C. Lowell Harriss is Professor Emeritus at Columbia University, where he taught economics from 1938 until his retirement in 1981. He then served as executive director of the Academy of Political Science until 1987. He has been a consultant to and a member of numerous government commissions and boards of professional organizations. He has written and edited many books and hundreds of articles, and is the recipient of countless honors and awards. Dr. Harriss has been a valued associate of the Lincoln Institute since its founding in 1974, as a faculty member, research scholar, and board member. Joan Youngman, senior fellow and chairman of the Institute’s Department of Valuation and Taxation, spoke with him about his lifelong commitment to education, public service, and property taxation.

Joan Youngman: How does land value differ from improvement value as a property tax base?

Lowell Harriss: The significant factor with land is location, the unimproved condition of nature in the most fundamental economic sense. Whatever results from private or public investment and labor, such as streets, buildings, and so forth, is not part of land in this definition. Land differs from other productive resources because it is immobile and its quantity is fixed.

Land exists not because people produce it, but because it’s there by nature. The price one pays for land, as contrasted with other resources, has no role in creating supply. Land is also unique in that no two pieces are the same, so the kind of analysis appropriate for labor and capital with fungible aspects is not applicable to land.

Another important element is the ability to control land use–for example, to receive rent as payment for access, rather than because the owner created anything. The person who controls land use can serve a constructive function by directing it into better instead of poorer uses, and I think there should be the prospect of rewards for doing so. Market forces will indicate demand, and one interested in public policy hopes that the land will be used in the best possible ways. The owner of desirable land will get higher returns, but not because of anything he or she did to create it.

Almost any urban use illustrates this. Some thirty or forty years ago, I was walking down Park Avenue and I saw a very fine building in a key location, 64th Street, I think, housing some offices of the New York City Board of Education—much too valuable a location to be used for administrative purposes. I raised this point with someone in the school system, and he said that they were moving out. They had come to the same economic realization.

Any use of land prevents another use. Holding land idle or partially idle affects not only the owner but neighbors and society at large. Others will have to travel further to get to work or to the grocery store or to school. Land is so crucial, so important to life, that society will be better off if there are forces, market forces or governmental forces, inducing better rather than poorer uses.

JY: How can the tax system encourage better land use?

LH: A tax system that imposes higher taxes on land creates pressure on owners to make more productive use of their land. I don’t like the term “land value tax,” because it emphasizes the tax aspect. My focus over the years has been on reducing the tax rates on structures to induce more investment in improvements. I have not emphasized increasing the tax rates on land to increase pressure for better land use, but these can go together. If the tax system can create a built-in inducement, year in and year out, for better use of land, that will be a plus. I don’t want to be unduly skeptical about more direct land use regulation, but government is politics and the political pressures that affect government regulation do not always represent mankind at its best.

JY: How would you deal with past improvements to land, before the implementation of a land-based tax?

LH: I would just establish the tax on the current condition of the land. The past is past. We’re not talking about a tax on capital gains but a recurring tax on an immobile resource. Some of its current value does reflect prior capital investment, the same as for structures, but I don’t see how to make any differentiation for an annual tax on land value. As a practical matter we have no market for land the way it was hundreds of years ago.

Going forward, it would be desirable to distinguish the value of unimproved land from the value of capital improvements to the land, such as infrastructure and grading, that aren’t viewed commonly as “buildings” but that represent investment and effort. The tax system should not create obstacles to investment. I would certainly be open to learning more about what might be administratively feasible in that regard.

JY: What about the taxation of farms, forests, and open space?

LH: Well, this raises complicated concerns. On one hand, I think it would be good to have additional pressure on some owners of agricultural land to speed up nonagricultural development, especially in the urban fringe. On the other hand, decisions about land use are often irreversible. Covering more acres in Westchester County, where I live, with asphalt and buildings will affect drainage for years to come. I think if anything there should be bias against decisions that are costly in the long run and difficult to reverse if conditions change. But it’s also pretty clear that interests vary, and what is in the interest of farmers is not always in the interest of the public as a whole.

Land is a large part of farm investment, and anticipated future income is reflected in land prices. The market value of land does not necessarily reflect current cash flow, so if taxes are high they may constitute a substantial portion of farm income. I’m sometimes considered not very sympathetic to farmers, because I think they have undue political influence.

The effect of many state and federal programs to benefit farms will be capitalized into higher land values. The consumer will pay forever, and the benefits will go to the person who owned the land when the policy was established. This is not a new conclusion. It’s been in the literature since farm programs began in the 1930s, but it has not affected the political decision-making process. Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts asked why the family farm deserves more consideration than the family shoe store, and I agree with the implication of his question.

JY: What about two people who own identical parcels of land, side by side, but one has a small, older house and the other has a new commercial building or shopping center? Many people think it’s unfair to impose the same tax on both.

LH: There are real problems here, too, partly because of imperfections in the capital markets. The person with unimproved land, let’s say it’s a widow, might ideally get a reverse mortgage to realize cash income from her property. The logical thing at that stage of life is to consume capital, for example, by drawing down retirement accounts. We have a systematic market that enables us to live off of our capital when it’s in the form of financial investments, but it’s not that well developed for the real estate market.

I always want to be sympathetic with the person who is having trouble, but wise public policy cannot be made well by concentrating on the extreme cases. Society needs to deal both with the cases of human need and with other problems such as the pressures on land use. Those whose land has become valuable, not because of what they did, but because of their neighborhood, are lucky, even though they may not recognize it. We need separate instruments to deal with separate problems, such as the person whose tax bill goes up even when his cash income does not.

Another aspect of the question is that the property tax is not a personal tax and cannot be evaluated on the same grounds as, say, an income tax. To attempt to do so can mislead. A rich person may own no land and a person with very little cash may own a good deal of land. There are ways to deal with the cash-flow problem, such as circuit breakers that limit property taxes to a certain percentage of income or deferral of tax payments until the property is sold.

JY: Is speculation a special concern? Is everyone who holds property with the hope that it will rise in value a speculator?

LH: I’ve always been reluctant to use the term “speculation,” and I certainly would not say that public policy should penalize the speculator. But, to the extent that government plays a role, I would say its bias should be toward use rather than idleness, and tax policy also supports this view. There is a whole range of speculation, from an owner deciding not to sell a house this week because of hopes for a better price next week, to holding a plot of ground idle in downtown Manhattan, knowing that someone is going to offer a very high price for it eventually.

The developer is presumably a constructive element in the total process. I don’t think anyone really wants equilibrium, but something better than what would be equilibrium. More people live better by reasonable standards now than was the case 20 or 100 years ago, and the real estate developer has played a part in that process. Sometimes it’s fashionable to be disparaging of developers, but we owe a lot to them. Maybe we’ve overpaid some of them, but plenty of them have lost their shirts. It can be a very risky business.

JY: How should the tax system treat government-financed improvements to land?

LH: In New York City, for example, I don’t know how much of the cost of building and extending subways could be borne by taxing the increments of the land value in the neighborhood, but probably a good deal. It’s not going to slow down progress to use those land value increases to help finance the expansion of the subway system.

We need to distinguish, however, between year-in, year-out financing of government by taxes on land and more or less one-time charges. That is, if the subway system is extended, there will be immediate capital gains as well as a long-term increase in the property tax base. Each of these effects deserves consideration in public policy.

JY: What is the difference between someone who invests in a piece of land and then watches as the price of land rises and someone who invests in a stock and then watches the stock market rise?

LH: Well, as far as income taxation is concerned I would think they are the same, but for financing local government they’re very different. The land stays in place, yet the stockholder can move. The ability of the landowner and stockholder to pay may be the same, but that isn’t the only relevant consideration. In thinking about how to tax gains you need to take into account whether the taxpayer can move from the jurisdiction.

I think that taxing people annually to finance local government, based on their ownership of land, is good public policy. The effort to apply that same principle to intangibles was a complete failure in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, because you can’t tax people locally on the basis of resources that are so mobile.

The distinction here is not between earned and unearned income. For income tax purposes the tax is applied after a sale when the owners have realized their gain. But, to finance schools and other services you don’t want to rely on residents’ decisions about whether or not to sell their land. You want a permanent and steady source of tax revenue.

This is quite different from the question of unearned income, that is, whether or not the owner grew rich in his sleep. If the Astors became rich from owning land in Manhattan, but paid their property taxes year in and year out, well, so be it. I think that the property tax can take only a very limited account of differences in wealth. The administrative difficulties of a net wealth tax could be enormous. And the identification of a property tax with a tax on wealth or net worth is, I think, diverting and dangerous. It shifts attention from the goal of financing government to issues of personal status and relative position.

JY: Could you say more about the problem of jurisdictions competing for business by offering tax reductions?

LH: It seems to me there is no need for property tax exemptions on land. Special concessions may be appropriate for buildings, as an acceptable means of competition, but I’m dubious and favor broad reduction of taxes on structures. In any case, the land is not going to move. If you give concessions for land, they will tend to be capitalized into capital gains for the present owners. Under a two-rate land and buildings tax system, any concessions should be made on the basis of the variable resource, which is the building value. Inducements are not going to create more land, but they might create more structures. In this way, economic development incentives might be more effective under a land tax.

For many years, researchers have puzzled over the causes and consequences of voter-approved tax and expenditure limits (TELs), a fiscal rule that weakens the ability of elected officials to raise revenues or make expenditures.

Municipalities around the country face a daunting fiscal crisis. Federal stimulus assistance has expired, and many states have made significant cuts in aid to municipalities. Meanwhile property values have declined 31 percent since their 2006 peak according to the S&P/Case-Shiller national home price index.

It will take several years to know how this historic decline will affect property tax revenues, because changes in property tax bills significantly lag changes in market values. However, cities faced declines in general fund revenues of 2.5 percent in 2009, and approximately 3.2 percent declines in 2010 (Hoene 2009; Hoene and Pagano 2010). Municipal responses to revenue shortfalls have included making cuts to personnel (71 percent of cities), delaying or cancelling capital projects (68 percent), and making across the board cuts (35 percent) (McFarland 2010).

To avoid further cuts, municipalities will need to raise additional revenues. But with anti-tax sentiment running high, many cities and towns may try to avoid raising tax rates and look instead to increased reliance on fees and other alternative revenue sources. One alternative that has attracted the attention of many local officials recently is payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) by nonprofit organizations.

PILOTs are voluntary payments made by tax-exempt nonprofits as a substitute for property taxes. These payments typically result from negotiations between local government officials and individual nonprofits, but the exact arrangements vary widely. PILOTs can be formal, long-term contracts, routine annual payments, or irregular one-time payments. The payments can go into a municipality’s general fund, or be directed to a specific project or program. PILOTs are most frequently made by hospitals, colleges, and universities, but also by nonprofit retirement homes, low-income housing facilities, cultural institutions, fitness centers, and churches. Some such payments are not even called PILOTs, but are know as “voluntary contributions” or “service fees.”

Since 2000, PILOTs have been used in at least 117 municipalities in at least 18 states (Kenyon and Langley 2010). These payments are concentrated in the Northeast, and especially in Massachusetts where they have been made in 82 out of 351 municipalities (figure 1). It is hard to make definitive statements about trends in the use of PILOTs, because there is no comprehensive source that tracks them, but press accounts suggest growing interest in PILOTs since the early 1990s, with a noticeable uptick in recent years. Major multiyear agreements have recently been reached in Pittsburgh and Baltimore; commissions have studied PILOTs in Boston, New Orleans, and Providence; and many smaller municipalities have reached new agreements with local charities.

The Revenue Potential of PILOTs

The revenue potential of PILOTs varies across municipalities because of large differences in the impact of the charitable property tax exemption on their tax bases. Figure 2 shows that in 23 large U.S. cities the value of tax-exempt nonprofit property as a share of total property value ranged from 10.8 percent in Philadelphia to 1.9 percent in Memphis and El Paso. Similarly, a fiscal year 2003 study of 351 municipalities in Massachusetts found that if the tax exemption for charitable and educational nonprofits were removed, these organizations would account for more than 10 percent of the property tax levy in 18 municipalities and between 2.5 and 10 percent in another 68, but less than 1 percent of the tax levy in 179 municipalities (McArdle and Demirai 2004).

Since nonprofit property tends to be highly concentrated in a relatively small number of municipalities, especially central cities and college towns, PILOTs have the potential to be a very important revenue source for some municipalities, even if they are unlikely to play a significant role in financing local government in the majority of cities and towns. Table 1 looks at PILOTs in ten municipalities where they rarely account for more than 1 percent of total revenues, but the dollar figures are often significant.

The impact of the charitable property tax exemption on municipal budgets also depends on the degree of reliance on property taxes as a revenue source. Local governments with a heavier reliance on sales and excise taxes, user fees, or state aid are in a better position to deal with forgone property tax revenues through those other sources.

Collaboration on PILOT Agreements

In seeking PILOT agreements, local officials sometimes resort to adversarial pressure tactics, which can backfire and jeopardize important relationships between municipalities and nonprofits. A more collaborative approach is usually more successful when local officials work to build genuine support among nonprofits for a PILOT program that is rooted in shared interests and mutual dependence for each other’s long-term success.

Many large nonprofits like hospitals and universities are quite immobile, and other smaller nonprofits may be committed to serving their local communities even if they could relocate with relative ease. The long-term success of these organizations depends on the municipality’s success. Because population loss, crime, and crumbling infrastructure can imperil a nonprofit’s future, having a local government with the capacity to provide quality public services is in its own self-interest.

Similarly, nonprofits are often major employers and provide services and activities that attract people to a city and improve the quality of life for local residents. Thus, the success of these organizations is also crucial for a municipality’s future. Even if the nonprofits are tax-exempt, their presence can significantly expand the local tax base by attracting businesses and homeowners.

Recognition of these shared interests by both sides is crucial to reaching sustainable PILOT agreements. Private conversations between high-ranking municipal and nonprofit officials can help break down barriers that sometimes block PILOTs. To make the case for PILOTs, municipalities often appeal to the nonprofits’ sense of fairness and community responsibility—arguing that it is fair for nonprofits to pay for the cost of public services they consume, and that a contribution will directly benefit the community.

These conversations should also touch on what the nonprofits need for their future success. In practice, municipalities are often most successful in obtaining PILOTs when nonprofits need something from the local government, such as building permits or zoning changes. The quid pro quo nature of these agreements is often viewed negatively—as a form of extortion or special treatment. However, accommodating these requests is often in a municipality’s own interest.

For major nonprofit development projects, a shortened approval process with less red tape can cut overall costs significantly, and such discussions can result in more creative arrangements. For example, as part of a 20-year PILOT agreement with Clark University, the City of Worcester, Massachusetts agreed to work with the university to convert a short section of a street into a pedestrian area.

When local officials use more aggressive tactics to obtain PILOTs, such as trying to shame nonprofits into making payments or threatening to challenge their tax-exempt status in court, the organizations may become defensive and less willing to cooperate. Charitable nonprofits have a strong record of defending their property tax exemptions, so such divisive tactics are likely to leave a municipality with no PILOT, potentially significant legal fees, and a damaged reputation.

Problems with PILOTs

PILOTs have the potential to provide crucial revenue for municipalities with large nonprofit sectors, but there are many problems with these payments compared to more conventional taxes and fees.

First, at the same time that municipalities face a fiscal crisis caused by the recession, nonprofits face their own fiscal crisis due to declining endowment values and donations. In addition, government contracts—a major funding source for health and human service nonprofits—were cut, and some government entities are delaying contracts or payments. A 2009 survey found that 80 percent of nonprofit organizations were experiencing fiscal stress in the wake of the recession (Center for Civil Society Studies 2009). To nonprofits facing uncertain financial futures, it appears unfair for local governments to begin requesting PILOTs at this time (National Council of Nonprofits 2010).

Second, some degree of horizontal and vertical inequity in PILOT programs is almost inevitable, because their voluntary nature means there is no way to ensure that nonprofits with similar property values make comparable PILOTs. For example, even with Boston’s long-standing PILOT program, the four largest universities in the city made very different contributions in fiscal year 2009. Boston University paid $4,892,138 (8.53 percent of what it would pay in property taxes if taxable); Harvard University paid $1,996,977 (4.99 percent); Boston College paid $293,251 (1.92 percent); and Northeastern University paid only $30,571 (0.08 percent).

Third, PILOTs are a limited and frequently unreliable revenue source, rarely accounting for more than 1 percent of total revenues. This limited revenue potential must be weighed against some potentially significant costs associated with reaching PILOT agreements, such as upfront administrative costs, time spent by high-ranking officials negotiating agreements, or costs to obtain accurate assessments of exempt properties. PILOTs can also be an unreliable revenue source from one year to the next if they rely on short-term agreements.

Finally, the process used to reach PILOT agreements is often contentious and secretive, with contributions determined in an ad hoc manner lacking objective criteria. A collaborative approach can make PILOT requests less controversial, but reliance on private conversations also makes the process less transparent.

Systematic Programs to Mitigate Problems

Many of these problems with PILOTs can be mitigated if municipalities set up a systematic program that does not rely solely on case-by-case negotiation, especially for municipalities with a large number of nonprofits. A framework that applies to all organizations can provide guidance and bring consistency to the negotiations with individual nonprofits. The recommendations of Boston’s PILOT Task Force provide a concrete example (box 1).

Baltimore, Maryland: The city reached a $20 million six-year PILOT agreement with hospitals and universities in June 2010, with $5.4 million to be paid in each of the first two years. In return, the city dropped a proposed $350 fee per dorm and hospital bed, and protected hospitals and universities from increases in telecommunications and energy tax rates over the next six years (Walker and Scharper 2010).

Boston, Massachusetts: Beginning in January 2009, a task force of representatives from nonprofits, city government, business, labor, and the community met with a goal of making the city’s existing PILOT program more consistent. The final report has recommendations on key features of a systematic PILOT program: only nonprofits with property values exceeding a $15 million threshold are included in the program; the target PILOT for each institution is equal to 25 percent of what it would pay in property taxes, because roughly one-quarter of the city’s budget is devoted to core public services that benefit nonprofits; assessed value is used as a basis for the payments; and guidelines determine which types of services will count for community benefit offsets (City of Boston 2010).

New Orleans, Louisiana: A Tax Fairness Commission has been tasked with recommending changes to make the city’s tax system fairer and to broaden the tax base. While the commission may consider PILOTs, it is particularly interested in narrowing the nonprofit property tax exemption (Nolan 2011). Louisiana has a very broad charitable exemption compared to most states, with all properties owned by eligible institutions exempt from taxation regardless of use, including those not typically tax-exempt such as fraternal organizations, labor unions, and trade associations (Bureau of Government Research 1999).

Providence, Rhode Island: The mayor and city council members sought to increase the amount of PILOTs from the city’s four colleges and universities, but the Commission to Study Tax-Exempt Institutions (2010) recommended against renegotiating the 20-year $48 million PILOT agreement reached in 2003. Instead the commission recommended that the city should focus on forming partnerships with local nonprofits to foster economic growth, and the state should provide full funding of its PILOT program and provide Providence with a share of new income and sales tax revenues that result from nonprofit expansion.

Municipalities interested in establishing a systematic PILOT program should consider the following features.

Use a threshold level of property value or annual revenues to determine which nonprofits to include in the PILOT program. Excluding from PILOT requests certain types of nonprofits, such as religious organizations or small social service providers, may be a popular notion, but it can result in arbitrarily targeting some nonprofits while ignoring others. A more systematic policy with a threshold approach is easy to administer and will exclude only those nonprofits that do not meet the financial threshold to make significant contributions, rather than favor some organizations based on the nature of their activities.

Set a target for contributions that is justified. Instead of reaching an arbitrary dollar figure in negotiations, a target that applies to all nonprofits in the program can reduce horizontal inequities and may raise more revenue by creating the expectation for a certain contribution. For example, the target can be justified by estimating the cost of local public services that directly benefit nonprofits, such as police and fire protection and street maintenance.

Use a basis to calculate suggested payments. Using a basis with the rate set to reach the target contribution will also promote consistency. The fairest basis is the assessed value of exempt property, because the PILOT request will be proportional to the tax savings each organization receives from the property tax exemption. However, municipalities that want to avoid having to accurately assess tax-exempt properties can use another basis, such as the square footage of property or the organization’s annual revenues.

Include community benefit offsets, so nonprofits can reduce their target cash PILOTs in return for providing certain public services for local residents. Charitable nonprofits are typically more willing to provide in-kind services than to make PILOTs, and are well positioned to leverage their existing expertise and resources to provide needed services. For example, nonprofit hospitals can set up free health clinics, and universities can establish after-school tutoring programs. Local officials should be clear and consistent about which services are most needed by local residents and will count for community benefit offsets, and should rely on nonprofits to estimate the cash value of these donated in-kind services.

Reach long-term PILOT agreements. Both municipalities and nonprofits are better off with a long-term approach that allows them to build predictable payments into their respective budgets. Additionally, because PILOT requests can require considerable time to negotiate, both parties will benefit from reaching an agreement and then moving on to focus on their primary missions and perhaps other partnerships to serve the community. Several municipalities have 20- or 30-year PILOT agreements in place.

Alternatives to PILOTs

Given some of the common problems with PILOTs, municipalities with large nonprofit sectors that face revenue shortfalls may want to consider alternative revenue-raising measures.

Increase reliance on traditional user fees or special assessments. This alternative may be the most palatable in the current anti-tax climate. One consideration favoring this option is that nonprofits are typically not exempt from these charges, so increasing reliance on such sources will obtain revenue from a broad group of entities, including tax-exempt nonprofits. For example, a municipality could finance garbage collection through a fee instead of the property tax, or use special assessments to pay for sewer hookups in new subdivisions.

Establish municipal service fees. Some municipalities have carved out specific services that are normally funded through property taxes and instead charged nonprofits a fee for the service. These fees may or may not be assessed solely against tax-exempt nonprofits, and they often use a basis for the payments related to the size of the property rather than the assessed value. For example, Rochester, New York, has a local works charge to fund snowplowing and street repair. It is applied to both taxable and tax-exempt organizations using the property’s street frontage as the basis. Minneapolis, Minnesota, has a street maintenance fee that also uses square footage as the basis, but is only charged to nongovernmental tax-exempt properties.

Develop agreements for needed services. Local officials can decide not to pursue cash PILOTs, but instead develop formal partnerships with nonprofits to provide specific services for local residents or work together to foster economic development. Direct provision of needed services, sometimes known as services in lieu of taxes or SILOTs, will help the fiscal situation of the municipality in the short run, while joint efforts to foster economic development can have significant long-run benefits.

Expand the tax options for municipalities. This final alternative would require a change in state law in many instances. Some municipalities across the country have the ability to levy sales taxes, special excise taxes such as hotel taxes, income taxes, or payroll taxes. But most cities in the Northeast do not have these alternative tax sources, and are especially reliant on the property tax, which can be problematic if the tax-exempt sector is large or growing rapidly.

Conclusion

PILOTs have the potential to provide crucial revenue for municipalities that have a significant share of total property value owned by tax-exempt nonprofits, both as a stop-gap in the current municipal fiscal crisis and in the future. However, PILOTs rarely account for more than 1 or 2 percent of municipal revenues, so expecting these payments to eliminate local government deficits is unrealistic. Furthermore, singling out nonprofits to help address a municipal fiscal crisis is unfair since they face their own challenges due to the recent recession.

Local officials who do want to pursue PILOT agreements must tread carefully if they want to avoid some common pitfalls. First, PILOT requests can be highly contentious when local officials resort to heavy-handed pressure tactics to reach agreements. It is preferable for local officials to work collaboratively with nonprofit leaders to craft PILOT agreements that serve their mutual interests. Second, the voluntary nature of PILOTs limits the revenue potential of these agreements, results in inconsistent treatment of nonprofits, and leads to other problems. Municipalities with a large number of nonprofits can mitigate these problems by establishing a systematic PILOT program to provide guidance and bring consistency to their negotiations with individual nonprofits.

About the Authors

Daphne A. Kenyon is a visiting fellow in the Lincoln Institute’s Department of Valuation and Taxation and principal of D. A. Kenyon & Associates, Windham, New Hampshire.

Adam H. Langley is a research analyst in the Lincoln Institute’s Department of Valuation and Taxation and a master’s student in economics at Boston University.

References

Bureau of Government Research. 1999. Property tax exemption and assessment administration in Orleans parish. New Orleans, LA.

Center for Civil Society Studies. 2009. Impact of the 2007-09 Economic Recession on Nonprofit Organizations. Communique No. 14. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University for Policy Studies. June 29.

City of Boston. 2010. Mayor’s PILOT task force: Final report and recommendations. December.

Commission to Study Tax-Exempt Institutions. 2010. A call to build the capital city partnership for economic growth: Report to the Providence City Council from the Commission to Study Tax-Exempt Institutions. Providence, RI. November.

Hoene, Christopher W. 2009. City budget shortfalls and responses: projections for 2010-2012. Washington, DC: National League of Cities.

Hoene, Christopher W. and Michael A. Pagano. 2010. Research brief: City fiscal conditions in 2010. Washington, DC: National League of Cities.

Kenyon, Daphne A. and Adam H. Langley. 2010. Payments in lieu of taxes: Balancing municipal and nonprofit interests. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Lipman, Harvy. 2006. The value of a tax break. The Chronicle of Philanthropy 19(4): 13.

McArdle, Regina, and Donna Demirai. 2004. A study of charitable and educational property tax exemptions. City and Town, January. Boston: Massachusetts Department of Revenue, Division of Local Services.

McFarland, Christiana. 2010. State of America’s cities survey on jobs and the economy. Washington, DC: National League of Cities.

National Council of Nonprofits. 2010. State budget crises: Ripping the safety net held by nonprofits. Washington DC. March 16.

Nolan, Bruce. 2011. N.O. Tax Fairness Commission begins rethinking property taxes. The Times-Picayune. February 3.

Walker, Andrea K., and Julie Scharper. 2010. Baltimore City Council committee backs $15 million in new taxes; deal with hospitals and universities announced for $20 million more. Baltimore Sun. June 10.

La conversión del suelo de producción agrícola a desarrollo urbano e industrial es uno de los procesos de cambio críticos en las economías en vías de desarrollo que experimentan la industrialización, urbanización y globalización. Los cambios en el uso del suelo urbano que están ocurriendo en China han atraído la atención de muchos académicos, especialmente en vista de las grandes reformas económicas, el significativo crecimiento económico y los profundos cambios estructurales que han tenido lugar en las últimas tres décadas. La transición de una economía planificada a una economía de mercado, y de un gobierno provincial y municipal autoritario a un tipo de gobierno más descentralizado ha generado un nuevo marco institucional para los cambios del uso del suelo (Lin y Ho 2005).

La opinión general es la de calificar el cambio del uso del suelo como resultado del crecimiento económico y de los cambios estructurales. Este punto de vista está alineado con el modelo de crecimiento neoclásico en el que el suelo cumple un papel cada vez menor en el crecimiento económico. No obstante, estos cambios en el uso del suelo pueden ser tanto la consecuencia del crecimiento económico como los factores impulsores de dicho crecimiento (Bai, Chen y Shi 2011; Ding y Lichtenberg 2011).

Pero la realidad resulta mucho más compleja. En lugar de estar impulsada por una población en crecimiento, la expansión del suelo urbano en China está motivada por el financiamiento de suelo, en virtud del cual los gobiernos municipales recaudan ingresos y atraen inversiones mediante el arrendamiento y desarrollo de terrenos. Como resultado, la política urbana centrada en el suelo se ha identificado con una de las fuerzas impulsoras más importantes de la espectacular expansión de las ciudades desde mediados de la década de 1990 (Lin 2007). La oferta de suelos agrícolas para fines no relacionados con la agricultura permite de hecho al gobierno municipal “matar varios pájaros de un tiro” (Ping 2011). En consecuencia, el desarrollo del suelo fomenta el crecimiento económico, especialmente en áreas urbanizadas.

Los cambios en el uso del suelo en China también se ven afectados en gran manera por las políticas de oferta de terrenos, que se han visto ajustadas en forma regular a fin de suplir la demanda del desarrollo económico. La oferta ilegal de terrenos es una de las causas principales de una inversión excesiva y descontrolada, que se produce cuando el gobierno municipal no ofrece terrenos a las personas que utilizan el suelo de acuerdo con los planes de uso del suelo en curso o después del permiso definitivo del gobierno central. Como resultado, el gobierno central comenzó a utilizar las políticas de suelo como herramienta fundamental del control macroeconómico nacional a fines del año 2003.

Entre otras medidas, la transferencia de terrenos se ha llevado a cabo mediante subastas o licitaciones desde 2004, y la política sobre oferta de terrenos dio un giro desde el control de la cantidad al control estructural desde 2006. Los índices sobre el uso del suelo distribuidos por el gobierno central a los gobiernos municipales sólo hacían hincapié en la cantidad de terrenos antes de 2006; sin embargo, en la actualidad, la distribución de los usos del suelo en categorías la realiza el gobierno central, que define, incluso, hasta la intensidad del uso del suelo.

Este legado puede observarse en la decisión del Consejo de Estado de establecer el sistema altamente centralizado de Supervisión Estatal del Suelo (SES) en 2006. Se crearon nueve oficinas regionales nuevas, encargadas de investigar la oferta ilegal de terrenos en todo el país (Tao y otros 2010). La nueva política de suelo ha representado un papel activo en la mejora del uso del suelo, mediante la prohibición de arrendamiento de suelo para proyectos que no se encuentren en línea con la política industrial nacional, los planes de desarrollo y las normas de ingreso. Con posterioridad a la introducción de estas reformas y gracias a un estricto control, se ha reducido significativamente la cantidad de suelo ofrecido de manera ilegal, mientras que el PIB generado por unidad de suelo desarrollable ha aumentado sustancialmente (Centro de Derecho sobre Recursos de Suelo y Mineros de China 2007). Se espera que esta estricta política de suelo tenga un impacto significativo en el patrón espacial del uso del suelo y tenga efectos sobre la relación existente entre los cambios en el uso del suelo y el crecimiento económico en China.

Cambios en los patrones de uso del suelo en China

La política de suelo en China ha sufrido cambios drásticos desde 2004, por lo que podría también esperarse un patrón diferente del uso del suelo desde entonces. En base a los datos oficiales a nivel de condado de 2004 a 2008, examinamos los cambios en el uso del suelo de las ciudades a nivel de prefectura y analizamos la relación espacial entre los cambios en el uso del suelo y el crecimiento económico. Los datos oficiales sobre cambios en el uso del suelo se dividen en varias categorías de uso del suelo dentro de tres niveles todos los años. El primer nivel incluye el suelo agrícola, el suelo para construcción y el suelo sin utilizar. El segundo nivel incluye diez categorías de utilización del suelo. El tercer nivel incluye 52 subcategorías.

La tabla 1 muestra los cambios en el uso del suelo a nivel nacional de 2004 a 2008, período durante el cual se reconvirtió una mayor cantidad de suelo para usos de construcción, mientras que la cantidad de suelo agrícola y suelo sin utilizar disminuyó. Entre las categorías de suelo agrícola, el suelo para pastoreo y el suelo cultivado se redujeron en 12,69 millones de mu (0,85 millones de hectáreas) y 11,27 millones de mu (0,75 millones de hectáreas), respectivamente. El suelo sin utilizar se redujo en 17,91 millones de mu (1,19 millones de hectáreas).

Debido a las recientes y rápidas industrialización y urbanización, no es de sorprender que las reconversiones de suelo que se llevaron a cabo a mayor velocidad en China hayan sido las destinadas para uso de construcción, que sumaron 18,83 millones de mu (1,26 millones de hectáreas). En la categoría de asentamientos y emplazamientos industriales y mineros, las ciudades, las ciudades designadas y los emplazamientos industriales y mineros fueron los que experimentaron una expansión del suelo más rápida, llegando a tasas de crecimiento del 19,61 por ciento, 13,33 por ciento y 12,42 por ciento, respectivamente, mientras que la superficie de suelo destinada a asentamientos rurales disminuyó. Asimismo, grandes cantidades de suelo se reconvirtieron para su utilización en el transporte, particularmente para la construcción de autopistas.

El presente análisis a nivel nacional oculta diferentes variaciones espaciales en los cambios en el uso del suelo en provincias y regiones concretas (figura 1). Así, analizamos los cambios en el uso del suelo a nivel provincial, centrándonos en los cambios acaecidos en el suelo cultivado, el suelo urbano (que incluye ciudades y pueblos designados), los emplazamientos industriales y mineros autónomos, los asentamientos rurales y el suelo para transporte destinado a autopistas.

La figura 2 muestra que la pérdida de suelo cultivado se dio principalmente en la región este y central de China. El crecimiento económico, la urbanización y la industrialización se han acelerado en las provincias de Hebei, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Guangdong y Guangxi, donde la mayor parte del suelo cultivado se reconvirtió con fines urbanos, industriales y de transporte. Las provincias de Shanxi, Shaanxi, Chongqing y Sichuan también experimentaron una rápida reconversión de su suelo cultivado para fines de actividades no relacionadas con la agricultura. Dichas provincias se encuentran en el cinturón geográfico de transición en China, donde el suelo cultivado es la mejor opción a la hora de realizar proyectos de construcción y desarrollo. Por el contrario, las provincias del interior, tales como Tíbet, Qinghai, Xinjiang, Mongolia interior y Heilongjiang, experimentaron ciertos incrementos en el suelo cultivado.

El suelo destinado a asentamientos rurales se ve influenciado tanto por las nuevas políticas sobre el campo y el crecimiento de los ingresos rurales. El aumento en los ingresos ha tenido un impacto sobre la reconversión del suelo para asentamientos rurales en las provincias del este, como Guangdong, Fujian, Zhejiang, Guangxi, Hebei y Tianjin, y en ciertas provincias del interior, como Heilongjiang, Mongolia interior, Xinjiang, Qinghai, Tíbet, Yunnan, Guizhou, Hubei y Shanxi. Sin embargo, algunas provincias experimentaron descensos significativos en la cantidad de terrenos utilizados para asentamientos rurales, particularmente en Jiangsu, Jiangxi y Anhui. Este descenso puede tener relación con las nuevas políticas sobre el campo, que literalmente han obligado a los campesinos a mudarse a las ciudades.

La urbanización y la industrialización son los principales motores de la expansión del suelo no destinado a usos agrícolas en China. La tasa de urbanización creció del 40,50 por ciento al 45,68 por ciento entre 2004 y 2008, período en el que todas las provincias experimentaron una expansión del suelo urbano e industrial (figura 3). No obstante, la mayor parte de la expansión del suelo urbano se dio al sur del río Yangtze. En el norte, sólo Shandong, Anhui y Jiangsu experimentaron cambios importantes en el suelo urbano e industrial.

El rápido crecimiento de la cantidad de suelo utilizado para emplazamientos industriales y mineros se observa principalmente en las provincias del este, tanto en términos de cambios absolutos como relativos, en concreto en Fujian, Jiangsu, Zhejiang y Hebei (figura 4). Con tasas de crecimiento relativamente menores, Guangdong, Shandong y Liaoning experimentaron también la reconversión de una gran cantidad de suelo para emplazamientos industriales y mineros. Las provincias de Mongolia interior, Qinghai y Tíbet en el oeste del país experimentaron un rápido crecimiento de terrenos para emplazamientos industriales y mineros, aunque se observó un bajo crecimiento absoluto.

De 2004 a 2008, China dio un gran impulso al desarrollo de redes de transporte mediante la construcción de nuevos ferrocarriles y autopistas para sostener el crecimiento económico. A nivel nacional, el suelo destinado al transporte creció cerca de 10 por ciento durante dicho período. En muchas provincias se observó un crecimiento más rápido en la cantidad de suelo utilizado para el transporte que en el país en su conjunto, incluyendo Mongolia interior, Hebei, Qinghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian, Chongqing, Hubei, Anhui, Jiangxi y Guangxi. La confiscación de terrenos para construir autopistas se concentró principalmente en las provincias del este, y los mayores aumentos absolutos se dieron en las provincias de Zhejiang, Jiangsu y Hebei.

En general, China ha experimentado cambios muy importantes en el uso del suelo, en concreto en las provincias del este y en algunas de la región central. El patrón espacial de cambios en el uso del suelo es coherente con el cambio espacial del crecimiento económico, ya que las provincias del este gozan de ventajas institucionales y de ubicación y economías de aglomeración. Estas provincias han atraído la mayor parte de las inversiones extranjeras, particularmente aquellas relacionadas con las industrias que utilizan el capital y la tecnología de forma intensiva, y son las exportadoras líderes de los productos chinos.

La aceptación dentro de la Organización Mundial de Comercio ha redundado en aún mayores beneficios para las industrias ubicadas en la región este de China, ya que tienen mayor acceso a los mercados internacionales. Por otro lado, a medida que las industrias continúan aglomerándose, la región este ha experimentado un aumento en los costos del suelo, de la mano de obra y del medio ambiente, obligando a algunas industrias tradicionales a mudarse a las provincias centrales. Algunas de estas áreas recientemente han atraído inversiones y han experimentado un crecimiento económico más rápido, lo que elevó su nivel de importancia entre las economías regionales de China.

Correlaciones entre los cambios en el uso del suelo y el crecimiento económico

A fin de investigar la relación existente entre los cambios en el uso del suelo y el crecimiento económico de forma sistemática en todas las ciudades y provincias, calculamos los coeficientes de correlación entre la tasa de crecimiento del PIB de 2005 a 2009 y la tasa de cambios en diferentes categorías de suelo. La extensión de dicha correlación puede depender de diferentes factores económicos, de ubicación e institucionales. Analizamos el impacto que tiene el tamaño de la ciudad, la ubicación, la estructura industrial, la cantidad de inversiones extranjeras directas (IED) y las limitaciones en la oferta de terrenos sobre la relación existente entre los cambios en el uso del suelo y el crecimiento económico. Los coeficientes de correlación se calculan además utilizando submuestras de las ciudades clasificadas según dichos factores.

Los resultados inesperados muestran que sólo existen unos pocos, y pequeños, coeficientes de correlación significativos entre la tasa de cambios en el uso del suelo y la tasa de crecimiento económico (He, Huang y Wang 2012). Los cambios en el suelo destinado a otros tipos de transporte (tales como aeropuertos, puertos y ductos) poseen un coeficiente significativamente positivo. Los coeficientes de correlación para suelo urbano, emplazamientos industriales y mineros, ferrocarriles y autopistas resultaron apenas significativos.

Algunas evidencias muestran que el tamaño de la ciudad, la ubicación geográfica, la situación fiscal, la oferta de terrenos y las IED realizadas pueden moderar la correlación existente entre los cambios en el uso del suelo y el crecimiento económico. Por ejemplo, la expansión del suelo urbano se relaciona con el crecimiento económico de manera positiva en la región central de China, pero de manera negativa en las regiones del este y el oeste. Los emplazamientos industriales y mineros autónomos aumentan significativamente junto con el crecimiento económico en el oeste de la China. Sin embargo, en general, la correlación entre la tasa de cambios en el uso del suelo y el crecimiento económico es algo débil.

Dado que el suelo puede tomarse como un factor en la función productora, la cantidad de suelo puede contribuir en forma directa al crecimiento del PIB. Calculamos los coeficientes de correlación entre el crecimiento absoluto del PIB de 2005 a 2009 y los cambios absolutos en el uso del suelo de 2004 a 2008 a fin de analizar esta relación y descubrir si presentan una estrecha correlación. A nivel nacional, la reconversión de una mayor cantidad de suelo cultivado para fines no relacionados con la agricultura contribuye significativamente al crecimiento absoluto del PIB, con un coeficiente de correlación de -0,26. Una mayor cantidad de suelo para uso urbano y para fines industriales y mineros se relaciona en forma significativa y positiva con los aumentos en el PIB.

La existencia de coeficientes de correlación significativos entre los cambios en el uso del suelo y el crecimiento económico sugiere que el suelo ha sido un importante factor impulsor del crecimiento económico, aunque dicho aporte positivo se ve moderado por diferentes factores, tales como el tamaño de la ciudad, la ubicación, la estructura industrial, la situación fiscal y la utilización de IED. Se observa que la reconversión de suelo cultivado para fines no relacionados con la agricultura contribuye al crecimiento económico, especialmente en ciudades de más de 5 millones de habitantes, que realizaron IED por más de US$200 millones, y que poseen mayores limitaciones en el suelo para fines agrícolas, un dominio de la industria secundaria y una ubicación en la región central de China.

Claramente, el suelo no agrícola es más productivo que el suelo cultivado en las ciudades grandes e industriales. En los últimos años, a medida que la implementación de políticas del gobierno central se centró en el desarrollo de la región central de China, las provincias del interior han atraído mayores inversiones, tanto nacionales como extranjeras, y han experimentado un rápido crecimiento económico a medida que el suelo cultivado se ha ido reconvirtiendo para usos urbano e industrial.

En términos comparativos, la expansión del suelo urbano posee una mayor correlación con el crecimiento del PIB en las ciudades más pequeñas y en aquellas ubicadas en el interior. Estos tipos de ciudades tienen más probabilidades de depender del arrendamiento de suelos a fin de generar ingresos municipales, ya que enfrentan mayores limitaciones fiscales. En dichas áreas, la acumulación de capital derivada del arrendamiento de suelos es una típica estrategia de desarrollo municipal. Además, la expansión del suelo urbano cumple una importante función para estimular el crecimiento económico cuando las limitaciones fiscales son mayores, la oferta de terrenos se encuentra estrictamente controlada, dominan las industrias terciarias y se utilizan más inversiones extranjeras. La expansión del suelo industrial también contribuye de manera significativa al crecimiento económico, especialmente en las ciudades que tienen más limitaciones fiscales y más actividades industriales.

La reciente explosión experimentada en el desarrollo de infraestructura del transporte también ha contribuido al crecimiento económico. El aumento del suelo para construir autopistas ha estimulado el crecimiento económico sin ningún tipo de límites. Las ciudades ubicadas en las regiones del oeste y aquellas que presenten un bajo nivel de recaudación fiscal son las que más se benefician de las nuevas autopistas, mientras que la expansión del ferrocarril se relaciona en menor medida con el crecimiento económico. La construcción de otros tipos de infraestructura de transporte (aeropuertos, puertos, ductos) ha representado un papel fundamental para facilitar el crecimiento económico en ciudades más pequeñas y ubicadas hacia el este, así como también en aquellas ciudades cuyas economías se encuentran dominadas por las industrias de servicios.

El análisis de correlación ofrece pruebas claras que demuestran que el aumento de suelo urbano, industrial y para fines de transporte se relaciona de forma significativa y positiva con el crecimiento económico. La reconversión de suelo cultivado ha contribuido a la expansión económica en varias regiones de China; no obstante, la importancia de la ampliación del suelo no destinado a actividades agrícolas en función del crecimiento económico se encuentra moderada por condiciones sociales, económicas y geográficas.

Conclusión y debate

Desde la implementación de su reforma económica, China ha perseguido un modelo de crecimiento basado en el uso intensivo de recursos que ha obligado al suelo a cumplir un papel fundamental en el sostenimiento de su rápido crecimiento económico. Esto ha dado como resultado una gran oferta de suelo desarrollable y una rápida reconversión de suelos agrícolas en suelos no relacionados con la agricultura. En China, el suelo no es sólo el resultado del crecimiento económico sino también su motor.

La conversión del suelo cultivado para fines no agrícolas se ha concentrado en las regiones del este y del centro del país. Con la implementación de nuevas estrategias de desarrollo del campo y la imposición de limitaciones más estrictas en cuanto a la oferta de terrenos, China ha experimentado una reducción de los asentamientos rurales en la mayor parte de la región central y noreste. La expansión del suelo urbano e industrial ha dominado los cambios del uso del suelo en todo el país. El desarrollo del transporte, incluyendo nuevas autopistas, ferrocarriles, aeropuertos, puertos y ductos, también ha sido una de las principales causas de consumo de terrenos en los últimos años, particularmente en las regiones este y central.

El análisis de componentes principales en base a los datos sobre cambios en el uso del suelo de las ciudades a nivel de prefectura indicó una significativa variación espacial en los cambios en el uso del suelo entre las ciudades chinas y demuestra que tienen una autocorrelación espacial. El análisis de correlación también demostró una débil relación entre la tasa de crecimiento del PIB y la tasa de cambios en el uso del suelo. Sin embargo, en términos absolutos los cambios en el uso del suelo y el crecimiento del PIB presentan una fuerte correlación, lo que indica que la cantidad de terrenos constituye un factor fundamental en el crecimiento económico.

Por lo general, las teorías occidentales sobre crecimiento económico consideran que el suelo cumple una función marginal en el crecimiento económico. Nuestro análisis exploratorio sugiere que, en China, se da la situación contraria. A medida que China se urbaniza, se industrializa y se globaliza, va experimentando cambios significativos en el uso del suelo que presentan una correlación con el crecimiento económico. Esta relación significativa se asocia a los particulares sistemas de propiedad estatal del suelo y de derechos de uso del suelo en China. Como tal, el suelo puede utilizarse como una poderosa herramienta de intervención macroeconómica. El arrendamiento a largo plazo de derechos de utilización del suelo incentiva a los gobiernos locales a vender terrenos para generar ingresos totales que posteriormente se utilizan para financiar el desarrollo urbano e industrial y la provisión de infraestructura.

En consecuencia, el suelo ha cumplido una función fundamental en el rápido crecimiento económico de China. Sin embargo, este tipo de urbanización e industrialización basada en el suelo ya ha causado graves tensiones sociales, una degradación del medioambiente y fluctuaciones económicas. Los ingresos totales generados por el arrendamiento de suelo no son sustentables, si se tiene en cuenta que, aún siendo tan extensa, China posee una limitada oferta de suelo. Puede esperarse que el papel del suelo como factor impulsor del crecimiento económico se reduzca a medida que China experimente gradualmente un avance industrial.

Sobre los autores

Canfei He es profesor asociado en la Facultad de Ciencias Urbanas y Ambientales de la Universidad de Pekín, además de director asociado del Centro de Desarrollo Urbano y Políticas de Suelo de la Universidad de Pekín y el Instituto Lincoln en Beijing.

Zhiji Huang es estudiante de doctorado en la Facultad de Ciencias Urbanas y Ambientales de la Universidad de Pekín y del Centro de Desarrollo Urbano y Políticas de Suelo de la Universidad de Pekín y el Instituto Lincoln en Beijing.

Weikai Wang es estudiante de posgrado en la Facultad de Ciencias Urbanas y Ambientales de la Universidad de Pekín y del Centro de Desarrollo Urbano y Políticas de Suelo de la Universidad de Pekín y el Instituto Lincoln en Beijing.

Referencias

Bai, X., J. Chen y P. Shi. 2011. Landscape urbanization and economic growth in China: Positive feedbacks and sustainability dilemmas. Environmental Science and Technology 46: 132–139.

Centro de Derecho sobre Recursos de Suelo y Mineros de China. 2007. The evolution of land policy’s involvement in macro-control policies of China. China Land 6, 53–56 (en chino).

Ding, C. y E. Lichtenberg. 2011. Land and urban economic growth in China. Journal of Regional Science 51(2): 299–317.

He, Canfei, Zhiji Huang y Weikai Wang. 2012. Land use changes and urban economic growth in China: An exploratory analysis. Documento de trabajo. Beijing: Centro de Desarrollo Urbano y Políticas de Suelo de la Universidad de Pekín y el Instituto Lincoln.

Lin, G. C. S. 2007. Reproducing spaces of Chinese urbanization: New city-based and land-centered urban transformation. Urban Studies 44 (9): 1827–1855.

Lin, G. C. S. y S. P. S. Ho. 2005. The state, land system, and land development processes in contemporary China. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95(2): 411–436.

Ministerio de Suelo y Recursos. 2008. Land use change survey data. República Popular China.

Ping, Y. C. 2011. Explaining land use change in a Guangdong county: the supply side of the story. The China Quarterly 2107: 626–648.

Tao, R., F. Su, M. Liu y G. Cao. 2010. Land leasing and local public finance in China’s regional development: Evidence from prefecture level cities. Urban Studies 47(10): 2217–2236.

Como consecuencia del colapso en el mercado inmobiliario y la Gran Recesión –que provocaron un aumento sustancial de ejecuciones hipotecarias residenciales y a menudo abruptas caídas de los precios de las viviendas, lo cual probablemente dio lugar a ejecuciones hipotecarias adicionales– muchos observadores especularon sobre si los gobiernos locales iban a sufrir consecuentemente pérdidas significativas en la recaudación del impuesto sobre la propiedad. Si bien las pruebas anecdóticas sugieren que las ejecuciones hipotecarias, en especial en los lugares donde estaban espacialmente concentradas, redujeron los precios de las viviendas y los ingresos del impuesto sobre la propiedad, las investigaciones existentes no proporcionan ninguna prueba empírica que justifique esta conclusión (recuadro 1). Con datos de ejecuciones hipotecarias de la empresa RealtyTrac, que proporciona información sobre las ejecuciones hipotecarias anualespor código postal para el período de 2006 a 2011 (período que tanto precede como sucede a la Gran Recesión), este informe es el primero en examinar el impacto de las ejecuciones hipotecarias sobre los valores y la recaudación del impuesto sobre la propiedad por parte de los gobiernos locales. Después de presentar información sobre la correlación entre ejecuciones hipotecarias y los precios de viviendas en todo el país, nos concentramos en Georgia, para explorar cómo las ejecuciones hipotecarias afectaron a los valores de la propiedad y la recaudación del impuesto sobre la propiedad en los distritos escolares a lo largo del estado. Nuestro análisis empírico indica que, en efecto, las ejecuciones hipotecarias probablemente redujeron los valores de la propiedad y la recaudación del impuesto sobre la propiedad. Si bien aún preliminares, estas conclusiones sugieren que las ejecuciones hipotecarias han tenido una serie de efectos sobre los sistemas fiscales de los gobiernos locales.

————————

Recuadro 1: Investigaciones existentes sobre el impacto de factores económicos en la recaudación del impuesto sobre la propiedad

Si bien existen investigaciones que examinan los diversos impactos de factores económicos sobre la recaudación del impuesto sobre la propiedad, dichos estudios usan datos que reflejan sólo una recesión previa (por ejemplo, la recesión de 2001) o cubren solamente el inicio de la crisis inmobiliaria de la Gran Recesión. Doerner e Ihlanfeldt (2010), por ejemplo, han estudiado directamente los efectos de los precios de las casas sobre los ingresos de los gobiernos locales usando datos del panel de precios detallados de las viviendas en Florida durante la década del año 2000. Concluyen que los cambios en el precio real de las viviendas unifamiliares de Florida tuvieron un efecto asimétrico sobre los ingresos gubernamentales. Los aumentos de precio no aumentan la recaudación real per cápita, pero los descensos de precio tienden a reducirla. Doerner e Ihlanfeldt también concluyen que las respuestas asimétricas se deben en gran parte a los límites impuestos sobre los aumentos y el monto del gravamen, las demoras positivas o negativas entre los cambios en los precios de mercado y la valuación tributaria, y la reducción de las tasas tributarias en respuesta a un aumento de los precios de las viviendas. Alm, Buschman y Sjoquist (2011) documentan las tendencias generales en la recaudación del impuesto sobre la propiedad en los Estados Unidos entre 1998 y 2009 inclusive, cuando los gobiernos locales, en promedio, pudieron evitar en gran medida los impactos significativos y negativos sobre el presupuesto sufridos por el gobierno federal y los gobiernos estatales, por lo menos hasta 2009, si bien se produjeron variaciones regionales sustanciales en dichos efectos. Alm, Buschman y Sjoquist (2009) también examinan la relación entre los gastos en educación y la recaudación del impuesto sobre la propiedad para el período entre 1990 y 2006. En un estudio relacionado, Alm y Sjoquist (2009) examinan el impacto de otros factores económicos sobre las finanzas de los distritos escolares de Georgia, como las respuestas estatales a las condiciones de los distritos escolares locales. Finalmente, Jaconetty (2011) examinó temas legales relacionados con las ejecuciones hipotecarias, y la Fundación MacArthur ha financiado un proyecto sobre ejecuciones hipotecarias en el condado de Cook, Illinois.

————————

Vínculos potenciales entre los precios de las viviendas, las ejecuciones hipotecarias y los valores inmobiliarios

Los gobiernos locales en los Estados Unidos dependen de varias fuentes de ingresos propios, tales como impuestos locales sobre los ingresos, sobre la propiedad y generales sobre las ventas, e impuestos específicos sobre el consumo, aranceles y cargos sobre el usuario. De éstos, la fuente de ingresos dominante es, con mucho, el impuesto sobre la propiedad. En 2011, los impuestos locales sobre la propiedad generaron aproximadamente tres cuartos de los ingresos tributarios totales de los gobiernos locales y casi la mitad de los ingresos locales totales propios (incluyendo aranceles y cargos).

Algunos impuestos locales, como los impuestos sobre el ingreso y las ventas, tienen bases tributarias que varían de acuerdo a los niveles de actividad económica, y la Gran Recesión deprimió seriamente los ingresos derivados de dichos impuestos. La base tributaria del impuesto sobre la propiedad es el valor de tasación, que no cambia automáticamente en respuesta a las condiciones económicas; a falta de un cambio formal y deliberado en la tasación, una reducción en el valor de mercado no se traduce necesariamente en una reducción del valor de tasación. Los límites de tasación, las demoras en las revaluaciones y la posibilidad de efectuar cambios deliberados en el tributo unitario o la tasa del impuesto sobre la propiedad se combinan para que las fluctuaciones económicas que influyen en los valores de las viviendas no afecten a la base tributaria del impuesto sobre la propiedad o los ingresos debido a este impuesto de manera inmediata u obvia. Con el tiempo, sin embargo, los valores de tasación tienden a reflejar los valores de mercado, y la recaudación del impuesto sobre la propiedad puede verse afectada.

Un mercado inmobiliario debilitado –con valores de la vivienda más bajos y mayor cantidad de ejecuciones hipotecarias– puede reducir los ingresos tributarios de los gobiernos locales procedentes de distintas fuentes (Anderson, 2010; Boyd, 2010; Lutz, Molloy y Shan, 2010), como los impuestos a la transferencia inmobiliaria, los impuestos sobre las ventas de materiales de construcción de viviendas, y los impuestos sobre la renta de los trabajadores de las industrias de la construcción de viviendas y de mobiliario para el hogar. Los ingresos del impuesto sobre la propiedad suponen una proporción importante de la recaudación tributaria local, sin embargo, los cambios en la recaudación del impuesto sobre la propiedad frecuentemente son mayores que los cambios debidos a dichos otros impuestos relacionados con las viviendas.

Actividad de ejecución hipotecaria en todo el país durante y después de la Gran Recesión

La figura 1 (pág. 26) presenta la cantidad total de ejecuciones hipotecarias a nivel de código postal de 5 dígitos como porcentaje de la cantidad de viviendas ocupadas por sus dueños en 2010. Esta figura demuestra la clara concentración geográfica de las ejecuciones hipotecarias. Arizona, California y Florida fueron afectadas especialmente por el colapso de la burbuja inmobiliaria. No obstante, otras áreas también experimentaron una actividad significativa de ejecuciones hipotecarias.

La Agencia Federal de Financiamiento de Viviendas (FHFA) produce un índice de precios de viviendas para cada área estadística metropolitana (MSA). Cotejamos los datos de ejecuciones hipotecarias de RealtyTrac con el índice de precios de viviendas de la FHFA en 352 áreas estadísticas metropolitanas. La figura 2 (pág. 26) presenta un simple diagrama de dispersión que relaciona las ejecuciones hipotecarias totales entre 2006 y 2011 como porcentaje de la cantidad de unidades de vivienda ocupadas por sus dueños en 2010, con el cambio del índice de precios de las viviendas en el período de 2007 a 2012 en las 352 áreas metropolitanas. El simple coeficiente de correlación entre las ejecuciones hipotecarias por unidades de viviendas ocupadas por sus dueños y el cambio del índice de precios de viviendas es de -0,556; si consideramos solamente aquellas MSA con ejecuciones hipotecarias no nulas a lo largo del período, el coeficiente de correlación es de -0,739. Este simple análisis sugiere que las ejecuciones hipotecarias tienen una correlación negativa significativa con los valores de la vivienda. El próximo paso es explorar el efecto de las ejecuciones hipotecarias sobre la base tributaria del impuesto sobre la propiedad y sobre la recaudación del impuesto sobre la propiedad propiamente dicho. En la próxima sección examinaremos este tema para el estado de Georgia.

Análisis más detallado: Ejecuciones hipotecarias, valores de la propiedad e ingresos del impuesto sobre la propiedad en Georgia

Al examinar el efecto de las ejecuciones hipotecarias sobre los valores de la propiedad y la recaudación del impuesto sobre la propiedad en un solo estado, eliminamos la necesidad de controlar las muchas maneras en que los factores institucionales pueden diferir entre estados. Georgia es un lugar adecuado para concentrarse porque de alguna manera es un estado “promedio”. Por ejemplo, los gobiernos locales de Georgia dependen del impuesto sobre la propiedad sólo un poco menos que el promedio nacional; en 2008, los ingresos del impuesto sobre la propiedad como porcentaje de los impuestos totales de los gobiernos locales fue del 65,1 por ciento en Georgia, en comparación con el 72,3 por ciento en los Estados Unidos en general. (Bourdeaux y Jun 2011).

Medimos la actividad de ejecución hipotecaria con datos de RealtyTrac, agregando las observaciones por código postal en los condados correspondientes. El Departamento de Ingresos de Georgia suministró la base tributaria anual del impuesto sobre la propiedad (que en Georgia se denomina “resumen neto”) y las tasas del impuesto sobre la propiedad. Los ingresos del impuesto sobre la propiedad y los ingresos locales totales de los distritos escolares fueron suministrados por el Departamento de Educación de Georgia. La base tributaria corresponde al 1 de enero del año respectivo. La tasa del impuesto sobre la propiedad se determina en la primavera, las facturas del impuesto se pagan en el otoño, y su recaudación se reporta en el siguiente año fiscal. Los distritos escolares tienen un año fiscal que va del 1 de julio al 30 de junio, de manera que la base tributaria y las tasas unitarias de 2009, por ejemplo, aparecerían en los ingresos del año fiscal 2010. También usamos varios datos demográficos y económicos (ingresos, empleo y población) medidos a nivel de condado para ayudar a explicar los cambios en la base tributaria. Debido a que estas variables se reportan a nivel de condado, para el análisis siguiente agregamos las variables de base tributaria del impuesto sobre la propiedad y su recaudación en los distritos escolares urbanos a los sistemas escolares de condado correspondientes a dichas ciudades para obtener los totales para los 159 condados. Para condados que incluyen todo o parte de un sistema escolar urbano, la tasa tributaria es el promedio de las tasas tributarias escolares del condado y la ciudad, ponderadas por sus bases tributarias respectivas.

En Georgia, las tasaciones de las propiedades con fines tributarios son responsabilidad exclusiva de los gobiernos de condado, pero el estado evalúa todas las bases tributarias del impuesto sobre la propiedad anualmente, comparando ventas reales de parcelas mejoradas durante el año con los valores de tasación, y determina si el nivel de tasación es apropiado con relación al valor justo de mercado, que se fija legalmente en el 40 por ciento. Los “estudios de razón de ventas” resultantes reportan una cifra de base tributaria del impuesto sobre la propiedad ajustada al 100 por cien para cada distrito escolar del estado, junto con una razón calculada. Podemos usar estas bases tributarias ajustadas del impuesto sobre la propiedad, cubriendo los períodos de 2000 a 2011 inclusive, para medir el valor de mercado de la propiedad residencial.

Georgia tiene muy pocas limitaciones institucionales al impuesto sobre la propiedad. Las juntas de distritos escolares pueden fijar generalmente sus tasas del impuesto sobre la propiedad sin aprobación de los votantes, la cual solamente es necesaria si la tasa del impuesto sobre la propiedad en un distrito escolar de condado excede de 20 milésimas del valor de tasación. En la actualidad, solamente cinco sistemas escolares han alcanzado este límite. Además, no hay un límite general en el valor de tasación, si bien un condado ha congelado las tasaciones sobre bienes de familia. En 2009, el estado de Georgia impuso una congelación temporal sobre las tasaciones en todo el estado, que potencialmente afectaba a los ingresos del impuesto sobre la propiedad sólo en el año académico/año fiscal 2010; sin embargo, al disminuir las bases netas y ajustadas del impuesto sobre la propiedad per cápita en la mayoría de los condados de 2009 a 2011 inclusive, es poco probable que esta congelación haya recortado las tasaciones.

Ejecuciones hipotecarias

La tabla 1 muestra la media y mediana de ejecuciones hipotecarias en todo el estado por código postal entre 2006 y 2011 inclusive. La cantidad total de ejecuciones hipotecarias casi se duplicó de 2006 a 2010, disminuyendo en 2011. La media de ejecuciones hipotecarias es mucho mayor que la mediana, lo cual es señal de que la distribución es extremadamente asimétrica.

La tabla 2 muestra la distribución de los códigos postales de Georgia por la cantidad de años que el código postal tuvo alguna ejecución hipotecaria. Más del 65 por ciento de los códigos postales tuvieron ejecuciones hipotecarias en cada uno de los seis años, mientras que sólo el 7 por ciento no tuvo ninguna ejecución hipotecaria en ninguno de los seis años. Esta distribución sugiere que sólo una porción muy pequeña del estado quedó inmune a la crisis de ejecuciones hipotecarias.

La figura 3 (pág. 27) muestra la distribución de ejecuciones hipotecarias en el estado durante el período de 2006 a 2011 inclusive. Como los códigos postales difieren en tamaño y densidad de viviendas, también se muestra un mapa de las ejecuciones hipotecarias por unidades de vivienda ocupadas por sus dueños en 2010 en la figura 4 (pág. 28). Nótese que los códigos postales marcados en blanco no tienen ninguna ejecución hipotecaria o no se tienen datos de ejecuciones hipotecarias. Como era de esperar, los condados urbanos y suburbanos (particularmente en el área metropolitana de Atlanta) sufrieron la mayor cantidad de ejecuciones hipotecarias. No obstante, hay también una gran cantidad de ejecuciones hipotecarias en muchos de los códigos postales menos urbanos.

La figura 5 muestra la distribución anual de ejecuciones hipotecarias por cada cien unidades de vivienda en cada uno de los 159 condados de Georgia. Nótese que la barra del recuadro representa el valor medio, el recuadro captura las observaciones en el segundo y tercer cuartil, los “bigotes” representan 1,5 veces la diferencia entre los porcentiles veinticinco y setenta y cinco, y los puntos son los valores extremos. La mediana de ejecuciones hipotecarias por condado aumentó de 0,17 por 100 unidades de vivienda en 2006 a 1,18 por 100 unidades en 2010, un aumento en la mediana de más de seis veces. Hay una alta correlación positiva entre la actividad de ejecuciones hipotecarias en 2006 y 2011 en todos los condados. Esta correlación es de 0,78 cuando se mide en relación a las unidades de vivienda y 0,74 cuando se mide per cápita, lo que indica que los condados con actividad de ejecución hipotecaria mayor (menor) que el promedio antes de la crisis inmobiliaria siguiron estando por arriba (abajo) del promedio en su pico.

Valores de la propiedad,/b>

En cuanto a los cambios en los valores de la propiedad, las figuras 6 y 7 muestran la distribución de cambios anuales, respectivamente, en la base tributaria neta del impuesto sobre la propiedad per cápita y en la base tributaria 100 por ciento ajustada del impuesto sobre la propiedad per cápita en los 159 condados entre 2001 y 2011 inclusive. Los estudios sugieren que las ejecuciones hipotecarias pueden tener un efecto de contagio sobre los valores de mercado de otras propiedades en la jurisdicción (Frame, 2010). Intentamos estimar el efecto de las ejecuciones hipotecarias sobre los valores de mercado en función de la base tributaria 100 por ciento ajustada del impuesto sobre la propiedad.

Nuestros resultados son preliminares, porque el análisis solamente incluye datos de Georgia. Aun así, sugieren significativos efectos negativos de las ejecuciones hipotecarias sobre los valores de la propiedad, controlando por los cambios porcentuales de año a año en ingresos, empleo y población. Las estimaciones de coeficientes de la variable ‘ejecuciones hipotecarias’ sugieren que un aumento marginal de una ejecución hipotecaria por cada 100 viviendas (o aproximadamente el aumento en la mediana de ejecuciones hipotecarias de 2006 a 2011) está asociado con aproximadamente una disminución del 3 por ciento en la base tributaria 100 por ciento ajustada del impuesto sobre la propiedad en cada uno de los dos años subsiguientes. De igual manera, un aumento de una ejecución hipotecaria por cada 1.000 habitantes está asociado con casi el 1 por ciento de disminución en la base tributaria 100 por ciento ajustada del impuesto sobre la propiedad después de un año, y una disminución porcentual ligeramente menor en el año subsiguiente.

Ingresos del impuesto sobre la propiedad

También exploramos el efecto de las ejecuciones hipotecarias sobre la recaudación del impuesto sobre la propiedad. La figura 8 representa la distribución de cambios nominales por condado de los ingresos totales de mantenimiento y operaciones del impuesto sobre la propiedad desde 2001, que muestra una variación considerable de un sistema escolar a otro en los cambios anuales de recaudación del impuesto sobre la propiedad. Aun en los últimos tres años de disminución de los valores de la propiedad, por lo menos la mitad de los condados tuvo un crecimiento nominal positivo anual en la recaudación del impuesto sobre la propiedad. Para comprender el efecto de la actividad de ejecución hipotecaria sobre los ingresos del gobierno local por impuestos sobre la propiedad, estimamos las regresiones que relacionan las ejecuciones hipotecarias con los gravámenes del impuesto sobre la propiedad y la recaudación de dicho impuesto.

Encontramos que un aumento en las ejecuciones hipotecarias está asociado a una reducción en el monto del gravamen, después de controlar por los cambios en la base tributaria del impuesto sobre la propiedad como también en las fluctuaciones de ingresos, empleo y población. Un aumento de una ejecución hipotecaria por cada 100 unidades de vivienda se asocia con alrededor del 1,5 por ciento de disminución subsiguiente en el gravamen, manteniendo constante el resto de las variables. También encontramos que las ejecuciones hipotecarias tienen un impacto negativo sobre la recaudación, manteniendo constante el resto de las variables. Como en nuestras estimaciones anteriores, estos resultados son para Georgia solamente, pero identifican una relación negativa significativa entre las ejecuciones hipotecarias y los gravámenes y la recaudación del impuesto sobre la propiedad por parte de los gobiernos locales. Puede ser que una mayor actividad de ejecución hipotecaria haga vacilar a las autoridades locales sobre la posibilidad de aumentar las tasas tributarias para compensar el efecto de las ejecuciones hipotecarias sobre la base tributaria.

Conclusiones

¿Las ejecuciones hipotecarias causadas por la Gran Recesión afectaron a los valores de la propiedad y la recaudación del impuesto sobre la propiedad por parte de los gobiernos locales? Nuestros resultados sugieren que las ejecuciones hipotecarias han tenido un impacto negativo significativo sobre los valores de la propiedad y, por esta vía, un efecto similar sobre la recaudación del impuesto sobre la propiedad, por lo menos en el estado de Georgia. Nuestros resultados también sugieren la presencia de efectos adicionales sobre los gravámenes y la recaudación de dicho impuesto, después de controlar por los cambios en la base tributaria. Hacen falta más investigaciones para saber si estos resultados se extienden a otros estados.

Sobre los autores

James Alm es profesor y director del Departamento de Economía de Tulane University.

Robert D. Buschman es asociado de investigación senior en el Centro de Investigaciones Fiscales de la Escuela Andrew Young de Estudios Políticos de la Universidad Estatal de Georgia.

David L. Sjoquist es profesor y titular de la cátedra Dan E. Sweat en Política Educativa y Comunitaria en la Escuela Andrew Young de Estudios Políticos.

Recursos

Alm, James y David L. Sjoquist. 2009. The Response of Local School Systems in Georgia to Fiscal and Economic Conditions. Journal of Education Finance 35(1): 60–84.

Alm, James, Robert D. Buschman, y David L. Sjoquist. 2009. Economic Conditions and State and Local Education Revenue. Public Budgeting & Finance 29(3): 28–51.

Alm, James, Robert D. Buschman, y David L. Sjoquist. 2011. Rethinking Local Government Reliance on the Property Tax. Regional Science and Urban Economics 41(4): 320–331.

Anderson, John E. 2010. Shocks to the Property Tax Base and Implications for Local Public Finance. Paper presented at the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Conference, “Effects of the Housing Crisis on State and Local Governments,” Washington, D.C. (Mayo).

Bourdeaux, Carolyn y Sungman Jun. 2011. Comparing Georgia’s Revenue Portfolio to Regional and National Peers. Report No. 222. Atlanta, GA: Fiscal Research Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.

Boyd, Donald J. 2010. Recession, Recovery, and State and Local Finances. Paper presented at the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Conference, “Effects of the Housing Crisis on State and Local Governments,” Washington, D.C. (Mayo).

Doerner, William M. y Keith R. Ihlanfeldt. 2010. House Prices and Local Government Revenues. Paper presented at the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Conference, “Effects of the Housing Crisis on State and Local Governments,” Washington, D.C. (Mayo).

Frame, W. Scott. 2010. Estimating the Effect of Mortgage Foreclosures on Nearby Property Values: A Critical Review of the Literature. Economic Review 95(3): 1–9.

Jaconetty, Thomas A. 2011. How Do Foreclosures Affect Real Property Tax Valuation? And What Can We Do About It? Working paper presented at National Conference of State Tax Judges, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA (Septiembre).

Lutz, Byron, Raven Molloy, y Hui Shan. 2010. The Housing Crisis and State and Local Government Tax Revenue: Five Channels. Paper presented at the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Conference, “Effects of the Housing Crisis on State and Local Governments,” Washington, DC (Mayo).

Strengthening Municipal Fiscal Health in China

Since 2013, Zhi Liu has been a senior research fellow and director of the China Program at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, and director of the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy (PLC). Prior, Zhi was lead infrastructure specialist at the World Bank, where he worked for 18 years, with operational experiences in a number of developing countries.

Zhi received a B.S. in economic geography from Dr. Sun Yat-Sen University (China), a M.S. in city and regional planning from Nanjing University (China), and a Ph.D. in urban planning from Harvard University.

LAND LINES: The Lincoln Institute recently initiated a global research agenda on municipal fiscal health. This effort arises from the recognition that a number of cities in the United States and in many other countries including China suffer financial hardship. What is the nature of municipal fiscal distress in China?

ZHI LIU: It’s very different from the financial troubles faced by cities in the United States. The two countries are at very different stages of urbanization. While the U.S. is highly urbanized, with more than 80 percent of citizens living in urban areas, according to the 2010 census, China is only halfway through the urbanization process. Today, 750 million Chinese citizens live in cities, accounting for 55 percent of the total population. By 2050, the urban population is expected to reach 1.1 billion, or 75 percent of the total population. Over the last two decades, with the exception of a few mining cities, almost all municipalities have seen rapid population growth and spatial expansion, generating a significant demand for public investment in urban infrastructure.

In China, the main sources of funding for urban infrastructure investment are revenues from land concessions and local borrowing from commercial banks, often using land as collateral. Urban land is owned by the state, and rural land is collectively owned by villages. The Land Administration Law stipulates that only the state has the power to convert rural land into urban use. This sets the stage for the municipal governments to take rural land for urban development through the land concession process. As it goes, municipal governments expropriate rural land, service it with infrastructure, and sell the land use rights to real estate developers. The compensation to farmers for the farmland taken is low, based on the land’s agricultural production value instead of market value for urban use. When the demand for real estate development is high, the land concession fees are bid high, and the municipal governments stand to collect a huge amount of revenues. For the last 10 years, revenues from land concessions have accounted for more than one-third of total local fiscal revenues.

Moreover, municipal governments further expand their financing capacity by using land assets as collateral to secure commercial loans from commercial banks. Before a recent amendment, the Chinese Budget Law did not permit local governments to borrow. However, most municipal governments bypassed the law by creating their own local financing vehicles—known as urban development investment corporations (UDICs)—that borrowed commercial loans or issued corporate bonds for the governments. The size of outstanding local debts has grown rapidly over the last few years, reaching at least one-third of the GDP now.

The land-based financing mechanism has helped municipal governments in China raise a significant amount of funds for capital investment. However, the success has also created incentive for municipal governments to rely on land concessions and UDICs too heavily. Today, China’s economy is growing more slowly than before, and the mechanism is running out of steam in many localities where conversion of rural land for urban use exceeds the real demand. Some cities have borrowed much more than they can repay, leaving them heavily indebted.

Many empirical studies, including some funded by the Lincoln Institute, find that China’s land-based financing mechanism is one of the main causes of other urban issues that we face today. Skyrocketing housing prices, growing local debts, excessive land-taking, growing tension between the farmers and municipal governments over land-taking, and widening gaps of income and wealth distribution between urban and rural populations are among the major issues.

LL: The international mass media has been reporting on these issues. How will China address them?

ZL: There is a high level of consensus on the root causes of the problems. In November 2013, the central government announced a set of reforms, and a few are directly related to urbanization policy and municipal finance. For example, the scope of land expropriation will be narrowed to the confine of public purposes, and villages are allowed to develop their land for urban use under the premise that it conforms to planning. The reforms also call for acceleration of property tax legislation; reform of hukou, the household residential registration system, to help farmers become urban residents; and government efforts to make basic urban public services available to all permanent residents in cities, including all rural-to-urban migrants.

LL: What are the implications of hukou reform on municipal finance?

ZL: The government is phasing out China’s longstanding hukou system, and the implications for municipal finance will be significant. Hukou was designed to identify a citizen as a resident of a certain locality, but for several decades the government used the system to control rural-to-urban migration. A rural hukou holder could not become an urban hukou holder without the government’s approval. Without urban hukou, a rural migrant worker is not eligible for public services provided by the urban governments.

Since the economic reform, the expanding urban economy has absorbed a large number of rural-to-urban migrant workers. Earlier, I mentioned China’s urbanization rate of 55 percent and urban population of 750 million. These numbers include the 232 million rural migrants who stay in cities for more than half a year. If they were excluded from the calculation, the level of urbanization would be just 38 percent. Due to their rural hukou status, however, migrant workers don’t have access to many services enjoyed by urban hukou holders, despite the fact that many have labored and lived in cities for years. Municipal governments determine the extent of many urban public services—such as public schools and affordable housing—according to the number of urban hukou holders inside the municipal jurisdiction. Phasing out hukou would significantly increase the fiscal burden to the municipal governments for public service provision. Some scholars in China estimate that the cost of providing full urban public services to each rural migrant would be at least RMB 100,000 (roughly $16,000 U.S.). The total outlays for all current rural migrants would be at least RMB 23 trillion (about $3.8 trillion U.S.).

LL: China is introducing the residential property tax. What is the status of that initiative?

ZL: The government is drafting the first national property tax law as part of the ongoing reform of public finance. China is one of only a handful of countries without a local property tax. The current taxation system relies heavily upon taxes on businesses and transactions, and very little upon taxes on household income and wealth. In a more urbanized China with a wealthier population who own residential properties, the property tax would be a more viable source of municipal revenues. Today, 89 percent of urban households own one or more residential units, and the value of those properties has much to do with urban public services. Property tax will allow cities to tax urban residential properties whose value would benefit from the improved public services made possible by property tax revenues. It should also fill part of the fiscal gap left by the expected reduction of revenues from land concessions. However, property tax will not be a major source of municipal revenues any time soon. It may take one or two more years for the National People’s Congress to pass the new law. It would also take perhaps two to three years for cities to establish the property database and assessment and administration system.

LL: It must be tough for cities to deal with declining revenues from land concessions without an immediate alternative—especially as they are coping with growing local debt, which has been widely reported. How will Chinese cities get out of this situation?

ZL: The situation is indeed tough. China’s economy is slowing down. The real estate sector is no longer as hot as it was in the last 10 years, resulting in lower demand for land and thus lower revenues from land concessions for municipal governments. Cities are now facing a fiscal gap. One possible way to fill the gap would be local government borrowing. However, as I mentioned earlier, many cities are indebted and have little capacity to borrow further. In fact, most cities in China do not have adequate capacity for debt management. The newly amended budget law permits provincial-level governments to issue bonds within the limit set by the State Council, but also closes the door on other forms of local government borrowing. Currently, the central government actively promotes infrastructure financing through public-private partnerships (PPP). While this is a good move, it won’t be sufficient to fill the infrastructure financing gap, as PPP is suitable mainly for infrastructure projects with a strong revenue flow. There are many other urban infrastructure projects that generate little or no revenues. In the long term, I believe that China should actively establish a municipal government bond market to channel funds from institutional investors to municipal infrastructure investment and enable local governments to access commercial loans based on creditworthiness. To do so, municipal governments need to develop institutional capacity on several fronts, such as local debt management, capital improvement planning, multiyear financial planning, and municipal infrastructure asset management.

LL: Is PLC’s work relevant to the current reform?

ZL: The PLC was jointly established by the Lincoln Institute and Peking University in 2007. By the time I arrived, in 2013, the center had developed its reputation as one of China’s premier research and training institutions on urban development and land policy issues. The center supports a number of activities, including research, training, academic exchange, policy dialogue, research fellowship, demonstration projects, and publication. We focus on five core themes—property taxation and municipal finance, land policy, urban housing, urban development and planning, and urban environment and conservation. Over the last few years, our research projects have touched upon land-based finance, local debts, housing prices, infrastructure capital investment and finance, and other topics relevant to municipal fiscal health. We have also provided training to Chinese government agencies on the international experiences of property tax assessment and administration. I would say that our work is highly relevant to the current reform.

Implementation of the new comprehensive policy reforms is generating considerable demand for international knowledge and policy advice in the China Program’s focus areas, especially property taxation and municipal finance. We plan to initiate a pilot demonstration project with one or two selected cities in China, to support the institutional capacity required for the development of long-term municipal fiscal health. Our team has started a study to develop a set of indicators to measure municipal fiscal health for Chinese cities. It is the right time for us to initiate this agenda in China.

Thomas J. Nechyba is professor of economics at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, where he also serves as director of undergraduate studies for the Department of Economics. In addition, he is a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and he serves as associate editor for the American Economic Review and the Journal of Public Economic Theory. His research and teaching focus on the field of public economics, in particular primary and secondary education, federalism and the function of local governments, and public policy issues relating to disadvantaged families.

Professor Nechyba has lectured and taught in courses at the Lincoln Institute for several years, and he recently completed a working paper based on Institute-supported research, “Prospects for Land Rent Taxes in State and Local Tax Reform.” This conversation with Joan Youngman, senior fellow and chairman of the Institute’s Department of Valuation and Taxation, explores his interest in land taxation and his research findings.

Joan Youngman: How is a land tax different from a conventional property tax?

Thomas Nechyba: It’s really a question of tax efficiency. Any tax has two effects, which economists call the income and substitution effects. The income effect of a tax is the change in the choices made by the taxpayer because payment of the tax has reduced the taxpayer’s real income. The substitution effect arises because the very existence of the tax changes the relative prices of the taxed goods, and therefore gives an incentive to taxpayers to substitute non-taxed goods for taxed goods. The income effect does not give rise to any efficiency problems; it simply implies that some resources are transferred from taxpayers to the government, and we hope the government will do something useful with the money. But, the change in behavior from the substitution effect causes an economic distortion that does not benefit anyone. That is, when the higher price of a taxed good causes me to substitute to a different non-taxed good purely because of the distorted prices, then I am worse off and the government gets no revenue. This is the source of the loss of economic efficiency from taxation, because people are worse off than they were previously, and by a larger amount than the tax collections themselves. This phenomenon is sometimes called a deadweight loss.

Once I asked my students to react to the following statement on an exam: “People hate taxes because of income effects, but economists hate taxes because of substitution effects.” One student wrote that it was undeniably true because it showed that economists aren’t people! Well, I think at least some economists are also people. However, it is true that people dislike taxes primarily because they don’t like paying money to the government. Economists especially dislike those taxes that cause greater deadweight losses, i.e., taxes that have greater substitution effects.

A land tax is a very unusual tax. It does not carry this deadweight loss because it does not give rise to a substitution effect. No one can make a decision to produce more land or less land, and the fact that land is taxed will not distort economic decisions. If we think of the price of land as the discounted present value of future land rents, a tax that reduces expected future rents will cause the price of land to drop. But the total cost of the land, which is the purchase price plus the tax, remains unchanged. Those who are considering the purchase of land therefore face the same cost before and after the tax: before the tax, they simply pay a single price up front; after the tax, they pay a lower price up front but they know they will also have to pay all the future taxes. There is no substitution effect, only an income effect for those who currently own land, because now they can sell it for less than before. Property taxes that tax both land and buildings, on the other hand, do give rise to substitution effects because they distort the cost of making improvements to the property.

A revenue-neutral shift to land value taxation would reduce other, distortionary taxes. A shift to a more efficient tax can improve economic welfare without a loss in tax collections. This much is well known. What is not well known is the magnitude of this benefit and of the cost to landowners in terms of lower land prices. Conventional wisdom predicts that a shift to an efficient land tax would increase income and output but reduce land prices. This kind of general statement isn’t much help to policy makers. If one is suggesting major changes in a tax system, policy makers need to know whether the benefits and the costs are going to be large or small. My recent Lincoln Institute working paper, “Prospects for Land Rent Taxes in State and Local Tax Reform,” constructs a model of state economies in the U.S. to help us think about the effects of such changes.

JY: How did you become interested in developing an economic model for land taxation?

TN: A few years ago, Dick Netzer, professor of economics and public administration at New York University, suggested that I look at the implications for the U.S. economy of replacing capital taxes with land value taxes. Most economists know of the Henry George Theorem and recognize that land taxation is efficient, but they associate his ideas with nineteenth-century economic thought. We assume that all the changes in the economy since then, and changes in the economic role of land, have left these ideas inapplicable to contemporary tax systems. So I was quite surprised that my model indicated that substituting a land value tax for capital taxes on a national level would not only be efficient, as expected, but would actually raise the value of many types of land. However, property taxes are state and local taxes, and the U.S. constitution places special impediments to a national property tax, so a land tax would not be possible on a national level. Further, since each state economy is different, the results of substituting land value taxes for other taxes will also vary from state to state.

JY: How can a tax on land increase land prices?

TN: In and of itself, a tax on land does not increase land prices; it actually reduces land prices, because it reduces the discounted present value of land rents. My research does not consider a land value tax in isolation, but as part of a revenue-neutral tax reform that replaces other, distortionary taxes with a land value tax. Lower taxes on capital will increase capital usage, and more intensive use of capital will raise land prices. For example, if constructing a building becomes more profitable because the tax on the building is lowered or eliminated, an investor may be willing to pay a higher price for its components, including the land.

JY: How did you go about estimating the magnitude of these effects?

TN: I developed a general equilibrium model of an economy that uses land, man-made capital and labor in production. A general equilibrium model is one that examines how changes in one kind of market affect all other markets. This model is then applied to different states, as well as to one hypothetical “average” state, to see how various tax reforms that substitute land value taxes for taxes on capital or labor would affect prices and production. The division of capital into land and man-made capital is a departure from standard analysis, which generally looks at capital as a single category.

One critical element is the elasticity of substitution among these factors; that is, the ease with which one can be substituted for another. Technically, it is the percentage change in one factor that results from a 1 percent change in the other. This is the key to efficiency gains from reducing the tax on man-made capital and on labor and increasing the tax on land. A lower tax on man-made capital will increase the use of that capital, which in turn will produce greater output and more hiring of labor. The easier it is to substitute man-made capital and labor for land, the greater the benefit from a switch to land value taxation.

JY: Where do the elasticity numbers come from?

TN: I use a range of estimates drawn from the economic literature. For example, most studies of the substitution between capital and land give elasticity estimates between 0.36 and 1.13. My paper uses the relatively conservative estimates of 0.75, 0.5 and 0.25 as high, medium and low values, and looks at the result under each assumption. This number is then adjusted to reflect the amount of land in the state devoted to farming, on the assumption that farmland is less easily substituted for capital in the production process. I also ask similar questions with regard to substitution between land and labor.

The elasticities of the actual supplies of man-made capital and labor are also crucial. If taxes on them are reduced, how much extra capital and labor will be available as a result of the increased after-tax return? Often in studies of this sort we make what is called a “small open economy assumption.” We assume that the economy we are looking at is small in relation to the rest of the world, and that capital and labor flow freely into and out of the jurisdiction. In that case, the elasticity of supply is infinite. The opposite extreme would be an economy with the equivalent of closed borders, where no capital could enter or leave. In that case the elasticity of supply would be zero. In looking at U.S. states, the small open economy assumption is not completely accurate, and zero elasticity is not accurate either. The right number is somewhere in between. Neither capital nor labor is as mobile internationally as within the U.S., and labor in particular is less mobile across state boundaries than within a state or a small region. The small open economy assumption may be appropriate in some circumstances for smaller states, but we have to introduce more complex assumptions in other cases.

JY: How does your model compute taxes on land and labor and man-made capital? This isn’t a standard classification of taxes.

TN: This is complicated, because it involves payroll taxes, federal and state corporate taxes, federal and state income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and so on. So the model looks at all these taxes and makes assumptions about who is paying them to estimate an overall tax rate on labor from all sources—federal, state and local. Similarly, the model estimates an overall tax rate on land and on man-made capital. This allows us to move from an illustrative example in which taxes on labor and capital are replaced by land value taxes to considering changes in real-world taxes, which of course are never based solely on labor or capital.

JY: How do you represent the shift in taxes from labor and man-made capital to land?

TN: This is a hypothetical policy experiment in the model. Suppose, for example, you wanted to eliminate all sales taxes in a revenue-neutral way, making up the lost collections through a land value tax. Sales taxes are the average state’s largest revenue source, so this shift would be quite ambitious. The model shows what would happen under various elasticities of substitution and elasticities of supply, as described above. The tables in the paper show what land tax would be necessary to maintain revenue, and the changes in capital investment and land prices that would result.

JY: How do you move from the hypothetical average state to the 50 individual states?

TN: You have to begin by asking what factors might cause states to have different experiences with land value taxation. We consider each state’s taxes, because the benefits of shifting to a more efficient system will vary according to how much current taxes distort economic choices. Some states have no income taxes. Some states tax property heavily, while others tax sales heavily. The other critical component concerns the state’s sources of income—how they are divided among land, labor and man-made capital. The Bureau of Economic Analysis reports income from various sources by state, but does not account separately for income from land. For that information we draw on the Census of Agriculture data on the amount and market value of farmland to estimate an income figure.

JY: What kinds of results did you obtain?

TN: Since taxation of land is always economically efficient, and since taxation of other factors is always economically inefficient, a shift to land taxes always increases capital, income and labor use. For the “typical” state it seems that most of the simulated tax reforms are feasible, particularly those that reduce taxes on capital. A 20 percent cut in the sales tax, for instance, requires a nearly 24 percent increase in the tax on land, while a similar cut in property taxes requires virtually no change (0.2 percent) in the tax on land. Even a complete elimination of the state and local property tax calls for only a 23 percent increase in the tax on land, while an elimination of the sales tax would require a whopping 131 percent increase. Landowners would be deeply and adversely impacted by reforms that cut the sales tax (losing up to two-thirds of their wealth under a complete elimination of the sales tax), while they would barely feel the impact of most reforms focused on the property tax. They would experience at most a 7 percent decline in their wealth under the complete elimination of the property tax, and an actual increase in their wealth for less dramatic property tax reforms.

But these results differ substantially by state. For instance, the percentage change in the tax on land required to maintain constant state and local government revenues as taxes on capital are eliminated ranges from -1.91 percent to over 104 percent. Similarly, the impact on land prices varies greatly, with prices barely declining (or even increasing) in some states while falling by as much as 85 percent in others. While the elimination of all state and local taxes on capital is therefore technically feasible in all states, it is clearly politically more feasible in some states than in others. Overall, of course, replacing distortionary taxes with nondistortionary taxes on land always brings growth in the employment of capital and labor and increases output—but the size of these impacts also varies greatly. Given that the main political hurdle to land taxation is the expected adverse impact on landowners, these results seem to indicate that, as in the case of the “typical” state, such reforms should emphasize the simultaneous reduction in taxes such as the corporate income tax or the property tax.

JY: What do you take as the central lessons of this work?

TN: Several broad lessons emerge from the analysis of a typical state. First, elasticity assumptions are crucial to the exercise of predicting the likely impact of tax reforms. Second, under elasticity assumptions that are both plausible and relatively conservative, this model predicts that some types of tax reforms are more likely to succeed than others. In particular, tax reforms that reduce taxation of capital in favor of land taxation will have more positive general welfare implications while minimizing the losses to landowners. So policy makers might consider reforming corporate income and property taxes rather than sales and personal income taxes. Third, since elasticities tend to be lower in the short run, it is likely that some of the positive gains of tax reforms that reduce distortionary taxes in favor of land taxes will emerge only with time.

The most striking lesson from simulating tax reforms for the 50 different states is how greatly results can vary depending on underlying economic conditions and current tax policies in those states. Thus, far from arriving at “the answer” regarding the impact of land tax reforms, this study suggests that such answers are likely to differ greatly depending on the context in which the reforms are undertaken. Reforms that raise the tax on land are likely to be more effective the larger the size of the reform, the higher the initial distortionary taxes in the state, and the lower the current level of state income. And, reforms are more likely to be politically feasible (in the sense of not causing great declines in land values) when they involve reductions in taxes on capital.

The idea that land value taxation is unrealistic or would drive land prices into negative numbers is based on a static view of the economy, where no one responds to tax changes by substituting one factor for another. Once you accept that behavior will change in response to taxes, that static view no longer applies. Under these fairly conservative assumptions, tax reforms that use land taxes to eliminate entire classes of distortionary taxes are economically feasible in virtually all states. This work shows that, far from being quaint or outmoded, the idea of taxing land value is quite relevant to the contemporary policy debate.

Working Paper Information: Thomas Nechyba. 2001. “Prospects for Land Rent Taxes in State and Local Tax Reform.” 70 pages. The complete paper is posted on the Lincoln Institute website at www.lincolninst.edu and may be downloaded for free.

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 3 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

La demanda por servicios urbanos sobrepasa la capacidad financiera de la mayoría de las ciudades del mundo. Para hacerle frente a este problema, muchos gobiernos municipales utilizan exitosamente el impuesto a la propiedad junto con otros instrumentos administrativos a fin de recaudar esos fondos tan necesarios. Actualmente El Salvador es el único país centroamericano que no impone una tributación sobre suelo y propiedad. Sin embargo, funcionarios públicos, expertos académicos y líderes empresariales del país han comenzado a discutir sobre la necesidad de establecer un sistema fiscal sobre la propiedad inmobiliaria, y las estrategias para su ejecución.

El sistema de tributación de El Salvador está caracterizado por la falta de equidad y una cantidad mínima de impuestos recaudados, lo cual afecta el nivel de inversiones públicas. Décadas de guerra civil y caos económico han dejado al país sin una tradición establecida de administración ni control fiscal. Los primeros cambios al sistema de tributación comenzaron a ponerse en práctica en 1993, cuando tanto el antiguo impuesto patrimonial sobre la propiedad personal y de la empresa (incluso sobre bienes inmuebles), como el impuesto sobre las ventas del 5 % fueron abolidos y sustituidos por un impuesto sobre las ventas del 13 por ciento. La recaudación de estos impuestos y de un impuesto sobre la renta corre a cargo del gobierno central.

El único impuesto municipal que existe es un tributo arcaico y complejo basado en actividades comerciales, industriales, financieras y de servicios. Debido a su limitada capacidad para aumentar sus ingresos, los municipios no tienen muchas oportunidades de obtener préstamos de bancos nacionales, y ninguna posibilidad de conseguirlos de instituciones financieras internacionales. Entre otros factores que contribuyen a debilitar la base financiera de los gobiernos municipales se cuentan las deficiencias administrativas, los problemas catastrales y las limitaciones del marco legal. Dado que la zona metropolitana de San Salvador abarca una gran área de este pequeño país, la tributación municipal y otros programas de planificación fiscal puestos en práctica allí tienen repercusiones significativas en todo el país.

En 1998, el Consejo Municipal de San Salvador propuso aumentar los impuestos a la actividad comercial, lo cual provocó protestas inmediatas por parte de representantes empresariales y funcionarios municipales. Los líderes de negocios denunciaron al programa tributario propuesto como un generador de costos adicionales que los forzaría a subir los precios de artículos de consumo y servicios, y posiblemente llevaría a un crecimiento de la inflación; como alternativa, demandaron incentivos para nuevos proyectos de desarrollo a cambio de modificaciones del sistema tributario. El Consejo Municipal defendió su propuesta, precisando que la estructura tributaria actual se caracterizaba por una seria falta de equidad porque castigaba a los negocios pequeños al mismo tiempo que ofrecía ventajas a los grandes.

El Consejo Municipal de San Salvador y la Cámara de Comercio e Industria de El Salvador formaron una comisión mixta para que investigara los complejos asuntos involucrados en la reforma fiscal propuesta y las precondiciones que la misma precisaría, tales como actualizaciones catastrales, marco legal y capacitación técnica. Si bien la discusión no estuvo centrada en los mecanismos concretos para llevar a cabo una tributación de suelo y propiedad, fue muy significativo que estos importantes grupos de interés coincidieran sobre la necesidad de imponer un tributo inmobiliario en el futuro.

Beneficios de una perspectiva internacional

En enero de 1999 se realizó una reunión extraordinaria de funcionarios públicos y grupos de interés privado, en la que el Instituto Lincoln y la Oficina de Planificación del Área Metropolitana de San Salvador (OPAMSS) estudiaron muchos de los asuntos pertinentes al desarrollo y ejecución de un sistema de tributación inmobiliaria. Éste fue el tercero de una serie de programas auspiciados por el Instituto diseñados con el objetivo de compartir la experiencia internacional y ayudar a desarrollar un nuevo marco de trabajo en pro de un sistema tributario con más equidad en El Salvador.

Particularmente en un país pequeño como El Salvador, la implementación de un sistema adecuado de impuestos a la propiedad puede tener efectos positivos y estratégicos no sólo sobre las finanzas municipales, sino también sobre las políticas macroeconómicas y la revaluación del sector financiero. Alven Lam, investigador del Instituto Lincoln, explicó que la reestructuración del marco tributario ha sido el factor fundamental que ha permitido a algunos países asiáticos como Japón, Tailandia e Indonesia, recuperarse de sus crisis económicas. Los recientes problemas fiscales de Brasil y el continuo debate sobre el funcionamiento del sector financiero de El Salvador agregaron un sentido de apremio a la discusión sobre el amplio contexto económico de un impuesto a la propiedad municipal.

En el seminario también se discutió la importancia de integrar una tributación mixta de suelo y propiedad como herramienta fundamental para promover un manejo eficaz de la tierra urbana. Vincent Renard, del Laboratorio Econométrico de la Escuela Politécnica de París, elogió la iniciativa del Consejo Municipal de San Salvador y de otros gobiernos municipales para modificar sus estructuras tributarias, haciendo énfasis en la importancia de no aislar dichas políticas de los mercados de bienes raíces. Asimismo, Renard criticó ciertas estrategias de planificación urbana, tales como la tendencia actual que hay en El Salvador de regularizar en exceso el uso de la tierra mediante medidas legales que están totalmente desvinculadas de la tributación de la tierra y de incentivos fiscales.

Una tercera área de preocupación durante el debate consistió en las implicaciones políticas y económicas de la tributación a la propiedad. Entre otras cosas, es crítico que los funcionarios involucrados en establecer un sistema de tributación sobre la propiedad consideren la cultura política de la sociedad, la consolidación de autonomía municipal, la transparencia de los mercados de bienes raíces, y el uso del impuesto a la propiedad como una herramienta para el desarrollo económico y social. Julio Piza, de la Universidad Externado de Bogotá, describió diferentes aplicaciones del impuesto a la propiedad en Colombia, realzando la existencia de un problema común: la dificultad de medir la base impositiva de la tierra y los bienes debido en gran parte a los obsoletos sistemas catastrales y a la falta de otros sistemas de información.

Aunque la discusión sobre la reforma fiscal en El Salvador ha sido eclipsada por las recientes elecciones nacionales, el nuevo presidente ha expresado interés en una política de tierra y tributo. Al seminario asistieron dirigentes municipales y nacionales de los sectores políticos y comerciales, quienes expresaron un interés profundo en modernizar sus programas de manejo fiscal y tributación municipal. El solo hecho de haberse reunido para discutir abiertamente estos complejos asuntos es una señal esperanzadora. Para que haya progreso, es necesario contar con la voluntad política, la participación continua de la comunidad comercial y el reconocimiento de que el impuesto constituye tanto un instrumento financiero práctico para satisfacer necesidades inmediatas como también una herramienta importante para lograr crecimiento económico y desarrollo urbano.

Al igual que otros países en estado de transición social y económica, El Salvador se enfrenta ahora al desafío de establecer estipulaciones eficaces y justas para llevar a cabo las valuaciones catastrales y la recaudación de impuestos. El proceso puede facilitarse si se comienza con una estructura de tasas simple y se van introduciendo gradualmente instrumentos más sofisticados. Otros factores tales como métodos innovadores de manejo de la tierra y la posibilidad de capturar los aumentos en el valor de la tierra son críticos para el futuro crecimiento fiscal de El Salvador.

Ingresos municipales Área Metropolitana de San Salvador, 1993

Fuentes de ingresos:

• Impuestos municipales
• Aranceles y tarifas de usuario
• Transferencias del gobierno federal
• Otros ingresos municipales
• Préstamos
• Otras fuentes

Patricia Fuentes es Subdirectora de Control de Desarrollo Urbano y Mario Lungo es el Director Ejecutivo de la Oficina de Planificación del Área Metropolitana de San Salvador (OPAMSS).

Growing recognition of the economic and social importance of land, housing and real property markets is focusing attention on the need for good policies and good data to monitor the performance of these markets and their effects on the international economy.

Much of the impetus for addressing these issues came with the United Nations General Assembly’s unanimous endorsement in 1988 of the document Global Strategy for Shelter to the Year 2000. This report described the social and economic role of housing and called on governments to undertake enabling policies to create well-functioning land and housing markets.

Within a few years, the World Bank published its own housing policy paper, Housing: Enabling Markets to Work, which set out a stylized set of “do’s and don’ts” for housing policymakers to use in making choices about policies, regulations and institutions that influence the performance of the housing sector. Each of these documents makes it clear that the stakes of getting housing policies right are considerable, especially those policies having to do with urban land.

The Importance of the Housing Sector

Housing, together with the land under it, is the single most important asset of households in most of the world’s cities. Housing investment and the flow of housing services account for a total contribution to GNP of between 7 and 18 percent in most countries. However, these figures fail to convey fully how the performance of the housing sector is intertwined with that of the broader economy through real, financial and fiscal circuits.

Since housing comprises 15 to 35 percent of consumer spending in most countries, inflation in housing prices is a significant element of overall consumer price inflation. Housing loans comprise some 15 to 20 percent of the consolidated assets of the banking systems of the most industrialized countries, making the integrity of these loans crucial to the overall soundness of the financial sector.

Housing subsidies, particularly in formerly planned economies, have contributed to budgetary deficits which have aggravated inflationary pressures, and poorly planned housing policies have often led to limited residential and labor mobility. Even in the United Kingdom, research indicates that inappropriate housing policies have increased structural unemployment rates, increased consumer prices and interest rates, adversely affected the balance of payments, and led to a significant decline in rates of household savings. Real estate booms and busts have also become a prominent feature of urban and national economies, notably in the United States and Japan.

Given the importance of the housing sector and the high cost of policy failures, it is surprising that many countries underestimate the objectives and instruments of housing policy. As a result, housing problems are often aggravated by ill-conceived or poorly executed public policies, and the performance of the sector falls beneath its potential.

Policies Affecting Housing

The provision of infrastructure, the regulation of land and housing development, the organization of the construction and materials industry, and the involvement of the public sector in housing production all have direct bearing on the production of housing and its responsiveness to shifts in demand. But other policies are also important—for example, those that relate to the physical and legal security of renters and owners, and the ability to use housing as collateral for long-term financing.

These policies influence the desirability of, and demand for, real estate and housing as an asset and, therefore, the amount of housing that investors want to build. In turn, these policies affect the quantity and affordability of housing available to meet the needs of final consumers of housing services. Investment decisions also influence the cost, availability, quality and production of informal housing, which accommodates much of the urban population in many developing countries.

Recent data on 53 countries collected by the Housing Indicators Program, a joint program of the United Nations’ Centre for Human Settlements and the World Bank, supports the importance of policy differences in shaping housing sector outcomes. Two key types of indicators are physical measures, such as crowding or structural durability, and measures related to price, such as house values, rents and the ratio of house value to income (also called the house-price-to-income ratio), which often reflects the relative efficiency of housing markets.

Comparisons of such indicators suggest, for example, that in Thailand, where land and housing regulation is simple and efficient, housing supply is more than 30 times as responsive to shifts in demand than in either Korea or Malaysia, where regulation is complicated and cumbersome. This is reflected in striking differences in housing prices, quality and affordability among the three countries.

Enabling and Non-enabling Policies

“Enabling” countries are considered more market friendly because their housing policies support housing demand through appropriate housing finance, property rights and subsidies. Such countries facilitate housing supply by providing infrastructure, pertinent regulation and a competitive housing development industry. Figure 1 shows how a number of important housing outcomes vary with both the level of economic development (as measured by per capita income) and the policy environment for four groups of countries.

Housing prices at lower income levels among non-enablers are often the equivalent of two annual incomes higher than they are among enablers. Home ownership rates among enablers are generally 15 to 25 percentage points higher. Crowding, as measured by floor area per person, is significantly less among enablers. Residential mobility (percentage of population moving annually) is higher among enablers—a factor that facilitates upgrading housing conditions and enhancing job mobility.

A comparison of U.S. cities shows that house prices in non-enabling cities with stricter regulatory policies have risen in relative terms some 30 to 60 percent over a 15-year period (see Figure 2). This trend suggests important consequences for quality of life and competitiveness among cities with different degrees of market flexibility. Relative shifts in housing costs are in some cases equivalent to doubling potential residents’ combined federal and state income tax, creating powerful disincentives for moving and for the functioning of labor markets.

These and similar findings suggest that systematic policy mistakes have been made, that their costs have been high, and that it is time for a general change in thinking about the aims and instruments of land and housing policy.

Stephen K. Mayo, a visiting fellow of the Lincoln Institute, is developing research and education programs on land prices, land markets and the broader economy. On November 7-8, 1997, the first in a series of conferences on this topic will be held at the Institute to examine land prices and land information systems.

FYI

References

Angel, Shlomo, Stephen K. Mayo, and William Stephens. “The Housing Indicators Program: A Report on Progress and Plans for the Future,” Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 1993.

Malpezzi, Stephen, “House Prices, Externalities, and Regulation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas,” Journal of Housing Research 7,2, 1996.

United Nations Centre for Human Settlements. Global Strategy for Shelter to the Year 2000. United Nations, New York, 1988.

World Bank. Housing: Enabling Markets to Work. World Bank Housing Policy Paper. Washington, DC, 1993.

Figure 1 Housing Outcomes for Four Groups of Countries

Source: Based on data from 53 countries collected by the joint World Bank/UN Centre for Human Settlements Housing Indicators Program (HIP). The Enabling Index was developed using HIP data on policies, regulations and institutional arrangements.

Figure 2 Average Housing Price Changes for U.S. Cities

Source: Based on hedonic price indices for rental and owner-occupied housing (weighted by the proportion of renters and owners in each market) for U.S. Standard Metropolitan Areas. The classification of U.S. cities as enablers or non-enablers is based on an index of regulatory stringency originally developed and applied by Stephen Malpezzi.

As part of the American Planning Association (APA) 2003 national conference held in Denver in March, the Lincoln Institute assembled a group of planning directors from large and small western cities to discuss a set of topics they had previously identified as being important, including infill housing, maintaining the core vs. sprawling at the edge, paying for infrastructure, and transportation and land use. To explore these issues and exchange case histories, the planners met for a weekend retreat organized by Peter Pollock, Boulder’s planning director, before presenting their findings at an APA session titled “Urban Challenges and Opportunities in the Rocky Mountain West.” This report highlights key discussion points raised during both the retreat and the APA panel.

The West remains one of the fastest growing regions in the country. Not surprisingly, the liveliest discussions among western city planners center on issues of infill housing and the need to protect and maintain the viability of the urban core in the face of continued regional growth. As Chris Knight of Las Vegas noted, “protecting the core is important to the health of the entire region.” Louis Zunguze of Salt Lake City emphasized that “the core area has a real responsibility for the pace of sprawl,” adding that there is a practical need “to keep the area attractive from many perspectives.”

Neighborhood Responses to Infill Development

Part of that challenge has to do with neighborhood resistance to change and increased density. In Billings, Montana, for example (metro population approximately 100,000; county population 140,000), sprawl is becoming a significant issue, according to Ramona Mattix. Yet, despite substantial capital support for downtown revitalization and favorable zoning densities, the city faces considerable resistance from its residents, many of whom are attached to their traditional wide-open spaces.

Bill Healy of Colorado Springs (population 368,000) spoke of his earlier experience as a planner in Salem, Oregon (population 137,000), when he addressed the problem of how to “sell density” in older neighborhoods. As in Billings, the greatest opposition to infill housing in Salem, which involved rezoning established neighborhoods to accommodate multifamily housing, came from existing residents who would grow increasingly vocal if growth was slated to occur in their “back yard.” Healy explained, “The way we sold density [in Salem] was to couple it with better design standards.” People there found density much more acceptable if new development was designed compatibly with existing neighborhoods. A further benefit was that the city obtained new design standards. “Public acceptance of infill is like a sine curve,” Healy explained. “In urban areas there is great acceptance. But as you get out to the first-ring suburbs, there is a real fear of density. Way out where populations are sparce it’s not an issue.” In Colorado Springs, Healy noted, there is little economic incentive for infill. “Half our land area is vacant, so that is a disincentive for infill development. It’s an issue from a planning standpoint.”

Not all western city planners cited neighborhood opposition to infill development as a major obstacle to accommodating growth, however. Ellen Ittleson, for example, discussed Denver’s (population 555,000) recent success in “planning around resistance” in the city’s most recent plan, Blueprint Denver. While preparing the plan, the city looked at growth projections over the next 20 years and devised a way to accommodate the addition of 132,000 predicted new residents and 109,000 new jobs to the city and county. The metro area is expected to receive an additional 760,000 new residents over the same period. “Once we accepted the growth,” remarked Ittleson, “the real task became figuring out where to put it, because where the market or zoning would have put it was not acceptable.”

The Blueprint Denver plan identifies two types of infill areas. “Areas of change” are those parts of the city that would benefit from increased population densities, such as areas of economic need where land use change and transportation initiatives could go hand-in-hand with realizing mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented and transit-oriented development. The only strictly residential area of change is Cherry Creek, which is being transformed from a single-family neighborhood to one with single-family and attached housing. “Areas of stability” are represented primarily by traditional residential neighborhoods, but also include small commercial and even industrial districts where the effort will focus on how to protect the character of these areas rather than adding new households or jobs.

“There has been great consensus on where growth should be and where it should not be,” Ittleson remarked. Yet, there remains considerable controversy “at the edge, that is, how to transition from areas of change to areas of stability,” she continued. Another major obstacle facing the city’s housing initiative is land assembly. “We have the Denver Urban Renewal Authority, but it’s a politically supercharged thing to use. It’s expensive and politically complicated,” she added. Another difficulty is Denver’s “archaic legislation,” which offers far less acceptance of inclusionary zoning than in the East.

Salt Lake City (population 182,000; metro population 1 million) also has demonstrated considerable acceptance of the need for more infill and density downtown. Renowned for its abundant natural amenities, the city has a thriving tourist industry and has become a magnet for growth. As a result, land costs are very high to accommodate the new population, and there are serious discussions between the mayor, the city council and the development community on how to make the city more viable in the face of this challenge. Louis Zunguze remarked that the city is keenly aware that “what happens around us has a lot to do with what we do in the core.”

As part of its efforts to contain the pace of sprawl and attract new development to the downtown, Salt Lake City is putting together a major housing initiative and has studied downtown sites suitable for infill. With the ambitious goal of creating 40,000 new housing units in and around the downtown area, amounting to a three-fold increase in density, a considerable challenge will be to “strike a balance” with more traditional neighborhoods. Strategies include block consolidations for small subdivisions and amending the zoning ordinance to allow for more height in certain appropriate areas, “so more density can be accommodated gradually.”

Salt Lake City has considerable assets working in its favor, notably the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormon Church), whose world headquarters is located downtown. “The Church is a significant entity from both a social and financial standpoint,” Zunguze noted. In addition to complementing the city on key housing and economic initiatives, the Church works hard to induce corporations to relocate downtown near the Church’s own headquarters. The Church partners with new development and redevelopment in other ways as well. For example, it has built a new conference center and recently bought the Crossroads Mall located downtown (that is still taxable) and other projects as additions to Church facilities.

Cheyenne (population 53,000; county population 81,000) is the largest community in Wyoming but the smallest city represented on the APA panel and it does not have issues with infill housing. “We’re a landlocked, small community,” notes Mike Abel. “Residential areas are close by, so residential development downtown is not a huge issue right now. We’re more interested in community development issues . . . our infill focus is on commercial redevelopment.”

Regional Planning

According to John Hester, Reno (population 200,000; metro population 550,000) relies heavily on regional planning. The city has a state-mandated regional plan, updated every five years and designed to account for growth and development over a 20-year period. The recently revised plan promotes the objective of directing development to existing areas and infrastructure. It also introduces a new conceptual framework for identifying and prioritizing those districts and transit corridors most suitable for infill and development. On a broad scale the plan presents the idea of Municipal Service Areas designed to capture what has already been built and approved. Urban and suburban land uses are allowed only in these service areas. Then, within these areas, the plan identifies activity centers and auto-dependent transit corridors most suitable for high-intensity land use and development. One specific target for the city, noted Hester, “is to capture 35 percent of all regional metro housing over the next 20 years within the McCarran Ring, a four-mile radius from downtown.”

For David Richert, the cities of Phoenix (population 1.4 million; metro population 3 million) and Reno appear to share similar planning approaches toward managed growth. The Phoenix plan identifies six growth areas as overall targets for development and infill. To alleviate traffic congestion within and among the designated growth areas, the plan also recommends redirecting growth to certain strategic perimeter areas. “They become edge cities within a village system,” he explained. “There are one hundred years worth of growth in the Phoenix plan. We’re putting in infrastructure where we think growth is going to occur.” Richert noted, however, that it was important to keep in mind that “getting the infill requires getting the people who want it, too. . . . Among our goals is to get a fair share of everything that happens in the valley and to set a good example.”

Las Vegas (population 500,000; metro population 1.5 million) has been the nation’s fastest growing region for more than 60 years. But, according to Chris Knight, “the city is still young, with an outward focus and large expanses of vacant land. We tear things down if we don’t like them. If it’s bad, we just blow it up and move elsewhere. Redevelopment is difficult because some of the more prominent redevelopment tools such as eminent domain are taboo.” Downtown Las Vegas is perceived to be in trouble, and its revitalization is at the top of the mayor’s agenda. “One obstacle is that the private owners of downtown properties need to buy in on fixing the problem,” Knight explained. Another problem he noted is that “a number of downtown property owners believe they own the site of ‘the next big casino,’ so land prices are very inflated.”

The mayor of Las Vegas has been a champion of regional planning and recognizes that protecting the core is vital to the health of the region. “The mayor wants to leave the legacy of a new downtown,” Knight added. Part of that legacy would include the introduction of new medical research facilities and 40,000 units of housing to the downtown area. “Big retailers are already coming in,” added Knight, and the city is “looking for tall buildings.” The city is also beginning to investigate transportation-related development to support the existing monorail system, “but our zoning standards may be archaic and will be in the way. We have to figure out how to remove them,” he explains.

Infrastructure and Land Management

Maintaining control of a city’s services and proper fiscal strategies may help in managing growth. Salt Lake City is well endowed with transportation facilities: light rail, bus (local and Greyhound) and train (Amtrak) services, and an airport that is within ten miles of downtown. Moreover, the streets in Salt Lake are so wide that it’s easy to install new rail lines down the center for new transit services. The city also has three large malls within the downtown area, which help keep the city viable. In addition, there is considerable willingness on the part of developers “to look at the barriers in the way of the kind of the development we want downtown (i.e., mixed-use along transit),” Louis Zunguze noted. In Salt Lake, “the city development and finance communities are beginning to come to the table together to discuss what type of housing should be developed and how to finance it. . . .The banks are willing to look at new ways to finance mixed-use developments,” he noted. While work still needs to be done in terms of putting the most viable financing tools together, Zunguze cited land use regulations as the city’s major obstacle to its infill efforts. The city is faced with “contradictions of wanting to do things but the process being very slow. . . . Developers seem to have no problem assembling land, but projects are seriously challenged by the review and permitting processes,” he explained.

Reno has less than half the population of Las Vegas, but as the second largest city in the nation’s fastest growing state, growth management is a high priority. John Hester cited two other factors, in addition to strong regional planning, that have been instrumental in shaping the city’s response to growth. First is the need to work within the limitations imposed by the city’s physical constraints: Reno is landlocked and must also contend with limited water supplies. Second is the city’s concern for fiscal equity and accountability. Taxpayers subsidize growth, and the city, in consultation with outside fiscal consultants, has made concerted efforts to ensure that only those who receive municipal services pay for them, and that taxpayers in one area are not subsidizing the provision of municipal services elsewhere. “A lot of what we try to do is use the fiscal system to make people realize they can’t keep building out,” says Hester. He also noted that the city has a unique tax structure that enables depreciation.

David Richert considers the situation in Phoenix to be very similar to that in Reno only on a bigger scale. “We have our land constraints—the Indian reservations . . . and the state trust lands. Only 13 percent of the State of Arizona is in private hands,” he explained. However, the city itself has no constraints on water. “Phoenix is in the business. It sells water to other communities,” he noted. But controlling the allocation of water “provides a measure of growth control in other areas. In Arizona, you need a 100-year water supply for everything you do.”

Phoenix is also trying to achieve “a balance of transportation,” with efforts to enhance existing transportation rather than building new. Greenspace planning is also becoming increasingly important within the Phoenix region. As an example, Richert cited the recent introduction of special zoning for drainage washes and meanders. The city also passed a bill to collect taxes to pay for park acquisition. “It won’t be enough,” he added, “because once you start buying land you create a market. Land values go up and you can’t buy as much.”

Cheyenne is a city poised for change. As the “northern anchor” of the Colorado Rocky’s Front Range, Cheyenne is only 90 miles from urban Denver. Because of its strategic location on north-south and east-west highways and railroad lines, the city is looking to capitalize on its potential as a major regional transportation hub. “Regionally, we have a lot going for us as a transportation center. Businesses are looking at Cheyenne because of its proximity to other major centers,” Abel explained. Moreover, for businesses Wyoming has a very attractive tax structure, and Cheyenne is also proving popular for commercial development because it is “ready to build.” The city has many greenways, and the strong pedestrian orientation within the community is appealing to new development and infill initiatives. Already, Abel stated, “once-vacant city blocks are beginning to change, and there’s a new parking structure downtown.” Growth is not without obstacles, however. Specifically, water will be the limiting factor in the city’s growth cycle. Like many western cities, noted Abel, “we’re dependent on our water resources and future enhancements. Without sufficient snowpack to balance out the high mountain reservoirs during a drought situation such as we have now, Cheyenne could be out of water in less than three years.”

Despite this sobering prospect, the city remains more than optimistic about its future. Recently, a local property owner offered the city a massive 17,000-acre ranch that appears to have several water sources, and with them significant development capability. The city has taken the option to purchase the ranch for its water rights, but the city would acquire both the land and its water. “With this purchase, we could double the size of Cheyenne overnight,” exclaimed Abel, adding that “it will force the city to look differently at land use in the area for commercial and urban development. It’s an opportunity to develop the next generation of Cheyenne.” David Richert commented, “17,000 acres is huge. . . . You’ll need a lot of expertise from the private sector. But you’re doing a very progressive thing; your government has a chance to control development.”

Armando Carbonell is a senior fellow and cochairman of the Lincoln Institute’s Department of Planning and Development, and Lisa Cloutier is a research assistant in the department.

photo:

Participants in the Lincoln Institute-sponsored retreat for planning directors of western cities: Top row, from left: Mike Abel, Cheyenne; Bill Healy, Colorado Springs; Chris Knight, Las Vegas; John Hester, Reno. Middle row: Louis Zunguze, Salt Lake City; Ramona Mattix, Billings; Ellen Ittleson, Denver. Bottom row, from left: Armando Carbonell, Lincoln Institute; David Richert, Phoenix; Peter Pollock, Boulder. Photo credit: Lisa Cloutier