SHARE
La infraestructura (que comprende energía, telecomunicaciones, transporte, abastecimiento de agua potable y alcantarillado) cumple un papel muy importante en el desarrollo del suelo urbano y ejerce una influencia en la productividad, tanto de las ciudades como del campo. Los datos acerca de la cantidad de obras de infraestructura a nivel nacional (aunque no a nivel metropolitano) se encuentran disponibles en relación con muchos países en vías de desarrollo y de altos ingresos. Dichos datos respaldan varios de los resultados que se resumen en el presente artículo.
La cantidad de obras de infraestructura per cápita en los diferentes países se encuentra estrechamente relacionada con los niveles de ingresos per cápita: en aquellos países en donde los ingresos se duplican, sucede casi lo mismo con las obras de infraestructura. Sin embargo, las obras de infraestructura de un país no se encuentran esencialmente relacionadas con su nivel de urbanización una vez que se han tomado en cuenta los ingresos de dicho país. Y esto resulta sorprendente, ya que las ciudades poseen grandes cantidades de obras de infraestructura. No obstante, las ciudades también presentan una gran densidad de población que utiliza la infraestructura de manera intensiva, por lo que los niveles de obras de infraestructura urbana per cápita son similares a los niveles nacionales.
La composición de las obras de infraestructura también varía sistemáticamente según los ingresos per cápita. Las carreteras representan la mayor proporción de obras de infraestructura en los países con menor cantidad de ingresos, seguidas de los sistemas de agua potable en segundo lugar y los sistemas de energía eléctrica en tercer lugar. A medida que los ingresos de un país se incrementan, la cantidad de obras de infraestructura relacionadas con los sistemas de energía eléctrica aumentan con más rapidez que los niveles de ingresos. La infraestructura correspondiente a los sistemas de agua potable y alcantarillado aumenta a una intensidad menor y, en el caso de las carreteras, el cambio se da en proporción a los ingresos. Como resultado, en los países con altos ingresos, los sistemas de energía eléctrica conforman el mayor componente de las obras de infraestructura, seguidos de las carreteras, mientras que los sistemas de agua potable, alcantarillado y telefonía representan sólo una pequeña proporción de la infraestructura.
Teniendo en cuenta las tasas de crecimiento económico recientes, y utilizando las relaciones existentes entre la infraestructura y los ingresos per cápita, los países en vías de desarrollo probablemente deben invertir alrededor del 5 por ciento de su PIB en infraestructura (3 por ciento en expansión y 2 por ciento en mantenimiento), que en la actualidad se aproxima a los US$750 mil millones anuales, para poder mantener la relación existente entre la infraestructura y el PIB. En los países con altos ingresos, el gasto total sería menor, es decir, un 1,7 por ciento del PIB (dividido equitativamente entre obras de expansión y de mantenimiento), que en la actualidad se aproxima a US$700 mil millones anuales. Aquellos países que crecen con más rapidez que el promedio deben invertir una proporción mayor de su PIB, con el fin de que las obras de infraestructura vayan a la par del crecimiento económico.
En algunos países, una alternativa a las nuevas inversiones consiste en mejorar la eficiencia de la producción de servicios a partir de la infraestructura existente. Por ejemplo, la pérdida promedio de energía eléctrica en los diferentes países llega a alcanzar hasta el 25 por ciento; por otro lado, el agua potable que no se factura y las filtraciones de agua pueden llegar a exceder el 30 por ciento. La reducción de estas pérdidas de gran magnitud puede evitar la necesidad de capacidades adicionales. No deja de ser sorprendente el hecho de que el rendimiento de los diferentes sectores dentro de un mismo país varíe en tan gran medida, pues el rendimiento eficiente que puede tener un país en un determinado sector de infraestructura no se condice con su rendimiento en otros sectores.
¿De dónde provendrán estos fondos de inversión, en particular para los países en vías de desarrollo? La asistencia internacional y el financiamiento brindado por los bancos de desarrollo para obras de infraestructura en los países en vías de desarrollo actualmente llegan a un total de aproximadamente US$40 mil millones anuales. Dicha cifra se ha triplicado (o más) desde el año 1990, en dólares en curso legal. La inversión privada en infraestructura en los países en vías de desarrollo alcanzó recientemente los US$160 mil millones anuales y ha crecido ocho veces más desde el año 1990, también en dólares de curso legal. La asistencia internacional está dirigida principalmente a los sistemas de energía, transporte, agua potable y alcantarillado, mientras que casi no se han destinado fondos a las telecomunicaciones.
Por el contrario, más de la mitad del financiamiento de origen privado se invierte en telecomunicaciones (en particular, telefonía móvil), seguidas por el sector energético. Las telecomunicaciones y la energía atraen más inversiones privadas en los países en vías de desarrollo debido a que los ingresos que obtienen por los aranceles cubren una gran parte de los costos operativos, mientras que los ingresos por aranceles y tarifas de usuarios cubren una menor parte de los costos de transporte, agua potable y alcantarillado. En la década de 1990, las inversiones privadas en infraestructura se concentraron en América Latina y en Asia Oriental; sin embargo, a partir del año 2000, se distribuyeron de forma más uniforme por diferentes regiones del mundo.
A pesar del crecimiento experimentado en cuanto al financiamiento internacional, existen grandes áreas metropolitanas en crecimiento en países en vías de desarrollo que aún deben recaudar importantes sumas de dinero para poder financiar las inversiones en infraestructura. Entre los métodos de recaudación podemos mencionar los siguientes: el aumento de los aranceles que se cobran a los usuarios, el aumento de los impuestos (en particular, los impuestos inmobiliarios) sobre aquellas propiedades cuyo valor se incrementa debido a las inversiones en infraestructura y el establecimiento de mercados municipales de bonos, tales como el que se está desarrollando en África del Sur.
SHARE
Imagínese por un instante que usted es un líder político –un primer ministro, presidente o gobernador– y que se despierta con la noticia de que se produjo un desastre natural. Hubo víctimas, se derrumbaron edificios, la infraestructura está colapsando y los líderes locales necesitan desesperadamente recursos adicionales y soporte.
Usted responde inmediatamente, enviando personal y equipos a la zona del desastre y prometiendo ayuda adicional a los líderes locales. Su país, como muchos en el mundo, ha institucionalizado un sistema de respuesta escalonado, que va incorporando por niveles a los gobiernos regional, estatal y nacional a medida que las demandas de la catástrofe exceden la capacidad de respuesta local. Pero a los pocos días, o incluso horas –incluso antes de haber tratado a todas las víctimas y de haber hecho un recuento de todos los ciudadanos, antes de haber quitado los escombros de las calles y de haber restaurado los servicios básicos– otros líderes y los medios de comunicación ya están exigiendo respuestas a cuestiones que usted no ha tenido siquiera tiempo para considerar. ¿Cuánto dinero se destinará a la reconstrucción? ¿Qué criterios se usarán para guiarla? ¿Se permitirá a todos los propietarios que reconstruyan sus propiedades? ¿Quién dirigirá el proceso? ¿Es necesaria una nueva institución o estructura de gobierno para reducir las trabas burocráticas y acelerar la reconstrucción?
Este artículo reseña las investigaciones en curso sobre el papel de los diversos niveles de gobierno en la recuperación y reconstrucción exitosa después de una catástrofe (tabla 1). Representa la síntesis de dos décadas de investigaciones y prácticas de planificación sobre recuperación después de algunos de los desastres más grandes de nuestra era en los Estados Unidos, Japón, China, Taiwán, Indonesia, India, Nueva Zelanda, Australia, Chile y otros lugares. Su propósito es extraer lecciones comunes en estos ambientes tan diversos y ayudar a facilitar la recuperación de comunidades afectadas por desastres en el futuro.
La gestión de recuperación en el mundo
Los gobiernos responsables de la reconstrucción después de catástrofes enfrentan una serie extraordinaria de desafíos de gestión. El primer desafío es la compresión de las actividades en el tiempo y concentradas en el espacio, ya que ciudades construidas en el curso de décadas, si no siglos, se destruyen o dañan de improviso, y se deben reconstruir en una fracción del tiempo que se tardó en edificarlas. Esta tensión genera un segundo desafío: una aguda tensión entre velocidad y reflexión, ya que los diversos actores del proceso de recuperación en las comunidades afectadas tratan de tomar con urgencia decisiones bien pensadas y meditadas que aseguren recuperación óptima a largo plazo. Estos dos fenómenos generan un tercer desafío: la necesidad de acceder inmediatamente a una gran cantidad de dinero e información, las dos monedas más valiosas en la recuperación posterior a una catástrofe.
Para satisfacer estas demandas, los gobiernos de todos los países crean nuevas agencias de ayuda o reorganizan de manera significativa sus organizaciones existentes después de cada catástrofe importante. La causa más común de estas transformaciones en el gobierno después de una catástrofe es la falta de capacidad. Los gobiernos siguen teniendo que atender sus actividades diarias normales, y al mismo tiempo coordinar la reconstrucción o reinvención de las comunidades afectadas, de manera que crean o designan una entidad que pueda centrarse diariamente en la reconstrucción y coordinar las actividades pertinentes de las múltiples agencias gubernamentales. Estas agencias de recuperación, designadas generalmente para una variedad de propósitos e instancias gubernamentales, se hacen cargo de una gama de funciones esenciales, a medida que se reconstruyen la infraestructura, las viviendas y la actividad económica. Difieren en el tipo y escala de coordinación que brindan; el alcance de su autoridad, especialmente con respecto al flujo de dinero e información; y el nivel de gobierno en el que actúan, ya sea nacional, estatal o intergubernamental.
Los gobiernos nacionales gestionan las catástrofes de gran envergadura al nivel político más alto, movilizando los recursos financieros de las reservas nacionales o de ayuda internacional, y proporcionando el nivel de respaldo necesario a los niveles menores de gobierno en la localidad afectada por el desastre. Cuando se producen grandes catástrofes que transcienden los límites estatales o provinciales, los gobiernos nacionales también adoptan un papel activo en el desarrollo de las políticas de recuperación, y crean organizaciones para asistirlos. Algunos ejemplos son la Agencia de Reconstrucción Nacional de Japón, establecida después del terremoto y maremoto de 2011; la Autoridad de Recuperación del Terremoto de Canterbury en Nueva Zelanda, creada después de la secuencia de terremotos de 2010 y 2011 en Christchurch; y el Cuartel General de Ayuda para Terremotos en China, después del desastre de 2008 en Wenchuan. Cada uno de estos organismos internacionales se atenía a la dirección de la administración nacional, su autoridad derivaba de los niveles más altos de gobierno y articulaban sus políticas con la aprobación de la administración vigente.
————————-
Tabla 1: Experiencias de gestión de recuperación alrededor del mundo
Australia
Autoridad de Reconstrucción y Recuperación de Incendios Forestales de Victoria
Autoridad de Reconstrucción de Queensland
Chile
Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo—MINVU
China
Cuartel General de Ayuda para Terremotos
India
Autoridad para la Gestión de Catástrofes del Estado de Gujarat (GSDMA)
Abhiyan
Unidad de Gestión de Proyectos
Indonesia
Agencia de Reconstrucción y Rehabilitación—BRR
Equipo de Coordinación para la Rehabilitación y Reconstrucción—TTN
Japón
Agencia de Reconstrucción Nacional
Nueva Zelanda
Autoridad de Recuperación del Terremoto de Canterbury
Taiwán
Comisión de Recuperación Post-Terremoto del 921
Consejo de Reconstrucción Post-Desastre de Morakot
Estados Unidos
Corporación de Desarrollo del Bajo Manhattan
Autoridad de Recuperación de Luisiana
————————-
De forma similar, las agencias de recuperación a nivel estatal en general se crean como respuesta directa a catástrofes que afectan una región u otra jurisdicción subnacional. La autoridad y legalidad de estas entidades están más limitadas por la posición secundaria y subnacional de la entidad que les otorga autoridad en el gobierno. Ejemplos de estas entidades son la Autoridad de Gestión de Catástrofes del Estado de Gujarat (GSDMA), creada después del terremoto de 2001 en India Occidental; la Autoridad de Recuperación de Luisiana, fundada después del huracán Katrina en 2005; la Autoridad de Recuperación y Reconstrucción de Incendios Forestales (VBRRA) del estado de Victoria, establecida después de los incendios forestales de 2009 en Australia; y la Autoridad de Reconstrucción del estado de Queensland, establecida después de las inundaciones en Australia en el verano de 2010-2011.
Existe una tercera clase de organizaciones diseñadas para operar entre distintos niveles de gobierno, como la Corporación de Desarrollo del Bajo Manhattan, creada como una asociación entre el estado y la ciudad para planificar y financiar las actividades de recuperación después de los ataques terroristas del 11 de septiembre de 2001 en la Ciudad de Nueva York. Otro ejemplo, la Agencia de Rehabilitación y Reconstrucción (BRR), creada en Aceh, Indonesia, después del maremoto de 2004, consistía en tres agencias independientes cuya composición provenía de una amplia gama de actores locales y nacionales. En forma similar, el Equipo de Coordinación para Rehabilitación y Reconstrucción (TTN) del gobierno indonesio después del terremoto de 2006 en Yogyakarta y Java Central fue diseñado como puente entre agencias nacionales y locales, y también supervisó e investigó los problemas de implementación a nivel local.
En algunos casos, los gobiernos deciden modificar o adaptar instituciones y procedimientos existentes para ayudar a gestionar la recuperación. Por ejemplo, Chile estableció un comité interministerial a nivel nacional después del terremoto y maremoto de 2010, pero el Ministerio de Vivienda y Urba-nismo existente amplió sus funciones y responsabilidades, y coordinó los esfuerzos de planificación e implementación a nivel nacional.
El control del dinero, la información, la colaboración y el tiempo
Considerando estos factores comunes a todos los entornos de recuperación posteriores a catástrofes, nuestra investigación demuestra que la clave para gobernar efectivamente estas crisis de gran envergadura es el control del dinero, la información, la colaboración y el tiempo. Ofrecemos en este artículo algunos ejemplos de buenas prácticas y lecciones aprendidas en nuestros diversos estudios de organizaciones a nivel de país.
1. La gestión del dinero: obtención y distribución de fondos en forma eficiente, efectiva y equitativa para la recuperación
Cuando se tiene que movilizar una gran cantidad de fondos públicos en la reconstrucción después de desastres, el verdadero poder reside en el nivel de gobierno que controla el flujo de dinero y cómo lo adquiere, asigna, desembolsa y audita. A veces, la organización encargada de la recuperación asume algunos o todos estos poderes, y otras veces toda la autoridad de financiamiento reside en el mismo lugar que antes de la catástrofe: las ramas legislativa y administrativa. Algunas funciones importantes en el entorno posterior al desastre son la fijación de políticas y prioridades para asignar grandes sumas de dinero, y el establecimiento de sistemas de contabilidad que permitan el desembolso oportuno de fondos críticos, proporcionando al mismo tiempo transpa-rencia y minimizando la corrupción.
Algunas organizaciones, como la entidad a nivel estatal GSDMA de India, se establecen específicamente para reunir todos los fondos de recuperación en un solo lugar, para poder asignarlos y desembolsarlos más adelante. Algunas entidades, como una de las tres ramas de la agencia intergubernamental BRR de Indonesia, se crean para auditar y controlar en forma independiente los gastos de las organizaciones a cargo de implementar la recuperación. En contraste, la Autoridad de Recuperación de Luisiana, una agencia a nivel estatal, recomendaba las prioridades de financiamiento al estado y proporcionaba supervisión en la medida de lo necesario, pero no tenía control directo sobre los fondos. La Agencia de Reconstrucción Nacional de Japón recibió fondos nacionales y asignó el dinero a los ministerios nacionales y gobiernos locales pertinentes.
2. El aumento del flujo de información: recopilación, integración y diseminación efectivas de información para mejorar la toma de decisiones y las acciones de todos aquellos involucrados en la recuperación.
Una demanda crítica es acelerar y ampliar el flujo de información entre aquellos involucrados en la recuperación sobre la dinámica de las medidas de reconstrucción y las oportunidades emergentes. Este desafío comprende los procesos de planificación y participación pública que proporcionan información a los ciudadanos y las instituciones involucradas en la recuperación, facilitan la comunicación y las innovaciones entre los encargados de la recuperación, y comunican las inquietudes de los ciudadanos a agencias gubernamentales y ONG de manera oportuna. También exige intercambiar información entre organizaciones gubernamentales y no gubernamentales, y establecer foros para facilitar la coordinación.
En Victoria, Australia, después de los incendios forestales de 2009, los líderes nacionales y estatales colaboraron con las comunidades afectadas para formar más de 30 comités locales de recuperación, que tuvieron la responsabilidad de desarrollar un plan de recuperación comunitario e identificar prioridades y proyectos locales. Estos comités fueron utilizados por los gobiernos estatales y el gobierno nacional como puntos focales para la distribución de financiamiento local, y por las comunidades locales para recaudar fondos adicionales y establecer pautas normativas locales de reconstrucción. En Yogyakarta, Java, después del terremoto de 2006, TTN mantuvo mutuamente informadas a agencias locales y nacionales sobre las actividades realizadas por las demás, lo cual, a su vez, ayudó a alertar a los funcionarios sobre problemas potenciales.
Una función crítica, apropiadamente provista por una agencia con respaldo gubernamental, es la adquisición, síntesis y distribución de información básica sobre el daño causado, las actividades de reconstrucción, problemas sociales y económicos con la población, y varios indicadores de recupe-ración. Dichas agencias publican informes periódicos del progreso realizado y controlan los indicadores de recuperación, como lo han hecho tanto la Agencia de Reconstrucción Nacional en Japón y la Autoridad de Recuperación del Terremoto de Canterbury en Nueva Zelanda, usando una variedad de mecanismos de comunicación, como publicaciones en sitios web, comunicados de prensa, boletines y foros. La información frecuente de fuentes confiables puede ayudar a que todos los actores comprendan el entorno de recuperación actual, y también a reducir los rumores y la información falsa.
3. El fomento de la cola-boración: construcción de capacidad y competencia sustentable para una recuperación a largo plazo mediante la colaboración y coordinación genuinas, tanto horizontalmente entre grupos locales como verticalmente entre los distintos niveles de gobierno.
Las agencias jerárquicas organizadas verticalmente, con organigramas claros y canales de comunicación bien definidos, en general no se adaptan bien a la gestión de recuperación después de catástrofes, porque la falta de “conexión” a través de las jerarquías verticales limita la colaboración y el flujo de información nueva y actualizada entre las organizaciones. Las agencias nacionales de los Estados Unidos involucradas en la recuperación, por ejemplo, son más capaces de administrar programas individuales que de resolver problemas complejos que traspasan las fronteras institucionales gubernamentales.
En contraste, las agencias organizadas horizontalmente pueden promover la coordinación entre agencias y compartir información, permitiendo que grupos individuales se adapten a nuevos contextos e información sin perder su dependencia de la organización madre. Si hay múltiples estados o jurisdicciones locales involucradas, es esencial la cooperación entre ellas. La asistencia técnica y la construcción de capacidad en los organismos claves a cargo de la recuperación también son elementos importantes para que las organizaciones locales puedan adquirir la capacidad necesaria para una recuperación a largo plazo.
Después del huracán Katrina en 2005, la gobernadora Kathleen Blanco nombró a los miembros de la Autoridad de Recuperación de Luisiana, de manera que, desde el punto de vista técnico, se trataba de una extensión de la administración estatal. Pero, finalmente, la asamblea legislativa la formalizó. Como entidad bipartidaria por diseño, operaba en forma independiente en su interacción con funcionarios nacionales de los EE.UU. y gobier-nos locales, realizaba recomendaciones de política y supervisaba las actividades de recuperación de las agencias estatales. Si bien su poder se limitaba a realizar recomendaciones de políticas, pudo ejercer una influencia considerable a múltiples niveles en una atmósfera políticamente muy contenciosa. También colaboró con las agencias nacionales para establecer normas de planificación para la recuperación a largo plazo de la comunidad, y ayudó a distribuir asistencia técnica y brindar otros recursos de planificación a escala regional, local y de barrio.
Dado que su poder emanaba de los líderes estatales, la GSMDA en India y la autoridad de reconstrucción de Queensland Australia pudieron coordinar exitosamente las actividades de otras agencias estatales. De forma parecida, el MINVU de Chile y las agencias de recuperación nacional de Taiwán contaban con una autoridad centralizada para poder coordinar las actividades de otras agencias nacionales. Abhiyan, una ONG avalada oficialmente por el gobierno de Gujarat en India, pero sin una autoridad gubernamental definida, también desempeñó un papel crucial en la coordinación del trabajo de cientos de ONG y el establecimiento de una red de subcentros locales para proporcionar información y respaldo técnico.
El proceso de recuperación jerárquico después del terremoto de 2008 en Wenchuan, China, pudo reconstruir edificios rápidamente, pero dejó poco espacio para la innovación local, ya que carecía de una auténtica construcción de capacidad local ni participación en la toma de decisiones. Debido a que no siempre se tuvieron en cuenta las condiciones locales, la recuperación económica parece haber sido dispareja.
De igual manera, en muchas comunidades afectadas por el maremoto en la región de Tohoku de Japón, la recuperación se ha frenado porque el sistema jerárquico establecido bajo el gobierno nacional y la Agencia de Recuperación Nacional no deja espacio suficiente para la innovación local. Más aún, dentro del complejo y poderoso sistema ministerial japonés, la Agencia de Reconstrucción Nacional no tiene poder suficiente para forzar a otros ministerios a tomar determinadas medidas.
Cada vez más, las investigaciones demuestran que si los residentes participan en la planificación de reconstrucción, toleran más las demoras y están más satisfechos con los resultados. Sin embargo, aun el mejor ejemplo de proceso descentralizado necesita de una agencia que la encabece para establecer el marco de referencia y las reglas. Esta tendencia sugiere que los gobiernos deberían resistir el impulso de gestionar los detalles de la reconstrucción, y actuar menos como administradores y más como coordinadores y facilitadores del proceso.
4. El equilibrio en las limitaciones de tiempo: gestión efectiva de las necesidades locales inmediatas y urgentes de la recuperación, sin dejar de aprovechar satisfactoriamente las oportunidades de mejora a largo plazo.
Los gobiernos deben equilibrar las tensiones entre velocidad y reflexión, y entre restauración y mejora a largo plazo. La manera fundamental para resolver estos desafíos es aumentar el flujo de información, tal como se describió anteriormente. Pero las agencias encargadas del proceso de recuperación han encontrado varias otras maneras específicas de ser veloces y al mismo tiempo generar mejoras.
Para acelerar la reconstrucción, frecuentemente hay oportunidades para agilizar los procesos burocráticos normales de toma de decisiones, sobre todo con respecto a permisos de edificación, sin comprometer la calidad. Como estos procesos frecuentemente involucran a múltiples agencias, una agencia de recuperación puede ser útil para facilitar u obligar a las agencias implicadas a cooperar de manera más efectiva.
El parlamento de Nueva Zelanda otorgó a la Autoridad de Recuperación del Terremoto de Canterbury (CERA) y a su ministro, una amplia gama de poderes unilaterales que permitiera una recuperación oportuna y coordinada del área de Christchurch. El Parlamento extendió los poderes de emergencia otorgados bajo la legislación anterior y postergó la fecha de vencimiento de dichos poderes a cuando se considerara adecuado, permitiendo que el ministro adquisiera suelo de forma obligatoria, y consintiendo la suspensión de todos los planes o políticas de uso del suelo nacionales, de los gobiernos locales, y de administración de transporte adoptadas bajo diferentes leyes. Ordenó a CERA que preparara un borrador de estrategia de recuperación en un plazo de nueve meses después de haberle conferido dichos poderes. Similarmente, le fijó un plazo de vencimiento de nueve meses al concejo municipal de Christchurch para crear un borrador de plan de recuperación para el distrito comercial del centro de la ciudad, que se había dañado.
La mayoría de las agencias de recuperación adopta medidas de reducción del riesgo de catástrofes en sus normas de recuperación. Un lema de recuperación común es “reconstruir mejor que antes”. El lema de la Autoridad de Recuperación de Luisiana fue: “Más seguro, más fuerte, más inteligente”. La forma más fácil de mejora después de una catástrofe es la adopción de normas de edificación resistentes a desastres. La incorporación de nuevas normas estructurales no tiene por qué retrasar el proceso de reconstrucción, pero las mejoras en el uso del suelo, como la reubicación de barrios o de comunidades enteras, puede requerir un tiempo considerable para la planificación y adquisición del suelo. Estos proyectos exigen un compromiso difícil entre rapidez, calidad de diseño y participación pública. Nueva Zelanda ha iniciado un importante proceso de compra de barrios que sufrieron graves daños en los terremotos de 2010–2011, y que siguen siendo vulnerables a futuros temblores. Japón está alentando la reubicación de comunidades costeras de zonas sensibles a maremotos, y algunos de estos proyectos tardarán hasta diez años en completarse.
Una manera de gestionar estos objetivos de forma simultánea es respaldar procesos de planificación participativa para crear mejoras a largo plazo mientras se trata al mismo tiempo de satisfacer necesidades inmediatas. En muchos casos, los planificadores profesionales trabajaron con los barrios –como en Japón, Chile, Nueva Orleans y Bhuj, India–, pero cada proyecto también exigió compromisos difíciles para poder cumplir con los plazos. La creación de comités locales para planificar la recuperación en Victoria y Queensland, no obstante, es un buen ejemplo de sistemas estatales y nacionales de respaldo que ayudaron a construir capacidad local para llevar adelante los procesos de reconstrucción a lo largo del tiempo.
Próximos pasos en nuestra investigación
Los gobiernos saben que tienen el deber de gestionar la información y el flujo de dinero entre los múltiples actores en un período de tiempo comprimido. Hasta aquí hemos identificado muchos ejemplos de cómo lograrlo. Pero, mejor aún, quisiéramos estar en condiciones de crear menús de opciones organizativas y de proceso, según lo dicte la combinación de magnitud del desastre y el alcance y los contextos económico, político, medioambiental y gubernamental.
También quedan varias preguntas: ¿Por qué siguen apareciendo los mismos problemas institucionales de una catástrofe a otra? ¿Hay alguna manera de evitar repetir algunos de ellos? ¿Cuáles son los resultados –tanto negativos como positivos– de estas disposiciones institucionales de las que pueden informar a futuros líderes que se enfrentan con desafíos de reconstrucción similares? ¿En qué tipo específico de asistencia técnica y construcción de capacidad de los gobiernos locales y organizaciones no gubernamentales se deberían concentrar los donantes internacionales y los gobiernos nacionales para que puedan mejorar su tarea durante el proceso de recuperación? En catástrofes de gran escala, ¿cómo se escalonan los objetivos entrelazados de una recuperación (reconstrucción de hogares, barrios, ciudades, regiones, naciones) en términos de consistencia, eficiencia y eficacia? Y, ¿qué pasa cuando estas organizaciones creadas para gestionar la recuperación dejan de existir? ¿Queda suficiente capacidad en el lugar para sustentar a la comunidad a largo plazo? Al estudiar las diversas experiencias nacionales y organizativas, podemos comprender mejor cómo el fenómeno de compresión del tiempo en la recuperación después de catástrofes afecta otras teorías de políticas públicas y la gestión municipal; la planificación, el desarrollo y la gestión del crecimiento del suelo; y la administración fiscal y de inversión de capital.
Sobre los autores
Los coautores de Clear As Mud: Planning for the Rebuilding of New Orleans [Claro como el fango: la planificación de reconstrucción en Nueva Orleans] (2010, APA Planners Press), Laurie A. Johnson y Robert B. Olshansky están colaborando actualmente en un libro e informe sobre enfoque en políticas de suelo sobre la gestión de recuperación después de catástrofes. Han estado investigando y practicando la planificación de recuperación después de catástrofes urbanas por todo el mundo durante las últimas dos décadas. Johnson es una planificadora urbana radicada en San Francisco, especializada en recuperación de desastres y gestión de riesgo de catástrofes. Olshansky es profesor de Planificación urbana y regional en la Universidad de Illinois en Urbana-Champaign. Contacto: laurie@lauriejohnsonconsulting.com o robo@illinois.edu.
Referencias
Alesch, Daniel J., Lucy A. Arendt, y James N. Holly. 2009. Managing for Long-term Community Recovery in the Aftermath of Disaster. Fairfax, VA: Public Entity Risk Institute.
Chandrasekhar, Divya y Robert B. Olshansky. 2007. Managing Development After Catastrophic Disaster: A Study of Organizations That Coordinated Post-Disaster Recovery in Aceh and Louisiana. Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Olshansky, Robert B., Lewis D. Hopkins, y Laurie A. Johnson. 2012. Disaster and recovery: Processes compressed in time. Natural Hazards Review. 13(3): 173–178.
Olshansky, Robert B., Laurie A. Johnson, y Kenneth C. Topping. 2006. Rebuilding communities following disaster: Lessons from Kobe and Los Angeles. Built Environment. 32(4): 354–374.
Smith, G., y Dennis Wenger. 2007. Sustainable disaster recovery: Operationalizing an existing agenda. In Handbook of disaster research (Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research). Ed. Havidan Rodriguez, 234–257. New York, NY: Springer.
SHARE
El fortalecimiento de la salud fiscal municipal en China
Desde el año 2013, Zhi Liu se ha desempeñado como investigador senior y director del Programa para China del Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo. También es director del Centro para el Desarrollo Urbano y Políticas de Suelo de la Universidad de Pekín y el Instituto Lincoln (PLC). Anteriormente, Zhi fue especialista principal en infraestructuras en el Banco Mundial, donde trabajó durante 18 años y obtuvo experiencia operativa en varios países en vías de desarrollo.
Zhi obtuvo el título de grado (BS) en Geografía Económica por la Universidad Dr. Sun Yat-Sen (China), el título de maestría (MS) en Planificación Municipal y Regional por la Universidad de Nanjing (China) y el título de doctorado (Ph.D.) en Planificación Urbana por la Universidad de Harvard.
LAND LINES: Hace poco el Instituto Lincoln comenzó un plan de investigación sobre la salud fiscal municipal en todo el mundo. Esta tarea surgió al detectar que algunas ciudades de los Estados Unidos y de muchos otros países, como China, enfrentan dificultades financieras. ¿Cuál es la naturaleza de los problemas fiscales municipales en China?
ZHI LIU: Es muy diferente de las dificultades económicas que enfrentan las ciudades de los Estados Unidos. Estos dos países se encuentran en etapas de urbanización muy distintas. Mientras que los EE.UU. tiene un alto nivel de urbanización (más del 80 por ciento de los ciudadanos vive en áreas urbanas), según el censo de 2010, China todavía está a medio camino del proceso de urbanización. Hoy en día, 750 millones de ciudadanos chinos viven en ciudades, lo que representa el 55 por ciento de la población total. Para el año 2050, se espera que la población urbana alcance 1,1 mil millones de habitantes, es decir, el 75 por ciento de la población total. En los últimos veinte años, con la excepción de unas pocas ciudades mineras, casi todos los municipios han experimentado un rápido crecimiento de la población y una expansión espacial, lo que ha generado una gran demanda de inversiones públicas en infraestructura urbana.
En China, las principales fuentes de financiamiento para inversiones en infraestructura urbana son los ingresos provenientes de las concesiones del suelo y los préstamos que los municipios solicitan a los bancos comerciales, por lo general usando el suelo como garantía. El suelo urbano es de propiedad del Estado, y el suelo rural es de propiedad conjunta de las aldeas. La Ley de Administración del Suelo establece que sólo el Estado tiene el poder para convertir suelo rural en suelo de uso urbano, lo que crea el marco propicio para que los gobiernos municipales tomen suelo rural con el fin de realizar un desarrollo urbano mediante el proceso de concesión del suelo. De hecho, los gobiernos municipales expropian el suelo rural, lo dotan de infraestructura y venden los derechos de uso del suelo a desarrolladores inmobiliarios. La compensación que reciben los agricultores por el suelo que se les expropia no es muy alta, ya que se calcula según el valor de producción agrícola del suelo en lugar del valor de mercado del suelo para uso urbano. Cuando la demanda de desarrollo inmobiliario es alta, los precios de licitación para la concesión del suelo son altos, y los gobiernos municipales comienzan a recaudar grandes sumas de dinero. En los últimos diez años, los ingresos derivados de las concesiones del suelo han representado más de un tercio del total de los ingresos fiscales municipales.
Además, los gobiernos municipales expanden aun más su capacidad financiera mediante la utilización de propiedades de suelo a modo de garantías con el fin de obtener préstamos de los bancos comerciales. La Ley de Presupuesto Chino, antes de una reciente modificación, no permitía que los gobiernos municipales solicitaran préstamos. Sin embargo, la mayoría de los gobiernos municipales superó las restricciones de la ley mediante la creación de sus propios vehículos financieros municipales, conocidos como sociedades anónimas de inversión en desarrollo urbano (sociedades anónimas de inversión en desarrollo urbano, UDIC, por sus siglas en inglés). Las UDIC solicitaban préstamos comerciales o emitían bonos privados para los gobiernos. Las deudas municipales pendientes de pago han crecido rápidamente en los últimos años, y en la actualidad han alcanzado al menos un tercio del PIB.
El mecanismo de financiamiento basado en el suelo ha ayudado a los gobiernos municipales de China a recaudar una suma significativa de fondos destinados a la inversión de capital. No obstante, este éxito también ha generado un incentivo para que los gobiernos municipales dependan demasiado de las concesiones del suelo y de las UDIC. Hoy en día, la economía de China crece mucho más lentamente que antes, por lo que este mecanismo está perdiendo fuerza en muchos municipios donde la conversión del suelo rural en suelo de uso urbano excede la demanda real. Algunas ciudades han obtenido más préstamos de los que podían devolver, y han quedado fuertemente endeudadas.
Según muchos estudios empíricos, incluidos algunos financiados por el Instituto Lincoln, el mecanismo de financiamiento basado en el suelo en China es una de las principales causas de otros problemas urbanos que enfrentamos en la actualidad, tales como precios exorbitantes de la vivienda, deudas municipales en aumento, excesiva expropiación del suelo, creciente tensión entre agricultores y gobiernos municipales en torno a la expropiación del suelo, y brechas cada vez mayores en la distribución de los ingresos y la riqueza entre las poblaciones urbanas y las rurales.
LL: Los medios de comunicación internacionales han estado realizando informes acerca de estos problemas. ¿De qué manera afrontará China estas cuestiones?
ZL: Existe un alto nivel de consenso acerca de las causas profundas de estos problemas. En noviembre de 2013, el gobierno central anunció una serie de reformas, algunas de las cuales están directamente relacionadas con políticas de urbanización y finanzas municipales. Por ejemplo, los alcances de las expropiaciones del suelo se limitarán a los fines públicos, por lo que las aldeas podrán desarrollar su suelo para uso urbano según la premisa de que se realice de acuerdo con lo planificado. Las reformas también requieren la aceleración de la legislación sobre el impuesto a la propiedad, la reforma del hukou (el sistema de inscripción residencial para familias, que ayuda a los agricultores a convertirse en residentes urbanos) y la toma de medidas por parte del gobierno para poner los servicios públicos urbanos básicos a disposición de todos los residentes permanentes de las ciudades, incluso a los que migran del suelo rural al urbano.
LL: ¿Cuáles son los efectos de la reforma del hukou en las finanzas municipales?
ZL: El gobierno chino está eliminando gradualmente el antiguo sistema del hukou, y los efectos de esta decisión sobre las finanzas municipales serán importantes. El hukou se diseñó con el fin de identificar a un ciudadano como residente de una cierta ciudad, aunque durante décadas el gobierno utilizó este sistema para controlar la migración de áreas rurales a urbanas. Una persona inscrita como hukou rural no podía cambiar su inscripción a hukou urbano sin la autorización del gobierno. Y sin la inscripción como hukou urbano, un trabajador rural migrante no tiene derecho a recibir los servicios públicos que proporcionan los gobiernos urbanos.
A partir de la reforma económica, la economía urbana en expansión ha absorbido una gran cantidad de trabajadores migrantes que pasan de áreas rurales a urbanas. Anteriormente mencioné que el índice de urbanización de China es del 55 por ciento y que la población urbana es de 750 millones de habitantes. Estas cifras incluyen a los 232 millones de trabajadores rurales migrantes que permanecen en ciudades durante más de la mitad del año. Si se los excluyera del cálculo, el nivel de urbanización sería sólo del 38 por ciento. Sin embargo, debido a su inscripción como hukou rural, los trabajadores migrantes no tienen acceso a muchos de los servicios de los que gozan los inscritos como hukou urbano, a pesar de que muchos han trabajado y vivido en ciudades durante varios años. Los gobiernos municipales determinan el alcance de muchos de los servicios públicos urbanos, tales como las escuelas públicas y las viviendas económicas, de acuerdo con la cantidad de inscritos como hukou urbanos que existen dentro de la jurisdicción municipal. La eliminación gradual del hukou aumentaría significativamente la carga fiscal de los gobiernos municipales para proporcionar servicios públicos. Ciertos académicos en China estiman que el costo de prestar la totalidad de los servicios públicos urbanos a cada trabajador rural migrante ascendería al menos a RMB 100.000 (unos US$16.000). El desembolso total para todos los trabajadores rurales migrantes actuales sería al menos de RMB 23 billones (cerca de US$3,8 billones).
LL: China está introduciendo el impuesto sobre la propiedad residencial. ¿En qué estado se encuentra esta iniciativa?
ZL: El gobierno está redactando la primera ley nacional del impuesto sobre la propiedad como parte de la reforma de finanzas públicas actualmente en marcha. China es uno de los pocos países que no poseen impuestos municipales sobre la propiedad. El actual sistema impositivo depende en gran manera de los impuestos sobre los negocios y las transacciones y muy poco de los impuestos sobre los ingresos y la riqueza de los hogares. En una China más urbanizada con una población que tenga mayor poder adquisitivo para ser propietaria de sus propios inmuebles residenciales, el impuesto sobre la propiedad sería una fuente más viable de recaudación municipal. Hoy en día, el 89 por ciento de los hogares urbanos tiene la propiedad de una o más unidades residenciales, y el valor de dichas propiedades tiene mucho que ver con los servicios públicos urbanos. El impuesto sobre la propiedad permitirá que las ciudades impongan este tributo sobre las propiedades residenciales cuyo valor se vería beneficiado por una mejora de los servicios públicos que se brindarían gracias a los ingresos derivados de dicho impuesto. También cubriría una parte de la brecha fiscal que se generaría como consecuencia de la disminución prevista en la recaudación proveniente de las concesiones del suelo. No obstante, el impuesto sobre la propiedad no será una fuente principal de ingresos municipales en el corto plazo, ya que al Congreso Popular Nacional le llevará uno o dos años más aprobar la nueva ley. Además, a las ciudades les llevará dos o tres años establecer la base de datos de propiedades y el sistema de valuación y administración de las mismas.
LL: Debe de ser difícil para las ciudades tener que enfrentar una reducción de los ingresos derivados de las concesiones del suelo sin una alternativa inmediata, especialmente cuando están experimentando una creciente deuda municipal, tal como se ha informado ampliamente. ¿Cómo saldrán de esta situación las ciudades chinas?
ZL: La situación es verdaderamente difícil. La economía de China está en retroceso. El sector inmobiliario ya no es tan pujante como en los últimos diez años, lo que ha dado como resultado una menor demanda de suelo y, como consecuencia, los gobiernos municipales están obteniendo una recaudación derivada de las concesiones de suelo menor. Ahora las ciudades están experimentando una brecha fiscal. Una posible forma de cerrar esta brecha sería que los gobiernos municipales pudieran obtener préstamos. Sin embargo, tal como mencioné anteriormente, muchas ciudades están endeudadas y tienen poca capacidad para seguir pidiendo préstamos. De hecho, la mayoría de las ciudades en China no tiene una capacidad adecuada de gestión de deudas. La ley de presupuesto recientemente modificada permite que los gobiernos provinciales emitan bonos dentro de los límites establecidos por el Concejo del Estado, pero también cierra la posibilidad a los gobiernos municipales de recurrir a otras formas de obtener préstamos. Actualmente, el gobierno central promueve activamente el financiamiento de infraestructura a través de asociaciones público-privadas (PPP, por sus siglas en inglés). Aunque es un buen avance, no será suficiente para cerrar la brecha de financiamiento para infraestructuras, ya que las PPP resultan útiles principalmente en los casos de proyectos de infraestructura que poseen un sólido flujo de ingresos. Existen muchos otros proyectos de infraestructura urbana que generan muy pocos ingresos o directamente ninguno. A la larga, creo que China debería establecer de forma activa un mercado de bonos del gobierno municipal para canalizar los fondos provenientes de inversores institucionales hacia la inversión de infraestructura municipal y permitir que los gobiernos municipales tengan acceso a préstamos comerciales según su solvencia crediticia. A este fin, los gobiernos municipales deben desarrollar su capacidad institucional en varios frentes, tales como la gestión municipal de deudas, la planificación de una mejora de capital, la planificación del financiamiento para varios años, y la gestión municipal de bienes de infraestructura.
LL: ¿El trabajo del PLC es relevante para la reforma actual?
ZL: El PLC fue establecido en forma conjunta por el Instituto Lincoln y la Universidad de Pekín en el año 2007. Cuando ingresé en 2013, el Centro ya había construido su reputación como una de las principales instituciones de investigación y capacitación de China en cuestiones de desarrollo urbano y políticas de suelo. El Centro apoya diferentes actividades, como investigación, capacitación, intercambio académico, diálogo sobre políticas, becas de investigación, proyectos de demostración y publicaciones. Nos enfocamos en cinco temas principales: tributación sobre la propiedad y finanzas municipales, políticas de suelo, viviendas urbanas, desarrollo y planificación urbana, y medio ambiente urbano y su conservación. En los últimos años, nuestros proyectos de investigación han tocado temas como las finanzas dependientes del suelo, las deudas municipales, los precios de la vivienda, la inversión y el financiamiento del capital para infraestructura, y otras cuestiones relevantes para la salud fiscal municipal. Además, hemos brindado capacitación a diferentes agencias gubernamentales de China sobre las experiencias internacionales relativas al análisis y gestión del impuesto a la propiedad. Podría decirse que nuestro trabajo es muy pertinente en lo que respecta a la reforma actual.
La implementación de las nuevas reformas integrales de las políticas está generando una importante demanda de conocimientos internacionales y asesoramiento sobre políticas en las áreas de interés del programa para China, particularmente lo que tiene que ver con los impuestos a la propiedad y las finanzas municipales. Nuestra idea es comenzar un proyecto piloto de demostración en una o dos ciudades chinas seleccionadas, a fin de generar la capacidad institucional que se requiere para desarrollar un nivel de salud fiscal municipal a largo plazo. Nuestro equipo ha comenzado un estudio para desarrollar una serie de indicadores con el fin de medir la salud fiscal municipal de las ciudades chinas. Es el momento oportuno para que iniciemos este plan en China.
SHARE
Responding to decades of poverty, poor housing, inadequate health care, rampant crime, deficient schools, poorly planned infrastructure, and inequitable access to services, citizens in about half of Brazil’s 60 major cities voted in October 2000 for mayors from left-wing parties noted for advocacy, honesty and transparency. These reform administrations are introducing new hopes and expectations, but they inherit long-standing mistrust of municipal bureaucrats and politicians, who traditionally have been lax and often corrupt. These new governments also confront the dismal fiscal prospects of low tax receipts, weak federal transfers, and urban land markets that produce segregated neighborhoods and profound inequalities.
The strongest left-wing party, the Workers’ Party (in Portuguese, the Partido dos Trabalhadores or PT), held on to the five large cities it had won in the 1996 election and added 12 more. These PT governments hope to universalize services, thus bypassing traditional top-down methods and giving residents an active role in their local governments. In the process these governments are reinventing local democracy, invigorating politics, and significantly altering the distribution of political and symbolic resources. The most remarkable case may be Porto Alegre, the capital of Brazil’s southernmost state, Rio Grande do Sul, where the PT won its fourth consecutive four-year term with 66 percent of the vote, an example that may have encouraged Brazilians in other cities to vote for democratic reforms as well.
Porto Alegre, like cities everywhere, reflects its national culture in its land use patterns, economic structure and distribution of political power. Brazil’s larger social system employs sophisticated mechanisms to assure that its cities continue to follow the same rules, norms and logic that organize the dominant society. Because Brazilian society is in many respects unjust and unequal, the city must constantly administer to the effects of these broader economic and political constraints.
At the same time, no city is a pure reflection, localized and reduced, of its national social structure. Any city can bring about and reproduce inequality and injustice itself, just as it can stimulate dynamic social structures and economic relations. To the extent that the city, and especially its government, determines events, then the effects can be positive as well as negative. It is not written in any segment of the Brazilian social code, for example, that only the streets of upper- and middle-class neighborhoods will be paved, or that water supply will reach only the more privileged corners of the city.
Participatory Budgeting
In Porto Alegre, a popular front headed by the PT has introduced “participatory budgeting,” a process by which thousands of residents can participate each year in public meetings to allocate about half the municipal budget, thus taking major responsibility for governing their own community. This reform symbolizes a broad range of municipal changes and poses an alternative to both authoritarian centralism and neoliberal pragmatism. Neighbors decide on practical local matters, such as the location of street improvements or a park, as well as difficult citywide issues. Through the process, the PT claims, people become conscious of other opportunities to challenge the poverty and inequality that make their lives so difficult.
Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre begins with the government’s formal accounting for the previous year and its investment and expenditure plan for the current year. Elected delegates in each of 16 district assemblies meet throughout the year to determine the fiscal responsibilities of city departments. They produce two sets of rankings: one for twelve major in-district or neighborhood “themes,” such as street paving, school construction, parks, or water and sewer lines, and the other for “cross-cutting” efforts that affect the entire city, such as transit-line location, spending for beach clean-up, or programs for assisting the homeless. To encourage participation, rules set the number of delegates roughly proportional to the number of neighbors attending the election meeting.
Allocation of the investment budget among districts follows “weights” determined by popular debate: in 1999, weights were assigned to population, poverty, shortages (e.g., lack of pavement), and citywide priorities. Tension between city hall and citizens has led to expanded popular involvement, with participatory budgeting each year taking a larger share of the city’s total budget. Priorities have shifted in ways unanticipated by the mayors or their staffs.
Participants include members of the governing party, some professionals, technocrats and middle-class citizens, and disproportionate numbers of the working poor (but fewer of the very poor). This process brings into political action many who do not support the governing party, in contrast to the traditional patronage approach that uses city budgets as a way to pay off supporters. As one index of success, the number of participants in Porto Alegre grew rapidly, from about 1,000 in 1990 to 16,000 in 1998 and 40,000 in 1999.
The participatory process has been self-reinforcing. For example, when annoyed neighbors discovered that others got their streets paved or a new bus stop, they wondered why. The simple answer was that only the beneficiary had gone to the budget meetings. In subsequent years, attendance increased, votes included more interests, and more residents were happy with the results. City officials were relieved, too, as residents themselves confronted the zero-sum choices on some issues: a fixed budget, with tough choices among such important things as asphalt over dusty streets, more classrooms, or care for the homeless.
Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre is succeeding in the midst of considerable hostility from a conservative city council and constant assault from right-wing local newspapers and television programs, all of them challenging participation and extolling unregulated markets. The municipal government depends for its support on the participants and their neighbors, on radio broadcasting, and on many who resisted two decades of military dictatorship, from 1964 to 1985. In electing four consecutive reform administrations, a majority of the population has managed to pressure a hostile city council to vote in favor of the mayor’s budget proposals, keeping the progressive agenda intact.
Changes in Material Conditions
In 1989, despite comparatively high life expectancy and literacy rates, conditions in Porto Alegre mirrored the inequality and income segregation of other Brazilian cities. A third of the population lived in poorly serviced slums on the urban periphery, isolated and distant from the wealthy city center. Against this background, PT innovations have improved conditions, though only moderately, for some of the poorest citizens. For example, between 1988 and 1997, water connections in Porto Alegre went from 75 percent to 98 percent of all residences. The number of schools has quadrupled since 1986. New public housing units, which sheltered only 1,700 new residents in 1986, housed an additional 27,000 in 1989. Municipal intervention also facilitated a compromise with private bus companies to provide better service to poor peripheral neighborhoods. The use of bus-only lanes has improved commuting times and newly painted buses are highly visible symbols of local power and the public interest.
Porto Alegre has used its participatory solidarity to allow the residents to make some unusual economic development decisions that formerly would have been dominated by centralized business and political interests. The city turned down a five-star hotel investment on the site of an abandoned power plant, preferring to use the well-situated promontory as a public park and convention hall that now serves as the new symbol of the city. And, faced with a proposal to clear slums to make room for a large supermarket, the city imposed stiff and costly household relocation requirements, which the supermarket is meeting. In another example, in spite of promises of new employment and the usual kinds of ideological pressures from the Ford Motor Company, the nearby municipality of Guíaba turned down a proposed new auto plant, arguing along political lines established in Porto Alegre that the required subsidies would be better applied against other city needs. (A state investigation in August 2000 found the former mayor, not “at fault” for losing the Ford investment.)
Nevertheless, daunting constraints in the broader Brazilian economic and political environment continue to limit gains in economic growth, demands for labor and quality jobs. Comparing Porto Alegre and Rio Grande do Sul with nearby capital cities and their states during the years 1985-1986 and 1995-2000, one finds few sharp contrasts. Generally, GDP stagnated, and per capita GDP declined. Unemployment rose and labor-force participation and formal employment both fell.
Given this limited extent of economic improvement, how can we account for the sense of optimism and achievement that pervades Porto Alegre? The city is clearly developing a successful experience with local government that reinforces participatory democracy. We believe the PT’s success lies in the way the participants are redefining local power, with increasing numbers of citizens becoming simultaneously subject and object, initiator and recipient, so they can both govern and benefit directly from their decisions. This reconfiguration is immediately discernible in the procedures, methods and behavior of local government.
After 12 years, Porto Alegre has changed not just the way of doing things, but the things themselves; not just the way of governing the city, but the city itself. Such a claim is clearly significant. Porto Alegre offers an authentic, alternative approach to city management-one that rejects not only the centralist, technocratic, authoritarian planning model of the military dictatorship, but also the competitive, pragmatic, neoliberal model of the Washington Consensus, to which the national government still adheres. This model imposes International Monetary Fund (IMF) orthodoxy and requires such “structural adjustment” imperatives as free trade, privatization, strict limits to public expenditures, and high rates of interest, thus worsening the conditions of the poor.
While most Brazilian cities continue to distribute facilities and allocate services with obvious bias and neglect of poor neighborhoods, the reconfiguration of power in Porto Alegre is beginning to reduce spatial inequalities through changes in service provision and land use patterns. We can hope that the effect will be felt in the formal structures of the city and eventually in other cities and in Brazilian society in general.
New Forms of Local Power
Political and symbolic resources normally are monopolized by those who control economic power, but radically democratic municipal administrations, as in Porto Alegre, can reverse power to block the favoring and reinforcing of privilege. They can interfere with the strict solidarity of economic and political power, reduce private appropriation of resources, and promote the city as a collective and socially dynamic body. In other words, a city’s administration could cease to honor the actions of dominant urban groups-real estate interests and others who use various forms of private appropriation of public resources for their private benefit. These actions may include allocation of infrastructure to favor elite neighborhoods, privatization of scenic and environmental resources, and the capture of land value increments resulting from public investments and regulatory interventions. Thus, a reconfigured, publicly oriented city administration permits access to local power for traditionally excluded groups. Such a change constitutes a quasi-revolution, with consequences that cannot yet be measured or evaluated adequately by activists or hopeful governments.
Are Porto Alegre’s experiences with municipal reform, participatory budgeting and democratic land use planning idiosyncratic, or do these innovations promise broader improvements in Brazilian politics as other citizens build expectations and improve the structure of their governments? The Interamerican Development Bank (IDB) is urging localities throughout Latin America to engage in participatory budgeting, following Porto Alegre’s example. Can reform-minded city administrations override the constraints of international markets and national policy? In recommending the formal and procedural aspects of the participatory budgeting technique, does the IDB overestimate the practical economic achievements and underestimate the symbolic and political dimensions of radical democracy?
The lesson of urban reform in Porto Alegre emerges not so directly in the economic market as in new experiences with power, new political actors, and new values and meanings for the conditions of its citizens. Even as citizens weigh their expectations against stagnating macroeconomic conditions, they can find hope in new visions of overcoming spatial and social inequalities in the access to services. These new forms of exercising political power and speaking out about land use and governance issues give the city’s residents a new capacity to make a difference in their own lives.
References
Rebecca N. Abers. 2000. Inventing Local Democracy. Grassroots Politics in Brazil. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Gianpaolo Baiocchi. 1999. “Transforming the City,” unpublished manuscript. University of Wisconsin (September).
Boaventura de Sousa Santos. 1998. “Participatory Budgeting in Porto Alegre.” Politics and Society 26, 4 (December): 461-510.
William W. Goldsmith is a professor in the Department of City and Regional Planning at Cornell University. Carlos Vainer is a professor in the Institute for Urban and Regional Planning and Research at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. They participated in a December 1999 seminar hosted by the City of Porto Alegre and cosponsored by the Lincoln Institute and the Planners Network, a North American association of urban planners, activists and scholars working for equality and social change.
SHARE
The idea of reducing or abolishing capital gains taxes to encourage private investment and general economic growth often comes up in state and national political campaigns. Advocates of cutting these taxes argue that if investors could keep their gains, they would invest them in new enterprises, thereby creating new jobs and strengthening local economies.
The public discussion usually focuses on stock market investments, but most capital gains are generated in the real estate sector where most of the economy’s assets are based. In 1994, the Federal Reserve Board estimated that real estate accounted for 67 percent of the nation’s total economic assets, including land worth about $4.4 trillion, homes worth $5.9 trillion, and other buildings (stores, factories, office buildings) worth an additional $3.1 trillion.
There are no comprehensive national statistics on capital gains from real estate or other assets. But the most recent survey by the Internal Revenue Service, conducted in 1985, estimated that land and buildings accounted for at least 58 and perhaps as much as 70 percent of the total of $208 billion in capital gains that year.
Federal statistics also report that the annual cost of doing business in real estate often exceeds the taxable income generated from land and buildings. It follows that many real estate investors receive a net benefit only when they eventually sell their properties for more than they originally cost. In effect, they are willing to turn over most current income to their mortgage bankers, in the hope of reaping a capital gain at the end of the process.
How Much Total Income Does Real Estate Generate?
There are no adequate national statistics on how much real estate is worth or the total income it generates. It is possible, however, to estimate real estate cash flow by starting from the income reported by the owners of real estate and adding to that some of the major expenses they paid before paying taxes. In 1993, the owners of real estate reported receiving about $209 billion in cash flow (earnings plus depreciation), though the amount depreciated was not taxable. In addition, the real estate industry paid about $515 billion in a combination of mortgage interest and property taxes. Thus real estate generated at least $724 billion in total earnings in 1993 (see chart 1).
The portion of this total paid out as interest to lenders since the end of World War II has grown much faster than any other part of the total. Between 1945 and 1993, the share of real estate earnings paid out as interest grew from about 10 percent to about 50 percent. This reflects the fact that about 70 percent of private sector lending is committed to real estate mortgages. This two-way street—with money flowing from real estate into financial institutions, then back out into real estate loans—is one reason why federal statistics lump real estate and finance together as the “finance, insurance, and real estate” sector, or FIRE for short.
Who Receives Income Generated by Real Estate?
Federal income and tax statistics attribute income from real estate to three categories of owners: persons, corporate real estate and noncorporate real estate. These categories are not self-explanatory. They are based on the motives and behavior of real estate owners, and do not refer simply to individual people, partnerships and companies.
“Persons” receive some income from real estate, though it is not their primary way of earning a living. They may rent out an apartment in a two-family house or a second home during the off-season, for example; or, they may own an apartment building or small commercial property.
“Corporate real estate” is a relatively small category, consisting only of land and buildings that are owned and used for non-real estate business purposes. For example, manufacturing companies typically own their own corporate headquarters and industrial plants. To capture tax advantages, however, these companies may spin off their facilities as “noncorporate” real estate, then lease them back.
The “noncorporate real estate” category is the least obvious. Owners in this category participate either full- or part-time in real estate as a business, mostly through partnerships. The category includes a wide range of people and organizations, from professional developers or property management companies to doctors who own nursing homes.
In 1993, the annual earnings for these three categories were $86 billion for persons, $3 billion for corporate owners, and $120 billion for noncorporate owners (see charts 2-4).
How Is Real Estate Income Taxed?
Since 1970, when the federal government began separating real estate statistics from those for the finance and insurance sectors, real estate has shown little taxable income. Corporate and noncorporate real estate businesses enjoy several tax advantages that help to account for this seeming anomaly of the economy’s major asset generating such low reported earnings:
(a) Like other business owners, they can deduct the cost of maintaining their property (painting, landscaping, replacing a leaky roof, etc.) as an expense before paying taxes on their business income. The purpose of this spending is to preserve the value of their real estate.
(b) They can also claim depreciation (“capital consumption allowances”) for their buildings (technically land does not depreciate). In most businesses, this allowance is a way to compensate for wear-and-tear on machinery, which must be replaced when it becomes obsolete. In practice, real estate owners have often been allowed to depreciate their buildings even though their market value is not declining at all.
(c) When owners sell their properties, any positive difference between the depreciated price received and the price originally paid is taxed as a capital gain. Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than other income. Thus, over-depreciation turns out to be a way of minimizing tax liability.
The combination of (b) and (c) raises what might seem like an obvious question: how can real estate depreciate, losing value and eventually needing replacement, yet end up selling for more than its purchase price, generating capital gains? Of course a given piece of real estate does not always do both. Some real estate is indeed sold at a loss–for example, if property values in a whole neighborhood or city decline. But land, unlike machinery or even buildings, cannot wear out. Since World War II, urban land in particular and real estate holdings in general have gained in value far more often than they have declined.
How Should Real Estate Income Be Taxed?
In a rising market, federal tax policy allows real estate investors to earn several times more than they could simply by making smart buying and selling decisions. Writing off maintenance expenses and the supposedly declining value of the property before calculating taxable income means that the same property can produce a steady income for realtors and potential investors, but appear to lose money as far as the federal tax collector is concerned.
A tax-smart investor in a rising real estate market will own a piece of property only until it has been fully depreciated. It then has a “book value” of zero—like a piece of machinery so worn out or outdated that it cannot be sold at any price. The owner of such a machine has to junk it and buy a new one. The real estate investor, in contrast, can sell the “zero value” property to new owners, who can depreciate it all over again starting from the new, higher price they paid.
The upshot of these tax policies is that an industry with large total earnings reports little or no taxable income. Charts 3 and 4 show that real estate businesses have reported a negative taxable income frequently since the mid-1980s, despite the fact that real estate values in many places were rising. Since the real estate industry pays hardly any income taxes on its rental income, the major federal tax it does pay is the capital gains tax—for that is where the accumulated rental earnings are taken, when the building is sold for its depreciated value.
Does such favorable tax treatment for real estate benefit the economy as a whole? That question cannot be answered from tax statistics alone. The answer depends in part on whether all real estate projects that are taxed the same way are equally good at generating public benefits, such as jobs in construction and property maintenance, or other needed goods such as housing, shopping, and manufacturing facilities. If the answer to that question is “no,” then the public interest might be better served if funds now invested in real estate for tax advantages alone were invested in new technologies or public infrastructure.
____________________________
Michael Hudson is a research associate at the Jerome Levy Economics Institute at Bard College in New York. He is writing a book about how federal income and capital gains taxes on land and buildings affect national taxation and investment patterns, and he spoke on this topic at the Lincoln Institute in October 1995.
SHARE
Recent court decisions have made economic development and tax policy front-page news. The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London raised a public outcry when it allowed local governments dramatic latitude in acquiring private property for economic development purposes. This case had a fiscal aspect as well, for it illustrated how financial pressures can lead local governments to seek alternatives to direct investment for economic revitalization and redevelopment.
Economic development was also the focus of a major lower court decision on state tax policy. In Cuno v. DaimlerChrysler, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Ohio’s investment tax credit, intended to attract businesses from other states, violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Hellerstein 2005). These and other, similar cases raise many questions about the connections between economic development and tax policy.
Is there a relationship between economic development and infrastructure spending?
Infrastructure, that vast network of capital-intensive services including roads, water provision, sewer services, and electrical supply, is critical to current and future economic activity. However, serious economic examination of the link between infrastructure spending and economic productivity only began in the late 1980s. Aschauer (1989, 194–197) argued that declining infrastructure spending resulted in less economic growth. More recently, Bougheas et al. (2000, 520) reported findings that “highlight the importance of infrastructure accumulation” for productivity gains.
Other researchers have pointed out that the most significant recent changes in infrastructure spending have occurred at the state and local levels, rather than the federal level. Gramlich (1994, 1178) argued that federal infrastructure spending has been fairly consistent over time, but state and local spending has decreased. Holtz-Eakin (1993) cautioned that while public expenditures on infrastructure may be important, they may not directly affect economic productivity. He argued that differing state and local needs may account for many infrastructure spending disparities, and that maintenance of existing infrastructure assets may be more important than new spending for capital acquisition. Boarnet (1997) considered efficient pricing for infrastructure use as important as its actual provision.
Nevertheless, the American Society for Civil Engineers (ASCE) is sufficiently concerned about the condition of infrastructure in the U.S. to assign it a grade of “D.” ASCE (2005) argues that the country needs to spend about $1.6 trillion over the next five years to improve the situation.
What is the relationship between infrastructure spending and local tax systems?
The mechanisms for funding infrastructure and its role in state and local spending are complex. Research in this area deals with such topics as fiscal illusion (i.e., when the complexity of the revenue system obscures the true cost of public goods and services) and specific capital financing strategies used to fund infrastructure. However, there has been little research on the impact of local tax structures on infrastructure spending.
Economists have long argued that the value of publicly provided goods and services, such as infrastructure and its maintenance, are reflected in the value of the property served by those goods. Accordingly, a tax that captures the value of these public goods and services may be an important revenue source for funding them. However, in the last 30 years, local governments have moved away from such a tax, the property tax, to other sources of revenue. In many communities, this shift has produced an increased reliance on state aid, local sales tax revenues, and user fees.
In analyzing infrastructure spending in Utah, it is clear that the local revenue structure affects per capita operating and maintenance spending and new capital acquisition expenditures. Preliminary analysis indicates that communities are more likely to increase per capita infrastructure spending when it is financed by property taxes, all other funding sources held constant. It also appears that as per capita sales tax revenue increases, per capita spending for infrastructure services declines.
How constrained are local revenue systems?
One reason that local government revenue structures affect spending on infrastructure is that the states impose various constraints on local revenue sources. Although the past ten years have seen no dramatic changes in the roles of the property tax, intergovernmental aid, or the sales tax in overall local government revenues, the ratio of total revenues to personal income has fallen about 7.5 percent. This real decline highlights the increasing pressure on local governments to identify new revenue sources.
Yet, local governments face serious constraints when they seek to change their revenue systems. States impose intergovernmental restrictions, such as limits on sales tax rates that localities can impose. Less tangible but equally important is political opposition to tax increases. The third factor is the set of tax and expenditure limitations that many states have enacted, ranging from Proposition 13 in California in 1978 to the more recent taxpayer bill of rights enacted in Colorado, which drastically limited increases in government spending.
These constraints have forced local governments to become more innovative in their revenue-raising methods. An entire cottage industry of financial advisors, bond attorneys, and other public and private sector innovators has emerged to help local governments find ways of loosening or circumventing these limitations. Some strategies may have increased economic efficiency, although they give rise to equity concerns (for example, the movement toward the increased use of fees and charges); others are nearly invisible to the taxpayer. In nearly all cases, local governments have been seeking to use land as a revenue-generating device—a trend that shows no sign of abating.
What are alternative ways to finance capital infrastructure?
Two types of debt traditionally have financed infrastructure projects: general obligation (GO) bonds, backed by the full faith and credit of the issuing locality; and revenue bonds, backed by income from the capital project. Both types of debt have significant restrictions on their use, such as voter approval requirements and caps on maximum indebtedness. These debt limitations, the difficulty in raising property taxes, and the fear of political opposition have increased the use of alternative capital finance methods based on land use.
One longstanding method, tax increment financing (TIF), utilizes the increases in property value to help finance redevelopment projects. Originally designed as a financial instrument to eliminate blight and provide affordable housing, this instrument has become increasingly popular in many states for a variety of projects. Forty-seven states and the District of Columbia now allow this technique.
Capturing the property tax increment attributable to government-sponsored redevelopment in order to service this debt makes economic sense if the new development would not have occurred without the formation of the tax district. Moreover, this debt does not have to be approved by voters, but rather by a group designated by the city government. Not even these two factors explain the extraordinary recent growth in the number and size of TIF districts, however, raising suspicion that this tool may be used more often to attract and subsidize economic growth than to eliminate blight. For example, in 2003–2004, California had 33 TIF redevelopment projects, each of which covered more than 6,000 acres, a surprisingly large area to be declared “blighted” in any one jurisdiction (see Figure 1).
Another popular tool in several states is the community facilities district (CFD), which usually funds new development. Landowners within a region form a CFD to issue debt to finance the infrastructure needed to develop raw land. District members’ votes are typically a function of the amount of property each landowner holds. The local government must approve CFDs, although they are not a formal part of the government and their debt issuance is not subject to approval by the general public.
A lien for CFD assessments is placed on each lot in the district, and the CFD tax liability appears on the property tax bill of each district member as a separate line item. Variations of this technique may utilize sales taxes, impact fees, and user charges. Many rapidly growing local governments encourage the formation of these districts to help finance their community’s growth. Nevertheless, CFDs can be very complex, and may fail if anticipated growth does not occur (see Figure 2).
TIFs, CFDs, and other such techniques present an ethical dilemma to local government. Sometimes they are not fully understood by the political decision makers who authorize their use, let alone by members of the general public who will bear the burden of paying this debt in the future. Yet they remain a popular tool to finance crucial infrastructure that is basic to improving the economic well-being of the community.
Could a land tax help finance infrastructure for economic development?
The land component of property value is another potential source of revenue to encourage economic development. Since the supply of land is fixed in the short run, an increase in a land tax will not affect the tax base. However, it will encourage more intensive use of the land and may slow urban sprawl. Unfortunately, the lack of empirical data makes it difficult to determine if this theory is accurate. One example in the U.S. is the City of Pittsburgh, which in 1979–1980 restructured the tax on land to be five times that on improvements. Building activity showed a dramatic increase, although other factors may have contributed to the change as well (Oates and Schwab 1997). Pittsburgh later returned to a single-rate property tax system.
Increased use of a land tax poses significant problems. In particular, accurately assessing land can be challenging, although statistical and econometric techniques may help address this in the future. A second concern is that more intensive use of land value taxation will lead to denser development, exacerbating many of the problems associated with congestion. These effects must be weighed against the positive benefits of reducing long-distance commuting. A third problem concerns equity. Owners whose property has a high land/improvement ratio will face an increased tax liability. This shift might be mitigated by adjustments in the tax rate, special exemptions or targeted tax credits.
A land tax has the important advantages of transparency and accountability. In particular, if land value increases because of government activities, there is strong justification for recovering at least some of those costs through a tax on the land component. We would even propose a name for this additional tax—a positive externality tax (PET). We recognize that, like any proposed increase in the property tax, such a shift would be politically controversial.
Conclusions
Our current research analyzes relationships among economic development, infrastructure, and the tax system. The fiscal problems of local jurisdictions are made more complex by the use of intricate methods of infrastructure financing, such as TIFs and CFDs, to fund economic development. The use of financing mechanisms based on a land tax may be one part of a potential response to this challenge.
Jeffrey Chapman is professor and director of the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University in Tempe. He specializes in state and local finance and administration of financial resources, and has recently published in the area of local land use responses to fiscal stress.
Rex L. Facer II is assistant professor of public management at the Romney Institute of Public Management of the Marriott School of Management at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. He specializes in city management, public finance, public management strategy, and public policy analysis.
SHARE
Nonprofit organizations operated for charitable purposes in the United States are exempt from most taxes, including investment income, sales, and property taxes. They benefit from the tax deductions that donors receive for charitable contributions, and some nonprofits also benefit from financing raised through tax-exempt bonds. Data allows informed estimates of the size of these tax benefits for most types of charities. However, comprehensive data on religious organizations and governments, both of which are also largely exempt from taxes, are difficult to obtain.
A review of these tax benefits provides a useful perspective on efforts by state and local governments to collect PILOTs (payments in lieu of taxes), which generally focus on nonprofits other than religious organizations (see page 23).
Tax benefits for nonprofits, such as educational institutions, health and human service organizations, foundations, and the arts, were worth about $140 billion in FY2009. About half ($72 billion) was from forgone taxes on investment income, about a third ($46 billion) was the tax benefit for charitable contributions, and about a tenth ($15 billion) was from property tax exemptions. Sales tax exemptions ($3 billion) and benefits from tax-exempt bonds ($5 billion) round out the total.
In 2009, nonprofit property tax exemptions (excluding those for religious organizations) were slightly less than 4 percent of the $400 billion total. Of course, the property tax exemption share varies widely across communities.
The distribution of five types of tax benefits are shown in figure 1 for six categories of nonreligious charitable nonprofits. They are listed in the order of their overall tax benefit, with educational institutions receiving the most benefits and arts organizations the least. The exemption for the tax on investment income has the same ranking as the overall tax benefit, but rankings of the other tax benefits vary widely.
The property tax exemption accrues to those sectors that use property and buildings most extensively, with health having the highest benefit followed by education. Foundations, which figure significantly in income and charitable contribution tax benefits, receive only modest property tax benefits. Sales tax exemptions, the smallest tax benefit in the aggregate, accrue mainly to the health sector.
This summary of the distribution of property taxes by charitable sector makes it clear why local governments have focused their efforts to collect property tax PILOTs on hospitals and universities—that’s where the property tax money is—but most tax benefits for nonprofits come from other sources.
Sources: Totals from An Overview of the Nonprofit and Charitable Sector. 2009. Congressional Research Service (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40919.pdf). Sector allocations based on data from National Center for Charitable Statistics (http://nccs.urban.org) and J. Cordes, M. Gantz, and T. Pollak. 2002. What is the property-tax exemption worth? In Property-tax exemption for charities, ed. E. Brody. Urban Institute Press.
SHARE
Infrastructure (comprising energy, telecommunications, transportation, water supply, and sanitation) plays an important role in urban land development, and it influences city and country productivity. Data on the amount of infrastructure stocks at the national (but, alas, not the metropolitan) level are available for many developing and high-income countries and support several results summarized here.
The amount of infrastructure stocks per capita across countries is strongly related to per capita income levels—when country incomes double, infrastructure stocks nearly double as well. However, country infrastructure stocks have essentially no association with a country’s level of urbanization once country income is taken into account. This seems surprising because cities have large amounts of infrastructure. But they also have dense populations that use the infrastructure intensively, so per capita urban infrastructure stocks are similar to national levels.
The composition of infrastructure stocks also varies systematically with per capita income. Roads have the largest share of infrastructure stocks in the lowest income countries, with water systems second and electric power systems a close third. As country incomes increase, the infrastructure related to electric power systems increases more rapidly than income levels. Infrastructure for water and sewer systems increases less rapidly, and for roads the change is in proportion to income. As a result, in high-income countries electric power systems are the largest component of infrastructure, followed by roads, whereas water, sanitation, and telephone systems comprise only a modest share of their infrastructure.
Based on recent rates of economic growth, and using the existing relations between infrastructure and per capita income, developing countries are likely to need to spend about 5 percent of their GDP on infrastructure (3 percent for expansion and 2 percent for maintenance)—currently about $750 billion annually—to maintain existing ratios between infrastructure and GDP. For high-income countries, total spending would be lower, at 1.7 percent of GDP (about evenly divided between investment and maintenance)—currently about $700 billion annually. Countries growing faster than average need to invest a higher share of their GDP so that infrastructure stocks can keep up with economic growth.
In some countries, improving the efficiency of service production from existing infrastructure is an alternative to new investment. For example, average electricity losses across countries range as high as 25 percent, and leakage and unbilled water can exceed 30 percent. Reducing such high losses can forestall the need for additional capacity. Somewhat surprisingly, performance within countries across sectors varies greatly—efficient performance by a country in one infrastructure sector is uncorrelated with performance in other sectors.
What sources will provide these investment funds, particularly for developing countries? Foreign assistance and development bank financing of infrastructure in developing countries currently total about $40 billion annually, and that figure has more than tripled since 1990 in current dollars. Private investment in infrastructure in developing countries has recently reached $160 billion annually and has grown eight-fold since 1990, also in current dollars. Foreign assistance is directed mainly at energy, transport, and water and sanitation systems, with virtually no funding for telecommunications. In contrast, more than half of private funding goes to telecommunications (particularly mobile telephony), followed by energy. Telecommunications and energy draw more private investment in developing countries because their tariff revenues cover a large share of operating costs, whereas tariff revenues and user fees cover a much smaller share of costs for transport and water and sanitation. Private investment in infrastructure was concentrated in Latin America and East Asia in the 1990s but has spread more evenly across global regions in the 2000s.
Despite the growth in international funding, large and growing metropolitan areas in developing countries still need to raise significant sums to finance infrastructure investments. This will involve raising tariffs charged to users, increasing taxes (particularly property taxes) on properties whose value is enhanced by infrastructure investments, and establishing municipal bond markets such as the one being developed in South Africa.
SHARE
Imagine for a moment that you are a political leader—a prime minister, president, or governor—and you awake to the news that natural disaster has struck. Citizens died, buildings collapsed, infrastructure is hobbled, and local leaders desperately need additional resources and support.
You respond immediately, sending personnel and equipment to the disaster zone and pledging additional assistance to local leaders. Your country, like many around the world, has institutionalized a scalable, tiered response system with regional, state, and national levels of government engaging as disaster-related demands exceed local capacities to respond. Yet within days, even hours—before all the casualties are treated and citizens are accounted for, and before the streets have been cleared of rubble and basic services have been restored—other leaders and the media are demanding answers to questions you haven’t had time to consider: How much money will be pledged to the rebuilding? What standards will guide it? Will all landowners be permitted to rebuild? Who will lead the process? Is a new institution or governance structure needed to cut through bureaucratic red tape and expedite the rebuilding?
This article summarizes ongoing research into the roles of various government levels in successful disaster recovery and rebuilding (table 1). It represents the synthesis of two decades of recovery research and planning practice following some of the largest disasters of our time in the United States, Japan, China, Taiwan, Indonesia, India, New Zealand, Australia, Chile, and elsewhere. Its purpose is to find common lessons in these disparate environments and help facilitate recovery for communities struck by disasters yet to come.
————————
Table 1: Recovery Management Experiences Around the World
Australia
Victoria Bushfire Recovery and Reconstruction Authority
Queensland Reconstruction Authority
Chile
Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (MINVU- Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo)
China
General Headquarters for Earthquake Relief
India
Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority (GSDMA)
Abhiyan
Project Management Unit
Indonesia
Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Agency—BRR
Coordination Team for Rehabilitation and Reconstruction—TTN
Japan
National Reconstruction Agency
New Zealand
Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority
Taiwan
921 Post-Earthquake Recovery Commission
Morakot Post-Disaster Reconstruction Council
United States
Lower Manhattan Development Corporation
Louisiana Recovery Authority
————————
Recovery Management Around the World
Governments tasked with post-disaster reconstruction face an extraordinary set of management challenges. The first is the compression of activities in time, focused in space, as cities built over the course of decades if not centuries are destroyed or damaged suddenly and must be rebuilt in a fraction of the time it took to construct them. From this tension develops a second challenge: a keen tension between speed and deliberation, as the various recovery actors in stricken communities move with urgency while aiming to make thoughtful and deliberate decisions, to ensure optimal long-term recovery. From both these phenomena a third challenge arises: the need for immediate access to a deep wealth of money and information—the two currencies of the post-disaster recovery environment.
To meet these demands, governments in every country after every large disaster create new relief agencies or significantly rearrange existing organizations. The most common reason for these post-disaster governance transformations is lack of capacity. Governments still need to attend to their normal daily affairs while they coordinate the reconstruction or reinvention of impacted communities, so they appoint an entity that can focus daily attention on rebuilding while coordinating the recovery-related activities of multiple government agencies. Commonly designed to serve a variety of purposes and governmental settings, these recovery agencies provide a range of substantive functions as they rebuild infrastructure, housing, and economic activity. They differ depending on the type and scale of coordination they provide; the scope of their authority, especially regarding the flow of money and information; and the level of government they serve—at either the national, state, or intergovernmental level.
National governments handle very large disasters at the top political tier, mobilizing financial resources from national reserves or international aid and providing capacity support to lower levels of government in the disaster-stricken locality. When large disasters transcend state or provincial boundaries, national governments also assume active roles in developing recovery policies, and they create recovery organizations to assist them. Examples include Japan’s National Reconstruction Agency, established after the 2011 earthquake and tsunami; New Zealand’s Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, created after the 2010 and 2011 earthquake sequence in Christchurch; and China’s General Headquarters for Earthquake Relief following the 2008 disaster in Wenchuan. Each of these international bodies hewed to the national administrative leadership, derived authority from the top rung of government, and articulated policies approved by the reigning administration.
Similarly, state-level recovery agencies are usually created in direct response to disasters that affect a region or other subnational jurisdiction. The authorities and legalities of these entities are more limited by their authorizing body’s secondary, subnational position in government. Examples include the Gujarat State’s Disaster Management Authority (GSDMA), created after the 2001 earthquake in western India; Louisiana’s Recovery Authority, founded after Hurricane Katrina in 2005; Victoria State’s Bushfire Reconstruction and Recovery Authority (VBRRA), established after the 2009 Australian bushfires; and Queensland State’s Reconstruction Authority, founded after the summer 2010–2011 floods in Australia.
A third class of organizations are designed to operate between levels of government, such as the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, created as a state and city partnership for recovery planning and funding following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York City. Another example, the Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Agency (BRR) created in Aceh, Indonesia, following the 2004 tsunami, consisted of three independent agencies whose membership came from a wide range of local and national stakeholders. Likewise, the Indonesian government’s Coordination Team for Rehabilitation and Reconstruction (TTN), following the 2006 earthquake in Yogyakarta and Central Java, was designed to provide a bridge between national agencies and local agencies, and it also monitored and investigated local implementation issues.
In some cases, governments choose to modify or adapt existing institutions and procedures to help manage recovery. For example, Chile established a national interministerial task force after the 2010 earthquake and tsunami, but the existing Ministry of Housing and Urban Development took on expanded roles and responsibilities and managed the national planning and implementation efforts.
The Mastery of Money, Information, Collaboration, and Time
Considering these factors, common to all post-disaster recovery settings, our research demonstrates that the key to governing large-scale crises effectively is the mastery of money, information, collaboration, and time. For this article, we offer here some best practice examples and lessons learned from our various country-organization studies.
1. Managing Money: Sourcing and distributing recovery funding efficiently, effectively, and equitably.
When large amounts of public funds are involved in a disaster cleanup, the true power over the recovery resides with the level of government that controls the flow of money and how it is acquired, allocated, disbursed, and audited. Sometimes, the recovery organization assumes all or some of these powers, and sometimes all funding authority continues to reside where it did before the disaster, in the same legislative and administrative branches. Important functions in the post-disaster environment include setting policies and priorities for allocating large sums of recovery funding and establishing accounting systems that allow for timely disbursal of critical financing while also providing transparency and minimizing corruption.
Some organizations, such as India’s state-level GSDMA, are established specifically to collect all the recovery funds in one place and then allocate and disburse them. Some, such as one of the three legs of Indonesia’s intergovernmental BRR, are created to independently audit and monitor the expenditures of recovery implementation organizations. In contrast, the state-level Louisiana Recovery Authority recommended funding priorities to the state and provided oversight as needed, but it had no direct control over recovery funds. Japan’s National Reconstruction Agency received national funding and allocates that money to the relevant national ministries and local governments.
2. Increasing Information Flows: Effectively gathering, integrating, and disseminating information to enhance decision making and actions by all recovery actors.
A critical demand is to accelerate and broaden the flows of information among recovery actors about the dynamics of reconstruction actions and emergent opportunities. This challenge includes the planning and public engagement processes that provide information to citizens and institutions involved in the recovery, facilitate communication and innovations among recovery actors, and convey citizen concerns to government agencies and NGOs in a timely manner. It also includes providing information between both governmental and nongovernmental organizations and establishing forums to facilitate coordination.
In Victoria, Australia, after the 2009 bushfires, national and state leaders worked with affected communities to form more than 30 local recovery committees, which were then charged with developing a community recovery plan that identified local priorities and projects. These committees were used by state and national governments as focal points for local funding distribution and by local communities to raise additional funds and establish local policy guidance for rebuilding. In Yogyakarta, Java, after the 2006 earthquake, TTN kept a variety of local and national agencies mutually informed of each other’s activities—which, in turn, helped to provide early alerts to officials regarding potential problems.
A critical function appropriately provided by a government-supported agency is the acquisition, synthesis, and distribution of basic information on damage, reconstruction activities, population, social and economic issues, and various recovery indicators. Such agencies issue regular progress reports and monitor recovery indicators, as both Japan’s National Reconstruction Agency and New Zealand’s Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority have done, using a variety of communication mechanisms, including website postings, press releases, newsletters, and forums. Frequent information from credible sources can help to ensure that all actors understand the current recovery environment, and it can also help reduce the spread of rumors and misinformation.
3. Supporting Collaboration: Building sustainable capacity and capability for long-term recovery through genuine collaboration and coordination, both horizontally among local groups and vertically among different levels of government.
Vertically organized, hierarchical agencies—with clear organizational charts and streamlined channels of communication—are usually not well suited to manage disaster recovery, because the lack of “connecting flow” across vertical hierarchies limits collaboration as well as the flow of new and updated information among organizations. U.S. national agencies involved in recovery, for example, are more adept at administering individual programs than they are at solving complex problems that cut across governmental institutional boundaries.
By contrast, horizontally organized agencies can promote interagency coordination and information sharing, allowing individual groups to adapt to new contexts and information while remaining responsible to their parent organization. If multiple states or local jurisdictions are involved, cooperation among multiple jurisdictions is essential. Technical assistance and capacity building for the key recovery actors is also important for building local capabilities to sustain long-term recovery.
After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Governor Kathleen Blanco appointed the members of the Louisiana Recovery Authority, so it was technically an extension of the state-level administration. But the legislature eventually formalized it. As an intentionally bipartisan body, it operated independently as it interacted with both U.S. national officials and local governments, made policy recommendations, and provided oversight of state agency recovery activities. Even though its power was limited to making policy recommendations, it was able to exert considerable influence at multiple levels in a very politically contentious atmosphere. It also collaborated with U.S. national agencies to set standards for long-term community recovery planning and helped match technical assistance and provide other planning resources at regional, local, and neighborhood scales.
Because they carried the authority of state leaders, India’s GSMDA and Queensland Australia’s reconstruction authority were able to successfully coordinate the activities of other state agencies. Similarly, Chile’s MINVU and Taiwan’s national recovery agencies have had the centralized authority to coordinate activities of other national agencies. Abhiyan, an NGO officially endorsed by the Gujarat government in India but without any defined governmental authority, also played a crucial role in coordinating the work of hundreds of NGOs and in establishing a network of local subcenters to provide information and technical support.
The hierarchical recovery process after the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake in China succeeded in quickly reconstructing buildings, but it left little room for local innovation, as it lacked genuine local capacity building and involvement in decision making. Because local conditions were not always considered, economic recovery appears to be uneven.
Likewise, in many tsunami-affected communities in the Tohoku region of Japan, recovery has stalled because the hierarchical system established under the national government and the National Recovery Agency leaves insufficient room for local innovation. Furthermore, within the complex and powerful Japanese ministry system, the National Reconstruction Agency lacks power to compel actions by other ministries.
Increasingly, research shows that if residents are partners in reconstruction planning, they are tolerant of delays, and they are more satisfied with the results. Still, even the best examples of decentralized processes involve an agency at the top establishing the framework and rules. This trend strongly suggests that governments should resist the urge to manage the details of reconstruction and act less as managers and more as coordinators and facilitators of the process.
4. Balancing Time Constraints: Effectively meeting the immediate and pressing local needs of recovery while also successfully capitalizing on opportunities for longterm betterment.
Governments face a balancing act as they confront the tensions between speed and deliberation, and between restoration and betterment. The most fundamental way to address these challenges is to increase information flows, as described above. But recovery agencies have found several other specific ways to attain both speed and improvement.
To hasten reconstruction, there are often opportunities to streamline normal bureaucratic processes of decision making, especially regarding construction permits, without compromising quality. Because such processes often involve multiple agencies, a recovery agency can be helpful to the extent that it can facilitate or compel line agencies to cooperate more effectively.
New Zealand’s parliament conferred upon the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and its minister a wide range of unilateral powers that would enable the timely and coordinated recovery of greater Christchurch. Parliament continued the emergency authorities granted under previous legislation and extended the expiration date of those authorities where appropriate; permitted the minister to acquire land compulsorily; and allowed the suspension of any part or all of the national land use, local government, and transport management, plans or policies developed under various acts. It directed CERA to prepare a draft recovery strategy within nine months of its authorization. Similarly, it issued the Christchurch city council a nine-month deadline to draft a recovery plan for the city’s damaged central business district.
Most recovery agencies include disaster risk reduction in their reconstruction policies. A common recovery slogan is “build back better.” The slogan of the Louisiana Recovery Authority was “Safer, Stronger, Smarter.” The easiest form of post-disaster betterment is to adopt disaster-resistant building standards. The incorporation of new structural standards need not slow down the rebuilding process, but land use improvements such as relocating neighborhoods or entire communities can require considerable time for planning and land acquisition. These projects involve difficult tradeoffs between speed, design quality, and public involvement. New Zealand is undertaking a major buyout of neighborhoods that sustained heavy damage in the 2010–2011 earthquakes and remain vulnerable to damage from future tremors. Japan is encouraging relocation of coastal communities from tsunami hazard areas, and some of these will likely take up to ten years to complete.
One way to manage these goals simultaneously is to support participatory planning processes to create long-term betterment while also trying to meet immediate needs. In many cases, professional planners worked with neighborhoods—in Japan, Chile, New Orleans, and Bhuj, India, for example—but each project also involved difficult compromises in order to meet time constraints. Victoria and Queensland’s creation of local recovery planning committees, however, are great examples of state and national support systems that helped build local capacity to carry forward the rebuilding processes over time.
Next Steps in our Research
Governments know that their task is to manage information and money flows among many actors in a compressed time. Up to this point, we have identified many examples of how to accomplish this. But, even better, we would like to be able to create menus of organizational and process choices, based on combinations of disaster magnitude and scope and economic, political, environmental, and governmental contexts.
We also have several remaining questions: Why do many of the same institutional problems continue to appear from one disaster to the next, and is there a way to avoid repeating some of them? What are the effective outcomes—negative and positive—of these institutional arrangements that may inform future leaders facing similar reconstruction challenges? What specific kinds of technical assistance and capacity building should international donors and national governments focus on providing for local governmental and non-governmental organizations, so they can do their jobs better during the recovery process? In large-scale disasters, how do the tiered goals of a recovery (i.e. rebuilding households, neighborhoods, cities, regions, nations) relate to each other, in terms of consistency, efficiency, and effectiveness? And what happens when these disaster-related organizations cease to exist? Is the local capacity and capability in place for long-term community sustainability? By studying varied national and organizational experiences, we can better understand how the time compression phenomenon of post-disaster recovery affects other theoretical constructs guiding public policy and city management; planning, land development and growth management; and fiscal and capital management.
About the Authors
Co-authors of Clear As Mud: Planning for the Rebuilding of New Orleans (2010, APA Planners Press), Laurie A. Johnson and Robert B. Olshansky are currently collaborating on a Lincoln Institute book and policy focus report on governing post-disaster recovery. For the past two decades, they have been researching and practicing post-disaster recovery planning following urban disasters around the world. Johnson is an urban planner based in San Francisco and specializing in disaster recovery and catastrophe risk management. Olshansky is professor of urban and regional planning at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Contact: laurie@lauriejohnsonconsulting.com or robo@illinois.edu
References
Alesch, Daniel J., Lucy A. Arendt, and James N. Holly. 2009. Managing for Long-term Community Recovery in the Aftermath of Disaster. Fairfax, VA: Public Entity Risk Institute.
Chandrasekhar, Divya and Robert B. Olshansky. 2007. Managing Development After Catastrophic Disaster: A Study of Organizations That Coordinated Post-Disaster Recovery in Aceh and Louisiana. Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Olshansky, Robert B., Lewis D. Hopkins, and Laurie A. Johnson. 2012. Disaster and recovery: Processes compressed in time. Natural Hazards Reviews. 13(3):173–178.
Olshansky, Robert B., Laurie A. Johnson, and Kenneth C. Topping. 2006. Rebuilding communities following disaster: Lessons from Kobe and Los Angeles. Built Environment. 32(4): 354–374.
Smith, G., and Dennis Wenger. 2007. Sustainable disaster recovery: Operationalizing an existing agenda. In Handbook of disaster research (Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research). ed. Havidan Rodriguez, 234–257. New York, NY: Springer.
SHARE
Strengthening Municipal Fiscal Health in China
Since 2013, Zhi Liu has been a senior research fellow and director of the China Program at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, and director of the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy (PLC). Prior, Zhi was lead infrastructure specialist at the World Bank, where he worked for 18 years, with operational experiences in a number of developing countries.
Zhi received a B.S. in economic geography from Dr. Sun Yat-Sen University (China), a M.S. in city and regional planning from Nanjing University (China), and a Ph.D. in urban planning from Harvard University.
LAND LINES: The Lincoln Institute recently initiated a global research agenda on municipal fiscal health. This effort arises from the recognition that a number of cities in the United States and in many other countries including China suffer financial hardship. What is the nature of municipal fiscal distress in China?
ZHI LIU: It’s very different from the financial troubles faced by cities in the United States. The two countries are at very different stages of urbanization. While the U.S. is highly urbanized, with more than 80 percent of citizens living in urban areas, according to the 2010 census, China is only halfway through the urbanization process. Today, 750 million Chinese citizens live in cities, accounting for 55 percent of the total population. By 2050, the urban population is expected to reach 1.1 billion, or 75 percent of the total population. Over the last two decades, with the exception of a few mining cities, almost all municipalities have seen rapid population growth and spatial expansion, generating a significant demand for public investment in urban infrastructure.
In China, the main sources of funding for urban infrastructure investment are revenues from land concessions and local borrowing from commercial banks, often using land as collateral. Urban land is owned by the state, and rural land is collectively owned by villages. The Land Administration Law stipulates that only the state has the power to convert rural land into urban use. This sets the stage for the municipal governments to take rural land for urban development through the land concession process. As it goes, municipal governments expropriate rural land, service it with infrastructure, and sell the land use rights to real estate developers. The compensation to farmers for the farmland taken is low, based on the land’s agricultural production value instead of market value for urban use. When the demand for real estate development is high, the land concession fees are bid high, and the municipal governments stand to collect a huge amount of revenues. For the last 10 years, revenues from land concessions have accounted for more than one-third of total local fiscal revenues.
Moreover, municipal governments further expand their financing capacity by using land assets as collateral to secure commercial loans from commercial banks. Before a recent amendment, the Chinese Budget Law did not permit local governments to borrow. However, most municipal governments bypassed the law by creating their own local financing vehicles—known as urban development investment corporations (UDICs)—that borrowed commercial loans or issued corporate bonds for the governments. The size of outstanding local debts has grown rapidly over the last few years, reaching at least one-third of the GDP now.
The land-based financing mechanism has helped municipal governments in China raise a significant amount of funds for capital investment. However, the success has also created incentive for municipal governments to rely on land concessions and UDICs too heavily. Today, China’s economy is growing more slowly than before, and the mechanism is running out of steam in many localities where conversion of rural land for urban use exceeds the real demand. Some cities have borrowed much more than they can repay, leaving them heavily indebted.
Many empirical studies, including some funded by the Lincoln Institute, find that China’s land-based financing mechanism is one of the main causes of other urban issues that we face today. Skyrocketing housing prices, growing local debts, excessive land-taking, growing tension between the farmers and municipal governments over land-taking, and widening gaps of income and wealth distribution between urban and rural populations are among the major issues.
LL: The international mass media has been reporting on these issues. How will China address them?
ZL: There is a high level of consensus on the root causes of the problems. In November 2013, the central government announced a set of reforms, and a few are directly related to urbanization policy and municipal finance. For example, the scope of land expropriation will be narrowed to the confine of public purposes, and villages are allowed to develop their land for urban use under the premise that it conforms to planning. The reforms also call for acceleration of property tax legislation; reform of hukou, the household residential registration system, to help farmers become urban residents; and government efforts to make basic urban public services available to all permanent residents in cities, including all rural-to-urban migrants.
LL: What are the implications of hukou reform on municipal finance?
ZL: The government is phasing out China’s longstanding hukou system, and the implications for municipal finance will be significant. Hukou was designed to identify a citizen as a resident of a certain locality, but for several decades the government used the system to control rural-to-urban migration. A rural hukou holder could not become an urban hukou holder without the government’s approval. Without urban hukou, a rural migrant worker is not eligible for public services provided by the urban governments.
Since the economic reform, the expanding urban economy has absorbed a large number of rural-to-urban migrant workers. Earlier, I mentioned China’s urbanization rate of 55 percent and urban population of 750 million. These numbers include the 232 million rural migrants who stay in cities for more than half a year. If they were excluded from the calculation, the level of urbanization would be just 38 percent. Due to their rural hukou status, however, migrant workers don’t have access to many services enjoyed by urban hukou holders, despite the fact that many have labored and lived in cities for years. Municipal governments determine the extent of many urban public services—such as public schools and affordable housing—according to the number of urban hukou holders inside the municipal jurisdiction. Phasing out hukou would significantly increase the fiscal burden to the municipal governments for public service provision. Some scholars in China estimate that the cost of providing full urban public services to each rural migrant would be at least RMB 100,000 (roughly $16,000 U.S.). The total outlays for all current rural migrants would be at least RMB 23 trillion (about $3.8 trillion U.S.).
LL: China is introducing the residential property tax. What is the status of that initiative?
ZL: The government is drafting the first national property tax law as part of the ongoing reform of public finance. China is one of only a handful of countries without a local property tax. The current taxation system relies heavily upon taxes on businesses and transactions, and very little upon taxes on household income and wealth. In a more urbanized China with a wealthier population who own residential properties, the property tax would be a more viable source of municipal revenues. Today, 89 percent of urban households own one or more residential units, and the value of those properties has much to do with urban public services. Property tax will allow cities to tax urban residential properties whose value would benefit from the improved public services made possible by property tax revenues. It should also fill part of the fiscal gap left by the expected reduction of revenues from land concessions. However, property tax will not be a major source of municipal revenues any time soon. It may take one or two more years for the National People’s Congress to pass the new law. It would also take perhaps two to three years for cities to establish the property database and assessment and administration system.
LL: It must be tough for cities to deal with declining revenues from land concessions without an immediate alternative—especially as they are coping with growing local debt, which has been widely reported. How will Chinese cities get out of this situation?
ZL: The situation is indeed tough. China’s economy is slowing down. The real estate sector is no longer as hot as it was in the last 10 years, resulting in lower demand for land and thus lower revenues from land concessions for municipal governments. Cities are now facing a fiscal gap. One possible way to fill the gap would be local government borrowing. However, as I mentioned earlier, many cities are indebted and have little capacity to borrow further. In fact, most cities in China do not have adequate capacity for debt management. The newly amended budget law permits provincial-level governments to issue bonds within the limit set by the State Council, but also closes the door on other forms of local government borrowing. Currently, the central government actively promotes infrastructure financing through public-private partnerships (PPP). While this is a good move, it won’t be sufficient to fill the infrastructure financing gap, as PPP is suitable mainly for infrastructure projects with a strong revenue flow. There are many other urban infrastructure projects that generate little or no revenues. In the long term, I believe that China should actively establish a municipal government bond market to channel funds from institutional investors to municipal infrastructure investment and enable local governments to access commercial loans based on creditworthiness. To do so, municipal governments need to develop institutional capacity on several fronts, such as local debt management, capital improvement planning, multiyear financial planning, and municipal infrastructure asset management.
LL: Is PLC’s work relevant to the current reform?
ZL: The PLC was jointly established by the Lincoln Institute and Peking University in 2007. By the time I arrived, in 2013, the center had developed its reputation as one of China’s premier research and training institutions on urban development and land policy issues. The center supports a number of activities, including research, training, academic exchange, policy dialogue, research fellowship, demonstration projects, and publication. We focus on five core themes—property taxation and municipal finance, land policy, urban housing, urban development and planning, and urban environment and conservation. Over the last few years, our research projects have touched upon land-based finance, local debts, housing prices, infrastructure capital investment and finance, and other topics relevant to municipal fiscal health. We have also provided training to Chinese government agencies on the international experiences of property tax assessment and administration. I would say that our work is highly relevant to the current reform.
Implementation of the new comprehensive policy reforms is generating considerable demand for international knowledge and policy advice in the China Program’s focus areas, especially property taxation and municipal finance. We plan to initiate a pilot demonstration project with one or two selected cities in China, to support the institutional capacity required for the development of long-term municipal fiscal health. Our team has started a study to develop a set of indicators to measure municipal fiscal health for Chinese cities. It is the right time for us to initiate this agenda in China.
