SHARE
Few low-income urban settlements in Venezuela are located on land owned by their occupants. As a result, the occupants cannot register the structures they have built and are entitled to only a substitute title (“título supletorio”) granting them limited rights. A legal interpretation handed down by the Supreme Court in the early 1970s has been upheld by repeated court decisions: transactions involving structures on land not owned by the builder cannot be registered without the landowner’s express consent (Pérez Perdomo and Nikken 1979, 38). This is a general legal principle, applicable not only to urban shacks but to all structures.
It could be said, however, that the inhabitants of houses built in the country’s squatter settlements enjoy possession of the land they occupy, though strictly speaking it is what former Venezuelan President Rafael Caldera and others have called a “precarious possession.” These settlements have considerable stability in some cases, less stability in others, and in certain cases there is no stability at all; occupants are evicted and their structures are demolished.
Peaceful occupations of land, and occasionally more aggressive invasions, are by no means a new development in Venezuela; such settlements have been prevalent since the 19th century. As a result, Venezuelan cities are characterized by their physical and social diversity:
Changing Conditions
Many observers wonder, when considering the legal status of the squatter settlements, why it has become “normal,” and to a substantial extent accepted, for Venezuelans to build houses or take up residence on lands assumed to be owned by others. Reactions to this complex situation can vary. It is striking that, in many instances, neither the presumed landowners nor the occupiers of these lands have taken the extreme responses available to each party-demands for eviction or expropriation by the owners or purchase of the land and legalization of its ownership by the occupiers. The presence of a parallel official law has permitted the establishment of settlements and improvement of housing conditions on “invaded” lands (Ontiveros & Bolívar 2000, 128-139). Furthermore, this pattern has become a chronic condition whose end is not demanded by any of the parties involved.
However, this tacit understanding has broken down in recent years, chiefly due to new requirements by banks, which refuse to lend to anyone who does not have registered ownership of the land. The World Bank’s involvement as a co-financier of urban renewal projects has also changed the status of the urban squatter settlements. The national Housing Policy Act (Article 14) now provides for the legalization of land holdings in the squatter settlements, and a team of specialists, mainly lawyers, is drafting a bill that would help make it possible to end the illegal status of Venezuelan urban squatter settlements. Some lower-income neighborhoods with commercially built housing would also be legalized by this action.
Obstacles to Legalization
In spite of these recent developments, procedures and mechanisms relating to urban squatter settlements have been created and modified over many years. The state’s inability to legalize these entrenched settlements can be attributed to a number of interacting factors.
Unclear Land Ownership
Former President Caldera has argued that the main reason for the continuing illegal status of squatter settlements is a lack of clarity as to who actually owns the invaded lands. He argues that, given this prevailing doubt and uncertainty about land ownership, the most important and urgent need is to provide public utilities and other basic public services to the occupiers. Legalization has not been a top priority in the process of consolidating squatter settlements. Nevertheless, there are other causes for the continuing absence of legalization, causes that are deeper and less visible.
Acceptance of the Status Quo
Since the expansion of urban squatter settlements in the 1940s and 1950s, it has been commonly assumed that eventually they would be controlled and demolished, though that has not occurred; they have simply been banished from city maps. The replacement of self-built settlements with standard housing developments has not gone beyond political rhetoric or electoral promises. Proof of this assertion is that half the residents of Venezuelan cities continue to live in these informal settlements.
A kind of official but informal law has emerged for the squatter settlements. Pérez Perdomo & Nikken explain “… how the State itself has contributed to the creation of a kind of informal legal order to meet the squatter settlements’ legal needs in relation to the ownership of housing” (1979, 2). This is a de facto, but not a de jure, acceptance of squatter settlements.
Does this mean that the residents of these settlements do not want legalization of ownership? We know that is not entirely true because they treat the land they possess as if it were their own. When the owner appears and wants to evict them, they fight back until the eviction order is stopped. As long as mere possession poses no risk of eviction, the residents remain satisfied and make no effective distinction between ownership and possession in their settlements. Furthermore, some are afraid of having to pay taxes and accept other obligations that would come with legalization of their status.
Provision of Services and Infrastructure
Further evidence of this acceptance of squatter settlements is the provision of public utilities, services and infrastructure by state agencies, though in most cases the services are considered “precarious” investments. This official attention to the settlements is convincingly illustrated in the work of Josefina Baldó (1996), although it is well known that such attention is provided only to a minimal degree and only in exchange for votes.
Researchers and policy makers from other countries, especially in Latin America, express surprise at the range of public services provided in Venezuelan urban squatter settlements that do not have legal recognition. Even more surprising is the progressive improvement of housing units as they are transformed from shacks into solid houses and even multistory buildings made of appropriate materials (Bolívar et al. 1994). This pattern is not unique to Venezuela, but it reflects the path chosen by the country’s leadership decades ago: a consistent policy of providing “precarious” public services for settlements whose occupation has been accepted, rather than first settling the issue of ownership. This policy has prevented, or at least slowed down, the legalization of the squatter settlements. In addition, improvements built by the residents are paid for by the government if the land is ever expropriated.
Bureaucratic and Legal Procedures
Venezuela is a country characterized by unequal access to the legal and administrative systems. Bureaucratic procedures consume a great deal of energy and are very costly. Accordingly, until a legal deed to property is required of them, most occupants appear content without it, and may even forget that such an option exists. It should also be noted that technical experts are not always available to determine ownership status and that incorrect diagnoses are not unusual.
Furthermore, legalization initiatives run up against the need to identify the true owners. It is necessary to specify the legal tradition of ownership and resolve questions of legally undivided plots (“tierras indivisas”), which traditionally have been dispersed among multiple owners by inheritance. However, there is a prevailing lack of sensitivity and ignorance of the law among court employees and the professionals retained resolve these cases. The laws are very strict, and hence very difficult to apply. The situation is further complicated by unprepared and sometimes corrupt bureaucrats, who may be prejudiced against and resent the “beneficiaries” of land cases, especially when they are illegal occupants of self-built neighborhoods.
Still another obstacle expressed by government officials has to do with the diverse sizes and shapes of land plots in the squatter settlements (Bolívar et al. 1994, 53-100). Some plots may be only 20 m2 in size, while others may cover thousands of square meters, making legalization extremely complicated. A land survey of each settlement would have to be taken, and in many cases their maps would have to be redrawn, implying a highly detailed and difficult challenge to city or state agencies.
Conclusions
Peaceful struggles by settlement residents to occupy land are seldom publicized, although some fights have resulted in the loss of human lives. Most of these battles are not recorded officially, but for those who work in this field they comprise indispensable documentation for the study of the legalization issue.
Given these obstacles and other factors, the political will to launch a legalization process is also lacking in many Venezuelan cities. The politicians who depend on patronage to remain in office have no interest in “resolving” the problem, since that would “kill the goose that lays the golden egg.” To date the occupation of land and subsequent acceptance of possession has been the prevailing pattern, but many observers believe it is imperative to overcome that pattern. To continue relying on the ambiguous position that only possession counts and that ownership is irrelevant is to condemn both the possessors and the owners to a permanent legal vacuum. In time this posture leads to urban chaos and a daily life for the inhabitants characterized by uncertainty, fear and violence.
REFERENCES
Baldó, J. 1996. “Urbanizar los barrios de Caracas.” En: Bolívar, T. y Baldó, J. (comps.), La cuestión de los barrios. Homenaje a Paul-Henry Chombart de Lauwe. Caracas: Monte Ávila Editores Latinoamericana, Fundación Polar y Universidad Central de Venezuela.
Bolívar, T., Guerrero, M., Rosas, I., Ontiveros, T., y De Freitas, J. 1994. Densificación y vivienda en los barrios caraqueños. Contribución a la determinación de problemas y soluciones. Caracas: Ministerio de Desarrollo Urbano/Consejo Nacional de la Vivienda.
Bolívar, T., Ontiveros, T., y De Freitas, J. 2000. Sobre la cuestión de la regularización jurídica de los barrios urbanos. Caracas: SEU/FAU/UCV e Instituto Lincoln (mimeo).
Ontiveros, T., y Bolívar, T. 2000. Vivienda y acceso al suelo urbano. ¿Institucionalización de un derecho oficial paralelo. En: Edesio Fernandes (coordinador), Derecho, espacio urbano y medio ambiente. Madrid: Instituto Internacional de Sociología.
Pérez Perdomo, R., y Nikken, P. 1979. Derecho y propiedad de la vivienda en los barrios de Caracas. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela y Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Teolinda Bolívar Barreto is an architect and professor in the Department of Architecture, Central University of Venezuela, Caracas. The Lincoln Institute is supporting her research and educational programs on this topic. Translator Richard Melman contributed to this article.
SHARE
Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 5 del libro Perspectivas urbanas; Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.
Las complejas presiones económicas, geográficas y demográficas sobre los patrones del uso de la tierra hacen que el manejo del crecimiento urbano constituya un verdadero desafío en el mundo entero. Esto resulta especialmente evidente en las ciudades en rápido desarrollo de Latinoamérica, las cuales están creciendo más allá de sus límites y necesitan trabajar en colaboración con los poblados que las rodean dentro de un clima político que generalmente no es propicio al gobierno metropolitano.
Los investigadores urbanos del Centro de Estudios de Desarrollo Económico (CEDE) de la Universidad de los Andes han estado estudiando los cambiantes usos de la tierra en el área metropolitana de Bogotá a fin de documentar las tendencias actuales y desarrollar un plan regional. En octubre, en una conferencia patrocinada por el Instituto Lincoln, participantes de diversas ciudades — São Paulo, Madrid, Buenos Aires, Ciudad de México, Medellín, Cali y otras — compararon sus experiencias más recientes en programas de desarrollo y planificación regional. Esta información servirá para ayudar a los empleados oficiales en Bogotá a comprender mejor los problemas existentes en el uso de la tierra y las oportunidades para empezar a definir políticas y estrategias de gobierno a fin de controlar el desarrollo irregular.
Factores que Definen el Uso de la Tierra
Bogotá está situada en una meseta (sabana) rodeada de montañas. La sabana se encuentra generalmente dividida por el Río Bogotá, con la ciudad de Bogotá en la orilla oriental y dieciocho municipalidades pequeñas al oeste. Esta región geográfica bien definida alberga a más de seis millones de personas, más del 90% de las cuales se encuentran altamente concentradas en Bogotá y sólo el 5% residen en las poblaciones de los alrededores. Los empleos comerciales, industriales y de servicios están altamente concentrados en la ciudad, mientras que granjas floricultoras constituyen la actividad económica más importante de la meseta.
Bogotá está densamente desarrollada, con sólo unas pocas áreas extensas sin desarrollar dentro de sus límites y una tendencia hacia el aumento de la densidad durante los últimos 50 años. El patrón del uso de la tierra es monocéntrico: el centro urbano comercial y de oficinas, actualmente en expansión hacia el norte, contiene más del 42% del empleo de la ciudad. Hay algunos centros comerciales menores en secciones más alejadas del norte y el oeste de la ciudad, y una cantidad cada vez mayor de tierra se está utilizando para desarrollos de baja densidad en las municipalidades externas.
Durante la conferencia, un tema común fue el impacto de la globalización en la estructura espacial local. Un síntoma es la aparición de compañías y organizaciones que buscan una localización independiente más que una integración dentro de la trama económica establecida del área metropolitana. La nueva tecnología de las comunicaciones ha hecho que la proximidad física sea menos necesaria que en el pasado, reforzando otras tendencias socioeconómicas hacia la descentralización.
El valor agrícola de la sabana de Bogotá ha jugado un papel importante en el control de la descentralización, y notablemente todavía hay poco tráfico entre la sabana y la ciudad. Sin embargo, los participantes en la conferencia se mostraron ambivalentes acerca de si esto es bueno o malo. Por una parte, esta condición aísla las poblaciones externas del valle de las ventajas de la urbanización; pero por otra, limita el crecimiento urbano incontrolado y protege a las tierras agrícolas.
El temor de una urbanización incontrolada de la sabana, a lo largo de las vías arbitrarias de numerosas autopistas que irradian de la ciudad, plantea como pregunta si sería mejor la orientación de una descentralización planificada y sistemática hacia los poblados existentes que una expansión limitada pero no planificada. No hay respuesta simple para la ambivalencia inherente al proceso de guiar el crecimiento urbano hacia los campos agrícolas.
Patrones de Desarrollo
El desarrollo residencial en Bogotá se encuentra altamente segregado en base al ingreso, y los destrabados mecanismos del mercado refuerzan esta dinámica social. Los grupos de menores ingresos están concentrados en las secciones del sur y el oeste de la ciudad, en tanto que los grupos de mayores ingresos tienden a vivir en un enclave al norte del centro de la ciudad, dejando el sector central para la población de medianos y bajos ingresos.
Este patrón segregado de crecimiento se refleja también en las tendencias de crecimiento regional. Mientras que el desarrollo suburbano ha sido relativamente limitado durante la última década, los grupos de mayores ingresos se están desplazando hacia el norte, a la sabana. Muchos de estos proyectos habitacionales de baja densidad de estilo norteamericano son comunidades de acceso controlado en antiguos poblados como Cota, Chia, Cajica y Sopo.
Soacha, al sur de Bogotá, ha experimentado un alto crecimiento de viviendas de bajos ingresos construidas informalmente, y otros proyectos de viviendas de bajos y medianos ingresos también se están produciendo dentro de los límites de las municipalidades occidentales. Estas fuerzas del mercado residencial, a su vez, están desplazando los asentamientos más pobres hacia los bordes del área metropolitana e incluso más allá, hacia las áreas más pobres de las colinas, que no reciben servicios de infraestructura urbana y tampoco pueden ser provistas en forma particular.
El cambio más dramático en la estructura espacial de Bogotá ha sido el traslado gradual, pero definido, del centro comercial urbano hacia los asentamientos de altos ingresos del norte de la ciudad. Otras actividades que requieren áreas extensas de terreno, tales como escuelas, instalaciones recreativas y cementerios, están orientadas hacia los grupos de altos ingresos de dicho sector. Esta tendencia puede verse en las grandes ciudades a través de toda Latinoamérica. Por lo general, comenzando como centros comerciales regionales u otros tipos de funciones de alto ingreso típicas del área central, los proyectos comerciales tienden a agruparse con los proyectos residenciales para el sector de altos ingresos y las inversiones en infraestructura.
Los nuevos desarrollos industriales reflejan una lógica distinta. Están apareciendo cerca del centro de Bogotá y a lo largo del corredor occidental a través de Madrid que conecta con las autopistas más importantes hacia la costa y otras regiones del país. También hay una zona industrial en expansión alrededor de una importante intersección vial cerca de la ciudad norteña de Zipaquirá.
Retos al Desarrollo Planificado
A medida que los participantes en la conferencia discutieron instrumentos potenciales para la implementación de políticas del uso de la tierra en Bogotá, la utilización de límites al crecimiento urbano fue planteada con frecuencia como una posible solución. Sin embargo, muchos de los conferencistas expresaron sus dudas acerca de la efectividad de este mecanismo o de cualquier otro instrumento tradicional de planificación del uso de la tierra, ya que los límites geográficos tendrían que ser mantenidos y controlados por cada municipio individual a través de la región.
Colombia tiene una fuerte política de descentralización gubernamental que promueve la autonomía municipal, incluso en las pequeñas poblaciones con poca capacidad técnica o política para enfrentar grandes proyectos de desarrollo. Cada poblado toma sus propias decisiones en materias de uso de la tierra y desarrollo económico, en base a las necesidades inmediatas y las fuerzas prevalecientes del mercado. Como resultado, no existe una tradición de coordinación de políticas entre Bogotá y otras municipalidades con respecto a la localización más apropiada de nuevas áreas residenciales o industriales dentro de la región.
Los conferencistas de Cali, Medellín y Buenos Aires discutieron los planes de sus respectivas ciudades para guiar el crecimiento a través de la creación de subcentros agrupados y descentralizados. Este enfoque ha sido ampliamente debatido y utilizado en ejercicios académicos de planificación, pero todavía existen dudas acerca de su operación dentro del contexto físico y regulatorio actual. Algunos expositores afirmaron que el desarrollo de subcentros podría realizarse a través de iniciativas del sector público con los promotores privados reembolsando el costo de la infraestructura, lo cual haría que el proceso se autofinanciase.
La cooperación pública y privada en sectores tales como el transporte por carreteras también ha recibido considerable atención en muchas ciudades. Sin embargo, convencer a los promotores privados a que respondan a los objetivos públicos de ubicación y desarrollo de infraestructura constituye otro obstáculo para la planificación en general.
Así, Bogotá, como muchas otras ciudades, se ve afectada por tendencias conflictivas tales como la autosegregación de los grupos de altos ingresos en comunidades de acceso controlado, la necesidad de los grupos de bajos ingresos de tierra dotada de servicios, las presiones del mercado sobre el uso de las tierras urbanas y agrícolas, y la autonomía municipal, todas las cuales crean corrientes perniciosas y contradictorias, tanto como opciones de política ambivalentes. El gobierno estatal, la agencia ambiental (CAR), el municipio de Bogotá y los otros municipios deben trabajar conjuntamente hacia el logro de un consenso regional en un amplio rango de servicios, incluyendo el transporte, el agua, las cloacas, y las instalaciones recreativas y educativas. Se necesita una mezcla de enfoques creativos y flexibles para lograr un desarrollo sustentable y equitativo.
Carolina Barco de Botero ha sido nombrada recientemente directora de planificación de Bogotá. También es gerente consultora de Ciudades, Ltda. en Bogotá, y miembro de la Directiva del Instituto Lincoln. Ha sido la directora del proyecto para el Estudio Regional de la Sabana de Bogotá de la Universidad de los Andes. Ralph Gackenheimer, profesor de planificación y estudios urbanos en el Instituto de Tecnología de Massachusetts (MIT), participó en el estudio y la conferencia.
SHARE
The complexity that characterizes the interaction of transportation and land use in urban areas is matched by the variety of the disciplines called on to address these issues, including economics, urban planning and civil engineering. In recent decades, communication among scholars in these disciplines has improved and the acceptance of a common base of theory and method, based on economics, is increasing. The Taxation, Resources and Economic Development (TRED) conference on “Transportation and Land Use” held at the Lincoln Institute in October 1996 focused on these issues. Ten papers presented at that conference are now published in a special issue of the journal Urban Studies. The papers are organized into four groups as summarized below.
Trends in Urban Development
Gregory Ingram’s paper on “Metropolitan Development: What Have We Learned?” documents the worldwide prevalence of several trends that characterize modern urbanization. Employment decentralization and the emergence of multiple employment centers in large metropolitan areas are observed worldwide in both developing and developed countries. Although employment continues to be more centralized than population, the typical Central Business District does not contain more than about 20 percent of jobs, and much smaller percentages are common in the U.S. Manufacturing employment has become more decentralized than service employment. Decentralization has reduced traffic congestion and travel distances and has contributed to a weakening of transit systems. The increased affordability of motorized transportation worldwide has led to more trip-making, with work trips typically being less than a third of all trips in urbanized areas.
Peter Gordon, Harry Richardson and Gang Yu find evidence that the suburbanization and exurbanization of employment in the U.S. has picked up its pace since 1988. In their paper, “Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Employment Trends in the U.S.: Recent Evidence and Implications,” they argue that the ability of manufacturing and even of services to locate in exurban and rural areas, shunning inner-suburban and central city locations, is a consequence of the continued weakening of the agglomeration economies that shaped the now outdated downtown-oriented city.
Robert Cervero and Kang-Li Wu examine the relationship between average commuting distance and employment subcentering in their paper, “Subcentering and Commuting: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area, 1980-1990.” They are concerned with changes in employment densities in 22 employment subcenters and with the commuting distances and travel times of those employed in these subcenters. The authors find that employment densities have increased more in the outlying suburban centers and that commuting to these centers has experienced modal shifts away from transit and in favor of the automobile. According to their data, while jobs in these centers grew by 18 percent during the decade, average one-way commuting distances to these 22 subcenters increased by 12 percent, and average one-way travel times rose by only 5 percent.
These findings are consistent with theory: with the number of subcenters fixed and the degree of spatial mismatch between jobs and housing invariant with job growth, an increase in the number of jobs in each subcenter should result in longer commutes on average. If new subcenters are spawned in between existing ones or new ones develop in outlying areas-something that does not appear to have occurred in the Bay Area-then average commutes should decrease. The 22 subcenters account for less than half of total employment in the Bay Area, the rest of the jobs being broadly dispersed throughout. Because such dispersed employment is not included in their study, we do not know about the total effect of job decentralization on average commute distances and times.
Genevieve Giuliano’s paper, “Information Technology, Work Patterns and Intrametropolitan Location: A Case Study,” examines the impact of information technology, including the advent of fax machines, computers, modems and the internet. One of her central observations is that while the U.S. labor force increased by 14 percent from 1980 to 1990, the “contingent workforce,” a diverse group of temporary workers, part-time workers, the self-employed and business service workers, increased much faster, from about 25 to 33 percent.
This trend implies that the information revolution is causing structural shifts in the labor force as more and more workers offer temporary services to a variety of employers and, as a result, do not have a long-term attachment to any one employer. Theory suggests that such workers should locate in a way that is sensitive to their expected accessibility to jobs. Also, the advent of information technology should facilitate “telecommuting,” thus reducing the need for physical proximity to jobs.
Giuliano uses the 1990 U.S. Census Public Use Microsample for the Los Angeles region to compare the residential location and commuting patterns of contingent and non-contingent workers. The socioeconomic complexity of contingent workers makes it difficult to draw clear conclusions, but Guiliano does find that those contingent workers who live in suburban areas are likely to live in high amenity areas. Controlling for socioeconomic factors, commuting distances are shorter for part-time workers than they are for full-time workers, and among full-time workers the self-employed have the shortest commutes.
Agglomeration Economies
The next two papers offer empirical contributions on intra-urban employment agglomeration. “Spatial Variation in Office Rents within the Atlanta Region,” by Christopher Bollinger, Keith Ihlanfeldt and David Bowes, is a hedonic rent study for office buildings in the Atlanta area from 1990 to 1996. The authors find that part of the rent differences among office buildings is due to differences in wage rates, transportation rates and proximity to concentrations of office workers. More importantly, the convenience of face-to-face meetings facilitated by office agglomerations is also reflected in office rents, providing evidence that agglomerative tendencies continue to be important in explaining office concentrations, despite the ability of information technology to reduce the need for some such contacts. In their paper, “Population Density in Suburban Chicago: A Bid-Rent Approach,” Daniel McMillen and John McDonald show that population density patterns in the Chicago MSA are strongly influenced by proximity to subcenters, which include the Central Business District, O’Hare Airport and 16 other centers. Site-specific variables such as access to commuter rail stations or highway interchanges have smaller influences on population densities.
Travel Behavior and Residential Choice
Among the challenges posed by the evolving trends in transportation and land use is a better explanation of the role of non-work travel in residential location decisionmaking. Motorized mobility has greatly increased non-work travel, thus weakening the relevance of the now classical commuting-based theory of residential location. While information technology may result in more telecommuting, the importance of non-work travel relative to work travel may grow even more in the future.
Two papers attempt to develop new techniques that can be used to explain the influence of non-work travel behavior on residential location and land use patterns, and vice versa. Central to this research is the notion that when a household makes a residential choice decision it will consider the pattern of non-work trips its members are likely to make. Accessibility to non-work opportunities is likely to be important and, for many households, perhaps more important than accessibility to jobs.
Moshe Ben-Akiva and John Bowman model the probability of choosing a residential location by treating the non-work trip patterns and activity schedules of the household’s members as explanatory variables. Their model allows the treatment of trips as tours with stops at multiple destinations. In their paper, “Integration of an Activity-Based Model System and a Residential Location Model,” the authors report that their model does not fit the data as well as a work-trip-based comparison model. But, the non-work accessibility measures are more appealing conceptually and allow a richer set of predictions and simulations to be made.
Until recently, economists have suppressed the importance of non-work trips in their theories of land use. Planners have viewed land use planning as a tool that can affect behavior and travel demand. But what is the evidence that travel patterns can be influenced meaningfully by manipulating land use at the neighborhood level or in a larger area?
Marlon Boarnet and Sharon Sarmiento tackle this question by means of a travel diary survey of Southern California residents. Their paper is titled “Can Land Use Policy Really Affect Travel Behavior? A Study of the Link Between Non-work Travel and Land Use Characteristics.” The number of work trips made by residents is explained by sociodemographic variables describing the residents and by land use characteristics describing their place of residence. Generally, the land use variables describing the neighborhood are not statistically significant, but future studies could follow this approach by trying more complex specifications and using better data.
Jobs-Housing Mismatch
As first stated by John Kain in 1968, the “spatial mismatch hypothesis” claimed that black central city residents are increasingly at a disadvantage economically as jobs disperse to the suburbs. Many suburban governments limit the quantity of high-density/low-income housing, forcing workers to make long, expensive commutes. Although there is a wealth of empirical work on the mismatch hypothesis, Richard Arnott’s paper, “Economic Theory and the Mismatch Hypothesis,” is one of the first attempts to formulate a microeconomic theory of the mismatch problem. In Arnott’s model, jobs flee to the suburbs because of the advent of international trade (relaxation of global trade barriers) and the emergence of suburban-based inter-city truck transport after World War II. At the same time, large-lot zoning and discrimination in suburban housing markets force minorities to reside in central cities. An increase in the cost of commuting effectively lowers the wage paid to low-skilled labor from the city.
In “Where Youth Live: Economic Effects of Urban Space on Employment Prospects,” John Quigley and Katherine O’Regan investigate how neighborhood of residence and access to jobs affect the employment prospects of minority youth. Black youth unemployment rates are higher in metropolitan areas where blacks are more isolated geographically. Controlling for socioeconomic characteristics, minority youth who have less residential exposure to whites are more likely to be unemployed. Finally, controlling for socioeconomic characteristics as well as residential exposure to whites, minority youth living in neighborhoods that are less accessible to jobs are more likely to be unemployed. While these findings support the mismatch hypothesis, they also suggest the importance of social networks and spatial search as important mechanisms in the intra-urban labor market.
Alex Anas, professor of economics at the State University of New York at Buffalo, was the editor of the special issue of Urban Studies (Vol. 35, No. 7, June 1998). The article and figures used in Land Lines are adapted with permission.
Note: Ben Chinitz, former director of research at the Institute, helped organize the 1996 TRED conference and the following colleagues served as discussants of the papers: James Follain, Vernon Henderson, Douglass Lee, Therese McGuire, Peter Mieszkowski, Edwin Mills, Sam Myers, Dick Netzer, Stephen Ross, Anita Summers, William Wheaton, Michelle White and John Yinger. The conference participants were saddened when news arrived that William Vickrey, who had been named a Nobel laureate in economics only a few days before, had passed away while traveling to the conference. Professor Vickrey had been a leading thinker on issues of transportation and land use and a regular attendee of previous TRED conferences. The special issue of Urban Studies based on the 1996 conference serves as a tribute to his memory.
SHARE
In recent years, politicians, lobbyists and voters in the United States have often seemed polarized—or paralyzed—over where to draw the line between private and public rights in land. Common property, defined as group- or community-owned private property, straddles that line.
Most recognized common property is in natural resources, and most recognized commoners are rural people in developing countries. But the concept of commons might also apply to some aspects of urban land in the United States. At the least, common property theory may help U.S. policymakers understand more clearly what is at stake in debates about land rights.
At Voices from the Commons, the June 1996 conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property in Berkeley, California, the Lincoln Institute assembled a dozen researchers and practitioners from the U.S. to discuss these new forms of commons, some of which are described in this article:
Property Rights and Land Use Strategies
Economist Daniel Bromley and legal scholar Carol Rose have proposed independent but roughly compatible schemes for classifying property regimes. Bromley focuses on the form of land rights, while Rose focuses on management strategies:
PROPERTY IN LAND
Bromley Rose
1. private property rights
2. state keep out
3. nonproperty do nothing
4. common property right way
Option 1 on each of these lists is classically private property. The owner’s rights are exclusive, and the owner decides what to do with the land. Option 2 is often associated with public land, in the sense that government owns it and decides what, if anything, can be done and who can do it on the land. Option 3 is the situation often lamented as “the tragedy of the commons,” in which the land is owned by no one, and everyone therefore has both access and incentives to abuse it. Despite the “tragedy of the commons” language, this option is better described as “open access,” “unowned” or “nonproperty.” Option 4 is most often associated with common property, defined as private property owned and managed in a specific “right” way by a group of people.
There is not a perfect correspondence between Rose’s strategies and Bromley’s categories. “Keep out” as a strategy may apply to either private or group-owned property as well as public lands–wherever the main strategy is to restrict access to a defined group, or to no one. The “right way” strategy may apply to “nonproperty” as well as commons–if anyone, and not just members of a specific group, can use the resource simply by following the prescribed rules of use.
Nevertheless, putting Bromley’s and Rose’s lists side-by-side suggests that the distinguishing feature of common property may be assigning land both to a specific group of people and to prescribed uses.
Most urban land in the United States is defined as either private or public property. Yet such land may be more like common property than is usually recognized. Zoning and environmental regulations, for example, do not allow private landowners to do anything and everything with “their” land. Instead, for example, the private owners of land next to a river may not be permitted to install underground oil storage tanks. Those aspects of land use that affect the community’s quality of life or shared environment are managed almost like common property.
What Makes a Successful Commons?
Elinor Ostrom has identified two prerequisites for successful common property regimes: the system must face significant environmental uncertainty, and there must be social stability in the group of owners/users. As Ostrom puts it, commoners must have “shared a past and expect to share a future.” They must be capable not just of “short-term maximization but long-term reflection about joint outcomes.”
Environmental instability gives commoners an incentive to share risks. Social stability allows or forces them to preserve resources for future generations. For example, in many Alpine villages, herds are private property but summer pastures are common property. To avoid overgrazing and free-riding, individual farmers cannot graze more sheep and goats on the summer pastures than they can feed privately over the winter. Access to the summer pastures helps to guarantee all families, whatever their private resources, a chance to earn a living.
Environmental instability and social stability are usually associated with rural places. Rural landowners face the random risks of droughts, floods and plagues, and are known–accurately or inaccurately–for their sense of community.
Do these requirements exist in the urban United States? Perhaps. Environmental instability is easy enough to find, if “environment” is defined as social and economic as well as physical. For many inner-city residents, depopulation, gentrification, or plant and base closings are just as random and devastating as floods or plagues. The social stability of these neighborhoods may be largely involuntary, created by economic and racial barriers to mobility. But some community activists also see human knowledge, social relationships and the land itself in such places as “social capital,” which can be mobilized for development through new forms of ownership.
Pros and Cons of Common Property
Most scholars who have written about common property have seen commoners as political and economic underdogs. A classic example is villagers defending their traditional forest grazing grounds against timber companies or government foresters who want to prohibit grazing to protect tree seedlings or prevent erosion. But commoners may also be prosperous or even highly privileged. For example, many private or gated “common interest” communities attempt to wall in high home values and wall out social and economic diversity.
Commoners are by definition conservative. To preserve their shared resources, they must exclude or expel anyone not willing to follow their land use rules. They must also keep the individuals who make the most productive or profitable use of the common property from taking their share of the proceeds and “cashing out” of the system. Although less comforting than the stereotype of downtrodden commoners who share and share alike, exclusionary commons may still be preferable to either privatization or state control.
But in practice, both these options may speed up resource exhaustion. Private owners may extract the maximum cash value from their land as quickly as possible, rather than preserve resources for their own or anyone else’s future use. “Keep out” signs may not keep local people from extracting resources unsustainably from government lands–in fact, hostility toward a distant government may encourage such behavior.
Economist William Fischel has applied this implicit comparison to U.S. local governments’ primary dependence on land-based (property) taxes. He sees all residents in a jurisdiction as commoners who share an interest in maximizing local land values. Fischel argues that California’s Proposition 13 was exactly the equivalent of turning a village commons into a national park. By restricting local property taxes and giving state government a stronger role in school funding, Proposition 13 transferred “ownership” of the schools from face-to-face communities to a distant government.
From the local taxpayers’ vantage point, this upward transfer of responsibility changed their schools from a local “commons,” with strong norms about the “right way” to finance and use education, into state property, which local residents almost saw as nonproperty. As a result, the quality of California schools was leveled across local jurisdictions, but it was leveled down rather than up. Education was exhausted rather than managed sustainably.
New Commons
A few experimental forms of land ownership and management in the U.S.–including land trusts, neighborhood-managed parks, community-supported agriculture and limited-equity housing cooperatives–explicitly avoid the extremes of private or public property. All these “new” forms of common property fit Carol Rose’s description of option 4: “right way.” All aim to foster or protect specific land uses or groups of users.
These experiments with property rights and responsibilities raise questions that few researchers, either on urban development or on common property, have yet addressed. When and how should local policymakers support experiments with “common property”? For example, should local and state officials help to remove regulatory barriers to group ownership of land, or support new criteria for mortgage financing of group-owned land?
There are also long-standing legal objections to “perpetuities”–trying to tie the hands of future owners about how to use their land. To avoid these objections, land trusts must sometimes seek special legal exemptions, or even change state property laws. The long-term costs and benefits of common property experiments, however, may depend less on the initial distribution of land rights than on shifting local politics and economic conditions. Finding answers to these questions will require close collaboration between researchers and practitioners.
Sidebars
Land Trusts and Limited-Equity Cooperatives
Much of land’s market value depends on whether it contains important natural resources, is located in a thriving community, or has access to services and infrastructure provided by government. The nineteenth-century American philosopher Henry George argued that all these values were created by something other than private action, and should therefore be captured for public use through taxation.
In recent years, land trusts and other groups have experimented with distributing the costs and benefits of land development in much the same way as proposed by Henry George, but through new forms of land ownership rather than taxation. Some of these experiments include limited-equity cooperatives and land trusts such as Boston’s Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative. The Dudley Street project has made the land in an inner-city redevelopment area the common property of a nonprofit group, while allowing private ownership of homes and other buildings.
Using similar arguments, groups such as the Connecticut-based Equity Trust have dedicated the “social increment” in property values–the increase in land prices as a neighborhood recovers from blight, or a small town grows–to social purposes. For example, the portion of a home’s sale price that is due to the increase in land values rather than housing construction costs is used to subsidize the purchase price for the next homeowner.
Incidental Open Spaces
Vacant lots, old cemeteries and partially buried urban streams raise a host of questions about managing urban landscapes as commons. Groups seeking to reclaim or use such incidental urban open spaces must often persuade private owners to let them use and help to maintain the land. Some geographers and planners have remapped cities’ neglected, and in practice often “unowned,” open spaces.
Groups such as the Waterways Restoration Institute in Berkeley, California, have built on this research to help low-income city residents uncover and restore forgotten streams and their banks, turning them from neighborhood eyesores into neighborhood treasures. The process increases residents’ appreciation of the interdependence between the city and nature, which they often think of as exclusively suburban or rural.
Housing
For the elderly, single-parent households and many low-income families, detached single-family housing is either inappropriate or priced beyond reach. Yet traditional land use regulations, grounded partly in concerns about property values, favor only single-family housing. Advocates of privatization, in the U.S. as well as in developing or transitioning economies, often argue for converting common property into private ownership to promote reinvestment or increase property values. Organizations serving the homeless, such as San Francisco’s HomeBase, are seeing this argument applied even to traditionally public spaces such as doorways, parks and bus benches. To discourage the homeless from occupying these spaces, some local businesses and neighbors support regulations that convert them into quasi-private property.
Yet in all these settings, some researchers and practitioners have also proposed to manage the housing stock as a whole as a form of common property, both to meet needs not met by single-family detached housing and to encourage neighborhood reinvestment. In the U.S., researchers such as Cornell’s Patricia Pollak have examined the sources of opposition to, and the consequences of, converting some single-family homes into group quarters, accessory apartments and elder cottages. Many home and business owners who oppose these land uses in interviews, expecting them to depress property values, are ironically unaware that their neighborhoods already contain some of this alternative housing.
Converted Military Bases
For each base closed, the federal government offers planning funds to a single organization. That organization must represent the entire local community affected by the base closing, from public to private interests and across local political jurisdictions. Researchers such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Bernard Frieden are now studying the way that communities around these bases, which often include very diverse interests, are being forced to create at least temporary “commons” structures to receive federal grants.
Few bases have been all the way through the conversion process yet, so it remains to be seen whether these temporary structures will be converted for permanent land ownership or management. In the Oakland-San Francisco area, however, the Earth Island Institute’s Carl Anthony and others on the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission consciously considered long-term group or community ownership of some base lands as a way to meet regional needs for housing, open space and jobs.
_______________
Alice E. Ingerson, director of publications at the Lincoln Institute, earned her Ph.D. in cultural anthropology, for research on the politics of rural industrialization in Portugal. She moderated the session “Is There an Urban Commons in the U.S.?” at the 1996 Voices from the Commons conference in California.
References
Steve Barton and Carol Silverman, Common Interest Communities: Private Governments and the Public Interest (Berkeley, CA: Institute of Governmental Studies Press, 1994).
Daniel Bromley, Environment and Economy: Property Rights and Public Policy (Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, Inc., 1991).
William A. Fischel, Regulatory Takings: Law, Economics, and Politics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995).
Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990).
Carol M. Rose, “Rethinking Environmental Controls: Management Strategies for Common Resources,” Duke Law Journal 1991, no. 1 (February 1991), pp. 1-38.
SHARE
Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 1 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.
En los últimos años, el Instituto Lincoln ha venido colaborando con el programa de becas Loeb, el cual tiene sede en la Escuela de Posgrado en Diseño de la Universidad de Harvard. Este programa se inició en 1970 gracias a la generosidad de John L. Loeb, egresado de Harvard, con la finalidad de permitir que profesionales de mediana trayectoria cursaran estudios independientes y adquirieran herramientas adicionales dirigidas a la reactivación del medio ambiente natural y urbano. Los becarios de Loeb para el período 2001-2002 hicieron un viaje de fin de año a Cuba a mediados de junio, que incluía una estancia de dos días en Santiago de Cuba, cuatro en La Habana y un recorrido adicional desde esta última hasta Trinidad, con paradas en algunos destinos intermedios.
Con sus fachadas neoclásicas, adoquines blancos, nubes caribeñas y tonos pasteles, Trinidad se ha detenido en el tiempo como una postal de acuarela. Puesto que el patrimonio arquitectónico de Cuba es el núcleo de un creciente interés internacional y no está amenazado por las oleadas de nuevas construcciones, el futuro del pasado parece estar a salvo. Por su parte, el futuro en sí mismo es mucho más difícil de hallar. Mientras nuestro grupo de becarios de Loeb buscaba indicios en tres ciudades y localidades de la provincia, descubrimos que pese al estancamiento económico y la tensión política internacional los cubanos trabajan con esmero por un futuro que sólo pertenece a ellos.
La afluencia de dólares provenientes del turismo y una férrea campaña de preservación cubana han comenzado a rescatar las riquezas de La Habana Vieja de las garras del descuido no intencionado. Después de por lo menos una experiencia negativa con una nueva construcción, la Oficina del Historiador de la Ciudad –encargada de coordinar la impresionante restauración y renovación mayor de La Habana Vieja– todavía trata de resolver el problema de integrar lo nuevo con lo histórico. Una manera de abordar el problema es estudiar minuciosamente el diseño de edificaciones que ocupan una manzana. Caminamos por un estacionamiento grande de estructura moderna dentro de La Habana Vieja que será reconstruido para convertirlo en un edificio de uso múltiple, con un estacionamiento adyacente, según un diseño que busca reproducir la escala y algunos rasgos monumentales del convento colonial que una vez ocupaba el lugar.
Aunque se está reubicando a algunos residentes en la misma zona y otras partes, muchos regresan a sus hogares después de que los barrios son rehabilitados.
Considerado ahora como un modelo para otras iniciativas dirigidas a financiar la rehabilitación de otros distritos de la ciudad, la renovación de La Habana Vieja se fundamenta en un sistema de impuestos y empresas conjuntas que comprende ingresos provenientes de empresas privadas que se benefician del turismo generado por la restauración. La Oficina del Historiador maneja un presupuesto anual de 50 millones de dólares que se divide entre la construcción y la asistencia social a los cubanos que residen dentro de los límites de la zona de rehabilitación. Esto podría interpretarse como un sistema de “recuperación de plusvalías”, tema que suscita gran interés en el Instituto Lincoln.
Julio César Pérez, arquitecto cubano, urbanista y defensor de la planificación con base en la comunidad, era uno de los integrantes del grupo de becarios de Loeb. Gracias a la perspectiva particular que tiene por ser profesional local, mostró a nuestro grupo algunos de sus ejemplos favoritos del rico legado de la arquitectura prerrevolucionaria art deco y moderna de La Habana. Joyas de cinco pisos de altura se destacan en medio del variopinto paisaje urbano de La Habana central, que también incluye el Edificio Focsa de 28 pisos, con sus 375 unidades de apartamentos, construido en el ocaso del gobierno de Batista.
A los talones de las manzanas de viviendas y casinos con estilo internacional de los años 1950, la revolución implantó su propia forma de uso revisado del suelo. Julio contó la historia de un partido de golf que jugaron el Che Guevara y Fidel Castro en los vastos campos del antiguo Habana Country Club para celebrar la revolución. Según la leyenda, se preguntaron: “¿cómo podemos darle un buen uso a este terreno?” Los resultados de su conversación son las muy grandilocuentes y en su mayoría inconclusas Escuelas Nacionales de Arte diseñadas por Ricardo Porro, Vittorio Garratti y Roberto Gottardi. La postura de estas edificaciones es deliberadamente indiferente a la casa club o al plan del campo de golf; el área abierta es tratada como si fuera una enorme pradera en medio de territorio virgen. Está previsto un proyecto de restauración de los edificios, que se ha complicado más debido a la inestabilidad de las fundaciones y los problemas hidrológicos.
Julio también identificó ejemplos más recientes de construcciones de grandes dimensiones en La Habana, como son el Hotel Meliá Cohíba con su voluminoso arco incorporado y el Miramar Trade Center, un centro comercial (con transacciones en dólares) al otro lado de la calle. Además de ser fracasos de diseño, estos costosos proyectos no logran captar la relación del sitio con el mar ni la posibilidad de crear un nuevo género arquitectónico en un distrito en desarrollo.
Con el estancamiento de la economía y de las relaciones internacionales en los años 1990, el arquitecto y planificador cubano Miguel Coyula y sus colegas han utilizado el tiempo y los materiales que tienen a su alcance para adoptar un enfoque más cuidadoso del uso y desarrollo del suelo. Mientras en todo el mundo hay un surgimiento acelerado y avasallante de ciudades verticales de acero y vidrio, en La Habana se construye una de las maquetas de mayor escala en el mundo con cajas viejas de habanos. Esta asombrosa ciudad en miniatura fue concebida como herramienta para la planificación y asidero para los esfuerzos del Grupo para el Desarrollo Integral de la Capital (GDIC), que ha asesorado al gobierno municipal en asuntos de planificación urbana desde 1988.
La maqueta 1:1000 de toda La Habana ha ido creciendo por piezas exactas durante la mayor parte de la última década y actualmente ocupa 112 metros cuadrados, es decir, aproximadamente una cuarta parte de una cancha de baloncesto. Se encuentra en un pabellón especialmente diseñado iluminado con luz natural en el área de Miramar, cercano al centro de la ciudad, donde los visitantes ocasionales pueden circular cómodamente alrededor de la maqueta y verla desde los niveles superiores de acceso con rampas. En la base topográfica de madera hay colocados modelos a escala de prácticamente todas las estructuras de la ciudad. Cada edificio está codificado por un color que indica el desarrollo urbano en cada período histórico: colonial, moderno prerrevolucionario (1900 a 1958) y posrevolucionario.
Miguel describe un proyecto de construcción, un edificio alto para el Comité Estatal de Colaboración Económica (CECE), que fue cancelado porque con la maqueta se pudo ver claramente que era desproporcionado para el resto de la arquitectura del centro de La Habana. La decisión parece haber sido un hito ya que se trataba de un proyecto real y también ha sido ejemplo de la determinación de construir con conciencia por el medio ambiente –pese a las presiones para dar cabida a inversionistas foráneos en una Cuba necesitada de ingresos–.
La misión fundamental del GDIC se asemeja mucho a la que se plantean los planificadores estadounidenses para el urbanismo dentro de las grandes ciudades: comenzar por los vecindarios. El grupo ha realizado una serie de “talleres integrales de transformación del barrio” ofrecidos a los residentes locales y dirigidos por diseñadores y planificadores profesionales, preferentemente que habiten en la misma área. Estos proyectos se inscriben en la misma tendencia del movimiento internacional de diseño comunitario, una tradición vinculada a los Estados Unidos y surgida hace 45 años en la cual los diseñadores trabajan directamente para el beneficio de los residentes de un área determinada. Desde que la depresión económica sobrevenida en los años 1990 después de la disolución de la Unión Soviética y el bloqueo impuesto por los Estados Unidos comenzaron a tener efectos realmente adversos en Cuba, estos talleres han cobrado gran importancia. Han conjugado la planificación y el desarrollo económico en un nuevo contexto local, en el que los vecindarios emprenden diversos proyectos, como son los cultivos urbanos y la manufactura de materiales de construcción a partir del reciclaje de escombros.
Los talleres de transformación del barrio y otras iniciativas similares llevadas a cabo en los últimos 20 años han contribuido a crear un puente entre el precepto revolucionario cubano de igualdad de tratamiento para todos y el precepto humano básico de tomar decisiones sobre la familia, la comunidad y la vida cotidiana. Otro ejemplo lo constituye el proyecto Arquitectos de la Comunidad, una modalidad de diseño comunitario a cargo de un sector cívico nacional que participa en la construcción urbana y la planificación ambiental, además de ofrecer servicios asequibles de diseño para familias individuales. Basada en las teorías del arquitecto argentino Rodolfo Livingston, la práctica fomenta una relación directa entre el usuario y el arquitecto, a la vez que se incorpora en cada proyecto de construcción el concepto de sostenibilidad y sensibilidad contextual. Julio trabajó con el grupo durante cinco años antes de irse a Harvard y presentó una ponencia junto con Kathleen Dorgan, también becaria de Loeb, en la conferencia de la Asociación de Escuelas y Facultades de Arquitectura celebrada en la primavera pasada. Como defensor de un uso más humano y sensato del suelo y del diseño urbano en su país, Julio se cuenta entre un grupo de arquitectos cubanos preocupados por los valores tradicionales del oficio y el diseño idóneo para el medio ambiente.
Con la existencia de esfuerzos como éstos, tenemos esperanza para que en el futuro la construcción se fundamente en una calibración cuidadosa de relaciones proporcionadas y bien reflexionadas entre las edificaciones y los rasgos naturales del entorno, así como la comodidad y placer de los usuarios. El desafío radica en encontrar medios económicos y normativos para apoyar una modalidad apropiada de construcción. Hasta ahora, el estado ha mantenido el control sobre el uso del suelo gracias a su condición de propietario directo y casi exclusivo y ha hecho negociaciones de arrendamiento con algunos inversionistas privados y foráneos a través de una red delicada y sumamente frágil de fórmulas económicas y jurídicas para valorar los terrenos en cuestión. A medida que la economía se hace más dependiente de los recursos provenientes del exterior, aumenta la probabilidad de que estos arrendamientos devengan en transacciones más predecibles y transparentes. Tal vez no tardarán en llegar las ventas de tierras y la aplicación de mayores impuestos.
Con la llegada de inversiones extranjeras y las presiones para una apertura aún mayor, habrá plena oportunidad de que el futuro esté constreñido por decisiones sobre el uso del suelo impulsadas por los márgenes de ganancias de organizaciones distantes, lo que sería una lamentable añadidura a la carga histórica de Cuba. Porque, a pesar de la belleza de sus paisajes naturales y urbanos, Cuba es un mapa de victimización: a causa del colonialismo, de la flagrante explotación económica, de la confrontación revolucionaria y del brutal desarrollo al estilo soviético.
Los becarios de Loeb captaron una perspectiva general de un nacionalismo intenso construido sobre una cultura profunda y diversa, una historia cosmopolita y los logros incuestionables de los últimos 40 años. Cuba es un lugar de grandes penurias y también de enorme potencial, para los cubanos mismos y para el resto del mundo. Esperamos que el futuro no albergue solamente explotación y degradación cultural cuando finalmente caigan las barreras para el comercio y el viaje internacional. También esperamos demostrar que Cuba es un lugar para aprender de los errores del pasado –los suyos y los nuestros– y para descubrir lo que es posible cuando la gente tiene libertad para proteger, respetar y mejorar su entorno.
SHARE
In the past quarter century, the People’s Republic of China has achieved remarkable progress in economic growth, social advancement, and political and administrative reforms. These achievements are largely attributed to the commitment of the Chinese government to improve its people’s welfare through adherence to a free market economy. The interrelated forces of economic growth and policy reform are stimulating rapid and fundamental transformation, especially in Chinese cities, where infrastructure projects, urban renewal, housing development and reform of state-owned enterprises are taking place at an unprecedented pace and scale.
The catalyst for this surge in urban development has been the widespread adoption of the Land Use Rights System (LURs) in which land ownership and use rights have been separated. Its impacts are two-fold. First, it promotes the development of markets for land use rights in which land prices and market mechanisms begin to affect land use and land allocation decisions. Second and more important, it creates an institutional capacity for local governments to raise much-needed revenues to finance urban redevelopment and economic reforms. This revenue-raising ability is rooted in the land ownership structure and power of Chinese government, since the state owns virtually all land in cities and towns. Users are required to pay upfront leasing fees for 40- to 70-year periods, depending on the type of use.
Along with its fiscal impacts, the LURs has created several problems that have drawn increasing attention. First, revenues from leasing state-owned land are not sustainable from a long-term perspective; leasing of existing urban land has been the primary revenue source for financing urban projects, and sooner or later cities will run out of urbanized land available for leasing. For example, Hanzhou City will collect 6 billion RMB (US$732 million) in 2003 from the sales of land use rights, most of them on existing urban land, but land sale revenues have already reached their peak and have started to decline.
Second, Chinese governments lack instruments to capture their share of the increases in land value that are driven up by the combined forces of urbanization, public investment in infrastructure and private efforts. Based on the proposition that one should be rewarded only for one’s own effort, government should capture the increased land value resulting from public investment, rather than having it accrue to the private landowner.
Third, laws do not specify concrete measures for implementing lease renewals. It will be more difficult to collect leasing fees in the renewal period since local governments will have to deal with thousands of households compared to a small number of developers in the first round of leases. Finally, some local government officials have been politically motivated to create an oversupply of land and overheated real estate activity, thus diminishing the central government’s efforts to institutionalize land management and urban planning.
Compulsory Land Acquisition
The other major source of land revenues for local governments is the leasing of former farmland. Both the Chinese Constitution and the 1999 Land Administration Law (LAL) specify that the state, in the public interest, may lawfully requisition land owned by collectives, thus setting the stage for compulsory land acquisition. The local government is thereby able to acquire land cheaply from farmers and sell it to developers at much higher prices. This is a complicated process because it requires first acquiring the land, then converting it to state ownership, resettling the displaced farmers and providing urban infrastructure before finally leasing the land to developers. The law requires that peasants’ lives should not be adversely affected by land acquisition. However, this requirement is difficult to implement, in part because measures of life changes for peasants are multifaceted; financial compensation is only one of the considerations.
Since there is no market data for farmland prices, the government pays collectives and peasants a compensation package that includes three components: compensation for the land itself; resettlement subsidies; and compensation for improvements to the land and for crops growing on the requisitioned land. The law stipulates that compensation for cultivated land shall be six to ten times the average annual output value of the acquired land for the three years preceding the requisition.
The amount of the resettlement subsidies depends on the number of people living on the land, but each person’s subsidy shall not exceed six to ten times that of the annual yield from the occupied land. Recognizing diversity of local conditions in terms of socioeconomic development status, productivity, and per capita income, the local government is permitted to raise the sum of the resettlement subsidies and land compensation up to 30 times the previous three years’ average output value on the acquired land.
Emerging Issues
Several significant issues are emerging from this land acquisition process. The first relates to the ill-defined concept of property rights and development rights: who is entitled or empowered to acquire land from peasants for urban development? Currently any entity can acquire land from peasants as long as it can justify public interest or purpose. This public interest requirement was easy to fulfill in the 1990s, since there were many state-owned enterprises that provided services and/or goods to the public. They could acquire land to launch profitable commercial, housing, entertainment and industrial development projects. Individual developers also can acquire land if they have strong political connections. However, these profit-making and political motivations for land acquisition are responsible for increasing corruption in real estate and housing developments and creating chaotic and uncoordinated urban development patterns. Recent economic reforms and privatization have begun to diminish the roles of state-owned enterprises, so it is time to reexamine the concept and definition of public interest and public projects.
The interactions of multiple players in land acquisition (including individuals, corporations and governments) create several problems in land management and planning: (1) it becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible, to coordinate land development so that infrastructure and transportation facilities are used efficiently; (2) it voids many urban planning efforts; and (3) it is blamed for “villages in the city” (cheng zhong chun), a phenomenon in which villages and farmland are surrounded by developed land, making the city unattractive, disrupting the continuity of economic, social and cultural functions, and significantly increasing transportation costs.
The second issue is who is entitled to compensation and at what level. The village collective is the basic socioeconomic organization in rural areas, and its largest asset is the land collectively owned by the members. Even though laws recognize that both the collective and its members should be entitled to sharing compensation, there are no specific policy guidelines or regulations on how to divide the shares in different situations. The collective’s share is supposed to enhance its capacity in farmland productivity and social welfare, thus benefiting all its members. However, the role of the collective is diminishing, in part because its membership is decreasing as some farmers leave to become urban residents following acquisition of communal land, and in part because of socioeconomic changes due to advancing urbanization. The revenue sharing scheme reflects this transformation.
To make matters worse, different levels of governments take a cut out of the monetary compensation that is supposed to go to the farmers. For example, the Chinese government built a pipeline that transfers natural gas from the western to the eastern part of the country. This was a national project, so compensation to peasants was paid by the state, but the amount of compensation varied from province to province. The state gave 20,000 RMB (US$2,500) per mu (one mu=666.67 square meters) to peasants in Henan province for their land. Given the fiscal structures between governments, these funds were allocated downward to lower levels of government (from state to province to city to county to township, respectively). At each transfer point, a portion of funds was retained for that level of government to finance their own public goods and services. The peasants received only 5,000 RMB in the end.
The situation here is similar to the concept of value capture in which governments are entitled to retain a portion of land value increases in exchange for their efforts in urban development and infrastructure provision. In a case like Henan it is legitimate to ask if the state’s compensation reflected the true market value of the land. If it did, then local governments should be entitled to their shares. Alternatively, if the state captures the entire land value increase, then the state should reimburse at least the costs of infrastructure provisions supplied by the local government.
The third issue is the equity of compensation, which involves both the level of compensation as well as variations in payments in different situations. Since there are no market data that can truly reflect the price of farmland, compensation hardly reflects market conditions and it varies dramatically from case to case, mainly depending on who plans to develop the land. For instance, profitable projects such as commercial housing and business developments can afford to pay higher prices for land than public transportation and infrastructure projects such as highways, railroads, airports and canals. If these different types of projects, private and public, occur in one village at different times or in neighboring villages at the same time, peasants who are less well compensated feel unequally treated by the government. Many complaints have something to do with this inconsistency in compensation. Such inequity contributes to rising tensions and distrust between peasants and the government and adversely affects subsequent planning and implementation of land management policies.
Finally, it is becoming increasingly difficult and costly to resettle peasants. The LAL requires that the quality of life of farmers shall not be adversely affected by compulsory land acquisition, but does not specify concrete measures to achieve this goal. As a result, many peasants end up living under worse conditions several years after their land was taken than they did before. This situation is not difficult to imagine. Farming does not make peasants rich, but it generates sufficient income to support a minimum level of livelihood and security. Without appropriate training and skills in managing their lump sum payment and without appropriate investment channels (if their compensation is sufficient to make any investment at all), it is common for peasants to end up with no land to farm, no income stream to support themselves, and no job skills to compete in the tight urban job markets.
Land Policy Challenges
China is facing many challenges in its efforts to supply land for new development as rapid urbanization continues. First, it is becoming more difficult for local governments to acquire land for true public works and transportation projects, since they cannot offer peasants as much compensation as developers of more profitable commercial projects.
A second challenge is to fairly compensate peasants when their farmland is acquired. As governments capture a greater proportion of the land value increases, the low level of compensation to peasants imposes a serious long-term threat to sustainable development in China. The number of people who live in poverty after land acquisition continues to rise. For instance, Zhijiang province alone has more than 2 million farmers who have lost their farmland. In 2002, more than 80 percent of legal cases filed by peasants against governments in the province were related to land acquisition.
This situation is a potential source of instability and is likely to escalate in the future as increasing urbanization puts even more pressure on the need for new land for development. According to the General National Land Use Comprehensive Plan, China needs 18.5 million mu of land for nonagricultural uses in the first decade of the twenty-first century, and 90 percent of that land will be acquired from farmers. It is estimated that 12 million farmers will lose their land through this type of acquisition. Without fair compensation or other efforts to assure their social security over the long term, these farmers will impose enormous socioeconomic problems on China for years to come.
The third challenge is associated with the rate of urbanization. According to the report of the 16th Communist Party Convention in 2003, the total population of China is estimated to be 1.6 billion to1.8 billion by 2020, with more than 55 percent living in cities, compared to the current population of 1.3 billion with 38 percent in urban areas. Migration from rural areas to cities is expected to be around 15 million annually, after taking into account the rate of natural urban population growth. Sustainable and affordable urban economic development is urgently needed to absorb these large numbers of rural immigrants.
A final dilemma is how to achieve a balance between farmland preservation and urban spatial expansion. Farmland preservation will inevitably increase land costs, which in turn will slow down urban development. At the same time, it is necessary to promote urban economic growth to provide sufficient job opportunities. This in turn leads to urban encroachment into rural areas to take advantage of less expensive land.
To address these challenges, Chinese officials need to ask some fundamental questions:
Land Acquisition Reform
It is hard to anticipate how Chinese officials will address these questions, but rapid urbanization and massive infrastructure provision will inevitably increase land values over the next two decades. Recognizing the enormous problems associated with land acquisition, several cities have adopted different approaches to protect farmers’ rights and interests so their lives will not be adversely affected. These approaches include:
The Chinese government is taking other measures, such as attempting to make the land acquisition process more transparent so farmers know where and when their land will be acquired and how much they will be compensated for it. This transparency will also help to reduce corruption and improve land management. There is also an urgent need to establish legal channels for farmers to file appeals and protests against governments in compulsory land acquisition cases. The development of farmland markets may challenge land acquisition and also may have substantial impacts on fiscal policy and government financing.
All of these efforts will change both the way land will be taken from farmers and how the issues and challenges of land acquisition will be addressed. Although it is too early to predict how and to what extent these measures and reforms may affect urban and rural development, China is certain to be one of the most fascinating and dynamic places for continuing research and study of land policy reform and societal transformation.
Chengri Ding is associate professor in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at the University of Maryland, in College Park. He specializes in urban economics, housing and land studies, GIS and spatial analysis. He is also special assistant to the president of the Lincoln Institute for the Program on the People’s Republic of China.
Note: RMB is the Chinese currency; US$1=8.20RMB.
SHARE
Education, training, research, and dissemination have been the instruments used most frequently by the Lincoln Institute to achieve its goals of expanding and making available its knowledge of land policy and taxation. Recently the Institute has begun to combine these instruments in demonstration projects, which involve the application of knowledge, data collection, and expertise to the development and implementation of policy in specific circumstances.
Several ongoing projects provide expert advice and assistance to agencies that are considering new approaches to property taxation, planning, or development. Examples include the consideration of property and land tax reform in several states, the management of state-owned lands, land market monitoring, and support for new approaches to urbanization in Latin America.
Moving forward, the scope of Institute demonstration projects will expand to include the analysis of policies as they are being applied and to document their outcomes. The aim of this expansion is to improve our understanding of the effectiveness of new policy initiatives—what works and in what conditions it does so.
Whether a policy works or not is normally defined in terms of the achievement of the policy’s intended objectives. Thus, our approach would be limited to those policies that have well-defined objectives or intended outcomes. Assessing the achievement of outcomes will be based on performance indicators that measure attainment of the policy’s objectives as well as on the change in other relevant parameters.
Perhaps most important, these demonstration projects will require the collection of baseline data before policy implementation begins so that the analysis of policy effects has a valid benchmark for comparison. Many studies of the impact of policies are severely handicapped by a lack of a good baseline from which to measure change.
When a policy intervention is successful in one application, its results are sometimes readily transferable to other environments, but that is not always the case. For example, the effectiveness of property tax policies may vary with institutional factors such as the clarity of a country’s property rights regime or the independence of the assessment appeal process from political pressure. If institutional dimensions are important determinants of policy effectiveness, more than one assessment of a policy application is needed to determine the influence of those factors. The assumption that “one size fits all” is rarely true when institutional details are an important determinant of policy performance—as they often are in land policy and taxation.
Well-documented case studies of the impact of policies can be powerful instruments in the classroom and as evidence in policy debates. Policy makers and many students often find the results of rigorous case studies to be more accessible and compelling. We anticipate that the results of the Institute’s demonstration projects will contribute valuable new material to our education and research programs.
SHARE
In its short history, European spatial planning has been through several iterations, and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy has supported many related activities that document that process, as well as the participating individuals and entities. Following a course held in Cambridge in 2001, the Institute published the book European Spatial Planning (Faludi 2002) on the movement’s early years when the European Union (EU) had no particular planning mandate. Rather, the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) was an initiative of the member states, supported by the European Commission.
SHARE
Eduardo Reese, arquitecto que se especializa en planeamiento urbano y regional, es el subadministrador del Instituto de la Vivienda de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina. En cargos profesionales anteriores, fue asesor técnico para los planes maestros de más de 20 ciudades en argentina; Secretario de Políticas Socioeconómicas del Ministerio de Desarrollo Humano y Laboral de la Provincia de Buenos Aires; asesor al Consejo de Planeamiento Urbano de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires; y Secretario de Planeamiento en la ciudad de Avellaneda.
Reese es docente en el Instituto del Conurbano de la Universidad Nacional del General Sarmiento en Buenos Aires. Actualmente es profesor de gestión urbana en el programa de grado en urbanismo en dicha universidad. También enseña desarrollo urbano en programas de maestría de la Faculta de Arquitectura, Urbanismo y Diseño de la Universidad de La Plata, así como en universidades de Mar del Plata y Córdoba. Además, dirige el plan maestro de la cuenca Matanza-Riachuelo en Buenos Aires.
Land Lines: ¿Cómo se involucró usted en el Programa para América Latina del Instituto Lincoln?
Eduardo Reese: Mi relación con el Programa se remonta a 1997, cuando estábamos elaborando el plan de la ciudad de Córdoba, que incluyó la formulación de diferentes proyectos urbanos de gran escala. En ese momento el Instituto colaboró activamente para ampliar el debate de los impactos de estos proyectos sobre el mercado de suelo y, consecuentemente, en la configuración de la ciudad. Posteriormente, me fui integrando en diversas actividades del Instituto, y hace cuatro años asumí la coordinación de los cursos anuales de Gestión del Suelo en Grandes Proyectos Urbanos, a partir del fallecimiento de Mario Lungo, quien había dirigido ese programa desde su inicio.
En el 2004, el Programa y el Instituto del Conurbano de la Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento, realizamos en conjunto el curso Mercados de Suelo: Teoría e instrumentos para la gestión de políticas, el cual fue la primera actividad del Programa para América Latina y el Caribe que implicó un programa de formación de siete meses para 50 alumnos argentinos. Esa experiencia educativa ayudó a formar una masa crítica de técnicos y profesionales con una visión innovadora y diferente respecto de la gestión de las políticas de suelo. El impacto de ese curso se ha reflejado en decisiones de políticas urbanas en diferentes municipalidades (tales como San Fernando y Morón en el Gran Buenos Aires); en la constitución en Argentina del Movimiento de Reforma Urbana en 2005; y en cambios académicos en el mismo Instituto del Conurbano.
Land Lines: ¿Qué rol puede jugar un proyecto urbano en la calidad de vida de una ciudad en el contexto latinoamericano?
Eduardo Reese: Las grandes operaciones o proyectos urbanísticos sobre sectores definidos de la ciudad (tanto en áreas centrales como en las periferias) han sido grandes protagonistas del urbanismo contemporáneo en el último cuarto de siglo. En América Latina se cuenta hoy con un amplio muestreo de experiencias y proyectos, aunque todavía se requiere una reflexión teórica más rigurosa. Algunos ejemplos importantes son los proyectos del Portal del Bicentenario en Santiago de Chile; los proyectos urbanos integrales en Medellín, Colombia; las operaciones urbanas en diferentes ciudades de Brasil; y el proyecto de reestructuración en el sector Oeste de San Fernando, Argentina.
Sin embargo, es importante aclarar que las grandes operaciones urbanísticas son un instrumento de intervención en la ciudad que ya tienen muchos años no sólo en los países centrales, sino también en nuestras sociedades. En Buenos Aires, por ejemplo, la apertura de la Avenida de Mayo y de las diagonales, proyectada hacia 1880 y llevada a cabo en las décadas siguientes, implicó importantes impactos, tanto en lo físico-espacial como en lo social, económico y, fundamentalmente, en el campo simbólico. Este enfoque de múltiples impactos permite, sin duda, asimilar la operación de Avenida de Mayo a un gran proyecto urbano contemporáneo, pero también generó un gran debate sobre quién debía financiar la operación y quién se apropiaría de las rentas de suelo generadas. En última instancia, la Corte Suprema falló que la municipalidad no podía financiar las obras con la plusvalía generada, porque las rentas eran enteramente de los terratenientes. Durante muchos años, este caso fue un precedente en relación a la intervención estatal en el proceso de valorización de suelo generado por un gran proyecto público.
Land Lines: Usted tiene una mirada muy crítica del reconocido proyecto de regeneración urbana Puerto Madero, en Buenos Aires. ¿Qué haría de manera diferente en otras grandes áreas de redesarrollo?
Eduardo Reese: Puerto Madero es un caso emblemático de proyectos urbanos que promueven un modelo de planeamiento urbano segregado y que hoy en día se “exporta” a otras ciudades y países como instrumento básico para poder “competir” por las inversiones internacionales. En este proyecto el Estado adoptó una posición de sumisión frente al mercado y permitió la construcción de un barrio exclusivo para sectores de altísimos ingresos. Es un ejemplo notorio de una política pública diseñada explícitamente para privilegiar a los sectores más ricos sin recuperación de las enormes valorizaciones del suelo que fueron producto de esta misma política pública.
Más aún, a fin de garantizar a los inversionistas la sobrevalorización de las propiedades que compraron, el emprendimiento tiene una serie de características que la “recortan” (física y socialmente) del resto de la ciudad, creando con ello rentas aún mayores debido a la segregación. Puerto Madero no tiene un muro explícito, como los condominios cerrados, pero tiene múltiples acciones y mensajes implícitos, explícitos y simbólicos que señalan claramente que ese lugar está fuera del alcance para la mayoría de la sociedad:
En definitiva, Puerto Madero es la clara demostración de urbanismo y política pública de distribución regresiva: un “ghetto” libre de problemas para ricos.
Land Lines: En la medida en que las municipalidades compiten por inversiones externas, ¿es posible reconciliar esto con objetivos alternativos tales como prioridades ambientales y sociales?
Eduardo Reese: El problema de nuestras ciudades no es la falta de planeamiento, sino el actual orden excluyente de las políticas y del urbanismo. No puede haber una ley para la ciudad formal y un conjunto de excepciones para el resto. Es necesario crear un nuevo orden urbanístico y jurídico en América Latina respecto al derecho a la ciudad, la distribución equitativa de los beneficios de la urbanización, y la función social de la tenencia de suelo.
Land Lines: ¿De qué manera la municipalidad de San Fernando, en el Área Metropolitana de Buenos Aires, ofrece una alternativa a este enfoque?
Eduardo Reese: San Fernando es un municipio ubicado en la zona norte del Gran Buenos Aires, a 30 km de la ciudad de Buenos Aires, con una superficie continental de 23 km² y una población de 156.000 habitantes. Tiene un frente litoral al Río Luján de 5 km de extensión sobre su desembocadura en el Río de la Plata donde se concentra una gran cantidad de actividades productivas vinculadas con la náutica. Este sector del municipio tiene una ubicación privilegiada, con altos valores inmobiliarios y está dotado de la totalidad de los servicios urbanos.
El plan urbano y el modelo de gestión del suelo se comenzaron a elaborar en el 2003 a través de un convenio entre el municipio y el Instituto del Conurbano de la Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento. En el año 2005, un seminario de capacitación del Instituto Lincoln ayudó a ampliar las ideas tradicionales sobre manejo de suelo que abundaban en los grupos profesionales locales y llevó a una serie de decisiones importantes:
La política urbana en San Fernando se enfocó en una serie de estrategias de acción que incluyeron (1) asegurar el acceso a nuevos espacios públicos sobre el río para fines recreativos, deportivos y comerciales, especialmente para ser aprovechados por los sectores pobres; y (2) la regularización comprehensiva del sector oeste de la municipalidad, donde se concentra los mayores niveles de pobreza.
Para implementar estas estrategias, fue necesario aumentar los recursos fiscales para inversión pública de dos maneras: a través de la apropiación de la rentabilidad del uso del suelo o tierra municipal sobre el río a través de la creación del consorcio Parque Náutico de San Fernando, S.A. (PNSFSA); y con la participación de la municipalidad en la plusvalía a partir de una reforma tributaria municipal. (PNSFSA es una empresa creada por la municipalidad de San Fernando para administrar las tierras del dominio municipal en la costa ribereña del sector este de la ciudad, conocida como Marina Park).
La experiencia de San Fernando se basa en un conjunto de herramientas de gestión orientadas a la redistribución de rentas urbanas para construir una ciudad más equitativa. El suelo se considera como un activo clave dentro de una estrategia más amplia de desarrollo local y, por lo tanto, la gestión depende de una combinación de instrumentos de planeamiento, administrativos, económicos, fiscales y legales orientados a fortalecer el papel del sector público. El eje central de las políticas es la búsqueda de equidad en la distribución de los costos y beneficios de la urbanización, dentro del contexto desafiante de la creciente presión sobre el suelo en toda el área metropolitana de Buenos Aires.
Land Lines: ¿Qué cambios habría que realizar en el sistema educativo para la capacitación de los planificadores urbanos?
Eduardo Reese: Primero, es necesario incorporar una mayor comprensión del funcionamiento de los mercados de suelo en el contexto actual de las ciudades de los países en desarrollo. Segundo, hace falta un análisis más crítico de los instrumentos teóricos, metodológicos y técnicos para llevar a cabo el diagnóstico e intervención en asuntos de suelo urbano. El curso sobre mercados de suelo de 2004 que mencioné antes buscó desarrollar este tipo de materiales para permitir que los estudiantes cubrieran las diferentes escalas y dimensiones del problema.
Land Lines: ¿Qué tensiones existen entre intereses públicos y privados en el planeamiento urbano?
Eduardo Reese: Esta es una pregunta crucial porque toda la historia de la gestión territorial en nuestras ciudades ha tenido un hilo conductor: el derecho de la propiedad privada del suelo juntamente con la estructura de la propiedad han entrado siempre en conflicto con la actividad urbanística que es una responsabilidad pública. En ese sentido siempre habrá una tensión entre intereses públicos y privados en la construcción de la ciudad.
A mi juicio, los proyectos urbanos en América Latina tienen la responsabilidad de contribuir a la creación de nuevos espacios de uso y goce público, a la inclusión social, a la generación de empleo, a la equidad en el acceso a los servicios para todos, a la sostenibilidad ambiental y a la redistribución de las rentas urbanas generadas por el proyecto. Los cuatro casos mencionados antes de Chile, Colombia, Brasil y Argentina muestran que estos beneficios son posibles en muchos países.
Sin embargo, y lamentablemente, en una gran cantidad de casos en América Latina los proyectos urbanos se han justificado como necesarios para atraer inversiones y/o consumidores y asegurar o reforzar las ventajas competitivas dinámicas de la ciudad. Estos insospechados objetivos positivos a veces se usan como un mecanismo para legitimizar intervenciones que profundizan la segregación socioespacial de las ciudades. Estos efectos adversos del mercado no son fatales para las ciudades, sino que son el resultado de elecciones políticas perversas.
SHARE
Infrastructure (comprising energy, telecommunications, transportation, water supply, and sanitation) plays an important role in urban land development, and it influences city and country productivity. Data on the amount of infrastructure stocks at the national (but, alas, not the metropolitan) level are available for many developing and high-income countries and support several results summarized here.
The amount of infrastructure stocks per capita across countries is strongly related to per capita income levels—when country incomes double, infrastructure stocks nearly double as well. However, country infrastructure stocks have essentially no association with a country’s level of urbanization once country income is taken into account. This seems surprising because cities have large amounts of infrastructure. But they also have dense populations that use the infrastructure intensively, so per capita urban infrastructure stocks are similar to national levels.
The composition of infrastructure stocks also varies systematically with per capita income. Roads have the largest share of infrastructure stocks in the lowest income countries, with water systems second and electric power systems a close third. As country incomes increase, the infrastructure related to electric power systems increases more rapidly than income levels. Infrastructure for water and sewer systems increases less rapidly, and for roads the change is in proportion to income. As a result, in high-income countries electric power systems are the largest component of infrastructure, followed by roads, whereas water, sanitation, and telephone systems comprise only a modest share of their infrastructure.
Based on recent rates of economic growth, and using the existing relations between infrastructure and per capita income, developing countries are likely to need to spend about 5 percent of their GDP on infrastructure (3 percent for expansion and 2 percent for maintenance)—currently about $750 billion annually—to maintain existing ratios between infrastructure and GDP. For high-income countries, total spending would be lower, at 1.7 percent of GDP (about evenly divided between investment and maintenance)—currently about $700 billion annually. Countries growing faster than average need to invest a higher share of their GDP so that infrastructure stocks can keep up with economic growth.
In some countries, improving the efficiency of service production from existing infrastructure is an alternative to new investment. For example, average electricity losses across countries range as high as 25 percent, and leakage and unbilled water can exceed 30 percent. Reducing such high losses can forestall the need for additional capacity. Somewhat surprisingly, performance within countries across sectors varies greatly—efficient performance by a country in one infrastructure sector is uncorrelated with performance in other sectors.
What sources will provide these investment funds, particularly for developing countries? Foreign assistance and development bank financing of infrastructure in developing countries currently total about $40 billion annually, and that figure has more than tripled since 1990 in current dollars. Private investment in infrastructure in developing countries has recently reached $160 billion annually and has grown eight-fold since 1990, also in current dollars. Foreign assistance is directed mainly at energy, transport, and water and sanitation systems, with virtually no funding for telecommunications. In contrast, more than half of private funding goes to telecommunications (particularly mobile telephony), followed by energy. Telecommunications and energy draw more private investment in developing countries because their tariff revenues cover a large share of operating costs, whereas tariff revenues and user fees cover a much smaller share of costs for transport and water and sanitation. Private investment in infrastructure was concentrated in Latin America and East Asia in the 1990s but has spread more evenly across global regions in the 2000s.
Despite the growth in international funding, large and growing metropolitan areas in developing countries still need to raise significant sums to finance infrastructure investments. This will involve raising tariffs charged to users, increasing taxes (particularly property taxes) on properties whose value is enhanced by infrastructure investments, and establishing municipal bond markets such as the one being developed in South Africa.
