Population, territory and sustainable development
The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of current trends, contexts and issues in the spheres of population, territory and sustainable development and examine their public policy implications. Three themes run through the report. The first two are laid out in the empirical chapters (III through X); the third is taken up in the closing chapter. Using the most recent data available (including censuses conducted in the 2010s), the first theme describes and tracks location and spatial mobility patterns for the population of Latin America, focusing on certain kinds of territory. The second explores the linkages between these patterns and sustainable development in different kinds of territory in Latin America and the Caribbean. The third offers considerations and policy proposals for fostering a consistent, synergistic relationship between population location and spatial mobility, on the one hand, and sustainable development, on the other, in the kinds of territory studied.
The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of current trends, contexts and issues in the spheres of population, territory and sustainable development and examine their public policy implications. Three themes run through the report. The first two are laid out in the empirical chapters (III through X); the third is taken up in the closing chapter. Using the most recent data available (including censuses conducted in the 2010s), the first theme describes and tracks location and spatial mobility patterns for the population of Latin America, focusing on certain kinds of territory. The second explores the linkages between these patterns and sustainable development in different kinds of territory in Latin America and the Caribbean. The third offers considerations and policy proposals for fostering a consistent, synergistic relationship between population location and spatial mobility, on the one hand, and sustainable development, on the other, in the kinds of territory studied.
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
182<br />
Box X.2 (concluded)<br />
Other authors discuss the function of urban regulation, specifically its secondary effects, in counterpoint to<br />
the ECLAC assertion regarding institutional weakness. Proponents of this view fall into at least two camps. Authors<br />
in one camp regard urban regulations as distortions that affect the natural equilibrium created by market forces. This<br />
position is based on research conducted in developed countries <strong>and</strong> on the experience of these countries, in which<br />
regulations are reflected not in informality but rather in the cost of l<strong>and</strong>. According to Pendall, Puentes <strong>and</strong> Martin<br />
(2006, p. 1), economists attribute a part of the high cost of housing to regulations that restrict supply <strong>and</strong> improve<br />
the quality of housing <strong>and</strong> neighborhoods. There are empirical studies on the situation in the region that have<br />
detected a relationship between urban regulation, the supply of buildable l<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> informality. Recent studies in<br />
Brazil (Ávila, 2007; Biderman, 2008) show that informality levels are higher in more regulated cities, which<br />
supports the hypothesis that regulating l<strong>and</strong> use <strong>and</strong> imposing rules on building may reinforce other factors that<br />
contribute to irregular <strong>and</strong> informal occupation of urban areas (Rolnik, 2011), but in general this is little data to<br />
support this theory <strong>and</strong> other studies have been conducted in which this relationship was not observed. Based on<br />
what has happened in Latin America, authors in the other camp do not question regulation per se, inasmuch as they<br />
find, inter alia, that the l<strong>and</strong> market in the region functions poorly, but rather the asymmetrical <strong>and</strong> unequal way in<br />
which it is applied. Specifically, they maintain that the exclusionary nature of metropolitan regulations incentivize<br />
peri-urban informality among the poor. According to Rolnik (2011), this situation leads to an exclusionary<br />
regulatory framework, restricting access to l<strong>and</strong> among the low-income population <strong>and</strong> conditioning this access<br />
solely <strong>and</strong> exclusively for this “captive” market, or in the case of its absence or insufficient dem<strong>and</strong> under the<br />
conditions offered, on informality (Rolnik, 2011).<br />
Taking a still broader approach, other authors recognize the main determinant of informality as the high<br />
cost of urbanized l<strong>and</strong>, which is in short supply not because l<strong>and</strong> is scarce —in fact, it is abundant in the region—<br />
but rather due to a combination of market failures, regulatory problems, policy omissions <strong>and</strong> structural inequalities,<br />
which worsened during the era of rapid population growth in the cities. This would suggest that the main<br />
determinant factors of informality <strong>and</strong> residential precariousness, especially on the urban periphery, are failure to<br />
impose high tax penalties on undocumented urban income, negligence in the use of public l<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> partiality in the<br />
application of urban regulations (Smolka, 2011, p. 111 in Aguilar <strong>and</strong> Escanilla, 2011).<br />
Lastly, some authors make an important distinction in analysing the link between regulations <strong>and</strong><br />
informality, which has to do with the characteristics of regulations, which are neither unique or uniform (Rolnik,<br />
2011; Pendall, Puentes <strong>and</strong> Martin, 2006). Accordingly, it is highly debatable whether a generic relationship can be<br />
established without considering the content of regulations. Smolka states it clearly in these terms: “The hypothesis<br />
should be not discarded that high prices (of urbanized l<strong>and</strong>) can/should largely be attributed to the prevalence in Latin<br />
American cities of regulations that are excessive or very strict in places where they should be more poor friendly (rich<br />
areas) <strong>and</strong> lax where they should be stricter (poor areas). In other words: wealthy areas are inadequately regulated <strong>and</strong><br />
poor areas are not adequately regulated” (Smolka, 2011, p. 111 in Aguilar <strong>and</strong> Escanilla, 2011).<br />
Source: Latin American <strong>and</strong> Caribbean Demographic Centre (CELADE) - <strong>Population</strong> Division of ECLAC.<br />
Peri-urban growth in Latin America has a structural relationship with informality, whether due to<br />
institutional weaknesses, which translate into a lack of preventive measures, or the precarious settlements<br />
that exist outside the official rules of operation of the city (see box X.1). Urban informality is linked to<br />
labour market informality, <strong>and</strong> both tend to be mutually reinforcing. It is also related to failures in urban<br />
processes, which can be attributed to inadequate infrastructure, equipment <strong>and</strong> roads. The most visible<br />
expression of residential informality in metropolises are precarious settlements, an issue addressed in<br />
chapter IX, 6 <strong>and</strong> these settlements tend to be concentrated in metropolises. For example, recently released<br />
data from Brazil’s 2010 census reveal that “… 88.6% of homes situated in subnormal agglomerations (the<br />
6<br />
Informality is not limited to l<strong>and</strong> invasions because there is also an informal market: “The urban poor do not fall<br />
into the category of ‘solvent dem<strong>and</strong>.’ Accordingly, the various types of informality have been predominant in<br />
l<strong>and</strong> occupations in the region’s countries. Historically, the poor had to choose to live between two basic types of<br />
urban informality: direct occupation <strong>and</strong> the illegal market” (Clichevsky, 2006, p. 8).