Vacant land and its integration into the urban land market are topics rarely investigated in Latin America. The existing literature tends to focus only on descriptive aspects (i.e., number and size of lots). In the current context of profound economic and social transformations and changing supply and demand patterns of land in cities, the perception of vacant land is beginning to change from being a problem to offering an opportunity.

A comparative study of vacant land in six Latin American cities (Buenos Aires, Argentina; Lima, Peru; Quito, Ecuador; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; San Salvador, El Salvador; and Santiago, Chile) was recently completed as part of an ongoing Lincoln Institute-sponsored research project. The participating researchers examined different categories of vacant land, the problems they generate and their potential uses, as well as the changing roles of both private and public agents, including governments, in the management of vacant land. They concluded that vacant land is an integral element of the complex land markets in these cities, affecting fiscal policies on land and housing. Thus, vacant land has great potential for large-scale developments that could result in improved conditions for urban areas, as well as reduced social polarization and greater equity for their populations.

The six cities in the study vary in size but share the common attributes of rapid population growth and territorial expansion. They also have comparable social indicators (high rates of poverty, unemployment and underemployment), significant deficits in housing and provision of services, and high levels of geographical social stratification and segregation. The land markets in each of the cities also have similar characteristics, although they exhibit their own dynamics in each sub-market.

Characteristics of Vacant Land

The four primary characteristics of vacant land considered in this research project are ownership, quantity, location and length of vacancy. In general, vacant land in Latin America is held by one or more of the following agents, each with their respective policies: real estate developers or sub-dividers (both legal and illegal); low-income people who have acquired land, but cannot afford to develop it; real estate speculators; farmers; state enterprises; and other institutions such as the church, the military, social security, etc.

Determining how much vacant land exists in each city depends on the definition given to the term in the respective country . Quantifying vacant land is further complicated by the numerous obstacles that exist to obtaining accurate information, thus limiting the possibility of comparing data and percentages across metropolitan areas. Finally, in several of these cities (San Salvador, Santiago and Buenos Aires) there are significant “latent” vacant areas. These are unused or marginally used buildings, often previously occupied by former state-owned companies, waiting for new investments in order to be demolished or redeveloped.

In these six cities, the percentage of vacant land ranges from under 5 percent in San Salvador to nearly 44 percent in Rio de Janeiro. If all of San Salvador’s “latent” vacant areas were included, the percentage of vacant land could increase to 40 percent of the total metropolitan area. On the whole, vacant land in the cities accounts for a significant percentage of serviced areas that could potentially house considerable numbers of people who currently have no access to serviced urban land.

The location of vacant land is relatively uniform throughout the region. Whereas in the United States vacant land tends to be centrally located (such as abandoned areas or industrial brownfield sites), in Latin America the majority of vacant sites lie in the outskirts of the cities. These areas are frequently associated with speculation and retention strategies for occupation based on the provision of services. In contrast, the length of time land has been vacant differs considerably: in Lima and Quito, vacant urban lots are relatively “new,” whereas in Buenos Aires some urban lots have remained vacant for several decades.

Policy Issues and Development Potential

An evaluation of the urban-environmental conditions of vacant land concludes that a significant number of sites could tolerate residential or productive activities. These areas currently constitute an underutilized resource and should be considered for investments in urban infrastructure to improve land use efficiency. An equally significant segment, however, has important risk factors: inadequate basic infrastructure; water polluted by industrial waste; risk of flood, erosion or earthquake; and poor accessibility. Such land is inappropriate for occupation unless significant investments are made to safeguard against these environmental problems. Some land in this category could have great potential for environmental protection, although consciousness about land conservation remains a low priority in Latin America.

The study asserts that, in general, the urban poor have little access to vacant land due to high land values, despite the fact that values do vary according to sub-market. Prices are high in areas of dynamic urban expansion that offer better accessibility and services. A large amount of vacant land in several of the cities studied is not on the market and will likely remain vacant for an indefinite period of time. It is in these areas, the researchers contend, that policies should be implemented to reduce the price of serviced vacant land to make it more accessible to the poor.

The majority of Latin American cities have no explicit policies or legal framework regarding vacant land. In those cities where some legislation does exist, such as Rio de Janeiro, it is basically limited to recommendations and lacks real initiatives. In Santiago, recent legislation has promoted increased density in urban areas, yet it is too soon to know the implications of these measures. References to the environment are also generally lacking in “urban” legislation. Vacant land could play an important role in urban sustainability. However, reaching this potential would depend on better articulation between environmental and planning actions, especially at the local level.

Another characteristic common to the areas studied, with the exception of Santiago, is that urban development policy and specific land market policies have been disconnected from tax policy. Even in those cities where there is a distinction in taxation on vacant versus built land-such as Buenos Aires or Quito-it has not translated into any real changes. Sanctions and higher taxes on vacant areas have largely been avoided through a series of loopholes and “exceptions.”

Proposals and Criteria for Implementation

Arguing for an increased government role in land markets in combination with institution-building and capacity-building among other involved actors, the study formulates a number of proposals for the use and reuse of vacant land in Latin America. An overriding proposal is that vacant land should be incorporated into the city’s overall policy framework, taking into account the diversity of vacant land situations. Land use policies to increase the number of green areas, build low-income housing and provide needed infrastructure should be implemented as part of a framework of urban planning objectives. Furthermore, vacant land should be used to promote “urban rationality” by stimulating the occupation of vacant lots in areas with existing infrastructure and repressing urban growth in areas without appropriate infrastructure.

Urban policy objectives on vacant land should also be pursued through tax policy. Some suggestions formulated in this regard are the broadening of the tax base and tax instruments; incorporating mechanisms for value capture in urban public investment; application of a progressive property tax policy (to discourage land retention by high-income owners); and greater flexibility in the municipal tax apparatus.

These policies should be linked to other mechanisms designed to deter the expansion of vacant land and the dynamic of geographical social stratification and segregation. Such related mechanisms might include the granting of low-interest credits or subsidies for the purchase of building materials; technical assistance for construction of housing; provision of infrastructure networks to reduce costs; and credits or grace periods for payment of closing costs, taxes and service fees on property.

Other proposals address the development of pilot programs for land transfers using public-private partnerships to build on government-owned land in order to promote social housing at affordable rates; reuse of some land for agricultural production; and greater attention to environmental issues, with the goal of assuring urban sustainability in the future.

The 1994 Regulatory Plan for the Santiago metropolitan area defined a goal of elevating the city’s average density by 50 percent, while 1995 reforms to the Ley de Rentas introduced a fee on non-edified land and a disincentive to land speculation.

Nora Clichevsky is a researcher with CONICET, the National Council for Scientific and Technical Research in Buenos Aires, Argentina. She is the coordinator of the six-city study of vacant land in Latin America, which met to discuss these findings in August 1998. Laura Mullahy, a research assistant with the Lincoln Institute’s Latin American Program, contributed to this article.

Other members of the research team are Julio Calderón of Lima, Peru; Diego Carrión and Andrea Carrión of CIUDAD in Quito, Ecuador; Fernanda Furtado and Fabrizio Leal de Oliveira of the University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Mario Lungo and Francisco Oporto of the Central American University in El Salvador; and Patricio Larraín of the Chilean Ministry of Housing and Urbanism.

In the next phase of this project, the Lincoln Institute will sponsor a seminar on vacant land this spring in Río de Janeiro, with the participation of the original researchers as well as other experts from each of the cities involved.

Mexico is beginning to create an enabling environment to use land value increments for development purposes. Recent constitutional and legal reforms have authorized the clarification of land titling as well as the commercialization of land. Real estate markets are gradually superseding the immobile land tenure arrangements that gave rise to informal markets characterized by confusing and often arbitrary arrangements and high transaction costs. The private sector is moving into the areas of low-income housing and public-private arrangements for balanced and sustainable land developments.

The State of Mexico has launched a comprehensive program, known as PRORIENTE, to promote government, business and community interaction for joint management and financing of urban development in the eastern part of the territory. PRORIENTE’s vision is one of “new cities” surrounding the Mexico City megalopolis, characterized by balanced growth between demographic densification, income-generating activities and environmental protection. The creation of employment in and around the new settlements is an overriding social and economic goal of the program.

Given the intricate pattern of interests involved, PRORIENTE has adopted an intersectorial and interjurisdictional approach. Indeed, PRORIENTE requires that the State of Mexico take the initiative to coordinate land and fiscal policies and instruments among the federal government, the newly elected opposition government of the Federal District, and the many municipalities that are largely controlled by opposition parties.

The challenges for PRORIENTE are formidable:

Population growth in the region between now and the year 2,020 is estimated at five million people.

Deforestation and disorganized urbanization of agricultural areas are leading to further desertification of this region.

Innovative policies and contractual arrangements have yet to be introduced to create effective land markets.

Uncontrolled urbanization has been dominated by private developers who speculate with land prices, ignore urban planning and appropriate huge increases in land values, as well as by settlements of low-income immigrants. New mechanisms for public capture of increases in land values that emanate from new policies and/or administrative decisions will have to overcome serious resistance.

Real estate taxation is largely underdeveloped, and the property tax structure is plagued with many exceptions. Cadasters are often outdated and have only weak connections with the system of transfer and registration of real property.

Public-private partnerships that are accountable to the communities and operate on a transparent basis are practically unknown in a country with a tradition of a strong federal government.

Intergovernmental fiscal relations and interjurisdictional arrangements have been dominated by the will and the overwhelming fiscal power of the federal government, which controls 80 percent of public income compared to four percent for the municipalities and 16 percent for the state. Local and regional governments are just beginning to experiment with political coalitions and multiparty governments capable of surviving the short life span of one administration.

In view of these obstacles and challenges, the leaders of PRORIENTE have adopted a participatory, negotiating approach that is already producing visible results. Businesses have formed large-scale conglomerates capable of funneling much-needed capital and management technologies into the area. The federal government, the Federal District, municipalities and communities are invited to the negotiating table to participate in an ongoing process that nurtures an expanding program rather than a precise policy or institutional goal.

The Lincoln Institute recognizes that this project presents an excellent opportunity to study the complex role of land as a strategic factor for development throughout Latin America. Last April, the Institute coordinated a seminar on urban land markets in the city of Toluca, and is continuing to serve as a sounding board for policymakers of the State of Mexico and other public and private actors involved in PRORIENTE.

In addition, a Lincoln Institute team is cooperating with other institutions and practitioners to share international experiences regarding both the process of policy formation and the operational side of the PRORIENTE program. Special attention is given to the sustainability and replicability of strategies to facilitate the transition from restrictive land tenancy systems, weak property tax administrations and highly centralized fiscal resources to competitive land markets and local land use initiatives to encourage development. The Institute will utilize this experience in Mexico for developing courses in other countries facing similar situations.

Fernando Rojas, a visiting fellow of the Lincoln Institute, is a legal scholar and public policy analyst from Colombia. He was formerly a visiting fellow at the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies at Harvard University. Alfonso Iracheta is technical secretary of PRORIENTE and the director of planning for the State of Mexico.

The land market allocates land and access to urban amenities, and it does so with impressive efficiency. Yet, economists and planners continue to debate the extent to which the market fails to achieve broader social goals, how far regulation can offset for that failure, and even whether regulation results in land market outcomes being even farther from the socially desired outcome than would be the case without any regulation. To examine this debate and the underlying issues, more than 30 economists and planners met at the Lincoln Institute in July 2002 to encourage new policy-relevant analysis on land markets and their regulation, and to foster more fruitful communication between the disciplines.

At the center of the substantive debate was the basic question of regulation within a market economy and the unintended consequences that can result. The discussions touched upon many themes including gentrification, the use of public resources for private consumption, distributional issues, urban form and its regulation. If perspectives regarding market regulation differed between the two disciplines, so too did views regarding the strengths and limitations of the analytic tools that academics from different disciplines bring to such thorny problems. Among the challenges are the basic questions of how to define the problem, how to measure the current conditions in light of limited data, and how to interpret findings. Throughout the conference, the differences in the perspectives, assumptions, tools and references between planners and economists were ever present, in particular with regard to the role of politics in planning and policy making.

Unintended Consequences of Land Market Regulations

Despite their differences, concern for land markets and their centrality to social, political and economic life was the common focus of both economists and planners at the conference. They agreed that land markets are about far more than land. These markets have an important role in delivering life experiences and conditioning the welfare of the majority of people in developed and developing countries alike who live and work in cities. In addition, their regulation has both direct and indirect economic effects that extend into many areas of economic life and public policy. For example, the urban poor are likely to have worse schools and to experience higher levels of neighborhood crime because land markets capitalize the values of neighborhood amenities, such as better school quality and lower crime, thereby pricing poorer households into less desirable neighborhoods.

This power of land markets to reflect and capitalize factors that affect a household’s welfare was revealed in a study of impact fees levied on new development in Florida. Ihlanfeldt and Shaughnessy found that impact fees appear to be fully capitalized into house prices for owners of new and existing houses by redistributing the costs of new infrastructure provision from existing taxpayers to a reduced value of development land. In fast-growing Miami the cost of impact fees was borne by developers, yet offset by the increases they received in higher prices for new housing, “while buyers of new homes are compensated for a higher price by the property tax savings they experience. In contrast to the neutral effects that fees have on developers, landowners, and purchasers of new housing, impact fees provide existing homeowners a capital gain” (Ihlanfeldt and Shaughnessy, 26).

One complement to their story of Florida’s impact fees was illustrated in several other papers concerned with the unintended outcomes of regulation. British participants reported that Britain’s containment policy has generated higher densities within urbanized areas, but cities leapfrog out across their Greenbelts (or growth boundaries) to smaller satellite settlements; the consequence is that development becomes less contiguous and travel times increase. Villages become high-density suburbs surrounded by a sea of wheat: London in functional terms extends to cover most of southeastern England.

In a U.S. example based on an econometric simulation, Elena Irwin and Nancy Bockstael found that a clustering policy intended to preserve open space could instead backfire. Using Maryland data, they simulated the effects of a policy that was intended to preserve rural open space and found that it would instead accelerate development if “small to moderate amounts of open space are required to be preserved (specifically, 20 acres or less) and would slow the timing of development if larger amounts of open space are required to be preserved” (Irwin and Bockstael, 26). Their simulation results yield an interpretation that is highly nuanced and requires careful thought. That is, under certain conditions the cluster policy can backfire, while under other specific conditions the policy can yield an intended policy outcome.

These hypothetical clusters in Maryland may be echos of a real situation that Jean Cavailhès and his colleagues observed in the French countryside, where some urban dwellers moved to farm regions to create a mixed-use area that is neither entirely urban nor entirely rural. These former urbanites appear to value their proximity to a functioning rural landscape in exchange for longer commutes and (surprisingly) smaller residential lots. The authors hypothesize that these peri-urban dwellers benefit in different ways from living among the farmers.

In another example of the unintended consequences of regulations, Donald Shoup analyzed curbside parking. Many U.S. municipalities require developers to provide minimal parking per square foot of new commercial or, in some communities, residential space. The requirement for off-street parking, coupled with a systematic underpricing of curbside parking, has a double impact, according to Shoup. It imposes a substantial tax on affected developments (equivalent to up to 88 percent of construction costs), increases land taking, and means that public revenues annually lost an amount equal to the median property tax.

In these cases of unintended consequences of policy or regulatory interventions in the market, the authors argued for more careful design of both policies and regulations so state and local governments could reasonably achieve their policy goals. Despite the fact that the conference debate tended to pit regulation against the market, there was probably a tendency—if not full-fledged consensus—to favor market incentives and disincentives to achieve policy goals, rather than to rely strictly, or even largely, on regulation. Roger Bolton’s comments on Shoup’s paper cogently reflected this viewpoint. He said that Shoup’s work was valuable because it urges us to pay attention to a whole package of “important and related phenomena: inefficient pricing of an important good, curb parking; inefficient regulation of another good, privately owned off-street parking; and missed opportunities for local government revenue.”

Data and Measurement Challenges

Growth management and urban form were referenced extensively throughout the conference. The paper presented by Henry Overman, and written with three colleagues (Burchfield et al.) provided useful grounding to that conversation. They attempted to measure the extent of sprawl for the entire continental U.S. Using remote sensing data they calculated and mapped urban development and the change in urban land cover between 1976 and 1992. They defined sprawl as either the extension of the urban area, or leapfrog development, or lower-density development beyond the urban fringe. They concluded that only 1.9 percent of the continental U.S. was in urban use and only 0.58 percent had been taken for urban development in the 16-year period covered by the study. Furthermore, during this period, urban densities were mostly on the increase.

This study found development to be a feature of the “nearby urban landscape,” whether that was defined as close to existing development, or near highways or the coasts, and thus was perceived as encroaching on where people lived or traveled. The authors use this last observation to reconcile the apparent contradiction between their finding that less than 2 percent of the continental U.S. has been developed and the fact that containing and managing sprawl is at the center of policy agendas in many states and regions across the U.S. While relatively little land might have been consumed by new development in aggregate during the study period, many people see and experience this development on a daily basis and perceive it to represent significant change, often the kind of change they do not like.

The conference discussion touched upon some of the data questions raised by this work. The paper’s discussant, John Landis, noted some challenges he has faced in working with these and similar data to measure growth patterns in California. The estimates by Burchfield et al. are extremely low, possibly for technical reasons, according to Landis. Among the reasons is the difficulty in interpreting satellite images and the different outcomes that can occur when different thresholds are used for counting density, for example. That is, an area can be classified as more or less dense depending on what threshold the analysts establishes. “Ground-truthing” is required to remove some of the arbitrariness from the analysis, but this is an enormously costly undertaking.

Policy analysts are always faced with data limitations. Sometimes the problem is missing data, while other times it is data with questionable reliability. Yet, all too often researchers spend very little time paying attention to how serious that deficiency is for the policy problem at hand. When the available data is a very long time series with frequent intervals that relies on a well-structured and well-understood data collection method, and where few transformations occur between data collection and data use, most researchers and policy analysts would feel extremely comfortable interpolating one or two or even a handful of missing data points. Econometricians relying on data collected at regular intervals from government surveys frequently face this situation and are quite adept at filling in such “holes in the data.” In the world of limited data, that might be considered the best-case scenario.

At the other extreme we might have data that are collected using relatively new methods and that require significant transformation between collection and use. Data reliability likely decreases under these circumstances. Given the imperfect world in which we live, the answer is probably not to insist on using only the “best data.” However, researchers and policy analysts do have the obligation to use care in interpreting results based on weak data and to convey that weakness to their audience.

Another side of the limited data problem is the translation from concept to measure, and it explains why the conference participants spent so much time discussing “What is sprawl?” For researchers this question becomes “How does one define sprawl in such a way that one can measure it?” Burchfield et al. define sprawl as leapfrog or discontiguous urban development. Landis argues for “a more multi-faceted definition of sprawl, one that also incorporates issues of density, land use mix, and built-form homogeneity.”

Definitions are not trivial in policy analysis. If we cannot define the problem or the outcome, and we cannot measure it, how can we know if it is getting better or worse, and if our policies are having an impact? On the other hand, a very precise definition of a different but perhaps related concept may lead to unnecessary intervention. The new policy may improve the score on the measure but have little or no effect on the problem. For a variety of reasons (perhaps in part the customs and cultures within different disciplines) the economists at the conference tended to favor concepts that are simple and for which the data exist. On the other hand, the planners tended to favor concepts that are messy. In the end, one is left with weaknesses on both sides. The uni-dimensional definition, and therefore the uni-dimensional measure, may provide many of the desirable properties that allow statistical analyses. Multi-dimensional concepts are difficult to translate into measures. Which is better for policy making?

The Political Nature of Land Policy

Planning as a political activity was emphasized by several authors, notably Chris Riley (discussant of papers by Edwin Mills and Alan Evans), to emphasize the importance for economists to recognize this role and the constraints it imposes on significant change (particularly given the capacity of land markets to capitalize into asset values the amenities generated by planning policies themselves). Richard Feiock added there was also evidence that the forms of planning policies that communities selected (both the severity of such policies and the degree to which they relied on regulation in contrast to market instruments) could be largely accounted for by the political structure and socioeconomic and ethnic composition of those communities.

Participants reacted differently to the political nature of land policy and planning. For some this was problematic: it meant that the market was not being allowed to work. For others, it meant that the political process in a democracy was being allowed to work: the people had spoken and the policy reflected the expressed will of the body politic.

Reflections on Debate

The differences between economists and planners will continue, and differences among practitioners in different countries and even different parts of the same country (notably the large United States) can either stimulate or thwart future debates over the study of land market policies and implementation. Perhaps, though, the word debate itself thwarts our efforts. In debates, the debaters rarely change their minds. They enter the debate with their point of view firmly fixed and do not get “points” for admitting that their debating opponent taught them something or that they have consequently changed their own mind. However, one purpose of a professional conference is, indeed, for thoughtful people to consider their own assumptions and to be informed and changed by the points of view of others. In the future, perhaps debates will be supplanted with reflective conversation.

Paul Cheshire is professor of economic geography at the London School of Economics, England; Rosalind Greenstein is senior fellow and cochair of the Department of Planning and Development at the Lincoln Institute; and Stephen C. Sheppard is professor in the Department of Economics at Williams College, Massachusetts. They jointly organized the Lincoln Institute conference, “Analysis of Urban Land Markets and the Impact of Land Market Regulation,” on which this article is based.

Conference Papers

The conference participants whose papers are cited in this article are noted below. All conference papers and discussants’ comments are posted on the Lincoln Institute website (www.lincolninst.edu) where they can be downloaded for free

Burchfield, Marcy, Henry Overman, Diego Puga and Matthew A. Turner. “Sprawl?”

Cavailhès, Jean, Dominique Peeters, Evangelos Sékeris, and Jacques-François Thisse. “The Periurban City.”

Feiock, Richard E. and Antonio Taveras. “County Government Institutions and Local Land Use Regulation.”

Ihlanfeldt, Keith R. and Timothy Shaughnessy. “An Empirical Investigation of the Effects of Impact Fees on Housing and Land Markets.”

Irwin, Elena G. and Bockstael, Nancy E. “Urban Sprawl as a Spatial Economic Process.”

Shoup, Donald. “Curb Parking: The Ideal Source of Public Revenue.”

During the last decade, bus rapid transit (BRT) has revolutionized regional transportation planning in much of the developing and developed world. BRT went from being a fringe transportation option used in a handful of Brazilian and Australian cities to becoming a prominent mass transportation alternative for local and national governments.

Arguably the BRT concept with highest recognition is the provision of an exclusive right-of-way for bus transit coupled with high-frequency service. In South America, BRT systems in Curitiba, Brazil, and Bogotá, Colombia, feature networks of dedicated lanes designated for exclusive use by large-capacity, articulated buses, with expedited boarding and alighting.

More than any other single variable, the change in land values across time and over space provides important insights into the shifting spatial structure of a city. Whereas a typical property sale reflects the combined value of the land and buildings, the land value alone represents the actual current worth of a location and suggests expectations about the future. Even if a parcel bears the burden of an outmoded construction, the price of the land reflects the present discounted value of the stream of returns that could be earned from the highest and best use of the parcel. Rapidly rising land prices in an area of a city are a clear indication that people expect the neighborhood to be in high demand for some time to come, signaling investment opportunities to developers. Changes in land values may also serve to alert city officials that an area may require zoning changes and investments in infrastructure.

Land value is also an important component in the cost approach to property assessment, which is one of the three commonly used assessment methods (including the sales comparison and income approaches). The cost approach has three major components: (1) the cost of building the existing structure if it were new at the time of assessment; (2) the depreciation of the building to its current condition; and (3) the price of the land parcel. Adding (1) to (3) and subtracting (2) generally produces a good estimate of overall property value. In standard property transactions, however, land values are not easily separated from the value of structures. Sales of vacant land, which more clearly indicate a site’s value, are relatively rare in large, built-up urban areas; as a result, relatively few studies of vacant land sales exist (see Ahlfeldt and Wendland 2011; Atack and Margo 1998; Colwell and Munneke 1997; Cunningham 2006). Teardowns can sometimes be used to measure land values, because land represents the entire value of a property when the existing building is demolished immediately following a sale (McMillen 2006; Dye and McMillen 2007). However, teardowns tend to be concentrated in certain high-value neighborhoods, and the data on demolitions can be hard to obtain.

Among U.S. cities, Chicago is uniquely fortunate to have a data source, Olcott’s Land Values Blue Book of Chicago, which reported estimates of land values for every city block and for blocks in many Cook County suburbs for most of the 20th century. Olcott’s provided a critical input to the cost assessment procedure: After determining the building cost and depreciation, the overall value of a property can be assessed by multiplying the parcel size by the land value provided in the Blue Book series. This article is based on a sampling of data from the Olcott volumes (box 1). It includes a series of maps that provide a clear picture of the spatial evolution of Chicago during the 20th century, similar in spirit to the classic book, One Hundred Years of Land Values in Chicago (Hoyt 1933).

————————

Box 1: Data Sources for Chicago Land Values

Olcott’s Land Values Blue Book of Chicago covers the City and much of suburban Cook County with a series of 300 maps, each printed on one page of a book. The city itself comprises 160 individual maps with an impressive level of detail. Most block faces have a value representing the price per square foot for a standard 125-foot-deep lot. Land use is also indicated. Large lots and most industrial land have prices quoted by the acre or occasionally by the square foot for an unspecified lot depth. The data represent land values for 1/8- x 1/8-mile square grids, which closely follow Chicago’s street layout and thus resemble city blocks. Each year’s data set includes 43,324 observations for the entire city.

The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy has provided funding to digitize the data contained in Olcott’s Blue Book for a series of years spanning much of the twentieth century: 1913, 1926, 1932, 1939, 1949, 1961, 1965, 1971, 1981, and 1990. A more thorough description of the procedure used is presented in Ahlfeldt et al. (2011). Digitizing the maps involves bringing them into a GIS environment. Average land values are calculated for 1/8- x 1/8-mile squares overlaid on the maps. The full data set has more than 600,000 data points across the 10 individual years.

Olcott’s stopped publication in the early 1990s, and the last year of digitized data is 1990. To supplement Olcott’s records for recent years, the authors obtained data on all vacant land sales in the city from 1980 to 2011. More than 16,000 sales were successfully geocoded, and they display the dramatic increase in land prices during the period prior to the collapse of the housing market at the end of 2006. These combined data sets provide a unique opportunity to analyze the changing spatial structure of an entire city over an extended time.

————————

Spatial Variation in Land Values

Despite its flat terrain, Chicago has never been a truly monocentric city. Lake Michigan has long been an attractive amenity for its scenic value, its moderating effect on the climate, and the series of parks lining its shore. The Chicago River also has had a significant influence on the location of both businesses and households. Development to the north of the Central Business District (CBD) was delayed because the bridges over the main branch of the river had to open so often for river traffic that commuting to the Loop business area was unpredictable and time consuming. The north and south branches of the river attracted both industrial firms and low-priced residential developments for laborers while repelling high-priced homes designed for CBD workers. The locations of major streets, highways, and train lines also had significant effects on development patterns. Thus, there is ample reason to expect that the rate of change in land values varies across the city.

The maps in figure 1 show this spatial variation in land values in Chicago over time. In 1913, land values were highest in a large area around the CBD, and they were also quite high along the lakefront and along some of the major avenues and boulevards leading out of the downtown area. In 1939, this pattern was generally similar, along with the rise of the north side relative to the south side of the city: Land values were very high all along the northern lakefront and extending well inland on the north side. The area at the edge of the city due west of the CBD (the Austin neighborhood) also had relatively high land values in 1939.

By 1965, the pattern of land values had changed markedly. Very high land values were confined to a relatively small area in the CBD. The high-value area of the west-side Austin neighborhood was much smaller in 1965 than in 1939, and nearly all the formerly high-value areas had shrunk in size.

By 1990, however, the situation changed dramatically. The area with very high values extended much farther north and inland than previously. Areas on the south side had relatively high land values in 1990, particularly around the South Loop (near the CBD) and Hyde Park (along Lake Michigan south of the CBD).

After 1990, the pattern of continued redevelopment of the city is based on an analysis of actual sales of vacant land. The expansion of the high-value area to the north and west of the CBD is remarkable, and the near south side also enjoyed a resurgence during this time.

Figure 2 addresses how the recent recession affected the growth of land values in Chicago by expressing land values as a function of distance from the CBD. The plots show the change in average (log) land values over time for tracts with centroids falling within 2-, 5-, and 10-mile rings around the CBD. In 1913, average land values were far lower 10 miles from the CBD than in the closer rings. By the 1960s, there was little difference between land values across these distances. Since then, average values grew much more in the 2-mile ring than in more distant locations. During the Great Recession, land values declined rapidly in the 2-mile ring, less rapidly in the 5-mile ring, and not at all in the 10-mile ring. Thus, the areas that had the highest rates of appreciation during the period of extended growth also had the highest rates of decline during the recession.

Figure 3 provides a different perspective on the spatial variation in land values over time. The three panels show smoothed land value surfaces for 1913, 1990, and 2005. The 1913 and 1990 surfaces are estimated using Olcott’s data, while the 2005 estimates are based on sales of vacant land. In all three years, land values are far higher in the CBD than elsewhere. In 1913, there are a large number of local peaks in land values at the intersections of major streets. These areas were relatively small commercial districts that served local residents in a time before car ownership was commonplace. In 1990, the land value peak in the CBD is accompanied by a much lower plateau just to the north along the lakefront. In 2005, the plateau has grown to a large area that extends well into the north side and inland along the lakefront. The region of high land values has also extended south along the lakefront, with a local rise much farther south in Hyde Park.

Persistence of Spatial Patterns

Historical land values are interesting not only because they reveal how an urban area has changed over time, but also because the past continues to exert substantial influence on the present. Cities are not rebuilt from scratch in every period. Buildings last a long time before they are demolished, and sites that were attractive in the past tend to remain desirable for a long time. One of the unique features of the Olcott’s data set is that it allows us to compare land values from 100 years ago to current land values and land uses.

Figure 4 shows the average date of construction for the 1/8- x 1/8-mile squares. The recent recentralization of Chicago is evident in the donut shape of building ages around the CBD. The newest buildings are close to the CBD, while the oldest buildings are in the next ring. Buildings in the most distant region were most likely built between 1940 and 1970.

Figure 5 summarizes this relationship by comparing the mean construction date to distance from the CBD. The oldest buildings are in a ring just over 5 miles from the CBD.

A good measure of structural density is the ratio of building area to lot size. Economic theory predicts that structural densities will be high where land values are high. Structures last for a long time. How well do past values predict current structural density? Figure 6 compares the structural density of buildings in the 2003 Cook County assessment rolls to land values in 1913 and 1990. This data set includes the building area of every small (six units or fewer) residential structure in Chicago.

The height of the bars indicates the structural densities: Tall bars have relatively high ratios of building areas to lot sizes. The color of the bars indicates land values: Red bars have relatively high and values. Thus, we should expect to see a large number of tall red bars and low green bars. In general, the two panels do indicate a positive correlation between structural density and land values. The correlation is particularly evident on the north side and along the lakefront. The correlation with 1990 is less clear on the south and west sides. Several elevations in the density surface are not matched by correspondingly high land values. One explanation for these results, which are in line with the reorientation of high-priced areas toward the north side, is that the relatively high densities in these areas are artifacts of a past when those blocks were relatively more valuable and when there were incentives to use the land intensively. The 1913 panel of figure 6 suggests that land values are actually more closely correlated with building densities for 2003 than are the 1990 values. The root of this apparently anomalous result is that building density reflects the economic conditions at the time of construction, and most of the buildings in that part of the city date from long ago. The past continues to exert a major influence on the present.

Conclusion

Olcott’s data provide a clear picture of the changes in Chicago’s spatial structure during most of the 20th century. Never a truly monocentric city, Chicago began the century with very high land values in the CBD, along the lakefront, and along major avenues and boulevards leading out of the downtown area. Values were also high in neighborhood retail areas at the intersections of major streets. By 1939, the north side of Chicago had already begun to display its economic dominance. The city then suffered an extended period of decline, with the CBD holding the only major cluster of high land values in the 1960s. Since then, the city has undergone a remarkable resurgence. High land values now extend over nearly the entire north side, and land values have also rebounded in parts of the south side. Our analysis also shows the strong role that history continues to play in the current spatial structure of the city. A result of this persistence is that land values from a century ago are better than current land values at predicting the density of the current housing stock.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy for generous funding and support, and are grateful to the Centre for Metropolitan Studies at the TU-Berlin for hosting a team of researchers during the project work. Kristoffer Moeller and Sevrin Weights are acknowledged for their great contribution to designing and coordinating the compilation of the data set. Philip Boos, Aline Delatte, Nuria-Maria Hoyer Sepulvedra, Devika Kakkar, Rene Kreichauf, Maike Rackwitz, Lea Siebert, Stefan Tornack, and Tzvetelina Tzvetkova provided excellent research assistance.

About the Authors

Gabriel M. Ahlfeldt is associate professor at the London School of Economics and Political Sciences (LSE) in the Department of Geography and Environment and Spatial Economics Research Centre (SERC).

Daniel P. McMillen is professor in the department of economics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Resources

Ahlfeldt, Gabriel M., Kristoffer Moeller, Sevrin Waights, and Nicolai Wendland. 2011. “One Hundred Years of Land Value: Data Documentation.” Centre for Metropolitan Studies, TU Berlin.

Ahlfeldt, Gabriel M., and Nicolai Wendland. 2011. “Fifty Years of Urban Accessibility: The Impact of the Urban Railway Network on the Land Gradient in Berlin 1890–1936.” Regional Science and Urban Economics 41: 77–88.

Atack, J., and R. A. Margo. 1998. “Location, Location, Location! The Price Gradient for Vacant Urban Land: New York, 1835 to 1900.” Journal of Real Estate Finance & Economics 16(2) 151–172.

Colwell, Peter F., and Henry J. Munneke. 1997. “The Structure of Urban Land Prices.” Journal of Urban Economics 41: 321–336.

Cunningham, Christopher R. 2006. “House Price Uncertainty, Timing of Development, and Vacant Land Prices: Evidence for Real Options in Seattle.” Journal of Urban Economics 59: 1–31.

Dye, Richard F., and Daniel P. McMillen. 2007. “Teardowns and Land Values in the Chicago Metropolitan Area.” Journal of Urban Economics 61: 45–64.

Hoyt, Homer. 1933. One Hundred Years of Land Values in Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McMillen, Daniel P. 2006. “Teardowns: Costs, Benefits, and Public Policy.” Land Lines, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy 18(3): 2–7.

Low-income, self-managed homestead subdivisions, called colonias in Texas, are a rapidly expanding form of land and housing production in the United States. In a recently completed Lincoln Institute-supported study, I have analyzed the dysfunctional aspects of these land markets as measured by a high level of absentee lot ownership, modest lot and property transactions and turnover, and a lack of significant valorization (value increment) as settlements are built through and improved.

Homestead Subdivisions

Colonias, the Spanish word for neighborhoods, were first identified in the poorest Texas counties along the border with Mexico. They comprise unserviced or poorly serviced settlements in which homesteaders have bought a lot upon which they place either a trailer-type dwelling, or its up-market and less mobile or portable form, the “manufactured home.” In some cases, families build their homes through self-help efforts, beginning residence in a shack, camper or second-hand trailer and later consolidating the home over time.

Colonias are not a small-scale phenomenon. According to the Texas Water Development Board, there are approximately 1,500 such settlements housing around 400,000 people, mostly in the border region. The Board’s data and my own survey results show that many similar types of homestead subdivisions exist elsewhere in Texas, so these population estimates are likely to increase as we learn more. Indeed, counties throughout Texas, and in other states as well, are beginning to recognize the problems of unregulated substandard subdivisions that offer one of the few affordable homestead options for low-income households.

Low income here refers to households earning between $12,000 and $25,000 a year, although many colonia households actually earn much less (see Table 1). These households are in poor labor market areas: either regions experiencing wage and labor polarization among workers, or where low-paid service sector jobs predominate. Housing costs in most cities place home ownership beyond the reach of households that seek accommodation within the lower end of the rental housing market, in apartments or in trailer parks. Yet, many of these households aspire to homeownership, recognizing the advantages of moving out of rental housing where they have no equity. Many of them favor homesteading in poorly serviced rural subdivisions where they can own and valorize property through mutual aid and self-help efforts.

Colonias are not homogeneous, however. They vary markedly in size, layout, mode of development, mix of housing types, lot dimensions, lot occupancy and residential turnover rates, level of servicing, ethnic composition, income levels, and levels of relative poverty. In Texas, there is no typical colonia, but rather a range of types that vary among counties.

These settlements are akin to so-called irregular settlements in less developed countries, and they have a similar rationality to explain their existence: a low-wage economy, a rising demand for housing, a lack of state housing supply systems capable of meeting demand, and a private sector uninterested or unable to produce housing at levels that people can afford. Like their counterparts in Mexico and Latin America, colonias offer low-cost unserviced land on the fringes of urbanized areas that is affordable and accessible to very low-income groups. Most residents must commute substantial distances into the adjacent cities for work.

While colonias in Texas are rarely illegal, many aspects of the development process are informal or quasi-formal, most notably:

• the relative informality of the land sale and titling process, based on a Contract for Deed;
• the lack of legal title in some cases where lots have been sold several times over to different claimants, or where people occupy someone else’s lot by mistake, derived from ‘metes and bounds’ adjudication. (Both processes require ex-post informal dispute resolution or “regularization” of clouded titles.)
• their peri-urban location in fiscally weak and low-regulation counties;
• the lack of services and low-grade infrastructure that does not comply with prevailing city jurisdiction codes and norms;
• the self-help and/or self-managed nature of dwelling provision.

Just over a decade ago, Texas became aware of the existence and proliferation of colonia-type subdivisions, and in biennial legislative sessions began to take action to stop their growth on the one hand, and to simulate upgrading on the other. Following are some examples of legislative action over the past decade:

• 1991: Model Subdivisions Rules that require minimum service levels (later applied to grandfathered developments);
• 1991: the appropriation of funds (only about half what is needed) for water and wastewater servicing provision;
• 1995: consumer protection applied to Contract for Deed titling;
• 1995: a moratorium on further lot sales in unapproved (unserviced) colonias, and a servicing “build-it” or “bond-it” mandate to developers;
• 1999: greater coordination between government agencies, and an increase in the responsibilities of counties.

An underlying weakness in all these initiatives is that they apply only in the border region and in specially designated counties that form part of the state’s Economically Depressed Areas Program (EDAP). Elsewhere, the process continues essentially unabated.

Vacant Lots and Absentee Ownership

A major indicator of land market dysfunction is the failure to occupy and develop a lot after it has been sold. The data show that between 15 and 80 percent of colonia lots may be vacant. Even in the largest and now often fully serviced settlements, as many as one-quarter to one-sixth of lots are held vacant by absentee lot owners. Moreover, relatively large lot sizes of one-eighth to one-half acre or more, together with prohibitions on lot subdivision and sharing, create very low densities of 10 to 12 persons per acre. This exacerbates the unit cost of providing services, reduces cost recovery, and weakens community cohesion and mutual aid. Weestimate that there are over 26,000 vacant lots in Texas comprising more than 7,000 acres of unoccupied residential land. If these lots were fully populated, even at the prevailing low densities generally found in colonias, an additional 100,000 people could be housed in existing settlements alone.

A key question, then, is why so many low-income households do not occupy their lots? Conventional wisdom argues that the lack of services discourages potential residents, and that providing basic utilities would be a catalyst to lot occupancy. However, this argument begs the question why many people do occupy their lots from the outset. They can be asked about their motives and decision-making process, but it is more problematic to question absentee lot owners who are difficult to trace. Who are they? Where are they? What do they want from their land?

In spite of the methodological conundrum caused by the lack of a clear paper trail from property conveyance records and lot titles, we were able to develop a research strategy using property appraisal and tax records to track down some of these absentee lot owners. However, an estimated 8 to 10 percent of these records were discovered to be “bad” addresses, with the probability that the actual number of untraceable lot owners may be twice as high. Having walked away from the land they bought, these lot owners are in effect locking their property out of future land market transactions.

Current Place of Residence of Absentee Owners

By using tax record data for some 2,713 absentee lot owners across 16 survey settlements (in border and non-border counties), it was possible to identify the current location of absentee owners.

Around three-quarters live locally, i.e., in the adjacent city or within 20 miles. The rest are non-local, split equally between those living elsewhere in Texas and those living out-of-state. While there was a broad spread of addresses across the state, most absentee lot owners lived in Houston (26 percent), Dallas (15 percent) and San Antonio (12 percent)-the three principal metropolitan areas of Texas. California, with 35 percent of all out-of-state absentee addresses, was the most frequently identified state, followed by New Mexico (14 percent), and the Chicago region (Illinois and Indiana with 12 percent).

Characteristics of Occupants and Absentee Owners

This research reveals that colonia occupants and absentee lot owners are substantially different populations (see Table 1). Absentee owners are more likely to be Mexican-American, and are more ethnically diverse. While poor, they are considerably better off than colonia residents. Generally, the absentee owners purchased their lots earlier, and therefore paid less in real terms.

The most dramatic differences between the groups emerge in their residential search behavior and their motives for purchase. Absentee lot owner households are not waiting in the wings to move onto their lots once servicing has been provided. Quite the opposite: most of them (81 percent) are homeowners already and appear to be quite comfortable in their current residence. Moreover, some 49 percent indicated they bought their lot not for themselves but as an investment, as security, or as a future gift or inheritance for their children. Less than one quarter stated that the lack of existing services was an issue. More than half expressed no future intention to move onto the lot, and of those who do intend to move, very few plan to do so in the next 5 to 10 years. In reality I anticipate that few will ever move. Some even said they would sell at any time if the price was right.

Land market performance for both populations during the past two decades is unlike other residential land markets. Land value trends in colonias have remained “flat” in real terms, and the rate of return has been low, especially compared with other sectors of the land and housing market. This suggests that the poor are not benefiting significantly either from their land purchase investment or from their sweat equity (in the case of residents). Although a modest level of market sales continues to take place (more than was anticipated), colonia land markets are not being valorized significantly.

Policies for Fixing the Market

Vacant lots are both a cause and an effect of this poor market performance. It is important to note that the “build-it-and-they-will come” notion is badly misconstrued. Policies to develop urban services in order to catalyze lot occupancy and densification may be helpful, but other land market interventions are also required to make land markets in colonias operate more efficiently. These might include revising legislation to facilitate urban productivity, such as allowing for some nonresidential land use for income production, or for subdivision and rental. Indeed, one reason why land is not being valorized is the restriction placed upon approved land uses. The 1995 moratorium on lot sales also limits development. Although the law is widely breached, doing so deflates prices, distorts turnover and drives sales underground. The prohibition upon internal lot subdivision (especially of large lots) inhibits rent-seeking and cost-sharing among kin.

Another need is to free up the land-locked areas that belong to owners who can no longer be traced. Sequestration of lots for nonpayment of taxes could be one approach, especially if tied to the creation of a public holding company or land trust that would subsequently promote the supply and redistribution of lots through mechanisms such as land pooling and land readjustment. In Texas, at least, tackling the “problem” of large-scale absentee lot ownership would offer a number of positive outcomes and solutions.

Understanding and widening our analysis of homestead subdivisions in Texas and elsewhere offers the potential that policy makers will be better informed, and that we may begin to develop more sensitive and appropriate land policies to address the issue. In so doing, we may substantially increase the supply of homesteading opportunities to the most disadvantaged income groups in U.S. society.

References

Peter M. Ward. 1999. Colonias and Public Policy in Texas and Mexico: Urbanization by Stealth. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

______. 2000. Residential Land Market Dynamics, Absentee Lot Owners and Densification Policies for Texas Colonias. Lincoln Institute Working Paper. WP00PW1. 160 pages. $18.

Peter M. Ward holds the C.B. Smith Sr. Centennial Chair in US-Mexico Relations at the University of Texas-Austin, where he also is a professor in the Department of Sociology and at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs.

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 1 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

Una serie de tendencias convergentes llevaron a 40 académicos y profesionales de 15 países a reunirse en el Instituto Lincoln en julio de 1998 para discutir recientes reformas de los mercados de tierra. La primera de ellas es el reconocimiento de que la población mundial se está volviendo cada vez más urbana y en consecuencia se puede esperar que la cantidad de tierra convertida al uso urbano aumente significativamente. Segundo, la evidencia de que una mayor proporción de las familias más pobres del mundo viven actualmente en áreas urbanas (en el orden del 80% en Latinoamérica). Tercero, la percepción de una ola de cambio general en el papel del gobierno, de una posición de intervención y regulación hacia una gerencia urbana más selectiva. Durante los tres días del seminario, los participantes presentaron trabajos y discutieron la lógica de ciertas reformas legales e institucionales, la naturaleza de la transición de los mercados consuetudinarios o informales a formales, la evidencia de una mayor eficacia en el mercado de tierra y el acceso a la tierra por parte de los sectores pobres.

La Reforma Institucional y Legal

Varios participantes abogaron por la reforma institucional de los mercados de la tierra desde diversas perspectivas. Steve Mayo (Instituto Lincoln) identificó vínculos conceptuales y empíricos entre el funcionamiento de los mercados de la propiedad y la macroeconomía. Hizo notar que los mercados de la tierra que funcionan inadecuadamente influyen en la creación de riqueza y los porcentajes de movilidad, los cuales — en presencia de ciertas condiciones financieras — pueden agravar la inestabilidad macroeconómica. Refiriéndose a datos del Programa de Indicadores de la Vivienda, Mayo demostró que los precios de la tierra bruta y la tierra dotada de servicios tienden a converger hacia precios más altos de la tierra, indicando multiplicadores de desarrollo más altos a los precios más bajos. También destacó la presencia de una relación entre la elasticidad de los precios de la oferta de la vivienda y el ambiente político.

Aunque existe una percepción de que las reformas hacia ambientes de “capacitación” política son ampliamente empleadas en las economías en transición y desarrollo, Alain Durand-Lasserve (Centro Nacional para la Investigación Científica, Francia) observó la falta de referencia explícita a la “reforma del mercado de la tierra” en las propuestas de políticas en África. Más aún, sostuvo que la justificación ideológica de una mayor libertad en los mercados de la tierra está más avanzada que la práctica de establecer los prerequisitos para mercados efectivos y unitarios. En la práctica, varios de los trabajos presentados señalaron la presencia de agendas políticas conflictivas, ambigüedad legal y distintos grados de progreso en los procesos de reforma.

“La ley puede reformarse, la historia no”, dijo Patrick McAuslan (Birbeck College, Londres) al discutir el papel de las leyes como base necesaria para la reforma efectiva del mercado de la tierra. Describió la evolución de la recién aprobada Acta de la Tierra de Uganda, que busca establecer un mercado de la tierra basado en la propiedad individual. Felicitó al gobierno por combinar el proceso de reforma con un amplio debate público, pero apuntó que las versiones preliminares del Acta establecieron nuevas contradicciones en una historia secular de relaciones conflictivas entre la propiedad absoluta, la tenencia consuetudinaria y la nacionalización pública de tierras. Su trabajo enumeró una serie de “bombas de tiempo” dejadas por las administraciones coloniales y agravadas por los gobiernos posteriores a la independencia, de las cuales sólo unas pocas han sido tomadas en cuenta por la nueva legislación.

La inconsistente naturaleza de la reforma parece agudizarse en las economías de transición de Europa Oriental y África del Sur. En Europa Oriental, el legado del comunismo ha conducido a usos inadecuados de la tierra y a la asignación de valores no monetarios a la propiedad. Los cambios legales hacia la privatización de la tierra, sin embargo, han sido lentos. Tom Reiner (Universidad de Pennsylvania) argumentó que a pesar de la propuesta de normas a favor de la privatización y la demanda latente en Ucrania, las leyes actuales no contemplan provisiones para la venta libre. Presentó datos demostrando que la privatización produciría beneficios macroeconómicos y fiscales considerables: tan sólo los ingresos por ventas directas alcanzarían los 13 billones de dólares, además de los aumentos en los impuestos y la asignación más eficaz de recursos.

En Rusia, según Jan Brzeski (Instituto de Bienes Raíces de Cracovia), la emergencia de los mercados de la tierra ha sido inhibida por una concepción diferente del papel social de la propiedad y los territorios políticos. En Polonia, donde la privatización está mas avanzada, las reformas han sido insuficientes para superar la extendida asignación errónea de recursos. La asignación ha sido efectuada a precios simbólicos, sin reformas a las rentas de terrenos o los impuestos a la propiedad, y con altos costos de transacción. Aún así, el ciclo de compra y venta se está acelerando más rápidamente que el crecimiento económico, en tanto que las reventas representan cerca del 25% de la inversión de capital.

El programa de privatización de 1991 en Albania parece haber estimulado un mercado activo de tierras y propiedades. Investigaciones efectuadas por David Stanfield (Universidad de Wisconsin, Madison) indican que ha habido sustanciales aumentos en las transacciones de compra y venta y en el incremento de los precios, pero también extensos conflictos entre los propietarios anteriores a la colectivización y los posteriores a la privatización, contradicciones entre las numerosas leyes y errores en la nueva documentación. La investigación señala la facilidad relativa de establecer marcos para la privatización, y la gran dificultad de permitir que los mercados funcionen posteriormente.

Lusugga Kironde (Colegio Universitario de Estudios de Arquitectura y Tierras de Tanzanía) describió cómo descuidos en el sistema “planificado” de asignación en Tanzanía llevaron al 60% de la población a adquirir tierras a través de métodos informales. Esto, a su vez, disminuyó los ingresos del gobierno, ya que las transacciones se efectuaron sin aprobación oficial y, en algunos casos, familias con buena situación económica recibieron terrenos altamente subsidiados. Michael Roth (Universidad de Wisconsin, Madison) describió una situación similar en Mozambique, donde el legado del socialismo estatal todavía está presente en el nivel de intervención del gobierno y en la falta de representación de la propiedad libre.

En ambos países africanos, la evaluación de la reforma resultó ambivalente. La Nueva Política de Tierras de Tanzania (1995), si bien constituyó un paso exitoso hacia la aceptación de la existencia del mercado de la tierra y el aseguramiento de los terrenos ocupados en forma consuetudinaria, ha resultado insuficiente para remover las barreras a un mercado eficaz de la tierra. En particular, Kironde destacó que las nuevas medidas concentran la toma de decisiones en un Comisionado de Tierras a pesar de una política nacional de descentralización administrativa. La política no ofrece incentivos para estimular la formalización de prácticas informales o asegurar su acatamiento por parte de los importantes intermediarios. En Mozambique, desde finales de los años ’80, las reformas orientadas al desarrollo de mercados han resultado en responsabilidades administrativas confusas y en inciertos derechos a la tierra. Han sido características las disputas de tierras entre familias y asociaciones productoras con nuevos poderes legales. Las reformas de 1997 intentan garantizar la seguridad de la propiedad, suministrar incentivos a la inversión e incorporar ideas innovadoras sobre los derechos comunitarios a la tierra.

En Latinoamérica, la reforma se ha concentrado menos en el establecimiento de mercados de por sí que en la mejora de su funcionamiento, especialmente las reformas de la tierra iniciadas por motivos principalmente rurales pero que han tenido gran impacto urbano. Rosaria Pisa (Universidad de Gales) indicó que las reformas en México han creado las condiciones necesarias para la privatización de tierras comunitarias (ejidos), pero que el progreso ha sido lento. Menos del 1% de la tierra ha sido privatizada en cinco años, a causa de intereses dispares del gobierno y ambigüedades legales que han establecido un segundo mercado informal de la tierra.

Carlos Guarinzoli, del Instituto Nacional de Colonización y Reforma Agraria (INCRA) en Brasil, explicó que la reforma rural ha introducido la diversidad en el uso de la tierra, especialmente a través de la supervivencia de las pequeñas granjas familiares. La reforma también está afectando los mercados urbanos en Brasil, al trasladar capital de las áreas rurales a las áreas urbanas, probablemente incrementando los precios de la tierra urbana. Francisco Sabatini (Universidad Católica de Chile) argumentó que la liberalización en Chile no ha reducido los precios de la tierra porque las decisiones de los propietarios y promotores están menos influenciadas por las regulaciones que por la demanda.

En general, no se llegó a un consenso claro acerca de si las reformas estaban produciendo mercados unitarios y menos diversos o no. Los agentes y las instituciones están mostrando ser muy adaptables a las nuevas condiciones, una circunstancia común a las tres regiones. Ayse Pamuk (Universidad de Virginia) planteó que, en base a su análisis de instituciones informales en Trinidad, los investigadores deben alejarse de las regulaciones formales como barreras a la operación del mercado de la tierra. En cambio, deben considerar la forma en que instituciones sociales tales como la confianza y la reciprocidad producen soluciones flexibles a la falta de seguridad de la tenencia y a la resolución de disputas.

Clarissa Fourie (Universidad de Natal) describió la forma en que los registros locales de propiedad han podido combinarse, de manera cómoda para el usuario, con los registros de matrimonio, herencias, derechos de la mujer y deudas para producir un instrumento útil a la administración de tierras en Namibia. Sin embargo, aclaró, la incorporación de prácticas consuetudinarias a la administración de tierras, a fin de dotar de seguridad a la propiedad, requiere un cierto grado de adaptación de los sistemas sociales de tenencia de la tierra. Refiriéndose a investigaciones en Senegal y África del Sur, Babette Wehrmann de la fundación alemana GTZ, indicó que los agentes informales y consuetudinarios están multiplicándose y sirviendo como fuentes de alta calidad de información sobre el mercado.

La Formalización y la Regularización de la Tenencia de la Tierra

Peter Ward (Universidad de Texas, Austin) describió la diversidad de programas de regularización a través de Latinoamérica, donde ciertos países consideran la regularización como un proceso jurídico y otros como mejoramiento físico. La regularización puede ser un fin en sí misma (programas masivos de adjudicación de títulos), o un medio hacia un fin (desarrollar los sistemas de crédito). Ward discutió que las diferencias entre los programas se originan a partir de la forma en que cada gobierno “construye” su proceso de urbanización y transmite esta visión al resto de la sociedad a través de las leyes y el lenguaje.

Edesio Fernandes (Universidad de Londres) explicó como el Código Civil de Brasil, originado a principios del siglo, creó un sistema de derechos individuales de propiedad que limitan la capacidad del gobierno para regularizar las favelas. La Constitución de 1998 intentó reformar esta situación al reconocer los derechos privados de propiedad cuando éstos cumplen una función social. Sin embargo, debido a tensiones legales internas los programas de regularización no han podido integrar las favelas a la “ciudad oficial”, conduciendo a algunas situaciones políticas peligrosas.

Bajo distintas circunstancias, Sudáfrica produjo un régimen regulatorio que le negó la libre propiedad a las familias negras y ofreció sólo complicados permisos sin necesidad de garantía a unos pocos. Lauren Royston (Alternativas de Planificación del Desarrollo, Johannesburg) explicó la manera en que el Documento de Política de la Tierra de dicho país contempla derechos no raciales legalmente vigentes, un rango más amplio de opciones de tenencia, y oportunidades para la adquisición de propiedades comunitarias.

Los dos países en vías de desarrollo con mayor número de programas masivos de adjudicación de títulos, México y Perú, fueron analizados por Ann Varley (Colegio Universitario, Londres) y Gustavo Riofrío (Centro para el Estudio y la Promoción del Desarrollo – DESCO, Lima). Varley contradijo dos supuestos prevalecientes en la literatura contemporánea sobre políticas: que la descentralización produce un manejo más efectivo de la tierra, y que la regularización de la tenencia consuetudinaria es más complicada que la regularización de la propiedad privada. En México, a pesar de la retórica de descentralización, un sistema altamente centralizado ha resultado ser cada vez más efectivo en suministrar la regularización de la tenencia de la tierra a los asentamientos en ejidos. Por otra parte, la regularización de la propiedad privada es tortuosamente larga y con frecuencia produce pobres resultados. Varley se mostró preocupada por las tendencias actuales en México a convertir los ejidos en propiedades privadas y encaminarse hacia una mayor descentralización.

Riofrío puso en duda la validez de los reclamos hechos a favor de la regularización de la tierra en Perú. Hizo notar que en realidad, el interés de las familias por tener título de propiedad es relativamente bajo, siendo uno de los motivos principales que los registros son imprecisos y por lo tanto ofrecen menos seguridad de la que prometen. Más aún, el mercado de financiamiento de la vivienda basado en las propiedades regularizadas se encuentra todavía en estado incipiente. Las familias tienen miedo de endeudarse, pero están dispuestas a dejar su vivienda en garantía para pedir pequeños préstamos para la instalación de microempresas o para consumo.

Nuevos Patrones Sociales y Formas de Entrega de Tierras

¿Producirá la liberalización mercados de la tierra más segregados? Brzeski planteó que la planificación estatal en Europa Oriental ha dejado un legado de espacios equitativos y escasa tenencia informal de la tierra, que no durará para siempre, y que los planificadores necesitan tomar en cuenta a la hora de instigar reformas. En países con niveles altos de segregación, como Chile, Colombia y África del Sur, tendencias menos predecibles están emergiendo. Los datos de Sabatini indicaron una menor segregación espacial en Santiago a pesar de la liberalización a medida que los espacios intermedios se desarrollan, alrededor de centros comerciales, por ejemplo, y a medida que nuevos estilos de vida se reflejan en los desarrollos de viviendas “de recreo” fuera del área metropolitana.

Carolina Barco (Universidad de los Andes) explicó que nuevas medidas en Colombia, específicamente la Ley de Ordenamiento Territorial de 1997, permitirán al gobierno de Bogotá capturar incrementos en el valor de la tierra y transferir dichos ingresos a la vivienda pública y a otros proyectos. El proceso todavía presenta problemas, sin embargo, incluso para una ciudad que tiene considerable experiencia en el uso de tasas de valorización.

En Sudáfrica, las estrategias para hacer frente a la “escasez de tierra” de la ciudad posterior al apartheid, especialmente el Acta para Facilitar el Desarrollo a nivel nacional y el Programa de Desarrollo Acelerado de Tierras en la provincia de Gauteng, han permitido la entrega rápida de tierras pero no han funcionado muy bien en relación a los principios de igualdad e integración. Royston explicó que el resultado ha sido un alto número de invasiones y la aceleración por parte de gobiernos locales de la entrega de tierras en la periferia urbana, donde no constituye un reto al “status quo” espacial.

Cambiar el método de entrega de tierras y el nivel de participación del gobierno tiene potencial para afectar la segregación y el acceso a la tierra. Geoff Payne (Geoff Payne y Asociados, Londres) resumió los principios y prácticas de las asociaciones público-privadas en los países en desarrollo. Si bien son muy aclamadas en la política internacional, estudios de investigación efectuados en África del Sur, India, Pakistán, Egipto y Europa Oriental demuestran que tales asociaciones han malbaratado su potencial.

Crispus Kiamba (Universidad de Nairobi) describió la transición en Kenya de esquemas patrocinados por el gobierno, que dejaron separados los sectores formales e informales, a nuevos enfoques que incorporan una mayor participación de organizaciones no gubernamentales, “ranchos colectivos” y asociaciones. En México, también, las asociaciones están vistas como un método para eliminar el ciclo de ilegalidad y regularización. Federico Seyde y Abelardo Figueroa, del gobierno mexicano, presentaron un nuevo programa llamado PISO, el cual –a pesar de numerosos inconvenientes– está resultando ser más efectivo al ser comparado con intervenciones previas (tales como las reservas de tierras).

Los Mercados de la Tierra y la Reducción de la Pobreza

En mis comentarios de apertura del seminario, expuse la idea de que la mayor parte de la investigación sobre mercados ha considerado la pobreza como un contexto legítimo, pero de ahí en adelante ha parecido concentrarse más en las operaciones del mercado que en la forma en que estas operaciones pueden afectar a la pobreza misma. En la sesión final, Omar Razzaz (Banco Mundial) presentó una propuesta para vincular las operaciones del mercado de la tierra con la reducción de la pobreza. La “Iniciativa de Tierras y Bienes Raíces” está dirigida a investigar formas de mejorar la liquidez de los bienes de tierras y el acceso de los sectores pobres, a través de la reestructuración de los registros de tierras (mejorando los procesos de negocio), el desarrollo de infraestructura normativa (en el área de cambios, hipotecas y aseguramiento) y el acceso y la movilización de tierras y bienes raíces por los sectores pobres. El propósito de esta iniciativa generó considerable debate, lo que podría ayudar a refinar ideas que beneficien a los 500 millones de personas que viven en la pobreza en las ciudades de los países en desarrollo.

Gareth A. Jones estuvo a cargo del desarrollo del programa y dirigió este seminario.

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 6 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

Hoy en día la mayoría de los países de América Latina son más urbanos que rurales y están tratando de desarrollar sus economías como partes integrales del mercado global. Este proceso introduce profundos cambios culturales y espaciales tales como mayor segregación y conflictos sobre el uso del suelo urbano.

Es sabida la necesidad de fortalecer la conciencia ciudadana sobre la liberalización de los mercados y la pérdida de protagonismo del Estado en los esquemas de economía y planificación. Este cambio en el papel del Estado —de “proveedor” a “facilitador”— crea un vacío en las necesidades sociales urbanas. Los participantes sugirieron tres abordajes para poder mejorar la gestión del suelo urbano y la igualdad social de manera simultánea.

Primero que todo, utilizar herramientas básicas para establecer y apoyar los sistemas de información urbana: un mecanismo de monitoreo con capacidad para identificar datos de agentes y transacciones, incluidos los precios del suelo; conocimiento de los “ciclos de vida” de las zonas urbanas; y modelos de predicción que permitan establecer la relación entre las economías municipales y nacionales y el mercado de bienes raíces.

En segundo lugar, instituir políticas urbanas que equilibren los mecanismos de mercado existentes, que suelen ser contradictorios. Por ejemplo, es difícil liberalizar los mercados y al mismo tiempo imponer límites en la expansión urbana cuando se intenta ofrecer suministros de suelo adecuados para satisfacer las necesidades de la población pobre trabajadora.

Tercero, reconocer y dar apoyo a las acciones positivas de grupos comunitarios y organizaciones no gubernamentales que se propongan combatir los patrones de segregación de clases, como también a los intentos municipales de utilizar instrumentos como reservas territoriales, mecanismos de financiamiento progresivos y mejoras en los procedimientos administrativos y fiscales.

Uno de los mayores problemas de la planificación territorial en América Latina es encontrar el “borde” de la ciudad, especialmente cuando la tenencia y ocupación del suelo responden a la necesidad social, más que a la ley. Entre las formas de propiedad urbana que funcionan fuera de los reglamentos comerciales está la tierra mantenida bajo el sistema de ejido , que ocupa más del 50 por ciento del territorio mexicano y forma parte de las zonas metropolitanas más importantes. El ejido dificulta el crecimiento natural del mercado de bienes raíces y propicia la expansión de mercados secundarios (informales) descontrolados.

Estos y otros temas afines concentraron la discusión en una reunión que tuvo lugar en México en el mes de abril. En ella, peritos y personalidades académicas compartieron sus puntos de vista sobre los procesos que afectan el orden territorial urbano y los instrumentos disponibles y necesarios para poder lograr una intervención pública eficaz, conducente al logro de objetivos de igualdad social y planificación territorial. Si bien los participantes del seminario manifestaron sus inquietudes por el efecto a largo plazo de la globalización en América Latina, también reconocieron que el escenario de acción, al menos durante los años venideros, será a nivel municipal más que a nivel nacional.

Sobre los autores

Luis Fernando Alvarez es investigador principal del Centro de Estudios Metropolitanos, Centro Universitario de Arte, Arquitectura y Diseño de la Universidad de Guadalajara, México.

William J. Siembieda es profesor de planificación de la Escuela de Arquitectura y Planificación de la Universidad de Nuevo México. El seminario sobre temas de suelo urbano y reserva territorial fue copatrocinado por el Instituto Lincoln y por el Centro de Estudios Metropolitanos en la Universidad de Guadalajara.

I am pleased to report that the Lincoln Institute has signed an agreement of understanding with the Ministry of Land and Resources in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to work together on researching and teaching about land and tax policies. Many places in the world face fundamental problems in land allocation and land taxation, but it is difficult to imagine a place and time where the resources of the Lincoln Institute could be more influential and could help more people than in China during the early twenty-first century.

Land and tax policy makers in China are faced with enormous challenges as a result of the extraordinary urbanization of the past two decades. The number of established cities in China grew from 182 in 1982 to 324 in 1985, and reached 666 by 1996, and the average urban population grew by 227 percent between 1957 and 1995. Some cities grew by 200 percent from 1985 to 1995, and the urbanized area of Beijing doubled from 1985 to 1992. However, the extent of urbanization in the future will dwarf that of the recent past. Based on forecasts of population growth and migration, China must provide enough urban land and infrastructure to accommodate more than 450 million persons over the next 20 years. If all of the additional urban population were put in new cities of 10 million persons each, China would need to develop and finance 45 such cities.

China initiated fundamental and revolutionary land use reforms during the mid-1980s. The first reforms established privately held land use rights. The second set of reforms included multiple elements, such as land banking, land trusts, land readjustments, and development of land markets in both urban and rural areas. We believe that the Institute can make a real difference in assisting these reform measures by sponsoring education and training for government officials, supporting research and publications by U.S. and Chinese scholars, and facilitating more in-depth interactions through workshops and conferences.

Over the past two years the Institute has led two training programs in Beijing and participated in meetings between Chinese officials and scholars and Institute board members, faculty and staff. The Institute also sponsored several sessions on land and housing markets in the PRC at the First World Planning Congress in Shanghai in 2001. We anticipate several more training and exchange programs this year, but we believe this is still just the beginning of an expanded effort by the Institute to have a positive impact on land and tax policy in the world’s most populous country. In this issue, Institute faculty associates Chengri Ding and Gerrit Knaap examine some of the recent reforms and current trends in urban land policy in China.

La información sobre los valores de las casas es fundamental para los investigadores y formadores de políticas interesados en el establecimiento de políticas públicas bien informadas en temas tales como tributación e inversiones de infraestructura. Los métodos de ventas repetidas, como el índice de S&P/Case-Shiller, que se usan comúnmente en los Estados Unidos para estudiar la dinámica de los precios de las casas, no son prácticos en los países en vías de desarrollo, donde los precios declarados de las transacciones de las casas frecuentemente son menores a su valor real, por razones diversas.

Los propietarios de casas también necesitan una referencia confiable para medir el valor de una casa para ayudar en la toma de decisiones personales tales como la jubilación (Lusardi y Mitchell, 2007), el consumo (Campbell y Cocco, 2007), los ahorros (Juster et al. 2005) y la composición de la deuda de la unidad familiar (Disney, Bridges y Gathergood 2006). como para dictar políticas públicas. Se ha demostrado que el valor de una casa es una variable clave en las decisiones de un propietario, por ejemplo en materia de jubilación

Hemos evaluado la fiabilidad de los datos de encuestas de hogares sobre las estimaciones del valor de las casas en México efectuadas por sus propietarios. Argumentamos que, en promedio, las estimaciones de los propietarios de corto plazo tienden a ser razonablemente objetivas y precisas. Las estimaciones de los propietarios sobre el precio de mercado de una propiedad, obtenidas por medio de estas encuestas, pueden ser la manera más conveniente y confiable de efectuar el seguimiento de los precios de las casas bajo ciertas circunstancias.

La valuación de las casas en los Estados Unidos

Todas las encuestas de hogares principales en los Estados Unidos – el censo decenal, el Estudio de Panel sobre Dinámicas de Ingresos (Panel Study of Income Dynamics) la Encuesta de Hogares de los Estados Unidos (American Housing Survey) y la Encuesta de Finanzas del Consumidor (Survey of Consumer Finances)hacen preguntas tales como: “¿Cuánto vale esta propiedad? Es decir, ¿por cuánto cree usted que se vendería esta propiedad si se pusiera a la venta?” El argumento principal a favor de usar este tipo de pregunta sobre la valuación de una casa es que es fácil de recolectar los datos. Pero también es crucial evaluar la fiabilidad de estas valuaciones autoestimadas de las casas.

En Kish y Lansing (1954), se les pidió a propietarios en ciudades estadounidenses que estimaran el valor de mercado de sus casas, y las mismas estimaciones fueron efectuadas más tarde por valuadores profesionales. La conclusión principal fue que el sesgo promedio en las estimaciones de la gente oscilaba alrededor de cero. Es decir, si bien algunas estimaciones individuales podían ser bastante distintas del valor asignado por el valuador, los errores parecían cancelarse al hacer el promedio. Esta fue una conclusión importante para justificar el uso de esta pregunta en grandes encuestas. Cuando los investigadores se concentraron en distintos subgrupos, descubrieron que las estimaciones más precisas del valor de la casa eran las efectuadas por propietarios recientes. No aumentaba la exactitud si el encuestado era jefe de hogar o tenía más educación, ni si el valuador había podido entrar a la propiedad para hacer la valuación.

Usando los mismos métodos y datos similares, Kain y Quigley (1972) confirmaron que los errores en gran medida se compensaban, pero que estaban correlacionados con el nivel socioeconómico del encuestado. Una mayor educación estaba asociada a un menor sesgo positivo en la estimación del propietario. Esta investigación también trató de determinar por qué algunos encuestados no respondían a esta pregunta, y descubrió que aquellos con mayor nivel de ingresos y educación pero menor tiempo de tenencia tenían una mayor probabilidad de proporcionar una estimación del valor de su casa.

Dado que la estimación ideal del precio de mercado de una casa es el precio de venta más reciente, algunos estudios han comparado los datos de venta de transacciones recientes con las estimaciones de los propietarios. Goodman e Ittner (1992), por ejemplo, compararon las estimaciones de los propietarios con los precios de venta subsiguientes de la misma propiedad usando la Encuesta de Hogares de los Estados Unidos de 1985 y 1987. Encontraron que el propietario promedio en los EE.UU. sobreestima el valor de su casa en un 6 por ciento por encima del precio de venta real, y que el error absoluto promedio es de alrededor del 14 por ciento. El error no está relacionado en su mayor parte con las características del propietario, de la casa o del mercado local.

Otro enfoque consiste en comparar las valuaciones tributarias con las autoestimaciones de los propietarios (David, 1968). El problema obvio de usar las valuaciones tributarias es que éstas pueden no estar siempre actualizadas para reflejar las condiciones actuales del mercado, causando una impresión fallida del valor de la vivienda. En general, estos estudios concluyeron que, en promedio, los propietarios en los E.U.A. tienden a sobreestimar el valor de sus casas en alrededor del 5 por ciento. Esta sobrevaluación no está relacionada con las características del propietario o de la casa, sino con la duración de la tenencia de la casa. Llegamos entonces a la conclusión de que se pueden usar las encuestas en forma fiable para obtener, a muy bajo costo, estimaciones razonables de la valuación de las casas en los mercados de vivienda de los EE.UU.

Mercados de vivienda en países en vías de desarrollo

En los países desarrollados, el acceso al suelo ocurre principalmente por medio de compras formales, mientras que en los países en vías de desarrollo es bastante común que una porción sustancial del crecimiento urbano ocurra en terrenos ocupados informalmente, especialmente por parte de los grupos de bajos ingresos. Los habitantes se pueden organizar para invadir tierras estatales, áreas protegidas y hasta propiedades privadas. Cuando los tribunales hayan establecido la ilegalidad de tales actos, muchas veces ya habrá algún político a quien le conviene brindar protección y servicios a los invasores a cambio de votos y respaldo político, en vez de desalojarlos de los suelos ocupados ilegalmente.

En algunos casos, los gobiernos locales expropian la tierra para después transferirla a sus electores. Aquellos que adquieren su propiedad en estas condiciones tienen más dificultad para determinar el valor monetario de la propiedad, ya que no pagaron inicialmente por ella. Y en ocasiones, la propiedad no se puede vender fácilmente, ya que no tiene un título válido.

Otra característica distintiva de los mercados de vivienda en los países en vías de desarrollo es la gran proporción de casas construidas por sus propietarios. La preponderancia de viviendas autoconstruidas, en vez de ser erigidas por compañías de construcción especializadas, ocurre porque el sistema financiero está subdesarrollado y los préstamos hipotecarios no existen o son muy caros. Las familias adquieren una vivienda construyéndola con sus propias manos durante un período prolongado de tiempo.

La falta de desarrollo de los mercados hipotecarios puede obligar a las familias a usar métodos de construcción ineficientes, porque la casa se construye por etapas, usando los materiales de construcción que ellos puedan solventar y tengan a su disposición en ese momento. Estas restricciones pueden dar lugar a costos de construcción innecesariamente altos, así como también a prácticas de construcción no reguladas e ineficientes. Si la gente estima el valor de su casa como la suma de los gastos incurridos para construirla, aquellos propietarios que se encuentran en zonas donde no haya acceso a los préstamos hipotecarios probablemente avalúen sus casas autoconstruidas a un valor más alto.

La autoconstrucción también puede influir el acceso a información sobre el valor actual de mercado de dicha propiedad. Los proyectos inmobiliarios desarrollados por compañías de construcción generalmente tienen un mayor grado de homogeneidad, de manera que las ventas en el barrio generan información sobre el valor actual de las propiedades circundantes. Cuando una casa es autoconstruida, este canal de información desaparece, porque las casas construidas de esta manera no representan adecuadamente el valor de otras casas en el barrio.

Jiménez (1982) ha proporcionado uno de los pocos estudios sobre los valores de las casas en un país en vías de desarrollo. Usando datos de un barrio pobre en las Filipinas, encontró que los valores medios de las estimaciones respectivas del propietario y del valuador no se pueden distinguir estadísticamente. Su muestra de las Filipinas se compara bien con los resultados de Kain y Quigley (1972) para St. Louis, Missouri, en cuanto a las diferencias de las valuaciones promedio. No obstante, para estimaciones individuales, Jiménez encontró que el valor absoluto promedio de las diferencias entre la valuación del propietario y la del valuador es aproximadamente un 55 por ciento de la valuación media, mientras que la cifra comparable para Kain y Quigley es de aproximadamente el 20 por ciento.

Encuestas de hogares y datos de valuación

Nuestro análisis usa datos de una encuesta de hogares y valuaciones de las mismas casas efectuadas por un valuador que también es corredor inmobiliario. La encuesta, realizada entre mediados de febrero y mediados de marzo de 2006, incluyó aproximadamente 1.200 viviendas en las afueras de la ciudad de Acayucán, en el estado de Veracruz, en el centro de México. Las casas de la muestra se encontraban en los distritos más pobres de la ciudad, donde las calles no estaban pavimentadas y muchas casas no contaban con servicios vitales de agua y alcantarillado. La casa promedio de la muestra tenía 2,5 cuartos. Sólo el 63 por ciento de las viviendas tenían un baño interno, y el 60 por ciento tenían un techo de placas metálicas, amianto u hojas de palma. Además, el 12 por ciento de los propietarios reportaron que no tenían un título de propiedad.

Las familias entrevistadas fueron propietarios-ocupantes, no inquilinos, y la mayoría vivía en viviendas pequeñas de un solo piso, en lotes bien demarcados. Una de las preguntas de la encuesta fue: “¿ Por aproximadamente cuánto dinero cree usted que se vendería esta casa actualmente?” El propietario promedio estimó que el valor de su casa era $19.948, mientras que la valuación promedio fue de sólo $12.123 (en dólares estadounidenses de 2006). La diferencia de las medianas, si bien mucho menor ($1.545) y la diferencia del logaritmo de las medias también son significativas en ambos casos. (Para una descripción detallada de la encuesta, véase González-Navarro y Quintana-Domeque [2007, 2008].)

La otra fuente de datos son las valuaciones de las casas efectuadas por un valuador profesional y agente de bienes raíces. Al hacer que una sola persona realice todas las valuaciones, se reducen los riesgos de decisiones subjetivas y el uso de distintas prácticas de valuación. El valuador visitó una de cada dos casas donde sus residentes habían sido entrevistados, y las valuaciones se realizaron a más tardar dos meses después de la encuesta de hogares, reduciendo así la preocupación sobre la posibilidad de inflación o volatilidad en los precios de las casas.

En las encuestas completadas, la tasa de respuesta para la pregunta sobre la estimación del propietario del valor de la casa fue de aproximadamente el 74 por ciento. Una de las ventajas importantes del procedimiento en dos etapas del estudio es la posibilidad de investigar las valuaciones de las casas del 26 por ciento de los encuestados que no respondieron a la pregunta sobre el valor de su casa. Por lo tanto, a diferencia de cualquier estudio anterior, podemos investigar si la falta de respuesta a la pregunta por parte del propietario está relacionada con el valor de la casa medido por el valuador.

Encontramos evidencia de que la valuación promedio de una casa es igual tanto para los encuestados que proporcionaron una estimación del valor de su casa como para los que no lo hicieron. Además, la edad, sexo, ser o no jefe de familia, y poseer o no un título y tenencia de la propiedad no estuvieron correlacionados con la probabilidad de respuesta. Esto sugiere que los propietarios que no proporcionaron una estimación del valor de su casa son un subconjunto aleatorio de la muestra. Esta es una conclusión importante si se van a utilizar las valuaciones de los propietarios en otros estudios para estimar los precios promedio de las casas en países en vías de desarrollo.

Suponemos que el valor determinado por el valuador es muy cercano al valor de mercado de la casa. También creemos que es razonable interpretar que la discrepancia entre los valores de las casas obtenidos de los propietarios y los del valuador se debe a percepciones equivocadas sobre el valor de mercado por parte del propietario. Hay varias razones que justifican dicha interpretación. Primero, el valuador hace una estimación más precisa que los propietarios sobre el tamaño del lote (uno de los determinantes más importantes del valor de una casa). Segundo, el valuador parece inferir otras características de la vivienda con precisión. Tercero, es más probable que el valuador tenga conocimiento de los factores de mercado que influyen en la valuación de las casas en la ciudad.

La relación entre las estimaciones del propietario y el valuador

La tabla 1 (ver anexo) muestra el grado de error promedio y la falta de precisión o exactitud en las estimaciones de los propietarios para varias submuestras. Como en estudios previos, los resultados se muestran para distintas medidas de sesgo (la diferencia entre el valor de la casa estimado por el propietario y el valuador, y la diferencia porcentual con respecto a la estimación del valuador) e inexactitud (la diferencia absoluta y la diferencia porcentual absoluta).

Considerando a todos los propietarios de la muestra, la diferencia promedio entre la estimación del propietario y la valuación es de alrededor de $7.800, indicando que los propietarios tienden a sobreestimar el valor de sus casas. La diferencia porcentual de las medias es el 124% de la valuación. En cuanto a la falta de exactitud o precisión, la diferencia absoluta de las medias es aproximadamente de $13,500, reflejando cuán distintas son las estimaciones del valuador de las del propietario. En promedio, los propietarios de la muestra tienen una expectativa demasiado alta del valor de su casa.

Estos resultados se contraponen a la evidencia disponible para los Estados Unidos y las Filipinas. Tanto Kain y Quigley (1972) en St.Louis y Jiménez (1982) en las Filipinas reportan una diferencia porcentual de las medias de menos del 0, 5 por ciento. En términos de precisión, encontramos también que los resultados son muy distintos. En nuestra muestra, la diferencia porcentual absoluta se estima en más del 150 por ciento, mientras que en las Filipinas es de aproximadamente el 55 por ciento y en St. Louis el 20 por ciento. Por otro lado, los resultados de error e inexactitud para propietarios con tenencia reciente (menos de dos años) son estadísticamente cercanos a cero. El mismo resultado se obtiene para el error porcentual de la media, y el error porcentual absoluto se reduce en más del 50 por ciento.

Como se mencionó anteriormente, una de las diferencias entre los mercados de viviendas desarrollados y subdesarrollados es la falta de construcción de viviendas por firmas especializadas y la falta de información acerca de la distribución de los precios de las viviendas en estos últimos. La última columna de la tabla 1 identifica el conjunto de casas construidas, en vez de autoconstruidas. Para este subgrupo, el error medio y el error porcentual medio no son estadísticamente distintos de cero, mientras que el error porcentual absoluto (33 por ciento) es el menor de los cuatro grupos. Esto puede sugerir que los propietarios de casas autoconstruidas proporcionan estimaciones con un sesgo positivo porque la autoconstrucción gradual a lo largo del tiempo es más cara que comprar una casa ya construida.

Determinantes del sesgo individual y la inexactitud

Los resultados sugieren que el sesgo e inexactitud en las estimaciones de los propietarios se pueden atribuir a la tenencia a largo plazo. En González-Navarro y Quintana-Domeque (2009), demostramos que ni la discrepancia en la estimación del tamaño del lote ni las características socioeconómicas del encuestado parece estar correlacionadas con el error o la falta de precisión en las estimaciones de los propietarios. Sólo la tenencia está correlacionada significativamente con el sesgo y la falta de precisión.

Dados estos resultados, estimamos a continuación los valores promedio de las casas a nivel de distritos censales para estudiar el desempeño del valor autoestimado en función de la longitud de la tenencia. Como argumentamos anteriormente, el valor autoestimado por los propietarios de tenencia breve proporciona una estimación más exacta del valor promedio de las casas. Una cuestión importante al incluir solamente a los propietarios recientes es que el tamaño de la muestra es chico. La tabla 2 (ver anexo) muestra que las dos medidas de sesgo (la diferencia de las medias y la diferencia porcentual de las medias) para propietarios de tenencia breve proporcionan una estimación menos distorsionada del valor medio de las casas, como también las medidas de diferencia absoluta de las medias y la diferencia porcentual absoluta de las medias.

Si bien hemos hecho todo el esfuerzo posible por obtener precios de mercado para confirmar las valuaciones profesionales, esta búsqueda resultó esquiva. Este hecho resalta la importancia de evaluar la fiabilidad de los valores autoestimados de las casas en los países en vías de desarrollo, donde los valores de mercado estimados por los propietarios parecen ser la medida más accesible del valor de las casas.

Conclusión

En nuestra muestra, el sesgo de valuación asociado con una tenencia más prolongada es positivo, confirmando los resultados de varios estudios en los EE.UU. efectuados con casas recientemente vendidas. Nuestra conclusión principal es que el sesgo debido al período de tenencia es potencialmente mucho mayor en el contexto de un país en vías de desarrollo. Los propietarios de tenencia prolongada sobreestiman, en su mayoría, el valor de sus casas, con un error porcentual absoluto de la media del orden del 150 por ciento. Por otro lado, las familias con una tenencia de dos años o menos realizan estimaciones razonablemente exactas y objetivas del valor de sus casas. Un grupo de casas similares construidas por una firma de construcción especializada muestra un sesgo nulo y estimaciones mucho más precisas que las de otros subgrupos.

Encontramos que la falta de respuesta a la pregunta sobre el valor de la casa no está correlacionada con su valuación y otras características demográficas del propietario. Esto sugiere que se pueden obtener estimaciones objetivas del valor promedio de grupos de casas por medio de encuestas de hogares. Además, el sesgo y la inexactitud no tienen una correlación pronunciada con las características socioeconómicas, como los ingresos familiares o el nivel de educación del encuestado.

En resumen, los resultados de este estudio advierten contra el uso de las estimaciones de los propietarios para hacer un análisis de conducta individual, pero sugieren que estas estimaciones se pueden usar como una aproximación razonable de los valores medios de grupos de casas. Si el objetivo es estimar el valor medio de la casa, las respuestas de los propietarios con un periodo corto de residencia se podrían usar exitosamente en encuestas futuras realizadas en países en vías de desarrollo.

Sobre los autores

Marco González-Navarro es Robert Wood Johnson Scholar de Investigación sobre Políticas de Salud en la Universidad de California, Berkeley. Recibió su doctorado en economía de la Universidad de Princeton.

Climent Quintana-Domeque es profesor asistente del Departamento de Economía de la Universidad de Alicante, España. Recibió su doctorado en economía de la Universidad de Princeton.

Referencias

Campbell, J.Y. and Cocco, J.F. 2007. How do house prices affect consumption? Evidence from micro data. Journal of Monetary Economics 54(3): 591–621.

David, E. L. 1968. The use of assessed data to approximate sales values of recreational Property. Land Economics 44(1): 127–129.

Disney, R., Bridges, S. and Gathergood, J. 2006. Housing wealth and household indebtness: Is there a household ‘Financial Accelerator’? Manuscrito no publicado. Nottingham, UK: University of Nottingham.

Gonzalez-Navarro, M. and Quintana-Domeque, C. 2007. Description of the Acayucan Standards of Living Survey. Unpublished manuscript. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.

———. 2009. The reliability of self–reported home values in a developing country context. Journal of Housing Economics 18(4): 311–324.

Goodman, J.L. and Ittner, J.B. 1992. The accuracy of homeowners’ estimates of house value. Journal of Housing Economics 2(4): 339–357.

Jimenez, E. (1982) The value of squatter dwellings in developing countries. Economic Development and Cultural Change 30(4): 739–752.

Juster, F.T., Lupton, J.P., Smith, J.P., and Stafford F. 2005. The decline in household saving and the wealth effect. Review of Economics and Statistics 87(4): 20–27.

Kain, J.F. and Quigley, J.M. (1972) Note on owner’s estimate of housing value. Journal of the American Statistical Association 67(340): 803–806.

Kish, L. and Lansing, J.B. 1954. Response errors in estimating the value of homes. Journal of the American Statistical Association 49(267): 520–538.

Lusardi, A. and Mitchell, O.S. 2007. Baby boomers retirement security: The role of planning, financial literacy and housing wealth. Journal of Monetary Economics 54(1): 205–224.