metadata: authors: 0: author: Duque,Juan Carlos
1: author: Lozano Gracia,Nancy
2: author: Patino,Jorge E.
3: author: Restrepo Cadavid,Paula
count: Latin America
docna: 0: docna: Institutional Fragmentation and Metropolitan
            Coordination in Latin American Cities : What Consequences
            for Productivity and Growth ?
docty: Policy Research Working Paper
subtopic: Hydrology,Economic Growth,Industrial Economics,Economic Theory & Research,Transport in Urban Areas,Transport Services,Railways Transport
teratopic: Water Resources,Industry,Macroeconomics and Economic Growth,Urban Development,Transport
abstracts: cdata!: This paper provides empirical evidence
            on the impact of institutional fragmentation and
            metropolitan coordination on urban productivity in Latin
            American cities. The use of night-time lights satellite
            imagery and high-resolution population data allow the use of
            a broader definition of metropolitan area. Thus,
            metropolitan area consists of the urban extent that results
            from the union between the formally defined metropolitan
            area and the contiguous patches of urbanized areas with more
            that 500,000 inhabitants. The initial results suggest that
            the presence of multiple local governments within
            metropolitan areas generates opposite effects on urban
            productivity. On the one hand, smaller governments tend to
            be more responsive and efficient, which increases
            productivity. But, on the other hand, multiple local
            governments face coordination costs that reduce productivity.
repnme: repnme: Institutional Fragmentation and
            Metropolitan Coordination in Latin American Cities : What
            Consequences for Productivity and Growth ?
display_title: Institutional Fragmentation and
            Metropolitan Coordination in Latin American Cities : What
            Consequences for Productivity and Growth
listing_relative_url: /research/2019/01/30751343/institutional-fragmentation-metropolitan-coordination-latin-american-cities-consequences-productivity-growth
topicv3: Economic Growth m1326241 471,Water m1326522 137,Transport m1326661 135,Metropolitan Governance m1583191 4252,Urban Rail m1583571 4233
publishtoextweb_dt: 2019-01-10T00:00:00Z
historic_topic: Water Resources,Industry,Macroeconomics and Economic Growth,Urban Development,Transport
no_of_pages: 38
author_keys: 0: author_key: 876533
1: author_key: 611031
2: author_key: 1175220
model_extractions: WPS8696 Policy Research Working Paper 8696 Institutional Fragmentation and Metropolitan Coordination in Latin American Cities What Consequences for Productivity and Growth?

_Juan C. Duque Nancy Lozano-Gracia Jorge E. Patino Paula Restrepo_ Social, Urban, Rural and Resilience Global Practice January 2019
Policy Research Working Paper 8696

# **Abstract**

This paper provides empirical evidence on the impact of institutional fragmentation and metropolitan coordination on urban productivity in Latin American cities. The use of night-time lights satellite imagery and high-resolution population data allow the use of a broader definition of metropolitan area. Thus, metropolitan area consists of the urban extent that results from the union between the formally defined metropolitan area and the contiguous patches of urbanized areas with more that 500,000 inhabitants. The initial results suggest that the presence of multiple local governments within metropolitan areas generates opposite effects on urban productivity. On the one hand, smaller governments tend to be more responsive and efficient, which increases productivity. But, on the other hand, multiple local governments face coordination costs that reduce productivity.

This paper is a product of the Social, Urban, Rural and Resilience Global Practice. It is part of a larger effort by the World Bank to provide open access to its research and make a contribution to development policy discussions around the world. Policy Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http://www.worldbank.org/research. The authors may be contacted at nlozano@worldbank.org and prestrepocadavid@worldbank.org.

_The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent._ Produced by the Research Support Team
# **Institutional Fragmentation and Metropolitan Coordination in Latin American Cities: What Consequences for Productivity and Growth?**

# **Juan C. Duque ( )**

Research in Spatial Economics (RiSE-group), Department of Economics, Universidad EAFIT, Medellin, Colombia.e-mail: jduquec1@eafit.edu.co

**Nancy Lozano-Gracia,** Social, Urban, Rural and Resilience. The World Bank. Washington, USA. e-mail: nlozano@worldbank.org

**Jorge E. Patino,** Research in Spatial Economics (RiSE-group), Department of Economics, Universidad EAFIT, Medellin, Colombia.e-mail: jpatinoq@eafit.edu.co

**Paula Restrepo ,** Social, Urban, Rural and Resilience. The World Bank. Washington, USA. e-mail: prestrepocadavid@worldbank.org

**Keywords** : productivity ꞏ institutional fragmentation ꞏ metropolitan coordination

**JEL Classification** : R11 ꞏ R14 ꞏ R50 ꞏ H70
2 J.C. Duque, N. Lozano-Gracia, J.E. Patino, P. Restrepo / LCR Flagship Report on Cities and Productivity

# **1 Introduction**

Cities are central to the productivity and growth prospects of the Latin American and Caribbean region (LCR). The vast majority of the region’s output is generated in cities – Mexican cities generate 87 percent of gross value added (Kim and Zangerling, 2016)), while Argentine cities contributed almost 80 percent of national GDP in 2007.<sup>1</sup> Yet it is unclear whether LCR’s cities are realizing their full potential – for the region’s major economies, GDP per capita levels are well below what one would predict based on their urbanization levels,<sup>2</sup> and recent policy reports by, for example, the McKinsey Global Institute have argued that cities in the region are being weighed-down by excessive diseconomies of agglomeration (Dobbs et al., 2011; Cadena et al., 2011).

According to the United Nations, Latin America and the Caribbean is the most urbanized region on the planet with 80% of its population living in cities (UN, 2012). The rapid urbanization of cities, together with the loss of density, has caused the expansion of cities beyond their administrative borders, absorbing surrounding urban areas and creating large urban extents (metropolitan areas) covering several administrative units. Since no local government has the tools to address all challenges and opportunities within a metropolitan area on its own, this form of urbanization poses new challenges to local authorities in terms of governance and integration. The way in which these large, multicity, urban extents manage aspects such as transportation, urban planning, infrastructure provision and other social and economic affairs, can make the difference between enjoying the benefits of prosperous economies of agglomeration or suffering the consequences of the diseconomies of agglomeration (Ahrend et al., 2014).

Unfortunately, there are two aspects that make it difficult for academics to make public policy recommendations for Latin American cities (LAC). First, the existing empirical evidence is mostly concentrated on metropolitan areas in developed countries; and second, there is supporting evidence in favor of the three models of metropolitan governance: The polycentrist model, which advocates

> 1 McKinsey Global Institute Cityscape database, version 1.1

> (http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/urbanization/urbanworld).

> 2 This conclusion is based on GDP per capita data from WDI and urban population share data from the UN’s World Urbanization Prospects (2014 Revision) database <u>(http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/).  One issue that arises with the urban</u> population data from the WUP database, however, is that it is based on official national definitions of urban areas, which differ from country to country.  An important question to address, therefore, is the extent to which the apparent underperformance of LCR countries is driven by this inconsistent measurement of urban population shares.  This will be addressed in another of the report’s background papers.
J.C. Duque, N. Lozano-Gracia, J.E. Patino, P. Restrepo / LCR Flagship Report on Cities and Productivity 3 for the coexistence of multiple small and coordinated local governments; the centrist model, which argues that a single governance body takes advantage of reduced transactions costs and economies of scale and scope in providing public goods and services; and the regionalist view which recognizes the benefits of local governments while highlighting the importance of coordinated governance.

This paper will examine the interaction between local governance and economic performance, looking specifically at the effects of the fragmentation of functional urban areas across administrative entities. It will empirically test whether the economic performance of LAC is affected by the degree of institutional fragmentation that they exhibit. The paper will also seek to explore which, if any, of the different forms of metropolitan coordination observed in the region leads to a reduction of the penalties/advantages imposed by institutional fragmentation on economic performance. Finally, the paper explores whether results vary across city sizes (i.e. is there a specific threshold after which fragmentation penalties appear?) and whether they depend on the level of population concentration in a city’s center or the overall spatial population distribution across administrative units (i.e., does it matter if most of the metropolitan population is concentrated in the city center?).

Understanding these links is also important from a policy perspective. Improving the understanding of the strength and direction of these links can suggest whether national governments should support or incentivize metropolitan coordination mechanisms or entities, or whether they should support the consolidation of local governments. Further, there is also the question of whether national governments should support the fragmentation of local governments, or on the contrary, whether there are specific sectors (i.e. transport, environment, local economic growth) for which it makes sense to align fragmented local governments.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides a literature review. Section 3 presents the empirical models. Section 4 describes the source data. Section 5 presents the empirical results. Finally, section 6 presents our conclusions and ideas of future work.

# **2 Literature review**

As mentioned by Nelson and Foster (1999), there exist three lines of thought when looking at the links between the governance structures of cities and their economic performance: polycentrist, centrist and regionalist. The polycentrist view is in line with Fisher ́s argument in favor of dividing a
4 J.C. Duque, N. Lozano-Gracia, J.E. Patino, P. Restrepo / LCR Flagship Report on Cities and Productivity region into sub-regions to facilitate the planning and distribution of resources (Fischer, 1980). At the city level, the polycentrist view argues that institutional fragmentation of cities is equivalent to creating additional layers of decentralization, which can, in fact, enhance economic growth. This is thought to be achieved through two mechanisms. First, decentralized authorities are better informed of local needs and, therefore, can be more efficient in the provision of public goods (Ostrom, 2010). Second, increased competition between individual local governments constrains their ability to extract monopoly rents, thereby enhancing economic efficiency and, hence, economic growth (Stansel, 2005).

The second line of thought, the centrist, argues that the presence of multiple local governments within metropolitan areas may generate coordination failures that reduce efficiency in the provision of transport infrastructure and land use planning, and therefore affect economic performance (see Ahrend et al., 2014). Fragmentation may also reduce the metropolitan area’s ease of doing business because of the additional bureaucracy (Kim et al., 2014). According to Cheshire and Gordon (1996) and Feiock (2009), the presence of administrative boundaries within the functional region generates higher transaction costs and barriers to the diffusion of growth-promoting policies. As additional evidence in favor of the centrist view, Foster (1993) found a negative association between the proportions of population unincorporated to the metropolitan area and income growth.

Finally, the regionalist view can be seen as a middle way between the polycentrist and the centrist views. The regionalist view recognizes the benefits of local governments while highlighting the importance of metropolitan coordination defined as the efforts of governmental institutions to manage and solve problems in common between municipalities. According to Grassmueck and Shields (2010), more important than the existence of multiple local governments is the way in which they interact and perceive each other. Ahrend et al. (2014) found that the presence of a governance body that coordinates municipalities halved the penalty associated with fragmentation. Foster (1993) and Nelson and Foster (1999) also found empirical support for the regionalist view as a positive association between income growth and the presence of overarching decision-making mechanisms such as multi-jurisdictional, multipurpose regional governments. Also, the existence of singlepurpose districts associated with large-scale infrastructure provision (e.g. water and wastewater systems) fosters income growth.
J.C. Duque, N. Lozano-Gracia, J.E. Patino, P. Restrepo / LCR Flagship Report on Cities and Productivity 5 Regarding the measure of institutional fragmentation and metropolitan coordination, Table 1 and Table 2 present a summary of the variables commonly used in empirical studies. In Table 1 we classify the variables using the five categories proposed by Hendrick and Shi (2015). Based on the conceptualization of fragmentation as those urban extents that spread out over several, and independent, administrative units, the most common variables are those that measure the number of local governments included in the urban extent (sometimes standardized by population or land area). Other measures focus on the degree of concentration, the dominance relationship between the central city and the periphery. As considered by the centralist view, the potential drawbacks of having institutional fragmentation can be mitigated through proper channels of metropolitan coordination. This coordination can be reached via institutions (governance), coordinated planning and infrastructure (land use planning and mobility), the presence of overlapping governments with special of general purpose (provision of public utilities), or can be the result of tight linkages between the administrative units, which intensifies human interactions, generates spatial dependence, and facilitates coordination (functional region). Table 2 classifies the potential variables according to those proposed channels of coordination.

The scarcity of empirical studies, in addition to the differences found when taking different approaches and using different economic performance indicators, suggests that there is a need to further test the empirical links between the institutional fragmentation of cities and their productivity/economic growth. This paper makes multiple contributions to the literature. First, and foremost, it will allow for testing of whether existing findings for the US and other selected OECD countries also carry-over to countries in LAC. Second, the paper will allow for the testing of the robustness of results to different institutional fragmentation and institutional coordination measures. Third, it will allow for an assessment of whether existing metropolitan coordination measures are effective in helping to produce better economic outcomes. Finally, contrary to existing literature, most of the analysis will be supported by spatial data that are readily available at the global scale and for developing countries. This will allow the paper to contribute to the development of a methodology that can be easily replicated for other regions of the world.
J.C. Duque, N. Lozano-Gracia, J.E. Patino, P. Restrepo / LCR Flagship Report on Cities and Productivity 7

**Table 2.** Measures of metropolitan coordination.

|**Representation**|**Fragmentation Index (metro level)**|**Authors**|
|---|---|---|
|I. Governance|Governance Body<br>Age of the metropolitan area<br>Number of municipalities with the same political party|Ahrend et al. (2014)<br>Nelson and Foster (1999)<br>Pradenas (2006)|
|II. Land use plan<br>and mobility|Percent of municipalities covered by integrated transport<br>systems between municipalities and central city|Kim et al. (2014)|
|III. Coordination<br>for special<br>purpose|Percent of special purpose to general purpose<br>governments<br>Number of general purpose units<br>Number of special purpose units|Hendrick and Shi (2015)<br>Goodman (1980)<br>Goodman (1980)|
|IV. Functional<br>|Percent of people working in the central city|Feria and Susino (2005)|
|region|Number of commuting from the municipalities to the<br>central city|De Esteban (2009).|
||Percent of student population that go to the central city<br>Percent resident-job in central city|Pradenas (2006)<br>Pradenas (2006)|
||Number of telephone calls per month from the<br>municipality to the central city must be four times<br>greater.|Pradenas (2006)|

# **3 The Model**

To estimate the relationship between institutional fragmentation and economic performance of cities, measured through city productivity, we follow the two-step empirical approach devised by Ahrend et al. (2014). The authors warn about the importance of accounting for individual sorting of highly skilled individuals into cities when estimating productivity differentials across urban areas (Combes et al., 2011). This is necessary in order to account for the tendency of more talented individuals to colocate in cities that may lead to confounding agglomeration benefits with productivity increases from a more skilled workforce. Thus, in the first step, we use data from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Programs – Operational Linescan System (DSMP-OLS) nighttime lights (NTL) imagery to identify urban areas as well as survey-based micro-data for the period 2000-2014 to estimate productivity differentials across urban areas, net of individual and employment characteristics observables. The estimation on this first stage is then:
8 J.C. Duque, N. Lozano-Gracia, J.E. Patino, P. Restrepo / LCR Flagship Report on Cities and Productivity where w�� is the real wage for individual _i_ at time _t_ ; L� are municipalities fixed effects; Dem�� is a vector of demographic characteristics, indexed by e, that include indicators of education; Job�� is a vector of job characteristic, indexed by b, that includes industry code and indicators of formality and job benefits; and ε is an error term. The coefficient λ� captures the productivity differential across cities, after controlling by individual and employment characteristics.

In the second stage, we use the estimated productivity differentials, λ<sup>�</sup> �, as the dependent variable in the following expression: where F is a vector of variables for institutional fragmentation; C is a vector of variables for metropolitan coordination; X is a vector of control variables, included the intercept; and ε is the error term.

# **4 Data**

# _4.1 Study region_

In this work, we analyze Latin American and Caribbean metropolitan areas with more than 500,000 people in 2010 (Figure 1).
<!-- Start of picture text --> “tne of peas<br>olombia tus,<br>gerd Brasil<br>. see . F<br>e)* ’<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> a<br>Avgentina<br>_<br>BL |<br>=KING -<br><!-- End of picture text -->
10 J.C. Duque, N. Lozano-Gracia, J.E. Patino, P. Restrepo / LCR Flagship Report on Cities and Productivity surface lights. Nighttime lights products have high correlation to human activities (Hsu et al., 2015), and have been previously used for regional and global analysis of population modeling (Anderson et al., 2010; Lo, 2001), economic performance (Cao et al., 2016; Forbes, 2013), and urbanization (Cheng et al., 2016; Pandey et al., 2013; Sutton et al., 2006; Zhang and Seto, 2011; N. Zhou et al., 2015; Zhou et al., 2015).

There are two different nighttime light products from DMSP-OLS that can be used to delineate urban areas: the stable or ordinary product (NTL), and the radiance-calibrated (NTL RC) product. We decided to use the latter, since it is aimed to correct the saturation issue in bright areas such as city centers, where the NTL might be brighter, but the recorded digital number (DN) values are truncated at 63; and the RC product gives better correlations with socioeconomic variables than the stable products (Hsu et al., 2015; Ma et al., 2014). Another known issue of the DMSP-OLS products is the “overglow” effect: dim lighting detected from light in surrounding areas of cities because of the scattering of lights in the atmosphere (Wu et al., 2014). A novel deblurring process was applied to address the issue of over glow in the radiance-calibrated products. This process involves the use of two sequential filters, a standard deconvolution and the frequency of illumination maxima, to withdraw the light from the surroundings back and restacking it vertically on its source pixels at city centers (Abrahams et al., 2016).

Deblurred DSMP-OLS RC annual composites for the years 1996, 2000 and 2010 were previously inter-calibrated and corrected for a multi-temporal analysis of urban form and city productivity in Latin America (Duque et al., 2017). In that work, the three nighttime images were used to delineate urban extents in each year for most of the Latin American and Caribbean cities that had more than 50,000 people in 2010. We used those delineated urban extents for the year 2010 to identify the metropolitan areas in the region. We consider the presence of a metropolitan area when more than one municipality or equivalent administrative unit intersects a single urban extent with more than 500,000 people in 2010. We use the administrative unit boundaries from the World Bank Latin American and the Caribbean Spatial Framework Database (Branson et al., 2016) for this purpose. Metropolitan area boundaries were obtained by aggregation of all of the administrative units that intersected the same urban extent. We verified each obtained metropolitan area with ancillary information from official sources to include those municipalities that are part of the official metropolitan area denomination but were not intersected by the urban extent. Figure 2 presents some
<!-- Start of picture text --> . nae es Bd ety ie<br>fe -. ee .<br>3 ik dh,a Sia<br>aes os :<br>guescg > erby anep s ¥ qe ou ‘<br>ene aa |) gleam<br>ye<br>i The TOM Ar<br>aan Dace<br>yee eRe A<br>Tea, Soa<br><!-- End of picture text -->

<!-- Start of picture text --> ; x , 5 ie Pag<br>Spee See ae 3S Ss a ci<br>pe Te ee<br>Teel 3 TEs ¢ oy a<br>: eeeara if So Te aa<br>fs oe % Mere,<br>Wiuee<br>y es =<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> % Race<br>. e HF a tn A ee ed %<br>= ye<br>oe le . > * 25 ekies<br>* farPong bee . @, . Sam<br>Oa “ie Kk Sn<br>OT e ,<br>ogwy &< | : 5adgee eaearotas a 3<br>Ps eR RR SY ee<br><!-- End of picture text -->

J J J . broad narrow broad J J J J narrow J
12 J.C. Duque, N. Lozano-Gracia, J.E. Patino, P. Restrepo / LCR Flagship Report on Cities and Productivity

# _4.4 Measuring institutional fragmentation and metropolitan coordination_

Based on the literature desk review and the available data, we construct a database with a series of variables to characterize the functional areas included in this study, in terms of institutional fragmentation and metropolitan coordination. We use the administrative boundaries of local governments that conform the metropolitan areas and distributed population data to calculate institutional fragmentation measures using geoprocessing tools in ArcGIS. Administrative boundaries were obtained from OpenStreetMap<sup>3</sup> (April 25<sup>th</sup> 2017) and the World Bank LAC Spatial Database (Branson et al., 2016). We projected the administrative boundaries and the urban extents to the UTM coordinate system to calculate areas in square kilometers. Population counts at the administrative unit and urban extent levels were estimated using the Global Human Settlement Layer (GHS) distributed population grids produced by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Union (Freire and Pesaresi, 2015; Pesaresi et al., 2016). These layers show population counts for each pixel at 250 meters of spatial resolution, and were produced for the years 1975, 1990, 2000 and 2015. We used the 2000 layer to account for the population in that same year, and the 2015 layer as proxy for the population in year 2010.

Metropolitan coordination variables were obtained through a number of official information sources to account for the presence of a metropolitan governance body and public services single purpose districts (see Table A1). Tables 3 and 4 present the list of available variables for institutional fragmentation and metropolitan coordination respectively. The descriptive statistics are presented in Table A2.

# _4.5 Control variables_

In order to isolate the predictive power of the variables describing urban form and to reduce omittedvariable bias, we include in the model a number of control variables including city size, locational variables, natural and urban amenities, as well as country fixed effects. A number of different data sources are used to compute control variables. Population data in gridded format for 2010 were 3 http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
J.C. Duque, N. Lozano-Gracia, J.E. Patino, P. Restrepo / LCR Flagship Report on Cities and Productivity 13 obtained from the GHS layers. Natural amenities were calculated using several GIS layers: Water bodies were used to calculate dummy variables for location near the sea (coast). We used the 250 meters resolution raster MODIS Water Mask (Carroll et al., 2009) for this purpose. Finally, we used the Lloyd’s lists of maritime and fluvial ports to account for the presence of ports. Table 5 presents the control variables.
J.C. Duque, N. Lozano-Gracia, J.E. Patino, P. Restrepo / LCR Flagship Report on Cities and Productivity 15

# **Table 5.** Control variables (vector **X** ).

|**Dimension **|**Variable**|**Description **|**Datasource for calculation **|
|---|---|---|---|
|I. Size|pop_2010|Sum of population count within the urban extent|Urban extents 2010 and population count at pixel<br>level from GHS for 2015 (GHS_POP_<br>GPW42015_GLOBE_R2015A_54009_250_v1_0)|
||density|pop_2010/ areac_ue2010_km2|Urban extents 2010 and population count at pixel<br>level from GHS for 2015 (GHS_POP_<br>GPW42015_GLOBE_R2015A_54009_250_v1_0)<br>and Urban extents 2010|
|II. Location|pop_radio300km|Inhabitants in other FUAs within a 300 km radius of a<br>city/1,000,000|Urban extents 2010 and population count at pixel<br>level from GHS for 2015 (GHS_POP_<br>GPW42015_GLOBE_R2015A_54009_250_v1_0)|
|III. Natural Amenities|coast_2010|Dummy for location at the coast|MODIS Water Mask (Carroll et al., 2009) and<br>urban extents from deblurred and corrected DMSP-<br>OLS NTL RC 2010 data.|
|VI. Urban Amenities|port|Dummy for port|Lloyd’s List (http://directories.lloydslist.com)|
16 J.C. Duque, N. Lozano-Gracia, J.E. Patino, P. Restrepo / LCR Flagship Report on Cities and Productivity

# **5 Empirical results**

Table 6 and Table 7 present the estimates of the relationship between metropolitan fragmentation/coordination and city productivity premium. The results are pretty similar in both cases. Following Ahrend et al. (2014) we report in the first column the positive and significant impact of population on productivity premium, which implies that productivity is higher in larger cities. In this regard Ahrend et al. (2014) reported estimated elasticities that range from 0.016 (for the United Kingdom) to 0.063 (for the United States). In our study, we obtained an estimated elasticity of 0.08 for LAC cities. We also report the coefficients associated to the logged population density (i.e., elasticity of productivity with respect to population) and surface (i.e., elasticity of productivity with respect to area). The results show that an increase in population, while holding the area constant, and an increase in area, while holding population density constant, both have a positive and statistically significant impact on productivity. Finally, the difference between these two coefficients indicates that an increase in area, while holding the total population constant, generates elasticities from 0.04 to 0.07. This range is 0.02 higher than the elasticity range reported by Ahrend et al. (2014), 0.02 to 0.05.

The block of indicators for institutional fragmentation is reported in column (3) of Table 6 and Table 7. The results show opposite effects from fragmentation: on the one hand, the negative and statistically significant coefficient for the logged number of administrative units indicates that the presence of multiple local governments affects economic performance because of factors such as higher transactions costs, barriers to the diffusion of growth promoting policies, and other coordination failures (which is consistent with the centralist view). But, on the other hand, the positive and statistically significant coefficient for political fragmentation ( _no_au_100th_2010_ ) indicates that the presence of multiple local governments may lead to more responsive government to public needs (Nelson and Foster, 1999). Also, “smaller [local governments] make participation easier, make citizens feel more empowered and interested in their communities, and bring neighbors together” (Oliver, 2010, 65). Finally, the negative and statistically significant coefficient for _cc_pop2010_ue_ , indicates that an increase in central city domination may affect economic performance.
J.C. Duque, N. Lozano-Gracia, J.E. Patino, P. Restrepo / LCR Flagship Report on Cities and Productivity 17 The fourth column in Table 6 and Table 7 includes the block of variables for metropolitan coordination. None of the coordination variables appears significant, which does not provide evidence in favor of the convenience of the regionalist model. It is important to note that these results are conditioned to the variables used to measure the degree of metropolitan coordination. Finally, column five shows that the above conclusions remain the same after including a series of control variables.
18 J.C. Duque, N. Lozano-Gracia, J.E. Patino, P. Restrepo / LCR Flagship Report on Cities and Productivity

# **Table 6.** Estimates of the relationship between metropolitan fragmentation/coordination and city

productivity premium (OLS).

Y = City productivity premium (λ������)

|Variable|(1)|(2)|(3)|(4)|(5)|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|ln(pop 2010)|0.087***<br>(0.0274)|||||
|ln(density)||0.070**|0.223***|0.230***|0.199***|
|||(0.0289)|(0.0591)|(0.0595)|(0.0521)|
|ln(area_km2)||0.112***|0.285***|0.281***|0.270***|
|||(0.0310)|(0.0644)|(0.0647)|(0.0577)|
|ln(no_ adminunits)|||-0.202***<br>(0.0666)|-0.198***<br>(0.0671)|-0.180***<br>(0.0589)|
|no_au_100th_2010|||0.197**|0.196**|0.168**|
||||(0.0776)|(0.0777)|(0.0701)|
|cc_pop2010_ue|||-0.369***|-0.329**|-0.214*|
||||(0.1305)|(0.1362)|(0.1222)|
|gov_body||||-0.043|-0.050|
|||||(0.0502)|(0.0451)|
|its_cov||||0.000<br>(0.0006)|0.001<br>(0.0005)|
|spd_sum||||0.036<br>(0.0272)|0.038<br>(0.0242)|
|pop_radio300km|||||0.007***<br>(0.0017)|
|coast_2010|||||0.062<br>(0.0681)|
|Port|||||-0.082<br>(0.0603)|
|Constant|0.049|-0.073|-1.974**|-2.067**|<br>-1.909***|
||(0.3812)|(0.3829)|(0.7885)|(0.7918)|(0.6988)|
|Country dummies|Y|Y|Y|Y|Y|
|Observations|73|73|73|73|73|
|Adjusted R-squared|0.630|0.641|0.692|0.692|0.768|

Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
J.C. Duque, N. Lozano-Gracia, J.E. Patino, P. Restrepo / LCR Flagship Report on Cities and Productivity 19

**Table 7.** Estimates of the relationship between metropolitan fragmentation/coordination and city

productivity premium (OLS).

Y = City productivity premium (λ�������)

|Variable|(1)|(2)|(3)|(4)|(5)|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|ln(pop 2010)|0.086***<br>(0.0305)|||||
|ln(density)||0.066**|0.229***|0.236***|0.202***|
|||(0.0322)|(0.0649)|(0.0656)|(0.0568)|
|ln(area_km2)||0.115***|0.301***|0.295***|0.276***|
|||(0.0345)|(0.0707)|(0.0713)|(0.0629)|
|ln(no_ adminunits)|||-0.220***<br>(0.0733)|-0.214***<br>(0.0739)|-0.191***<br>(0.0642)|
|no_au_100th_2010|||0.204**|0.203**|0.171**|
||||(0.0853)|(0.0856)|(0.0764)|
|cc_pop2010_ue|||-0.470***|-0.423***|-0.284**|
||||(0.1435)|(0.1501)|(0.1331)|
|gov_body||||-0.046|-0.056|
|||||(0.0553)|(0.0491)|
|its_cov||||0.000<br>(0.0007)|0.001<br>(0.0006)|
|spd_sum||||0.035<br>(0.0299)|0.036<br>(0.0263)|
|pop_radio300km|||||0.007***<br>(0.0019)|
|coast_2010|||||0.062<br>(0.0742)|
|Port|||||-0.119*<br>(0.0657)|
|Constant|-0.025|-0.164|-2.142**|-2.233**|<br>-1.995**|
||(0.4251)|(0.4264)|(0.8666)|(0.8724)|(0.7613)|
|Country dummies|Y|Y|Y|Y|Y|
|Observations|73|73|73|73|73|
|Adjusted R-squared|0.685|0.694|0.745|0.743|0.811|

Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

# **6. Conclusions**

This paper studies the impact of metropolitan fragmentation/coordination on economic performance of 73 metropolitan areas in the Latin America and Caribbean region. This contribution offers complementary evidence on the relationship between institutional fragmentation/coordination and economic performance, since most of the available literature in this topic is concentrated on developed countries.
20 J.C. Duque, N. Lozano-Gracia, J.E. Patino, P. Restrepo / LCR Flagship Report on Cities and Productivity Following the latest contributions in the literature, we implemented a two-step econometric approach in which we control for individual sorting of highly skilled individuals into cities. We also take advantage of recent developments in remote sensing science and free geospatial libraries to delineate urban extents and identify metropolitan areas in an automatic and highly standardized way, which guarantees comparability across LAC cities.

The available literature has not arrived to a definitive answer on this topic, and there is evidence in favor of the three potential models: polycentric, centralist and regionalist. Our results show that there may exist an optimal level of fragmentation in which the benefits of more responsive government are in balance with the higher costs associated to the presence of multiple local governments within the same functional area. This may indicate that in LAC cities the right model is somewhere in between the polycentric and the centralist governance structures. We found no evidence in favor of the regionalist view, since our results show that the presence of a governance body or integrated public services does not necessarily foster increased productivity.

In line with previous contributions we found that economic performance increases with city size. While evidence for OECD countries indicates that doubling city size may increase economic performance between 2% and 5% (Ahrend et al., 2014); for LAC cities, we found an impact that ranges from 4% to 7%.

# **7. References**

- Abrahams, A; Oram, C, Lozano-Gracia, N; (2018). Deblurring DSMP Nighttime Lights: A new method using Gaussian filters and frequencies of illumination. Remote Sensing of Environment. June 2018,  210, pp242-258.

- Anderson, S. J., Tuttle, B. T., Powell, R. L., & Sutton, P. C. (2010). Characterizing relationships between population density and nighttime imagery for Denver, Colorado: issues of scale and representation. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 31(21), 5733-5746.
J.C. Duque, N. Lozano-Gracia, J.E. Patino, P. Restrepo / LCR Flagship Report on Cities and Productivity 21 Ahrend, R., Farchy, E., Kaplanis, I., & Lembcke, A. C. (2014). What makes cities more productive? Evidence on the role of urban governance from five OECD countries. OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 2014(5), 0_1.

Barlow, I. M. (1991). Metropolitan Government. London; New York: Routledge.

- Blair, J. P., Staley, S. R., & Zhang, Z. (1996). The central city elasticity hypothesis: A critical appraisal of Rusk's theory of urban development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3), 345-353.

- Bollens, S. A. (1986). A political-ecological analysis of income inequality in the metropolitan area. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 22(2), 221-241.

- Branson, J., Campbell-Sutton, A., Hornby, G. M., Hornby, D. D., & Hill, C. (2016). A geospatial database for Latin America and the Caribbean (draft version 1). Geodata, University of Southampton.

- Cadena, A., Remes, J., Manyika, J., Dobbs, R., Roxburgh, C., Elstrodt, H. P., ... & Restrepo, A. (2011). Building globally competitive cities: The key to Latin American growth. McKinsey Global Institute.

- Cao, Z., Wu, Z., Kuang, Y., Huang, N., & Wang, M. (2016). Coupling an intercalibration of radiancecalibrated nighttime light images and land use/cover data for modeling and analyzing the distribution of GDP in Guangdong, China. Sustainability, 8(2), 108.

Carroll, M. L., Townshend, J. R., DiMiceli, C. M., Noojipady, P., & Sohlberg, R. A. (2009a). A new global raster water mask at 250 m resolution. International Journal of Digital Earth, 2(4), 291308.
22 J.C. Duque, N. Lozano-Gracia, J.E. Patino, P. Restrepo / LCR Flagship Report on Cities and Productivity Cheng, Y., Zhao, L., Wan, W., Li, L., Yu, T., & Gu, X. (2016). Extracting urban areas in China using DMSP/OLS nighttime light data integrated with biophysical composition information. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 26(3), 325-338.

- Cheshire, P. C., & Gordon, I. R. (1996). Territorial competition and the predictability of collective (in) action. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 20(3), 383-399.

- Combes, P. P., Duranton, G., & Gobillon, L. (2010). The identification of agglomeration economies. Journal of Economic Geography, 11(2), 253-266.

Duque, J. C., Lozano-Gracia, Patino, J. E., and Restrepo, P. 2017. Urban form and productivity: in what shape are Latin American cities? LCR Flagship Report on Cities and Productivity. World Bank (forthcoming).

De Esteban, A. (2009). Área metropolitana. Diccionario Crítico de Ciencias Sociales.

- Dobbs, R., Smit, S., Remes, J., Manyika, J., Roxburgh, C., & Restrepo, A. (2011). Urban world: Mapping the economic power of cities. McKinsey Global Institute.

Feiock, R. C. (2009). Metropolitan governance and institutional collective action. Urban Affairs Review, 44(3), 356-377.

- Feria, J. M. & Susino, J. (2005). Movilidad por razón de trabajo en Andalucía. Dimensiones básicas y organización espacial. Instituto de Estadística de Andalucía.

- Fischer, M. M. (1980). Regional taxonomy: A comparison of some hierarchic and non-hierarchic strategies. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 10(4), 503-537.

- Forbes, D. J. (2013). Multi-scale analysis of the relationship between economic statistics and DMSPOLS night light images. GIScience & remote sensing, 50(5), 483-499.
J.C. Duque, N. Lozano-Gracia, J.E. Patino, P. Restrepo / LCR Flagship Report on Cities and Productivity 23

- Foster, K. A. (1993). Exploring the links between political structure and metropolitan growth. Political Geography, 12(6), 523-547.

Freire, S., & Pesaresi, M. (2015). GHS population grid, derived from GPW4, multitemporal (1975, 1990, 2000, 2015). European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC) [Dataset] PID: http://data.europa.eu/89h/jrc-ghsl-ghs_pop_gpw4_globe_r2015a.

Goodman, J. S. (1980). The Dynamics of Urban Growth and Politics. New York: Macmillan.

Grassmueck, G., & Shields, M. (2010). Does government fragmentation enhance or hinder metropolitan economic growth?. Papers in Regional Science, 89(3), 641-657.

Hawkins, B. W. (1971). The environmental base of urban government reforms. Politics and urban policies, 44-47.

Hendrick, R., & Shi, Y. (2015). Macro-level determinants of local government interaction: How metropolitan regions in the United States compare. Urban Affairs Review, 51(3), 414-438.

- Hill, R. C. (1974). Separate and unequal: governmental inequality in the metropolis. American Political Science Review, 68(4), 1557-1568.

- Hsu, F. C., Baugh, K. E., Ghosh, T., Zhizhin, M., & Elvidge, C. D. (2015). DMSP-OLS radiance calibrated nighttime lights time series with intercalibration. Remote Sensing, 7(2), 1855-1876.

- Kim, S. J., Schumann, A., & Ahrend, R. (2014). What Governance for Metropolitan Areas? OECD Regional Development Working Papers.

- Kim, Yoonhee, and Bontje Zangerling, eds (2016). Mexico Urbanization Review: Managing Spatial Growth for Productive and Livable Cities in Mexico. Directions in Development. Washington, DC: World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-0916-3. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 IGO
24 J.C. Duque, N. Lozano-Gracia, J.E. Patino, P. Restrepo / LCR Flagship Report on Cities and Productivity

- Lo, C. P. (2001). Modeling the population of China using DMSP operational linescan system nighttime data. Photogrammetric engineering and remote sensing, 67(9), 1037-1047.

- Ma, L., Wu, J., Li, W., Peng, J., & Liu, H. (2014). Evaluating saturation correction methods for DMSP/OLS nighttime light data: A case study from China’s cities. Remote Sensing, 6(10), 98539872.

Morgan, D. R., & Mareschal, P. (1999). Central-city/suburban inequality and metropolitan political fragmentation. Urban Affairs Review, 34(4), 578-595.

Nelson, A. C., & Foster, K. A. (1999). Metropolitan governance structure and income growth. Journal of Urban Affairs, 21(3), 309-324.

Oakerson, R. J. (1987). Local public economies: Provision, production, and governance. Intergovernmental Perspective, 13(3/4), 20-25.

Oliver, J. E. (2001). Democracy in suburbia. Princeton University Press.

- Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems. Transnational Corporations Review, 2(2), 1-12.

- Pandey, B., Joshi, P. K., & Seto, K. C. (2013). Monitoring urbanization dynamics in India using DMSP/OLS night time lights and SPOT-VGT data. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 23, 49-61.

- Pesaresi, M., Ehrlich, D., Ferri, S., Florczyk, A., Freire, S., Halkia, M., ... & Syrris, V. (2016). Operating procedure for the production of the Global Human Settlement Layer from Landsat data of the epochs 1975, 1990, 2000, and 2014. Publ. Off. Eur. Union.
J.C. Duque, N. Lozano-Gracia, J.E. Patino, P. Restrepo / LCR Flagship Report on Cities and Productivity 25

- Post, S. S., & Stein, R. M. (2000). State economies, metropolitan governance, and urban-suburban economic dependence. Urban Affairs Review, 36(1), 46-60.

Pradenas, J. (2006). Delimitación Funcional Del Área Metropolitana De Santiago. Un Territorio En Busca De Gobierno. Universidad de Chile.

Quintero and Roberts (2017) Rusk, D. (1993). Cities without suburbs. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.

Savitch, H. V., Collins, D., Sanders, D., & Markham, J. P. (1993). Ties that bind: Central cities, suburbs, and the new metropolitan region. Economic Development Quarterly, 7(4), 341-357.

- Schneider, M. (1989). The competitive city: The political economy of suburbia. University of Pittsburgh Pre.

Sutton, P. C., Cova, T. J., & Elvidge, C. D. (2006). Mapping “Exurbia” in the conterminous United States using nighttime satellite imagery. Geocarto International, 21(2), 39-45.

Stansel, D. (2005). Local decentralization and local economic growth: A cross-sectional examination of US metropolitan areas. Journal of Urban Economics, 57(1), 55-72.

- UN-Habitat (2012). The State of Latin American and Caribbean Cities 2012 Towards a new urban transition. Nairobi, Kenia.

- Wu, J., Ma, L., Li, W., Peng, J., & Liu, H. (2014). Dynamics of urban density in China: Estimations based on DMSP/OLS nighttime light data. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 7(10), 4266-4275.
26 J.C. Duque, N. Lozano-Gracia, J.E. Patino, P. Restrepo / LCR Flagship Report on Cities and Productivity Zhang, Q., & Seto, K. C. (2011). Mapping urbanization dynamics at regional and global scales using multi-temporal DMSP/OLS nighttime light data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 115(9), 23202329.

Zhou, Y., Smith, S. J., Zhao, K., Imhoff, M., Thomson, A., Bond-Lamberty, B., ... & Elvidge, C. D. (2015). A global map of urban extent from nightlights. Environmental Research Letters, 10(5), 054011.

Zhou, N., Hubacek, K., & Roberts, M. (2015). Analysis of spatial patterns of urban growth across South Asia using DMSP-OLS nighttime lights data. Applied Geography, 63, 292-303.