Decades before Henry George made a passionate case for the “single tax” in Progress and Poverty, the classical economists had recognized that, in theory, the land value tax was almost the perfect tax. There was a strong moral basis for the land value tax—land value increased over time because of growth in population and improvements made by the community, either as utility infrastructure or transportation investments by government and the private sector.

Today, many scholars and practitioners question whether land value tax is a serious contender as a revenue source. But, whatever its political potential may be, economists continue to find the theoretical case for land value tax compelling. This article examines the efficiency of the land value tax as well as land value tax as a substitute for other taxes;

Edwin Mills examines the issue of land value tax in the context of an urban economy, showing that the land value tax is indeed efficient in its effects on land use, as claimed.

Thomas Nechyba explores the land value tax in the context of a general model of the entire economy. He develops what is known as a “computable general equilibrium model” that quantitatively describes the changes in the macro-economy that will occur with the substitution of the land value tax for income taxation.

Author of this article, Dick Netzer, argues that, although the empirical evidence on land values is poor, some reasonable estimates suggest that, at least in the United States, the land value tax could replace the conventional local property tax at reasonable tax rates.

Andrew Reschovsky points out that the current balmy climate for state and local finance in the United States is likely to change radically, for the worse. State governments may be looking for substantial additional revenues. Is the land value tax the right, or the likely, choice for hard-pressed state governments?

Roy Bahl reviews the many difficulties and deficiencies in the use of property taxes by local governments in both developing countries and former Communist countries.

Edward Wolff suggests that substitution of the land value tax for the federal individual income tax would make the U.S. tax system less rather than more progressive with respect to income.

Decades before Henry George made a passionate case for the “single tax” in Progress and Poverty (published in 1879), the classical economists had recognized that, in theory, the land value tax was almost the perfect tax. Unlike other taxes, it causes no distortions in economic decision making and therefore does not lower the efficiency of a market economy in allocating resources. Also, it was obvious in the nineteenth century that a tax on the value of land would be highly progressive.

There was a strong moral basis for the land value tax, as well. Land value increased over time because of growth in population and improvements made by the community, either in the form of utility infrastructure or transportation investments by government and the private sector. Individual landowners did nothing to increase the value of their own land but rather realized “unearned increments” over time, unlike those who contributed labor and capital to production and thus earned their compensation.

In George’s day there was little question that the tax could provide adequate revenue, at least in the United States where the role of government was small-no more than a tenth as important relative to gross domestic product as it today. Virtually all government services were supplied by local governments, which relied entirely on property taxes. Today, many scholars and practitioners question whether land value taxation is a serious contender as an important revenue source. But, whatever its political potential may be, economists continue to find the theoretical case for land value taxation compelling.

In January, the Lincoln Institute sponsored a conference to address these issues: “Land Value Taxation in Contemporary Societies: Can It and Will It Work?” In the opening paper, William Fischel focuses on the special nature of local government in this country, stressing its importance as an instrument of enhancing property values within communities. He argues that, in pursuing that role, local land use controls actually achieve substantial efficiency advantages by more closely matching consumer preferences to local government services and taxes. This is what economists refer to as the Tiebout-Hamilton model.

Fischel maintains that there is substantial justice in this outcome, which might be improved only marginally by land value taxation. That is, land use controls permit local governments to appropriate much of the value generated by community growth. Moreover, this system is widely used, which argues that it is more workable than land value taxation, although the latter is, in principle, more fair.

Efficiency of the Land Value Tax

Two papers treated the efficiency characteristics of the land value tax. Edwin Mills examines the issue in the context of an urban economy, showing that the tax is indeed efficient in its effects on land use, as claimed. But he believes that this is immaterial because the land value tax cannot yield more than trivial revenues, even at rates that are so high that the courts would find them to be an unconstitutional “taking” of property. Moreover, it is so difficult to value land properly that the efficiency advantages cannot be realized.

Thomas Nechyba explores the land value tax in the context of a general model of the entire economy. He develops what is known as a “computable general equilibrium model” that quantitatively describes the changes in the macro-economy that will occur with the substitution of the land value tax for income taxation. Given his assumptions, the model predicts that the reduction in taxation of capital will so increase the aggregate amount of capital that the demand for land on which to use the capital will generate substantial increases in land values. That in turn will permit the land value tax to generate considerable revenues at a rate that is not confiscatory. Most economists would consider the significant increases in total national output predicted by the model to be real gains in economic efficiency.

Land Value Taxation as a Substitute for Other Taxes

Another pair of papers examines the land value tax as a substitute for other taxes used by sub-national governments in rich countries. In my own paper I argue that, although the empirical evidence on land values is poor, some reasonable estimates suggest that, at least in the United States, the land value tax could replace the conventional local property tax at reasonable tax rates. But the main thrust of my argument is that those rich countries in which substantial government spending is done by local governments are the most plausible candidates for the use of the land value tax (see Table 1). Furthermore, its use is probably most feasible in those countries familiar with the idea of valuing real property for tax purposes. The combined administrative, compliance and evasion costs of most other taxes are so large that, even if the administrative costs of land value taxation are high, land value taxation is still promising.

Andrew Reschovsky points out that the current balmy climate for state and local finance in the United States is likely to change radically, for the worse, in the not too distant future. For a variety of reasons, state governments in particular may be looking for substantial additional revenues. Is the land value tax the right, or the likely, choice for hard-pressed state governments? He concludes, first, that the economic gains from the adoption of a new land value tax would be modest, compared to increasing the rates of existing state taxes. Second, a land value tax should help improve the equity of the state tax system. Third, he believes that it would add an element of cyclical stability to state revenue systems.

Nevertheless, Reschovsky remains skeptical about the tax on administrative grounds and is not convinced that it can generate enough revenues to replace any important existing state tax source. In the case of large central cities, however, he rates the land value tax somewhat higher as a replacement for existing tax sources, largely because of the probable lack of adverse locational effects. He views it as especially appropriate for those cities like Philadelphia that now receive relatively small percentages of tax revenue from the property tax.

Roy Bahl reviews the many difficulties and deficiencies in the use of property taxes by local governments in both developing countries and former Communist countries. There is widespread agreement that the property tax is the appropriate major local government tax, and in some countries this agreement extends to site value taxation as well. But, Bahl notes, the property tax usually provides negligible revenues, because of low nominal rates, low and inaccurate valuations, and poor collection experience. Almost everywhere, the basic requisites of good administration are lacking. Moreover, the political unpopularity of the tax generally is far greater than in the United States. Nonetheless, the property tax, especially the site value tax variant, is considered the best local revenue source in these countries.

Perhaps the most surprising research finding reported at the conference was the conclusion of Edward Wolff, who has written extensively on the distribution of income and wealth in the United States. He suggests that substitution of the land value tax for the federal individual income tax would make the U.S. tax system less rather than more progressive with respect to income (see Table 2). This result may be explained by the fact that the ratio of the value of land owned to household income rises steeply with the age of the householder. That is, mean household income declines sharply with age after age 54, while the mean value of land owned declines only slowly. On the other hand, a land value tax would be much more progressive with respect to wealth than is the income tax.

Broader Principles and Questions

Nicolaus Tideman, a convinced follower of Henry George, argues that the basic principles of and justifications for land value taxation apply to much more than the problems of land use in cities and suburbs-the usual focus for discussion of this form of taxation. He offers applications to environmental, congestion and population problems and to questions of efficient resource use and economic growth on a worldwide scale. He bases his views on the general principle that “all persons have equal rights to natural opportunities and should therefore pay for their above-average appropriations of natural opportunities.”

Throughout the conference, there was lively disagreement about whether the land value tax could really produce substantial revenues. Some, like Mills, held that it could not even replace the conventional American property tax on land and buildings, much less a substantial portion of other state and local taxes as well. Others, including Tideman, Nechyba and I, presented data that suggested the possibility that land value taxation indeed could be an important factor in the American fiscal system. Participants also discussed the problems of administering a land tax so that tax liabilities actually and accurately reflect the value of individual parcels of land as bare sites, which is essential if the tax is to be a truly efficient one.

The conferees did not produce an agreed answer to the basic conference question, Can and will land value taxation work today? But they made it clear that the question remains a relevant one that deserves serious and continuing attention.

Dick Netzer is professor of economics and public administration in the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service at New York University. He was the conference coordinator and is the editor of a book containing the eight conference papers and the remarks of the formal discussants, which will be published by the Lincoln Institute later this year.

Land Value Taxation in Contemporary Societies: Can It and Will It Work?

Authors of Conference Papers

Roy Bahl, Professor of Economics and Dean, School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University

William A. Fischel, Professor of Economics, Dartmouth College

Edwin Mills, Professor of Real Estate and Finance, Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University

Thomas Nechyba, Professor of Economics, Stanford University

Dick Netzer, Professor of Economics and Public Administration Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service New York University

Andrew Reschovsky, Professor of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Nicolaus Tideman, Professor of Economics, Virginia Polytechnic University

Edward Wolff, Professor of Economics, New York University

Discussants

Alexander Anas, Professor of Economics, State University of New York at Buffalo

Daniel Bromley, Professor of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison Karl Case, Professor of Economics, Wellesley College

Riel Franzsen, Professor of Mercantile Law, University of South Africa

Yolanda Kodrzycki, Economist, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston

Daphne Kenyon, Professor of Economics, Simmons College

Therese McGuire, Professor of Economics, Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois-Chicago

Amy Ellen Schwartz, Professor of Economics, Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service New York University

Robert Schwab, Professor of Economics, University of Maryland

Robert Solow, Professor of Economics, Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Like the other New Independent States of Central and Eastern Europe, Estonia is striving to adapt complex social and economic systems to changing conditions. To help Estonian policymakers enhance their understanding of land economics, taxation and related policy issues, the Lincoln Institute has embarked on a far-reaching collaborative education program with the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER).

Of special significance to both institutes is Estonia’s position as one of only a few countries where real estate taxes are applied solely to land, and where buildings and other improvements to land are not taxed. In addition, the country has already made dramatic progress toward establishing a market economy and a system of land taxation based on land value as an incentive for productive use of land and a means of discouraging speculation.

In making the transition to a market economy, Estonian policymakers are constrained by the lack of up-to-date information in the Estonian language on the fiscal and political implications of democratic government or on basic theory and research on land economics. Moreover, as the Estonian Parliament moves the country toward decentralization and land reforms, officials have recognized the need for practical assistance in developing procedures to determine land values and to administer tax assessment and collection systems.

The Lincoln Institute’s Role

For the Lincoln Institute, the current situation offers an opportunity to contribute knowledge about the economics of land markets and taxation based on a broad view of land policy. This approach includes examining the principles expounded by Henry George in his book Progress and Poverty that might be relevant in a country at the early stages of developing land markets.

“Estonia is a model environment for the Lincoln Institute to develop seminars in an economic development framework that analyzes land policy, taxation and valuation,” says Lincoln Institute faculty associate David A. Walker, professor of finance and director of the Center for Business-Government Relations at Georgetown University.

The Institute’s work with Estonia began in September 1993, when senior fellow Joan Youngman and fellow Jane Malme were invited to a conference in Tallinn to discuss the design of a property taxation system. The conference, sponsored and supported by the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the Danish Ministry of Taxation, was organized by Tambet Tiits, then director of the Estonian National Land Board and responsible for implementing the land assessment project.

Malme and Youngman subsequently invited Tiits to participate as a faculty member in a Lincoln Institute course on the interaction of land policy and taxation. Designed for government officials from Eastern Europe and the New Independent States, the course was presented in cooperation with OECD at their training centers in Copenhagen and Vienna.

In December 1994, a delegation composed of Malme, Youngman, Robert Gilmour, president of AIER, and C. Lowell Harriss, professor of economics, emeritus, at Columbia University, went on a fact-finding mission to explore research and education opportunities in Estonia. They recommended that the Institute organize educational programs in Estonia with Tiits, and in May 1995 Walker and Tiits cochaired an intensive three-day seminar. More than 20 senior level public policymakers attended, representing academia, business, three city governments, and various ministries and agencies of the national government.

The program focused on three key goals: studying the role of land taxation to promote efficient land use and to finance local government; learning about legal and administrative systems that support the development of efficient land markets; and understanding the relationships among land policies, land taxes, and land utilization, and their effective application to the economy of Estonia.

Other Lincoln Institute faculty associates participating in the May program were Gilmour; Roy Kelly, deputy director of the International Tax Program at Harvard University and research associate at Harvard Institute for International Development; Malme; Anders Muller, project manager for the Property Valuation and Tax Management Department for the Ministry of Taxation in Denmark; Jussi Palmu, director of Huoneistomarkkinointi Oi, a leading real estate agency in Finland; and Vincent Renard, director of research of CNRS for the Ecole Polytechnique, Laboratoire d’Econometrie, in Paris, France.

“We are pleased to be working with Tambet Tiits and other business and government leaders in Estonia,” says Lincoln Institute president Ronald L. Smith. “We believe the Institute can provide the kind of expertise their policymakers can use to develop the best approaches to land and tax reform, and to strengthen their ability to establish viable programs in a new and still changing economic climate.”

Primer on Land Issues in Estonia

The most northern of the Baltic States, Estonia has a strong tradition of family farming and land ownership. Unlike many other former Soviet bloc countries, its history included a period of independence from 1920 to 1940. In 1939 an estimated 145,000 small farms dotted the land area of 45,200 sq. km., and only about 30 percent of the population lived in urban areas. By the early 1990s, more than 70 percent lived in cities, with one-third of the country’s 1.6 million people inhabiting the capital of Tallinn.

During 50 years of Soviet rule from 1940 to 1990, Estonia experienced intense industrialization and urbanization, nationalization of land and mineral resources, and consolidation of its small farms into huge agricultural collectives. Demographic losses due to deportations, emigration and World War II reduced the number of farm workers and shifted the remaining population away from the land. Land use patterns and environmental integrity were further compromised by Soviet agricultural policies, causing much of the traditional farm land to become forested and moving farm activity to more marginal grasslands.

Restitution began in 1991 but it has been a slow process. The lack of up-to-date knowledge and technology, coexisting with bureaucratic inefficiencies and past agricultural policies, are challenging the effective use of land. However, new land use legislation and taxation have been created to solve these problems in a democratic way.

In only a few years, Estonia has become one of the most progressive and stable of the New Independent States. It has a high level of education and its people are eager to catch up with the “information age.” Its business and government leaders have established significant monetary reforms and pursued foreign trade and investment with the west, particularly Finland, other Scandinavian countries, and its former primary trading partner, Russia. Through the privatization of state enterprises such as textiles and forest products, and the growth of new private businesses in the service sector, Estonia is rapidly becoming a strong economic force in the region.

Current Research on Land Taxation in Estonia

Attiat F. Ott, Professor of Economics and Director of the Institute for Economic Studies at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts is conducting a research project titled “Land Taxation in the Baltic States: A Proposal for Reform,” with support from the Lincoln Institute. Over the next two years, Ott will conduct an assessment of the land taxation law introduced in 1994 by the Republic of Estonia. This law was developed in conjunction with the privatization and restoration of land to former owners, as stipulated in the 1992 Constitution. During this period of transition, the interrelationship between public ownership and private rights during the transition period is of primary importance. However, as in other countries, the Estonian property rights structure also affects and ensuing patterns of land use and development. These issues are at the core of the first phase of Ott’s research.

In the second phase, Ott will evaluate the land taxation law as an element of Estonia’s new, overall tax structure. The law defines both state and local land taxes using the same bases (sale price or use value of the land), but a different rate of taxation is levied at each level of government. Ott will review the strengths and weaknesses of the existing land tax system as a basis for offering and offer a comprehensive land taxation proposal for Estonia and the other Baltic States. She will incorporate ideas on the use of a site value tax and concerns about the undesirable effects of land speculation, which is occurring such as those occurring in some urban areas of Estonia.

While Ott’s research is directly related to the Institute’s interest in land value taxation, she will also be making methodological contributions as her quantitative work will extend the area of hedonic pricing models from their common application in housing to the area of land valuation.

Additional information in printed newsletter:
Map: Share of Agricultural Land in the Counties of Estonia: 1939, 1955 and 1992. Source: Adapted from Ulo Mander, “Changes of Landscape Structure in Estonia during the Soviet Period,” GeoJournal, May 1994, 33.1, pp 45-54.

Megapolitan areas are integrated networks of metro- and micropolitan areas. The name “megapolitan” plays off Jean Gottmann’s 1961 “megalopolis” label by using the same prefix. We find that the United States has ten such areas, six in the eastern part of the U.S. and four in the West (see Figure 1).

Megapolitan areas extend into 35 states, including every state east of the Mississippi River except Vermont. As of 2003, megapolitan areas contained less than one-fifth of all land area in the lower 48 states, but captured more than two-thirds of total U.S. population, or almost 200 million people. The 15 most populous U.S. metropolitan areas are also found in these megapolitan areas.

Gottmann’s megalopolis idea influenced academics but had no impact on the way the U.S. Census Bureau defines space. Today the idea of a functional trans-metropolitan geography is one that warrants renewed attention (see Carbonell and Yaro 2005). Regional economies clearly extend beyond an individual metropolitan area, and the megapolitan concept suggests a new geography to show how these economies are linked.

The Census seeks simple but definitive methods for describing and organizing space. Metropolitan areas were officially designated in 1949 to show functional economic relationships. Commuting, which at that time mostly joined suburban residents to jobs in the cities, was an easily measured and universal proxy for this linkage. Thus the center and periphery existed as a single integrated unit linked by employment dependency.

A direct functional relationship such as commuting does not exist at the megapolitan scale, however. The area is simply too large to make daily trips possible between distant sections. But commuting is just one—albeit key—way to show regional cohesion. Other integrating forces are goods movement, business linkages, cultural commonality and physical environment. A megapolitan area could represent a sales district for a branch office, or, in the case of the Northeast or Florida, a zone of fully integrated toll roads where an E-Z Pass or SunPass collection system works across multiple metropolitan areas.

A megapolitan area as defined here has the following characteristics:

• Combines at least two existing metropolitan areas, but may include dozens of them
• Totals more than 10 million projected residents by 2040
• Derives from contiguous metropolitan and micropolitan areas
• Constitutes an organic cultural region with a distinct history and identity
• Occupies a roughly similar physical environment
• Links large centers through major transportation infrastructure
• Forms a functional urban network via goods and service flows
• Creates a usable geography that is suitable for large-scale regional planning
• Lies within the U.S.
• Consists of counties as the most basic unit

Figure 1 highlights the key interstate highways linking major metros within megapolitan areas. Interstate 95 plays a critical role in megapolitan mobility from Maine to Florida. Because of the large population centers in the Northeast and Peninsula megas, the number of people living within 50 miles of this interstate exceeds all others in the nation. The West’s bookend to I-95 is I-5, which runs through three separate megapolitan areas. In 2000 more than 64 million people lived within 50 miles of I-95, and more than 37 million lived within the same distance of I-5. Most of this population is found in the two megapolitan areas along I-95 and the three straddling I-5. Interstate 10 also links three megas: Southland, Valley of the Sun and Gulf Coast. Other places where key interstates help define megapolitan growth are the I-35 Corridor from Kansas City, Missouri, to San Antonio, Texas; and I-85 in the Piedmont linking Atlanta, Georgia to Raleigh, North Carolina (Lang and Dhavale 2005).

Big Places, Big Numbers

Figure 2 shows the 2003 population and current growth rates in the ten megapolitan areas. As a group, megapolitans outpaced the national growth rate for the first three years of the decade—3.89 percent versus 3.33 percent, gaining 7.5 million new residents over the period. Only two megapolitan areas, Northeast and Midwest, trailed the nation as a whole in growth, but these are also by far the most the populous megas, with more than 50 and 40 million residents by 2003 respectively. Together, at 90.5 million people, they surpass the population of Germany, the largest European Union nation with 82.5 million residents. Unlike Germany, however, the Northeast and Midwest are still growing. They form the old industrial heart of the nation and still represent the largest trans-metropolitan development in the U.S.

The fastest growing megapolitan areas are in the Sunbelt, and several of them experienced gains above 5 percent for the period 2000 to 2003. The fast-growth megas, ranked by their development pace, are Valley of the Sun, Peninsula, I-35 Corridor, Southland and Piedmont. Two megapolitans now fall below the 10 million resident mark, but based on an extrapolation of current growth rates, Cascadia will pass this population size in 2025, while the booming Valley of the Sun will reach the mark by 2029.

Megapolitan areas also vary by physical size (see Figure 3). The Midwest is the largest with 119,822 square miles, an area slightly smaller than the state of New Mexico. The Piedmont is almost as expansive with 91,093 square miles. The more populous Northeast by contrast comprises just 70,062 square miles. By this calculation, the Northeast would appear to be the densest megapolitan area. However, the square mileage figure for Southland compared to its population density is significantly distorted by the inclusion of Riverside and San Bernardino counties in California, which are two of the largest counties in land area in the U.S.

Megapolitans will account for most new population and job growth from 2005 to 2040, and they will likely capture a large share of money spent on construction (Nelson 2004). These areas are projected to add 83 million people and 64 million jobs by 2040, and they will require an additional 32 million new housing units, including both new construction and replacement units. By 2030 half of the built environment will have been constructed in the previous 30 years, and by 2040 the figure could reach nearly two-thirds. The money needed to build the residential and commercial structures to house this growth is staggering. It will take an estimated $10 trillion to fund megapolitan residential construction and an additional $23 trillion for nonresidential structures.

Megapolitan Form and Function

Megapolitan areas vary in spatial form, ranging from a clear corridor or linear form to vast urban galaxies, and many megas exhibit both spatial patterns. Figure 4 showing the I-35 Corridor highlights all megapolitan counties in light shading and urbanized areas in the darker zones, lined up like beads along a string. The dark black lines are the interstate highways, and the light ones are the county boundaries. The biggest single node in the corridor is Dallas, and the only major metropolitan area that lies away from I-35 is Tulsa. The galactic form of the Piedmont area (Figure 5) illustrates interstate highway corridors lacing the region with a web of cities dominated by metropolitan Atlanta.

Figure 6 provides a summary of selected megapolitan features. The “signature industry” label refers to the businesses that are popularly associated with each area. These may not be the largest industry in the region, but they are key sectors that play to each megapolitan’s current competitive advantages. Thus, high tech is to NorCal what finance is to the Northeast or aerospace is to Cascadia—the sector in which the megapolitan dominates either U.S. or world markets.

A county-level analysis of political trends, based on the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, shows that five megas lean Republican and five Democratic. The most Democratic area is NorCal, while the I-35 Corridor is the most Republican. Midwest and Peninsula are the most swing megapolitans, with the former tilted to the Democrats and the latter to the Republicans. In 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry won the megapolitan area popular vote by 51.6 percent to 48.4 for President George W. Bush—almost the exact reverse of the nation as a whole. Kerry received 46.4 million megapolitan votes, while Bush won 43.5 million. The 90 million total megapolitan ballots accounted for three-quarters of all votes cast, while the fourth quarter of the votes went heavily for Bush. The president’s margin of victory in nonmegapolitan America was 60/40, which approximates his 2004 vote share in rural America (Lang, Dhavale and Haworth 2004).

Mega Policy Implications

Any new geographic category can reshape public policy. Given that megapolitan areas as proposed here redefine the space where two out of three Americans reside, their impact could prove significant. There are countless ways that megas may alter the policy landscape, but this discussion focuses on two issues: urban sprawl and transportation planning.

Megapolitan Sprawl. The emergence of megapolitan areas comes not only from rapid population growth over the past several decades; it also reflects how the nation is developing. Since 1950 the most significant urban pattern has been decentralization. Even by the time Gottmann first observed the megalopolis extending north and south from New York City, the emergence of the “spread city” was apparent (Regional Plan Association 1960). Suburbs from Boston to Washington were racing toward one another, making the Northeast a single extended megapolitan space.

The different ways megapolitan areas develop also provide insight into how urban decentralization varies around the nation to produce distinct regional built forms. This knowledge can improve the way regions respond to the consequences of sprawl. As measured by built density, sprawl differs in character among regions from “dense sprawl” in places such as Los Angeles, where even the edge of the region may have subdivisions with small lots, to the edges of southern metropolitan areas that feature low-density development and constitute a quasi-rural environment (Lang 2002).

The percent of metropolitan residents living in “urbanized areas” (defined by the Census Bureau as having densities at or exceeding 1,000 residents per square mile) also shows variation in regional development patterns. A metropolitan area with a substantial number of residents below this threshold indicates a low-density urban fringe. Among the megapolitans, Southland is the most urbanized, with virtually all (98.17 percent) of the region’s residents living in these areas. By contrast, just over two-thirds of Piedmont citizens live in urbanized places. The edge of megapolitan development in Southland is sharp and well-defined, as indicated by the very small share of people living in the nonurbanized fringe, whereas the Piedmont edge is amorphous, given that one in three people live outside its urbanized areas.

Nationally, nearly 25.8 million megapolitan residents live in low-density, nonurbanized areas, mostly east of the Mississippi. Even the intensely built Northeast—the place that inspired Gottmann—has more than 5.2 million residents living in places with less than 1,000 people per square mile. Piedmont has just over 6 million in these same places, while the Midwest mega has almost 6.7 million.

This analysis indicates that there is a Southland versus Piedmont style of megapolitan sprawl, which could affect regionwide strategies for addressing future growth. For example, given that Southland is already densely built, altering its pattern of sprawl could mean better mixing of land uses to facilitate pedestrian or transit-oriented development. The same strategy would not work in Piedmont where densities are low.

Super MPOs and Transportation Planning. There are clearly cases where the megapolitan scale is the most logical one at which to address problems. Consider the recent debate over the fate of Amtrak, America’s National Railroad Passenger Corporation. The Bush administration wants to eliminate all Amtrak funding in the 2006 federal budget. Defending this action, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta (2005) wrote in the New York Times, “The problem is not that Americans don’t use trains; it is that Amtrak has failed to keep up with the times, stubbornly sticking to routes and services, even as they lose money and attract few users.”

Amtrak is a national rail system with a profitable line connecting big northeastern cities, which offsets losses on service to remote rural locals. Megapolitan areas have two qualities—concentrated populations and corridor form—that make them excellent geographic units around which Amtrak could be reorganized. These megapolitans constitute an American Europe—a space so intensely settled that high-capacity infrastructure investment between centers makes sense.

If officially designated by the U.S. Census Bureau, megapolitan areas would be the country’s largest geographic unit. Their rise could spark a discussion of what types of planning needs to be done on this scale. In Europe, megapolitan-like spatial planning now guides new infrastructure investment such as high-speed trains between networked cities. The U.S. should do the same. The interstate highways that run through megapolitan areas, such as I-95 from Boston to Washington, DC; I-35 from San Antonio to Kansas City; and I-85 from Raleigh to Atlanta, would benefit greatly from unified planning. A new Census Bureau megapolitan definition would legitimize large-scale transportation planning and trigger similar efforts in such areas as economic development and environmental impact.

Federal transportation aid could be tied to megapolitan planning much the way it has recently been linked to metropolitan areas. The Intermodal Surface Transit Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) required regions to form metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in order to receive federal money for transportation projects. In a similar vein, new super MPOs could result from future legislation that directs megapolitan areas to plan on a vast scale.

At the moment there is no guiding vision of how to invest the nation’s transportation funds. We are only keepers of past visions, most notably the Interstate Highway System, which for better or worse at least demonstrated a national will for investment. The interstates also completed a nationwide project, begun in the nineteenth century with canals and railways, to provide equal access and capacity across a continental nation. The investment paid off, as witnessed by the emergence of Sunbelt boomtowns such as Phoenix, but the next stage of American spatial evolution is at hand. The U.S. has moved beyond the simple filling in of its land and is now witnessing intensive megapolitan growth. Infrastructure investment must move beyond basic links across the entire country to focus on significantly improving capacity within megapolitan areas.

Robert E. Lang is director of the Metropolitan Institute and associate professor of Urban Affairs and Planning at Virginia Tech (www.mi.vt.edu). His research on megapolitan areas is supported in part by the Lincoln Institute through a 2005 Planning and Development Research Fellowship. Dawn Dhavale is a doctoral candidate in Urban Affairs and Planning and research associate at the Metropolitan Institute.

References

Carbonell, Armando, and Robert D. Yaro. 2005. American spatial development and the new megalopolis. Land Lines 17(2): 1–4.

Gottmann, Jean. 1961. Megalopolis: The urbanized northeastern seaboard of the United States. New York: Twentieth-Century Fund.

Lang, Robert E. 2002. Open spaces, bounded places: Does the American West’s arid landscape yield dense metropolitan growth? Housing Policy Debate 13(4): 755–778.

Lang, Robert E., and Dawn Dhavale. 2005. Beyond megalopolis: Exploring America’s new “megapolitan” geography. Census Report 05:01. Alexandria, VA: Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech (June). www.mi.vt.edu

Lang, Robert E., Dawn Dhavale, and Kristin Haworth. 2004. Micro Politics: The 2004 presidential vote in small-town America. Census Report 04:03. Alexandria, VA: Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech (November).

Mineta, Norman Y. 2005. Starving Amtrak to save it. New York Times, February 23: A19.

Nelson, Arthur C. 2004. Toward a new metropolis: The opportunity to rebuild America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program Survey Series (December).

Regional Plan Association. 1960. Plan for greater New York. New York: Regional Plan Association.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2005. Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data. http://factfinder.census.gov/.

Faculty Profile of Andrew Reschovsky

Ciro Biderman es profesor asociado en los programas de grado y postgrado de administración pública y economía en la Fundación Getulio Vargas (FGV) de São Paulo; investigador asociado en el Centro de Estudios de Política y Economía del Sector Público (CEPESP/FGV); e investigador asociado en el Laboratorio de Urbanismo Metrópolis de la Universidad Estatal de São Paulo (LUME/FAUUSP). Obtuvo su doctorado en economía en la FGV y su postdoctorado en economía urbana en el Instituto de Tecnología de Massachusetts en 2007.

Biderman fue Visiting Fellow en el Lincoln Institute of Land Policy de 2006 a 2009 y continúa enseñando cursos y llevando a cabo investigaciones junto con Martim Smolka y otros investigadores afiliados al Programa para América Latina y el Caribe. Además, es consultor en los aspectos económicos y políticos del desarrollo municipal para el Banco Mundial y otras organizaciones. Su campo de investigación comprende la economía urbana y regional enfocada en las políticas públicas a nivel subnacional, con un énfasis particular en las interacciones que tiene la política de suelos con los mercados inmobiliarios y los costos de transporte.

Biderman ha publicado artículos en revistas académicas y fue el coautor o coeditor de tres libros, entre ellos el tomo Economia do Setor Público no Brasil (Economía del Sector Público en Brasil) del año 2005. En el Lincoln Institute ha escrito varios artículos para la revista Land Lines y documentos de trabajo (Working Papers), los cuales se encuentran disponibles en el sitio Web del Instituto.

Land Lines: En su calidad de académico latinoamericano especializado en temas de economía del suelo, ¿cuán avanzada encuentra la investigación en la región comparada con otros países?

Ciro Biderman: En Brasil, tal como ocurre en la mayor parte de América Latina, existe una falta de investigación en economía urbana, en general, y en problemas relacionados con el suelo, en particular. Lo mismo ocurre, en cierta medida, en los Estados Unidos y Europa, aunque los intereses de investigación son bastante diferentes y la economía urbana es un tema mucho más candente en dichos países.

Algunas características relevantes de las ciudades latinoamericanas son similares a las que se encuentran en otros países en vías de desarrollo, por lo que sería útil realizar investigaciones adicionales. Por ejemplo, a pesar del gran mercado informal que existe en América Latina, la mayoría de los economistas no han tenido en cuenta dicho sector. Paradójicamente, la mayor parte de los análisis de economía urbana sobre informalidad han sido realizados en los EE.UU. y por otros académicos internacionales.

En segundo lugar, las ciudades latinoamericanas por lo general no crecen desmedidamente como las ciudades en otros lugares del mundo, aunque sus centros históricos con frecuencia se encuentran deteriorados y no sabemos mucho por qué ocurre esto. En tercer lugar, la mayoría de los países de la región han adoptado en forma reciente políticas de descentralización, según las cuales la responsabilidad en cuanto a la prestación de servicios públicos recae ahora sobre los gobiernos municipales. No obstante, la recaudación de los gobiernos municipales es baja, por lo que la mayoría depende en gran medida de las transferencias federales.

Land Lines: ¿Cómo llegó usted a tener relación con el Lincoln Institute of Land Policy?

Ciro Biderman: Mi primer contacto fue en el año 1998, cuando me otorgaron una beca finalizar mi tesis de doctorado. En colaboración con Paulo Sandroni, de la FGV, estudié el impacto que tuvo sobre los precios inmobiliarios un cambio de zonificación realizado en São Paulo. En aquel entonces, el distrito principal de negocios se estaba expandiendo hacia el suroeste, pero dicha expansión fue bloqueada por Jardim Europa, un barrio residencial de altos ingresos y baja densidad. Un nuevo proyecto inmobiliario de oficinas rodeó dicha área, pasando hacia la nueva avenida Luiz Carlos Berrini. Con el fin de revertir esta tendencia, en 1996 la ciudad cambió la zonificación en cierta porción de Jardim Europa, aumentando la densidad y subastando derechos de edificación para fomentar los nuevos proyectos inmobiliarios.

Comparé la porción del barrio que no había sufrido el cambio de zonificación con la porción que había experimentado los cambios exógenos que la llevaron de ser un área residencial con construcciones de pocos pisos a un área de usos mixtos de edificios altos con un espacio residencial de alto ingresos y de oficinas. En un artículo escrito junto con Sandroni y Smolka (2006) mostramos que el cambio de densidad aumentó los precios de los terrenos, tal como lo esperábamos.

No obstante, el aspecto más interesante que analizamos fue la recuperación, por parte del gobierno municipal, del aumento de los precios de los terrenos a través de un mecanismo fiscal denominado CEPAC (Certificado de Potencial Adicional de Construcción). Estos certificados se subastan como parte del proceso mediante el cual los emprendedores deben obtener licencias de construcción en áreas específicas. En el barrio vecino en donde el desarrollo comercial se había dado en forma intermitente sin la utilización de los CEPAC, el aumento en la renta inmobiliaria generado por el cambio en la zonificación fue recuperado, en cambio, por los emprendedores.

Land Lines: ¿Qué otras investigaciones ha llevado a cabo en el Instituto Lincoln?

Ciro Biderman: A partir de mi condición de Visiting Fellow en 2006, he centrado mi investigación en la economía de las viviendas informales, en particular el nivel al que la normativa urbana se ha asociado estadísticamente con las diferentes medidas de informalidad, incluso el impacto de la regulación en los precios de los mercados de viviendas formales e informales (Biderman 2008).

En un estudio del año 2009 relacionado con este tema, Martim Smolka y yo debatimos las implicaciones políticas acerca de cómo y por qué las distintas agencias internacionales definen la informalidad para reflejar uno o más atributos pertinentes a la vivienda. La consecuencia radica en que las diferentes definiciones producen diferentes estimaciones para la incidencia de la informalidad. De esta manera, cuando los gobiernos mejoran sólo un atributo de vivienda informal sin modificar el resto, es posible que informen acerca de una reducción en los niveles de informalidad cuando, de hecho, no es así.

En una nueva línea de investigación, me ocupo de buscar las causas y consecuencias de la expansión urbana descontrolada en América Latina, centrándome en diez grandes ciudades de Brasil. Según las conclusiones preliminares, observamos que dichas ciudades presentan un nivel de expansión descontrolada menor que el de sus pares norteamericanos y europeos, aunque es mayor que el de las ciudades asiáticas comparables. Los sistemas de transporte se basan en el automóvil, como ocurre en los Estados Unidos, aunque menos del 10 por ciento de la población posee un automóvil. Aun así, el patrón espacial socioeconómico es más similar al de Europa: los ricos viven en el centro y los pobres en la periferia.

Land Lines: Usted brinda asistencia al Programa para América Latina para evaluar propuestas de investigación que solicitan apoyo financiero del Instituto. ¿Qué ha aprendido de esta experiencia?

Ciro Biderman: He estado involucrado en la evaluación de estas propuestas desde el año 2006 y la cantidad de propuestas académicas de alta calidad ha crecido en forma sostenida. He notado que las preguntas de investigación de los académicos latinoamericanos por lo general se presentan mejor que las técnicas para tratar las mismas, a diferencia de lo que ocurre en los Estados Unidos.

Creo que este es un problema que enfrentamos en varios aspectos de la investigación en ciencias sociales, y no sólo en América Latina. Aunque el origen de la economía urbana se fundamentó en las conexiones existentes entre el equilibrio urbano, los costos de transporte y los precios inmobiliarios, cada uno de estos campos se ha desarrollado casi en forma independiente, por lo que existe una necesidad generalizada de realizar un análisis más integral.

Land Lines: ¿Cuáles son, según su opinión, los principales puntos fuertes de los investigadores latinoamericanos?

Ciro Biderman: Los profesionales altamente calificados de Brasil y otros países se mueven a menudo entre los puestos públicos y el ámbito académico. Como consecuencia, están concientes de los problemas y necesidades tanto del sector público como del ámbito académico y pueden tener un impacto más directo en la implementación de políticas urbanas. Además, los investigadores pueden resaltar los temas específicos de las ciudades latinoamericanas en comparación con otras ciudades del mundo, lo que amplía el enfoque de la investigación aplicada. A modo de ejemplo, que yo sepa, no existe un modelo económico para la demanda de viviendas que permita cambiar la calidad de la vivienda con el fin de adaptar el consumo de viviendas a las limitaciones presupuestarias. Y esta es una cuestión muy importante en América Latina, aunque no lo es para los investigadores de los Estados Unidos o Europa.

Land Lines: ¿Podría comentarnos acerca de los problemas que enfrentan los académicos en diferentes regiones del mundo?

Ciro Biderman: Tal como ocurre con la mayoría de los fenómenos sociales, los patrones de uso del suelo han evolucionado históricamente. Por ejemplo, la expansión descontrolada en los Estados Unidos se encuentra estrechamente relacionada con el movimiento de grupos de altos ingresos hacia la periferia de las áreas metropolitanas. En América Latina, el movimiento de los grupos de altos ingresos se da, por lo general, en la dirección opuesta, ya que los pobres buscan terrenos económicos en la periferia. Aunque se pueden aplicar los principios fundamentales de la teoría económica urbana, las consecuencias son bastante diferentes. Si estudiamos los distintos patrones utilizando el mismo marco teórico, mejoraríamos nuestra comprensión acerca de la economía urbana.

Land Lines: ¿Cuáles son los problemas o temas que carecen especialmente de un sólido trabajo empírico?

Ciro Biderman: En términos de políticas de suelo, en mi opinión, necesitamos una mayor investigación sobre los impuestos inmobiliarios, la interacción de las políticas fiscales y normativas con los problemas de planificación de uso del suelo, los patrones socioeconómicos de la expansión descontrolada y las conexiones entre el uso del suelo y el transporte. La falta de investigación en cuanto a la economía del mercado de viviendas informales es sorprendente, ya que los asentamientos informales representan más de un tercio de las viviendas urbanas en algunos países. Aunque este problema podría solucionarse en el futuro mediante subsidios, la cantidad de recursos necesarios probablemente sea prohibitiva en la mayoría de los países.

En la actualidad, existe una rama de la literatura que estudia el impacto que tiene la seguridad de la posesión sobre el bienestar general, la cual sugiere que los programas de otorgamiento de títulos pueden mejorar el bienestar, aunque hay sólo unos pocos estudios similares en cuanto al impacto de los programas de mejoramiento de los asentamientos informales. Aunque existen pruebas que pueden sugerir que una normativa inadecuada puede inducir a un mayor nivel de informalidad, todavía no comprendemos cabalmente la conexión económica entre los mercados de viviendas formales e informales. Además, carecemos de estudios sistemáticos entre países.

Land Lines: ¿Cree usted que existe algún tipo de compensación entre la experiencia derivada de las políticas y la capacidad de investigación técnica?

Ciro Biderman: Como economista, conozco las virtudes de separar el trabajo y las ganancias del comercio, por lo que resulta importante que los académicos y funcionarios públicos se complementen unos a otros. Así, los investigadores necesitan trabajar con la mayor rigurosidad posible y ser capaces de exponer las consecuencias involuntarias de las políticas públicas, mientras que los responsables de la elaboración de políticas deben garantizar que sus políticas están diseñadas de tal manera que puedan implementarse en forma efectiva y eficiente para lograr los objetivos deseados.

Por ejemplo, uno de los principales problemas en cuanto a las políticas radica en cómo aumentar la oferta de viviendas económicas de alta calidad para los pobres en los países en vías de desarrollo, lo que requiere comprender los costos de oportunidad entre lo no costoso y la calidad. Las compensaciones pueden ser técnicas, pero las alternativas son claramente políticas. ¿Cómo podemos solucionar este desequilibrio en las viviendas? ¿Quién debe pagar el costo (los residentes o la sociedad)? ¿Cuáles son las consecuencias de las diferentes opciones de políticas? Estas son preguntas prácticas. La evidencia empírica que puede ayudar a evaluar las políticas actuales podría resultar un recurso principal para el responsable de elaborar dichas políticas.

Land Lines: En su opinión, ¿qué tipo de aportes puede realizar el Instituto Lincoln para reducir la brecha entre la investigación empírica rigurosa y la relevancia de las políticas?

Ciro Biderman: Creo que el Instituto ya lo está haciendo, en vista de que trabaja tanto con académicos como con los responsables de elaborar políticas mediante varios programas académicos y oportunidades becarias. Los cursos presenciales y a distancia ofrecen capacitación a los responsables de elaborar las políticas para ayudarlos a mejorar su diálogo con los investigadores, así como también a los jóvenes académicos para expandir la base de investigadores en el ámbito de las políticas. Los cursos intensivos sobre métodos para el análisis de políticas de suelos también ofrecen información a los investigadores acerca de los avances logrados en la teoría económica urbana y fortalecen tanto sus capacidades metodológicas como sus conocimientos de las nuevas técnicas analíticas.

Referencias

Biderman, Ciro. 2008. Informality in Brazil. Does urban land use and building regulation matter? Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Biderman, Ciro; Paulo Sandroni y Martim Smolka. 2006. Large-scale urban interventions: The case of Faria Lima in São Paulo. Land Lines 18(2).

Smolka, Martim y Ciro Biderman. 2009. Measuring informality in housing settlements: Why bother? Land Lines 21(2).

China ha experimentado un crecimiento económico rápido desde 1978, cuando adoptó una reforma económica y políticas de apertura hacia el mundo. Se ha convertido en la segunda mayor economía del mundo en términos de PIB, y su recaudación tributaria ha experimentado un crecimiento anual promedio de alrededor del 20 por ciento desde la reforma fiscal de 1994.

No obstante, muchos gobiernos subnacionales de China han experimentado problemas fiscales y han incurrido en grandes deudas locales en los últimos años debido a numerosas competencias del gobierno central no financiadas y la gran brecha fiscal entre las necesidades de gasto y la capacidad para generar ingresos. Por ejemplo, en 2008, los gobiernos subnacionales de China han sido responsables por el 79 por ciento de los gastos totales del gobierno, pero sólo del 47 por ciento de los ingresos gubernamentales totales (Man 2011).

A diferencia de muchos países desarrollados, los gobiernos locales de China (provinciales, de prefectura, de condado y municipales) no tienen ninguna autoridad legal para imponer tributos o pedir préstamos, y el impuesto sobre la propiedad desempeña un papel muy limitado en la estructura de financiamiento público a nivel local. En consecuencia, muchos gobiernos locales recurren a fuentes de ingresos extrapresupuestarios, imponen aranceles para el derecho a arrendar el suelo, otras tasas y recargos, y obtienen préstamos bancarios de forma indirecta para financiar las inversiones de infraestructura y desarrollo económico local.

Durante el período de 1991 a 2008, los aranceles para el arriendo del suelo (también llamados aranceles de transferencia del suelo) aumentaron del 5,7 por ciento de los ingresos totales del presupuesto local al 43,5 por ciento. Esta dependencia excesiva de aranceles para el arriendo del suelo ha sido criticada como un factor importante en el crecimiento del precio de las viviendas y el aumento de casos de corrupción y disputas sobre suelos en China.

Problemas con el sistema tributario actual

El sistema actual de impuestos sobre el suelo y la propiedad en China genera una cantidad limitada de ingresos, aun cuando se gravan cinco tipos de impuestos sobre la propiedad inmobiliaria en las diversas etapas de producción (ver tabla 1). Los gobiernos locales cobran el Impuesto a la Ocupación de Suelos Agrícolas y el Impuesto al Valor Agregado al Suelo (IVAS) en el momento de adquirir y transferir el suelo. En el momento de la toma de posesión, se cobran el Impuesto al Uso Urbano del Suelo y el Impuesto sobre la Propiedad Inmobiliaria, y finalmente se cobra el Impuesto a la Escritura cuando se transfiere el título de la propiedad.

Este sistema tributario tiene muchos problemas y debe ser reformado estructuralmente. En primer lugar, los diversos impuestos sobre el suelo y la propiedad constituyen solamente un 15,7 por ciento de los ingresos tributarios a nivel local. Es una fuente de ingresos inestable e inadecuada para los gobiernos locales de China. Los funcionarios de los gobiernos locales han dependido de otras fuentes de ingresos, como el arriendo de suelos del estado a emprendedores inmobiliarios a cambio de un arancel fijo importante, para financiar proyectos de capital y desarrollo de infraestructura. En 2010, los gobiernos locales de China recaudaron 2,7 billones de RMB en concepto de aranceles de arriendo de suelos, además de 8,3 billones de RMB en impuestos y otros ingresos presupuestarios. La relación entre los aranceles de arriendo y los ingresos tributarios totales fue del 32,5 por ciento, comparada con el 4,5 por ciento en 1999.

En segundo lugar, la estructura actual de impuestos sobre la propiedad en China aplica una mayor carga tributaria en la etapa de transacción que durante la posesión. Por ejemplo, la recaudación del impuesto anual sobre el uso urbano del suelo y el impuesto sobre la propiedad inmobiliaria durante la etapa de posesión ascendió a sólo el 6,44 por ciento de los ingresos tributarios locales en 2008, mientras que alrededor del 9,25 por ciento de los ingresos tributarios locales se recaudó en las etapas del desarrollo del suelo y transacción de la propiedad.

En tercer lugar, las propiedades residenciales ocupadas por sus dueños no están incluidas actualmente en la base tributaria del impuesto sobre la propiedad inmobiliaria, lo que restringe la capacidad del gobierno para recuperar la plusvalía del mercado de vivienda en pleno auge debido a la privatización de viviendas de interés social, el crecimiento de los ingresos de la población y la inversión masiva en infraestructura urbana. Para 2010, la tasa de propiedad de viviendas alcanzó el 84,3 por ciento de la bolsa de viviendas urbanas del mercado formal, y los valores de las mismas han experimentado aumentos sustanciales en los últimos cinco años en muchas de las grandes ciudades (Man, Zheng y Ren, 2011). Pero la exclusión de las propiedades residenciales del impuesto sobre la propiedad inmueble creó desniveles de riqueza y una demanda excesiva de viviendas con fines de inversión y especulación, lo que aumentó la cantidad de viviendas vacantes en muchas ciudades costeras.

Finalmente, a diferencia del sistema de impuestos sobre la propiedad en muchos países desarrollados, en China no se grava el impuesto de acuerdo al avalúo de la propiedad. En lugar de ello, su valor es el 1,2 por ciento del precio original, menos un 10 al 30 por ciento por depreciación, o un 15 por ciento de los ingresos reales por arriendo de la propiedad. Los funcionarios gubernamentales tienen poca experiencia en la estimación del valor de mercado de las propiedades existentes, una destreza fundamental para poder establecer un sistema moderno de impuesto sobre la propiedad.

Recientes avances en la reforma del impuesto sobre la propiedad

El gobierno central de China ha estado explorando la posibilidad de reformar su sistema actual de tributos sobre el suelo y la propiedad desde 2003, cuando propuso oficialmente por primera vez el establecimiento de un sistema moderno de impuestos sobre la propiedad. En 2006 se seleccionaron seis ciudades para realizar proyectos pilotos, y un año después se amplió esta cantidad a 10 ciudades.

En 2010, la Administración Estatal de Impuestos (AEI), que está a cargo de este proyecto piloto, ordenó a cada provincia que seleccionara por lo menos una ciudad para realizar ensayos de avalúo de propiedades, con el objeto de verificar el precio de venta declarado por los propietarios para el impuesto a la escritura. Estos ensayos han tenido un importante papel en la preparación técnica e informática de avalúos masivos futuros del valor de la propiedad. El 28 de enero de 2011, las ciudades de Shanghái y Chongqing recibieron permiso para recaudar impuestos sobre la propiedad de segundas residencias y residencias de lujo de reciente adquisición, respectivamente.

Logros importantes

La reforma del sistema de impuestos sobre la propiedad en China intenta establecer un sistema para gravar las propiedades existentes (incluyendo tanto el suelo como las estructuras edificadas) anualmente de acuerdo a su avalúo, con el objeto de generar una fuente significativa de ingresos para los gobiernos locales. Este sistema utilizará varios métodos de avalúo, tales como la comparación con los valores de mercado, su costo y los ingresos generados, y se aplicará a propiedades comerciales e industriales, así como también a propiedades residenciales, incluyendo aquellas ocupadas por sus dueños.

Algunas ciudades piloto, como Hangzhou, Dandong y Chongqing, han estudiado e implementado distintas versiones de Avalúo Masivo Asistido por Computadora (CAMA, por sus siglas en inglés). El AEI ha estado capacitando a funcionarios de las agencias tributarias locales de cada provincia en el desarrollo de un sistema CAMA y sus aplicaciones. También ha intentado establecer normas tecnológicas para cada método de avalúo.

En 2005, el AEI diseñó un ensayo de regulación de avalúo de propiedades inmobiliarias, con 12 capítulos y 40 cláusulas que estipulan los métodos de recolección de datos, las normas y el sistema CAMA. Todas las ciudades piloto han concluido su simulación de avalúo y han calculado las cargas y los ingresos tributarios utilizando distintos escenarios de tasa de impuestos. En 2011 se seleccionó a, por lo menos, una ciudad de cada provincia para realizar un avalúo de propiedades recién adquiridas para recaudar el impuesto a la escritura.

El avance más importante tuvo lugar a comienzos de 2011, cuando Shanghái comenzó a recaudar impuestos sobre las segundas residencias recién adquiridas por residentes y sobre las primeras residencias de no residentes de acuerdo a su valor de transacción, previa exclusión de la base tributaria de 60 metros cuadrados por persona. La ciudad de Chongqing está apuntando a la residencia unifamiliar existente y a los apartamentos de lujo recién adquiridos por residentes o segundas residencias adquiridas por no residentes. El programa excluye 180 metros cuadrados para residencias unifamiliares y 100 metros cuadrados para apartamentos en Chongqing.

Se ha impuesto el tributo sobre la propiedad a alrededor de 8.000 parcelas en total en estas dos ciudades, si bien este experimento de un año de duración recaudó sólo una pequeña cantidad para el financiamiento de viviendas de bajos ingresos. Aunque la base tributaria, la tasa tributaria y la recaudación han sido muy pequeñas en estas dos ciudades, estos esfuerzos representan un gran paso adelante para la reforma del impuesto sobre la propiedad en China.

Desafíos futuros

La reforma del impuesto sobre la propiedad en China todavía enfrenta enormes desafíos, aun cuando los ciudadanos y los medios de comunicación ya la comprenden mejor. En primer lugar, ha encontrado resistencia desde varios grupos de interés influyentes. Los mayores adversarios de un impuesto sobre la propiedad son los funcionarios gubernamentales locales, además de los inversores y especuladores inmobiliarios. Muchos gobiernos locales creen que la adopción de este impuesto reducirá el valor de las viviendas y, en consecuencia, reducirá la demanda de suelo, lo que disminuirá sustancialmente los aranceles por arriendo de suelo en manos estatales. Además, los funcionarios de los gobiernos locales son evaluados según el papel que cumplan en la estimulación del crecimiento de la economía local, y los proyectos de inversión en infraestructura se usan frecuentemente como un estímulo para el desarrollo de la economía local. Los funcionarios quieren acceso ilimitado a los aranceles de arriendo del suelo, porque se pueden recaudar y gastar con muy poco control y pueden generar una gran cantidad de ingresos durante el período de ejercicio de un funcionario.

Un segundo desafío es el progreso lento de los preparativos legales y de avalúo para el sistema de impuesto sobre la propiedad. Se tienen que promulgar leyes y reglamentaciones sobre el impuesto, incluyendo leyes y normas de avalúo. Habrá que capacitar y certificar a hasta 100.000 valuadores en las normas correspondientes. En tercer lugar, todavía no existe un consenso sobre cómo definir la base tributaria, sus exclusiones y exenciones; la asignación de responsabilidades de administración, fijación de tasas y avalúo; y la distribución de los ingresos tributarios. Y, por último, la falta general de familiaridad con el impuesto sobre la propiedad crea continuos malentendidos e interpretaciones erróneas acerca del impuesto.

Al mismo tiempo, cada vez más residentes urbanos comprenden que un impuesto sobre el avalúo de la propiedad comercial y residencial recaudado anualmente puede generar una fuente sustentable de ingresos para los gobiernos locales y reducir su dependencia de aranceles y cargos de transferencia de propiedad que contribuyen a incrementar el precio de las viviendas. A raíz de la política del gobierno central de restringir la compra de viviendas y de ajustar la oferta monetaria, los aranceles de arriendo del suelo han comenzado a disminuir en muchas ciudades en 2011.

Según un informe reciente del Instituto de Índices de China (2012), los aranceles por transferencia de suelos en 130 ciudades han disminuido un 11 por ciento en comparación con 2010. En Shanghái y Beijing han caído un 16 y 35,7 por ciento, respectivamente. Esta reducción significativa puede también ofrecer oportunidades a los gobiernos locales para encontrar maneras más sustentables de equilibrar la promoción del crecimiento económico con el suministro de bienes y servicios públicos. A largo plazo, el establecimiento de un sistema de impuestos sobre la propiedad para sustituir gradualmente los aranceles a la transferencia del suelo ofrece una manera eficiente, equitativa y sustentable de financiar los desarrollos locales y los egresos gubernamentales.

El impuesto sobre la propiedad se ha percibido como una manera efectiva de reducir los precios de la vivienda, amortiguar la especulación y reducir las tasas de viviendas vacantes. Muchos investigadores creen que los gobiernos locales han tratado de limitar la oferta de suelo para aumentar los precios y maximizar los ingresos, produciendo un rápido aumento de los precios de la vivienda y la falta de viviendas económicas en las zonas urbanas de China. La imposición de tributos sobre la propiedad residencial puede aumentar el costo de oportunidad de dejar las propiedades vacías o sin usar, y reducir los incentivos para el comportamiento especulativo. El impuesto se percibe también como una manera efectiva de reducir la brecha de ingresos y riqueza entre los residentes urbanos y desalentar la inversión especulativa en el sector inmobiliario.

Conclusiones

La reforma del impuesto sobre la propiedad de China está progresando en el área de investigación y experimentos de aplicación, y ha comenzado a ser mejor comprendido y aceptado por los ciudadanos y los gobiernos locales. Pero el establecimiento exitoso de un impuesto sobre la propiedad como una fuente importante de ingresos para el financiamiento público local requiere no sólo de técnicas de avalúo y de diseño tributario sino también de determinación política y de una reforma administrativa. Esta reforma podría generar un cambio fundamental en las relaciones intergubernamentales y el papel del gobierno en la estructura política y económica de China.

El Instituto Lincoln comenzó a respaldar las investigaciones relacionadas con la tributación de la propiedad conjuntamente con el gobierno chino en 2004, con la colaboración del Centro de Desarrollo e Investigaciones del Consejo Estatal, el Ministerio de Finanzas y la Administración Estatal de Impuestos (AEI). En 2007 se estableció en Beijing el Centro de Desarrollo Urbano y Política de Suelos de la Universidad de Peking y el Instituto Lincoln, en parte para ayudar a organizar conferencias internacionales y programas de capacitación para funcionarios de las agencias tributarias de las ciudades piloto. El Centro continúa apoyando a expertos nacionales e internacionales para realizar actividades de investigación y proyectos de demostración en el área de impuestos sobre la propiedad y temas relacionados.

Sobre el autor

Joyce Yanyun Man es senior fellow y directora del Programa para China del Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, y es directora y profesora del Centro de Desarrollo Urbano y Política de Suelos de la Universidad de Peking y el Instituto Lincoln.

Referencias

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

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

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

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

The United States is emerging from a great recession whose major hallmark has been the collapse of national housing prices, which grew by 59 percent from 2000 to 2006 and then fell 41 percent by 2011, all in constant dollars. Nationally, real house prices in 2011 were 6 percent below levels in 2000. The housing price collapse had unanticipated contagion effects that helped produce the accompanying financial crisis and the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression. The share of U.S. mortgages that were delinquent by 90 days or more rose from about 1 percent in 2006 to over 8 percent in 2010. The economic and social costs of this house price bubble and subsequent collapse have been immense.

The benefits of preventing future house price bubbles is obviously great, but realizing such benefits will require that policy makers learn to detect price bubbles as they are forming and then implement policies that will attenuate or mitigate them. A recent Lincoln Institute policy focus report, Preventing House Price Bubbles: Lessons from the 2006–2012 Bust, by James Follain and Seth Giertz, addresses the challenges of diagnosing and treating price bubbles in the real estate market. Their report builds on extensive statistical analysis available in several Lincoln Institute working papers.

While it is common to summarize the recent housing market bust using national indicators (as in the first paragraph above), these national indicators don’t account for great variations in both the levels and changes in housing prices across metropolitan areas. For example, from 1978 to 2011, constant dollar housing prices in Dallas, Texas and Omaha, Nebraska varied by less than 20 percent from their 1978 levels; those in Stockton, California nearly tripled from 1978 to 2006, but by 2011 fell back to their 1978 levels. Local housing markets are all influenced by national economic and financial policies and conditions, but these large differences across metropolitan markets indicate that local conditions play a very important role as well.

A key element of the statistical work by Follain and Giertz is to use metropolitan housing markets as the unit of observation for their analyses, which are based on annual data (for 1980 to 2010) and quarterly data (for 1990 to 2010) for up to 380 metropolitan areas. Their econometric work indicates that house price bubbles can be detected across metropolitan areas and that price changes and the accompanying credit risk vary greatly in size. Stress tests, such as those used to evaluate mortgage credit risk, can be useful indicators of potential price bubbles at the metropolitan level.

Because the levels and changes in housing prices vary greatly across metropolitan areas—with bubble-like price increases in some and essentially stable prices in others—Follain and Giertz conclude that policy measures to mitigate housing bubbles should be tailored to target metropolitan areas or regions rather than be applied uniformly across all metropolitan areas at the national level. Thus monetary policy would be an unattractive intervention to counter house price increases in a few metropolitan areas, because it would affect financing terms across both frothy and stable housing markets. Instead, Follain and Giertz favor policy interventions that would target those metropolitan areas with high price increases. The policy they advance would raise the capital reserve ratio that banks are required to hold against mortgages that they finance in those areas. Such countercyclical capital policies would both dampen house price increases and strengthen the reserves of the issuing banks, improving their ability to withstand any unexpected financial shocks.

Applying prudential housing market policies at the metro-politan level seems to be an obvious thing to do; so why has it not been done before? A major part of the answer is that housing market analysis is benefitting from a revolution in the availability of spatially disaggregated data at the metropolitan, county, and even zip code level. The data required to inform policy interventions targeted at the metropolitan level have only recently become widely available, and such data underpin the empirical work carried out by Follain and Giertz. For more information on their analysis, see http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/2245_Preventing-House-Price-Bubbles.

People who work with me are often surprised by the extent to which my philosophical canon derives from low-budget offbeat films, typically from the 1980s. When in need of wisdom, I frequently turn to the teachings of Repo Man or, for this essay, Terry Gilliam’s allegorical masterpiece Time Bandits. In the movie, a group of public workers are employed by the Supreme Being to fill holes in the time-space continuum left from the haste of creating the universe in seven days: “It was a bit of a botched job, you see.”

Like the Time Bandits, policy makers are often tasked to fill holes—actual potholes in roadways, or more theoretical holes that are the artifacts of dysfunctional private markets. One big hole that policy has struggled for decades to fill is the inadequate supply of affordable housing. For example, housing economists in the United States have become quite adept at tracking the size of the hole, which has only become harder to fill since the federal government committed to address it as a national policy priority beginning with the Housing Act of 1949, part of President Harry S. Truman’s Fair Deal.

Perhaps our collective failure to solve the affordable housing deficit over the last 66 years stems from wrongheaded analysis of the problem, and the conclusion that market-based solutions can be designed to solve the mismatch between the supply of affordable housing and demand for it. In his 1949 State of the Union address, President Truman noted that to fill the needs of millions of families with inadequate housing, “Most of the houses we need will have to be built by private enterprise, without public subsidy.”

To support this claim, permit me a short departure into market theory. From the now-preferred mathematical approach to economic analysis, a market is simply a system of partial differential equations that is solved by a single price. The partial differential equations capture the complex decisions made by consumers and producers of goods, reconciling tastes, preferences, and budgets of consumers with the technical complexities of producing goods to arrive at a price that clears the market by settling all transactions that suppliers and consumers of goods are willing to make.

Acclaimed economists Arrow, Debreu, and McKenzie proved the theoretical existence of a single set of prices that can simultaneously solve for the “general equilibrium” of all markets in a national or global economy. One important aspect of this Nobel Prize–winning contribution was the observation that a unique price cleared each market—one market, one price. There was no expectation that a single price could maintain equilibrium in two markets. But this is the fundamental flaw of the housing market—it is actually two markets, not one. Housing markets supply both shelter for local consumption and a globally tradable investment good made possible by broad capital markets that serve global investors. This dual-market status used to be more descriptive of owner-occupied housing, but, with the proliferation of real estate investment trusts (REITs), rental markets are now in the same boat.

Markets for consumption goods behave very differently than investment markets, responding to different “fundamentals.” On the supply side, prices for consumption goods are dictated by production costs, while prices in investment markets are dictated by expected returns. On the demand side, such things as tastes and preferences, household incomes, and demographics determine the price of housing as shelter. Investment demand for housing is dictated by factors like liquidity and liquidity preferences of investors, expected returns on alternative investments, or interest rates.

In developed countries, global capital markets and the market for shelter collide locally with little chance of reconciliation. Local households compete with global investors to decide the character and quantity of housing that is produced. In markets that attract global investment, plenty of housing is produced, but shortages of affordable units are acute, and worsen over time. This is because a huge share of new housing is produced to maximize investment return, not to meet the needs of the local population for shelter. For example, there is no shortage of global investment willing to participate in developing $100 million apartments in New York City. But affordable housing, being much harder to finance, is in short supply. And in markets that have been abandoned by global capital, house prices fall below production costs, and surplus housing accumulates and decays. In extreme cases such as Detroit, market order can only be restored by demolishing thousands of abandoned homes and buildings.

Perhaps it is time that we reconsider the analysis that led President Truman, and thousands of housing policy makers after him, to conclude that one could forge market-based solutions to the challenge of sheltering a country’s population. Truman concluded that “By producing too few rental units and too large a proportion of high-priced houses, the building industry is rapidly pricing itself out of the market.” But Truman was thinking about the market for shelter, not investment. It is remarkable to note that the number of housing units supplied in developed countries such as the United States significantly exceeds the number of households. In 2010, the U.S. Census estimated that there were 131 million units of housing in the country and 118 million households—one in seven housing units were vacant. It is even more shocking to note that in the United States this oversupply of housing characterizes every metropolitan market in the country—even metropolitan markets with extreme shortages of affordable housing. In 2010, 8.5 percent of housing units were vacant in Greater Boston, 9.1 percent in the San Francisco Bay area, and 10.2 percent in Washington, DC. The problem is that many households have insufficient incomes to afford the housing that is available.

In the end, rather than fill the holes in the fabric of time and space, the Time Bandits decided to take advantage of them to “get bloody stinking rich.” The bandits sought to capitalize on celestial imperfections in the same way that global investors seek returns from short-term market dislocations. To illustrate the dangers of naked speculation in unregulated markets, consider an apocryphal tale from a very different market. In 1974, heavy rains during planting season in Bangladesh suggested that rice might be in short supply at harvest time. In anticipation of these shortages, rice prices started to rise. Savvy commodity speculators realized that there would be a good return on any rice that was held off the market. Despite the fact that the actual harvest produced a bumper crop, the interaction between market expectations and market manipulations by commodity investors produced one of the worst famines of the 20th century—with an estimated 1.5 million famine-related fatalities. The famine was not the result of real food shortages. The collision of the market for goods and the market for speculative investment priced rice out of the reach of the local populations, with landless families suffering mortality at three times the rate of families with land.

Perhaps shelter and food are too important to be left to unregulated markets to allocate. In light of the damage that the conflict between the market for goods and the market for investment can inflict on local populations, perhaps public policy should focus on protecting a share of the market—and the public—from the ravages of speculation. In this issue, we describe some nascent efforts to produce permanently affordable housing by insulating it from speculation—through community land trusts, inclusionary housing, and housing cooperatives. Miriam Axel-Lute and Dana Hawkins-Simons discuss the mechanics of organizing local community land trusts. Loren Berlin describes efforts to preserve affordable housing in the form of manufactured homes and to promote permanent affordability of that stock through the conversion of manufactured housing communities to limited equity cooperatives.

On more cautionary notes: Cynthia Goytia discusses the ways that low-income communities circumvent housing regulations that drive up housing costs to produce their own affordable but substandard shelter in informal settlements around Latin American cities; and Li Sun and Zhi Liu discuss the tenuous status of one-quarter of urban Chinese households that purchased affordable shelter with uncertain property rights on collectively owned land at the rapidly developing edge of cities and in “urban villages,” former rural settlements now surrounded by modern construction. As capital markets deepen in these countries, the competition between housing as investment good and housing as shelter will likely exacerbate informality in Latin American cities and make property rights of these Chinese families more precarious. After almost seven decades of failed efforts to get private markets to meet populations’ needs for affordable shelter, it might be time to develop, and to export, another approach that is based on a more realistic understanding of the complexity of housing and capital markets.

Conventional wisdom and basic economic principles would suggest that an area subject to higher commercial and industrial property taxes than its nearby neighbors will suffer reduced economic development in comparison to those neighbors. On the other hand, any effort to reduce such unequal or “classified” property tax rates will produce a revenue shortfall. Raising taxes on homeowners to equalize rates and recover this lost revenue will encounter enormous and obvious political resistance.

This is the situation currently facing Cook County and the city of Chicago, and was the subject of a conference led by Therese McGuire of the Institute of Government and Public Affairs (IGPA) at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Held last September and cosponsored by the Lincoln Institute, the IGPA, and the Civic Federation of Chicago, the program brought together more than a hundred business and civic leaders, academics and practitioners to consider alternative methods of addressing the problems presented by the Cook County classification system.

In Illinois, the use of a property tax classification system by Cook County has been blamed for the economic decline of Chicago and the inner suburbs. The classification system is also seen as a barrier to reforming school funding and the state’s tax system. Are these charges valid? Does the classification system put Cook County at an economic disadvantage compared to its rapidly growing adjacent “collar counties”? If classification has so many shortcomings, why was it instituted in the first place? If we are only now recognizing those shortcomings, what steps can be taken that are both economically and politically feasible to overcome the problems?

Overview of Tax Classification

Illinois has long operated under the twin principles of uniformity and universality for both real and personal property, and both principles were incorporated into the Illinois Constitution of 1870. However, de facto or administrative classification of real property developed in Cook County as a response to the difficulty in taxing personal property in the same manner as real property. By the 1920s, the Cook County assessor publicly acknowledged assessing residential property at 25 percent of real value and business property at 60 percent.

A 1966 Illinois Department of Revenue report noted that Cook County was using 15 different classification groups. Despite the fact that classification was clearly in violation of the 1870 Constitution, the Illinois Supreme Court had refused to confront the issue. By the late 1960s, however, the court was prepared to overturn the existing system, and the 1970 constitutional convention faced the potential threat of court intervention.

The convention was the product of numerous reform efforts in Illinois during the previous decade. The state had failed to find a compromise redistricting plan after the 1960 census, causing the entire Illinois House to be elected as at-large members in 1964. That election brought many reformers to office, and a House-created commission charged with recommending constitutional reforms subsequently called for the 1970 convention.

Several delegates on the convention’s revenue committee were passionately in favor of uniformity, and they had considerable support from experts who opposed classification as a matter of economic policy. On the other hand, the Chicago delegation was adamant in demanding that the new constitution legalize classification. It was generally believed that without legalization, the new constitution would not have the support of Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley and his delegation, in which case it would fail to pass.

As a result, the 1970 Illinois Constitution allowed counties with a population greater than 200,000 to classify property for taxation. The extension of classification to these large counties was also allowed for the collar counties because many taxing districts crossed those county boundaries. Cook County’s system was thus guaranteed, but the Constitution gave the General Assembly the power to apply limitations because of concerns there would be a crazy quilt of classifications should the collar counties adopt that system. Nevertheless, no collar county has done so.

Today, Cook County’s classification system is considered by many to be an impediment to Illinois’ attempts to deal with a variety of social and economic issues. Politically, classification is believed to be partly to blame for the failure to reform education funding in Illinois. In 1997, then Governor James Edgar led an unsuccessful attempt to convince the General Assembly to gradually shift the burden of education funding from property taxes to income taxes. One of the strongest arguments against the effort was that it would be a windfall for businesses and corporations, whose property taxes would be shifted to individual taxpayers. That shift would have even been greater in Cook County, which has more than 47 percent of the state’s entire assessed value and where businesses pay property taxes at a rate double that of homeowners.

Impacts on Economic Development

In terms of economic development, some observers believe that classification puts Cook County at a disadvantage in the eyes of business people who might consider locating in Illinois or expanding their operations in the state. While there are obviously other factors involved, the concern is that classification would cause these companies to look more favorably at locations in the collar counties or other states.

Recent research has shown that high property taxes do have a negative effect on the market value of property and do deter businesses from locating in the affected areas. Studies of property tax differences in the Boston, Phoenix and Chicago areas have shown that, because higher property taxes mean higher rents and lower market values, real estate development shifts from the high-tax area to the low-tax area over time. Other studies have shown that manufacturers seeking to relocate are very sensitive to local property tax rates. New construction and retail trade are also affected negatively, although the service sector is not as influenced by high property taxes.

Is this the case in Cook County? A recent study by Richard Dye, Therese McGuire and David Merriman, all affiliated with the IGPA, found that the effective tax rate of Cook County (5.52 percent for commercial and 5.78 percent for industrial property) is higher than in the collar counties, which have an average rate of 2.54 percent on all property. Furthermore, they found that four measures of economic activity-growth in the value of commercial property, the value of industrial property, the number of establishments and the employment rate-were measurably lower in Cook County than in the collar counties. But is that the end of the story?

No, according to the study’s authors. A multifaceted national trend is dispersing population, employment and business activity away from metropolitan centers to outlying counties. To determine if it is this national trend or specific property tax differences that is causing slower economic growth in Cook County, the study examined the characteristics of 260 municipalities in the Chicago metropolitan area. The researchers used two samples of municipalities-one metro-wide and the other limited to those near the Cook County border, where the effects of higher tax rates should be most potent.

The researchers presented their results, at the conference finding, “weak evidence at best that taxes matter.” Once other influences on business activity were factored out, the researchers determined that, for the entire six-county region, employment was the only economic activity that seemed to be adversely affected by property taxes, although in the border region the market value of industrial property was also affected. “The bottom line is that the evidence is mixed and inconclusive,” said McGuire. “There is no smoking gun.”

Another participant in the conference challenged this interpretation of the results. Michael Wasylenko of Syracuse University, who had been asked to review the study in advance and discuss it at the conference, said he was convinced that the researchers did find significant effects because the employment measure is a better measure of economic activity than the others. “I think the weight of the evidence suggests that these results are consistent with previous findings that property tax differentials will have a substantial effect on employment growth within a metropolitan area.”

If the employment factor, then, is the one to be given the most weight and Cook County’s property tax classification system is economically disadvantageous, in addition to being a political roadblock to reform, what is to be done? “It comes down to whether the economic gains that might be realized if you went to a non-classified tax are worth the political battles. Are the economic development advantages enough to want to do this,” said Wasylenko.

The economic and political stakes in this decision are high, since Cook County currently levies more than 50 percent of all property taxes in the state. The county cannot rapidly shift a large part of the tax burden among classes of property, but neither can it ignore concerns that the tax burden on businesses located there place it at an economic disadvantage with regard to its nearby neighbors. Any solution must be approached as a component of the overall tax system, be grounded in verifiable data, and have significant support from the public, the media and business interests. The September conference sought to contribute to that process of informed public debate on a crucial fiscal topic.

In early December, the Cook County assessor proposed reducing the assessment ratio (the ratio of assessed value to market value) for certain types of business property: from 36 to 33 percent for industrial properties such as factories and distribution facilities; from 33 to 26 percent for large investor-owned residential property; and from 33 to 16 percent for multiuse storefront businesses with apartments on upper floors. The assessor’s hope is that more favorable treatment of business will lead to even more rapid growth of the tax base over time. While these recommendations came out of several different tax studies, any changes in assessment rates must by approved by the Cook County Board before they can be implemented.

Scott Koeneman is communications manager at the Institute of Government and Public Affairs (IGPA) of the University of Illinois in Urbana, Illinois.

References

Dye, R., T. McGuire and D. Merriam. 1999. “The Impact of Property Taxes and the Property Tax Classification on Business Activity in the Chicago Metropolitan Area.” Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper.

Giertz, J.F., and T. McGuire, “Cook County, Ill., Assessor Proposese Changes in Assessment Levels,” State Tax Today. Dec. 7, 1999.

Man, J. 1995. “The Incidence of Differential Commercial Property Taxes: Empirical Evidence,” National Tax Journal, 48: 479-496.

McDonald, J. 1993. “Incidence of the Property Tax on Commercial Real Estate: The Case of Downtown Chicago,” National Tax Journal, 46: 109-120.

Wheaton, W. 1984. “The Incidence of Inter-jurisdictional Differences in Commercial Property Taxes,” National Tax Journal, 37: 515-527.

Source: Illinois Department of Revenue

The interactions between land and property markets and the broader economy of cities and nations are central to the Lincoln Institute’s concerns. Two key objectives of our work in this area are (1) to raise awareness about the stakes of good land policy for creating well-functioning land and property markets and for improving the performance of financial markets, labor markets, the fiscal affairs of local and national governments, and ultimately the economic health of both cities and countries; and (2) to indicate the need for high quality data and an appropriate analytical framework to aid in understanding the importance of good land policy, monitoring the effects of land policies throughout the economy and facilitating policy reforms. In November 1997, the Lincoln Institute held a conference on the theme of “Land Prices, Information Systems, and the Market for Land Information” to explore these issues.

Land Values and Land Policy

How important are the stakes of good land policy? Hee-Nam Jung of the Korean Research Institute for Human Settlements reported on the importance of land markets in the economies of five countries (see Table 1). The value of land in mature economies such as Canada, France and the United States ranged from about one-third to three-quarters of GNP during the mid-1980s, and represented from 8 to 21 percent of estimated national wealth. In the more rapidly growing economies of Japan and Korea, land values were from three to six times as high as GNP in the 1980s, and represented half or more of estimated national wealth. In the mature economies these figures illustrate the importance of land as a source of wealth, but in rapidly growing economies land has an even more significant role in determining economic welfare and a host of incentives for the performance of the economy.

In Japan, for example, booming land and property values during the 1980s served as collateral to fund credit expansion throughout the economy and, indeed, throughout the world. Land prices in Japan’s six largest cities increased dramatically from 1980 to 1991, at a compound rate of about 12 percent annually (see Figure 1). By 1990, the estimated price of land being developed for residential purposes in Tokyo was estimated to be about $3,000 per square meter, compared to figures of roughly $110 in Toronto and Paris and $70 in Washington, D.C.

Between 1991 and 1996, however, Japanese land prices fell by nearly half, taking down the Japanese economy and a host of financial institutions in its wake. The cumulative losses of the Japanese banking system associated with the collapse of the property market and associated businesses are estimated around $1 trillion, making the U.S. Savings and Loan “crisis” seem comparatively insignificant. Analysis of Japanese land policy suggests some of the causes of the boom and bust cycle in land prices: policies that have severely restricted conversion of agricultural land to urban uses; an especially complex land development system that requires exceptionally long times for approvals; and a fiscal system that places little emphasis on the taxation of land and property values.

Land prices in Korea also rose at a tremendous rate during the 1980s-over 16 percent annually from 1981 to 1991. Remarkably, in most years nominal capital gains on Korean land were greater than Korea’s GNP. Jung explained that these gains had profound implications for the distribution of wealth and income in Korea, and for economic incentives. Not surprisingly, the recent collapse of Korean property markets has had tidal effects throughout the economy. As in the case of Japan, the Korean land policy framework has been seen as highly questionable. Government intervention in land and property markets over the years has been responsible for severely distorted markets that represent a major structural imbalance in the Korean economy.

Using Land Market Data for Policy Analysis

Other speakers at the conference presented information on the importance of land market performance for a variety of stakeholders throughout the economy: consumers and taxpayers; land developers and builders of residential and non-residential properties; banks and financial institutions; and both local and central governments. In the case of Cracow, Poland, Alain Bertaud from the World Bank indicated that policies embodied in master plans and zoning regulations were highly inconsistent with the nominal objectives of the regulations, and would lead to inefficient and costly spatial patterns within the city. His paper illustrated the value of having good data on land prices, regulations and the spatial distribution of the population in order to evaluate the effects of policies involving land use, infrastructure and property taxation.

Paul Cheshire from Oberlin College and Stephen Sheppard from the London School of Economics illustrated how data on land and housing prices, land and housing characteristics, and regulations can be used to evaluate the effects of government policies such as the preservation of urban open space. Jean-Paul Blandinieres of the French Ministry of Equipment, Transportation and Housing discussed an ambitious program of the French government to establish “Urban Observatories” to collect and analyze information on land and property markets and the effects of government policies.

Data Collection on Land and Property Markets

Recognition of the costs of land policy failures or, conversely, of the benefits associated with implementing good policies, has given rise to a number of systematic efforts to collect and analyze high quality data on land and property markets within various institutional settings. Pablo Trivelli discussed land and property information systems in Latin America that serve the needs of public and private stakeholders. Perhaps the most impressive of these is an effort in Brazil called EMBRAESP, which monitors key indicators of urban property market performance along with urban legislation, land regulations and major public works projects that might have an impact on the behavior of property markets. Data and analyses from EMBRAESP are of interest to many institutions throughout Brazil. The distribution of the information is self-sustaining through contracts with major newspaper chains, sales of periodic bulletins, disks containing standard data, and special reports responding to individual demands. Much of this information can also be accessed through the Internet.

Another major data collection and analysis effort was reported by David Dowall from the University of California-Berkeley. He developed the “Land Market Assessment,” a tool for analysis of land and housing markets that has been applied in over 30 developing countries and transitional economies. At comparatively modest cost, data are collected through aerial photos and satellite images, surveys of land brokers, and secondary sources on population, infrastructure and regulatory frameworks. Dowall’s analysis of the experience with these assessments documents a number of generic policy findings, especially concerning the costs of inappropriate land policies. His work also suggests that even more cost-effective versions of the tool can be developed that will illustrate the workings of land markets and beneficial policy reforms.

Romeo Sherko, David Stanfield and Malcolm Childress from the Land Tenure Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, addressed the issue of designing a strategy for the creation and dissemination of land information in transitional economies, where information has historically been tightly held, thus frustrating both the evolution of property markets and opportunities for policy analysis. Their conclusions regarding the role of the public and private sectors, the scope of data collection, and pricing and dissemination strategies help to explain why land market information is often not provided or is poorly provided by either the government or the private sector. On the other hand, their analysis suggests that the benefits of good land market information are considerable. Some of these benefits were illustrated by David Dale-Johnson from the University of Southern California and Jan Brzeski from Jagellonian University, Cracow, who discussed efforts to document rapidly evolving market prices of property in Cracow and to inform property tax reform efforts.

Samu Kurri, Seppo Laakso, and Heikki Loikkanen of the Finnish Government Institute of Economic Research discussed the land price information system in Finland, suggesting that it is only now beginning to catch up with the needs of many different potential users of the data. These users include those concerned with implementation of a new property tax and macro-economic and financial sector policymakers concerned with the interaction of the Finnish property market and national economic performance. Karl (Chip) Case of Wellesley College presented findings from a preliminary analysis of 100 years of land prices in Boston, which was designed, among other things, to highlight some of the methodological difficulties of measuring land prices in a way that facilitates policy analysis and reform.

Stephen K. Mayo is a senior fellow of the Lincoln Institute.