Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 2 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

En países subdesarrollados, la mayoría de los programas y propuestas de gestión urbana han requerido adoptar un criterio de orientación social a los derechos de propiedad, lo que garantiza una intervención estatal de amplio alcance sobre el control del uso y desarrollo del suelo. Ése es el caso particular de los programas de regularización del suelo.

Sin embargo, la adopción generalizada de políticas de liberalización y esquemas de privatización ha promovido una interpretación individualista y tradicional de los derechos de propiedad, que dificulta los intentos progresivos de disciplinar el uso y el desarrollo de la propiedad urbana.

Se trata de una paradoja aparente que revela la brecha entre una definición más progresiva de los derechos de propiedad y la tendencia actual en pro de la privatización. ¿Son estas tendencias mutuamente exclusivas, o pueden conciliarse hasta cierto punto?

Estas preguntas fueron el tema central de dos talleres de trabajo que tuvieron lugar en Johannesburgo (República Sudafricana) a finales de julio, dirigidos a legisladores, gestores urbanos y académicos. El Sexto Taller de Trabajo de “Legislación y Espacio Urbano” fue patrocinado conjuntamente por el Grupo Internacional de Investigación sobre Legislación y Espacio Urbano (IRGLUS) y el Centro de Estudios Jurídicos Aplicados (CALS) de la Universidad de Witwatersrand. El Instituto Lincoln contribuyó a la realización de este taller y también patrocinó un seminario sobre seguridad de tenencia del suelo en la República Sudafricana, los países subsaharianos, Brasil y la India.

Marco de trabajo conceptual para la legislación y el espacio urbano

IRGLUS, un grupo de trabajo del Comité de Investigación en Sociología Jurídica de la Asociación Sociológica Internacional (ISA), se propone organizar debates sobre la dimensión jurídica del proceso de urbanización, con la idea de promover ese diálogo tan necesario entre los estudios jurídicos y los estudios ambientales urbanos. La mayoría de los estudios urbanos han reducido el aspecto legal —incluidas las estipulaciones jurídicas, las decisiones judiciales y la cultura jurídica en general— a su dimensión instrumental: una corriente rechaza la ley como si fuera nada más que un simple instrumento político de discriminación social y exclusión política, mientras que otra la da por hecho, como si se tratara de un simple instrumento técnico que puede brindar soluciones fáciles e inmediatas a los crecientes problemas urbanos y ambientales.

Para expertos y profesionales urbanos, no están claras las razones de las crecientes prácticas ilegales identificadas en zonas urbanas, particularmente las que se refieren al uso y desarrollo del suelo. Según los datos existentes, si se toman en cuenta los patrones de acceso al suelo y de construcción, pareciera que entre el 40 y el 70 por ciento de la población de las principales ciudades de los países subdesarrollados está, de uno u otro modo, al margen de la ley, y ese número no está limitado a la población de bajos recursos.

Muy pocos estudios se han preguntado el porqué de este fenómeno de ilegalidad urbana, por qué importa y qué puede hacerse. Los observadores, en general, no han podido visualizar la aparente división que hay entre las llamadas ciudades “legales” e “ilegales” como una intrincada red de relaciones muy cercanas y al mismo tiempo contradictorias entre las reglas oficiales y las no oficiales, y entre los mercados formales e informales de los suelos urbanos.

En la mayoría de los países subdesarrollados, la inexistencia de una política habitacional eficaz, en combinación con fuerzas comerciales descontroladas, despoja de soluciones habitacionales adecuadas a la vasta mayoría de la población urbana. Lejos de ser un fenómeno restringido a los pobres urbanos, la ilegalidad urbana necesita atención urgente, dadas sus graves consecuencias sociales, políticas, económicas y ambientales para la sociedad y la estructura urbana como un todo.

Sin embargo, si bien la ilegalidad urbana es un reflejo de la poderosa combinación de los mercados del suelo y los sistemas políticos, también es resultado del sistema jurídico elitista y de exclusión que impera en los países subdesarrollados. La combinación de instrumentos jurídicos que no reflejan las realidades sociales que afectan el acceso a la vivienda y al suelo urbano, junto con la falta de leyes adecuadas, ha tenido un efecto sumamente nocivo y agravante, si no determinante, del proceso de segregación socioespacial.

Definiciones de los derechos de propiedad

Uno de los mayores problemas de la gestión urbana es la falta de soporte del sistema jurídico vigente para las políticas ambientales urbanas. Ciertamente existen provisiones retóricas, pero las provisiones básicas del sistema —especialmente las de naturaleza constitucional— no ofrecen apoyo jurídico alguno a dichas políticas. En este contexto, el punto central de atención es el de los derechos de propiedad, específicamente de inmuebles urbanos. En muchos países, las políticas urbanas con sesgo progresivo y social que amplían la acción estatal suelen estar reñidas con la definición constitucional de los derechos de propiedad.

En varias ponencias del taller del trabajo de IRGLUS/CALS se habló de cómo el abordaje tradicional a los derechos de propiedad individuales, imperante en muchos países subdesarrollados y típico del liberalismo clásico, ha favorecido intercambios económicos que han menoscabado la función social de la propiedad. Muchos intentos importantes para promover el uso y control del suelo, incluso la protección jurídica del ambiente y la herencia histórico-cultural, se han visto mermados por acciones que reducen fuertemente la intervención estatal en el dominio de los derechos de propiedad individuales. En repetidas ocasiones, los intentos para promover la regularización del suelo han enfrentado la oposición de terratenientes y tribunales conservadores, incluso en situaciones en que la ocupación del suelo ya había estado consolidada durante largo tiempo.

Mientras que la retención excesiva y especulativa del suelo urbano privado ha contado con un beneplácito tácito, la tan esperada ejecución de una política habitacional social eficaz ha sido más difícil debido a la necesidad de indemnizar a los propietarios de tierras vacantes a los precios del mercado. En muchos países, el sistema de derechos de propiedad individuales heredado de la época de la colonia no suele considerar los valores habituales tradicionales en la definición de los derechos de propiedad. Dado que dichos países han fallado considerablemente en reformar los cimientos del liberalismo jurídico-político, la discusión del llamado neoliberalismo no tiene sentido en este contexto.

Los participantes del taller de trabajo hicieron énfasis especial en las condiciones jurídico-políticas para que se reconozca la seguridad de la tenencia. Se hizo notar que agentes tan diversos como movimientos sociales, organizaciones no gubernamentales y de finanzas internacionales han planteado cada vez más argumentos diferentes, si bien complementarios, de tipo humanitario, ético, sociopolítico y, más recientemente, económico para justificar la necesidad de adoptar políticas públicas en esta materia. También es necesario adoptar argumentos jurídicos, entre ellos las viejas provisiones de la ley internacional y los principios fundamentales del estado de derecho referente a los derechos de vivienda y los derechos humanos, de forma de abrir paso a una nueva interpretación de los derechos de propiedad que tenga sesgo social y ambiental.

Gran parte de la discusión se centró en determinar si la seguridad de tenencia puede sólo y/o necesariamente alcanzarse al reconocer los derechos de propiedad individuales. En este sentido, el análisis de varios casos sugirió que la mera atribución de los derechos de propiedad no lleva por sí sola a la meta principal de la mayoría de los programas de regularización, o sea, a la completa integración de las zonas y comunidades ilegales al marco más amplio de la sociedad y estructura urbana. El consenso general fue que debe considerarse una amplia gama de opciones jurídico-políticas, desde la transferencia de propiedades individuales a algunas formas de tenencia absoluta y/o control de alquileres, hasta formas novedosas (aún sin explorar) de propiedad colectiva u ocupación con varios grados de control estatal.

Se argumentó que el reconocimiento de los derechos de tenencia del suelo urbano debe ocurrir dentro de un marco más amplio, integrado y multi-sectoral de planificación de la ciudad y del uso del suelo, y no como una política aislada, a fin de evitar distorsiones en el mercado del suelo que conduzcan al desalojo de los ocupantes tradicionales. Ejemplos de casos de estudios en Brasil, la India y la República Sudafricana han demostrado que, sea cual sea la solución adoptada en un caso particular, sólo funcionará bien si es resultado de un proceso de decisión democrático y transparente que incorpore eficazmente a las comunidades afectadas.

Por encima de todo, se aceptó que es necesario promover la redefinición de los derechos de propiedad, y de allí, el reconocimiento de la seguridad de tenencia, dentro de un contexto más amplio que concilie la reforma urbana con la reforma legislativa. La reforma legislativa es función directa de las autoridades urbanas. Requiere nuevas estrategias de gestión urbana basadas en nuevas relaciones entre el Estado (especialmente a nivel municipal) y la sociedad; relaciones intergubernamentales renovadas; y la adopción de nuevas formas de sociedad entre los sectores público y privado dentro de un marco de trabajo jurídico-político claramente definido.

La reforma legislativa requiere renovar el proceso general de toma de decisiones a fin de combinar mecanismos tradicionales de democracia representativa y nuevas formas de participación directa. En los últimos años, muchas municipalidades de varios países han introducido nuevos mecanismos que fomentan la participación de la población urbana en varias etapas de los procesos de decisión que afectan la gestión urbana. A nivel ejecutivo se observan ejemplos tales como la creación de comités, comisiones, etc., mientras que a nivel legislativo figuran los referendos populares, el reconocimiento de iniciativas individuales y/o colectivas en los procesos de legislación, como también la formulación de enmiendas populares a proyectos de ley. Una de las experiencias más interesantes y promisorias ha sido el “presupuesto participativo” adoptado en varias ciudades brasileñas, que permite la participación de organizaciones comunitarias en la elaboración de los presupuestos municipales.

Para finalizar, no podemos seguir haciendo caso omiso a la necesidad de promover reformas jurídicas y revisiones judiciales globales, especialmente aquéllas que incentiven el reconocimiento de derechos colectivos, amplíen el acceso colectivo a los tribunales y garanticen el cumplimiento de la ley. Países como la India y Brasil ya han incorporado una cierta noción de los derechos colectivos en sus sistemas jurídicos, habilitando la defensa judicial de los llamados “intereses difusos” en materias ambientales y urbanas por ciudadanos y organizaciones no gubernamentales.

En otras palabras, la reforma urbana y el reconocimiento de la seguridad de la tenencia no son cosas que van a conseguirse solamente a través de la ley, sino también a través de un proceso político que apoye el tan aclamado “derecho a la ciudad” como noción política y jurídica. Una función muy importante de este proceso deben ejercerla agentes diversos como abogados, jueces y fiscales del gobierno. No obstante, para poder garantizar la promulgación de leyes con sesgo social, y más importante, su cumplimiento, es imperativa la acción colectiva de organizaciones no gubernamentales, movimientos sociales, organizaciones nacionales e internacionales, y ciudadanos que formen o no parte del entramado estatal.

Si es cierto que vivimos en tiempos democráticos, la época de los derechos tiene también que ser la del cumplimiento de los derechos, especialmente de los derechos colectivos. Sólo a través de procesos participativos podrá la ley convertirse en un escenario político importante para promover la integración espacial, la justicia social y el desarrollo sostenible.

Sobre el autor

Edésio Fernandes es abogado y fellow de investigación del Institute of Commonwealth Studies de la Universidad de Londres. Es coordinador de IRGLUS (Grupo Internacional de Investigación sobre Legislación y Espacio Urbano), y coeditor (junto con Ann Varley) de Illegal Cities: Law and Urban Change in Developing Countries (Zed Books, Londres y Nueva York, 1998).

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 5 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

Los cambios en la economía global, las telecomunicaciones y los sistemas de transporte obligan a las ciudades de todo el mundo a pensar en proyectos de desarrollo urbano a gran escala como una manera de reestructurar el uso de la tierra y de estimular la economía local. Por ejemplo, extensas áreas con buena ubicación que anteriormente han estado ocupadas por instalaciones ferroviarias y otros usos industriales o relacionados con el transporte han quedado abandonadas en muchas ciudades de medianas dimensiones a medida que el transporte de bienes se hace cada vez más en contenedores desde un número reducido de puertos principales y terminales.

Las restricciones reglamentarias sobre las empresas del estado han limitado las opciones para abrir estas tierras subutilizadas al mercado privado o para desarrollarlas como proyectos públicos. Con una mayor privatización y la eliminación de restricciones, estas propiedades se convertirían en la ubicación ideal para exitosas asociaciones públicas y privadas de desarrollo urbano. Sin embargo, aunque los desarrollos urbanos monumentales tal vez parezcan una panacea, también plantean numerosas inquietudes sobre la implementación y los efectos imprevistos en otros barrios de la ciudad, así como la competencia con otras ciudades.

Córdoba es un ejemplo representativo de las ciudades que han adoptado la planificación estratégica a fin de reestructurar los usos de las tierras locales en un contexto macroeconómico e institucional cambiante. Una de las preguntas clave que se hacen estas ciudades es hasta qué punto puede un nuevo desarrollo de gran magnitud, en este caso un telepuerto, estimular efectivamente la diversidad económica y reactivar una zona marginada.

Condiciones en Córdoba

La ciudad de Córdoba, con una población aproximada de 1,3 millones de habitantes, está estratégicamente ubicada en el centro geográfico de Argentina y tiene vínculos bien establecidos con la capital Buenos Aires y ciudades importantes de Chile, Brasil y Uruguay. Por mucho tiempo Córdoba ha sido un centro industrial donde se concentraba la producción de automóviles, aviones, trenes y maquinaria, al igual que de bienes de consumo como alimentos, calzado, ropa y artículos de cuero. Más recientemente, la ciudad ha extendido su sector de servicios para cubrir necesidades locales y regionales.

Puesto que Argentina ha pasado por una estabilización y reestructuración de su economía, Córdoba ha adquirido un mayor potencial para convertirse en un núcleo floreciente del Mercosur, el distrito de negocios de la región centro-sur de Suramérica. No obstante, uno de los obstáculos más perturbadores para la ciudad sigue siendo la competencia con Buenos Aires.

Al igual que muchas otras ciudades de América Latina, Córdoba está atravesando por un período de mayor descentralización, de transición hacia una estructura urbana multipolar y de otros problemas socioeconómicos. Hace varios años la ciudad emprendió un proceso de planificación estratégica que incorporaba un grupo muy representativo de circunscripciones y que desembocó en un plan en 1996 en el cual se identificaban algunas necesidades inmediatas de desarrollo económico y otros aspectos que exigían mayor análisis e implementación.

Como parte de la colaboración continua entre los funcionarios municipales y el Instituto Lincoln, en un seminario realizado en Córdoba en abril de 1997 se examinó la regulación y promoción del mercado inmobiliario. (1) Una idea de gran prioridad que surgió de aquellas discusiones se refería al desarrollo de un telepuerto en terrenos urbanos subutilizados en el centro de la ciudad. Se creó un comité para abordar la planificación y la implementación de dicha obra, el cual estaba integrado por funcionarios municipales, representantes del sector empresarial privado y miembros de la comunidad universitaria local.

El telepuerto concebido para Córdoba es una obra para usos combinados que ofrecerá edificios de oficinas, centros de convenciones y hoteles, además de otros usos secundarios de la tierra. La oferta de edificios de oficinas con tecnología de punta es considerada un objetivo clave para satisfacer las necesidades que tiene la ciudad como centro regional y sede nacional para algunas empresas. Estas instalaciones tendrán una sofisticada infraestructura de telecomunicaciones y se construirán con una inversión combinada de los sectores público y privado. Uno de los primeros proyectos es un hotel que la municipalidad construirá dentro de una edificación histórica.

La ubicación propuesta para el telepuerto es un terreno de 40 hectáreas en el centro de la ciudad, en las márgenes del río Suquía. El terreno incluye antiguas líneas ferroviarias y tiene buen acceso a las principales carreteras que comunican la región de Mercosur. Actualmente los predios están en manos de propietarios públicos y privados y se prevé que serán necesarios algunos traspasos de tierras para poder emprender el proyecto.

Observaciones y recomendaciones

Para ayudar al comité a terminar sus planes del telepuerto, la ciudad de Córdoba y el Instituto Lincoln organizaron un segundo seminario en abril de 1998 para discutir las inquietudes acerca de la implementación del proyecto. Los estudios comparativos de casos de proyectos de desarrollo a gran escala de entidades públicas y privadas en Toronto, Canadá y en Sao Paulo, Brasil sirvieron como valiosas referencias de los problemas y desafíos enfrentados por esas ciudades y aportaron una base para analizar el diseño y las posibles perspectivas para la propuesta del telepuerto.

Una consideración fundamental es la dimensión a gran escala del telepuerto en relación con el mercado local existente, lo que supone que, como mínimo, el proyecto debe realizarse por etapas para garantizar que el desarrollo urbano sea ordenado. Igualmente tienen que ver con la dimensión los efectos que tendrá el proyecto sobre otros terrenos de la ciudad, entre los que se encuentran predios con un potencial para obras de desarrollo de carácter similar. El atractivo relativo de los terrenos escogidos puede traer consecuencias negativas para el desarrollo de tierras no residenciales en otras zonas específicas de crecimiento de la ciudad. Paralelamente es importante entender la intensidad y fuerza del mercado para los usos específicos que tendría el terreno propuesto para el telepuerto.

Otra preocupación es el posible efecto negativo del proyecto sobre los barrios residenciales existentes y en crecimiento de la zona. Por otra parte, el éxito del telepuerto podría beneficiar a los barrios si los residentes se integran al proceso de planificación e implementación.

Entre las lecciones que faltan por aprender de la experiencia que han tenido otras ciudades está la importancia de fijar objetivos manejables; algunos participantes del seminario expresaron su temor de que el comité de Córdoba estuviese siendo demasiado ambicioso. Una segunda lección se refiere a la necesidad de actuar con sumo cuidado al seleccionar la ubicación de una nueva obra de desarrollo de gran magnitud. Si bien la ubicación propuesta para el telepuerto no se consideraba desfavorable en ningún sentido, su selección no había sido el resultado de un análisis sistemático. Más bien se trata de un caso en que la ciudad busca aprovechar una oportunidad para llevar a cabo un plan de desarrollo en un terreno disponible que urge reutilizar.

Una tercera observación la hizo el sector privado, que tiene necesidades especiales en cuanto al acceso, infraestructura y costos. Mediante un estudio de mercado idóneo se podrá identificar un sinnúmero de aspectos por considerar, incluida la capacidad que tendría Córdoba para competir con Buenos Aires como sede local o regional de empresas nacionales e internacionales. Está claro que los supuestos beneficiarios del sector privado deben participar directamente en el desarrollo conceptual y la planificación del proyecto.

Varias semanas después del seminario, la ciudad encargó un estudio para facilitar la estrategia de implementación del telepuerto con base en estas inquietudes y recomendaciones. El estudio también investigará posibles instrumentos para efectuar la captura de plusvalías que permitan obtener el financiamiento necesario para la infraestructura y los mecanismos para formular los tipos de asociaciones entre los sectores público y privado que parecen indispensables para el éxito del proyecto del telepuerto.

Como observación general de cierre hay que agregar que los funcionarios de Córdoba, o cualquier otra ciudad que esté considerando obras de desarrollo urbano a gran escala, precisan actuar con celeridad más allá de la fase de estudio y brindar capacitación y otros mecanismos de apoyo para que los dirigentes locales y los profesionales puedan mejorar su capacidad para manejar el proyecto. Se requieren destrezas y experiencia para evaluar el funcionamiento de los mercados inmobiliarios, definir la competencia técnica requerida, negociar con el sector privado y vigilar la gestión financiera, la regulación de los servicios públicos, el impuesto a la propiedad, las regulaciones de la tierra y la compleja interacción de todos estos elementos. El desafío de una tarea así es lograr el equilibrio entre una cuota suficiente de planificación e investigación y la necesidad de aprovechar las oportunidades de desarrollo a medida que surgen y de aprender con la evolución del proceso.

David Amborski es profesor de la Escuela de Planificación Urbana y Regional en la Universidad Politécnica de Ryerson en Toronto. Douglas Keare, miembro principal del Instituto Lincoln, cuenta con experiencia en planificación estratégica en grandes ciudades de países en vías de desarrollo.

The Lincoln Institute is collaborating with the city of Cordoba, Argentina, on a major project to change approaches to and instruments used for physical planning in the city. Cordoba presents an especially interesting case because of its strategic location at the center of the core development area of Mercosur.

The first phase of the project was a three-day seminar held last April titled “Towards an Urban Integrated Management: Implementing a Strategic Plan for the City of Cordoba.” Its main aim was to bring together the principal “actors” in Cordoba to discuss and debate planning goals and instruments in the context of new developments in urban management.

The seminar included presentations by international experts and discussions among municipal officials, developers, business and commercial interests, non-governmental organizations and planning practitioners. The Institute played an important role in providing an open forum for the local participants to come together for the first time to discuss difficult planning and development issues and to begin the process of establishing new management policies and procedures.

Three principal themes emerged from the discussions. The first dealt with prioritizing land to be urbanized, with particular concern for equitable access to land, infrastructure, and housing for the popular sectors, as well as appropriate mechanisms to carry out integrated planning on a regional basis. The second theme addressed environmental and fiscal impacts of large commercial establishments on existing urban structures, historic districts and residential neighborhoods. The third theme focused on various actors and sectors involved in industrial development in Cordoba, with attention given to dispersal of industry, infrastructure limitations, and social and environmental costs.

In addition to giving the Cordovan participants a broad perspective on urban management issues in other cities, the seminar raised two important points: 1) that planning for development is not just about regulation or land use control, but that fiscal and taxation policies are equally important in affecting land values; and 2) that local officials must learn to assess benefits and costs of urban planning projects in order to deal effectively with private sector developers.

The seminar has already had specific impacts on collaborative commercial activities in the historic center and on improved management programs for providing new infrastructure and services while also reducing deficits. In addition, the program stimulated participants to develop an appreciation for the importance of long-term strategic planning in charting general directions for policy changes and in understanding the effects of particular kinds of development on the social and physical environment.

The Institute is continuing to work with municipal officials to help develop new management paradigms that can support more effective private/public collaborations and better analytical and planning techniques. Follow-up programs will assist policymakers and private developers (operating in both formal and informal markets) in better understanding the functioning of urban land markets and the consequences of policy changes for urban development.

The next course on “Land Market Behavior in Cordoba: Implications for the Urban Structure” will explore research on formal land markets in Cordoba, stressing the effects of economic policies and local government interventions. It will be followed by a regional seminar where experience will be shared with participants from at least three other countries. At the same time, the Institute and Cordoba officials are developing a training program directed to a broad spectrum of local and regional officials and developers, concentrating on general management, urban planning, and project preparation and implementation.

Douglas Keare is a visiting fellow of the Lincoln Institute. He has extensive experience in strategic planning for large cities in developing countries through previous research and project management at the World Bank and the Harvard Institute for International Development. Ricardo Vanella is director of the Department of Economic Development for the city of Cordoba.

In four years, there will be a fresh count of Americans. The 2000 Census will reveal how many of us there are, who we are in terms of race, nativity, income, family size and occupation, what kind of housing we occupy, where we live and where we work.

All these numbers, but especially the latter two, will reflect what is happening to what planners and social scientists call settlement patterns. The Census will show how people and jobs are distributed regionally between North and South and East and West; within regions between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas; and within metropolitan areas between cities and suburbs.

Settlement patterns have been transformed radically in the twentieth century (see graph 1). On a regional basis, the trend has been from East to West and North to South. In the decade between 1980 and 1990, for example, three states in the West and South accounted for 50 percent of the nation’s population growth: California, Florida and Texas.

Within all regions, the trend has been toward ever larger metropolitan agglomerations. By 1990, metropolitan areas of 1,000,000 or more accounted for 50 percent of the nation’s population. Within metropolitan areas, cities grew faster than suburbs at the beginning of the century, but by the 1950s the trend was sharply in favor of the suburbs, which now account for more than half of the nation’s population.

Will the 2000 Census confirm the continuation of these trends? What stakes do we have in the outcome? Quite a few. We worry about trends that erode the economic base of cities because we are concerned about job opportunities for the poor who are committed, by choice or circumstance, to live in the city. We are also concerned about the health of the tax base, which affects the capacity of the local government to deal with the needs of all its residents.

We also worry about land use patterns in the suburbs which both require and increase auto-dependency. This trend in turn leads to more auto travel, aggravates congestion, pollutes the air, and complicates our international relations because of our heavy dependence on imported oil.

We are in the throes of a revolution comparable in scope to the revolution in transportation technology that heavily influenced settlement patterns in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The transportation revolution, from ships and trains to cars and planes, made it possible for both workers and their employers to have a wider choice of locations.

The pace of the revolution in data processing and communications, which began slowly in the middle of the twentieth century, has quickened rapidly in recent years. We speak of a post-industrial information economy. By that we mean that information constitutes an ever-increasing share of the Gross National Product, both as “input” to the production of other goods and services and as “output” in the form of entertainment and related activities.

Household Location Decisions

How will settlement patterns be affected by the transition to an information economy? Let us first consider the worker’s choice of a residential location. In classical urban economics, this choice is seen as a “trade-off” between the merits of a particular place in terms of quality of life and the cost of commuting to work. As the transportation revolution reduced the time and money costs of commuting, more and more workers were able to afford to locate in what they considered an attractive suburb that offered the lifestyle they preferred: a private home with a lawn, good schools, parks and open space, shopping facilities, and friendly neighbors.

The New York Times of July 14, 1996, reports that because of the revolution in communications and data processing, accompanied by company downsizing, as many as 40 million people work at least part time at home, with about 8,000 home-based businesses starting daily.

Logic suggests that some of this new-found workplace freedom will manifest itself in location choices that favor places considered desirable, be they in the farther reaches of suburbia, exurbia, or rural America. On the other hand, if these dispersed self-employed workers end up commuting less, their freedom may not “cost” the society more in terms of congestion and pollution.

Business Location Decisions

What about the conventional company and its location decisions? Like the household, the company does a “balancing” act when it chooses a location. From the perspective of product distribution, Place A might be preferred. From the perspective of the inputs of materials, Place B might be ideal. From the point of view of labor costs, Place C might be best. For tax purposes and related “public” issues, Place D might be most beneficial.

If the entire company has to be in one place, then compromise is inevitable. But if the communications revolution permits the “dis-integration” of the company via the physical separation of functions or the “outsourcing” of particular functions, then what used to be one location decision becomes a multiplicity of decisions, each component responding to a compelling argument for a particular place.

The classic example is the “front” office of a bank or insurance company in the midst of a congested city center with the “back” office in a rural area in another region or even in another country.

Settlement Trends

How these changes in household and business location choices will ultimately affect settlement patterns in metropolitan America was the subject of a major study by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), an agency that served the U.S. Congress for many decades but was abolished by the Congress in 1995. The summary chapter in The Technological Reshaping of Metropolitan America states that “technology is connecting economic activities, enabling them to be physically farther apart, reducing the competitive advantage of high-cost, congested urban locations, and allowing people and businesses more (but not total) freedom to choose where they will live and work.”

But OTA concludes that “the new wave of information technologies will not prove to be the salvation of a rural U.S. economy that has undergone decades of population and job loss as its natural resource-based economy has shrunk.” Rather, most economic activity will locate in large and medium-sized metropolitan areas (see graph 2).

“Technological change. . .threatens the economic well being of many central and inner cities, and older suburbs of metropolitan areas,” the report continues. Overall, the trends suggest that these places will find it hard to compete without economic development policies designed to offset their competitive disadvantages.

In short, the OTA expects that, the communications revolution notwithstanding, the 2000 Census will report a continuation of the trends manifested throughout the latter half of the twentieth century. The favored locus of activity in both residential and business terms will be the outer suburbs of metropolitan areas. Given our concerns with the adverse effects of prevailing settlement patterns, the challenge to land policy is greater than ever.

______________

Benjamin Chinitz is an urban economist who served as director of research at the Lincoln Institute from 1987 to 1990. He continues to serve as a faculty associate at the Institute and as visiting professor in urban and regional planning at Florida Atlantic University.

Thomas Horan is director of Applied Social and Policy Research at Claremont Graduate School in Claremont, CA.

Julie Campoli, a landscape architect, land planner and principal of Terra Firma Urban Design in Burlington, Vermont, and Alex MacLean, a photographer, trained architect and principal of Landslides Aerial Photography in Cambridge, Massachusetts, have worked collaboratively for more than two years to research and document the phenomenon of residential density. They have developed a catalog of more than 300 aerial photographs that illustrate a wide range of density in both established and newer neighborhoods around the country. The Lincoln Institute has supported their work, which has been presented through lectures and courses and is available as a digital working paper titled “Visualizing Density” on the Institute’s website.

How did you join forces to begin this work on photographing and measuring density as a visualization tool for community planning?

We both have a longstanding interest in using visual images to illuminate land use issues. For years Alex has recorded human imprints on the land quite eloquently through his aerial photography. I am constantly experimenting with graphic techniques to communicate design ideas and to express how we shape the built environment. In our first collaboration, Above and Beyond (written with planner Elizabeth Humstone, APA Planners Press, 2001), we employed aerial photographs, many of which were digitally enhanced, to show how and why landscapes change over time. Our intent was to help readers understand the land development process by representing it in a very graphic way.

As we completed that book, we could see that fear of density was emerging as a major obstacle to the type of compact, infill development we were advocating. It became apparent to us that, although people liked the idea of channeling growth into existing areas, they seemed to balk at the reality. We saw many instances where developers trying to build higher-density housing met stiff resistance from a public who equated density with overcrowding. In many communities density is allowed and often encouraged at the policy level, but it is rejected at the implementation stage, mainly because the public has trouble accepting the high numbers associated with dense development.

We became interested in this ambivalent attitude and wanted to look more closely at those density numbers. It seemed to us that a preoccupation with numbers and a lack of visual information was at the heart of the density problem. We thought that some of the graphic approaches we used in Above and Beyond might help people understand the visual aspects of the density issue. We wanted to translate the numbers that were associated with various density levels into mental images, specifically to show what the density numbers mean in terms of real living places.

Why is density such a difficult concept to understand and visualize?

Anything is difficult to visualize if you have only a few pieces of information from which to conjure your mental image. Density is most often represented as a mathematical ratio. It is the number of units divided by the number of acres, or the gross floor area of a building divided by the size of its site. These measurements describe a place as a numerical relationship, which only takes you so far in being able to imagine it. Such information fails to convey the “look and feel” of density and often creates confusion in the community planning process.

An individual’s response to the issue of density often depends on past experience and the images that happen to be part of one’s visual memory. Someone might associate higher-density numbers with an image of Boston’s historic Beacon Hill neighborhood or central Savannah, but high-density development is more frequently imagined as something negative. This is the gap between density as it is measured and density as it is perceived. One is a rational process. The other is not.

What does your density catalog illustrate?

The catalog contains aerial photographs of neighborhoods in several regions of the country. They are arranged according to density level, ranging from exurban houses on 2-acre lots to urban high-rise apartments at 96 units per acre. Each site is photographed from a series of viewpoints to show its layout, details and context. The catalog can be used to compare different neighborhoods at the same density or to see how the design and arrangement of buildings changes as density levels rise. We included a wide array of street patterns, building types and open spaces, demonstrating how the manipulation of these components can create endless variations on neighborhood form.

What becomes apparent to anyone looking at the catalog is that there are many ways to shape density, and some are more appealing than others. We don’t try to suggest which images are “good” or which are “bad”; we let the viewer draw his or her own conclusions. Our hope is that after viewing the catalog people will not only have a clearer idea of what 5 units or 20 units per acre looks like, but, more important, they will be able to imagine attractive, higher-density neighborhoods for their own communities.

How do you measure density?

In the first phase of our project we focused on residential density as measured in units per acre. Using the 2000 U.S. Census, it is possible to find the number of housing units for any census block in the nation. We photographed neighborhoods across the country and calculated the number of units per acre for each site by determining the number of units from the census data and then dividing by the acreage.

Units-per-acre is a measurement commonly used in local zoning and in the review of development projects. It is familiar and understandable to the average person dealing with local density issues and provides a relatively accurate measure for primarily residential neighborhoods. In calculating the density of mixed-use or commercial sites, floor area ratio is a more precise measurement. We plan to extend our analysis to mixed and other uses with this measurement in the next phase of our work, to see how various design approaches can accommodate higher densities.

What is the connection between density and design

Design plays a profound role in the success of compact development. Although it seems that the smart growth movement is confronting a density problem, it’s really more of a design challenge. It is not density but design that determines the physical character and quality of a place. This was made clear to us when we found examples of existing neighborhoods with widely varying character yet the same density. One area might have a sense of spaciousness and privacy, while another appears cramped. Different design approaches can dramatically affect one’s perception of density. This defies the commonly held belief that fitting more people into a smaller area inevitably results in a less appealing living environment. Higher densities, especially on infill sites, pose a greater challenge to designers, but they do not dictate a certain type of form or character.

As we measured the density of existing neighborhoods and assembled the catalog, we began to see specifically how design accommodates density. The most appealing neighborhoods had a coherent structure, well-defined spaces and carefully articulated buildings. They were the kinds of places that offered a lot of variety in a small area. If planners and developers want to promote density, it is essential to identify the amenities that make a neighborhood desirable and to replicate them wherever possible. Interconnected neighborhoods with high-quality public, private and green spaces, and a diversity of building types and styles, will win more supporters in the permit process and buyers in the real estate market than those neighborhoods without such amenities.

How can planners, developers and community residents use the catalog to achieve the principles of smart growth in their local decision making to design new neighborhoods?

The catalog can be used as a tool to refocus the density discussion away from numerical measurements and onto design issues. In our workshops we ask participants to examine several photographs from the catalog showing nine neighborhoods that have a similar density but very different layouts. In articulating their impressions of the places they see, what they like and why, they are forced to think about how the design—the pattern of streets, the architecture or the presence of greenery—affects the quality of the place.

In a town planning process, if residents participate in a similar exercise, they will take the first steps toward a community vision for compact neighborhoods. They can see that the same design principles behind those preferred places can be used to create appealing dense neighborhoods in their own communities. Once they develop a vision for what they want, they can use the planning and regulatory process to guide development in that direction.

Developers of urban infill housing often find themselves on the defensive in the permit process, arguing that density does not necessarily equal crowding. The catalog provides images that can help bolster their case. More importantly, it offers developers, architects and landscape architects visual information on historic and contemporary models of compact development. They can use the photographs to inform their design process, instilling features of the best neighborhoods into their own projects.

What are some of your conclusions about why understanding density is so important to the planning process?

Density is absolutely essential to building strong communities and preventing sprawl. It’s also a growing reality in the real estate market. Instead of denying it or barely tolerating it, we can embrace density. The trick is to shape it in a way that supports community goals of urban vitality and provides people with high-quality living places. At this point though, we seem to be a long way from embracing density. It may be a deep cultural bias or simply that many Americans are unfamiliar the benefits of density, such as more choices and convenience to urban amenities. And in many cases, they have not been shown that neighborhoods of multifamily homes, apartments and houses on small lots can be beautiful and highly valued. We hope that our residential density project and the digital catalog can provide some material to fill the void.

Julie Campoli is principal of Terra Firma Urban Design in Burlington, Vermont, and Alex MacLean is principal of Landslides Aerial Photography in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Urban land management policies and land market operations have taken on greater status in the debate on urban public policy in Latin America, and they are given increased attention in academic research and the development agendas of many countries in the region. Over the past 10 years the Lincoln Institute’s Program on Latin America and the Caribbean has supported a network of Latin American scholars and practitioners who have developed seminars, promoted research, organized public debates, consulted with decision makers and published their findings on these timely issues. Members of this network met at a conference in Buenos Aires in April 2004 to assess their activities and prepare this summary declaration of core land policy issues crucial to the search for more sustainable urban development programs in the future.

Urban land policy in Latin America and the ways that land markets operate tend to produce cities that are economically unequal, politically and socially exclusionary, spatially segregated and environmentally unsustainable. The consequences of these policies can be seen in the high and often irrational prices for land, due in part to the absence of effective urban land management practices.

The Current Situation

Land markets are structurally imperfect. However, the functioning of urban land markets depends on social relations, just as the outcomes of land market operations affect those relations, making it both possible and necessary to influence the markets. Instead of removing the imperfections, many instruments and policies have in fact helped to distort urban land market operations even further. Moreover, many established policies have kept the “rules of the game” in urban real estate unchanged, and apparently untouchable.

A more comprehensive reading of the problem reveals that, rather than being the result of inconsistent rationalization, the current dysfunctional land market is the result of missed opportunities for socially sustainable development in Latin American cities. Yet there are promising and innovative alternatives that can overcome the existing bottlenecks evident in inadequate and destructive national government policies, the enduring difficulties in financing urban development, and poor management practices.

One of the most glaring negative outcomes of the current situation is the relative persistence, weight and importance of informal urban land markets dominated by many exclusionary practices, illegal titling, lack of urban services, and other problems. Deregulation in places that should be regulated (poor outlying areas on the urban fringe), overregulation of wealthy regulated areas, and privatization policies that disregard social criteria are factors that help to drive these negative processes, particularly the spatial concentration of the urban poor. Although the majority of regularization programs are well-intended, they instead cause perverse effects, including increased land costs for the poorest sectors.

Traditional urban planning processes and urban standards have lost importance and effectiveness as instruments for guiding urban development, especially the existing mechanisms for land management. Yet this situation offers opportunities to think about innovative ways to deal with land management and urban planning strategies. This opportunity has already been seized in some places, where new experiments and proposals are causing intense debates by questioning the predominant traditional approaches.

Creating new practices within this framework requires making one unavoidable step: rethinking urban land taxation by incorporating new methods and keeping an open mind regarding alternative fiscal instruments that must be intended as tools to redirect current urban development and discipline the operation of the urban land market. These new tools should not only collect funds in order to build infrastructure and provide urban services, but also contribute to a more equitable distribution of benefits and costs, especially those associated with the urbanization process and the return of recovered land value increments to the community.

Proposals for Action

Recognize the indispensable role of the government. It is critical that the government (from local to national levels) maintains an active role in promoting urban development. The local level should be more committed to structural changes in land management, while the national level should actively foster such local initiatives. Government must not ignore its responsibility to adopt urban land market policies that recognize the strategic value of land and the specific characteristics of how land markets operate, in order to promote the sustainable use of the land by incorporating both social and environmental objectives and benefiting the most vulnerable segments of the urban population.

Break the compartmentalization of fiscal, regulatory and legal authorities. Lack of cooperation among local authorities is responsible for major inefficiencies, ineffective policies, waste of scarce resources and inadequate public accountability. Furthermore, incongruent actions by different public authorities send misleading signals to private agents and create uncertainties if not opportunities for special interests to subvert government plans. The complexity and scale of the challenges posed by the urban social reality of Latin American cities require multilateral actions by numerous stakeholders to influence the operation of urban land markets (both formal and informal), thus insuring the achievement of joint objectives: promoting sustainable and fair use of land resources; reducing land prices; producing serviced land; recognizing the rights to land by the urban poor; and sharing the costs and benefits of urban investment more evenly.

These authorities must also coordinate urban development policies with land taxation policies. They should promote a new urban vision with legislation that recognizes the separation of building rights from land ownership rights, with the understanding that land value increments generated from building rights do not belong exclusively to landowners. Urban managers must also devise creative mechanisms whereby these land value increments may be mobilized or used to produce serviced land for low-income social sectors, thereby offsetting urban inequalities.

Recognize the limits of what is possible. Transforming the current regulatory framework that governs the use of urban land requires new legal and urbanistic thinking that recognizes that inequalities and socio-spatial exclusion are intrinsic to the predominant urban development model. Even within the current model there is substantial room for more socially responsible policies and government accountability. Urban regulations should consider the complexity of land appreciation processes and enforce effective traditional principles such as those that restrain the capacity of government agencies to dispose of public resources or proscribe the “unjustified enrichment” of private landowners.

Break vicious cycles. Alternatives to existing regularization programs are needed to break the vicious cycle of poverty that current programs help to perpetuate. It is important to recognize that these programs are only a stopgap measure and that urbanization, housing and land taxation policies must also be integrated into the process. Reliance on housing subsidy policies, although inevitable, can be nullified if there are no mechanisms to prevent these subsidies from being translated into an increase in land prices. City officials should give priority to the creation of more serviced land rather than new regularization programs, since the right to a home is a social right to occupy a viable “habitat” with dignity. It is also important to understand that the low production of serviced land per se contributes to withholding the supply and, therefore, to higher prices affecting all aspects of urban development.

Furthermore, individual solutions (such as plot-by-plot titling processes or case-by-case direct subsidies to individual families) ultimately result in more costs for society as a whole than broader, collective solutions that incorporate other aggregate values such as public spaces, infrastructure investment and other mechanisms to strengthen social integration. Many Latin American countries have witnessed subsidized housing programs, often supported by multilateral agencies, where the land component is overlooked or dismissed. Such programs seek readily available public land or simply occupy land in intersticial areas of the city. This disregard of a broader land policy compromises the replicability, expansion and sustainability of these housing programs on a larger scale.

Rethink the roles of public and private institutions. Land management within a wide range of urban actions, from large-scale production of serviced land for the poor to urban redevelopment through large projects, including facelift-type actions or environmental recovery projects, requires new thinking about how public institutions responsible for urban development can intervene through different types of public-private associations. Redeveloping vacant land and introducing more flexibility in the uses and levels of occupancy can play a crucial role here, provided such projects fall under the strategic guidelines of public institutions, are subject to monitoring by citizens, and incorporate a broadly shared and participatory vision of urban development.

Showcase projects such as El Urbanizador Social (The Social Urbanizer) in Porto Alegre, Brazil, the Nuevo Usme housing project in Bogotá, Colombia, and that country’s value capture legislation are examples of sensible and creative efforts that recognize the importance of adequate urban land management and new thinking on the role of land, particularly the potential of land value as an instrument for promoting more sustainable and equitable development for the poor in our cities. Creative and balanced new thinking is also exemplified by the joint ventures of public land and private capital in Havana, Cuba, with value increments captured for upgrading densely populated historic areas.

Empower the role of land taxation in public finance to promote urban development. National, state or provincial and local governments must share responsibility for promoting property taxation as an adequate and socially meaningful method of financing and fostering urban development. The property tax should be sensitive and responsive to Latin American cities that have a strong legacy of marked economic and socio-spatial differences. There may be good reasons to tax land at a higher rate than buildings, in a rational and differentiated manner, especially in outlying areas subject to urban speculation and lands offered ex ante to low-income sectors of society (making certain that paying the tax also helps to build citizenship in these sectors). As already noted, it is also critical to create innovative fiscal instruments appropriate to special situations and other methods for capturing the value generated.

Educate stakeholders in the promotion of new policies. All actors involved in these processes, from judges to journalists, from academics to public officials and their international mentors, need in-depth training and education in the operation of land markets and urban land management in order to achieve the above objectives. We must identify the “fields of mental resistance,” particularly in urban and economic thinking and in the legal doctrines that represent the obstacles to be overcome. We must recognize, for example, that an “informal right” exists and operates in many areas to legitimize land transactions socially, if not legally, and to create networks and spaces of solidarity and integration. It is urgent that we take steps to introduce these themes and proposals into political agendas at the various government levels, in political parties, social organizations, academia and the mass media.

Latin American Network

Pedro Abramo, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil

Oscar Borrero, Bogotá, Colombia

Gonzalo Cáceres, Santiago, Chile

Julio Calderón, Lima, Perú

Nora Clichevsky, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Claudia De Cesare, Porto Alegre, Brasil

Matilde de los Santos, Montevideo, Uruguay

Diego Erba, São Leopoldo, Brasil

Edésio Fernandes, London, England

Ana Raquel Flores, Asunción, Paraguay

Fernanda Furtado, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil

Alfredo Garay, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Silvia García Vettorazzi, Guatemala City, Guatemala

Ana Maria González del Valle, Lima, Perú

Samuel Jaramillo, Bogotá, ColombiaCarmen Ledo, Cochabamba, Bolivia

Mario Lungo, San Salvador, El Salvador

María Mercedes Maldonado, Bogotá, Colombia

Carlos Morales Schechinger, Mexico City, Mexico

Laura Mullahy, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USARicardo Núñez, Havana, Cuba

Sonia Rabello de Castro, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil

Eduardo Reese, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Francisco Sabatini, Santiago, Chile

Martim Smolka, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

Alvaro Uribe, Panama City, Panama

Ricardo Vanella, Córdoba, Argentina

Maria Clara Vejarano, Bogotá, Colombia

Isabel Viana, Montevideo, Uruguay

Post-apartheid South Africa is an experiment the like of which the world has never seen before,says Myesha Jenkins, performance poet from Los Angeles who emigrated in 1993, the year before Nelson Mandella became president. “We want this experiment to work.” Taxi-driver Vincent from the northern province of Limpopo, speaking of the elections that will take place later in 2007, says, “We must do it right. The eyes of the world are on us.”

In Latin American cities, especially in the larger ones, location is critical for vulnerable groups. In Buenos Aires, the population of shantytowns in the central area doubled in the last inter-census period (1991–2001), even though total population declined by approximately 8 percent. In Rio de Janeiro during the same decade, the fastest growing informal settlements were those considered to be in the best locations, generally near the beach in middle- and upper-income neighborhoods, although they were already the most crowded and congested slums.

Limited access to land is a substantial hindrance to economic development in many transition economies. Additionally, when the ability to gain appropriate permits to use the land is subject to delays, bribes, or corruption, the efficiency of the land allocation mechanism is compromised and overall economic growth is constrained.

In this article I summarize findings from empirical models of land access, permit activity, time costs, and corruption, using both country and firm characteristics as explanatory variables. Data come from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)–World Bank Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey (BEEPS 2009) for business enterprises in transition economies of Europe and Central Asia, supplemented with country-specific economic measures and EBRD indices of reform. Results indicate that limited access to land and difficulty in obtaining permits are substantial impediments to economic development, and these conditions clearly create an environment in which bribery flourishes.

Land Markets in Transition Economies

The context of this study is analysis of firm-level performance in transition economies where access to land has been subject to varying types of land privatization regimes in the past 20 years since independence. Stanfield (1999, 1–2) provides a helpful strategy for thinking about how land markets have been created in such economies, recognizing that “Markets in land linked to markets in capital and labor are central to market economies.”

Indeed, land market liberalization must be linked to liberalization of capital and labor markets simultaneously if transition countries are to advance their economies. Stanfield also suggests that many existing institutions of land administration must make radical changes to support the privatization of land rights. Defining and enforcing property rights and providing transparent and efficient land registration mechanisms free of bribery and corruption are essential to supporting economic development (Estrin et al. 2009).

Boycko, Schleifer, and Vishny (1995) suggest two ways that access to land and real estate is critical to restructuring a transition economy and promoting economic development in general. First, land and buildings are complementary to plants and equipment, which typically have already been privatized in these countries. Until land and buildings are also privatized, control of these productive assets continues to be held jointly by local politicians and managers, leading to an inefficient ownership structure. Second, privatization of land and real estate provides firms with a source of capital for restructuring their business investments. For example, a former state-owned enterprise that has surplus land and buildings can sell those assets to raise funds for other investments. However, Boycko, Schleifer, and Vishny (1995, 136) conclude, “Because it serves local governments so well, politicization of urban land and real estate persists, and slows down the restructuring of old firms and the creation of new ones.”

Deininger (2003) makes the case that well-functioning land markets foster general economic development, citing four key tenets. First, in many developing economies the distribution of land ownership prevents operational efficiency. If land ownership cannot be transferred easily, or if land use is not separable from land ownership, then there may be a mismatch between the owners and the most efficient land users. If land markets are allowed to transfer land use from less productive to more productive uses, then overall economic efficiency is enhanced. Second, transferable land use rights can allow rural residents to move into the nonagricultural sector of the economy, which can help boost the output of that sector and the overall economy. Third, by making land use rights transferable the ownership and use of land can be separated, facilitating more efficient land use. Fourth, a well-developed land market allows land transfers to occur with low transaction costs, which frees up credit in the economy.

Economic Consequences of Limited Access to Land

Firms use a combination of land, labor, and capital inputs to produce a given quantity of output. Consider a situation where the first input is land, for which the firm faces a constraint on the quantity available, but the other two inputs are freely available in any quantity needed. In a competitive market, a profit-maximizing firm uses additional units of any freely available input until the value of the additional product derived from the last unit of the input used equals its market price. In this case, however, if the available land is constrained, the firm would purchase a less than optimal amount. Consequently, the firm would not achieve an optimal input combination, leading to an inefficient allocation of resources.

Even if the quantity of land is not constrained, obstacles to obtaining building, construction, or use permits may impede the conduct of business. In such circumstances, the amount of land may be accessible, but the permitting process increases its effective price. Once again, the firm is forced to operate inefficiently.

In either situation one could ask, “What would the firm be willing to pay in order to be able to operate most efficiently?” Clearly, the land constraint or permit restriction imposes a cost on the firm and reduces its efficiency, and the firm presumably would be willing to pay a bribe to a government official to gain access to additional land or obtain a permit to use the available land. Hence, limited access to land and permits can encourage informal payments or bribes. Carlin, Schaffer, and Seabright (2007) have suggested that managers’ responses to survey questions regarding the business environment in which they operate and the constraints they face can measure the hidden implicit cost of those constraints.

Country and Firm Data and Survey Results

The primary data for this study are 15 country-specific characteristics from various sources and 13 firm characteristics from the 2009 round of the EBRD-World Bank BEEPS, which is conducted every three years. The survey covers a broad range of topics related to the business environment and performance of firms as well as questions on business-government relations. A total of 11,999 business enterprises in 30 transition economies of Europe and Central Asia are represented. These data have been used extensively in the transition and development literatures, most recently in Commander and Svenjar (2011). Table 1 lists the country and firm characteristics and indicates their effects on five aspects of economic development.

Access to Land as an Obstacle to Economic Development

The BEEPS questionnaire asks firms about a number of potential obstacles to efficient operation, including access to land. A key question asks, “Is access to land No Obstacle, a Minor Obstacle, a Moderate Obstacle, a Major Obstacle, or a Very Severe Obstacle to the current operations of this establishment?” Survey respondents may also respond “Do not know” or “Does not apply.” Overall, 43 percent of the firms surveyed reported land access as an obstacle to some extent. There is wide variation in firm responses across the countries in the sample, however, with the share of firms reporting land access as an obstacle ranging from a low of 6 percent in Hungary to a high of 62 percent in Kosovo (figure 1).

Nine of the 15 possible country-specific explanatory variables have a statistically discernable effect on the likelihood that a firm will report land access as an obstacle (table 1, column 1). Firms were more likely to report land access obstacles in CIS countries (Commonwealth of Independent States, or former Soviet republics) and in faster growing countries. The CIS effect is particularly important, with firms in those countries approximately 28 percent more likely to report land access obstacles than comparable firms in non-CIS transition countries. In countries with a high VAT rate, firms were less likely to report access to land as an obstacle.

Among the EBRD indices of reform listed in table 1, the mixed likelihood of increases and decreases on these measures may indicate that uneven reforms across sectors of the economy can have opposing effects on firms’ experiences. If land privatization and policies providing land access are not moving in tandem with financial market reforms and broader privatization reforms, such a pattern of mixed signs may emerge.

Firm characteristics associated with a greater likelihood of land access obstacles include competition against unregistered or informal firms, subsidization of the firm by the government, the number of employees, and limited partnership legal status. Of particular note are the firms that report they compete against informal market firms and those that are subsidized by the government. These two characteristics increase the reported probability of land access obstacles by 8 and 6 percent, respectively.

Presumably, state-subsidized firms also report that they compete against unregistered or informal market firms, so the combined increase in probability may be approximately 14 percent. On the other hand, characteristics associated with lower probabilities of reporting land access as an obstacle include operating in the manufacturing sector or having a more experienced manager.

Beyond merely stating that land access is an obstacle, firms were asked to report on the severity of the obstacle (figure 2). On a scale from zero to 4 (with zero indicating no obstacle and 4 indicating a very severe obstacle), the overall mean for the 5,206 firms responding to this question is 2.47. When we correct for sample selection bias, we take into account that firms reporting land access as an obstacle may be systematically different from those not reporting an obstacle. Country and firm characteristics with statistically significant positive and negative effects of severity are shown in table 1, column 2.

The BEEPS also includes a way for the interviewer to respond to concerns about truthfulness in the survey responses: “It is my perception that the responses to the questions regarding opinions and perceptions (were): Truthful, Somewhat truthful, Not truthful.” Interviewer suspicions are associated with a greater likelihood of reporting land access as an obstacle (about a 3 percent greater probability). For example, among firms reporting land access as an obstacle, interviewer suspicions were associated with a significantly less intense reported obstacle. Apparently, suspicions are raised in the mind of the survey recorder when the firm representative is being overly optimistic relative to the recorder’s expectations.

Permit Seeking

In order to use the land to which it has access, a firm must be able to obtain relevant permits that can be crucial to the production process. By impeding land use, construction, or business occupancy permits, government officials may limit effective access to land. The BEEPS includes questions regarding the number of permits the firm obtained during the previous two years, the number of working days the staff spent on procedures related to obtaining those permits, formal and informal payments for permits, and waiting periods from application to receipt of permits. One question asks, “How many permits did this establishment obtain in the last two years?” Another asks, “How many working days were spent by all staff members on the procedures related to obtaining the permits applied for over the last two years?”

Responses to these questions are used in modeling both the number of permit applications and the related time costs (figures 3 and 4). About 34 percent of the businesses in the survey applied for permits, with a mean number of 3.9 applications, a mean number of 38.0 working days of effort, and a mean waiting time of 45.9 days. There is a very high variance among countries in the number of permits applied for, the days of effort expended, and the waiting time for permits.

The model of the number of permit applications reflects the interaction of supply and demand factors. A firm demands permits as it plans to develop its property while the government supplies permits according to its rules. Nine country characteristics have a significant effect on the number of permit applications requested, with four factors increasing the number and five factors decreasing it (table 1, column 3).

To understand time costs involved for firms seeking permits, the modeling approach involves a first-stage model to control for the selection bias that may exist with systematic differences between firms applying for permits and those that do not apply. The second-stage model results for permit time cost show that ten country-specific variables have statistically discernable effects—four factors increase staff time expended and six factors reduce staff time (table 1, column 4). Two firm-specific factors significantly increase days of effort, while six reduce the number of days of effort.

Bribes to Government Officials

The BEEPS also asks a question about informal payments to government officials: “Thinking about officials, would you say the following statement is always, usually, frequently, sometimes, seldom or never true?… It is common for firms in my line of business to have to pay some irregular ‘additional payments or gifts’ to get things done…” Responses are coded on a scale of 1 to 6, with 1 being never and 6 being always (figure 5). In a simple regression model of the frequency of bribes, ten country-specific explanatory variables and five firm-specific variables have statistically discernable effects (table 1, column 5).

Summary and Conclusions

Limited access to land and permits to use that land can contributes to economic inefficiency and corruption in transition countries. In this research I have estimated empirical models of firms reporting limited access to land and permits and instances of bribery as obstacles to economic development. Those models indicate that both country and firm characteristics affect land access, permit access and effort, and bribery.

At the country level, higher per capita GDP systematically reduces the likelihood of firms seeking permits, the number of permits, and the time cost to obtain them. That implies that more developed economies require fewer permits and present lower permit obstacles, thereby reducing costs. Furthermore, the higher the GDP growth rate the greater the likelihood that firms experience limited access to land and the need to apply for permits, as well as the likelihood that firms are asked to pay bribes. This may indicate bottlenecks in the development process as firms in CIS countries are much more likely to report that access to land is an obstacle. They also are required to apply for more permits, and they incur much larger time costs related to permit applications.

Higher corporate tax rates do not affect access to land or permits, but do increase the likelihood of being asked to pay bribes. Firms in more highly privatized economies report fewer problems with access to land and fewer permits needed, but more problems related to bribery. Indices of privatization and reform are often significant, but have both positive and negative impacts. This may reflect uneven reform processes in which liberalization in one sector of the economy does not have full impact due to constraints in other sectors.

Firms competing against others that are unregistered or operate in the informal market are more likely to report limited access to land, more likely to seek permits and incur time costs related to permits, and more likely to be asked to pay bribes. Firms subsidized by the government or those with larger numbers of employees also are more likely to report limited access to land, seek more permits, and incur larger permit time costs.

The primary lesson to be learned from this research is that limited access to land is a serious obstacle to economic development in transition countries. Furthermore, the ability to obtain permits to effectively use that land is crucial. Limited access to land and permits not only hinders economic development, but also contributes to a culture of bribery and corruption. Countries wishing to speed their development process should therefore remove impediments to land access by fostering markets for land and land use rights, and should also remove unnecessary obstacles in the permit process. The result will be a more efficient use of land and a more dynamic economy.

About the Author

John E. Anderson is the Baird Family Professor of Economics in the College of Business Administration at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. He has served as an advisor to public policy makers in the fields of public finance, fiscal reform, and tax policy in the United States and in transition economies.

References

Boycko, Maxim, Andrei Schleifer, and Robert Vishny. 1995. Privatizing Russia. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey. 2009. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/BEEPS

Carlin, Wendy, Mark E. Schaffer, and Paul Seabright. 2007. Where are the real bottlenecks? Evidence from 20,000 firms in 60 countries about the shadow costs of constraints to firm performance. Discussion Paper Number 3059. Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).

Commander, Simon, and Jan Svenjar. 2011. Business environment, exports, ownership, and firm performance. The Review of Economics and Statistics 93: 309–337.

Deininger, Klaus. 2003. Land markets in developing and transition economies: Impact of liberalization and implications for future reform. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 1217–1222.

Estrin, Saul, Jan Hanousek, Evzen Kocenda, and Jan Svenjar. 2009. Effects of privatization and ownership in transition economies. Journal of Economic Literature 47: 699–728.

Stanfield, J. David. 1999. Creation of land markets in transition countries: Implications for the institutions sof land administration. Working Paper Number 29. Madison: University of Wisconsin Land Tenure Center.

Alan Mallach is a nonresident senior fellow at the Metropolitan Policy Program of the Brookings Institution and a senior fellow at the Center for Community Progress, both in Washington, DC; and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. He has been engaged as a practitioner, advocate, and scholar in the fields of housing, planning, and community development for nearly 40 years, during which time he has made contributions in many areas including affordable and mixed-income housing development, neighborhood revitalization, and urban regeneration. In 2003 he was named a member of the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Certified Planners in recognition of his lifetime achievements as a leader in the city planning profession.

Mallach is also a visiting professor in the graduate city planning program at Pratt Institute, in New York, and has taught at Rutgers University and the New Jersey School of Architecture. He has published numerous books and articles on housing, community development, and land use; his book Bringing Buildings Back: From Abandoned Properties to Community Assets is recognized as the standard work on the subject. His most recent book, Rebuilding America’s Legacy Cities: New Directions for the Industrial Heartland, was published in 2012 by the American Assembly at Columbia University. He is a resident of Roosevelt, New Jersey, and holds a B.A. degree from Yale College.

Land Lines: How did you become involved with the Lincoln Institute?

Alan Mallach: I have known about the Lincoln Institute for many years, and initially became involved in the 1990s through my work on brownfields redevelopment. Since then, I have served as faculty in a number of training sessions sponsored by the Institute and participated in meetings and conferences at Lincoln House. About seven years ago, Nico Calavita, professor emeritus in the Graduate Program in City Planning at San Diego State University, and I undertook research on inclusionary housing. This project led to the Institute’s 2010 publication of our co-edited book, Inclusionary Housing in International Perspective: Affordable Housing, Social Inclusion, and Land Value Recapture. Most recently, I have been working with Lavea Brachman, executive director of the Greater Ohio Policy Center, on a policy focus report that looks at the issues associated with regenerating America’s legacy cities.

Land Lines: What do you mean by legacy cities?

Alan Mallach: “Legacy cities” is a term that has come into use increasingly to replace “shrinking cities” as a way to describe the nation’s older industrial cities that have lost a significant share of their population and jobs over the past 50 or more years. Iconic American cities such as Pittsburgh, Detroit, and Cleveland are typically mentioned in this context, but the category also includes many smaller cities like Flint, Michigan; Utica, New York; and Scranton, Pennsylvania.

Land Lines: How do the issues of legacy cities engage the Lincoln Institute’s central policy concerns?

Alan Mallach: They do so in many different respects, but I think the strongest connection is around the question of how land is to be used in these cities. All of these cities have had a significant oversupply of both residential and nonresidential buildings relative to demand, at least since the 1960s. As a result of extensive demolition over decades, they have accumulated large inventories of vacant or underutilized land. Detroit alone contains over 100,000 separate vacant land parcels and another 40,000 to 50,000 vacant buildings. While this inventory is a burden, it could also become an enormous asset for the city’s future. How to develop effective strategies to use this land in ways that both benefit the public and stimulate economic growth and market demand is one of the central issues facing these legacy cities.

Land Lines: How would you compare this challenge to your work on inclusionary housing?

Alan Mallach: From an economic standpoint, it’s the other side of the coin. Inclusionary housing is a way of using the planning approval process to channel strong market demand in ways that create public benefit in the form of affordable housing—either directly, by incorporating some number of affordable housing units into the development gaining the approval, or indirectly, through off-site development or cash contributions by the developer. As such, it involves explicitly or implicitly recapturing the incremental land value being created by the planning approval process. Inclusionary housing presupposes the presence of strong market demand and cannot happen without it.

Land reuse strategies in legacy cities seek to create demand where it doesn’t currently exist or alternatively find ways to use the land that benefit the public and can be implemented even under conditions where market demand cannot be induced, at least for the foreseeable future. These approaches are often called “green” land uses, such as urban agriculture, open space, wetlands restoration, or stormwater management. It can be difficult to get local officials and citizens to recognize that the traditional forms of redevelopment, including building new houses, shopping centers, and so forth, require the existence of a market for those products. However, the demand simply does not exist in many of these devastated areas. Moreover, the demand cannot be induced artificially by massive public subsidies, even though public funds can, under certain conditions, act as a stimulus to build demand.

Land Lines: Is lack of demand evident everywhere in legacy cities?

Alan Mallach: No, and that’s one of the most interesting things about these cities. Some cities are seeing demand grow far more than others, but in most cases the revitalization is limited to certain parts of the city. One noticeable trend is that downtown and near-downtown areas, particularly those with strong walkable urban character, such as the Washington Avenue corridor in St. Louis or Cleveland’s Warehouse District, are showing great dynamism, even while many other parts of those two cities are continuing to see population loss and housing abandonment.

Part of this dynamism is driven by walkability and strong urban form (see the new Lincoln Institute book by Julie Campoli, Made for Walking: Density and Neighborhood Form (2012), which examines 12 such walkable neighborhoods and the forces behind their recent popularity). A second important factor is that these areas appeal to a particular demographic—young single individuals and couples. This group is not only increasingly urbanoriented, but is growing in terms of its share of the overall American population.

Land Lines: What other issues are you exploring in your work on legacy cities?

Alan Mallach:I am focusing on two research areas, one more quantitative and one more qualitative. In the first area, I am looking at how many of these cities are going through a pronounced spatial and demographic reconfiguration—a process that is exacerbating the economic disparities between different geographic areas and populations within these cities. While many older city downtowns, such as those of St. Louis, Cleveland, Baltimore, and even Detroit, are becoming increasingly attractive, particularly to young adults, and are gaining population and economic activity, many other neighborhoods in these cities are losing ground at an increasing rate. In many places these trends are accentuating already problematic racial divides.

My second area of research revolves around the question of what it takes to foster successful, sustained regeneration. Lavea Brachman and I touch on this challenge in our policy focus report, but I am hoping to delve into it much more deeply, including looking at some European cities that have found themselves in situations similar to those of American legacy cities. I think the experiences of cities in northern England, for example, or Germany’s Ruhr Valley, parallel changes in our own former industrial cities quite closely.

Land Lines: What do you mean by successful regeneration?

Alan Mallach: That’s a very important question. I think there’s often a tendency to see a particular event—the Olympics in Barcelona or a major building like the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain, for example—as evidence of regeneration, rather than, at best, a discrete spur to more substantial change. I believe that regeneration has to be a function of change in three fundamental areas: first, the well-being of the population, reflected in such measures as higher educational attainment and income or lower unemployment; second, a stronger housing market and greater neighborhood strength; and third, the creation of new export-oriented economic sectors to replace the lost industrial sector. Population growth alone (that is, reversal of historic population decline) may or may not be evidence of regeneration. It is more likely to follow these three changes rather than lead them.

Land Lines: What do you see as the future of America’s legacy cities?

Alan Mallach: I see a very mixed picture. As shown in the policy focus report, certain cities are doing far better than others. Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are showing strong signs of revival, while Cleveland, Detroit, and Buffalo are still losing ground. I think legacy cities are facing two daunting challenges as they look to the future.

The first issue is what the new economic engines of these cities will be. The cities that have been more successful up to now tend to have the most significant clusters of major national research universities and medical centers. These institutions tend to dominate their cities’ economies. While they have helped cities like Pittsburgh and Baltimore rebuild in the post-industrial era, I think a lot of questions remain about their sustainability as long-term economic engines.

The second question is demographic. Downtowns may be drawing young, single people and couples, but many of these cities’ residential neighborhoods were built around 100 years ago as communities mainly for married couples to raise children. Now they are falling apart, including many neighborhoods that have remained stable until relatively recently. This demographic of married couples with children is shrinking across the country and even more so in our older cities. Today, only 8 percent of the households in Baltimore, for example, fit this description. I believe that the future of these neighborhoods is very important to the future of their cities, and I am very concerned about their prospects.

Land Lines: In spite of these challenges, how do you think your work is making a difference?

Alan Mallach: The fact is, many cities are making progress. Pittsburgh has done an excellent job building on its assets to develop new economic engines, while Baltimore and Philadelphia are making impressive strides in reorganizing many of their governmental functions to better deal with their vacant and problem property challenges. Baltimore, for example, has initiated a program called Vacants to Value, which integrates code enforcement and problem property work with larger market-building strategies. I have been fortunate to be directly involved in this work in some cities, including Philadelphia and Detroit; elsewhere, I’m always gratified when local officials or community leaders tell me that they use my work, or that they have been influenced by my thinking. It makes all the effort very much worthwhile.