China has experienced rapid economic growth since 1978, when it adopted a policy of opening up to the world and instituting economic reform. It has become the second largest economy measured by the country’s GDP, and its tax revenue has experienced an average annual growth of about 20 percent since the fiscal reform of 1994.

However, many subnational governments in China have experienced fiscal stress and incurred large local debt in recent years because of numerous unfunded central mandates and the large fiscal gap between expenditure responsibilities and revenue capacity. For example, in 2008 subnational government in China accounted for 79 percent of total government expenditure, but only 47 percent of total government revenues (Man 2011).

Unlike many developed countries, China’s local governments (provincial, prefecture, county, and township) have not been granted any legal authority for taxing or borrowing, and the property tax plays a very limited role in the local public finance structure. As a result, many local governments turn to extra-budgetary revenue sources, fees for leasing land use rights, other fees and surcharges, and indirect borrowing from banks to finance infrastructure investment and local economic development.

During the period from 1991 to 2008, the land leasing fees (also known as land transfer fees) increased from 5.7 percent of total local budgetary revenue to 43.5 percent. The overreliance on land leasing fees has been criticized as an important factor in pushing up housing prices and in the growth of corruption cases and land disputes in China.

Problems with the Current Tax System

The current land and property tax system in China generates a limited amount of tax revenue, even though five types of taxes are levied on land-related property at various stages of production (table 1). Local governments collect the Farmland Occupation Tax and Land Value Added Tax (LVAT) at the stage of land acquisition and transaction. At the possession stage, the Urban Land Use Tax and Real Estate Tax are collected, while the Deed Tax is levied when the ownership of the property is transferred.

This tax system has many problems and warrants structural reform. First, various taxes on land and property account for only 15.7 percent of local tax revenues. It is an unstable and inadequate revenue source for the Chinese local governments. Local government officials have relied upon other revenues sources, including leasing state-owned land for a large lump-sum fee from developers, to finance infrastructure development and capital projects. In 2010, Chinese local governments collected 2.7 trillion RMB from land leasing fees in addition to 8.3 trillion RMB in taxes and other budgetary revenues. The ratio of leasing fees to tax revenue was 32.5 percent, compared to 4.5 percent in 1999.

Second, China’s current property tax structure focuses more tax burden at the transaction stage than the possession stage. For example, revenues collected from the annual urban land use tax and the real estate tax at the possession stage accounted for only 6.44 percent of local tax revenues in 2008, while about 9.25 percent of local tax revenue was raised at the land development and property transaction stages.

Third, owner-occupied residential property was not included in the tax base for the current real estate tax, thus significantly restricting the government’s ability to capture value from the booming housing market that was fueled by the privatization of public housing, income growth, and massive urban infrastructure investment. By 2010, homeownership rates reached 84.3 percent of the formal urban housing stock, and housing values have experienced substantial increases in the past five years in many big cities (Man, Zheng, and Ren 2011). But the exclusion of the residential properties from real estate tax has resulted in wealth disparity and excessive demand for housing for investment and speculative purpose, raising vacancy rates in many coastal cities.

Finally, unlike the property tax system in many developed countries, the real estate tax in China is not levied on the assessed value of the property. Instead, it is based on the original price minus 10 to 30 percent of depreciation at a rate of 1.2 percent or levied at 15 percent of the actual rental income for leasing property. Government officials have little experience in the mass appraisal of the market value of existing property, a fundamental skill for establishing a modern property tax system.

Recent Developments in Property Tax Reform

The Chinese central government has been exploring the possibility of reforming its current land and property tax system since 2003, when it first officially proposed to establish a modern property taxation system. Six cities were selected to con-duct pilot projects in 2006, and that number was expanded to 10 cities a year later.

In 2010 the State Administration of Taxation (SAT), which is in charge of this pilot project, ordered that every province must choose at least one city to experiment with property value assessment in order to verify the housing sales price self-reported by home purchasers for the deed tax. These experiments have played an important role in the technical and information-based preparation of mass appraisal for future property value assessment. On January 28, 2011, the cities of Shanghai and Chongqing were permitted to collect property taxes on newly purchased second homes or luxury residential property, respectively.

Major Achievements

China’s property tax reform aims to establish a system to tax the existing property (including both land and housing structures) based upon its assessed value on an annual basis to make the tax a significant revenue source for local governments. This system will utilize various assessment methods such as market comparison, cost, and income approaches and will be applied to business and industrial property as well as residential property, including owner-occupied housing.

Different versions of computer-assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) have been studied and subsequently implemented by some pilot cities, such as Hangzhou, Dandong, and Chongqing. The SAT has been training officials from local tax bureaus in every province about CAMA system development and its applications. It has also tried to establish technology standards for each assessment approach.

In 2005, the SAT compiled a Real Property Assessment Valuation Regulation Trial that specified 12 chapters and 40 provisions covering data collection, standards, and the CAMA system. All the pilot cities have finished the simulation assessment and have calculated the tax burden and tax revenue according to different tax rate scenarios. In 2011 at least one city in each province had been selected to conduct property value assessment of newly purchased property for the collection of the deed tax.

The most important development occurred in early 2011, when Shanghai started to collect taxes on newly purchased second homes of residents and first homes of nonresidents based on transaction value, after the exclusion from the tax base of 60 square meters per person. The city of Chongqing is targeting the existing single-family residence and newly purchased luxury apartments of residents or newly purchased second homes of nonresidents. The program excludes 180 square meters for the single-family residences and 100 square meters for apartments in Chongqing.

About 8,000 parcels are reported to be levied a property tax in these two cities combined, although after this one-year experiment only a small amount of tax revenues has been collected, which was intended to finance low-income housing. Although the tax base, tax rate, and the collections are all very small in the two cities, these efforts represent a big step forward for property tax reform in China.

Future Challenges

China’s property tax reform still faces enormous challenges, although it is now much better understood by Chinese citizens and the media. First, it encounters resistance from various influential interest groups. The biggest opponents of a property tax are local government officials, in addition to real estate investors and speculators. Many local governments believe that the adoption of such a tax will lower housing values and consequently lower the demand for land, thereby substantially reducing the land leasing fees obtained from the leasehold of state-owned land. Furthermore, local government officials in China are evaluated on their role in spurring local GDP growth, and infrastructure investment projects are often used as a stimulus to boost local economic development. Officials want unlimited access to land leasing fees because they can be raised and spent with little scrutiny, and they can generate a large amount of revenue for use during an official’s tenure.

A second challenge is the slow progress on legal and assessment preparations for a property tax system. Property tax laws and regulations need to be established, including assessment laws and standards for assessors. Up to 100,000 assessors will have to be trained and certified to these standards. Third, consensus is still lacking with respect to the specifications of the tax base, exclusions, and exemptions; the assignment of responsibilities for administration, rate setting, and assessment; and the allocation of tax revenues. Fourth, general unfamiliarity with the property tax leads to continued misunderstanding and misperceptions about the tax.

At the same time, more urban dwellers realize that an annually collected tax on the assessed value of real property, both business and residential, can serve as an efficient and sustainable revenue source for local governments and help to reduce their reliance on land transfer fees and charges that contribute to higher house prices. Following the central government policy of house purchase restrictions and tighter monetary policy, fees from land leasing in 2011 have started to fall in many cities.

According to a recent report by the China Index Institute (2012), land transfer fees in 130 cities have decreased by 11 percent compared to 2010. In Shanghai and Beijing, they decreased by 16 and 35.7 percent, respectively. This rapid decrease may also offer opportunities for local governments to look for more sustainable ways to seek a balance between promoting economic growth and providing public goods and services. In the long run, establishing a property tax system to substitute gradually for the land transfer fees can offer an efficient, equitable, and sustainable way to finance local development and government spending.

The property tax has been perceived as an effective way to lower housing prices, dampen property speculation, and reduce vacancy rates. Many researchers believe that local governments tried to limit land supply to bid up land prices and maximize revenue, resulting in the rapid increase in housing prices and lack of affordable housing in urban China. Levying taxes on residential property can increase the opportunity cost of holding property vacant or idle and reduce incentives for speculative behavior. The tax is also viewed as an effective way to narrow the gap in income and wealth among urban residents and discourage speculative investment in the housing sector.

Conclusions

The property tax reform in China is making progress in research and in experiments with applications, and it has begun to accumulate momentum toward better understanding and acceptability among citizens and local governments. But the successful establishment of a property tax as a major revenue source in a modern local public finance system requires not only assessment techniques and tax design but also political determination and administrative reform. This reform could lead to a fundamental change in intergovernmental relations and the role of government in China’s political and economic structure.

The Lincoln Institute began to support research on property taxation in partnership with the Chinese government in 2004, in conjunction with the Development and Research Center of the State Council (DRC), Ministry of Finance (MOF), and State Administration of Taxation (SAT). In 2007 the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy (PLC) was established in Beijing, in part to help organize international conferences and training programs for government property tax officials in the pilot cities. The center continues to support international and domestic experts in conducting research and demonstration projects on property taxation and related issues.

About the Author

Joyce Yanyun Man is senior fellow and director of the China Program at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, and serves as director and professor at the Peking University-Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy at Peking University in Beijing.

References

China Index Institute. 2012. http://www.chinanews.com/estate/ 2012/01-04/3580986.shtml

Man, Joyce Yanyun. 2011. Local public finance in China: An overview. In China’s local public finance in transition, eds. Joyce Yanyun Man and Yu-Hung Hong. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Man, Joyce Yanyun, Siqi Zheng, and Rongrong Ren. 2011. Housing policy and housing markets: Trends, patterns and affordability. In China’s housing reform and outcomes, ed. Joyce Yanyun Man. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

National Bureau of Statistics. 2009. China statistical yearbook. Beijing: China Statistics Press.

Since 1978, the Chinese government has pursued various economic and housing reforms to expand private property rights in housing and to promote home ownership through the commercialization and privatization of urban public housing. This has involved terminating the old system of allocating housing units through public-sector employers and establishing a more market-based system of housing provision. The government now provides affordable housing by subsidizing commercial housing purchases or by offering low-rent public (social) housing to middle- and low-income families. At the same time, it relies on the private commercial housing market to meet the needs of higher-income groups.

Recent Housing Reform and Outcomes

China’s housing policies experienced a drastic change in 1998 when the central government ended direct housing distribution to employees through the former danwei or employer-based system. According to government plans, the affordable housing system targeted at middle-income households was established to provide support to nearly 70 percent of urban families. It also introduced housing cash subsidies to new employees and set up a Housing Provident Fund—a compulsory housing savings system to provide subsidized loans to employed homebuyers. Low-rent public housing is provided by the government to low-income urban households, while commercial housing is provided by the market to meet the needs and demands of high-income families at the top 15 percent of the economic spectrum that have access to mortgage financing (Wang 2011).

This housing reform has resulted in a vigorous and fast-growing urban housing market and greatly improved housing conditions for urban residents. For example, the floor area per capita in urbanized areas increased from 6.7 square meters in 1978 to 28.3 square meters in 2007, and the home ownership rate reached to 82.3 percent in urban China in 2007 (Man, Zheng, and Ren 2011).

However, with urban housing prices skyrocketing since 2005, housing affordability has become a major issue in a number of large cities, and municipal governments have been called upon to increase the provision of affordable housing to middle- and low-income households. Government policies have been implemented in an attempt to stabilize urban housing prices, to discourage speculative behavior of homebuyers, and to reduce both the excessive lending practices of state-owned banks and the possible financial risks associated with the housing sector.

Urgent Need for Affordable Housing

Affordable housing is often defined as an adequate dwelling where less than 30 percent of monthly household income is devoted to rent, or where the dwelling’s purchase price is less than three times a household’s annual income. The housing price-to-income ratio (PIR) is the basic affordability measure for housing in an urban area. It is generally defined as the ratio of the median house price to the median family income. In the Global Urban Observatory Databases of UN- HABITAT, PIR is one of the important urban indicators, and a ratio between 3 and 5 is considered normal or satisfactory. In the United States and Canada, the PIR is 3.2 and 3.5, respectively, which meet the international standard for a normal or affordable level of housing (Demographia 2009).

Our study used the Large-Sample Urban Household Survey data collected by the National Bureau of Statistics of China to calculate the PIR in 2007 for urban China, and found it to have a value of 5.56 nationwide (Man, Zheng, and Ren 2011). This ratio falls in the category of “severely unaffordable” according to the criteria proposed by UN-HABITAT, and is well above the normal range of 3 to 5. It indicates that the median price of the housing stock in the sample of 600 Chinese cities (based on the survey of 500,000 urban households) is more than five times annual household median income.

The Current Situation and Challenges

Affordable housing is often measured in terms of median values and incomes, but the concept is applicable to both renters and purchasers in all income ranges. Affordable housing in China, commonly known as “economical and comfortable housing,” is designed to be available to middle- to low-income households, including public-sector employees, to encourage home ownership.

In general, the Chinese central government sets polices and mandates with respect to affordable housing, and the subnational governments, cities in particular, are responsible for the construction, financing, and management of that housing. The central government does not provide financial support to provincial and local governments for affordable housing through its budgetary spending or intergovernmental transfers, except for a few subnational governments in the fiscally strained and underdeveloped central and western regions.

Local governments are required to provide free land, reduce government charges and fees, and control developers’ profits to lower the housing price for those who are qualified based upon government eligibility standards. In some cities, such as Beijing, affordable housing also includes price-controlled commercial housing whose price is held down by the provision of reduced land use fees and charges, as well as favorable land allocation by the government to help lower- and middle-income families become homeowners. The Housing Provident Fund, a compulsory saving plan with contributions by both employers and employees for housing purposes, helps employees buy a house with subsidized loans.

Local governments provide state-owned land to affordable housing projects through appropriation mechanisms. They usually appropriate land to developers who finance, construct, and sell the economical and comfortable housing units to the people considered eligible according to government standards and regulations. Middle-income families seeking market-oriented commercial housing may receive a subsidized loan from the Housing Provident Fund. With housing prices lingering at levels inaccessible even to average salary earners, the current affordable housing system has encountered a number of serious challenges.

First, there is an enormous and growing demand for affordable housing in China. By the end of 2008, there were about 7.4 million low-income urban households in need of government support for housing (Lin, forthcoming). In addition, government population and labor statistics indicate that cities have an estimated “floating population” of 147 million, most of whom are migrant workers who often fall within the low-income group. At the current rate of urbanization, there will be an increase of about 10 million people in cities every year. Most of them will be unskilled and semi-skilled workers in the low- and middle-income levels in need of housing assistance.

Second, affordable housing accounts for only a small portion of the total housing stock, underscoring inadequate government support for middle- and low-income households in urban China. Our research reveals that government-sponsored low-rent housing, as well as heavily subsidized economical and comfortable housing, accounted for only 7 percent and 4 percent of the total housing stock on average in urban areas, respectively (figure 1). In contrast, the two most prevalent types of housing are commercial housing (32 percent) and privatized public housing (34.2 percent).

Among the 256 prefecture-levels cities we studied, the median share of the total housing stock that was affordable housing was 5.57 percent. One-third of the cities had less than 5 percent of affordable housing in the total housing stock, indicating a seriously inadequate supply of affordable housing for low- and middle-income urban households. The underdeveloped private rental market in China further aggravates this problem.

Figure 2 reveals that investment in economical and comfortable housing has barely increased in contrast to the rapid rise of investment in commercial housing during the period between 1997 and 2007. The completed floor area of economical and comfortable housing as a share of the total decreased between 1999 and 2007, contributing to the chronic shortage of affordable housing in large cities. In addition, the eligibility criteria is either too high or the enforcement is problematic. As a result, figure 3 shows the coverage of affordable housing is overly broad, benefiting more high- and middle-income families than lower-income households, and thus causing accusations of corruption and calls for reform.

Third, local governments in China lack incentives and financial means to provide affordable housing. The fiscal reform of 1994 left subnational governments with the obligation to provide nearly 80 percent of total government expenditures, but with direct receipt of only 47 percent of total government revenues (Man 2010). Such fiscal imbalances, plus many unfunded central government mandates and expenditures related to interjurisdictional competition, have driven many local governments to rely on land leasing fees for revenue to finance infrastructure investment and economic development.

Local governments prefer offering state-owned land to the highest bidder among developers through the auction process to maximize revenue, and they have little incentive to provide land for the construction of affordable housing for low- and middle-income families. In addition, the financing of affordable housing in China depends upon funds from the Housing Provident Fund, but its deposits come from sources such as fees from land transfers that are unstable and inadequate to sustain affordable housing investment.

According to a recent report of the Chinese National Auditing Office (CNAO 2010), some cities, including Beijing, Shanghai, Chongqing, and Chengdu, have failed to collect the 10 percent of funds from the net profit of land transfer fees earmarked for low-rent housing construction as required by government regulations. A total of 14.62 billion yuan (about US$2.2 billion) was not collected during the 2007–2009 period, accounting for about 50 percent of the total 29.68 billion yuan (US$4.47 billion) that was due, according to CNAO’s survey of the 32 major cities.

Finally, the current affordable housing system in China is targeted only at urban residents who have city residence permits as part of its household registration system (commonly known as the hukou system). Migrant workers, floating populations, and others without urban residence permits are not covered. These people have to find shelter in the informal housing market, such as urban villages with substandard living and sanitation conditions.

Furthermore, this system suffers from poor administration, widespread corruption, and even fraud. For example, many ineligible applicants have received low-rent housing, and a number of high-income households own government-subsidized economical and comfortable housing units. At the same time, many qualified families have been denied housing assistance.

Conclusions

The rapidly rising housing prices and lack of affordable housing for low- and middle income urban households in China, particularly in big cities, have posed risks and challenges for a stable and harmonious society as sought by the Chinese central government. The current issues and challenges in the affordable housing system warrant attention and support from the Chinese government and the entire country to search for cost-effective and equitable public policies to deal with affordable housing needs to ensure sustainable development and a harmonious society in the future.

The government needs to redouble efforts to curb speculative housing activities, increase land supplies for affordable housing construction, and use fiscal policies and tax incentives to encourage private developers to participate in the provision and management of affordable housing. Moreover, China should establish an efficient and effective local public finance system and a modern property tax to diversify local government revenue sources. This would help reduce reliance on the leasing of public land for revenue and would encourage the supply of more land for low- and middle- housing. Chinese governments also should accelerate the development of private rental markets and encourage the private sector and nonprofit organizations to participate in the construction, financing, and management of housing for middle- and low- income families.

About the Author

Joyce Yanyun Man is senior fellow and director of the Program on the People’s Republic of China at the Lincoln Institute; director of the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy in Beijing; and professor of economics in the College of Urban and Environmental Sciences at Peking University.

References

Chinese National Auditing Office (CNAO). 2010. Audit report on 19 municipalities and provinces for government-invested affordable housing during the period 2007 to 2009. No. 22. http://www.audit.gov.cn/n1992130/n1992150/n1992500/2596931.html

Demographia. 2009. The Fifth annual Demographia international housing affordability survey. http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf

Lin, Jiabin. Forthcoming. The design of China’s affordable housing system. In Low-income housing in China: Current issues and policy design. Beijing, China: Commercial Press.

Man, Joyce Yanyun. 2010. Local public finance in China: An overview. In China’s local public finance in transition, eds. Joyce Yanyun Man and Yu-Hung Hong. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Man, Joyce Yanyun, Siqi Zheng, and Rongrong Ren. 2011. Housing policy and housing markets: Trends, patterns, and affordability. In China’s housing reform and outcomes, ed. Joyce Yanyun Man. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Wang, Ya Ping. 2011. Recent Housing Reform Practice in Chinese Cities: Social and Spatial Implications. In China’s housing reform and outcomes, ed. Joyce Yanyun Man. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 7 del CD-ROM Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

Muchos centros históricos de América Latina han sido el objeto de iniciativas gubernamentales y privadas para la rehabilitación de los edificios y para situar estas zonas al servicio de la industria del turismo. En la mayoría de los casos estas iniciativas han tenido como consecuencia el desplazamiento de los residentes de bajos ingresos o de toda la actividad residencial en conjunto, debido a la comercialización y el aburguesamiento del distrito (Scarpaci 2005). Más recientemente, la rehabilitación de estos centros históricos se ha enmarcado dentro de debates e iniciativas más amplios que pretenden la recuperación de los centros de las ciudades (históricos o de otro tipo) dado su papel crucial como símbolos colectivos o como espacios de interacción social, o bien por su eficacia potencial en calidad de distritos urbanos densos con buena cobertura de servicios (Pérez, Pujol y Polèse 2003; Rojas 2004).

Este artículo pretende profundizar este debate basándose en la experiencia del centro histórico de Ciudad de Panamá, el llamado “Casco Antiguo”. En él se describen algunas políticas innovadoras recientes que han explorado las intersecciones entre el turismo, la vivienda asequible, el empleo y la cultura dentro de un contexto histórico, y deduce algunas enseñanzas y perspectivas útiles.

El Casco Antiguo y la política de desarrollo inclusivo

El Casco Antiguo es la segunda ciudad de Panamá colonial, fundada en 1673 después de que el primer asentamiento se incendiara durante una invasión pirata. Su máximo apogeo tuvo lugar entre 1850 y 1920, cuando se desarrollaron los proyectos de construcción del ferrocarril y los canales que atraviesan el istmo, y la mayor parte de su arquitectura refleja la influencia de esa época. El barrio (aproximadamente 44 hectáreas) fue declarado monumento histórico nacional en 1976 y Patrimonio de la Humanidad de la UNESCO en 1997.

El Casco Antiguo comenzó a pasar de ser un centro urbano multifuncional y socialmente diverso a un vecindario residencial predominantemente de alquiler para las clases medias y los inmigrantes procedentes de las zonas rurales hacia la década de 1920, cuando la élite económica se mudó a nuevos asentamientos suburbanos de estilo estadounidense y la ciudad comenzaba su expansión hacia el este. En las décadas siguientes, el Casco Antiguo perdió muchas de sus funciones urbanas centrales, mientras que su población fue empobreciéndose cada vez más. Hacia la década de los setenta, muchos edificios habían sido abandonados por sus propietarios, y la ocupación de edificios comenzó a ser patente. No obstante, algunas instalaciones gubernamentales importantes, como el Palacio Presidencial y un puñado de otras instituciones, permanecieron en la zona, manteniendo cierta relevancia metropolitana para lo que primordialmente era un vecindario residencial grande de bajos ingresos.

Durante la década de 1970 y 1980 el gobierno elaboró sus primeros planes de reurbanización pensados para el turismo. Se renovaron plazas públicas y monumentos, pero los trabajos se interrumpieron por la crisis política que ocupó la mayor parte de la década de los ochenta. A principios de los años noventa, el sector privado inició sus propios proyectos de renovación, que han seguido siendo en su mayoría proyectos de construcción de bloques de apartamentos de lujo con espacio comercial en las plantas bajas. Los incentivos fiscales y económicos aprobados en 1997 propiciaron una oleada de proyectos y planes privados, pero muchos edificios sencillamente quedaron vacíos y sin restaurar. Entre 1990 y 2000 el censo reveló que el vecindario había perdido cerca de la tercera parte de su población, y en 2004 uno de cada seis edificios estaba cerrado y cubierto por tablones o en ruinas.

En los últimos años se han producido dos hechos significativos. Por un lado, Ciudad de Panamá ha entrado en un período de bonanza inmobiliaria propiciada por el turismo y por el mercado internacional de jubilados, hecho que ha beneficiado al Casco Antiguo en forma de numerosos proyectos de construcción de bloques de apartamentos y hoteles. También han ayudado las sanciones del gobierno para los edificios abandonados. Por otro lado, se ha implementado una política social explícita para la comunidad de bajos ingresos, que reemplaza el consenso tácito asentado desde hace mucho tiempo entre el gobierno y el sector privado sobre la necesidad de expulsar a esos residentes y aburguesar y/o comercializar toda la zona.

La nueva política social se ha centrado en dos tipos de programas: vivienda asequible y capacitación laboral. Hasta el momento se han rehabilitado cuatro edificios históricos propiedad del gobierno, que han producido 52 apartamentos de uno y dos dormitorios; éstos a su vez son alquilados por un órgano gubernamental, la Oficina del Casco Antiguo (OCA), a residentes de largo plazo, la mayoría de los cuales carecen de historial crediticio. Otros tres edificios están en proceso de rehabilitación y cinco más en fase de planificación. Los edificios ofrecen alternativas de vivienda adecuadas, además de espacios comerciales en las plantas bajas, que actualmente se alquilan a establecimientos asentados en el vecindario durante mucho tiempo, que también se enfrentaban a un desalojo.

En el ámbito de la capacitación laboral, se han ofrecido cursos en las áreas de rehabilitación de edificios, servicios de hostelería y restauración, artes culinarias, servicios turísticos e idiomas. Esta experiencia ha cambiado la línea de trabajo que ha pasado de ser simplemente uno de los muchos tipos de programa establecidos por OCA (junto con la rehabilitación de monumentos o la mejora de infraestructuras) a formar parte central de la nueva visión de “desarrollo inclusivo” del barrio.

Las enseñanzas han sido muchas e importantes y nos han permitido comprender mucho mejor los desafíos y el impacto que tienen las políticas de vivienda asequible, turismo y patrimonio cultural.

Siete enseñanzas clave

1. Vivienda asequible es mucho más que construir nueva vivienda que sea accesible.

A pesar de las condiciones deplorables de la vivienda, muchos residentes del Casco Antiguo se aferran al vecindario debido a sus lazos emocionales y por una serie de razones prácticas. En Ciudad de Panamá, las familias de bajos ingresos por lo general tienen que construir sus propias viviendas ocupadas en suelo ubicado en la periferia urbana, lejos de donde se concentra el empleo y los servicios urbanos adecuados, y aquí es también donde se suelen ubicar los nuevos proyectos de vivienda pública. El tiempo de desplazamiento al trabajo y los costos de transporte asociados pueden ser enormes − hasta 5 horas diarias y un 40 por ciento de los ingresos familiares, respectivamente. En este contexto, las políticas de vivienda asequible que mejoran las condiciones de la vivienda a costa del exilio urbano son contraproducentes e irresponsables (Espino 2007).

2. Para muchas familias de bajos ingresos, su hogar es también su negocio. Mientras que las clases medias y altas por lo general pueden permitirse separar su residencia del lugar de trabajo, y por lo tanto, viven y trabajan casi en cualquier lugar de la ciudad adonde se pueda ir en automóvil, los pobres de la ciudad a menudo necesitan combinar ambos usos. En muchas ciudades de América Latina la actividad informal constituye una importante fuente de ingresos familiares, y el lugar de residencia típicamente alberga una actividad comercial, que a su vez requiere una buena ubicación comercial. Los residentes se benefician en gran medida de vivir en partes de la ciudad accesibles y animadas, y los barrios históricos como el Casco Antiguo tienen la estructura urbana adecuada para este tipo de actividad.

En el Casco, muchos de los ocupantes de las nuevas unidades de vivienda asequible han establecido sus negocios y servicios, por ejemplo, de artesanía, calzado o sastrería, que sirven a una clientela metropolitana procedente del creciente tráfico peatonal local e internacional que el turismo ha llevado al barrio. Irónicamente, ahora que estos vecindarios ubicados en el centro por fin pueden comenzar a beneficiarse de la mayor seguridad y del ambiente que les proporciona el turismo, las familias suelen ser desplazadas.

3. La mezcla social urbana es esencial para el desarrollo inclusivo. Rehabilitar un barrio histórico sólo para los pobres tiene tan poco sentido como aburguesarlo por completo. Todo el mundo necesita seguridad, paisajes urbanos agradables y tráfico peatonal con poder adquisitivo, y los pobres de la ciudad no son una excepción. Una mezcla saludable de urbanizaciones asequibles y de categoría beneficia a todos.

4. Los proyectos de vivienda asequible no son una amenaza para la inversión de alto nivel (al menos no en los barrios históricos). En el Casco Antiguo, los proyectos de vivienda asequible de hecho se han convertido en punta de lanza de una inversión privada de alto nivel, al actuar como pioneros en zonas del barrio muy deterioradas y abrir la puerta a promotores privados menos atrevidos. Para empezar, los residentes y usuarios de altos ingresos del Casco suelen ser más tolerantes de la diversidad social que los núcleos familiares de clase media típicos. En consecuencia, los valores de la propiedad en el Casco Antiguo continúan su tendencia a la alza.

5. Las oportunidades de vivienda asequible en el centro deberían ser permanentes. En entornos de inflación alta como el Casco Antiguo, la construcción de unidades de vivienda asequibles y su posterior venta en el mercado pueden estimular la reventa, la especulación y la pérdida de viviendas asequibles. La reventa de unidades asequibles debe estar estrictamente controlada por medio de restricciones en los títulos de propiedad, y el alquiler sin fines de lucro debería considerarse como una opción seria en tales casos. El romanticismo de la propiedad debe reemplazarse por un firme compromiso de servir a la población existente y de ampliar las ventajas de la inclusión urbana a las generaciones venideras. Los gobiernos y las agencias sin fines de lucro deben garantizar un conjunto razonable de edificios para este fin.

6. Es positivo un cierto grado de separación, pero sin extremismo. Los proyectos de vivienda asequible del gobierno de Panamá se centran en una zona específica por motivos históricos (accidentales). Sin embargo, esta zona está rodeada de otras destinadas a una urbanización de lujo. Esta geografía permite tanto cohesión como interacción social, concentrando una vida comunitaria activa y unos servicios comunitarios adecuados. Los negocios como las tiendas de alimentación y las peluquerías que sirven a las poblaciones de bajos ingresos son bastante diferentes de sus contrapartidas para la clase media, en cuanto a los productos y servicios que ofrecen, los precios y los horarios de atención. Una densidad crítica de clientes permite a estos establecimientos desempeñar sus funciones, mientras que una estructura urbana abierta aumenta su base de clientes potenciales, abriéndose a otras clases sociales.

Hay que tener presente que la segregación urbana, tanto en sus aspectos positivos como negativos, no sólo afecta a la vivienda, sino también a todo el repertorio de actividades que componen un vecindario. Por este motivo, proteger los negocios formales de bajos ingresos del vecindario para evitar que sean desplazados es un componente integral de los programas de vivienda asequible en las zonas de rehabilitación. Por otro lado, debe reservarse y fomentar espacio para instituciones de categoría que se sitúen dentro o en las cercanías de estas zonas. Museos, fundaciones, centros culturales o atracciones turísticas pueden beneficiarse de estar en estas comunidades y viceversa.

7. La cultural popular interesa al turismo más allá de lo evidente.

Las poblaciones de bajos ingresos están tan ansiosas por participar en el comercio turístico como cualquier otro sector, pero normalmente sólo se las incluye si tienen algo de folklore que vender o aportar. La cultura contemporánea cotidiana de estos grupos, incluidas su comida y su música, tiende a ser despreciada y tildada de vulgar o poco interesante. Hasta la fecha la OCA ha tratado de promocionar sobre todo la cultura culinaria del barrio, ayudando a organizar a los proveedores para que participen en eventos culturales masivos en la zona. En otro proyecto, la historia familiar y vital de algunos residentes de toda la vida en el barrio se ha registrado y publicado en formato de libro. Se ha dado publicidad a sus residencias como lugares que los turistas pueden visitar para mantener una conversación informal sobre “los viejos tiempos”. Este prometedor campo de las industrias de la cultura popular tiene mucho por descubrir.

Conclusiones

Dado su carácter de atracción cultural, los distritos históricos se benefician de una forma única de diversidad social. Por encima de todo, los turistas desean explorar un barrio que es representativo de la cultura local, y no encontrar otro centro comercial internacional exclusivo al aire libre. Para mantener el barrio asentado en el aspecto cultural, es imprescindible la diversidad social, tanto en el aspecto de vivienda como en el comercial. Por otro lado, la planificación de distritos históricos está inevitablemente ligada a debates más amplios sobre la centralidad, la vivienda asequible y el “derecho a la ciudad” (Lefebvre 1996).

En Panamá, la experiencia del Casco Antiguo ha formado parte de una iniciativa más amplia en el centro de la ciudad encaminada a restablecer la dignidad a la política de vivienda asequible a través de la rehabilitación de edificios y barrios tradicionales. Representa una desviación de las políticas anteriores enfocadas a la urbanización periférica o la construcción de bloques de apartamentos monótonos y sin vida en zonas residuales. Por tanto, trasciende el planteamiento limitado sobre la vivienda y aborda asuntos relacionados con el empleo, la cultura y la ubicación.

Creemos que estas enseñanzas y experiencias tienen mucho que aportar sobre la forma que puede adoptar el desarrollo urbano inclusivo. Estas enseñanzas son interesantes porque no se ocupan de abstracciones, sino de las necesidades y deseos concretos de diferentes agentes vinculados a un espacio urbano. Asimismo, dependen de una acción premeditada y no de expectativas simplistas sobre el goteo de beneficios sociales o económicos. ¿Pueden contribuir a un debate más general sobre los paradigmas de desarrollo urbano en América Latina y en otros lugares?

Sobre el autor

Ariel Espino, AICP, es director ejecutivo de la Oficina del Casco Antiguo (OCA) de Ciudad de Panamá. Es licenciado en arquitectura por la Universidad Católica de Panamá y posee una maestría en ciencias en planificación de la Universidad de Arizona y un doctorado en antropología de Rice University. La OCA es un órgano gubernamental cuyo objetivo es la implementación del plan maestro Casco Antiguo.

Referencias

Espino, Ariel. 2007. The development of low-income housing in the central and historic neighborhoods of Panama City: New models for economic development and social integration? Documento de trabajo. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Lefebvre, Henri. 1996. Writings on Cities, traducido y editado por Eleonore Kofman y Elizabeth Lebas. Oxford: Blackwell.

Pérez, Salvador, Rosendo Pujol y Mario Polèse. 2003. ¿Son importantes los centros de las ciudades? En Desafíos de las ciudades mesoamericanas. Los casos de tres metrópolis, editado por Salvador Pérez y Rosendo Pujol. San José: FLACSO.

Rojas, Eduardo. 2004. Volver al centro. La recuperación de áreas urbanas centrales. Washington, DC: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo.

Scarpaci, Joseph L. 2005. Plazas and barrios. Heritage tourism and globalization in the Latin American centro histórico. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.