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.

Con el objetivo de analizar la equidad y eficacia del sistema fiscal de tributación inmobiliaria, el Instituto Lincoln desarrolló, en conjunto con el Ayuntamiento de Porto Alegre (Brasil), el Seminario Internacional sobre Tributación Inmobiliaria en abril de 2001, el cual formó parte de su programa educativo en América Latina. Asistieron al seminario más de 200 delegados de 12 países, 14 estados brasileños y 45 autoridades municipales. Expertos reconocidos en el ámbito internacional, funcionarios gubernamentales y personalidades del sector académico, de finanzas públicas y de materias impositivas representaron instituciones tales como el Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID), el Instituto Internacional de Tributación Inmobiliaria (IPTI), la Asociación Internacional de Funcionarios de Tasación (IAAO), la Asociación Brasileña de Secretarías de Finanzas de Capitales (ABRASF) y la Escuela de Administración Hacendaria (ESAF). En este artículo se analizan los temas y experiencias tratados en el seminario.

Así como en los Estados Unidos, en América Latina hay un debate continuo sobre la mayor eficacia, la simplificación en los procesos de administración y la menor influencia de factores políticos que derivarían de la sustitución del tributo inmobiliario por otras fuentes de ingreso, tales como recargos y tarifas. No obstante, el tributo inmobiliario continúa siendo la opción predominante de financiamiento de los servicios públicos de los gobiernos municipales de América Latina.

Una característica importante del tributo inmobiliario es la gran diversidad que hay en su administración en cada país. Por ejemplo, en Brasil, Colombia y Ecuador es un impuesto exclusivamente municipal, mientras que en Argentina es administrado por el gobierno provincial. En México, el papel de las autoridades municipales se ha reducido principalmente a la recaudación de los impuestos. En Chile, el tributo inmobiliario es una importante fuente de ingreso para los gobiernos municipales, aunque el gobierno central es el responsable por la administración de los sistemas catastrales, de tasación y recaudación. El Salvador es el único país centroamericano que no ha impuesto nunca una tributación sobre la propiedad, aunque cada vez más se discute sobre la necesidad de establecer nuevos impuestos, dado que los ingresos tributarios constituyen apenas un 11 por ciento del producto bruto interno (PIB).

Reflexiones sobre el sistema fiscal de tributación inmobiliaria

En general, el tributo inmobiliario está reconocido como un impuesto “bueno” que tiene una función esencial en el proceso de recuperación de ingresos, financiamiento de servicios públicos y promoción del desarrollo social. Su naturaleza única establece vínculos importantes entre riqueza e ingresos, desarrollo social y uso y ocupación del suelo. Sin embargo, es fundamental administrarlo con justicia para evitar ineficacias y desigualdades en la distribución de la carga impositiva. En varias sesiones del seminario se mencionó la necesidad de contar con un catastro que tenga cobertura completa y adecuada, además de los atributos básicos para la tasación de diferentes clases de propiedades. Un grupo de participantes recomendó integrar la comunidad al proceso de actualización continua de los datos catastrales, mientras que otros enfatizaron la necesidad de realizar un cuidadoso análisis de costo-beneficio antes de implementar sistemas de información geográfica.

En países donde el catastro no es administrado por el gobierno central, no existe un sistema o modelo estándar. Según el nivel de desarrollo de la municipalidad o de los recursos financieros disponibles, la tecnología catastral puede exhibir grandes variaciones, desde una simple lista de propiedades hasta un catastro multifinalitario basado en un sistema de información geográfica. También se observan diferencias en los sistemas de tasación; por ejemplo, en Colombia y Bolivia se utiliza la autotasación, mientras que en Brasil, Chile, Ecuador y México es común el método de tasación por costos. Algunas autoridades municipales de Brasil están trabajando activamente para instituir el método de comparación de ventas para la propiedad residencial. Al aplicar el método de tasación por costos, el valor del suelo se determina mediante el método de comparación de precios de venta. El valor del suelo, si se basa en la información del mercado, también se calcula de maneras diferentes, lo cual genera preocupación sobre cómo reducir las desigualdades en la tasación.

Por encima de todo, la valuación es una tarea técnica que requiere tasación uniforme, realizada a intervalos cortos, y que no debe utilizarse para fines políticos. Los sistemas que establecen límites de los aumentos impositivos entre periodos consecutivos para cada propiedad individual, hasta un ajuste general basado en la tasa de inflación anual, son vistos como una fuente principal de inequidad de tasación. Para poder ganar la aceptación del sistema tributario y la confianza de los contribuyentes, es imprescindible que haya transparencia en los resultados de las valuaciones además de características básicas tales como responsabilidad fiscal, justicia, democratización de la información y simplificación del lenguaje técnico a fin de facilitar el entendimiento de los miembros y líderes de la comunidad. Además, estos últimos deben participar en la toma de decisiones referentes a la recaudación de impuestos y gastos públicos.

Una tendencia reciente es el uso creciente de Internet por parte de los contribuyentes para recibir y pagar sus facturas impositivas, revisar los datos estadísticos de sus propiedades y actualizar la información catastral. En este particular se considera a Chile como punto de referencia en el uso de estas tecnologías en América Latina.

Experiencias con la reforma fiscal

Varios ponentes del seminario hablaron de sus experiencias con la reforma fiscal a la propiedad inmobiliaria, las cuales suelen incluir inversiones en sistemas catastrales. En Colombia, por ejemplo, la mejora en la recaudación del tributo inmobiliario se tradujo en un aumento en el porcentaje del PIB, de un 0,22 por ciento en 1970 al 0,91 por ciento en 1994. Esta mejora se atribuyó en parte a leyes que exigieron la implementación y actualización del catastro en todo el país. La fuerte oposición hacia la actualización de los valores de tasación, así como las dificultades administrativas para realizar las valuaciones, llevaron a establecer un procedimiento de autotasación. Ahora los contribuyentes son responsables por declarar el valor de tasación de sus propiedades, pero dicho valor no puede ser inferior al valor catastral registrado. Para reducir la subtasación, el valor de tasación se usa también como base para la expropiación.

Las iniciativas de reforma fiscal que hubo en Argentina durante la década de 1990 estuvieron fuertemente motivadas por las crisis financieras del sector público. El proyecto de reforma del tributo inmobiliario fue dividido en dos áreas principales: administración catastral y fiscal. A pesar de que en estas reformas se ha invertido el equivalente a más de US$120 millones, el proyecto ha sido completado en apenas un 50 por ciento de las jurisdicciones. En otro ejemplo, Mexicali, la ciudad capital de Baja California, fue la primera en adoptar un sistema basado en el valor del suelo como base impositiva predial en la década de 1990. Si bien se trató de una exitosa experiencia de reforma fiscal a la propiedad inmobiliaria, actualmente México se enfrenta a una serie de retos, entre ellos lograr un equilibrio fiscal entre el gasto público y los ingresos recaudados, además de recuperar la importancia del tributo inmobiliario como fuente de ingresos.

La tributación inmobiliaria en Brasil

Varias barreras políticas, jurídicas y prácticas han contribuido a mantener la inequidad e ineficacia del tributo inmobiliario en Brasil. Las ramas principales del gobierno (el poder ejecutivo, el legislativo y el judicial) suelen diferir en su interpretación de las regulaciones impositivas, lo cual crea una perenne falta de confianza en el sistema tributario. Entre los problemas principales que afectan el sistema fiscal de tributación inmobiliaria cabe mencionar: 1) catastros obsoletos e incompletos que derivan en pérdidas irrecuperables de los ingresos; 2) prácticas de tasación deficientes que conducen a una falta de uniformidad generalizada; 3) fuerte influencia de los valores de tasación históricos, no sólo porque los avalúos son poco frecuentes sino también porque la aprobación de cualquier nueva lista de valuación por la Cámara de Concejales suele ser difícil; y 4) deficiencias en el proceso de recaudación de impuestos.

Se reexaminó la validez y factibilidad de adoptar tasas progresivas (móviles) para el tributo inmobiliario, las cuales habían sido utilizadas ampliamente en Brasil durante la década de 1990. La idea básica había sido establecer tasas progresivas según las clases de valores de tasación e introducir un elemento de “capacidad de pago” en el sistema, en el que la carga impositiva de las propiedades más costosas fuera mayor que las de propiedades de menos valor. Si bien en 1996 la Corte Suprema declaró como inconstitucional el uso de tasas progresivas para el tributo inmobiliario, una reciente enmienda constitucional autorizó la progresividad de las tasas de tributo inmobiliario según el valor de las propiedades, así como también diferentes tasas según la ubicación de la propiedad.

Durante el transcurso del seminario, los argumentos en contra de la aplicación de tasas progresivas para el tributo inmobiliario apuntaron a la necesidad de mantener un impuesto sencillo y eficaz, mientras que aquéllos a favor de la progresividad hicieron énfasis en la concentración de la disparidad de los ingresos en Brasil y en el hecho de que los gastos de vivienda de la población pobre son proporcionalmente mayores que los de la población adinerada. La mayoría de los participantes del seminario estuvieron de acuerdo en que las tasas progresivas podrían conducir a una distribución más justa de la carga impositiva. No obstante, la progresividad debe ser gradual, es decir, se debe aplicar una tasa mayor únicamente a la parte del valor de la propiedad que excede el límite establecido en cada clase de valor de tasación, a fin de evitar grandes diferencias en la carga impositiva para aquellas propiedades cuyos valores estén ligeramente por encima o por debajo de los límites en cada categoría.

En el ámbito nacional, en Brasil es ampliamente conocida la ineficacia del tributo inmobiliario como fuente del ingreso público. Los ingresos provenientes del tributo inmobiliario representan menos del 0,4 por ciento del PIB —de hecho, la cantidad realmente recaudada es puramente simbólica en muchas partes del país. En una encuesta reciente de las municipalidades se investigaron varios aspectos del desempeño gubernamental municipal, entre ellos la evasión de impuestos. Los resultados demostraron que la evasión de impuestos es menor del 20 por ciento en apenas un 13 por ciento de las municipalidades. En una de cada cinco municipalidades, el ingreso fiscal representa menos del 20 por ciento de las propiedades incluidas en el catastro.

Nota: La divisa brasileña es el real (R$). En 1996, R$1 equivalía aproximadamente a US$1.

En la tabla 1 se muestra la importancia relativa del ingreso del tributo inmobiliario en Brasil, según el tamaño de la municipalidad. Las municipalidades pequeñas obtienen su financiamiento mayormente por transferencias de otros niveles gubernamentales, mientras que las grandes tienen una mayor dependencia del tributo inmobiliario como fuente de ingreso. Sin embargo, el funcionamiento del sistema fiscal de tributación inmobiliaria depende directamente de la voluntad política, la cual muestra grandes variaciones entre una ciudad y otra. Por ejemplo, debido a una extensa actualización de su catastro, Santana de Parnaíba, una ciudad de 60.000 habitantes en el estado de São Paulo, recauda aproximadamente R$212,00 por habitante, mientras que la recaudación promedio del tributo inmobiliario para ciudades con población similar (10.000 a 100.000 habitantes) es de R$10,04 por habitante. Las cifras de Santana de Parnaíba son incluso mejores que las de São Paulo, la capital del estado, donde se recaudan menos de R$80,00 por habitante. Igualmente, un modelo participativo en el que actúa la comunidad local y organizaciones no gubernamentales (ONG) facilita la discusión de asuntos críticos de la evaluación y administración del tributo inmobiliario, lo cual ha llevado a medidas de mejoramiento del sistema. En la ciudad Ribeirão Pires, por ejemplo, se logró aumentar el ingreso en un 40 por ciento gracias a la adopción de medidas tales como una exhaustiva revisión de la legislación del tributo inmobiliario que permitió adoptar mejores prácticas de tasación, nuevas tasas de tributo inmobiliario e implementación de procedimientos más eficaces para la recaudación de impuestos. Aún mejor: la reforma fiscal ha contribuido a incrementar la popularidad del gobierno municipal.

Caso de estudio: Porto Alegre

Inspirado por el seminario de abril y por trabajos de investigación y análisis previos, el gobierno municipal de Porto Alegre elaboró una propuesta para una reforma fiscal a la propiedad inmobiliaria con el objetivo de promover la equidad fiscal y la importancia del tributo inmobiliario como fuente de ingreso, así como también crear una administración más eficaz del impuesto. El proyecto se presentó el 28 de septiembre ante el Ayuntamiento —entidad encargada de aprobar o rechazar las medidas—, y deberá haber una decisión final antes de finalizar el año 2001.

Se encomendó el proyecto a un equipo multidisciplinario formado por miembros de la autoridad municipal, entre ellos asesores, expertos en tributo inmobiliario y planificadores urbanos y ambientales, como también un grupo de profesionales de estadística y tecnología de información de la Universidad Federal de Rio Grande do Sul. Las medidas propuestas fueron discutidas ampliamente con representantes de asociaciones públicas, líderes de la comunidad, representantes de los medios de comunicación, y, por supuesto, con los concejales (véase la tabla 2).

Conclusión

La participación de varios cientos de delegados pone en evidencia la importancia del tributo inmobiliario en sus países. Si bien es cierto que todavía hay mucho por hacer para mejorar el desempeño general de los sistemas de tributación inmobiliaria, el debate demostró que ha habido progreso en la manera como el impuesto se administra y se percibe en muchas partes del continente. Varias experiencias independientes demostraron claramente que la voluntad política es la causa principal de las diferencias observadas en los resultados del tributo inmobiliario en América Latina. Gracias a los recientes avances tecnológicos (ahora accesibles a cualquier país), se han podido poner en práctica mejores técnicas de valuación, tasación y manejo de la información. Poco a poco los retos se están desplazando de la esfera técnica a la política. Hoy más que nunca es esencial aprender a implementar las reformas y revisiones fiscales a fin de lograr sistemas de tributación inmobiliaria de mayor eficacia. También se evidencia la tendencia al uso de métodos participativos durante las revisiones, dado que es probable que la aceptación del público facilite el proceso de reforma.

Claudia M. De Cesare es consultora en tributación inmobiliaria de la Secretaría de Finanzas de la municipalidad de Porto Alegre, Brasil; investigadora e imparte clases de valuación y tributación inmobiliaria en la Universidad Federal de Rio Grande do Sul y en el Instituto Lincoln, forma parte del consejo consultivo del Instituto Internacional de Tributación Inmobiliaria (IPTI) y participa activamente en otras organizaciones profesionales.

Sidebar: Red Latinoamerica Sobre Tributación Inmobiliaria

Recientemente el Instituto Lincoln creó un grupo de redes formadas por expertos y legisladores, cuya misión es el estudio de los fundamentos de la política impositiva y del suelo en América Latina. Bajo la dirección de Martim Smolka, Senior Fellow y director del Programa para América Latina y El Caribe, la primera reunión de la red de tributación inmobiliaria se realizó durante el seminario en Porto Alegre en abril de 2001, siendo sus participantes Hector Serravalle (Argentina), Claudia M. De Cesare, Cintia E. Fernandes, Mauro Lunardi y Sol G. Pinto (Brasil), Carlos Acuña (Chile), Maria Camila Uribe y Claudia Puentes (Colombia), Mario R. Maldonado (Ecuador), Roberto Cañas (El Salvador) y Sergio Flores (México).

La red está a la búsqueda de sistemas de tributación inmobiliaria de mayor eficacia en América Latina y de reforzar la función del tributo inmobiliario en los ingresos gubernamentales municipales. Sus miembros buscan promover el desarrollo profesional, identificar temas apropiados para proyectos educativos y trabajos de investigación comparativa y diseminar información y experiencias.

Los proyectos clasificados como principales son los siguientes:

• indicadores del tributo inmobiliario
• bibliografía comentada
• base de datos de instituciones, cursos permanentes y programas educativos
• desarrollo curricular
• intercambios para el aprendizaje profesional

Si bien es cierto que algunos programas nacionales o estatales han mejorado los sistemas catastrales, los procedimientos de valuación y la comunicación en algunos países, los miembros de la red están de acuerdo en que todavía falta un largo camino para poder mejorar la eficacia y la equidad de los sistemas impositivos actuales. Los miembros también aspiran tener mayor comunicación y acceso a la información relacionada con asuntos de tributación inmobiliaria en América Latina. Los programas de capacitación futuros podrían ser una fuente de inspiración para otras municipalidades, que al igual que Porto Alegre, enfrentan dificultades en sus sistemas fiscales de tributación inmobiliaria.

As a next step in the economic reforms begun in the post-Soviet period, momentum is growing in Poland for the introduction of a property tax based on market value. The recently established Department of Local Government Taxes and Cadastre within the Ministry of Finance is responsible for carrying out the reforms, and has invited the Lincoln Institute and other international organizations to advise them on developing an ad valorem property tax system.

Last October several Polish officials visited the Institute to learn about property taxation in the United States, and subsequently the Polish government requested support from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to bring international advisors to Poland for a series of seminars and meetings.

In January we traveled to Warsaw to participate in a week-long program on the legal and administrative framework needed to implement an ad valorem system. We made presentations at two seminars: one at the Sejm, the Polish Parliament, for its members and local government officials; and another at the Ministry of Finance for central government officials, professional experts and other interested parties. Our meetings with department officials focused on the draft laws being prepared by the ministry for introduction to the parliament later this spring.

The proposed ad valorem tax on real property in Poland will replace three existing taxes on urban, agricultural and forest property that are based on non-value-based rates per square meter of land and buildings. These taxes were introduced originally with purely fiscal objectives to expand the tax base beyond income and to capture wealth being diverted into real property assets. After the Soviet period, property taxes were recognized as an appropriate source of revenue for local governments. Since 1991 the revenues from the three existing taxes have been assigned solely to local governments (gminas).

The economic reforms introduced in the past decade by Deputy Prime Minister for Finance Leszak Balcerowicz have now reached such a stage of maturity that a market value-based tax on property is both feasible and desirable. There is an active and growing real estate market, including privatization of land holdings by local governments and secondary sales of residential and commercial properties. Ad valorem taxation will offer a stable source of revenue with a potentially broad and expanding tax base for local governments. It will provide the benefits of a more equitable distribution on taxes, as well as greater fiscal transparency and accountability.

An earlier USAID-funded feasibility study project in Krakow, in which the Institute also participated, resulted in legislative proposals for an ad valorem property tax in 1995. However, those efforts stalled in the face of complexities of land surveying, land registration and assessment administration.

Benefits and Obstacles

In this renewed effort, Polish officials are also focusing on the non-fiscal benefits of a value-based property tax, including its potential as a stimulus of real estate markets and mortgage credit institutions and as a tool for urban revitalization and more efficient land use. W. Jan Brzeski, president of the Krakow Real Estate Institute and adviser to the Deputy Prime Minister, has contributed to an understanding of these non-fiscal benefits through previous Lincoln Institute-sponsored research and education programs in Poland and other transition economies.

Considerable progress has been made in addressing some of the institutional obstacles to an ad valorem property tax that stalled the 1995 proposal. There is acknowledgment that a property tax information system and fiscal cadastre can be developed independently of title registries and land surveys that are as yet incomplete. Mass appraisal concepts and methods are more readily understood now and are viewed as opening new opportunities to the appraisal profession. Local governments have developed greater experience and influence to lobby for an autonomous source of revenue and greater independence in fiscal decision-making. Although local administrative capacity and expertise remain a concern for the over 2400 gminas, a possible solution may be found in placing fiscal cadastre and mass appraisal functions in the newly created regional governments (Powiats).

Discussions with Ministry officials concerning policy issues and implementation strategy focused on how to define market valuation in the law and how to educate local officials and taxpayers on its meaning and application. Current Polish law requires that detailed descriptions of taxation methods be written into legislation and that the local elected council approve the calculations. There is concern about an appropriate appeals system that will recognize both taxpayers’ rights and the government’s ability to achieve defensible mass appraisal models from less mature real estate markets. There is also a growing awareness of the importance of educating the public on the benefits and responsibilities associated with an ad valorem property tax.

The need to estimate implementation costs, develop effective administrative arrangements and assess the potential impacts of an ad valorem system has led some officials to propose one or more pilot projects before full implementation. However, this approach must be weighed against the possibility of losing the political momentum to enact ad valorem taxation in this parliament if legislative action is delayed until after pilot projects are completed.

Jane Malme is an attorney and fellow of the Lincoln Institute. She has researched and advised on property tax policy and administration for transitional economies and is preparing a series of case studies on the development of market value-based taxation in several countries. She is also a legal adviser on property taxation to USAID tax reform assistance programs in the Russian Federation.

Dennis Robinson, vice president for programs and operations, has worked on fiscal cadastre systems in Central and Eastern Europe and throughout Latin America.

Urban land management policies and land market operations have taken on greater status in the debate on urban public policy in Latin America, and they are given increased attention in academic research and the development agendas of many countries in the region. Over the past 10 years the Lincoln Institute’s Program on Latin America and the Caribbean has supported a network of Latin American scholars and practitioners who have developed seminars, promoted research, organized public debates, consulted with decision makers and published their findings on these timely issues. Members of this network met at a conference in Buenos Aires in April 2004 to assess their activities and prepare this summary declaration of core land policy issues crucial to the search for more sustainable urban development programs in the future.

Urban land policy in Latin America and the ways that land markets operate tend to produce cities that are economically unequal, politically and socially exclusionary, spatially segregated and environmentally unsustainable. The consequences of these policies can be seen in the high and often irrational prices for land, due in part to the absence of effective urban land management practices.

The Current Situation

Land markets are structurally imperfect. However, the functioning of urban land markets depends on social relations, just as the outcomes of land market operations affect those relations, making it both possible and necessary to influence the markets. Instead of removing the imperfections, many instruments and policies have in fact helped to distort urban land market operations even further. Moreover, many established policies have kept the “rules of the game” in urban real estate unchanged, and apparently untouchable.

A more comprehensive reading of the problem reveals that, rather than being the result of inconsistent rationalization, the current dysfunctional land market is the result of missed opportunities for socially sustainable development in Latin American cities. Yet there are promising and innovative alternatives that can overcome the existing bottlenecks evident in inadequate and destructive national government policies, the enduring difficulties in financing urban development, and poor management practices.

One of the most glaring negative outcomes of the current situation is the relative persistence, weight and importance of informal urban land markets dominated by many exclusionary practices, illegal titling, lack of urban services, and other problems. Deregulation in places that should be regulated (poor outlying areas on the urban fringe), overregulation of wealthy regulated areas, and privatization policies that disregard social criteria are factors that help to drive these negative processes, particularly the spatial concentration of the urban poor. Although the majority of regularization programs are well-intended, they instead cause perverse effects, including increased land costs for the poorest sectors.

Traditional urban planning processes and urban standards have lost importance and effectiveness as instruments for guiding urban development, especially the existing mechanisms for land management. Yet this situation offers opportunities to think about innovative ways to deal with land management and urban planning strategies. This opportunity has already been seized in some places, where new experiments and proposals are causing intense debates by questioning the predominant traditional approaches.

Creating new practices within this framework requires making one unavoidable step: rethinking urban land taxation by incorporating new methods and keeping an open mind regarding alternative fiscal instruments that must be intended as tools to redirect current urban development and discipline the operation of the urban land market. These new tools should not only collect funds in order to build infrastructure and provide urban services, but also contribute to a more equitable distribution of benefits and costs, especially those associated with the urbanization process and the return of recovered land value increments to the community.

Proposals for Action

Recognize the indispensable role of the government. It is critical that the government (from local to national levels) maintains an active role in promoting urban development. The local level should be more committed to structural changes in land management, while the national level should actively foster such local initiatives. Government must not ignore its responsibility to adopt urban land market policies that recognize the strategic value of land and the specific characteristics of how land markets operate, in order to promote the sustainable use of the land by incorporating both social and environmental objectives and benefiting the most vulnerable segments of the urban population.

Break the compartmentalization of fiscal, regulatory and legal authorities. Lack of cooperation among local authorities is responsible for major inefficiencies, ineffective policies, waste of scarce resources and inadequate public accountability. Furthermore, incongruent actions by different public authorities send misleading signals to private agents and create uncertainties if not opportunities for special interests to subvert government plans. The complexity and scale of the challenges posed by the urban social reality of Latin American cities require multilateral actions by numerous stakeholders to influence the operation of urban land markets (both formal and informal), thus insuring the achievement of joint objectives: promoting sustainable and fair use of land resources; reducing land prices; producing serviced land; recognizing the rights to land by the urban poor; and sharing the costs and benefits of urban investment more evenly.

These authorities must also coordinate urban development policies with land taxation policies. They should promote a new urban vision with legislation that recognizes the separation of building rights from land ownership rights, with the understanding that land value increments generated from building rights do not belong exclusively to landowners. Urban managers must also devise creative mechanisms whereby these land value increments may be mobilized or used to produce serviced land for low-income social sectors, thereby offsetting urban inequalities.

Recognize the limits of what is possible. Transforming the current regulatory framework that governs the use of urban land requires new legal and urbanistic thinking that recognizes that inequalities and socio-spatial exclusion are intrinsic to the predominant urban development model. Even within the current model there is substantial room for more socially responsible policies and government accountability. Urban regulations should consider the complexity of land appreciation processes and enforce effective traditional principles such as those that restrain the capacity of government agencies to dispose of public resources or proscribe the “unjustified enrichment” of private landowners.

Break vicious cycles. Alternatives to existing regularization programs are needed to break the vicious cycle of poverty that current programs help to perpetuate. It is important to recognize that these programs are only a stopgap measure and that urbanization, housing and land taxation policies must also be integrated into the process. Reliance on housing subsidy policies, although inevitable, can be nullified if there are no mechanisms to prevent these subsidies from being translated into an increase in land prices. City officials should give priority to the creation of more serviced land rather than new regularization programs, since the right to a home is a social right to occupy a viable “habitat” with dignity. It is also important to understand that the low production of serviced land per se contributes to withholding the supply and, therefore, to higher prices affecting all aspects of urban development.

Furthermore, individual solutions (such as plot-by-plot titling processes or case-by-case direct subsidies to individual families) ultimately result in more costs for society as a whole than broader, collective solutions that incorporate other aggregate values such as public spaces, infrastructure investment and other mechanisms to strengthen social integration. Many Latin American countries have witnessed subsidized housing programs, often supported by multilateral agencies, where the land component is overlooked or dismissed. Such programs seek readily available public land or simply occupy land in intersticial areas of the city. This disregard of a broader land policy compromises the replicability, expansion and sustainability of these housing programs on a larger scale.

Rethink the roles of public and private institutions. Land management within a wide range of urban actions, from large-scale production of serviced land for the poor to urban redevelopment through large projects, including facelift-type actions or environmental recovery projects, requires new thinking about how public institutions responsible for urban development can intervene through different types of public-private associations. Redeveloping vacant land and introducing more flexibility in the uses and levels of occupancy can play a crucial role here, provided such projects fall under the strategic guidelines of public institutions, are subject to monitoring by citizens, and incorporate a broadly shared and participatory vision of urban development.

Showcase projects such as El Urbanizador Social (The Social Urbanizer) in Porto Alegre, Brazil, the Nuevo Usme housing project in Bogotá, Colombia, and that country’s value capture legislation are examples of sensible and creative efforts that recognize the importance of adequate urban land management and new thinking on the role of land, particularly the potential of land value as an instrument for promoting more sustainable and equitable development for the poor in our cities. Creative and balanced new thinking is also exemplified by the joint ventures of public land and private capital in Havana, Cuba, with value increments captured for upgrading densely populated historic areas.

Empower the role of land taxation in public finance to promote urban development. National, state or provincial and local governments must share responsibility for promoting property taxation as an adequate and socially meaningful method of financing and fostering urban development. The property tax should be sensitive and responsive to Latin American cities that have a strong legacy of marked economic and socio-spatial differences. There may be good reasons to tax land at a higher rate than buildings, in a rational and differentiated manner, especially in outlying areas subject to urban speculation and lands offered ex ante to low-income sectors of society (making certain that paying the tax also helps to build citizenship in these sectors). As already noted, it is also critical to create innovative fiscal instruments appropriate to special situations and other methods for capturing the value generated.

Educate stakeholders in the promotion of new policies. All actors involved in these processes, from judges to journalists, from academics to public officials and their international mentors, need in-depth training and education in the operation of land markets and urban land management in order to achieve the above objectives. We must identify the “fields of mental resistance,” particularly in urban and economic thinking and in the legal doctrines that represent the obstacles to be overcome. We must recognize, for example, that an “informal right” exists and operates in many areas to legitimize land transactions socially, if not legally, and to create networks and spaces of solidarity and integration. It is urgent that we take steps to introduce these themes and proposals into political agendas at the various government levels, in political parties, social organizations, academia and the mass media.

Latin American Network

Pedro Abramo, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil

Oscar Borrero, Bogotá, Colombia

Gonzalo Cáceres, Santiago, Chile

Julio Calderón, Lima, Perú

Nora Clichevsky, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Claudia De Cesare, Porto Alegre, Brasil

Matilde de los Santos, Montevideo, Uruguay

Diego Erba, São Leopoldo, Brasil

Edésio Fernandes, London, England

Ana Raquel Flores, Asunción, Paraguay

Fernanda Furtado, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil

Alfredo Garay, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Silvia García Vettorazzi, Guatemala City, Guatemala

Ana Maria González del Valle, Lima, Perú

Samuel Jaramillo, Bogotá, ColombiaCarmen Ledo, Cochabamba, Bolivia

Mario Lungo, San Salvador, El Salvador

María Mercedes Maldonado, Bogotá, Colombia

Carlos Morales Schechinger, Mexico City, Mexico

Laura Mullahy, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USARicardo Núñez, Havana, Cuba

Sonia Rabello de Castro, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil

Eduardo Reese, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Francisco Sabatini, Santiago, Chile

Martim Smolka, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

Alvaro Uribe, Panama City, Panama

Ricardo Vanella, Córdoba, Argentina

Maria Clara Vejarano, Bogotá, Colombia

Isabel Viana, Montevideo, Uruguay

As a city grows in size and building density, improvements to the land supporting the new development are usually part of the growth process. However, the combination of demand for additional construction sites and the limited amount of physical land available for development often results in land price increases.

This land scarcity is caused by three primary factors: the ability of landowners to retain serviced land from the market (attributed to a concentration of land ownership and legal and other institutional constraints); difficulties in accessing areas not yet prepared for occupation due to a lack of infrastructure; and restrictions imposed by zoning. Each of these factors has its own dynamics, but they are not necessarily present at the same time. Such is the case in Brazilian cities, particularly São Paulo, where these restrictive factors do not always operate in the same way with regard to land price.

For example, building regulations may reduce the land price of individual plots, but increase the overall price when the regulations affect all plots and thus restrict housing supply. A large stock of vacant land controlled by a few owners can cause price increases, while the lack of accessibility can result in lower prices. Land price also depends on the nature of the land regulation. As the city grows, the greater demand for buildable urban land generally results in added values if the existing infrastructure supports a more intense occupation of land and the zoning regulations (or changes thereto) also permit higher building density.

To examine these issues, we must consider first how the investment in infrastructure that provides or intensifies the means of access and use of land is financed; and second how the benefits and costs from the land improvements are distributed. Generally the cost of public services (e.g., streets, bridges, sewers, lighting, water) is paid with public funds, whereas the improvement or added value to the land created by the public investment in infrastructure, with few exceptions, is reaped by the owners of the improved property entirely free of charge.

Increases in property value also may result from simple changes in the use of land that is already accessible, for example when land previously considered rural is redefined as urban. Changes in potential densities due to new zoning regulations can create great benefits for the affected properties, although in this case as in the previous one future pressure on the infrastructure will require substantial public investment.

The Legal Framework

Owners of improved property in Brazil, as in most countries, traditionally appropriated the added value generated by public sector investment and zoning changes. The notion that owners should not be the only beneficiaries of such improvements was introduced in Brazil gradually during the 1970s, and this principle was incorporated in articles 182 and 183 of the 1988 Federal Constitution. These articles were subsequently regulated by Federal Law No. 10,257 of 2001, also known as the Urban Development Act or City Statute (Estatuto da Cidade).

Since 1988 urban development has been a matter of federal law. In practice, the federal legis-lation ratified the principle of the social function of urban land ownership and the separation of the right to own land from the right to build. Based on the 2001 act, the City of São Paulo approved its Strategic Master Plan in 2002 and Land Use Law 13,885 in 2004. These laws introduced the mechanism of Charges for Additional Building Rights (Outoga Onerosa do Direito de Construir–OODC), established minimum, basic, and maximum coefficients of land use (or floor area ratios), and limited the supply of buildable area. These tools, utilized together, enabled the municipality to improve land management efficiency, promote socially desirable outcomes, and increase revenues.

The minimum coefficient or floor area ratio (FAR) refers to the minimum use expected from a plot to comply with its social function; the basic FAR refers to the buildable area that any owner has the right to develop by virtue of ownership; and the maximum FAR is the amount of development that could be supported by the existing in-frastructure and zoning regulations. The charges associated with the OODC are imposed on the difference between the maximum FAR and the basic FAR of a plot.

The Administration of Building Rights

The OODC is the monetary compensation paid by those who receive new building rights (buildable area) from the government. This development con-cession (provided by articles 28, 29, 30, and 31 of Federal Law 10,257 of 2001 and defined in articles 209 to 216 of the 2002 Strategic Master Plan) is one of the regulatory instruments used to administer building rights in the city, except in areas designated for large-scale urban operations that use a special legal instrument to encourage public-private interventions (Biderman, Sandroni, and Smolka 2006).

The basic FAR of land use established in 2004 varies between 1 and 2, depending on the area of the city considered. The maximum FAR can be 1, 2, 2.5, or 4, also depending on the area. In some urban areas these new regulations reduced building rights by establishing a basic FAR of 1 for land that had been designated 2 or more under prior legislation. In parallel, the municipality of São Paulo used the OODC to extend the building potential or the maximum FAR up to 4 on land that previously could be developed up to only 1 or 2.

As a result, in certain areas where the FAR was reduced from 2 to 1, developers could submit projects using the former FAR 2, or even the maximum FAR 3 or 4, as long as they paid the government for the additional buildable area corresponding to the difference between the basic FAR and the FAR used in the project. This instrument favors developers, assuming they find the charges cost-effective, because it allows them to build up to FAR 4 in areas where formerly the maximum was FAR 2. Typical landowners do not always find this tool advantageous, however, since the building potential of their land may be reduced and a charge may be imposed on what they previously perceived as a right to build, free of any charges.

Landowners of small lots and low-density housing may not notice what they could be losing when the FAR is changed because they typically view their property as combining the land, building, and other improvements. It is difficult to separate the value of land from that of improvements, so an eventual land value decrease is not perceived immediately. Furthermore, the expansion of the real estate market in São Paulo coincided with the approval of this new legislation in 2004, and the overall increase in land prices may have compensated the eventual price decline associated with changes in FAR. It is also necessary to note that the expansion of government credit for house financing since 2006 contributed to an increase in demand for land and consequently the rise of land prices.

For the developers, the increase in FAR to 4 in areas where the maximum had been 1 or 2 constituted a favorable situation. They could invest more capital in land and make more profitable undertakings, thus compensating for the extra payment they made for the difference between the basic and the maximum FAR. Gradually, developers were convinced that it was better to pay this land value increment to the government than to private owners because the government converted the payments into improvements that frequently benefited the developers’ projects.

The 2002 Strategic Master Plan and Law 13,885 of 2004 also limited the supply of residential and nonresidential building potential in all city districts by establishing a total additional buildable area of 9,769 million square meters (m2): 6,919 million m2 for residential use and 2,850 million m2 for nonresidential use (table 1). This potential did not include the buildable areas inside the perimeter of São Paulo’s 13 urban operations. The additional areas were distributed among the 91 out of 96 city districts, excluding five environmentally protected areas. This definition and demarcation of the potential building stock introduced a new element to the real estate market.

Once the maximum building area was known, developers anticipated land scarcity in those districts where the supply was low and the real estate dynamic high, thus unleashing a trend in higher land prices. The lack of buildable area, in turn, lead to pressures from real estate developers for the government to increase the supply—that is, to change the building area limits in some districts during the 2007 revision of the master plan—but their efforts were not successful. By October 2010 the land supply had been exhausted, or was very close to it, for residential use in 17 districts and for nonresidential uses in 5 districts (figure 1).

Planning and Social Interest Factors

The formula to calculate the OODC charge adopted in São Paulo’s 2002 Strategic Master Plan takes into account planning and social interest factors in addition to the characteristics of the parcel and the actual economic benefit allocated to the property as a result of the OODC.

The planning factor is an instrument that seeks to encourage or discourage higher densities in certain areas, depending on the existing infrastructure, especially public transport and mass transit. The planning factor is also used to obtain greater financial compensation from the sale of building rights for businesses in improved areas of the city, as the coefficient varies according to whether the land use is residential or nonresidential.

The social interest factor establishes exemptions or reductions in the financial charge, depending on the type of activity to be developed on the parcel. The coefficient ranges from zero to one and is applicable to a variety of activities. For example, the coefficient for affordable or social housing is zero, which means that developers of this type of housing do not pay compensation for additional building rights. Similarly, nonprofit hospitals, schools, health and infant care clinics, cultural facilities, sports and leisure institutions, and houses of worship have a coefficient of zero.

These factors act as incentives for desirable social outcomes, since the smaller the planning and social interest factor coefficients applicable to a given area, the smaller the charge to be paid, and the greater the incentive for projects to be developed in the area.

Revenue Impact and Allocation of Funds

Total revenues from OODC payments reached R$650 million (US$325 million) in approximately five years, in spite of the global financial crisis that constricted credit by end of the period (table 2). These funds are deposited into the Urban Development Fund (FUNDURB), which was created to implement plans and projects in urban and environmental areas, or other interventions contemplated in the 2002 master plan.

As of September 2008, the number of projects approved to be financed by FUNDURB included 15 linear parks (R$42.5 million), sidewalk and street improvements (R$21.2 million), drainage and sanitation (R$108 million), community facilities (R$ 21.1 million), regularization of informal settlements (R$50 million), and restoration of culture heritage buildings (R$37 million).

Concluding Remarks

After the City of São Paulo approved the 2002 Strategic Master Plan, the principle of development concessions and buildable land was applied throughout its territory. When a real estate project exceeds the basic FAR and the developer wants to build up to a maximum of 4, payment of financial charges to the government is required. Since the OODC was introduced, revenues have increased annually. One should keep in mind that these revenues are net of the more than US$1 billion generated from 2 of the city’s 13 Urban Operations (Faria Lima and Agua Espraiada) where major zoning and density changes are occurring (Biderman, Sandroni, and Smolka 2006). In those areas the new building rights are priced through the auction of CEPACs, and the revenues must be invested in the area corresponding to the urban operation instead of going to the FUNDURB fund to benefit the city as a whole (Sandroni 2010).

The charge for building rights in São Paulo does not seem to have affected the profitability of developers. On the contrary, increasing the maximum FAR to 4 in some areas of the city contributed to enhancing the developers’ rates of return. However, setting a maximum reserve for building rights seems to have caused an upward trend in land prices, especially in districts where the supply of buildable area is low. In some districts developers proceeded to deplete the supply of residential building rights quickly. This type of response will probably intensify in the future, thus putting pressure on the city government to raise the maximum stock of buildable area and/or the maximum FAR. If this happens, there is a risk that the motivation to increase municipal revenue may outweigh urban planning criteria and the limitations of infrastructure, especially public transportation and mass transit.

Moreover, the flow of financial compensation will not be continuous. Unlike property tax revenues that recur annually, revenues from the sale of building rights will fade in time as the additional building potential is exhausted. In some sectors of the city the supply of buildable area has already been depleted, and the city has achieved its defined goal for building density. However, future changes in the master plan may provide greater building potential for these areas, depending on technical recommendations and the political conditions for the change to take place.

In sum, the application of the principle of the social function of property, embedded in the 2002 Strategic Master Plan for São Paulo, enabled the enactment of municipal legislation that clearly separates the right of ownership from the right to build. As a result, the traditional notion of all-encompassing property rights is no longer sustained, and land ownership cannot override the public interest or take precedence over the social function of property. Consequently, existing building rights can be reduced without landowners being entitled to monetary compensation simply because their hopes have been dashed.

About the Author

Paulo Henrique Sandroni is an economist who served as director of urban planning and public transportation for the City of São Paulo from 1988 to 1993, and for a short period he served the federal government as vice-minister of administration. He has published articles and books on economics, including a dictionary considered a primary reference on economics in Brazil. Sandroni is also a professor at the Economics and Business School at the Getulio Vargas Foundation in São Paulo, a private consultant on urban development and transportation issues, and a lecturer in programs sponsored by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

References

Biderman, Ciro, Paulo Sandroni, and Martim O. Smolka. 2006. Large-scale urban interventions: The case of Faria Lima in São Paulo. Land Lines 18(2): 8–13.

Prefeitura Municipal de São Paulo, Secretaria de Financas. www.prefeitura.sp.gov.br/cidade/secretarias/financas

Sandroni, Paulo. 2010. A new financial instrument of value capture in São Paulo: Certificates of additional construction potential. In Municipal revenues and land policies, Gregory K. Ingram and Yu-Hung Hong, eds., 218–236. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Carlos Morales-Schechinger joined IHS, the Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies at Erasmus University in Rotterdam, The Netherlands, in 2008. This international institute attracts students from all over the world, mostly from developing countries. Some IHS programs are sponsored jointly with the Lincoln Institute.

Previously Morales was a part-time lecturer at UNAM, the National Autonomous University of Mexico. He has been collaborating on a regular basis in seminars and courses organized by the Lincoln Institute throughout Latin America for the past 12 years. He lectures primarily on land value capture instruments, land and property taxation, and land-based preventive policies as alternatives to informal settlements.

He has held various government posts, including director of land policies and instruments in Mexico’s ministry for urban development, where he designed and implemented an ambitious program on land banking; and as director of cadastral policy for Mexico City’s government, where he managed an extensive fiscal reform of property taxes. He also held posts in both public and private banks in Mexico, dealing with property valuation, mortgages, property administration, and loans for large urban developments and for local governments.

He holds a bachelor’s degree in architecture from UNAM, a diploma in local government finance from the University of Birmingham, UK, and a Master of Philosophy in urban studies from the University of Edinburgh, UK.

Land Lines: How did you become involved with the Lincoln Institute?

Carlos Morales: My first introduction was in the early 1980s when I attended an Institute-sponsored international conference in Cambridge that related to my work for the government on urban land policy. The ideas I learned about were put to direct use two years later when I worked on a reform to increase the supply of serviced land in medium-sized cities and to subsidize sites and services for low-income households in Mexico. In the early 1990s, when I was working for the government of Mexico City on an ambitious property tax reform, I attended another Institute conference on property taxation.

From 2000 onward, I participated in many education activities organized by Martim Smolka through the Program on Latin America and the Caribbean. Around 2004 the Institute started a joint venture with IHS and I was one of the visiting lecturers hired by the Institute to teach in those programs. I was later invited to join the IHS staff full-time as the manager of this joint venture.

Land Lines: How do you compare the effectiveness of institutions such as IHS and the Lincoln Institute?

Carlos Morales: I believe they are complementary. The Institute is a leader in research and education on land policies, with an international focus on Latin America and China. IHS is recognized for its education and capacity building on urban management and development for a worldwide audience, focusing on developing and transition countries. IHS courses are open to students from all regions, but most come from countries in Africa, Asia, and Central and Eastern Europe. Through its joint venture with IHS, the Lincoln Institute is able to reach out to those from many more countries in an efficient way.

Land Lines: Conveying fundamental knowledge about land policy and urban management to practitioners is not an easy task. What have you found is the most effective approach?

Carlos Morales: Using a combination of two things is important: the profile of the lecturer and the appropriate pedagogy. Lecturers should have experience both as practitioners and as academics to be able to answer questions that are relevant to practitioners, especially when the answers imply moving away from their comfort zone and facing some kind of change.

The ultimate purpose of social science is precisely to change reality, not only to understand it. Consultancy brings academics close to practice, but it does not confront them with the moral commitment of implementing policy or the ethical responsibility for making policy work on the ground. Experience in direct practice is crucial. The Institute’s programs in Latin America employ lecturers with this profile, and they have proven effective in addressing issues such as the impacts of taxation and regulations on land markets and in choosing instruments for capturing incremental land value, both of which are hot topics in the region.

Regarding pedagogy, practitioners tend to be skeptical about theory. They regard it as impractical, and they want to test it to be convinced. Using examples of policies implemented in other cities is very useful. Some students from developing countries do not accept cases from more developed countries, arguing that their governance structure is too different. Others prefer cases from diverse situations because in spite of contextual differences they aspire to better development opportunities for their own countries. A lecturer should have an arsenal of many different cases to examine when questions rise.

Doing simulation games is also a very effective technique. Games involving role playing where participants compete against each other are the most useful for understanding land markets and helping solve problems. Role playing is revealing even when participants fail to solve problems since it prompts them to question what happened. I have seen how participants who experience failure in a game begin to cooperate and design clever regulations on their own. Another strategy is to assign participants roles contrary to their beliefs or experience. For example, government officials playing the role of pirate land developers learn about the substantial amounts of money the poor must spend just to access land.

Playing the devil’s advocate works well when discussing controversial concepts, as if the participants are in a land court. This is not a new technique except when played with a couple of twists. An example is determining the criteria for compensating eminent domain. In this game one team argues in favor of current use values and the other future use values. Background literature and practical information are provided for arguments on both sides. Practitioners from many places can relate to examples of regulatory takings, whether as expropriations in China, land restitutions in Eastern Europe, or the sale of building rights in Brazil.

Since participants have to defend a position with which they do not agree, they have to study and work harder. In many cases they end up changing their minds, or at least identifying new arguments to use later in debating their opponents in real life. At the end of a land court game the group acting as jury secretly votes twice, first on the team’s performance as advocates and second on the conceptual arguments. When a team gets more votes than the position they defended, it is clear that more research on the issue is needed. What I like best is that the game does not impose a position on the participants, but it raises the level of debate.

Land Lines: What are the main types of resistance to concepts and ideas on land policy?

Carlos Morales: Perhaps the concept most frequently resisted is how taxes and regulations are capitalized into the price of land. Resistance can come from an ideological standpoint (either left or right, both have arguments), self-interest (landowners do not readily accept sacrificing profit), or ignorance of how the capitalization concept works. As an educator I have a role to play in addressing the last challenge.

Even if theory is explained to practitioners, they remain skeptical if their experience contradicts the theory. Misunderstanding can come from referring to a tax on a commodity that is not as scarce as land, but it can also come from experience with land markets themselves. This happens when two policies with opposite effects are introduced together, for example, increasing densities and increasing taxes. The combined effect of these measures makes it difficult to understand the impact of each one. A simulation game can help isolate each impact. Practitioners need to experiment with each policy measure to better understand them both. I have noticed that they may nod with skepticism when you lecture them, but they give you a “eureka” smile when they reach understanding by playing a game.

Land Lines: How do you overcome resistance to topics such as value capture?

Carlos Morales: A charge linked to the increase in densities is a way of capturing the incremental value of land and a source of funds to finance infrastructure, as São Paulo is doing when it charges for extra building rights. The discussion about how this policy impacts market price is controversial. Landowners oppose it because it reduces their price expectations, but developers favor it because it reduces land prices and the payments are returned in the form of public works. A similar situation happened in Bogotá when a tax on the increment in the value of land was introduced.

Both cases are useful references to explain land value capture in developing countries, yet more city cases need to be documented and disseminated, and some practitioners want examples from developed countries. This is not easy, because land value capture is a buzzword in Latin American circles, but not in most developed countries. This is not because value capture is not used in the United States or other places, but rather because it is assumed as part of the operation of the land market. It is the role of lecturers to point this out and open opportunities for sharing experiences among practitioners from both developed and developing countries.

Land Lines: Please comment on the difficulties of conveying taxation concepts to planners.

Carlos Morales: Planners learn about property taxes if they are high enough to have an impact on decisions by landowners, developers, and land users, as in the United States. In developing countries these taxes generally are so low that they do not impact market decisions, so planners are not interested. When I play games that illustrate land markets to architects—who are often also planners—and they realize that the city is not going the way they expect, their most frequent reaction is to suggest more taxes and more efficient land markets. Seldom do they propose a traditional land use plan.

Land Lines: What in your opinion are the central concepts or ideas that could make the difference in the international debate on urban land markets?

Carlos Morales: Pointing out that land value capture is a significant source for financing infrastructure and preventing slums can bring more stakeholders into a serious discussion. Ideas related to security of tenure, land registration, and titling in order to increase access to loans have been dominating policy, but results have not been as positive as predicted. Slums continue to develop and service provision is still lagging behind.

Policies that have to do with land taxation and property obligations—not just property rights—have more potential to improve the functioning of urban land markets. UN-Habitat and the World Bank adopted the earlier notions of security of tenure as a solution, but are now beginning to show interest in land-based urban development instruments. Land value capture policies will have an effect tomorrow, but with a political cost today because giving titles is cheap and appeals to short-term politicians. This is the challenge that should be faced in the international debate to ensure more effective and long-term land market reform.