Edesio Fernandes is a Brazilian lawyer and city planner based in London, where he is a part-time lecturer at the Development Planning Unit of University College London. He is also coordinator of IRGLUS (International Research Group on Law and Urban Space), a partner of United Nations/HABITAT. His research and teaching interests include urban and environmental law, planning and policy; local government and city management; and constitutional law and human rights in developing countries. For the last two decades, he has focused on the field of urban land regularization in Latin America and other regions.

Fernandes has lectured and taught in courses at the Lincoln Institute for several years and he coordinates the Institute’s Latin American Network on Urban Land Regularization. He helped organize and teach a course on informal land markets and regularization held at Lincoln House in October 2001, and is teaching the course again in November 2002 (see page 19). This conversation with Martim Smolka, senior fellow and director of the Lincoln Institute’s Program on Latin America and the Caribbean, explores some of these issues.

Martim Smolka: How did you become interested in informal land markets and regularization policies?

Edesio Fernandes: My interest in the problems of informal land markets goes back to the early 1980s, shortly after I graduated from Minas Gerais Federal University Law School in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. I began working at PLAMBEL, the state agency in charge of the metropolitan planning of Belo Horizonte, one of Brazil’s few historic planned cities. However, its detailed plans and maps did not reserve areas for the lower-income people who built the city, and as early as 1895, two years before its inauguration, 3,000 people were already living in favelas.

This number grew considerably over decades of intensive urbanization. In 1976, a pioneering zoning scheme was approved, but the favelas were again ignored and treated as unoccupied areas. In 1983, I participated in the interdisciplinary Pro-FAVELA team that drafted a legal formula to incorporate these areas into a revised zoning scheme. It was through this early work as a city planner, and by building academic bridges between legal and urban studies, that I came to explore the nature of the relationship between law, planning and sociospatial exclusion in third world cities.

MS: Has that legislation had any effect on the status of favelas in Belo Horizonte and Brazil in general?

EF: Until the 1970s, the official policy in Brazil towards favelas was eviction or neglect, with the occasional introduction of limited services for political convenience. The Pro-FAVELA program was a groundbreaking experience that sought to materialize the city’s newly recognized democratic commitment to sociopolitical and sociospatial inclusion of the favelas into the urban fabric. The approved formula has become a paradigm for urban land regularization in most Brazilian cities. The notion is that “special zones of social interest” should be created within the city’s zoning scheme, permitting planning and zoning regulations to be adapted to the specific requirements of the favela dwellers. Moreover, the formulation of specific land tenure policies should be combined with both inclusive urban planning mechanisms and participatory institutional processes of city management. This allows for the integration of informal settlements into the formal planning apparatus and for the introduction of services and infrastructure to redress long-standing inequalities.

MS: Are these goals now well integrated into the legal and administrative systems in Brazilian cities?

EF: Urban legislation has evolved in Brazil, but most Brazilian law courses do not offer specialized modules on urban land use and development control. Legal professionals in Brazil, and throughout Latin America, have long been trained to adopt an obsolete and individualistic approach to legal matters, typical of unreformed classical liberal legalism, and particularly the notion of absolute property rights. As a result, they are still largely unacquainted with recent legal developments, uninformed about the legal implications of socioeconomic dynamics and the challenges posed by rapid urbanization, unaware of the potential of different legal principles supporting urban legislation, especially the notion of the social function of property, and thus they are unprepared to deal with inevitable conflicts over the use and development of urban land. A groundbreaking legal development, though, took place in Brazil in 2001, with the enactment of Federal Law No. 10.257, entitled City Statute, which aims to regulate the original chapter on urban policy introduced by the 1988 Constitution. The new law provides consistent legal support to those municipalities committed to confronting the grave urban, social and environmental problems that directly affect the 82 percent of Brazilians who live in cities. In conceptual terms, the City Statute broke with the long-standing tradition of civil law and set the basis for a new legal-political paradigm for urban land use and development control. Municipalities must formulate territorial and land use policies, balancing the individual interests of landowners with the social, cultural and environmental interests of other groups, and the city as a whole. They are also required to integrate urban planning, legislation and management so as to democratize the local decision-making process and legitimize a new, socially oriented urban-legal order. The City Statute also recognized legal instruments to enable municipalities to promote land tenure regularization programs and facilitate access to urban land and housing.

MS: Can you elaborate on the connections between regularization, security of land tenure and broader concerns of poverty and social justice?

EF: On one hand, regularization programs focusing on upgrading projects have tended to neglect underlying land tenure issues, for example in the highly acclaimed Favela-Bairro program in Rio de Janeiro. As a result, these programs have frequently produced unintended perverse effects, such as occupation by drug lords, expropriation by force, and even, given the increasingly complex relationship between formal and informal land markets, what has been called “eviction by the market.” On the other hand, regularization programs focusing exclusively on the formal titling of individual plots, such as the large-scale programs inspired by the ideas of Hernando de Soto, have tended to reinforce unacceptable housing and living conditions in unserviced areas that are frequently remote and environmentally unsuitable.

In my experience, those programs that have tried to combine the two dimensions, upgrading and legalization, tend to be the most sustainable in urban, social and environmental terms. Comprehensive programs also tend to have a more controlled impact on both formal and informal land markets. Thus, they can be more effective in guaranteeing that the ultimate beneficiaries of the public investment will indeed be the residents in informal settlements, not the land developers and promoters who, by failing to offer affordable, sufficient and adequate housing options to the poor, have provoked the process of informal development in the first place.

MS: To what extent have these regularization programs really addressed or helped to resolve the problem of poverty alleviation?

EF: Regularization programs are always curative and need to be integrated with preventive urban planning policies, fiscal and legal measures, and management strategies aimed at promoting overall urban change, thus breaking with the cycle that has long produced urban informality. Moreover, they can only have a more significant impact on urban poverty if they are combined with programs aimed at broadening access to urban services and generating jobs and income to alleviate poverty.

There are many assumptions in this discussion that should not be taken for granted, especially given the findings of recent research. An enormous amount of money has been invested in regularization programs over the years, and it is about time that a comprehensive and critical review was promoted. There are many questions still left unanswered regarding the nature of the processes leading to irregular settlements, the means to address the issue and the method of actually implementing policies: How are informal settlements produced? Why is it important to regularize them? When and how should regularization programs be formulated? Who should pay for them, and how? What happens after the program is completed?

MS: What have you learned, as a lawyer, about the legalistic approach to titling policies?

EF: In particular, one should question critically the widely accepted argument that titling is the fundamental condition for residents in informal settlements to have access to services and credit, and thus to invest in their houses and businesses. On the whole, in consolidated situations where informal land occupation has been supported by sociopolitical mobilization of the residents, access to services and infrastructure has taken place regardless of their legal status. Research in several countries has already indicated that a set of socioeconomic and political-institutional circumstances may create a perception of security of tenure, thus encouraging people to invest in home improvements, even when the legalization process has not been completed. Research has also shown that jobless poor people have failed to gain access to formal credit even when they have titles, whereas untitled but employed people do get access to formal credit in some cases.

MS: Are you suggesting that the formalization of legal titles is not that important?

EF: No, what I mean is that it may indeed provide individual security of tenure, but it does not necessarily guarantee access to formal credit and does not produce sustainable settlements. Regularization alone usually fails to achieve what I think should be the ultimate objective of regularization programs—the sociospatial integration of the informal areas and communities. That said, titling is indeed important from many perspectives, such as to resolve domestic, family and neighborhood conflicts and to legally recognize sociopolitical rights. The challenge is to promote the recognition of individual security of tenure in a way that is compatible with the provision of social housing, thus reverting, or at least minimizing, the process of sociospatial segregation. The only way to do that is through a combination of urban planning mechanisms and city management strategies with innovative land tenure policies, stressing that there is a wide range of legal options other than individual freehold rights.

The importance of the topic is undeniable as the combined processes of urbanization and poverty are increasing internationally. UN figures suggest there are about 840 million people living in slums today, and reasonable projections suggest there will be 1.5 billion by 2020. This growing urbanization of poverty has already had many negative socioeconomic, political and environmental consequences, which tend to be aggravated by the processes of immigration and widespread organized crime.

MS: The Lincoln Institute has been deeply involved in these issues in Latin America for almost ten years. Do you have any final comments on how we can expand this work?

EF: The centrality of this discussion of intertwined land matters—land structure, access to land and housing, land management, and land use planning and development control—has been increasingly recognized internationally, confirming the relevance of the Lincoln Institute’s original mandate and overall research and teaching agenda. I believe the discussion of informal urban land development is of interest to all concerned about matters of social justice and human rights, as well as the conditions for market expansion in the context of economic globalization.

In closing, I would like to emphasize the importance of legal education. Urban change requires legal reform, which in its turn requires an adequate understanding of the nature, problems and shortcomings of the prevailing legal order, as well as the possibilities for change that it entails. The promotion of comparative research and teaching activities, such as those already supported by the Institute, is crucial, as well as support for academic and policy networks such as IRGLUS and the Latin American Network on Urban Land Regularization. The group of professionals in Latin America who have explored the interfaces between law and planning, and between legality and illegality, from a critical, sociolegal viewpoint is still quite small and needs to be widened. More than ever, it is imperative that we construct a sound legal discourse to provide support for new attempts to promote positive urban change, including by means of regularization programs. This is not an easy task, but we have been making progress.

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 2 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

En países subdesarrollados, la mayoría de los programas y propuestas de gestión urbana han requerido adoptar un criterio de orientación social a los derechos de propiedad, lo que garantiza una intervención estatal de amplio alcance sobre el control del uso y desarrollo del suelo. Ése es el caso particular de los programas de regularización del suelo.

Sin embargo, la adopción generalizada de políticas de liberalización y esquemas de privatización ha promovido una interpretación individualista y tradicional de los derechos de propiedad, que dificulta los intentos progresivos de disciplinar el uso y el desarrollo de la propiedad urbana.

Se trata de una paradoja aparente que revela la brecha entre una definición más progresiva de los derechos de propiedad y la tendencia actual en pro de la privatización. ¿Son estas tendencias mutuamente exclusivas, o pueden conciliarse hasta cierto punto?

Estas preguntas fueron el tema central de dos talleres de trabajo que tuvieron lugar en Johannesburgo (República Sudafricana) a finales de julio, dirigidos a legisladores, gestores urbanos y académicos. El Sexto Taller de Trabajo de “Legislación y Espacio Urbano” fue patrocinado conjuntamente por el Grupo Internacional de Investigación sobre Legislación y Espacio Urbano (IRGLUS) y el Centro de Estudios Jurídicos Aplicados (CALS) de la Universidad de Witwatersrand. El Instituto Lincoln contribuyó a la realización de este taller y también patrocinó un seminario sobre seguridad de tenencia del suelo en la República Sudafricana, los países subsaharianos, Brasil y la India.

Marco de trabajo conceptual para la legislación y el espacio urbano

IRGLUS, un grupo de trabajo del Comité de Investigación en Sociología Jurídica de la Asociación Sociológica Internacional (ISA), se propone organizar debates sobre la dimensión jurídica del proceso de urbanización, con la idea de promover ese diálogo tan necesario entre los estudios jurídicos y los estudios ambientales urbanos. La mayoría de los estudios urbanos han reducido el aspecto legal —incluidas las estipulaciones jurídicas, las decisiones judiciales y la cultura jurídica en general— a su dimensión instrumental: una corriente rechaza la ley como si fuera nada más que un simple instrumento político de discriminación social y exclusión política, mientras que otra la da por hecho, como si se tratara de un simple instrumento técnico que puede brindar soluciones fáciles e inmediatas a los crecientes problemas urbanos y ambientales.

Para expertos y profesionales urbanos, no están claras las razones de las crecientes prácticas ilegales identificadas en zonas urbanas, particularmente las que se refieren al uso y desarrollo del suelo. Según los datos existentes, si se toman en cuenta los patrones de acceso al suelo y de construcción, pareciera que entre el 40 y el 70 por ciento de la población de las principales ciudades de los países subdesarrollados está, de uno u otro modo, al margen de la ley, y ese número no está limitado a la población de bajos recursos.

Muy pocos estudios se han preguntado el porqué de este fenómeno de ilegalidad urbana, por qué importa y qué puede hacerse. Los observadores, en general, no han podido visualizar la aparente división que hay entre las llamadas ciudades “legales” e “ilegales” como una intrincada red de relaciones muy cercanas y al mismo tiempo contradictorias entre las reglas oficiales y las no oficiales, y entre los mercados formales e informales de los suelos urbanos.

En la mayoría de los países subdesarrollados, la inexistencia de una política habitacional eficaz, en combinación con fuerzas comerciales descontroladas, despoja de soluciones habitacionales adecuadas a la vasta mayoría de la población urbana. Lejos de ser un fenómeno restringido a los pobres urbanos, la ilegalidad urbana necesita atención urgente, dadas sus graves consecuencias sociales, políticas, económicas y ambientales para la sociedad y la estructura urbana como un todo.

Sin embargo, si bien la ilegalidad urbana es un reflejo de la poderosa combinación de los mercados del suelo y los sistemas políticos, también es resultado del sistema jurídico elitista y de exclusión que impera en los países subdesarrollados. La combinación de instrumentos jurídicos que no reflejan las realidades sociales que afectan el acceso a la vivienda y al suelo urbano, junto con la falta de leyes adecuadas, ha tenido un efecto sumamente nocivo y agravante, si no determinante, del proceso de segregación socioespacial.

Definiciones de los derechos de propiedad

Uno de los mayores problemas de la gestión urbana es la falta de soporte del sistema jurídico vigente para las políticas ambientales urbanas. Ciertamente existen provisiones retóricas, pero las provisiones básicas del sistema —especialmente las de naturaleza constitucional— no ofrecen apoyo jurídico alguno a dichas políticas. En este contexto, el punto central de atención es el de los derechos de propiedad, específicamente de inmuebles urbanos. En muchos países, las políticas urbanas con sesgo progresivo y social que amplían la acción estatal suelen estar reñidas con la definición constitucional de los derechos de propiedad.

En varias ponencias del taller del trabajo de IRGLUS/CALS se habló de cómo el abordaje tradicional a los derechos de propiedad individuales, imperante en muchos países subdesarrollados y típico del liberalismo clásico, ha favorecido intercambios económicos que han menoscabado la función social de la propiedad. Muchos intentos importantes para promover el uso y control del suelo, incluso la protección jurídica del ambiente y la herencia histórico-cultural, se han visto mermados por acciones que reducen fuertemente la intervención estatal en el dominio de los derechos de propiedad individuales. En repetidas ocasiones, los intentos para promover la regularización del suelo han enfrentado la oposición de terratenientes y tribunales conservadores, incluso en situaciones en que la ocupación del suelo ya había estado consolidada durante largo tiempo.

Mientras que la retención excesiva y especulativa del suelo urbano privado ha contado con un beneplácito tácito, la tan esperada ejecución de una política habitacional social eficaz ha sido más difícil debido a la necesidad de indemnizar a los propietarios de tierras vacantes a los precios del mercado. En muchos países, el sistema de derechos de propiedad individuales heredado de la época de la colonia no suele considerar los valores habituales tradicionales en la definición de los derechos de propiedad. Dado que dichos países han fallado considerablemente en reformar los cimientos del liberalismo jurídico-político, la discusión del llamado neoliberalismo no tiene sentido en este contexto.

Los participantes del taller de trabajo hicieron énfasis especial en las condiciones jurídico-políticas para que se reconozca la seguridad de la tenencia. Se hizo notar que agentes tan diversos como movimientos sociales, organizaciones no gubernamentales y de finanzas internacionales han planteado cada vez más argumentos diferentes, si bien complementarios, de tipo humanitario, ético, sociopolítico y, más recientemente, económico para justificar la necesidad de adoptar políticas públicas en esta materia. También es necesario adoptar argumentos jurídicos, entre ellos las viejas provisiones de la ley internacional y los principios fundamentales del estado de derecho referente a los derechos de vivienda y los derechos humanos, de forma de abrir paso a una nueva interpretación de los derechos de propiedad que tenga sesgo social y ambiental.

Gran parte de la discusión se centró en determinar si la seguridad de tenencia puede sólo y/o necesariamente alcanzarse al reconocer los derechos de propiedad individuales. En este sentido, el análisis de varios casos sugirió que la mera atribución de los derechos de propiedad no lleva por sí sola a la meta principal de la mayoría de los programas de regularización, o sea, a la completa integración de las zonas y comunidades ilegales al marco más amplio de la sociedad y estructura urbana. El consenso general fue que debe considerarse una amplia gama de opciones jurídico-políticas, desde la transferencia de propiedades individuales a algunas formas de tenencia absoluta y/o control de alquileres, hasta formas novedosas (aún sin explorar) de propiedad colectiva u ocupación con varios grados de control estatal.

Se argumentó que el reconocimiento de los derechos de tenencia del suelo urbano debe ocurrir dentro de un marco más amplio, integrado y multi-sectoral de planificación de la ciudad y del uso del suelo, y no como una política aislada, a fin de evitar distorsiones en el mercado del suelo que conduzcan al desalojo de los ocupantes tradicionales. Ejemplos de casos de estudios en Brasil, la India y la República Sudafricana han demostrado que, sea cual sea la solución adoptada en un caso particular, sólo funcionará bien si es resultado de un proceso de decisión democrático y transparente que incorpore eficazmente a las comunidades afectadas.

Por encima de todo, se aceptó que es necesario promover la redefinición de los derechos de propiedad, y de allí, el reconocimiento de la seguridad de tenencia, dentro de un contexto más amplio que concilie la reforma urbana con la reforma legislativa. La reforma legislativa es función directa de las autoridades urbanas. Requiere nuevas estrategias de gestión urbana basadas en nuevas relaciones entre el Estado (especialmente a nivel municipal) y la sociedad; relaciones intergubernamentales renovadas; y la adopción de nuevas formas de sociedad entre los sectores público y privado dentro de un marco de trabajo jurídico-político claramente definido.

La reforma legislativa requiere renovar el proceso general de toma de decisiones a fin de combinar mecanismos tradicionales de democracia representativa y nuevas formas de participación directa. En los últimos años, muchas municipalidades de varios países han introducido nuevos mecanismos que fomentan la participación de la población urbana en varias etapas de los procesos de decisión que afectan la gestión urbana. A nivel ejecutivo se observan ejemplos tales como la creación de comités, comisiones, etc., mientras que a nivel legislativo figuran los referendos populares, el reconocimiento de iniciativas individuales y/o colectivas en los procesos de legislación, como también la formulación de enmiendas populares a proyectos de ley. Una de las experiencias más interesantes y promisorias ha sido el “presupuesto participativo” adoptado en varias ciudades brasileñas, que permite la participación de organizaciones comunitarias en la elaboración de los presupuestos municipales.

Para finalizar, no podemos seguir haciendo caso omiso a la necesidad de promover reformas jurídicas y revisiones judiciales globales, especialmente aquéllas que incentiven el reconocimiento de derechos colectivos, amplíen el acceso colectivo a los tribunales y garanticen el cumplimiento de la ley. Países como la India y Brasil ya han incorporado una cierta noción de los derechos colectivos en sus sistemas jurídicos, habilitando la defensa judicial de los llamados “intereses difusos” en materias ambientales y urbanas por ciudadanos y organizaciones no gubernamentales.

En otras palabras, la reforma urbana y el reconocimiento de la seguridad de la tenencia no son cosas que van a conseguirse solamente a través de la ley, sino también a través de un proceso político que apoye el tan aclamado “derecho a la ciudad” como noción política y jurídica. Una función muy importante de este proceso deben ejercerla agentes diversos como abogados, jueces y fiscales del gobierno. No obstante, para poder garantizar la promulgación de leyes con sesgo social, y más importante, su cumplimiento, es imperativa la acción colectiva de organizaciones no gubernamentales, movimientos sociales, organizaciones nacionales e internacionales, y ciudadanos que formen o no parte del entramado estatal.

Si es cierto que vivimos en tiempos democráticos, la época de los derechos tiene también que ser la del cumplimiento de los derechos, especialmente de los derechos colectivos. Sólo a través de procesos participativos podrá la ley convertirse en un escenario político importante para promover la integración espacial, la justicia social y el desarrollo sostenible.

Sobre el autor

Edésio Fernandes es abogado y fellow de investigación del Institute of Commonwealth Studies de la Universidad de Londres. Es coordinador de IRGLUS (Grupo Internacional de Investigación sobre Legislación y Espacio Urbano), y coeditor (junto con Ann Varley) de Illegal Cities: Law and Urban Change in Developing Countries (Zed Books, Londres y Nueva York, 1998).

Cuba es un país sorprendente. La ciudad de La Habana, su capital histórica, ostenta 400 años de herencia arquitectónica. Muchas de sus áreas se encuentran en un estado de triste deterioro, pero otras, representan formas muy creativas de abordar la conservación y el desarrollo económico. Debido al enfoque en el desarrollo rural luego de la revolución de 1959, Cuba no experimentó el mismo tipo de inmigración popular del campo a las ciudades que ocurrió en otras partes de América Latina. Los desarrollos modernos se dieron en gran parte fuera del núcleo histórico de La Habana. En este sentido, las buena noticia es que la herencia arquitectónica de la ciudad todavía está en pie, pero la mala es que apenas está en pie.

Los arquitectos y urbanistas de Cuba enfrentan grandes dificultades para realizar las tareas básicas de mejorar la infraestructura y la vivienda al mismo tiempo que fomentan un desarrollo económico apropiado a su visión socialista. Están desarrollando modelos de transformación comunitaria a través de la organización local y los programas de autoayuda, y están creando modelos de “recuperación de plusvalías” en el proceso de conservación histórica y desarrollo turístico.

A través de las conexiones con el Grupo de Desarrollo integral de la Capital (GDIC), nueve profesionales del diseño ambiental viajaron a Cuba en junio para explorar los problemas de deterioro e innovación del medio ambiente construido y natural. El equipo contó con la asistencia de nueve de los once becarios de investigación Loeb de la Escuela de Posgrado en Diseño de la Universidad de Harvard en 1997-98.

Las becas de investigación Loeb para estudios ambientales avanzados se establecieron en 1970 gracias a la generosidad del exalumno de Harvard John L. Loeb. La beca anualmente otorga financiamiento de un año de estudios independientes en la Universidad de Harvard a entre diez y doce líderes en las profesiones de diseño y ambientalismo. Una tradición reciente del programa de becas de investigación es que los becarios hacen un viaje en conjunto al final del año académico, para dar solidez a las relaciones que desarrollaron durante el año, explorar juntos un ambiente nuevo y compartir sus conocimientos y experticia con otros.

Los becarios de investigación Loeb que viajaron a Cuba tienen una variedad de intereses que en conjunto conforman una muestra representativa de las profesiones de diseño ambiental:

• Charles Birnbaum, arquitecto especializado en paisajismo que aboga por la conservación de paisajes importantes.
• Toni Griffin, arquitecto preocupado por el desarrollo económico y comunitario de vecindarios urbanos.
• Pamela Hawkes, arquitecto especializada en la conservación histórica.
• Daniel Hernández, arquitecto creador de viviendas asequibles.
• Leonard McGee, líder comunitario que trabaja por la transformación y mejoramiento de las comunidades centro-urbanas de escasos recursos.
• Julio Peterson, promotor comunitario interesado en el desarrollo económico de centros urbanos de bajos recursos y países en vías de desarrollo.
• Peter Pollock, planificador urbano especializado en problemas de administración del crecimiento.
• Anne Raver, periodista interesada en la relación de la gente con su medio ambiente natural.
• Jean Rogers, ingeniero ambientalista y urbanista que se enfoca en mejorar los impactos de la industrialización en el medio ambiente.

Los becarios fueron recibidos en La Habana por el GDIC, que fue creado en 1987 como un equipo pequeño de expertos que aconsejaba al gobierno de la ciudad sobre políticas urbanas. Según Mario Coyula: “El grupo quiso desde el primer momento promover un nuevo modelo para el medio ambiente construido que sería menos imponente, más descentralizador y participativo, sensato ecológicamente y económicamente posible, en definitiva, holísticamente sustentable”.

Mario Coyula es arquitecto, urbanista y vicepresidente del GDIC. Entre él y sus colegas del GDIC han ensamblado una serie de seminarios informativos, así como recorridos de los becarios por La Habana. Además, han organizado visitas de los becarios a urbanistas y diseñadores en las ciudades de Las Terrazas, Matanzas y Trinidad.

Varias fundaciones y grupos han brindado su apoyo al proyecto: la Fundación Arca, la Fundación William Reynolds, el Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo, la Asociación de Exalumnos Becarios Loeb, y el Programa de becas de investigación Loeb de la Escuela de Posgrado en Diseño de la Universidad de Harvard. Cada becario Loeb escribirá un ensayo sobre un área de investigación relevante y su relación con las condiciones de Cuba. Éstos ensayos serán compilados y puestos a la disposición del GDIC, de la Universidad de Harvard y potencialmente de otros a través de la publicación de una revista o reporte especial.

Peter Pollock es el director de planeación comunitaria de la ciudad de Boulder, Colorado. En 1997-98 fue becario Loeb en la Universidad de Harvard y miembro visitante del Instituto Lincoln.

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 5 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

El Instituto Lincoln está colaborando en Argentina con la ciudad de Córdoba en un proyecto de gran importancia para cambiar las formas de abordar la planificación física de la ciudad, así como los instrumentos que se usan para lograrla. Córdoba representa un caso particularmente interesante por su ubicación estratégica en el centro del área de desarrollo del Mercosur.

La primera fase del proyecto fue un seminario llevado a cabo el pasado abril titulado “Hacia una gestión urbana integrada: Implementación de un plan estratégico para la ciudad de Córdoba”, cuyo objetivo principal fue congregar a los “actores” principales en Córdoba para analizar y debatir las metas de planificación y los instrumentos en el contexto de desarrollos nuevos en la gestión urbana.

El seminario contó con las ponencias de expertos internacionales y discusiones entre funcionarios municipales, promotores inmobiliarios, intereses comerciales y de negocios, organizaciones no gubernamentales y profesionales del urbanismo. El papel del Instituto Lincoln fue de gran importancia ya que facilitó un foro para que los participantes locales se reunieran por primera vez para hablar de dificultades urbanísticas y problemas de desarrollo, y para dar inicio al proceso de establecer políticas de administración y procedimientos nuevos.

De las discusiones surgieron tres temas principales. El primero, tuvo que ver con decidir el orden de prioridad de la tierra a ser urbanizada, con un interés particular en el acceso equitativo a la tierra, infraestructura y vivienda para los sectores populares, así como mecanismos apropiados para llevar a cabo una planificación urbana integrada a nivel regional. El segundo tema, estuvo enfocado en el impacto ambiental y fiscal de los grandes establecimientos comerciales en estructuras urbanas existentes, distritos históricos y barrios residenciales. El tercer tema se concentró en varios actores y sectores involucrados en el desarrollo industrial de Córdoba, prestando atención a la distribución de la industria, las limitaciones de infraestructura y los costos sociales y ambientales.

Además de dar a los participantes cordobeses una perspectiva amplia sobre problemas de gestión urbana en otras ciudades, el seminario generó dos puntos de importancia: 1) que la planificación para el desarrollo no sólo se trata de regulación o de control del uso de la tierra, sino que las políticas tributarias y fiscales afectan con igual importancia los valores de la tierra; y 2) que los funcionarios locales deben aprender a evaluar los costos y beneficios de los proyectos urbanísticos para poder tener relaciones comerciales efectivas con promotores inmobiliarios del sector privado.

El seminario ya ha tenido impactos específicos en actividades comerciales de trabajo conjunto en el centro histórico y en programas de gestión mejorados para proporcionar una infraestructura y servicios nuevos al mismo tiempo que se reducen los déficits. Además, el programa animó a los participantes a reconocer la importancia de la planificación estratégica a largo plazo para trazar las indicaciones generales sobre cambios de política y para comprender los efectos de tipos particulares de desarrollo en el medio físico y social.

El Instituto Lincoln continúa trabajando con funcionarios municipales para ayudar a desarrollar nuevos paradigmas de gestión que puedan sostener alianzas público-privadas, así como mejores técnicas de análisis y planificación. Los programas de seguimiento ayudarán a gestores de políticas y promotores inmobiliarios privados (que operan tanto en mercados formales como informales) a comprender mejor el funcionamiento de los mercados de tierra urbanos y las consecuencias de cambios de políticas para el desarrollo urbano.

El próximo curso sobre “Comportamiento del mercado inmobiliario en Cordoba: Implicaciones para la estructura urbana” explorará investigaciones sobre los mercados formales en Córdoba, haciendo énfasis en los efectos de las políticas económicas y las intervenciones del gobierno. A este curso lo seguirá un seminario regional donde la experiencia se compartirá con los participantes de por lo menos otros tres países. Simultáneamente, el Instituto Lincoln está desarrollando junto con funcionarios de la ciudad de Córdoba un programa de entrenamiento dirigido a un amplio espectro de funcionarios locales, regionales y promotores inmobiliarios, que se concentra en la administración general, la planificación urbana y la preparación e implementación de proyectos.

Douglas Keare es docente visitante del Instituto Lincoln. Tiene una amplia experiencia en planificación estratégica para ciudades grandes en países en desarrollo a través de investigaciones previas y dirección de proyectos en el Banco Mundial y el Instituto para el Desarrollo Internacional de la Universidad de Harvard. Ricardo Vanella es director del Departamento Desarrollo Económico de la ciudad de Córdoba.

We are delighted to welcome Dr. H. James Brown as president of the Lincoln Institute, announces Kathryn J. Lincoln, chair of the Institute’s Board of Directors and of the Search Committee. “Jim is an accomplished and innovative academician who has served on the faculty of Harvard University for the past 26 years. He has also directed several research centers that bring together constituencies similar to our own–educators, public officials and private sector representatives concerned about city and regional planning, urban development, housing and land use policies.” Brown begins his tenure on May 1, 1996.

“I am very excited about this opportunity to help focus and expand the Lincoln Institute’s excellent research, education and publication programs in land policy,” Brown adds. “I hold the Institute in the highest regard for its important role in linking academics, local officials and practitioners in the areas of land use, taxation and regulation. I look forward to contributing both my administrative and teaching experience beyond the university setting. Providing decisionmakers in the public and private sectors with up-to-date information on rapidly changing policy concerns is a very important priority for this organization. ”

A native of Indiana, Brown graduated from Ohio Wesleyan University in 1962 with a bachelor’s degree in economics, and subsequently spent a year at the London School of Economics as a research student. He completed his Ph.D. in economics at Indiana University in 1967, and held a post-doctoral fellowship at the university’s Institute for Applied Urban Economics. For the next two years Brown was a research associate in urban economic studies at the National Bureau of Economic Research in New York.

In 1970 Brown was appointed assistant professor and assistant chairman of the city and regional planning department at Harvard University. In 1976 he was promoted to full professor, and in 1981 became chairman of the department. In 1982 Brown was also named director of the MIT-Harvard Joint Center for Urban Studies, which had been established in 1959. The center was reorganized in 1984 as the Joint Center for Housing Studies, a collaborative venture of the Kennedy School of Government and the Graduate School of Design at Harvard. The center is supported by 40 corporate sponsors and other public and private constituencies and is considered the most prestigious research center on housing in the country. Brown initiated the center’s annual report titled The State of the Nation’s Housing, now in its thirteenth year.

Building on his strong ties in the academic and business worlds and the public sector, Brown chaired the 1993 and 1995 sessions of the Housing Leadership Conference, a national forum for discussing and debating major issues affecting the housing industry. Some 100 private, public and nonprofit housing leaders participated in each conference, as well as members of Congress and the Clinton Administration, including Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry G. Cisneros.

“I’m especially eager to get involved in the Institute’s education programs,” Brown adds. “I really enjoy teaching, and have developed some new ways of teaching economics that allow the students to work through cases to learn and communicate the concepts as opposed to simply proving or disproving them.” Brown has also taught operations management, total quality management and strategic management courses at the Kennedy School, and three years ago he was voted Teacher of the Year. “I look forward to working with land use practitioners and local policymakers in the Institute’s courses,” he says.

As delegates to the World Social Forum (WSF) in Porto Alegre, Brazil, in January 2003, the authors examined alternatives to the neoliberal approach to urban development, to escape the negative results that are too often ignored by the media and even academia. Broad-scale, national-level alternatives to neoliberalism have been rare, but alternatives at the municipal level are more common. The authors draw from lessons in Brazil and from their home countries of Mexico, South Africa and the United States. Their lectures and seminars at the World Social Forum, and related programs at the University of São Paulo and the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, have been supported in part by the Lincoln Institute.

Residents of enormous districts in some of the world’s largest cities suffer with miserable housing, difficult access to work, inadequate water supplies and sewerage, poor public services and exposure to violence. In many cases, conditions grew worse during the “lost decades” of the 1980s and 1990s, due to recession and cutbacks in planning and public investment. Those with faith in trickle-down improvements waited in vain for private markets to increase household incomes. Instead, in many countries the poorest three-quarters of the population suffered absolute losses.

Forced to respond to these kinds of problems, city governments contemplate new approaches to such questions as local versus national authority, productive efficiency versus neighborhood-based redistribution of services, and conflicts between plans and markets. At the municipal level the complications become painfully clear. Popular advocates of redistributive reforms struggle to survive in a hostile environment, often against strong private business interests, a privileged middle class, and conservative provincial and central governments. The problems in cities are immediate and concrete, requiring negotiation, concessions, compliance with an often-biased legal framework, and high degree of professional competence and leadership. Municipal planners and activists cannot overturn the whole system, but for success they must look to exploit cracks and find institutional openings. In spite of the manifest failures of the neoliberal regimes, reformers will find no simple return to an earlier age.

This brief discussion highlights complex issues, perhaps raising questions more than answering them. How does one deal with land issues underlying most urban problems: ownership, regulation, taxation and value? How much scope is available to municipal governments to pursue economic development or to redistribute basic needs, including household income and access to land? How much difference does it make at the municipal level whether or not the national regime is moving in progressive, redistributive directions? Complicating these issues, globalization may be intensifying, challenging cities with low-cost competition, increased transnational corporate reach, and ever-broader powers concentrated in multilateral institutions.

Land Values and Markets

The benefits of urbanization require public and private access to land, yet urban land values reflect differing degrees of access to a city’s benefits. Low bidders are excluded from more desirable land in most land markets, whether formal or irregular. The poor are pushed to the city margins or crammed into the deteriorated inner core. Weakly regulated land markets do not even guarantee economically efficient use of urban land, let alone ensure land use patterns vital to environmental survival. Local governments intervene with land use controls and taxation, or facilitate access to cheap urbanized land, in the best of cases pursuing equity, fiscal efficiency and environmental viability. Performance on all these counts is highly variable.

In Mexico, at least 60 percent of the urban population lives in areas developed by the illegal occupation of land that subsequently receives services and supports self-built (or rather, self-financed) housing. Thanks to historically ingrained traditions about the people’s right to land, informal settlements have been supported by infrastructure and service provision, regularization programs, and even credits for home improvements. Otherwise, the urban housing situation in Mexico would be much worse. During the 1980s, public institutions accrued significant land reserves, which were applied successfully in low-cost sites and services, core housing and mutual aid projects as alternatives to irregular development. But Mexico eliminated land banking, under World Bank influence, hampering the scope of planning to ensure equitable and sustainable urban development.

In recent years, mass-produced formal housing in cities has increased. In line with World Bank advice, the subsidized finance system for the salaried working classes and middle-income sectors has been restructured, enabling commercial developers to operate on a very large scale, acquiring vast tracts of cheap greenfield sites (and some inner-city sites), and then designing, constructing and marketing industrialized housing. The initial advantages are the provision of services and the seemingly spacious suburban atmosphere. The disadvantages are inaccessibility, lack of urban amenities, reduced space standards, and lack of space for future growth. The gigantic scale of this type of development may deplete irregular settlements of middle-income residents, thus increasing social segregation.

In Brazil, municipal governments have begun to experiment with ways to regulate land use, such as property tax increases linked with progressive taxation, including broad-scale exemptions for as many as half the property owners, and popular participation in decision making for regulatory changes (planning and zoning) and for investments in urban infrastructure. Many changes were first implemented by Workers Party (PT) mayors, operating in opposition to the federal and state governments, with the aid of fiscal and regulatory changes introduced in the 1988 Constitution. Now, with the PT government holding national power under President Luis Inacio (Lula) da Silva, left or center-left municipal governments may find themselves able to experiment more. Nevertheless, the obstacles are very great. Even in the relatively rich city of Porto Alegre a third of the population lives in irregular settlements.

The South African experience since democracy was won in 1994 shows that tremendous difficulties confront those who would use public agencies to assist the poor to gain access to land. The government did succeed in subsidizing over a million families previously living in shacks and shared rooms, but almost all new houses were located at the extreme peripheries of the cities. A key progressive gain is that many large metropolitan areas are now consolidated in single municipal governments. But economic growth concerns and fiscal crises have limited the ability of the new jurisdictions to redistribute resources in favor of the poor. Planners intended to raise ample funds through taxation of high-value central land, to pay for subsidies for developments in poorer districts, but values did not follow predictions, and receipts were grossly inadequate. Land markets continue, by and large, to exclude the disadvantaged, and they haven’t yielded sufficient tax revenue. A continuing lack of coordination in the formulation of policy has seen programs in land, housing, services, public works and employment working against each other in some cases.

In the United States, nearly all land and housing development is “regular,” market-driven and dominated by private banking, real estate and development firms, and better-off households. The results are starkly unequal, pitting suburbs against much poorer central cities. Efforts to right the imbalance have generally been frustrated, because land markets do not deliver great efficiencies or fairness. The process is highly regulated, so that inequalities are generated not only by (land) markets themselves, but also by political groups such as “growth coalitions” and by fierce regulatory manipulation on behalf of privileged middle-class and wealthy districts.

The regulation of land markets through planning, land banking and taxation constitutes a broad arena for municipal intervention in land policy. Local governments have extensive potential authority, and they typically have constitutional prerogatives for planning and taxation (although in practice they are still constrained by powerful national forces). They may act to support economic growth or to redistribute it, even in a conservative provincial or national climate. Local planning does constrain land markets, but often without redistributive effects, since city governments must contend with strong financial interests, patterns of privilege, and entrenched power. Professional competency and consistency are required to exploit the full potential of property registration and taxation systems, and financial decentralization limits the possibility of cross subsidies and redistributive measures.

Progressive Local Government

In spite of claims about the conservative nature of powerful constraints on the redistributive capacity of local governments, evidence from the four countries cited here suggests that municipalities may indeed find ways to redistribute public goods and services on behalf of their less well-off residents. Municipalities also may serve as laboratories for social experimentation and as sources of progressive ideological change.

In Mexico, the role of municipal and state governments in achieving more equitable cities is undisputed and constitutionally sanctioned, yet fraught with obstacles. In the 1990s, the first electoral defeats of the Revolutionary Institutional Party (the PRI, which dominated the political arena from the 1920s) were at municipal and then state levels. Throughout the country there are genuine examples of successful innovative and socially redistributive programs run by municipal governments, such as participatory budgeting and planning, and community recycling. Mexico City’s Federal District is now governed by the left-of-center Democratic Revolution Party, which also controls most of the poorer and more populous jurisdictions of the metropolitan area. In 2001, this government introduced a social investment program targeting the poorer districts, providing monthly cash payments of US $70 in 2002 to people over seventy years, interest-free loans for home improvements in irregular settlements, and traditional public services and social assistance. Criticized from the left and right as populist and electioneering, this program is now emulated on a smaller scale by the center-right federal government and in local electoral platforms by the PRI. Despite initial positive evaluations, however, questions remain about costs for universal coverage and viability in poorer municipalities, and about reinforcing clientilism.

Brazilian experience with redistribution by municipal government has been documented in many notable cases, from giant cities such as São Paulo, to large cities such as Porto Alegre, Santo Andre and Belem, to the hundreds of smaller municipalities that have elected left-of-center administrations over the past 15 years. The case most often discussed is participatory budgeting, the innovation that has involved more than 10 percent of Porto Alegre’s residents in decisions to allocate more than one billion dollars of public expenditures on infrastructure and services. Other innovations include improvements in transit services and expansion of bus lanes to challenge the hegemony of the automobile, which serves a privileged minority. Some progress has been made in housing, but local government capacity is limited.

South African municipal government has emerged only in the last two years from its long history of apartheid division and the turmoil of reform since 1994. But, new trends demonstrate innovation at the municipal scale. Although many aspects of municipal government have been “corporatized” in Johannesburg, the city is beginning to make substantial progress on the regeneration of decayed inner city areas, using a wholly owned company (the Johannesburg Development Agency) as the instrument of change. Agencies of this kind seem to be able to solve some of the problems of intricate relationships between different spheres of government—local, provincial (or state) and national—and to attract greater private interest in supporting municipal initiative.

New approaches to planning in South Africa are also starting to show signs of success. These participatory approaches bring public utility agencies and big-budget government departments, as well as citizens, into framing municipal action over the short- to medium-term. Such developments indicate that working on the linkages between different agencies is crucial for increasing effectiveness and reducing frustration during the early democratic period. Some municipalities are beginning to find ways of sharing experiences and shaping new forms of cooperation. An example is the new national Cities Network, which brings together nine of the largest municipalities in the country as a means of stimulating innovation and expanding impact.

Social and political innovation has also been documented at the municipal level in cities of various sizes throughout the U.S., often in situations that require resisting politically conservative national trends. Very large cities such as Cleveland and Chicago developed city plans aimed explicitly at redistribution to provide assistance to needy households and deprived neighborhoods. Chicago also developed solid programs to support smaller and more local business enterprises, versus the usual beneficiaries among large firms and downtown interests. Smaller cities such as Burlington, Vermont, and Santa Monica, California, developed aggressive programs in housing and rent control aimed at helping needy constituents. As in the heralded examples of participatory budgeting in Brazil, these progressive municipal programs typically have strict limitations, because they can do little to improve the labor market and thus can offer only small improvements to household cash incomes.

Municipal efforts on land use and housing in the U.S. are often constrained by local control or “home rule,” which isolates the more numerous, wealthier suburbs that literally surround poorer central cities. The wealth and significant taxing power of these separate jurisdictions combines with a U.S. peculiarity—local financing of public schools—to burden city residents with powerful disadvantages. Since about 90 percent of U.S. children attend public schools, local control of schools is a hot-button issue in U.S. politics. Scholars construe de jure public suburban control as de facto privatization: by purchasing homes in suburbs, households are purchasing control of local schools, thereby excluding others, such as new immigrants and ethnic groups, especially African Americans.

One hears echoes of such U.S. suburban privatization and division in the rigidly separated districts and gated communities of Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo and other Brazilian cities; in the huge separations of privileged central districts and the unserviced periphery in Mexico City; and in the surviving apartheid spatial structure of Johannesburg. We find that municipal governments do act against these inequities, at least in part because of an ideological commitment and because the resulting problems threaten their capacity to govern. Some localities may turn their limited victories into building blocks for larger progressive structures at the national scale, as evidenced in Brazil.

National-level Urban Reform

Urban affairs is a hot issue in Brazil, and various laws, administrative practices, budgets and regulations have been brewing since the new Constitution of 1988 promised an improved status for cities. After more than a decade of extensive public debate, new legislation was enacted in the 2001 City Statute, a federal law on urban policy. The new left-of-center government led by President da Silva is betting on a new national ministry to integrate different activities and to find more effective approaches to persistent urban problems. This Ministry of Cities (Ministerio das Cidades) was established in early 2003 to improve housing, transit and neighborhood services for poor majorities, preserve and renovate historic centers, promote economic development, and drastically increase participation. National leaders aim to emphasize the concerns of mayors, city councils and the neediest citizens in the federal agenda. Other countries are generally a long way from such an urban policy, and the Brazilian experiment will be closely watched.

Mexico is a clear example of how constitutional rights to such things as decent housing, health and education may be considered important, but are not valued enough to guarantee their fulfillment; nor are all those good intentions laid out in the highly complex planning legislation. Even municipal-friendly constitutional amendments of the 1980s have not fully undermined the high degree of centralization of all public policy, including social spending and virtually all environmental regulation. As a result, the urban and social agendas of different levels of government are often competing rather than complementary, and are always insufficient to meet demand.

South Africa has tried to develop a new national policy in the urban field, starting with a national Urban Development Strategy after the 1994 democratic elections. But relatively little has been accomplished since the strategy has tended to remain a paper commitment to good outcomes rather than a concrete program or a real obligation on different departments and levels of government to work together toward common goals. Part of the problem has been competition between different agencies over who should set the agenda. Diverse centers of power, from the president’s office to the finance ministry, the local government department of the national government, some of the provincial governments, and the national municipal association, are vying for position in shaping urban policy.

The lack of coherent urban policy in South Africa also must be placed in the context of the central agenda of government, which stresses not only economic growth but also the continuing empowerment of the previously disadvantaged black majority. There is by no means consensus over the roles of the cities in accomplishing either of these objectives. A single ministry addressing urban issues would seem like a dream to many observers, but other ways of achieving similar objectives by reorganizing relationships between parts of government suggest that progress can be made.

In the United States, the federal agenda for urban policy has been weak since the late 1970s, and general fiscal constraints have combined with suburban voters’ indifference to cities. These problems have been greatly exacerbated by the consequences of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, by demands of the U.S. war economy, and by the conservative nature of redistribution pursued by the Bush Administration.

This range of international experience suggests that profound national changes and legislation can have immense local effects. A national government can provide fiscal, regulatory and administrative support for a whole series of municipal improvements, many of which would be eagerly implemented by local governments. National governments (and even international agreements, as in the earlier European common market) can inhibit or even prohibit such things as municipal tax-cutting competition in pursuit of relocated private investment, thus eliminating a lose-lose situation for public budgets. But, even in the best of cases, such opportunities are limited, politically difficult and technically complicated.

Conclusions

In the context of the globalizing economy, city politicians and officials face remarkably similar uncertainties in Brazil, South Africa, Mexico and the United States. As economies have become more open, some industrial sectors have been hammered, while others have been able to take up new opportunities (such as motor vehicle exporting in South Africa) and new niches have emerged. The current geopolitical context poses challenges for city administrations; how they think about their role in this period of imported instability is significant. There is a tension between those who think that the role of city government is to frame competition with other cities, and those who see more cooperative roles.

Cities themselves need to develop capacity to formulate and implement plans. They cannot simply rely on the panoply of outside professionals and agencies that have increasingly defined urban agendas. Some of the needed sharing can fruitfully take place in an academic environment, especially where long-term research helps to inform choices. It is particularly important to widen opportunities for sharing between the city officials and scholars of the global South and the North, to the mutual benefit of both.

Priscilla Connolly teaches urban sociology and planning at the Autonomous Metropolitan University in Azcapotzalco, Mexico. William W. Goldsmith directs the Program on Urban and Regional Studies at Cornell University. Alan Mabin is associate professor in the Graduate School of Development Management at Witwatersrand University in Johannesburg, South Africa.