The Lincoln Institute has supported the authors’ work on property taxation in South Africa for several years, and in February 2002 the Institute published Property Taxes in South Africa: Challenges in the Post-Apartheid Era. Edited by Bell and Bowman, the book presents major portions of their own work, together with chapters by several of their colleagues in the U.S. and in South Africa. This article provides an overview of seminars on property tax issues conducted by Bell and Bowman in South Africa in March 2002.

The end of apartheid in South Africa nearly a decade ago presented new opportunities and challenges to every aspect of national life, including fiscal issues. The government faced the task of extending the property tax to previously untaxed areas and adapting it to provide services through a set of radically restructured local governments. The final reorganization of local government took effect in December 2000, and the new governments now must develop comprehensive property tax (rates) policies.

Several key pieces of apartheid-era legislation had established the spatial basis for racial separation:

• Natives Land Act of 1913: Adopted soon after formation of the Union of South Africa in 1910, this law outlawed black ownership or leasing of land outside reserves established for blacks.
• Population Registration Act of 1950: Often termed the cornerstone of apartheid, this statute established categories to which people would be assigned: white; black or bantu; colored, for people of mixed race; and later, Indian. This classification scheme made enforced racial separation possible.
• Group Areas Act of 1950: This law instituted strict racial separation in urban areas, providing zones that members of only one racial group could occupy and limiting the presence of blacks in restricted areas to short time periods. A pass system required nonwhites to carry identifying papers or permits.

These policies greatly complicated efforts to amalgamate former white and black local authorities (WLAs and BLAs), with important implications for property taxation. Specifically, for local governments, the legacy of apartheid includes:

• skewed settlement patterns with the geographic and social segregation of residential areas;
• extreme concentrations of wealth and property tax base, since commercial and industrial activity was located almost exclusively in the former WLAs;
• large areas and numbers of people in BLAs, which had inferior infrastructure and a backlog of demand for public services under amalgamation; and
• nonviable municipal institutions—small rural townships, known as R293 towns, close to the borders of former bantustans (black homelands or traditional authority areas) that have large populations, limited financial resources and only a minimal level of services.

Post-Apartheid Local Government Structure

The dismantling of apartheid began in the mid-1980s and was essentially complete by the early 1990s. At the end of 1993, the Local Government Transition Act (LGTA) was signed by then-President de Klerk and, symbolically, by Nelson Mandela, leader of the African National Congress (ANC). The LGTA provided for short-, medium- and long-term transformation of local governments to create nonracial self-government. It created two-tier local governments in metropolitan areas, with powers and responsibilities shared between a geographically larger unit and two or more smaller units within the same area. The Municipal Structures Act of 1998, providing for single-tier metropolitan government, was implemented after the local elections of December 2000 as part of a general and final redemarcation of local governments that reduced the number of authorities from approximately 845 to less than 300.

Amalgamation of municipalities brought new areas into the property tax base, including former BLAs, bantustans and their associated rural R293 towns, but the residents of these newly incorporated areas had never before paid property taxes. Thus, it was necessary to develop the information and administrative infrastructure needed to value properties, determine tax liabilities, distribute tax bills to those responsible, and collect the taxes due, all in an equitable manner. Moreover, the new tax system had to overcome the psychology of payment boycotts, sometimes characterized as a “culture of nonpayment,” an important resistance technique used against the apartheid government.

Combining formerly taxed areas with different valuation rates or systems into a single municipality produces inconsistencies within the property tax roll of the amalgamated area, multiplying inequities among property owners with different effective tax rates. Both those new to the tax and those who historically have paid property taxes often question whether their tax shares are equitable and how the resulting revenue is being spent. In some instances, tax boycotts have occurred in former WLAs.

National Property Tax Policy

Although property taxation remains a local tax in South Africa, the 1996 Constitution authorizes central government regulation of property taxation. A national Property Rates Bill, scheduled for adoption in 2002, will replace current provincial property tax laws. Each locality now must adopt an explicit and comprehensive property rates policy.

Our seminars took place in this context of national legislation, municipal consolidation and municipal property rates policies. We collaborated with local institutions of higher education: Port Elizabeth Technikon in Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality and the University of North West in Mafikeng Local Municipality. Seminar participants included current and former elected city councilors, newly enfranchised and long-time non-elected officials, and students and faculty of the educational institutions.

Nelson Mandela Municipality is one of South Africa’s six metropolitan municipal governments, the only local government within its geographic area. Its population and business center is the former city of Port Elizabeth. Principal property tax concerns raised at the seminar included: (1) unifying the tax rolls of the various jurisdictions making up the metropolitan area, since their valuation dates range over a number of years; (2) bringing former black local authority (BLA) areas into the property tax base; (3) deciding on the appropriate way to deal with rural (agricultural) land, previously not taxed but now part of the municipal area; and (4) accomplishing these things in a manner that is sensitive to the special circumstances of those with very low incomes.

Mafikeng, the capital of the North West Province, lies within the Mmbatho District Municipality in the former Bophuthatswana homeland near the Botswana border. Some property tax concerns raised at the Mafikeng seminar were the same as in Nelson Mandela Municipality. In addition, Mafikeng is wrestling with incorporating tribal (traditional authority) areas and the black urban agglomerations (R293 towns) of the former bantustan. Tribal areas present two special problems: property ownership is communal, not private; and the traditional authority structure remains in place, even though these areas now are included within municipal borders, creating a dual authority structure that further complicates amalgamation.

Key Property Taxation Themes

Policy Framework

New national legislation requires each local government to produce a property rates policy to address such issues as whether to include all real properties in the tax base; whether to apply uniform or differential rates to the many categories of property included in the tax base; and what form of property relief should be given, and to whom. If the property tax is to be a viable local revenue source, local rates policies must be guided by the following principles:

• Legitimacy. Taxpayers must accept the tax as a legitimate, appropriate levy. This means administrative outcomes must be in accord with accepted legal requirements.
• Openness. The tax must be transparent, so taxpayers can understand its workings. Further, a simple, low-cost means must be available to resolve taxpayers’ complaints.
• Technical Proficiency. The tax must be administered in a professional manner. This requires appropriate administrative structure, tools, and personnel.
• Fairness. The tax must be administered in a manner that treats taxpayers uniformly and fairly with regard to asset value, but with provisions for relief that take into consideration broader notions of ability to pay, such as current income.

These fundamental characteristics of a property tax system provide a framework for restructuring property taxes in South Africa, with tradeoffs made through an open and transparent political process at the local level.

Monitoring

The property tax base is fair market value. Because most properties do not sell in a market transaction each year, however, estimating market value is the task of trained assessment professionals. Differences in location, depreciation and other characteristics make valuation partly an art, not strictly a scientific or technical endeavor. Uniformity relative to market value may not always result, even though it is required and the assessors follow the procedures intended to achieve that result. Thus, a system for monitoring valuation outcomes is needed, which may include three dimensions of assessment quality:

• The overall closeness of the fit between assessed value on the tax roll and actual sales price for properties that have sold. A measure of central tendency of such ratios for a sample of properties indicates the average assessment level relative to market value; the median ratio generally is preferred.
• The extent to which assessment ratios for individual properties are scattered or clustered around the median ratio. A standard measure of assessment uniformity is the coefficient of dispersion (CD), which is interpreted as a measure of horizontal equity. A CD greater than zero indicates that different properties may bear different effective property tax rates even if they have the same market value and are subject to the same nominal tax rate.
• Vertical equity, evaluated by the price-related differential (PRD). If the PRD = 1, there is no systematic bias in favor of either high- or low-value properties, while a PRD above 1 reveals a regressive bias favoring high-value properties.

Formal assessment/sales ratio studies have not been done in South Africa, but we calculated simple ratios for several cities. The results in Table 1 indicate that assessment uniformity generally needs to be improved, since coefficients of dispersion across the case study cities are typically high and the price-related differentials are generally substantially above one.

Targeting Tax Relief

Although property taxation is a tax on value, it is paid out of current income, and thus may place an unacceptable burden on property owners with low incomes. Property tax relief is any reduction in tax liability. Indirect relief results from changes that take pressure off the property tax: reduced expenditures or increased revenue from alternative sources. Alternatively, direct relief comes from a change in the calculation of property tax liability.

Direct relief was the focus of our studies and the seminar discussions. In South Africa direct residential property tax relief typically is a uniform percentage credit, termed a rebate, which generally is 20 percent or 25 percent of gross property tax liability. The rebate approach has two limitations. First, most of the tax relief goes to those with the most expensive properties. Second, low-income property owners are still required to pay most of their property tax liability, which still could be burdensome relative to income.

While an income-based circuit breaker is our preferred approach for targeting tax relief to those in need, it would be extremely difficult to administer in South Africa because income information is not readily available, in part because of the extensive informal economy. An alternative way to target property tax relief to those most in need is to exempt a fixed amount of the base from taxation.

Table 2 illustrates the effects of moving from a 25 percent rebate to a R20,000 exemption (US$1,740). Under the partial exemption alternative, the lowest valued properties, including those hardest to value at this time, are removed from paying taxes, and net taxes are reduced on all properties up to about R100,000 (US$8,700). The aggregate cost of property tax relief under this approach is substantially reduced because each property receives the same exemption. Durban and Johannesburg now are experimenting with the partial exemption approach to property tax relief.

Dealing with Previously Untaxed Areas

As a result of the local government restructuring in December 2000, South Africa now has local governments throughout country. Three types of areas previously outside the property tax now are to be brought into the tax: former BLAs and R293 townships, agricultural areas and tribal areas. In the former BLAs and R293 townships property is being transferred to private ownership and these areas must be surveyed by the national Surveyor General to establish individual property boundaries and identifications necessary to administer the property tax. Different localities are at different stages in this process.

Property taxes were levied on rural agricultural lands in the past, but these lands have not been in the property tax base since the late 1980s. Bringing them into the tax base now poses two problems. The first is developing the property record information necessary for tax administration. The second is the question of how taxes on such properties should relate to taxes levied in the urban portions of a municipality, as farmers often provide themselves and their workers with services typically associated with local government. One possibility is use-value assessment of agricultural land, an approach endorsed by a national commission that reviewed the taxation of rural lands. Alternatively, differential rates for different categories of property are allowed under current provincial property tax laws and the draft national Property Rates Bill. If there is to be differentiation in effective tax rates, imposing a lower rate on market value assessments provides greater transparency and understanding of the tax and should be part of the local government rates policy.

Bringing tribal areas into the tax base presents another set of issues. First, given communal land tenure systems existing in these traditional authority areas, how does one establish ownership, a necessary condition for the application of property tax based on the principle of private property? Second, because there is no land market per se, how are estimates of market value to be made? Finally, given the two competing governance structures that now exist in tribal areas, how does one make the payment of a property tax acceptable to residents who did not previously pay the tax? These issues are clearly the most intractable ones that must be addressed in the newest round of local government reform in South Africa.

Conclusion

The property tax has been an important part of local finance in South Africa for centuries and is likely to play an increasingly important role in the future, as newly amalgamated local governments wrestle with addressing the legacies of apartheid and the requirements of new national property tax legislation. There is no single right answer to many of the perplexing questions surrounding the design and implementation of a local property tax, but it will continue to evolve to meet changing circumstances and needs.

Michael E. Bell is president of MEB Associates, Inc., in McHenry, Maryland. John H. Bowman is professor of economics at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond.

References

Bell, Michael E. and John H. Bowman. 2002. Property Taxes in South Africa: Challenges in the Post-Apartheid Era. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Proposition 13, adopted by a referendum in California in 1978, was the most notable in a series of relatively recent actions to limit the property tax in the United States, and many experts view it as a watershed in state and local public finance. The property tax in virtually every state is now limited to some degree by statutorily or constitutionally imposed base restrictions, rate limits or revenue limits. These limits have influenced the use of the property tax, and there is substantial evidence that the rate of growth of the property tax has declined. The mix of funding for local expenditures also has changed, as cities, towns, counties, school districts and special districts are relying more and more on user charges, special fees, franchise fees and local option sales and use taxes.

The limits on the property tax also have many policy and expenditure implications. There is evidence, significant in some cases and simply indicative in others, that the property tax restrictions have fostered a variety of policy outcomes in the delivery of services to citizens. Some of these tax limits have affected educational outcomes: reduced the number of teachers in classrooms, reduced the qualifications of individuals entering the teaching profession, and reduced student performance in math, reading and science.

The literature detailing the possible effects of property tax limits on local government also reports the following changes: reduced infrastructure investment by local governments, reduction in the rate of salary increases for public employees, and a shift to state-controlled revenue sources that has led to the centralization of power toward state governments (Sokolow 2000). In this context, property tax limits may reduce intergovernmental competition and the discipline on the growth in government that results. Few observers would disagree that Proposition 13 and its imitators in other states have resulted in substantial nonuniformity in the property tax system (O’Sullivan, Sexton and Sheffrin 1995).

These outcomes illustrate the competing tradeoffs that accompany property tax limits. Depending on individual perspectives these consequences could be considered a plus or a minus. Supporters of Prop 13 and its derivatives want lower property taxes and less government (at least for others), but it is unlikely they also want less government for themselves. David Sears and Jack Citrin (1982) have labeled this behavior the “something for nothing” syndrome.

Therese McGuire (1999) notes that among public finance economists the advantages of the property tax for funding local governments approach “dogma.” In an opinion survey of more than 1300 Canadian and U.S. members of the National Tax Association, 93 percent of the respondents with training in economics favored the property tax as a major source of revenue for local governments (Slemrod 1995). This result probably explains why the World Bank and other international advisory groups are spending significant sums of money and offering assistance to improve and implement the property tax in developing and transitional countries. However, it also presents an interesting dilemma: experts support the property tax but voters want to limit it. Why the conflict?

Advantages of the Property Tax

The property tax provides local governments with a revenue source that they can control and avoids the strings that normally accompany fiscal transfers from a regional, state or national government. The result is local autonomy that allows local governments to select the level and quality of services demanded by local citizens. The property tax is relatively stable over the normal business cycle and provides a dependable funding source to local governments that must balance their budgets. Stability is important for certainty in operating budgets and is critical in the financing of long-term debt obligations.

The importance of a stable revenue source has been painfully exposed during the recent economic downturn in the U.S. State governments that are funded by less stable revenue sources are scrambling to balance their current and future budgets by cutting services and increasing taxes and fees. The fact that the property tax is imposed on an immobile base and is difficult to evade also makes it an attractive source of revenue for smaller governments.

Political accountability is another important element of the property tax. A noted function of a responsive tax system is one that provides price signals, or political accountability, on the cost of government to citizens. Compared to almost all other taxes, the direct and visible nature of the property tax suggests that it scores relatively high in this regard. The case for political accountability becomes even stronger when zoning for land use is included in the discussion. Bruce Hamilton (1975) has demonstrated that the property tax, when coupled with local zoning, becomes a benefit tax that leads to efficient outcomes. The combination of property taxation and zoning is the way many public finance scholars describe the characteristics of local finance in the U.S.

Disadvantages of the Property Tax

On the other hand, the property tax is difficult to administer. It requires substantial administrative effort on the part of public officials to discover and maintain the property records of every land parcel. Even with effective methods to discover property, determining its taxable value has always been a challenge to public assessors. Unlike other sales taxes and income taxes, there is no annually occurring event to place a market value on unsold properties. Assessors must value property as if it had sold. Assessors also confront limited budgets and a finite number of trained experts.

Nevertheless, we want public assessors to value property, land and the improvements to land accurately, and to do so as inexpensively as possible. Fortunately, progress has been made in the technical area of property valuation. It is now common to find large and small taxing jurisdictions using statistically driven valuation processes to estimate property values based on carefully designed hedonic models. The technical advantages of statistically driven appraisal systems in terms of efficiency and effectiveness are substantial.

However, the advantage of accurate and timely property appraisals highlights what I believe is a fundamental problem with the property tax and why it receives such low marks from taxpayers and elected officials. When an assessor conducts a reappraisal, the outcome is likely to increase assessed property values. If there is no reduction in the tax rate that was applied to the old tax base, the local government that relies on the property tax receives a potential windfall. It is not surprising, then, that in such situations the assessor and the assessor’s office are quickly identified as the villains of the tax increase. More importantly, these circumstances are powerful incentives to not reassess property regularly and thus avoid the angry backlash of property owners and voters.

Public finance experts have an expectation that the assessor will follow the legal and professional requirements and value property according to state law and professional practice. But, because of the uncertain political outcome when property is revalued, the assessor may act in self-interest, understandably being more concerned about reelection or reappointment than in ensuring that property is revalued properly. A system has been created that requires a reappraisal process and penalizes any assessor foolish enough to ignore it, but over time such avoidance behavior can foster nonuniformity in the property tax.

Political Challenges and Full Disclosure

We have solved many of the technical problems of property appraisal but not the political problems. Nevertheless, I believe there is at least one viable response to the political challenges: states and assessors can adopt a process of truth-in-taxation or full disclosure. The logic of full disclosure design is simple. A chilling effect on property tax growth is posited to occur when the “real” causes of increased property taxes are exposed to property owners. Helen Ladd (1991) states that full disclosure laws “tighten the link between taxpayer voter demand and local budgetary decisions.”

The standard annual tax notice, common in thousands of local tax jurisdictions, does not create a similar chilling effect. A typical tax notice informs property owners about the assessed value of the property, often a modest percentage of market value, tax rates listed in mills, and the total taxes due. If any increases in the assessed value of properties are not offset by reduced tax rates, the new assessed values create additional revenue for the taxing authority. In fact, elected officials can honestly boast that property tax rates have not changed and thus avoid most of the responsibility for any tax increase. An analysis of the behavior of elected officials in Massachusetts found precisely this type of behavior following several cycles of increases in assessed value due to revaluations (Bloom and Ladd 1982).

A property tax full disclosure law generally proceeds in the following manner. Local taxing districts are required to calculate a rate that, when applied to the tax base, produces property tax revenue that is identical in amount to the property tax revenue generated during the previous year. The rate to accomplish this is often referred to as the certified rate; it is calculated by dividing the new assessed value into the property tax revenue from the previous year. The resulting rate is the rate that, when applied to the taxable value of the taxing jurisdiction, will generate the same amount of revenue as the previous year.

This process forces elected officials to reduce the property tax rate—or at least acknowledge that any increase is their choice. If the elected officials choose not to reduce the rate, a public notice must be given that a tax rate increase is anticipated. The public notice is generally carried in a newspaper with specific requirements about the size, placement and language of the notice. In some states a preliminary tax notice is also sent to the taxpayers before that actual budget is adopted, to announce when and where the particular budget hearings on the issue will be held.

Full disclosure laws are intended to create a system with opportunities for input on property tax rate changes and the subsequent size and mix of government, but not at the expense of informed outcomes (Council of State Governments 1977). Full disclosure laws have the aim of a process to inform citizens and limit the rate of growth in property taxes. Nevertheless, like the property tax, full disclosure laws have not enjoyed universal or even modest acclaim. Researchers hold full disclosure laws in such subdued regard that when studying the implications of property tax limitations they commonly classify states having full disclosure laws among the states having no property tax limits.

It is not surprising that many observers suspect that full disclosure laws have little influence on policy outcomes. In states with full disclosure laws, the property tax increases more rapidly than in states with legally binding limits. This suggests that, because full disclosure laws cannot prevent all growth in the property tax, the strongest antagonists of the property tax and the often single-minded opponents to any growth in government will never find the approach acceptable.

However, I believe that full disclosure laws, like property tax limits, have other positive unintended outcomes. They may facilitate improvements in the administration of the property tax because they create a climate that fosters more frequent property tax appraisals by elected county assessors and more thorough and rigorous intervention on property tax matters by state revenue departments. If I am correct, the result is improvement in property tax uniformity. If this posited outcome is validated, then full disclosure laws can and should be judged beyond their immediate role in controlling the rate of increase in the property tax.

Gary C. Cornia is a visiting senior fellow of the Lincoln Institute this year and a member of the Institute’s board of directors. He is also professor in the Romney Institute of Public Management at Brigham Young University and president of the National Tax Association.

References

Bloom, H.S. and Helen F. Ladd. 1982. Property tax revaluation and tax levy growth. Journal of Urban Economics 11: 73-84.

Council of State Governments. 1977. 1978 Suggested State Legislation 37. Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments, 125-28.

Hamilton, Bruce. 1975. Zoning and property taxation in a system of local governments. Urban Studies 12 (June): 205-211.

Ladd, Helen F. 1991. Property tax revaluation and the tax levy growth revisited. Journal of Urban Economics 30: 83-99.

McGuire, Therese J. 1999. Proposition 13 and its offspring: For good or evil. National Tax Journal 52 (March): 129-138.

O’Sullivan, Arthur, Terri A. Sexton, and Steven M. Sheffrin. 1995. Property taxes and tax revolts: The legacy of Proposition 13. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Sears, David O. and Jack Citrin. 1982. Tax revolt: Something for nothing in California. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Slemrod, Joel. 1995. Professional opinions about tax policy. National Tax Journal 48: 121-148.

Sokolow, Alvin D. 2000. The changing property tax in the West: State centralization of local finances. Public Budgeting and Finance 20 (Spring): 85-102.

The Institute’s June 2007 Land Policy Conference focused on decentralization—the degree to which local and provincial governments exercise power, make decisions about their revenues and expenditures, and are held accountable for outcomes. Because the services,regulatory constraints, and institutional environments provided by local governments are major factors in the location decisions of households and firms in urban areas, decentralization is a key determinant of policies that affect land and property taxation.