How will local government finances be affected by the large and increasing burden to pay for previously obligated pension costs? How, in particular, will these pension legacy costs change residents’ perceptions of the local property tax and their willingness to pay? As a first step in a larger Lincoln Institute of Land Policy research agenda on these questions, we ask: What is known–and just as importantly, what is not known–about the magnitude of unfunded local government pension liabilities in the United States? (see Gordon, Rose, and Fischer 2012)

It is a first principle of public finance that current services should be paid with current revenues and that debt finance should be reserved for capital projects that provide services to future taxpayers. This principle is violated when pension liabilities associated with current labor services are not funded by current purchases of financial assets and instead have to be paid for by future taxpayers.

Alas, principles of prudence in public finance are not always observed, and local governments in the United States have accumulated substantial unfunded pension liabilities in recent years. This situation breaks an important link in the relationship between taxpayers and the services they receive–the rough correspondence between the overall value of public services and the resources taken from the private sector. There is considerable debate about the strength of this correspondence and how price-like the relationship is between value paid and value received for individual taxpayers, but there can be little question that using current revenues to pay for past services weakens the link.

Growing Public Awareness

State and local government employee pensions are in the headlines almost daily (box 1). Only a few years ago, they were the nearly exclusive province of a few elected officials, appointed boards, investment advisors, actuaries, and credit rating agencies. What changed? The most immediate answer is the Great Recession, which sapped not only state tax revenue but also the value of pension plan assets. In particular, state and local pension fund equity holdings lost nearly half of their value, dropping from a peak of $2.3 trillion in September 2007 to a low of $1.2 trillion in March 2009 (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 2012).

———–

Box 1: Where Are Local Pensions in Trouble?

To understand where local pensions were experiencing particular difficulties, Gordon, Rose, and Fischer (2012) used media monitoring software to conduct a search of all U.S. domestic news outlets for the first three months of 2012. To satisfy the query, articles had to include the word “pension” in conjunction with terms that identify local governments (e.g., municipality, city, or county) and descriptions of funding problems (e.g., liability, deficit, underfunded, cut, default, reform, or problem). The search yielded over 2,000 separate articles from places all over the country.

Their analysis suggests several types of places are experiencing pension troubles. One group consists of jurisdictions that have been losing people and jobs over time. A prominent example is Detroit, Michigan, which has twice as many retirees as active workers. Also in this category is Prichard, Alabama, which has lost more than 45 percent of its population since 1970 and by 2010 had fewer than 23,000 residents. It simply stopped sending pension checks to its former employees in September 2009 and declared bankruptcy one month later. For such communities, pension problems may also be a symptom of larger fiscal distress or political dysfunction.

Another group of jurisdictions rode the housing boom and bust. Examples include fast-growing California cities like Stockton, which just entered bankruptcy proceedings this year, the largest city ever to do so. More puzzling are relatively affluent places, such as New York’s Suffolk or Nassau Counties, which appear unable to make tough spending cuts or raise taxes because of political gridlock. Instead, many of these jurisdictions have turned to borrowing to meet their pension obligations.

Only two recent municipal bankruptcies (Vallejo, California, and Central Falls, Rhode Island) stemmed from public pensions and employee compensation pressures together with falling revenues. Other places such as Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and Jefferson County, Alabama, are struggling with poor investment decisions. Also, major cities such as Atlanta, San Francisco, and New York have taken steps to limit pension growth, often with cooperation from local public employee unions. Central Falls managed to extract concessions from active police officers and fire fighters as well as current retirees, but even this was insufficient to stop the slide toward bankruptcy.

Although stock markets have largely recovered and state and local plan equity holdings have climbed back over $2 trillion, public pensions remain under scrutiny. Credit rating agencies increasingly are taking unfunded pension liabilities into account when developing their assessments of state and local government borrower risk. In addition, analysts are growing more vocal in their criticisms of methods commonly used to evaluate pension funding levels.

The federal government is also paying attention. Alarmed by the prospect of defaults, Congress held a series of hearings into state and local government finances in early 2011. More recently, the Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) has issued reports raising the specter of a Eurozone-like crisis due to unfunded state pension liabilities (JEC 2011; JEC 2012).

In light of these criticisms and concerns about growing pension costs, 43 states enacted significant reforms to their pension systems between 2009 and 2011 (Snell 2012). The most common changes were: increased employee contribution requirements (30 states); raised age and service for eligibility (32); adjusted formulas for calculating benefits (17); and reduced cost of living increases (21). In some states the changes applied to new employees only, but in others they affected active workers and current retirees. The latter actions have proven especially controversial, prompting lawsuits in Colorado, Minnesota, New Jersey, and South Dakota.

Most of the heightened attention to government employee pensions has concentrated on state government plans, while local public employee pensions remain relatively unexplored. Although local plans represent a modest share of total public pension membership (10 percent) and assets (18 percent), their failures could be devastating. Mobile residents and businesses could flee communities that levy higher taxes to rebuild pension assets rather than to provide basic services. A shrinking tax base would leave the fund even worse off and potentially less able to pay promised benefits. The result could be more cities like Prichard, Alabama.

Looking at State and Local Pension Plans Together

State and local pensions are an important part of the nation’s retirement system. Figure 1 shows the distribution of the total of $15.3 trillion in retirement assets at the end of 2011 by type of plan. State and local public employee retirement funds held a combined $2.8 trillion in assets, or almost one-fifth of the total.

Every state has at least one public employee pension plan and some have many. There are more than 220 state plans—some of which are state-administered plans that cover local government workers—and almost 3,200 local government plans (table 1). Together these plans cover 14.7 million current workers, 8.2 million current beneficiaries, and 4.8 million people eligible for future benefits but not yet receiving them.

State and local pensions are all the more important because 27.5 percent of government employees do not participate in Social Security (Nuschler, Shelton, and Topoleski 2011). These uncovered public employees are highly concentrated in a handful of states. Figure 2 ranks the 16 states with the highest concentrations of government workers not covered by Social Security. Almost all state and local government employees in Ohio and Massachusetts and more than half in Nevada, Louisiana, Colorado, California, and Texas are not covered.

Another key feature of state and local pensions is that they are mostly defined benefit (DB) plans. Benefits are calculated by a formula, typically something like:

(Average salary in final 3 years) x
(Years of service) x
(2% for each year of service) =
Benefits

Most state and local government pensions also include a cost of living adjustment. A minority of public sector workers are enrolled in defined contribution (DC) plans where a specified amount is put in a retirement fund for each year of work. Compared to DC plans, DB pensions protect employees from investment, inflation, and longevity risks. As of 2009, nearly 80 percent of state and local workers were enrolled in DB plans and just over 20 percent were in DC plans. Private sector workers had the opposite mix: 20 percent in DB plans and 80 percent in DC plans (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011).

DB plans used to be more prevalent in the private sector but have been disappearing partly because the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) imposed minimum funding standards, required insurance contributions, and other administrative burdens on them.

The weaker funding and reporting requirements that apply to public pensions allow governments to shift labor costs into the future. This is an implicit form of borrowing that can evade balanced budget rules and avoid the voter approval usually required for issuing bonds.

Funding and Reporting Requirements for State and Local Pensions

For most of their history, state and local pensions were financed out of general revenues on a pay-as-you-go basis. The current practice of prefunding state and local pension plans began in the 1970s and 1980s. While public sector plans were not covered by ERISA, the act did mandate a report on their practices. The 1978 report found a “high degree of pension cost blindness . . . due to the lack of actuarial valuations, the use of unrealistic actuarial assumptions, and the general absence of actuarial standards” (Munnell et al. 2008, 2).

This wake-up call led to voluntary increases in funding levels by many plans and increased attention to actuarial and accounting standards. The Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) was formed in 1984, issued its first rules for pension plans in 1986, and extensively revised its actuarial valuation standards in 1994. Compliance with these rules is voluntary, but is rewarded by credit rating agencies, auditors, and other data consumers. Unlike ERISA rules that require specific valuation methods for all private plans, GASB sets out criteria that allow some latitude as to which specific methods are used by public plans. As a consequence there are serious transparency and comparability concerns with the self-reported data on state and local pension plan liabilities.

Employer Contribution

The calculation of a plan’s Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) requires the following information: ages and salary histories of members; assumptions for salary growth, retirement ages, asset earnings, and inflation; longevity probability tables; and a discount rate to translate estimated future values into present values. Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAA L) equals AAL minus plan assets.

The “Normal Cost” of a pension plan is the increase in AAL due to the current year of service by existing employees. ERISA requires that normal cost be covered by employee and employer contributions. GASB specifies an “Annual Required Contribution” (ARC) of normal cost plus a 30-year amortization of UAA L. The problem is that, contrary to its name, payment of ARC is not strictly required in most jurisdictions.

Choice of Discount Rate

The issue that has received the most recent attention is the choice of discount rate. Current GASB rules allow discounting future liabilities based on projected investment returns, which averaged 8 percent per year prior to the recession. But most economists and financial theorists would agree with Brown and Wilcox (2009, 538) that “the discount rate used to value future pension liabilities should reflect the riskiness of the liabilities,” not the assets. Constitutional and other legal guarantees make government pensions of low risk, while historical investment returns include a risk premium.

State and local governments cannot avoid longterm risks such as a protracted productivity slump or a decade-long down market. Therefore, the historical long-term rate of return on an equity-heavy portfolio–before risk adjustment–is too high a discount rate. Higher discount rates can make pensions appear better funded than they truly are. This reduces contribution requirements and imposes unwarranted obligations on future taxpayers if the high rates of return are not achieved. Worse, there is an incentive for plan managers to seek high-risk portfolios in order to get a higher discount rate and lower ARC.

There are strong arguments that the 8 percent discount rate used by many public pension plans is too high, but there is less agreement on just how much lower the appropriate rate should be. Rather than review the arguments, we report one estimate of just how much of an impact a lower rate would have. Munnell et al. (2012) calculate the would-be change in reported liabilities if all plans used a 5 percent rather than an 8 percent discount rate. They estimate that state and local liabilities would increase from $3.6 trillion to $5.4 trillion and aggregate funding ratios (Assets/AAL) would fall from 75 to only 50 percent. This is a huge change, and represents a doubling of unfunded liabilities (UAA L = AAL – Assets).

Recent Changes in GASB Standards

GASB (2012) has released new accounting standards to take effect in 2013 and 2014. The key change requires state and local governments to apply different discount rates to the funded and unfunded portions of liabilities. An earnings-based rate will still be applied to the funded portion, but a lower, riskless rate will be applied to UAA Ls. The impact of this change on reported liabilities depends on how well funded a plan is: no change for fully funded plans; a small change for well funded plans; and large increases in reported liabilities and decreases in funding ratios for poorly funded plans. The new standards also require that the UAA L be shown on the government’s balance sheet, which will increase the visibility of unfunded liabilities to voters.

What Do We Know About Local Pensions?

Despite mounting concerns about the fiscal health of local pension plans, systematic knowledge about them is rare. The best available information comes from the U.S. Census Bureau’s (2012) Annual Survey of State and Local Public Employee Retirement Systems. Detailed data for each government entity is reported every five years. Plan-level data for a sample that includes roughly half of the 3,200 local plans is reported each year and is used to create estimates of totals for each state by type of government. Tables 1 and 2 exemplify the types of information in the survey.

The main virtues of the Census Bureau’s employee retirement survey are its quality and comprehensiveness. A key disadvantage is lack of timeliness, since the most recent local data available is for fiscal year 2010. Another problem is that the Bureau only recently began reporting plan liabilities, and it does so only for state plans. Like other pension data sources, the Census Bureau does not collect information on DC plans or other post-employment benefits (OPEBs).

Nevertheless, the employee retirement survey provides some insights into local pensions. For example, the number of local plans per state varies greatly: 7 states have no local plans; 20 states have fewer than 10; Florida and Illinois have over 300 each; and Pennsylvania has over 1,400. The number of active members per beneficiary is a crude measure of how well employee contributions can fund the plan. Table 1 indicates the national average for local plans is 1.4 workers per retiree, but there is considerable variation across states. This support ratio is less than 1 in 12 states; between 1 and 2 in 31 states; and over 2 in 7 states, with Utah having the highest ratio at 6.8.

Neither of these pieces of information tell us how well funded local pensions are. For this information, we must turn to independent surveys. Most have good coverage of state plans, but they generally survey only a few of the larger local plans: e.g., the National Association of State Retirement Administrators’ (NASRA ) annual survey of member plans. A small number of national studies have focused on local, as opposed to state, pension liabilities. For example, Novy-Marx and Rauh (2011) analyze local pension finances using data from Consolidated Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs) for city and county plans holding more than $1 billion in assets as of 2006.

The Boston College Center for Retirement Research (CRR) maintains a Public Plans Database (PPD) for the largest state and local plans with data from individual plan actuarial reports and local government CAFRs. Using the PPD plus information on some additional local plans, CRR recently issued a report with data for 2010 from a sample of 97 plans in 40 states (Munnell et al. 2011). This is a modest sample relative to the total of 3,200 local plans, but by concentrating on large plans it covers 59 percent of local pension assets and 55 percent of participants.

An important finding is the wide dispersion around the average funding ratio of 77 percent in 2010 (figure 3). Of 95 large plans in the CRR sample with usable information, only 16 had assets covering more than 90 percent of liabilities. At the other tail are 9 plans with below 50 percent funding (Munnell et al. 2011). This study also shows the ARC as a percent of local government payroll. The overall average for 2010 is 22 percent, and again there is wide dispersion (figure 4). Of 91 large plans in the CRR sample with usable information, more than half (49) have ARC below 20 percent of payroll, but 16 have shares in the less manageable 30 to 80 percent range. Five plans have such large pension obligations that if paid in full they would cost more than 100 percent of payroll.

Keep in mind that local governments in most states are not required to pay the full amount of the ARC. We do not have data at the local level, but a state-level study reported wide variation in the percent of ARC actually paid across plans, across years, and across states (State Budget Crisis Task Force 2012). Munnell et al. (2011) calculate pension payments actually made as a share of local budgets and again find considerable variation, with 14 percent of the sample governments devoting more than 12 percent of their budgets to pay for pensions.

Conclusions

Local government pensions are on average significantly underfunded. The key reason is that, absent a legal compulsion to do so, many governments have not set aside enough funds each year to cover the extra pension liabilities incurred in that year, much less to amortize unfunded liabilities from earlier years. In effect, they are borrowing to pay for current labor services and shifting the burden to future taxpayers.

We know much less about the 3,200 locally administered plans that we do about the 220 state plans. The best information on local plans comes from researchers who review the detailed financial reports of the plans and local governments. Of necessity, these studies concentrate on the larger plans. We do know that there is wide variation across plans on key measures: the share of liabilities that are covered by assets; the would-be full contribution to cover both current year pension costs and amortization of unfunded liabilities (ARC) relative to payroll or annual revenues; the share of ARC that is actually paid; and the share of the current budget that goes to pension costs. A significant fraction of local governments are in trouble by one or more of these measures.

Worse, what we know about liabilities comes from municipalities’ self-reported data and their own choice of discount rate. In almost all cases this discount rate is inappropriately high, and the use of a lower discount could more than double unfunded liabilities. The result is a big problem with local pension liabilities that threatens local government finances, but we do not know how big, and we do not know how unequally it is distributed.

About the Authors

Richard F. Dye is a visiting fellow of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. He is also a professor at the Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois at Chicago, and professor of economics emeritus at Lake Forest College.

Tracy Gordon is a fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution, Washington, DC. Her research focuses on state and local public finance, political economy, and urban economics.

References

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 2012. Flow of funds accounts of the United States, June 7. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/data.htm

Brown, Jeffrey R., and David W. Wilcox. 2009. Discounting state and local pension liabilities. American Economic Review 99(2): 538–542.

Gordon, Tracy M., Heather M. Rose, and Ilana Fischer. 2012. The state of local government pensions: A preliminary inquiry. Working Paper. Cambridge MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). 2012. GASB Improves Pension Accounting and Reporting Standards. Press Release. June 25. http://www.gasb.org/cs/ContentServer?c=GASBContent_C&pagename=GASB/GASBContent_C/GASBNewsPage&cid=1176160126951

Joint Economic Committee (JEC). 2011. States of bankruptcy, part I: The coming state pensions crisis. Republican Staff Commentary, Washington, DC, December 8.

Joint Economic Committee (JEC). 2012. States of bankruptcy, part II: Eurozone, USA? Republican Staff Commentary, Washington, DC, May 15.

Munnell, Alicia H., Jean-Pierre Aubry, Josh Hurwitz, and Laura Quimby. 2011. An update on locally administered pension plans. Center for Retirement Research at Boston College Policy Brief, July.

Munnell, Alicia H., Jean-Pierre Aubry, Josh Hurwitz, and Laura Quimby. 2012. The funding of state and local pensions: 2011–2015. Center for Retirement Research at Boston College Policy Brief, May.

Munnell, Alicia H., Kelly Haverstick, Steven A. Sass, and Jean-Pierre Aubry. 2008. The miracle of funding by state and local pension plans. Center for Retirement Research at Boston College Policy Brief, April.

Novy-Marx, Robert, and Joshua Rauh. 2011. The crisis in local government pensions in the United States. In Growing old: Paying for retirement and institutional money management after the financial crisis, Robert Litan and Richard Herring, eds., 47–74. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Nuschler, Dawn, Alison M. Shelton, and John J. Topoleski. 2011. Social Security: Mandatory coverage of new state and local government employees. Congressional Research Service, July. http://www.nasra.org/resources/CRS%202011%20Report.pdf

Snell, Ronald K. 2012. State pension reform, 2009–2011. Washington, DC: National Council of State Legislatures, March.

State Budget Crisis Task Force. 2012. Report of the State Budget Crisis Task Force. http://www.statebudgetcrisis.org/wpcms/wp-content/images/Report-of-the-State-Budget-Crisis-Task-Force-Full.pdf

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2011. Employee benefits survey, retirement benefits: access, participation, and take-up rates. March.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. 2010 annual survey of state and local public employee retirement systems. http://www.census.gov/govs/retire

In Santo Andre and all Brazilian cities, the value per square meter of land is fixed by law, thus hindering the capacity of the city administration to tax real estate property according to its market value. In 1993 the Santo Andre city administration passed a law to grant a 40 percent discount on the property tax, which was to be valid only for that year. However, this reduction has been maintained as a result of several legal clauses that determined that the value of the tax in the current year could not exceed its value in the previous year, thus establishing a tax cap.

Value capture in Santo Andre

The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Municipality of Santo Andre in Sao Paulo State organized a three-day program on “Instruments and Techniques for Land-based Finance for Urban Development” in May 1998 where organizers and participants shared their expertise on zoning instruments, value capture, and local economic development in such diverse settings as New York City, Mexico City and Colombia. Their discussions addressed three broad topics: value capture and urban finance; urban planning and the land market; and negotiations and public/private partnerships.

This article explores the lessons learned from the Santo Andre program and the need to develop better measurements of land value increments resulting from zoning changes to promote value capture through more efficient taxation systems.

In many Brazilian cities, land and building taxes are significantly underutilized. According to data from the Brazilian Institute of Municipal Administration (IBAM), for example, in half of the municipalities with more than 50,000 inhabitants the property tax represents less than 30 percent of total tax resources. Considering that for most of these municipalities, local tax revenues represent less than 30 percent of total resources, the property tax does not amount to more than 10 percent of financial resources (including intergovernmental transfers). These percentages are even less in smaller municipalities. Other land-based taxes, such as the real estate transfer tax and betterment tax, show a similarly disappointing pattern.

Especially since Brazil’s new constitution of 1988, when the major responsibility for land use planning was transferred to the local level, municipalities have become increasingly aware that land use regulation and public investments in infrastructure create changes in land values. Many public officials are now looking for planning strategies aimed at capturing part of the “unearned” benefits that may result. In addition, local governments are facing problems with traditional planning instruments such as the Plano Diretor, a constitutional provision that requires cities with a population of 20,000 or more to develop a master plan. These cities have become increasingly involved in the debate about the flexibility of the regulatory framework on land use. Consequently, the idea of flexible zoning in exchange for developers’ contributions has also become popular.

To investigate the economic, financial and urban planning aspects of these negotiated land use changes, the Lincoln Institute and the Municipality of Santo Andre in Sao Paulo State organized a three-day program on “Instruments and Techniques for Land-based Finance for Urban Development” in May 1998. During the first two days, municipal officials from Santo Andre met with invited guest speakers who shared their expertise on zoning instruments, value capture and local economic development in such diverse settings as New York City, Mexico City and Colombia. Their discussions addressed three broad topics: value capture and urban finance; urban planning and the land market; and negotiations and public/private partnerships.

The program ended with a public debate involving a regional audience of some 200 planners, developers, and representatives from non-governmental organizations, the private sector and local communities within the Greater ABC region-(seven municipalities around Sao Paulo, including Santo Andre, which constitute the densest industrial core area in Latin America). A panel discussion on the effectiveness of land-based negotiations and public/private partnerships in the Brazilian context included the participation of guest speakers from the University of Sao Paulo, the real estate sector and the local governments.

A number of conclusions were drawn from this program. First, negotiated land use changes typically proliferate in an environment where property taxes do not work well. In Santo Andre, for example, existing legal and operational restrictions make it difficult to overhaul the property tax system. (See Figure 1.)

Second, negotiated land use changes in Santo Andre seem to accompany the ongoing shift from industrial land uses toward uses associated with the tertiary and modern service sector. Through the negotiation process more flexibility is brought to the existing legal framework, as is seen in recently completed negotiations between the Plaza ABC shopping center and Pirelli, the multinational tire company.

Third, although land use negotiations apparently fulfill expectations in terms of complementing the dynamics of the local economy, there is no well-established methodology and framework to allow transparent and stable rules based on solid cost-benefit analysis. Compared with international experiences, for example in New York, it remains difficult to predict what monetary compensations can be expected in Brazilian cities and whether these compensations are really Pareto efficient compared to situations where the development permit would have been denied.

Finally, negotiated land use changes should be seen as an essential element of the overall local economic development strategy. In the Greater ABC region, various strategic partnerships among key stakeholders from the private and public sectors are increasingly important in light of the ongoing process of local and regional economic restructuring that has had dramatic negative effects on employment and income levels.

Among the lessons to be learned from the Santo Andre program is the need to develop better measurements of land value increments resulting from zoning changes in order to then develop the means to capture those values through more efficient taxation systems. The New York experience further shows that it is better to collect taxes at a lower rate through a universal and stable system rather than on an arbitrary, case-by-case negotiated basis that can be susceptible to abuse and corruption.

Jeroen Klink, an urban economist, is the adviser to the mayor of Santo Andre. He is a former Lincoln Institute Dissertation Fellow who is completing his Ph.D. thesis on “Sources of Urban Finance: The Applicability of the Standard Economic Model to the Brazilian Case” at the School of Architecture and Urbanism, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Luis Carlos Afonso, an economist, is the secretary for finance in Santo Andre. Irineu Bagnariolli Jr., an urban sociologist, is the secretary for housing and urban development in Santo Andre.

Figure 1: Restraints on Revising the Property Tax

In 1993 the Santo Andre city administration passed a law to grant a 40 percent discount on the property tax, which was to be valid only for that year. However, this reduction has been maintained as a result of several legal clauses that determined that the value of the tax in the current year could not exceed its value in the previous year, thus establishing a tax cap.

Another restriction on a more aggressive use of the tax, especially as a way to promote more equity, is the interpretation given by the Supreme Court that the tax cannot be progressive. The only exception is its application as punishment for unused or underutilized property, a clause that itself depends on additional federal lawmaking and has not even been discussed by Congress. (See Claudia M. De Cesare, “Using the Property Tax for Value Capture: A Case Study from Brazil,” Land Lines, January 1998.)

During 1990 and 1991, a previous Santo Andre administration had tried to give discounts on the property tax based on the physical characteristics, current use and size of the property, but that effort was subsequently rejected by Court rulings because of its supposed hidden progressive character. Thus, the cap on the property tax, despite being formally revoked by a subsequent law, remains basically unchanged because if taxes were increased the poorer segments of the population would be most negatively affected.

Finally, in Santo Andre and all Brazilian cities, the value per square meter of land is fixed by law, thus hindering the capacity of the city administration to tax real estate property according to its market value.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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