl of big cities overflow
the administrative boundaries of municipalities. In some cases, these big cities absorbed
completely other urban centers through a process of conurbation. This inter-municipal
conurbation results in the appearance of urban areas with large dimensions within
multiple municipalities.
The result of the foregoing, are the known as megacities, mega regions, conurbations,
urban corridors and metropolitan areas or regions. As ONU-Habitat (2012) has pointed
out, these are the new territorial expressions of the urban phenomena in Latin America,
these different scenarios provide big social and economic opportunities, but also
political and institutional management challenges (p. 34).
19
b. Urbanization in Mexico
The Mexican territory is divided into 2457 municipalities in 31 states (provinces) and one
Federal District -conformed by 16 delegations- that host the 3 branches of power:
Executive, Legislative and Judicial.
It is a democratic, representative and federal
republic, with three levels of government: federal, state and municipal as established in
the national constitution (H. Congreso de la Unión, 1917; UN-Habitat, 2011).
4
México has more than 112 million of inhabitants , becoming the eleventh most
populated country in the world. This demographic characteristic engaged Mexico -as the
rest of the world- during the last half of the twentieth century, into a change process of
its morphology from rural to urban (SEDESOL, 2008; González Hernández, 2013; ONUHabitat, 2013; UN-Habitat, 2011).
The urban development in Mexico can be summarized in three major periods (Cabrero
Mendoza, 2011; UN-Habitat, 2011). First, it starts from the beginning of the twentieth
century to the nineteen forties. During this time, Mexico City consolidates itself as the
prime urban agglomeration despite the fact that the urbanization process was slow and
that the territory remain predominantly rural.
The second period went from the forties to the eighties, with visibly, accelerated and
preeminent urbanization. This phenomenon was triggered, mainly due to a process of
5
industrialization through import substitution (UN-Habitat, 2011; Cabrales Barajas,
2010). As a result, Mexico City remained as the country’s most important city,
nevertheless, during the sixties and seventies, suburban and intermediate cities had
growth rates above the national average. The cities of Guadalajara and Monterrey arose
as the second and third largest cities in size, population and economic contribution
(González Hernández, 2013).
4
According to the 'Census of Population and Housing 2010' rose by the National Institute of Geography
and Statistics (for its acronym in Spanish: INEGI) in Mexico lived 112,336,538 persons.
5
Industrialization through Import Substitution (ISI) was a common practice in Latin-American countries in
the post-war period, that consisted on establishing domestic production facilities to manufacture goods,
which were formerly imported with the purpose to generate domestic demand and strengthen the
industrial development (Warner, 2009).
20
In addition, the economic progress of the country, favored the concentration of settlers
in urban areas, some of which overtake the political-administrative boundaries, leading
to initiate processes of forming new metropolitan areas.
Finally, from the eighties to nowadays, Mexico has been experiencing a modern and
diversified urbanization that includes an open and competitive economy. The
demographic dynamism is evident, due to the fact that it stops focusing on few cities
and is now distributed among intermediate and small cities.
During the nineties the megalopolis of Mexico City was conformed by the prior city and
suburban agglomerations. Urban-Industrial corridors developed along the border with
the United States and manufacturing cities grew along the territory. Ports and coastal
cities, as industrial or touristic destinations also had an important development. The
secondary cities consolidated new metropolitan areas. These set of cities conform what
is nowadays the Mexican Urban National System (SEDESOL, 2008).
The Mexican National Urban System concentrates more than 81 million Mexicans living
6
7
in 383 cities , of which 56 are considered as metropolitan areas (UN-Habitat, 2011;
SEDESOL, 2008), therefore the urban population of Mexico represents around the
72.3%, and meanwhile the population living in metropolitan areas is near to 56% of the
overall population of Mexico. This expansive urban population is a result of the natural
demographic growth and the inner migration from the rural to the urban.
6
The Mexican State established as an operative definition of ‘city’ any urban settlement with more than
15,000 inhabitants in this document (SEDESOL, 2008).
7
Refer to UN-Habitat (2011). The recall the delimitation of metropolitan areas developed by SEDESOL
(Secretary of Social Development by its acronym in Spanish), CONAPO (National Population Council by its
acronym in Spanish) and INEGI (National Institute of Geography and Statistics for its acronym in Spanish).
In which a metropolitan area, is a set constituted by 2 or more municipalities with more than 50,000
inhabitants, whose urban area, functions and activities beyond the limit of the municipality that originally
contained, incorporating as part of itself or its area of direct influence, predominantly urban municipalities
neighbors, with which it has a high degree of social and economic integration, in this definition, includes
also those municipalities for their particular characteristics are relevant to the planning and urban policies,
as well as cities that were already designated as metropolitan areas as such by any local, state or federal
authority in any instrument, of land use or planning currently valid (SEDESOL, 2008).
21
This phenomenon describes an urbanization trend that remains. Municipalities that
were traditionally rural, in short periods, suddenly have become urban territories. This
has
led
to
discontinuous,
dispersed
and
fragmented,
socioeconomic
and
environmentally unsustainable urban spaces (UN-Habitat, 2011). That requires
institutions capable to address the challenges of planning and doing investments in a
dynamic and changing territory to provide goods and services to the inhabitants.
Many of the intermediate and small cities in the urban system have roles in the
economic, political, social and cultural paths lead by the national government. At the
same time that they are trying to take advantage of the opportunities provided by the
national and the international markets, they are facing the social contradictions,
economic inequities and lags within their citizens (Cabrero Mendoza, 2011). In this
scenario, the Mexican cities are both the reflection of development and modernization
process of the country.
i.
The Metropolization Process in Mexico
During the third stage of the urbanization process in Mexico, mainly during the second
half of the twentieth century, the urban development shows clearly a metropolitan
trend, due to the population concentration and the increasing number and size of the
metropolitan areas.
The metropolization phenomenon appear around the nineteen forties with the
conurbation of the Mexico City Area. Meanwhile, in the nineteen sixties there were
twelve metropolitan areas. By the nineteen eighties 26 metropolis were identified and in
the early nineties, new 11 new cities were added to the metro list concentrating more
than the 51% of the overall Mexican population. Mexico was clearly a country with
metropolitan trends (See Table 1). Nowadays, this proportion reaches around the 56% in
59 metropolitan areas (SEGOB, 2010).
22
Table 1 Breakdown of indicator of the metropolization process, 1960-2010
Indicator
1960
1980
1990
2000
2005
2010
Metropolitan areas
Delegations and metropolitan municipalities
Federative entities
Total Population (millions)
Percentage of the national population
12
64
14
9.0
25.6
26
131
20
26.1
39.1
37
155
26
31.5
38.8
55
309
29
51.5
52.8
56
345
29
57.9
56.0
59
367
29
63.8
56.8
Source: Adapted from SEGOB, 2010. The data are not strictly comparable.
During the first decade of the 21st century, the Mexican metropolitan areas made up
about the 73% of the national GDP, located in 30 of the 32 federal states and they are
integrated by 367 municipalities (SEGOB, 2010; SEDESOL, 2008; ONU-Habitat, 2013).
Therefore, in Mexico the metropolization process triggered challenges among the local
authorities related to how the cities are being governed, a situation further complicated
by the phenomena of conurbation between municipalities or entities, and the reduced
or low developed capabilities and responsibilities of some of the governments that
preside. How the authorities govern the metropolitan cities, vary from one city to
another, due to the fact that among the 56 metropolitan areas operate different legal,
political and administrative structures and urban norms.
The above is because of the political and administrative fragmentation of the Mexican
federation, which generates a structure of incentives that motivates both elected and
designated officers to neither cooperate nor coordinate among the neighboring
jurisdictions (Ramírez de la Cruz, 2012; OECD, 2006).
Currently, in the legal framework, there is neither regulation to articulate and
coordinate the development of metropolitan areas as units, nor the recognition of the
metropolitan areas as an intermediate level for public administration among the states
and municipalities. Nevertheless, there is coordination recognition between
municipalities and states, but that is a decision taken by the local and the state
governments.
23
Thus, in Mexico, some municipalities have responded to this regulation gap, by forming
certain structures for decision-making at the regional or the inter-municipal level
(Ramírez de la Cruz, 2012).
According to Wilson (2013), Mexico has a few and moderately increasing amount of
initiatives related to the development of metropolitan cities. In addition, it has a modest
increase in the strength of municipalities, with significant presence of the
state/provincial government over the local authorities.
In addition, Wilson (2013) identifies that in Mexico8 exists regulation related to intermunicipal services and finances, with an increasing competition in local politics,
undermining effective metro-level government and with another significant factor, being
this high urban inequality.
Due to the above, a central challenge for the local and the national authorities in Mexico
is to transit from governing to governance (UN-Habitat, 2011) with special emphasis in
the metropolitan cities.
ii.
The urban planning legal framework in Mexico at the national level
At the national level on human settlement, since 1976 the Mexican Constitution
establishes in the article 27th that:
“The nation […] have to achieve a balanced development of the country and the
improvement of the life conditions of the rural and urban population; […] will
issue the necessary measures to manage the human settlements and to establish
adequate provisions, uses, reserves and location of land, water and forest, to
carry out public works and to plan and regulate the founding, conservation,
improvement and growth of the population centers; […]”
8
Wilson (2013) realized an empirical research to compare metropolitan initiatives among Argentina,
Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and USA.
24
This is the constitutional background that gives origin to the General Law on Human
Settlements first in 19769, which then was abrogated in 1993. According to the law, its
purpose is to establish basic land management norms and to determine the basis for the
social participation regarding the topic.
The publication of this national law, gives rise among the federative states to legislate
laws on human settlement or similar in accordance with the general law on this
particular subject. The purpose was to establish an adequate concurrence between the
federation, the federative states and the municipalities on the management and
regulation of cities and other human settlements in the national territory, and to
overcome the federation fragmentation regarding how to address the urban matter,
specifically at the local level.
Regarding the local level, the article 115th of the Mexican constitution establishes the
municipality as the basic territorial unit and that:
“[…] shall be responsible for the following public services: a) water supply and
sewerage, b) public lighting, c) waste management, d) markets, e) cemeteries, f)
slaughterhouses, g) streets, parks and gardens, h) public safety and transit i)
others that the local legislatures determine”.
The same article establishes that, when two or more municipalities create a continuous
sprawl:
“The Municipalities, by agreement between the councils, may coordinate and
associate10 with the aim to make more efficient the public services provision or to
improve the corresponding functions. […]”.
9
In the seventies, the increasing problem to manage the humans settlements due to the almost complete
absence of legal instruments to guide the urban development in the Mexican states, derived in an effort
to legislate the spatial planning of cities. This, together to the importance that at the international level
acquire the preparation for the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements –Habitat I- held in 1976
in Vancouver Canada –as known as Habitat I–, resulted in the General Law on Human Settlements and it
similes at the state level. (CNJU A.C., 2010).
10
The coordination attribution was recognized during a major constitutional reform of the Article 115 in in
1983, meanwhile the association capability was set in another reform in 1999 (Arellano Rios, 2013; H.
Congreso de la Unión, 1917; CNJU A.C., 2010).
25
In other words, this constitutional article empowers the municipalities to manage
certain public services, to subscribe agreements with the federation and the states and
to create cooperation and association in the shape of inter-municipal structures. This is
in accordance to the General Law on Human Settlements, empowering the
municipalities to participate in the improvement of the service provision, the
urbanization process, zoning, planning and management of their own municipal
territory.
Despite the above, the legislation does not establish a standardized mechanism to
create these agreements and institutions among the states and the municipalities. In
addition, the metropolitan aspect at the national level is neither completely addressed
nor regulated. Therefore, each state has certain autonomy at the time when deciding
how to exercise this faculty and how to legislate and to set institutions related to
metropolitan agglomerations (Gamboa Montejano & Ayala Cordeo, 2007).
Due to the above, the states have to enact the respective law to address their own
metropolitan scenarios. In that order, currently among the 32 states that are part of the
Mexican Federation, only eight have a law regarding the metropolitan areas (Silva
Rodríguez, 2012), all with a different scope and proposing similar mechanisms, however
not standardized. Nevertheless, eventually the rest of the states are going to legislate on
this issue, if considering that 30 states have at least one metropolitan area to serve, the
benchmarking to develop and harmonize the legal framework is going to be given by the
best experiences.
26
Table 2 Existing legislation on metropolitan areas in Mexican states
State
Law
Baja California Law on Metropolitan Areas
Colima
Law on Metropolitan Areas
Distrito Federal Law on Metropolitan Areas
Hidalgo
Law on Coordination for the Metropolitan Development
Jalisco
Law on Metropolitan Coordination
Morelos
Law on Coordination for the Metropolitan Development
Oaxaca
Law on Coordination for the Sustainable Metropolitan Development
Zacatecas
Law on Metropolitan Development
Source: Silva Rodríguez (2012, p. 7). Translated from the original.
27
IV.
Methodology
In order to addressing how the governance of the City of Guadalajara has evolved since
it began to be considered a Metropolitan Area, the methodology will consist on
identifying and observing a set of variables within of the city of Guadalajara across time.
This set is related to governance, urban governance and metropolitan governance.
Below, the indicators and the main sources are briefly described.

Physical aspects: The territory is associated with the spatial limits within which a
governmental institution has authority and legitimacy, and representation and
participation are structured. In the case of a metropolitan city or region, the
main characteristics are the continuity aspect of the urban sprawl and
interconnectedness between two or more territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, the
indicators are:
o (1) To identify the time when the conurbation phenomena in the current
metropolitan municipalities led to incorporate the authorities of the
adjoining municipalities in the different agencies or institutions created to
serve the metropolitan phenomenon. The sources are literature review of
laws, sectorial studies and official documents.
o
(2) The population rates of what is considered as the metropolitan area of
Guadalajara in different periods to including nowadays. This indicator
serves as a contextual indicator of the demographic pressure to public
services. The sources are the national demographic census and literature
review.

Political Regime: The political behavior and the citizen preferences can be
observed in the political regime of the authorities related to urban governance.
Thus, to describe and understand the political scenario within the city during the
different periods, the indicators are:
28
o (1) The partisan affiliation of the Jalisco’s state executive since the year
1945 to nowadays. The source is the official electoral results published by
the electoral authority of the state of Jalisco.
o (2) The partisan affiliation of the municipalities that currently are part of
the Metropolitan Area of Guadalajara, despite the time they were
considered part of the city or not. The source is the official electoral
results published by the electoral authority of the state of Jalisco.

Legal Framework: In democratic societies, authorities are constrained in their
behavior regarding certain topics by the laws enacted, hence in the case of the
urban and the metropolitan governances, it is important to identify which are
these laws or norms, with the aim to understand the main implications in the
addressed matter. Therefore, the indicators are:
o Laws or norms enacted at the national, state and local level since 1945 to
today to address the urban and metropolitan governance. The main
sources are literature review of existing studies and the laws themselves
obtained from the database of the Jalisco state congress and the federal
congress.
o The main implications resulted of the legal framework at different stages
of the metropolitan governance development. The main sources are
literature reviews of existing studies and the laws themselves obtained
from the database of the state and federal congress.
Formal Institutions: Political institutions constitute jurisdictions for public policy and for
representation. The so-called new institutionalism, addresses history as a continuous
process of institutional change, where more complex bodies of behavioral routines or
rules of the game are established, which arise to reduce the uncertainty of social
entities. Thus, in order to understand the evolution of the metropolitan governance is
necessary to identify the formal institutions created by the public sector to address this
matter. Therefore the indicators are:
29
o (1) The public entities, agencies, offices or similar created by the public
sector in relation with the urban planning and governance along time.
The main sources are literature reviews and the laws on the matter.
o (2) The main implications and activities of the public entities related to
metropolitan governance development during the different periods. The
main sources are the literature reviews of existing studies and the laws on
the matter.

Informal Institutions: The repetition of behaviors that influence social action,
even informally, is also part of the world of institutions’ study, so it is important
to understand their historical change. In addition, an inclusive city includes the
incorporation of the voice and social preferences of society in the governance
process. Therefore the indicators are:
o (1) The social movements, organized or not, that emerged within the city
on the urban topic and urban governance in the city of Guadalajara. The
main sources are literature reviews, press releases and press notes in the
media and the websites and blogs of the different social movements.
o (2) The activities and declarations held by social movements regarding
the urban topic and urban governance within the city of Guadalajara. The
main sources are press releases and press notes in the media and the
websites and blogs of the different social movements.
The observation of each of these indicators will provide the parts to build a timeline that
will allow the visualization of the evolution of both, the urban and the metropolitan
governance of the city of Guadalajara.
Then, the interactions and relations among these indicators are going to be explained
with more detail and with contextual information to describe the different expressions
of the governance process of the metropolis.
30
V.
Selected case: The Metropolitan Area of Guadalajara (MAG)
Similarly, to what happened in another seven Mexican states, the western state of
Jalisco (See Illustration 1) enacted norms and regulations to address the even more
demanding scenario of the metropolitan emergence. This has been triggered by the
demographic process of the latest decades in the state, giving as a result, the emergence
of intermediate cities along the territory (COEPO, 2013). Currently, the state has six
intermediate cities, three of which have metropolitan characteristics (SEGOB, 2010).
However, the urbanization process of the state is lead by its capital, Guadalajara.
Illustration 1 Location of the state of Jalisco in Mexico
Source: picktrail.com
Mexico’s Metropolitan Area of Guadalajara (Also known as the City of Guadalajara) is
home to around 4.5 million inhabitants (See table 3), hence being the largest city after
Mexico City megalopolis.
During the last decades, the city has experienced an accelerated demographic growth
and territorial expansion, as result of the natural growth and inner migration triggered
by a dynamic and forceful economy in the sub-region. Simultaneously, the city has been
31
experiencing the externalities and adverse effects of the urbanization process, with
environmental, social, cultural and political implications.
Table 3 Breakdown of the Metropolitan Area of Guadalajara in 2010
No.
Municipality
Population
Surface (km²)
hab/km²
1
Guadalajara
1,495,189
151.4
9,874.40
2
Zapopan
1,243,756
1,163.60
1,068.90
3
San Pedro Tlaquepaque
608,114
110.4
5,506.20
4
Tonalá
478,689
166.1
2,881.90
5
Tlajomulco de Zúñiga
416,626
714
583.5
6
El Salto
138,226
87.9
1,573.30
7
Ixtlahuacán de los Membrillos
41,060
202.4
202.9
8
Juanacatlán
13,218
138.3
95.6
4,434,878
2,734.10
1,622.10
Total Metropolitan Area of Guadalajara
Source: INEGI, 2010
The above, summarizes the challenges faced by the public administrations within the
city for the adequate public service provision of goods and services. For instance, some
of these challenges relate with mobility and public infrastructure, collection and
management of solid waste, water and sewerage, city cleanup and maintenance,
planning and zoning, public safety, among others. These challenges, according to the
Mexican national legislation, are under the jurisdiction and responsibility of the
municipalities.
Nowadays, the city is a metropolitan area constituted by eight municipalities in around
2.7 thousand square kilometers. The core municipality is Guadalajara, which gives it its
name to the city, five interior neighboring municipalities being these: El Salto,
Tlajomulco, San Pedro Tlaquepaque and Zapopan; and two exterior municipalities,
which are Ixtlahuacán de los Membrillos, and Juanacatlán (See Illustration 2).
Illustration 2 Location and municipalities of the Metropolitan Area of Guadalajara
32
Source: Translated from Wikimedia Common
Currently, in order to respond to the demands of the population, the governmental
institutions are on a transition period to shape a new institutional arrangement at the
metropolitan level to transit from a “Top-down”, fragmented planning and decision
making to a “Bottom-up”, horizontal and participative governance.
In the case of Guadalajara, this process was triggered by citizens’ demands headed by
social organizations, which combined with the political willingness and the private
support, are making of the Metropolitan Area of Guadalajara, the national spearhead in
the development of metropolitan legal framework and governance among the Mexican
cities.
However, this transition has not been exempt from challenges, shocks and
misunderstandings between the different sectors of society. Therefore, it is important to
recount the historical events that led to the ongoing transformations of public
administration and the current implications and future challenges, in order to have clear
33
elements to transfer the experience and learnings acquired in metropolitan governance,
which if successful, can be replicated either at the national level or even at the Latin
American one.
34
VI.
Bringing Metropolitan Governance to Guadalajara
“... we are in the city,
we cannot leave except to fall into another city, different yet identical,
I speak of the immense city, that daily reality made of two words: the others
and in every one of them there is an I clipped from a we, an I adrift,
I speak of the city built by the dead, inhabited by their stubborn ghosts,
ruled by their despotic memory…”
-Octavio Paz
I speak of the City
What nowadays is so called the Metropolitan Area of Guadalajara (MAG) is the result of
a continuous process of demographic growth, densification and expansion of the
urbanization over the last 60 years (Cabrales Barajas, 2010).
Aligned with the regional and the national trend, the urbanization process of
Guadalajara can be divided in three mayor periods. During these different stages, the
shape of the city, its population, the political regime, the legal framework, the
institutions and society changed. This set of layers or variables have determined the
urban and metropolitan governance of the city, from autonomous and independent
municipalities to a complex setup within a metropolis.
Below is a Time Line (See Table 4) that shows the evolution of the governance of the
Metropolitan Area of Guadalajara, being the initial milestone the year of 1945. This
shows five layers of the metropolitan aspect of the city and the variables observed
according the date in which these took place.
For the purpose of this research, the time observed is divided into 3 mayor periods. This
first period concludes around 1970, time in which the first metropolitan ring was
consolidated. The second period starts in 1970 and goes to the year 2000, during this
time the coordination and association were mechanisms created to adapt the
governance to the reality. Finally, since 2000 to nowadays, the MAG is going through a
period of transition from top-down governance to a bottom-up one, a process still in
progress.
35
Table 4 Time Line of the Urban Governance of Guadalajara
Layer
Years
Variables
State of Jalisco
Guadalajara
Zapopan
Tlaquepaque
Tonalá
Tlajomulco
El Salto
Juanacatlán
Ixtlahuacán
Territory
Population
Metropolis of
Guadalajara
Federal
Constitution
State's
Constitution
Federal Laws
1945-1950
1951-1960
1961-1970
1971-1980
1981-1990
Hegemonic Party Regime
-Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI)-
PAN
1991-2000
PAN
PAN
PAN
PAN
PAN
PAN
PAN
PAN
PAN
PAN
PAN
PRI
PRI
PRI
PRI
PRI
PAN
PAN
PAN
PRI
PRI
PAN
PAN
PRI
2001-2010
PAN
PAN
PRI
PRI
PRI
PAN
PAN
PAN
PAN
PAN
PAN
PAN
PAN
PAN
PRI
PRI
PAN
2011
PAN
PRI
PRI
PRI
PRI
PRD
PRI
PRI
PRI
2012
2013
-2nd Metropolitan Ring(35 Kms from the center)
2014
PRI
PRI
PRI
PRI
MC
PRI
PRI
PRI
-(1958) Conurbation Initiate (Zapopan y Tlaquepaque)
-Continues conurbation (Tonala)
-Continues conurbation (Tlajomulco)
-Continues conurbation (El Salto)
-Continues conurbation (Juanacatlán)
-Continues conurbation (Ixtlahuacán de los Membrillos)
-Guadalajara without conurbation
*City Core-Urban
*Neighboring Municipalities-Rurals
-1st Metropolitan Ring (15 Kms from center)
-(2008) Reform of the Articles 80 and 81 BIS
-(1964) 1 Million
-(1990) 3 Mililons
-(2000) 3.7 Millions
-4.4 Millions
-(1950) 500 thousand
-(1970) 1.5 Millions
-(1995) 3.5 Millions
-(2005) 4.1 Millions
-(1976) Reform of the Art. 27
-(1999) Reform of the Art. 115 *Asociation*
-(1983) Reform of the Art. 115 *Coordination*
2015
PRI
2016
2017
-(1976) General Law on Human Settlements (Abrogated in 1993)
-(1993) General Law on Human Settlements
-(1940) Urbanization Law
-(1977) Law of Jalisco on Human Settlements reformed in 1993
-(2011) Law on Metropolitan Coordination
-(1947-Abolished en 1977) Law for the Urban Improvement
-(1993) Law on Urban Development
-(1959) Law on Planning and Urbanization
-(2009) Urban Code of the State of Jalisco
-(1978) Decree of Conurbation for Guadalajara
-(2009) Decree of Guadalajara as a Metropolitan Area
-(1979) Regional Urban Plan
-(2010) Non Motorized Mobility Plan for Guadalajara
-(1982) Conurbated Land Management Plan of Guadalajara
-(since 1940-1947) Guadalajara’s Steering Council for Urbanization
-(1947) Planning Commission for Guadalajara
-(1959) Board for Planning and Urbanization of the State of Jalisco
-(1978) Commission for the Regional and Urban Development of Guadalajara
-(1978) SIAPA
-(1999) SIAPA become a municipal association
*(1978-1989) Policia Intermunicipal
-(1982) SISTECOZOME- Inter-municipal System of Collective Transportation for the Metropolitan Area of Guadalajara
-(1988) Metropolitan Council
-(1989)SITEUR System on Electric Urban Transportation
-(1993) Secretary of Urban and Rural Development
-(1993) Consejo Estatal de Desarollo Urbano
-(2005) 1st intent to create the Metropolitan Institute
-(2007) Legislative Comission on Metropolitan Affairs of Jalisco's Congress
-(2007) Not Consolidated Inter-municipal association of Guadalajara
-(2012) Board of Metropolitan Coordination
-(Jan 2012-Feb 2013) Temporary Commission
-(2014) Metropolitan Planing Institute
-(201¿?) Citizen Council
-(1986) Colectivo Ecologista de Jalisco A.C.
2018
36
State Laws
Plans
Codes
Decrees
Formal Institutions
Informal Institutions:
Social Movements and
Declaration
-(2005) Guadalajara 2020 A.C.
*(2005)Metropolis with a course
-(2007) GDL in a bike
-(2007) Ciudad para todos A.C.
-(2008-2011) CCSM- Citizen Council for Sustainable Mobility
-(2010) Observatorio Jalisco Cómo Vamos A.C.
-(2011) MPS- Metropolitan Platform for Sustainability
*(2012) Declaration of Guadalajara
-(2012) Citizen Agenda fot Sustainalble Mobility
-(2011) Assembly for the Metropolitan Governance
-(2012)Guadalajara of all
Source: Elaborated by the author
Political Regime
Physical Aspects: Geography and
Demography
Legal Framework
a. 1940-1976. Metropolitan Early Development
The year was 1940; it was the time when a hegemonic political party led the political
regime. The Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) ruled all over the country and was
dominant at all levels of government. The state of Jalisco, its capital, the city of
Guadalajara and the municipalities within the state were not the exception.
At that time, the city of Guadalajara consisted of a single municipality. This municipality
had a rural-urban characteristic and the neighboring municipalities were exclusively
rural with agriculture as their main activity. Nevertheless, some of the municipalities
that surround Guadalajara started their own processes of urbanization in 1940, at the
time when the state’s Law of Urbanization was enacted establishing that each
municipality was responsible for its own urbanization. However, in the case of
Guadalajara, because it is the capital of the state, the law established certain level of
primacy of the state government over the city within the planning institution, being this
the Guadalajara’s Steering Council for Urbanization.
Illustration 3 Location of the Municipality of Guadalajara
Source: Wikimedia Common
As result of the above, in 1947 the government of the state of Jalisco through the local
congress saw fit to decree a Law for the Urban Improvement. This was the first attempt
to establish a legal framework for planning the region where the city of Guadalajara is
37
located. This law recognizes two neighborin municipalities, not yet as a conurbation but
as near villages, being these Zapopan and Tlaquepaque11. On the same year, in
accordance to the law and due to the fact that this growth trend was anticipated, the
state’s government created and headed the Planning Commission for Guadalajara in
substitution of the former Steering Council. This was the first joint decision making
institution composed by representatives of the state and municipal authorities, and the
private sector through employers and labor unions and the chamber of commerce12.
By the fifties, the municipalities that were represented on the Planning Commission, due
to the natural growth and the urban planning conducted by the state government,
became a conurbation in 1958, as expected.
In 1959, a news state law, the Law on Planning and Urbanization was enacted, creating a
new institution. This was the Board for Planning and Urbanization of the State of Jalisco,
which has the functions of the former Planning Commission with new planning faculties
along the state and not only within the city of Guadalajara. Once again this institution
was headed by the government of the State of Jalisco (Arias Garcia, 1995).
The population of the city went from 500 thousand in 1950 to one million for 1964 13. By
1970, the population grew to around 1.5 million inhabitants as well as the city limits
(SEGOB, 2010).
By the year 1975, in the frame of a demographic explosion and expansion of the urban
sprawl, the Board was granted with new attributions, like zoning, land management and
the elaboration of urban plans (Arias Garcia, 1995).
11
The Law for the urban improvement of the year 1947 also recognizes as a public interest for the state,
the municipality of Chapala, because of the economic and touristic interest of the region, but not for being
a neighbor municipality of Guadalajara.
12
As established in the articles 6th and 7th of the Law for the Urban Improvement.
13
For Cabrales Barajas (2010) the city of Guadalajara lost its innocence when it reaches the million
inhabitants, as a metaphor of the “real” challenges and problems that the public administration had to
address since then due to the demographic explosion and the conurbation process.
38
In sum, this first period is characterized by: (1) The city surpasses the million inhabitants’
threshold and by the end of this period three municipalities were consolidated as part of
the core city. (2) The city experiences the first attempt to build a legal and institutional
framework that goes one-step ahead to the urbanization process that considering the
first conurbation of the city of Guadalajara. (3) The strong presence and influence of the
Jalisco’s executive state within the different government agencies created and related to
the decision-making process regarding the city’s planning. (4) Limited social participation
in the decision-making process and the urban agenda setting.
b. 1976-2000 Metropolis consolidation
During the seventies, the industrial development and the economic growth of Mexico
had an effect on the consolidation of Guadalajara as the second prime city in the
republic, only behind Mexico City that was already a consolidated metropolitan area at
the time.
The urbanization process along the country was a reality. Nevertheless by that time, the
existing national legislation on human settlements regulated already certain aspects on
urbanization but not the planning aspect of it and even less when regarding to the
metropolis.
Therefore, in 1976 the Mexican State, in preparation and prior to the United Nations
Conference on Human Settlements held in Vancouver (better known as Habitat I), it
triggered a national legislative effort to improve the national legal framework and the
relationship between the states and the federation.
As result of the above, in 1976 the article 27 of the constitution was reformed, giving
place to the first General Law on Human Settlements, which had a spillover effect in the
states. In the case of Jalisco, the Law on Humans Settlements was published in 1977.
This law had both the aim of balancing the life conditions of the inhabitants, and to
preserve the ecological balance through adequate planning and management of the
human settlements whether if rural or urban. At the same time, the primacy of the
39
Jalisco’s state government was reinforced, with the statement that it is the competent
and principal authority to plan, manage and regulate on this regard.
In 1978 and in accordance with the mentioned law, the city received from the local
congress the decree of conurbation (Arias Garcia, 1995). At that time, the Municipality
of Tonalá was also included in the decree that in addition to Guadalajara, Tlaquepaque
and Zapopan became the first metropolitan ring with 15 kilometers from the center to
the city urban limits (Cabrales Barajas, 2010).
Also in 1978, in substitution of the Board of Planning and Urbanization, the Commission
for the Regional and Urban Development of Guadalajara emerged. This institution
compared with the former one, was the first attempt to promote a participatory
process. This was due to the fact that it was conformed not only by the local authorities headed by the state government- but also by representatives of private associations like
the chamber of commerce and private property, settlers associations, labor unions,
scholars or experts like the Architects Association (H. Congreso del Estado de Jalisco,
1977). However, the premium remained in the executive power of the state.
Some of the most notorious results of this Commission were the Regional Urban Plan
delivered in 1979 and the Land Management for the Conurbated Area of Guadalajara of
1982 that had a metropolitan spirit. In addition, a relevant result was the fact that the
local authorities agreed on developing inter-municipal agencies to address the
challenges of the service provision in the city.
Nevertheless, is during this period when the government of the state became even more
dominant. In accordance with the legal framework and the willingness to create joint
organisms, the promotion and creation of organizations and institutions under the intermunicipal coordination, were headed and leaded by the state government at every time.
An example of the above is that in 1978, in order to improve the water provision and
sewerage system in the recently recognized conurbated area, an organism called SIAPA
(Inter-municipal System on Water and Sewerage by its acronym in Spanish) was created.
Arellano Ríos (2013) stated that this institution was conceived under the vertical or
40
“Top-down” logic, and induced by the state government due to the prevailing
hegemonic party system.
Another example of this “Top-down” dominance was the creation of the SISTECOZOME
(Inter-municipal System of Collective Transportation for the Metropolitan Area by its
acronym in Spanish) in 1982, with the objective to coordinate the recently subrogated
transport system of the city. In addition, in 1978 the Commission approved an attempt
to coordinate an inter-municipal police; however, this mechanism was dissolved in 1986.
Around the early nineteen-eighties was the time when the urban reality exceeded the
legal framework and the political system. Therefore, in 1983 a major constitutional
reform to the Article 115 took place, increasing the municipal faculties for tax collection
and management of their finances. In other words, these fiscal decentralization reforms
created incentives for the municipalities to remain autonomous. Nevertheless, the most
relevant change related to the urban governance was the recognition of the
coordination mechanism among the local authorities and with the state level, this with
the purpose to adequate the law to the ongoing coordination processes that if fact was
taking place.
During this decade, the urban sprawl continues an expansion process to the western
south, with a major presence in the municipality of Tlajomulco. At the end of the
decade, the population would reach the 3 millions inhabitants threshold.
In 1988, the governor of the state, issued rules and an agreement creating the
Metropolitan Council in substitution of the former Commission of 1978. This institution
apart from considering the municipalities that were part of the previous commission,
gave voice (but no vote) to the surrounding municipalities that eventually became part
of the metropolitan area. Once again, the state executive headed this institution.
The agreement that led to the Metropolitan Council, established the functions that this
new institution had. These were, among others: to order and regulate the urban growth,
to look for formulas to efficiently operate and manage public services; to look for
41
agreements to implement infrastructure and large-scale urban equipment; to coordinate
roads and transportation services; resolve the metropolitan schema of solid waste
disposal; and the assurance of public safety to the population. The outcomes of this
institution were visible a couple of decades later.
The beginning of the nineties decade was marked by major structural changes at the
national level. First, the economy dramatically changed from a close to an open market
economy, situation that eventually triggered the establishment of international
commercial agreements and treaties with North America, Europe and with developed
and developing countries in Latin America and Asia. This detonated a foreign and
domestic investment in the cities and specifically in Guadalajara on manufacturing,
technology, services and tourism sectors (Arias Garcia, 1995). Therefore, the demand on
public services increases significantly as well as the technical workforce.
Regarding the political regime, it changed from based on a hegemonic party to a
multiparty system. In the case of the state of Jalisco, the state government and all the
municipalities of the metropolitan area were the first to switch. In 1994, the vote of the
citizens was mostly for the liberal and Christian democrat: National Action Party (PAN).
The above leaded to the first democratic transition in the executive branch at state and
local level. It is noteworthy that from 1994 to 1997 was the only period on the
multiparty system, were the state’s executive branch and the metropolitan authorities
were of the same party. Since then, there has been continuous alternation both in the
state level as in the local level within the metropolis.
Is during this period the early nineties, when the civil society started to emerge organize
and independent of the political parties. These organizations launched onto the public
agenda a set of demands regarding environmental, political, economic and cultural
rights. Among their claims was the right for the city.
In addition, the legal framework was changing. The national General Law on Human
Settlement of 1976 was abrogated giving place to a new one in 1993 (Lopez Velarde
42
Vega, 2000). The spillover effect in Jalisco was the update and reform of the state’s Law
on Human Settlement of 1977 and the decree of the Law on Urban Development, which
added new rules to the state legislative framework in this regard. Actually, Arias Garcia
(1995) considered it as an urbanization code rather than a law. This is because it mixes
different scopes regulating both the urbanization process and the creation of new
agencies and institutions like the Secretary of Urban and Rural Development and the
State’s Council on Urban Development, both more focused on the urbanization process
that was taking place along the state and not only in Guadalajara.
In 1995, the population reaches 3.5 million inhabitants. It was around the year 1998,
when the urban sprawl extended to the municipality of El Salto. This municipality was
included in the Metropolitan Council, which remained leaded by the Jalisco’s state
executive. Now six municipalities were considered as metropolitan territories.
In 1999, at the national level, a constitutional reform of the article 115 recognizes the
association faculty of the municipalities, which with the coordination are until now, the
only acceptable mechanisms to address the metropolitan issue.
The above had an effect in Jalisco and in Guadalajara. The example is that agency on
water and sewerage of the metropolitan area of Guadalajara–SIAPA- became a
municipal association. This reform actually lead to a change in the decision making
structure of the agency, removing stewardship of the state’s executive, then this
position became democratically elected by the municipalities that are part of the
Administrative Board. This was the first horizontal governance phenomena within the
institutions created for supplying services to the city, which in the year 2000 served to
3.7 millions inhabitants.
In sum, was during this period that: (1) The city experienced a significant territorial and
demographic growth during the nineteen sixties and seventies, remaining in a lower
extent during the eighties and nineties. (2) During this period the legislation was aim to
strengthen the steering role of the executive’s state and the social representativeness in
the decision-making. (3) New agencies and institutions were created specifically to
address certain demands of the society, but still with the preeminence of the executive
43
branch of the state. (4) In the last years of this period, a shift on the governance process
is observed from vertical to a more horizontal, explained partially because of the newer
legal framework on human settlements, the multiparty system, the democratic
awareness and the economic openness.
c. 2000-2014 The transition to a better urban governance
The beginning of the first decade of the 2000 year was the beginning of a transition
period regarding the urban governance of the city of Guadalajara. Since 1988 and until
this point, the Metropolitan Council was the first strong metropolitan institution, due to
the fact that because since its formation, was conceived as a consultation and
coordination body, which involved the different levels of government, the federal, the
state and the municipal.
Likewise, the different agencies created to provide public services in the shape of intermunicipal agencies had a representative voice in the Metropolitan Council. However, the
governor of the state continued to serve as chairman of this institution, while the
mayors of the municipalities that formed the metropolitan area had a negotiation and
advisory role with a bargain orientation rather to a cooperative orientation.
Regarding to non-governmental participation on the Council, the norms only established
that representatives of different sectors could be required just to provide an opinion or
an advice, but not in permanent basis; therefore, there was a gap between the
government and the social expectations.
During this period, the Metropolitan Council managed to coordinate certain efforts
aimed to respond to the demands framed on the metropolitan agreement. Some of the
most notorious were the establishment of the SITEUR (System on Electric Urban
Transportation by its acronym on Spanish), this agency manages the multimodal
transportation system in the city. A system to monitor the status of air pollution of the
city was set. Establishing the first vehicular synchronization mechanisms and to
determine the investment allocations for construction of urban infrastructure, especially
major roads. However, it failed to find solutions on the waste management and disposal,
to allocate investments on high impact infrastructure projects with metropolitan
44
impacts, to update the land management plans, and to control the housing supply and
the accelerated expansion of the urban sprawl that characterizes the city from the
eighties to nowadays (Arias Garcia, 1995; Arellano Rios, 2013).
The Metropolitan Council was a space for political bargaining (Arellano Rios, 2013). It is
true that political interests drove it, still, the ultimate objective if this institution was to
address the metropolitan problems. The decisions that took place in the Metropolitan
Council had metropolitan implications, thus its spirit was correct.
Nevertheless, the reality of the urbanization process in the MAG was an accelerated and
segregated growth of the urban sprawl, with improvised planning, putting under
pressure the deficient public service provision with high impacts on the environment
and the quality of life of the citizens (Cabrales Barajas, 2010). The Metropolitan Council
was increasingly incapable to overcome these challenges due to the lack of fast
responsiveness with technical grounds and social sensitivity due to the increasingly
absence voice of the society.
It is for the above, which makes sense the fact that the main demands of organizations
of the civil society that emerged during this period, were to put the attention in the
current urban planning policy and to advocate for a new mechanisms with higher
participatory means. These organizations emerged rapidly after the year 2000, but some
had arise during the nineties and prevail as base organizations, mainly in topics related
with aspects around the mobility, the public transportation and the environment.
However, these organizations were unarticulated.
It was until the year 2005, when the metropolitan area crossed the threshold of 4.1
millions inhabitants. During this time, different organizations and initiatives of civil
society converged in an association called ‘Guadalajara2020’. This was an association
integrated by citizens, scholars and businesspersons. They describe themselves as a
nonpartisan organization with the purpose to make civic conscience aiming to build up a
better metropolitan environment, more harmonic, sustainable, ordered and enjoyable
(Guadalajara2020, 2005).
45
This association organized an event that achieved the joint participation of public,
private, citizens and nongovernmental institutions and organizations to define a
common vision for the city. This event was called ‘Metropolis with a course14’. One of
the main results of this event was the consensus on the need to develop a mechanism to
give voice and bring together the opinions, interests, points of views and capacities of
every stakeholder in the city within the governance of the metropolitan area
(Guadalajara2020, 2005).
Since then, new and better-organized civil society organizations arise. Since the
emergence of ‘Colectivo Ecologista de Jalisco’ (Jalisco's Ecologist Collective) in 1986, a
number of organizations appear in the city. Some of the most notorious are ‘GDL en Bici
(Guadalajara in a bike)’, ‘Ciudad Para Todos (City for all)’, ‘Observatorio de Calidad de
Vida Jalisco Como Vamos A.C. (Urban Observatory on Quality of Life of Jalisco)’, among
others . These new NGOs advocates for a more inclusive, enjoyable and equitable city.
Since then, dozens of social movements institutionalized or not had emerged in the city,
promoting for this common interest, which also have the support of different
organizations of the private sector15..
At that time, much of their demands and social capital were allocated in mobility and
environmental issues. From 2005 to 2007 was the time when these more notorious
NGOs consolidated their presence in the city, initiating a campaign to influence the
authorities and the inhabitants in general of the importance of their agenda. The
outputs were diverse; some had more impact than others did. Some had influence
within the municipalities’ authorities and some others had more acceptances among the
population. In sum, despite all were interested in the same issue, seems to be that they
needed to change the strategy towards became a more influential actor on the urban
governance.
14
From its name in Spanish: Metropolis con Rumbo
Silva Rodríguez (2012) carried out a mapping of organizations of the social and private sectors related to
the subject of the metropolitan coordination of the city of Guadalajara. It summed around 30 in 2012.
15
46
On the public institutions arena, in 2007, the Inter-Municipal Association of Guadalajara
was an initiative aimed to substitute the increasingly weak Metropolitan Council, and
was expected to be a more horizontal entity headed by the municipalities. However, it
was never consolidated, due to the fact that the association agreement excluded
municipalities already considered in the Metropolitan Council as part of the
metropolitan sprawl. Hence, the metropolitan governance lacked of an executive agent
on the public sector16. This situation confirmed, at least in the meantime, the
Metropolitan Council as the main actor of the urban governance in the city (Arellano
Rios, 2013).
In 2007, in this environment, is that the Jalisco’s local Congress created in 2007 the
Legislative Commission on Metropolitan Affairs, with the intention of adapting the
existing legal framework in the state, in order to recognize and incorporate the faculty
associativity and better coordination mechanisms.
Hence, in 2008 a reform of the article 80 and the addition of the article 81 Bis to the
Jalisco’s State Constitution took place. The first had as result to provide municipalities
with the faculty to celebrate coordination agreements and create collaboration and
association mechanisms among other municipalities as long as they belong to the same
metropolitan area. The second establishes the compulsory mechanisms for metropolitan
coordination. These mechanisms are: (1) a political coordination entity among the
municipal authorities and the state government; (2) one decentralized technical agency
called as a Metropolitan Planning Institute; and (3) a consultative and citizen
participation entity for monitoring and evaluation (H. Congreso del Estado de Jalisco,
1917, p. 40 Art. 80 and 81 BIS).
Despite the above, these reforms needed a secondary law to rule this system as stated
in the local constitution. This law was enacted until 2011 under the name of Law on
Metropolitan Coordination. Therefore, during this period, the gap in the legal framework
16
Refer to: Nueva asociación intermunicipal tendrá presupuesto propio. El Informador, 2010, Available in:
http://www.informador.com.mx/jalisco/2010/181807/6/nueva-asociacion-intermunicipal-tendrapresupuesto-propio.htm
47
gave place to different efforts to comply with the constitution. Thus, in 2009, the
Congress enacted a comprehensive urban code to be observed in every municipality of
the state that also specifies the municipal attributions of urban planning and public
services.
In addition, in the same year, the Congress issued a new decree for the Metropolitan
Area, recognizing the second metropolitan ring with 35 kilometers from the center to
the city limits (Cabrales Barajas, 2010) and recognizing the municipalities of Juanacatlán
and Ixtlahuacán as external municipalities of the Metropolitan Area now with 4.4 million
inhabitants.
Meanwhile this legal framework was being discussed and approved in the local
congress; also, the non-governmental arena was actively participating in the discussions
and deliberations regarding urban governance.
Therefore, looking back in 2008, fourteen NGOs created a space for discussion and social
coordination under the name ‘Citizen Council for Sustainable Mobility (CCSM)17’. This
was the first major non-governmental collective action to address the metropolis
problems, but with an emphasis on mobility. As a mean to achieve its commitment, they
conducted the realization of a Non-Motorized Mobility Plan (PMMS, 2010) for the city,
which remains as a reference document within the public agencies in the matter18.
In addition, CCSM proved to be an effective mean to influence the decision-making in
the city and the state. The most notorious example, among others, was the withdrawal
of a major infrastructure project aimed to build an urban elevated highway called “Vía
Express” promoted and adopted by the state government. The intense pressure putted
on the state government, proving the lack of sensibility to the non-motorized agenda as
17
From its name in Spanish: Consejo Ciudadano para la Movilidad Sustentable
Refer to: Presentan el plan maestro de movilidad no motorizada. El Informador. May 19th, 2010.
Available
in
http://www.informador.com.mx/jalisco/2010/202546/6/presentan-el-plan-maestro-demovilidad-urbana-no-motorizada.htm
18
48
well as the lack of consideration of the different stakeholders within the city, was
determinant19.
In 2011, the Citizen Council for Sustainable Mobility became the ‘Metropolitan Platform
for Sustainability (MPS)20’. This new space for social and citizen discussion and
coordination change its aim towards the confluence of different groups of civil society,
despite how are they integrated, their objectives, means and main topics, as long as they
have the common concern on a more sustainable, accessible, efficient, prosperous,
equitable and democratic city (PMMS, 2010).
At the same time, in 2011, a group of citizens (professionals, academics and interested
in urban planning), began a process of informal organization, motivated by constant
meetings where the main issue was to addressed the management of the city as a
metropolitan entity. This group of people called themselves as the ‘Assembly21 for the
Metropolitan Governance’22 (AMPG, 2012).
This new social movement agreed to achieve a single goal: to promote the creation of
the Metropolitan Planning Institute as stated on the Metropolitan Coordination Law.
Which incidentally was legislated shortly before by the legislative Commission on
Metropolitan Issues of the state’s congress (H. Congreso del Estado de Jalisco, 2011).
The Metropolitan Platform for Sustainability, private organizations such as COPARMEX 23
and local universities, actively joined this initiative.
It is important to remember the fact, that was during this period when for the first time
on the open and democratic system, the state government and the mayors of the
metropolitan area are not from the same party. Actually, seven of the eight
19
th
Refer to: “Desechan via express en comisión de asuntos metropolitanos.”, El Informador, October 13 ,
2010. Available in http://www.informador.com.mx/primera/2010/240955/6/desechan-via-express-encomision-de-asuntos-metropolitanos.htm
20
For its name in Spanish: Plataforma Metropolitana para la Sustentabilidad.
21
Now on as the Assembly
22
For its name in Spanish: Asamblea por la Gobernanza Metropolitana
23
Employers Confederation of the Mexican Republic for its name in Spanish. The Jalisco’s chapter is known
as the Empresarial Centre of Jalisco.
49
municipalities of the metropolitan area were from the Institutional Revolutionary Party
(PRI), meanwhile the remaining municipality was governed by the left-oriented Party of
the Democratic Revolution (PRD) and the state by the conservative National Action Party
(PAN).
The Assembly became the most influential non-governmental actor in the pursuit of a
more inclusive governance of the city. The Assembly secured the commitment from all
the political candidates that were running for the state’s governor office, to constitute
the institutional governance structures according to the Law on Metropolitan
Coordination.
In addition, during the 2011, they advocate for the installation of the mechanism of
metropolitan coordination with accordance to the law. The mayors of the metropolitan
area signed and understanding agreement with the aim to create the called Board of
Metropolitan Coordination24, but the remaining agencies of the system were not going
to be constituted until these had statutes.
Therefore, in January of 201225 a temporary commission to elaborate the organic
statutes was constituted, in which the members were also part of the Assembly for
Metropolitan Governance with the aim to provide input legitimacy and transparency to
the elaboration process.
In July 2012, the elections resulted in an alignment among the municipalities and the
state government. Once again, the same seven parties remain governed by the PRI, in
the case of the municipality governed by the PRD switch to the Citizen Movement Party
(MC), also left oriented. It is noteworthy that the mayors took possession in October
2012, meanwhile the state government switch to PRI, but taking place in March 2013.
24
Refer to: “Ediles de Guadalajara firman convenio para crear la Junta de Coordinación Metropolitana.”,
th
La Crónica, July 11 , 2011, Available inhttp://www.cronica.com.mx/notas/2011/591230.html
25
Refer to: “Firman Convenio para la creación del Instituto Metropolitano de Planeación.”, La Jornada,
th
January 26 , 2012. Available in http://www.lajornadajalisco.com.mx/2012/01/26/firman-convenio-paracreacion-del-instituto-metropolitano-de-planeacion/
50
During the period between when the recently elected mayors and the new governor
took possession, the first entity of the new governance system, the Board of
Metropolitan Coordination26 was constituted in December 201227, almost a year after
their predecessors set the agreement. For the first time, the state governor did not lead
this executive organ. The Assembly for the Metropolitan Governance was witnessing the
whole process.
In February of 2013, the temporary commission in which the Assembly had an active
involvement was disbanded after the members submitted their contributions,
recommendations and conclusions. Since then, the elaboration of the statutes was
carried out under a certain extent of hermeticism and secrecy during almost a year.
Throughout this time, the social movements and the Assembly remained expectantly to
know the progress, but at the same time, they did not carry out any activity to request
information regarding the progress.
Finally, in February 19th of 2014, the Metropolitan Coordination System’s organic statues
were published. One day later, during the fourth summit of the Board, the statutes were
approved and the Metropolitan Planning Institute was born, but not before receiving a
resounding rejection by the Assembly. This rejection was based on the fact that the
members of the Assembly considered that the statutes did not have the necessary
socialization and the approval process was non democratic and its origin was flawed28.
Nevertheless, these organic statutes were approved in accordance to the law and had
the political legitimacy required. A week later, the Board agreed on appointing the
Director of the Metropolitan Planning Institute. Once again, the Assembly rejected the
process29, considering that it was politicized and that the Director’s profile should
26
Now on as the Board
th
Refer to: “Instalan junta de coordinación metropolitana”, El Informador, December 5 , 2012, Available
in
http://www.informador.com.mx/primera/2012/422241/6/instalan-junta-de-coordinacionmetropolitana.htm
28
th
Refer to: “Por fin publican estatuto del instituto de planeación.”, El Informador, February 14 , 2014,
Available
in
http://www.informador.com.mx/jalisco/2014/513777/6/por-fin-publican-estatuto-delinstituto-de-planeacion.htm
29
Refer to: “Pese advertencia, eligen a Orozco como director de instituto metropolitano.”, Origen Noticias,
th
March 5 , 2014, Available in http://origenoticias.com/?p=18710
27
51
emerge from the members of the citizens' movements or by a consensus with the
Assembly and the Board.
The third body of the new model of urban governance has not yet been establish, and
remains pending to know how it is going to be integrated and whether it will have
sufficient social capital to be considered inclusive and representative.
In sum, for this period, the main findings are: (1) The consolidation of an extensive
metropolitan area, with an increased number of territorial entities that are unequal. (2)
New actors appear on the local scenario, especially NGOs and professional collectives
with interest on the metropolitan governance and the urban development. (3) The
consolidation of a transitional process to a new and more comprehensive legal
framework that include a new form of metropolitan governance through a tripartite
structure with a more horizontal integration, which considered more stakeholders
within the city aimed to be a ‘Bottom-Up’ decision-making system.
52
53
VII.
The new Metropolitan Urban Trinity for Guadalajara
“… I speak of the city, shepherdess of the centuries,
mother who begets us and devours us,
that invents us and forgets us.”
-Octavio Paz
I speak of the City
The status quo of the institutional transformation of the metropolitan governance of the
City of Guadalajara is a consequence of self-reinforcing governmental willingness and
social claims. This, associated with the national trend to seek for better urban
governance, resulted in a new inter-municipal Metropolitan Coordination System.
According on the Jalisco’s State Constitution (H. Congreso del Estado de Jalisco, 1917),
the Law for Metropolitan Coordination (H. Congreso del Estado de Jalisco, 2011) and the
Urban Code for the State of Jalisco (H. Congreso del Estado de Jalisco, 2012), three
instances of metropolitan coordination are constituted. These are normed and regulated
by the recently issued Organic Statutes (H. Congreso del Estado de Jalisco, 2014).
The following, according with the legal framework, presents a brief description of these
recently created institutions and their current challenges ahead.
a. Board of Metropolitan Coordination (BMC)
The Board of Metropolitan Coordination is conceived as an inter-municipal
collegial organ for political coordination. The members are the Mayors of the
municipalities that constitute the Metropolitan Area of Guadalajara and the
Governor of the state of Jalisco. Only a Mayor can be appointed as Chairman of
the Board, which is a rotating seat. In addition, the BMC has a Technical
Secretary, which at the same time has the role of Director of the Metropolitan
Planning Institute.
The objectives of the BMC are by law to set the metropolitan agenda, which is
the instrument that establishes priorities, objectives, strategies and actions for
the metropolitan area. Authorize and submit for approval of the corresponding
54
municipalities the technical planning and executive instruments contemplated in
the law. Monitor the implementation and exercise of the instruments. Represent
the interests of the city to other entities and levels of government. In addition,
the Board has the attribution to appoint the Director of the Metropolitan
Planning Institute and make an open call to integrate the Metropolitan Citizen
Council.
The Board faces challenges that if not addressed, may hinder the management of
the metropolitan area. Some of these can be summarized in to avoid partisan
disputes among the members of the BMC and to avoid the supremacy of any
member included the Governor of the state. In addition, an important challenge
is to attend the voice, not only of the institutionalized entities, but also of the
social movements for the agenda setting and the implementation of it, to
legitimate the decision-making and to enhance trust among the social
movements that are questioning it.
b. Metropolitan Planning Institute (MPI)
The Metropolitan Planning Institute is the technical organ of the metropolitan
coordination system created for the Metropolitan Area of Guadalajara. It is an
inter-municipal decentralized agency with legal personality and its own assets. It
counts with technical autonomy to exercise its attributions.
In main objective is to develop and propose to the Board the technical
instruments for the metropolitan planning, do research and studies and to
propose alternative coordination mechanisms within the organs of the system.
The MPI has a Governing Board, headed by the Director appointed by the Board
and at the same time holds the position of Technical Secretary of the Board.
Technical and administrative units form the body of the Institute.
In addition, the MPI has an Advisory Council, integrated by the municipal and
state officers that head the agencies related to planning, public services, urban
55
development, mobility, environment, among other as necessary. Hence, this is a
collegiate organ for the metropolitan planning, which has the purpose to
harmonize the metropolitan policies among the municipalities, with the state and
the nation. It is the inter-bureaucracy coordination entity of the system.
The main challenges of the MPI are to stay out of the private or partisan interests
regarding the planning instruments and to propose mechanisms of coordination
that ensures its technical independence, which will help to overcome the
criticisms made by the social and non-governmental organizations concerning
the legitimacy of its emergence and the appointment of its Director.
c. Metropolitan Citizen Council (MCC)
The Metropolitan Citizen Council is an inter-municipal advisory organ for citizen
participation. The membership is honorific, which can be held by grassroots
leaders, representatives of non-governmental and professional organizations,
scholars of universities or research centers, or private sector leaders, if located
either in the city or in the metropolitan region. Every metropolitan municipality
has no more than two seats to appoint in randomly for the MCC. The members
shall be elected on the result of a public and open call from among civil society.
The objective and scope of this entity is to be a mechanism of monitoring and
follow up of the issues regarding the metropolitan matter. Report the detected
anomalies and citizen complaints in the territory of the MAG. In addition, the
MCC can elaborate, develop, deliver, receive, discuss, organize and channel
proposals from the social sector regarding the metropolitan coordination system.
The MCC has challenges regarding the legitimate representation of the civil
society interests, preferences and expectations. Uphold the voice of their
contributions to the metropolitan system of coordination, and even in front of
the Board. Avoid polarization of views among the members, which prevent or
restrict the influence of his voice over the other entities of metropolitan
56
coordination. Get the recognition of civil society as a mean to assert its legitimate
voice and guarantor of their interests against the challenges of the metropolis.
The Metropolitan Coordination System for Guadalajara depicts that governance through
the logic of collaboration is useful for a fragmented scenario. Nevertheless, can this new
system be a model for better metropolitan governance? Perhaps for Mexican cities,
which share a common legal framework at the federal level?
Currently it is not possible to provide a satisfactory answer. However, it is possible to
develop an approximation. This is useful in order to identify risks for the new
governance system still under consolidation. One can also compare this new form with
the previous governance structure of Guadalajara.
As Wang (2011) identified, any collaborative form to address the urban governance in a
metropolitan city bears risks, which are present in the shape of collaborative costs,
balance of power relationships within the agencies and fragmented accountability (pp.
77-79).
Concerning the collaborative cost of the new model, the conception in the fragmented
governance structure is that all partners must collaborate. The new Metropolitan
Coordination System aims to mesh the different agencies, which exist within various
municipalities, so that trusting relationships are constructed. This is important in order
to bring about consensus.
With regard to the former model, relationships only formed between inter-municipal
agencies for service provision. This occurred independently from other services provided
by the municipalities, but was shown to be effective. The model separates the political,
the technical and the citizen participation agencies. However, if the model spends too
much time on meshing these components together, rather than pursuing the objectives
and finding solutions, the costs can outweigh the benefits.
57
The second element to consider is the power relationship between the agencies.
Currently, an asymmetric relationship between the municipalities (politically,
bureaucratically, economically, socially, and so forth) that form the MAG exist.
Therefore, the balance to create and sustain a reciprocal relationship should be taken
into account. In the case of the former system, the state government has too much
decision-making power in contrast to more decentralized agencies. This crowds out the
municipalities and its citizens demands or needs.
The new model thus promotes a process that is more horizontal than vertical.
Essentially, this means that municipalities are given an important governance function
and facilitates a bottom-up structure for civic involvement. Nevertheless, even with this
new model of coordination, an asymmetric relation between the municipalities still
exists. Thus, one risk with the Board of Metropolitan Coordination is that the most
powerful municipalities may benefit the most and share less of the burden. For instance,
even though the Metropolitan Citizen Council has a voice within the system, there is an
unbalanced representation of the various municipalities’ inhabitants.
Third, the fact that the new model remains under the fragmented logic with shared
coordination, accountability must be enhanced. In the former model, the clear leader
was the state government and it was held predominantly accountable. In the new
model, accountability is shared amongst actors. The risk is that good output may be
considered a result of the collaboration while bad outputs can be blamed by the selfinterest of others. This in turn erodes the shared-work relation and creates a moral
hazard. Further, if the decisions made by the Board overturn technical inputs that
include civic demands, output legitimacy will be questioned.
58
59
VIII.
Conclusions
The evolution of the Metropolitan Area of Guadalajara, provide an example of the
ongoing urbanization and metropolization process taking place in many large and
intermediate cities along Mexico and Latin America. In addition, it is a case where is
possible to identify
across time several attempts to address the challenges and
externalities generated by conurbation and neighboring among different territorial
jurisdictions.
The city was govern under a hierarchical model and currently is moving towards a more
inclusive and horizontal one. In other words, the city has been steered to better fund
metropolitan governance mechanisms through the creation of new institutions. These
have taken the shape of a Metropolitan Coordination System, separating, yet
reinforcing, the political responsibilities, the technicalities and citizen involvement.
To do so, the governments of the state of Jalisco and the municipalities of the
Metropolitan Area of Guadalajara have made significant changes in how the city is
governed and planned, at least on the norms and procedures.
In addition, governance through the logic of collaboration is useful for a fragmented
scenario. This can provide a solid estimation as to what risks may emerge with the new
system and how it differs from the previous governance structure.
The new model has its benefits and is able to properly mesh differing agencies.
However, the risk can be that this new system spends too much time figuring out ways
for agencies to collaborate, implying that it ignores its objectives and fails to find
solutions. This means that the model may be more costly than beneficial.
It is also vital to consider power relationships between agencies, for this allows us to
work around the problems of shirking, moral hazards and accountability. The horizontal
mode of governance extends accountability to a myriad of actors. This can be
problematic, for, as just mentioned, responsibility is no longer centralized and
60
accountability is more difficult to measure. Further, there is the risk that more powerful
municipalities overshadow weaker ones, and that the Board can still manage to override
technical inputs.
Also important is that territorial politics should never be restricted to the precise
description of legal texts and institutional reforms. Urban settlements are defined and
redefined not only by laws, norms and administrators, but also by social preferences,
changing identities and citizen solidarity.
In Guadalajara, the result of all the above reforms was a trinity of institutions. The
objective of this is to continue moving towards a better urban and metropolitan
governance. This system implemented by the city, aims to improve and safeguard
metropolitan governance.
However, this recently created system must first finish the ongoing process of
organizational and procedural consolidation. Secondly, it needs to be effective in order
to address the even more demanding society and the greater challenges accompanying
the continuous urbanization process. To achieve this objective, the system also needs to
consolidate its role in metropolitan governance. It must maintain the political legitimacy
given by the authorities whilst ensuring the voice of the citizen is taken into account.
This must be done consistently, coherently and within the framework of good
governance.
This experience could become a practical proposal, capable of replication in cities that
share common or similar features and contexts in both Mexico and Latin America.
However, to answer if this new system is going to bring about better governance to the
Metropolitan Area of Guadalajara, only time and further monitoring, evaluation and
research of the followed pathway will address the query.
61
Bibliography
Aguilar Villanueva, L. F. (2013). Gobierno y Administración Pública. Mexico: FCE.
Amin, A. (2002). Ethnicity and the multicultural city. Living with diversity. Report for the
Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the ESRC Cities
Initiative, 25.
AMPG. (2012). Asamblea Metropolitana por la Gobernanza. Retrieved 2014, from Blog de
actividades de la Asamblea:
http://gobernanzametropolitana.wordpress.com/category/documentos/
Andrew, C., & Goldsmith , M. (1998). From Local Government to Local Governance--and
Beyond? International Political Science Review, 101-117.
Arellano Rios, A. (2013). Las instituciones metropolitanas de Guadalajara. In R. Arias de la Mora,
Coordinación metropolitana y gestión pública municipal (p. 272). Zapopan: El Colegio de
Jalisco.
Arias Garcia, C. F. (1995). Evolución de la legislación urbanística e instrumentos de planificación
en Jalisco y Guadalajara, de 1933 a 1995 y hasta la actualidad. Retrieved 2014, from
Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas de la UNAM: http://www.juridicas.unam.mx/
Cabrales Barajas, L. F. (2010). El de atrás paga: el modelo metropolitano de Guadalajara. In O.
Urquidez, La reinvención de la metropoli: Algunas propuestas (p. 328). Zapopan: El
Colegio de Jalisco.
Cabrero Mendoza, E. (. (2011). Ciudades Mexicanas. Desafíos en Concierto. México, México: FCE,
Conaculta.
CNJU A.C. (2010). LOS ANTECEDENTES DEL DERECHO URBANÍSTICO EN MÉXICO. Retrieved 2014,
from Colegio Nacional De Jurisprudencia Urbanística A.C.:
http://www.cnjurcarmen.org.mx/articulos.html
COEPO. (2013, Febrero 28). SIEG - Nota de prensa: 03/13 . (C. E. Jalisco, Ed.) Retrieved Febrero
2014, from Sistema de Información Estadística y Geográfica de Jalisco:
http://sieg.gob.mx/contenido/PoblacionVivienda/notacoepo201303(AMG)WEB.pdf
Gamboa Montejano, C., & Ayala Cordeo, A. (2007). DERECHO METROPOLITANO: Estudio Teórico
Conceptual, de Derecho Comparado Interno, y de las Principales Iniciativas presentadas
en la materia en la pasada LIX Legislatura. México D.F.: Congreso de la Unión.
González Hernández, G. M. (2013). Discusiones sobre la ciudad. Temas de actualidad. Ciudad de
Mexico: Editorial Académica Española.
Guadalajara2020. (2005). CONCLUSIONES TEMÁTICAS FORO GUADALAJARA 2020.
(Guadalajara2020, Ed.) Retrieved 2014, from Guadalajara2020:
http://www.gdl2020.com.mx/descargas
62
Guadalajara2020. (2005). Guadalajara2020. (Guadalajara2020, Editor) Retrieved Febrero 2014,
from Quienes somos : http://www.gdl2020.com.mx/guadalajara-2020
H. Congreso de la Unión. (1917, Febrero 5). Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos
Mexicanos.
---------- (1976). Ley General de Asentamientos Humanos. Retrieved 2014, from Biblioteca
legislativa: http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/index.htm
H. Congreso del Estado de Jalisco. (1917). Constitución Política del Estado de Jalisco. Retrieved
Febrero 2014, from Biblioteca Virtual:
http://congresojal.gob.mx/BibliotecaVirtual/busquedasleyes/Listado.cfm
---------- (1947). Ley de Mejoramiento Urbano. Retrieved 2014, from Biblioteca Virtual H.
Congreso del Estado de Jalisco:
http://congresojal.gob.mx/BibliotecaVirtual/LeyesAntiguas/DesarrolloUrbano/ParaelMe
joramientoUrbano.zip
---------- (1959). Ley de Planeación y Urbanización del Estado de Jalisco. Retrieved 2014, from
Biblioteca Virtual:
http://congresoweb.congresojal.gob.mx/BibliotecaVirtual/busquedasleyes/Listado.cfm#
Leyes
---------- (1977). Ley de Asentamientos Humanos de Jalisco. Retrieved 2014, from Biblioteca
Virtual: http://congresoweb.congresojal.gob.mx/BibliotecaVirtual/LeyesEstatales.cfm
---------- (2009, Diciembre 09). Declaratoria del Area Metropolitana de Guadalajara. Retrieved
2014, from Dirección de Procesos Legislativos del H. Congreso del Estado de Jalisco:
http://transparencia.info.jalisco.gob.mx/sites/default/files/Declaratoria%20del%20Area
%20Metropolitana%20de%20Guadalajara%20integrada%20por%20los%20Municipios.pd
f
---------- (2011, Enero 13). Ley de Coordinación Metropolitana. Retrieved from Biblioteca Virtual:
http://congresojal.gob.mx/BibliotecaVirtual/LeyesEstatales.cfm
---------- (2012, September 8). Codigo Urbano del Estado de Jalisco. Retrieved January 2014, from
Biblioteca Virtual:
http://congresojal.gob.mx/BibliotecaVirtual/busquedasleyes/Listado.cfm
---------- (2014, February 19). Estatos Orgánicos de las Instancias de Coordinación Metropolitana
del Estado de Jalisco. Retrieved February 2014, from Biblioteca Virtual:
http://congresojal.gob.mx/BibliotecaVirtual/busquedasleyes/Listado.cfm
Healey, P. (2006). Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies. Great Britain: Routledge.
INEGI. (2010). Censo General de Población y Vivienda 2010. México D.F., Mexico.
Kaufmann, D., & Kraay, A. (2008, January). Governance Indicators: Where Are We, Where Should
We Be Going? The World Bank Research Observer, 23(1), 1-30.
63
Lopez Velarde Vega, O. (2000). Biblioteca Jurídica Virtual. Retrieved Febrero 2014, from Instituto
de Investigaciones Jurídicas de la UNAM: http://www.juridicas.unam.mx/
Montoya, C. M. (2013). Hacia un desarrollo estratégico del Área Metropolitana del Valle de
Aburrá: articulando los municipios. Reporte Final Encuentro de Expertos de Planificación
Metropolitana, Integración Regional y la Nueva Agenda Urbana: "Hacia una 'Red de
Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo Metropolitano" (pp. 49-51). Cali, Colombia:
ONU-Habitat.
Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
North, D. C. (1990). Instituciones, Cambio Institucional y Desempeño Económico. Fondo de
Cultura Económica.
Oakerson, J. R. (2014). The Study of Metropolitan Governance. In R. C. Feiock, Metropolitan
Governance: Conflict, Competition and Cooperation (p. 260). Georgetown, USA:
Georgetown Univ Pr.
OECD. (2006). Metropolitan Governance in OECD Countries. Paris: OECD Territorial Reviews.
---------- (2010). Trends in Urbanisation and Urban Policies in OECD Countries: What Lessons for
China? Paris: OECD Publishing.
ONU-Habitat. (2004, Agosto). Urban Governance Index. Global Urban Oservatory.
---------- (2012). Estado de las Ciudades de America Latina y el Caribe. Río de Janeiro: ONUHabitat.
---------- (2013). Reporte Final. Encuentro de Expertos en Planificación Metropolitana, Integración
Regional y la Nueva Agenda Urbana: "Hacia una 'Red de Cooperación Internacional para
el Desarrollo Metropolitano'" (p. 75). Cali, Colombia: ONU-Habitat.
Pierre, J. (2011). The Politics of Urban Governance. Londres y Nueva York: Palgrave Macmillan.
PMMS. (2010, Mayo 19). Plataforma Metropolitana para Movilidada Sustentable. Retrieved
2014, from Plan Maestro de Movildiad No Motorizada:
http://issuu.com/el_informador/docs/movilidad_no_motorizada
Ramírez de la Cruz, E. E. (2012, mayo-agosto). Instituciones y gobernanza metropolitana: una
primera aproximación al caso de México. Estudios Demográficos y Urbanos, 27(2), 491520.
SEDESOL. (2008). PROGRAMA NACIONAL DE DESARROLLO URBANO 2009-2012. Ciudad de
México DF: SEDESOL.
SEGOB. (2010). Delimitación de las zonas metropolitanas de Mexico 2010. Mexico: SEDESOL.
64
Sellers, J. M., & Hoffmann-Martinot, V. (2008). Metropolitan Governance. In U. C. Governments,
World Report on Decentralization and Local Democracy (pp. 255-279). Washington, D.C.:
World Bank.
Selznick, P. (2000). On sustaining research agendas: their moral and scientific basis. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 9(3), 277-282.
Silva Rodríguez, M. R. (2012). Informe Ejecutivo Final de estudio, diagnóstico y recomendaciones
sobre modelos de participación ciudadana para la integración del Consejo Ciudadano.
Guadalajara: Comisión por la Coordinación Metropolitana.
Troitiño Vinuesca, M. Á. (2013). Ordenación y gestión del territorio. Un necesario y urgente
cambio... In O. Urquidez, L. F. Cabrales Barajas, E. García Fernández, & N. García
Vázquez, Metropolis en Movimiento (p. 215). Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico: El Colegio de
Jalisco.
UNDP. (1997). Governance for Sustainable Human Development. United Nations. New York:
UNDP.
---------- (2009). A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance. Retrieved Noviembre 2013, from
Oslo Governance Centre:
http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/democraticgovernance/local_governance/a-users-guide-to-measuring-local-governance-/
UN-HABITAT. (2002). The World Urban Campaign. Concept Paper. Nairobi: United Nations
Human Settlements Programme, UN-HABITAT.
---------- (2004, Agosto). Urban Governance Index. Global Urban Oservatory.
---------- (2011). The State of Mexican Cities 2011. Mexico: UN-Habitat & SEDESOL.
---------- (2012). State of the World's Cities 2012/2013 Prosperity of Cities. Nairobi: UN-Habitat.
Wang, G.-X. (2011). A debate on transforming local governance in the UK: Is partnesrhip a better
way? Journal of POlitics and Law, 73-83.
Warner, B. (2009). Import Substitution and Industrialization in Latin Amercia: Experiences and
Interpretations. Latin American Research Review, 95-122.
Wikipedia. (2012, January 13). Wikipedia Commons. Retrieved from Zona metropolitana de
Guadalajara: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mapa_ZMG.svg
Wilson, R. (2013). Gobernanza Metropolitana, Perspectivas Internacionales. Reporte Final del
Encuentro de Expertos de Planificación Metropolitana, Integración Regional y la Nueva
Agenda Urbana: "Hacia una 'Red de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo
Metropolitano'" (pp. 38-42). Cali, Colombia: UN-HABITAT - ROLAC.
World Bank. (2011). International Metropolitan Governance. Typology, Case Studies and
Recommendations. New York: World Bank.
65
Appendixes
66
Appendix I
Table 5 Time Line of the Urban Governance of Guadalajara in Spanish
Capa
Año
Notas
Estado de Jalisco
Guadalajara
Zapopan
Tlaquepaque
Tonalá
Tlajomulco
El Salto
Juanacatlán
Ixtlahuacán
Territorio
1945-1950
1951-1960
1961-1970
1971-1980
1981-1990
Regimen Partido Hegemónico
-Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI)-
PAN
1991-2000
PAN
PAN
PAN
PAN
PAN
PAN
PAN
PAN
PAN
PAN
PAN
PRI
PRI
PRI
PRI
PRI
PAN
PAN
PAN
PRI
PRI
PAN
PAN
PRI
2001-2010
PAN
PAN
PRI
PRI
PRI
PAN
PAN
PAN
PAN
PAN
PAN
PAN
PAN
PAN
PRI
PRI
PAN
2011
PAN
PRI
PRI
PRI
PRI
PRD
PRI
PRI
PRI
2012
2013
-2a Corona Metropolitana (35 Km del Centro)
2014
PRI
PRI
PRI
PRI
MC
PRI
PRI
PRI
-(1958) Inicia Conurbación (Zapopan y Tlaquepaque)
-Continua conurbación (Tonalá)
-Continúa conurbación (Tlajomulco)
-Continúa conurbación (El Salto)
-Continúa conurbación (Juanacatlán)
-Continúa conurbación (Ixtlahuacán de los Membrillos)
-Guadalajara sin conurbación
*Ciudad Centro-Urbano
*Municipios Vecinos-Rurales
-1a Corona Metropolitana (15 Km del Centro)
2015
PRI
2016
2017
2018
67
Metropolis
-(1964) 1 Millon
-(1990) 3 Millones
-(2000) 3.7 Millones
-4.4 Millones
Población
-(1950) 500 mil
-(1970) 1.5 Millon
-(1995) 3.5 Millones
-(2005) 4.1 Millones
Consitución
-(1976) Reforma Art. 27
-(1999) Reforma Art. 115 *Asociación*
Federal
-(1983) Reforma Art. 115 *Coordinación*
Constitución
-(2008) Reforma Art. 80 y 81 BIS
Estatal
-(1976) Ley General de Asentamientos Humanos (Abrogada en 1993)
Leyes Federales
-(1993) Ley General de Asentamientos Humanos
-(1940) Ley de Urbanización
-(1977) Ley de Asentamientos Humanos de Jalisco reformada en 1993
-(2011) Ley de Coordinación Metropolitana
Leyes Estatales
-(1947-Derogada en 1977) Ley de mejoramiento Urbano
-(1993) Ley de Desarrollo Urbano
-(1959) Ley de Planeación y Urbanización
Códigos
-(2009) Código Urbano del Estado de Jalisco
Decretos
-(1978) Decreto de Conurbación de Guadalajara
-(2009) Decreto de Área Metropolitana de Guadalajara
-(1979) Plan Regional Urbano
Planes
-(1982) Plan de Ordenamiento Conurbado de Guadalajara
-(Since 1940-1947) Consejo Directivo de Urbanización de Guadalajara
-(1947) Comisión de Planeación
-(1959) Junta de Planeación y Urbanización
-(1978) Comisión para el Desarrollo Urbano y Regional de Guadalajara
-(1978) SIAPA
-(1999) SIAPA se convierte en Asociación
*(1978-1989) Policia Intermunicipal
*(2007-2009) Metropolicia
-(1982) Sistema de Transporte Colectivo de la Zona Metropolitana de Guadalajara
-(1988) Consejo Metropolitano
-(1989) SITEUR-Sistema de Transporte Eléctrico Urbano
-(1993) Secretaría de Desarrollo Rural y Urbano
-(1993) Consejo Estatal de Desarollo Urbano
Instituciones Formales
Instituciones Informales:
Movimientos Sociales
-(2005) 1er Intento de Constituir el Instituto Metropolitano
-(2007) Comisión de Asuntos Metropolitanos
-(2007) Asociación Intermunicipal de Guadalajara
-(2012) Junta de Coordinación Metropolitana
-(Ene 2012-Feb 2013) Comisión transitoria
-(2014) Instituto Metropolitano de Plan.
-(201¿?) Consejo Ciudadano
-(1994) Colectivo Ecologista de Jalisco A.C.
-(2005) Guadalajara 2020 A.C.
*(2005)Metropolí con Rumbo
-(2007) GDL en bici
-(2007) Ciudad para todos A.C.
-(2008-2011) Consejo Ciudadano para la Movilidad Sustentable
-(2010) Observatorio Jalisco Cómo Vamos
-(2011) Plataforma Metropolitana para la Sustentabilidad
*(2012) Declaración de Guadalajara
-(2012) Agenda Ciudadana para la Movilidad Sustentable
-(2011) Asamblea por la Gobernanza Metropolitana
-(2012)Guadalajara de todos
Source: Elaborated by the author.
Régimen Político
Aspectos físicos: Geografía y
Demografía
Marco Legal
68