Theme: The role of land and property markets and urban development. This will
include housing and land use, impact of recent recession, land ownership issues and
environmental considerations.
Working Title:
The Ecological Modernisation Agenda and Urban Development in the UK and Brazil: A
Comparison of Land and Property Markets and Ownership Structures to 2050: Position
Paper
Ramin Keivani and Tim Dixon
Oxford Brookes University
Contact emails: rkeivani@brookes.ac.uk and tdixon@brookes.ac.uk
1.0 Introduction
The ecological modernisation movement suggests that it is possible to develop socially and
economically, as well as conserving the environment (Milanez and Buhrs, 2008; Morad,
2010). Given that cities produce the bulk of global carbon emissions, but also provide an
important potential for reducing carbon emissions (because of the potential for more rapid
diffusion and easier deployment of technology (Lankao, 2007)), global programmes have
developed to promote the concept of Eco2 Cities (‘ecological cities as economic cities’)
(World Bank, 2010). However, whilst such programmes may be appropriate for some cities,
they may be not for others for a variety of reasons, including differences in institutional and
governance structures and rates of development (Lankao, 2007, Dodman, 2009).
Moreover, as cities grow and expand through inward investment to 2050 this will pose further
challenges for retrofitting cities to make them more energy efficient. In this sense there is a
need to understand how changing land and property markets and ownership structures in
cities may drive, constrain, shape and influence future urban transitions to a more sustainable
future. Given that ‘city to city’ learning can have important benefits for transferability of
lessons between countries (Seymoar et al, 2009) it is valid to compare such changes
internationally.
Work in the UK has recently highlighted the important role that urban land and property
markets and ownership structures can play in shaping urban areas to 2050 in the context of
the drive towards sustainable urban development (Dixon, 2010). It is also clear that in Brazil
cities are developing rapidly, with new demand for both housing and commercial property
rising (Lima, and Alencar, 2008; JLL, 2010). This will pose key challenges for making such
cities more equitable in terms of access to land and housing and more energy efficient,
particularly in areas where informal land ownership arrangements are the norm (Torres et al,
2007), and where demand is being driven from ‘bottom of the pyramid’ income groups (BOP)
as the middles class continues to expand rapidly (IFC/WRI, 2007).
This position paper draws on ecological modernisation to propose a more holistic approach to
analysing impact of land market operations on urban sustainability in both Brazil and UK. It
seeks to identify the main elements that are necessary for comparing land and property
markets and ownership structures, and why these are important to examine, drawing on
lessons from the UK and Brazil,. The paper concludes by identifying further relevant research
questions.
1
2.0 Ecological modernisation
Social and institutional transformations lie at the heart of the ecological modernisation
approach particularly for transforming societies via the integration of environmental concerns
into production and consumption practices and the role of governments in relation to this
(O’Brien, 2007). According to Murphy (2000) these transformations can be grouped in five
clusters:
1. Changing role of science and technology towards preventive socio-technological
approaches incorporating environmental considerations from the design stage of
technological and organisational innovations.
2. Increasing importance of market dynamics and economic agents as carriers of ecological
restructuring and reform.
3. More decentralised, flexible and consensual styles of governance.
4. Modifications in the position, role and ideology of social movements away from antisystemic, de-modernisation towards reform ideologies.
5. Changing discursive practices and emerging new ideologies in response to fundamental
counter-positioning of economic and environmental interests.
From this perspective, despite its critics, ecological modernisation provides the potential
scope not only for addressing environmental issues but also the necessary emphasis on
governance, social movements and new discursive practices which can provide the space for
tackling urban equity considerations. However, it should also be stressed that ecological
modernisation may not fit all cities in a prescriptive sense.
3.0 The institutional context
The institutional context is perhaps the most fundamental factor in determining market
dynamics and access to land resources. This must be seen both in terms of the political,
planning and regulatory environment and the decisions and interactions of agents within this
environment. The institutional approach can directly complement ecological modernisation
particularly for better understanding social processes. It is interesting to note that in both UK
and Brazil changes to the institutional context have radically shifted the prospects for future
growth and behaviour of the property markets, particularly in terms of housing markets.
In the UK the recent election of the coalition government and their shift away from strategic
spatial planning towards a more “localist” agenda promises to impose a major shift in housing
policy and the process of housing provision. Details of these shifts in policy remains to be
confirmed and their impacts assessed on the ground. However, they will inevitably lead to
changes in market operation and structures of housing provision. The recent announcement
for intended changes to the density targets and reclassification of garden land are illustrative
of the wholesale reform that is yet to come. Moreover, in a period of recession and restricted
public spending, innovative methods of financing infrastructure to support housing and
regeneration programmes at a local level are needed, including, in the UK the consideration
of Accelerated Development Zones (and Tax Increment Financing).
In Brazil, on the other hand, the City Statute in 2001 provided a groundbreaking legal
framework that radically shifted the institutional context of urban policy and land market
operations. The City Statute consolidated and widened the role of municipalities that were set
in the 1988 constitution particularly for setting urban planning guidelines and regulating land
market speculative operations according to criteria of social inclusion and environmental
sustainability (Polis, 2002; Fernandes, 2007). A critical element of this is the elaboration of
the social function of the city and property thereby separating the basic right to property
ownership from the benefits accrued as a result of infrastructure development and public
policy with the latter being subject to progressive taxation and compulsory building and
2
subdivision in accordance with Master Plan regulations. In addition the statute has also
institutionalised the democratisation of the planning process through an array of participatory
mechanisms including participatory budgeting. It has facilitated development of new relations
between public, private and community actors thorough promotion of partnerships.
Additionally it requires social, economic and environmental impact reports for all major
projects that are deemed to have a significant effect on a locality. Finally, the Statute has
enhanced the legal order for regularisation of informal settlements on both private and public
land. The city statute has been complemented by additional federal laws on public-privatepartnerships (2004) and inter-municipal consortia (2005) (Fernandes, 2007). It is important to
note, however, that as Polis (2002) correctly point out while the City Statute has created the
space and the tool box for developing more sustainable and just cities much depends on the
political will and capacities to appropriately define the concept of the city in the Master Plan
that will enable city authorities to interpret and implement the statute along a progressive
agenda at the local level.
4.0 Globalisation, land and property markets
Economic globalisation has a double impact on property markets. Firstly, markets are
influenced, and often driven, by the requirements of international firms and the need for
attracting international investment. Secondly property itself has become a global investment
commodity as major institutional investors seek to diversify risk within their portfolios..
Economic globalisation has necessitated the re-orientation of formal urban land markets
towards the spatial requirements of international capital by offering an adequate mix of
appropriate floor space for supporting their activities. This process has been well documented
in the European and the US context and European context (Ball, 1994; Keivani et al, 2001,
Fainstein, 2008). This is also true in many cities in developing countries which in varying
degrees have become regional centres for international business and production activity. For
example, De Maghalhaes (1998 and 1999) identifies similar processes in terms of urban
economic and spatial readjustment and land and property functions in the case of Sao Paulo,
arguing that it contributed to the rapid emergence of a new off-centre business district on
what was then peripheral land during the second half of the 1980s and the 1990s.
Moreover foreign direct property investment in both UK and Brazil continues to be important.
In the UK some overseas investors are today also key owners (15% by value) of UK
commercial property and are driven by the desire to enhance their economic returns and to
diversify risk by investing outside their home markets, whilst other investors including the
Church, traditional estates and charities, account now for just 5% of the market (Dixon,
2009). Recent research on the City of London suggests that within the City, ‘core’ German,
US and Japanese investors are key players, and that foreign investors own 45% of the office
floorspace (Lizieri and Kutsch, 2006). Overseas investors became key players from the mid1980s attracted by institutional leases, financial de-regulation, liberalisation and also boom
conditions in office markets, particularly London (Lizieri et al, 2000; Harris, 2005). In Brazil
low inflation, a growing middle class, low debt levels and rapid growth have fuelled a growth
in property investment from overseas which has continued as Brazil has quickly emerged
from the recent economic recession. In 2009 Brazil attracted some $2.5bn of foreign direct
property investment (ULI, 2009) particularly in housing.
The critical issue for research is therefore how these processes impact on the current and
future operation of land and property markets and mediate the conflicting requirements of
(global) capital, using as a focus (i) the city as an organisational commodity; and (ii) the
disadvantaged urban populations struggling for recognition and entitlement to the city
(particularly for accessing land and housing). It will therefore be vital to analyse how land
and property markets are evolving and how they are influencing the shape and form of major
3
cities in both the UK and Brazil as they seek to engage with the ecological modernisation
agenda.
5.0 A comparative research agenda
From the brief discussion so far we can propose a number of areas that can provide fruitful
areas for developing comparative research in land and property markets in the two countries:
1 – The development of an appropriate conceptual framework for a more holistic analysis of
the role of land markets in sustainable urban development addressing both environmental and
social considerations. Can Ecological Modernisation provide the overall conceptual
framework for such a task? If not what adaptations are necessary for this? What are the
alternative approaches?
2 - The role of public sector in regulation of land markets particularly for enhancing
environmental sustainability (including retrofitting cities for energy efficiency) and
socialising development gains. What does the relative experience of the two countries tell us
about types and effectiveness of tools for retrofitting and socialising development gains? This
point also links directly to a major current debate in both countries in terms of social housing
provision/regularisation of informal settlements and the broader debate on enabling private
housing markets in developing countries.
3 - A related issue is better understanding the socio-technical processes involved in
retrofitting cities in the two countries with particular reference to low income and informal
communities. What are the challenges that cities will face in the UK and Brazil to 2050?
4 - Democratising decisions on planning and land development. Considering the stated
objective of the coalition government in UK for further democratising the planning process
and bringing it closer to the local level the Brazilian experience on this issue provides a useful
comparator particularly in terms of types and effectiveness of process tools. How can
planning and governance structure adapt to meet the challenges of the next 40 years?
5 – Partnerships have played an important role in urban development in both countries in
recent years. This provides rich experience for mutual learning. What are the main types and
forms of partnerships in the two countries? What are the main barriers and drivers for
partnership work related to land and housing development? How successful have they been
for promoting social equity and environmental sustainability? How might they evolve in the
future?
6 – Economic globalisation and direct inward investment in property markets are important in
both the UK and Brazil. What is the impact of economic globalisation on land and property
market functions and the spatial readjustment processes in cities? What are the forces for
change driving overseas investment patterns into each country and how are land and property
markets evolving in the major cities which form the focus for such investment? How will
future markets be influenced and shaped by changing ownership structures and environmental
factors? How will these changes impact on the access of low income groups to land and
housing now and in the future?
4
References
Ball, M (1994) The 1980s property boom, Environment and Planning A, 26, pp671-695.
De Maghalhes, C (1998) Economic instability, structural change, and the property markets:
the late-1980s office boom in Sao Paulo, Environment and Planning A, 30, pp2005-2024.
De Maghalhes, C (1999) Social Agents, the Provision of Buildings and Property Booms: The
Case of Sao Paulo, IJURR, 23(3), pp445-463.
Dixon, T. (2009) 'Urban Land and Property Ownership Patterns in the UK: Trends and Forces
for Change', Land Policy, (-DIUS Foresight Land Use Futures Programme), Volume 26,
Supplement 1, 2009, Pages S43-S53
Dodman, D. (2009) ‘Blaming cities for climate change? An analysis of urban greenhouse gas
emissions inventories’, Environment and Urbanization, 21 (1), 185-201
Fainstein, S (2008) Mega-Projects in New York, Amsterdam and London, IJURR, 32(4),
pp.768-785.
Fernandes, E (2007) Implementing the urban reform agenda in Brazil, Environment and
Urbanization, 19(1), pp177-189.
Gross, A. (2008) Fasten Your Seatbelts: Brazil’s Housing Market is Set to Take Off
Harris, R. (2005) Property and the Office Economy, Estates Gazette.
IFC/WRI (2007) The Next 4 Billion: Market Size and Business Strategy at the Base of the
Pyramid. IFC/WRI
JLL (2010) Global Market Perspective, March: A BRIC built recovery?. Jones Lang LaSalle
Keivani, R; Parsa, A and McGreal, S (2001) Globalisation, institutional structures and real
estate markets in central European cities, Urban Studies, 38(13), pp2457-2476.
Lankao, P. (2007) ‘Are we missing the point? Particularities of urbanization, sustainability
and carbon emissions in Latin American cities’, Environment and Urbanization, Vol 19(1),
159-175.
Lizieri, C., and Kutsch, N. (2006) Who Owns the City 2006: Office Ownership in the City of
London. University of Reading Business School: UK.
Lizieri, C., Baum, A., and Scott, P. (2000) ‘Ownership, occupation and risk: a view of the
City of London office market’, Urban Studies, Vol. 37, No 7., 1109-1129.
Milanez, B., and Buhrs, T. (2008) ‘Ecological modernisation beyond Western Europe: the
case of Brazil’, Environmental Politics, Vol 17 No 5, 784-803
Murphy, J. (2000) Editorial ecological modernisation, Geoforum, 31(3), 64-68.
O’Brian, J; Keivani, R and Glasson, J (2007) Towards a new paradigm in environmental
policy development in high income developing countries: the case of Abu Dhabi, United Arab
Emirates, Progress in Planning, 68(4).
5
POLIS (2002) The Statute of the City, www.polis.org.br/obras/arquivo_163.pdf.
Seymoar, N-K, Mullard, Z., and Winstanley, M. (2009) City to City Learning. Sustainable
Cities PLUS Network.
Torres, H., Alves, H., De Oliveira, A. (2007) ‘Sao Paolo peri-urban dynamics: some social
causes and environmental consequences’, Environment and Urbanization, Vol 19(1): 207-223
World Bank (2010) Eco2 Cities: Ecological Cities as Economic Cities. World Bank
6