Although vast differences in standard of living exist among the native-born residents of Chinese cities, the distinction between all urban natives and rural migrants runs deeper. It is, in fact, the fundamental social division in Chinese cities for several reasons, including labor market segmentation that sees migrants doing dirty, dangerous, and low-paying work; institutional rules that favor urban residents in everything from health care access to university entrance exams; and cultural ideas about the backwardness of rural areas and rural people.

In the housing sector, it is therefore not surprising that migrants’ housing quality is quite low in an absolute sense and relative to that of other urban residents. What is less clear is the source of these differences. Research that we recently completed for the Lincoln Institute leads us to question the conventional wisdom that institutional rules linked to the hukou system are primarily responsible for the differential (Li, Duda, and Peng 2007). We believe that hukou status is only one of several factors responsible for migrants’ differential housing outcomes, and that the research literature has not spent enough time assessing the relative importance of these factors. While not definitive, our empirical results provide several reasons to question a hukou-centric modelof the sources of urban housing inequality.

Canfei He earned his Ph.D. degree in geography from Arizona State University in 2001, and then moved to the University of Memphis, Tennessee, where he taught as an assistant professor. In August 2003, he returned to China as an associate professor in Peking University’s College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, and was promoted to full professor in 2009. In addition to his academic duties at Peking University, Dr. He has served as associate director of the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy since 2007. He is also the associate director of the Economic Geography Specialty Group of the China Geographical Society.

Dr. He’s research interests include multinational corporations, industrial location and spatial clustering of firms, and energy and the environment in China. The World Bank invited him to write a background paper on industrial agglomeration in China for the World Development Report 2009: Reshaping Global Economic Geography.

Dr. He has authored four academic books and his work is published widely in English journals including Regional Studies, Urban Studies, Annals of Regional Science, International Migration Review, Eurasian Geography and Economics, Post-Communist Economies, and China & the World Economy. Dr. He also serves on the editorial board of three journals: Eurasian Geography and Economics, International Urban Planning, and China Regional Economics.

Land Lines: How did you become associated with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and its programs in China?

Canfei He: I learned about the activities of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy’s recently established China Program from one of my colleagues at Peking University in 2003soon after I returned from the United States. At that time, the Lincoln Institute was working in China on a number of specific programs, and I became involved in several associated research projects.

My official relationship with the Institute began with the establishment of the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy (PLC) in October 2007. The Institute had been exploring a more long-term partnership with Peking University for some time, and as those discussions progressed, my previous contacts offered opportunities for me to serve as a liaison between the two institutions. I was nominated by Peking University to serve as the associate director with its director, Joyce Yanyun Man, who is also a senior fellow of the Lincoln Institute and director of its Program on the People’s Republic of China. Over the past two years or more, I have been helping to develop the center and coordinate its work with other partners at Peking University, as well as serving as a research fellow of the center.

Land Lines: Why are urban development studies so important in China?

Canfei He: China’s urbanization during the past three decades has been remarkable. As an overwhelmingly rural population in 1978 when reforms began, China is now 45.7 percent urbanized, and the country is projected to be 60 percent urbanized by 2020. This means that China’s cities will need to accommodate more than 100 million new urban residents in this decade.

Market forces, local forces, and global forces are all conspiring to influence the pattern of China’s urbanization and development. Accompanying large-scale and rapid urbanization are revolutionary spatial, structural, industrial, institutional, and environmental changes in an incredibly brief span of time. The multiplicity of these driving forces makes the study of urban development in China both complex and challenging. The next wave of urbanization will have far-reaching implications for the country’s future development, and thus there is a critical need for more high-quality, objective research on the subject.

Land Lines: What are some of the most unusual aspects of urban development in China?

Canfei He: China’s current urban development is quite different institutionally from that of most Western countries. Urbanization in China has occurred at the same time that its economy has become market-oriented, globalized, and decentralized. Whereas most Western urbanization occurred in a period of greater economic isolation, China’s urban development has been directly influenced by international investment and global economic trends.

A second factor is China’s hukou system of personal registration that limits the mobility of its people in part by linking their access to social services to the location of their registration. This system thus presents an institutional barrier that inhibits rural-urban migration despite ongoing reforms.

Regional decentralization is another important aspect that, combined with the state and collective ownership of land, has allowed local governments to play a distinct role in China’s urban development. Land acquisition fees resulting from the sale of multi-decade leases for the use and development of state-owned lands have generated enormous revenues, and have been a critical source of municipal financial resources for urban infrastructure investment. This fee-based revenue, in turn, creates incentives that have promoted even more intense urbanization. On the other hand, the major planning role afforded to local governments in China means that urban planning practice lacks consistency across the country’s diverse regions, and is often hostage to local interest groups.

China is facing increasing global challenges and pressures from many sources including multinational corporations, nongovernmental organizations, global environmental standards, and rising energy prices. These challenges may increase the costs of urban development, but at the same time they may encourage a more sustainable process of urbanization.

Land Lines: How do you approach urban development studies in China through your own research?

Canfei He: China’s urbanization goes hand in hand with its industrialization, and foreign investment has played a significant role in the country’s growth. Urbanization demands labor, land, capital, and technology, as well as supporting institutions. Consequently, there are myriad approaches to studying urban development in China that focus on a particular factor or set of factors.

My own research interests fall within the capital and institutional approaches. Specifically, I investigate industrial agglomeration and foreign direct investment in Chinese cities by highlighting the institutional environment of economic transition. Investigating the elements driving industrial agglomeration in different cities and understanding the locational preferences of foreign and domestic firms are crucial for designing coherent and focused urban planning policies.

For instance, my research on foreign direct investment in real estate development and the locational preferences of international banks found that local market conditions and regional institutions largely determine the locational preferences of multinational services. This type of observation can be of use to planners and politicians in China seeking to foster the growth of the service industry.

With the increasing emphasis on global climate change and acknowledgement of the environmental impacts of China’s first 30 years of reform and development, I am also becoming more involved in research on the environmental impacts of urbanization, including energy consumption and carbon emissions. China has made a commitment to reduce its CO₂ emission by 40–45 percent per unit of GDP by 2020, relative to 2005. This means that building low-carbon and energy-efficient cities is another goal on the already lengthy list of challenges that includes servicing, housing, and employing the country’s millions of future urban dwellers.

Land Lines: Given this ongoing international dialogue, how can China best learn from Western urbanization experiences?

Canfei He: We recognize that there is much to learn from the West, including alternative approaches to land policy, housing policy, transportation policy, environmental policy, suburbanization, and the development and planning of megacity regions. China has the benefit of using the West’s experience as a roadmap to help it avoid many of the problems that have arisen in Western cities, such as urban sprawl and gridlock. That economic, political, and geographic diversity offers a wealth of reference points for China’s cities that should not be ignored and can help China avoid problems that have plagued many Western metropolises.

However, it is necessary to research the applicability of particular international experiences, considering the uniqueness of China’s history and culture. Too often analyses of Western urbanization are presented as a blueprint for China, when in fact institutional, economic, and political differences mean that, for one reason or another, those solutions are impractical or unfeasible.

Land Lines: Why is China’s urbanization and urban development so important to the West?

Canfei He: China’s urbanization will be one of the most important dynamics of the twenty-first century, not only for China but also for the West and the rest of the world. Millions of newly affluent consumers and empowered global citizens will exert significant new demands on the world’s finite natural resources in several ways.

First, with the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, China and the world committed themselves to halving the number of people living on less than $1 per day by 2015. Given China’s large number of rural poor, the country’s urbanization and economic development will be instrumental in meeting this important goal, as well as in achieving other goals such as those related to education and improving children’s health. Only cities have the institutional reach and financial capacity to meet these goals on a large scale.

Second, much has been made of the gulf in understanding between China and the West in recent years. Urbanization and urban development will help to integrate China further into the global community, but it may also create more opportunities for cultural friction. The West has a vested interest in seeing that China urbanizes in an atmosphere that encourages openness and intercultural exchange.

Third, history demonstrates that urbanization entails a much greater demand for energy and other resources as living standards rise and as consumption and dietary patterns change. It has become a cliché to say that “as China goes, so goes the world,” but China’s urbanization and its related environmental impacts will have direct implications for the West and the rest of the world.

The recent memory of $150 per barrel of oil shows that this future demand is likely to put great stress on international energy markets and the global economy. This latent demand also has broad implications for China’s CO₂ emissions and for global climate change. The United States and China are key to any real hope of keeping the increase in average global temperatures less than 2 degrees Celsius warmer than preindustrial levels, as proposed at the recent climate conference in Copenhagen. Whereas the high level of development in Western countries means that changes happen incrementally, China’s rapid urbanization offers hope to limit the world’s future emissions by making significant changes now as the country develops.

Tao Ran is a professor in the School of Economics at Renmin University of China and director of the university’s China Center for Public Economics and Governance. He is also a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institute. His field of specialization centers on China’s urbanization and the political economy of the economic transition, land and household registration reform, and local governance and public finance in rural China. His diverse research has appeared in the Journal of Comparative Economics, Journal of Development Studies, Land Economics, Urban Studies, Political Studies, China Quarterly, and Land Use Policy.

Dr. Tao received his PhD in economics from the University of Chicago in 2002. He is a long-time research fellow at the Peking University-Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy and was previously a Shaw Research Fellow of Chinese Economy at the University of Oxford’s Institute of Chinese Studies. With funding from PKU–Lincoln Institute and from other agencies, such as the National Science Foundation of China, he led a research team and started a large survey on urban migrants and dispossessed farmers in 12 cities across China’s four major urbanizing areas: the Yangtze River Delta (Jiangsu and Zhejiang provinces), the Pearl River Delta (Guangdong province), Chengdu–Chongqing region (Sichuan province and Chongqing municipality), and Bohai Bay Area (Hebei and Shandong provinces). He is also working on a project to pilot new urban village redevelopment models in Shenzhen municipality and the Pearl River Delta.

Land Lines: Why is the study of China’s political economy and its transition so important to the country’s future?

Tao Ran: After enjoying nearly double-digit growth in the past three decades, China has become the shining star of the 21st-century global economy. People marvel at its successful transformation from a third-world country into the world’s largest manufacturing base and second largest economy—an evolution that lifted 450 million people out of poverty. As China grows, however, it faces widening income inequality, serious corruption and pollution, and social injustice that has left hundreds of millions of temporary migrants without access to decent urban public services and tens of millions of undercompensated, dispossessed farmers transitioning into industrialized urban economies.

My research explores the institutional sources of China’s fast growth in the past decades as well as the implications, positive and negative, of China as an alternative model for the developing world—as an effective, growth-oriented autocracy with heavy investments in infrastructure and industries, massive exports of manufacturing goods, and selective government intervention and industrial policies. I believe it’s essential to predict what will happen to China in the near future, because it will have important implications for the whole developing world.

Land Lines: Why do you think it is important to study land and household registration? What do these studies say about the current state of China’s socioeconomic structure?

Tao Ran:China is in the midst of an urban revolution, sustaining a massive volume of rural-to-urban migration every year in the last three decades. About 200 million rural migrants are working and living in Chinese cities. Yet, under the persistent hukou (household registration) system, a majority of migrants with hukou registration in their homelands exist as “outsiders” or “temporary population” in their new cities of residence. They are denied access to welfare benefits, subsidized public housing, and urban public schools.

Their difficulties are compounded by highly distorted land use patterns. Typically, when countries urbanize, less than 20 percent of newly utilized land supports manufacturing, leaving a majority of that territory to accommodate migrant housing. Under the current Chinese land requisition-leasing system, local governments lease around 40 percent of newly utilized land to build industrial parks, leaving only 30 to 40 percent of the area every year for residential purposes.

China’s current land use and household registration systems help to generate several dual socioeconomic structures as well. Besides the widely acknowledged urban-rural dichotomy, there is also a dual structure of urban permanent residents versus migrants. Another duality separates homeowners from urban rentees who lag far behind in terms of wealth accumulation. As 90 percent of homeowners are permanent residents, and 95 percent of renters are migrants, these dual structures lead to a highly divided society.

Land Lines: What land use challenges will China face in the coming decade?

Tao Ran:Many cities have constructed industrial parks, or “garden-style factories,” that make very inefficient use of land. Industrial companies lease land at an extremely low price and use only a part of it, leaving other areas undeveloped or allocated for large-scale greenification projects. Local governments undersupply residential and commercial land in order to maximize profits, leading to undersupplied commercial/residential land markets, followed by serious bubbles in the real estate sector. The rapid rise in urban housing prices and the formation of a real estate bubble over the past decade has made it impossible for the vast majority of rural migrant populations to afford commodity housing in cities. In fact, even new labor force entrants with university degrees find that today’s housing prices are far higher than they can afford. Clearly, housing affordability has become the main challenge to China today.

The aftermath of the 2008 world financial crisis had a huge impact on China. The fiscal and financial stimulus package implemented by the central government mainly benefitted local governments, which have continued to invest in even more industrial parks. Consequently, the Chinese economy has experienced more overcapacity in industrial infrastructure and manufacturing goods as well as more serious housing bubbles across all tiers of cities. This path is all the more unsustainable considering that China already suffered from overcapacity in manufacturing and real estate bubbles before 2008. Given the moral hazards of borrowing from state-owned banks and the fiscal illusion that the housing bubble will continue, local government debts have reached an unprecedented level of 10 trillion RMB, half of which was accumulated after 2009. I f there is no real reform in the systems governing land, hukou registration, and local public finance, the Chinese economy will slow down quite significantly. In the worst-case scenario, the housing bubble will burst, leading to a full-scale financial and economic crisis.

Land Lines: What are some potential policy implications of your research on local governance and public finance in rural China?

Tao Ran: China needs to reform its land and household registration systems so that migrants can access affordable housing and decent public schooling services in cities. Land has played an essential role in the making of China’s growth model in the past 15 years—but it is also responsible for current economic woes. In my view, a reform package that centers on land and urbanization provides the best chance of creating a better balance between the country’s import and export rates by unleashing huge domestic demand and relieving the overcapacity problem in many Chinese industries.

I propose a gradualist approach that aims to build a more equitable dual-track system. Under the current land regulatory regime, land ownership is separated into urban and rural; while urban governments have the authority to allocate rural areas for urban development, rural governments do not have the same rights in reciprocity. This bias deprives rural residents of their development rights and leads the Chinese economy down a destructive path.

Total liberalization, however, may result in a crash of the existing housing bubbles when a large volume of rural land is made available to the market. To alleviate this concern on the part of local governments and urban homeowners, China may need to set up a rental property market track targeting the 200 million rural migrants who already live and work in cities. Half of them currently live in dormitories provided by their employers, and the other half reside in illegally built housing in urban villages without good infrastructure or access to urban public services such as education for migrating children. I propose a reform that would allow rural communities in suburban villages of migrant-receiving cities to take their nonagricultural land onto the urban housing market under one condition: for the first 10 to 15 years, they could build properties used only for rental purposes. After the transitional period, those houses would gain full rights, and they could be sold directly on the housing market.

Land Lines: What are the advantages of this design?

Tao Ran: Insulating developable rural land in the rental market initially provides a cushion for the existing real estate market and prevents market panics and a bursting of the housing bubble. Merging the two tracks, however, would send speculators a credible signal that residential building prices will not rise further, and so the central government could phase out its strict regulations on real estate markets installed since 2010 to curb the housing bubble. Such a reform package would contribute to a healthy growth of the housing market. Moreover, granting rural communities development rights—even if those rights were restricted during the transition period—would open the legal channel for them to apply for development loans.

This opportunity would unleash a housing construction boom in urban villages and suburban areas and provide a lift for construction-related industries with significant overcapacity. Unlike the current housing bubble, this kind of real estate development is more socially beneficial and economically sustainable. Rural residents, particularly those living close to urban centers, would benefit directly. The growth in the rental property track also makes housing affordable for hundreds of millions of migrant workers, enabling them to settle in cities permanently. Urbanization has the potential to turn the Chinese economy away from the investment-driven model.

Land Lines: What is the key to the success of this reform?

Tao Ran: The attitude of local governments is critical. Their concern over revenues is perfectly legitimate and needs to be addressed in the reform package. Under the current system, local governments are burdened with too many spending responsibilities, and they lack adequate revenues. After the reform, they would have limited power of land requisition and lose the sizeable land lease fees and bank loans associated with that power. In the long run, municipalities should levy property taxes to generate a stable source of income for local public finance. Considering the strong resistance from wealthy and politically powerful residents of the cities introducing the property tax on a trial basis, however, it is unrealistic to expect this new tax to take effect soon.

I believe that another untapped source for local governments is underutilized industrial land. According to various reports, the floor-area ratio is only about 0.3 to 0.4 for industrial parks even in China’s developed areas. Through reorganization by negotiation, it is possible to double land development intensity and convert some industrial land for residential and commercial construction. Our estimates show that local governments would be more than compensated for giving up the power of land requisition, and they could also use these revenues to pay back the debts and avert a financial crisis.

At the current stage of development, no reform in the Chinese economy is going to be easy. One certainly should not have any illusions about a quick fix. But the proposed dual-track reform package offers some real hope of boosting domestic consumption and alleviating the overcapacity problem in many sectors. One particularly favorable factor for this reform is the new leadership’s emphasis on urbanization. Premier Li Keqiang has spent years on this issue and seems to have a genuine interest in achieving breakthroughs. This proposal may provide a realistic roadmap for such reforms.

Land Lines: What lessons can China teach?

Tao Ran: The Chinese model successfully effects growth. It also generates several negative consequences, such as the over-leveraging of land, social unrest resulting from land grabbing, environmental damages, and housing bubbles, which burden the urban population. The Chinese lesson is that for a country to grow, the government is essential; but that same government may overdo things and, in the long run, generate distortions that finally damage the sustainability of the economy and society.

El fortalecimiento de la salud fiscal municipal en China

Desde el año 2013, Zhi Liu se ha desempeñado como investigador senior y director del Programa para China del Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo. También es director del Centro para el Desarrollo Urbano y Políticas de Suelo de la Universidad de Pekín y el Instituto Lincoln (PLC). Anteriormente, Zhi fue especialista principal en infraestructuras en el Banco Mundial, donde trabajó durante 18 años y obtuvo experiencia operativa en varios países en vías de desarrollo.

Zhi obtuvo el título de grado (BS) en Geografía Económica por la Universidad Dr. Sun Yat-Sen (China), el título de maestría (MS) en Planificación Municipal y Regional por la Universidad de Nanjing (China) y el título de doctorado (Ph.D.) en Planificación Urbana por la Universidad de Harvard.

LAND LINES: Hace poco el Instituto Lincoln comenzó un plan de investigación sobre la salud fiscal municipal en todo el mundo. Esta tarea surgió al detectar que algunas ciudades de los Estados Unidos y de muchos otros países, como China, enfrentan dificultades financieras. ¿Cuál es la naturaleza de los problemas fiscales municipales en China?

ZHI LIU: Es muy diferente de las dificultades económicas que enfrentan las ciudades de los Estados Unidos. Estos dos países se encuentran en etapas de urbanización muy distintas. Mientras que los EE.UU. tiene un alto nivel de urbanización (más del 80 por ciento de los ciudadanos vive en áreas urbanas), según el censo de 2010, China todavía está a medio camino del proceso de urbanización. Hoy en día, 750 millones de ciudadanos chinos viven en ciudades, lo que representa el 55 por ciento de la población total. Para el año 2050, se espera que la población urbana alcance 1,1 mil millones de habitantes, es decir, el 75 por ciento de la población total. En los últimos veinte años, con la excepción de unas pocas ciudades mineras, casi todos los municipios han experimentado un rápido crecimiento de la población y una expansión espacial, lo que ha generado una gran demanda de inversiones públicas en infraestructura urbana.

En China, las principales fuentes de financiamiento para inversiones en infraestructura urbana son los ingresos provenientes de las concesiones del suelo y los préstamos que los municipios solicitan a los bancos comerciales, por lo general usando el suelo como garantía. El suelo urbano es de propiedad del Estado, y el suelo rural es de propiedad conjunta de las aldeas. La Ley de Administración del Suelo establece que sólo el Estado tiene el poder para convertir suelo rural en suelo de uso urbano, lo que crea el marco propicio para que los gobiernos municipales tomen suelo rural con el fin de realizar un desarrollo urbano mediante el proceso de concesión del suelo. De hecho, los gobiernos municipales expropian el suelo rural, lo dotan de infraestructura y venden los derechos de uso del suelo a desarrolladores inmobiliarios. La compensación que reciben los agricultores por el suelo que se les expropia no es muy alta, ya que se calcula según el valor de producción agrícola del suelo en lugar del valor de mercado del suelo para uso urbano. Cuando la demanda de desarrollo inmobiliario es alta, los precios de licitación para la concesión del suelo son altos, y los gobiernos municipales comienzan a recaudar grandes sumas de dinero. En los últimos diez años, los ingresos derivados de las concesiones del suelo han representado más de un tercio del total de los ingresos fiscales municipales.

Además, los gobiernos municipales expanden aun más su capacidad financiera mediante la utilización de propiedades de suelo a modo de garantías con el fin de obtener préstamos de los bancos comerciales. La Ley de Presupuesto Chino, antes de una reciente modificación, no permitía que los gobiernos municipales solicitaran préstamos. Sin embargo, la mayoría de los gobiernos municipales superó las restricciones de la ley mediante la creación de sus propios vehículos financieros municipales, conocidos como sociedades anónimas de inversión en desarrollo urbano (sociedades anónimas de inversión en desarrollo urbano, UDIC, por sus siglas en inglés). Las UDIC solicitaban préstamos comerciales o emitían bonos privados para los gobiernos. Las deudas municipales pendientes de pago han crecido rápidamente en los últimos años, y en la actualidad han alcanzado al menos un tercio del PIB.

El mecanismo de financiamiento basado en el suelo ha ayudado a los gobiernos municipales de China a recaudar una suma significativa de fondos destinados a la inversión de capital. No obstante, este éxito también ha generado un incentivo para que los gobiernos municipales dependan demasiado de las concesiones del suelo y de las UDIC. Hoy en día, la economía de China crece mucho más lentamente que antes, por lo que este mecanismo está perdiendo fuerza en muchos municipios donde la conversión del suelo rural en suelo de uso urbano excede la demanda real. Algunas ciudades han obtenido más préstamos de los que podían devolver, y han quedado fuertemente endeudadas.

Según muchos estudios empíricos, incluidos algunos financiados por el Instituto Lincoln, el mecanismo de financiamiento basado en el suelo en China es una de las principales causas de otros problemas urbanos que enfrentamos en la actualidad, tales como precios exorbitantes de la vivienda, deudas municipales en aumento, excesiva expropiación del suelo, creciente tensión entre agricultores y gobiernos municipales en torno a la expropiación del suelo, y brechas cada vez mayores en la distribución de los ingresos y la riqueza entre las poblaciones urbanas y las rurales.

LL: Los medios de comunicación internacionales han estado realizando informes acerca de estos problemas. ¿De qué manera afrontará China estas cuestiones?

ZL: Existe un alto nivel de consenso acerca de las causas profundas de estos problemas. En noviembre de 2013, el gobierno central anunció una serie de reformas, algunas de las cuales están directamente relacionadas con políticas de urbanización y finanzas municipales. Por ejemplo, los alcances de las expropiaciones del suelo se limitarán a los fines públicos, por lo que las aldeas podrán desarrollar su suelo para uso urbano según la premisa de que se realice de acuerdo con lo planificado. Las reformas también requieren la aceleración de la legislación sobre el impuesto a la propiedad, la reforma del hukou (el sistema de inscripción residencial para familias, que ayuda a los agricultores a convertirse en residentes urbanos) y la toma de medidas por parte del gobierno para poner los servicios públicos urbanos básicos a disposición de todos los residentes permanentes de las ciudades, incluso a los que migran del suelo rural al urbano.

LL: ¿Cuáles son los efectos de la reforma del hukou en las finanzas municipales?

ZL: El gobierno chino está eliminando gradualmente el antiguo sistema del hukou, y los efectos de esta decisión sobre las finanzas municipales serán importantes. El hukou se diseñó con el fin de identificar a un ciudadano como residente de una cierta ciudad, aunque durante décadas el gobierno utilizó este sistema para controlar la migración de áreas rurales a urbanas. Una persona inscrita como hukou rural no podía cambiar su inscripción a hukou urbano sin la autorización del gobierno. Y sin la inscripción como hukou urbano, un trabajador rural migrante no tiene derecho a recibir los servicios públicos que proporcionan los gobiernos urbanos.

A partir de la reforma económica, la economía urbana en expansión ha absorbido una gran cantidad de trabajadores migrantes que pasan de áreas rurales a urbanas. Anteriormente mencioné que el índice de urbanización de China es del 55 por ciento y que la población urbana es de 750 millones de habitantes. Estas cifras incluyen a los 232 millones de trabajadores rurales migrantes que permanecen en ciudades durante más de la mitad del año. Si se los excluyera del cálculo, el nivel de urbanización sería sólo del 38 por ciento. Sin embargo, debido a su inscripción como hukou rural, los trabajadores migrantes no tienen acceso a muchos de los servicios de los que gozan los inscritos como hukou urbano, a pesar de que muchos han trabajado y vivido en ciudades durante varios años. Los gobiernos municipales determinan el alcance de muchos de los servicios públicos urbanos, tales como las escuelas públicas y las viviendas económicas, de acuerdo con la cantidad de inscritos como hukou urbanos que existen dentro de la jurisdicción municipal. La eliminación gradual del hukou aumentaría significativamente la carga fiscal de los gobiernos municipales para proporcionar servicios públicos. Ciertos académicos en China estiman que el costo de prestar la totalidad de los servicios públicos urbanos a cada trabajador rural migrante ascendería al menos a RMB 100.000 (unos US$16.000). El desembolso total para todos los trabajadores rurales migrantes actuales sería al menos de RMB 23 billones (cerca de US$3,8 billones).

LL: China está introduciendo el impuesto sobre la propiedad residencial. ¿En qué estado se encuentra esta iniciativa?

ZL: El gobierno está redactando la primera ley nacional del impuesto sobre la propiedad como parte de la reforma de finanzas públicas actualmente en marcha. China es uno de los pocos países que no poseen impuestos municipales sobre la propiedad. El actual sistema impositivo depende en gran manera de los impuestos sobre los negocios y las transacciones y muy poco de los impuestos sobre los ingresos y la riqueza de los hogares. En una China más urbanizada con una población que tenga mayor poder adquisitivo para ser propietaria de sus propios inmuebles residenciales, el impuesto sobre la propiedad sería una fuente más viable de recaudación municipal. Hoy en día, el 89 por ciento de los hogares urbanos tiene la propiedad de una o más unidades residenciales, y el valor de dichas propiedades tiene mucho que ver con los servicios públicos urbanos. El impuesto sobre la propiedad permitirá que las ciudades impongan este tributo sobre las propiedades residenciales cuyo valor se vería beneficiado por una mejora de los servicios públicos que se brindarían gracias a los ingresos derivados de dicho impuesto. También cubriría una parte de la brecha fiscal que se generaría como consecuencia de la disminución prevista en la recaudación proveniente de las concesiones del suelo. No obstante, el impuesto sobre la propiedad no será una fuente principal de ingresos municipales en el corto plazo, ya que al Congreso Popular Nacional le llevará uno o dos años más aprobar la nueva ley. Además, a las ciudades les llevará dos o tres años establecer la base de datos de propiedades y el sistema de valuación y administración de las mismas.

LL: Debe de ser difícil para las ciudades tener que enfrentar una reducción de los ingresos derivados de las concesiones del suelo sin una alternativa inmediata, especialmente cuando están experimentando una creciente deuda municipal, tal como se ha informado ampliamente. ¿Cómo saldrán de esta situación las ciudades chinas?

ZL: La situación es verdaderamente difícil. La economía de China está en retroceso. El sector inmobiliario ya no es tan pujante como en los últimos diez años, lo que ha dado como resultado una menor demanda de suelo y, como consecuencia, los gobiernos municipales están obteniendo una recaudación derivada de las concesiones de suelo menor. Ahora las ciudades están experimentando una brecha fiscal. Una posible forma de cerrar esta brecha sería que los gobiernos municipales pudieran obtener préstamos. Sin embargo, tal como mencioné anteriormente, muchas ciudades están endeudadas y tienen poca capacidad para seguir pidiendo préstamos. De hecho, la mayoría de las ciudades en China no tiene una capacidad adecuada de gestión de deudas. La ley de presupuesto recientemente modificada permite que los gobiernos provinciales emitan bonos dentro de los límites establecidos por el Concejo del Estado, pero también cierra la posibilidad a los gobiernos municipales de recurrir a otras formas de obtener préstamos. Actualmente, el gobierno central promueve activamente el financiamiento de infraestructura a través de asociaciones público-privadas (PPP, por sus siglas en inglés). Aunque es un buen avance, no será suficiente para cerrar la brecha de financiamiento para infraestructuras, ya que las PPP resultan útiles principalmente en los casos de proyectos de infraestructura que poseen un sólido flujo de ingresos. Existen muchos otros proyectos de infraestructura urbana que generan muy pocos ingresos o directamente ninguno. A la larga, creo que China debería establecer de forma activa un mercado de bonos del gobierno municipal para canalizar los fondos provenientes de inversores institucionales hacia la inversión de infraestructura municipal y permitir que los gobiernos municipales tengan acceso a préstamos comerciales según su solvencia crediticia. A este fin, los gobiernos municipales deben desarrollar su capacidad institucional en varios frentes, tales como la gestión municipal de deudas, la planificación de una mejora de capital, la planificación del financiamiento para varios años, y la gestión municipal de bienes de infraestructura.

LL: ¿El trabajo del PLC es relevante para la reforma actual?

ZL: El PLC fue establecido en forma conjunta por el Instituto Lincoln y la Universidad de Pekín en el año 2007. Cuando ingresé en 2013, el Centro ya había construido su reputación como una de las principales instituciones de investigación y capacitación de China en cuestiones de desarrollo urbano y políticas de suelo. El Centro apoya diferentes actividades, como investigación, capacitación, intercambio académico, diálogo sobre políticas, becas de investigación, proyectos de demostración y publicaciones. Nos enfocamos en cinco temas principales: tributación sobre la propiedad y finanzas municipales, políticas de suelo, viviendas urbanas, desarrollo y planificación urbana, y medio ambiente urbano y su conservación. En los últimos años, nuestros proyectos de investigación han tocado temas como las finanzas dependientes del suelo, las deudas municipales, los precios de la vivienda, la inversión y el financiamiento del capital para infraestructura, y otras cuestiones relevantes para la salud fiscal municipal. Además, hemos brindado capacitación a diferentes agencias gubernamentales de China sobre las experiencias internacionales relativas al análisis y gestión del impuesto a la propiedad. Podría decirse que nuestro trabajo es muy pertinente en lo que respecta a la reforma actual.

La implementación de las nuevas reformas integrales de las políticas está generando una importante demanda de conocimientos internacionales y asesoramiento sobre políticas en las áreas de interés del programa para China, particularmente lo que tiene que ver con los impuestos a la propiedad y las finanzas municipales. Nuestra idea es comenzar un proyecto piloto de demostración en una o dos ciudades chinas seleccionadas, a fin de generar la capacidad institucional que se requiere para desarrollar un nivel de salud fiscal municipal a largo plazo. Nuestro equipo ha comenzado un estudio para desarrollar una serie de indicadores con el fin de medir la salud fiscal municipal de las ciudades chinas. Es el momento oportuno para que iniciemos este plan en China.

Seeking to reactivate discussion of regionalism in the twenty-first century, Armando Carbonell, senior fellow and director of the Lincoln Institute’s Program on Land as Common Property, and Robert Yaro, executive director of the Regional Plan Association (RPA), convened a roundtable in New York last April, in conjunction with the annual meeting of the American Planning Association (APA). Invited participants explored the extent to which the Regional Planning Association of America (RPAA) shaped the vision of twentieth-century regionalism and how that vision is still relevant today. The Institute invited Ethan Seltzer to summarize the roundtable discussions and provide his own insights about new visions for regional planning in America.

The Regional Planning Association of America (RPAA) was established in 1923 by a small, informal group of visionary planners, architects, sociologists and foresters. They laid out an agenda for building and rebuilding American cities and metropolitan regions, and for preserving rural and wilderness areas. The writings of several RPAA members, including Lewis Mumford, Clarence Stein and Benton MacKaye, have inspired students of urban planning and development for decades.

Elements of their vision were reflected in the activism of the New Deal of the 1930s, the new towns proposals of the 1960s and 1970s, and the metropolitan greenbelt and new urbanism movements of the 1990s. Despite these initiatives, RPAA’s broader vision was ignored by most twentieth-century policy makers, and many of the concerns first raised in the 1920s remain largely unresolved: the impacts of suburban sprawl on cities and countryside; how to reconcile the automobile and highways with the design of communities and regions; and the need for high-quality affordable housing.

The regional planning roundtable held last April began with the screening of the 1938 film, “The City,” which had been shown at the 1939 World’s Fair. The film features the ideas of Lewis Mumford and others who articulated RPAA’s values and visions. Many parts of the story showcased in the film have been realized: the automobile has become a dominant means of transportation; the nation’s housing has been upgraded significantly; and many open spaces have been protected.

However, there remain many unexamined ideas regarding the extent to which social problems can be “solved” by manipulating physical form, especially since the agendas of 60 years ago and today are not the same. Participants also noted that the film was naive about markets and portrayed a desire to turn back the clock. The film presented a limited vision of the regional problem, and the notion of social revolution through contact with nature still haunts us.

The film was regarded as an effective piece of propaganda and advocacy for RPAA’s vision, but today there are many voices and points of view, making such a clear-cut presentation very difficult to imagine. We now anticipate the need for regional planning to address even more diverse and complex social and economic issues: where to locate the still growing yet changing population; how to deal with NAFTA and other effects of globalization; increasing economic and regional disparities; and the whole notion of mass tourism, especially in cities. The panel discussed the need for a twenty-first century equivalent of the 1939 World’s Fair to establish a new vision and find common ground rather than to advance a single position.

Regions as Networks

Most often, regions are regarded as something in between cities and nation-states, something that exists relative to existing structures and institutions. But, regions also are shaped by the context of the host country, which introduces the notion that regions depend on networking to find their place and constituency. We can think and plan at a regional level, but we can’t always act at that level. In the last 20 years, there seems to be more confidence about the notion of strengthening regions and regarding them as evolving places. This all points to the need to take a systems approach to planning that is not too dogmatic. We need a solid regional planning process first, rather than seizing on new urbanism, urban growth boundaries or other such planning approaches as exclusive, “one size fits all,” solutions.

The roundtable participants discussed the consolidation of functions rather than institutions as a promising avenue for developing regional relationships and focusing on “what you can fix.” Regional consolidations of functions are happening in some places, but with little impact on land use or quality of life. In essence, the network approach might serve some efficiencies, but questions remain about its ability to yield results that can make the region a better or more effective place.

Nonetheless, better networks rather than new structures seem to be the avenue of choice today, and carrots and sticks from the state and federal levels could be very influential in moving regional networks along. Local governments compete more than they cooperate, and regionalists too often ignore that competition. More agents or vehicles for greater cooperation are needed.

What Would a Regional Entity Do?

How could a regional entity be formed to focus on sprawl, environmental quality, a sense of “home,” congestion, rates of change, etc.? Though crises can make things happen, congestion and sprawl do not seem to offer a particularly fruitful path to regional thinking. The lack of a creative, constructive regional vision or agenda today is telling. Do we, in fact, agree about why regionalism is important, what it ought to accomplish, and what ought to happen next? Perhaps key to the answer will be articulating what it would mean to live the regional “good life.”

We need to be able to make a case for interdependence within regions. We are all stuck in traffic but we can’t see a collective solution, and technology is only helping to make being gridlocked more bearable. We need a strong case for being a region and reinforcing a sense of mutual interest and accountability. Articulating collective versus individual interests is key, and the common chord struck by the environmental and landscape ecology movements might serve as an important unifying force. Much of what passes for regional planning is really regional engineering or regional plumbing, and stems from a basic unwillingness to address the behavior of individuals.

The world is governed at the federal/state/local levels but is lived at global/regional/neighborhood levels. How does this work? It is essential to understand the dynamics of these contrasting contexts to make regional planning a reality. The question is what government as a change agent (versus a preserver of the status quo) would look like. It can’t attack property rights or go after jurisdictions, or simply seek to create a new layer of regulation.

That leaves control of infrastructure as the key governmental tool, along with the use of the market. Perhaps, it was suggested, we ought to use the Fannie Mae approach of financing good things in the right places and a regional block grant for infrastructure. Pulling the plug on the subsidies for sprawl should be a high priority.

We also need to keep the consumer in mind and not forget about marketing. We need one good idea for what is good about regions. There is an ongoing need for community building at a region level. The key objective is, or ought to be, mutual accountability rather than merely efficiency.

Regionalism in America was born of a tremendous optimism about the future of society, and the ability of leaders, planners and others to perfect that society. Those roots are less evident in discussions of regionalism today, but should be kept in mind when considering the role for a revived RPAA. The value of a regional approach, or of embracing regionalism, must be articulated in light of the state of the nation today. Why elect to take a regional approach? What problem are we trying to solve, and how does a regional approach add value in ways that other approaches cannot?

The definition of “region” needs some rethinking. In the days of the RPAA, there were only six regions in the nation. Today, every city-suburb pair seems to be calling itself a region. Regions were always envisioned as parts of a whole, and regionalism was distinguished from its evil twin, sectionalism, by the contribution that regions made to the whole. Today we need to re-articulate the ways in which the parts work together.

The RPAA was a club, and a small one at that. The work of regionalists today occurs in a much more diverse and pluralistic environment. In fact, whereas early regional initiatives were clearly planning projects, today it’s not clear that regionalism is just a “planning thing.” Consequently, defining the scope and task for regional planning is critically important. The RPAA also was an advocate. The members had a point of view and they worked to advance it politically and, in the case of their film, popularly. A new RPAA would have to understand its role vis-a-vis advocacy. If it emerges as an advocate, could it even do planning, given the environment within which planning occurs today?

Key Themes for Future Action

Discussions of regionalism often center on governance and the structure of governance within regions. There are precious few examples of regions that have elected to either create new institutions at the regional level, or to consolidate existing institutions into larger bodies. There are, however, many examples of jurisdictions working together to advance service delivery in more efficient ways. The notion of a “network” region is emerging in practice: rather than perfecting institutions, the focus is on perfecting relationships and functions. Nonetheless, the challenge at the regional level is not primarily efficiency but developing a sense of mutual accountability. Building community and sense of place at a regional scale is a critical requirement for advancing on-the-ground regionalism. Developing new icons to represent regional territories of shared interest and responsibility is no easy task, but ought to be pursued.

Promoting an ongoing discussion of regionalism and regional planning, one that blends both applied and theoretical perspectives, is valuable and should be encouraged, but reestablishing expectations for the nature of regions and resolving differences between contexts will stand as important challenges. If the old RPAA was articulating notions of “better regions for a better nation,” today we need to discuss the role of “better regions for a better world.” There are roles for regions, regionalism and regional planning that need to be figured out, and that will happen only through moving this kind of dialogue forward.

These concerns lead to a number of possible focal points for ongoing work:

Studies of Sprawl – Sprawl is playing out at a metropolitan level, but is related to more regional and global forces. Further investigations could shed light on understanding the mechanisms that promote sprawl, regional responses and the prospects for intervening in the dynamics of sprawl.

Governance – Regional governance as a network function rather than an institutional structure can lead to understanding regions as something different than more traditional institutional forms. Further, moving from a regionalism based on efficiency to a regionalism based on mutual accountability is a critical need in the years ahead.

Regions and Regional Planning – These cornerstone concepts of the RPAA brand of regionalism need updating. Being more explicit about contemporary expectations for these terms will help to make the value of regionalism for today and the future more specific and precise.

A National Agenda for Regionalism – Currently no one is taking the lead to articulate a national agenda for regionalism. After the interstate highways, beyond smart growth and new urbanism, where are we headed? What’s next for regions, and what is the federal role?

The Film – The RPAA had their film. Can we develop a new one in light of the themes identified above? Trying to develop a film would force us to determine whether we are advocates or planners, and if advocates, what we are advocating. It would also force those involved to become more specific about areas of agreement and disagreement.

The original RPAA was a sociable club, but it also resulted in designing and building places. It published journal articles, connected with governments and presidents, and was casual and productive. Is that model realistic in the year 2000? We need to be pragmatic. We have more to do than we can currently manage. However, communicating at a higher level, focusing on ideas, does make sense. The notion of an ongoing conversation is very important, but it probably doesn’t warrant the creation of another organization.

There is a huge educational challenge here. Whether it is educating kids in schools, providing training and education for decision makers, or deliberately advancing the thinking of a network of citizens, the educational mission must be of primary concern. Perhaps the first step would be to educate ourselves through an ongoing discussion linking thinkers and doers. A good “curriculum” on regionalism also would benefit everyone working with these issues.

______________

Ethan Seltzer is director of the Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies at Portland State University in Portland, Oregon.

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.

The popular sectors in most Latin American cities are at a serious disadvantage in influencing land use planning and management in their communities. Although neighborhood activists may be well-organized locally, their interests are generally absent from decision making that can have broad implications for both urban land management and human rights. As part of its ongoing effort to help community leaders and public officials in Latin America become more effective in implementing critical land management policies, the Lincoln Institute supported an innovative educational program in Quito, Ecuador, in October.

“Urban Land Policies for Popular Sectors” was cosponsored by the Institute, the Center for Investigations CIUDAD, and the Center for Research in Urbanism and Design at the School of Architecture of Catholic University in Quito. This pilot program served as a forum for more than 50 representatives of low-income communities throughout Ecuador who met for the first time. They discussed ambiguities surrounding the formulation and implementation of urban land policies, and the causes and impacts of these policies on the use and regulation of land. Particular attention was given to equitable access to land ownership, affordable housing and self-help construction on the urban periphery.

Ecuador’s Minister of Housing and Urban Development opened the first session, and a team of academics, professional policy advisors, local and national government authorities, and opinion leaders offered a number of strategic planning workshops and panel presentations. The forum included both conceptual and practical discussions on urban land legislation that recognized the noticeable lack of information on land policy at the grassroots level.

Many questions underscored the situation in Ecuador, where insecurity of land, home and person has often led to violence and evictions. This important issue served to highlight the primacy of human rights in the urban land debate, and to reinforce the urgent need to consider a broad range of public policies and planning mechanisms. In addition to encouraging organizational networks among the urban poor and partnerships with other local and national popular movement leaders, the forum explored strategies to build solidarity among the various sectors.

Mayors from other Latin American cities attended the final roundtable session and concluded that the forces affecting poor urban residents in Ecuador are strikingly similar throughout the region. One clear lesson is that access to information is needed to allow every individual and community to influence the formulation and implementation of urban land policies based on democratic participation. An inventory of comparative case studies of community-based land use practices will be incorporated into follow-up programs to assist public officials and administrators in future land use planning and policymaking.

This Quito forum is an example of the Lincoln Institute’s educational goal to provide better knowledge to citizens affected by urban land policies. One outcome is the “Document of Quito,” a summary of the strategies arrived at by consensus among the participants. The challenge of turning their consensus into action will be the true test of the pilot program. The Institute may also collaborate with the United Nations Program on Urban Management for Latin America and the Caribbean to develop a common agenda in education, research and publications. The results would help expand discussions of urban land issues at the grassroots level and improve the ways public officials and popular leaders can work together to generate more effective policies.

Sonia Pereira is a visiting fellow of the Lincoln Institute. An environmental lawyer, biologist, social psychologist and activist on behalf of human rights, she has been widely recognized for her work on environmental protection for low-income communities in Brazil. She is a Citizen of the World Laureate (World Peace University, 1992) and a Global 500 Laureate (United Nations Environment Programme-UNEP, 1996).

The Lincoln Institute’s Latin America program pursues education and research projects with universities and local governments throughout Central and South America and the Caribbean. These activities are especially salient now given many political and economic changes affecting Latin American land markets. For example, the (re)democratization of the continent is engaging a larger segment of the society in designing viable, innovative programs for local administrations of competing political parties.

In addition, institutional and in many cases constitutional reforms are affecting land values and landownership rights and regulations. Structural adjustment programs to curb inflation and overcome the economic crises of the 1980s are changing attitudes regarding holding land either as an investment or a reserve of value. Frequent speculative switches between land holdings and other financial assets according to the caprices of the prevailing ‘economic environment’ have been a planner’s nightmare in Latin America.

The forces of globalization and urbanization also contribute to significant and changing pressures on the use of land. More and more, Los Angeles-style landscapes can be found in certain suburbs of Sao Paulo, Santiago or Mexico City. While loss of the region’s biodiversity is well documented, Latin America is also at risk of losing its land use diversity.

In spite of these common themes, Latin America is hardly a homogeneous entity. Its diversity emerges clearly when examining the landownership and land market structures of different countries. For example:

The Chilean glorification of land markets contrasts with Cuba’s virtual elimination of land markets and resulting residential segregation.

Mexico had a unique experience with communal (ejido) lands that are now being privatized with important implications for new urban expansion.

In Brazil, frequent land conflicts, many with tragic consequences to the landless, can be attributed to a long-promised land reform yet to be implemented.

In Paraguay, until its recent democratization, land was traditionally attributed by the hegemonic political party, simply by-passing the market. In Argentina, on the other hand, the state uses its considerable stock of fiscal land to facilitate international investments in property developments directly through the market.

Nicaragua’s past land redistribution is probably responsible for the vigor of the recently liberalized property market and the strong land reconcentration processes now under way.

The booming land markets of Ecuador and Venezuela have often been attributed to the ease of laundering drug money from neighboring Colombia, where regulations are stricter.

Given this diversity, the Institute’s Latin America program is focusing its education and research efforts on building a network of highly qualified scholars and policymakers. Representing different countries and a variety of academic and professional backgrounds, they help identify topics of proven relevance for the region. Some examples of current topics grounded in public officials’ actual and anticipated needs are: rekindling the debate on the functioning of urban land markets; closing the gap between formal and informal land markets; and implementing new land policy instruments.

Access to land by the low-income urban population is the issue that best captures the hearts and minds of many researchers and public officials. Two connected research themes are 1) the mechanisms that generate residential segregation or exclusion through the market by private or public agents; and 2) the strategies of ‘the excluded’ to access land and subsequently formalize their ‘inclusion.’ Most of the Institute’s education programs being developed in Latin America to deal with land management and instruments of public intervention are informed directly or indirectly by this issue.

For many public officials in the region, land reform is a sensitive issue and capturing land value increments generated by public action is still seen suspiciously as a subversive idea. Thus, the Lincoln Institute is in a unique position as a neutral facilitator capable of collaborating with Latin American scholars and public officials as well as experts from the United States to provide a comparative, international perspective on land policy ideas and experiences.

_____________

Martim Smolka, Senior Fellow of the Institute since September 1995, is on leave as associate professor at the Urban and Regional Research and Planning Institute at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

The excessively high price of serviced land in Latin America is one of several explanations for the extent and persistence of informal land markets. Contrary to popular beliefs, informality is expensive and therefore is not the best or even an advantageous alternative to combating poverty, but it is usually the only one available to the urban poor. A more consistent policy to reduce informality, and in so doing reduce poverty, should be at least neutral or contribute to reducing high land prices.

Poverty Alone Cannot Explain Informality

Although the map of illegality corresponds to a great degree with that of poverty, the extent and persistence of informality cannot be explained by poverty alone. Not all occupants of informal settlements are poor, as many empirical studies in Latin America have proved in recent years. The rate of new irregular land occupations is much higher than the rate of increase in the number of new poor families. In Brazil, for example, the total number of favela residents has increased at five times the rate of poor residents, and a similar trend is seen in most large Latin American cities.

This spectacular growth in informal settlements has occurred through expansion on the peripheries and densification in “consolidated” irregular urban areas, even though the birth rate and the number of rural-to-urban migrants have declined substantially and the percentage of poor citizens has remained relatively stable. Other explanations for this growth in informality include the lack of sufficient social housing programs, inadequate public investment in urban infrastructure for public amenities and services (such as drainage and sewage systems) and, last but not least, the reality that informal arrangements are profitable for those who promote them.

The High Cost of Serviced Land

Conventional economics argues that free market prices reflect the level at which a buyer’s ability and willingness to pay matches a supplier’s ability and willingness to sell, but in practice no assurance is given with respect to meeting social needs. That is, the market for serviced land may be functioning well, even though many families (even non-poor ones) are unable to access such land, and some existing urbanized lands are being kept vacant intentionally.

On the peripheries of many Latin American cities, the price of a square metre (m2) of serviced land made available by private agents can vary between US$32 and US$172. These figures are close in absolute terms to those found in cities in the developed world, where the per capita income is typically 7 to 10 times higher than in Latin America. Even a family above the poverty line saving up to 20 percent of its monthly wages (US$200) would need 12 to 15 years to save enough to acquire an urbanized plot of 150 m2. These indicators suggest that the difficulty of gaining access to serviced land may be one of the factors that actually contribute to poverty.

The price of serviced land, like prices in other markets, is determined by supply and demand. The supply of land depends on the amount that is newly serviced (produced) per year, the amount that is retained from the market, and the intensity of the use of the existing serviced land. The demand depends on the annual rate of formation of new households, adjusted by their income and/or purchasing power, their preferences and the prices of other items in their budgets. It is difficult to provide a full discussion of all factors affecting the behavior of land prices (see Smolka 2002), but it suffices to mention certain determinants that are emblematic to understanding some apparent idiosyncrasies of the functioning of urban land markets in Latin America.

On the supply side, property taxes, a major potential source of revenue to finance the production of serviced land, are ridiculously low. Typically property taxes represent less that 0.5 percent of GDP, compared to 3 to 4 percent in the U.S. and Canada. Overall there is a sense that Latin America underspends on infrastructure and services compared to its per capita GDP. The substantive observed land value increments resulting from investments in urban infrastructure and services are basically neglected as a revenue source to finance such investments, due to weak sanctions on capturing land value increments or simply holding improved land from the market (Smolka and Furtado 2001).

In addition, the disposition of considerable amounts of land is controlled by agents that do not follow strict economic rules (e.g., some public agencies, the Army, the Church or even state-owned enterprises like the railroads for whom some statutory restrictions preclude the disposition of land according to the market’s highest and best use criteria). Furthermore, the limited amount of available land that is fully serviced is often subject to overtly elitist urbanistic norms and regulations (zoning) designed to “protect” those serviced neighborhoods by making it difficult for low-income families to comply.

On the demand side, many families, even those with relatively high incomes, work in the informal sector and are excluded from the market because they lack the credentials required by financial agencies to apply for a loan. The need to self-finance housing production on a piecemeal basis through nontraditional funding sources extends the time between acquisition and occupation of land, thereby adding to both the cost of financing and the overall demand for land. Further, the legacy of high inflation, ill-developed or inaccessible capital markets, and limited participation in the social security system are responsible for nurturing a well-established culture and preference by lower-income sectors to use land as a reserve of value and as a popular means of capitalization, which also adds to the demand for land. In other words, holding undeveloped land and the culture of land speculation are not exclusive to high-income areas.

Prices for Informal Plots

Beyond these conventional arguments about supply and demand, one may also consider the dynamics or interdependency of formal and informal urban land markets as a factor contributing to high land prices. Specifically, the high prices for serviced land in the formal market seem to affect the relatively high prices of unserviced land in the informal market, and vice versa.

Land prices reveal the difference that the purchaser has to pay to avoid falling into a worse situation (that is, farther from work; fewer or worse services, lower environmental quality, and the like). Thus, if the “best” alternative is a plot in an unserviced settlement, one would expect a premium on the existing serviced land, which would also reflect the value of the legal title that comes with serviced land. On the other hand, if the minimum price for serviced land (raw land plus the cost of urbanization) is still unaffordable, then whatever land one could have access to would represent an alternative. This alternative could range from outright squatter settlement, to invasion through the mediation of “pirate” operators or organized movements (both of which involve fees and other payments), to the more prevalent land market for irregular subdivision of large parcels into small plots with inadequate services.

The price of land in the informal market is, therefore, higher than the price of raw land but normally less than the sum of the raw land price plus the cost of providing services. At the same time, it tends to be lower (though not necessarily on a per square-metre basis) than the minimum price of fully serviced and commercialized land in the formal market. In effect the market values more “flexible” means to access land, such as plots smaller than the minimum lot size, or construction without building codes, or even the possibility of selling the roof of a house as buildable space.

Most low-income families do not choose an informal arrangement because it provides the best price option, but simply because it is often their only option. The “choice” of acquiring an informal plot is still expensive. Conservative estimates obtained from an informal survey of 10 large Latin American cities show the average price of land on a commercialized illegal plot was US$27 for one square metre (see Table 1).

Table 1: Prices and Profitability of Informal and Formal Land Markets (US$)

1- Rural land designated for urban use
Informal market: $4
Formal market: $4

2- Cost of urbanization
Informal market: minimal = $5
Formal market: full = $25

3- Final price in the market
Informal market: $27
Formal market: $70

4- Profit over advanced capital=(3-1-2)/(1+2)
Informal market: 200%
Formal market: 141%

The profit figure (4) explains at least in part the question (an apparent paradox): Why, in spite of a significant mark-up in the provision of urbanized land in the informal market, does one find so little interest in development from the private sector? As Table 1 indicates, the provision of informal land is more profitable than the provision of formally developed land. In fact, the figures for the formal market are largely underestimated since there are higher risks associated with financial, security and marketing costs, and other costs borne by the developer that are not incurred in informal developments. These data also help explain why formality begets informality and exposes the fact that the advantages of informal arrangements are not necessarily perceived by the low-income occupants, but by the subdivider or informal developer.

Unexpected Effects of Regularization

Let us turn now to the question of policy responses to this state of affairs. Given the apparent impossibility or impracticality of adopting any other policy, the prevailing notion has been that tolerating informal “solutions” to gain access to land and then regularizing the settlements after they are established is cheaper in the long run for public finances, and better for the low-income occupants (Lincoln Institute 2002).

The public finance argument claims that the existing arrangement is cheaper because it capitalizes on private (self-) investments in the consolidated settlements, thus relieving public agencies of social responsibility and expenditures otherwise associated with one’s full “right to the city.” This view is questionable on two accounts. First, the physical conditions and existing housing are often unacceptable as human shelter, in spite of the ingenuity and imagination of informal solutions under extremely unfavorable conditions. The poor standards of land use and density in these settlements are only tolerated because the damage has already been done. Second, with regard to infrastructure, some of the alternative technologies that look promising are ultimately shown to perform poorly and to require overly expensive maintenance.

The impacts on low-income occupants are also worse than expected. Not only are land prices much too high but there are additional costs: those without an official address (because they live in an irregular settlement) are often discriminated against when looking for a job or social services; rents as a percentage of property value are higher than the rates observed in the formal market; access to water from a truck or other temporary source is much more expensive than piped water; and the cost of insecurity is greater because of living in a more violent environment.

Regularization policies evaluated in a broader urban context may actually contribute to aggravating the problem it is supposed to remedy. That is, as a curative approach these policies may instead have perverse or counter-productive preventative effects, as noted below.

Price Signals

The expectation that an area of land will eventually be regularized allows the developer to raise the price. A purchaser often obtains a lot with written evidence that the developer does not yet have the services required by urban planning norms. At the same time the developer promises that as soon as enough lots are sold the services or infrastructure will be provided, even though such promises are often unfulfilled. At best, a relationship of complicity is established between buyer and seller. At worst, and this is quite common, the purchaser is tricked by the existence of services, such as pipes put into the ground, which the developer claims are part of the infrastructure network. Other problems in these arrangements that can harm poor residents are doubtful rights of tenure, payment terms that disguise the full amount of interest to be paid, and confusing or inaccurate details in the contract.

As in any other segment of the land market, the actual prices reflect, or absorb, expectations about the future use of the lot. The informal sector is no exception. The greater the expectation that the plot of land that is currently without services will get them eventually, either from the developer or, as is more likely, from the government through some regularization program, the higher the price at which the land is sold.

Regularization as an Attraction for More Irregularity

Research on the first arrival dates of inhabitants in informal settlements suggests that in many cases more people moved in just when some regularization program (such as the granting of titles or urbanization improvements) was announced or implemented (Menna Barreto 2000).

The idea that expectations about regularization have an effect on informality is also corroborated by the large number of invasions or occupations that take place either just before or just after electoral periods, when candidates promise new regularization programs. The victory of Miguel Arraes as governor of Pernambuco, Brazil, in 1986 led to 13 land invasions in just over a month (Rabaroux 1997, 124), and the Latin American historiography of the effects of the expectations created by populist promises is rich in other examples. Many of the existing settlements that need to be regularized today owe their origin to the irresponsible complacency of politicians turning a blind eye to the irregular occupation of public or unsuitable areas, or, which is worse, who ceded public land for electioneering purposes.

The Opportunity Costs of Regularization

Regularization programs, which are normally of a remedial or curative nature, have a high opportunity cost compared to the cost of providing urbanized land in a preventative manner. The rule of thumb cost per benefited family of a typical upgrading or regularization program has been in the range of $3,000 to $4,000. Taking the size of a plot to be around 50 m2 and adding 20 percent to account for streets and other public services, the cost works out to US$50 to US$70 per m2. This is considerably higher than the cost for servicing new land, which is less than US$25 per m2, and is similar to the price charged by private developers, even when allowing for a handsome profit margin. ECIA, a private developer operating west of Río de Janeiro, offered completely urbanized plots for US$70 to US$143 per m2 at 1999 prices (Oliveira 1999). The Municipal Secretariat of Urbanism in Río de Janeiro has a technical study, from 1997, which demonstrates that it is possible to commercialize urbanized plots for less than US$55 per m2. Along the same lines, Aristizabal and Gomez (2001) in Bogotá estimate that the cost of correction (“reparation”) of an irregular settlement is 2.7 times the cost of planned areas.

These figures suggest the limitations of preventative programs in favor of curative ones. It is also relevent that permission to develop a regular, formal subdivision may take from three to five years, whereas the decision to regularize an informal settlement often takes less than six months.

The “Day After” of Regularization

A well-executed regularization program (that is, one that effectively integrates the informal area with the urban fabric) would ideally result in the improved quality of life for all occupants and a stronger community. In particular, one would expect an appreciation of property values, causing some residential mobility as families with below-average incomes are forced to move. However, when the program is badly executed the area may be consolidated as a low-income irregular settlement.

The Favela-Bairro upgrading program in Rio de Janeiro is often used to exemplify the most comprehensive and successful experience of its kind. Abramo’s (2002) study of the impact of regularization programs found a relatively small increase in property values in the affected areas (28 percent). Applying this average figure to typical or modest houses with an ex-ante value estimated at US$12,000, the added value is about US$3,400, a number close to the average per-family cost of regularization programs. This result contrasts with the mark-up of more than 100 percent obtained in the process of servicing raw land through the market by private agents. This intriguing piece of information seems to show how little notice the “market” takes of the increased value of these regularized settlements. At the same time, full integration into the urban fabric turns out to be less frequent than had been expected. Many of the favelas that received important upgrading investments remain stigmatized as favelas even 15 years later.

Conclusions

Informality is expensive, and it exacerbates the conditions of living in poverty. The diagnoses of such agencies as the UNCHS (Habitat), World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank and others would seem to be correct in regarding upgrading programs as an essential ingredient of any policy to deal with urban poverty. However, because of the piecemeal and limited approach of such programs, there is no guarantee that the regularization of settlements alone will contribute to reducing urban poverty. In effect these programs not only reiterate and keep intact the land market “rules of the game” that contribute to informality, but they also generate some perverse effects. This situation poses both a dilemma and a challenge. The dilemma is that not regularizing simply is not a political option (nor is it a humanitarian option). The challenge is how to interrupt the vicious cycle of poverty and informality through interventions in the land market. The task ahead is formidable, but there are places in Latin America where local governments are beginning to set new ground rules.

Martim O. Smolka is senior fellow and director of the Program on Latin America and the Caribbean at the Lincoln Institute.

References

Abramo, Pedro. 2002. Funcionamento do mercado informal de terras nas favelas e mobilidade residencial dos pobres. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Research Paper.

Aristizabal, Nora, and Andrés Ortíz Gomez. 2002. Are services more important than titles in Bogotá?” in Land, Rights and Innovation: Improving Tenure Security for the Urban Poor, Geoffrey Payne, ed. 100-113. London: Intermediate Technology Development Group Publishing.

Lincoln Institute. 2002. Access to Land by the Urban Poor: 2002 Annual Roundtable. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Menna Barreto Silva, Helena. 2000. Programas de urbanização e desenvolvimento do mercado em favelas brasileiras. São Paulo: University of São Paulo: LAB-Hab.

Oliveira, Fabrício L. de. 1999. Valorização fundiária e custos de urbanização na XVII R.A. – Campo Grande: uma primeira aproximação com o caso do Rio de Janeiro. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Research Paper.

Rabaroux, Patrice. 1997. La Regularizacion en Recife (Brasil). In El acceso de los pobres al suelo urbano. Antonio Azuela and François Tomas, eds. México: Centro de Estudios Mexicanos y Centroamericanos del Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales de la UNAM.

Smolka, Martim O. 2002. The High and Unaffordable Prices of Serviced Land. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Research Paper.

Smolka, Martim O., and Fernanda Furtado, eds. 2001. Recuperación de plusvalías en América Latina: Alternativas para el desarrollo urbano. Santiago, Chile: EURELIBROS.