SHARE
In the context of entirely new fiscal policies and new approaches to property rights in central and eastern Europe over the past decade, taxes on land and buildings have taken on significant new roles—politically as adjuncts to privatization, restitution and decentralization, and fiscally as revenue-raising tools for local governments.
The Lincoln Institute is particularly interested in the complex debate over property-based taxes and in how different countries experience the transition from communism to democracy and from planned to market-driven economies. Over the past four years, the Institute has undertaken a series of educational programs to help public officials and business leaders in eastern Europe understand both underlying principles and practical examples of property taxation and valuation through offering varied perspectives and frameworks for decision making.
The Institute is also sponsoring a series of case studies to compare the implementation of ad valorem property tax systems in eastern European countries. These studies provide a unique perspective from which to review the initiation of land privatization, fiscal decentralization and land markets, as well as to compare the various legal and administrative features adopted for the respective tax systems.
Programs in Estonia
The Baltic country of Estonia was the first of the new independent states to recognize the benefits of land taxation and thus has been the focus of several Lincoln Institute programs. The Institute’s work in Estonia began in September 1993 when Fellow Jane Malme and Senior Fellow Joan Youngman participated in a conference with the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on the design of a property taxation system. Estonia had just instituted its land tax program, and since then the Institute has continued to support programs there relating to land reform and property taxation.
The most recent education program, on “Land and Tax Policies for Urban Markets in Estonia,” was presented in the capital of Tallinn in May to nearly 30 senior-level state and city officials interested in public finance, land reform and urban development. President H. James Brown, Jane Malme, Joan Youngman and a faculty of international experts explored current issues concerning land reform, valuation and taxation. They also discussed methods of urban planning, land management and taxation to both encourage development of urban land markets and finance local governments.
Estonia is also serving as the pilot case study for a survey instrument to gather and analyze information from countries adopting new fiscal instruments for market-based economies. Malme and Youngman are working closely with Tambet Tiits, director of a private real estate research and consulting firm in Tallinn, to draft the survey, research and collect data, and analyze the results.
Other Case Studies and Conferences
A second case study examines Poland, where an ad valorem property tax law is under legislative consideration. Dr. Jan Brzeski, director of the Cracow Real Estate Institute, serves as the country research director and liaison with the Institute. Subsequent studies will survey Latvia, Lithuania and Russia. In addition, Professors Gary Cornia and Phil Bryson of the Marriott School of Management at Brigham Young University in Utah are using the Lincoln Institute survey instrument to study property tax systems in the Czech and Slovak Republics.
The Lincoln Institute was a sponsor of the fourth international conference on local taxation and property valuation of the London-based Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation (IRRV) in Rome in early June. The conference attracts about 300 senior level officials from central as well as local governments throughout Europe. Dennis Robinson, Lincoln Institute vice president for programs and operations, was on the conference advisory committee and chaired a session on “Case Studies in Local Taxation in the New Democracies,” at which Jane Malme and Joan Youngman discussed the Institute’s case studies on land and building taxation in transitional economies. Other participants in that session were Institute associates Tambit Tiits of Estonia and Jan Brzeski of Poland. Board member Gary Cornia spoke about his research on property taxation in the Czech Republic. Martim Smolka, senior fellow for Latin America and the Caribbean, presented a paper on “Urban Land Management and Value Capture” at another session chaired by Joan Youngman. Jane Malme also was a discussion leader for a session on “Tax Collection and Administration.”
The Institute is planning another program with OECD in December 1997 for public officials and practitioners in the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to examine policy aspects of land valuation and mass appraisal concepts for ad valorem taxation.
Value capture is an increasingly popular concept that seeks to capture for public benefit all or part of the increments in land value resulting from community, rather than private, investments and actions. Yet, based on the Lincoln Institute’s experience in sponsoring many educational and research programs dealing with value capture policies in Latin America, it is also quite controversial.
This article addresses some of the contentious and persistent issues that have engaged participants in the ongoing debate over value capture, ranging from basic concerns, such as the proper understanding of the legal basis for land property rights, to larger political questions raised by new or higher charges on real estate property. Technical issues also are involved, such as distinguishing land value increments (or plusvalías) attributed to specific public investments or planning decisions from other more general sources or factors that influence land markets, as well as pragmatic challenges that arise in selecting the right instrument for the right circumstances at the right time.
To gain a better understanding of value capture, one cannot rely simply on technical arguments or expert authorities. At the same time, one cannot dismiss the issue on purely political grounds by attributing the main obstacles to the implementation of value capture policies to well-positioned interest groups. Rather, a considerable share of the “unexplained variance” in the application of value capture seems to be the result of inadequate information or misunderstanding held by major stakeholders in the debate.
Figure 1 summarizes 10 contentious value capture issues; items 1, 2 and 3 are discussed briefly below.
Unfair Charges for the Poor
Although support for direct subsidies or grants to the poor is waning in Latin America, many still believe that the poor should not pay for urban services, or should be exempted from taxes and other charges on their land, as is required by many of the more progressive value capture policies and laws.
A common argument in favor of exempting the poor from such charges raises an intergenerational dilemma: since wealthy residents for many years have enjoyed urban services that they did not pay for, why should the poor be charged now for services that they need and deserve? Another argument centers on the idea that most land value increments in poor areas have in fact been generated by the poor themselves, through sweat equity or private schemes to access basic services in their areas, not through public intervention. Some recognize that urban upgrading programs simply bring poor settlements to the first stage of the urbanization process, which is a bare minimum for participation in regular land markets. Others believe that even a socially neutral value capture instrument may produce a regressive result, perpetuating the disparity between the rich and the poor in the context of inequitable access to urban facilities and services, as is the case in most Latin American cities (Furtado 2000).
On the other end of the spectrum are those who argue that value capture payments are part of the poor sector’s claim to full citizenship, including the right to demand attention from the government. There are many examples where the poor have been eager to pay for receiving services (such as water systems, public lighting and flood control) since the cost of not accessing them is perceived to be higher than the actual payment. This was the case in Lima, Peru, in the early 1990s when more than 30 poor communities participated in a public service program that included payment for the cost of the services provided.
A more theoretical and perhaps less intuitive argument considers the capitalization effect of any charge on land prices. That effect is the reduction (or increase) of the current market price of land by the capitalized or discounted sum of the costs (or benefits) affecting the future earnings the property is expected to generate. To the extent that value capture charges on regularized or upgraded areas are integrated in the expectations regarding the future burden imposed on unserviced land bought from illegal or pirate subdividers, they would tend to be capitalized in the price that buyers would be willing to pay or the subdivider was able to charge (Smolka 2003). Although the poor would end up paying the same amount over time, the money would go to the local public treasury rather than the subdivider’s pocket.
Incidently, a common but mistaken view holds that such charges (value capture or land value taxes) are inflationary or increase the market price of land. Although the capitalization effect is complicated, most people can understand a situation comparing two otherwise identical apartments, where the one located in a building with a higher condo fee would get a lower rent in the marketplace than the apartment with a smaller fee. The same line of reasoning may be used to explain why there is no double taxation between value capture and the property tax. The relevant land value increment resulting from some public intervention accumulates or adds to an observed base market price that already is net of the capitalized effect of any anticipated future benefits or burdens, including the property tax.
Acquired Rights When Changing Land Uses
Although few would argue that expectations play a crucial role in determining land prices, it is widely considered unfair if price compensation falls below current market prices. This idea is now beginning to change, as reflected in recent legislation. For example, Law 388 of 1997 in Colombia allows for public acquisition of land at fair market prices, but not including the increment of land value resulting from previous public investments or changes in regulatory land uses (see article by Maldonado and Smolka, page 15). The same principle is stated in Brazil’s new City Statute (Law 10.257 of 2001) when land expropriation is used as a sanction against a landowner who is not complying with social uses of the land. Many lawyers agree that expectations do not create rights; therefore, expectations not realized should not be compensated. The social unrest around public land acquisition that led to the postponement of Mexico City’s proposed new airport mega-project vividly illustrates this problem.
It is hard for the typical landowner who in good faith bought a piece of land with the expectation of using its development potential to understand why he should not be compensated for the loss of that land at the current market price or at least the acquisition price, even if the development rights had not been exercised. However, the result often depends on the extent to which the new policy is actually implemented. In practice, prices reflect expectations regarding the (usually weak) enforcement of existing legislation, including legal variances or loopholes in the relevant fiscal and regulatory environment. This has been the case in most court decisions regarding fair compensation on public land acquisition processes and on claims from landowners (or developers) on whom local administrations impose plusvalías charges. A more pragmatic argument is that rights may indeed be restricted by a new legislation or zoning code, as long as it is accompanied by adequate transition rules to protect the rights of those who had previous legitimate claims. Others defend the transition process as an indispensable step toward allowing the market to gradually absorb such changes.
Economists struggle to convey the importance of expectations in determining the structure of current observed land prices. How the future affects current land prices is in fact harder to express to the general public than the notion that current prices reflect rights as realized in comparable properties in the past. In Latin America expectations associated with land uses are not always related to zoning or building codes, but rather to land speculation. It may be of interest to note that whereas speculation in Latin America is associated with long-term retention of land, in North America it is associated more with rapid turnover of properties. The phenomenon of land retention for future development, with the consequent private appropriation of unearned increments in land values, has stymied urban planning and development ever since cities began expanding rapidly over many decades.
Asymmetrical Compensation for Wipeouts
The debate over value capture (i.e., capturing land value increments, windfalls or plusvalías) inevitably raises the question: What about the wipeouts (minusvalías)? The common perception is that governments are more eager to approve legislation to capture land value increments than to provide legal protections for citizens against takings or arbitrary compensation for equally predictable losses (minusvalías). The Latin American record has shown, however, that the balance between the plusvalías captured and the minusvalías paid for is clearly negative. The amount paid in compensation to landowners surpasses by far the small and sporadic gains the public has been able to recover from the direct benefits it generates for private properties.
All rents, and land prices for that matter, are in essence nothing more than accumulated plusvalías, or land value increments, over time, echoing Henry George’s argument for full confiscation of land rents. Thus, the alleged minusvalías are considered incidental and just part of a value to which individual rights are not (or should not be) absolute. The debate on this asymmetry bears directly on the proper definition of wipeouts and on how those losses are understood, which raises the issue of development rights. While some are willing to restrict the compensation for land and building improvements that the owner may lose, others argue that development rights are permanently built in as an inherent attribute of the land.
In practice it is not easy to make these arguments. What may be valid in the aggregate does not necessarily hold true for the part, since individual landowners consider it a loss in land value when, for example, a walled expressway cuts across their back yard or a viaduct blocks their view and produces noise and pollution. The average citizen is not easily convinced by the above arguments. The quest for symmetrical treatment is too socially and culturally sensitive to be ignored.
Transfer of development rights (TDRs)—an instrument originally conceived for compensating minusvalías from historical, architectural, cultural or environmental preservation ordinances for plusvalías somewhere else—has now been extended to mitigate other legitimate claims for minusvalías compensation. Some argue that regular compensation for wipeouts is a guarantee, making it easier to accept payments for windfalls. Under the equity principle, planning decisions including zoning schemes are recognized as potentially unfair with regard to the distribution of values in land markets. However ingenious the TDR instrument may appear, it does not help clarify the issues at stake. On the contrary, it adds to the debate since it simultaneously recognizes the right for minusvalías to be compensated and sanctions the right of individuals to plusvalías, reintroducing the question of private appropriations of community values.
Final Comments
The complex debates over value capture policies and instruments in Latin America indicate that much remains to be researched and learned. If the issues do not necessarily have a single answer, the arguments discussed here demonstrate that a significant portion of the resistance to such ideas may be attributed to misconceptions and insufficient information. Although the positions taken by different groups are not as clear-cut or coherent as expected, perceptions and attitudes do change, as the accompanying article indicates.
Martim O. Smolka is a senior fellow and director of the Lincoln Institute’s Program on Latin America and the Caribbean. Fernanda Furtado is a fellow of the Institute and a professor in the Urbanism Department at the Fluminense Federal University in Niteroi, Brazil.
References
Furtado, Fernanda. 2000. Rethinking value capture policies for Latin America. Land Lines 12 (3): 8–10.
Smolka, Martim O. 2003. Informality, urban poverty and land market prices. Land Lines 15 (1): 4–7.
Figure 1: Contentious Propositions and Commentaries on Value Capture
Proposition Commentary
1. It is unfair to charge the urban poor who benefit from regularization or upgrading programs. Evidence shows that expectations regarding publicly funded future upgrading programs lead to higher markups or premiums on current land prices in irregular or illegal settlements. Charging for such benefits would simply switch the recipient of a payment burden that is already being imposed on the poor from the subdivider to the government collecting the charge.
2. Urban land policy must take into account previous development rights, for they are acquired rights. Although expectations are an important part of land market prices, they do not create rights. Zoning designations or development rights, when not realized, are not acquired rights and therefore they can be taken without compensation.
3. Minusvalías are not compensated for; the asymmetry between plusvalías and minusvalías is unfair. Minusvalías are the exception in Latin American cities where land value increments are much higher than the cost of servicing land. In practice, however, public compensation to private owners usually far surpasses collection through value capture policies.
4. Land value capture policy is “communist.” Paying for “free rides” is certainly not a communist idea. One is reminded of mainstream economic theories regarding the merits of a system where individuals and social costs and benefits converge at the margin.
5. Value capture over and above the property tax implies double taxation. In effect, observed land prices to which land value increments apply are already net of the capitalization effect of property tax on land values.
6. Value capture distorts the functioning of the land market. In actuality, it’s the opposite: uncontrolled land value increments distort the behavior of agents. The presence of plusvalías is as distorting a factor for urban development as inflation is for economic development in general.
7. Private appropriation of land value increments is no more objectionable than similar windfalls obtained in capital markets. There is a fundamental conceptual difference. In capital markets equity and bonds are issued against productive investments as collateral for increases in productivity in individual businesses. In the land market, by contrast, land value increments result from the community effort, not individual effort.
8. Value capture is technically impractical because it is impossible to measure the land value increment. With the technical resources available today it is ludicrous to think it “can’t be done.” Ingenious and practical solutions have been developed in Cartagena, Colombia, and Porto Alegre, Brazil, for example.
9. Value capture is overwhelmingly rejected by the citizens, and therefore is politically impractical. The privileged few are the main source of rejection, not the poorer majority of the population who often are charged higher prices in order to access public services through informal arrangements.
10. The amount that can be collected with supplementary value capture instruments is a negligible amount in the public budget. Because of limited collection of the property tax in Latin America, value capture resources can assume an important role in financing urban development. Besides, use of value capture brings to light plusvalías, which has traditionally been a key source of corruption, and thus contributes to a healthier fiscal environment.
SHARE
Karl E. Case es profesor emérito de Economía en la universidad Wellesley College, donde ocupó la cátedra en economía Katherine Coman y A. Barton Hepburn y enseñó durante 34 años. Actualmente, es senior fellow en el Centro Conjunto de Estudios sobre Vivienda de la Universidad de Harvard.
El profesor Case es, además, socio fundador de Fiserv Case Shiller Weiss, Inc., empresa de investigaciones inmobiliarias, y miembro del directorio del Depositors Insurance Fund de Massachusetts. Es miembro del Comité Asesor del Índice Standard & Poors, de la Junta Asesora Académica del Banco de la Reserva Federal de Boston y de la Junta Asesora del Instituto Rappaport para el Gran Boston de la Universidad de Harvard. Se ha desempeñado como miembro de los directorios de Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation (MGIC), del Banco Century, del Lincoln Institute of Land Policy y de la Asociación Estadounidense de Economía Urbana e Inmobiliaria. Asimismo, fue editor asociado de las revistas Journal of Economic Perspectives y Journal of Economics Education.
Después de recibir su título de grado de la Universidad de Miami en Ohio en 1968, el profesor Case se desempeñó durante tres años en el servicio activo del ejército y luego recibió su título de doctor en Economía por la Universidad de Harvard en 1976. Sus trabajos de investigación están relacionados con el área inmobiliaria, de vivienda y de finanzas públicas. Es autor o coautor de cinco libros, tales como Principles of Economics, Economics and Tax Policy y Property Taxation: The Need for Reform, y ha publicado numerosos artículos en revistas profesionales. Principles of Economics, un texto básico con la coautoría de Ray C. Fair y Sharon Oster, se encuentra ya en su décima edición.
Land Lines: ¿Cómo se involucró usted con el Lincoln Institute of Land Policy?
Chip Case: Supe del Instituto Lincoln en la década de 1970, cuando este patrocinaba conferencias para el Comité de Recursos Tributarios y Desarrollo Económico (TRED, por sus siglas en inglés). Yo había escrito mi tesis de doctorado sobre impuestos a la propiedad y me habían invitado a asistir a una de estas conferencias. En el otoño de 1980, comencé mi primer año sabático en el Wellesley College y necesitaba encontrar alguna forma de financiar mis investigaciones. Organicé una reunión con Arlo Woolery, quien, en ese entonces, era director ejecutivo del Instituto, y él estuvo de acuerdo con apoyar mi trabajo.
Desde entonces, mi relación con el Instituto Lincoln ha continuado durante estas cuatro décadas. Fui miembro del directorio a mediados de la década de 1990 y me desempeñé en los comités de búsqueda ejecutiva para H. James Brown, ex presidente del Instituto Lincoln, y Gregory K. Ingram, actual presidente y gerente general. Dicté clases en varios programas patrocinados por el Instituto Lincoln en el Instituto de Capacitación sobre Reforma del Suelo (actualmente denominado Centro Internacional de Estudios y Capacitación sobre Políticas de Suelo) en Taiwán durante 15 años, y además participé en una gran cantidad de programas en Cuba y China.
La mayor parte de mis investigaciones se encuentra en línea con el espíritu del Instituto, por lo que continúo realizando presentaciones en forma regular en diferentes conferencias y seminarios. Una conferencia especial en la que tuve el agrado de participar fue “La vivienda y el entorno construido: Acceso, finanzas y políticas”, que se llevó a cabo en Cambridge en diciembre de 2007. Posteriormente, el Instituto publicó los artículos y comentarios respectivos bajo el título “Ensayos en honor a Karl E. Case” en un volumen titulado Housing Markets and the Economy: Risk, Regulation, and Policy, editado por Edward L. Glaeser y John M. Quigley.
Land Lines: ¿Qué tipo de trabajo ha realizado usted recientemente para el Instituto Lincoln?
Chip Case: A principios de este año intervine como panelista en la conferencia “Economía Urbana y Finanzas Públicas”, organizada por Daniel McMillen, visiting fellow del Instituto Lincoln, junto con el Departamento de Valuación y Tributación. Este programa anual reúne a académicos líderes en los ámbitos de economía urbana y finanzas públicas con el fin de presentar y debatir sus investigaciones. Es un gran foro y una muy buena oportunidad para exponer nuevos trabajos de corte empírico.
Asimismo, hace poco regresé de un programa del Instituto Lincoln en Beijing, en donde dicté una serie de conferencias dirigidas a planificadores y economistas en el Centro de Desarrollo Urbano y Política de Suelo de la Universidad de Pekín y el Instituto Lincoln. Mi función allí fue ayudar a descifrar lo que ha estado ocurriendo en el mercado de la vivienda de los Estados Unidos y brindar una perspectiva acerca de la relación existente entre el colapso del mercado de la vivienda y la crisis financiera actual.
Los funcionarios chinos se encuentran muy interesados en aprender de la experiencia de mercado de los Estados Unidos. Decir que el mercado de la vivienda en China está pasando por un período fructífero sería quedarse cortos. En la mayoría de las ciudades, el mercado se encuentra en tensión debido a la cantidad limitada de suelo disponible y a una infraestructura insuficiente. El gobierno ha reconocido que el rápido crecimiento supone un desafío para las autoridades que controlan el mercado y, a la vez, es consciente de que este crecimiento puede aprovecharse como una fuente de posibles ingresos para las ciudades de este país.
Land Lines: ¿Qué aprendió usted acerca del problema de las finanzas del gobierno municipal en China?
Chip Case: Los gobiernos municipales en China poseen todo el suelo dentro de sus respectivas jurisdicciones y, tradicionalmente, han recaudado fondos mediante la celebración de contratos de usufructo a largo plazo sobre dichos terrenos con asociaciones de empresas y otras compañías de negocios que, posteriormente, desarrollan el suelo. Los ingresos provenientes de estos contratos de usufructo han permitido a las jurisdicciones municipales proveer de la infraestructura y bienes públicos necesarios sin haber recaudado nunca ningún tipo de impuesto.
Últimamente, algunas jurisdicciones se están quedando sin terrenos nuevos y sin desarrollar para ceder en usufructo y, por lo tanto, están perdiendo la fuente de ingresos que necesitan para financiar las escuelas, la infraestructura y los servicios de salud en sus jurisdicciones. China nunca aplicó impuestos a la propiedad, aunque la solución recomendada para la actual reducción de los ingresos municipales es, justamente, un sistema de impuestos a la propiedad. No obstante, la tarea de convencer a los funcionarios municipales para que implementen un impuesto a la propiedad ha resultado un desafío político por varias razones.
Land Lines: ¿De qué manera se relaciona su investigación con el trabajo realizado por el Instituto Lincoln?
Chip Case: Me he dedicado al estudio de las cuestiones relacionadas con el impuesto sobre el suelo y la propiedad durante mucho tiempo. Publiqué mi tesis doctoral bajo el título de “Tributación a la propiedad: Necesidad de una reforma”. Mi interés en el impuesto a la propiedad desde mis primeros años de investigación me llevó a pensar acerca del mercado de la vivienda y sus ineficacias y fallas. He escrito sobre la eficacia del impuesto a la propiedad y de los efectos distributivos de los precios del suelo y sus aumentos.
Una parte importante de mi investigación trata sobre la forma de medir el valor del suelo y evaluar de qué manera el valor del suelo afecta a la ubicación de los mercados laborales y a la distribución de los recursos y bienes públicos. Al comprar una casa, la persona está comprando el acceso a un paquete de derechos que se encuentran enlazados a la porción de terreno donde se encuentra su casa. El valor de este paquete de derechos se capitaliza en el costo de la casa y se somete a tributación como un componente del valor tasado de la propiedad. Dicho paquete de derechos (lo que incluye y de qué manera varía según su ubicación) es, hoy en día, un tema candente, debido en gran parte a la situación actual del mercado de la vivienda y su impacto sobre la estabilidad financiera de la economía del país.
Land Lines: Cuéntenos un poco más acerca de su interés en el impuesto a la propiedad.
Chip Case: Soy un acérrimo defensor del impuesto a la propiedad. Este tributo tiene el potencial de ser un medio claro y transparente para recaudar ingresos. El valor justo de mercado de una propiedad no es un mal índice para medir la capacidad de pago de los contribuyentes, si lo comparamos con el impuesto a las ganancias federal, el cual se ha vuelto tan complejo que se ha convertido en una forma extraña de distribuir el costo del gobierno y que demuestra una conexión muy poco intuitiva con la capacidad de pago de impuestos.
Los impuestos deberían ser neutrales e, idealmente, no deberían afectar al comportamiento económico. Cuando los contribuyentes modifican su conducta para evitar impuestos, en realidad empeoran su situación y, al mismo tiempo, el gobierno pierde ingresos. Los costos ocultos derivados de estos cambios son, por ejemplo, precios más altos y salarios más bajos. La porción del impuesto a la propiedad correspondiente al terreno es uno de los pocos tributos que no distorsionan la actividad económica y, por lo tanto, es una herramienta extremadamente valiosa para las finanzas públicas.
El impuesto a la propiedad constituye un apoyo a las jurisdicciones municipales, al gobierno autónomo y a la democracia directa. Los gobiernos municipales experimentan muchos obstáculos al imponer tributos independientes a las ventas o a las ganancias si los contribuyentes pueden encontrar una tasa menor en una ciudad o pueblo cercano. Los bienes raíces se definen como inmuebles, lo que representa una buena base para aplicar un impuesto municipal.
El impuesto a la propiedad siempre se encuentra en la mira de sus detractores debido a su alta visibilidad. Casi nadie sabe cuánto paga en términos de impuesto a las ventas en un año y, en el caso de muchos contribuyentes, el impuesto a las ganancias se deduce de sus salarios. No obstante, extender un cheque por un abultado monto en concepto de impuesto a la propiedad llama la atención del contribuyente. Esto da como resultado cierto nivel de controversia, aunque también significa tener la responsabilidad de rendir cuentas y permite al electorado municipal decidir si los impuestos que paga tienen una correlación con los servicios públicos que recibe. Y esto resulta casi imposible de juzgar a nivel estatal o federal.
El impuesto a la propiedad siempre puede mejorarse, lo que representa una parte de la importante misión que tiene el Instituto Lincoln. Sin embargo, se necesitan personas que defiendan este impuesto mostrando sus puntos fuertes, por lo que siempre estaré encantado de cumplir esa función.
Land Lines: ¿Cuál es el tema de su actual investigación?
Chip Case: Estoy trabajando en un artículo junto con Robert Shiller sobre el efecto de las expectativas de la gente en cuanto al mercado de la vivienda en 1988 y durante el período que va de 2003 a 2012. Shiller y yo realizamos cuestionarios a personas que habían comprado o vendido una casa en algún momento de esos años calendario. Recabamos más de cinco mil cuestionarios para generar una base de datos que nos permitiera comprender mejor la naturaleza de la reciente burbuja inmobiliaria e identificar cuándo comienzan los cambios en las expectativas de la gente. Esta base de datos nos brinda una manera de cuantificar y analizar las diferentes expectativas en cuanto al mercado de la vivienda y determinar de qué forma dichas expectativas influyen en la toma de decisiones.
Por ejemplo, podemos observar que, en el año 2005, la meta de ser propietarios fue desapareciendo del sueño americano. Este tipo de cambio es significativo desde el punto de vista cultural y económico. Cuando, junto con este cambio, se da una inercia en las expectativas de la gente, comenzamos a observar una volatilidad en el mercado de la vivienda. Y si el cambio es lo suficientemente fuerte, observaremos también que la volatilidad puede llegar a afectar la economía nacional.
Debido a que el precio de una casa incluye todos los derechos y recursos relacionados con dicha porción de suelo, las expectativas acerca del mercado y al acceso a futuros derechos y recursos cumplen una función a la hora de determinar el valor de mercado de la casa. El valor de mercado, a su vez, afecta al monto de impuesto que se gravará sobre la propiedad. La relación entre las expectativas del mercado y el impuesto a la propiedad es compleja; no obstante, la investigación que Shiller y yo estamos llevando a cabo arrojará un poco de luz sobre este tema.
Land Lines: ¿Qué piensa usted que ocurrirá en el mercado de la vivienda de los Estados Unidos en el futuro?
Chip Case: Soy moderadamente optimista en cuanto al futuro del mercado de la vivienda. Las cifras parecen indicar que el sector de la vivienda se está estabilizando y está mostrando signos de un crecimiento lento pero positivo. El sector de la vivienda representa solamente cerca del 6 por ciento del PIB del país, pero ha tenido una gran importancia en el pasado. La reactivación de este sector seguramente contribuiría a que la economía se recuperara de los efectos devastadores de la recesión.
SHARE
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.
SHARE
The introduction of land titling programs to the informal land market seemed to offer a magic solution to the problem of poverty in third world countries. Various governments breathed a sigh of relief, as the struggle to reduce poverty would no longer require the complex and stressful income redistribution measures that always cause conflicts between social groups and classes. According to this magic formula, all that was required was for informal urban dwellers (about 50 percent of the population in the major cities) to formally register their properties and thus gain access to title deeds, so they could obtain mortgage loans from private banks. Their titles and newfound access to loans would enable them to increase their real estate capital, improve their homes and develop small businesses (de Soto 1986; 2001).
To put this hypothesis to the test, and at the request of Perú’s National Institute of Statistics and Data Processing (Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas e Informática–INEI), I conducted a study of the official real estate registration policy under which more than one million title deeds were conferred in Perú between 1996 and 2000. This policy was implemented by the Commission for the Official Registration of Informal Property (COFOPRI) and the Real Estate Registry of Urban Settlements (RPU). As stated in Perú’s Law Decree 803 of March 1996, the purpose of this policy was to establish a formal relationship between the distribution of land titles, access to formal credit mechanisms and better standards of living. Based on information provided by National Household Surveys (ENAHO) for 1998 and 1999, conducted by INEI, my study analyzed data on housing that either was acquired through invasions or other illegal means and did not have property titles or had obtained titles from COFOPRI through the regularization process. The data base consisted of 913,335 units in 1998 and 1,033,480 in 1999, out of a total of 3,572,091 urban housing units for both years. The financing obtained for housing expansion and other domestic expenses was used as an indicator to determine the access to credit, whereas the structure of the dwelling and the supply of basic services were used to determine standards of living.
Those who advocate the regularization of property in Perú argue that property titles should be granted on a large scale by recognizing informal occupation (that is, legalizing land ownership), awarding registered land title deeds, and thus establishing the links needed to gain access to formal credit mechanisms. Official registration is the legal procedure whereby actual rights to a property result in legal ownership. A particular characteristic of this procedure is the firm resolve to establish connections between the legalization of land and property and the access to mortgages through the private banks. As described by the Path to Property Association, an organization dedicated to promoting these policies worldwide, the basic philosophy behind the formal registration process is that prosperity in countries with market economies is largely achieved because those societies have adequate property systems that enable their markets to operate through exchangeable ownership rights in a wide-ranging market.
To grant landowners indisputable proof of ownership and protect them from fraud and uncertainty ownership rights must be standardized, and universally accessible exchange instruments must be registered in a central government system by legal norms and regulation. Consequently, through the official registration of property, the “energy” of the informal sector can be channeled toward organized and prosperous market economies. From this perspective, informality is merely the inability of governments to make their laws coincide with the real circumstances under which people work and live. Nevertheless, this viewpoint fails to reduce a complex phenomenon to its legal dimension and neglects its economic aspects.
Land Titling Policy and Outcomes
To speed up the distribution of land titles and to avoid troublesome formalities, COFOPRI took over this responsibility from the municipalities. The World Bank supported this policy, granting COFOPRI a US$38 million loan in December 1998. Between 1996 and 2000, 1,134,000 duly registered land title deeds were awarded: 645,165 of them in Lima, 112,631 in Arequipa and 74,180 in Trujillo (the first, second and third largest cities in Perú, respectively). In terms of the distribution and registration of land titles, the success of the formal registration policy is undeniable. However, the fact that municipalities were removed from the process is questionable, since their legal role in the urban system was undermined.
A close connection between the official registration of property and the standard of living was observed in Lima after the policy was implemented. Between 1998 and 1999, regularized (formerly illegal or informal) housing in the capital city showed improved construction of walls, floors and roofing; however, the nonregularized housing units also had improved construction of walls and floors. In the rest of the country, informal housing in urban areas predominates over regularized housing.
While regularized housing units outside Lima increased from 17,929 to 48,869 between 1998 and 1999, the number of units still without property titles increased from 371,005 to 392,436, indicating the persistence of invasion mechanisms. The gaps between different types of improvements on regularized and informal houses outside Lima increased between 1998 and 1999 for most categories (see Table 1).
Looking at the relationship between official land titles and access to credit, the study found that of the 70,725 houses in Lima awarded land title deeds by COFOPRI in 1998, about 23,965 (34 percent) of those homeowners gained access to varied types of financing, such as loans from banks, lending agencies or family members, to improve or renovate their homes. In 1999, the owners of about 23,804 (18.3 percent) out of a total of 129,588 titled houses obtained such financing. Although there is no official information on how many homeowners applied for credit and were denied, this result proves that officially registered households that gain access to loans are a minority and, in fact, the number has decreased. This situation is explained by complex factors including the economic recession, the default rate of 10 percent on private bank loans, fear of giving loans to lower-income sectors, and fear among these residents of mortgaging their houses and land.
Similarly, the number of bank loans to already titled landowners in Lima decreased from 12,750 in 1998 to 8,993 in 1999. In contrast, the use of own resources to finance housing improvements rose from 12,282 in 1998 to 14,811 in 1999. Not only is a larger majority spending their own funds on housing, but they are facing more difficulties in gaining access to credit institutions, despite the formal registration of their properties. A study by COFOPRI-DESCO (Riofrío 2001) identified several characteristics of those who are willing to take mortgages:
Of the 12,750 households officially registered and regularized in Lima in 1998 that also received bank loans for renovations and improvements, 52.6 percent obtained their loans from the Banco de Materiales and 47.4 percent from the National Construction Company (ENACE). In 1999, 8,993 officially registered and regularized households received loans for renovations and improvements, 7,593, or 84.43 percent from the Banco de Materiales and 15.57 percent from the ENACE. Since these are both public entities that grant subsidized loans (at the same annual interest rate of 7 percent), there is no connection between the official registration of property through regularization programs and access to loans from private banks.
With respect to seeking financing for other kinds of household expenses, only 11,323 (8.7 percent) out of a total of 129,588 households registered in Lima in 1999 resorted to any kind of financial assistance. Since no public entity provides loans for these expenses, most households receive money from friends and relatives (47 percent) or other sources such as lending agencies (25 percent). Only 28 percent of these 11,323 registered households gained access to loans from private banks for household needs.
In other urban areas, the situation of officially registered households is different from Lima’s experience. In 1998, the use of the households’ own funds for housing improvements predominated over bank loans (78.7 percent compared with 21.2 percent), whereas in 1999 bank loans predominated over own funds (51.3 percent compared with 42.9 percent). In 1998, all of the loans were public loans granted by Banco de Materiales, and 93 percent were from that source in 1999. With respect to loans for other household expenses, 6,163 (13 percent) of the total of 47,302 households officially registered during 1999 received some financing. Of this small group, 45 percent received financial assistance from lending agencies and other sources, 34 percent from friends and relatives, and 21 percent from their employers or work centers. None of them obtained funds from private banks.
Conclusions
The study yielded the following conclusions with regard to the relationship between official registration of titles and access to credit:
>
Thus, there is no direct relationship between the number of title deeds handed over to informal dwellers and their subsequent access to loans from private banks. This conclusion was confirmed when the transition government that succeeded former President Fujimori (1990-2000) revealed in 2001 that only 12,388 mortgages had been recorded in the RPU throughout the country, which is equivalent to only 5 percent of potential beneficiaries. Although registration facilities may be useful, they are certainly not sufficient to increase access to credit. Effective policies require an in-depth study of a number of different factors, including:
Julio Calderón Cockburn is a sociologist and a Ph.D. candidate at the University of San Marcos in Lima, Perú. He has written many books and articles published in the Americas and Europe, and he currently works as an independent consultant and university professor. He is a faculty associate of the Lincoln Institute, which supported the study reported here and other research and teaching projects in the past. Several of his written works are available on the Lincoln Institute website in the Latin America section under LAC Papers (www.lincolninst.edu).
References
Calderón Cockburn, Julio A. 2001. Comparative analysis of the benefited and non-benefited population by the national formalization plan. In Has the well-being of the population improved?: A balance of the main social policies and programs. Lima: National Institute of Statistics and Data Processing (INEI): 65-92. de Soto, Hernando. 1986. The Other Path. London: I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd.
_____. 2002. The Mystery of Capital. London: Bantam Press.
Fernandes, Edesio. 2002. The influence of de Soto’s The Mystery of Capital. Land Lines 14 (1): 5–8.
Riofrío, G., J. Calderón y M. Zolezzi. 2001. Estudio sobre cultura registral. Lima: COFOPRI-DESCO. Agosto.
SHARE
Researchers from the Lincoln Institute are working with the Group for the Integrated Development of the Capital (GDIC) in Havana to better understand how land and increments in land value can be utilized to facilitate the physical rehabilitation and economic development of Cuba.
During the Soviet era, Cuba’s economic environment was characterized by a top-down model in which state agencies were the principal economic and development actors. Planning was autocratic and inflexible; trade depended primarily on the socialist bloc countries; financial capacity was centralized in the national budget; and there was no tax system. Legal, financial and economic reforms implemented since 1990 have helped to create an institutional environment more conducive to economic efficiency and to allow Cuba’s participation in the global market (see Figure 1).
However, the Cuban economy still faces tremendous difficulties that have seriously affected the country’s capacity to maintain living standards, the quality of social and public services, and economic development programs in general. For example, Cuba’s GDP in 1995 was only one-half its 1989 level and its import capacity has fallen from roughly 8 billion to 2 billion US$ annually.
Figure 1: Summary of Key Reforms
1990 Opening of the economy to foreign investors
1991 Reinstatement of Cuban international trade
1992 Introduction of modifications to the 1976 Constitution
Introduction of new forms of non-state property Elimination of the state monopoly on international trade Expansion of foreign-owned private market enterprises 1993 Transfer of formerly state-owned rural land to workers
1994 Restructuring of the central state administration Opening of agricultural markets based on supply and demand mechanisms
1995 Reestablishment of indicative planning and introduction of financial indicators Beginning of state business restructuring Regularization of the circulation of hard currency in the banking system Enactment of new laws on foreign investments Gradual introduction of components of a tax system Enactment of the law restructuring the banking system
1997 Enactment of the law on free trade zones
The Cuban government has tried to promote tourism as its primary means to generate much-needed hard currency quickly. As a Caribbean island, Cuba offers substantial tourist attractions, ranging from magnificent beaches to the architectural heritage of Old Havana, which has been recognized on UNESCO’s World Heritage List, as well as other natural, historical and cultural sites around the country. However, stimulation of the tourist industry requires international partners to undertake the development of hotels, shops, restaurants and airport expansion. The fact that the state owns most of the land available for development is a critical element in Cuba’s strategy to attract foreign developers and tourists.
The government’s plan to build its tourist industry has shown some success. In 1967 there were about 2,000 tourists to the island annually, whereas in 1998 over 1.4 million visitors traveled to Cuba. During the last five years alone, foreign investors have increased their operations in Cuba in several economic sectors, particularly in tourism. As a result 2,000 new hotel rooms have been added in Havana, with a total capacity now surpassing 10,700 rooms. Nationwide there are 31,600 hotel rooms, and the target is to increase capacity to 40,000 over the next two years. About 80 percent of recent construction activity in Cuba is related, directly or indirectly, to the tourist sector. Some estimates indicate that state-owned land and buildings already committed to these new projects represent around 500 million US$. Significantly, this development has been achieved without the existence of a formal land market.
Land-based Policies to Stimulate Development
Land has been used in various ways to help stimulate development and to generate public revenues. First, the Cuban government has used land as its capital contribution in joint ventures with international developers. For example, VanCuba Holdings, S.A., a Canadian company, is a 50-percent partner with the Cuban government in a project to build 11 hotels. Cuba contributed the land as its 50-percent share and the Canadian company is expected to invest 400 million US$. Many such joint venture arrangements, particularly real estate and tourism projects, have been made with development companies from Canada, Spain, Italy and Israel.
Since land is Cuba’s principal contribution to these international ventures, a key issue is to assure that the financial value of the land represents 50 percent of the project’s social capital. In cases where the monetary value of the contributed land is less than 50 percent, the foreign partner has often been instrumental in helping its Cuban counterpart apply for credit from international banks or financial institutions to make up the difference. More recently, the credit to assure 50-percent Cuban participation is obtained at low interest rates directly from the Central Bank of Cuba rather than from international entities.
A second mechanism to stimulate development is the increased use of land leasing agreements for commercial and office projects. Leasing is preferred since the direct sale of state-owned land is possible only in very special situations. The leasing terms are negotiated on the basis of the specific land value, and if accepted by all parties are established for 25 years. The lease may be reviewed and extended for an additional 25 years if the parties involved in the renegotiations agree upon the new criteria. In Havana, several projects with foreign investors are currently operating under such an agreement, and the estimated area under development in the city surpasses 100 hectares.
Third, the Cuban government has entered into direct rental agreements for state-owned land in free trade zones, which in some cases generate significant revenues. About 120 foreign private and public-private enterprises have been established already in two trade zones in Havana.
Both the leasing and direct rental agreements for state-owned land provide important new funds to the national budget. These resources are then used to improve the standard of living in local communities by providing social services (education and health), developing economic projects, upgrading and enlarging major infrastructure and other amenities, and generating jobs. Some examples of city and community benefits that have been supported largely by these revenues are the new Havana International Airport, the creation and improvement of a digital telephone system, and the metropolitan park projects in the Almendares River area.
A different but very interesting set of instruments to mobilize land value increments resulting from public investment has been developed by the Office of the Historian, the public agency responsible for promoting, financing and developing the revitalization program in Old Havana. This Office has begun to collect both indirect and direct taxes totaling 35 percent of revenues from private enterprises not related to the Office, such as hotels, commercial businesses and restaurants that have benefited from the Office’s efforts to rehabilitate the historic district. These external revenues, as well as revenues generated by projects initiated by the Office itself, are used in a kind of revolving fund to support further investments in the built environment. They also fund a variety of social programs, including housing, nursing homes, and educational and cultural activities in Old Havana. The Office’s total revenues surpassed 40 million US$ in 1998 and 50 million US$ in 1999. The government is also negotiating other kinds of revenue-generating programs to capture land value increments to support the rehabilitation of the Paseo del Prado and the Rampa areas of Havana, as well as the Boca de la Chorrera redevelopment project at the mouth of the Almendares River.
Difficulties with Implementation
Cuba’s implementation of these various tools for capturing land value increments has not occurred without problems. In the case of the indirect and direct taxes on revenues introduced in Old Havana, several businesses have claimed that their revenue sources are not a result of the efforts by the Office of the Historian to improve the district, and therefore should be exempt from the tax. For example, the headquarters of the Cuban Fuel Distribution Company (CUPET) is located in a valuable area in the heart of the historic center but does not pay the tax. The company argues that its revenue sources (i.e., its facilities and distribution networks) are located outside the center and therefore do not benefit from the rehabilitation process.
The 25-year leasing agreements illustrate a different problem arising from the implicit dilemma between short-run vs. long-run goals, because the agreements do not include a periodic updating of lease payments. On one hand, if the payments are set on the basis of existing use and value, the public authorities may lose significant financial resources that could accrue from the impacts of these investments and other changes in land value over the 25-year lease. However, if the authorities attempt to capture the anticipated higher value immediately, they will have more difficulty making such expensive deals with wary investors.
The lack of an adequate legal system for real estate development and mortgage lending in Cuba is a major obstacle to implementation of all these instruments. Proposed new real estate laws have been drafted but legislation expected to be introduced last year has not yet been adopted. This uncertain and unpredictable legal situation can prevent the formation of serious business partnerships, which normally require long-term vision, stability and transparency. Furthermore, this lack of legal protection may scare away the highest quality developers who would be most able to carry out sophisticated larger projects. As a result, the Cuban government has had fewer strong proposals to evaluate and has been accepting smaller projects with less established international developers.
These smaller projects are sometimes problematic for several reasons. First, they are often located in the most desirable parts of Havana, although such developments are not necessarily appropriate for those neighborhoods. Second, they must rely on existing infrastructure since they are not large enough to provide that additional investment. Third, the aesthetic quality and even the basic service standards of these new hotels or apartments are sometimes questionable. Since these buildings affect the overall image of the city, they may even have a negative impact and contribute to the devaluation of their neighborhood.
A related problem is the uncertainty that developers experience in having to deal with new institutions and policy tools that are being negotiated within the Cuban government at the same time they are being implemented in the field. While these policies are under review, the government has introduced a moratorium on new development in certain areas of Havana and has slowed the real estate negotiation process in general. Without stability and trust in the relevant government agencies and policies, private investors for commercial or residential projects are discouraged by the risks inherent in making long-term development decisions. This has an obvious effect on the costs of development and the expected internal rates of return.
Finally, there are the difficulties of assessing land values in the absence of formal markets, let alone transparent land transactions. Government agencies involved in development have two choices. One is to use administrative prices in determining the value of leases or contributions, even though the basis for these prices may not reflect the actual value of land attributes. Alternatively, the agencies must negotiate the price with foreign developers based on the dynamics of the particular site. Both options are limited by the lack of ongoing independent land market transactions on which to evaluate actual prices.
Land Policy Dilemmas
Although Cuba has made substantial progress, it faces many challenges and dilemmas in using land efficiently to stimulate development and generate revenues. For example, the smaller, more expedient projects may result in faster development and revenue flows, but they are not able to create a broader vision for future land uses, and they frequently cause damage to the historic fabric and natural environment. The larger, better-financed projects can create such a vision and enhance the environment, but are much more difficult to negotiate and take longer to build.
Furthermore, the larger projects may require a substantial investment in basic infrastructure because of the poor quality of existing conditions. The government has not had the resources to make these investments, thus threatening the economic sustainability of new urban interventions. Small projects cannot support such investment burdens. While the large projects may be able to finance infrastructure investment, they run the risk of becoming exclusive enclaves separated from the surrounding community when they provide infrastructure only as part of their own project. The question, then, is how to finance the infrastructure in a non-exclusionary manner to encourage other small-scale development. Three alternatives are being pursued simultaneously, but are subject to continuing debate:
Another aspect of the debate among Cuban planning and development experts concerns the pros and cons of introducing open land markets with a strong tax system vs. maintaining the existing public management of state-owned land. Those who advocate for introducing open land markets feel it is a necessary step to encourage development so that Cuba can benefit from linkages with the global economy and different types of foreign investments. These experts also argue that Cuba must continue to develop mechanisms for capturing publicly created land value.
Those who argue for continuing the current system point to Cuba’s success in reducing spatial segregation, promoting balance in social and urban services, preserving historic and other patrimony values in the city, and reserving enough land for future development projects. These advocates point to the recent Latin American experience with free markets, which has resulted in increased segregation between rich and poor areas, a lack of social services in poorer areas, increases in urban violence, speculation, and growing environmental problems.
In summary, some of the priority issues on Cuba’s land development agenda are the establishment of a legal system with clear parameters and the introduction of more rigorous and transparent mechanisms for valuing land and buildings. In addition, diversification of the types of Cuba-based partners available to participate in international development projects will help establish criteria for a longer-term planning perspective that will encourage large-scale infrastructure projects and support the continuing provision of benefits to the community. These concerns are not so different from land policy challenges in other developing countries. The continued study of land value as an instrument for development in Cuba offers important lessons for researchers and public officials throughout Latin America.
Ricardo Núñez is researcher at the Group for the Integrated Development of the Capital (GDIC) in Havana, Cuba. H. James Brown is president and CEO of the Lincoln Institute, and Martim Smolka is senior fellow and director of the Institute’s Latin American and Caribbean Program. Laura Mullahy, research assistant for the Latin American and Caribbean Program, also contributed to this article.
SHARE
Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 2 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.
Académicos y profesionales involucrados en la regularización de asentamientos en sectores de bajos ingresos en Latinoamérica compartieron sus experiencias en un foro patrocinado por el Instituto Lincoln en marzo de 1998. La ciudad de Medellín, Colombia y su oficina de regularización, PRIMED (Programa Integrado para el Mejoramiento de Barrios Deficientes en Medellín) sirvieron de anfitriones. Entre los participantes se incluyeron representantes de PRIMED, empleados oficiales de la ciudad de Medellín y observadores de instituciones multilaterales, tales como el Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID), el Banco Mundial, USAID y la Fundación GTZ de Alemania.
Doce ponencias principales informaron sobre los casos de estudio más significativos de ocho países: Brasil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, México, Perú y Venezuela. El foro resultó ser una reunión excepcional cuyas conclusiones, resumidas más adelante, probablemente tendrán importantes repercusiones en las políticas de Latinoamérica.
Perspectivas Comparativas de Regularización
Diversos puntos de vista sobre regularización aparecen ilustrados por los trabajos de cada país. Los dos enfoques principales son la regularización jurídica (por ejemplo: procedimientos de legalización de títulos de la tierra a fin de convertir la propiedad “de hecho” en propiedad jurídica, en Perú, Ecuador y México) y la regularización física (urbanización), incluyendo la expansión de servicios de infraestructura en asentamientos irregulares (Colombia, Venezuela, Brasil y otros países). Un tercer enfoque, en el cual se ha hecho énfasis sólo recientemente, establece como prioridad la integración social y cívica de los asentamientos de población de bajos ingresos dentro de la estructura urbana a través de una serie de medidas.
Aunque en la mayor parte de los países se presentan elementos de estos tres tipos de regularización, generalmente cada país se orienta más en una dirección que en otra. En México, los tres enfoques se utilizan simultáneamente. En la mayoría de los otros países, el énfasis depende de la fuerza relativa de los actores, las organizaciones y las políticas por una parte, y de la forma en que el problema de regularización es concebido (“construido”) por las autoridades federales y locales, por otra.
La Regularización Jurídica: Programas de Adjudicación de Títulos de Propiedad
La regularización de títulos de propiedad se ha convertido en práctica similarmente aceptada por gobiernos, agencias internacionales y organizaciones no gubernamentales. De hecho, la pregunta “¿por qué regularizar?” que se planteó al comienzo del foro pareció tomar a todos de sorpresa. Sin embargo, esta pregunta nos dirige al fondo de la cuestión sobre quienes definen los problemas relacionados con la tenencia de la tierra y quiénes establecen las políticas a favor de su regularización. La mayoría de los programas de títulos examinados en los casos de estudio resultaron largos y costosos; además, una vez puestos en práctica, sirvieron de poco para afectar significativamente el nivel de seguridad o para suministrar servicios en forma sistemática a los asentamientos.
Figura 1
Argumentos Comunes a Favor de la Regularización de la Tierra
En lo que concierne a los sectores pobres de la población, sin embargo, varios de los argumentos a favor de la regularización aparentan ser falsos. Los hogares establecidos generalmente tienen seguridad de hecho y pocas veces consideran la necesidad de un título legal completo como una prioridad, sino más bien como una necesidad asociada con el sistema de valores de la clase media. Es más, una vez que los asentamientos están bien establecidos, las mejoras y la consolidación de la vivienda ocurren en una proporción estrechamente asociada con la disponibilidad de recursos, no con la seguridad del título de propiedad. En relación con la introducción de servicios, la mayoría de los proveedores siguen sus propias reglas internas para definir el tiempo y los procedimientos; pocas veces el título legal es un criterio importante.
Por lo demás, a las familias de bajos ingresos no les gusta endeudarse y no les resulta fácil el incorporarse a los sistemas formales de crédito, aun cuando las organizaciones no gubernamentales y los gobiernos tienden a inclinarse hacia la asistencia por medio de microcréditos. En suma, da la impresión de que cuando los grupos de bajos ingresos desean la regularización de la propiedad es porque el Estado quiere que lo deseen y, consecuentemente, contribuye a construir la demanda correspondiente.
Se podría concebir la regularización de la propiedad como un fin en sí misma tanto como un medio hacia un fin. La regularización como “fin” aparece claramente ilustrada en el caso de Lima, donde el acceso a la tierra y a los programas de adjudicación de títulos de propiedad sustituyen a una política sistemática de vivienda. El ciclo más reciente de adjudicación de títulos (desde 1996) incluye también la retitularización de terrenos anteriormente regularizados, como un campo de patrocinio político destinado a beneficiar al gobierno central a cuentas de los líderes políticos ciudadanos. Una situación similar prevalecía en México con las agencias de regularización múltiplex creadas durante los años ’70. En ambos países la dedicación a la regularización de la tenencia de la tierra aparece claramente señalada por programas activos, que generalmente procesan un alto número de títulos cada año a bajo costo.
En otras partes, la regularización puede ser también un “fin”, pero de importancia secundaria. En Colombia, Brasil, El Salvador y Ecuador, por ejemplo, la adjudicación de títulos constituye solamente una pequeña parte del conjunto de la regularización física. Aún así, la ausencia de propiedad legal y la necesidad de regularización pueden ser utilizadas hacia buenos fines políticos al regular el suministro y el orden de la provisión de infraestructura.
La regularización de títulos como medio hacia un fin se encuentra ampliamente fomentada por las agencias internacionales como parte del Nuevo Programa de Gerencia Urbana del Banco Mundial. México constituye un buen ejemplo del proceso, en donde la adjudicación de títulos de propiedad de la tierra es un requisito previo para la gestión de la tierra urbana, la planificación y la administración pública. La regularización incorpora a la población dentro del sistema del registro de tierras, la base de recaudación de impuestos, los controles de planificación, los permisos de construcción, las tasas de consumo, y la recuperación del costo de servicios e infraestructura. La regularización se convierte en un medio para el sustento y manejo urbanos; esta, más que ninguna otra razón, explica su amplia adopción y aceptación actual.
Un factor notable en varios de los casos estudiados fue la aparente renuencia a regularizar tierras privadas a no ser que la iniciativa tuviera el apoyo del dueño original. Como resultado, los asentamientos con mayores posibilidades de ser regularizados son aquéllos ubicados en tierras públicas o tierras cuya propiedad nunca ha sido cuestionada. Con la excepción de México, los gobiernos se han mostrado renuentes a expropiar tierras con fines de interés social. Varios países tienen un sistema de derechos de ocupación de la tierra que permiten la transferencia de la propiedad después de un cierto número de años de uso comprobado y apropiado. En Brasil, este sistema de usucapión ha sido ampliado recientemente a fin de permitir la transferencia de títulos de terrenos urbanos de propiedad privada menores de 250 m2 que hayan sido ocupados continuamente durante cinco años.
Factores de los programas de regularización jurídica:
La Regularización Física: Urbanización y Provisión de Infraestructura
El segundo campo principal de regularización registrado en muchos de los casos de estudio del foro estuvo enfocado en el proceso de regularización física de distintas formas de asentamientos irregulares. En Medellín, por ejemplo, se estima que aproximadamente el 12% de la población total vive en barrios de crecimiento rápido construidos frecuentemente sobre laderas empinadas, igual que en barrios similares en las laderas de Río o Caracas. Existen indudables problemas y peligros en estas áreas; sin embargo, la mayoría de los participantes en el foro que visitaron los asentamientos de PRIMED se mostraron más entusiasmados por su nivel y grado de consolidación que los propios oficiales locales. (La discusión no se extendió a las intervenciones y mejoras en alojamientos pobres del centro de la ciudad: conventillos, vecindades, cortiVos).
Es imposible describir adecuadamente todos los programas innovadores presentados en el foro, pero uno de los casos de mayor éxito es el programa Favela/Bairro, del municipio de Río de Janeiro. Este proyecto se basó en la estrecha colaboración con los residentes locales para abrir las calles de sus favelas al acceso vehicular y la instalación de servicios. No obstante, es importante reconocer que el éxito del proyecto ha tenido costos considerables: el gasto total entre 1994 y 1997 fue de 300 millones de dólares, suministrados en gran parte por el BID. Esto plantea serias interrogantes acerca de la capacidad de réplica de este tipo de programas.
Factores de los programas de regularización física:
La Regularización como Medio de Integración Social
Durante las deliberaciones del foro se hizo aparente que un objetivo cada vez más explícito de la regularización es el de alcanzar la integración social a través de la incorporación de la población de bajos ingresos a la mayoría social y a la estructura urbana. Esto se manifiesta con mayor frecuencia en referencia al “rescate” de la población de bajos ingresos y de otros grupos marginales y su incorporación a la ciudadanía urbana. Este ha sido uno de los objetivos primordiales del programa favela/bairro en Brasil, el cual, al menos en parte, estuvo orientado a romper los círculos de delincuentes juveniles y tráfico de drogas, y a rescatar a la población local de su influencia.
Un problema potencial de este enfoque reside en que los conceptos de “buen ciudadano” y “mayoría social” son construcciones sociales que frecuentemente están cargadas de valores y que pueden derivarse a partir de una cierta clase social o un grupo dominante del poder. La regularización con motivos de alcanzar la integración dentro de un amplio marco de oportunidades sociales tales como la educación pública y los servicios de salud es una cosa; la regularización a fin de lograr la convergencia social y la conformidad es otra. Sin embargo, la investigación y la literatura sobre este campo continúan siendo incipientes, y la noción completa de ciudadanía con sus correspondientes derechos y responsabilidades forma parte de una agenda todavía poco considerada.
Conclusión
Este foro internacional hizo énfasis en la necesidad de estar conscientes de las distintas razones subyacentes a la regularización física y jurídica en cada país, y de tomar en cuenta que estas razones se encuentran estrechamente relacionadas con los procesos políticos y de planificación. Para que la regularización funcione bien, debe haber un compromiso político genuino tal que todos los departamentos y oficiales que intervengan lo hagan con la mayor integración, cooperación y autorización. También se necesita pensar creativamente sobre sistemas alternativos, sistemas “paralelos” de propiedad, y sobre oportunidades para la real participación del público en la toma de decisiones en todas las etapas del proceso de regularización.
El compromiso y el sustento financieros también son temas importantes. A menos que la regularización vaya acompañada por la recuperación del costo a largo y mediano plazo a través de impuestos, tasas al usuario y avalúos diferidos, los programas continuarán dependiendo mayormente del financiamiento externo y de subsidios, lo cual limita severamente la extensión y la escala de su aplicación.
La interesante última sesión del foro permitió a los participantes reflexionar sobre las futuras direcciones de investigación y análisis de políticas de regularización del mercado de la tierra. Cinco áreas importantes emergieron de esta discusión. Primero, se reconoció la necesidad de identificar a los diversos actores y grupos de intereses involucrados en la promoción del desarrollo de tierras irregulares o ilegales, para empezar, y de hacer explícitas las diferencias entre invasiones de tierras, subdivisiones de propietarios, subdivisiones de empresas y otras acciones semejantes. Se planteó que la irregularidad es generada por varios actores y grupos de intereses con fines de lucro, y no únicamente el resultado de un proceso disfuncional de urbanización.
Segundo, se discutió la necesidad de alejarse del pensamiento dualista y romper con la definición del concepto del mercado de la tierra en términos de la ciudad formal e informal, la ciudad paralela, o los barrios normales y deficientes, todos los cuales implican que los sectores pobres se encuentran atrapados en un mercado separado. En realidad, hay un mercado único de la tierra que está segmentado, no separado, a lo largo de una continuidad en términos de acceso y capacidad de adquisición.
Tercero, se necesita afrontar el problema de la capacidad de réplica financiera de experiencias exitosas y las formas posibles de obtener financiamiento a través de subsidios internos, plusvalías, tasas de valorización, gastos de impuestos, tasas progresivas de consumo, y otros mecanismos. Cuarto, necesitamos hacernos menos los ciegos ante las diferencias de género. Es importante que pensemos con más imaginación al definir las prioridades de regularización para cada género, y que exploremos esquemas innovadores de programas de títulos que respondan a la necesidad de satisfacer los derechos específicos a la vivienda y al domicilio de la mujer.
Finalmente, necesitamos ser mucho más precisos en nuestra terminología y, más importante aún, reconocer que hay una “construcción social” imbuida en el lenguaje. Los términos adoptados por cada sociedad revelan la forma en que esa sociedad ve y diagnostica la vivienda y los problemas sociales relacionados con ella. La terminología puede conducir a soluciones políticas punitivas o condescendientes, e incluso “criminalizar” a sectores locales de la población. Gran parte de las diferencias y variaciones entre los distintos casos de estudio se derivan de la forma en que cada sociedad construye su percepción del problema de la vivienda y la manera en que esta visión es transmitida a la gente: a través de la terminología, a través de las leyes, los procedimientos y las políticas, y a través de la organización administrativa y burocrática del Estado mismo.
Peter M. Ward es profesor de sociología y asuntos públicos de la Universidad de Texas en Austin, y miembro asociado de la facultad del Instituto Lincoln. Entre sus numerosos libros se incluye una “Metodología para el análisis del mercado de la tierra y la vivienda”, editada conjuntamente con Gareth Jones y publicada por el Instituto Lincoln en 1994.
SHARE
Growing recognition of the economic and social importance of land, housing and real property markets is focusing attention on the need for good policies and good data to monitor the performance of these markets and their effects on the international economy.
Much of the impetus for addressing these issues came with the United Nations General Assembly’s unanimous endorsement in 1988 of the document Global Strategy for Shelter to the Year 2000. This report described the social and economic role of housing and called on governments to undertake enabling policies to create well-functioning land and housing markets.
Within a few years, the World Bank published its own housing policy paper, Housing: Enabling Markets to Work, which set out a stylized set of “do’s and don’ts” for housing policymakers to use in making choices about policies, regulations and institutions that influence the performance of the housing sector. Each of these documents makes it clear that the stakes of getting housing policies right are considerable, especially those policies having to do with urban land.
The Importance of the Housing Sector
Housing, together with the land under it, is the single most important asset of households in most of the world’s cities. Housing investment and the flow of housing services account for a total contribution to GNP of between 7 and 18 percent in most countries. However, these figures fail to convey fully how the performance of the housing sector is intertwined with that of the broader economy through real, financial and fiscal circuits.
Since housing comprises 15 to 35 percent of consumer spending in most countries, inflation in housing prices is a significant element of overall consumer price inflation. Housing loans comprise some 15 to 20 percent of the consolidated assets of the banking systems of the most industrialized countries, making the integrity of these loans crucial to the overall soundness of the financial sector.
Housing subsidies, particularly in formerly planned economies, have contributed to budgetary deficits which have aggravated inflationary pressures, and poorly planned housing policies have often led to limited residential and labor mobility. Even in the United Kingdom, research indicates that inappropriate housing policies have increased structural unemployment rates, increased consumer prices and interest rates, adversely affected the balance of payments, and led to a significant decline in rates of household savings. Real estate booms and busts have also become a prominent feature of urban and national economies, notably in the United States and Japan.
Given the importance of the housing sector and the high cost of policy failures, it is surprising that many countries underestimate the objectives and instruments of housing policy. As a result, housing problems are often aggravated by ill-conceived or poorly executed public policies, and the performance of the sector falls beneath its potential.
Policies Affecting Housing
The provision of infrastructure, the regulation of land and housing development, the organization of the construction and materials industry, and the involvement of the public sector in housing production all have direct bearing on the production of housing and its responsiveness to shifts in demand. But other policies are also important—for example, those that relate to the physical and legal security of renters and owners, and the ability to use housing as collateral for long-term financing.
These policies influence the desirability of, and demand for, real estate and housing as an asset and, therefore, the amount of housing that investors want to build. In turn, these policies affect the quantity and affordability of housing available to meet the needs of final consumers of housing services. Investment decisions also influence the cost, availability, quality and production of informal housing, which accommodates much of the urban population in many developing countries.
Recent data on 53 countries collected by the Housing Indicators Program, a joint program of the United Nations’ Centre for Human Settlements and the World Bank, supports the importance of policy differences in shaping housing sector outcomes. Two key types of indicators are physical measures, such as crowding or structural durability, and measures related to price, such as house values, rents and the ratio of house value to income (also called the house-price-to-income ratio), which often reflects the relative efficiency of housing markets.
Comparisons of such indicators suggest, for example, that in Thailand, where land and housing regulation is simple and efficient, housing supply is more than 30 times as responsive to shifts in demand than in either Korea or Malaysia, where regulation is complicated and cumbersome. This is reflected in striking differences in housing prices, quality and affordability among the three countries.
Enabling and Non-enabling Policies
“Enabling” countries are considered more market friendly because their housing policies support housing demand through appropriate housing finance, property rights and subsidies. Such countries facilitate housing supply by providing infrastructure, pertinent regulation and a competitive housing development industry. Figure 1 shows how a number of important housing outcomes vary with both the level of economic development (as measured by per capita income) and the policy environment for four groups of countries.
Housing prices at lower income levels among non-enablers are often the equivalent of two annual incomes higher than they are among enablers. Home ownership rates among enablers are generally 15 to 25 percentage points higher. Crowding, as measured by floor area per person, is significantly less among enablers. Residential mobility (percentage of population moving annually) is higher among enablers—a factor that facilitates upgrading housing conditions and enhancing job mobility.
A comparison of U.S. cities shows that house prices in non-enabling cities with stricter regulatory policies have risen in relative terms some 30 to 60 percent over a 15-year period (see Figure 2). This trend suggests important consequences for quality of life and competitiveness among cities with different degrees of market flexibility. Relative shifts in housing costs are in some cases equivalent to doubling potential residents’ combined federal and state income tax, creating powerful disincentives for moving and for the functioning of labor markets.
These and similar findings suggest that systematic policy mistakes have been made, that their costs have been high, and that it is time for a general change in thinking about the aims and instruments of land and housing policy.
Stephen K. Mayo, a visiting fellow of the Lincoln Institute, is developing research and education programs on land prices, land markets and the broader economy. On November 7-8, 1997, the first in a series of conferences on this topic will be held at the Institute to examine land prices and land information systems.
FYI
References
Angel, Shlomo, Stephen K. Mayo, and William Stephens. “The Housing Indicators Program: A Report on Progress and Plans for the Future,” Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 1993.
Malpezzi, Stephen, “House Prices, Externalities, and Regulation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas,” Journal of Housing Research 7,2, 1996.
United Nations Centre for Human Settlements. Global Strategy for Shelter to the Year 2000. United Nations, New York, 1988.
World Bank. Housing: Enabling Markets to Work. World Bank Housing Policy Paper. Washington, DC, 1993.
Figure 1 Housing Outcomes for Four Groups of Countries
Source: Based on data from 53 countries collected by the joint World Bank/UN Centre for Human Settlements Housing Indicators Program (HIP). The Enabling Index was developed using HIP data on policies, regulations and institutional arrangements.
Figure 2 Average Housing Price Changes for U.S. Cities
Source: Based on hedonic price indices for rental and owner-occupied housing (weighted by the proportion of renters and owners in each market) for U.S. Standard Metropolitan Areas. The classification of U.S. cities as enablers or non-enablers is based on an index of regulatory stringency originally developed and applied by Stephen Malpezzi.
Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 4 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.
Las políticas públicas y acciones urbanísticas relacionadas con la vivienda de interés social en Colombia, como en otros países latinoamericanos, se han concentrado en los programas de regularización y mejoras, que en muchos casos están vinculados a la necesidad de fondos para infraestructura. Estos programas también se consideran como el único instrumento paliativo para abordar un problema que parece no tener solución –el desarrollo urbano ilegal (pirata)–, aunque han resultado ser bastante limitados y hasta contraproducentes. En este trabajo presentamos una política alternativa: la aplicación de principios e instrumentos para la gestión del suelo y la participación en plusvalías (participación pública en los incrementos del valor del suelo derivados de las acciones administrativas). Esta política fue establecida en la constitución colombiana y en la Ley 388 de 1997, que estipula que los ingresos provenientes de los incrementos del valor del suelo deben usarse en inversiones sociales.
Operación Urbanística Nuevo Usme es uno de los proyectos estratégicos promovidos por el alcalde de Bogotá Antanas Mockus para resolver el problema de los desarrollos urbanos ilegales. Ubicada en el sureste de la ciudad, la localidad de Usme es una de las áreas más vulnerables a las presiones de la urbanización ilegal; poderosos urbanizadores piratas han dispuesto más de la mitad de las 1.000 hectáreas ya designadas para uso urbano. El mecanismo predominante para este tipo de desarrollo informal, además de las invasiones y los asentamientos humanos ilegales, ha sido la venta de lotes por parte de urbanizadores que compran grandes extensiones de tierra a precio rural y las venden sin redes de servicios públicos ni infraestructura y sin aprobación de la administración pública. Entre las consecuencias negativas de este tipo de desarrollo encontramos precios del suelo relativamente altos y patrones desiguales de ocupación territorial.
Se espera que Usme se extienda e incorpore otras 600 hectáreas de cerros y terrenos ecológicamente frágiles –considerados en gran parte suelo rural–, según el plan maestro de la ciudad (Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial o POT) que fue aprobado en junio de 2000. El gobierno de Bogotá ya ha invertido en sistemas de acueducto y alcantarillado para el área y está ejecutando otros proyectos, entre ellos la ampliación del sistema de transporte público TransMilenio y la construcción de 6.200 viviendas para el sector de bajos ingresos. Además, por iniciativa de organizaciones de ciudadanos, dos grandes áreas –el Parque entre Nubes y el Agroparque Los Soches– han sido designadas en el POT como hitos urbanos locales de gran significado y simbolismo. La primera es un parque grande que marca la transición entre el territorio urbano y el rural, amenazado constantemente por el desarrollo ilegal y la explotación. La segunda, un tipo de zona de amortiguación agrícola, fue creada por una organización campesina que aceptó a sabiendas una reducción en el precio del suelo al cambiar la clasificación del mismo de suburbano a rural, a fin de preservar su carácter agrario. Actualmente esta organización aplica medios alternativos novedosos de gestión de suelo mediante proyectos de conservación ecológica para beneficiar a la ciudad en su conjunto y obstaculizar la amenaza del crecimiento urbano ilegal.
¿Cómo puede la diversidad de elementos, desde la vivienda social hasta el transporte público y la conservación de tierras agrícolas, crear una oportunidad para condiciones de vida sostenible para los habitantes más pobres de la ciudad? ¿Cómo reconciliamos los objetivos de la política urbana y la justicia social? ¿Cómo puede la ciudad impedir que los urbanizadores piratas se aprovechen inmerecidamente de la nueva área de desarrollo de Usme? Este es el desafío que enfrentan el gobierno municipal, las organizaciones de vivienda popular y los residentes del sur de la ciudad.
Mecanismos alternativos para la recuperación de plusvalías
Uno de los temas de debate con respecto a la Ley 388 es el precedente de recuperación de plusvalías en áreas destinadas para viviendas sociales. Las organizaciones de vivienda han buscado exonerar esos suelos de la participación en plusvalías, debido a una frecuente interpretación errónea de la naturaleza del instrumento, según la cual el valor recuperado se transfiere al precio final de la vivienda (véase Smolka y Furtado, página 12). Desde un enfoque diferente, el proyecto Usme está estructurado a partir de varios mecanismos alternativos para la recuperación de plusvalías que van más allá de la función restringida y malinterpretada de un impuesto.
El primer mecanismo consiste simplemente en anunciar el proyecto Usme, puesto que la Ley 388 establece que en caso de adquisición pública de suelo, el valor comercial del mismo (para fines de indemnización) no puede incluir el monto correspondiente a las plusvalías derivadas del proyecto. Esta disposición congela el precio del suelo en su nivel anterior al anuncio del proyecto, por lo que es un instrumento oportuno para reducir el costo del suelo que de otra manera tendría que pagar la administración local para sus propios proyectos de desarrollo urbano.
El segundo mecanismo es el Plan Parcial, un plan para parcelas de desarrollo local que se basa en el principio de reparto equitativo de cargas y beneficios y que la legislación colombiana ha adoptado de la legislación de España. Esta modalidad de reparcelación (o reajuste equitativo del suelo) abarca la distribución de los costos de infraestructura, así como los derechos de desarrollo, y permite que la administración pública obtenga una porción del suelo urbanizado como retribución por su inversión en las obras de desarrollo. Mediante este mecanismo el Municipio de Bogotá obtiene suelo de forma gratuita o por un costo bajo que luego puede destinar para infraestructura o servicios públicos, o para viviendas de interés social.
Un tercer mecanismo es la recuperación de plusvalías, tal como la establece la Ley 388, para la cual se requiere que la Alcaldía Mayor apruebe un acuerdo específico. Si se aprueba el plan de recuperación, el municipio puede recobrar entre el 30% y el 50% del incremento del precio del suelo derivado del cambio en su clasificación de rural a urbano, la autorización para usos más rentables o el incremento de los derechos de desarrollo. Las plusvalías podrían pagarse con suelo, como un porcentaje de participación en el proyecto, en infraestructura o en dinero efectivo. Una vez más, el efecto que se busca es reducir el precio del suelo obtenido por la administración local por el cumplimiento de sus objetivos sociales.
Una alternativa más innovadora consiste en que la administración local o el municipio asigna los derechos de desarrollo del suelo directamente a beneficiarios de pocos ingresos del programa de viviendas. Este ingenioso mecanismo, basado en la separación de los derechos de construcción de los derechos de propiedad, en efecto traslada el equilibrio de fuerzas desde los urbanizadores hacia las familias de pocos ingresos que se residencian en el área y por consecuencia comparten el incremento del valor del suelo generado por el desarrollo. Estos nuevos residentes ahora tienen los derechos sobre la tierra que de otra manera habrían tenido que comprar a urbanizadores piratas que ya no tienen un mercado cautivo para la venta de lotes irregulares a precios altos en anticipación de futuros programas de mejoras.
Al adoptar una actitud activa en la regulación de la ocupación del área mediante la distribución de tales derechos de construcción, el municipio se encuentra en una posición más ventajosa para negociar directamente con los urbanizadores piratas y para emular de alguna manera sus acciones mediante la dotación de suelo urbanizado (“terrenos y servicios”) a precios asequibles. Con este enfoque jurídico el municipio garantiza la dotación de carreteras, redes de servicios públicos, zonas verdes y espacios públicos y recreativos que por lo general los urbanizadores piratas no ofrecen o que los propietarios de tierras rurales no pueden mantener. En síntesis, el procedimiento asigna los derechos de construcción a los habitantes de pocos ingresos que con el tiempo construirán viviendas gracias a sus propios esfuerzos. Al reducir los derechos de construcción del propietario original a través del Plan Parcial, también se reduce el precio del suelo.
Ampliación de la participación en plusvalías
La política de plusvalías que busca recuperar los incrementos del valor del suelo para beneficio público ha sido aceptada en áreas de ingresos altos, donde las rentas públicas se utilizan para subsidiar inversiones sociales en otras localidades. Sin embargo, los urbanizadores piratas suelen encontrar maneras de expropiar estas inversiones en áreas de ingresos bajos mediante las actividades ilegales y clandestinas prevalecientes utilizadas para el acceso y ocupación del suelo. El proyecto Usme representa un intento por trasladar el poder de negociación de la población con respecto a los urbanizadores piratas mediante el diseño de procesos de urbanización alternativos.
La Alcaldía Mayor ya ha hecho un compromiso de facto para aplicar los instrumentos de recuperación de plusvalías, aunque éstos siguen siendo objeto de explicaciones y discusiones dentro del debate general sobre la política de participación en plusvalías. Como ya hemos visto, el principio práctico en que se basa esta política es la separación de los derechos de propiedad de los derechos de construcción. No obstante, esta política afronta una enorme resistencia debido a la tradición jurídica civil de que los derechos unitarios y absolutos están asociados con la tenencia privada de la tierra.
La novedad del programa radica en su potencial para abordar directamente los retos de la urbanización de bajos ingresos. Las expectativas han hecho aumentar el precio de las tierras parceladas ilegalmente en Usme y han propiciado que los urbanizadores piratas “produzcan suelo comercial” mediante la destrucción de comunidades campesinas, la degradación de áreas de importancia ecológica y la ocupación de zonas de riesgo. La tolerancia de tales prácticas llegó a un extremo tal que los precios elevados prevalecientes en las transacciones de estos mercados inmobiliarios –ilegales, en su mayoría– han sido utilizados por la administración local como precio de referencia para determinar la indemnización justa por la adquisición de tierras.
A falta de mecanismos públicos para intervenir en el mercado del suelo, tales como la participación en plusvalías, los propietarios –particularmente los urbanizadores piratas– no sólo han recuperado todos los incrementos del precio derivado del desarrollo urbano, sino que además han tomado bajo control el proceso. La urbanización ilegal resultante es costosa para los ocupantes individuales de dichos asentamientos y para la sociedad como un todo, ya que eleva el costo de los futuros programas de mejoras entre tres y cinco veces, en comparación con el costo de urbanizar suelo no ocupado.
Mediante los mecanismos alternativos mencionados anteriormente, se espera que otras conversiones del uso del suelo, como en el caso de la urbanización de Usme, se hagan más en un entorno político-económico alternativo, en el cual el municipio participe como un regulador activo y socialmente responsable del proceso. Estos proyectos forjarán nexos estrechos entre las políticas de regulación del suelo y las reglas que se aplican para la compra o subasta pública de tierras, para la distribución de los costos de dotación de infraestructura y servicios públicos y para el ejercicio de los derechos de desarrollo. La devolución a la comunidad de las plusvalías derivadas de estos cambios en las regulaciones del desarrollo urbano y las inversiones públicas constituye la manera más eficaz de construir relaciones más democráticas basadas en el ejercicio de una demanda renovada de reforma urbana y el derecho de acceso al suelo.
María Mercedes Maldonado Copello es profesora e investigadora del Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudios Regionales (CIDER) de la Universidad de Los Andes en Bogotá, Colombia. Martim O. Smolka es miembro principal y director del Programa para América Latina y el Caribe del Instituto Lincoln.
SHARE
Karl E. Case is professor of economics emeritus at Wellesley College, where he held the Katherine Coman and A. Barton Hepburn Chair in Economics and taught for 34 years. He is currently a senior fellow at the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University.
Professor Case is also a founding partner in the real estate research firm, Fiserv Case Shiller Weiss, Inc., and serves as a member of the Board of Directors of the Depositors Insurance Fund of Massachusetts. He is a member of the Standard and Poors Index Advisory Committee, the Academic Advisory Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, and the Board of Advisors of the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston at Harvard University. He has served as a member of the boards of directors of the Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation (MGIC), Century Bank, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, and the American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association. He was also an associate editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives and the Journal of Economics Education.
After receiving his B.A. from Miami University in Ohio in 1968, he spent three years on active duty in the Army and received his Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University in 1976. His research has been in the areas of real estate, housing, and public finance. He is author or coauthor of five books including Principles of Economics, Economics and Tax Policy, and Property Taxation: The Need for Reform, and he has published numerous articles in professional journals. Principles of Economics, a basic text coauthored with Ray C. Fair and Sharon Oster, is in its tenth edition.
Land Lines: How did you become involved with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy?
Chip Case: I learned about the Lincoln Institute in the 1970s, when it was sponsoring conferences for the Taxation Resources and Economic Development (TRED) Committee. I had written my dissertation on property taxes and had been invited to attend one of those conferences. In the fall of 1980, I began my first sabbatical year from Wellesley College and needed a way to fund my research. I arranged a meeting with Arlo Woolery, who was executive director of the Institute at the time, and he agreed to support my work.
My relationship with the Lincoln Institute has continued over the four decades since then. I was on the Board of Directors in the mid-1990s and on the executive search committees for H. James Brown, the former president of the Lincoln Institute, and Gregory K. Ingram, the current president and CEO. I taught at many Institute-sponsored programs with the Land Reform Training Institute (now the International Center for Land Policy Studies and Training) in Taiwan for 15 years, and have participated in programs in Cuba and China multiple times as well.
Much of my research is in the spirit of what the Institute is about, and I continue to make regular presentations at various conferences and seminars. I was especially pleased to be involved with a conference on “Housing and the Built Environment: Access, Finance, Policy,” held in Cambridge in December 2007. The Institute later published the papers and commentaries as “Essays in honor of Karl E. Case” in a volume titled Housing Markets and the Economy: Risk, Regulation, and Policy, edited by Edward L. Glaeser and John M. Quigley.
Land Lines: What sort of work have you done for the Lincoln Institute recently?
Chip Case: Earlier this year I served as a discussant for the “Urban Economics and Public Finance Conference,” which was organized by Lincoln Institute visiting fellow Daniel McMillen with the Department of Valuation and Taxation. This annual program brings together leading scholars in the fields of urban economics and public finance to present and discuss their research. It’s a great forum and a good opportunity to showcase new empirical work.
I also recently returned from a Lincoln Institute program in Beijing, where I gave a series of lectures to planners and economists at the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy. My role was to help decipher what has been happening in the U.S. housing market and to provide insight into the relationship between the housing market crash and the current financial crisis.
Chinese officials are very interested in learning from the market experience of the United States. To say that the housing market in China is in a boom period would be an understatement. In most cities, the market is straining under the limited amount of available land and insufficient infrastructure. The government has recognized that the rapid growth poses a challenge to its market authority and at the same time realizes that the growth can be harnessed as a source of potential revenue for the country’s cities.
Land Lines: What did you learn about the problem of local government finance in China?
Chip Case: Local governments in China own all the land inside their jurisdictions, and they have traditionally raised money by signing long-term leases on that land with joint ventures and other business interests that then use the land for development. The revenue from these leases has enabled local jurisdictions to provide the necessary public goods and infrastructure without ever collecting a tax.
Lately some jurisdictions are running out of new, undeveloped land to lease and thus are losing the source of revenues they need to support local schools, infrastructure, and health services. China has never had a property tax, but a property tax system has been recommended as a solution to falling local revenue. Convincing the local officials to implement a property tax, however, has proven to be a political challenge for many reasons.
Land Lines: How does your research relate to the work of the Lincoln Institute?
Chip Case: I have studied land and property tax issues for a long time. I published my doctoral dissertation under the title Property Taxation: The Need for Reform. My early interest in the property tax led me to think about the housing market, its inefficiencies and failures. I have written about the efficiency of the property tax and about the distributional effects of land prices and increases.
A significant component of my research deals with measuring land value and assessing how land value affects the location of labor markets and the allocation of resources and public goods. When someone buys a house, that person is buying access to a package of rights that is tied to the piece of land under the house. The value of the package of rights is capitalized into the cost of the house and is taxed as a component of the property’s assessed value. The package of rights–what is included and how it varies by location–is a hot issue right now, in no small part because of the current state of the housing market and its resulting impact on the financial stability of the country’s economy.
Land Lines: Tell us more about your interest in the property tax.
Chip Case: I’m an unabashed fan of the property tax. It has the potential to operate as a clear, transparent means of raising revenue. The fair market value of property is not a bad index of the ability to pay. Compare this to the federal income tax, which has become so complex as to be a bizarre means of allocating the cost of government, with very little intuitive connection to taxpaying ability.
Taxes should be neutral, and ideally not affect economic behavior. When taxpayers change their actions to avoid tax, they are worse off and the government has lost revenue at the same time. The hidden costs of these changes include higher prices and lower wages. The land portion of the property tax is one of the few taxes that does not distort economic activity, and that’s an extremely valuable tool for public finance.
The property tax offers support for local jurisdictions, self-government, and direct democracy. Local governments have a hard time imposing independent sales or income taxes if people can find a lower rate in the next city or town. Real estate is immovable property, and that’s a good base for a local tax.
The property tax is always under attack because it is highly visible. Almost no one knows how much sales tax they pay in a year, and for many people income taxes are withheld from their wages. But writing a large check for the property tax focuses taxpayer attention. That means controversy, but it also means accountability, and it allows local voters to decide whether their taxes are in line with the public services they receive. That’s almost impossible to judge at the state or federal level.
The property tax can always be improved, and that’s part of the important mission of the Lincoln Institute. But it needs supporters who can point to its strengths, and I’m always happy to take on that role.
Land Lines: What is the subject of your current research?
Chip Case: I am working on a paper with Robert Shiller about the effect of people’s expectations on the housing market in 1988 and during the period from 2003 to 2012. Shiller and I collected questionnaires from people who had purchased or sold a house at some point during those calendar years. We used more than 5,000 questionnaires to create a dataset that allows us to better understand the nature of the recent housing bubble and to pinpoint the beginning of shifts in expectations. It gives us a way to quantify and analyze various expectations about the housing market and to determine how those expectations play a role in decision making.
We can see, for example, that in 2005 the goal of owning a house began to fade from the American dream. This type of shift is culturally and economically significant. When it occurs in conjunction with the inertia of people’s expectations, we begin to see volatility in the housing market. And if the swing is strong enough, we also see that volatility may affect the national economy.
Since the price of a house includes all rights and resources tied to that piece of land, expectations about the market and access to future rights and resources play a role in determining the market value of the house. The market value in turn affects the amount of tax levied on the property. The relationship between market expectations and the property tax is complex; the research that Shiller and I are doing will provide some insight.
Land Lines: What do you anticipate will happen in the U.S. housing market going forward?
Chip Case: I am cautiously optimistic about the future of the housing market. The numbers seem to indicate that the housing sector is stabilizing and showing signs of slow but positive growth. The housing sector composes only about 6 percent of the country’s GDP, but it has been enormously important in the past. Its recovery would certainly help the economy come back from the devastating effects of the recession.
