Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 7 del CD-ROM Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

Como Visiting Fellow en el Lincoln Institute y Loeb Fellow de la Harvard University Graduate School of Design durante el curso académico 2004–2005, Mario Navarro ha emprendido un análisis crítico de la innovadora política de financiación de vivienda desarrollada en Chile durante los últimos 30 años. El objetivo del estudio, resumido aquí, es ayudar a los diseñadores de políticas de vivienda de los países en vías de desarrollo a entender el modelo chileno como alternativa para proporcionar viviendas a personas de sectores de ingresos bajos y moderados.

Hasta principios de los años 70, los programas de vivienda de los países en vías de desarrollo consistían en iniciativas patrocinadas por el gobierno para diseñar, construir y vender viviendas usando préstamos con tasas de interés subvencionadas. Estas políticas eran generalmente de escala limitada e inaccesibles por las familias pobres o no claramente orientadas en las mismas, y a menudo eran ineficaces (mayo de 1999). Conscientes de estos problemas, las organizaciones de desarrollo internacionales de mediados de los 70 empezaron a dirigir sus préstamos y consejos a países en vías de desarrollo basándose en la nueva estrategia de nuevas “necesidades básicas”, que consistía en proporcionar sitios y servicios, mejora de asentamientos informales, y vivienda básica (Kimm 1986).

Al mismo tiempo, e independientemente de estas organizaciones de desarrollo, Chile dio comienzo a varias reformas en el sector financiero y en programas de viviendas sociales, entre las que se encontraba la creación del primer programa del mundo en subsidiar la demanda para comprar viviendas (Gilbert 2004). Este modelo chileno se estableció diez años antes del método de “habilitación de mercados de vivienda” promovido por organizaciones internacionales como la Agencia de EE.UU. para el Desarrollo Internacional (Kimm 1986), el Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (Rojas, Jacobs y Savedoff 1999) y el Banco Mundial (World Bank 1993). Según esta política habilitadora, los gobiernos generan incentivos y actúan como facilitadores, de modo que el sector privado produzca y financie las viviendas que necesita el país.

El modelo chileno ha influido en la política de vivienda de muchos países de América Latina, e incluso en la de otros continentes (Gilbert 2004; Gonzáles Arrieta 1997). No obstante, no se ha reconocido ampliamente como el primer programa en el que el gobierno desempeña la función de habilitador del mercado. Gilbert (2002), un experto importante del modelo chileno y su influencia en otros países, menciona que Chile se encaja en el modelo habilitador, pero mi estudio muestra que, más que sólo encajar, el modelo de vivienda chileno fue el precursor de la política. Las características principales de este programa (pagos puntuales en efectivo de una cantidad fija) corresponden “incuestionablemente al tipo de subsidio [para vivienda] que es menos problemático que otros” (Angel 2000).

El gobierno chileno, a través del Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo, MINVU, fue el protagonista principal del éxito del modelo chileno. Durante los primeros 27 años de implementación de esta política (hasta 2001), el MINVU no sólo financió y gestionó los programas de subsidio, sino que también fue la compañía inmobiliaria más grande y el segundo banco hipotecario del país, en términos de número de viviendas construidas y número de préstamos hipotecarios concedidos.

Tres períodos de política de vivienda

¿Cuáles han sido los instrumentos y las cantidades de recursos públicos y privados que se adjudicaron a la construcción y a la mejora de la vivienda social en Chile? Mi estudio se divide en seis partes; las tres primeras revisan períodos bien definidos de la política de vivienda en los últimos 30 años, y las tres partes siguientes describen los acontecimientos más importantes en la evolución de esta política.

El primer período, de 1974 a 1984, estableció las bases de la política de vivienda basada en la habilitación de mercados. Durante esos 11 años, se llevaron a cabo profundas reformas en el sistema bancario. Los programas de subsidio a la vivienda fueron creados y después se ajustaron significativamente con el tiempo. Sin embargo, se dedicaron pocos recursos a los programas de vivienda, y el sector privado participó solamente en el suministro de vivienda para la clase media alta. Los recursos públicos no llegaron a los grupos más pobres, por lo que el déficit de la vivienda siguió aumentando.

El segundo período abarcó más de 17 años, de 1985 a 2001, y durante ese período la política se consolidó con una intervención estatal significativa. El terremoto que sacudió la zona central de Chile en marzo de 1985 marcó el máximo histórico de déficit de vivienda, llegando a más de un millón de unidades. Este acontecimiento precipitó una mayor atención al diseño de programas de vivienda y subsidio, así como un aumento del nivel de recursos adjudicados a estos programas. Estos dos factores fueron decisivos para atraer al sector privado al mercado de vivienda social. La continuidad de las políticas de vivienda implementadas por gobiernos democráticos que dieron comienzo en 1990 fue un esfuerzo estratégico para consolidar la confianza y los conocimientos que requería el sector privado para aumentar su participación en el mercado. El gobierno continuó su función en la construcción y financiación de viviendas para amplios sectores de la población, y el enfoque de los recursos mejoró con respecto al período anterior. Aunque la dedicación seguía siendo inadecuada, el gran logro de este período fue la reducción del déficit de vivienda a la mitad de lo que había sido a mediados de los 80.

El tercer período, de 2002 a 2004, corresponde a la implementación de la política de vivienda de habilitación de mercados. Aunque la política de la vivienda de Chile recibió reconocimiento internacional antes de 2001, sólo el 25 por ciento de sus recursos se adjudicaron a familias por debajo del nivel de pobreza. A ese nivel de rendimiento, se habrían tardado 24 años en eliminar el déficit de vivienda (Focus 2001). El MINVU estaba gastando más de la mitad de sus recursos en programas de construcción de vivienda directos y seguía funcionando como un banco, concediendo préstamos hipotecarios, aunque más del 70 por ciento de los pagos estaban vencidos (División Técnica 2001).

Política de vivienda actual

Para mejorar el enfoque de su adjudicación de recursos, en 2002 el MINVU empezó la transformación más importante de su política de vivienda desde 1974. Al mismo tiempo, el MINVU dejó de conceder préstamos hipotecarios y abandonó la construcción directa de viviendas. En 2004, el 96 por ciento de los recursos se dedicaba a programas de subsidio y sólo el 4 por ciento a programas de construcción. Los programas de vivienda más importantes para familias urbanas según esta nueva política de vivienda se describen aquí.

Para los residentes más pobres, el MINVU creó un programa de subsidio llamado Fondo Solidario de Vivienda (Financiación para Viviendas Cooperativas) con un subsidio inicial de US$8.400 por hogar. Los solicitantes necesitan tener US$300 en ahorros y deben presentar una propuesta de vivienda específica. El subsidio cubre el costo del suelo, la infraestructura y una unidad de aproximadamente 33 metros cuadrados que contenga cuarto de baño, cocina, espacio multiuso y dormitorio. Esto se considera como la primera fase de una vivienda que se construirá paulatinamente con el tiempo. El permiso de construcción municipal está aprobado de antemano suponiendo una ampliación de la unidad a un mínimo de 51 metros cuadrados.

Las familias deben hacer las solicitudes en grupos organizados de al menos 10 hogares y con el apoyo de una organización gestora, que puede ser una municipalidad, una organización no gubernamental o una firma de consultoría registrada en el MINVU. El ministerio ya no decide dónde y qué construir, ya que los grupos familiares presentan sus proyectos y el MINVU selecciona los mejores desde los criterios de desarrollo social de diseño y urbanístico. La organización gestora recibe los fondos para desarrollar el proyecto, implementar un plan de acción social y ayudar a las familias con apoyo técnico para ampliar sus unidades.

Las familias no reciben ningún otro subsidio para la ampliación, pero como no tienen que pagar una hipoteca pueden ahorrar para financiar los materiales y la mano de obra requeridos. El nuevo programa es flexible y también acepta proyectos que comprenden la compra de viviendas existentes o construcciones en espacios abiertos existentes dentro de una parcela para aumentar la densidad de las viviendas.

El mecanismo de selección beneficia a las personas que compran viviendas usadas por sobre las que compran viviendas nuevas. El objetivo era abrir un nuevo mercado para el sector de ingresos muy bajos, haciendo posible que compraran las viviendas que habían sido construidas por el gobierno durante los 30 años anteriores. Esta política también está considerada como una solución a los problemas tradicionales asociados con la mudanza de familias a nuevos proyectos urbanos en la periferia de las ciudades, lejos de redes sociales y laborales y más costosas a la hora de desplazarse al trabajo. Este programa se concentra en las personas que viven por debajo del nivel de pobreza (aproximadamente 632.000 hogares en Chile, equivalente al 19 por ciento de la población). Se han concedido casi 30.000 subsidios de esta clase al año desde 2002.

El segundo programa de subsidios fue diseñado para personas de bajos ingresos por encima del nivel de pobreza que eran los consumidores principales de los anteriores proyectos de vivienda desarrollados por el MINVU hasta 2001. Los subsidios pueden usarse para comprar viviendas nuevas o existentes o para construir una vivienda en su propio suelo. El subsidio es de US$4.500 para viviendas que cuestan US$9.000 o menos y disminuye linealmente hasta US$2.700 para viviendas hasta un límite de precio de US$18.000. Se han concedido casi 40.000 viviendas anualmente bajo este programa.

Debido a las mejoras de crédito ofrecidas por el MINVU, seis bancos privados firmaron acuerdos para conceder préstamos hipotecarios para viviendas con un valor inferior a US$18.000. Esta política fue capaz de reducir los requisitos de alquiler y permitir a los trabajadores informales reunir las condiciones necesarias para obtener préstamos hipotecarios. Para reducir los índices de morosidad, los préstamos requerían un seguro contra incendios y desempleo o la muerte de la persona. Se incluyen tres mejoras de crédito en los acuerdos del MINVU con los bancos.

1. Subsidio para costos de cierre: se da al banco una cantidad fija entre US$300 (si el costo de la vivienda es de US$9.000 o menos) y US$120 (para valores de la vivienda de hasta US$18.000) por cada préstamo concedido para financiar una vivienda subsidiada.

2. Subsidio implícito: el MINVU garantiza que el préstamo se venda en el mercado secundario al 100 por cien de su valor nominal. Si no ocurre esto, el MINVU paga la diferencia al banco.

3. Seguro contra impago: en caso de ejecución de hipoteca, el MINVU garantiza que el banco recuperará el saldo de la deuda y el costo de los trámites legales. Contrariamente a los préstamos de la FHA en EE. UU., la ejecución hipotecaria la realiza el emisor del préstamo, no el MINVU.

Algunos distritos temían que los subsidios se asignarían sólo al límite superior del precio permitido y que el mercado no proporcionaría ni vivienda ni crédito por viviendas de menos de US$15.000. Los resultados mostraron que la progresividad de los subsidios era suficiente para estimular el mercado a todos los niveles de precios enfocados por el subsidio (ver Figura 7.1.3.1 en archivo anexo).

El tercer tipo de subsidio es para viviendas entre 18.000 y 30.000 dólares estadounidenses para promover unidades para ingresos mixtos en proyectos de vivienda privados. Sólo se han concedido 6.500 subsidios de esta clase al año. El subsidio ofrece un capital inicial de US$2.700, pero las mejoras de crédito se eliminaron porque muchos bancos privados ya estaban originando préstamos hipotecarios en esta gama de precios.

Las tres últimas partes del estudio analizan (1) temas clave para generar una política de vivienda habilitadora de mercados, incluidos los costos de transacción, acceso a financiación bancaria, ahorros para viviendas y apoyo a familias para que puedan aprovecharse de los subsidios; (2) el impacto de los programas de vivienda en los ingresos familiares y la distribución de la renta nacional; y (3) lecciones sobre las finanzas de las viviendas aprendidas de la experiencia de Chile en los últimos 30 años o más.

Conclusión

Mi estudio analiza la política de vivienda chilena desde 1974, para entender mejor cómo se hizo posible incorporar la participación del sector privado y mejorar el énfasis en la asignación de recursos al sector más pobre. El estudio explora las decisiones tomadas, tanto las buenas como las malas, en los últimos 30 años, y particularmente en los tres últimos años, e identifica las funciones de diferentes actores sociales y económicos en el proceso. Los primeros resultados son alentadores. Al usar el mismo presupuesto para subsidios en cada uno de los cuatro últimos años, el MINVU aumentó al 57 por ciento el número de familias de los tres tramos de ingresos más pobres que se han beneficiado de subsidios de vivienda del gobierno (ver Figura 7.1.3.2 en archivo anexo).

A pesar del gran avance en viviendas sociales en Chile, quedan muchas tareas por hacer. Un informe del MINVU estima un déficit de vivienda de 543.000 unidades en 2000 y sugiere que se necesitan 96.000 unidades de vivienda nuevas cada año simplemente para satisfacer la demanda de familias nuevas (Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo de Chile 2004).

Los efectos en términos del uso del suelo también son notables. Hasta 2001, todas las unidades de vivienda construidas para familias de bajos ingresos en el área de Santiago fueron desarrolladas por el MINVU en nuevos proyectos de relleno en la periferia de la ciudad. El programa de Financiación para la Vivienda Cooperativa, establecido en 2003, alentó la adquisición de viviendas existentes y aumentó la densidad de las viviendas dentro de áreas ya urbanizadas. Como consecuencia, el porcentaje de estos tipos de viviendas empezó a aumentar considerablemente, de cero en 2001 al 23 por ciento en 2003 y hasta el 63 por ciento en 2004, con una disminución correspondiente del porcentaje de nuevas unidades de relleno desarrolladas en la periferia.

Chile tardó más de 28 años en implementar completamente la política de vivienda de habilitación de mercados. Espero que este estudio pueda ayudar a otros países a formular sus políticas de vivienda, de modo que todos los ciudadanos, sin importar su condición socioeconómica, pueden tener la oportunidad de ser propietarios de un hogar decente.

Mario Navarro fue director de la política de vivienda en el Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo de Chile (MINVU) de 2000 a 2004. De 2004 a 2005 fue Loeb Fellow en Harvard y Visiting Fellow en el Lincoln Institute.

Referencias

Angel, S. 2000. Housing policy matters: A global analysis. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

División Técnica de Estudio y Fomento Habitacional. 2001. Informe de gestión: Diciembre de 2000. Santiago, Chile: Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo.

Gilbert, A. 2002. Power, ideology and the Washington consensus: The development and spread of the Chilean housing policy. Housing Studies 17(2): 305–324.

———. 2004. Helping the poor through housing subsidies: Lessons from Chile, Colombia and South Africa. Habitat International 28(1): 13.

Gonzáles Arrieta, G. 1997. Acceso a la vivienda y subsidios directos a la demanda: Análisis y lecciones de las experiencias latinoamericanas. Serie Financiamiento del Desarrollo (63).

Kimm, P. 1986. Evolving shelter policies for developing countries. Second International Shelter Conference, Viena, Austria.

Mayo, S. 1999. Subsidies in housing. Washington, DC: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo.

Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo de Chile. 2004. El déficit habitacional en Chile: Medición de los requerimientos de vivienda y su distribución espacial. Santiago, Chile: Política Habitacional y Planificación (321).

Rojas, E., Jacobs, M., and Savedoff, W. 1999. Operational guidelines for housing: Urban development and housing policy. Washington, DC: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo.

World Bank. 1993. Housing: Enabling markets to work. Washington, DC: Banco Mundial.

Until recently, a foreclosure on an owner-occupied home in the United States was a relatively rare event. According to data from the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA), foreclosure proceedings were initiated on approximately 0.3 percent of all owner-occupied housing units with a mortgage in each quarter from 1979:Q1 through 2006:Q2 (figure 1). Since mid-year 2006, foreclosure proceedings have more than tripled and now occur at the rate of at least 1 percent per quarter.

To place these percentages in context, in the 27 ⅟2 year period between 1979 and mid-2006, a cumulative total of 7.5 million foreclosure proceedings had been initiated at a rate of 275,000 per year. In the 3 ⅟2 year period between mid-2006 and year-end 2009, 6 million foreclosure proceedings had been initiated, at a rate of 1.7 million per year, a more than six-fold increase. The conditions for high foreclosure rates are in place for at least the next two years, suggesting that another 4 to 5 million owner-occupied homes will enter into foreclosure in 2010 and 2011.

What is a Foreclosure?

A house is seized by a mortgage lender in a foreclosure proceeding after three steps have occurred. First, the homeowner fails to make contractually obligated mortgage payments, a condition commonly known as default. If homeowners fail to make one or two monthly payments, they are known as 30- and 60-days delinquent, respectively. In many of these cases, the homeowner “self-cures” by making the missed payment(s) in full and paying an additional (contractually pre-specified) penalty. A homeowner who misses three consecutive monthly payments is known as 90-days delinquent, and the probability increases that the house will end up in foreclosure (Tanta 2007).

In the second step, the lender initiates foreclosure proceedings. This process varies by state and can take between 6 and 18 months to complete. In the third and final step, the court system assigns the ownership of the house back to the mortgage lender. In some states, after a foreclosure occurs lenders may try to obtain a “deficiency judgment,” which implies that the foreclosed homeowner must compensate the lender in an amount equal to the difference between the value of the house after the foreclosure and the outstanding loan balance of the mortgage (Ghent and Kudlyak 2009).

What Factors Lead to Foreclosure?

We learn about the root causes of foreclosure by first exploring how foreclosure rates vary across places and over time. Figure 2 shows a graph of 90-day delinquency rates by state in the second quarter of 2009, when the 90-day delinquent rate ranged from 1 percent to 6.5 percent. Two variables explain almost three-quarters of the cross-sectional variation in delinquency rates across states: (1) the statewide unemployment rate in August 2009; and (2) the percentage change in house prices over the three-year period from 2006:Q2 to 2009:Q2.

Table 1 shows the highest and lowest five states in terms of foreclosure rates in 2009:Q2. The states with the steepest declines in house prices and highest unemployment rates have the highest percentage of seriously delinquent borrowers. The two states with the most disparate outcomes are Nevada and North Dakota. In Nevada, house prices fell almost 50 percent; the unemployment rate was 13.2 percent in August 2009; and the 90-day delinquency rate on mortgages was 6.5 percent. In North Dakota, homes appreciated by almost 11 percent; the unemployment rate was a low 4.3 percent; and the 90-day delinquency rate on mortgages was only 1.0 percent.

Figure 3 shows the time-series patterns of the nationwide 90-day delinquency rate, the national unemployment rate less 4 percent, and an index of commonly tracked house prices known as the Case-Shiller-Weiss (CSW) index. The vertical line on the graph at 2006:Q2 marks the height of the housing boom. Over the 2006:Q2–2007:Q4 period, nationwide 90-day delinquency rates started rising after house prices started to decline, despite relatively stable unemployment rates. During the recession, unemployment increased, house prices continued to fall, and the 90-day delinquency rate rose dramatically.

Both figures 2 and 3 suggest that foreclosures are associated with two “triggers”—falling house prices and rising unemployment rates. The double-trigger theory of foreclosures posits that the potential for a foreclosure is highest when (1) a homeowner is “under water,” meaning the house is worth less than the outstanding loan balance of the mortgage (plus any applicable fees); and (2) the homeowner experiences a significant disruption to income, such as unemployment, divorce, or a health event. In addition to the aggregated state-level and nationwide data shown here, the double-trigger theory of foreclosures has been shown to fit foreclosure patterns in loan-level data sets as well (Foote, Gerardi, and Willen 2010).

The double-trigger theory suggests that being under water is a necessary condition for a foreclosure, because it means the homeowner cannot sell the house unless he or she is willing to write the mortgage holder a check at closing to make up the difference of the value of the house and the outstanding loan balance of the mortgage. Recent estimates by the First American Core Logic company suggest that more than 10.5 million properties—20 percent of all residential properties with mortgages—are currently under water; many of them were purchased between 2005 and 2007.

Figure 4 shows that house prices have declined by 40 percent in nominal terms (50 percent after accounting for overall consumer price inflation) from the peak of the housing market in 2006:Q2 through the end of 2009. Standard underwriting calls for a homeowner to make a 20 percent down payment on a house. Given the decline in house prices, homeowners who bought at the peak of the market using a standard down payment are still approximately 33 percent under water. For example, if a homeowner buys a house for $100,000 with an $80,000 mortgage at origination and it then loses 40 percent of value, it is worth only $60,000. The house is now 33 percent under water ($80,000 – $60,000) / $60,000.

Most economists believe that being under water is not a sufficient condition to lead to a foreclosure, although there is some debate on this issue (Goodman et al. 2009; Foote et al. 2010). As long as the house value is not too far below the outstanding loan balance of the mortgage, there is a nontrivial probability that the house will appreciate such that its price will be greater than the mortgage in a reasonable amount of time, and this probability has value called “option value.” Given this value, and given that foreclosure is costly for homeowners, economic theory suggests that many homeowners who are under water should not “optimally” default on their mortgage. In many cases, the available data support this prediction.

Once a homeowner is under water, however, the data suggest that an additional shock to a homeowner’s income strongly increases the odds of foreclosure. Consider the experience of a homeowner who is under water and suddenly loses his or her main source of income due to unemployment or illness. In this case, the house is worth less than the mortgage, so the owner cannot sell or pull equity from the house. Furthermore, the homeowner has reduced income, so after depleting savings cannot make the mortgage payment in full.

To illustrate the quantitative relevance of this point, table 2 shows state-level maximum unemployment benefits (UI) and average mortgage payments for the set of ten states shown in table 1. In many states, UI benefits are not large enough for a one-income family to make a full mortgage payment. In all states, the average mortgage payment consumes a sizeable percentage of monthly UI benefits, leaving little income for food, transportation, clothing, health care, and other essentials.

Should Foreclosures Be Prevented?

A foreclosure seems like a simple transfer of an asset (the house) from the current equity holder (the borrower) to the current debt holder (the mortgage holder), which occurs whenever the borrower defaults on a mortgage obligation. If a foreclosure is just a simple transfer of assets across agents in the economy, then a case can be made that society should not care about foreclosures, the same way that normal people typically do not care how many electric guitars trade hands on eBay in any given month.

However, a case can be made that foreclosures are an undesirable outcome for society in some cases. Many economists think that foreclosures have externalities, meaning people not directly involved in the foreclosure process bear costs every time a house enters foreclosure. For example, foreclosures are estimated to reduce the resale value of nearby homes (Lin, Rosenblatt, and Yao 2007). In addition, foreclosures are associated with other costs that may be socially undesirable, such as the well-being of children (Kingsley, Smith, and Price 2009).

Has the Government Prevented Foreclosures?

Since 2007, the federal government has established initiatives and put into place a set of policies to try to reduce foreclosures. One of the first major initiatives, called Hope for Homeowners, was established in the spring of 2008. This program tried to address the first trigger directly to reduce the number of homeowners who were under water by encouraging institutions and investors holding mortgages to “write down” principal on those mortgages until homeowners were no longer under water. Participation in the program by mortgage holders was voluntary, and the program was structured in such a way that few mortgage holders participated (Cordell et al. 2009). For example, only one person received assistance in the first six months of the program’s launch (Arnold 2009).

In February 2009, the Obama administration announced another major initiative to reduce foreclosures, the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) program, funded with $73 billion of TARP money. Implicit in the HAMP program is the notion that delinquencies and foreclosures have occurred because mortgages underwritten during the housing boom were often exotic, expensive, and ultimately unaffordable.

Until recently, HAMP’s solution to reduce foreclosures was to modify the terms of these mortgages (by reducing the interest rate, extending the amortization period, and offering some forbearance) for the purposes of making the mortgage “affordable,” meaning the mortgage payment would not exceed 31 percent of the borrower’s income after the mortgage was modified. As originally written, the HAMP program did not require the mortgage lender to reduce any of the borrower’s mortgage balance, and many unemployed did not qualify to receive a mortgage modification.

Figure 5 shows data from the Mortgage Bankers Association on 90-day delinquency rates for subprime adjustable-rate mortgages and prime fixed-rate mortgages over the 1998–2009 period. It is clear that subprime adjustable-rate mortgages are much more likely to be seriously delinquent than prime fixed-rate mortgages. These data might help explain why policy makers crafting the HAMP program have, until recently, focused on refinancing people out of exotic or expensive mortgages and into more conventional or less expensive mortgages as a method of reducing aggregate foreclosure rates.

These policy makers might have presumed that refinancing people from mortgages associated with high default rates to mortgages associated with low default rates would, by construction, reduce the overall default rate on all mortgages. There are two problems with this logic. First, people most likely to default are least likely to get a prime mortgage. This implies the mortgage choice at origination may be indicative of the underlying default risk of the borrower. In other words, defaults of subprime mortgages are high because, in some cases, subprime mortgage borrowers had high default risk and could only get a subprime mortgage.

Second, and more important, the recent data suggest that the majority of mortgages currently in default are not subprime mortgages (table 3). Given the current situation, it seems that a program designed to reduce foreclosures in the aggregate should focus on the inherent reasons that households with good mortgages or good credit are defaulting: the double-trigger theory.

Will We Have More Foreclosures?

Both foreclosure triggers are still in place. Unemployment rates are high, and the Congressional Budget Office (2010) is forecasting the national unemployment rate will remain above 9.0 percent in both 2010 and 2011. And, many homeowners are still under water. Assuming that house prices and housing rents will increase at the same rate over the next few years—not an unreasonable assumption given the behavior of historical rent and price data prior to 1996 (Davis, Lehnert, and Martin 2008)—then house prices should be expected to rise in nominal terms by somewhere between 1 and 2.5 percent per year for the next two years. Given the slow expected pace of house-price growth, many homes now under water will continue to be under water in two years.

Against this gloomy backdrop, Congress and the Obama administration have taken steps recently to prevent more foreclosures. First, on March 26, the administration revised the HAMP program so that the recently unemployed will be offered between three and six months of payment reductions (forbearance). This adjustment to HAMP is in line with the recommendations of a well-known plan to reduce foreclosures, written by economists at the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, commonly called the Boston Fed plan (Foote et al. 2009). It is also similar to an existing plan in the State of Pennsylvania that makes loans to unemployed homeowners to enable them to pay their mortgage, called HEMAP. In addition, mortgage investors will be subsidized by the HAMP program for writing down principal when borrowers are under water.

Second, the Obama administration has set up a “Hardest-Hit” fund distributing $2.1 billion to state housing finance agencies in ten states with severe house price decline and high unemployment rates. The state agencies are free to design programs to reduce foreclosures, subject to some guidelines (Housing Finance Agency 2010).

My colleagues and I have worked on foreclosure relief policy and are hopeful these new initiatives—the modification to HAMP and the Hardest-Hit fund—might significantly reduce foreclosure activity over the next few years.

About the Author

Morris A. Davis is an associate professor in the department of real estate and urban land economics at the University of Wisconsin School of Business, and a fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. He was one of the authors of the Wisconsin Unemployment and Foreclosure Relief Plan, which was designed to reduce foreclosure activity of the unemployed. He also maintains and updates the Lincoln Institute Web site database on Land and Property Values in the U.S. (http://www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/land-values).

Acknowledgments

I have benefited greatly from conversations, help, and advice from Chris Foote, Jeff Fuhrer, Kris Gerardi, Eileen Mauskopf, François Ortalo-Magné, Erwan Quintin, Steve Malpezzi, and Paul Willen. All mistakes and errors are my own.

References

Arnold, Chris. 2009. Investors support overhauling homeowner program. NPR broadcast, April 16. www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103148855

Congressional Budget Office. 2010. Current Budget Projections: Selected Tables from CBO’s Budget and Economic Outlook, Table E-1 (January). www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/economicprojections.pdf

Cordell, Larry, Karen Dynan, Andreas Lehnert, Eileen Mauskopf, and Nellie Liang. 2009. The incentives of mortgage servicers: Myths and realities. Uniform Commerical Code Law Journal 41: 347–374.

Davis, Morris A., Andreas Lehnert, and Robert F. Martin. 2008. The rent-price ratio for the aggregate stock of owner-occupied housing. Review of Income and Wealth 54(2): 279–284.

Foote, Christopher, Jeff Fuhrer, Eileen Mauskopf, and Paul Willen. 2009. A proposal to help distressed homeowners: A government payment-sharing plan. Public Policy Brief No. 09-1. Boston: Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. www.bos.frb.org/economic/ppb/2009/ppb091.htm.

Foote, Christopher, Kristopher Gerardi, Lorenz Goette, and Paul Willen. 2010. Reducing foreclosures: No easy answers. NBER Macroeconomics Annual 24(1): 89–138.

Foote, Christopher, Kristopher Gerardi, and Paul Willen. 2010. Should modifications ‘re-equify’ borrowers? A look at the data. Real Estate Research Blog, March 2. http://realestateresearch.frbatlanta.org/rer/2010/03/should-modifications-reequify-borrowers-a-look-at-the-data.html#more

Ghent, Andra C., and Marianna Kudlyak. 2009. Recourse and residential mortgage default: Theory and evidence from U.S. states. Working Paper No. 09-10. Richmond, VA: Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.

Goodman, Laurie, Roger Ashworth, Brian Landy, and Ke Yin. 2009. Negative equity trumps unemployment in predicting defaults. Amherst Mortgage Insight, November 23: 1–8.

Housing Finance Agency. 2010. Innovation Fund for the Hardest-Hit Housing Markets (HFA Hardest-Hit Fund): Frequently asked questions, March 5. http://makinghomeaffordable.gov/docs/HFA%20FAQ%20–%20030510%20FINAL%20%28Clean%29.pdf

Kingsley, G. Thomas, Robin E. Smith, and David Price. 2009. The impacts of foreclosures on families and communities. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Lin, Zhenguo, Eric Rosenblatt, and Vincent W. Yao. 2007. Spillover effects of foreclosures on neighborhood property values. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 38(4): 387–407.

Tanta. 2007. Delinquencies and defaults for ubernerds. Calculated Risk Blog, July 6. www.calculatedriskblog.com/2007/07/delinquencies-and-defaults-for.html

Sally Powers has been a visiting fellow in the Department of Valuation and Taxation at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy since 2009. She was director of assessment for the City of Cambridge for thirteen years until 2001, when she became an international consultant. That work has taken her to Kosovo, Montenegro, South Africa, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Turkmenistan, among other countries, where she has participated in projects on property taxation, market value revaluations, and establishment of a valuation profession for a transition economy.

Her career as an assessment administrator and consultant has involved all aspects of property taxation: legal framework, property appraisal, value defense, local government finance, tax policy, project planning and execution, public information, software specification and testing, cadastral/GIS (geographic information systems) mapping and analysis platforms, and tax collection and enforcement. Her research interests focus on mass appraisal, specifically the application of econometric techniques to analyze market activity and develop models to estimate the market value of properties that have not sold. She has written on topics as diverse as appraisal modeling, implementation of the local property tax in Kosovo, and property tax collection strategies.

Powers received her bachelor’s degree in anthropology from the University of Chicago, and she holds a Master of Science degree from the Boston College Carroll School of Management.

LAND LINES: How does your work fit within the research and education program of the Lincoln Institute?

SALLY POWERS: The Lincoln Institute is a leader in property tax policy, and its work influences the local government officials responsible for the property tax in thousands of jurisdictions across the United States and internationally. The Department of Valuation and Taxation presents a variety of conferences, seminars, and courses for property tax professionals, and I have served as faculty for a number of these programs since the 1990s. I’m also involved in working directly with local tax practitioners and in research projects that will continue to challenge the conventional wisdom about the property tax.

LAND LINES: What are some of your current projects?

SALLY POWERS: One major project deals with a joint venture between the Lincoln Institute and the George Washington Institute of Public Policy to create a free, downloadable property tax database for all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. The Significant Features of the Property Tax Web site was launched in June 2009, and the information is updated every year to keep current with changes in the legislation that regulates the property tax in each state.

We regularly expand the subject matter to be included, and have made the site a central access point for information about the property tax from a variety of federal, state, and scholarly sources. For example, the only nationwide study of effective tax rates is published by the Minnesota Taxpayers Association, and this publication is now available for downloading from the Significant Features site. The next topic we plan to organize for presentation on the Web site is the various forms of property classification for tax purposes.

LAND LINES: Can you clarify what an effective tax rate and classification mean, and why they are important aspects of this database?

SALLY POWERS: The property tax rate by itself does not explain much about the property tax burden in a particular community or provide any basis for comparison across jurisdictions. A high tax rate may simply reflect low property values, and a low tax rate may reflect very high values. Effective tax rates are calculated by comparing the amount of the property tax bill for a property to its market value, which may or may not be the same or even close to its assessed value. Effective tax rates, where they are available, thus make it possible to understand the impact of a tax bill intuitively and to make better informed cross-jurisdictional comparisons.

Classification of property is undertaken by many states, either legislatively or in the state’s constitution, to identify property categories based on use, the most common uses being residential, commercial, and industrial. In some states the classifications are applied for identification and reporting purposes only. However, it is employed more frequently to tax favored classes at lower rates than other classes. The most favored classes are generally residential and agricultural uses.

LAND LINES: Based on your research, how well is the property tax holding up as a primary local revenue source during the current recession?

SALLY POWERS: There are two major components to a property tax bill: the property value and the tax rate, as discussed above. In states where local tax jurisdictions are not encumbered with extreme limits on tax rates, the property tax can be quite resilient, because when values decrease the tax rate may be increased. In addition, the value always represents an assessment as of a specific date prior to the issuance of the tax bill. It is not unusual for this assessment date to be a year and a half or more before the date of issuance of tax bills. This “assessment lag” gives local jurisdictions a cushion in times of rapidly changing markets, with time to plan for the eventual change in the level of assessed values and to investigate other local revenue sources. To date, research on property tax revenues during the current down-turn has borne out these features of the property tax.

LAND LINES: It’s clear that the American property tax is a complex affair. How does this compare to your experience in other countries?

SALLY POWERS: International experience with the property tax varies greatly, depending on the maturity of the property tax system, the culture, and the legal underpinnings for the tax. The projects I worked on in Eastern Europe were introducing a market value based property tax. Political leaders and central and local public officials had no difficulty with the concept of market value. Valuation methods were uncomplicated and directly related to sales. A common theme in the U.S. and many other countries, however, is the desire to make the burden of the property tax smaller for residences than for businesses. Some of the proposed formulas to provide tax relief are extremely complicated, such as relating property value to household size and ages of household members.

LAND LINES: How widespread is the property tax?

SALLY POWERS: It is quite surprising how many countries assess some form of tax or fee on property or property rights. Another Lincoln Institute project I am working on is the African Tax Institute (ATI), a joint venture with the University of South Africa at Pretoria. More than ten research fellows at ATI have visited one or more of 38 countries to develop in-depth reports on the various forms of tax on property (Franzsen and Youngman 2009). Most of those reports and supplemental appendices are posted on the Lincoln Institute Web site as working papers. In every country studied the researchers found some sort of tax or fee on ownership or use of property. In many countries all land is owned by the government, but the rights to use the land are owned by individuals and companies that pay fees and taxes on their use rights.

In countries of the former Yugoslavia, for example, the property tax is a familiar concept. In the early 1990s, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia established a privatization program that transferred ownership of government-owned apartment flats to individual owners. An annual tax was assessed on the owners, based on the characteristics of the property.

LAND LINES: Can you describe more about your interest and experience in econometrics applied to property market data.

SALLY POWERS: I was plunged into multiple regression analysis on my very first property tax job for the City of Boston in 1982. I was part of the team hired to use statistical analysis to develop models (formulas) that could be applied to property data to estimate market value. I was fortunate because the city hired some of the top experts in this emerging field to train us in these methods. Since then, both as an assessor and later as a consultant, I have continued to use econometric tools to estimate market value for property tax application.

It has been fascinating to participate in the increasing sophistication and effectiveness of CAMA (computer assisted mass appraisal) to generate AVMs (automated valuation models). The biggest leap in this technology takes advantage of GIS capabilities to analyze location and property value. I am looking into an econometric tool for CAMA application that analyzes data around median values rather than the mean. This is interesting because the current statistical standards for value accuracy and uniformity are calculated around the median because, compared to the mean, it measures average value with less bias from extremely high or low values.

LAND LINES: Do you have any other observations about the Institute’s work in the current volatile realm of property taxation?

SALLY POWERS: As a visiting fellow at the Lincoln Institute, I have found it especially gratifying to see the increasing public interest in the Significant Features of the Property Tax database. The Web site has been cited by many scholars in the field of local public finance, and the authors of two papers presented at recent Institute seminars used data from the site for their analyses.

Adding to its Web-based resources, the Lincoln Institute has produced more than 10 online courses on such diverse topics as property tax policy, modern valuation technologies, property tax reform in Massachusetts, and introduction of the property tax in transition economies. The IAAO (International Association of Assessing Officers), the leading membership organization for tax assessors and other property tax professionals, has recognized the value of these courses, and now its members can receive continuing education credit for taking them.

Finally, the Institute has inspired more economists to become interested in property tax valuation and equity issues. For example, economists from the University of Illinois and Florida State University are conducting studies of assessment equity that introduce contemporary econometric tools to both display and analyze patterns of overvaluation and undervaluation of property in assessing jurisdictions.

Visiting fellow Dan McMillen (2011), working with a rich data-set that includes the City of Chicago, will present his analysis and conclusions at the next annual conference of the IAAO. I will be on hand to help make his innovative findings accessible not only to the statistical analysts in the audience, but also to property tax assessors who are interested in improving values in their own jurisdictions.

References

Franzsen, Riel C. D., and Joan M. Youngman. 2009. Mapping property taxes in Africa. Land Lines 21(3): 8-13.

McMillen, Daniel P. 2011. Assessment regressivity: A tale of two Illinois counties. Land Lines 23(1): 9-15.

Significant Features of the Property Tax. www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/significant-features-property-tax

Over the past several decades, the structure of the U.S. economy has changed as it experienced a continuing reduction of overall employment in manufacturing and ongoing growth in the service sector, especially services involving knowledge workers. The geographic distribution of activity has also changed as population has continued to shift from the seasonal Northeast and Midwest to the warmer South and West. Finally, within metropolitan areas, populations and employment moved from cities to the suburbs as trucking and automobile travel became ubiquitous. These three trends have left many cities in the Northeast and Midwest with much smaller populations, weaker economies, fewer manufacturing jobs, and an inability to offset lost employment opportunities with gains from sectors that are expanding nationally. These are today’s legacy cities, which often have excess infrastructure capacity, underutilized housing stocks, and fiscal stress related to past obligations from public sectors now greatly diminished in size. A recent Lincoln Institute policy focus report, Regenerating America’s Legacy Cities, by Alan Mallach and Lavea Brachman, reviews the performance of a sample of these urban areas and identifies steps the more successful cities have taken to produce stronger outcomes.

While the declines of legacy cities have common causes, their economic performance has become quite diverse in recent decades, as some have delivered much stronger economic, institutional, and fiscal results than others. All legacy cities have an array of assets including infrastructure, neighborhoods, institutions, populations, and ongoing economic activity. Differences in their comparative performance are related to how local policies and leadership have leveraged existing inventories of these assets. In particular, recovering legacy cities have built upon and expanded existing institutions in research, medicine, health, and education. They have also exploited the growing interest in urban neighborhoods where it is easy to walk to stores and restaurants, and where residential densities are higher than those in most suburban communities. Recovering cities also typically have maintained or attracted more educated residents and have seen growth in knowledge-related activities.

Legacy cities that have seen their economies begin to transform and grow again have not necessarily experienced population increases. The population of most legacy cities peaked in the mid-20th century and then declined. Buffalo and St. Louis, for example, had lower populations in 2000 than in 1900. Sometimes the decline in city populations is offset by suburban growth, so that metropolitan populations do not decline. But some successful legacy cities, such as Pittsburgh, have experienced modest population declines even at the metropolitan level. Changing the composition of city populations and economic activity is more important for success than population growth alone.

The successful recovery of legacy cities normally has not resulted from megaprojects that focus on redevelopment, but on the accretion of many small steps with a large cumulative impact—an approach Mallach and Brachman have dubbed “strategic incrementalism.” Their research shows that successful legacy cities have pursued such an approach continually and relentlessly. The key elements of strategic incrementalism require the evolution of new forms for a city’s physical organization, economic components, governance, and linkages to its surrounding region. Physically, the practice involves focusing on the city’s central core, its key neighborhoods, and the management of vacant land. Economically, it involves restoring the economic role of the city based on its comparative advantages and existing assets, sharing the benefits of growth with its population, and strengthening connections to the city’s region. Cities also must strengthen their governance and address the flow of services and fiscal resources between the city and the municipalities in the greater metropolitan area.

Legacy cities have declined over many decades, and recovery will take time and require patience. While the performance of some, such as Camden, NJ, continues to deteriorate, others show signs of progress. In Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and other legacy cities on the rebound, economic performance has improved, and the rates of unemployment, crime, and poverty have fallen below national averages despite the fact that populations remain well below their peak 60 years ago.

For additional information on the determinants of legacy city success, see http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/2215_Regenerating-America-s-Legacy-Cities.

The property tax is the most widely unpopular tax in America. States have responded to this public opposition by enacting a range of tax relief policies, especially for homeowners (Cabral and Hoxby 2012). Among the most commonly adopted programs are homestead exemptions and property tax credits; all but three states have at least one of these programs. But despite their broad use and their potentially large impact on the distribution of property tax burdens, there has been remarkably little data available on the tax savings generated by property tax exemptions and credits.

Two new resources, available through the Lincoln Institute’s Significant Features of the Property Tax subcenter, begin to fill this need. These tables provide information for each state on the share of homeowners eligible for these programs and the level of tax savings they receive, as well as an analysis of how eligibility and benefits vary across the income distribution (see box 1, p. 26). This article draws on these resources to provide the first national study of property tax exemptions and credits with estimates of tax savings from these programs. With this information, policy makers have a critical tool to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of their property tax relief programs.

————————

Box 1: State-by-State Details on Property Tax Exemptions and Credits

The Significant Features of the Property Tax sub-center provides three key resources with information on property tax exemptions and credits in all 50 states; it is accessible at www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/significant-features-property-tax.

Tax Savings from Property Tax Exemptions and Credits

This online Excel file includes estimates of tax savings from programs in individual states (see abbreviated example below), plus overview tables that make it easy to compare across states. For each program, the file provides estimates of the number of eligible homeowners and the median benefit, as well as a distributional analysis by income quintile. This is the first time that detailed data are available for most of these programs.

Summary Table on Exemptions and Credits

This online Excel file includes a set of tables for 167 programs displaying the value of exemptions expressed in terms of market value; criteria related to age, disability, income, and veteran status; the type of taxes affected (i.e., school or county taxes); whether the tax loss is borne by state or local governments; local options; and more. The summary table makes it easy to conduct quantitative analysis of these programs or make quick state-by-state comparisons. The information in these tables was used to generate the tax savings estimates.

Residential Property Tax Relief

This section of the Significant Features website includes detailed descriptions of property tax exemptions and credits, which were used to create the online Summary Table on Exemptions and Credits. It also describes other types of property tax relief, such as circuit breakers and tax deferral programs.

Notes: Total tax savings from the Senior and Disabled Property Tax Homestead Exemption ($392M) is less than the combined total of the programs for Seniors ($378M) and the Disabled ($22M), because homeowners who are 65+ and disabled cannot claim the exemption twice. The online Summary Table shows that the Senior and Disabled Exemption is a $25,000 exemption for homeowners who are 65+ or disabled; the two Rollback programs are percentage exemptions of 2.5% and 10% for all owner-occupied residences. Source: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (2015).

————————

How Property Tax Exemptions and Credits Work

Property tax relief programs come in a variety of forms. Homestead exemptions reduce the amount of property value subject to taxation, either by a fixed dollar amount or by a percentage of home value. Property tax credits, in contrast, directly reduce the homeowner’s tax bill by a fixed dollar amount or certain percentage.

As table 1 illustrates, programs designed to provide identical benefits to owners of $200,000 homes have widely different impacts on homeowners with higher- and lower-valued properties. Given a 1% tax rate, a $20,000 flat dollar exemption reduces property taxes for each homeowner by $200 ($20,000 x 1%). This program has a progressive impact on the property tax distribution because lower-income households tend to have less valuable homes, and the exemption represents a larger share of their home values. In this case, the $20,000 exemption reduces property taxes by 20% on the $100,000 home, 10% on the $200,000 home, and 5% on the $400,000 home.

A percentage exemption, in contrast, provides the same percentage reduction in taxes for all three homeowners—in this example, 10%. In dollar terms, however, percentage exemptions favor owners with higher-valued homes: a 10% across-the-board reduction lowers property taxes by only $100 on the $100,000 home but $400 on the $400,000 home.

In the case of flat dollar credits, homeowners with lower-valued homes usually receive the largest tax cuts in percentage terms. In contrast, the percentage tax credit again provides the owner of the $400,000 home the largest tax cut in dollar terms.

An important feature of property tax exemptions and percentage credits is that the dollar reduction (but not the percentage reduction) in taxes increases with tax rates. For instance, if the homes in table 1 were subject to a 2% tax rate, the dollar savings to their owners would double under the $20,000 exemption, 10% exemption, and 10% credit. While the dollar savings from flat dollar credits do not vary with tax rates, the percentage savings to homeowners decrease as tax rates rise.

Critical Features of Exemptions and Credits

The design of homestead exemption and property tax credit programs varies significantly across the 50 states. Figure 1 (p. 28) summarizes the number and share of state programs with the following key characteristics.

Benefit Calculation

Perhaps the most important feature of property tax relief programs is how benefits are calculated. In 2012, 59% of state programs provided flat dollar exemptions, 19% provided percentage exemptions, and the final fifth used property tax credits or other more complicated formulas to determine the amount of tax relief for each homeowner.

While the programs work in similar ways, their effects differ dramatically. As the examples in table 1 show, flat dollar exemptions and credits make the property tax distribution more progressive, while percentage exemptions and credits do not. As a result, to provide a certain level of tax relief for the median homeowner, percentage exemptions are more expensive than other programs because they result in larger property tax cuts for owners of higher-valued homes. Instead of changing the distribution of property taxes among homeowners, percentage exemptions are primarily a way to shift the tax burden away from homeowners as a group to businesses, renters, and owners of second homes.

State vs. Local Funding

The ultimate impact of exemptions and credits on property tax bills depends on how the programs are funded. Figure 1 shows that in 2012 only 28% of these programs included full state reimbursement to cover local revenue losses, while 57% had local governments bear revenue losses on their own. For 15% of programs, state and local governments shared the revenue loss in some way. (Broad-based programs for all homeowners or all seniors are more likely to receive state funding than programs for smaller groups such as veterans or the disabled. In 2012, 43% of tax relief programs for all homeowners or seniors were state-funded, 48% were locally-funded, and the rest split the revenue loss [Lincoln Institute of Land Policy 2014].)

The primary argument in favor of state funding of property tax exemptions and credits is that it can help mitigate disparities in property wealth across localities. Poorer communities and those without a significant business tax base typically have higher property tax rates, and these communities receive more funds per homeowner under state-funded programs. Without this assistance, communities with higher tax rates will experience larger revenue losses from tax relief programs unless they increase tax rates even further.

Seniors vs. All Age Groups

A number of states provide property tax relief for seniors. In 2012, more than a third favored seniors in some way: seven had statewide programs solely for this group, while 11 also covered younger homeowners but provided higher benefits for older homeowners. Other states provided either the same level of benefits for homeowners of all ages (15 states) or did not have broad-based programs (18 states).

Common arguments for targeting senior homeowners is that property taxes account for a larger share of their incomes, and local governments spend less on seniors than on younger homeowners with school-aged children. While it is true that property taxes account for a larger share of income for seniors than for working-age homeowners, the two groups devote nearly identical shares of their incomes to total housing costs because seniors are far less likely to have mortgages (Bowman et al. 2009, 11). In addition, property taxes are payments for public services, not user fees (Kenyon 2007, 36). Younger households without children in public schools do not benefit from property tax relief under these programs. The preferential tax treatment of seniors may simply reflect the fact that older households are a politically powerful group that votes in high numbers.

Estimating the Benefits of Exemptions and Credits

To estimate tax savings from homestead exemptions and property tax credits, the first step was to create the online Summary Table on Exemptions and Credits, which describes the key features of each program (see box 1 for description). These data draw almost entirely from the Residential Property Tax Relief Programs section of the Lincoln Institute’s Significant Features of the Property Tax database.

The second step was to combine this information with household-level data from the 2008–2012 American Community Survey (ACS). This nationally representative survey has data on more than 6.5 million U.S. households, including the household characteristics that determine program eligibility (age, income, disability, veteran status, etc.) and level of benefits received (home values and property tax bills). For a full explanation of the methodology used to estimate tax savings from exemptions and credits, see Langley (2015).

It is important to note that the estimates reported here are gross property tax savings. Tax relief programs often lead to higher property tax rates, especially under locally-funded programs where jurisdictions raise tax rates to offset the drop in the tax base from the exemptions. Estimates of net property tax savings would be lower in those communities, because the higher tax rates offset some of the direct tax relief provided from exemptions and credits.

Figure 2 shows that total property tax relief from homestead exemptions and property tax credits varies widely across states, but is generally small relative to total property tax revenues. In 14 of the 45 states with these programs, total savings are less than 0.5% of property tax revenues; in 27 states, the savings are less than 2.5%. At the same time, though, tax savings in nine states equal or exceed 10% of total property tax revenues. Indiana’s program is particularly generous, offering all homeowners a $45,000 exemption, then an additional 35% exemption for the first $600,000 in assessed value and a 25% exemption for value above $600,000.

Tax Savings for Different Types of Programs

Most states have more than one property tax exemption or credit program, with different programs targeting different groups of taxpayers—typically all homeowners, seniors, veterans, or the disabled. Figure 3 presents estimates on the share of homeowners eligible for these programs, along with the level of tax savings they receive.

Homeowners

Programs in 26 states are for nearly all homeowners, but usually limited to owner-occupied primary residences. In the typical state with these programs, the median homeowner receives a 12.5% cut in property taxes. On the high end, however, the median property tax cut was at least 25% in more than a quarter of states with these programs.

Seniors

Property tax relief programs in 18 states target older homeowners (typically at least age 65). These programs are much more generous than those covering all homeowners, with a median tax reduction of nearly 30% in the typical state. More than half of these programs provide a median tax cut of at least 25%, while only a sixth of them provide a median tax savings of less than 10%.

In the median state, 19.6% of homeowners are eligible for the programs, but eligibility rates vary greatly across states depending on whether there is an income ceiling. In the seven states that provide property tax relief to seniors regardless of income, 25–30% of homeowners are typically eligible. But in seven states with low income cutoffs ($10,000 to $30,000), only 5–10% of homeowners qualify. The other four states with property tax relief programs for seniors do not fit neatly into these two categories because they have higher income ceilings, strict wealth limits, or other eligibility criteria.

Veterans

State programs for veterans are more common than for any other group of homeowners, although eligibility is often limited to those who are disabled. Indeed, only 10 states provide property tax exemptions or credits for all veterans, even those without disabilities. In the median state with these programs, the typical beneficiary receives a property tax cut of just 3.2%.

There are 31 states that provide property tax exemptions or credits to veterans with service-connected disabilities. Because of the disability requirement, most veterans are ineligible for the programs. Indeed, only 15% of veterans qualify in the typical state. Overall, just 0.6% of homeowners are eligible for these programs in the median state.

Moreover, most of the 31 programs base eligibility and benefit levels on disability ratings from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Just seven states have programs for all partially disabled veterans, and veterans with lower disability ratings typically receive modest tax savings. On the other hand, 18 states restrict eligibility to veterans who are permanently and totally disabled. These programs benefit a very small share of veterans, but they usually provide a full 100% exemption.

Disabled

Programs in 23 states cover disabled homeowners, but really target two distinct groups: disabled homeowners and blind homeowners. In 2012, 12 states had programs for disabled homeowners, seven states had programs for the blind, and five states covered both groups. Programs for the disabled typically require beneficiaries to be permanently and totally disabled, but exact criteria vary. In the median state, 2.3% of homeowners are eligible for these programs and they receive a median property tax cut of 21%.

Conclusion

Homestead exemptions and property tax credits are an important part of the property tax system. These programs are used in nearly all states and can make the distribution of property taxes significantly more progressive. It is therefore critical that policymakers have good data on the property tax relief that these programs actually provide.

New research makes this information available for the first time. Using the Lincoln Institute’s Significant Features of the Property Tax subcenter, policymakers can easily compare key features of property tax exemption and credit programs across states, and see estimates of eligibility and tax savings. These data make it possible to evaluate the impacts of property tax exemptions and credits in their particular states as well as find ideas for program improvements.

Adam H. Langley is Senior Research Analyst at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Special thanks go to Andrew Reschovsky, who provided extensive comments on this article and other related papers.

References

Bowman, John H., Daphne A. Kenyon, Adam Langley, and Bethany P. Paquin. 2009. Property Tax Circuit Breakers: Fair and Cost-Effective Relief for Taxpayers. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Cabral, Marika, and Caroline Hoxby. 2012. “The Hated Property Tax: Salience, Tax Rates, and Tax Revolts.” Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Working paper 18514. November.

Kenyon, Daphne A. 2007. The Property Tax-School Funding Dilemma. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Langley, Adam H. 2015. “Estimating Tax Savings from Homestead Exemptions and Property Tax Credits.” Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. 2014. Significant Features of the Property Tax. Residential Property Tax Relief Programs: Summary Table on Exemptions and Credits in 2012. www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/significant-features-property-tax/Report_Residential_Property_Tax_Relief_Programs.aspx

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. 2015. Significant Features of the Property Tax. Tax Savings from Property Tax Exemptions and Credits in 2012. www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/significant-features-property-tax/Report_Residential_Property_Tax_Relief_Programs.aspx

Responding to decades of poverty, poor housing, inadequate health care, rampant crime, deficient schools, poorly planned infrastructure, and inequitable access to services, citizens in about half of Brazil’s 60 major cities voted in October 2000 for mayors from left-wing parties noted for advocacy, honesty and transparency. These reform administrations are introducing new hopes and expectations, but they inherit long-standing mistrust of municipal bureaucrats and politicians, who traditionally have been lax and often corrupt. These new governments also confront the dismal fiscal prospects of low tax receipts, weak federal transfers, and urban land markets that produce segregated neighborhoods and profound inequalities.

The strongest left-wing party, the Workers’ Party (in Portuguese, the Partido dos Trabalhadores or PT), held on to the five large cities it had won in the 1996 election and added 12 more. These PT governments hope to universalize services, thus bypassing traditional top-down methods and giving residents an active role in their local governments. In the process these governments are reinventing local democracy, invigorating politics, and significantly altering the distribution of political and symbolic resources. The most remarkable case may be Porto Alegre, the capital of Brazil’s southernmost state, Rio Grande do Sul, where the PT won its fourth consecutive four-year term with 66 percent of the vote, an example that may have encouraged Brazilians in other cities to vote for democratic reforms as well.

Porto Alegre, like cities everywhere, reflects its national culture in its land use patterns, economic structure and distribution of political power. Brazil’s larger social system employs sophisticated mechanisms to assure that its cities continue to follow the same rules, norms and logic that organize the dominant society. Because Brazilian society is in many respects unjust and unequal, the city must constantly administer to the effects of these broader economic and political constraints.

At the same time, no city is a pure reflection, localized and reduced, of its national social structure. Any city can bring about and reproduce inequality and injustice itself, just as it can stimulate dynamic social structures and economic relations. To the extent that the city, and especially its government, determines events, then the effects can be positive as well as negative. It is not written in any segment of the Brazilian social code, for example, that only the streets of upper- and middle-class neighborhoods will be paved, or that water supply will reach only the more privileged corners of the city.

Participatory Budgeting

In Porto Alegre, a popular front headed by the PT has introduced “participatory budgeting,” a process by which thousands of residents can participate each year in public meetings to allocate about half the municipal budget, thus taking major responsibility for governing their own community. This reform symbolizes a broad range of municipal changes and poses an alternative to both authoritarian centralism and neoliberal pragmatism. Neighbors decide on practical local matters, such as the location of street improvements or a park, as well as difficult citywide issues. Through the process, the PT claims, people become conscious of other opportunities to challenge the poverty and inequality that make their lives so difficult.

Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre begins with the government’s formal accounting for the previous year and its investment and expenditure plan for the current year. Elected delegates in each of 16 district assemblies meet throughout the year to determine the fiscal responsibilities of city departments. They produce two sets of rankings: one for twelve major in-district or neighborhood “themes,” such as street paving, school construction, parks, or water and sewer lines, and the other for “cross-cutting” efforts that affect the entire city, such as transit-line location, spending for beach clean-up, or programs for assisting the homeless. To encourage participation, rules set the number of delegates roughly proportional to the number of neighbors attending the election meeting.

Allocation of the investment budget among districts follows “weights” determined by popular debate: in 1999, weights were assigned to population, poverty, shortages (e.g., lack of pavement), and citywide priorities. Tension between city hall and citizens has led to expanded popular involvement, with participatory budgeting each year taking a larger share of the city’s total budget. Priorities have shifted in ways unanticipated by the mayors or their staffs.

Participants include members of the governing party, some professionals, technocrats and middle-class citizens, and disproportionate numbers of the working poor (but fewer of the very poor). This process brings into political action many who do not support the governing party, in contrast to the traditional patronage approach that uses city budgets as a way to pay off supporters. As one index of success, the number of participants in Porto Alegre grew rapidly, from about 1,000 in 1990 to 16,000 in 1998 and 40,000 in 1999.

The participatory process has been self-reinforcing. For example, when annoyed neighbors discovered that others got their streets paved or a new bus stop, they wondered why. The simple answer was that only the beneficiary had gone to the budget meetings. In subsequent years, attendance increased, votes included more interests, and more residents were happy with the results. City officials were relieved, too, as residents themselves confronted the zero-sum choices on some issues: a fixed budget, with tough choices among such important things as asphalt over dusty streets, more classrooms, or care for the homeless.

Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre is succeeding in the midst of considerable hostility from a conservative city council and constant assault from right-wing local newspapers and television programs, all of them challenging participation and extolling unregulated markets. The municipal government depends for its support on the participants and their neighbors, on radio broadcasting, and on many who resisted two decades of military dictatorship, from 1964 to 1985. In electing four consecutive reform administrations, a majority of the population has managed to pressure a hostile city council to vote in favor of the mayor’s budget proposals, keeping the progressive agenda intact.

Changes in Material Conditions

In 1989, despite comparatively high life expectancy and literacy rates, conditions in Porto Alegre mirrored the inequality and income segregation of other Brazilian cities. A third of the population lived in poorly serviced slums on the urban periphery, isolated and distant from the wealthy city center. Against this background, PT innovations have improved conditions, though only moderately, for some of the poorest citizens. For example, between 1988 and 1997, water connections in Porto Alegre went from 75 percent to 98 percent of all residences. The number of schools has quadrupled since 1986. New public housing units, which sheltered only 1,700 new residents in 1986, housed an additional 27,000 in 1989. Municipal intervention also facilitated a compromise with private bus companies to provide better service to poor peripheral neighborhoods. The use of bus-only lanes has improved commuting times and newly painted buses are highly visible symbols of local power and the public interest.

Porto Alegre has used its participatory solidarity to allow the residents to make some unusual economic development decisions that formerly would have been dominated by centralized business and political interests. The city turned down a five-star hotel investment on the site of an abandoned power plant, preferring to use the well-situated promontory as a public park and convention hall that now serves as the new symbol of the city. And, faced with a proposal to clear slums to make room for a large supermarket, the city imposed stiff and costly household relocation requirements, which the supermarket is meeting. In another example, in spite of promises of new employment and the usual kinds of ideological pressures from the Ford Motor Company, the nearby municipality of Guíaba turned down a proposed new auto plant, arguing along political lines established in Porto Alegre that the required subsidies would be better applied against other city needs. (A state investigation in August 2000 found the former mayor, not “at fault” for losing the Ford investment.)

Nevertheless, daunting constraints in the broader Brazilian economic and political environment continue to limit gains in economic growth, demands for labor and quality jobs. Comparing Porto Alegre and Rio Grande do Sul with nearby capital cities and their states during the years 1985-1986 and 1995-2000, one finds few sharp contrasts. Generally, GDP stagnated, and per capita GDP declined. Unemployment rose and labor-force participation and formal employment both fell.

Given this limited extent of economic improvement, how can we account for the sense of optimism and achievement that pervades Porto Alegre? The city is clearly developing a successful experience with local government that reinforces participatory democracy. We believe the PT’s success lies in the way the participants are redefining local power, with increasing numbers of citizens becoming simultaneously subject and object, initiator and recipient, so they can both govern and benefit directly from their decisions. This reconfiguration is immediately discernible in the procedures, methods and behavior of local government.

After 12 years, Porto Alegre has changed not just the way of doing things, but the things themselves; not just the way of governing the city, but the city itself. Such a claim is clearly significant. Porto Alegre offers an authentic, alternative approach to city management-one that rejects not only the centralist, technocratic, authoritarian planning model of the military dictatorship, but also the competitive, pragmatic, neoliberal model of the Washington Consensus, to which the national government still adheres. This model imposes International Monetary Fund (IMF) orthodoxy and requires such “structural adjustment” imperatives as free trade, privatization, strict limits to public expenditures, and high rates of interest, thus worsening the conditions of the poor.

While most Brazilian cities continue to distribute facilities and allocate services with obvious bias and neglect of poor neighborhoods, the reconfiguration of power in Porto Alegre is beginning to reduce spatial inequalities through changes in service provision and land use patterns. We can hope that the effect will be felt in the formal structures of the city and eventually in other cities and in Brazilian society in general.

New Forms of Local Power

Political and symbolic resources normally are monopolized by those who control economic power, but radically democratic municipal administrations, as in Porto Alegre, can reverse power to block the favoring and reinforcing of privilege. They can interfere with the strict solidarity of economic and political power, reduce private appropriation of resources, and promote the city as a collective and socially dynamic body. In other words, a city’s administration could cease to honor the actions of dominant urban groups-real estate interests and others who use various forms of private appropriation of public resources for their private benefit. These actions may include allocation of infrastructure to favor elite neighborhoods, privatization of scenic and environmental resources, and the capture of land value increments resulting from public investments and regulatory interventions. Thus, a reconfigured, publicly oriented city administration permits access to local power for traditionally excluded groups. Such a change constitutes a quasi-revolution, with consequences that cannot yet be measured or evaluated adequately by activists or hopeful governments.

Are Porto Alegre’s experiences with municipal reform, participatory budgeting and democratic land use planning idiosyncratic, or do these innovations promise broader improvements in Brazilian politics as other citizens build expectations and improve the structure of their governments? The Interamerican Development Bank (IDB) is urging localities throughout Latin America to engage in participatory budgeting, following Porto Alegre’s example. Can reform-minded city administrations override the constraints of international markets and national policy? In recommending the formal and procedural aspects of the participatory budgeting technique, does the IDB overestimate the practical economic achievements and underestimate the symbolic and political dimensions of radical democracy?

The lesson of urban reform in Porto Alegre emerges not so directly in the economic market as in new experiences with power, new political actors, and new values and meanings for the conditions of its citizens. Even as citizens weigh their expectations against stagnating macroeconomic conditions, they can find hope in new visions of overcoming spatial and social inequalities in the access to services. These new forms of exercising political power and speaking out about land use and governance issues give the city’s residents a new capacity to make a difference in their own lives.

References

Rebecca N. Abers. 2000. Inventing Local Democracy. Grassroots Politics in Brazil. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

Gianpaolo Baiocchi. 1999. “Transforming the City,” unpublished manuscript. University of Wisconsin (September).

Boaventura de Sousa Santos. 1998. “Participatory Budgeting in Porto Alegre.” Politics and Society 26, 4 (December): 461-510.

William W. Goldsmith is a professor in the Department of City and Regional Planning at Cornell University. Carlos Vainer is a professor in the Institute for Urban and Regional Planning and Research at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. They participated in a December 1999 seminar hosted by the City of Porto Alegre and cosponsored by the Lincoln Institute and the Planners Network, a North American association of urban planners, activists and scholars working for equality and social change.

To what extent are problems of distressed urban areas attributable to the property tax, and how can changes in property taxation help remedy urban decline? Political leaders, policy analysts and public finance experts gathered to discuss this complex and controversial issue during a Lincoln Institute seminar in New Haven on March 15.

John DeStefano, Jr., now in his second term as Mayor of New Haven, opened the session with a strong indictment of the property tax as a cause of urban ills. Described by the New York Times as “a leading spokesman for a growing number of people who believe Connecticut’s reliance on the property tax is harming not just the state’s cities, but its entire economy,” Mayor DeStefano argued that high relative property taxes in Connecticut were a direct cause of the state’s decline in population and jobs. From 1990 to 1995 Connecticut lost over 12,000 residents, while New Haven and Hartford suffered the two steepest population declines of any U.S. cities during that period.

His concern was shared by representatives from the Capital Region Council of Governments, the Regional Growth Partnership of South Central Connecticut, and the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, which distributed a report stating that overdependence on the property tax was “reducing quality of life in all of Connecticut’s cities and towns.”

How can this widespread assumption linking property taxes to urban ills be tested, and what changes in the sources of local revenue could encourage urban revitalization? It may be that shifting demographic and economic patterns, such as the large defense industry cutbacks that have reduced Connecticut’s supply of high-wage jobs, have more to do with employment and population loss than does the property tax. If so, changing the property tax will not address the underlying causes of urban decline. Property taxes in Connecticut are not as far from the national average as a percentage of personal income as they might appear in absolute dollars (see chart).

Will lowering property taxes enhance economic growth if it is accompanied by an increase in other forms of taxation? Meeting growing needs in urban areas with a declining economic base is a problem of dependence on locally based taxation, not a problem of property taxation alone. Shifting from one local tax to another will not necessarily assist the neediest cities that have the least amount of revenue to draw upon.

Alternative Revenue Sources

What revenue sources can offer alternatives to the property tax as it is currently structured? The property tax base in the U.S. initially included real property and personal property, tangibles and intangibles alike; the restriction to land and buildings was the result of nineteenth-century reform efforts. Seminar speaker C. Lowell Harriss urged that these two portions of the property tax base be considered separately. The first, a tax on land values, deserves even more intensive use than it is getting, he argued, whereas the second, a tax on man-made capital such as buildings, machinery and inventories, warrants even more condemnation than it receives.

Donald Reeb of the State University of New York at Albany examined the actual process of obtaining state and local support for such a shift. He described successful efforts to permit Amsterdam, New York, to change from a single-rate property tax to a graded tax with a higher rate on land than on building value.

Robert Schwab of the University of Maryland discussed his own study of Pittsburgh’s two-rate tax, with buildings taxed five times as heavily as land. This case has particular interest for the issue of causality–whether or not the tax itself deserves credit for improving the local economy. Schwab drew a subtle distinction between finding that the tax had caused an increase in building and investment and that the tax had not impeded development. Although he felt that his study could not support the first proposition, he endorsed the second and emphasized its importance. This led to discussion of the special nature of a tax on land, which avoids the excess burden caused by most other forms of taxation in terms of lost efficiency.

Ronald Fisher of Michigan State University challenged the perception that heavy property taxation alone was the main problem for Connecticut’s economy. He pointed out that the state presents a complex mix of high personal income, relatively modest governmental expenditures, low income taxes, and consequent reliance on sales and property taxes. Connecticut only introduced a state personal income tax in 1991, and that tax has been the object of intense political protest and repeal efforts. In discussing various revenue sources, including local income taxes, local sales taxes and user charges, Fisher also questioned whether the absence of effective regional government in Connecticut could be partially responsible for the disparities between distressed central cities and prosperous suburban areas.

Tax-base and Revenue Sharing

Further discussion probed options for tax-base and revenue sharing as ways to reduce the tax burden on urban residents while meeting city revenue needs. The Connecticut Property Tax Reform Commission has recommended simply increasing state aid. Another option would reduce unfunded mandates in areas such as welfare and education.

A third alternative uses state funds to allow property taxes to serve as a credit against income taxes for low-income homeowners–and a refund to those with no income tax liability. Termed a “circuit breaker,” it is designed to prevent property taxes from exceeding a fixed proportion of income. The credit sometimes extends to renters as well. Over half the states provide some form of circuit breaker, but most are limited to senior citizens.

Lee Samowitz, a Bridgeport state representative, presented a proposal for regional service districts financed by a portion of the commercial and industrial tax base. Direct tax-base sharing of this type has its longest history in the Minneapolis-St. Paul region, which for 25 years has pooled 40 percent of the growth in the industrial and commercial property tax.

Yet such programs face formidable political hurdles, in part because most areas have fragmented or weak regional governments. According to economists Howard Chernick and Andrew Reschovsky, “Despite its success in Minnesota, the prospects for the establishment of tax-base sharing plans in other metropolitan areas are poor. The political representatives of those communities that would be net ‘losers’ under a tax-base sharing plan, or who believe they will be net losers at some point in the near future, will oppose tax-base sharing.”

Political obstacles have impeded plans for tax-base sharing in recent years in a number of states. However, the discussion in New Haven made it clear that property tax reform will become increasingly important as an element in the search for regional solutions to urban problems.

Joan Youngman, senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute, is an attorney and expert on legal problems of valuation for property taxation. She develops and teaches courses on land taxation and regulation issues.

References

Chernick and Reschovsky. “Urban Fiscal Problems: Coordinating Actions Among Governments,” Government Finance Review, vol 11, no. 4 (August 1995) p. 17ff.

Connecticut Conference of Municipalities. Property Tax Relief and Reform, Public Policy Report #96-03. March 1996. 900 Chapel St., 9th floor, New Haven, CT 06510-2807. 203/498-3000.

Fisher, Ronald C. State and Local Public Finance. Chicago: Irwin, 1996.

As a visiting fellow at the Lincoln Institute and a Loeb Fellow at Harvard University Graduate School of Design during the 2004–2005 academic year, Mario Navarro has undertaken a critical analysis of the innovative housing finance policy developed in Chile over the last 30 years. The objective of the study, summarized here, is to help housing policy designers in developing countries understand the Chilean model as an alternative to provide housing to people from low- and moderate-income sectors.

Until the beginning of the 1970s, housing programs in developing countries consisted of government-sponsored initiatives to design, build and sell houses using loans with subsidized interest rates. These policies were generally limited in scale, not affordable by or clearly focused on poor families, and often inefficient (Mayo 1999). Cognizant of these problems, international development organizations in the mid-1970s started to direct their loans and advice to developing countries based on the new “basic needs” strategy, which consisted of providing sites and services, slum upgrading and core housing (Kimm 1986).

At the same time and independently from these development organizations, Chile started several reforms in the financial sector and in social housing programs, among which was the creation of the first program in the world to subsidize the demand to buy housing (Gilbert 2004). This Chilean model was established ten years before the “enabling markets housing approach” promoted by international organizations such as the U.S. Agency for International Development (Kimm 1986), the Inter-American Development Bank (Rojas, Jacobs and Savedoff 1999) and the World Bank (World Bank 1993). Under this enabling policy governments generate incentives and act as a facilitator so the private sector will produce and finance the housing that the country needs.

The Chilean model has influenced housing policy in many countries of Latin American, and even those of other continents (Gilbert 2004; Gonzáles Arrieta 1997). Nevertheless, it has not been widely recognized as the first program in which the government plays the role of enabling the market. Gilbert (2002), an important scholar of the Chilean model and its influence on other countries, mentions that Chile “fits into” the enabling model, but my study shows that, more than only fitting in, the Chilean housing model was the precursor of the policy. The main characteristics of this program (one-time cash payments of a fixed amount) correspond “unquestionably to the type of subsidy [for housing] that is less problematic than others” (Angel 2000).

The Chilean government, through the Ministry of Housing and Planning (in Spanish, Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo, MINVU), was the key actor in the success of the Chilean model. During the first 27 years of implementing this policy (until 2001), MINVU not only funded and managed the subsidy programs, but it also was the largest real estate firm and the second largest mortgage bank in the country, in terms of the number of houses built and the number of mortgage loans issued.

Three Periods of Housing Policy

What have been the instruments and the amounts of public and private resources that were allocated to the construction and improvement of social housing in the Chile? My study is divided into six parts; the first three review distinct periods of housing policy over the past 30 years, and the next three parts describe the most relevant events in the evolution of this policy.

The first period, from 1974 to 1984, established the foundations of the enabling markets housing policy. During those 11 years, profound reforms were made in the banking system. The programs to subsidize housing were created and then significantly adjusted over time. However, few resources were devoted to housing programs, and the private sector participated only in providing housing for the upper-middle class. The public resources did not reach the poorest groups, so the housing deficit continued to growth.

The second period extended over 17 years, from 1985 to 2001, during which time the policy was consolidated with significant state intervention. The earthquake that shook the central zone of Chile in March 1985 marked the historic peak of the housing deficit, reaching more than one million units. This event precipitated increased attention to the design of housing and subsidy programs, as well as an increase in the level of resources allocated to these programs. These two factors were decisive in attracting the private sector to the social housing market. The continuity of housing policies implemented by democratic governments that started in 1990 was a strategic effort to consolidate the trust and knowledge required by the private sector to increase its participation in the market. The government continued its role in the construction and funding of housing for broad sectors of the population, and the focus of the resources improved with respect to the previous period. Although the commitment was still inadequate, the great accomplishment of this period was the reduction of the housing deficit to half of what it had been in the mid-1980s.

The third period, from 2002 to 2004, corresponds to the implementation of the enabling markets housing policy. Although Chile’s housing policy received international recognition before 2001, only 25 percent of its resources were allocated to families below the poverty line. At that rate of performance, it would have taken 24 years to close the housing deficit (Focus 2001). MINVU was spending more than half of its resources on direct housing construction programs and was still working as a bank, providing mortgage loans, although more than 70 percent of payments were in arrears (División Técnica 2001).

Current Housing Policy

To improve the focus of its resource allocation, MINVU in 2002 started the most important transformation of its housing policy since 1974. At the same time, MINVU stopped giving mortgage loans and gave up the direct construction of houses. In 2004, 96 percent of resources were targeted to subsidy programs and only 4 percent to building programs. The most important housing programs for urban families under this new housing policy are described here.

For the poorest residents, MINVU created a subsidy program called Fondo Solidario de Vivienda (Funding for Cooperative Housing) with an up-front subsidy of US$8,400 per household. Applicants need US$300 of savings and have to present a specific housing proposal. The subsidy covers the cost of land, infrastructure and a 350-square-foot unit containing a bathroom, kitchen, multipurpose space and bedroom. This is considered to be the first stage of a house to be built progressively over time. The municipal building permit is pre-approved assuming the unit’s expansion to a minimum of 550 square feet.

Families must apply in organized groups of at least 10 households and with the support of a managing organization, which can be a municipality, a nongovernmental organization or a consulting firm registered with MINVU. The ministry no longer decides where and what to construct, since the family groups present their projects and MINVU selects the best ones from a social, design and urban development point of view. The managing organization receives the funds to develop the project, implement a social action plan, and assist the families with technical support to expand their units.

Families do not receive another subsidy for the expansion, but since they do not have to pay a mortgage they can save to finance the materials and labor required. The new program is flexible and also accepts projects that involve the purchase of existing houses or construction on existing open space within a lot to increase housing density.

The selection mechanism benefits people who buy used houses over those who build new houses. The goal was to open a new market for the very low-income sector by making it possible for them to purchase the houses that had been constructed by the government over the previous 30 years. This policy is also viewed as a solution to the traditional problems associated with moving families to new housing projects on the periphery of cities, far from social and employment networks and more expensive for commuting to work. This program is focused on people living below the poverty line (approximately 632,000 households in Chile, equivalent to 19 percent of the population). Nearly 30,000 such subsidies have been given each year since 2002.

The second subsidy program was designed for low-income people above the poverty line who were the main consumers of the former housing projects developed by MINVU until 2001. The subsidies can be used to buy new or existing housing or to construct a house on one’s own land. The subsidy is US$4,500 for houses that cost US$9,000 or less and it decreases linearly to US$2,700 for houses up a price limit of US$18,000. Nearly 40,000 units have been granted annually under this program.

Because of credit enhancements offered by MINVU, six private banks signed agreements to deliver mortgage loans for housing valued under US$18,000. This policy was able to reduce the rent requirements and allow informal workers to qualify for mortgage loans. To reduce delinquency rates, the loans needed to be insured against fire and unemployment or the death of the principal. Three credit enhancements are included in MINVU’s agreements with the banks.

1. Subsidy for closing costs: A fixed amount between US$300 (if the housing cost is US$9,000 or less) and US$120 (for housing values up to US$18,000) is given to the bank for each loan issued to finance a subsidized house.
2. Implicit subsidy: MINVU guarantees that the loan is sold in the secondary market at 100 percent of its face value. If that does not happen, MINVU pays the difference to the bank.
3. Default insurance: In case of foreclosure, MINVU guarantees that the bank will recover the debt balance and the cost of legal proceedings. Contrary to FHA loans in the U.S., the foreclosure is done by the issuer of the loan, not by MINVU.

Some constituencies were afraid that the subsidies would go only to the upper limit of the price allowed and that the market would provide neither housing nor credit for houses of less than US$15,000. The results showed that the progressiveness of the subsidies was sufficient to promote the market at all of the price levels targeted by the subsidy.

The third type of subsidy is for houses between US$18,000 and US$30,000, to promote mixed-income units in private housing projects. Only 6,500 of these subsidies have been given each year. The subsidy offers up-front capital of US$2,700, but the credit enhancements were eliminated because many private banks were already originating mortgage loans in this price range.

The last three parts of the study analyze (1) key issues to generate an enabling markets housing policy, including transaction costs, access to bank financing, savings for housing, and support to families so they can take advantage of the subsidies; (2) the impact of the housing programs on family income and the distribution of national income; and (3) lessons on housing finance learned from the Chile’s experience over the last 30 years.

Conclusion

My study analyzes the Chilean housing policy since 1974, to better understand how it became possible to incorporate the participation of the private sector and improve the focus in allocating resources to the poorest sector. The study explores both good and bad decisions that were made over the past 30 years, and particularly in the past three years, and it identifies the roles of different social and economic actors in the process. The early results are encouraging. Using the same budget for subsidies in each of the last four years, MINVU increased by 57 percent the number of families from the poorest three income deciles who have benefited from government housing subsidies.

Despite the great breakthrough in social housing in Chile, many tasks remain. A report by MINVU estimates a housing deficit of 543,000 units in 2000 and suggests that 96,000 new units of housing are needed each year just to accommodate new family demand (Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo de Chile 2004).

The effects in terms of land use are also remarkable. Until 2001 all the housing units built for low-income families in the Greater Santiago area were developed by MINVU in new infill projects on the periphery of the city. The Funding for Cooperative Housing program established in 2003 encouraged acquisition of existing houses and increased density of housing within already urbanized areas. As a result, the percentage of these types of housing began to shift dramatically, from zero in 2001 to 23 percent in 2003 and up to 63 percent in 2004, with a corresponding decrease in the percentage of new infill units being developed on the periphery.

It took Chile more than 28 years to fully implement the enabling markets housing policy. I hope this study can help other countries to formulate their housing policies so that all citizens, without regard to their socioeconomic condition, can have access to opportunities to own a decent home.

References

Angel, S. 2000. Housing policy matters: A global analysis. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

División Técnica de Estudio y Fomento Habitacional. 2001. Informe de gestión: Diciembre de 2000. Santiago, Chile: Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo.

Gilbert, A. 2002. Power, ideology and the Washington consensus: The development and spread of the Chilean housing policy. Housing Studies 17(2): 305–324.

———. 2004. Helping the poor through housing subsidies: Lessons from Chile, Colombia and South Africa. Habitat International 28(1): 13.

Gonzáles Arrieta, G. 1997. Acceso a la vivienda y subsidios directos a la demanda: Análisis y lecciones de las experiencias latinoamericanas. Serie Financiamiento del Desarrollo (63).

Kimm, P. 1986. Evolving shelter policies for developing countries. Second International Shelter Conference, Vienna, Austria.

Mayo, S. 1999. Subsidies in housing. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.

Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo de Chile. 2004. El déficit habitacional en Chile: Medición de los requerimientos de vivienda y su distribución espacial. Santiago, Chile: Política Habitacional y Planificación (321).

Rojas, E., Jacobs, M., and Savedoff, W. 1999. Operational guidelines for housing: Urban development and housing policy. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.

World Bank. 1993. Housing: Enabling markets to work. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Mario Navarro was director of housing policy in Chile’s Ministry of Housing and Planning (MINVU) from 2000 to 2004, when he was named Loeb Fellow at Harvard and visiting fellow at the Lincoln Institute.

Daniel McMillen has a joint appointment in the Department of Economics and the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois. He is also a visiting fellow in the Department of Valuation and Taxation at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Before moving to Urbana-Champaign, he was a member of the economics departments at the University of Illinois at Chicago, University of Oregon, Santa Clara University, and Tulane University. McMillen received his Ph.D. in economics from Northwestern University in 1987.

Since 2005, McMillen has worked on a number of Lincoln Institute projects, including two David C. Lincoln Fellowships with Rachel Weber, a member of the Urban Planning and Policy Department at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He has also collaborated with Richard F. Dye of the University of Illinois on a series of Lincoln-sponsored projects on land valuation and assessment limitation measures.

McMillen has been co-editor of Regional Science and Urban Economics since 2007. He also serves on the editorial boards of other leading journals in urban economics, real estate, and regional science, and as a consultant for the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. He directed the Center for Urban Real Estate at the University of Illinois at Chicago from 1999 to 2005, and has served on the board of the American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association.

Land Lines: How did you become associated with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy?

Daniel McMillen: I first came to the Lincoln Institute in 1989 for a conference on “Growth Management and Land Use Controls.” It was an honor to be invited there as a relatively new assistant professor and to have the chance to meet many leading urban and public finance economists. I returned for another conference in 1996. I was impressed by the quality of the research being conducted by and for the Lincoln Institute on land use, land and property taxation, and the regulation of land markets. When I had a sabbatical in 2005–2006, the Lincoln Institute seemed like an ideal place to work. I spent much of that year in Cambridge, and have been involved regularly ever since.

Land Lines: What was the first project you conducted for the Lincoln Institute?

Daniel McMillen: I began working with Richard F. Dye on a study of teardowns and land values in the Chicago metropolitan area. A teardown is a property that is purchased solely to replace the existing structure with a new one. Teardowns have been remarkably controversial because they drastically alter the character of long-established neighborhoods. In 2006 the National Trust for Historic Preservation declared Chicago to be the “epicenter” of teardown activity, so the city offered an ideal setting for such a study.

We collected data on sales and demolition permits for homes in Chicago and several suburbs. An assessment file including the structural characteristics of each home allowed us to test a key prediction of theoretical models of demolitions—that is, when a home is purchased as a teardown, it is valued only for the land on which it rests. Our results supported this theory by showing that structural characteristics did not influence the sale prices of teardown properties.

This study has important practical implications because it suggests that teardowns can be used to estimate land values in areas where many homes are being demolished and replaced by new structures. One of the impediments to a land tax is the difficulty of estimating land values in built-up areas where there are few sales of vacant land. Teardowns may help make land taxation feasible in large urban areas that are undergoing redevelopment.

Land Lines: What other research topics have you investigated?

Dan McMillen: I have worked on a series of projects with Rachel Weber analyzing property assessments in Chicago. In a paper published in the National Tax Journal, titled Thin Markets and Property Tax Inequities: A Multinomial Logit Approach, we developed a new approach for determining whether property assessments are regressive in the sense that assessment ratios tend to be lower for higher-priced properties. We use a statistical (logit) model to estimate the probability that a property will have an assessment ratio in the upper or lower end of the distribution rather than in the middle. Although we do find evidence of regressivity, we also find that assessments tend to be much more accurate in neighborhoods with a large number of sales. Thin markets—areas with few sales—have a much higher probability of both unusually high and unusually low assessment ratios.

In subsequent work to be published in the Public Finance Review, titled Ask and Ye Shall Receive? Predicting the Successful Appeal of Property Tax Assessments, we develop an empirical model of the appeals process for property assessments. We find that thin markets have many more appeals and a higher proportion of successful appeals than areas with many sales. Taxpayers who appeal their assessments tend to live in moderate-income neighborhoods in newer, larger homes with assessments that increased significantly since the previous reassessment year. In contrast, successful applicants tend to live in smaller, older homes and in neighborhoods that have experienced relatively slower rates of property appreciation.

Land Lines: What conferences have you organized for the Lincoln Institute?

Daniel McMillen: For several years, I have helped organize the conference “Recent Advances in Urban Economics and Public Finance,” at which many of the leading researchers in urban economics and public finance present new work. The conference provides the opportunity for authors to summarize their papers and receive useful feedback from an enthusiastic, knowledgeable audience.

The conference includes both established and emerging scholars. It was very important to me to meet recognized scholars when I was an assistant professor at the University of Oregon, and I want to return the favor by using these conferences to help junior scholars meet more established researchers.

This year Daphne Kenyon, another Lincoln Institute visiting fellow, and I formalized this mentoring goal by introducing a junior scholars program that matched young assistant professors with the editors of key urban economics and public finance journals, including Regional Science and Urban Economics, Public Finance Review, the Journal of Regional Science, Real Estate Economics, and the National Tax Journal. After a session with the full panel of editors, each junior scholar met individually with one of the editors, who provided comments on a working paper the scholar had prepared. The junior scholars came from a variety of universities and organizations, including the University of Michigan, the University of Southern California, the University of Oklahoma, Georgia State University, the University of Georgia, Winthrop University, Washington University, and the Federal Reserve Board.

Land Lines: How has your association with the Lincoln Institute influenced your research?

Daniel McMillen: I have published many papers that deal directly with issues of land use, land and property taxation, and land policies. My association with the Lincoln Institute has encouraged me to think more about the policy implications of my research and to expand its potential audience beyond academic economists.

For example, I wrote a paper on the costs and benefits of teardowns for Land Lines (July 2006) as a direct result of a presentation for the Lincoln Lecture Series. A surprising number of people in the audience were convinced that teardowns should be heavily regulated because they could never generate any benefits. However, teardowns may also offer new tax revenues, an improved housing stock, and perhaps even reduced urban sprawl. Economists become so used to thinking in terms of costs and benefits that they tend to take it for granted that others use the same framework to analyze issues. Although I think a strong case can be made for regulating teardowns, this kind of experience helps me realize how vital an economist’s perspective can be in shaping policies that lead to good outcomes.

The Lincoln Institute has also encouraged me to think about the implications of my research for assessment practices. When I presented my work on teardowns in an Institute-sponsored session at the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) conference in 2005, the participants were very interested in using teardowns to improve land assessments. They wanted to know what data would be required and what statistical procedures to use. This conference and subsequent contact with IAAO members provided inspiration and background for my work on assessment regressivity and assessment appeals.

My Lincoln Institute affiliation has also led to contacts with legislators and other policy makers. Richard Dye, David Merriman, and I produced a study for the Illinois Department of Revenue that analyzed the effects of Cook County’s cap on the growth rate of residential property assessments. This work motivated a 2007 conference on assessment limits held at the Institute where academics, local government officials, and state legislators heard presentations about the experience with assessment limits in Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, and Minnesota.

One lesson from the conference was that assessment limits have important distributional effects that transfer taxes from fast-growing areas to those with low rates of appreciation, or from residences to commercial or industrial properties. This conclusion surprised many people who thought that assessment limits simply lowered property taxes for everyone. To share this work with a broader audience, Richard Dye and I wrote a Land Lines article (July 2007), titled Surprise! An Unintended Consequence of Assessment Limitations, in which we presented the algebra and explanations behind such policies.

Land Lines: What are your current projects for the Lincoln Institute?

Daniel McMillen: I am returning to my work on teardowns. I am working with Arthur O’Sullivan, professor of economics at Lewis & Clark College, to develop the implications of an options model of teardown investments. The basic implication is that the sales price of a property can be decomposed into the value of the land and the value of the structure, with the weights to each component depending on the probability that the structure will be demolished. Whereas land accounts for the entire value of a property when the structure will be demolished immediately, structural characteristics have more influence on the sales price when the owner is likely to live in the home for some time. We are now testing these implications using updated data on property sales in the Chicago area.

I am also extending my work on assessment practices by developing new statistical procedures to analyze the distribution of assessment ratios. My preliminary results suggest that the variance of assessment ratios is much higher at very low sales prices and that assessments tend to be more accurate for relatively high-priced properties. I am working to develop a set of computer programs that will make the analysis of assessment ratio distributions readily accessible to assessors and other practitioners.

We plan to continue our junior scholars program as a companion to the Urban Economics and Public Finance conference. These conferences play an important role in mentoring young scholars and in helping to introduce the Lincoln Institute to academic researchers, which my own experience shows can be a formative intellectual experience.

La infraestructura (que comprende energía, telecomunicaciones, transporte, abastecimiento de agua potable y alcantarillado) cumple un papel muy importante en el desarrollo del suelo urbano y ejerce una influencia en la productividad, tanto de las ciudades como del campo. Los datos acerca de la cantidad de obras de infraestructura a nivel nacional (aunque no a nivel metropolitano) se encuentran disponibles en relación con muchos países en vías de desarrollo y de altos ingresos. Dichos datos respaldan varios de los resultados que se resumen en el presente artículo.

La cantidad de obras de infraestructura per cápita en los diferentes países se encuentra estrechamente relacionada con los niveles de ingresos per cápita: en aquellos países en donde los ingresos se duplican, sucede casi lo mismo con las obras de infraestructura. Sin embargo, las obras de infraestructura de un país no se encuentran esencialmente relacionadas con su nivel de urbanización una vez que se han tomado en cuenta los ingresos de dicho país. Y esto resulta sorprendente, ya que las ciudades poseen grandes cantidades de obras de infraestructura. No obstante, las ciudades también presentan una gran densidad de población que utiliza la infraestructura de manera intensiva, por lo que los niveles de obras de infraestructura urbana per cápita son similares a los niveles nacionales.

La composición de las obras de infraestructura también varía sistemáticamente según los ingresos per cápita. Las carreteras representan la mayor proporción de obras de infraestructura en los países con menor cantidad de ingresos, seguidas de los sistemas de agua potable en segundo lugar y los sistemas de energía eléctrica en tercer lugar. A medida que los ingresos de un país se incrementan, la cantidad de obras de infraestructura relacionadas con los sistemas de energía eléctrica aumentan con más rapidez que los niveles de ingresos. La infraestructura correspondiente a los sistemas de agua potable y alcantarillado aumenta a una intensidad menor y, en el caso de las carreteras, el cambio se da en proporción a los ingresos. Como resultado, en los países con altos ingresos, los sistemas de energía eléctrica conforman el mayor componente de las obras de infraestructura, seguidos de las carreteras, mientras que los sistemas de agua potable, alcantarillado y telefonía representan sólo una pequeña proporción de la infraestructura.

Teniendo en cuenta las tasas de crecimiento económico recientes, y utilizando las relaciones existentes entre la infraestructura y los ingresos per cápita, los países en vías de desarrollo probablemente deben invertir alrededor del 5 por ciento de su PIB en infraestructura (3 por ciento en expansión y 2 por ciento en mantenimiento), que en la actualidad se aproxima a los US$750 mil millones anuales, para poder mantener la relación existente entre la infraestructura y el PIB. En los países con altos ingresos, el gasto total sería menor, es decir, un 1,7 por ciento del PIB (dividido equitativamente entre obras de expansión y de mantenimiento), que en la actualidad se aproxima a US$700 mil millones anuales. Aquellos países que crecen con más rapidez que el promedio deben invertir una proporción mayor de su PIB, con el fin de que las obras de infraestructura vayan a la par del crecimiento económico.

En algunos países, una alternativa a las nuevas inversiones consiste en mejorar la eficiencia de la producción de servicios a partir de la infraestructura existente. Por ejemplo, la pérdida promedio de energía eléctrica en los diferentes países llega a alcanzar hasta el 25 por ciento; por otro lado, el agua potable que no se factura y las filtraciones de agua pueden llegar a exceder el 30 por ciento. La reducción de estas pérdidas de gran magnitud puede evitar la necesidad de capacidades adicionales. No deja de ser sorprendente el hecho de que el rendimiento de los diferentes sectores dentro de un mismo país varíe en tan gran medida, pues el rendimiento eficiente que puede tener un país en un determinado sector de infraestructura no se condice con su rendimiento en otros sectores.

¿De dónde provendrán estos fondos de inversión, en particular para los países en vías de desarrollo? La asistencia internacional y el financiamiento brindado por los bancos de desarrollo para obras de infraestructura en los países en vías de desarrollo actualmente llegan a un total de aproximadamente US$40 mil millones anuales. Dicha cifra se ha triplicado (o más) desde el año 1990, en dólares en curso legal. La inversión privada en infraestructura en los países en vías de desarrollo alcanzó recientemente los US$160 mil millones anuales y ha crecido ocho veces más desde el año 1990, también en dólares de curso legal. La asistencia internacional está dirigida principalmente a los sistemas de energía, transporte, agua potable y alcantarillado, mientras que casi no se han destinado fondos a las telecomunicaciones.

Por el contrario, más de la mitad del financiamiento de origen privado se invierte en telecomunicaciones (en particular, telefonía móvil), seguidas por el sector energético. Las telecomunicaciones y la energía atraen más inversiones privadas en los países en vías de desarrollo debido a que los ingresos que obtienen por los aranceles cubren una gran parte de los costos operativos, mientras que los ingresos por aranceles y tarifas de usuarios cubren una menor parte de los costos de transporte, agua potable y alcantarillado. En la década de 1990, las inversiones privadas en infraestructura se concentraron en América Latina y en Asia Oriental; sin embargo, a partir del año 2000, se distribuyeron de forma más uniforme por diferentes regiones del mundo.

A pesar del crecimiento experimentado en cuanto al financiamiento internacional, existen grandes áreas metropolitanas en crecimiento en países en vías de desarrollo que aún deben recaudar importantes sumas de dinero para poder financiar las inversiones en infraestructura. Entre los métodos de recaudación podemos mencionar los siguientes: el aumento de los aranceles que se cobran a los usuarios, el aumento de los impuestos (en particular, los impuestos inmobiliarios) sobre aquellas propiedades cuyo valor se incrementa debido a las inversiones en infraestructura y el establecimiento de mercados municipales de bonos, tales como el que se está desarrollando en África del Sur.