sign in sign up
<<
Home , Metropolitan area

1. SPECIAL FOCUS ON METROPOLITAN AREAS Administrative organisation of metropolitan areas

Metropolitan areas are continuously changing their spatial The number of local governments per 100 000 people – a mea- organisation, reflecting the evolution of economy and soci- sure of administrative fragmentation of the metropolitan ety. These changes affect the quality of life, the demand for area – varies from around 25 in the Czech Republic to less , and the global environmental than 0.5 in Ireland and the (Figure 1.32). footprint of urbanisation, among other factors. Regional, While on average the number of local governments increases metropolitan and local governments’ decisions depend for larger metropolitan areas, the territorial organisation critically on the physical structure of the . On average, of countries has an important impact: for of similar 80% of the OECD urban population lives in the cores of met- population size the territorial fragmentation can be as differ- ropolitan areas and only 20% in the hinterlands, but in a ent as 33 local governments per 100 000 population in few European countries the share of population in urban (France) to 6 in Cheongju (Korea) and 0.9 in El Paso cores is below 50% (Figure 1.30). While most of the metro- (). politan areas have grown with contiguous urban cores, (France) and Brno (Czech Republic) are the OECD met- 30 metropolitan areas show a polycentric structure with ropolitan areas with the highest administrative fragmenta- more than one urban core. tion, 49 and 38 local governments per 100 000 inhabitants, Metropolitan areas are important units for . respectively (Figure 1.33). However, their boundaries do not generally match the administrative ones. The number of local governments inside the boundaries of a metropolitan area gives an indi- cation of possible challenges for efficient and equitable ser- vice delivery, policy co-ordination, and distribution of wealth in a city, among others. The average population size by local government in metropolitan areas ranges from 4 000 people in the Czech Republic to over 200 000 in Ireland, the United Kingdom and Mexico (Figure 1.31).

Source

OECD (2013), “Metropolitan areas”, OECD Regional Statistics Definition (database), http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/data-00531-en. The metropolitan areas are defined as the functional See Annexes A and B for data sources and country-related urban areas (FUA) with population above 500 000. metadata. The functional urban areas are defined as densely populated (urban cores) and adjacent Reference years and territorial level municipalities with high levels of towards the densely populated urban cores (hinterland). Func- 2012; metropolitan areas. tional urban areas can extend across administrative The functional urban areas have not been identified in boundaries, reflecting the economic of Australia, Iceland, Israel, New Zealand and . The FUA where people actually live and work. of Luxembourg does not appear in the figures since it has a The number of local governments in a metropolitan population below 500 000. area are identified as: ● only one local level of government, notably the low- Further information est tier. ● only general-purpose local governments, the spe- OECD (2012), Redefining “Urban”: A New Way to Measure cific function governments are excluded (for exam- Metropolitan Areas, OECD Publishing. ple school , health agencies, etc.). http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264174108-en. Annex B includes the list of local governments by Interactive graphs and maps: http://rag.oecd.org. country. The administrative fragmentation is defined as the Figure notes ratio between the number of local governments and the population in a metropolitan area. 1.30-1.33: The number of local governments refers to circa 2001. (Annex B).

46 OECD REGIONS AT A GLANCE 2013 © OECD 2013 1. SPECIAL FOCUS ON METROPOLITAN AREAS

Administrative organisation of metropolitan areas

1.30. Per cent of metropolitan area population 1.31. Average population size per local government in the urban core, 2012 in metropolitan areas, 2012 Country (No. of cities) Country (No. of cities) Korea (10) 91 Ireland (1) 247 883 Chile (3) 89 United Kingdom (15) 224 530 Mexico (33) 88 Mexico (33) 201 461 Japan (36) 87 Chile (3) 123 050 Portugal (2) 83 Japan (36) 107 910 Canada (9) 83 (1) 69 040 United States (70) 83 Sweden (3) 68 440 OECD28 (275) 80 (5) 44 989 United Kingdom (15) 79 Norway (1) 42 066 Estonia (1) 75 Greece (2) 37 859 Ireland (1) 75 Canada (9) 37 365 France (15) 75 Denmark (1) 35 711 Spain (8) 70 Poland (8) 35 587 Finland (1) 70 United States (70) 29 366 Italy (11) 68 OECD28 (275) 27 224 Greece (2) 68 Belgium (4) 24 822 Czech Republic (3) 68 Italy (11) 24 268 Sweden (3) 67 Spain (8) 21 946 Netherlands (5) 63 Korea (10) 21 294 Poland (8) 61 Slovenia (1) 20 800 Denmark (1) 60 Estonia (1) 19 129 Slovak Republic (1) 60 (24) 18 169 Hungary (1) 60 Hungary (1) 15 894 Austria (3) 56 Portugal (2) 10 707 Germany (24) 55 Austria (3) 6 274 Norway (1) 49 France (15) 6 098 Slovenia (1) 48 Switzerland (3) 5 646 Belgium (4) 46 Slovak Republic (1) 5 158 Switzerland (3) 29 Czech Republic (3) 4 115 020406080100 0 100 000 200 000 300 000 %

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932913171 1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932913190

1.32. Administrative fragmentation 1.33. Top 20 administratively fragmented of metropolitan areas, 2012 metropolitan areas, 2012 Number of local governments per 100 000 population Number of local governments per 100 000 population

Country (No. of cities) Core area Metropolitan area Czech Republic (3) 24.3 Slovak Republic (1) 18.8 Rouen (FRA) 14.3 49.1 Switzerland (3) 17.8 Brno (CZE) 0.3 38.1 France (15) 16.4 Toulouse (FRA) 5.2 34.4 Austria (3) 15.8 Portugal (2) 9.3 Strasbourg (FRA) 5.9 32.6 Hungary (1) 6.4 (FRA) 6.7 29.4 Germany (24) 5.6 Estonia (1) 4.7 Graz (AUT) 0.4 28 Slovenia (1) 5.3 Rennes (FRA) 9.1 27.5 Korea (10) 4.9 Spain (8) 4.4 Zaragoza (ESP) 0.2 24.7 Italy (11) 4.4 Geneve (CHE) 4.8 23.9 Belgium (4) 4.1 (CZE) 0.2 23.3 OECD28 (275) 3.7 United States (70) 3.4 (AUT) 0.5 22.9 2.8 Poland (8) Saint-Etienne (FRA) 11.0 22.4 Denmark (1) 2.8 Canada (9) 2.7 Wichita (USA) 9.2 21.6 Greece (2) 2.7 Basel (CHE) 0.6 21.6 Norway (1) 2.4 (FRA) 3.7 21.2 Netherlands (5) 2.2 Sweden (3) 1.5 Harrisburg (USA) 14.4 20.6 Finland (1) 1.5 Montpellier (FRA) 7.3 20.5 Japan (36) 0.9 Chile (3) 0.7 (SVK) 4.0 18.8 Mexico (33) 0.5 (FRA) 4.5 17.0 United Kingdom (15) 0.5 Ireland (1) 0.4 Madison (USA) 11.9 16.6 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0102030405060

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932913209 1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932913228

OECD REGIONS AT A GLANCE 2013 © OECD 2013 47 From: OECD Regions at a Glance 2013

Access the complete publication at: https://doi.org/10.1787/reg_glance-2013-en

Please cite this chapter as:

OECD (2013), “Administrative organisation of metropolitan areas”, in OECD Regions at a Glance 2013, OECD Publishing, .

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/reg_glance-2013-13-en

This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of OECD member countries.

This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.

You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgment of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to [email protected]. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at [email protected] or the Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC) at [email protected].