Housing is an important component of both a household’s net worth and aggregate national wealth or stock of residential capital. Aggregate residential wealth is the sum of the values of all housing units. In Brazil, residential structures represent about one-third of total net fixed capital, so their value is important for economic and social policy. This analysis asks: What variables determine the stock values of residential property? How do location and neighborhood conditions affect these values? What is the aggregate residential wealth in the Rio de Janeiro Metropolitan Region (Metro Rio)? What is its distribution among household income and housing value groups? In other words, what generates residential wealth? How much residential wealth is there? Who holds it? Where is it located? (Vetter, Beltrão, and Massena 2013.)

Methodology for Estimating Residential Wealth

To address these questions, we first calibrated a hedonic residential rent model with sample microdata from the 2010 population census conducted by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE). The units of analysis are households living in private, permanent housing units in urban areas of Metro Rio. The total number of households in 2010 was 3.9 million, and our sample is 223,534 (5.7 percent). We used the 41,396 renters in the sample to calibrate our model and then estimated the rents for homeowners and the landlords of rent-free units. Finally, we transformed the actual and imputed rents into housing values by dividing them by the monthly discount rate of 0.75 percent (9.38 percent annual rate), as is standard practice for Brazilian residential wealth studies (Cruz and Morais 2000, Reiff and Barbosa 2005, and Tafner and Carvalho 2007).

The underlying assumption in these studies is that the hedonic prices of the characteristics in the model and the discount rate are similar for rental and nonrental units. These are strong but necessary assumptions for the application of the methodology with the existing census microdata. The sum of estimated housing values is our measure of residential wealth. The objective is to estimate the aggregate value of all housing units and their average values.

In calculating average housing prices for these groups, we do not control for housing size or other characteristics, as would be done for hedonic housing price indices. Using census microdata, we can also estimate the residential wealth by household income as well as for smaller spatial units within municipalities, such as neighborhoods or districts. Even though the sample of rental units is relatively large, sample size drops rapidly as rents and household incomes rise, and the variances are particularly high for the open group at the top end of the distribution. Because we do not have data on the value of mortgages, our measure is of gross rather than net residential wealth.

Using rents from the census or a household survey compares favorably with other commonly used methods for estimating residential wealth for the Brazilian national accounts and related studies (Garner 2004), such as asking homeowners to estimate the selling price or monthly rent of their homes, using the asking prices for home sales, or using the prices registered when recording the sale. Whereas renters know their monthly rent payment, the informants may have little understanding of current trends in housing prices, and the original asking price is often higher than the final sale price. In Rio de Janeiro, the municipal government uses its own estimates of the sale prices based on asking prices, rather than the value registered in calculating the real estate transfer tax, because buyers and sellers often register lower prices.

In our hedonic residential rent model, the dependent variable is a vector of residential rents, and the independent variables are matrices of the structural characteristics of the housing unit, access to employment, and neighborhood characteristics, including indicators of access to urban infrastructure and services. The variables used are for the household per se and also for the census area in which it is located. Figure 1 shows Metro Rio’s 336 census areas and the larger municipal boundaries grouped into six subregions based on indicators analyzed in this and previous studies (Lago 2010).

The indicator for access to employment measures the average commute time to work for residents in each of the census areas. Figure 2 (p. 16) shows that the average commute time increases with distance from the center, but not by as much as one might expect—partly due to increased traffic congestion in all areas and to the fact that Metro Rio is polycentric with many subordinate centers.

The indicators of the quality of neighborhood infrastructure and services include the household`s access to the public sewer and water systems, garbage collection, and block conditions (e.g., street paving and drainage). As these indicators are highly intercorrelated, the component scores from a principal components analysis serve as the independent variables in the hedonic model. Component 1 explains 46.6 percent of the variance and shows high positive loadings on adequate block conditions and infrastructure, and high negative loadings on inadequate block conditions (e.g., garbage in the street and open sewers), indicating which areas have a higher level of attractiveness or desirability (figure 3). Although the lowest scores are clearly concentrated in the outlying areas, the patterns of attractiveness vary considerably. As with commute times, the distribution pattern of the attractiveness scores reveals the complexity of Metro Rio’s spatial structure.

Our hedonic model explains 73 percent of the variance of residential rent. The key independent variables are statistically significant; neighborhood quality and access to employment explain nearly two-thirds of the variance, while the structural characteristics of the housing explain only about one-third of the variance. In other words, the bulk of housing value is the capitalized value of access to employment and to neighborhood infrastructure and services, all of which are determined in large part by public expenditures. Figure 4 (p. 18) shows the distribution of average estimated housing values for census areas in US$ determined by our methodology. (The average exchange rate for 2010 is US$1=R$1.76.) These values tend to be highest in areas affording relatively low commute times and good access to urban infrastructure and services.

Distribution of Residential Wealth

How much residential wealth is the property of homeowners versus the landlords of rental properties and rent-free units used by employers, family members, or others? Our estimate of Metro Rio’s aggregate residential wealth of both occupied and unoccupied units in 2010 is US$155.1 billion (94.2 percent of Metro Rio’s 2010 GDP of US$164.4 billion) and US$140.2 billion for occupied units only (84.2 percent of Metro Rio’s GDP). Among total occupied units, 74.8 percent of this residential wealth (about US$105 billion) belongs to owner-occupied units, and the rest belongs to landlords of rented and rent-free units. In the case of lower-income households, the landlords could be another lower-income family.

Table 1 shows that the percent of homeowners is quite similar for all household income groups. For example, homeowners occupy nearly three-quarters of the households in the lowest household income group (with fewer than two minimum salaries or an average annual income of only US$4,407). A key reason for these high homeownership levels is that those living in favelas, squatter settlements, or other types of informal housing can declare themselves homeowners, even if they do not legally own the land on which their home is located. The 2010 Census showed more than 520,000 households (more than 15 percent of the total private permanent urban households) living in these types of settlements in Metro Rio. Land ownership in these settlements is a complex legal question on which even lawyers may not agree, since the chances of removal (at least removal without compensation) are quite low, and those living on land without a legal title may be eligible for squatter’s rights after five years under Brazilian law.

Although 25.3 percent of total households earned less than two minimum salaries (US$ 6,960 per year), the homeowners in this group held only 15.3 percent of the aggregate residential wealth of all homeowners. By contrast, only 15.6 percent of households earned 10 or more minimum salaries (US$34,800 per year), but homeowners in this income group held 34.5 percent of the aggregate residential wealth. Nonetheless, lower income households have more residential wealth than one might expect, in part because they are often homeowners in informal settlements.

Figure 5 (p. 19) shows the Lorenz Curve for the distribution of aggregate residential wealth of homeowners by housing value groups. This distribution is quite unequal, because the nearly 23.7 percent who are not homeowners have no such wealth (as shown where the Lorenz curve runs along the bottom of the axis) and because those living in higher-priced housing have greater residential wealth.

Distribution of Residential Wealth by Subregions

The bulk of aggregate residential wealth is held by those living in the suburbs and periphery around Metro Rio, although the average value of their housing units is lower. Table 2 shows that those subregions (4 and 6) together represent 79 percent of Metro Rio’s total households (3.1 million) and 58.1 percent of aggregate residential wealth (US$80.9 billion). Subregion 2 (the older, higher-income neighborhoods along the bay and coast) holds only 6.3 percent of Metro Rio’s households (about 242,000) and 19.0 percent of its residential wealth.

The percentage of renters is highest in the large squatter settlements (subregion 5), at 28.6 percent, with an additional 2.7 percent of rent-free units. Homeownership rates are highest (80.4 percent) in the periphery (subregion 6), where many owners live on land for which they do not have full legal title, though these areas generally are not squatter settlements as defined by IBGE.

Spatial Distribution of Household Income

One result of the interplay of market forces that shape residential rent and housing prices is that the distribution of aggregate household income tends to mirror the distribution of aggregate residential wealth. In other words, there is a relatively high residential segregation by income groups, with lower-income families concentrated in the large squatter settlements and in the suburbs and periphery (subregions 4, 5, and 6). High spatial concentration of higher-income households generates higher aggregate income and demand in areas that support higher-level services—in turn making these areas more attractive to higher-income homebuyers and renters. Figure 6 (p. 20) shows that the average annual household incomes for the census areas in 2010 reflect to a large extent the distribution of average housing values (figure 4), commute times (figure 2), and neighborhood attractiveness (figure 3).

In 2010, the high-income Barra da Tijuca area (subregion 3) held only 2.1 percent of total households in Metro Rio but 8.1 percent of aggregate household income and 7.6 percent of aggregate residential wealth. By comparison, the four large squatter settlements of subregion 5 held 2.5 percent of total households but only 1.0 percent of aggregate household income and 1.4 percent of residential wealth. Nonetheless, the aggregate residential value in these four squatter settlements was nearly US$2 billion, and the average housing value was almost US$21,000. These results show a relatively high spatial concentration of both aggregate household income and residential wealth that is tempered slightly by the home-ownership rate in squatter settlements.

Implications for Methodology and Policy Decisions

The methodology used in this analysis provides interesting insights into the macroeconomic and social importance of residential wealth; the variables that generate it; its distribution among household tenure, income, and housing value groups; and its allocation among subregions ranging from high-income neighborhoods to squatter settlements. The strong assumptions required in using the methodology must be taken into account when interpreting the results. Data from property registries or other sources with more detailed information on unit size could eventually be used to complement this methodology.

Government services, investments, and regulatory actions can result in benefits (e.g., access to employment, urban services, and amenities) and costs (e.g., taxes, fees, and negative environmental impacts) that are capitalized into the value of housing in the affected neighborhoods. For homeowners, positive net benefits from government actions increase their residential wealth, because they are capitalized in the value of their housing. However, for renters and new homebuyers, these same government actions can cause rents and housing prices to rise along with the net benefits. Some households, especially the lower-income renters and homebuyers, may have to leave the benefited area, and other potential new owners may be unable to locate in the area. Thus, housing tenure is important in determining whether or not a household receives the net benefits of government investments and regulatory actions.

Capitalization of the net benefits of government actions would clearly be an issue for the more than 30 percent of households in the four large squatter settlements that are not homeowners, as well as for those entering the housing market. Although there are no reliable data on housing turnover, we know that the total number of urban households in Metro Rio increased more than 20 percent, by almost 657,000, between 2000 and 2010. This increment was 14 percent higher than the total number of households in the Municipality of Curitiba (the state capital of Paraná) in 2010 and well over twice the number in Washington, D.C. All these new households, plus all the renters (about one-fifth of total households) and homeowners wishing to move, would be subject to increased rents and housing prices generated by the net benefits of government actions.

These results demonstrate a need for policies to ensure that rising rents and housing prices do not exclude some households from areas where public services and infrastructure are being improved. For example, financial assistance for home purchases could be part of the improvement program. One way of financing the needed lower-income housing and investment programs would be to capture part of the value being generated by infrastructure investments from higher-income households. Capturing part of the value generated by urban investments could help finance additional housing subsidies for lower-income families, as well as added investment, thereby providing a kind of investment multiplier.

About the Authors

David M. Vetter (Ph.D. University of California) has worked for more than four decades on urban finance and economics issues in Latin America for Brazilian entities, at the World Bank and Dexia Credit Local, and also as a consultant.

Kaizô I. Beltrão (Ph.D. Princeton University) was the dean and a senior researcher at the National Statistics School (an entity of IBGE) and is now a full professor and senior researcher at the Fundação Getúlio Vargas.

Rosa M. R. Massena (Doctorate, Université de Bordeaux) was a senior researcher at the IBGE for 23 years and since then has worked as a consultant on social indicators programs for Habitat, the World Bank, UNDP, and other entities.

Resources

Cruz, Bruno. O. and Maria P. Morais. 2000. Demand for Housing and Urban Services in Brazil: A Hedonic Approach. Paper presented at the European Network for Housing Research Conference, Gavle, Sweden (June).

Garner, Thesia I. 2004. Incorporating the Value of Owner-Occupied Housing in Poverty Measurement. Prepared for the Workshop on Experimental Poverty Measures, Committee on National Statistics. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies.

Lago, Luciana C. 2010. Olhares Sobre a Metrópole do Rio de Janeiro: Economia, Sociedade e Território. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Observatório das Metrópoles, FASE, IPPUR/UFRJ.

Reiff, Luis. O. and Ana L. Barbosa. 2005. Housing Stock in Brazil: Estimation Based on a Hedonic Price Model. Paper No. 21. Basel, Switzerland: Bank for International Settlements.

Tafner, Paulo and Marcia Carvalho. 2007. Evolução da Distribuição Familiar da Riqueza Imobiliária no Brasil: 1995–2004. Revista de Economia 33(2) (Julho-Dezembro): 7–40.

Vetter, David M., Kaizô I. Beltrão, and Rosa R. Massena. 2013. The Determinants of Residential Wealth and Its Distribution in Space and Among Household Income Groups in the Rio de Janeiro Metropolitan Region: A Hedonic Analysis of the 2010 Census Data. Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

El fortalecimiento de la salud fiscal municipal en China

Desde el año 2013, Zhi Liu se ha desempeñado como investigador senior y director del Programa para China del Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo. También es director del Centro para el Desarrollo Urbano y Políticas de Suelo de la Universidad de Pekín y el Instituto Lincoln (PLC). Anteriormente, Zhi fue especialista principal en infraestructuras en el Banco Mundial, donde trabajó durante 18 años y obtuvo experiencia operativa en varios países en vías de desarrollo.

Zhi obtuvo el título de grado (BS) en Geografía Económica por la Universidad Dr. Sun Yat-Sen (China), el título de maestría (MS) en Planificación Municipal y Regional por la Universidad de Nanjing (China) y el título de doctorado (Ph.D.) en Planificación Urbana por la Universidad de Harvard.

LAND LINES: Hace poco el Instituto Lincoln comenzó un plan de investigación sobre la salud fiscal municipal en todo el mundo. Esta tarea surgió al detectar que algunas ciudades de los Estados Unidos y de muchos otros países, como China, enfrentan dificultades financieras. ¿Cuál es la naturaleza de los problemas fiscales municipales en China?

ZHI LIU: Es muy diferente de las dificultades económicas que enfrentan las ciudades de los Estados Unidos. Estos dos países se encuentran en etapas de urbanización muy distintas. Mientras que los EE.UU. tiene un alto nivel de urbanización (más del 80 por ciento de los ciudadanos vive en áreas urbanas), según el censo de 2010, China todavía está a medio camino del proceso de urbanización. Hoy en día, 750 millones de ciudadanos chinos viven en ciudades, lo que representa el 55 por ciento de la población total. Para el año 2050, se espera que la población urbana alcance 1,1 mil millones de habitantes, es decir, el 75 por ciento de la población total. En los últimos veinte años, con la excepción de unas pocas ciudades mineras, casi todos los municipios han experimentado un rápido crecimiento de la población y una expansión espacial, lo que ha generado una gran demanda de inversiones públicas en infraestructura urbana.

En China, las principales fuentes de financiamiento para inversiones en infraestructura urbana son los ingresos provenientes de las concesiones del suelo y los préstamos que los municipios solicitan a los bancos comerciales, por lo general usando el suelo como garantía. El suelo urbano es de propiedad del Estado, y el suelo rural es de propiedad conjunta de las aldeas. La Ley de Administración del Suelo establece que sólo el Estado tiene el poder para convertir suelo rural en suelo de uso urbano, lo que crea el marco propicio para que los gobiernos municipales tomen suelo rural con el fin de realizar un desarrollo urbano mediante el proceso de concesión del suelo. De hecho, los gobiernos municipales expropian el suelo rural, lo dotan de infraestructura y venden los derechos de uso del suelo a desarrolladores inmobiliarios. La compensación que reciben los agricultores por el suelo que se les expropia no es muy alta, ya que se calcula según el valor de producción agrícola del suelo en lugar del valor de mercado del suelo para uso urbano. Cuando la demanda de desarrollo inmobiliario es alta, los precios de licitación para la concesión del suelo son altos, y los gobiernos municipales comienzan a recaudar grandes sumas de dinero. En los últimos diez años, los ingresos derivados de las concesiones del suelo han representado más de un tercio del total de los ingresos fiscales municipales.

Además, los gobiernos municipales expanden aun más su capacidad financiera mediante la utilización de propiedades de suelo a modo de garantías con el fin de obtener préstamos de los bancos comerciales. La Ley de Presupuesto Chino, antes de una reciente modificación, no permitía que los gobiernos municipales solicitaran préstamos. Sin embargo, la mayoría de los gobiernos municipales superó las restricciones de la ley mediante la creación de sus propios vehículos financieros municipales, conocidos como sociedades anónimas de inversión en desarrollo urbano (sociedades anónimas de inversión en desarrollo urbano, UDIC, por sus siglas en inglés). Las UDIC solicitaban préstamos comerciales o emitían bonos privados para los gobiernos. Las deudas municipales pendientes de pago han crecido rápidamente en los últimos años, y en la actualidad han alcanzado al menos un tercio del PIB.

El mecanismo de financiamiento basado en el suelo ha ayudado a los gobiernos municipales de China a recaudar una suma significativa de fondos destinados a la inversión de capital. No obstante, este éxito también ha generado un incentivo para que los gobiernos municipales dependan demasiado de las concesiones del suelo y de las UDIC. Hoy en día, la economía de China crece mucho más lentamente que antes, por lo que este mecanismo está perdiendo fuerza en muchos municipios donde la conversión del suelo rural en suelo de uso urbano excede la demanda real. Algunas ciudades han obtenido más préstamos de los que podían devolver, y han quedado fuertemente endeudadas.

Según muchos estudios empíricos, incluidos algunos financiados por el Instituto Lincoln, el mecanismo de financiamiento basado en el suelo en China es una de las principales causas de otros problemas urbanos que enfrentamos en la actualidad, tales como precios exorbitantes de la vivienda, deudas municipales en aumento, excesiva expropiación del suelo, creciente tensión entre agricultores y gobiernos municipales en torno a la expropiación del suelo, y brechas cada vez mayores en la distribución de los ingresos y la riqueza entre las poblaciones urbanas y las rurales.

LL: Los medios de comunicación internacionales han estado realizando informes acerca de estos problemas. ¿De qué manera afrontará China estas cuestiones?

ZL: Existe un alto nivel de consenso acerca de las causas profundas de estos problemas. En noviembre de 2013, el gobierno central anunció una serie de reformas, algunas de las cuales están directamente relacionadas con políticas de urbanización y finanzas municipales. Por ejemplo, los alcances de las expropiaciones del suelo se limitarán a los fines públicos, por lo que las aldeas podrán desarrollar su suelo para uso urbano según la premisa de que se realice de acuerdo con lo planificado. Las reformas también requieren la aceleración de la legislación sobre el impuesto a la propiedad, la reforma del hukou (el sistema de inscripción residencial para familias, que ayuda a los agricultores a convertirse en residentes urbanos) y la toma de medidas por parte del gobierno para poner los servicios públicos urbanos básicos a disposición de todos los residentes permanentes de las ciudades, incluso a los que migran del suelo rural al urbano.

LL: ¿Cuáles son los efectos de la reforma del hukou en las finanzas municipales?

ZL: El gobierno chino está eliminando gradualmente el antiguo sistema del hukou, y los efectos de esta decisión sobre las finanzas municipales serán importantes. El hukou se diseñó con el fin de identificar a un ciudadano como residente de una cierta ciudad, aunque durante décadas el gobierno utilizó este sistema para controlar la migración de áreas rurales a urbanas. Una persona inscrita como hukou rural no podía cambiar su inscripción a hukou urbano sin la autorización del gobierno. Y sin la inscripción como hukou urbano, un trabajador rural migrante no tiene derecho a recibir los servicios públicos que proporcionan los gobiernos urbanos.

A partir de la reforma económica, la economía urbana en expansión ha absorbido una gran cantidad de trabajadores migrantes que pasan de áreas rurales a urbanas. Anteriormente mencioné que el índice de urbanización de China es del 55 por ciento y que la población urbana es de 750 millones de habitantes. Estas cifras incluyen a los 232 millones de trabajadores rurales migrantes que permanecen en ciudades durante más de la mitad del año. Si se los excluyera del cálculo, el nivel de urbanización sería sólo del 38 por ciento. Sin embargo, debido a su inscripción como hukou rural, los trabajadores migrantes no tienen acceso a muchos de los servicios de los que gozan los inscritos como hukou urbano, a pesar de que muchos han trabajado y vivido en ciudades durante varios años. Los gobiernos municipales determinan el alcance de muchos de los servicios públicos urbanos, tales como las escuelas públicas y las viviendas económicas, de acuerdo con la cantidad de inscritos como hukou urbanos que existen dentro de la jurisdicción municipal. La eliminación gradual del hukou aumentaría significativamente la carga fiscal de los gobiernos municipales para proporcionar servicios públicos. Ciertos académicos en China estiman que el costo de prestar la totalidad de los servicios públicos urbanos a cada trabajador rural migrante ascendería al menos a RMB 100.000 (unos US$16.000). El desembolso total para todos los trabajadores rurales migrantes actuales sería al menos de RMB 23 billones (cerca de US$3,8 billones).

LL: China está introduciendo el impuesto sobre la propiedad residencial. ¿En qué estado se encuentra esta iniciativa?

ZL: El gobierno está redactando la primera ley nacional del impuesto sobre la propiedad como parte de la reforma de finanzas públicas actualmente en marcha. China es uno de los pocos países que no poseen impuestos municipales sobre la propiedad. El actual sistema impositivo depende en gran manera de los impuestos sobre los negocios y las transacciones y muy poco de los impuestos sobre los ingresos y la riqueza de los hogares. En una China más urbanizada con una población que tenga mayor poder adquisitivo para ser propietaria de sus propios inmuebles residenciales, el impuesto sobre la propiedad sería una fuente más viable de recaudación municipal. Hoy en día, el 89 por ciento de los hogares urbanos tiene la propiedad de una o más unidades residenciales, y el valor de dichas propiedades tiene mucho que ver con los servicios públicos urbanos. El impuesto sobre la propiedad permitirá que las ciudades impongan este tributo sobre las propiedades residenciales cuyo valor se vería beneficiado por una mejora de los servicios públicos que se brindarían gracias a los ingresos derivados de dicho impuesto. También cubriría una parte de la brecha fiscal que se generaría como consecuencia de la disminución prevista en la recaudación proveniente de las concesiones del suelo. No obstante, el impuesto sobre la propiedad no será una fuente principal de ingresos municipales en el corto plazo, ya que al Congreso Popular Nacional le llevará uno o dos años más aprobar la nueva ley. Además, a las ciudades les llevará dos o tres años establecer la base de datos de propiedades y el sistema de valuación y administración de las mismas.

LL: Debe de ser difícil para las ciudades tener que enfrentar una reducción de los ingresos derivados de las concesiones del suelo sin una alternativa inmediata, especialmente cuando están experimentando una creciente deuda municipal, tal como se ha informado ampliamente. ¿Cómo saldrán de esta situación las ciudades chinas?

ZL: La situación es verdaderamente difícil. La economía de China está en retroceso. El sector inmobiliario ya no es tan pujante como en los últimos diez años, lo que ha dado como resultado una menor demanda de suelo y, como consecuencia, los gobiernos municipales están obteniendo una recaudación derivada de las concesiones de suelo menor. Ahora las ciudades están experimentando una brecha fiscal. Una posible forma de cerrar esta brecha sería que los gobiernos municipales pudieran obtener préstamos. Sin embargo, tal como mencioné anteriormente, muchas ciudades están endeudadas y tienen poca capacidad para seguir pidiendo préstamos. De hecho, la mayoría de las ciudades en China no tiene una capacidad adecuada de gestión de deudas. La ley de presupuesto recientemente modificada permite que los gobiernos provinciales emitan bonos dentro de los límites establecidos por el Concejo del Estado, pero también cierra la posibilidad a los gobiernos municipales de recurrir a otras formas de obtener préstamos. Actualmente, el gobierno central promueve activamente el financiamiento de infraestructura a través de asociaciones público-privadas (PPP, por sus siglas en inglés). Aunque es un buen avance, no será suficiente para cerrar la brecha de financiamiento para infraestructuras, ya que las PPP resultan útiles principalmente en los casos de proyectos de infraestructura que poseen un sólido flujo de ingresos. Existen muchos otros proyectos de infraestructura urbana que generan muy pocos ingresos o directamente ninguno. A la larga, creo que China debería establecer de forma activa un mercado de bonos del gobierno municipal para canalizar los fondos provenientes de inversores institucionales hacia la inversión de infraestructura municipal y permitir que los gobiernos municipales tengan acceso a préstamos comerciales según su solvencia crediticia. A este fin, los gobiernos municipales deben desarrollar su capacidad institucional en varios frentes, tales como la gestión municipal de deudas, la planificación de una mejora de capital, la planificación del financiamiento para varios años, y la gestión municipal de bienes de infraestructura.

LL: ¿El trabajo del PLC es relevante para la reforma actual?

ZL: El PLC fue establecido en forma conjunta por el Instituto Lincoln y la Universidad de Pekín en el año 2007. Cuando ingresé en 2013, el Centro ya había construido su reputación como una de las principales instituciones de investigación y capacitación de China en cuestiones de desarrollo urbano y políticas de suelo. El Centro apoya diferentes actividades, como investigación, capacitación, intercambio académico, diálogo sobre políticas, becas de investigación, proyectos de demostración y publicaciones. Nos enfocamos en cinco temas principales: tributación sobre la propiedad y finanzas municipales, políticas de suelo, viviendas urbanas, desarrollo y planificación urbana, y medio ambiente urbano y su conservación. En los últimos años, nuestros proyectos de investigación han tocado temas como las finanzas dependientes del suelo, las deudas municipales, los precios de la vivienda, la inversión y el financiamiento del capital para infraestructura, y otras cuestiones relevantes para la salud fiscal municipal. Además, hemos brindado capacitación a diferentes agencias gubernamentales de China sobre las experiencias internacionales relativas al análisis y gestión del impuesto a la propiedad. Podría decirse que nuestro trabajo es muy pertinente en lo que respecta a la reforma actual.

La implementación de las nuevas reformas integrales de las políticas está generando una importante demanda de conocimientos internacionales y asesoramiento sobre políticas en las áreas de interés del programa para China, particularmente lo que tiene que ver con los impuestos a la propiedad y las finanzas municipales. Nuestra idea es comenzar un proyecto piloto de demostración en una o dos ciudades chinas seleccionadas, a fin de generar la capacidad institucional que se requiere para desarrollar un nivel de salud fiscal municipal a largo plazo. Nuestro equipo ha comenzado un estudio para desarrollar una serie de indicadores con el fin de medir la salud fiscal municipal de las ciudades chinas. Es el momento oportuno para que iniciemos este plan en China.

The Lincoln Institute, with the Land Trust Alliance and the National Park Service Conservation Study Institute, is working with two dozen senior conservation practitioners from public, private, nonprofit and academic organizations across the nation to consider the grand challenges facing the North American land and biodiversity conservation community in the twenty-first century. The conservationists, who shared ideas electronically for several months prior to their March 2002 meeting in Cambridge, explored emerging and needed conservation innovations that may prove commensurate with the challenges. Organized by James Levitt of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, Armando Carbonell of the Lincoln Institute and Fara Courtney, an environmental consultant based in Gloucester, Massachusetts, the group exchanged ideas through presentations, case studies and working groups. E.O. Wilson, the distinguished author and biodiversity scholar at Harvard University, addressed the session and participated in the discussions. This article presents several highlights of that leadership dialogue on conservation in the twenty-first century (C21).

“We have entered the twenty-first century, the century of the environment. The question of the century is, how can we best shift to a culture of permanence, both for ourselves and for the biosphere that sustains us?” E.O. Wilson

The Historical Context

Ask almost any American concerned with natural resources, “How and when did we start practicing conservation in this country?” In most cases, the response involves the role of the federal government at the turn of the twentieth century under President Teddy Roosevelt. While Roosevelt and his close associate Gifford Pinchot do stand as giants in the history of conservation in this nation, the record shows that Americans have a remarkable tradition of conservation that stretches back at least to the early days of the Republic.

Individuals and organizations in the private, nonprofit, public and academic sectors have throughout our history brought landmark conservation innovations to life, and they continue to do so. They have focused their attention on sites that span the urban-rural continuum, from city parks to remote wildernesses. In the context of repeated waves of immigration and population growth, a chain of stunning technological advances and a pattern of long-term economic growth, American conservation innovators have acted creatively and often with considerable passion to protect and manage natural and scenic wonders, working landscapes, native wildlife and recreational open space for their own benefit, for the benefit of the public at large, and for the benefit of future generations.

Consider the history of the land trust movement. Thomas Jefferson set an early precedent for private and nongovernmental protection of natural beauty in America. In 1773, three years before he penned the Declaration of American Independence, Jefferson purchased a parcel of land known as Natural Bridge near the Blue Ridge Mountains. He treasured the parcel throughout his adult life, inviting writers, painters and dignitaries to visit the site and record its wonders. By 1815 he wrote to William Caruthers to say that he held Natural Bridge “to some degree as a public trust, and would on no consideration permit the bridge to be injured, defaced or blocked from public view.”

Some 60 years after Jefferson’s death, Charles Eliot, son of the president of Harvard University and a protégé of Frederick Law Olmsted, took another historic step toward the nongovernmental protection of open space. He proposed the formation of a private association to hold parcels of land for the enjoyment of the citizens of Massachusetts, particularly the less affluent residents of Boston who needed an escape from the “poisonous” atmosphere of the crowded city so closely associated with the technological progress and demographic turmoil of the Gilded Age. With a charter from the Commonwealth granted in 1891, that organization, now known as The Trustees of Reservations, became the first statewide nongovernmental land trust.

Eliot’s innovation has proved to be truly outstanding, a landmark conservation innovation that meets all the criteria for outstanding innovations in the public interest set out by the Innovations in American Government program at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. The notion behind the Trustees has proved to be novel in conception, measurably effective, significant in addressing an important issue of public concern, and transferable to a large number of organizations around the world. Furthermore, and critically important in the field of conservation, Eliot’s innovation has demonstrated its ability to endure and remain vibrant after more than a century. The Trustees’ current director of land conservation, Wesley Ward, emphasizes that nongovernmental conservation organizations will continue to be called upon in the twenty-first century to “provide leadership by identifying challenges, advocating effective responses and providing relevant models of conservation and stewardship.”

The Lincoln Institute played an important role in the resurgent growth of the land trust movement in the early 1980s, when it focused its resources as an academic institution on how an exchange of information among several dozen land trusts in the U.S. might strengthen conservation standards and practices throughout the entire land conservation community. Jean Hocker, at that time organizing the Jackson Hole Land Trust, remembers well the early discussions convened at Lincoln House by Boston-area lawyer Kingsbury Browne. She explains that emerging from those deliberations was the idea that “we ought to form a new organization called the Land Trust Exchange that could help us all do our jobs better.” Hocker moved to Washington, DC, in 1987 to run the group, which became known as the Land Trust Alliance (LTA). Under her leadership, the organization led the land trust movement into a period of rapid growth and enduring achievement. In 2002, there are more than 1,200 local and regional land trusts in the U.S. that have helped to protect more than six million acres of open space. Furthermore, the LTA’s annual Rally is a now a high point of the year for more than a thousand land conservation volunteers and professionals spread across the continent and beyond who convene to share their best ideas.

The Trustees’ long history of conservation innovation and achievement is paralleled by the histories of many other public, nonprofit, academic and private sectors organizations represented by C21 participants. Nora Mitchell and Michael Soukup of the National Park Service underscore the significance of America’s creation of the world’s first national park at Yellowstone in 1872, an innovation of worldwide significance that was in part the brainchild of two private railroad entrepreneurs, Jay Cooke and Frederick Billings. Laura Johnson, president of the Massachusetts Audubon Society, takes justifiable pride in the achievement of her organization’s “Founding Mothers,” two women who established the nation’s oldest continuously operating Audubon society in 1896 and catalyzed the campaign that led to the signing of the first international migratory bird treaty. Robert Cook, director of Harvard’s Arnold Arboretum, explains the pivotal role of that institution in the emergence of American forestry policy as far back as the1870s. And Keith Ross of the New England Forestry Foundation, who spearheaded the precedent-setting effort concluded in 2000 to place a conservation easement on more than 760,000 acres of forest land owned by the Pingree family in Maine, emphasizes that the family’s private forest stewardship practices date back to the 1840s.

Complex Conservation Challenges

Notwithstanding the conservation community’s collective record of achievement, the land and biodiversity conservationists at the C21 meeting foresee grand challenges of extraordinary complexity and difficulty in the coming 50 to 100 years. In the context of expected growth in North American and world populations, changes in demographic patterns and ongoing technological development, as well as systemic changes in climate and other earth systems, they express deep concern regarding myriad potential changes on the landscape. These may include the accelerating loss of open space; intensified landscape fragmentation; further degradation of wildlife habitat; alarming declines in the viability of a wide range of biological species; and potentially significant stresses to earth systems that provide essential ecosystem services. Will Rogers, president of the Trust for Public Land, notes, “from a conservation viewpoint, the pace of growth and development is rapidly running us out of time.”

The concern of many C21 participants regarding the potential impact of growing human populations starts with the straightforward projection of the U.S. Census Bureau that the population of the U.S. will grow from some 280 million Americans in 2000 to about 400 million by 2050. Beyond the numbers, it is critical for conservation planners to understand that the diversity of the American population is forecast to change significantly, with particularly strong growth in the ranks of Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans. Jamie Hoyte, an authority on conservation and diversity at Harvard University, explains, “one of the most significant challenges we face is broadening and diversifying the community of conservation-minded citizens. Those who advocate for conservation must do so in a way that speaks to people of all backgrounds and races, demonstrating an understanding of the needs of a broad range of people.” Robert Perschel of the Wilderness Society expands on the idea, advising that we need to “enter into a new dialogue with the American people … to touch the hearts and spirits and wisdom of our citizenry.”

C21 participants also pointed out that new conservation initiatives are likely to be launched in the context of continuing economic growth and personal affluence. For perspective, note that real U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) grew more than five-fold between 1950 and 2000, and many economists expect to see comparable growth in coming decades. To protect open space and biodiversity in the midst of such great affluence, conservationists will need to leverage the nation’s economic power. According to Chip Collins of The Forestland Group, “North America’s economic growth has helped fuel the loss of biodiversity. At the same time, North America has led the world in the development and implementation of conservation strategies in large measure because of the extraordinary growth and vigor of its economy. One of the great challenges will be to manage this seeming dichotomy by effectively harnessing the private sector and redirecting its immense capital power base toward constructive conservation initiatives. The private sector, in stride with its nonprofit, public and academic counterparts, must be a full and constructive partner.”

As in the past, new and increasingly powerful technologies are likely to continue to proliferate. While offering considerable social and economic benefits, the new technologies may also be closely associated with large-scale environmental disturbances. In the past half-century, for example, the spread of interstate highways has effectively stimulated the American economy but has also been associated with pervasive environmental disruptions such as urban and rural landscape fragmentation, the creation of unhealthy air quality conditions, and the generation of significant volumes of gases associated with global climate change. Similarly, more recently introduced networked technologies, such as the Internet and advanced wireless communications networks, appear to be enabling continued net migration of Americans to formerly remote and highly environmentally sensitive locations across the continent. Technology-related change is not limited to the U.S., of course. Larry Morris of the Quebec-Labrador Foundation explains that new communications and transportation networks are influencing where and how people live worldwide, from Atlantic Canada to the Middle East.

Biodiversity scientists E.O. Wilson of Harvard and Leonard Krishtalka of the University of Kansas point out that while emerging technologies may be associated with environmental disruptions in coming decades, the same technologies are also proving critical to advancing our understanding of the diversity of life on earth. Krishtalka explains that “researchers are now learning how to harness the vast store of authoritative biodiversity information in natural history museums worldwide (about three billion specimens of animals and plants) and integrate it with other earth systems data for predictive modeling of environmental phenomena.” Such a predictive model was recently built by researchers in Kansas, California and Mexico to examine the fate of a wide variety of Mexican species under a range of global warming scenarios. The outcome of this and similar studies should be particularly useful to organizations striving to prioritize land and habitat protection opportunities in ecosystems throughout the western hemisphere that may be facing significant disruption in future.

In sum, despite remarkable progress, conservationists are in no position or mood to rest. John Berry of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation advises, “if our standard is that of the ancient Greeks, that is, to leave our nation ‘not only not less, but richer and more bountiful than it was transmitted to us,’ than we have not yet earned the laurel crown.”

A New Generation of Conservation Innovators

Inspired by the precedents set by creative American conservationists in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, twenty-first century conservation practitioners are highly motivated to identify and implement new initiatives commensurate with the complex challenges of our day. C21 participants expressed interest in a wide variety of areas ripe for game-changing innovation, including the following.

Winning Hearts and Minds

Bill Weeks of The Nature Conservancy emphasizes that “the grandest challenge is to complete the task of getting the overwhelming majority of the public to care and act and vote like they care.” Rand Wentworth of the Land Trust Alliance agrees that conservationists should use the “tremendous power” of mass marketing to help create a national mandate for land conservation. Clare Swanger of the Taos Land Trust adds that the insight of mass marketers, but also of people living on the land, should be employed in such an effort. The outstanding question facing these conservationists is how to leverage modern marketing tools in a truly historic fashion. The aim would be to put together an effort comparable to the highly effective antismoking campaign of the last several decades, so as to build sustained momentum for the long-term protection and stewardship of “land for life.”

Building the Green Matrix

Addressing the multiple problems of open space consumption, loss of working landscapes, habitat fragmentation and biodiversity decline is a job that no single sector can tackle alone. Larry Selzer, president of the Conservation Fund and a proponent of smart conservation that balances economic returns with environmental principles, explains that effective action will require the cooperative efforts of landowners, policy makers and a wide diversity of individuals working across sectors. Furthermore, as Charles H.W. Foster of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government points out, effective conservation efforts are at least as likely to take place at local and regional levels as at federal and international ones. Just how effective “green matrix” landscapes and organizational structures can be effectively assembled and maintained over the long term remains an area for thorough exploration and experimentation. Among other C21 participants, Peter Stein of the Lyme Timber Company, Jay Espy of the Maine Coast Heritage Trust, and Ian Bowles of the Kennedy School and the Moore Foundation are actively advancing the evolving art of assembling protected landscapes where economic and conservation goals can be pursued simultaneously.

Following Through with Stewardship

Achieving long-term conservation goals, of course, requires that once protection is gained for a given area a well-crafted stewardship plan, and in some cases an environmental restoration plan, must be conceived, agreed to by the relevant parties and then implemented. Getting this done has proved to be neither simple nor easy. Financing and organizing such stewardship efforts is too often overlooked during intense, short-fused campaigns to protect given parcels of land. Bringing a new level of attention and expertise to land and habitat stewardship and restoration efforts will be an ongoing challenge to the conservation community, particularly as its portfolio of protected lands grows in coming decades.

Fortunately, conservationists can point to some forward-looking stewardship efforts now underway. For example, Ralph Grossi, president of the American Farmland Trust, notes that the 2002 Farm Bill will provide significant levels of funding for USDA-sponsored stewardship efforts on agricultural lands. Similarly, Jaime Pinkham, a member of the Nez Perce Tribe in Idaho, offers eloquent testimony about how tribes can work with local, federal and other authorities to restore keystone species to entire ecosystems, as was accomplished with the gray wolf in the Northern Rockies. Still, there is room for a great deal of progress and innovation in this area.

Synthesizing Conservation Science

Conservation scientists E.O. Wilson, Leonard Krishtalka and Douglas Causey all underscore the argument that very significant progress can be made in the coming century to build large-scale syntheses in conservation biology and ecology. Wilson is particularly emphatic about the need to catalog all living species, a global work-in-progress that is only about 10-percent complete. The All Species Foundation that Wilson helped to form proposes to “complete the censusing of all the plants, animals and micro-organisms in the world in 25 years.” “Is this a pipe dream?,” asks Wilson, rhetorically. “No way,” he answers. “It is megascience backed by the same sort of technology drivers as the Human Genome Project. The important thing is to see the exploration of the biosphere as a crucial task.”

Gaining a comprehensive understanding of the biosphere and the ability to predict ecosystem outcomes under a variety of possible futures is indeed a grand challenge for conservation scientists. Kathy Fallon Lambert of the Hubbard Brook Research Foundation adds, “a complementary challenge is to find clear and concise ways to explain significant field and laboratory research findings to the general public and to key decision makers so that they can carry out policy debates with the best available scientific information.”

From our vantage point at the commencement of this century we cannot accurately predict just what future generations, 50 or 100 years from now, will judge to be our generation’s most significant conservation innovations, comparable to earlier creations of the world’s first statewide land trust or national park. We do know, however, that we face significant and complex conservation challenges, and our ideas for powerful innovation will only yield results if we act on them with great personal and organizational energy and intensity. There is no argument that the best time to begin such efforts is now.

James N. Levitt is director of the Internet and Conservation Project, Taubman Center for State and Local Government, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. His research focuses on the potentially constructive and disruptive impacts of new communications and transportation networks on land use and the practice of conservation, as well as opportunities for landmark conservation innovation in the twenty-first century.

The property tax in Brazil is an annual tax on urban land and buildings administered at the local government level. The tax base is derived from market value and is standardized across different local authorities, although procedures for establishing the tax base and rates vary considerably.

In the city of Porto Alegre, the cost approach is the method traditionally employed for assessing real estate property for taxation purposes. No legal requirement exists concerning intervals between valuations, and the last general valuation took place in 1991. In years without valuations, the tax base has been readjusted uniformly according to prevailing inflation rates. The property tax rates are progressive, with sliding rates for six classes of assessed values to insert an element of “ability-to-pay” into the system. The tax is calculated by the sum of each portion of the assessed value multiplied by the respective rate for that class. The maximum rate for residential property reaches 1.2 percent.

Analysis of the Current System

A recent analysis of the property tax system in Porto Alegre sought to provide a full examination of the relationship between assessed values and sale prices. Some of the results are summarized below.

Assessment level and uniformity

Residential apartments in Porto Alegre were assessed on median at only 34 percent of their sale prices, much less than the statutory level of 100 percent. Using the coefficient of dispersion about the median [COD] of the assessed value to sale price ratio as a measure of variability, the results showed a low degree of assessment uniformity (approximately 36 percent). In Brazil, there are neither local nor national standards for evaluating assessment performance. By comparison, a commonly accepted degree of uniformity for single-family residential property in the United States is a coefficient between 10 and 15 percent. Figure 1 illustrates the ample spread of the assessment ratios in this study.

Factors determining assessment inequity

To examine the simultaneous effects of the factors determining assessment bias, a multivariate model was used to investigate both vertical and horizontal inequities. The model detected a large number of factors causing systematic differences in assessment levels, including location attributes, building quality, building year, presence of elevators and similar variables. Vertical assessment regressivity was also identified.

Assessment method

It is plausible to assert that the method traditionally employed for assessing real property, that is, the cost approach, is a major cause of the lack of assessment uniformity identified in this study. Some theoretical weaknesses of the approach are associated with the extensive number of simplifications implemented by the local authority to make its application easier, and these adjustments are likely to have determined assessment bias. Inconsistencies with the standard cost model include the lack of connection between cost tables and the performance of the real estate market, and low correlation between the ad hoc depreciation rates adopted and the reduction in price caused by age, obsolescence, or deterioration of building structures. Furthermore, lack of systematic control over valuation performance seems to have contributed to the high inaccuracy of assessed values.

Time lags between valuations

The method used to make an overall adjustment to assessed values based on prevailing inflation rates for years without valuation has clearly contributed to the reduction of the tax base. For instance, properties were assessed on median at 38 percent of their sale prices in 1993, but only 27 percent in 1995.

Effective versus statutory rates of property tax

Rates for residential property are progressive according to six classes of assessed value. The effective rate results from the actual amount raised from property taxation, without regard to tax evasion, divided by the sale price. The statutory rate results from the expected tax that could be raised per property, if the tax were established on the basis of sale price, divided by its sale price. The effective rate is much lower than the statutory rate and represents on median only 0.17 percent of sale price.

Improper assessment practices have affected the distribution of the tax burden, not only because assessed values do not bear a consistent relationship to sale prices but also because many properties are classified incorrectly. The actual property tax revenue collected in the period under study represented approximately 25 percent of the potential revenue to be raised if assessed values were equal to sale prices.

Causes of Poor Property Tax Administration

Historical factors may help to explain the current poor administration of the property tax in Porto Alegre and its inefficient use as a revenue source. During the 1970s, large transfers of revenue from the central government and private estates to municipalities complemented the revenue raised at the local government level. Consequently, local authorities were not interested in collecting their own taxes, and taxpayers were used to paying insignificant property tax bills. The achievement of good performance in terms of valuation and an acceptable degree of assessment equity were secondary issues.

Recent financial crises combined with the urgent need for public investment in infrastructure equipment and services have stimulated some local authorities to improve their tax systems. However, due to the high visibility of the property tax and taxpayer antipathy, efforts to recover revenue and achieve assessment equity often result in tax revolts. Furthermore, changes in the tax base must be approved by locally elected members of the Chamber of Councilors. Whenever general valuations are planned, the Council members are responsible for supporting capping systems in the name of protecting the poor and retired taxpayers. However, the capping systems actually favor high-income and wealthy taxpayers because low-income and retired taxpayers can receive relief based on their income.

Since 1991, two proposals for altering the property tax base in Porto Alegre have been rejected by the Chamber of Councilors because the estimated value of some properties would have been adjusted over the inflation rate at the time. However, the existing vertical assessment inequity means that high-valued properties are the ones benefiting from poor property tax administration.

Recommendations on Revising Practices and Attitudes

Knowledge about the weaknesses of a particular tax system is fundamental for its improvement, and the analysis undertaken in Porto Alegre provides greater understanding of the current system, the degree of assessment inequity and its main causes. For the first time, the drawbacks and weaknesses of the system are both quantified and measured, including which properties are benefiting from the system and the amount of revenue being lost. Now Porto Alegre has the opportunity to improve its property tax system on the basis of accurate data rather than political expediency.

Several measures would contribute to the overall equity of the tax system while also improving revenue collection to provide the community with higher standards of living:

§ Reassessment of properties based on current market values using the sales comparison approach to assessing residential property, such as multiple regression analysis (MRA), artificial neural networks (NN), or multilevel modeling (hierarchical linear models – HLMs).

§ Systematic control over assessed property values, including testing before the release of the valuation roll to recognize and adjust for eventual bias in the estimated tax base.

§ Assurance of regular assessment updates.

§ Establishment of market adjustments to assessed values based on ratio studies for years without valuation.

§ Transparency in the administration of the property tax, especially in graduating the size of the tax burden, instead of overriding estimates of market values arbitrarily for this purpose.

§ A definition of minimum standards for assessment performance at the local or national level.

The achievement of property tax equity and the provision of a high standard of public services are common goals for politicians, the community, administrators and others. Public officials need to take advantage of new technologies for property tax assessment and data gathering to make tax systems operate both efficiently and fairly. However, technical improvements are just a part of the process. It is also vital to work on public opinion. An important step is to encourage dialogue between community residents and politicians, showing the drawbacks of the current system and the consequences of keeping its structure. Confidence in the property tax system is likely to increase if revisions are discussed seriously in the public domain.

Claudia M. De Cesare is an assessor in the Department of Local Taxation for the Municipality of Porto Alegre. She received a Lincoln Institute Dissertation Fellowship in 1999 to support the research reported here and in her Ph.D. thesis, which she completed at the University of Salford in England. The Lincoln Institute is continuing to develop educational programs with administrators, politicians, scholars and the community in Porto Alegre to help improve the equity and efficiency of the property tax system.

In the context of entirely new fiscal policies and new approaches to property rights in central and eastern Europe over the past decade, taxes on land and buildings have taken on significant new roles—politically as adjuncts to privatization, restitution and decentralization, and fiscally as revenue-raising tools for local governments.

The Lincoln Institute is particularly interested in the complex debate over property-based taxes and in how different countries experience the transition from communism to democracy and from planned to market-driven economies. Over the past four years, the Institute has undertaken a series of educational programs to help public officials and business leaders in eastern Europe understand both underlying principles and practical examples of property taxation and valuation through offering varied perspectives and frameworks for decision making.

The Institute is also sponsoring a series of case studies to compare the implementation of ad valorem property tax systems in eastern European countries. These studies provide a unique perspective from which to review the initiation of land privatization, fiscal decentralization and land markets, as well as to compare the various legal and administrative features adopted for the respective tax systems.

Programs in Estonia

The Baltic country of Estonia was the first of the new independent states to recognize the benefits of land taxation and thus has been the focus of several Lincoln Institute programs. The Institute’s work in Estonia began in September 1993 when Fellow Jane Malme and Senior Fellow Joan Youngman participated in a conference with the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on the design of a property taxation system. Estonia had just instituted its land tax program, and since then the Institute has continued to support programs there relating to land reform and property taxation.

The most recent education program, on “Land and Tax Policies for Urban Markets in Estonia,” was presented in the capital of Tallinn in May to nearly 30 senior-level state and city officials interested in public finance, land reform and urban development. President H. James Brown, Jane Malme, Joan Youngman and a faculty of international experts explored current issues concerning land reform, valuation and taxation. They also discussed methods of urban planning, land management and taxation to both encourage development of urban land markets and finance local governments.

Estonia is also serving as the pilot case study for a survey instrument to gather and analyze information from countries adopting new fiscal instruments for market-based economies. Malme and Youngman are working closely with Tambet Tiits, director of a private real estate research and consulting firm in Tallinn, to draft the survey, research and collect data, and analyze the results.

Other Case Studies and Conferences

A second case study examines Poland, where an ad valorem property tax law is under legislative consideration. Dr. Jan Brzeski, director of the Cracow Real Estate Institute, serves as the country research director and liaison with the Institute. Subsequent studies will survey Latvia, Lithuania and Russia. In addition, Professors Gary Cornia and Phil Bryson of the Marriott School of Management at Brigham Young University in Utah are using the Lincoln Institute survey instrument to study property tax systems in the Czech and Slovak Republics.

The Lincoln Institute was a sponsor of the fourth international conference on local taxation and property valuation of the London-based Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation (IRRV) in Rome in early June. The conference attracts about 300 senior level officials from central as well as local governments throughout Europe. Dennis Robinson, Lincoln Institute vice president for programs and operations, was on the conference advisory committee and chaired a session on “Case Studies in Local Taxation in the New Democracies,” at which Jane Malme and Joan Youngman discussed the Institute’s case studies on land and building taxation in transitional economies. Other participants in that session were Institute associates Tambit Tiits of Estonia and Jan Brzeski of Poland. Board member Gary Cornia spoke about his research on property taxation in the Czech Republic. Martim Smolka, senior fellow for Latin America and the Caribbean, presented a paper on “Urban Land Management and Value Capture” at another session chaired by Joan Youngman. Jane Malme also was a discussion leader for a session on “Tax Collection and Administration.”

The Institute is planning another program with OECD in December 1997 for public officials and practitioners in the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to examine policy aspects of land valuation and mass appraisal concepts for ad valorem taxation.

The land market allocates land and access to urban amenities, and it does so with impressive efficiency. Yet, economists and planners continue to debate the extent to which the market fails to achieve broader social goals, how far regulation can offset for that failure, and even whether regulation results in land market outcomes being even farther from the socially desired outcome than would be the case without any regulation. To examine this debate and the underlying issues, more than 30 economists and planners met at the Lincoln Institute in July 2002 to encourage new policy-relevant analysis on land markets and their regulation, and to foster more fruitful communication between the disciplines.

At the center of the substantive debate was the basic question of regulation within a market economy and the unintended consequences that can result. The discussions touched upon many themes including gentrification, the use of public resources for private consumption, distributional issues, urban form and its regulation. If perspectives regarding market regulation differed between the two disciplines, so too did views regarding the strengths and limitations of the analytic tools that academics from different disciplines bring to such thorny problems. Among the challenges are the basic questions of how to define the problem, how to measure the current conditions in light of limited data, and how to interpret findings. Throughout the conference, the differences in the perspectives, assumptions, tools and references between planners and economists were ever present, in particular with regard to the role of politics in planning and policy making.

Unintended Consequences of Land Market Regulations

Despite their differences, concern for land markets and their centrality to social, political and economic life was the common focus of both economists and planners at the conference. They agreed that land markets are about far more than land. These markets have an important role in delivering life experiences and conditioning the welfare of the majority of people in developed and developing countries alike who live and work in cities. In addition, their regulation has both direct and indirect economic effects that extend into many areas of economic life and public policy. For example, the urban poor are likely to have worse schools and to experience higher levels of neighborhood crime because land markets capitalize the values of neighborhood amenities, such as better school quality and lower crime, thereby pricing poorer households into less desirable neighborhoods.

This power of land markets to reflect and capitalize factors that affect a household’s welfare was revealed in a study of impact fees levied on new development in Florida. Ihlanfeldt and Shaughnessy found that impact fees appear to be fully capitalized into house prices for owners of new and existing houses by redistributing the costs of new infrastructure provision from existing taxpayers to a reduced value of development land. In fast-growing Miami the cost of impact fees was borne by developers, yet offset by the increases they received in higher prices for new housing, “while buyers of new homes are compensated for a higher price by the property tax savings they experience. In contrast to the neutral effects that fees have on developers, landowners, and purchasers of new housing, impact fees provide existing homeowners a capital gain” (Ihlanfeldt and Shaughnessy, 26).

One complement to their story of Florida’s impact fees was illustrated in several other papers concerned with the unintended outcomes of regulation. British participants reported that Britain’s containment policy has generated higher densities within urbanized areas, but cities leapfrog out across their Greenbelts (or growth boundaries) to smaller satellite settlements; the consequence is that development becomes less contiguous and travel times increase. Villages become high-density suburbs surrounded by a sea of wheat: London in functional terms extends to cover most of southeastern England.

In a U.S. example based on an econometric simulation, Elena Irwin and Nancy Bockstael found that a clustering policy intended to preserve open space could instead backfire. Using Maryland data, they simulated the effects of a policy that was intended to preserve rural open space and found that it would instead accelerate development if “small to moderate amounts of open space are required to be preserved (specifically, 20 acres or less) and would slow the timing of development if larger amounts of open space are required to be preserved” (Irwin and Bockstael, 26). Their simulation results yield an interpretation that is highly nuanced and requires careful thought. That is, under certain conditions the cluster policy can backfire, while under other specific conditions the policy can yield an intended policy outcome.

These hypothetical clusters in Maryland may be echos of a real situation that Jean Cavailhès and his colleagues observed in the French countryside, where some urban dwellers moved to farm regions to create a mixed-use area that is neither entirely urban nor entirely rural. These former urbanites appear to value their proximity to a functioning rural landscape in exchange for longer commutes and (surprisingly) smaller residential lots. The authors hypothesize that these peri-urban dwellers benefit in different ways from living among the farmers.

In another example of the unintended consequences of regulations, Donald Shoup analyzed curbside parking. Many U.S. municipalities require developers to provide minimal parking per square foot of new commercial or, in some communities, residential space. The requirement for off-street parking, coupled with a systematic underpricing of curbside parking, has a double impact, according to Shoup. It imposes a substantial tax on affected developments (equivalent to up to 88 percent of construction costs), increases land taking, and means that public revenues annually lost an amount equal to the median property tax.

In these cases of unintended consequences of policy or regulatory interventions in the market, the authors argued for more careful design of both policies and regulations so state and local governments could reasonably achieve their policy goals. Despite the fact that the conference debate tended to pit regulation against the market, there was probably a tendency—if not full-fledged consensus—to favor market incentives and disincentives to achieve policy goals, rather than to rely strictly, or even largely, on regulation. Roger Bolton’s comments on Shoup’s paper cogently reflected this viewpoint. He said that Shoup’s work was valuable because it urges us to pay attention to a whole package of “important and related phenomena: inefficient pricing of an important good, curb parking; inefficient regulation of another good, privately owned off-street parking; and missed opportunities for local government revenue.”

Data and Measurement Challenges

Growth management and urban form were referenced extensively throughout the conference. The paper presented by Henry Overman, and written with three colleagues (Burchfield et al.) provided useful grounding to that conversation. They attempted to measure the extent of sprawl for the entire continental U.S. Using remote sensing data they calculated and mapped urban development and the change in urban land cover between 1976 and 1992. They defined sprawl as either the extension of the urban area, or leapfrog development, or lower-density development beyond the urban fringe. They concluded that only 1.9 percent of the continental U.S. was in urban use and only 0.58 percent had been taken for urban development in the 16-year period covered by the study. Furthermore, during this period, urban densities were mostly on the increase.

This study found development to be a feature of the “nearby urban landscape,” whether that was defined as close to existing development, or near highways or the coasts, and thus was perceived as encroaching on where people lived or traveled. The authors use this last observation to reconcile the apparent contradiction between their finding that less than 2 percent of the continental U.S. has been developed and the fact that containing and managing sprawl is at the center of policy agendas in many states and regions across the U.S. While relatively little land might have been consumed by new development in aggregate during the study period, many people see and experience this development on a daily basis and perceive it to represent significant change, often the kind of change they do not like.

The conference discussion touched upon some of the data questions raised by this work. The paper’s discussant, John Landis, noted some challenges he has faced in working with these and similar data to measure growth patterns in California. The estimates by Burchfield et al. are extremely low, possibly for technical reasons, according to Landis. Among the reasons is the difficulty in interpreting satellite images and the different outcomes that can occur when different thresholds are used for counting density, for example. That is, an area can be classified as more or less dense depending on what threshold the analysts establishes. “Ground-truthing” is required to remove some of the arbitrariness from the analysis, but this is an enormously costly undertaking.

Policy analysts are always faced with data limitations. Sometimes the problem is missing data, while other times it is data with questionable reliability. Yet, all too often researchers spend very little time paying attention to how serious that deficiency is for the policy problem at hand. When the available data is a very long time series with frequent intervals that relies on a well-structured and well-understood data collection method, and where few transformations occur between data collection and data use, most researchers and policy analysts would feel extremely comfortable interpolating one or two or even a handful of missing data points. Econometricians relying on data collected at regular intervals from government surveys frequently face this situation and are quite adept at filling in such “holes in the data.” In the world of limited data, that might be considered the best-case scenario.

At the other extreme we might have data that are collected using relatively new methods and that require significant transformation between collection and use. Data reliability likely decreases under these circumstances. Given the imperfect world in which we live, the answer is probably not to insist on using only the “best data.” However, researchers and policy analysts do have the obligation to use care in interpreting results based on weak data and to convey that weakness to their audience.

Another side of the limited data problem is the translation from concept to measure, and it explains why the conference participants spent so much time discussing “What is sprawl?” For researchers this question becomes “How does one define sprawl in such a way that one can measure it?” Burchfield et al. define sprawl as leapfrog or discontiguous urban development. Landis argues for “a more multi-faceted definition of sprawl, one that also incorporates issues of density, land use mix, and built-form homogeneity.”

Definitions are not trivial in policy analysis. If we cannot define the problem or the outcome, and we cannot measure it, how can we know if it is getting better or worse, and if our policies are having an impact? On the other hand, a very precise definition of a different but perhaps related concept may lead to unnecessary intervention. The new policy may improve the score on the measure but have little or no effect on the problem. For a variety of reasons (perhaps in part the customs and cultures within different disciplines) the economists at the conference tended to favor concepts that are simple and for which the data exist. On the other hand, the planners tended to favor concepts that are messy. In the end, one is left with weaknesses on both sides. The uni-dimensional definition, and therefore the uni-dimensional measure, may provide many of the desirable properties that allow statistical analyses. Multi-dimensional concepts are difficult to translate into measures. Which is better for policy making?

The Political Nature of Land Policy

Planning as a political activity was emphasized by several authors, notably Chris Riley (discussant of papers by Edwin Mills and Alan Evans), to emphasize the importance for economists to recognize this role and the constraints it imposes on significant change (particularly given the capacity of land markets to capitalize into asset values the amenities generated by planning policies themselves). Richard Feiock added there was also evidence that the forms of planning policies that communities selected (both the severity of such policies and the degree to which they relied on regulation in contrast to market instruments) could be largely accounted for by the political structure and socioeconomic and ethnic composition of those communities.

Participants reacted differently to the political nature of land policy and planning. For some this was problematic: it meant that the market was not being allowed to work. For others, it meant that the political process in a democracy was being allowed to work: the people had spoken and the policy reflected the expressed will of the body politic.

Reflections on Debate

The differences between economists and planners will continue, and differences among practitioners in different countries and even different parts of the same country (notably the large United States) can either stimulate or thwart future debates over the study of land market policies and implementation. Perhaps, though, the word debate itself thwarts our efforts. In debates, the debaters rarely change their minds. They enter the debate with their point of view firmly fixed and do not get “points” for admitting that their debating opponent taught them something or that they have consequently changed their own mind. However, one purpose of a professional conference is, indeed, for thoughtful people to consider their own assumptions and to be informed and changed by the points of view of others. In the future, perhaps debates will be supplanted with reflective conversation.

Paul Cheshire is professor of economic geography at the London School of Economics, England; Rosalind Greenstein is senior fellow and cochair of the Department of Planning and Development at the Lincoln Institute; and Stephen C. Sheppard is professor in the Department of Economics at Williams College, Massachusetts. They jointly organized the Lincoln Institute conference, “Analysis of Urban Land Markets and the Impact of Land Market Regulation,” on which this article is based.

Conference Papers

The conference participants whose papers are cited in this article are noted below. All conference papers and discussants’ comments are posted on the Lincoln Institute website (www.lincolninst.edu) where they can be downloaded for free

Burchfield, Marcy, Henry Overman, Diego Puga and Matthew A. Turner. “Sprawl?”

Cavailhès, Jean, Dominique Peeters, Evangelos Sékeris, and Jacques-François Thisse. “The Periurban City.”

Feiock, Richard E. and Antonio Taveras. “County Government Institutions and Local Land Use Regulation.”

Ihlanfeldt, Keith R. and Timothy Shaughnessy. “An Empirical Investigation of the Effects of Impact Fees on Housing and Land Markets.”

Irwin, Elena G. and Bockstael, Nancy E. “Urban Sprawl as a Spatial Economic Process.”

Shoup, Donald. “Curb Parking: The Ideal Source of Public Revenue.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Revenue Potential of PILOTs

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

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

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

Collaboration on PILOT Agreements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problems with PILOTs

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

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

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

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

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

Systematic Programs to Mitigate Problems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternatives to PILOTs

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

About the Authors

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cambios en los patrones de uso del suelo en China

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusión y debate

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

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

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

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

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

Sobre los autores

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

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

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

Referencias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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