Topic:Local Government - Cities and Municipalities
Abstract Introduction Basic Facts Concerning Metropolitan Financing Structure of Metropolitan Financing Main Obstacles to Metropolitan Financing Emergence of New Proposals For Improving Coordination Concluding Remarks Financing Metropolitan Areas in Brazil: Political, Institutional, Legal Obstacles and Emergence of New Proposals For Improving Coordination Fernando Rezende* Sol Garson** * Economist, Professor at the Brazilian School of Public Administration, Getúlio Vargas Foundation. ** Economist, Consultant in Government Finance and Budgeting. Table of Contents Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3 2. Basic Facts Concerning Metropolitan Financing……………………………………………………………………………..4 3. Structure of Metropolitan Financing………………………………………………………………………………………………7 4. Main Obstacles to Metropolitan Financing……………………………………………………………………………………..9 5. Emergence of New Proposals For Improving Coordination…………………………………………………………….12 6. Concluding Remarks………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….14 Annex BOX 1 Brazilian Federalism – Municipal Tax Revenue and the Revenue Sharing System…………………………1 Municipal and Federal District Own Revenue…………………………………………………………………………………..1 The Revenue Sharing System…………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 BOX 2 Compensation, Cooperation And Discretionary Transfers…………………………………………………………..3 Table 1 Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Cities by Size of Population……………………………………………….4 Table 2 Brasil: Municipal Revenue Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Cities – 2002……………………………..5 Table 2–A Brasil: Municipal Per Capita Revenue Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Cities – 2002…………6 Table 3 Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Cities Per Capita Tax Revenue and Transfers by Range of Population – 2002…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….7 Table 4 Brasil: Metropolitan Cities Revenue by Geografic Region – 2002……………………………………………….8 Table 4–A Brasil: Structure of Metropolitan Cities Revenue by Geografic Region – 2002………………………..9 Table 4–B Brasil: Metropolitan Cities Per Capita Revenue by Geografic Region – 2002………………………..10 Table 5 Municipal Expenditures Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Cities – 2002……………………………….11 Table 6 Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Cities Investments and Source of Funds – 2002…………………..11 References…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………12 Abstract The unstable macroeconomic scenario of the past two decades and the fiscal and monetary policies adopted to deal with this situation contributed to disrupt the Brazilian metropolitan finances. Hard budgetary constraints led to a virtual disappearance of public savings. One way to overcome this situation- through additional borrowing – was denied by the persistence of high interest rates together with tough limits for state and local government access to loans granted by federal financial institutions. Low levels of economic growth and high degrees of income inequalities did not set a favorable environment for private financing of infrastructure investments and services provision in these areas. The sole exception is transportation. Despite of some attempts to overcome financial troubles through a better coordination of public actions – new proposals for dealing with a more constrained financial situation – the fragmentation of the available resources did not allow for significant improvements to be found to date. This paper intends to provide a background to better understanding the problems of metropolitan financing in Brazil, which is necessary to deal with the obstacles still existing to improve the financing of investments and service provision. 1. Introduction The unstable macroeconomic scenario of the past two decades and the fiscal and monetary policies adopted to deal with this situation contributed to disrupt the Brazilian metropolitan finances. On the fiscal side, hard budgetary constraints led to a virtual disappearance of public savings at all levels of the Brazilian federation. On the monetary field, the persistence of high interest rates for a quite a long time, together with tough limits for state an local government access to loans granted by federal financial institutions, narrowed the way to overcome budgetary constraints through additional borrowing. At the same time, low levels of economic growth and high degrees of income inequalities did not set a favorable environment for a more active role of the private sector in financing infrastructure investments and services provision in metropolitan areas. With the sole exception of transportation, where private firms have been for long involved in servicing the population under local governments concessions, regulatory uncertainties and limitations for applying tariffs that simultaneously meet the requirements of private investors and the purchasing power of the population did not leave room for the advance of concessions and/or privatizations. These already unfavorable conditions got worse after the success of the monetary stabilization plan put into place in 1994 – The Real Plan. The end of an era of high inflation rates meant more difficulties for the management of fiscal accounts in the federation, which could no more benefit from the watering effect of high rates of inflation on the public expenditures, that helped to curb budgetary disequilibria, since tax revenues were fully indexed to inflation and public expenditures were not. Furthermore, the consolidation of a stable currency under external financial shocks asked for a tighter monetary policy and even higher interest rates that increased the burden of the public debt and cut the access of the public sector to borrowing. The disruption of the metropolitan finances severely affected 42% of the Brazilian population (71 million people) that live in 26 metropolitan regions. Low-income families in these regions had their access to basic services denied, as the fall in public investments did not allow the extension of these services to their places of residence. Living conditions suffered from the deterioration of the urban infrastructure and the quality of urban services, which also affected the competitiveness of the major metropolitan cities due to traffic congestion, pollution and criminality. Despite of some attempts to overcome financial troubles through a better coordination of public actions in the metropolitan areas, the fragmentation of the available resources did not allow for significant improvements to be found to date. Indeed, the consolidation of these attempts to improve coordination (see section 4) may be jeopardized if financial needs are not properly met. The background to better understanding the problems of metropolitan financing in Brazil is the subject of the next section. The third section presents the main obstacles to improve the financing of investments and service provision in metropolitan areas. Section four provides a description of some new proposals for dealing with a more constrained financial situation. Some concluding remarks are added in the end. 2. Basic Facts Concerning Metropolitan Financing The decentralization drive of the 1988 Constitution brought important implications for the metropolitan finances. First, the responsibility for creating and organizing metropolitan areas in Brazil was transferred from the federal government to the states. Second, changes in the fiscal federalism system implied more autonomy for state and local governments to collect taxes and to dispose of the portion of major federal taxes shared with them. Third, the municipalities were recognized as members of the federation in a similar position as the one held by the states. As of 1988 the states, by means of a complementary legislation to their own Constitution, may establish metropolitan regions1 in order to integrate the organization, planning and operation of public functions within the common interest of the state and the respective municipalities. Insofar as the states cannot interfere in municipal autonomy, the institutions created to oversee the activities of common interest have just administrative and not a political character, which means lack of legislative power. Notwithstanding, some specialists understand that the participation of municipalities in a metropolitan region, once it is created, is compulsory, since the local Administration could not refuse to cooperate in matters of common interest. (Alves,1998) Apart the controversy over the legal obligations of the new constitutional provision, the transfer to the states of the responsibility for the institution of metropolitan regions was politically inconsistent with the new status of the municipalities in the Brazilian Federation, as one basic reason for the institutionalization of metropolitan areas is the need for coordinating investments and integrating the provision of public services throughout these regions. Without effective means to enforce coordination, state governments cannot lead the efforts to avoid conflicting policies and overlapping. The lack of conditions for coordination is exacerbated in times of distinct political affiliations of the state governor and the mayor of the main metropolitan city, as both compete for greater influence in the whole region. Changes in the Brazilian fiscal federalism increased the political and administrative autonomy of the municipalities, whose share in the public sector revenues rose to 16.6% in 2002 from the 10.8% portion of the fiscal pie they had in 1988. (these percentages refer to disposable revenues and not to own tax collections). Nevertheless, this increase was not evenly distributed. Due to criteria built into the formula for distributing the municipality’s share in federal tax collections, the bigger cities got a disproportionately smaller amount. Besides, the move of major manufacturing plants out of the metropolitan nucleus, in search of better conditions in terms of land prices and proximity of the working force, also contributed to weaken the budget of the core city in the metropolitan regions. The local tax base of these cities also suffered from the dislocation of financial, information and other services, whose firms moved out from the core cities, in search of lower rates for the Tax on Services (see Box 1, Annex). 1 urban agglomerations and micro regions, also – Article 25 of the 1988 Constitution. The complexities of the Brazilian fiscal federalism explain the huge unbalance in the distribution of fiscal resources in the metropolitan areas. In general, the variables that affect the budget structure and size of the individual municipalities in a given area are the following: The size and composition of the economic base. The size of the population. Being or not a state capital The multiplicity of federal transfers and the ability to fulfill the conditions attached to them. Putting it in simpler terms, municipalities with an important manufacturing sector and a small population have per capita budgets several times higher than the regional average, due to its share in states’ tax collections. At the other extreme, municipalities with very large population and a fragile economy, usually functioning as a dormitory city, are severely under-financed, having per capita budgets well below the regional average. The city of Nova Iguaçu, with 780 thousand inhabitants, in the metropolitan region of Rio de Janeiro, has a total per capita revenue of R$ 373.00, only. Medium size cities may benefit from federal redistributive transfers, but are rarely able to collect enough taxes to form a reasonable budget (see Table 3). The case of the state capital city in the region varies according to its importance. The major metropolitan cities can use local taxes to compensate for their small participation in shared revenues (Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo in the Southeast), but the same is not true for other capital cities in less developed regions (Belém, in the North and Fortaleza, in the Northeast). In reality, though, the different conditions attached for receiving federal money outside the revenue sharing system makes the situation of municipal finances much more complex. The money transferred outside the revenue sharing system can be included in three categories: compensation, intergovernmental cooperation and discretionary transfers. The first refers to compensation for exemption granted to exports from the state tax and for the exploitation of natural resources (see Box 2 for details). Health and elementary education are the main areas in which there are specific norms for intergovernmental cooperation in financing. In elementary education, a special fund was created to guarantee a minimal amount of spending per student enrolled in public schools. In health, transfers from the federal government are related to the population and to the nature of services provided. In both cases, therefore, the money is allocated according to the spatial concentration of the education and health networks inside the metropolitan areas. The state capital and richer municipalities in the area are thus likely to get more money from these transfers, but they are usually required to provide services for the population of neighboring cities, specially the more sophisticated (and thus more expensive) health services. Discretionary transfers from the federal and state budgets can also help the financing of other social policies carried out at the local level – childhood assistance and environment protection among them – as well as small-scale investments in urban projects selected by local authorities. Insofar as these transfers depend not only on the effort of the states’ representatives in the national parliament to include provisions on the annual budget, but also on the control of the federal Treasury over the disbursement of these resources, they are uncertain and unstable, besides being political sensitive. The variety of sources and the distinct criteria that inform the transfer of federal money to the municipalities contributes to the mismatch of resources and responsibilities in the metropolitan areas. Two additional problems are the degree of sensibility to the economic cycle and the low degree of freedom with respect to the allocation of the municipal budgets. At the same time that a slow down in the level of economic activity increases unemployment and puts more pressure on the local governments, its effect on federal revenues and on the ability of raising funds from municipal taxes reduce the financial capabilities of the cities. On the expenditure side of the budget, earmarking of revenues and the legal obligations to service the debt leave a small room for adjusting the public spending according to changing priorities within the region. The most important recent event from the viewpoint of the management of the public finances in Brazil was the advent of the Fiscal Responsibility Law (LRF). Enacted in the year 2000, this law is recognized as an important advance in the direction of consolidating the adjustment of the fiscal accounts in the federation. Basic provisions – covering public planning, transparency, control and accountability – apply to the Executive branch across the federation, including public enterprises dependent on budgetary funds, special agencies and public foundations, as well as the Legislative and the Judiciary. Some of its major statements relate to: consistency of the annual budget and the multiyear plan (four years) and integration of budgetary and financial management; definition of permanent expenditures, for which stable resources must be put in place to avoid structural deficits; prohibition for new investments to be created without provisions for covering operating costs; compensation for new long term commitments of budgetary resources by an equal reduction of previous assignments or by an unforeseen revenue increase; sequestration mechanisms: during the fiscal year, if it’s envisaged either an unexpected shortage of revenue or an additional need to spend, assigned budgetary resources have to be canceled, to assure the achievement of fiscal targets set for the year; limitation of personnel expenditures to 60% of current revenues; adoption of a broad definition for the public debt to include operations such as short-term loans for anticipating the yearly revenues. Debt renegotiation among different levels of government is prohibited to eliminate prospects for recurrent bailouts. According to the federal Constitution, the Senate establishes the limits and conditions for the public debt. Under present conditions, total municipal debt cannot exceed 1,2 times current revenues. Debt servicing costs and amortization payments as well as new debt incurred during any fiscal year are also subjected to limits. The LRF is an important landmark in the effort to introduce fiscal discipline at all levels of the Brazilian public administration. Even though it may create additional constraints for the metropolitan finances in the short run, in the medium and long run it shall contribute for the restoration of public savings and to open up new possibilities for increasing the participation of the private sector in the financing and provision of urban services. 3. Structure of Metropolitan Financing Data compiled by the National Treasury Secretariat – STN – of the Brazilian Ministry of Finance provide empirical evidence on the main sources of funds for metropolitan regions and on the differences among these municipalities, specially the core cities of metropolitan areas, and other municipalities as a whole2. As said before, the municipal budget structure is affected by the size of the city’s population. Circa 50% of the 66.5 million people living in metropolitan cities reside in 11 core cities bigger than one million people (see Table 1). Taking all metropolitan cities that have more than 500 thousand inhabitants, the degree of concentration of the metropolitan population goes up to two thirds. This concentration tends to grow as municipalities around the core cities experimented higher rates of population increase in recent times. As we shall see, the latter are those less favored by federal transfers. Metropolitan cities respond for 50% of total municipal revenue. Particular features regarding the revenue composition of metropolitan cities – core cities and non-core – and of non-metropolitan municipalities are stressed below (see Table 2): Core cities of metropolitan regions rely most on their own taxes, mainly the Tax on Services – ISS. They also receive a significant amount from shared taxes, especially from their share in ICMS, the State value-added tax collected within their territorial limits. Despite concentrating two thirds of the metropolitan population, the money they receive from other transfers is less significant comparing with non-core metropolitan cities and other municipalities3. It’s worth noting the small amount of credit operations (R$ 538 million included in Other Revenues4) and of discretionary capital transfers, those going mainly to non-metropolitan cities. Own revenues are much lower in non-core metropolitan cities. First, the ISS applies to a smaller tax base (some cities attract service companies by reducing to a minimum the tax rate). Second, peripheral cities host large numbers of poor people living in not registered sub-standard houses. Less valued buildings and informal transactions explain the lower collection of the Real Estate Conveyance Tax – ITBI. All together these facts lead to a per capita own tax collection much smaller than that of the core cities (see Table 2-A). Although fees are relatively more important than in core cities, they are negligible in absolute terms, besides being sometimes subjected to constitutional supported ban. The pre-eminence of the share in ICMS in total revenues of non-core municipalities reflects the fact that medium size cities peripheral to major centers are more likely to host industries and have a large range of commercial activities. Their share in federal taxes, through the Municipalities Participation Fund – FPM – is also significant, even though the criteria applied for distributing the FPM is biased towards less populated municipalities (which is the reason for non-metropolitan cities receiving twice the amount transferred to non-core metropolitan ones). As a whole, the FPM is less important for these municipalities than the transfers earmarked to education and health, which are directly related to population and services provided. Capital grants are important to investments given the difficulties to assess credit but, being discretionary, these transfers are inadequate for financing long term big projects in urban infrastructure. For non-metropolitan cities, own revenues account for only 13,3% of their available revenues. Generally smaller than the previous ones, they rely strongly on transfers, not only to provide services but also to invest. The FPM is their major revenue source. Share in ICMS, which ranks second in importance, benefits from a preferential treatment of non-metropolitan municipalities in the state legislations that controls one fourth of the ICMS allocated to the municipalities (see Box 1). The extent of the responsibility of local governments for primary education explains the large sum they receive under the Fundef. Capital grants are extremely significant for municipalities having less than 50 thousand inhabitants (90,0 % of the Brazilian cities). Per capita transfers to small metropolitan cities (inside and outside the revenue sharing system) may be 33 times higher than the amount of taxes and fees they collect. As an average, the same ratio is 1.4 for core and 3.6 for non-core cities, respectively, going up to 8.6 for non-metropolitan municipalities. As a result, total per capita revenues of medium size and some big metropolitan cities may be 40% below the per capita revenues of non-metropolitan cities with less than 5 thousand inhabitants5. 2 As it may affect financial administration, it should be noted that the fiscal year 2002 is the second of the four-year term for the present local Administrations – 2001/2004. 3 To appraise the contribution of specific grants and other transfers to the budgets of core cities in metropolitan areas we have to exclude from its total the R$ 2,9 bi that finance special activities of the Federal District. 4 Other Revenues include short-term financial gains that are concentrated in the major cities and tend to decrease as the Administration approaches its term. Differences in per capita revenues, due to distortions accumulated over time in revenue sharing and other intergovernmental transfers (see Table3) represent an obstacle to cooperation in matters of common interest in metropolitan areas. Differences in the composition of metropolitan financing also reflect the huge regional disparities existing in Brazil. Whereas in core cities of the developed Southeast own revenues cover about half of their budgets, core cities in the less developed North and Northeast rely heavily on shared revenues and other transfers (see Tables 4 and 4-A). On the expenditure side, the figures also reveal important differences. Table 5 shows he breakdown of municipal expenditures and the budget results – current and total – for the fiscal year 2002, and Table 6 sets forth the sources of investment financing. They show that metropolitan cities relied basically on savings to finance investments: current savings responded for 70% of total investments. For major core cities, credit operations were the second most important source, whereas capital transfers played that role for other metropolitan cities (in metropolitan cities with less than 20 thousand inhabitants capital transfers respond for 40% of investments) 5 In the sample studied, the 70 non-core cities within 100 thousand to one million inhabitants have average total per capita revenue of R$ 579.00.The 4 core cities within 500 thousand to one million inhabitants are close to R$ 608.00. For the 1136 non-metropolitan cities less than 5 thousand inhabitants, this amount reaches an average R$1025.00. 4. Main Obstacles to Metropolitan Financing The main obstacles to metropolitan financing can be classified as follows: a) Obstacles to achieve and sustain cooperation and integration of public investments and services in the metropolitan region; b) Obstacles to better explore the local tax basis and to access external sources of financing; c) Obstacles to control the allocation of resources applied in the region; d) Obstacles to increase the participation of the private sector in the financing and provision of services. An inadequate institutional arrangement is an important obstacle to cooperation and integration of investments and services in the metropolitan areas. Under the present constitutional framework there is no possibility of enforcing, or even creating effective mechanisms for inducing joint efforts to improve working and living conditions in a metropolitan area. The condition to be fulfilled for state governments to set up a metropolitan region is of not much help since different services like water provision, sewage systems and health services have specific spatial configurations, meaning that interest and benefits and though willingness of each municipality to perform common tasks will be different. Thus the state legislation can define the composition of the metropolitan region, set some directives, call for coordination, create a specific body to design a good plan for the whole region, but can not put into place the instruments needed to implement the actions contemplated in the plan. Effective commitment to work together depends on the determination of mayors and governors to overcome political rivalries. Formal agreements can be established but cannot function properly without power to interfere in public policies in the region. Any attempt to provide the metropolitan body with decision making power conflicts with the political autonomy of the municipalities and the desire of the state governors to exercise political influence in what quite often is the most important part of the state territory6. The interference of the federal government makes the political situation more complex. The proliferation of political parties and the distinct coalitions formed at the federal, state and local levels to support their respective Administrations increase the power of municipal governments when they are supported by the same coalition that supports the federal government. The mayor of the big metropolitan cities and the corresponding state governor quite often compete over who can exercise greater influence in the whole metropolitan area. 6 The metropolitan area of Rio de Janeiro accounts for 2/3 of the state’s GDP, population and electorate. In São Paulo, these same ratios are above 50%. Cooperation and integration in the metropolitan areas are also constrained by the legal provisions that determine the distribution of resources in the metropolitan areas. As noted in the previous sessions, the formula applied to the sharing of tax revenues together with other rules designed to transfer federal money to states and local governments conduce to a high degree of inequality in per capita budgets in a given metropolitan region. These huge differences increase the political resistance to cooperation as richer municipalities may find little incentive to contribute for investments outside their limits, whereas poorer ones may find it easier to stimulate their population to look for better services in neighboring cities. This should not be understood as a call for a return of the strong centralized institutional arrangement prevailing before the 1988 Constitution. Nevertheless it’s worth remarking the virtual absence of federal support not only in financing but also in providing institutional framework for urban development. Despite of provision set forth in Article 23 of the 1988 Constitution for cooperation between the federal, states and municipal governments in policies and programs to address problems in housing and sewerage, for instance, regulation is still pending. Proposals for increasing tax effort at the local level miss the point. Besides the increase in federal and state transfers following the 1988 Constitution, municipalities, specially the big ones, succeeded in better exploring their own tax bases and raise fees in an unfavorable environment of a very high ratio for the overall tax burden. Further increases tend to be relatively small, even though credit lines from official banks for tax management improvement may be of some help. Access to external financial sources is an important political issue. With reference to fiscal resources, discretionary transfers and direct application of federal or states’ funds in the region can be seen as an important obstacle to improving efficiency in metropolitan financing. The ability of each municipality in the region to get money from the federal or the state budget depends on political relationships. We can envisage four possible situations, which are depicted below: The better situation is the one in which the local administration is supported by the same coalition that supports both, state and federal governments. The opposite case occurs when the local government is politically misaligned, at the same time, with the state and federal governments. Of the alternatives in between, the more favorable is the one in which the municipal government goes along with the political line of the federal government, as direct relationships of federal and local governments have gained more attention in the recent past. Intergovernmental Relations Patterns7 States relations to Federal Government Aligned Not aligned Municipalities relations to Federal government Aligned Very good Good Not aligned Very bad Bad 7 The possible combinations referring to the political alignment with the federal government include the coalition that has power in Congress over the federal budget. Another political problem affecting the metropolitan finances are the rules applied for sharing federal and state taxes with the municipalities. In what refers to the ICMS, the metropolitan municipalities usually get a less favorable treatment in the state legislation that governs the partition of one fourth of the amount that belongs to all municipalities in the same state. Legal provisions concerning the share of the federal Income Tax – IR – and of the Tax on Industrialized Products – IPI – with the municipalities (see Box 1) also affects the metropolitan finances. According to the 1988 Constitution, the proceedings of these taxes forming the Municipalities Participation Fund – FPM- are split in two – one for the state capital municipalities (who gets 10% of the FPM) and another for all other municipalities (90% of the FPM). Moreover, the criteria applied for setting the individual shares is biased toward the smaller municipalities. As a consequence, the ten more important metropolitan areas8, which houses 30% of the Brazilian population and 68% of the electorate and generates around 50% of the country GDP got only 12,7% of the FPM in 2002. Limits to borrowing should also be mentioned, even though they are important to avoid mismanagement of the public accounts. Total indebtedness of the Brazilian municipalities is not expressive (less than five percent of the net public debt as a whole), but is highly concentrated – around 75% of it is the responsibility of the 3 major – São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Salvador. The big municipalities aside, the more important constraint on borrowing for other municipalities is not legal. Limits on credit to municipalities set by the Senate and by the Central Bank together with the bureaucratic requirements to be fulfilled by the borrower are the real barriers, specially for medium size and smaller municipalities, whose debts are generally low in relation to current revenues. For big municipalities the point to be raised is the possibility of introducing dynamic considerations in setting limits to finance investments through borrowing. Annual limits that obey the Gregorian calendar lead to lower investments in bad times as current revenues fall and vice versa. Thus, investments that may contribute to impulse recovery or to mitigate the negative social impacts of unemployment have to be postponed in times when they are mostly needed. Applying multi year’s averages, for instance, could be an alternative when there is no risk of this putting the fiscal situation out of control. The possibility of pooling resources from metropolitan municipalities to increase its creditworthiness should also be considered. From another standpoint, the individual limits to borrowing may contribute to an inefficient allocation of investments in the metropolitan area as richer municipalities may get additional money to finance investments that could have less priority from a metropolitan perspective. Efficiency in metropolitan financing also suffers from the earmarking of revenues and other conditionality to the allocation of municipal resources. The above-mentioned disparities in the money allocated to specific purposes in a given metropolitan area may provoke waste of resources. It could be easily demonstrated that individual obligations to spend a fixed percentage of the local resources in health and education, for instance, will not equilibrate needs and means in the metropolitan space, notwithstanding the importance of having guarantees for social spending in the region as a whole. 8 São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Belo Horizonte, Porto Alegre, RIDE – DF, Salvador, Curitiba, Recife, Belém e Fortaleza Increasing private sector participation in metropolitan financing requires improvement in regulation that faces political and institutional obstacles. From a political point of view there is a widespread sentiment that the transfer to private hands, via concessions or privatizations, of services that have important social implications may obstruct the access of low income families to basic needs, as they won’t be able to pay the tariffs required for a fair remuneration of the capital invested. Politicians are, therefore, very careful to push for an increase role of private investors in more sensitive areas, such as sanitation. Improving regulation is a political as well as an institutional problem. The Brazilian Constitution empowers the local governments to grant concessions for the provision of services of local interest such as public transportation and waste collection and disposal. The power to concede transportation across municipal boundaries and distribution of gas are in the states’ hands. The federal government detain the power to grant concessions in areas such as electric power, telecommunications and interstate transportation, among others. Water supply and sewage is a case in point. Concessions handed over from the municipalities to state-owned companies in the middle seventies are now a big unsolved problem since local and state governments argue about who should be in charge of regulating these services in metropolitan areas. To make things more complicated the Constitution entitles the federal government to set general directives related to sanitation and states that the federal government, the states and the municipalities are competent for developing programs to improve sanitation conditions. A bill proposing new federal legislation to settle the situation is being discussed in the national Parliament for some time now, but despite pressures for a rapid approval no final agreement has been reached yet. Legal obstacles also affect the integration of urban transportation insofar as state and municipal bodies would have to work together to implement a joint plan for the transportation network that could contribute to a better organization of the metropolitan space and to a more efficient circulation of goods and people in the region. Other important contribution to metropolitan financing could come from the opening up of the local public sector financial market to private financial institutions. Apart from short term loans to be repaid with tax revenues of the same fiscal year – known as ARO (Antecipação de Receita Orçamentária) operations – private banks are not willing to supply credit to finance public investments at the local level, due to lack of credibility of local governments and to mistrust in local finances, besides legal difficulties for the cities to grant adequate guarantees9. Two conditions may now create a more favorable environment for the development of a private credit market for local governments: the monetary stabilization and the provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Law. Both will lead to transparency and credibility of the local public accounts. 5. Emergence of New Proposals For Improving Coordination Under present financial constraints, new proposals for dealing with the problem of metropolitan financing aimed at improving efficiency in allocation through better coordination of public interventions in the metropolitan area. These proposals developed from the middle nineties, called for a more effective participation of the municipalities and a wider involvement of the civil society, NGOs as well as private sector representatives. 9 According to the federal Constitution – Article 167 – binding tax revenues is restricted to the revenue sharing system, to specific allocations of funds to health and education expenditures, to the ARO operations, to the granting of a guarantee or a counter-guarantee to the Union and to the payment of debits owed to the same. New experiences included voluntary associations of municipalities to deal with one or more issues – garbage collection, health and transportation – or to develop projects related to the multiple use of water resources through the institution of water basin committees. In the state of Minas Gerais, 92% of the municipalities were involved in health consortia (Farah, 2001, apud Rolnik). It’s worth noting the federal incentive to the health system organization that counts on stable and significant transfers of resources to sub-national governments. The new provisions of the 1988 Federal Constitution required the states to adapt their own Constitutions (Azevedo, 1999). Nevertheless, there’s great variety in the way the states deal with the issue of metropolitan regions (when they do). Neither the requirements for the institution of a new region, nor the common interest functions are always clearly defined. Although generally attention is paid to the way municipalities and their populations participate in the process of institution of metropolitan regions, just a few states stress the importance of the state participation itself. The fundamental aspect of financing the common projects and activities is not adequately dealt with, what is partly explained by the difficulties raised in section 4. The State of São Paulo with three metropolitan regions hosting more than 22 million people has been improving his model for metropolitan cooperation. The São Paulo Metropolitan Region, now with 39 municipalities, was created in 1973, with cities that form the industrial belt around the city of São Paulo. The “Baixada Santista”, a group of 9 municipalities under the influence of the most important Brazilian harbor, came in 1996, to which followed the Região Metropolitana de Campinas, in 2000. The latter region encompasses 19 cities. The regions’ participation in the state GDP is 47.6%, 3.6% and 12% respectively10. Their net revenue in 2002 accounted for 34.0% of total revenues for all Brazilian metropolitan regions. A Complementary Law to the Constitution of the state of São Paulo, enacted in 1994, defined not only the public entities involved in management, the participation of the population in the management process, but also the requirements to set a Development Fund and a Development Agency (Hotz, 2000). At the Metropolitan Development Council, with normative and executive functions, municipalities had the same number of seats than the state, regarding the common interest functions. In Campinas, the Municipal City Council also participates in a Consultative Committee for the whole region. The ABC consortium – Região do Grande ABC, home of the motor vehicle industry, was created by the initiative of 7 Southeastern municipalities of the Região Metropolitana de São Paulo to face together the common challenge of industrial restructuring in the area. Initially focused on the management of water resources, the Consortium expanded the ambit of its action- to economic and social development – and brought new actors into the scene through the Citizenship Forum. Although the experience may have proved the importance of cooperation, the need of a more sound solution to deal with financing is pointed out by specialists, together with improvements in relationship with the state government and in participation of the municipal City Councils, as reasons for not achieving better results (Rolnik, 2000). 10 EMPLASA – www.emplasa.gov.br Up in the Northeast, the metropolitan area of Recife formed by 14 municipalities responsible for 68.0% of the state GDP (Fidem,2002) put out a strategic plan to design common policies for dealing with the challenges it will face in the next twelve years. Covering three administrations, the study included the participation of society in the discussion of possible strategies. In this region , the study made to appraise the joint financial capabilities of the metropolitan municipalities showed the potential to mobilize fiscal resources and accessing domestic credit to cover part of the investments visualized in the strategic plan for the region11. 6. Concluding Remarks Adopting mechanisms for better coordinating public actions in metropolitan areas is an obvious way to attenuate some of the obstacles to improve metropolitan financing but is not enough to meet the challenges to improve significantly the competitiveness and the living conditions in the more important Brazilian metropolitan areas. Even though Brazilian metropolitan cities invest a reasonable amount of their revenues – 10% on average – in absolute terms the money applied is far away from what would be needed to meet the demand for resources. Besides, the lack of incentives for cooperation induces an autarchic behavior that may jeopardize their efforts to solve problems that have impacts outside their borders. Moreover, the reliance on capital transfers of a once-off nature to fund investments is incompatible with the long-term nature of the infrastructure projects. Thus, to enhance metropolitan management, it will be necessary to discuss alternatives to create metropolitan funds that could provide the metropolitan institutions with means to induce a more effective cooperation in these regions. Some suggestions for discussion are advanced here. The first refers to changes in the constitutional rules governing the revenue sharing mechanism. The decision to set aside a small fraction (10%) of the municipal fund (FPM) for the states’ capital municipalities, adopted in 1967 and maintained in 1988 is now an anachronism. Having one criterion for the state capitals and another for the other municipalities in the metropolitan areas is a major reason for the wide disparity in the spatial distribution of fiscal resources that have been evidenced before. It is time now to appraise alternatives for establishing a metropolitan fund in the proposed revision of the constitutional transfers scheduled for next round of the Tax Reform process. The same could be said of proposals for revising the rules concerning the sharing of the state value-added tax with their municipalities. In setting new rules for defining how much of the state tax belonging to local governments will be distributed according to a state law, a special consideration should be given to problems of metropolitan financing. On the credit side, a proposition that deserves further consideration refers to conditions to be attached to credit lines from federal financial institutions to finance investments in metropolitan areas. In important areas from the viewpoint of better land use in the metropolitan space, such as urban infrastructure, transportation, housing and sanitation, demands from metropolitan municipalities should be appraised from a collective perspective only, in order to induce cooperation and integration in public services provision. This does not conflict with local governments autonomy since each one of the municipalities involved in a given project would be liable only for the portion of the credit pertaining to the investment located within its boundaries. (This suggestion raises the issue of providing joint guarantees – a matter that needs to be fully analyzed). 11 The result of this study showed that under favorable assumptions total savings of the municipalities in the Recife Metropolitan area could reach an yearly average of 195 mi reais for the 2002-2006 period. This potential to invest could be doubled if they were able to fully explore the limits to indebtedness. (see Rezende and MacDowell, 2001; and Rezende,MacDowell and Miranda, 2002) Building a private financial market for public sector investments at the metropolitan level may require more time to consolidate. The new law under discussion in the national Parliament for stimulating public-private sector partnerships in infrastructure projects may provide some room for private financial institutions to participate in financing metropolitan investments. Finally, we should make an effort to move towards a more uniform standard for qualification of a metropolitan region. As we have seen before, some essential definitions related to the requirements to set a metropolitan region are still to be included in some of the state Constitutions. AnnexBOX 1 Brazilian Federalism – Municipal Tax Revenue and the Revenue Sharing System Brazilian Municipalities are considered as members of the Federation, having the same status as the states. They have administrative and political autonomy, so they may institute taxes, fees and improvement charges. Brazilian Constitution defines also a revenue sharing system through which is added a substantial amount of resources to municipalities. Besides that, specific grants may co-finance programs and projects aiming to put in place public policies (generally federal) but also to attend cities’ specific priorities. Revenue sharing and specific grants relate the federal government to the states and to the municipalities but also the states to the municipalities. The Federal District, Brasilia, can collect taxes and receive transfers as a state and as a municipality. In 2002, total tax burden accounted for 35.9 %GDP, of which 70.1% were collected by the federal government, 25.5% by the states’ governments and 4.4% by municipal governments. Available revenue – own revenue plus shared revenue – was distributed by the same levels of government as 60.5%, 24.7% and 14.8% of total tax burden. Municipal and Federal District Own Revenue Tax on Services – ISS – is the major tax, but is collected mostly by major cities that host modern services. Cities of over 500 thousand people – 31 out of 5507 municipalities – are responsible for two thirds of total collection Urban Land and Property Tax – IPTU – being the most important tax of medium size cities, its collection is less concentrated than that of ISS. Municipalities have been trying to increase collection through revising registers and updating the valuation of the properties Real Estate Conveyance Tax – ITBI- is due in case of transferring real estate legal ownership Fees – municipalities usually charge fees for tax collection, street lighting maintenance, economic activity licenses, among others. Fees collection is as much important as smaller the municipality is. The Federal District, as the states, may also charge fees. Improvement Charges – only few municipalities, mainly in the South region effectively use those charges The Federal District may charge also State taxes: the collection of the most important, the Tax on Goods, Intermunicipal Transportation and Communications Services – ICMS – a value- added tax, and the Tax on Motor Vehicles – IPVA represented 76.7% of its total net revenue in 2002. The Revenue Sharing System Municipalities are entitled to : 25 % of the State ICMS, shared among municipalities according to value added through operations in their territories (75% of the amount to be shared) and to a State Law (25% of amount shared, generally in benefit of the poorest). From this transfer, 15% is credited to the Fundef (see below) and the remaining 85% directly to the municipalities. 50% on the State IPVA, levied on the motor vehicles licensed inside their jurisdiction; 22.5% of federal IPI and Income Tax – IR – collections that form the Municipalities Participation Fund – FPM- The FPM is split in two parts– 10.0% for the state capital municipalities and the remaining 90.0% for the other municipalities. Municipalities assign 15% of the FPM they receive to the Fundef (see below). The formula applied for sharing the FPM among the Brazilian municipalities is biased in favor of the small ones. keep the total income tax withheld at source on income payments made directly by them or by their autarchies and foundations – IRRF; 70% on federal Financial Operations Tax – Gold (considered as a financial asset) – IOF-Ouro. 50% on the federal Tax on Rural Land and Property – ITR; The Federal District is entitled to the Federal District and States Participation Fund – FPE – composed of 21.5% of federal IPI and IR collection. From this transfers, 15% is assigned to the Fundef. It’s also entitled to income tax withheld at source – IRRF – and to 30% of IOF-Ouro. Brazilian Revenue Sharing System Municipalities FPM IRRF 70% IOF-Ouro 50% ITR 25% ICMS 50% IPVA States FPE IRRF 30% IOF-Ouro UNION BOX 2 Compensation, Cooperation And Discretionary Transfers Export Compensation Fund – FPEx – currently under revision this fund aims at covering states’ revenue losses from the exemption granted to exports from the states VAT. It’s distributed to the states in proportion to their participation on exports. States have to share 25% of this transfer with the municipalities, according to the same criteria used for the ICMS. States and municipalities have to assign 15% of their participation on FPEx transfer to the Fundef (see below). Royalties – states and municipalities are entitled to receive compensation for the exploitation of petroleum and natural gas, hydroelectricity and other mineral resources inside their territory or in the adjacent maritime platform. FUNDEF – a Constitutional Amendment (no.14/96) instituted an intergovernmental financial cooperation for improving elementary education. The fund is formed by earmarking percentages of transfers from the revenue sharing system so as to guarantee a specified minimum amount of spending per student enrolled in public elementary schools all over the country. The sources of FUNDEF are the following: a) 15% of the municipal and states share in the ICMS; b) 15% of the FPM; c) 15% of the FPE; d) 15% of the municipal and states share in the FPE-EX. FUNDEF is distributed according to the number of students enrolled in municipal or state owned elementary schools. In case the money collected from the above sources is not enough to guarantee the minimum spending established by law, the Federal Government is responsible for providing supplementary transfers. Salário-Educação – an additional source of resources for cooperation in financing the public elementary education comes from a payroll social contribution – known as Salário Educação – due by private companies. Health – Constitutional Amendment no.29/2000 earmarked federal, state and municipal revenues for jointly financing of basic health services and medical care. Each year, Federal Government expenditures must increase by an amount equal to the nominal GDP growth rate on previous fiscal year expenditures. Municipal Government must spend 15% and states and federal district 12% on their own revenues plus constitutional transfers (FPE, FPM, ICMS etc.). The money is transferred according to the population and to the nature of services provided. For medium size municipalities and for the bigger ones, transfers from the Health Fund may be much higher than that of the FPM. Social Assistance – the National Fund for Social Assistance attempts to impulse the decentralization of social assistance policies. Discretionary transfers – these transfers arise out of allocations in the federal budget, which are mainly of a once-off nature and oriented to finance small-scale activities or investments at the local level. In small cities, they are a strong source to finance investments. UNION Fundef Municipalities Transfer from Fundef Union Suplementary Transfer – Fundef States Transfer from Fundef Union Suplementary Transfer – Fundef 15% FPE ICMS FPEx 15% x 75% 15% FPM ICMS FPEx 15% x 25% Table 1 Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Cities by Size of Population Population (in thousands) RANGE TOTAL METROPOLITAN REGIONS NON METROPOLITAN CITIES CORE CITIES OTHER CITIES Number of Cities Population Number of CitiesPopulation Number of CitiesPopulation Number of Cities Population TOTAL 4,825 158,8842538,91435427,646 4,446 92,3230 to 5,000 1,163 3,890–2796 1,136 3,7945,001 to 10,000 1,151 8,254–56412 1,095 7,84510,001 to 20,000 1,170 16,763–64920 1,106 15,84420,001 to 50,000 848 25,489–752,429 773 23,06050,001 to 100,000 279 19,629190614,497 217 15,042100,001 to 500,000 184 38,03892,8136414,035 111 21,189500,001 to 1,000,000 17 11,65443,46964,124 7 4,0601,000,001 to 2,000,000 7 9,55156,92911,133 1 1,489Above 2,000,001 6 25,613625,613– – -Sources: Ministry of Finance/National Treasury Secretariat Notes: (1) Data available refer to: – 86.0% of total 5,559 municipalities, including the city of Brasilia – 91.0% of total estimated brazilian population – 175 million. (2) Basic information on metropolitan cities refers to: – 88.3% of total 429 cities, including the Federal District – 93.7% of total metropolitan population – 71 million. Table 2 Brasil: Municipal Revenue Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Cities – 2002 R$ million TOTAL METROPOLITAN REGIONS NON METROPOLITAN CITIES CORE CITIES OTHER CITIES Population (in thousands) 158,884 38,915 27,646 92,323 REVENUES Amount% Amount% Amount % Amount% Total Net Revenue* 106,930100.036,741100.016,575 100.0 53,613100.0Available Tax Revenue 64,13360,022,06060,010,909 65,8 31,16458,1 Own Taxes 20,85219.512,72834.63,121 18.8 5,0039.3 Urban Land and Property Tax – IPTU 6,6696.23,82110.41,253 7.6 1,5943.0 Tax on Services – ISS 8,2197.75,19114.11,107 6.7 1,9213.6 Real Estate Conveyance Tax – ITBI 1,4721.47892.1214 1.3 4690.9 Other Taxes – Federal District 1,9801.91,9805.4- – — Fees 2,5122.39472.6547 3.3 1,0191.9 Shared Tax Revenues and Other** 43,28140.59,33225.47,788 47.0 26,16148.8 Municipalities Participation Fund – FPM 16,29115.21,2613.41,955 11.8 13,07524.4 Participation on the Tax on Goods, Intermunicipal Transportation and Communication Services – ICMS 20,44019.15,07413.84,835 29.2 10,53119.6 Participation on the Tax on Motor Vehicles – IPVA 3,3003.11,5124.1498 3.0 1,2892.4 Federal Income Tax Withheld at Source – IRRF 2,0942.01,1983.3309 1.9 5871.1 Other transfers 1,1561.12870.8191 1.2 6781.3Specific Grants and Compensatory Transfers 29,18627.38,93024.33,595 21.7 16,66031.1 Health System –SUS 6,2495.82,3496.4643 3.9 3,2566.1 Fund for Education – Fundef 9,4888.91,8195.01,468 8.9 6,20011.6 Other Current Grants and Compensatory Transfers 9,6699.04,43712.1961 5.8 4,2718.0 Other Capital Grants 3,7803.53240.9523 3.2 2,9335.5Other Revenues 13,61112.75,75015.72,071 12.5 5,78910.8Sources: Ministry of Finance/National Treasury Secretariat Notes: – Includes the Federal District, Brasilia * Net of public servants contributions to pension funds. ** Includes IOF-Ouro, ITR and the Salário Educação. Table 2–A Brasil: Municipal Per Capita Revenue Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Cities – 2002 R$ TOTAL METROPOLITAN REGIONS NON METROPOLITAN CITIES CORE CITIES OTHER CITIES REVENUES Amount% Amount% Amount % Amount% Total Net Revenue* 673.0100.0944.1100.0599.6 100.0 580.7100.0Available Tax Revenue 403,660,0566,960,0394,6 65,8 337,658,1 Own Taxes 131.219.5327.134.6112.9 18.8 54.29.3 Urban Land and Property Tax – IPTU 42.06.298.210.445.3 7.6 17.33.0 Tax on Services – ISS 51.77.7133.414.140.1 6.7 20.83.6 Real Estate Conveyance Tax – ITBI 9.31.4188.8.131.52 1.3 5.10.9 Other Taxes – Federal District 12.51.950.95.4- – — Fees 15.82.324.32.619.8 3.3 11.01.9 Shared Tax Revenues and Other** 272.440.5239.825.4281.7 47.0 283.448.8 Municipalities Participation Fund – FPM 102.5184.108.40.2060.7 11.8 141.624.4 Participation on the Tax on Goods, Intermunicipal Transportation and Communication Services – ICMS 128.619.1130.413.8174.9 29.2 114.119.6 Participation on the Tax on Motor Vehicles – IPVA 220.127.116.11.118.0 3.0 14.02.4 Federal Income Tax Withheld at Source – IRRF 13.22.030.83.311.2 1.9 6.41.1 Other transfers 18.104.22.168.86.9 1.2 7.31.3Specific Grants and Compensatory Transfers 183.727.3229.524.3130.0 21.7 180.531.1 Health System –SUS 39.35.860.46.423.3 3.9 35.36.1 Fund for Education – Fundef 59.78.946.85.053.1 8.9 67.211.6 Other Current Grants and Compensatory Transfers 60.99.0114.012.134.8 5.8 46.38.0 Other capital Grants 22.214.171.124.918.9 3.2 31.85.5Other Revenues 85.712.7147.815.774.9 12.5 62.710.8Sources: Ministry of Finance/National Treasury Secretariat Notes: – Includes the Federal District, Brasilia * Net of public servants contributions to pension funds. ** Includes IOF-Ouro, ITR and the Salário Educação. Table 3 Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Cities Per Capita Tax Revenue and Transfers by Range of Population- 2002 R$ RANGE METROPOLITAN REGION NON METROPOLITAN REGION CORE CITIES OTHER CITIES OWN TAXES TRANSFERS OWN TAXES TRANSFERS OWN TAXES TRANSFERS 0 to 5,000 – – 27.4 915.5 34.2 928.9 5,001 to 10,000 – – 63.0 561.5 26.4 614.7 10,001 to 20,000 – -51.3469.524.2 498.320,001 to 50,000 – – 89.8501.7 34.4 428.050,001 to 100,000 80.1 363.9 92.4 456.1 57.0 387.6 100,001 to 500,000 262.0 504.0 122.8 381.1 89.6 400.3 500,001 to 1,000,000 156.2 349.4 125.9382.5132.7 462.51,000,001 to 2,000,000 213.7 426.2 148.6 385.0 128.9 348.8 Above 2,000,001 388.9 493.7 – – – – Sources: Ministry of Finance/National Treasury Secretariat Notes: (1) Includes the Federal District (2) Transfers include total intergovernmental transfers inside and outside the revenue sharing system. Table 4 Brasil: Metropolitan Cities Revenue by Geografic Region – 2002 R$ million CENTER WESTNORTH NORTHEAST SOUTH SOUTHEAST CORE CITIES OTHER CITIESCORE CITIESOTHER CITIESCORE CITIESOTHER CITIESCORE CITIES OTHER CITIES CORE CITIESOTHER CITIESPopulation (in thousands) 3,180 1,4311,3235568,6643,6704,995 5,893 20,75416,095Total Net Revenue* 7,863 5525851394,4241,8504,781 3,255 16,3399,320Available Tax Revenue 3,733 292342702,5361,2482,393 2,000 13,0567,300 Own Taxes 2,776 49127141,1452281,229 439 7,4522,392 Urban Land and Property Tax – IPTU 245 2321227951383 146 2,8941,032 Tax on Services – ISS 426 14616593127542 148 3,569812 Real Estate Conveyance Tax – ITBI 74 6306812125 37 520159 Other Taxes – Federal District 1,980 —— – — Fees 51 642620538179 108 469389 Shared Tax Revenues and Other** 957 243215561,3911,0201,164 1,561 5,6044,908 Municipalities Participation Fund – FPM 138 14210525543360206 522 270906 Participation on the Tax on Goods, Intermunicipal Transportation and Communication Services – ICMS 184 858720690619643 834 3,4703,277 Participation on the Tax on Motor Vehicles – IPVA 53 61729820203 103 1,141367 Federal Income Tax Withheld at Source – IRRF 382 5615920101 37 649247 Other transfers 201 5081211 65 74111Specific Grants and Compensatory Transfers 3,414 241191621,3034871,094 837 2,9291,968 Health System –SUS – 281372532971680 83 1,204437 Fund for Education – Fundef 55 712012173179245 405 1,326801 Other Current Grants and Compensatory Transfers 3,285 832713650124128 248 348943 Other Capital Grants 74 5881215111341 102 50237Other Revenues 716 205265851151,293 418 35552Sources: Ministry of Finance/National Treasury Secretariat Notes: – Includes the Federal District, Brasilia * Net of public servants contributions to pension funds. ** Includes IOF-Ouro, ITR and the Salário Educação. Table 4–A Brasil: Structure of Metropolitan Cities Revenue by Geografic Region – 2002 % CENTER WESTNORTH NORTHEAST SOUTH SOUTHEAST CORE CITIES OTHER CITIESCORE CITIESOTHER CITIESCORE CITIESOTHER CITIESCORE CITIES OTHER CITIES CORE CITIESOTHER CITIESTotal Net Revenue* 100.0 100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0 100.0 100.0100.0Available Tax Revenue 47,5 52,958,550,657,367,450,1 61,4 79,978,3 Own Taxes 35.3 8.821.610.425.912.325.7 13.5 45.625.7 Urban Land and Property Tax – IPTU 3.1 126.96.36.199.32.78.0 4.5 17.711.1 Tax on Services – ISS 5.4 2.510.44.613.46.911.3 4.5 21.88.7 Real Estate Conveyance Tax – ITBI 0.9 188.8.131.52.50.62.6 1.1 3.21.7 Other Taxes – Federal District 25.2 —— – — Fees 0.6 184.108.40.206.62.03.7 3.3 2.94.2 Shared Tax Revenues and Other** 12,2 44,136,840,231,455,124,4 48,0 34,352,7 Municipalities Participation Fund – FPM 1.8 25.817.918.012.319.44.3 16.0 1.79.7 Participation on the Tax on Goods, Intermunicipal Transportation and Communication Services – ICMS 2.3 15.414.914.215.633.513.4 25.6 21.235.2 Participation on the Tax on Motor Vehicles – IPVA 0.7 220.127.116.11.21.14.3 3.2 7.03.9 Federal Income Tax Withheld at Source – IRRF 4.9 0.91.10.71.31.12.1 1.1 4.02.6 Other transfers 2.6 0.80.05.80.00.10.2 2.0 0.51.2Specific Grants and Compensatory Transfers 43,4 43,632,644,829,526,322,9 25,7 17,921,1 Health System –SUS – 5.023.418.104.22.1684.2 2.5 7.44.7 Fund for Education – Fundef 0.7 22.214.171.124.99.75.1 12.4 8.18.6 Other Current Grants and Compensatory Transfers 41,8 15,14,59,514,76,72,7 7,6 2,15,3 Other Capital Grants 0.9 10.51.38.93.46.10.9 3.1 0.32.5Other Revenues 9.1 126.96.36.199188.8.131.52 12.9 2.20.6Sources: Ministry of Finance/National Treasury Secretariat Notes: – Includes the Federal District, Brasilia * Net of public servants contributions to pension funds. ** Includes IOF-Ouro, ITR and the Salário Educação. Table 4–B Brasil: Metropolitan Cities Per Capita Revenue by Geografic Region – 2002 R$ CENTER WESTNORTH NORTHEAST SOUTH SOUTHEAST CORE CITIES OTHER CITIESCORE CITIESOTHER CITIESCORE CITIESOTHER CITIESCORE CITIES OTHER CITIES CORE CITIESOTHER CITIESTotal Net Revenue* 2,472.3 385.9442.2250.0510.7504.2957.1 552.4 919.8669.7Available Tax Revenue 1,173.8 204.0258.6126.5292.7339.9479.1 339.3 629.1453.5 Own Taxes 872.8 33.995.725.9132.162.0246.0 74.4 359.1148.6 Urban Land and Property Tax – IPTU 77.0 16.015.62.932.213.876.7 24.8 139.464.1 Tax on Services – ISS 134.0 9.646.011.668.534.7108.5 25.1 172.050.5 Real Estate Conveyance Tax – ITBI 23.2 184.108.40.206.83.324.9 6.2 25.19.9 Other Taxes – Federal District 622.6 —— – — Fees 16.0 4.131.911.223.710.235.8 18.3 22.624.2 Shared Tax Revenues and Other** 301.0 170.1162.9100.6160.5277.9233.1 264.9 270.0304.9 Municipalities Participation Fund – FPM 43.3 99.479.444.962.698.041.2 88.6 13.056.3 Participation on the Tax on Goods, Intermunicipal Transportation and Communication Services – ICMS 57.8 59.566.035.679.7168.7128.7 141.5 167.2203.6 Participation on the Tax on Motor Vehicles – IPVA 16.6 4.5220.127.116.11.340.7 17.4 55.022.8 Federal Income Tax Withheld at Source – IRRF 120.1 18.104.22.168.85.420.3 6.3 31.315.3 Other transfers 63.2 3.20.014.40.10.52.3 11.1 3.66.9Specific Grants and Compensatory Transfers 1,073.4 168.1144.3111.9150.4132.8219.0 142.1 141.1122.3 Health System -SUS – 19.4103.544.637.919.3136.1 14.0 58.027.2 Fund for Education – Fundef 17.3 49.914.921.320.048.949.1 68.7 63.949.8 Other Current Grants and Compensatory Transfers 1,032.9 22.214.171.1245.133.725.6 42.1 16.830.6 Other Capital Grants 23.2 40.75.722.217.430.98.3 17.3 2.414.7Other Revenues 225.1 13.739.411.667.531.4259.0 71.0 149.593.9Sources: Ministry of Finance/National Treasury Secretariat Notes: – Includes the Federal District, Brasilia * Net of public servants contributions to pension funds. ** Includes IOF-Ouro, ITR and the Salário Educação. Table 5 Municipal Expenditures Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Cities – 2002 R$ million TOTAL METROPOLITAN REGIONS NON METROPOLITAN REGION CORE CITIES OTHER CITIES Amount % Amount % Amount % Amount % Total Net Expenditure 105,952100.036,874100.016,215 100.0 52,863100.0 Net Current Expenses 90,06285.032,56788.313,524 83.4 43,97183.2 Personnel* 45,82043.216,56544.97,341 45.3 21,91441.5 Interest Expenses 1,9801.91,5924.3141 0.9 2470.5 Other Current Expenses 42,26239.914,41039.16,042 37.3 21,81041.3 Capital Expenditure 15,89015.04,30711.72,691 16.6 8,89216.8 Investments** 13,97913.23,6039.82,342 14.4 8,03415.2 Amortization 1,9101.87041.9348 2.1 8581.6 Other Capital Expenditure —– – — Superavit / Deficit Current 11,8933,0702,450 6,373Total Superavit / Deficit 978(133)360 750Sources: Ministry of Finance/National Treasury Secretariat Notes: * Payments to retires are net of public servants contribution ** Includes investments in securities of state-owned companies Table 6 Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Cities Investments and Source of Funds – 2002 R$ million TOTAL METROPOLITAN REGIONS NON METROPOLITAN REGION CORE CITIES OTHER CITIES Amount % Amount % Amount % Amount % Total Net Revenue* 13,979100.03,603100.02,342 100.0 8,034100.0 Sources of Funds External Sources 4,51032.386323.9555 23.7 3,09238.5 Credit Operations 7305.253814.933 1.4 1592.0 Capital Transfers 3,78027.03249.0523 22.3 2,93336.5 Internal Sources 9,46967.72,74176.11,787 76.3 4,94161.5 Sale of Assets 1280.9170.534 1.4 771.0 Other Capital Revenues 3372.42256.212 0.5 1001.2 Current Surplus 9,00564.42,36665.71,742 74.3 4,76559.3 Deficit -1333.7- -Sources: Ministry of Finance/National Treasury Secretariat * Includes investments in securities of state-owned companies References ALVES, A. C. Regiões Metropolitanas, Aglomerações Urbanas e Microrregiões: Novas Dimensões Constitucionais da Organização do Estado Brasileiro. Revista da Procuradoria geral do Estado de São Paulo, edição espacial, São Paulo, setembro de 1998. AZEVEDO, Sérgio de, GUIA, Virgínia R. dos Mares. A Questão Metropolitana no Processo de Reforma do Estado no Brasil. in www.crab.rutgers.edu , 1999. FIDEM, Secretaria de Planejamento e Desenvolvimento Social do Governo do Estado de Pernambuco. Estratégia de desenvolvimento da Região Metropolitana do Recife – 2003/2015 – Versão Técnica. Recife, agosto de 2002. HOTZ, Eduardo Fontes. A organização Metropolitana Pós-Constituição de 1988. Revista São Paulo em Perspectiva, 14(4), São Paulo, 2000. ROLNIK, Raquel e SOMEKH, Nádia. Governar as Metrópoles – Dilemas da Recentralização. Revista São Paulo em Perspectiva, 14(4). São Paulo, 2000. REZENDE, Fernando, LIMA, Ricardo (editors). Rio-São Paulo, Cidades Mundiais: Desafios e Oportunidades. IPEA, Brasília, 1999. REZENDE, Fernando, MACDOWELL, Cristina. Desequilíbrios Fiscais e Cooperação Intergovernamental na Região Metropolitana do Recife. BID, IEPA, FIDEM, 2001 (mimeo). REZENDE, Fernando, MACDOWELL, Cristina e MIRANDA, Rogério. Região Metropolitana do Recife: Potencial de Recursos Públicos para o Financiamento do Plano Estratégico de Desenvolvimento. BID, IPEA, FIDEM, 2002 (mimeo). Secretaria do Tesouro Nacional, Ministério da Fazenda, in www.stn.fazenda.gov.br , data available in jan/2004. Tribunal Superior Eleitoral – TSE, in www.tse.gov.br , data available in jan/2004.