Scholars and public officials concerned with social justice consider redistribution of land values to be an especially important objective of urban policy in Latin American countries, where great differences in access to scarce urban infrastructure and services result in an unfair distribution of land values. However, value capture policies and instruments used in principle to “redistribute the valorization gain” or “promote redistribution of land value increments” are rejected by some progressive sectors because they believe that, in spite of the redistributive connotation, those instruments are not really aimed at redistribution in practice.1 This article explores a number of questions that must be addressed to achieve a better understanding of the value capture concept and its potential to play a truly redistributive role in Latin America.

The Distributive Principle and the Redistributive Goal

The basic principle of value capture 2 is to return to the community the land value increments resulting from community action. The most usual way to define those increments is to focus on particular increases in land value that result from specific and dated public actions. The corresponding value capture instruments could, therefore, be thought of as devices to recover for the public the increase in land value associated with public actions that otherwise would be captured by private entities. The aim of this distributive policy is to restore a previous state of distribution that, in essence, is taken as a proper or given one.

An alternative interpretation is based on the principle stated by Henry George that all land value, irrespective of its origin, is the product of community effort. In this view, only when all of the land value is taken into consideration and the goal of altering the current state of land value distribution is introduced can the value capture idea acquire a truly redistributive perspective.

Redistributing land values is but one of the possible goals of urban land policy. Other goals are raising public revenues to finance urban services, regulating and managing urban land uses, and controlling undesirable outcomes of the functioning of urban land markets. That is, redistribution may be a guide to more progressive distributive policies, but it is not necessarily the basic principle of value capture.

Thus, we can distinguish between the distributive principle of value capture policies-to restore a certain state of distribution-and a redistributive goal of urban land policies-to alter a certain state of distribution. This distinction allows us to address the confusion about distribution and redistribution applied to land values and to the value capture idea.

The Practice of Value Capture in Latin America

In its generic sense, the value capture idea applies to any levy or planning tool intended to distribute land value increments. Almost all Latin American countries have experience with the property tax, and many have other planning tools such as the compulsory donation of land for public purposes in land parceling or subdivision projects. Historically, the development of the value capture idea has been associated with a specific instrument known as Contribución de Valorización/Mejoras. This special assessment or valorization charge, incorporated into the legislation of most Latin American countries, aims at capturing a portion of special benefits (land valorization) that arise from public investments in infrastructure and services, to finance such investments.

Even with this narrow definition, the implementation of value capture has been limited and controversial. Both the political influence of landowners and the technical (but also often legal) shortcomings of adequately assessing land values have been identified as restraints to its use in many countries. Colombia is perhaps the only country with an established tradition of using the instrument, but even there its implementation is subject to serious limitations. Some observers acknowledge its incapacity for redistribution and others claim it frequently loses the link with the distributive principle and becomes simply a practical way to pay the community for the costs of a public action that generates benefits for only some individuals.

A closer look at concrete Latin America experiences with the implementation of value capture instruments leads to a disturbing conclusion. Rather than evolving from the ethical principle of fairness, whereby the increment of land value resulting from community action returns to the community, the value capture idea seems to have been adopted in Latin America as a pragmatic cost-recovery mechanism to overcome the chronic shortage of public revenues to finance urban infrastructure. The major goal of such value capture instruments has been ultimately to raise public revenues, whether based on a distributive principle or not.

Linking Value Capture and Redistribution

Even when the distributive principle is secured, the goal of raising public revenues can differ from or even contradict other goals of urban land policy, including the important redistributive goal. For instance, when a public investment in urban infrastructure generates land value increments in a highly valued area, and then associated income from the use of a value capture instrument is reinvested in the same area, the result is not redistributive and can even be regressive.

To understand the contradictions that arise between the traditional use of value capture instruments to raise general revenues and the necessity of incorporating the redistribution goal into those policies, we need to consider value capture as a more comprehensive concept. Even when limited to its usual definition centered on specific land value increments, at least three non-autonomous public actions or decisions must be associated with the distributive principle of value capture:

1. an original public action (regulation, investment, etc.) that results in land value increments;

2. a second action to capture (some of) this value; and

3. a third action related to the destination or use of collected resources.

While the second action implies the use of a general or specific value capture instrument, the first and third actions, though related to specific decisions, cannot be separated from two basic questions concerning public decisions as a whole: How are public works allocated in space, and how is the general revenue distributed?

Allocation of public works

When raising revenues and promoting redistribution are concurrent goals, the second does not necessarily follow the first. In Latin America these goals are often contradictory. Under conditions of highly uneven distribution of wealth and scarce funds to finance public works, it is usually easier to guarantee the raising of revenues through the allocation of public works (original action) in areas where more absolute revenues can be collected. Even with the use of a value capture instrument, when the subsequent decision (destination of resources) maintains the same state of wealth distribution, the whole public action becomes regressive.

On the other hand, rejection of value capture instruments does not prevent the misallocation of public works. In fact, it just contributes to the status quo. For example, the facelift of Copacabana in Rio de Janeiro, which replaced old trees and modernized sidewalks, was financed by the general revenue, not by a specific value capture device. However, many of the poor areas of the city have neither sidewalks nor a single tree on their streets. Recognizing this irony reinforces the need for a new framework for value capture policies that can allocate public works more equitably.

Distribution of general revenue

Latin America presents extreme relative and absolute differences in public infrastructure provision, calling for equity criteria to evaluate distributive policies. Yet, equity criteria are subjective and there are distinct visions on what is fair. Given the disparities in wealth and in access to serviced land, it is important to consider not only relative differences but also the absolute differences between highest and lowest levels.

To illustrate this point we can apply the classic redistributive argument to the distribution of land values in a society with 10 units of wealth (i.e., land value) distributed between two groups: the higher group has 8 units or 80 percent of the wealth and the lower group has 2 units (see Table 1). This example can represent the typical differences between serviced areas occupied by the rich and unserviced areas occupied by the poor in Latin American cities. An increase of 50 percent in this wealth (5 total units), if distributed in the same ratio, does not change relative differences, but the absolute difference between the two groups is increased by 50 percent, from 6 to 9 units.

TABLE 1: Distributive Value Capture Policies Total Wealth Lower Group Higher Group Relative Differences Absolute Difference original: 10 units 2 units 8 units 1:4 6 units increased: 15 units 3 units (2+1) 12 units (8+4) 1:4 9 units

Another important consideration is the level of the group in the lowest position. Value capture instruments are justified as distributive tools to return to the community special benefits resulting from a public action that only some individuals receive. But that justification in turn raises the need to clearly separate special benefits from basic needs. If we consider access to urban infrastructure as a basic need, the society must decide on the minimum level of access for the lower group. Priority should be given to actions that achieve those minimum levels before other benefits accrue to the higher group. If this society decides that the minimum level of wealth should be 6 units for the lower group, then an increment of 5 units of land value would be distributed in such a way as to decrease both relative differences and absolute differences (see Table 2).

TABLE 2: Linking Value Capture and Redistribution Total Wealth Lower Group Higher Group Relative Differences Absolute Differences original: 10 units 2 units 8 units 1:4 6 units increased: 15 units 6 units (2+4) 9 units (8+1) 2:3 3 units

Value Capture and Socio-spatial Equity

Urban planning decisions, such as the norms and regulations on land use and development rights, also affect the distribution of urban land values and must be integrated into value capture policies. In Latin America, where the differences in access to public infrastructure and urban services are marked by severe social segregation and exclusion, this integration implies the inclusion of a socio-spatial dimension that can deal with the disparities between serviced rich center cities (for the few) and unserviced poor peripheries (for the majority). Therefore, land value redistribution policies acquire a particular political context in which the generation of land value increments and the destination of corresponding funds are fixed in distinct socio-economic areas of the city.

However, even when this socio-spatial dimension is incorporated, most redistributive value capture instruments provide necessary but not sufficient conditions for a better distribution of land values. While redistribution from rich areas to all areas involves altering the distribution of general revenue to achieve its equity objective, redistribution from all areas to poor areas involves altering the allocation of public works and/or development rights on land to arrive at a better distribution of land values.

Since these approaches involve greater institutional changes, a third option seeks to stimulate the generation of land value increments in rich areas in order to raise revenues that can be redistributed to poor areas. These so-called “Robin Hood” policies are being considered to deal with urgent needs in poor areas, combined with specific opportunities and demands in rich areas. One example is the “linkage operation” recently popularized in many large Brazilian cities, where the negotiation of legal exceptions for development generates payments earmarked for social housing. However, a careful examination of this transfer tool shows that stimulation of land value increments in rich areas actually increases intra-urban differentiation and as a result may exacerbate the gap between rich and poor areas.

This and other largely unanticipated perverse outcomes show that the development of value capture policies and instruments for Latin American countries cannot be considered independently from an urban land policy oriented to the reduction of socio-spatial inequalities. The latter can be attained only by direct actions geared to altering the current distribution pattern of land values. This means that redistribution, although not necessarily implied in the value capture idea, must be incorporated deliberately into the development of distributive value capture policies.

Guidelines for Implementing Value Capture Policies

This discussion reinforces the argument that value capture policies in Latin America must be preceded by changes in the process of distributing land values in the broadest sense, especially where redistribution is pursued as a major goal of urban policy. This perspective would help to consider in an integrated manner, in each public decision concerning a specific way of distributing urban land values, several other ways in which the public sector contributes to this distribution, including:

• the way taxes on land are designed and collected;
• the way public revenue is allocated for public works;
• the way specific value capture instruments are applied (or not);
• the way the collected resources are apportioned; and
• the way land uses and development rights are defined.

The potential and limits of specific value capture instruments are conditioned by those distributional public actions and decisions. When specific value capture instruments are used independently from this consideration, the whole process may be undermined. Collection of land taxes is usually neglected; public investments tend to be allocated unjustly; political impediments to the use of value capture instruments abound; revenues are not distributed in a socially equitable manner; development rights are incorporated in ownership rights, etc. As a consequence, redistribution cannot be attained and the distributive principle is imperiled.

The challenge in Latin America, then, is to work out the preconditions for improved use of the value capture idea, rather than simply to focus on overcoming procedural difficulties in applying existing instruments or to reject those instruments in favor of replacement tools usually subject to similar shortcomings. To have a chance of being truly redistributive, these distributional decisions should account for all components of land value, including accumulated, potential and specific increments, not only land value increments in the strictest sense. Efforts in this direction may contribute to a redistributive perspective on value capture policies.

How much value capture is “enough” will vary among countries, but the balance of policies should include these basic guidelines:

• improvement and strengthening of the property tax, especially its land component based on all of the land value as opposed to specific land value increments;
• universalization of the provision of public infrastructure and urban services (i.e., basic needs as opposed to special benefits); and
• socially responsible approach to the definition and regulation of ownership rights and development rights on land.

These guidelines are strongly associated with urban land value increments in the broadest sense, and they can be used to reduce absolute and relative socio-spatial differences. If they continue to be neglected, and value capture policies are confined to specific land value increments, attempts at redistribution in Latin American countries are bound to fail. Furthermore, the implementation of value capture instruments will continue to serve as an anti-social mechanism that only exacerbates the already great differences between rich and poor.

Fernanda Furtado is a fellow of the Lincoln Institute. She received a dissertation fellowship from the Institute to help complete her Ph.D. thesis on “Urban Land Value Recapture in Latin America” at the Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism at the University of São Paulo, Brazil.

See the Latin American Program and Land Lines sections of this website for additional articles and reports on this topic in both English and Spanish.

Notes

1 See Donald Shoup, “Is under-investment in public infrastructure an anomly?” in Gareth A. Jones and Peter Ward, eds. 1994. Methodology for Land and Housing Market Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Shoup’s piece includes the debate held during the 1991 Fitzwilliam Workshop on Land Values and Land Valorization in Developing Countries at the University of Cambridge on whether value capture instruments are intended to redistribute the valorization gain or are just a device to strengthen government finance.

2 It would be more precise to speak of value recapture, because besides better representing public interventions in order to return to the community the unearned land value captured by private entities, the term alludes to redistribution as a specific way of developing such policies. However, the more generic term value capture is used in this article.

The lack of affordable serviced land for the urban poor is one of the most important issues on the Latin American land policy agenda.1 This shortage of serviced land and the subsequent illegal occupation of unserviced land are characteristic features of Latin American cities, especially in the urban peripheries and in areas unsuited to or restricted from the formal property market by topographic and environmental conditions.

An immediate consequence of this shortage is the overvaluation of land that is serviced. In effect, the provision of services usually increases the price of land by more than the cost of the services. Typically, raw land at the fringe, when designated as urban, is valued at US$5-10 per square meter. The provision of all services costs about US$20-30 per square meter, but the market price may be as much as US$50-100 per square meter. At this price, a 150-square-meter lot of serviced land is equivalent to at least three times the annual income of the majority of poor urban families. In most Latin American cities at least 25 percent of the population falling below the poverty line can barely survive, let alone pay for overpriced land.

Poor people in illegal settlements thus pay a higher price for land than residents in other parts of the city, and they pay more for services such as water, which they have to acquire from private vendors, as well as food, building materials and other consumer goods. Furthermore, their risk for disease is higher due to poor sanitation and limited access to medical facilities.

The Problem of Irregular Occupancy

It should be no surprise that 60 to 70 percent of land in Latin American cities is occupied irregularly, illegally or even clandestinely, with most housing stock being self-built incrementally over decades. In Mexico, the phenomenon of irregularity in land tenure can be seen as a way of life, given its important political and even cultural context. Low-income families find that the only way they can settle in the cities is by acquiring or invading illegal or irregular land.

The message transmitted to younger generations and others who seek housing has been clear: settle wherever you can, and don’t worry because some day the state will regularize your lot.2 This cultural attitude reinforces the perversity of the vicious cycle: the higher the expectation regarding the eventual regularization of irregular settlements, the higher the price that land sub-dividers may charge to sell unserviced or partially serviced land. The mere act of parceling the land raises the price two or three times, so again the poor pay more for land than buyers in the formal market.

Two important policy corollaries relate to this anticipation of land appreciation resulting from future regularization. First, public actions to regularize land have not solved the problem of access to land for the urban poor; rather, regularization is part of the problem because it feeds into the “industry of irregularization.” We must consider a serious restructuring or even the termination of this perverse policy and create other ways to offer serviced land to those who need it.

Second, this process also exposes a fallacy regarding the (in)capacity of the poor to pay for some urban services. They are already paying for at least part of their services, albeit to the landowner/sub-divider as a private “land tax” that could otherwise be collected publicly. The focus of the discussion is therefore misplaced. The issue is not so much whether the poor should pay or not, but rather how they should pay and the limits of such payments. For example, should low-income families benefiting from regularization programs pay for services directly, or should the land value increment generated by the improvements be captured from the landowners through taxation and other fiscal policies? The latter point sheds new light on the problems with some conventional subsidy schemes.

Challenging Current Regularization Programs

The traditional frameworks for studying the phenomenon of irregularity-regularization of land tenure in low-income urban colonies in Mexico (as for the rest of Latin America) need to be reevaluated. This was the motivation behind the March 1999 Lincoln Institute seminar cosponsored with the Colegio Mexiquense AC in Toluca, State of Mexico. Although the seminar could not resolve the conundrum indicated above, or even provide the means to break the vicious cycle, it generated some important conclusions.

First, it is important to recognize that the problem of how to supply land to the poor in Latin American countries cannot be resolved within the prevailing regularization programs. Besides the perverse feedback effects of these programs, there are serious questions regarding their financial sustainability. Regularization programs tend to be more curative than preventive, and they often depend on extra-budgetary government allocations unless the funds are provided by multilateral agencies, NGOs or other organizations.

In Mexico, CORETT, a federal commission for land tenure regularization of “ejidal” land, and CRESEM, a state commission for land tenure regulation and regularization of private land, have worked mainly on the legal side of the problem. Neither commission has achieved its program objectives of providing serviced land for the poor or creating land reserves. They have not focused on the basic problem of land irregularity but rather on one of its manifestations or consequences: illegal tenure.

Second, the problem with current regularization programs exposes the weakness of dissociating such programs from a broad-based fiscal policy, particularly property taxation, with its obvious implications for a healthier land market. As noted in the seminar, successful urban land management cannot be achieved solely through regulatory means. Greater fiscal discipline of land markets is needed, principally at the local level. This should be a pre-condition for an effective mobilization of land value increments to generate urbanized land, rather than a surrogate for the absence of a more comprehensive tax on land values. The same difficulties in obtaining adequate land value assessments, updated land records and other information usually attributed to the implementation of land value taxes also apply, sometimes even more dramatically, to most value capture instruments.

Third, existing fiscal instruments governing land in Mexico, although quite diverse and rigorous, are quite sensitive politically and thus, in reality, very weak. For example, land property taxes (mainly “impuesto predial”) face serious practical limitations in being able to capture land value increments because they were not designed for that purpose. However, fiscal reform may not be as insurmountable an obstacle as once thought when one considers that changes in other sensitive areas, such as privatization of state-owned assets or of ejido lands, have been accomplished.

Over and above these technical and political constraints, one should not neglect the importance of cultural and managerial obstacles. Planners must work with the fiscal administrators to overcome the lack of communication that has long characterized these two groups. Some promising steps have already been taken, and many public employees are aware of the urgent need to integrate fiscal policies and urban planning within the framework of a global strategy.

Finally, there is the broader context in which the issue must be placed. The government and the private sector have to understand that land has become the strategic issue in the dynamic process of urbanization. The main concern is the need to regulate land markets to meet the huge demand for serviced land in new ways and to make significant changes in the priority of this issue within Mexican politics and urban policy.

In sum, the seminar exposed the multifaceted need for a more effective policy to provide serviced land for the poor, including better coordination of existing policies relating to finance, territorial reserves, regularization and land market dynamics. We have also learned that many fiscal and regulatory instruments are sufficient in theory but not in practice. The problem is not so much a lack of resources as the capacity to mobilize the resources that do exist into a comprehensive program that links regularization with fiscal policy, including the exploration of value capture mechanisms.

While we studied various proposals and offered alternatives for future working agendas on the topic, several issues must be addressed before we can begin to understand the phenomenon in a different way. One key question is, If servicing the land adds so much value, why is it so hard to find private agents or developers in the formal market who are willing to invest in the informal market? Why is it deemed unprofitable in spite of such handsome mark-ups?

There is no easy answer, other than imprecise indications regarding risks due to complicated judicial and legal problems, unclear rules of the game, the high cost of approval licenses, lack of information about procedures, and concerns about low profitability over time. Because of the complex institutional issues involved in this dilemma, it will continue to be the focus of attention in collaborative efforts by the Lincoln Institute and its cosponsors in Mexico and other countries of Latin America.

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

Alfonso Iracheta Cenecorta is president of El Colegio Mexiquense AC, an institution of research and postgraduate education in social sciences and the humanities, in the State of Mexico.

Notes

1. Serviced land is land designated for urban use and provided with basic public services (water, sewerage, paved roads, electric and telephone utilities, and the like), and with access to municipal functions such as employment, education and public transport.

2. Regularization means not only the provision of legal title but, more importantly, the provision of the urban infrastructure, services and other changes needed to integrate the “informal/illegal yet real” settlement into the fabric of the “legal” city.

Some Definitions

Illegal – land occupation that expressly contradicts existing norms, civil codes and public authorization

Informal – economic activity that does not adhere to and is not protected by institutional rules, as opposed to formal activity that operates within established procedures

Irregular – subdivisions that are officially approved but are not executed in accordance with the law

Clandestine – subdivisions that are established without any official recognition