Topic: Urbanization

Requests for Proposals

Research on Land-Based Financing Approaches for Climate Action

Submission Deadline: March 23, 2023 at 11:59 PM

The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy invites proposals for original research that examines opportunities for, and challenges with, implementing land-based financing (LBF) instruments, including land value capture, to promote and fund climate adaptation, mitigation, or resiliency measures, with a focus on equity, urban form, and nature-based solutions. The research should help inform practitioners, policy makers, and decision makers.   

The geographic focus of this RFP is global. Proposals will be reviewed competitively according to the weighted evaluation criteria indicated below. Outputs are expected to result in working papers appropriate for publication. 

Research Themes 

The following issues and themes are of interest to the Lincoln Institute, but the list is not exhaustive, and applicants may submit a proposal that addresses other topics or issues. However, the proposal must consider LBF as a tool for climate action by addressing the following: 

  • The necessary enabling conditions for the use of LBF for climate action, including but not limited to, market conditions, public perception of risk, and the pricing of climate risk in land markets 
  • The legal, regulatory, and institutional considerations for using LBF for climate action, including informal or nontraditional forms 
  • The types of climate action, including infrastructure investments and regulatory action, that have the greatest potential for the application of LBF 
  • Temporal considerations for LBF for climate action (e.g., charges for long-term benefits of climate action or the timeframe for realizing land value increments). 
  • Innovative uses of LBF for climate action 
  • The potential nonrevenue-related benefits of LBF for climate action, such as equity 
  • Unintended outcomes (positive or negative) of the approaches, with an emphasis on equity 

Proposals 

Proposals must be submitted online via the web-based application form and must follow the complete RFP guidelines. Proposals submitted by email or mail will not be accepted. Incomplete proposals, proposals received after the due date, or proposals that do not adhere to the format defined in the guidelines will not be accepted.   

Proposals must be submitted in English. The final work produced pursuant to the RFP (if selected for an award) must be in English. 

Evaluation Criteria 

The Lincoln Institute will evaluate proposals based on the following criteria: 

  • The project’s relevance to the RFP’s theme of land-based finance tools for climate action: 35 percent 
  • Rigor of proposed methodology: 25 percent 
  • Potential impact and usefulness of the research for practitioners: 25 percent 
  • Capacity and expertise of the team and relevant analytical and/or practice-based experience: 15 percent 

Details

Submission Deadline
March 23, 2023 at 11:59 PM

Keywords

Adaptation, Climate Mitigation, Environment, Growth Management, Infrastructure, Land Speculation, Land Use, Land Use Planning, Land Value, Land Value Taxation, Land-Based Tax, Local Government, Municipal Fiscal Health, Planning, Property Taxation, Public Finance, Public Policy, Regulatory Regimes, Resilience, Taxation, Transportation, Urban, Urban Development, Valuation, Value Capture, Value-Based Taxes, Zoning

Fellowships

2023 Lincoln Institute Scholars Program

Submission Deadline: March 31, 2023 at 11:59 PM

This program provides an opportunity for recent PhDs, one to two years post-graduate and specializing in public finance or urban economics, to work with senior academics. 

Lincoln Institute Scholars will be invited to the Institute for a program on May 17–19, 2023, that will include:  

  • presentations by a panel of journal editors on the academic publication process; 
  • a workshop in which senior scholars comment on draft papers written by the Lincoln Institute Scholars; 
  • an opportunity for the Lincoln Institute Scholars to present their research; and 
  • a seminar in which leading scholars in public finance and urban economics present their latest research. 

For information on previous Lincoln Scholars, please visit Lincoln Institute Scholars Program Alumni. 


Details

Submission Deadline
March 31, 2023 at 11:59 PM


Downloads


Keywords

Economics, Property Taxation, Public Finance

Lincoln Institute President and CEO George W. McCarthy and Peking University Vice President Jin Zhang celebrate the renewal of the collaborative agreement that established the Peking University-Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy. Credit: Courtesy of PKU.

Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center Celebrates 15th Anniversary

By Katharine Wroth, November 28, 2022

 

This fall marked the 15th anniversary of the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy (PLC). Established in 2007, the center has become a leading authority on land policy issues in China, including the property tax, municipal finance, land and housing policies, and land conservation. To celebrate this milestone, the PLC held an event on November 4 that included commemorative remarks, a formal recommitment to the partnership between the two institutions, and several academic presentations on urban development and climate change. 

“The Lincoln Institute works globally on topics largely relating to land policy, and the joint center is an exceptional platform for our China program,” said Katie Lincoln, chief investment officer and board chair of the Lincoln Institute, who delivered congratulatory remarks by video. “During the past 15 years, the center has held numerous conferences, undertaken research and demonstration projects, shared in scholarly exchanges, and happily gained recognition both in and out of China.” 

In addition to Lincoln, several current and former leaders from the two institutions joined the celebration virtually or in person, including Jin Zhang, vice president of Peking University; Jianhua Lin, former president of Peking University; Yansong Li, former vice president of Peking University; George W. McCarthy, president of the Lincoln Institute; Gregory Ingram, former president of the Lincoln Institute; and Joyce Man, former director of the PLC. 

“We are now at a difficult time of Sino-U.S. relations,” said former PKU President Lin. “But I believe that the mutual trust between our two institutions and the confidence about the value of what we do will continue to be a foundation for us to cooperate and move forward.” 

Former Peking University President Jianhua Lin delivers remarks at the PLC's 15th anniversary celebration. Credit: Courtesy of PKU.
Former Peking University President Jianhua Lin delivers remarks at the PLC’s 15th anniversary celebration. Credit: Courtesy of PKU.

During the event, Zhang and McCarthy signed an agreement for continued collaboration between the two organizations. “In the next few years, the PLC will add a new focus on land use and climate change, in support of China’s ambitious goal of achieving net-zero carbon goals by 2060,” noted McCarthy. “The PLC also will help the Lincoln Institute in its global efforts to address the climate crisis. The unique cooperation between the Lincoln Institute and PKU over the last 15 years has been fruitful for China, the United States, and the world in [finding land-based solutions to] economic, social, and environmental challenges. We are excited to embark on another five-year journey together.” 

The center, which conducts research, training, policy analysis, academic exchanges, advisory services, and demonstration projects throughout China, also invited several scholars, fellowship recipients, and others who have been involved with its work over the years to share reflections.  

“I worked with PLC for more than ten years, from winning the Peking University–Lincoln Center scholarship, to guiding students to participate in the center’s fund application, to becoming a partner of the center’s work and research,” said De Tong, associate professor at Peking University Shenzhen Graduate School. “Scholars at the center have become my inspiring mentors and friends, and colleagues at the center have also become comrades-in-arms at work and friends in life.” 


PLC invited former scholarship recipients and other collaborators, including De Tong of Peking University Shenzhen Graduate School, to share reflections at the event. Credit: Courtesy of PKU.

The center has launched an essay contest open to those who have been involved with the PLC over the years, from scholarship recipients to business collaborators to conference participants. Five winning essays, selected in January, will receive a small monetary prize; a copy of the Lincoln Institute book Infrastructure Economics and Policy: International Perspectives, coedited by José A. Gómez-Ibáñez and Zhi Liu, who leads the PLC as director of the Lincoln Institute’s China program; a copy of Advanced Economic Geography by Canfei He, dean of the College of Urban and Environmental Sciences at PKU and associate director of the PLC; and publication on the PLC website. 

The second half of the day’s events was structured as an online forum on climate change and urbanization in the context of China’s dual-carbon goal, which seeks to reach peak carbon by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2060. Leading policy makers and scholars from China, Hong Kong, and the United States shared their latest thoughts and studies on topics including green building, urban equity, and urban-rural integration, drawing an audience of more than 600 researchers, planners, and others.  

“The dual-carbon goal is a major challenge for China, but also presents new opportunities for China’s continuing urbanization,” said PLC Director Liu. “Urbanization and carbon net-zero has been a hot topic in China’s policy debates, which have been getting more substantive and concrete over the last two years. I found myself learning a lot from these presentations, which deepened my understanding about the challenges and opportunities that the goal of carbon net-zero will bring to our urbanization for the next few decades.” 

Forum topics and presenters included: 

  • the evolution and future of green building, by Dr. Baoxing Qiu, former Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development; 
  • carbon reduction models for commercial real estate, by Professor Siqi Zheng of the Department of Urban Studies and Planning of MIT; 
  • equity and governance under China’s dual-carbon goal, by Professor Shenjing He from the Department of Urban Planning and Design of the University of Hong Kong; 
  • carbon reduction through urban agglomeration, by Professor Ming Lu from Antai School of Economics and Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University; and  
  • urban-rural integration and rural revitalization, by Professor Shouying Liu from the School of Economics of Renmin University. 

Visit the “Our Work” section of our website to learn more about the PLC and to find information about how to connect with the center on WeChat. 

 


 

Lead image: Lincoln Institute President and CEO George W. McCarthy and Peking University Vice President Jin Zhang celebrate the renewal of the collaborative agreement that established the Peking University-Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy. Credit: Courtesy of PKU.

The Role of Infrastructure in Economic Growth, Poverty Reduction, and Regional Integration

By José Gómez-Ibáñez and Zhi Liu, August 30, 2022

 

Researchers and policy makers have long sought to understand how infrastructure development can stimulate economic growth, reduce poverty, and promote regional integration. Two chapters of the Lincoln Institute book we edited, Infrastructure Economics and Policy: International Perspectives, seek to advance such an understanding in ways that can inform national or regional infrastructure plans. Three other chapters examine the effectiveness of alternative approaches to promoting economic growth through regional integration. 

Infrastructure and Economic Growth 

Chapter 2, written by former Lincoln Institute President Gregory K. Ingram and Zhi Liu, senior fellow and director of the China program at the Lincoln Institute, reviews empirical studies of the relationship between infrastructure and economic growth. They report that the estimated effects of infrastructure investment on economic growth vary significantly among countries and sectors, but are generally positive. These positive effects are larger in developing countries than developed countries, and larger in electricity and telecommunications than in transportation. Studies suggest that the performance or efficiency of infrastructure is a very important determinant of its economic impacts.  

Ingram and Liu also review the empirical analyses of the short-run multiplier effects of infrastructure investment. These analyses find little to no short-term economic impact, even when the long-term economic impacts are clearly positive. The small multipliers are due in part to the substantial time required to undertake and complete construction and in part to the crowding out of private investment by government investment. While the increased public spending for infrastructure investment can help reduce unemployment by creating jobs for low-skilled workers, many of today’s construction workers are in fact highly skilled. These findings suggest that the chance for such spending to boost the economy is very limited, especially in the short run. 

Infrastructure and Poverty Reduction 

In chapter 4, authors Sameh Wahba, Somik Lall, and Hyunji Lee of the World Bank analyze the global evidence and literature on the relationship between infrastructure and poverty. They argue that the poor suffer most from a lack of access to infrastructure networks, since they must spend a disproportionately higher share of their income to secure basic services such as water or electricity from costly tankers, bottles, and batteries. While access is typically higher in urban areas than rural areas, many of the urban areas in developing countries are struggling to keep up with the infrastructure demands of rapid urbanization.  

The global evidence and literature reviewed by the authors also shows that investments and policies that promote equality in access to physical infrastructure tend to reduce income and spatial inequalities. Moreover, the effectiveness of programs targeted on the infrastructure problems of the poor depends greatly on the details of their design. It helps if an improvement to physical infrastructure is coupled with complementary social policies, such as combining slum upgrading with reforms to dysfunctional land markets, pairing isolated rural electricity systems with the expansion of local educational or business opportunities, or matching basic sanitation facilities with public health or basic water programs. Similarly, when a new infrastructure facility or service is established, it is important to include a realistic plan for funding ongoing operations and maintenance. 

Infrastructure and Regional Integration 

In chapter 15, Professor Jose Manuel Vassallo of the Polytechnic University of Madrid examines the effectiveness of European Union infrastructure programs in fostering regional integration. In theory, EU members should have a strong interest in promoting integration, since many have relatively small populations and thus would benefit from the opportunities that integration offers to develop their competitive advantages or exploit economies of scale. Toward that end, in 1992 the EU members agreed to designate a trans-European network of priority transportation projects (TEN-T), which was subsequently divided into a “core” TEN-T network and a larger “comprehensive” TEN-T network. Similar trans-European networks for energy (TEN-E) and communications (eTEN) were also established. 

However, the outcomes of the TEN-T plans are mixed. There is some evidence of increased integration, but progress is disappointingly slow, in part because the EU is essentially a federal system in which the targeted facilities are owned by member states, and their priorities for improvements are not always the same as those of the EU. The EU has had to motivate the states to improve TEN-T facilities by offering special matching grants and other financial support. The need for such financial support has effectively increased the cost of the TEN-T to the EU and made it less likely to complete the core network by the 2030 deadline. 

Japan has been more successful in using infrastructure to promote regional integration. It is the first country to use high-speed passenger rail as a tool to shape regional development. Its rail services are widely admired for their scope, reliability, and safety. In chapter 16, Professor Fumitoshi Mizutani and Professor Miwa Matsuo, both of Kobe University, analyze the factors that have contributed to the railroads’ success. Japan is almost unique in the world in relying on railroad companies that are both privately owned and vertically integrated (meaning the railroad that owns the track also operates almost all the trains that run over it). Their success is also attributed to travelers seeking alternatives to congested airports and heavy volumes of automobile traffic concentrated in a few linear corridors, in addition to their excellence in service and development of innovative business models that exploit economies of scope and internalize externalities. The railroad companies, for example, are permitted to develop ancillary activities, like shopping malls in stations, that reduce their dependence on passenger revenues but also attract more passengers. Unlike the EU, the Japanese government builds and owns its high-speed lines and leases them to operators, with the lease fees based on the expected operating profits from each line. So far, the resources gained by innovation and vertical integration seem to have helped finance the cost of extending high-speed service to less dense corridors and more remote regions. 

China is similar to Japan in its reliance on high-speed rail as an important tool for shaping national development. The two countries differ, however, in that 92 percent of Japan’s population lives in urban areas, compared to 65 percent in China. As urbanization continues, the Chinese government has adopted a strategy to promote the formation and development of 19 enormous city clusters or megalopolises, each comprising several major cities linked with high-speed rail. This strategy can be seen as an effort to create a variety of opportunities to absorb rural migrants and improve urban worker productivity by encouraging various forms of agglomeration economies. If the rail service is sufficiently fast and convenient to encourage commuting among the cluster’s cities, then it will increase the effective size of the labor pool and help workers match their skills with employers. If each major city in the cluster is large enough to support a high degree of specialization, say, in trade, high-tech manufacturing, tourism, or finance, then it can support specialized suppliers as well. 

In chapter 17, Zheng Chang, a researcher with ETH Zurich, uses a case study of the Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macau Greater Bay Area (GBA) to demonstrate how high-speed rail contributes to city cluster formation by strengthening agglomeration economies. His empirical analysis of the GBA suggests that high-speed rail enhances agglomeration effects at the cluster level, but the gain in employment for the larger cities seems to come at the expense of the small ones. It is unclear, however, whether the agglomeration benefits of the city cluster strategy actually outweigh the costs in additional rail services. Gaining a more complete understanding of the effectiveness of the strategy will require further studies using a cost-benefit analysis framework.  

Three Lessons from the Case Studies 

The three case studies from the EU, Japan, and China demonstrate different approaches to and lessons about the use of infrastructure to promote regional integration. First, the EU case suggests that it is hard to achieve central infrastructure goals under a federal system of infrastructure provision, because the priorities of the member states are often different from those of the central government. Second, although Japan is unusual in its reliance on private and vertically integrated railroads, its experience demonstrates that regional plans can be implemented successfully by private providers overseen by the central government. Japanese private passenger railroads were the source of critical innovations that helped keep down the cost of providing an extensive and expanding rail system. Third, agglomeration economies can be harnessed by using infrastructure investments to promote the formation of city clusters, as in the case of China. But this bold strategy can be risky due to the heavy investments needed. The risks can be reduced if the strategy is subject to a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. 

 


 

José A. Gómez-Ibáñez is the Derek C. Bok Professor Emeritus of Urban Planning and Public Policy at Harvard University. Zhi Liu is senior fellow and director of China Program at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. They are the editors of Infrastructure Economics and Policy: International Perspectives

Image: Shinkansen high-speed rail line, Japan. Credit: gérard via Flickr. 

Graduate Student Fellowships

2022–2023 Programa de becas para el máster UNED-Instituto Lincoln

Submission Deadline: November 29, 2022 at 11:59 PM

El Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo y la Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED) ofrecen el máster en Políticas de Suelo y Desarrollo Urbano Sostenible, un programa académico en español que tuvo gran demanda en su primera convocatoria. Se trata de un posgrado que reúne de manera única los marcos legales y herramientas que sostienen la planificación urbana, junto con instrumentos fiscales, ambientales y de participación sostenibles, todo desde una perspectiva internacional y comparada.

El máster en Políticas de Suelo y Desarrollo Urbano Sostenible es un programa en formato virtual y se compone de cuatro módulos, los cuales abordan una parte importante de la realidad actual de las ciudades: el derecho administrativo urbano, el financiamiento con base en el suelo, el cambio climático y el desarrollo sostenible, y el conflicto urbano y la participación ciudadana. El programa académico concluye con un trabajo final de máster que permite a los alumnos trabajar de cerca con actividades de desarrollo urbano actuales, como el proyecto Castellana Norte en Madrid.

El programa está dirigido especialmente a estudiantes de posgrado y otros graduados con interés en políticas urbanas desde una perspectiva jurídica, ambiental y de procesos de participación, así como a funcionarios públicos. Los participantes del máster recibirán el entrenamiento intelectual y técnico para liderar la implementación de medidas que permitan la transformación de las ciudades. 

El período de matriculación es del 7 de septiembre de 2022 al 16 de enero de 2023.

El Instituto Lincoln otorgará becas que cubrirán parcialmente el costo del máster de los postulantes seleccionados.

Términos de las becas

  • Los becarios deben haber obtenido un título de licenciatura de una institución académica o de estudios superiores.
  • Los fondos de las becas no tienen valor en efectivo y solo cubrirán el 40% del costo total del programa.
  • Los becarios deben pagar la primera cuota de la matricula que representa el 60% del costo total del máster.
  • Los becarios deben mantener una buena posición académica o perderán el derecho a la beca.

El otorgamiento de la beca dependerá de la admisión formal del postulante al máster UNED-Instituto Lincoln.

Si son seleccionados, los becarios recibirán asistencia virtual para realizar el proceso de admisión de la Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), el cual requiere una solicitud online y una copia de su expediente académico o registro de calificaciones de licenciatura y/o posgrado.

Aquellos postulantes que no obtengan la beca parcial del Instituto Lincoln podrán optar a las ayudas que ofrece la UNED, una vez que se hayan matriculado en el máster.

Fecha límite para postular: 29 de noviembre de 2022, 23:59 horas de Boston, MA, EE.UU. (UTC-5)

Anuncio de resultados: 16 de diciembre de 2022


Details

Submission Deadline
November 29, 2022 at 11:59 PM

Keywords

Climate Mitigation, Development, Dispute Resolution, Environmental Management, Favela, Henry George, Informal Land Markets, Infrastructure, Land Market Regulation, Land Speculation, Land Use, Land Use Planning, Land Value, Land Value Taxation, Land-Based Tax, Local Government, Mediation, Municipal Fiscal Health, Planning, Property Taxation, Public Finance, Public Policy, Regulatory Regimes, Resilience, Reuse of Urban Land, Urban Development, Urbanism, Value Capture, Zoning

Image: Las Vegas

How Infrastructure Shapes Cities

By José Gómez-Ibáñez, Zhi Liu, July 28, 2022

 

Decisions about infrastructure investments often have strong and long-lasting implications for the built environment, and vice versa. Should governments subsidize highway construction or public transit? Is it better to invest in the durability of rail lines or the flexibility of bus lines? How will these and other decisions about infrastructure affect residents and workers? The relationship between infrastructure policies and the physical form and productivity of cities is the subject of two chapters in Infrastructure Economics and Policy: International Perspectives, a recently published Lincoln Institute book. 

In chapter 4, economist Edward Glaeser of Harvard University focuses on how infrastructure technology shapes the economic role and physical form of cities. Glaeser observes that the density and form of a city reflect the transportation technology prevailing at the time when the city was growing most rapidly. Boston is denser than Las Vegas, for example, largely because it grew in the era of the streetcar rather than that of the automobile. The full effects of technological change develop in three steps, however, and that development can take many decades. The first step is the invention and refinement of new mobility types, such as the wheeled wagon, the horse-drawn (and then electric) streetcar, the subway, the automobile, and even the elevator. The second step is the construction of the urban network over which those vehicles operate, while the third is the building of the cities around that network. 

Glaeser takes as his example the automobile, which was invented in the late 19th century but neither comfortable, reliable, nor affordable until the first decades of the 20th century, when its popularity exploded. The United States responded by building extensive high-performance, limited-access expressway systems in many cities. Those systems, in turn, stimulated the restructuring of urban areas in the United States in the second half of the 20th century, moving housing and workplaces from the central cities to the suburbs and enabling a migration from northern cities to the newer Sunbelt cities.  

Our ability to shape cities around their important highway, subway, and other transportation networks is limited, however, by the value and durability of the existing stock of houses and workplaces. For example, a big increase in the travel time or other costs of commuting to the center of a metropolitan area would be needed to make it worthwhile for real estate developers to tear down the existing suburban housing stock and rebuild it to a higher density commensurate with the higher commuting time and costs. Land use regulations can also help slow the land use response to transportation technology, especially where they favor the status quo.

Glaeser also illustrates several common policy choices about infrastructure and urban form. The first is whether the government should subsidize highway construction or public transit.   Subsidizing highway construction and uses often encourages urban sprawl. Subsidizing public transit may induce people to live near—and real estate developers to build homes near—public transit stops, but evidence shows that the impact is much smaller in scale than that of subsidizing highways. In addition, in the United States, strict local land use controls often constrain the ability of housing developers to respond to infrastructure investments, thus limiting the benefits of such investments.  

A second policy choice is between rail and buses to provide urban public transit service. The choice is basically between durability and flexibility. The flexibility of bus services is an advantage in an uncertain world, but the durability of rail infrastructure makes real estate developers feel more confident about developing around rail stations. Public transport is now facing a major challenge: it is an important part of any carbon emissions reduction strategy, but ridership has fallen since the onset of the pandemic. 

In chapter 5, Daniel Graham, Daniel Hörcher, and Roger Vickerman, all professors and researchers at Imperial College in London, explore the relationship between infrastructure and the competitiveness of cities. Urban concentration provides more employment opportunities to workers and helps raise productivity for firms. These agglomeration benefits are accompanied by congestion and pollution which are also caused by urban concentration. However, it is methodologically difficult to measure the agglomeration benefits. 

To do so and for analytical simplicity, the authors assume a city where residential and workplace locations are fixed, and infrastructure affects only the productivity of city workers and the levels of congestion and pollution. Their main propositions are that urban agglomerations generate both positive and negative externalities and that the failure to consider them together may lead to poor investment and pricing decisions. The positive externalities stem primarily from increases in worker productivity as the agglomeration grows, but also from the realization of economies of scale in provision of public transit services; the negative externalities stem from increases in traffic congestion, pollution, and accidents. 

The authors describe the considerable challenges of empirically estimating the agglomeration benefits. They report their own estimates of the effects of agglomeration size on productivity, which have been endorsed by the U.K. government for use in required cost-benefit analyses. It is conceivable, but unlikely, that the agglomeration benefits and public transit scale economies are large enough and the congestion externalities small enough to greatly reduce the net benefit of the conventional recommendation of charging motorists a fee to travel into congested locations during rush hour. These are the kinds of factors cities must consider as they make decisions about infrastructure investment and pricing and subsidies. 

 


 

José A. Gómez-Ibáñez is the Derek C. Bok Professor Emeritus of Urban Planning and Public Policy at Harvard University. Zhi Liu is senior fellow and director of China Program at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. They are the editors of Infrastructure Economics and Policy: International Perspectives