SHARE
Responding to decades of poverty, poor housing, inadequate health care, rampant crime, deficient schools, poorly planned infrastructure, and inequitable access to services, citizens in about half of Brazil’s 60 major cities voted in October 2000 for mayors from left-wing parties noted for advocacy, honesty and transparency. These reform administrations are introducing new hopes and expectations, but they inherit long-standing mistrust of municipal bureaucrats and politicians, who traditionally have been lax and often corrupt. These new governments also confront the dismal fiscal prospects of low tax receipts, weak federal transfers, and urban land markets that produce segregated neighborhoods and profound inequalities.
The strongest left-wing party, the Workers’ Party (in Portuguese, the Partido dos Trabalhadores or PT), held on to the five large cities it had won in the 1996 election and added 12 more. These PT governments hope to universalize services, thus bypassing traditional top-down methods and giving residents an active role in their local governments. In the process these governments are reinventing local democracy, invigorating politics, and significantly altering the distribution of political and symbolic resources. The most remarkable case may be Porto Alegre, the capital of Brazil’s southernmost state, Rio Grande do Sul, where the PT won its fourth consecutive four-year term with 66 percent of the vote, an example that may have encouraged Brazilians in other cities to vote for democratic reforms as well.
Porto Alegre, like cities everywhere, reflects its national culture in its land use patterns, economic structure and distribution of political power. Brazil’s larger social system employs sophisticated mechanisms to assure that its cities continue to follow the same rules, norms and logic that organize the dominant society. Because Brazilian society is in many respects unjust and unequal, the city must constantly administer to the effects of these broader economic and political constraints.
At the same time, no city is a pure reflection, localized and reduced, of its national social structure. Any city can bring about and reproduce inequality and injustice itself, just as it can stimulate dynamic social structures and economic relations. To the extent that the city, and especially its government, determines events, then the effects can be positive as well as negative. It is not written in any segment of the Brazilian social code, for example, that only the streets of upper- and middle-class neighborhoods will be paved, or that water supply will reach only the more privileged corners of the city.
Participatory Budgeting
In Porto Alegre, a popular front headed by the PT has introduced “participatory budgeting,” a process by which thousands of residents can participate each year in public meetings to allocate about half the municipal budget, thus taking major responsibility for governing their own community. This reform symbolizes a broad range of municipal changes and poses an alternative to both authoritarian centralism and neoliberal pragmatism. Neighbors decide on practical local matters, such as the location of street improvements or a park, as well as difficult citywide issues. Through the process, the PT claims, people become conscious of other opportunities to challenge the poverty and inequality that make their lives so difficult.
Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre begins with the government’s formal accounting for the previous year and its investment and expenditure plan for the current year. Elected delegates in each of 16 district assemblies meet throughout the year to determine the fiscal responsibilities of city departments. They produce two sets of rankings: one for twelve major in-district or neighborhood “themes,” such as street paving, school construction, parks, or water and sewer lines, and the other for “cross-cutting” efforts that affect the entire city, such as transit-line location, spending for beach clean-up, or programs for assisting the homeless. To encourage participation, rules set the number of delegates roughly proportional to the number of neighbors attending the election meeting.
Allocation of the investment budget among districts follows “weights” determined by popular debate: in 1999, weights were assigned to population, poverty, shortages (e.g., lack of pavement), and citywide priorities. Tension between city hall and citizens has led to expanded popular involvement, with participatory budgeting each year taking a larger share of the city’s total budget. Priorities have shifted in ways unanticipated by the mayors or their staffs.
Participants include members of the governing party, some professionals, technocrats and middle-class citizens, and disproportionate numbers of the working poor (but fewer of the very poor). This process brings into political action many who do not support the governing party, in contrast to the traditional patronage approach that uses city budgets as a way to pay off supporters. As one index of success, the number of participants in Porto Alegre grew rapidly, from about 1,000 in 1990 to 16,000 in 1998 and 40,000 in 1999.
The participatory process has been self-reinforcing. For example, when annoyed neighbors discovered that others got their streets paved or a new bus stop, they wondered why. The simple answer was that only the beneficiary had gone to the budget meetings. In subsequent years, attendance increased, votes included more interests, and more residents were happy with the results. City officials were relieved, too, as residents themselves confronted the zero-sum choices on some issues: a fixed budget, with tough choices among such important things as asphalt over dusty streets, more classrooms, or care for the homeless.
Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre is succeeding in the midst of considerable hostility from a conservative city council and constant assault from right-wing local newspapers and television programs, all of them challenging participation and extolling unregulated markets. The municipal government depends for its support on the participants and their neighbors, on radio broadcasting, and on many who resisted two decades of military dictatorship, from 1964 to 1985. In electing four consecutive reform administrations, a majority of the population has managed to pressure a hostile city council to vote in favor of the mayor’s budget proposals, keeping the progressive agenda intact.
Changes in Material Conditions
In 1989, despite comparatively high life expectancy and literacy rates, conditions in Porto Alegre mirrored the inequality and income segregation of other Brazilian cities. A third of the population lived in poorly serviced slums on the urban periphery, isolated and distant from the wealthy city center. Against this background, PT innovations have improved conditions, though only moderately, for some of the poorest citizens. For example, between 1988 and 1997, water connections in Porto Alegre went from 75 percent to 98 percent of all residences. The number of schools has quadrupled since 1986. New public housing units, which sheltered only 1,700 new residents in 1986, housed an additional 27,000 in 1989. Municipal intervention also facilitated a compromise with private bus companies to provide better service to poor peripheral neighborhoods. The use of bus-only lanes has improved commuting times and newly painted buses are highly visible symbols of local power and the public interest.
Porto Alegre has used its participatory solidarity to allow the residents to make some unusual economic development decisions that formerly would have been dominated by centralized business and political interests. The city turned down a five-star hotel investment on the site of an abandoned power plant, preferring to use the well-situated promontory as a public park and convention hall that now serves as the new symbol of the city. And, faced with a proposal to clear slums to make room for a large supermarket, the city imposed stiff and costly household relocation requirements, which the supermarket is meeting. In another example, in spite of promises of new employment and the usual kinds of ideological pressures from the Ford Motor Company, the nearby municipality of Guíaba turned down a proposed new auto plant, arguing along political lines established in Porto Alegre that the required subsidies would be better applied against other city needs. (A state investigation in August 2000 found the former mayor, not “at fault” for losing the Ford investment.)
Nevertheless, daunting constraints in the broader Brazilian economic and political environment continue to limit gains in economic growth, demands for labor and quality jobs. Comparing Porto Alegre and Rio Grande do Sul with nearby capital cities and their states during the years 1985-1986 and 1995-2000, one finds few sharp contrasts. Generally, GDP stagnated, and per capita GDP declined. Unemployment rose and labor-force participation and formal employment both fell.
Given this limited extent of economic improvement, how can we account for the sense of optimism and achievement that pervades Porto Alegre? The city is clearly developing a successful experience with local government that reinforces participatory democracy. We believe the PT’s success lies in the way the participants are redefining local power, with increasing numbers of citizens becoming simultaneously subject and object, initiator and recipient, so they can both govern and benefit directly from their decisions. This reconfiguration is immediately discernible in the procedures, methods and behavior of local government.
After 12 years, Porto Alegre has changed not just the way of doing things, but the things themselves; not just the way of governing the city, but the city itself. Such a claim is clearly significant. Porto Alegre offers an authentic, alternative approach to city management-one that rejects not only the centralist, technocratic, authoritarian planning model of the military dictatorship, but also the competitive, pragmatic, neoliberal model of the Washington Consensus, to which the national government still adheres. This model imposes International Monetary Fund (IMF) orthodoxy and requires such “structural adjustment” imperatives as free trade, privatization, strict limits to public expenditures, and high rates of interest, thus worsening the conditions of the poor.
While most Brazilian cities continue to distribute facilities and allocate services with obvious bias and neglect of poor neighborhoods, the reconfiguration of power in Porto Alegre is beginning to reduce spatial inequalities through changes in service provision and land use patterns. We can hope that the effect will be felt in the formal structures of the city and eventually in other cities and in Brazilian society in general.
New Forms of Local Power
Political and symbolic resources normally are monopolized by those who control economic power, but radically democratic municipal administrations, as in Porto Alegre, can reverse power to block the favoring and reinforcing of privilege. They can interfere with the strict solidarity of economic and political power, reduce private appropriation of resources, and promote the city as a collective and socially dynamic body. In other words, a city’s administration could cease to honor the actions of dominant urban groups-real estate interests and others who use various forms of private appropriation of public resources for their private benefit. These actions may include allocation of infrastructure to favor elite neighborhoods, privatization of scenic and environmental resources, and the capture of land value increments resulting from public investments and regulatory interventions. Thus, a reconfigured, publicly oriented city administration permits access to local power for traditionally excluded groups. Such a change constitutes a quasi-revolution, with consequences that cannot yet be measured or evaluated adequately by activists or hopeful governments.
Are Porto Alegre’s experiences with municipal reform, participatory budgeting and democratic land use planning idiosyncratic, or do these innovations promise broader improvements in Brazilian politics as other citizens build expectations and improve the structure of their governments? The Interamerican Development Bank (IDB) is urging localities throughout Latin America to engage in participatory budgeting, following Porto Alegre’s example. Can reform-minded city administrations override the constraints of international markets and national policy? In recommending the formal and procedural aspects of the participatory budgeting technique, does the IDB overestimate the practical economic achievements and underestimate the symbolic and political dimensions of radical democracy?
The lesson of urban reform in Porto Alegre emerges not so directly in the economic market as in new experiences with power, new political actors, and new values and meanings for the conditions of its citizens. Even as citizens weigh their expectations against stagnating macroeconomic conditions, they can find hope in new visions of overcoming spatial and social inequalities in the access to services. These new forms of exercising political power and speaking out about land use and governance issues give the city’s residents a new capacity to make a difference in their own lives.
References
Rebecca N. Abers. 2000. Inventing Local Democracy. Grassroots Politics in Brazil. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Gianpaolo Baiocchi. 1999. “Transforming the City,” unpublished manuscript. University of Wisconsin (September).
Boaventura de Sousa Santos. 1998. “Participatory Budgeting in Porto Alegre.” Politics and Society 26, 4 (December): 461-510.
William W. Goldsmith is a professor in the Department of City and Regional Planning at Cornell University. Carlos Vainer is a professor in the Institute for Urban and Regional Planning and Research at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. They participated in a December 1999 seminar hosted by the City of Porto Alegre and cosponsored by the Lincoln Institute and the Planners Network, a North American association of urban planners, activists and scholars working for equality and social change.
SHARE
To what extent are problems of distressed urban areas attributable to the property tax, and how can changes in property taxation help remedy urban decline? Political leaders, policy analysts and public finance experts gathered to discuss this complex and controversial issue during a Lincoln Institute seminar in New Haven on March 15.
John DeStefano, Jr., now in his second term as Mayor of New Haven, opened the session with a strong indictment of the property tax as a cause of urban ills. Described by the New York Times as “a leading spokesman for a growing number of people who believe Connecticut’s reliance on the property tax is harming not just the state’s cities, but its entire economy,” Mayor DeStefano argued that high relative property taxes in Connecticut were a direct cause of the state’s decline in population and jobs. From 1990 to 1995 Connecticut lost over 12,000 residents, while New Haven and Hartford suffered the two steepest population declines of any U.S. cities during that period.
His concern was shared by representatives from the Capital Region Council of Governments, the Regional Growth Partnership of South Central Connecticut, and the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, which distributed a report stating that overdependence on the property tax was “reducing quality of life in all of Connecticut’s cities and towns.”
How can this widespread assumption linking property taxes to urban ills be tested, and what changes in the sources of local revenue could encourage urban revitalization? It may be that shifting demographic and economic patterns, such as the large defense industry cutbacks that have reduced Connecticut’s supply of high-wage jobs, have more to do with employment and population loss than does the property tax. If so, changing the property tax will not address the underlying causes of urban decline. Property taxes in Connecticut are not as far from the national average as a percentage of personal income as they might appear in absolute dollars (see chart).
Will lowering property taxes enhance economic growth if it is accompanied by an increase in other forms of taxation? Meeting growing needs in urban areas with a declining economic base is a problem of dependence on locally based taxation, not a problem of property taxation alone. Shifting from one local tax to another will not necessarily assist the neediest cities that have the least amount of revenue to draw upon.
Alternative Revenue Sources
What revenue sources can offer alternatives to the property tax as it is currently structured? The property tax base in the U.S. initially included real property and personal property, tangibles and intangibles alike; the restriction to land and buildings was the result of nineteenth-century reform efforts. Seminar speaker C. Lowell Harriss urged that these two portions of the property tax base be considered separately. The first, a tax on land values, deserves even more intensive use than it is getting, he argued, whereas the second, a tax on man-made capital such as buildings, machinery and inventories, warrants even more condemnation than it receives.
Donald Reeb of the State University of New York at Albany examined the actual process of obtaining state and local support for such a shift. He described successful efforts to permit Amsterdam, New York, to change from a single-rate property tax to a graded tax with a higher rate on land than on building value.
Robert Schwab of the University of Maryland discussed his own study of Pittsburgh’s two-rate tax, with buildings taxed five times as heavily as land. This case has particular interest for the issue of causality–whether or not the tax itself deserves credit for improving the local economy. Schwab drew a subtle distinction between finding that the tax had caused an increase in building and investment and that the tax had not impeded development. Although he felt that his study could not support the first proposition, he endorsed the second and emphasized its importance. This led to discussion of the special nature of a tax on land, which avoids the excess burden caused by most other forms of taxation in terms of lost efficiency.
Ronald Fisher of Michigan State University challenged the perception that heavy property taxation alone was the main problem for Connecticut’s economy. He pointed out that the state presents a complex mix of high personal income, relatively modest governmental expenditures, low income taxes, and consequent reliance on sales and property taxes. Connecticut only introduced a state personal income tax in 1991, and that tax has been the object of intense political protest and repeal efforts. In discussing various revenue sources, including local income taxes, local sales taxes and user charges, Fisher also questioned whether the absence of effective regional government in Connecticut could be partially responsible for the disparities between distressed central cities and prosperous suburban areas.
Tax-base and Revenue Sharing
Further discussion probed options for tax-base and revenue sharing as ways to reduce the tax burden on urban residents while meeting city revenue needs. The Connecticut Property Tax Reform Commission has recommended simply increasing state aid. Another option would reduce unfunded mandates in areas such as welfare and education.
A third alternative uses state funds to allow property taxes to serve as a credit against income taxes for low-income homeowners–and a refund to those with no income tax liability. Termed a “circuit breaker,” it is designed to prevent property taxes from exceeding a fixed proportion of income. The credit sometimes extends to renters as well. Over half the states provide some form of circuit breaker, but most are limited to senior citizens.
Lee Samowitz, a Bridgeport state representative, presented a proposal for regional service districts financed by a portion of the commercial and industrial tax base. Direct tax-base sharing of this type has its longest history in the Minneapolis-St. Paul region, which for 25 years has pooled 40 percent of the growth in the industrial and commercial property tax.
Yet such programs face formidable political hurdles, in part because most areas have fragmented or weak regional governments. According to economists Howard Chernick and Andrew Reschovsky, “Despite its success in Minnesota, the prospects for the establishment of tax-base sharing plans in other metropolitan areas are poor. The political representatives of those communities that would be net ‘losers’ under a tax-base sharing plan, or who believe they will be net losers at some point in the near future, will oppose tax-base sharing.”
Political obstacles have impeded plans for tax-base sharing in recent years in a number of states. However, the discussion in New Haven made it clear that property tax reform will become increasingly important as an element in the search for regional solutions to urban problems.
Joan Youngman, senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute, is an attorney and expert on legal problems of valuation for property taxation. She develops and teaches courses on land taxation and regulation issues.
References
Chernick and Reschovsky. “Urban Fiscal Problems: Coordinating Actions Among Governments,” Government Finance Review, vol 11, no. 4 (August 1995) p. 17ff.
Connecticut Conference of Municipalities. Property Tax Relief and Reform, Public Policy Report #96-03. March 1996. 900 Chapel St., 9th floor, New Haven, CT 06510-2807. 203/498-3000.
Fisher, Ronald C. State and Local Public Finance. Chicago: Irwin, 1996.
SHARE
As a visiting fellow at the Lincoln Institute and a Loeb Fellow at Harvard University Graduate School of Design during the 2004–2005 academic year, Mario Navarro has undertaken a critical analysis of the innovative housing finance policy developed in Chile over the last 30 years. The objective of the study, summarized here, is to help housing policy designers in developing countries understand the Chilean model as an alternative to provide housing to people from low- and moderate-income sectors.
Until the beginning of the 1970s, housing programs in developing countries consisted of government-sponsored initiatives to design, build and sell houses using loans with subsidized interest rates. These policies were generally limited in scale, not affordable by or clearly focused on poor families, and often inefficient (Mayo 1999). Cognizant of these problems, international development organizations in the mid-1970s started to direct their loans and advice to developing countries based on the new “basic needs” strategy, which consisted of providing sites and services, slum upgrading and core housing (Kimm 1986).
At the same time and independently from these development organizations, Chile started several reforms in the financial sector and in social housing programs, among which was the creation of the first program in the world to subsidize the demand to buy housing (Gilbert 2004). This Chilean model was established ten years before the “enabling markets housing approach” promoted by international organizations such as the U.S. Agency for International Development (Kimm 1986), the Inter-American Development Bank (Rojas, Jacobs and Savedoff 1999) and the World Bank (World Bank 1993). Under this enabling policy governments generate incentives and act as a facilitator so the private sector will produce and finance the housing that the country needs.
The Chilean model has influenced housing policy in many countries of Latin American, and even those of other continents (Gilbert 2004; Gonzáles Arrieta 1997). Nevertheless, it has not been widely recognized as the first program in which the government plays the role of enabling the market. Gilbert (2002), an important scholar of the Chilean model and its influence on other countries, mentions that Chile “fits into” the enabling model, but my study shows that, more than only fitting in, the Chilean housing model was the precursor of the policy. The main characteristics of this program (one-time cash payments of a fixed amount) correspond “unquestionably to the type of subsidy [for housing] that is less problematic than others” (Angel 2000).
The Chilean government, through the Ministry of Housing and Planning (in Spanish, Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo, MINVU), was the key actor in the success of the Chilean model. During the first 27 years of implementing this policy (until 2001), MINVU not only funded and managed the subsidy programs, but it also was the largest real estate firm and the second largest mortgage bank in the country, in terms of the number of houses built and the number of mortgage loans issued.
Three Periods of Housing Policy
What have been the instruments and the amounts of public and private resources that were allocated to the construction and improvement of social housing in the Chile? My study is divided into six parts; the first three review distinct periods of housing policy over the past 30 years, and the next three parts describe the most relevant events in the evolution of this policy.
The first period, from 1974 to 1984, established the foundations of the enabling markets housing policy. During those 11 years, profound reforms were made in the banking system. The programs to subsidize housing were created and then significantly adjusted over time. However, few resources were devoted to housing programs, and the private sector participated only in providing housing for the upper-middle class. The public resources did not reach the poorest groups, so the housing deficit continued to growth.
The second period extended over 17 years, from 1985 to 2001, during which time the policy was consolidated with significant state intervention. The earthquake that shook the central zone of Chile in March 1985 marked the historic peak of the housing deficit, reaching more than one million units. This event precipitated increased attention to the design of housing and subsidy programs, as well as an increase in the level of resources allocated to these programs. These two factors were decisive in attracting the private sector to the social housing market. The continuity of housing policies implemented by democratic governments that started in 1990 was a strategic effort to consolidate the trust and knowledge required by the private sector to increase its participation in the market. The government continued its role in the construction and funding of housing for broad sectors of the population, and the focus of the resources improved with respect to the previous period. Although the commitment was still inadequate, the great accomplishment of this period was the reduction of the housing deficit to half of what it had been in the mid-1980s.
The third period, from 2002 to 2004, corresponds to the implementation of the enabling markets housing policy. Although Chile’s housing policy received international recognition before 2001, only 25 percent of its resources were allocated to families below the poverty line. At that rate of performance, it would have taken 24 years to close the housing deficit (Focus 2001). MINVU was spending more than half of its resources on direct housing construction programs and was still working as a bank, providing mortgage loans, although more than 70 percent of payments were in arrears (División Técnica 2001).
Current Housing Policy
To improve the focus of its resource allocation, MINVU in 2002 started the most important transformation of its housing policy since 1974. At the same time, MINVU stopped giving mortgage loans and gave up the direct construction of houses. In 2004, 96 percent of resources were targeted to subsidy programs and only 4 percent to building programs. The most important housing programs for urban families under this new housing policy are described here.
For the poorest residents, MINVU created a subsidy program called Fondo Solidario de Vivienda (Funding for Cooperative Housing) with an up-front subsidy of US$8,400 per household. Applicants need US$300 of savings and have to present a specific housing proposal. The subsidy covers the cost of land, infrastructure and a 350-square-foot unit containing a bathroom, kitchen, multipurpose space and bedroom. This is considered to be the first stage of a house to be built progressively over time. The municipal building permit is pre-approved assuming the unit’s expansion to a minimum of 550 square feet.
Families must apply in organized groups of at least 10 households and with the support of a managing organization, which can be a municipality, a nongovernmental organization or a consulting firm registered with MINVU. The ministry no longer decides where and what to construct, since the family groups present their projects and MINVU selects the best ones from a social, design and urban development point of view. The managing organization receives the funds to develop the project, implement a social action plan, and assist the families with technical support to expand their units.
Families do not receive another subsidy for the expansion, but since they do not have to pay a mortgage they can save to finance the materials and labor required. The new program is flexible and also accepts projects that involve the purchase of existing houses or construction on existing open space within a lot to increase housing density.
The selection mechanism benefits people who buy used houses over those who build new houses. The goal was to open a new market for the very low-income sector by making it possible for them to purchase the houses that had been constructed by the government over the previous 30 years. This policy is also viewed as a solution to the traditional problems associated with moving families to new housing projects on the periphery of cities, far from social and employment networks and more expensive for commuting to work. This program is focused on people living below the poverty line (approximately 632,000 households in Chile, equivalent to 19 percent of the population). Nearly 30,000 such subsidies have been given each year since 2002.
The second subsidy program was designed for low-income people above the poverty line who were the main consumers of the former housing projects developed by MINVU until 2001. The subsidies can be used to buy new or existing housing or to construct a house on one’s own land. The subsidy is US$4,500 for houses that cost US$9,000 or less and it decreases linearly to US$2,700 for houses up a price limit of US$18,000. Nearly 40,000 units have been granted annually under this program.
Because of credit enhancements offered by MINVU, six private banks signed agreements to deliver mortgage loans for housing valued under US$18,000. This policy was able to reduce the rent requirements and allow informal workers to qualify for mortgage loans. To reduce delinquency rates, the loans needed to be insured against fire and unemployment or the death of the principal. Three credit enhancements are included in MINVU’s agreements with the banks.
Some constituencies were afraid that the subsidies would go only to the upper limit of the price allowed and that the market would provide neither housing nor credit for houses of less than US$15,000. The results showed that the progressiveness of the subsidies was sufficient to promote the market at all of the price levels targeted by the subsidy.
The third type of subsidy is for houses between US$18,000 and US$30,000, to promote mixed-income units in private housing projects. Only 6,500 of these subsidies have been given each year. The subsidy offers up-front capital of US$2,700, but the credit enhancements were eliminated because many private banks were already originating mortgage loans in this price range.
The last three parts of the study analyze (1) key issues to generate an enabling markets housing policy, including transaction costs, access to bank financing, savings for housing, and support to families so they can take advantage of the subsidies; (2) the impact of the housing programs on family income and the distribution of national income; and (3) lessons on housing finance learned from the Chile’s experience over the last 30 years.
Conclusion
My study analyzes the Chilean housing policy since 1974, to better understand how it became possible to incorporate the participation of the private sector and improve the focus in allocating resources to the poorest sector. The study explores both good and bad decisions that were made over the past 30 years, and particularly in the past three years, and it identifies the roles of different social and economic actors in the process. The early results are encouraging. Using the same budget for subsidies in each of the last four years, MINVU increased by 57 percent the number of families from the poorest three income deciles who have benefited from government housing subsidies.
Despite the great breakthrough in social housing in Chile, many tasks remain. A report by MINVU estimates a housing deficit of 543,000 units in 2000 and suggests that 96,000 new units of housing are needed each year just to accommodate new family demand (Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo de Chile 2004).
The effects in terms of land use are also remarkable. Until 2001 all the housing units built for low-income families in the Greater Santiago area were developed by MINVU in new infill projects on the periphery of the city. The Funding for Cooperative Housing program established in 2003 encouraged acquisition of existing houses and increased density of housing within already urbanized areas. As a result, the percentage of these types of housing began to shift dramatically, from zero in 2001 to 23 percent in 2003 and up to 63 percent in 2004, with a corresponding decrease in the percentage of new infill units being developed on the periphery.
It took Chile more than 28 years to fully implement the enabling markets housing policy. I hope this study can help other countries to formulate their housing policies so that all citizens, without regard to their socioeconomic condition, can have access to opportunities to own a decent home.
References
Angel, S. 2000. Housing policy matters: A global analysis. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
División Técnica de Estudio y Fomento Habitacional. 2001. Informe de gestión: Diciembre de 2000. Santiago, Chile: Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo.
Gilbert, A. 2002. Power, ideology and the Washington consensus: The development and spread of the Chilean housing policy. Housing Studies 17(2): 305–324.
———. 2004. Helping the poor through housing subsidies: Lessons from Chile, Colombia and South Africa. Habitat International 28(1): 13.
Gonzáles Arrieta, G. 1997. Acceso a la vivienda y subsidios directos a la demanda: Análisis y lecciones de las experiencias latinoamericanas. Serie Financiamiento del Desarrollo (63).
Kimm, P. 1986. Evolving shelter policies for developing countries. Second International Shelter Conference, Vienna, Austria.
Mayo, S. 1999. Subsidies in housing. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.
Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo de Chile. 2004. El déficit habitacional en Chile: Medición de los requerimientos de vivienda y su distribución espacial. Santiago, Chile: Política Habitacional y Planificación (321).
Rojas, E., Jacobs, M., and Savedoff, W. 1999. Operational guidelines for housing: Urban development and housing policy. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.
World Bank. 1993. Housing: Enabling markets to work. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Mario Navarro was director of housing policy in Chile’s Ministry of Housing and Planning (MINVU) from 2000 to 2004, when he was named Loeb Fellow at Harvard and visiting fellow at the Lincoln Institute.
SHARE
Daniel McMillen has a joint appointment in the Department of Economics and the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois. He is also a visiting fellow in the Department of Valuation and Taxation at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Before moving to Urbana-Champaign, he was a member of the economics departments at the University of Illinois at Chicago, University of Oregon, Santa Clara University, and Tulane University. McMillen received his Ph.D. in economics from Northwestern University in 1987.
Since 2005, McMillen has worked on a number of Lincoln Institute projects, including two David C. Lincoln Fellowships with Rachel Weber, a member of the Urban Planning and Policy Department at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He has also collaborated with Richard F. Dye of the University of Illinois on a series of Lincoln-sponsored projects on land valuation and assessment limitation measures.
McMillen has been co-editor of Regional Science and Urban Economics since 2007. He also serves on the editorial boards of other leading journals in urban economics, real estate, and regional science, and as a consultant for the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. He directed the Center for Urban Real Estate at the University of Illinois at Chicago from 1999 to 2005, and has served on the board of the American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association.
Land Lines: How did you become associated with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy?
Daniel McMillen: I first came to the Lincoln Institute in 1989 for a conference on “Growth Management and Land Use Controls.” It was an honor to be invited there as a relatively new assistant professor and to have the chance to meet many leading urban and public finance economists. I returned for another conference in 1996. I was impressed by the quality of the research being conducted by and for the Lincoln Institute on land use, land and property taxation, and the regulation of land markets. When I had a sabbatical in 2005–2006, the Lincoln Institute seemed like an ideal place to work. I spent much of that year in Cambridge, and have been involved regularly ever since.
Land Lines: What was the first project you conducted for the Lincoln Institute?
Daniel McMillen: I began working with Richard F. Dye on a study of teardowns and land values in the Chicago metropolitan area. A teardown is a property that is purchased solely to replace the existing structure with a new one. Teardowns have been remarkably controversial because they drastically alter the character of long-established neighborhoods. In 2006 the National Trust for Historic Preservation declared Chicago to be the “epicenter” of teardown activity, so the city offered an ideal setting for such a study.
We collected data on sales and demolition permits for homes in Chicago and several suburbs. An assessment file including the structural characteristics of each home allowed us to test a key prediction of theoretical models of demolitions—that is, when a home is purchased as a teardown, it is valued only for the land on which it rests. Our results supported this theory by showing that structural characteristics did not influence the sale prices of teardown properties.
This study has important practical implications because it suggests that teardowns can be used to estimate land values in areas where many homes are being demolished and replaced by new structures. One of the impediments to a land tax is the difficulty of estimating land values in built-up areas where there are few sales of vacant land. Teardowns may help make land taxation feasible in large urban areas that are undergoing redevelopment.
Land Lines: What other research topics have you investigated?
Dan McMillen: I have worked on a series of projects with Rachel Weber analyzing property assessments in Chicago. In a paper published in the National Tax Journal, titled Thin Markets and Property Tax Inequities: A Multinomial Logit Approach, we developed a new approach for determining whether property assessments are regressive in the sense that assessment ratios tend to be lower for higher-priced properties. We use a statistical (logit) model to estimate the probability that a property will have an assessment ratio in the upper or lower end of the distribution rather than in the middle. Although we do find evidence of regressivity, we also find that assessments tend to be much more accurate in neighborhoods with a large number of sales. Thin markets—areas with few sales—have a much higher probability of both unusually high and unusually low assessment ratios.
In subsequent work to be published in the Public Finance Review, titled Ask and Ye Shall Receive? Predicting the Successful Appeal of Property Tax Assessments, we develop an empirical model of the appeals process for property assessments. We find that thin markets have many more appeals and a higher proportion of successful appeals than areas with many sales. Taxpayers who appeal their assessments tend to live in moderate-income neighborhoods in newer, larger homes with assessments that increased significantly since the previous reassessment year. In contrast, successful applicants tend to live in smaller, older homes and in neighborhoods that have experienced relatively slower rates of property appreciation.
Land Lines: What conferences have you organized for the Lincoln Institute?
Daniel McMillen: For several years, I have helped organize the conference “Recent Advances in Urban Economics and Public Finance,” at which many of the leading researchers in urban economics and public finance present new work. The conference provides the opportunity for authors to summarize their papers and receive useful feedback from an enthusiastic, knowledgeable audience.
The conference includes both established and emerging scholars. It was very important to me to meet recognized scholars when I was an assistant professor at the University of Oregon, and I want to return the favor by using these conferences to help junior scholars meet more established researchers.
This year Daphne Kenyon, another Lincoln Institute visiting fellow, and I formalized this mentoring goal by introducing a junior scholars program that matched young assistant professors with the editors of key urban economics and public finance journals, including Regional Science and Urban Economics, Public Finance Review, the Journal of Regional Science, Real Estate Economics, and the National Tax Journal. After a session with the full panel of editors, each junior scholar met individually with one of the editors, who provided comments on a working paper the scholar had prepared. The junior scholars came from a variety of universities and organizations, including the University of Michigan, the University of Southern California, the University of Oklahoma, Georgia State University, the University of Georgia, Winthrop University, Washington University, and the Federal Reserve Board.
Land Lines: How has your association with the Lincoln Institute influenced your research?
Daniel McMillen: I have published many papers that deal directly with issues of land use, land and property taxation, and land policies. My association with the Lincoln Institute has encouraged me to think more about the policy implications of my research and to expand its potential audience beyond academic economists.
For example, I wrote a paper on the costs and benefits of teardowns for Land Lines (July 2006) as a direct result of a presentation for the Lincoln Lecture Series. A surprising number of people in the audience were convinced that teardowns should be heavily regulated because they could never generate any benefits. However, teardowns may also offer new tax revenues, an improved housing stock, and perhaps even reduced urban sprawl. Economists become so used to thinking in terms of costs and benefits that they tend to take it for granted that others use the same framework to analyze issues. Although I think a strong case can be made for regulating teardowns, this kind of experience helps me realize how vital an economist’s perspective can be in shaping policies that lead to good outcomes.
The Lincoln Institute has also encouraged me to think about the implications of my research for assessment practices. When I presented my work on teardowns in an Institute-sponsored session at the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) conference in 2005, the participants were very interested in using teardowns to improve land assessments. They wanted to know what data would be required and what statistical procedures to use. This conference and subsequent contact with IAAO members provided inspiration and background for my work on assessment regressivity and assessment appeals.
My Lincoln Institute affiliation has also led to contacts with legislators and other policy makers. Richard Dye, David Merriman, and I produced a study for the Illinois Department of Revenue that analyzed the effects of Cook County’s cap on the growth rate of residential property assessments. This work motivated a 2007 conference on assessment limits held at the Institute where academics, local government officials, and state legislators heard presentations about the experience with assessment limits in Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, and Minnesota.
One lesson from the conference was that assessment limits have important distributional effects that transfer taxes from fast-growing areas to those with low rates of appreciation, or from residences to commercial or industrial properties. This conclusion surprised many people who thought that assessment limits simply lowered property taxes for everyone. To share this work with a broader audience, Richard Dye and I wrote a Land Lines article (July 2007), titled Surprise! An Unintended Consequence of Assessment Limitations, in which we presented the algebra and explanations behind such policies.
Land Lines: What are your current projects for the Lincoln Institute?
Daniel McMillen: I am returning to my work on teardowns. I am working with Arthur O’Sullivan, professor of economics at Lewis & Clark College, to develop the implications of an options model of teardown investments. The basic implication is that the sales price of a property can be decomposed into the value of the land and the value of the structure, with the weights to each component depending on the probability that the structure will be demolished. Whereas land accounts for the entire value of a property when the structure will be demolished immediately, structural characteristics have more influence on the sales price when the owner is likely to live in the home for some time. We are now testing these implications using updated data on property sales in the Chicago area.
I am also extending my work on assessment practices by developing new statistical procedures to analyze the distribution of assessment ratios. My preliminary results suggest that the variance of assessment ratios is much higher at very low sales prices and that assessments tend to be more accurate for relatively high-priced properties. I am working to develop a set of computer programs that will make the analysis of assessment ratio distributions readily accessible to assessors and other practitioners.
We plan to continue our junior scholars program as a companion to the Urban Economics and Public Finance conference. These conferences play an important role in mentoring young scholars and in helping to introduce the Lincoln Institute to academic researchers, which my own experience shows can be a formative intellectual experience.
