Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 4 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

Uno de los aspectos más importantes del estudio de políticas de suelo en América Latina es la falta de tierra urbanizada al alcance de los habitantes de bajos recursos1. Esta carencia, y la consiguiente ocupación ilegal de terrenos carentes de infraestructuras, son características de las ciudades latinoamericanas, especialmente en las periferias urbanas y en áreas no aptas para el mercado inmobiliario (o excluidas del mismo) debido a sus condiciones topográficas o ambientales.

Una consecuencia inmediata de esta escasez es la sobrevaloración de la tierra urbanizada. En efecto, usualmente la provisión de servicios aumenta el precio de la tierra en una cantidad superior al costo de los servicios. Típicamente, los solares designados como urbanos se cotizan en US$ 5-10 por metro cuadrado. La provisión de todos los servicios cuesta alrededor de US$ 20-30 por metro cuadrado, pero el precio de mercado puede llegar hasta US$ 50-100 por metro cuadrado. Así, el precio de un lote de tierra urbanizada de 150 metros cuadrados equivale como mínimo al triple del ingreso anual de la mayoría de las familias de escasos recursos. En la mayoría de las ciudades latinoamericanas, al menos el 25 por ciento de la población por debajo del umbral de pobreza puede escasamente sobrevivir, y mucho menos pagar el precio de tierra sobrevalorada.

Esta población pobre que vive en asentamientos ilegales termina pagando un precio superior por el suelo que los habitantes de otras partes de la ciudad, y pagan más por servicios tales como agua, los cuales deben obtener de empresas privadas, así como también por alimentos, materiales de construcción y otros artículos de consumo. Lo que es peor, su riesgo de contraer enfermedades es mayor debido a las deficientes condiciones higiénicas de sus entornos habitacionales y a su limitado acceso a servicios médicos.

El problema de la ocupación irregular

No es sorpresivo que entre un 60 y un 70 por ciento de las tierras de las ciudades latinoamericanas estén ocupadas de manera irregular, ilegal o incluso clandestina, y que la mayor parte del inventario de viviendas consista en edificaciones autoconstruidas que incrementan con el paso del tiempo. En México, la irregularidad de la tenencia de la tierra es una forma de vida dado su importante contexto político e incluso cultural. Para las familias de bajos ingresos, la única manera de vivir en las ciudades es adquiriendo o invadiendo predios ilegales o irregulares.

El mensaje está muy claro para las generaciones más jóvenes: “Instálense donde quieran y sin preocuparse, porque algún día el Estado regularizará sus lotes”2. Esta actitud cultural refuerza lo perverso del círculo vicioso: mientras más expectativas existen sobre la eventual regularización de los asentamientos irregulares, mayor es el precio cobrado por subdivisores o gestores inmobiliarios por la venta de terrenos parcialmente urbanizados o carentes de servicios. El simple acto de parcelar la tierra dobla o triplica su precio, de manera que nuevamente, el pobre paga más por la tierra que los compradores del mercado formal.

Esta anticipación de la revalorización del suelo como resultado de la regularización futura se relaciona con dos corolarios importantes: Primero , las acciones públicas para regularizar la tierra no han resuelto el problema del acceso a la tierra para la población urbana de pocos ingresos; en cambio, la regularización es parte del problema porque alimenta la “industria de la irregularización”. Es fundamental pensar seriamente en reestructurar o incluso acabar con esta política perversa, y crear otras formas de ofrecer tierra urbanizada a quienes la necesitan.

Segundo, este proceso expone también una falacia referente a la (in)capacidad de los pobres de pagar por algunos servicios urbanos. Ellos ya están pagando al menos por una parte de sus servicios, aunque los están pagando al propietario de la tierra/gestor inmobiliario como un “tributo territorial” que, en otras circunstancias, se hubiera recaudado públicamente. La discusión no está bien encaminada: el problema no es tanto si el pobre debe pagar o no, sino más bien cómo debe pagar y cuáles deben ser los límites de tales pagos. Por ejemplo, ¿deberían las familias de bajos ingresos, beneficiadas por los programas de regularización, pagar directamente por los servicios? o ¿debería capturarse el incremento del valor del suelo generado por las mejoras, y pechar al propietario de la tierra por dicho aumento mediante impuestos y otras políticas tributarias? Este último punto arroja una nueva luz sobre los problemas resultantes de algunos esquemas convencionales de subsidio.

Problemas de los programas de regularización actuales

Es necesario reevaluar los marcos tradicionales del estudio del fenómeno de la irregularidad-regularización de la tenencia de la tierra en colonias urbanas de bajos ingresos en México (al igual que en el resto de América Latina). Con esta idea en mente, en marzo de 1999 se celebró un seminario del Instituto Lincoln en cooperación con el Colegio Mexiquense AC en Toluca, México. Aunque el seminario no pudo resolver el enigma indicado anteriormente ¾ni siquiera proporcionar los medios para romper el círculo vicioso¾, sí generó algunas conclusiones importantes.

Primero que todo, es importante reconocer que el problema de suministro de tierra a los pobres de América Latina no puede resolverse a fuerza de los programas de regularización imperantes. Además de los efectos dañinos de los mismos, existen serias inquietudes sobre su capacidad de sustentación financiera. Los programas de regularización tienden a ser “más cura que prevención”, y a menudo dependen de asignaciones gubernamentales extrapresupuestarias, a excepción de cuando los fondos provienen de agencias multilaterales, organismos no gubernamentales u otros medios.

En México, CORETT, una comisión federal para la regularización de la tenencia de la tierra de predios ejidales, y CRESEM, una comisión estatal para la regularización de la tenencia de la tierra y la regularización de la tierra privada, se han dedicado principalmente al aspecto legal del problema. Ninguna de las dos comisiones ha logrado sus objetivos de proporcionar tierra urbanizada para los estratos bajos de la población o de crear reservas de tierras. En vez de dedicarse al problema básico de la irregularidad de la tierra, ambas se han concentrado en una de sus manifestaciones o consecuencias: la tenencia ilegal.

Segundo, los programas de regularización vigentes adolecen de las fallas resultantes de desvincularlos de una política tributaria amplia, particularmente de la tributación de la tierra (con sus implicaciones obvias para un mercado de suelos más saludable). Como se indicó en el seminario, el manejo exitoso de la tierra urbana requiere, más que métodos regulativos, una mayor disciplina fiscal de los mercados de suelos, principalmente en el ámbito municipal. Esta disciplina debería ser una precondición para captar eficazmente los incrementos del valor de la tierra a fin de generar tierra urbanizada, en vez de ser el sustituto de un tributo más completo sobre el valor de la tierra. Las mismas dificultades en obtener tasaciones adecuadas del valor de la tierra, registros del suelo actualizados, y otras informaciones usualmente atribuidas a la aplicación de impuestos sobre el valor de la tierra, se aplican también (y en ocasiones de manera más dramática) a la mayoría de los instrumentos de captura de plusvalía.

En tercer lugar, los instrumentos fiscales por los cuales se rige la tierra en México, si bien se caracterizan por su diversidad y rigurosidad, son también bastante sensibles desde el punto de vista político y por tanto, tienen una utilidad escasa. Por ejemplo, los impuestos a la propiedad inmobiliaria (principalmente el impuesto predial) se enfrentan a serias limitaciones prácticas para capturar los incrementos del valor de la tierra, sencillamente porque no fueron diseñados para tal fin. Sin embargo, es posible que una reforma fiscal no sea un obstáculo tan insuperable como antes se creía… después de todo se han instituido cambios en otras áreas controversiales, tales como la privatización de activos del estado o de tierras de ejido.

Más allá de estas restricciones técnicas y políticas, no debemos olvidarnos de la importancia de los obstáculos culturales y gerenciales. Es necesario que los planificadores trabajen en cooperación con los administradores fiscales para solventar el problema de la falta de comunicación que desde siempre ha caracterizado a estos dos grupos. Ya se han dado ciertos pasos promisorios, y muchos empleados públicos están conscientes de la urgente necesidad de integrar las políticas fiscales y la planificación urbana dentro del marco de una estrategia global.

Finalmente, hay que visualizar este dilema dentro de un contexto más amplio. Es necesario que tanto el gobierno como el sector privado entiendan que la tierra se ha convertido en el asunto estratégico del dinámico proceso de urbanización. La cuestión principal es la necesidad de regularizar los mercados de tierra, no sólo para satisfacer de otras maneras la enorme demanda por tierra urbanizada, sino también para instituir cambios profundos en la prioridad que tiene este asunto dentro de la política y las normativas urbanas mexicanas.

En suma, el seminario expuso la necesidad multifacética de instaurar políticas eficaces que faciliten tierras urbanizadas a los estratos bajos de la población, y de poner en marcha una mejor coordinación de las políticas existentes relacionadas con los aspectos de finanzas, reservas territoriales, regularización y dinámicas del mercado del suelo. Durante el seminario se demostró que aunque muchos instrumentos fiscales y regulativos son adecuados en teoría, no lo son en la práctica. El problema no es tanto la falta de recursos, sino más bien la capacidad de movilizar los recursos existentes y encaminarlos hacia un programa extenso que enlace la regularización con la política fiscal, así como con la exploración de mecanismos de captura de valores.

Si bien se han estudiado varias propuestas y ofrecido alternativas para futuras agendas de trabajo en el tema, es preciso analizar varias cuestiones para comenzar a entender el fenómeno de una manera diferente. Una pregunta clave es, si la dotación de infraestructuras aumenta el valor de la tierra de una manera tan explosiva, ¿por qué es tan difícil encontrar agentes o gestores privados del mercado formal que estén dispuestos a invertir en el mercado informal? ¿por qué, a pesar de los aspectos atractivos mencionados, se considera que el mercado informal es improductivo?

Hay un cúmulo de respuestas, pero ninguna es fácil: la incertidumbre sobre los riesgos asociados a los problemas judiciales y legales, las confusas reglas del juego, el alto costo de las licencias de aprobación, la falta de información sobre los procedimientos, y las inquietudes sobre la baja rentabilidad a lo largo del tiempo. Debido a los complejos asuntos institucionales involucrados en este dilema, el mismo continuará siendo el centro de atención de los esfuerzos del Instituto Lincoln y de sus copatrocinadores en México y en otros países de América Latina.

Martim O. Smolka es Senior Fellow y Director del Programa para América Latina del Instituto Lincoln. Alfonso Iracheta Cenecorta es presidente del Colegio Mexiquense AC, una institución de investigación y educación de postgrado en ciencias sociales y humanidades, en México.

Notas

1. El término “tierra urbanizada” se aplica a suelos designados para uso urbano, dotados de servicios públicos básicos (aguas, alcantarillado, caminos pavimentados, electricidad y teléfonos, etc.), y con acceso a funciones municipales tales como empleo, educación y transporte público.

2. Por regularización se entiende no sólo la entrega de títulos de propiedad, sino aún más importante, la dotación de infraestructura urbana, servicios y otros cambios necesarios para integrar el asentamiento “informal/ilegal pero al mismo tiempo real” en la red de la ciudad “legal”.

Algunas definiciones

Ilegal. Ocupación de la tierra que contradice expresamente las normas existentes, los códigos civiles y la autorización pública.

Informal. Actividad económica que no se adhiere a las reglas institucionales (ni está protegida por ellas), en oposición a la actividad formal que opera dentro de los procedimientos establecidos.

Irregular. Subdivisión que está aprobada oficialmente pero que no ha sido ejecutada de acuerdo con la ley.

Clandestina. Subdivisión establecida sin reconocimiento oficial.

On July 18, 1997, the Congress of the Republic of Colombia passed an innovative new Law of Land Development with ambitious goals for permitting municipalities to recover socially created land values, known in Spanish as plusvalía. Specifically, Law 388 declares that the public has a right “to participate” in increases in land values created when land use regulations increase the potential for development. Three categories of public actions are covered:

(1) changing a designation of rural land (in which development is extremely limited) into land for urban or suburban development;

(2) modification of zoning or other land use regulations;

(3) modification of regulations that permit greater building density.

Briefly stated, the legislation provides that the square-meter value of the land shall be determined before any public action and then after the action. Any municipality, at the initiative of its mayor, may demand that it “participate” by being able to recapture 30 to 50 percent (as it chooses) of the increase in value. The value is determined by multiplying the two square-meter values by the area of the parcel concerned and subtracting the pre-action value from the post-action value. A maximum of 50 percent was established to ensure that developers would still be financially motivated.

With this legislation, Colombia has enacted into national policy the basic premise of Henry George’s writings: that the public has a moral right to recover socially created values, as manifested in this case by increases in land values released by the three categories of public decisions mentioned above. With the possible exception of Taiwan, few if any other countries have attempted to so directly incorporate Georgian principles into actual legislation at the national level.

Implementation Procedures

The current legislation is only the first step. Under Colombian practice, acts of Congress set general policies, but implementation depends on follow-up at the national executive level and at the municipal level. To make the critical before and after square meter evaluations as objective as possible, an independent organization known as the Agustín Codazzi Geographical Institute will carry out assessments according to guidelines established in the law for each of the three categories.

Fees (called participaciones in the law) must be paid when a landowner applies for permission to subdivide or to construct on the property, when the use of the property is changed, when the property is transferred, or when development rights (representing rights for additional construction) are acquired. These fees are to be recorded in the registry of titles to assure compliance, and land cannot be transferred in the registry until the fees are paid in one of various forms:

(1) by paying cash;

(2) by transferring to a public body a portion of the property that is of equivalent value;

(3) by exchanging urban land of equivalent value at other locations;

(4) by making the public body a partner in the execution of the project with an interest of equivalent value;

(5) by providing needed infrastructure or open space of equivalent value; or

(6) by giving back a portion of the development rights created by the public action that is equivalent in value.

It may be anticipated that most developers will prefer to partner with municipalities instead of paying cash. Indeed, the legislation provides an incentive to use method (6) since it carries a 10 percent discount on the fees, or methods (2) or (4), which have a 5 percent discount.

Municipalities must earmark the revenues produced from participation in socially created land values for specific purposes:

• buying land for “social interest” housing;
• providing infrastructure in areas where it is currently inadequate;
• expanding the network of open spaces;
• financing mass transit;
• carrying out large urban projects or urban renewal;
• covering costs of land expropriation for urban renewal; or
• undertaking historic preservation.

Potential Implications of the Law

This legislation touches on many land policy issues that have long been of concern to the Lincoln Institute. Martim Smolka, director of the Institute’s Latin America and Caribbean Program, and other Institute associates are holding seminars and training programs to share experiences in working out implementation procedures, possibly assist in pilot projects, and carefully monitor the Colombian experiment as it unfolds.

One such program was a three-day workshop cosponsored in March with the National University of Colombia and the Advanced School of Public Administration in Bogotá. The workshop consisted of both formal and informal commentaries from a broad range of interested parties from Colombia and other countries. Since Colombia has obviously taken a bold step and there are few precedents for guidance, the appropriate officials must be innovative as they proceed toward actual implementation. The workshop identified a number of potential issues that will have to be faced as further steps are taken.

Constitutional Issues: The new law is squarely based on Article 82 of the Colombian Constitution of 1991, itself a remarkably innovative document on many aspects of urban land reform. Article 82, in simplified terms, states that when public actions increase the development potential of land, the public has a right to participate in the increased value (plusvalía) produced by such actions, so that the costs of urban development will be defrayed and distributed equitably.

The legal/constitutional debate is twofold: 1) Can the municipalities act on the sole basis of the law, or should they wait until the national government issues “regulations” and remain subject to these regulations? and 2) Should the law be limited to establishing the common, general principles, since the 1991 Constitution attributes the responsibility of land taxation exclusively to municipalities?

Practical Effects of Municipal Discretion: The workshop also pointed out that the voluntary nature of the law may have negative and possibly unintended consequences. Since it is the mayor of each municipality who initiates the imposition of the “participation,” he or she may well come under considerable pressure, financial or otherwise. In rapidly developing areas, a 30 to 50 percent share of increasing property values might be a very large sum. One speaker, for example, asserted that in Cali 60 percent of the increases in land values caused by planning decisions would be equal to the entire municipal budget. On the other hand, the law may facilitate mutually useful negotiations and partnerships between municipalities and developers that do not occur now.

Maintaining a Political Constituency: The political environment that made this bold legislation possible included scandalous cases of overnight fortunes being made from a zoning change in Bogotá and a decision to expand the urban perimeter in Cali. In the latter case, land prices were said to have multiplied by more than one thousand times!

Beyond initial implementation there is the long-range question of maintaining a political constituency for the effective implementation of such a law in the face of powerful and well-financed resistance by landowners and developers. On the other hand, the ability of any national government to have passed such a law in the first place is an achievement of exceptional interest to those concerned about “value recapture” as an essential element in urban land policy.

Maintaining Objectivity in Assessments: In spite of very specific procedures in the law designed to make it as objective and transparent as possible, it will not be easy for the Codazzi Institute to make the required before and after assessments accurately under the time constraints defined in the statute. Moreover, the various transfer alternatives to cash payment of the fees, which are sure to be popular, are dependent on a local determination as to what constitutes “equivalent value.” A number of speakers pointed out that this process might be an invitation to corruption.

Technical Issues: Speakers also pointed out a number of technical assessment problems with the guidelines as set forth in the law. For example, if restrictive zoning causes one owner to lose value, which in turn increases value for an adjoining owner, what provision can be made for compensating the former while recovering the increased value from the latter? Moreover, since the market anticipates public action, will the “before” assessment already reflect increased values arising from the probability of the action? Or, if land use or building regulations increase values of low-income, small property owners, they may not have the cash to pay for development fees, nor would the other forms of payment be feasible at a very small scale. Forced sales or displacement of the poor could result. These matters raise the policy calculation: Is it better to stride ahead and work things out over time or attempt legislative correction of technical problems before proceeding further?

Economic Effects: Although legally described as public participation in the increased values that public actions have created, the legislation may also be seen as a form of capital gains tax. How often will it be used? Will implementation tend to push down the price of the land affected, or will changes in value be passed on to the ultimate consumer? If it is the latter, the law could have a negative effect on affordable housing. For this reason Article 83(4) exempts land to be used for “housing of social interest,” as defined by the national government. Will this become a loophole for widespread evasion? There is little international experience to answer such questions.

Master Planning: Law 388 of 1997 also requires all municipalities to prepare master plans (Planes de Ordenamiento) and contains fairly detailed descriptions of them in Articles 9 through 35. Obviously, planning alters expectations of owners, and therefore of land values. The administrative and economic interaction of the city’s planning process and its recapture of increased land values will surely be a complex one.

Conflicts in Objectives: As is often the case with fiscal tools, the new changes seek several objectives that are not always compatible: financing better urban development; reducing land speculation; introducing increased equity and progessivity into taxation; and closing some of the favorite avenues for corruption of municipal officials.

Learning from Innovation

In spite of these concerns, Colombia continues its tradition as one of the world’s most innovative nations in urban land planning, law and finance. Bogota was the first major city in the world to create a special zoning district that recognized the realities of low-income housing practices. Stimulated by the ideas and influence of the late Lachlin Currie, an economic advisor to the national government for some 30 years, the city used special assessment districts (contribuciones de valorización) to carry out a major physical transformation during the 1960s. Colombia’s laws on territorial development of 1989 and 1991, to which this 1997 law is a modification and supplement, are among the most comprehensive approaches to land planning since the British Town and Country Planning Act of 1947. Furthermore, the Colombian constitution is virtually alone in specifically mentioning the moral claim of the public to increases in land values caused by public action.

As might be expected, some of these innovations eventually fell short of initial expectations. Indeed, some participants at the workshop argued that the energies going into the recovery of plusvalía might be more usefully spent on increasing the efficiency of conventional property taxes. On the other hand, the new law is addressing and resolving some problems of earlier legislation and policies, and the country is learning from its experience. The conclusion of the workshop participants was that the process has been worthwhile, and that the new law must be understood and evaluated in its relationship to previously established instruments of value capture and fiscal policy in general.

William A. Doebele is professor of urban planning and design, emeritus, at Harvard University Graduate School of Design and a faculty associate of the Lincoln Institute. This article was prepared with important contributions by Martim Smolka, senior fellow for Latin America Programs, Fernando Rojas, visiting fellow of the Institute, and Fernanda Furtado, faculty and research associate of the Institute.

See also Fernando Rojas and Martim Smolka, “New Colombian Law Implements Value Capture,” Land Lines, March 1998.

Q & A with Mario Coyula

Q. Why is Havana so acclaimed for its beautiful old buildings and neighborhoods?

A. More than two hundred years ago Havana was the preeminent city in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean basin. Established as a service-oriented Spanish colonial settlement, the city spread west and southwest from its initial development next to the port, leaving behind a valuable built heritage representing many different architectural styles over more than four centuries.

The historic character of Havana persists both by accident and by design: By accident, because the 1959 revolution quickly stopped an on-going process of replacing fine old buildings with high-rise condominiums; by design, because one early goal of the new government was to reduce rural poverty and improve living conditions in the countryside and smaller cities and towns. As a result, Havana became more dilapidated, but the population goal was cut short, and the city was spared the fate of traumatic urban renewal and speculative real estate development.

Q. What are the two faces of Havana referred to in the title of your forthcoming book, Havana: Two Faces of the Antillean Metropolis?

A. Every city has at least two faces, depending on the social, cultural and political bias of the observer. Havana had many very wealthy people, but many poor people as well. Some people will tell you that pre-revolutionary Havana was a wonderful, glamorous city, a perfect place to live until communism arrived. Others will recall it as a place ridden with poverty, discrimination and social injustice; they believe that the revolution opened equal opportunities to all.

Some will tell you that present-day Havana is on the verge of collapse because of the lack of maintenance, and dull because of the lack of services and choices. Others will point out that because of that, Havana’s unique architecture was protected from redevelopment. People in the inner districts may be overcrowded, but they have not been expelled by gentrification. In every case, it is both things at the same time. Maybe that is what makes Havana so fascinating.

Q. What is the mission of the Group for the Integrated Development of the Capital?

A. The Group was created in 1987 as an interdisciplinary team of experts to advise the city government on urban policies. Our mission is to place on an equal footing the economic and social development of the city, emphasizing the active participation of the city’s residents. Preserving Havana’s extensive built heritage represents an impossible drain of state funds at a time when the Cuban economy is severely impaired. Yet investment is critical to reassert Havana’s leading role in the region and to create an urban environment that can stimulate economic growth and improve the quality of life of the residents.

New investments should encourage residents to identify and solve their own problems, and progress must be monitored to avoid negative impacts on the natural environment as well as the built and social fabric. Planning for change in Havana demands a pattern of development that would be economically feasible, environmentally sound, socially fair and politically participatory. We want to work with investors who understand and respect the community, to help build a social identity and neighborhood commitment through improving material aspects such as housing, transportation, education and health.

Q. What is the role of the neighborhood transformation workshops started by the Group?

A. These are organizations of neighborhood residents, guided and stimulated by architects, social workers, planners and engineers. We try to find professionals who actually live full-time in the neighborhood for each group. The groups choose and manage revitalization, housing construction, recreation, or other economic and social projects, according to their own vision and priorities for community development in their specific neighborhoods.

Some of the workshops have chosen to focus on the manufacture of building materials, even by recycling rubble (an abundant raw material in Havana!), using these for their own projects but also selling them to other groups. Other neighborhood workshops have chosen to focus on urban gardening or recycling waste. Most importantly, these workshops encourage the self-reliance and commitment of the residents, thus developing a local pride that helps prevent marginality.

Q. What are the respective roles of the central government and the neighborhoods in the revitalization of Havana?

A. The central government has found it increasingly difficult to meet the needs of the neighborhoods, especially since the fall of the Soviet Union. Fuel, food and transportation were once supplied and managed centrally, or even imported. Citizens grew to expect a benevolent government to take care of things from the top down. Now one of our biggest challenges is to energize and empower citizens to provide these things locally, from the bottom up. For example, the government has authorized the creation of tens of thousands of small, community gardens on vacant lots, and the surplus from these gardens is sold in city markets.

Q. What are the pros and cons of tourism development in Havana?

A. On the one hand, tourism can attract new investment and income that will help to improve the living standard of the city’s residents. On the other hand, large-scale construction just for tourists can overwhelm the local built environment, and encourage Cubans to see tourists not as fellow human beings but just as an economic resource—almost the way the hungry man in the old Charlie Chaplin film saw everyone around him as a roast chicken or a delicious dessert.

I would rather attract many small investors than a few large ones and find ways of reusing some of the city’s old mansions as small-scale hotels. That way, we can manage both the benefits and the risks of tourism more effectively, and spread the benefits and costs more thinly across many neighborhoods. This pattern should be more sustainable and less vulnerable in an unfriendly external context, including the American embargo.

Q. The Group has built a huge scale model of Havana. How do you use it?

A. We use the model as an educational tool, to help people see the city as a whole and to place their neighborhood within it. Because the buildings are color-coded by the period when they were constructed, the model also helps people see how the city grew, and how newer buildings replaced or overwhelmed older ones. The model was built at a scale of 1:1000 and now covers 112 square meters. It is exhibited in a custom-made pavilion that serves as an information center for anyone living in or visiting the city.

We also use model to test the visual impact of new projects. By placing proposed buildings on their intended sites, we help people get more information on different options and opportunities. This process has actually stopped some inappropriate, disruptive projects because everyone—planners, developers, neighborhood residents—could see clearly how a new structure would impact the community.

Editor’s Note: Architect and planner Mario Coyula spoke at the Lincoln Institute, the Harvard University Graduate School of Design and the Kennedy School of Government in April about the history and architecture of Havana, his home town. He has been a full professor at the Faculty of Architecture of Havana since 1964 and is vice-director of the Group for the Integrated Development of the Capital (GDIC). Dr. Coyula is also a member of several commissions, scientific councils and advisory councils. He is a co-author of the forthcoming book Havana: Two Faces of the Antillean Metropolis (New York and London: John Wiley and Sons, 1997) with Roberto Segre and Joseph L. Scarpaci, Jr.

As a part of the educational activities of the Lincoln Institute’s Latin America Program, a course on “Large Urban Projects,” held in Cambridge last June, focused on the most important and challenging aspects of this land planning issue. Academics, public officials and representatives from private enterprises in 17 cities participated in the presentations and discussions. This article presents a synthesis of the principal points, questions and challenges raised in carrying out these complex projects.

Large urban redevelopment projects have become an important issue in many Latin American countries recently, due in part to changes motivated by the processes of globalization, deregulation and the introduction of new approaches in urban planning. These projects include varied types of interventions, but they are characterized primarily by their large size and scale, which challenge traditional instruments of urban management and financing.

Urban projects on a grand scale are not considered a novelty in Latin America. The diverse elements of existing developments include the revitalization of historic centers; conversion of abandoned industrial facilities, military areas, airports or train stations; large slum rehabilitation projects; and construction of innovative public transportation models. However, at least four important features characterize this new type of intervention:

• An urban management structure that implies the association of various public and private, national and international actors;
• Significant financing needs that require complex forms of interconnections among these actors;
• The conception and introduction of new urban processes that are intended to transform the city;
• The questioning of traditional urban planning perspectives, since these projects tend to exceed the scope of prevailing norms and policies.

The last feature is reinforced by the influence of different planning strategies and the impacts of large urban projects in various cities around the world (Powell 2000). One project that has influenced many city planners and officials in Latin America was the transformation of Barcelona in preparation for the Olympic Games in 1992 (Borja 1995). Several projects in Latin America have been inspired by, if not directly emulated, this approach (Carmona and Burgess 2001), but it also has faced serious criticism (Arantes, Vainer and Maricato 2000). It has been seen as a convenient process through which a group of decision makers or private interest stakeholders manage to bypass official planning and policy channels that are seen to be too dependent on the public (democratic) debate. As a result most such projects tend to be either elitist, because they displace low-income neighborhoods with gentrified and segregated upper-class land uses, or are socially exclusionary, because they develop single-class projects, either low-income settlements or high-income enclaves, in peripheral locations.

Large-scale projects raise new questions, make inherent contradictions more transparent, and challenge those responsible for urban land analysis and policy formulation. Of special importance are the new forms of management, regulation, financing and taxation that are required for or result from the execution of these projects, and in general the consequences for the functioning of land markets.

Size, Scale and Timeframe

The first issue that emerges from a discussion of large-scale projects has to do with the ambiguity of the term and the necessity of defining its validity. Size is a quantitative dimension, but scale suggests complex interrelations involving socioeconomic and political impacts. The wide variety of feelings evoked by large projects shows the limitations in being able to restore a vision of the urban whole and at the same time its global character (Ingallina 2001). This issue has just begun to be discussed in Latin America, and it is framed in the transition to a new approach in urban planning, which is related to the possibility and even the necessity of constructing a typology and indicators for its analysis. Issues such as the emblematic character of these projects, their role in stimulating other urban processes, the involvement of many actors, and the significance of the impacts on the life and development of the city are all part of the discussions. Nevertheless, it is the scale, understood as being more than just simple physical dimensions, that is the central core of this theme.

Since the scale of these projects is associated with complex urban processes that combine continuity and changes over the medium and long terms, the timeframe of their execution must be conceived accordingly. Many of the failures in the implementation of such projects have to do with the lack of a managing authority that would be free or protected from the political volatility of local administrations over time.

The cases of Puerto Madero in Buenos Aires and Fenix in Montevideo, the first completed and the second in process, offer examples of the difficulties in managing the scale and timing of development in the context of economic situations and policies that can change drastically. Twelve years after its construction, Puerto Madero has not yet stimulated other large-scale projects, such as the renovation of nearby Avenida de Mayo, nor appreciable transformations in urban norms.

The scale and timeframe are particularly important for the project in Montevideo, raising doubts about the feasibility of executing a project of this scale in relation to the character of the city, its economy, and other priorities and policies of the country. Its goal was to generate a “work of urban impact,” in this case promotion of public, private and mixed investments in a neighborhood that lost 18.4 percent of its population between 1985 and 1996, and focusing on an emblematic building, the old General Artigas train station. Most of this work has been executed, with a loan of $28 million from the Inter-American Development Bank, however the percentage of public and private investments are minimal and the Fenix project is having to compete with another large-scale corporate-commercial development located east of the city that is already attracting important firms and enterprises.

Land Policy Issues

The issue of scale relates intrinsically to the role of urban land, which makes one ask if land (including its value, uses, ownership and other factors) should be considered a key variable in the design and management of large-scale urban operations, since the feasibility and success of these projects are often associated with the internalization of formidable externalities often reflected in the cost and management of the land.

Projects to restore historic centers offer important lessons to be considered here. We can compare the cases of Old Havana, where land ownership is completely in the hands of the state, which has permitted certain activities to expand, and Lima, where land ownership is divided among many private owners and public sector agencies, adding to the difficulties in completing an ongoing restoration project. Even though Old Havana has received important financial cooperation from Europe and Lima has a $37 million loan from the Inter-American Development Bank, the main challenge is to promote private investment while also maintaining programs of social and economic assistance for the local residents. Both cities have created special units for the management of these projects, which constitutes an interesting commentary on institutional modernization.

The Role of the State

The scale, the time dimension and the role of land in large urban projects lead us to consider the role of the state and public investment. While urban operations on a large scale are not new in Latin American cities, their present conditions have been affected radically by economic changes, political crises and substantial modifications in the role of the state in general. These conditions make the execution of urban projects, as part of the process of long-term urban development, a source of contradictions with the generally short tenure of municipal governments and the limits of their territorial claims. We must also consider the differences in regulatory competencies between central governments and local municipalities, and the differences between public entities and private institutions or local community organizations, which often reflect conflicting interests due the decentralization and privatization processes being promoted simultaneously in many countries.

Two large projects related to transportation infrastructure are examples of local situations that led to very different results. One was the transformation of the old abandoned Cerrillos airport in Santiago, Chile, and the other was a project for a new airport for Mexico City in Texcoco, an area known as ejido land occupied by peasants and their descendants. In the first case, the active participation of interested groups is expanding the recuperation process of a zone of the city that does not have quality urban facilities. A total investment of $36 million from the public sector and $975 million from the private sector is supporting the construction of malls, facilities for education, health and recreation, and housing for the neighborhood. In Mexico serious conflicts between state interests and community rights to the land had caused social unrest and even the kidnapping of public officials. As a result, the federal government has recently withdrawn from the Texcoco project, assuming huge political and economic costs for this decision.

Segregation and Exclusion

Many planners and practitioners have doubts about the feasibility of large projects in poor countries and cities because of the distortions that their execution could cause on future development, in particular the reinforcing tendencies of segregation and social exclusiveness. The diminishing capacity of the state to look for new alternatives for financing socially beneficial projects through private capital, principally from international sources, adds to the doubts about their success. Many large-scale projects are seen as the only alternative or the unavoidable cost that the city or society has to pay to generate an attractive environment in a context of growing competition among cities for a limited number of external investors.

A key matter with respect to the use of public space generated by these projects is to avoid segregation of space and people. Special attention must be given to protect the inhabitants of the zones where the large urban projects are developed from the negative consequences of gentrification. This is without a doubt one of the most difficult aspects of large urban projects. Table 1 shows the most important aspects and the principal challenges that arise from an analysis of the large urban projects. Effectively, the integration of projects of this scope calls for a vision of the city that avoids the creation of islands of modernity isolated in the middle of poor areas, which would contribute to the process called the dualism of the city, or the generation of new exclusive urban centers.

Table 1: Aspects and Challenges of Large Urban Projects

Two cases in different political-economic contexts help us reflect about this matter. One is the El Recreo project, planned by Metrovivienda, in Bogotá. Although presenting innovative proposals about the use and management of the land in a large project for popular housing, the project has not been able to guarantee the integration of social groups with different income levels. In the Corredor Sur area of Panama City large zones are being planned for the construction of residences, but the result again serves primarily medium- and high-income sectors. Thus in both a decentralized and a centralized country the general norms that provoke residential segregation cannot seem to prevent negative consequences for the poorest sectors of society.

In view of all this, large urban projects should not be seen as an alternative approach to obsolete plans or rigid norms like zoning. They could instead be presented as a kind of intermediate-scale planning, as an integrated approach that addresses the needs of the whole city and avoids physical and social separations and the creation of norms that permit exclusive privileges. Only in this way can large-scale projects take their place as new instruments for urban planning. The positive effects of specific elements such as the quality of architecture and urban design are valuable in these projects if they operate as a benchmark and are distributed with equity throughout the city.

Public Benefits

Large-scale projects are public projects by the nature of their importance and impact, but that does not mean they are the total property of the state. Nevertheless, the complexity of the participant networks involved directly or indirectly, the variety of interests and the innumerable contradictions inherent in large projects require a leading management role by the public sector. The territorial scale of these operations especially depends on the support of the municipal governments, which in Latin America often lack the technical resources to manage such projects. Local support can guarantee a reduction of negative externalities and the involvement of weaker participants, generally local actors, through a more just distribution of the benefits, where the regulation of the use and taxation of the land is a key issue. Such is the intention of the Municipality of Santo Andre in Sao Paulo in the design of the extraordinarily complex Tamanduatehy project. It involves the reuse of an enormous tract of land previously occupied by railroad facilities and neighboring industrial plants that fled this once vigorous industrial belt of Sao Paulo to relocate in the hinterland. The project involves establishing a viable locus of new activities, mostly services and high-tech industries, capable of replacing the economic base of that region.

Beyond creating and marketing the image of the project, it is important to achieve social legitimacy through a combination of public and private partners engaged in joint ventures, the sale or renting of urban land, compensation for direct private investment, regulation, or even public recovery (or recapture) of costs and/or of unearned land value increments. Active public management is also necessary, since the development of the city implies common properties and benefits, not only economic interests. Analysis of economic and financial costs, and opportunity costs, are also important to avoid the failure of these projects.

Conclusions

The basic components in the pre-operational stage of executing large urban projects can be summarized as follows:

• Establish a development/management company independent from the state and municipal administration
• Formulate the comprehensive project plan
• Elaborate on the marketing plan
• Design the program of buildings and infrastructure
• Define adequate fiscal and regulatory instruments
• Formulate the financing plan (cash flow)
• Design a monitoring system

An adequate analysis of the trade-offs (economic, political, social, environmental, and others) is indispensable, even if it is clear that the complex problems of the contemporary city cannot be solved with large interventions alone. It is important to reiterate that more importance must be given to the institutionalization and legitimacy of the final plans and agreements than simply the application of legal norms.

The presentations and discussions at the course on “Large Urban Projects” show that the matter of urban land strongly underlies all the aspects and challenges described above. Land in this type of project presents a huge complexity and offers a great opportunity; the challenge is how to navigate between the interests and conflicts when there are many owners and stakeholders of the land. It is necessary to combat the temptation to believe that modern urban planning is the sum of large projects. Nevertheless, these projects can contribute to building a shared image of the city between the inhabitants and the users. This topic clearly has facets that have not been completely explored yet and that need continued collaborative analysis and by academics, policy makers and citizens.

Mario Lungo is executive director of the Office of Planning of the Metropolitan Area of San Salvador (OPAMSS) in El Salvador. He is also a professor and researcher at the Central American University José Simeón Cañas.

References

Borja, Jordi. 1995. Un modelo de transformación urbana. Quito, Peru: Programa de Gestion Urbana.

Carmona, Marisa and Rod Burgess. 2001. Strategic Planning and Urban Projects. Delft: Delft University Press.

Ingallina, Patrizia. 2001. Le Projet Urbain. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Powell, Kenneth. 2000. La transformación de la ciudad. Barcelona: Ediciones Blume.

Arantes, Otilia, Carlos Vainer e Erminia Maricato. 2000. A cidade do pensamento unico. Petrópolis: Editora Vozes.

For the past six years, the Lincoln Institute has been collaborating with the Loeb Fellowship Program at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design. Established in 1970 through the generosity of alumnus John L. Loeb, the Loeb Fellowship invites about 10 mid-career professionals each year to study independently and develop insights and connections that can advance their work revitalizing the built and natural environments. The 2002–2003 fellows took their class study trip to Cape Town, South Africa, in May, focusing their inquiry on urban renewal efforts in the township of Khayelitsha.

Cape Town is as glistening a first world city as one could ever expect to see. It’s also among the most deceptive. The come-on begins with one’s first view of Table Mountain, rising behind the city’s modernist skyline. It literally peaks when you ride the sleek, blue funicular to the top and behold, along with the wondrous natural landscape, abundant evidence of apparent prosperity and cosmopolitanism. The seaport of this early outpost of globalization continues to bustle with levels of trade befitting an intercontinental crossroads. The gleaming Victoria and Alfred Waterfront is an upscale tourist vortex, and the massive new convention center with its adjoining international hotel help make Cape Town a glorious modern city.

One feels a twinge of betrayal, however, with the first visit to Khayelitsha, 26 kilometers (16 miles) out the N2 highway amid the sandy Cape Flats, a black African township of over a million residents and the sort of place where the majority of Cape Town residents live. Miles before any apparent settlement, one sees dozens of men and women walking along the shoulder of the freeway, making an hours-long commute to work, or in search of it. Closer to Khayelitsha, hordes of children are playing soccer in the road reserve, occasionally streaming across the multilane highway. Soon the shacks come into view, emerging from a smoky-dusty haze. There are thousands of them, amazingly resourceful assemblages of corrugated tin, recovered shipping palettes, found scraps of anything. Some are drab but most are swathed in vibrant hues.

In the township itself there are more shacks, then row after row of cinder block huts. Apart from a gas station there are almost no formal stores or other nonresidential buildings. But informal traders abound at most intersections: hair stylists operating in overturned shipping containers; meat purveyors with raw animal parts lying on dusty tables or sizzling on oil-drum grills fired by salvaged wood; fruit stands; a house store selling cigarettes, drinks and not much else. Even at noon on a workday the streets are teeming with pedestrians.

If it is an overstatement to call this the “real” Cape Town, it is also true that this condition is far more prevalent than the patina of affluence in the white, Euro-centric center. Certainly it is no exaggeration to call townships like this, with their high unemployment and AIDS rates, the greatest challenge to the still young post-apartheid government of South Africa. Recognizing this, the administration of President Thabo Mbeki is pouring resources into a program, dubbed “urban renewal” in an eerie echo of the earlier American episode, aimed at remaking these troubling legacies of apartheid into more livable places. It is this effort that the 2003 class of Loeb fellows has come to study.

Staggering Quality-of-Life Challenges

The urban renewal program was begun in 2001 to combat unemployment and crime and improve quality of life for township residents. Each of the nine provinces has identified several nodes of focus, with more than 30 nodes nationwide. The Western Cape province selected Khayelitsha and the neighboring “colored” township of Mitchell’s Plain because of the huge challenges they present. Both are large—Khayelitsha is second only to Soweto in size—and distant from the urban core and economic opportunities; together they account for one-third of the Cape Town region’s population.

The magnitude of the project is stunning. Not yet 20 years old, Khayelitsha is believed to have over one million residents and an annual growth rate of 5 percent. The township, whose name means “our new home” in the Xhosa language of its dominant population, began life in the early 1980s as a planned dormitory settlement for rural African men who migrated to Cape Town for industrial jobs. Initially, wives and children were not allowed to join the men. When the dying apartheid regime lifted its pass law restrictions in the late 1980s, families came flooding into the township.

Today, unemployment officially stands at around 46 percent, but that apparently counts only those who still are actively looking. The HIV infection rate is thought to be around 25 percent. As much as one-third of township residents are living in informal housing, either in squatter shacks built illegally on city-owned land, in officially sanctioned shacks on plotted and serviced lots, or in backyard shacks behind the cinderblock huts that comprise the lion’s share of formal housing.

Khayelitsha has almost no jobs of its own apart from informal trade, such as unlicensed taverns known as shebeens, hair stylists and house shops, and scant tourism jobs. The commute to Cape Town is a grueling journey by overcrowded trains, and the trip is made longer by the fact that the Khayelitsha line is not direct, but a branch from the line to Mitchell’s Plain. And increasingly the jobs are not in central Cape Town but in the booming edge city of Bellville, which is unreachable for carless commuters except by jitney taxi. As it happens, access to and from Khayelitsha is intentionally poor. Emerging at the height of the anti-apartheid struggle, the township was designed so that its two entrance points could be closed in the event of any disturbance.

Given the paucity of jobs in the township and the difficult commute to existing employment centers, the most appropriate urban renewal strategy might be to relocate residents to new housing near jobs and adequate transportation networks. But that task is so monumental and fraught with thorny considerations that the government has settled for now on trying to make the existing township as livable as possible.

“The question of relocation versus redevelopment of Khayelitsha is a political hot potato,” says Pieter Terblanche, principal planner in Cape Town’s Planning and Environmental Directorate. White residents in Cape Town and its close-in suburbs aren’t eager for new neighbors, and the township residents themselves want to cling to whatever patch of ground they’ve been able to secure for themselves in the (probably legitimate) fear that they’ll never get as much anywhere else.

Addressing the housing needs within Khayelitsha itself then becomes a top priority. About 20,000 households now live in areas with only communal toilets and water taps, though most have electricity. Most of these families need to be relocated to so-called serviced sites, with water, sewer and access to a bona fide street. Several thousand others are doubled up on serviced sites intended for only one house; these too will be relocated. To reduce the risk of the devastating fires that sometimes sweep through the shack lands, the city wants to de-densify informal areas, adding to the relocation challenge.

The rehousing program is complicated by other factors. For the vast majority of residents, the only acceptable housing is a detached hut on a privately owned lot. Multifamily rental housing is seen as a despised relic of apartheid, and mid- or high-rise apartments are anathema to these recently rural denizens. Government rental housing is being phased out as it is converted to private ownership. Most residents are waiting their turn to secure an individual lot where they can use their 17,900 rand (US$2,400) housing subsidy toward building the standard-issue, 36-square meter, cinder block hut. With enough hands, a hut can be erected in a weekend.

Naturally, this land-intensive approach leads to what we in the U.S. would call sprawl, exacerbating transportation problems and dramatically increasing the cost of extending water, sewer and other infrastructure. The effect, taken together with the wide arterial roads that are the primary street network, is a kind of American-style, automobile-oriented design, but without the automobiles.

Other issues are emerging, as well. “Ownership brings financial responsibilities and requirements that people aren’t necessarily prepared for,” said Terblanche. Many residents also were unprepared for the reality of being forced to pay rising water and electricity rates. Most had become accustomed to paying little or nothing during the late apartheid era, when the government could do little to counter the mass civil disobedience. In an echo of that era, angry poor residents today regularly participate in street protests against utility rates and collections.

Remaking the Township into a Town

With residents largely staying put in Khayelitsha, the question for the urban renewal program becomes how to make the township into something more closely resembling a real town. Step one has been to lay the groundwork for a central business district (CBD) that will allow residents to do their shopping and government business closer to home; now they must take a costly cab ride to Mitchell’s Plain to buy anything beyond convenience items.

The CBD is being developed as a joint venture between the city of Cape Town, private interests and the Khayelitsha community. It spans 73 hectares (182.5 acres) adjacent to the commuter rail station. While retailers and developers know Khayelitsha is a huge, untapped market, it is also seen as an enormous risk by financial institutions, who redline African townships. In Khayelitsha, 60 percent equity has been required of any developer or institution seeking financing. In late July, however, a tentative agreement was reached, and the Cape Town council gave approval to what will be one of the largest private-public investments yet undertaken in a South African township. A grocery chain and discount department store have signed on, but planners want to get a mix of tenants that also includes local merchants. That has required an elaborate financing scheme that allows for keeping rents affordable. Some informal traders also will be allowed in an enclosed square that planners consider the focal point of the district.

Several other planned projects aim to formalize and dignify the public realm. While the city’s transport officials are resistant, one of the most urgent needs is to provide safer, cleaner and more attractive pedestrian ways, says Barbara Southworth, manager of urban design in the city’s division of development services.

In addition to building walkways and plazas at key intersections and at taxi-bus nodes, Southworth’s office is working to provide some order to the informal trade areas by introducing rows of concrete, post-and-beam arches that can serve as storefronts for the trading stalls. Most of these are improvised from sideways shipping containers, and tend to lie in haphazard clusters. By leasing the favored storefront positions the city hopes to introduce a modest level of control over an otherwise unregulated environment.

The government’s attention to Khayelitsha has delivered other amenities as well, though not necessarily under the rubric of urban renewal. The magistrate court building that opened in early May is the most expensive government building ever built in a black township, which is taken as an important sign of progress. The national and provincial governments also contributed to the first national tourist site in a township, a cultural center at Lookout Hill. Built at the highest point in the Cape Flats, next to a fragile dune that offers a panoramic view of Khayelitsha and Mitchell’s Plain, the center is expected to be the entry point for the increasingly popular township tours, estimated at 30,000 mostly foreign tourists annually. The center will feature exhibits on the origins of Khayelitsha and on the Sangoma healers of Xhosa culture and a marketplace selling the wares of local cottage industries.

Vexing Consequences

It is unsettling to think that, at the moment, the most promising economic path for Khayelitsha is to offer tourists a glimpse of the provisional landscape necessitated by crushing poverty, mass relocation and government-enforced segregation. It is equally disquieting to realize that urban renewal efforts at normalizing the township’s environment could reduce some of the appeal to those tourists.

While American urban renewal often meant displacing many African-American and immigrant populations by eliminating central city ghettoes, the South African variant aims to improve conditions for millions of residents who will be allowed to remain in far larger ghettoes many miles from the urban core. This immediately raises some vexing questions: Should the government work to preserve these intensely segregated artifacts of an oppressive regime? There are powerful arguments for doing so, not least the extreme difficulty and unpopularity of relocating a population that has had its fill of such government-driven exercises. But by investing in making townships more permanent, are current residents and future generations consigned to economic isolation? These questions linger even as the government proceeds with the program.

David Goldberg was a Loeb Fellow at Harvard in 2002–2003. He is communications director at Smart Growth America, a nationwide coalition based in Washington, DC.

Loeb Fellows, 2002–2003

Gabriel Abraham, Senior Consultant, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

Arnd Bruninghaus, Architect, A/haus Group, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Kathleen A. Bullard, Chief of Watershed Planning Division, Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, Los Angeles, California

Deborah J. Goddard, Director of Community Development Planning, Urban Edge, Boston, Massachusetts

David A. Goldberg, Communications Director, Smart Growth America, Decatur, Georgia

Linda Haar, Director, Boston Planning Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Susan L. Hamilton, Assistant Director of Industrial Development, Metro Development Authority, Louisville, Kentucky

Robert L. Liberty, Smart Growth Consultant, Portland, Oregon

Josephine Ramirez, Program Officer, Getty Grant Program, J. Paul Getty Trust, Los Angeles, California

Jennifer Siegal, Principal, Office of Mobile Design, Venice, California

Jennifer Yoos, Architect and Partner, Vincent James Associates, Minneapolis, Minnesota

The Lincoln Institute has been cosponsoring research and training programs with public officials in Porto Alegre, Brazil, for several years. The land policy experiment described in this article represents an innovation with much pedagogical potential because it brings attention to the importance of procedural factors (e.g., management, negotiation, transparency, public legitimacy) in the provision of serviced land for the poor, over and above the conventional attention given to funding and other resources.

Approximately one billion people around the world currently live in slums with precarious infrastructure and without basic services or secure land title, and this situation is expected to worsen in the future (UN-HABITAT 2003). From the perspectives of both the urban order and the environment, irregular land occupations often cause irreversible damage and impose high urbanization costs for the local government and the society as a whole.

Irregularity is a multidimensional phenomenon involving tenure issues (e.g., legal rights of occupation, title registration); compliance with urban norms and regulations (e.g., lot sizes, allowance for public spaces, street layouts); the number and quality of services provided; the type of area where settlement occurs (e.g., ecologically risky areas, hillsides, contaminated brownfields); and above all the occupation process itself, which is usually the opposite of formal development, whereby occupation is the culmination of a legal and regulated sequence from titling to planning to servicing.

Basic infrastructure is frequently available in irregular areas, but it is installed either by unregulated subdividers or after occupation by public agencies, often as an emergency measure. For example, sometimes the main trunk networks for water and sewer systems exist close to areas where irregular settlements are forming, so the subdivider or occupants simply improvise clandestine connections to tap into the main line. For small settlements this kind of intervention is not disastrous, yet it implies that services may be extended into areas that are unsuitable for occupation. Private or public utility companies also extend their services to new settlements irrespective of their legal status and often without consulting the local authorities.

Typical Occupation Processes

The most common current practice for creating irregular settlements involves the occupation of a parcel of land through a complex series of commercial transactions involving the landowner, the developer or land subdivider, and often the future occupants. Landowners seek a way to extract profits from the land; subdividers ignore the need to comply with municipal codes and produce a low-cost, high-profit subdivision; and the poor occupants purchase these illegal plots because they have no other option and may be unaware of the legal status. They usually lack a regular income source and savings to apply for credit and meet the stringent building codes and other conditions required for formal purchase and occupation.

Prospective occupants buy the “right to occupy” through a plot acquisition contract and proceed to organize plot boundaries, street layouts and the construction of simple houses. When an official inspection is made it’s already too late; houses have been built and the community is organized to resist. Public authorities cannot keep up with this cycle of complicity, and thus restrict their role to minimal inspection activities that both conceal a management model tolerant of informality and expose the absence of other housing options for that segment of the population.

High-cost curative actions to introduce urban improvements and title regularization programs are being established in many cities, but their effectiveness to date has been limited (Smolka 2003). More seriously and paradoxically, the expectation created by these programs has tended to increase the number of people resorting to irregularity. In sum, the typical process by which the urban poor access serviced land is inefficient and unfair, and ultimately feeds into a vicious cycle of irregularity by contributing to poverty rather than mitigating it. The problem is not so much what services are provided, by whom and at what scale, but how, when and where the process operates to provide those services in the first place.

The Case of Porto Alegre

Porto Alegre (population 1,360,590 in 2000) is the capital of the southernmost state in Brazil and the center of a metropolitan area of 31 municipalities (see Figure 1, page 12). The city’s quality of life improvements have gained worldwide recognition, largely as a result of its poverty reduction and social inclusion programs and its widely acclaimed participatory administration processes (Getúlio Vargas Foundation 2004; Jones Lang Lasalle 2003; UNDP 2003; UN/UMP 2003). For example, the level of infrastructure services is very high: 84 percent of the city’s houses are connected to the sewerage system; 99.5 percent receive treated water; 98 percent receive electricity; and 100 percent of suburbs are serviced by selective waste collection (Municipality of Porto Alegre 2003).

In spite of these impressive figures, 25.5 percent of the population lives in the city’s 727 irregular settlements (Green 2004). It is estimated that the annual population growth in these areas is 4 percent compared to 1.35 percent for the city as a whole. These facts present an apparent paradox and conundrum: How to reconcile widespread provision of basic services with the increase of irregularity in a period of successful, popular and participatory administration?

Since the introduction of decentralized participatory budgeting in 1989, public investment decision making in Porto Alegre has improved, but the process remains economically ineffective, technically inappropriate, environmentally disastrous, fiscally unfair (because land subdividers pocket monies that should benefit the public) and politically unsustainable. Many areas still have serious problems: poor quality streets without drainage or paving; geological instability and susceptibility to flooding; and a lack of legal titling, which means, for example, no address for postal delivery. Nevertheless, the Porto Alegre case is interesting because it vividly demonstrates that the problem of confronting irregularity is less one of providing services than of changing the process by which the services are provided. It’s a procedural process, a change in the rules of the game.

An Innovative Urban Policy Instrument

The Social Urbanizer concept was developed in Porto Alegre as an instrument, and more generally a program, to overcome the existing unsustainable process of providing urban services in spite of a long history of regulatory legislation (see Figure 2). Enacted in July 2003 shortly after approval of Brazil’s innovative City Statute Act, the Social Urbanizer Act was the result of significant dialogue involving the building industry unions, small land subdividers, housing cooperatives, financial agents and the City Council.

A Social Urbanizer is a real estate developer registered with the municipality who is interested in developing in areas identified by the government as suitable for low-income housing, and who agrees to operate according to certain negotiated terms, including the affordability of the serviced plots. The process contemplates a public-private partnership through which the municipality commits to make certain urban norms and regulations more flexible, to speed up the licensing process, reduce the legal requirements, and recognize progressive, step-by-step urbanization. It also anticipates using the transfer of development rights as a stimulating mechanism for private developers. Other incentives may take the form of access to specific lines of credit or certain direct public investments in urban infrastructure so the costs are not passed on to the final buyer. Eligible Social Urbanizer applicants include duly registered real estate developers, contractors already working in the informal market, landowners and self-managed cooperatives.

Porto Alegre’s Social Urbanizer program incorporates lessons learned from both real challenges and untapped opportunities for public action, and it is inspired by several specific ideas. First, land subdividers operating to provide access to urban land by the low-income sector (albeit through illegal activities) have an expertise and familiarity with that sector that public authorities do not have. Thus, rather than demonize or punish these agents, the Social Urbanizer approach takes a new attitude toward attracting them with appropriate incentives (and sanctions) so they can operate legally. Furthermore, while it is common knowledge that a subdivider can usually operate more profitably at the margin of the law, because of lower overhead costs, avoidance of legal approvals, and so forth, it is less well known that, given the option, many of these subdividers would rather operate legally, even if it means a lower profit margin.

Second, the land value increments generated by land transactions could be converted into a source of revenue for the development. In practice this share of value should be distributed both directly by the landowner (as an in-kind contribution of land beyond what is legally required in land subdivisions for low-income occupations) and indirectly by the subdivider through negotiated lower land prices for the low-income buyers. In most cases of irregular development the public is not able to capture and benefit from this increase in land value.

Third, by giving public transparency to the terms of direct negotiations and the resulting win-win agreement among all the interested parties (i.e., landowners, developers, public authorities, prospective buyers), the Social Urbanizer process creates adequate sanctions for compliance with the norms established for the development. Another component of the negotiation process has to do with the agreed investment schedule and its effect in diffusing speculative pricing.

Fourth, to have any chance of success this new mode of urbanization should be able to provide an adequate supply of serviced plots to meet social needs under competitive market conditions (i.e., more affordable than the conditions of otherwise informal subdividers). In effect an essential ingredient of the program’s rationale is that it establishes new rules for social urbanization in general. The signal should be clear to private agents that the Social Urbanizer process is the only way for the government to participate in the development of socially approved and affordable settlements.

The Social Urbanizer as a Third Path

For the public interest, the primary goal of this strategy is to establish the basis for development before occupation takes place, or at least according to a schedule allowing for significant reduction or control of urbanization costs (see Figure 3).

Public administrations in third-world cities typically respond to the inability of the poor to access formal land markets through two models or paradigms. Under the subsidy model the public intervenes to provide serviced land either directly through publicly developed settlements on an emergency basis, or indirectly through below-market interest for developers operating in that segment of the market. At the other extreme, the 100-percent tolerance model recognizes that the government does not have the capacity to provide all the serviced land needed, and thus tolerates irregular and informal arrangements that may eventually be improved with various regularization programs.

Both approaches keep land market conditions untouched and feed into the vicious cycle of informality. In the first case the subsidies are capitalized into higher land prices, and in the second case they allow land subdividers to charge a premium based on the expectation of future regularization: the higher the expectation, the higher the premium.

The Social Urbanizer represents a third path that recognizes both the role and expertise of informal land subdividers who operate in the low-income segment of the market and the indispensable role of public agents in supporting the poor to participate in otherwise inaccessible market conditions. In other words, this program represents an effort to “formalize the informal” and “informalize the formal” by facilitating and providing incentives for developers to operate with more flexibility in the normally unprofitable low-income market. It is an instrument designed to encourage both entrepreneurs operating in the clandestine real estate market and those operating in the formal, higher-income market segment to develop land under the existing regular standards.

The Social Urbanizer Act represents an attempt to change the rules on how low-income housing needs are to be addressed. It gives a clear signal to the private agents operating in the land market and protects the public from arbitrariness in private development actions. The Social Urbanizer has proven to be an indispensable tool for public management. As a break with current practices, however, the program still faces many challenges in implementation.

1. From an institutional point of view, it must overcome the city’s traditional model of urban development, which has been limited to regulation and inspection. This tradition can interfere with the public authorities’ roles as a manager, a leader of urbanization processes and a regulator of relations normally left to the market.
2. From the municipal administration’s view, the goal is to coordinate its many agencies, branches and entities to encourage activities that are economically viable and attractive for developers, but that goal may be at odds with typical public-sector concerns.
3. To attract large development companies that will be better partners for the public authorities, the instrument will have to be highly attractive, since this type of developer already has sufficiently profitable opportunities at the top end of the market.
4. The program also must be able to increase the viability of partnerships with small developers, which usually do not possess the internal infrastructure and financial resources to operate in this kind of market.
5. The Social Urbanizer must ensure its stability and role as a structural element of urban policy in accordance with the principle of democratic access to land. Porto Alegre is currently experiencing political changes that are generating uncertainty and caution after 16 years with the same progressive political group in power. Ultimately the Social Urbanizer will not create significant results unless the municipal government incorporates its principles in a strategic manner over the long term.

Early Stages of Implementation

Porto Alegre has five Social Urbanizer pilot projects at different stages of development. They involve different types of developers so they can function as true experiments: small developers, developers already established in the market, and housing cooperatives. One of these pilot areas has demonstrated that 125 square metres (m2) of fully serviced land can be produced at a price ranging from US$25 to US$28 per m2 in contrast with the formal market price of US$42 to US$57 per m2 for the same amount of land. The first price range represents how much a developer is actually willing to contract with the local administration to operate under the Social Urbanizer framework.

The municipality also attempted to gain financial support for social urbanization activities from Caixa Econômica Federal (CEF), the federal organization responsible for financing housing and urban development. The agency is creating a new financial line within its partnership program in which credit is given to the buyer, who will knowingly use it to purchase a plot of land. Until now this financial option was only available for the acquisition of a housing unit before construction. Thus the idea of a credit line to ultimately finance the development of serviced land is a novelty. Another related improvement is the willingness of the local administration to void requirements on developers’ risk analysis, an essential ingredient to open the field to small developers.

The innovation of the Social Urbanizer instrument, as compared to traditional public methods of dealing with urban irregularity, has attracted the attention of many organizations and other municipalities. At a federal level the Social Urbanizer is considered fully integrated with the principles of the City Statute, which has brought support from Brazil’s Ministry for Cities. Another federal law that deals with the subdivision of urban land is now being discussed in the Brazilian National Congress, and the Social Urbanizer is part of that debate as well. If adopted, this subdivision legislation will be an important step toward changing the traditional and perverse process of providing access to land for the urban poor in other Brazilian cities.

Chronology of Urban Policies in Porto Alegre

1979 – Approval of the Federal Subdivision Law (6766/1979) and the First Development Master Plan for Porto Alegre

1990 – Establishment of the Urban Regularization Program

1996 – Creation of the Urban Regularization Center

1998 – Announcement of Land Title Regularization Year

1999 – Approval of the Environmental Development Master Plan

2001 – Implementation of a pilot plan of a differentiated taxation model, based on preventive action, operating in the region of the city that suffers the highest number of irregular settlements

2001 – Enactment of Brazil’s City Statute Act on Urban Development (Law 10.257/2001)

2003 – Enactment of the Social Urbanizer Act (Law 9162/2003)

2005 – Implementation of the Social Urbanizer pilot projects

2005 – Implementation of the Social Urbanizer pilot projects

Martim O. Smolka is senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute, director of the Program on Latin America and the Caribbean, and co-chairman of the Department of International Studies. Cláudia Damasio is an architect and former under-secretary of planning for the Municipality of Porto Alegre. She now serves as coordinator of the Social Urbanizer project. .

References

Getúlio Vargas Foundation. 2004. Revista Você S/A. Editora Abril. August 10. São Paulo, Brazil

Green, Eliane D’Arrigo, ed. 2004. Irregularidade fundiária em Porto Alegre por região de planejamento (Land irregularity in Porto Alegre by planning regions) Municipality of Porto Alegre, Secretary of Municipal Planning, http://www.portoalegre.rs.gov.br/spm/

Jones Lang Lasalle. 2003. World Winning Cities II, http://www.joneslanglasalle.com/research/index.asp

Municipality of Porto Alegre. 2003. Informaçöes a cidade: Títulos e Conquistas (Information about the city: Titles and achievements), http://www.portoalegre.rs.gov.br

Smolka, Martim O. 2003. Informality, urban poverty and land market prices. Land Lines 15(1): 4–7.

UN-HABITAT. 2003. The Challenge Of Slums: Global Report On Human Settlements. Nairobi, Kenya: UN-HABITAT, http://hq.unhabitat.org/register/item.asp?ID=1156

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2003. Human Development Report 2003. New York: Oxford University Press, http://www.undp.org/

United Nations Urban Management Program (UN/UMP). 2003. Report of the Urban Management Program of UN-HABITAT 2003. Nairobi, Kenya: UN-HABITAT, http://hq.unhabitat.org/programmes/ump/publications.asp

Compulsory purchase, expropriation, eminent domain, or simply “taking” are different names for the legal institution that allows governments to acquire property against the will of its owner in order to fulfill some public purpose. This tool has been used for a long time as a major instrument of land policy, but now it is subject to a number of criticisms and mounting social resistance in many parts of the world. Campaigns for housing rights, movements for the defense of property rights, and legislative and judiciary activism are among the factors changing the conditions under which governments exercise their power of eminent domain.

As the world’s most populous country and its third largest economy, China and its rapid urbanization and development will represent one of the defining trends of the twenty-first century. Over the past 30 years, China has made remarkable economic and social progress, lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty and catapulting China onto the international stage.

This economic transformation has also involved an institutional transformation as China’s centrally planned economy has moved pragmatically to a broad reliance on market mechanisms. This movement has been especially challenging in the case of land, which for decades was owned by the state or peasant collectives. Progress has been made in urban areas, where the leasehold term of land ownership is now normally 70 years, but in rural areas collective land ownership continues.

Despite its noteworthy accomplishments, China is facing critical land policy issues that will determine the direction of its future economic development and urbanization.

• Property rights. The rapid growth of cities has led to government transfers of rural land to urban and industrial uses. Inadequate compensation to farmers whose property rights have been poorly defined has fueled growing civil unrest, while urban leaseholders seek to strengthen their new property rights.
• Property tax implementation. Recent tax reform has reduced local government revenues and prompted local officials to rely on land sales receipts, fees, and off-budget revenues to finance government expenditures. China’s government is seeking to implement a property tax as a local revenue source to take advantage of the rapid growth of the real estate market.
• Farmland preservation. The large amount of land removed from agricultural production by the complex forces of urbanization has exacerbated concerns about farmland preservation, especially related to food security.
• Urban planning and development. Rapid urbanization has also resulted in increased urban poverty, housing affordability problems, inequality between urban and rural population groups, regional disparities, and other social and economic challenges. China’s urban planning practices are in need of reform to better reflect market forces and economic behavior.
• Environmental sustainability. China’s economic and demographic changes over the past 30 years have been associated with severe environmental degradation. With rapid urbanization forecast over the next decade, there is growing consensus that China must find a more sustainable development model. More sustainable cities are integral to any low-carbon development trajectory.

With these diverse issues in mind, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy’s China Program was inaugurated in 2003 and continues to focus on improving the quality of public debate and decisions concerning land policy and urban development in China through sound research and the leveraging of international experience and expertise.

The China Program has grown considerably in capacity, scope, and geographic footprint, highlighted by the establishment of the joint Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy in October 2007. The Center’s mission is to study land, urban, and fiscal policies and to facilitate education, training, policy analysis, and research. Having this joint facility in Beijing provides the China Program with an ongoing domestic presence that expands the Institute’s networks and resources and brings together government officials, practitioners, and foreign and domestic scholars to engage in dialogue and to share experiences to promote a better understanding of land policy, urbanization, and property taxation in China and around the world.

The China Program has identified six key research areas that are highly relevant to China’s future development and also offer the best opportunities to utilize the Lincoln Institute’s expertise and resources.

Adoption of a Property Tax

China’s 11th Five-Year Plan (2006–2010) elevated the issue of a property tax onto the official agenda, and pilot property tax projects are currently under way in more than 10 provinces. However, the issue’s sensitive political nature, lingering technical difficulties concerning data and valuation, and continued debate about the exact form of any proposed property tax have slowed implementation and made it unlikely that a broader property tax and related tax policy reforms will be implemented before the 12th Five-Year Plan begins in 2011.

Through close working relationships with the State Administration of Taxation (SAT), the Ministry of Finance (MOF), and the Development Research Center for the State Council (DRC), the China Program has offered a number of educational programs and provided significant intellectual and capacity building support for China’s adoption of a property tax.

For example, in October 2009 representatives of the British Columbia Assessment Office, the Altus Group, and ESRI Canada led a China Program training workshop on property tax implementation and design of computer-assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) systems. More than 50 SAT officials participated, including representatives from each of the property tax pilot cities.

Delegates from the SAT and the Lincoln Institute attended a three-day conference on valuation and mass appraisal at the University of Pretoria, South Africa, in March 2009, before traveling to Johannesburg’s valuation office to discuss the challenges of implementing a property tax in that country.

In November 2008, training on technical aspects of property valuation was provided in Beijing by property tax experts from Canada, the United States, South Africa, and Hong Kong for more than 40 administrators and assessors from China’s property tax pilot cities.

Local Public Finance

Fiscal policy reform is a key component in addressing many of the social and economic problems China faces. Restructuring the current tax system and promoting balanced tax and expenditure responsibilities at the local government level is one of the main policy objectives of the Chinese government. The underlying efforts are closely related to the future development of any property tax, a necessary and critical solution to local public finance challenges.

The China Program is focused on issues of fiscal decentralization, public service financing, land-related taxes and fees, regional inequity, intergovernmental finance, and the role of property taxation in a modern public sector finance system. Representative activities have included a January 2009 workshop in Beijing on fiscal policy and economic growth in China with leading fiscal policy scholars and experts, including officials from the MOF, DRC, and SAT.

An international conference held at the Lincoln Institute’s headquarters in Cambridge, Massachusetts in May 2008 focused on local public finance and property taxation. Those proceedings will be edited and published in a Lincoln Institute book in 2010, and the volume will be translated and published in China as well.

Land Policy and Land Management

The revision of China’s Land Management Law has been a sensitive issue over the past several years, as the country struggles to define rural land rights, land expropriation, and the public good. With a new land law revision on the horizon, land-related issues remain at the forefront of China’s policy agenda, particularly issues concerning urban and rural property rights, land expropriation, land use efficiency, land use planning, land conservation, and urban expansion and sprawl.

In June 2009 the China Program co-organized a roundtable discussion on the most recent draft revision of China’s Land Management Law with the Land Law Committee of the China Land Science Society in association with the Ministry of Land and Resources (MLR). Experts and prominent scholars from across the political spectrum engaged in direct dialogue and discussion with government officials at MLR who are working on the revision.

The China Program is now compiling and translating several land management laws from a dozen developing and developed countries for use by Chinese officials and scholars. The Program also cosponsored a comprehensive survey of land use and farmland conservation issues in a dozen provinces in China, and is building a database for future research on land management issues.

Urban Planning and Development

Rapid urbanization has led to the explosive growth of Chinese cities and their populations, presenting an enormous challenge in terms of city planning, infrastructure, and transportation. New approaches to urban planning are fundamental to the development and management of cities, as well as a prerequisite to ensuring the efficient use of land and integrated development in China. Efforts also must be made to use land sensibly and to coordinate the spatial layout of urban areas, thereby avoiding rampant and uncontrolled urbanization.

The China Program cooperated with the Chinese Society for Urban Studies and the Urban Planning Society of China, affiliated with the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, in organizing the July 2009 International Forum on Urban Development and Planning, which featured the theme “Harmony and Ecology: Sustainable Cities.”

In cooperation with the Lincoln Institute’s Department of Planning and Urban Form, more than 20 international speakers attended a symposium on megaregions and spatial planning practice worldwide, held in Beijing in October 2008.

Affordable Housing

Housing policy, and in particular affordable housing, is becoming an important focus for China’s policy makers during this period of rapid urbanization. With upwards of 15 million new urban residents expected annually over the next decade, the growth in the supply of affordable housing is an immediate concern. In addition to a one-year joint policy research project with the DRC, the China Program is conducting original research in the field of housing policy and introducing international experience to China’s policy makers and the academic community.

For example, in July 2009 the China Program organized a symposium on low-income housing policy in China to provide a platform for international and domestic scholars and government officials from DRC, the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, and the People’s Bank of China to engage in dialogue and discussion. Papers from the symposium will be published in an edited volume for distribution in China. The China Program also hosted an international conference entitled Housing Policy and Housing Markets in China in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in May 2009, and is preparing an edited conference volume for publication in both English and Chinese.

Environmental Challenges

With international attention focusing on recent climate negotiations in Copenhagen, there is a pressing need for timely research on low-carbon development and the complex linkages between land, transportation, and urban and environmental policies in China and globally. The China Program is leading research on environmental taxation in China from a global perspective and developing a database of environmental tax statistics.

The Program organized a roundtable on green cities at Peking University in September 2009, which drew strong interest from domestic and international academics and signaled the need for further study of environmental policy issues in the future. And in May 2008, the Program, joined by Loeb Fellows from the Harvard University Graduate School of Design and Chinese policy makers and academics, held a roundtable discussion at Peking University that addressed urban transformation and sustainability.

Building Capacity to Address the Issues

Since its inception the China Program has been committed to enhancing the capacity of both current policy makers and academics and researchers whose analysis and opinions will influence China’s future policies and reforms. This educational emphasis continues with the establishment of the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center, which has become an important platform for reaching and engaging students and scholars at Peking University and other academic institutions through training programs, fellowships, lecture series, online education, and research publications.

Training the Trainers

This annual program aims to enhance the capacity and awareness of scholars throughout China regarding urban economics, planning, public finance, and related land policy issues. The courses target university faculty and professional researchers, as well as select government officials, with the goal to increase competence through intensive professional seminars on issues related to land policy in China. More than 70 participants on average attend each two-week training program. Leading experts in their fields from around the world offer the participants an invaluable international perspective. The China Program’s recently launched online education platform seeks to build on previous training programs and to move progressively toward more specialized trainings.

Fellowships

The China Program awards several types of fellowships to international and Chinese scholars and graduate students working on Chinese land and urban policy. Two or three international fellowships are awarded annually to leading scholars and professional researchers based at universities around the globe. In addition to producing important research on issues ranging from the spatial structure of megacities to household carbon emissions in Chinese cities, the international fellowship is an invaluable tool to increase scholarly dialogue between China and the world. These fellows are an integral component of the China Program’s other activities, such as teaching at Training the Trainers programs, reviewing other fellowship proposals, and speaking at seminars.

Fellowships for Chinese graduate students and junior researchers are administered through the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center to bring young scholars into Chinese land and urban policy studies. Approximately 15 dissertation fellowships are awarded to aspiring scholars annually, while an additional 6 or 8 research fellowships help strengthen the capacity of scholars based in China’s leading institutions.

The China Program’s in-country presence at the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center also facilitates interactions among the fellows, including the provision of constructive feedback on their ongoing research. All fellows are invited to Beijing for a mid-term progress report, where they share their initial research findings with peers and a panel of international experts. This event has proven to be an effective way to help domestic junior scholars and graduate students build research skills and promote studies of urban and land issues in China.

Speaker Series

The China Program also regularly invites distinguished individuals drawn from the Lincoln Institute’s network of leading scholars and policy makers to speak to the Beijing scholarly community on vital topics ranging from planning support systems to fiscal federalism and decentralization in the United States. This speaker series helps meet the demand for knowledge about international development and urbanization experiences and how these cases can be adapted to fit China’s needs.

Online Education

The Lincoln Institute has long history of employing online education as a tool to reach a broader audience and maximize its resources. Given the vast geographic distances in China and its emphasis on training and capacity building, the China Program has similarly been interested in online education for some time. The establishment of the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center has accelerated the process of making information, analysis, and data available online, and widened the network of collaborators interested in tapping into the Institute’s expertise.

Through the Center, the China Program engaged a local online education company to develop a China-centric platform, which was inaugurated in the summer of 2009 during the China Program’s Training the Trainers session on urban economics and planning. The two-week program was recorded and translated into Chinese, and is accompanied online by Chinese transcripts of lectures and associated PowerPoint presentations and other materials.

The value of the online platform has become apparent almost immediately. During the fall 2009 program and demonstration on property taxation and CAMA, which was also recorded for later conversion to the online platform, attending SAT officials expressed their eagerness to use the platform to demonstrate the concepts to their colleagues and superiors.

Publications and Web-based Resources

As the China Program has increased its research capacity and professional support with the establishment of the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center, it is producing a steadily increasing series of working papers, books, and training materials that are extending the Lincoln Institute’s and the China Program’s expertise on and influence in China. During 2008 and 2009, nine books were published or made ready for print, and eight other books are at various stages of development. The China Program and the Center’s fellows and visiting fellows have also produced about 40 working papers and a number of focused reports and policy briefs, which will soon be available online.

Complementing all of these activities is the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center’s revamped Web site. It provides a window into the China Program’s mission and vision, and is an important link between the Lincoln Institute’s and the China Program’s dual educational and research objectives. Drawing together Chinese and English working papers, training and education materials, and conference proceedings from both the Lincoln Institute and the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center, the Web site is a rich repository of impartial knowledge and an expanding platform for scholarly dialogue concerning the ascendant land, urban, and environmental policy issues in China.

In 2010, the China Program will continue to strengthen its online resources to synthesize and disseminate its recent research to a broader audience of Chinese scholars and policy makers through new publications and focused policy reports, while also striving to advance academic debate through research, demonstration projects, conferences and other activities.

About the Author

Joyce Yanyun Man is senior fellow and director of the Lincoln Institute’s China Program, as well as director of the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy. She is also professor of economics in the Peking University College of Urban and Environmental Science.

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.

Durante las últimas décadas, la estructura de la economía de los EE.UU. ha cambiado, a medida que experimenta una continua reducción en el empleo fabril en general y un continuo crecimiento en el sector de los servicios, especialmente aquellos relacionados con los trabajadores capacitados. La distribución geográfica de la actividad también ha cambiado debido a que la población continúa moviéndose de las zonas noreste y medio oeste, en donde las estaciones son más marcadas, hacia las zonas sur y oeste, que son más cálidas. Finalmente, en las áreas metropolitanas, las poblaciones y el empleo se movieron de las ciudades a los suburbios, ya que los viajes en autobús y automóvil se han generalizado. Estas tres tendencias han provocado que muchas ciudades del noreste y oeste medio tengan ahora poblaciones mucho menores, economías más débiles, menos empleos fabriles y una incapacidad para compensar las oportunidades de empleo perdidas con las ganancias de sectores que se están expandiendo a nivel nacional. Estas son, hoy en día, las ciudades industriales históricas, que, con frecuencia, poseen una capacidad excesiva de infraestructura, una oferta de viviendas sin utilizar y una tensión fiscal relacionada con obligaciones asumidas en el pasado por sectores públicos que actualmente se encuentran muy disminuidos. En un reciente informe sobre enfoque en políticas de suelo del Instituto Lincoln, Regeneración de las ciudades tradicionales industriales de los Estados Unidos, sus autores, Alan Mallach y Lavea Brachman, analizan el desempeño de una muestra de estas áreas urbanas e identifican las medidas que han tomado las ciudades con más éxito para producir resultados más sólidos.

Aunque la decadencia de las ciudades industriales tradicionales posee causas comunes, el rendimiento económico de las mismas ha sido muy distinto en las últimas décadas, ya que muchas de estas ciudades han logrado resultados económicos, institucionales y fiscales más sólidos que otras. Todas las ciudades industriales antiguas poseen una serie de activos, tales como infraestructura, barrios, instituciones, poblaciones y actividades económicas en desarrollo. Las diferencias en su rendimiento, en forma comparativa, están relacionadas con la manera en que las políticas y el liderazgo municipal han sacado partido de los inventarios existentes de estos activos. En particular, las ciudades históricas tradicionales en vías de recuperación han construido y basado su expansión sobre instituciones preexistentes dedicadas a la investigación, la medicina, la salud y la educación. También han explotado el creciente interés por los barrios urbanos, donde resulta fácil ir caminando a las tiendas y a los restaurantes y donde las densidades residenciales son mayores que las de la mayoría de las comunidades suburbanas. Las ciudades en recuperación también, en general, han mantenido o atraído más residentes con mayores niveles de educación y han experimentado un crecimiento en las actividades relacionadas con el conocimiento.

Las ciudades industriales tradicionales que han visto cómo sus economías comienzan a transformarse y a crecer de nuevo no necesariamente experimentaron aumentos en sus poblaciones. La población de la mayoría de las ciudades tradicionales tuvo su pico de crecimiento a mediados del siglo XX y posteriormente descendió. Por ejemplo, Buffalo y St. Louis presentaron poblaciones más reducidas en el año 2000 que en 1900. A veces, la disminución de la población en estas ciudades se ve compensada por un crecimiento suburbano, por lo que las poblaciones metropolitanas no se reducen. Sin embargo, algunas ciudades tradicionales exitosas, tales como Pittsburgh, han experimentado leves reducciones de población incluso a nivel metropolitano. Cambiar la composición de las poblaciones de las ciudades y de su actividad económica es más importante para lograr el éxito que el crecimiento de la población por sí solo.

La exitosa recuperación de las ciudades industriales tradicionales normalmente no ha sido el resultado de megaproyectos enfocados en el redesarrollo, sino en el aumento de muchas medidas pequeñas que generan un gran impacto por acumulación, un enfoque que Mallach y Brachman han dado en llamar “crecimiento gradual estratégico”. En su investigación, los autores demuestran que las ciudades industriales tradicionales exitosas se han centrado en dicho enfoque de forma continua e incesante. Los elementos clave del crecimiento gradual estratégico requieren de la evolución de nuevas formas de organización física de la ciudad, de componentes económicos, de formas de gobierno y de relacionarse con las regiones circundantes. Desde un punto de vista físico, la práctica implica centrarse en el núcleo de la ciudad, en sus barrios más importantes y en la gestión del suelo vacante. Desde el punto de vista económico, supone restaurar el rol económico de la ciudad según sus ventajas comparativas y sus bienes existentes, compartir los beneficios del crecimiento con la población y reforzar las conexiones con la región en la que se encuentra la ciudad. Las ciudades también deben fortalecer sus formas de gobierno y ocuparse de que la provisión de servicios y de recursos fiscales entre la ciudad y los municipios del área metropolitana sea fluida.

Las ciudades industriales tradicionales han experimentado un deterioro en las últimas décadas, por lo que su recuperación llevará tiempo e implicará una buena dosis de paciencia. Aunque el funcionamiento de algunas de estas ciudades, tales como Camden, Nueva Jersey, continúa disminuyendo, otras ciudades están mostrando signos de progreso. En Pittsburgh, Filadelfia, Milwaukee y otras ciudades industriales tradicionales que se están recuperando, el rendimiento económico ha mejorado y las tasas de desempleo, delincuencia y pobreza se han reducido por debajo de los promedios nacionales, a pesar del hecho de que las poblaciones permanecen bastante por debajo del pico al que habían llegado unos 60 años atrás.

Para obtener información adicional sobre los factores determinantes del éxito de las ciudades tradicionales, ver: http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/2215_Regenerating-America-s-Legacy-Cities.