SHARE
Low-income, self-managed homestead subdivisions, called colonias in Texas, are a rapidly expanding form of land and housing production in the United States. In a recently completed Lincoln Institute-supported study, I have analyzed the dysfunctional aspects of these land markets as measured by a high level of absentee lot ownership, modest lot and property transactions and turnover, and a lack of significant valorization (value increment) as settlements are built through and improved.
Homestead Subdivisions
Colonias, the Spanish word for neighborhoods, were first identified in the poorest Texas counties along the border with Mexico. They comprise unserviced or poorly serviced settlements in which homesteaders have bought a lot upon which they place either a trailer-type dwelling, or its up-market and less mobile or portable form, the “manufactured home.” In some cases, families build their homes through self-help efforts, beginning residence in a shack, camper or second-hand trailer and later consolidating the home over time.
Colonias are not a small-scale phenomenon. According to the Texas Water Development Board, there are approximately 1,500 such settlements housing around 400,000 people, mostly in the border region. The Board’s data and my own survey results show that many similar types of homestead subdivisions exist elsewhere in Texas, so these population estimates are likely to increase as we learn more. Indeed, counties throughout Texas, and in other states as well, are beginning to recognize the problems of unregulated substandard subdivisions that offer one of the few affordable homestead options for low-income households.
Low income here refers to households earning between $12,000 and $25,000 a year, although many colonia households actually earn much less (see Table 1). These households are in poor labor market areas: either regions experiencing wage and labor polarization among workers, or where low-paid service sector jobs predominate. Housing costs in most cities place home ownership beyond the reach of households that seek accommodation within the lower end of the rental housing market, in apartments or in trailer parks. Yet, many of these households aspire to homeownership, recognizing the advantages of moving out of rental housing where they have no equity. Many of them favor homesteading in poorly serviced rural subdivisions where they can own and valorize property through mutual aid and self-help efforts.
Colonias are not homogeneous, however. They vary markedly in size, layout, mode of development, mix of housing types, lot dimensions, lot occupancy and residential turnover rates, level of servicing, ethnic composition, income levels, and levels of relative poverty. In Texas, there is no typical colonia, but rather a range of types that vary among counties.
These settlements are akin to so-called irregular settlements in less developed countries, and they have a similar rationality to explain their existence: a low-wage economy, a rising demand for housing, a lack of state housing supply systems capable of meeting demand, and a private sector uninterested or unable to produce housing at levels that people can afford. Like their counterparts in Mexico and Latin America, colonias offer low-cost unserviced land on the fringes of urbanized areas that is affordable and accessible to very low-income groups. Most residents must commute substantial distances into the adjacent cities for work.
While colonias in Texas are rarely illegal, many aspects of the development process are informal or quasi-formal, most notably:
Just over a decade ago, Texas became aware of the existence and proliferation of colonia-type subdivisions, and in biennial legislative sessions began to take action to stop their growth on the one hand, and to simulate upgrading on the other. Following are some examples of legislative action over the past decade:
An underlying weakness in all these initiatives is that they apply only in the border region and in specially designated counties that form part of the state’s Economically Depressed Areas Program (EDAP). Elsewhere, the process continues essentially unabated.
Vacant Lots and Absentee Ownership
A major indicator of land market dysfunction is the failure to occupy and develop a lot after it has been sold. The data show that between 15 and 80 percent of colonia lots may be vacant. Even in the largest and now often fully serviced settlements, as many as one-quarter to one-sixth of lots are held vacant by absentee lot owners. Moreover, relatively large lot sizes of one-eighth to one-half acre or more, together with prohibitions on lot subdivision and sharing, create very low densities of 10 to 12 persons per acre. This exacerbates the unit cost of providing services, reduces cost recovery, and weakens community cohesion and mutual aid. Weestimate that there are over 26,000 vacant lots in Texas comprising more than 7,000 acres of unoccupied residential land. If these lots were fully populated, even at the prevailing low densities generally found in colonias, an additional 100,000 people could be housed in existing settlements alone.
A key question, then, is why so many low-income households do not occupy their lots? Conventional wisdom argues that the lack of services discourages potential residents, and that providing basic utilities would be a catalyst to lot occupancy. However, this argument begs the question why many people do occupy their lots from the outset. They can be asked about their motives and decision-making process, but it is more problematic to question absentee lot owners who are difficult to trace. Who are they? Where are they? What do they want from their land?
In spite of the methodological conundrum caused by the lack of a clear paper trail from property conveyance records and lot titles, we were able to develop a research strategy using property appraisal and tax records to track down some of these absentee lot owners. However, an estimated 8 to 10 percent of these records were discovered to be “bad” addresses, with the probability that the actual number of untraceable lot owners may be twice as high. Having walked away from the land they bought, these lot owners are in effect locking their property out of future land market transactions.
Current Place of Residence of Absentee Owners
By using tax record data for some 2,713 absentee lot owners across 16 survey settlements (in border and non-border counties), it was possible to identify the current location of absentee owners.
Around three-quarters live locally, i.e., in the adjacent city or within 20 miles. The rest are non-local, split equally between those living elsewhere in Texas and those living out-of-state. While there was a broad spread of addresses across the state, most absentee lot owners lived in Houston (26 percent), Dallas (15 percent) and San Antonio (12 percent)-the three principal metropolitan areas of Texas. California, with 35 percent of all out-of-state absentee addresses, was the most frequently identified state, followed by New Mexico (14 percent), and the Chicago region (Illinois and Indiana with 12 percent).
Characteristics of Occupants and Absentee Owners
This research reveals that colonia occupants and absentee lot owners are substantially different populations (see Table 1). Absentee owners are more likely to be Mexican-American, and are more ethnically diverse. While poor, they are considerably better off than colonia residents. Generally, the absentee owners purchased their lots earlier, and therefore paid less in real terms.
The most dramatic differences between the groups emerge in their residential search behavior and their motives for purchase. Absentee lot owner households are not waiting in the wings to move onto their lots once servicing has been provided. Quite the opposite: most of them (81 percent) are homeowners already and appear to be quite comfortable in their current residence. Moreover, some 49 percent indicated they bought their lot not for themselves but as an investment, as security, or as a future gift or inheritance for their children. Less than one quarter stated that the lack of existing services was an issue. More than half expressed no future intention to move onto the lot, and of those who do intend to move, very few plan to do so in the next 5 to 10 years. In reality I anticipate that few will ever move. Some even said they would sell at any time if the price was right.
Land market performance for both populations during the past two decades is unlike other residential land markets. Land value trends in colonias have remained “flat” in real terms, and the rate of return has been low, especially compared with other sectors of the land and housing market. This suggests that the poor are not benefiting significantly either from their land purchase investment or from their sweat equity (in the case of residents). Although a modest level of market sales continues to take place (more than was anticipated), colonia land markets are not being valorized significantly.
Policies for Fixing the Market
Vacant lots are both a cause and an effect of this poor market performance. It is important to note that the “build-it-and-they-will come” notion is badly misconstrued. Policies to develop urban services in order to catalyze lot occupancy and densification may be helpful, but other land market interventions are also required to make land markets in colonias operate more efficiently. These might include revising legislation to facilitate urban productivity, such as allowing for some nonresidential land use for income production, or for subdivision and rental. Indeed, one reason why land is not being valorized is the restriction placed upon approved land uses. The 1995 moratorium on lot sales also limits development. Although the law is widely breached, doing so deflates prices, distorts turnover and drives sales underground. The prohibition upon internal lot subdivision (especially of large lots) inhibits rent-seeking and cost-sharing among kin.
Another need is to free up the land-locked areas that belong to owners who can no longer be traced. Sequestration of lots for nonpayment of taxes could be one approach, especially if tied to the creation of a public holding company or land trust that would subsequently promote the supply and redistribution of lots through mechanisms such as land pooling and land readjustment. In Texas, at least, tackling the “problem” of large-scale absentee lot ownership would offer a number of positive outcomes and solutions.
Understanding and widening our analysis of homestead subdivisions in Texas and elsewhere offers the potential that policy makers will be better informed, and that we may begin to develop more sensitive and appropriate land policies to address the issue. In so doing, we may substantially increase the supply of homesteading opportunities to the most disadvantaged income groups in U.S. society.
References
Peter M. Ward. 1999. Colonias and Public Policy in Texas and Mexico: Urbanization by Stealth. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
______. 2000. Residential Land Market Dynamics, Absentee Lot Owners and Densification Policies for Texas Colonias. Lincoln Institute Working Paper. WP00PW1. 160 pages. $18.
Peter M. Ward holds the C.B. Smith Sr. Centennial Chair in US-Mexico Relations at the University of Texas-Austin, where he also is a professor in the Department of Sociology and at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs.
SHARE
The Lincoln Institute has been cosponsoring research and training programs with public officials in Porto Alegre, Brazil, for several years. The land policy experiment described in this article represents an innovation with much pedagogical potential because it brings attention to the importance of procedural factors (e.g., management, negotiation, transparency, public legitimacy) in the provision of serviced land for the poor, over and above the conventional attention given to funding and other resources.
Approximately one billion people around the world currently live in slums with precarious infrastructure and without basic services or secure land title, and this situation is expected to worsen in the future (UN-HABITAT 2003). From the perspectives of both the urban order and the environment, irregular land occupations often cause irreversible damage and impose high urbanization costs for the local government and the society as a whole.
Irregularity is a multidimensional phenomenon involving tenure issues (e.g., legal rights of occupation, title registration); compliance with urban norms and regulations (e.g., lot sizes, allowance for public spaces, street layouts); the number and quality of services provided; the type of area where settlement occurs (e.g., ecologically risky areas, hillsides, contaminated brownfields); and above all the occupation process itself, which is usually the opposite of formal development, whereby occupation is the culmination of a legal and regulated sequence from titling to planning to servicing.
Basic infrastructure is frequently available in irregular areas, but it is installed either by unregulated subdividers or after occupation by public agencies, often as an emergency measure. For example, sometimes the main trunk networks for water and sewer systems exist close to areas where irregular settlements are forming, so the subdivider or occupants simply improvise clandestine connections to tap into the main line. For small settlements this kind of intervention is not disastrous, yet it implies that services may be extended into areas that are unsuitable for occupation. Private or public utility companies also extend their services to new settlements irrespective of their legal status and often without consulting the local authorities.
Typical Occupation Processes
The most common current practice for creating irregular settlements involves the occupation of a parcel of land through a complex series of commercial transactions involving the landowner, the developer or land subdivider, and often the future occupants. Landowners seek a way to extract profits from the land; subdividers ignore the need to comply with municipal codes and produce a low-cost, high-profit subdivision; and the poor occupants purchase these illegal plots because they have no other option and may be unaware of the legal status. They usually lack a regular income source and savings to apply for credit and meet the stringent building codes and other conditions required for formal purchase and occupation.
Prospective occupants buy the “right to occupy” through a plot acquisition contract and proceed to organize plot boundaries, street layouts and the construction of simple houses. When an official inspection is made it’s already too late; houses have been built and the community is organized to resist. Public authorities cannot keep up with this cycle of complicity, and thus restrict their role to minimal inspection activities that both conceal a management model tolerant of informality and expose the absence of other housing options for that segment of the population.
High-cost curative actions to introduce urban improvements and title regularization programs are being established in many cities, but their effectiveness to date has been limited (Smolka 2003). More seriously and paradoxically, the expectation created by these programs has tended to increase the number of people resorting to irregularity. In sum, the typical process by which the urban poor access serviced land is inefficient and unfair, and ultimately feeds into a vicious cycle of irregularity by contributing to poverty rather than mitigating it. The problem is not so much what services are provided, by whom and at what scale, but how, when and where the process operates to provide those services in the first place.
The Case of Porto Alegre
Porto Alegre (population 1,360,590 in 2000) is the capital of the southernmost state in Brazil and the center of a metropolitan area of 31 municipalities (see Figure 1, page 12). The city’s quality of life improvements have gained worldwide recognition, largely as a result of its poverty reduction and social inclusion programs and its widely acclaimed participatory administration processes (Getúlio Vargas Foundation 2004; Jones Lang Lasalle 2003; UNDP 2003; UN/UMP 2003). For example, the level of infrastructure services is very high: 84 percent of the city’s houses are connected to the sewerage system; 99.5 percent receive treated water; 98 percent receive electricity; and 100 percent of suburbs are serviced by selective waste collection (Municipality of Porto Alegre 2003).
In spite of these impressive figures, 25.5 percent of the population lives in the city’s 727 irregular settlements (Green 2004). It is estimated that the annual population growth in these areas is 4 percent compared to 1.35 percent for the city as a whole. These facts present an apparent paradox and conundrum: How to reconcile widespread provision of basic services with the increase of irregularity in a period of successful, popular and participatory administration?
Since the introduction of decentralized participatory budgeting in 1989, public investment decision making in Porto Alegre has improved, but the process remains economically ineffective, technically inappropriate, environmentally disastrous, fiscally unfair (because land subdividers pocket monies that should benefit the public) and politically unsustainable. Many areas still have serious problems: poor quality streets without drainage or paving; geological instability and susceptibility to flooding; and a lack of legal titling, which means, for example, no address for postal delivery. Nevertheless, the Porto Alegre case is interesting because it vividly demonstrates that the problem of confronting irregularity is less one of providing services than of changing the process by which the services are provided. It’s a procedural process, a change in the rules of the game.
An Innovative Urban Policy Instrument
The Social Urbanizer concept was developed in Porto Alegre as an instrument, and more generally a program, to overcome the existing unsustainable process of providing urban services in spite of a long history of regulatory legislation (see Figure 2). Enacted in July 2003 shortly after approval of Brazil’s innovative City Statute Act, the Social Urbanizer Act was the result of significant dialogue involving the building industry unions, small land subdividers, housing cooperatives, financial agents and the City Council.
A Social Urbanizer is a real estate developer registered with the municipality who is interested in developing in areas identified by the government as suitable for low-income housing, and who agrees to operate according to certain negotiated terms, including the affordability of the serviced plots. The process contemplates a public-private partnership through which the municipality commits to make certain urban norms and regulations more flexible, to speed up the licensing process, reduce the legal requirements, and recognize progressive, step-by-step urbanization. It also anticipates using the transfer of development rights as a stimulating mechanism for private developers. Other incentives may take the form of access to specific lines of credit or certain direct public investments in urban infrastructure so the costs are not passed on to the final buyer. Eligible Social Urbanizer applicants include duly registered real estate developers, contractors already working in the informal market, landowners and self-managed cooperatives.
Porto Alegre’s Social Urbanizer program incorporates lessons learned from both real challenges and untapped opportunities for public action, and it is inspired by several specific ideas. First, land subdividers operating to provide access to urban land by the low-income sector (albeit through illegal activities) have an expertise and familiarity with that sector that public authorities do not have. Thus, rather than demonize or punish these agents, the Social Urbanizer approach takes a new attitude toward attracting them with appropriate incentives (and sanctions) so they can operate legally. Furthermore, while it is common knowledge that a subdivider can usually operate more profitably at the margin of the law, because of lower overhead costs, avoidance of legal approvals, and so forth, it is less well known that, given the option, many of these subdividers would rather operate legally, even if it means a lower profit margin.
Second, the land value increments generated by land transactions could be converted into a source of revenue for the development. In practice this share of value should be distributed both directly by the landowner (as an in-kind contribution of land beyond what is legally required in land subdivisions for low-income occupations) and indirectly by the subdivider through negotiated lower land prices for the low-income buyers. In most cases of irregular development the public is not able to capture and benefit from this increase in land value.
Third, by giving public transparency to the terms of direct negotiations and the resulting win-win agreement among all the interested parties (i.e., landowners, developers, public authorities, prospective buyers), the Social Urbanizer process creates adequate sanctions for compliance with the norms established for the development. Another component of the negotiation process has to do with the agreed investment schedule and its effect in diffusing speculative pricing.
Fourth, to have any chance of success this new mode of urbanization should be able to provide an adequate supply of serviced plots to meet social needs under competitive market conditions (i.e., more affordable than the conditions of otherwise informal subdividers). In effect an essential ingredient of the program’s rationale is that it establishes new rules for social urbanization in general. The signal should be clear to private agents that the Social Urbanizer process is the only way for the government to participate in the development of socially approved and affordable settlements.
The Social Urbanizer as a Third Path
For the public interest, the primary goal of this strategy is to establish the basis for development before occupation takes place, or at least according to a schedule allowing for significant reduction or control of urbanization costs (see Figure 3).
Public administrations in third-world cities typically respond to the inability of the poor to access formal land markets through two models or paradigms. Under the subsidy model the public intervenes to provide serviced land either directly through publicly developed settlements on an emergency basis, or indirectly through below-market interest for developers operating in that segment of the market. At the other extreme, the 100-percent tolerance model recognizes that the government does not have the capacity to provide all the serviced land needed, and thus tolerates irregular and informal arrangements that may eventually be improved with various regularization programs.
Both approaches keep land market conditions untouched and feed into the vicious cycle of informality. In the first case the subsidies are capitalized into higher land prices, and in the second case they allow land subdividers to charge a premium based on the expectation of future regularization: the higher the expectation, the higher the premium.
The Social Urbanizer represents a third path that recognizes both the role and expertise of informal land subdividers who operate in the low-income segment of the market and the indispensable role of public agents in supporting the poor to participate in otherwise inaccessible market conditions. In other words, this program represents an effort to “formalize the informal” and “informalize the formal” by facilitating and providing incentives for developers to operate with more flexibility in the normally unprofitable low-income market. It is an instrument designed to encourage both entrepreneurs operating in the clandestine real estate market and those operating in the formal, higher-income market segment to develop land under the existing regular standards.
The Social Urbanizer Act represents an attempt to change the rules on how low-income housing needs are to be addressed. It gives a clear signal to the private agents operating in the land market and protects the public from arbitrariness in private development actions. The Social Urbanizer has proven to be an indispensable tool for public management. As a break with current practices, however, the program still faces many challenges in implementation.
Early Stages of Implementation
Porto Alegre has five Social Urbanizer pilot projects at different stages of development. They involve different types of developers so they can function as true experiments: small developers, developers already established in the market, and housing cooperatives. One of these pilot areas has demonstrated that 125 square metres (m2) of fully serviced land can be produced at a price ranging from US$25 to US$28 per m2 in contrast with the formal market price of US$42 to US$57 per m2 for the same amount of land. The first price range represents how much a developer is actually willing to contract with the local administration to operate under the Social Urbanizer framework.
The municipality also attempted to gain financial support for social urbanization activities from Caixa Econômica Federal (CEF), the federal organization responsible for financing housing and urban development. The agency is creating a new financial line within its partnership program in which credit is given to the buyer, who will knowingly use it to purchase a plot of land. Until now this financial option was only available for the acquisition of a housing unit before construction. Thus the idea of a credit line to ultimately finance the development of serviced land is a novelty. Another related improvement is the willingness of the local administration to void requirements on developers’ risk analysis, an essential ingredient to open the field to small developers.
The innovation of the Social Urbanizer instrument, as compared to traditional public methods of dealing with urban irregularity, has attracted the attention of many organizations and other municipalities. At a federal level the Social Urbanizer is considered fully integrated with the principles of the City Statute, which has brought support from Brazil’s Ministry for Cities. Another federal law that deals with the subdivision of urban land is now being discussed in the Brazilian National Congress, and the Social Urbanizer is part of that debate as well. If adopted, this subdivision legislation will be an important step toward changing the traditional and perverse process of providing access to land for the urban poor in other Brazilian cities.
Chronology of Urban Policies in Porto Alegre
1979 – Approval of the Federal Subdivision Law (6766/1979) and the First Development Master Plan for Porto Alegre
1990 – Establishment of the Urban Regularization Program
1996 – Creation of the Urban Regularization Center
1998 – Announcement of Land Title Regularization Year
1999 – Approval of the Environmental Development Master Plan
2001 – Implementation of a pilot plan of a differentiated taxation model, based on preventive action, operating in the region of the city that suffers the highest number of irregular settlements
2001 – Enactment of Brazil’s City Statute Act on Urban Development (Law 10.257/2001)
2003 – Enactment of the Social Urbanizer Act (Law 9162/2003)
2005 – Implementation of the Social Urbanizer pilot projects
2005 – Implementation of the Social Urbanizer pilot projects
Martim O. Smolka is senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute, director of the Program on Latin America and the Caribbean, and co-chairman of the Department of International Studies. Cláudia Damasio is an architect and former under-secretary of planning for the Municipality of Porto Alegre. She now serves as coordinator of the Social Urbanizer project. .
References
Getúlio Vargas Foundation. 2004. Revista Você S/A. Editora Abril. August 10. São Paulo, Brazil
Green, Eliane D’Arrigo, ed. 2004. Irregularidade fundiária em Porto Alegre por região de planejamento (Land irregularity in Porto Alegre by planning regions) Municipality of Porto Alegre, Secretary of Municipal Planning, http://www.portoalegre.rs.gov.br/spm/
Jones Lang Lasalle. 2003. World Winning Cities II, http://www.joneslanglasalle.com/research/index.asp
Municipality of Porto Alegre. 2003. Informaçöes a cidade: Títulos e Conquistas (Information about the city: Titles and achievements), http://www.portoalegre.rs.gov.br
Smolka, Martim O. 2003. Informality, urban poverty and land market prices. Land Lines 15(1): 4–7.
UN-HABITAT. 2003. The Challenge Of Slums: Global Report On Human Settlements. Nairobi, Kenya: UN-HABITAT, http://hq.unhabitat.org/register/item.asp?ID=1156
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2003. Human Development Report 2003. New York: Oxford University Press, http://www.undp.org/
United Nations Urban Management Program (UN/UMP). 2003. Report of the Urban Management Program of UN-HABITAT 2003. Nairobi, Kenya: UN-HABITAT, http://hq.unhabitat.org/programmes/ump/publications.asp
SHARE
In Latin American cities, especially in the larger ones, location is critical for vulnerable groups. In Buenos Aires, the population of shantytowns in the central area doubled in the last inter-census period (1991–2001), even though total population declined by approximately 8 percent. In Rio de Janeiro during the same decade, the fastest growing informal settlements were those considered to be in the best locations, generally near the beach in middle- and upper-income neighborhoods, although they were already the most crowded and congested slums.
SHARE
Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 2 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.
Muchos gobiernos latinoamericanos han mejorado el proceso de legalización de los asentamientos periféricos, y han reconocido el derecho a la vivienda y la postura de las Naciones Unidas que condena los desalojos forzosos como violaciones de los derechos humanos. Así y todo la práctica del desalojo persiste, con repercusiones devastadoras para familias, vecindades, y para con los esfuerzos de mejoramiento de grandes áreas urbanas. Al perpetuar un clima de miedo e incertidumbre, esta amenaza hace a la gente perder las ganas de invertir recursos y mano de obra en sus hogares y barrios.
Los desalojos en América Latina surgen del fenómeno de ocupación ilegal, el cual a su vez resulta de factores como la urbanización incontrolada, la falta de recursos financieros por parte de la población pobre y de los gobiernos municipales, y la carencia de títulos de propiedad legales o debidamente registrados. En tales circunstancias, la necesidad de supervivencia impulsa al pobre urbano a valerse de una variedad de mecanismos -incluyendo subdivisiones ilegales, invasiones y viviendas autoconstruidas- a fin de satisfacer sus necesidades de alojamiento y de comunidad.
Los moradores de Chapinero Alto, al noreste de Bogotá (Colombia), han enfrentado 30 años de intentos de desplazamiento y desalojo. Muchas de las familias que viven en esta periferia urbana montañosa son descendientes de los trabajadores de haciendas situadas en la región de la sabana (altos llanos). Conforme las haciendas se fueron cerrando y vendiendo para dar paso a la expansión urbana, los trabajadores no tuvieron más alternativa que quedarse a vivir en las colinas, cuyo valor era considerado despreciable por los promotores de mediados del siglo XX.
A principios de la década de 1970, los anuncios del plan de construcción de una autopista generaron una oleada especulativa y varios intentos de expulsión. Los moradores y sus aliados en universidades e instituciones religiosas formaron un frente social masivo que impidió varios desalojos, pero que no pudo detener la especulación. Para la época de finalización del proyecto (mediados de los ’80) pocas familias habían tenido que salir para dar paso a la carretera, pero los barrios tuvieron que volver a hacer frente a otra oleada de intentos de desalojo.
A principios de los ’90 la amenaza surgió nuevamente, esta vez en nombre de proyectos de desarrollo sostenible y de las denuncias hechas por el gobierno y varios grupos privados, que afirmaban que los barrios pobres atentaban contra el frágil medio ambiente circundante. Desde ese entonces los ocupantes se han visto obligados a luchar de mil maneras para defenderse contra los intentos de desalojo, y tal clima de inestabilidad ha desalentado cualquier proyecto de mejora bien sea por parte de los moradores como por parte del gobierno.
Refugiados del desarrollo
Las causas de los desalojos son variadas, pero típicamente se atribuyen directa o indirectamente a proyectos de renovación urbana. Debido a la creciente escasez de terrenos urbanizados, la competencia y las evicciones obligan a los moradores de los asentamientos informales a trasladarse a la periferia. En Bogotá, la expansión de la ciudad ha convertido a Chapinero Alto en uno de los predios más codiciados de la ciudad. A las víctimas de los desalojos (llamadas también “refugiados del desarrollo”) se les suele acusar de obstaculizar el progreso cuando protestan, y raramente se les ofrece una indemnización o participación en programas de reubicación. En los casos de especulación, a menudo las familias se ven obligadas a pasar el trago amargo de ser despojadas de sus hogares prácticamente sin previo aviso.
Los gobiernos locales desempeñan un papel principal en los procesos de desalojo, junto con propietarios de tierras, empresas urbanizadoras, cuerpos policiales y fuerzas armadas. Sacar a los pobres de los predios deseables no sólo facilita emprender proyectos de infraestructura e inmuebles de lujo, sino que también libera al rico del contacto diario con el pobre. Gobernantes y promotores suelen defender sus acciones en aras del embellecimiento y mejoramiento de la ciudad, o aseveran que las barriadas pobres son un caldo de cultivo de problemas sociales. Además, cada vez más se justifican los desalojos tras el escudo de la protección ambiental y el desarrollo sostenible. Todas estas razones han sido utilizadas por funcionarios gubernamentales y propietarios de títulos para eliminar los barrios pobres de Chapinero Alto.
Cuando las familias se ven obligadas a salir de sus predios, no sólo pierden sus tierras y sus hogares, sino también sus vecinos, comunidades y círculos sociales. El estrés sicológico y los daños a la salud causados por meses de incertidumbre pueden ser terribles. Frecuentemente los niños pierden meses de escuela, y sus padres deben viajar distancias considerables para llegar a sus trabajos. Los resultados de estudios antropológicos han demostrado que al dispersarse la población, se desmantelan las redes de ayuda mutua y los círculos sociales, los cuales son herramientas críticas de supervivencia para los pobres urbanos, quienes a menudo afrontan problemas económicos e incertidumbre. Estas redes de protección son irremplazables, incluso en los casos en que las familias reciben una indemnización. Por último, el desalojo entraña un alto riesgo de empobrecimiento, especialmente para las personas carentes de títulos de propiedad, puesto que generalmente no reciben indemnización.
En 1992 el gobierno de Bogotá desalojó a un grupo de 30 familias tras una violenta disputa con un propietario. La ciudad trasladó a las familias a una escuela abandonada, donde vivieron durante varios meses esperando las viviendas de interés social prometidas por el alcalde. A medida que pasaron los meses y se evaporó la promesa de las viviendas, los problemas de estrés, salud y pérdida de ingresos y educación ocasionaron efectos graves en las familias. Varios de los hombres abandonaron sus familias; hubo incidentes de violencia doméstica; y se desintegraron las relaciones sociales. Para el año 1997 las familias se habían dispersado y estaban viviendo dondequiera que pudieron conseguir dónde vivir en la ciudad.
Una de las consecuencias más dolorosas del desalojo es la repercusión negativa que tiene esa permanente inseguridad sobre todos los asentamientos irregulares. Sin importar si al final se hace o no realidad, la amenaza constante del desahucio afecta vastas zonas de ciudades en desarrollo y frena las inversiones en viviendas y servicios, tan necesarias para resolver los problemas de las barriadas. Ésta es una de las razones que imponen estudiar la práctica de los desalojos forzosos dentro del marco de los derechos humanos. El problema continuará hasta tanto la seguridad de tenencia y de una vivienda adecuada no sean protegidas como derechos humanos.
Desalojos y derechos humanos
Dadas las consecuencias sociales de amplio efecto que tienen los desalojos forzosos, no es de sorprender que los mismos quebranten un buen número de derechos humanos. Para empezar, obviamente comprometen el derecho a la vivienda, defendido por el derecho internacional en forma cada vez más explícita. El derecho a la vivienda fue establecido por vez primera en el artículo 25 de la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos Humanos de 1948. La Declaración sobre el Progreso Social y el Desarrollo, la Declaración de los Derechos del Niño, la Declaración de Vancouver sobre los Asentamientos Humanos y otros congresos también afirman el derecho a la vivienda, así como lo hacen más de 50 constituciones, entre ellas la Constitución Colombiana de 1991.
Además del derecho a la vivienda, el desalojo forzoso entraña comúnmente una violación al derecho a la libertad de movimiento. La violencia o el asesinato de líderes o miembros de la comunidad que protestan los desahucios constituyen claras violaciones al derecho a la vida y a la seguridad de las personas, así como también a la libertad de expresión y de afiliación. Cuando un niño es retirado de su escuela debido a un desalojo forzoso, se quebranta su derecho a la educación. Cuando los cuerpos policiales o militares irrumpen en los hogares a la fuerza, las familias pierden sus derechos a la vida privada. El derecho al trabajo es una de las violaciones más frecuentes del desahucio. Finalmente, las repercusiones psicológicas y físicas que acarrean los desalojos forzosos infringen el derecho a la salud.
Incluso en aquellas regiones donde los gobiernos han ratificado las declaraciones de las Naciones Unidas sobre el derecho a la vivienda, se siguen cometiendo violaciones. Las Naciones Unidas y muchos otros organismos observadores responsabilizan claramente al Estado como ente encargado de prevenir los desalojos, y han declarado que si un gobierno fracasa en sus intentos de garantizar la disponibilidad de viviendas adecuadas, tampoco puede aseverar que la eliminación de los asentamientos ilegales cumpla con las normas de derecho internacional. Dado que prácticamente todos los desalojos forzosos son planeados, y dado que existe un conjunto de estipulaciones reconocidas internacionalmente que condenan la práctica, tales desplazamientos deberían efectuarse en seguimiento a políticas sociales y dentro de un marco de trabajo centrado en los derechos humanos.
Consideraciones de política
Basado en varios estudios sobre desalojos forzosos y en nuestro propio estudio de investigación realizado en Bogotá, seguidamente expondremos varias sugerencias para mejorar las políticas de vivienda y de prevención de la violencia mediante el cumplimiento de las normas de derechos humanos. Los puntos siguientes deben ser el objetivo de las políticas que se proponen eliminar los desalojos forzosos:
Los problemas asociados al desalojo forzoso -violencia, empobrecimiento y estancamiento del desarrollo urbano- podrán prevenirse con más eficacia únicamente implementando mecanismos eficaces para extender los derechos de tenencia a la población urbana pobre. El mejoramiento de las actuales directrices de los derechos humanos requiere extender los derechos de protección contra desalojos forzosos y los derechos al reasentamiento adecuado. Aunque las directrices actuales se cumplen con más eficacia en los proyectos de desarrollo que cuentan con financiamiento internacional, los estados deberían valerse de directrices similares para aplicarlas a toda forma de desplazamiento. Al extender las directrices de los derechos humanos y mejorar los mecanismos de ejecución y cumplimiento, los organismos nacionales e internacionales podrán cumplir mejor con las necesidades de la población pobre urbana.
Margaret Everett es profesora asistente de antropología y estudios internacionales en Portland State University en Portland, Oregon. Su estudio de investigación para este artículo fue parcialmente financiado por el Instituto Lincoln. El informe completo, “Desalojos y derechos humanos: un estudio etnográfico de disputas de desarrollo y tierras en Bogotá, Colombia”, está publicado en la sección de América Latina del sitio Web del Instituto Lincoln (www.lincolninst.edu).
Leyendas de las fotos
Una vivienda del barrio Bosque Calderón de Bogotá muestra los mensajes ‘Respeten nuestros derechos de posesión y vivamos en paz’ y ‘Más de 30 años de posesión es una razón’. Sus habitantes se enfrentaron a intentos de desalojo desde principios de los años ’70, y finalmente recibieron los títulos legales a principio de los ’90.
Los moradores de Bosque Calderón participan en un proyecto de vivienda comunitaria tras finalmente adquirir el permiso de tenencia legal.
SHARE
Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 7 del CD-ROM Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.
Diego Alfonso Erba es un profesor invitado del Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo), con licencia de su cargo de profesor del Programa de Graduados de Geología de la Universidade do Vale do Río dos Sinos (UNISINOS) de Brasil. Se graduó de ingeniero agrimensor en la Universidad Nacional de Rosario, Argentina, y después obtuvo dos títulos de maestría en ciencias y enseñó en varias universidades de Brasil. Su experiencia profesional inicial fue en la regularización de los asentamientos informales de Santa Fe, Argentina, y encabezó el Departamento de Sistemas de Información Geológica (SIG) de una cooperativa agrícola del sur de Brasil. También obtuvo un doctorado en agrimensura de la Universidad Nacional de Catamarca, Argentina, e hizo investigaciones posdoctorales en SIG para cuerpos de agua en el Centro de Recursos Naturales de la Universidad Shiga de Otsu, Japón; y en SIG para aplicaciones urbanas en los Laboratorios Clark-IDRISI de la Universidad Clark de Worcester, Massachusetts.
Land Lines: ¿Qué es un catastro territorial?
Diego Erba: La institución del catastro territorial no existe en los Estados Unidos, por lo menos no de la misma forma que en muchos otros países del mundo. Si bien el término “catastro” tiene más de un significado, en general hay consenso de que proviene del griego catastichon, que se puede traducir como “una lista de parcelas tributarias”.
Este tipo de lista existe en los Estados Unidos, pero el perfil de las instituciones que manejan estos datos no es el mismo que en América Latina y muchos otros países europeos y africanos, donde el catastro territorial incluye datos económicos, geométricos y legales de las parcelas de tierra, además de datos sobre sus dueños u ocupantes. Las instituciones que manejan estos datos, con frecuencia también llamadas catastros territoriales, están estrechamente conectadas con los registros de títulos o los registros de propiedades, porque sus datos se complementan y garantizan el derecho a la tenencia de la tierra. Estas conexiones tradicionales reflejan la herencia catastral histórica de los sistemas legales romano y napoleónico.
Land Lines: ¿Por qué los administradores públicos urbanos necesitan saber sobre los catastros territoriales?
DE: El catastro y el registro de propiedades deberían estar conectados por razones legales − y además con fines prácticos − y hay muchos modelos que demuestran cómo los catastros podrían o deberían estar relacionados con las instituciones públicas. Desafortunadamente, en general los catastros de las distintas regiones están aislados o no están integrados, lo cual reduce mucho su utilidad potencial como herramienta para la planificación urbana y las políticas de suelo.
Por ejemplo, los asentamientos irregulares en general se construyen en áreas públicas o de protección ambiental, o incluso en parcelas privadas, y no pagan impuestos ni están inscritos en las bases de datos de los catastros territoriales. Estas áreas se representan en la cartografía catastral como “polígonos en blanco”, como si no existiera nada dentro de ellos. La paradoja es que en general se poseen datos e información cartográfica sobre estos asentamientos irregulares, pero la información se encuentra frecuentemente en instituciones que no están relacionadas con el catastro, y por lo tanto estos asentamientos no están oficialmente registrados.
Hay una percepción creciente de la importancia del catastro como sistema de información multifinalitario: que sirve no sólo a los sectores legales y financieros de una ciudad, sino también a todas las instituciones que conforman la “realidad urbana”, como las agencias de servicios públicos, las compañías de servicios públicos e incluso ciertos proveedores privados de servicios urbanos. No obstante, esta evolución hacia un concepto nuevo, y hacia sistemas de información urbana mejorados, no ha sido sencilla, y se ha topado con resistencias en los países en desarrollo.
Land Lines: ¿Por qué es tan difícil establecer y usar un catastro multifinalitario?
DE: La implementación de un catastro multifinalitario exige en general un mayor intercambio horizontal de información entre las instituciones gubernamentales. A menudo, también exige una modificación del marco legal y el establecimiento de relaciones más fluidas entre agentes públicos y privados, para poder compartir datos estandarizados y asegurar las inversiones constantes necesarias para mantener actualizadas las bases de datos y la cartografía.
Esto parece ser un proceso sencillo, pero en la práctica no lo es, porque muchos administradores todavía consideran que “esos datos son míos” y no están dispuestos a colaborar con otros. Al mismo tiempo, algunos administradores demasiado entusiastas, convencidos del valor potencial de un catastro multifinalitario, a veces se saltan etapas y pasan de un catastro tradicional a un modelo multifinalitario, sin prestar demasiada atención a la implementación efectiva de los intercambios de información.
Aun cuando operen en forma privada, los catastros territoriales se consideran como un servicio público, así que dependen del financiamiento público y de decisiones políticas para aprobar un nuevo sistema de valuación de la tierra o la cartografía. Al mismo tiempo, este tipo de servicio público no es visible y por lo tanto no es tan interesante para los políticos, que quieren demostrar sus logros por medio de proyectos más tangibles, como un puente o una escuela nueva.
La actualización de los datos catastrales afecta el valor de la tierra y consecuentemente el monto de los impuestos sobre la propiedad, un tema que no es popular con los votantes. No obstante, los administradores gubernamentales que desean mejorar el estado tributario de su jurisdicción pueden decidir al principio de su mandato que quieren actualizar el catastro para tratar de aumentar los ingresos provenientes de los impuestos sobre la propiedad. Esto tiene un impacto político significativo al comenzar su mandato, pero es posible que de allí en más no se alteren los datos del valor de la propiedad por muchos años, resultando cada vez menos precisos en comparación con su valor real de mercado. En muchas jurisdicciones latinoamericanas, la legislación impone la obligación de actualizar el catastro en forma periódica, aunque el nivel de cumplimiento no es homogéneo.
Otro error frecuente es considerar que la solución estriba en crear un sistema de información geográfica (SIG) para manejar los datos catastrales. En el caso ideal, nos gustaría ver sistemas integrados que usan bases de datos coordinadas y estandarizadas. Sin embargo, algunas municipalidades no tienen los recursos suficientes, y aquéllas que los tienen no cuentan con empleados con la preparación suficiente como para realizar la tarea. La noción de que se puede arribar a una manera única de implementar catastros no es realmente práctica en regiones donde las diferencias entre jurisdicciones son tan significativas. Yo siempre digo que el problema con las instituciones catastrales no es de recursos físicos ni de recursos de software, sino de recursos humanos. Aun cuando existan los recursos financieros, la falta de profesionales y técnicos capacitados presenta un obstáculo significativo.
Land Lines: En este contexto, ¿es posible considerar un catastro multifinalitario para América Latina?
DE: Es posible, pero el concepto es todavía nuevo y no se comprende por completo. Hay muchos buenos catastros en América Latina, por ejemplo en algunas municipalidades de Colombia y Brasil y en algunos estados de México y Argentina. En algunas jurisdicciones, la fusión de catastros territoriales con instituciones públicas y sistemas geotecnológicos genera institutos catastrales que están mejor estructurados en términos de presupuesto y personal técnico, y por lo tanto pueden identificar mejor los asentamientos ilegales y controlar el aumento del valor de la tierra usando herramientas modernas.
No obstante, desde mi punto de vista, la región aún no cuenta con un catastro multifinalitario en plena operación. Una suposición común es que la implementación de un catastro multifinalitario exige el agregado de datos sociales y ambientales a las bases de datos alfanuméricas existentes de los catastros territoriales tradicionales, para tener en cuenta los aspectos económicos, geométricos y legales de la parcela y después conectar todos los datos con un mapa de parcela en SIG. Si bien esto es muy importante, no es esencial, porque la implementación no es tanto un problema tecnológico como filosófico. La mayoría de las administraciones municipales se resisten a combinar instituciones que tradicionalmente manejan bases de datos sociales (educación y salud), del medio ambiente y territoriales (catastros) bajo el mismo techo.
Land Lines: ¿Cómo ayuda su trabajo en el Instituto Lincoln a ampliar el nivel de conocimiento sobre los catastros territoriales?
DE: He estado trabajando con el Programa para América Latina y el Caribe desde 2002, para explorar la relación entre los catastros multifinalitarios y las cuatro áreas temáticas del Programa: grandes proyectos urbanos; valuación y tributación de la tierra; asentamientos informales y programas de regularización; y recuperación de plusvalías. Es siempre un desafío adaptar los programas de estudio educativos, pero creemos firmemente que es importante compartir los conocimientos de manera amplia en cada país y preparar a los funcionarios públicos y a los técnicos con distintos niveles de experiencia. Los participantes en nuestros programas académicos, que incluyen a administradores de catastro, planificadores urbanos, abogados y emprendedores inmobiliarios, adoptan un lenguaje y una visión común de las aplicaciones catastrales urbanas, y pueden iniciar un proceso para mejorar el sistema en sus propios países.
Nuestra estrategia pedagógica para este año incluye la diseminación de conocimientos por medio de una combinación de educación a distancia y cursos tradicionales en el aula a distintos niveles. Tenemos pensado desarrollar seminarios de capacitación, seguidos de un curso de educación a distancia adaptado a aquellos países que demuestren las condiciones necesarias para concretar esta nueva visión de un catastro multifinalitario. Finalmente, organizaremos una clase regional en el aula para los mejores estudiantes a distancia en tres países vecinos.
Este plan contrasta con los múltiples programas de capacitación ofrecidos por otras instituciones internacionales, que contemplan conceptos y el uso de herramientas que pueden no ser aplicables en países con distintos marcos legales y niveles tecnológicos. Comenzaremos este ciclo con seminarios en Chile y Perú, trabajando con la Asociación Chilena de Municipalidades y el Instituto de Economía Regional y Gobierno Local en Arequipa, Perú. Éstos y otros socios en América Latina se han comprometido a difundir y aumentar la capacidad local sobre estos temas.
Otro componente de nuestra estrategia es la difusión de materiales didácticos. Más adelante en 2006, publicaremos dos libros sobre conceptos e implementación de catastros que se pueden aplicar a la mayoría de los países. Uno de los libros describe en detalle el sistema catastral de cada país latinoamericano, y el otro conceptualiza los aspectos jurídicos, económicos, geométricos, ambientales y sociales del catastro multifinalitario, realzando la relación entre el catastro territorial y las cuatro áreas temáticas del Programa para América Latina y el Caribe del Instituto Lincoln.
En 2005 produjimos un DVD, que en la actualidad se ofrece en español y portugués. Incluye un documental sobre catastros multifinalitario y algunos segmentos grabados de clases y discusiones sobre las relaciones entre el catastro multifinalitario y asuntos urbanos complejos.
Land Lines: ¿Cuál es el objetivo a largo plazo del catastro multifinalitario?
DE: Los problemas que se han señalado aquí no deberían desalentar el esfuerzo de los administradores urbanos por reorganizar sus catastros y el marco legal de sus políticas de la tierra en sus respectivos ciudades y países. Por el contrario, deberían tratar de cambiar esta realidad desarrollando nuevas leyes que demuestren el espíritu de una política del suelo moderna. Los datos sobre ciudades latinoamericanas existen, pero están fragmentados y no están estandarizados.
La mejor manera de construir un catastro multifinalitario es integrando todas las instituciones públicas y privadas que están trabajando a nivel de parcela, y desarrollando un identificador único que defina las normas para las bases de datos alfanuméricas y cartográficas. El concepto es muy simple y claro, pero su ejecución no lo es. Para alcanzar este objetivo es necesario que los administradores, técnicos y ciudadanos comprendan el potencial del catastro para mejorar las prácticas de gestión de la tierra y la calidad de vida en zonas urbanas. Muchas veces hay soluciones simples que ayudan a resolver problemas complejos como los presentados por los sistemas catastrales.
SHARE
¿Cómo se correlacionan las percepciones de los moradores de asentamientos informales sobre la seguridad de la tenencia con las decisiones de invertir en mejoras para sus viviendas? ¿Es necesario poseer un título de propiedad para sentirse seguro o aumentar la inversión? ¿Y cómo se relacionan los ingresos y el crédito con la inversión? ¿El morador promedio aspira en realidad a la legalización de su tenencia? Y en ese caso, ¿qué se puede esperar? Este artículo trata de responder a estas preguntas en base a una investigación realizada sobre dos invasiones de terrenos en Buenos Aires, Argentina, y se concentra en dos temas en particular: el concepto de seguridad en la tenencia y la medición empírica de las percepciones de seguridad relacionadas con la inversión en mejoras de viviendas (Van Gelder 2009b).
La seguridad de la tenencia como un concepto tripartito
En la década de 1970, ante un rápido aumento de la informalidad urbana, ciertas organizaciones, como el Banco Mundial, comenzaron a experimentar con programas que proporcionaban servicios básicos de asentamiento y concedían el título de propiedad a sus moradores. La hipótesis era que, con la seguridad de la tenencia, los moradores movilizarían recursos para la construcción de viviendas más eficientemente que con programas de vivienda pública. La vivienda autoconstruida, por lo tanto, se interpretaba como una fuente de seguridad económica y movilidad social ascendente.
A comienzos de la década de 1990, las dimensiones económicas de la legalización de la tenencia cobraron nueva importancia en algunos círculos políticos (Bromley 1990; World Bank 1993). Se comenzó a creer que la mera concesión de derechos de propiedad privada sería una condición suficiente y necesaria para el desarrollo de los asentamientos. La hipótesis era que, al brindar un incentivo a la inversión y la posibilidad de acceder al crédito formal, los derechos de propiedad harían las veces de catalizador para el desarrollo.
Los críticos de esta idea argumentaron que, para establecer la seguridad de la tenencia y promover la inversión, sería mejor concentrarse en detalles más prácticos. El reconocimiento oficial de un asentamiento, la introducción de infraestructura y servicios, y otros factores podían aportar más a la seguridad de facto de la tenencia que el hecho de tener un documento legal que certificara la propiedad de una parcela (p.ej., Gilbert 2002).
Un tercer punto de vista sobre la inversión en viviendas argumenta que el factor más importante es la percepción de la por parte de los moradores. En vez de la seguridad legal, representada por la titulación, el mecanismo propulsor de la inversión es la percepción de seguridad. Se argumenta que los residentes invierten en sus moradas independiente de su estado legal, en la medida que crean que no van a ser desalojados y que las autoridades van a permitir que permanezcan en sus casas (Broegaard 2005; Varley 1987).
El concepto de la seguridad de la tenencia se puede analizar, por lo tanto, desde tres puntos de vista: como un instrumento legal, que frecuentemente toma la forma de título de propiedad; como una seguridad de facto, basada en la situación real; y como una percepción de los moradores. No obstante, estos puntos de vista frecuentemente se confunden, o simplemente se consideran indistintamente en la literatura de investigación o por los políticos, de manera que es importante distinguir entre ellos para poder responder a las preguntas que formulamos al principio.
La seguridad legal de la tenencia es un concepto formal, que se refiere a un documento oficial que identifica al propietario de un bien, y que es reconocido por la autoridad del estado, pero la seguridad de facto y percibida de la tenencia son conceptos empíricos. Para comprender la situación de facto de la tenencia, tenemos que estudiar lo que ocurre in situ y responder a preguntas tales como: ¿ Los desalojos forzados han sido hechos frecuentes o infrecuentes en una determinada ciudad o área? La actitud general de las autoridades hacia la ocupación ilegal, ¿ha sido benigna o estricta? La seguridad percibida de la tenencia, por otro lado, reside en la mente del morador, y su medición exige métodos refinados.
Los distintos tipos de seguridad de la tenencia se pueden superponer. Por ejemplo, la posesión de un título puede implicar que un morador también tenga seguridad de facto, ya que puede percibir que su situación es segura, pero no existe necesariamente una conexión entre estos tipos de seguridad. Los derechos de propiedad no siempre influyen sobre todos los tipos de hechos empíricos, ni tienen que ser reconocidos como algo significativo a los ojos de los moradores (Van Gelder 2010). Por el contrario, las ciudades con informalidad extensa se caracterizan precisamente por una ausencia de dichas correlaciones.
Un problema con el enfoque sobre la titulación es que postula que los derechos de propiedad equivalen a la seguridad de la tenencia. Esto puede ser cierto en situaciones donde la realidad de un asentamiento refleja las normas del sistema legal, pero no necesariamente será cierto cuando no se produce esta correlación. Más aún, es importante recordar que si la seguridad de la tenencia, ya sea de naturaleza legal o de facto, influye sobre la inversión, tiene que hacerlo a través de mecanismos psicológicos.
El lado psicológico de la seguridad de la tenencia
La literatura revela tres puntos críticos con respecto a la medición de la seguridad de la tenencia. Primero, la interpretación de la seguridad de la tenencia, ya sea legal, de facto o percibida, es frecuentemente binaria: uno la tiene o no la tiene. Segundo, y relacionado con el primer punto, los estudios raramente indican el grado en el que la seguridad de la tenencia contribuye a (mayor) inversión en la vivienda, en comparación con otros factores que probablemente también influyen en la inversión, como el nivel de ingreso o la disponibilidad de crédito. Tercero, la seguridad percibida de la tenencia casi siempre se interpreta como la probabilidad percibida de desalojo por parte del morador.
Estos tres puntos descubren una serie de limitaciones importantes en cada caso. Primero, la idea de interpretar la seguridad de la tenencia como una dicotomía no se corresponde con la realidad de los países en vías de desarrollo, donde la seguridad de la tenencia se concibe más bien como una gradación. La mayoría de los asentamientos de bajos ingresos se encuentran en algún punto entre la inseguridad completa y la seguridad completa. Segundo, para comprender la influencia de la seguridad de la tenencia sobre la inversión, es necesario cuantificar esta relación y examinarla junto con otros factores que probablemente también influyan en la inversión, tales como los ingresos del hogar.
Con respecto al tercer punto, la investigación psicológica social ha demostrado crecientemente que las decisiones de las personas están influenciadas frecuentemente por lo que sienten acerca de una situación en vez de, o además de, cómo piensan sobre ella (Hsee y Rottenstreich 2004; Kahneman 2003; Van Gelder, De Vries y Van der Pligt 2009). Estos descubrimientos se pueden aplicar al estudio de las viviendas informales, si consideramos que la inversión de un morador es una forma de tomar decisiones en un entorno de incertidumbre. Es decir, además de operacionalizar la seguridad percibida solamente como la probabilidad percibida de desalojo, lo cual se refiere a un estado cognitivo o de pensamiento, también podemos examinar los sentimientos o las preocupaciones, la inseguridad y el miedo que experimentan los moradores. A este componente de la seguridad de la tenencia lo denominamos miedo al desalojo.
¿Podemos comprender mejor las estimaciones de probabilidad de desalojo si examinamos los sentimientos? En el contexto de la tenencia informal, se ha sugerido frecuentemente que los moradores informales piensan que la probabilidad de un desalojo forzado es muy baja, en particular cuando el asentamiento está relativamente consolidado. En estos casos, el usar solamente la probabilidad percibida de desalojo como indicador de seguridad de la tenencia limita su valor predictivo, porque es invariablemente baja. No obstante, la posibilidad de desalojo, aunque sea muy pequeña, puede aún causar suficientes sentimientos negativos de preocupación y estrés en los moradores como para influir en sus decisiones, independientemente de que se la perciba como probable o no (Van Gelder 2007; 2009a).
Para no tener que considerar (las percepciones de) la seguridad de la tenencia como una dicotomía, podemos cuantificar la probabilidad y el miedo al desalojo usando técnicas de escalas psicométricas. En mi investigación, se presentaron a los moradores varias declaraciones sobre su situación de tenencia, y se les pidió que indicaran hasta qué punto estaban de acuerdo con dichas declaraciones, usando escalas de cinco puntos, desde “completamente en desacuerdo” hasta “completamente de acuerdo”. Por ejemplo: “A veces me preocupa la posibilidad de un desalojo” o “Siempre está presente la posibilidad de que nos desalojen de este barrio”. Ambas declaraciones se refieren a la posibilidad de desalojo. Sin embargo, la segunda, que mide la probabilidad percibida de desalojo, se refiere a una estimación de probabilidades – un estado pensante – mientras que la primera trata de dilucidar los sentimientos.
Medimos así la probabilidad percibida de desalojo y el miedo al desalojo usando escalas compuestas separadas, cada una con múltiples declaraciones. También se preguntó a los encuestados, todos ellos jefes de familia, sobre los ingresos del hogar y si habían sacado un préstamo en los años anteriores. Para medir la inversión en mejoras de viviendas, los encuestadores calificaron las moradas de los participantes de acuerdo a tres elementos distintivos: el piso, las paredes y el techo. Estas calificaciones se combinaron más adelante en un índice de mejora o consolidación de vivienda, la variable dependiente. Para aislar los efectos de la seguridad percibida de la tenencia sobre la inversión, la encuesta fue administrada solamente a aquellos jefes de hogar que habían vivido en el asentamiento desde su origen y fueron responsables por la construcción de la vivienda.
Asentamientos del caso de estudio
Una invasión de suelo típicamente involucra a varios centenares de personas, que obtienen acceso al suelo al invadirlo en forma colectiva y construyen inmediatamente en el mismo. Los residentes intentan cumplir con la legislación sobre el uso del suelo y otros requisitos, lo que permite más tarde subdividir el suelo legal y técnicamente. Esta participación activa de los residentes distingue a estos asentamientos de aquellos más irregulares (las villas miserias).
El estudio consistió en una encuesta estructurada y también en entrevistas semiestructuradas y grupos de enfoque con moradores en dos invasiones de suelo distintas en el cono sur del Gran Buenos Aires, reconocido por su urbanización popular en gran escala y altas concentraciones de pobreza (tabla 1: ver anexo).
Los asentamientos eran muy similares en tamaño, pero tenían distintas edades y por lo tanto distintos grados de consolidación; El Tala fue una de las primeras invasiones de la ciudad, mientras que San Cayetano había existido por sólo dos años antes de la encuesta, realizada en 2008. Sólo la mitad de los moradores de El Tala recibieron el título legal, creando las condiciones para una comparación válida de hogares titulados y no titulados en este asentamiento.
Resultados del análisis
Se emplearon análisis de regresión y de correlación para examinar la intensidad tanto de la probabilidad percibida de desalojo y el miedo al desalojo como pronosticadores de mejoras a las viviendas. Para tener una mejor idea de su importancia comparativa, también analizamos los ingresos del hogar. La tabla 2 (ver anexo) muestra que tanto la probabilidad como el miedo estaban significativamente correlacionados con las mejoras en ambos asentamientos. En otras palabras, tanto el pensar en la probabilidad de desalojo como los sentimientos provocados por el desalojo influyeron sobre la probabilidad de que la gente estuviera dispuesta a invertir en su morada. Cuanto mayor la probabilidad percibida y el miedo al desalojo, menos mejoraban su morada.
Los ingresos del hogar tuvieron una fuerte correlación con las mejoras de las viviendas en San Cayetano, pero no en El Tala. Una explicación probable de estos resultados es que las inversiones más visibles en vivienda ocurren en los primeros años de desarrollo del asentamiento. Recuérdese que San Cayetano tenía sólo dos años de existencia cuando se realizó la encuesta, mientras que El Tala se fundó a principios de la década de 1980. Otra explicación, relacionada con la anterior, es que los ingresos actuales de los hogares medidos por la encuesta no necesariamente reflejan los ingresos en las décadas precedentes. Esta fluctuación de ingresos hace más difícil evaluar la relación válida entre ingresos e inversiones en asentamientos más antiguos como El Tala.
El análisis de regresión de la tabla 3 (ver anexo) ensaya simultáneamente la probabilidad, el miedo y los ingresos como pronosticadores de inversión, analizando su contribución única. La intensidad de la relación para cada variable separada es indicada por el símbolo β, que puede oscilar entre -1 y +1 (indicando una relación lineal perfectamente negativa y positiva, respectivamente).
En El Tala, el efecto de la probabilidad de desalojo se explica en gran medida por el miedo al desalojo. Esto parece confirmar la hipótesis señalada anteriormente, de que en los casos en que el desalojo es muy poco probable, como en los asentamientos consolidados, el miedo al desalojo es el mejor pronosticador de mejoras a las viviendas. Dicho de otra manera, al decidir si invertir o no, y cuánto, en sus viviendas, los individuos tienen más en cuenta cómo se sienten sobre su situación y los posibles riesgos involucrados, que cómo piensan. Estos resultados constituyen un argumento convincente para alterar nuestra interpretación de la seguridad percibida de la tenencia como meramente una percepción de la probabilidad de desalojo. Si queremos predecir la conducta, también tenemos que comprender cómo se siente la gente.
En San Cayetano, sin embargo, la situación es distinta. Si bien tanto la probabilidad percibida y el miedo al desalojo están correlacionados negativamente con la inversión en mejoras a las viviendas, los resultados del análisis de regresión muestran que los ingresos del hogar explican la mayor parte de la varianza. En otras palabras, la inversión fue dictada más por los ingresos del hogar que por las percepciones de seguridad, ya sea la probabilidad percibida de desalojo o el miedo al desalojo. Mi hipótesis es que, una vez más, estos resultados se pueden atribuir a la corta edad del asentamiento, porque la probabilidad de que la gente invierta en su vivienda, en las primeras fases de consolidación de un asentamiento, está dada más que nada por su capacidad financiera.
Virtualmente todos los residentes encuestados y entrevistados en ambos asentamientos declararon que para ellos era importante tener un título de la propiedad, y expresaron un fuerte deseo de ser legalizados. Este resultado presenta una paradoja intrigante: si bien el desalojo forzado rara vez es considerado probable o aun posible por los residentes, aproximadamente la mitad de ellos declaró que la razón más importante para tener un título de la propiedad era la seguridad de la tenencia. Un residente de El Tala comentó sobre las distintas motivaciones para invertir: “Yo creo que hay dos momentos. Uno es al comienzo, cuando la construcción es una manera de asegurarse que nadie te va a echar. Hoy en día, creo que la situación es al revés. No creo que valga la pena invertir mucho dinero en la casa si no se tiene un título”.
Esto quiere decir que aun en situaciones con una seguridad de tenencia de facto muy alta, como en El Tala, los residentes siguen deseando un título de propiedad, principalmente por la seguridad adicional que ello confiere. Este resultado se corresponde con el argumento dado anteriormente sobre la importancia de incluir el miedo al desalojo, junto con la probabilidad, como indicador de seguridad percibida de la tenencia. La posibilidad de un desalojo, aunque sea pequeña, todavía puede crear una sensación de preocupación y miedo que influye en las decisiones de los residentes, casi independientemente de la probabilidad percibida (Van Gelder, 2007).
Otras motivaciones frecuentemente mencionadas para desear un título de propiedad son “dejarles algo a mis hijos” y “ser o sentir que soy el dueño de mi casa”. Sorprendentemente, muy pocos moradores en ambos asentamientos mencionaron razones comerciales (como el mayor valor de la vivienda o el acceso al crédito) como motivo para desear ser propietarios. En ambos asentamientos, más del 80 por ciento de los encuestados pensaba que tener un título aumentaría su seguridad. Más de la mitad de los residentes declaró que invertirían más después de tener el título, y más de la mitad de los residentes con título indicó que, en efecto, habían invertido más después de que se legalizó su tenencia.
Con respecto al acceso al crédito, los dueños con título no sacaron un préstamo bancario con mayor frecuencia que los residentes sin título. En El Tala, sólo tres personas con título de propiedad habían sacado un préstamo hipotecario en los cinco años anteriores, en contraposición con dos personas en la parte no titulada de dicho asentamiento. Más personas – ocho en las áreas tituladas y cinco en las no tituladas – habían sacado préstamos en instituciones prestamistas que cobran intereses altos pero que no exigen una propiedad como garantía. En otras palabras, los propietarios no comprometían sus moradas como garantía para obtener los préstamos.
La mayoría de los encuestados que habían sacado un préstamo lo habían hecho para mejorar o reparar su morada. Los pequeños montos de dinero prestados y los muy pocos préstamos para inversiones comerciales generan dudas sobre hasta qué punto el mayor acceso al crédito funciona como motor del crecimiento económico, tal como se ha sugerido a veces como justificativo para los programas de titulación del suelo.
Conclusiones
Estos resultados esclarecen un poco el debate sobre la seguridad de la tenencia y la discusión entre los defensores y críticos de la legalización. Por ejemplo, si bien el título legal no es una condición necesaria para invertir en mejoras a las viviendas, probablemente sea un factor contribuyente en ciertas situaciones. Más aún, casi sin excepción, todos los moradores aspiran a ser los dueños legales de sus casas. No obstante, los efectos sociales y psicológicos parecen ser mucho mayores que los factores económicos para valorar la tenencia legal.
Si bien las políticas han formulado crecientemente argumentos mercantilistas para respaldar la titulación (por ejemplo, el acceso al crédito y a los mercados del suelo), los encuestados tienden a enfatizar las razones sociales. Además de la seguridad de la tenencia, la posibilidad de dejar algo “seguro” para los hijos y la simple sensación de ser el dueño (legal) de su vivienda fueron citadas como las motivaciones más fundamentales para desear ser un propietario. La propiedad formal es vista por muchos, sea en forma realista o no, como una manera de escaparse de la marginalidad y como un sustituto de un sistema de seguridad social en gran medida deficiente.
Una manera de mejorar la política y de anticipar más precisamente las consecuencias de intervenciones específicas, que con demasiada frecuencia adoptan un enfoque verticalista, de arriba hacia abajo, es prestar más atención a las perspectivas de los moradores y utilizar métodos y perspectivas de otras disciplinas, como la psicología y la sociología. Estas disciplinas ofrecen medidas refinadas de diverso tipo que los académicos del desarrollo, los dirigentes políticos y los expertos del suelo deberían tener en cuenta en sus investigaciones futuras y programas concretos para los desarrollos informales.
Sobre el autor
Jean-Louis van Gelder es un investigador del Instituto de Estudios sobre la Delincuencia y el Cumplimiento de la Ley de los Países Bajos (NSCR). Estudió tanto psicología organizacional como derecho en la Universidad de Ámsterdam, y combinó ambas disciplinas en un doctorado sobre la seguridad de la tenencia y la informalidad realizado en Buenos Aires. Otros de sus intereses de investigación incluyen el rol del valor afectivo y la personalidad en las decisiones riesgosas y criminales.
Referencias
Broegaard, R.J. 2005. Land tenure insecurity and inequality in Nicaragua. Development and Change 36: 845–864.
Bromley, D.W. 1990. A new path to development? The significance of Hernando De Soto’s ideas on underdevelopment, production, and reproduction. Economic Geography 66: 328–348.
Gilbert, A.G. 2002. On the mystery of capital and the myths of Hernando De Soto: What difference does legal title make? International Development Planning Review 26: 1–19.
Hsee, C.K. and Y. Rottenstreich. 2004. Music, pandas, and muggers: On the affective psychology of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology 113: 23–30.
Kahneman, D. 2003. Perspectives on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist 58: 697–720.
Van Gelder, J-L. 2007. Feeling and thinking: quantifying the relationship between perceived tenure security and housing improvement in an informal neighborhood in Buenos Aires. Habitat International 31: 219–231.
———. 2009a. Legal tenure security, perceived tenure security and housing improvement in Buenos Aires: An attempt towards integration. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 33: 126–146.
———. 2009b. Assessing fit: Perceptions of informality and expectations of legality. Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
———. 2010. What tenure security? The case for a tripartite view. Land Use Policy 27: 449–456.
Van Gelder, J-L., R.E. de Vries, and J. Van der Pligt. 2009. Evaluating a dual-process model of risk: Affect and cognition as determinants of risky choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 22: 45–61.
Varley, A. 1987. The relationship between tenure legalization and housing improvements: Evidence from Mexico City. Development and Change 18: 463–481.
World Bank. 1993. Housing: Enabling markets to work. World Bank Policy Paper. Washington DC: World Bank.
SHARE
Although many governments in Latin America have improved the process of legalizing peripheral settlements, recognized the rights of housing, and acknowledged the United Nations’ position on evictions as violations of fundamental human rights, urban displacement continues. Forced evictions bring devastation to families and neighborhoods and hamper efforts to improve large areas of the city. By perpetuating a climate of fear and uncertainty, the threat of eviction makes people reluctant to invest labor and resources in their homes and barrios.
Evictions arise from the prevalence of illegal housing in Latin America, which is caused by rapid growth, the limited financial resources of the poor and municipal governments alike, and unclear or contested titles. Given this situation, the urban poor employ a number of survival mechanisms, including illegal subdivisions, invasions, and do-it-yourself housing, in order to meet their needs for shelter and community.
In the northeastern section of Bogotá, Colombia, known as Chapinero Alto, residents have faced 30 years of displacement and eviction attempts. Many of the families living in this mountainous urban periphery are related to the workers on the great estates that covered the sabana (high plain). As the estates were broken up and sold to make way for urban expansion, the workers were left to live in the hills, which at mid-century were considered worthless to developers.
In the early 1970s, a planned highway project through the area brought a wave of speculation and several eviction attempts. Residents and their allies at universities and religious institutions formed a massive social movement that blocked several evictions but could not halt speculation. When the highway was finally built in the 1980s, only a few families had to move to make way for the road, but another wave of eviction attempts threatened the barrios.
In the early 1990s, residents faced a new threat: sustainable development and claims by both government and private groups that the poor barrios were a threat to the fragile environment. Since then, continued pressure to remove squatters has tested the abilities of residents to defend against eviction. The uncertainty has also discouraged investment by both residents and the city government.
Development Refugees
The causes of evictions are varied, but typically displacement relates directly or indirectly to development. As the availability of serviceable land shrinks, competition and evictions force the residents of such informal housing settlements further into the periphery. In Bogotá, the expansion of the city has made Chapinero Alto one of the most coveted pieces of real estate in the city. The victims of evictions, so-called development refugees, are often accused of standing in the way of progress when they protest. They are rarely offered compensation or allowed to participate in resettlement. In cases of speculation, residents typically have little warning prior to eviction and experience the trauma of forced displacement.
Local governments play a central role in evictions, along with landowners, developers, police and armed forces. Clearing the poor residents from desirable lands not only makes way for luxury development and infrastructure projects but also frees the wealthy from daily contact with them. Governments and developers often cite the beautification and improvement of the city as justification, or claim that social problems proliferate in slums. Governments also increasingly cite environmental protection and sustainable development as justifications for eviction. Government officials and private title-holders hoping to evict squatters have used all of these justifications in their efforts to clear Chapinero Alto of poor barrios.
When families are forced to move, they lose not only their land and houses, but neighborhoods, communities and social networks. The psychological stress caused by months of uncertainty and the health effects alone can be devastating. Children often lose months of school and their parents often travel long distances to get to work. Anthropologists have demonstrated that relationships of mutual aid and social networks are dismantled as populations disperse. These social networks are a critical survival tool for the urban poor who must constantly weather economic fluctuations and uncertainty. Even when families receive compensation for lost homes, these social relations are virtually irreplaceable. Finally, displacement carries a very high risk of impoverishment. This is especially true for those who lack legal title to their land because they generally do not receive compensation.
In 1992, the Bogotá city government evicted a group of 30 families following a violent dispute with the title-holder. The city moved the families to an abandoned school where they lived for several months awaiting public housing promised to them by the mayor. As the months wore on and the promised housing solution evaporated, stress, health problems and lost income and education took their toll on the families. Several of the men left, rumors of domestic violence grew, and social relationships disintegrated. By 1997, the families were scattered around the city in whatever housing they could find.
One of the most distressing consequences of urban displacement is the effect that insecurity of tenure has on all irregular settlements. Whether or not residents are ever evicted, the threat of eviction affects huge areas of developing cities and prevents investment in housing and services that is necessary to solve the problem of slums in the first place. This is one of the reasons why the problem of evictions must be addressed within the framework of human rights; until security of tenure and adequate shelter are fully acknowledged and protected as human rights, the problem of urban displacement will continue.
Evictions and Human Rights
Given the far-reaching social consequences of displacement, it is not surprising that forced evictions entail the violation of a number of human rights. Evictions obviously compromise the right to housing. The right to adequate housing has been made increasing explicit in international law. Article 25 of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights established the right to housing for the first time in 1948. The Declaration on Social Progress and Development, the Declaration on the Rights of the Child, the Vancouver Declaration on Human Settlement and other conventions all affirm the right to housing. More than 50 constitutions recognize housing as a human right, including the Colombian Constitution of 1991.
In addition to the right to housing, the right to freedom of movement is commonly violated with eviction. When community leaders and protestors are killed or subjected to violence, the right to life and security of the person are denied, as are the right of freedom of expression and association. When children are taken from school, the right to education is affected. When police or military enter homes by force, families lose their rights of privacy. The right to work is one of the most common violations associated with evictions. Finally, the psychological and physical toll wrought by eviction compromises the right to health.
Even where governments have ratified UN conventions on housing rights, evictions often occur. The United Nations, like many other observers, clearly places the responsibility for preventing evictions on the states. The United Nations has declared that when governments fail to ensure the availability of adequate housing, they must not claim that the removal of illegal settlements is consistent with international law. Since virtually all evictions are planned, and since there are a set of internationally recognized conventions in place condemning eviction, such displacements should be guided by social policies and a human rights framework.
Policy Considerations
Based on a review of several studies on eviction and my own research in Bogotá, I suggest a number of ways in which better enforcement of human rights can improve housing policies and prevent violence. The following points should be the focus of policies aimed at eliminating forced evictions.
Only when effective mechanisms for extending tenure rights to the urban poor have been created can the problems associated with forced displacement-violence, impoverishment, stagnated urban development-be adequately addressed. One major way that current human rights guidelines can be improved is to extend the rights to protection from forced eviction and the rights to adequate resettlement. Current guidelines are most effectively enforced in cases of internationally financed development projects, but similar guidelines could be used by states to govern all forms of displacement. By extending human rights guidelines and improving the mechanisms for implementation and enforcement, national and international agencies can better meet the needs of the urban poor.
Margaret Everett is assistant professor of Anthropology and International Studies at Portland State University in Portland, Oregon. Her research for this article was funded in part by the Lincoln Institute. The complete report, “Evictions and Human Rights: An Ethnographic Study of Development and Land Disputes in Bogotá, Colombia,” is posted on the Lincoln Institute website.
SHARE
Diego Alfonso Erba is a visiting fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, on leave from his position as professor in the Graduate Program of Geology at Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos–UNISINOS, Brazil. He received undergraduate training as a land survey engineer from Universidad Nacional de Rosario, Argentina, and later earned two master of science degrees and taught in several universities in Brazil. His early professional experience was in regularization of informal settlements in Santa Fé, Argentina, and he headed the GIS department for an agricultural cooperative in southern Brazil. He also earned a doctorate in Surveying Sciences from Universidad Nacional de Catamarca, Argentina, and did postdoctoral research in GIS for Water Bodies at the Natural Resource Center of Shiga University, Otsu, Japan; and in GIS for Urban Applications at Clark Labs-IDRISI of Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts.
Land Lines: What is a territorial cadastre?
Diego Erba: The institution of a territorial cadastre does not exist in the United States, at least not in the same way as in many countries around the world. Although the term “cadastre” has more than one meaning, in general there is consensus that it comes from the Greek catastichon, which can be translated as “a list of parcels for taxation.”
This kind of list exists in the U.S., but the profile of the institutions that manage the data are different from those in Latin America and in many European and African countries, where the territorial cadastre encompasses economic, geometrical, and legal data on land parcels and data on the owners or occupants. The institutions that manage this data, also often named territorial cadastres, are closely connected with the Registry of Deeds or Register of Land Titles because their data complements each other and guarantees land property rights. These longstanding connections reflect the cadastral heritage of Roman and Napoleonic legal systems.
LL: Why do urban public administrators need to know about territorial cadastres?
DE: The cadastre and the register should be connected for legal reasons, if not for practical reasons, and there are many models of how cadastres could or should relate to public institutions. Unfortunately, the norm is still an isolated or nonintegrated cadastre, which dramatically reduces its potential usefulness as a tool for urban planning and land policy.
For example, irregular settlements (slums) are generally developed on public or environmentally protected areas, or even on private parcels, and are neither taxed nor registered in territorial cadastre databases. These areas are represented in cadastral cartography as “blank polygons” as if nothing happened inside them. The paradox is that data and cartography about irregular settlements normally exist, but that information is often in institutions that are not related to the cadastre and consequently are not registered.
There is a growing perception of the cadastre’s importance as a multipurpose information system serving not only the legal and financial sectors of cities, but also all of the institutions that make up the “urban reality,” including public services agencies, utilities, and even certain private providers of urban services. The move to this new concept and improved urban information systems has not been easy or without resistance in developing countries, however.
LL: Why is a multipurpose cadastre so difficult to establish and use?
DE: The implementation of a multipurpose cadastre typically requires administrations to allow for more horizontal exchanges of information. It also frequently requires changes in the legal framework and the establishment of more fluid relationships between the public and private agents to share standardized data and ensure continuous investments to keep the databases and cartography up-to-date.
This sounds like a simple process, but in practice it is not easy because many administrators still consider that “the data is mine,” and they are not ready to collaborate. At the same time, some overly zealous administrators convinced of the potential value of a multipurpose cadastre may skip stages and jump from a traditional cadastre to a multipurpose model without due attention to effectively implementing the exchanges of information.
Even when operated privately, territorial cadastres are treated as a public service, which means they depend on public funding and political decisions for approval to update the land valuation system or the cartography. At the same time, this kind of public service is not visible and therefore is not as interesting for the politicians who wish to demonstrate their accomplishments through more tangible projects such as a new bridge or school.
The updating of cadastral data impacts land value and consequently the amount of property taxes, which is not popular with voters. Nevertheless, new government administrators who seek to improve their jurisdiction’s fiscal status may decide to update the cadastre in an attempt to increase property taxation revenues. This has a strong political impact at the beginning of the official’s term, but the data on property value may not be touched for years afterwards and will grow more and more inaccurate compared to the actual market value. In many Latin American jurisdictions legislation imposes the obligation of cadastral updates on a regular basis, although compliance is inconsistent.
Another frequent mistake is to consider that the solution is to implement a modern geographic information system (GIS) to manage the cadastral data. In the ideal situation we would like to see integrated systems that use coordinated and standardized databases, but some municipalities are ill-equipped, and those that do have sufficient infrastructure do not have enough well-prepared employees to accomplish the tasks. The notion that “one size fits all” is not really applicable to a region in which there are such significant differences among jurisdictions. I like to say that the problem with cadastral institutions is not hardware or software but “people-ware.” Even when financial resources exist, the lack of trained professionals and technicians is a significant obstacle.
LL: In this context, is it possible to consider a multipurpose cadastre for Latin America?
DE: It is possible, but the concept is still new and frequently is not well understood. There are many good cadastres in Latin America, as in some Colombian and Brazilian municipalities and in some Mexican and Argentinean states. In some jurisdictions the fusion of the territorial cadastres with public institutions and geotechnological systems generates cadastral institutes that are better structured in terms of budget and technical staff and consequently are better able to identify illegal settlements and monitor the increment of land value using modern tools.
However, from my viewpoint the region still does not have a full-fledged operational multipurpose cadastre. A common assumption is that implementing a multipurpose cadastre requires adding social and environmental data to the existing alphanumeric databases available in the traditional territorial cadastres, which consider economic, geometric, and legal aspects of the parcel, and then connecting all that data with a parcel map in GIS. While this is very important it is not essential, because the implementation is not a technological problem as much as a philosophical one. Most municipal administrations do not think about putting institutions that traditionally manage different social (education and health), environmental, and territorial (cadastre) databases under the same roof.
LL: How is your work with the Lincoln Institute helping to broaden awareness about territorial cadastres?
DE: I have been working with the Program on Latin America and the Caribbean since 2002 to explore the relationships among multipurpose cadastres and the program’s four topical areas: large urban projects; land valuation and taxation; informal settlements and upgrading programs; and value capture. It is always a challenge to tailor the curriculum for educational programs, but we believe strongly that it is important to facilitate the widespread sharing of knowledge in each country and to prepare public officials and practitioners with different levels of expertise. The participants, including cadastre administrators, urban planners, lawyers, and real estate developers, gain a common language and vision of the urban cadastral applications, and they can start a process to improve the system in their own countries.
Our pedagogical strategy for this year involves the dissemination of knowledge through a combination of distance education and traditional classroom courses at different levels. We plan to develop training seminars followed by a tailored distance education course in those countries that demonstrate the conditions necessary to implement this new vision of the multipurpose cadastre. Finally, we will organize a regional classroom course for the best distance education students in three neighboring countries.
This plan contrasts with many training programs offered by other international institutions, which contemplate concepts and the use of tools that may not be applicable in countries with different legal frameworks and technological levels. We will begin this cycle with seminars in Chile and Peru, working with the Chilean Association of Municipalities and the Institute of Regional Economy and Local Government in Arequipa, Peru. These and other partners in Latin America have committed to disseminate and increase local capacity on these issues.
Another component of our strategy is the dissemination of resource materials. We will be publishing two books later in 2006 about the concepts and implementation of cadastres that can be applied in most countries. One book describes in detail the cadastral system in each Latin American country, and the other conceptualizes the juridical, economical, geometrical, environmental, and social aspects of the multipurpose cadastre, highlighting the relationship between the territorial cadastre and the four topical areas of the Institute’s Latin America Program.
In 2005 we made a DVD, which is currently available in Spanish and Portuguese. It includes a documentary film about multipurpose cadastres and some taped segments from classes and discussions on the relationships between the multipurpose cadastre and complex urban issues.
LL: What is the long-term goal of the multipurpose cadastre?
DE: The problems that have been raised here should not discourage urban administrators from reorganizing their cadastres and their legal land policy frameworks in their cities and countries. On the contrary, they should try to change the reality by developing new laws that shows the spirit of an updated land policy. Data on Latin American cities exist, but they are fragmented and not standardized.
The best way to build a multipurpose cadastre is to integrate all the public and private institutions that are working at the parcel level and to develop a unique identifier to define standards for the alphanumeric and cartographic databases. It is a very simple and clear concept, but its implementation is not. To reach that objective it is necessary for administrators, practitioners, and citizens to understand the cadastre’s potential for improving land management practices and the quality of life in urban areas. Many times simple solutions can help to solve complex problems such as those presented by cadastral systems.
SHARE
How do the perceptions of informal settlement dwellers on tenure security translate into investment in housing improvement? Is a property title necessary to establish security or increase investment? And how are income and credit related to investment? Does the average dweller actually aspire to legalization of tenure, and if so, what is expected? Based on research conducted in two land invasions in Buenos Aires, Argentina, this article addresses these questions, focusing on two issues in particular: the concept of tenure security and the empirical measurement of perceptions of security related to investment in housing improvement (Van Gelder 2009b).
Tenure Security as a Tripartite Concept
In the face of rapidly increasing urban informality in the 1970s, organizations such as the World Bank started experimenting with programs that provided basic services to settlements and granted property titles to dwellers. The assumption was that with secure tenure dwellers would mobilize resources for housing construction more efficiently than they would under public housing programs. Self-help housing, thus, was viewed as a source of economic security and upward social mobility.
In the early 1990s, the economic dimensions of tenure legalization took on new importance in some policy circles (Bromley 1990; World Bank 1993). The mere provision of private property rights was believed to be both a sufficient and necessary condition for settlement development. It was assumed that by providing both the incentive to invest and the possibility to do so by making formal credit accessible, property rights would function as leverage for development.
Critics of this idea argued that, with respect to establishing tenure security and investment, one could better focus on the actual situation on the ground. Factors such as the official recognition of a settlement, introduction of infrastructure and services, and other factors that could strengthen de facto security of tenure were considered more fundamental than holding a legal document for a plot (e.g., Gilbert 2002).
A third point of view on investment in housing claims that security as perceived by the dwellers is the most important factor. Rather than legal security, as embodied by titling, perception is the actual driving mechanism behind investment. It is argued that residents invest in their dwellings regardless of legal status, as long as they think they will not be evicted and will be allowed by the authorities to remain in their homes (Broegaard 2005; Varley 1987).
The concept of tenure security thus can be viewed in three different ways: as a legal construct that often takes the form of title to property; as de facto security based on the actual situation; and as it is perceived by dwellers. However, these views are often confused or simply equated in the research literature and by policy makers, so it is important to distinguish among them in order to answer the questions posed earlier.
Legal tenure security is a formal concept that refers to authoritative documents that identify the owner of an asset recognized by state power, but de facto and perceived tenure security are empirical concepts. To understand the de facto situation, we need to study the facts on the ground and answer such questions as: Have forced evictions been rare or frequent occurrences in a certain city or area? Has the general attitude towards illegal occupation by authorities been lenient or strict? Perceived tenure security, on the other hand, resides in the mind of the dweller, and its measurement requires fine-tuned methods.
The different types of tenure security may overlap. For example, having a title may imply that a dweller also has de facto security and he may perceive his situation to be secure, but there is no necessary connection among these types. Property rights do not always have a bearing on any kind of empirical fact, nor do they have to be recognized as something meaningful in the eyes of dwellers (Van Gelder 2010). Rather, cities with extensive informality are characterized precisely by an absence of such correlations.
One problem with the titling approach is that it equates property rights with tenure security. This makes sense in situations where the facts on the ground reflect the norms of the legal system, but not necessarily when this is not the case. Furthermore, it is important to remember that if tenure security, whether legal or de facto in nature, influences investment, it must operate through psychological pathways.
The Psychological Side of Tenure Security
The literature reveals three critical issues with respect to measuring tenure security. First, whether it is considered legal, de facto, or perceived, tenure security is often seen as a yes–no issue; either you have it or you do not. Second, and related to the first issue, studies only rarely provide an indication of the degree to which tenure security contributes to (more) investment in housing, compared to other factors likely to influence investment, such as income level or the availability of credit. Third, perceived tenure security is nearly always operationalized as a dweller’s perceived probability of eviction.
These three issues expose a number of important limitations related to each point. First, the idea of viewing tenure security as a dichotomy does not fit the reality of developing countries, where tenure security is better conceived as a matter of degree. Most low-income settlements fall somewhere between being completely insecure and entirely secure. Second, to understand the strength of tenure security as a factor influencing investment, this relationship needs to be quantified and examined along with other factors likely to influence investment, such as household income.
With regard to the third point, social psychological research increasingly shows that people’s decisions are often influenced by what they feel about a situation, instead of or in addition to how they think about it (Hsee and Rottenstreich 2004; Kahneman 2003; Van Gelder, De Vries, and Van der Pligt 2009). These insights can be applied to the study of informal housing if we consider a dweller’s investment as a form of decision making under uncertainty. That is, besides operationalizing perceived security only as the perceived probability of eviction, which refers to a cognitive or thinking state, we can also examine the feelings or worry, insecurity, and fear that dwellers experience. We term this component of tenure security fear of eviction.
Does examining feelings add to understanding estimates of the probability of eviction? In the context of informal tenure, it is often suggested that dwellers think that the probability of a forced eviction is very low, in particular when a settlement is relatively consolidated. In these cases, using only perceived probability of eviction as an indicator of tenure security limits its predictive value because it is invariably low. Yet, the possibility of eviction, however small, may still generate intense feelings of worry and stress in dwellers whose decisions are influenced regardless of whether this probability is perceived as likely or not (Van Gelder 2007; 2009a).
To avoid considering (perceptions of) tenure security as a dichotomy, we can operationalize probability and fear of eviction using psychometric scaling techniques. In my research, dwellers were presented various statements about their tenure situation and asked to indicate to what extent they agreed with each statement using five-point scales that ranged from completely disagree to completely agree. For example: “The possibility of an eviction worries me sometimes,” or “The possibility that we could be evicted from this neighborhood is always present.” Both items refer to the possibility of eviction, but the second item, which measures perceived probability of eviction, refers to a chance estimate—a thinking state—whereas the first item inquires about feelings.
Separate composite scales consisting of multiple items measured the perceived probability of eviction and fear of eviction. Respondents, all of whom were heads of household, were also asked about their household income and whether they had taken out a loan in the previous years. To measure investment in housing improvement, surveyors scored participants’ dwellings on three defining elements: the floor, the walls, and the roof. The scores were subsequently combined into a housing improvement or consolidation index, the dependent variable. To isolate the effects of perceived tenure security on investment, the survey included only those heads of household who had lived in the settlement since its origin and were responsible for their home construction.
Case Study Settlements
A land invasion typically involves a few hundred people who gain access to land by collectively invading and immediately building on the site. Residents attempt to comply with land use legislation and other requirements that render the legal and technical subdivision of the land possible at a later stage. This active resident participation makes these settlements different from more irregular slums (e.g., villas miserias).
The study consisted of a structured survey as well as semi-structured interviews and focus groups with dwellers in two different land invasions in the southern cone of Greater Buenos Aires, which is known for its large-scale popular urbanization and high concentrations of poverty (table 1).
The settlements were similar in size, but differed in age and hence degree of consolidation. El Tala was one of the first invasions in the city, while San Cayetano had existed for only two years prior to the survey in 2008. Only half of the dwellers in El Tala had received legal title, creating the conditions for a valid comparison of titled and nontitled households in this settlement.
Results of Analysis
Regression and correlational analysis were employed to examine the strength of both perceived probability of eviction and fear of eviction as predictors of housing improvement. To obtain a better idea of their comparative strength, we also looked at household income. Table 2 shows that both probability and fear were significantly correlated with improvement in both settlements. In other words, both thinking about the probability of an eviction and the feelings evoked by it influence the extent to which people are willing to invest in their dwelling. The higher the perceived probability and fear of an eviction, the less improved their dwelling.
Household income was quite strongly correlated with housing improvement in San Cayetano, but not in El Tala. One likely explanation for these findings is that the most visible investment in housing occurs in the early years of settlement development. Recall that San Cayetano was only two years old at the time of the survey, while El Tala dates to the early 1980s. Another related explanation is that the current income of households, as measured in the survey, does not necessarily reflect income in preceding decades. That income fluctuation makes it more difficult to assess the valid relationship between income and investment for older settlements like El Tala.
The regression analysis in table 3 simultaneously tests probability, fear, and income as predictors of investment by looking at their unique contribution. The strength of the relationship for each separate variable is indicated by the β symbol, which can range from -1 to +1 (indicating a perfect linear negative and positive relationship respectively).
In El Tala the effect of probability of eviction is largely explained by fear of eviction. This appears to confirm the assumption discussed earlier that in cases where eviction is very unlikely, such as in consolidated settlements, fear of eviction is the better predictor of housing improvement. Stated differently, when deciding on whether and how much to invest in their dwellings, individuals are actually more influenced by how they feel about their situation and the risks involved than how they think about it. These results make a strong case for altering our view on perceived tenure security as merely consisting of perceptions of the probability of eviction. If we want to be able to predict behavior, we also need to understand how people feel.
In San Cayetano, however, a different picture emerges. Even though both perceived probability and fear of eviction are negatively correlated with investment in housing improvement, the results of the regression analysis show that household income explains most of the variance. In other words, household income dictated the investment more than perceptions of security, whether perceived probability of eviction or fear of eviction. My (speculative) assumption is that again these results can be attributed to the young age of the settlement, because financial abilities more than anything else dictate to what extent people can invest in their housing in the earliest phase of settlement consolidation.
Virtually all residents surveyed and interviewed in both settlements indicated that having a property title was important to them, and they expressed a strong desire to be legalized. This result presents an intriguing paradox: Even though forced eviction is rarely regarded as likely or even possible by residents, about half of them still gave security of tenure as the most important reason for wanting to have a title to their property. One resident of El Tala commented on different motivations for investment: “I think that there are two moments. One is in the beginning when constructing is a way of ensuring yourself that no one will kick you out. Nowadays, I think the situation is rather reversed. I don’t believe that it is worth putting money in your house if you do not have a title.”
This means that even in situations with very high de facto security of tenure, such as El Tala, property titles are still desired by residents, principally for additional security. This finding corresponds with the point made earlier about the importance of including fear of eviction alongside probability estimates as an indicator of perceived tenure security. The possibility of an eviction, however small, may still elicit strong feelings of worry and fear that can influence residents’ decisions, almost regardless of perceived probability (Van Gelder 2007)
Other frequently mentioned motivations for wanting a property title were expressed as “leaving something to my children” and ”being or feeling that I am the owner of my house.” Surprisingly few dwellers in either settlement mentioned commercial reasons (e.g., increased value of their dwelling or access to credit) for their desire to be an owner. In both settlements, more than 80 percent of the respondents thought that having title would further increase security. More than half of the residents thought they would invest more after having title, and more than half of the residents that had title indicated that they had in fact invested more after their tenure was legalized.
With respect to accessing credit, titled owners did not take out a bank loan more frequently than residents who lacked title. In El Tala only three people with a property title had taken out a mortgage loan in the previous five years versus two people in the untitled part of that settlement. More people—eight in the titled and five in the untitled areas—had taken out loans at lending institutions that charge high interest rates but do not require property as collateral. In other words, the owners did not pledge their dwellings as collateral to obtain the loans.
The majority of the respondents who had taken a loan had done so to improve or repair their dwellings. The small amounts of money borrowed and the very few loans intended for business investments raise doubts about the extent to which increasing access to credit will function as an engine for economic growth, as is sometimes suggested as a rationale for land titling programs.
Conclusions
These results shed some new light on the debate over tenure security and the discussion between advocates and critics of legalization. For example, even though legal title is not a necessary condition for investment in housing improvement, it is likely to be a contributing factor in some situations. Furthermore, nearly without exception, all dwellers aspire to be the legal owner of their home. However, the social and psychological effects seem to be much greater than economic factors in valuing legal tenure.
While policy increasingly has stressed mercantilist arguments in support of titling (e.g., credit and land markets), respondents tend to stress social reasons. Besides tenure security, the ability to leave something “safe” for offspring and the simple feeling that one is the (legal) owner of one’s dwelling were cited as more fundamental motivations for the desire to be a homeowner. Formal ownership is seen by many, realistically or not, as a way of escaping marginality and as a substitute for a largely deficient social security system.
One way to improve policy and more accurately anticipate the consequences of specific interventions, which all too often take straightforward top-down approaches, is to pay more attention to the perspectives of dwellers and to borrow methods and insights from disciplines such as psychology and sociology. These disciplines offer fine-tuned measures of varied constructs that development scholars, policy makers, and land experts should consider in future research and on-the-ground programs for informal developments.
About the Author
Jean-Louis van Gelder is a researcher at the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement. He studied both organizational psychology and law at the University of Amsterdam and combined them into a Ph.D. on tenure security and informality in Buenos Aires. Other research interests include the role of affect and personality in risky and criminal decision making.
References
Broegaard, R.J. 2005. Land tenure insecurity and inequality in Nicaragua. Development and Change 36: 845–864.
Bromley, D.W. 1990. A new path to development? The significance of Hernando De Soto’s ideas on underdevelopment, production, and reproduction. Economic Geography 66: 328–348.
Gilbert, A.G. 2002. On the mystery of capital and the myths of Hernando De Soto: What difference does legal title make? International Development Planning Review 26: 1–19.
Hsee, C.K. and Y. Rottenstreich. 2004. Music, pandas, and muggers: On the affective psychology of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology 113: 23–30.
Kahneman, D. 2003. Perspectives on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist 58: 697–720.
Van Gelder, J-L. 2007. Feeling and thinking: quantifying the relationship between perceived tenure security and housing improvement in an informal neighborhood in Buenos Aires. Habitat International 31: 219–231.
———. 2009a. Legal tenure security, perceived tenure security and housing improvement in Buenos Aires: An attempt towards integration. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 33: 126–146.
———. 2009b. Assessing fit: Perceptions of informality and expectations of legality. Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
———. 2010. What tenure security? The case for a tripartite view. Land Use Policy 27: 449–456.
Van Gelder, J-L., R.E. de Vries, and J. Van der Pligt. 2009. Evaluating a dual-process model of risk: Affect and cognition as determinants of risky choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 22: 45–61.
Varley, A. 1987. The relationship between tenure legalization and housing improvements: Evidence from Mexico City. Development and Change 18: 463–481.
World Bank. 1993. Housing: Enabling markets to work. World Bank Policy Paper. Washington DC: World Bank.
