This work intends to draw a comparison between the planning system of Brazil and Portugal by focusing on two metropolitan regions. The case study in Brazil is Belo Horizonte, capital of Minas Gerais, the second largest state in Brazil. In Portugal the study will focus on the metropolitan area of ​​Porto, the second most important economic area in Portugal. These two countries were chosen for having a historical past together. And the choice of metropolitan regions was made based on the similarity of economic importance for the respective countries, rather than on the similarity between the cities and its metropolitan region. Firstly, the document will paint a brief geographical overview of the regions, with some useful statistics for a better understanding of each. Second, a quick overview of the evolution of each country's urban planning policy, together with a map of the hierarchy of each country's current administrative planning structure. Then a comparative analysis of how policies are applied in each region and whether there is a specific policy for metropolitan regions in both countries. Brief geographical description Belo Horizonte is a young city planned at the end of the 19th century, more precisely in 1897. The government of the State of Minas Gerais has made many efforts in building its infrastructure to attract industrial capital and populate its new capital (Coast, 2012). Its proximity to Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo and its diversified economy have made the Belo Horizonte metropolitan region the third largest and fourth largest economic area in Brazil. The region is made up of 34 municipalities and almost 5 million inhabitants, with half of the population residing in Belo Horizonte (Costa, 2012). Porto is a......middle of paper......State of Minas Gerais (Costa, 2012). This shows that the identity of Brazilian civil society is more cohesive and Brazilian politics is less willing than Portuguese politics. Furthermore, it shows that the progress and development of any planning system depends on the synergy of both sectors of society. In conclusion, metropolitan regions are polycentric systems with disparities within them and require a form of spatial strategic governance and collaboration between various sectors of society. the company to be successful (Marques, 2005). The lesson that can be drawn from this article is that "central metropolitan cities are not islands and both influence and are influenced by what happens in their hinterlands (Klink and Denaldi, 2011: 544). The instability of national politics and the dispersion of civil society represents the greatest obstacle to the success and progress of local development.