Where there is a central government with an exclusive mandate over municipalities, along with a state executive structure using the Westminster model, then the consolidation of squabbling municipalities within metropolitan boundaries becomes a distinct possibility A general model of municipal restructuring for the Canadian metropolis is more widespread than the superficially unique circumstances of each case might suggest. The thinking here is informed by Clarence Stone’s urban regime model, which helps to clarify what influences constituted the political tipping point for central government action. The paper focuses primarily on the Toronto and Montreal city-regional municipal consolidations at the end of the last century. It is argued that the decisive element in setting the stage for significant change lay in the pervasive influence of corporate Canada in generally shaping provincial political discourse. What has not previously been of much interest for investigators is the matter of direct consequences for the low politics of city-regional governance. As will be seen, they were both tangible and considerable.

This paper identifies a range of governance mechanisms to support the efficient and equitable provision of public services and improve policy coordination in metropolitan areas. It provides examples from cities in the Global North and Global South, and takes a closer look at metropolitan governance in Brazil, where the constitution makes it challenging to create formal metropolitan structures. The paper suggests that the choice of metropolitan governance structure depends upon how one weighs conflicting considerations—prioritizing efficiency, access, and accountability points to smaller local government units whereas economies of scale, externalities, and equity suggest larger governments. The review of metropolitan governance models does not point to one model that could work everywhere because national and local context matter. Nevertheless, the paper suggests that countries should develop more effective systems of governance for metropolitan areas if they want to improve service delivery, cost sharing, and decision-making. A regional structure that encompasses the entire economic region would ensure that services are delivered in a coordinated fashion across municipal boundaries and improve the process as a whole by reaping the benefits of economies of scale and internalizing externalities.

Capital Cities and Urban Sustainability examines how capital cities use their unique hub resources to develop and disseminate innovative policy solutions to promote sustainability. Cities are taking a leading role in defining a sustainable future at a time when national, state, and regional governments in several countries do not provide sufficient leadership. Capital cities stand out among cities as likely leading drivers in the effort to empower sustainable innovation as they provide a hub for connecting a variety of key constituencies. While acknowledging the successes capital cities have achieved, the international, multi-disciplinary contributors to this work discuss how there is room to do more and improve. The promotion of specific sustainability policies in crucial areas such as clean water provision, high tech innovation, public procurement contracting, and improving flood control in capital cities is examined through various global case studies. The examples range from relatively rich capital cities, such as Copenhagen, where the well-financed hub would be expected to succeed in generating sustainable policies, to poorer cities such as Phnom Penh, where such an optimistic outcome can seem less likely.

With city-regions becoming increasingly important as sources of innovation and wealth in our society, does it follow that their institutions of government will become increasingly autonomous, allowing them to become self-governing? Andrew Sancton combines his own broad knowledge of global changes with an outline and comparison of the viewpoints of prominent social scientists to argue that city regions in western liberal democracies will not and cannot be self-governing. Self-government requires a territory delineated by official boundaries, but the multiple boundaries of city-regions, unlike the clear and undisputed boundaries of provinces and states, continue to move outward due to the constant growth and expansion of urban populations and services. "The Limits of Boundaries" clearly shows that difficulties in reaching agreements on boundaries fatally limit the capacity of city-regions to be self-governing.