Discussion paper for Workshop on 'Globalisation, Climate Change and Urban Governance: Balancing the Scales for Both Efficient and Pro-Poor Urban Futures – The Case of Brazil and the UK'. Oxford 9-11 March 2011 Draft Copy – Do not quote Globalisation and land markets: the scope for pro-poor development Ramin Keivani – OISD , OBU This paper aims to develop a conceptual framework for examining the impact of economic globalisations and restructuring on land use, institutional context and development of property markets and the way this influences access to, and the rights over land, by low income groups with a particular focus on Sao Paulo. Globalisation and the new city economy If we are to distinguish globalisation from internationalisation we may identify it as a process where separate national economies regulated by national governments are largely being superseded by, and integrated in to, a single global economy that is largely regulated by markets (Harris, 2001). There has, therefore, been a shift of the core geographical scale for the system of regulation of economy from nation states to global markets on the one hand and local (urban or regional) governments and the supra-national institutions, on the other. This of course does not imply dismantling of the nation state apparatus and regulatory powers. Indeed, until the stage where the above-mentioned supra-national institutions take over the role of national governments completely nation states are essential to ensuring “spatial congruence between the socio-political infrastructures supporting accumulation and the distribution of its benefits or losses” (Goodwin, 1996, p1403). In addition many nation states remain to be convinced that the gains of globalisation in terms of rapid economic growth in fact justify relative loss of their authority over economic activities. This is particularly in the current global economic conditions in light of the financial crisis or the recent problems in food production that encourage major tendencies towards protectionism and reversing of opening up policies. As a result global economic integration may be identified as a rather partial process with endless disputes and resistance in different fields particularly labour market regulations. In economic terms major cities and particularly those more closely integrated in the global economy are characterized as highly concentrated spaces bringing together in different configurations a multitude of command and control, services, cultural, media, information and tourist activities and industries (Graham, 1999). The network dynamics at the heart of the social relations underpinning them and the reflexive nature of many of these function has meant that such cities are at the same time essentially spaces of flows (Castells, 1996, 2000). They rely on generation, control, processing and movement of information and knowledge at both local and global levels to enable the efficient functioning of complex trans-national networks of operation at the city level. Harris (2001) similarly emphasises the role of cities as junctions of flows in the global economy not only in terms of information and ideas but also of goods, people and finance. Focusing on these flows, particularly interconnections between advanced producer services, Pain (2009) argues that the world city network can be better understood through the “hinterworlds of cities in which power is vested in, and flows through, network organizations and is not a settled attribute of cities as places”. The new phase of international division of labour occurring during this period has, therefore, created a global network of cities with different but inter-related and complementary roles and functions (Sassen, 2001, 1994). According to this account a few global world cities, such as New York and London operate as the nerve centres of the globalisation process with the higher function of accommodating the key structures of the world economy at the global level. This is largely in terms of central command and control functions, major transport hubs, financial and other advanced producer services, research and development activities and knowledge based and information and media production activities with a concomitant de-industrialisation process. There are at the same time other emerging world cities such as Hong Kong and Singapore that are increasingly going through a similar process of deindustrialisation and a shift to central command, advanced producer service and research & development activities. Harris (2001) for example illustrates how Hong Kong has become a global centre for managing the logistical needs of global manufacturing drawing on a vast network of contacts to ensure that all elements of production for different goods are procured and supplied at the cheapest possible cost to the final producer. Similarly Pain (2009) shows that in terms of global connectivity of advanced producer services Hong Kong and Singapore have now risen to 3rd and 5th positions respectively above Paris and Tokyo. As such the global city network does not imply an inherent superiority of some cities or locations over others. Rather the opening up of national economies and the globalisation process has led to greater specialisation and a new division of labour across the globe. In this process certain locations with the right mix of infrastructural and human resource capacities have been able to position themselves as the central nodes for managing global economic flows. This is perhaps best illustrated by Pain (2009) in terms of shifting connectivity of cities and loss of domination of Tokyo as the pre-eminent global city in South East Asia. Thereby emphasizing a dynamic process where such locations must strive to maintain their positions and others strive to improve and enhance their function in the new international division of labour through investments in key infrastructures as well as human resources and supportive institutional environments. Cities, therefore, are engaged in competitive cooperation. On the one hand relying on complementary functions between different locations for facilitating global economic activity and yet striving to play a bigger and higher value role in terms of their own individual function. This contradictory process is also reflected in simultaneous centralisation and dispersal tendencies that can be regarded as a central proposition to the globalisation process (Rossi, et al, 2007). In practice centralisation on the one hand leads to creation of central nodes or gateway cities and dispersion on the other leads to bypassing of the main cities and integration of other cities and we would argue even smaller towns or villages in to the broader global commodity production chain. According to Rossi et al (2007) this simultaneous tendency for concentration and dispersion reconciles conflicting accounts of economic geography in Brazil that on the hand highlight the verticalisation of the Brazilian economy by national and foreign firms centred on Sao Paulo and on the other point to the development of new dynamic centres away from the original economic power houses to areas such as Manaus, Brasilia-Goiania and Fortaleza. However, while this may be the case their research on transactional links in eight Brazilian cities covering eighteen firms and 218 transactions highlights the dominant role of Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro with 52% of decisions and 62% of service provisions made in these two cities. This is supported by the fact that respectively 86% and 72% of transactions for service provision are carried out within these cities themselves. Looking more closely at Sao Paulo we note that at the state level it accounts for 34% of the national GDP (UN-Habitat, 2010). However, importantly and in line with changing global imperatives what drives the city’s economy now is the service and finance sectors that account for 47.2% of the state GDP followed by the industrial sector at 46.3%. This is also reflected in the domination of the city as the international regional HQ and financial service centre for the Mercosur region with one survey indicating that 39% of the largest transnational corporations are using it as their regional base (Schiffer, 2002). Further evidence is provided by the 60% share of Brazil in commercial office investment activity in all of Latin America (RREEF, 2010). Importantly advanced producer services are not only important as higher value added economic sectors in their own right but they are also important indicators of the level of global integration in general (Rossi, et al, 2007). Accordingly Sao Paulo is placed in 20th position in terms of it global connectivity of selected advanced producer services ahead of cities such as Taipie and Amsterdam (Pain, 2009). It is, therefore, no surprise to see the rapid growth of the São Paulo stock exchange, Bovespa rising by 93% in 2007 as it absorbed investors from other parts of the world that were fleeing the economic recession and its continuing buoyant growth in subsequent years (UN-Habitat, 2010). Having said this, however, an important observation must be made. With a 46% share of GDP the industrial sector has maintained a critical role in the city’s economy and employment. As such Sao Paulo is far from a definitive transition from manufacturing to services. Therefore the degree to which the city can be considered as a global city in terms of its structural shift to higher value functions remains open to debate (UN-Habitat, 2010). Impact on urban development and low income groups Globalisation processes and responses to them have important consequences for urban development. Rapid economic growth entails major development activities and economic restructuring as cities strive to attract international investment and displaced production and/or develop their global function towards higher value added economic sectors (Sassen 2001 and Keivani and Mattingly, 2007). As such there has been a realignment of spatial development in line with the requirements of global capital. These include dealing with spatial after effects of large scale economic restructuring (e.g., major dereliction of previously industrial and port areas) as well as major urban development, regeneration and infrastructure projects initiated by both the public and private sectors that are aimed at raising city competitiveness but have unforeseen and/or unaccounted externalities. They often entail conflicting claims to land and city resources between local inhabitants and actual or perceived requirements of global capital. They can occur both in established or peri-urban and peripheral city areas. Harris (2001) for example notes that by the end of 1990s employment in the textile industry in central Mumbai had reduced from 250,000 to only 50,000. However, during the same period 150,000 jobs had been created in the ‘power loom’ industry in the periphery of the city but which was largely informal and unrecorded. Such readjustment would have major spatial impact both in the central in terms of redevelopment of former industrial areas and in the periphery where the new activities are shifting. At the same time we have witnessed the transformation of the city in to the financial capital of India with major redevelopment of the city centre and prime real estate prices that rival that of Manhattan (Vaswani, 2007). Yet ambitious plans for redevelopment of the city spurred on by the shortage of office space for expansion of financial and advanced producer services is now threatening Dharavi as the world’s most famous and second largest Asian, informal settlement with over 500,000 population and a major source of informal livelihoods through home-based and SME activities with an estimated annual turnover of about $600 million (Clinton, 2010). Mumbai’s story and development trajectory through large scale urban regeneration is not unique. In fact the same story is being repeated to different degrees and in different forms in many cities around the world particularly those that are emerging as world business and industrial nodes. See for example Cao and Keivani (2007) for major cities in China, Lungo (2002) for Montevedio, Firman (1998) for Jakarta, Keivani and Mattingly (2007) and Benjamin (2000, 2004) for Bangalore, Shatkin (2004) and Booncheun (2002) for Bangkok and Shatkin (2000) for Manila. In many ways these redevelopments can be regarded as an adaptation of property-led urban development strategies (with a firm focus on physical redevelopment) that were applied in the 1980s and 1990s particularly in UK and USA and later on across Europe (Swyngedouw et al, 2002; Fainstein, 1995 and Davoudi, Healey, 1995). This point is also acknowledged by Orueta and Fainstein (2008) who argue that while many of the major redevelopment projects in cities of the South physically resemble those in the North they have radically different social, economic and institutional contexts. They pose the hypothesis that while such developments in the cities of the North can be seen as attempts to regain their competitive position, in major cities of the South these projects are more a manifestation of their rise to power rather than defensive actions in the face of global threats to their positions. The degree to which such a proposition is true in the context of Brazil remains to be seen. In fact we would argue that while there are certainly elements of grandstanding that apply to these projects particularly in cities of emerging powers they are also dealing with real challenges of economic and spatial restructuring (including urban decay and inadequate space for satisfying requirements of international capital) on the one hand and rapid growth and urbanization on the other, both of which are hastened by economic globalisation. In addition as in the northern cities civic boosterism for encouraging growth and attracting inward and global investment also plays a major role in public funding and support for such grand projects be it in Dubai or Rio. This is to a large degree influenced by specific institutional conditions. In Chinese cities, for example, the wide adoption of property-led urban development is partly explained by the specific institutional context of large scale public land ownership and subsequent sale of land use rights for local economic development and revenue generation for local authorities (Cao and Keivani, forthcoming). New globally induced development projects necessarily entail a rapid pace of construction and expansion in to new areas. In the commercial sector, for example, many existing office buildings in traditional CBDs in developing countries lack the necessary specifications or developers face dilapidated conditions and/or constrictions due to planning regulation (Keivani and Mattingly, 2007). At the same time prohibitive land costs and complications surrounding existing tenure and land ownership rights in central areas can hinder effective and profitable market response to the new demand conditions resulting in expansion to peripheral areas. De Magalhães (1998) noted that in the case of São Paulo, these factors contributed to the rapid emergence of new off-centre business districts during the second half of the 1980s and 1990s. Indeed, even in spite of all the commercial developments that have been undertaken in Sao Paulo recent estimates indicate that around 45% of office buildings in the city still lack air conditioning as a basic requirement of class A international office space (RREEF, 2010). The same figure for Rio is around 40%. Thereby indicating continued pressure for redevelopment, refurbishment and possibly expansion of CBDs particularly as the global integration of Brazil and demand of international investors and occupiers for class A office space intensifies. Sao Paulo, however, is experiencing its most rapid growth in the peripheral areas of the greater metropolitan region. Between 1991 and 2000 the share of population in the periurban areas of the metropolitan region rose from 19% to 30% which is equivalent to an annual rate of increase of 8.1% (Torres, et al, 2007). At the same time we should note an overall reduction in population growth rate for the metropolitan area from 4.5 to 1.5% and a negative growth rate of minus 2.5% a year in central areas The peri-urban areas also show the worst socio-economic indicators with average family income at 1.7 minimum wage which is five times lower than average family income in the central city areas. These areas are encountering rapid and dynamic urban growth that often leads to new patterns of agglomeration with their own unique social and economic challenges, opportunities and developmental priorities. They can encompass a mixture of old rural, peri-urban, informal and new urban fabric. They can include agricultural activities interspersed with large industrial developments and smaller scale workshops. They can house new and often walled housing estates for the middle and higher income groups in close proximity to large scale formal or informal and spontaneous settlements of the poorer households and established rural communities. In Sao Paulo, however, by and large the peripheral and peri-urban areas are dominated by self built low income housing with figures indicating that during the 1990s formal private companies were only responsible for housing 23% of the additional 960,000 households in the metropolitan area as a whole (Torres et al, 2007). Nevertheless, whether in the periphery or in the centre increasing pressures from the formal real estate market or major infrastructure projects that are often large scale and accentuated by global economic pressures impact on low income communities with precarious tenure rights and/or limited income generating opportunities. They can aggravate pre-existing social inequalities and lead to major social tensions particularly as result of forced evictions, inadequate compensation and sidelining of local requirements particularly access to land and housing. In Sao Paulo we are faced with major pre-existing social divides that affects both the main city and peripheral areas in the greater metropolitan region. UN-Habitat (2010) notes that up to 1940 Sao Paulo was a dense city with little outward expansion and where 80% of the population lived in rented and overcrowded accommodation or corticos. This situation began to change after the 1942 rent freeze and gradual opening up of more peripheral areas by developers allowing the prospect of cheap but unregulated subdivided land for home ownership by lower income groups. Nevertheless, up to early 1980s corticos were the dominant form of low income and slum housing in the city. At the same time the metropolitan region was formed through the conurbation of 38 municipalities that formed a continuous urban fabric of largely unplanned and un-serviced but legal and technically urban area. Following the recession of the 1980s and a 46% decrease in minimum wages the low income groups increasingly turned to organized invasion of land in both the main city limits and its periphery resulting in 1,600 favelas. In 1980 just 5.2% of the city’s population lived on invaded land, in 1993 this had risen to about 20% and up to 43% in the peripheral and peri-urban areas (Ibid and torres et al, 2007). Importantly, however, it is not just illegal favelas and corticos that are in a precarious situation. An estimated 70 percent of land in Sao Paulo is covered in substandard housing with some studies suggesting that 57% of the MSP 10.5 million population are living in precarious neighbourhoods on the outskirts of the planned core of the city. Nevertheless, it is the population in favelas and corticos that are most prone to overcrowding and environmental hazards with 92% only having one or two bedrooms and 7.6% of the homes (or some 800,000 people) being prone to flooding. The same figure for those living outside of these areas are respectively 75% and 4.4% (UN-Habitat, 2010). Nevertheless, the difference between the two is not as great as one may have initially imagined. This is partly due to slum/favela upgrading programmes particularly during the past 10 years or so and also the high number of substandard and vulnerable (also largely self built) housing outside the favelas (Ibid and Torres, et al, 2007). Inevitably these areas require major public investment in infrastructure and transport services. However, one of the main barriers to this is the high level of illegality of the occupation of land since diverse institutional challenges must be overcome in order to facilitate proper provision of infrastructure and services in such locations. For one thing irregularity is often used to justify lack or limited provision but even if there is political will to extend services the state must ensure that its investment is not appropriated at some future date by the “legal” owners of the land where it is situated (Ibid). Therefore, their involvement will require completion of complex legal procedures to ensure public appropriation of private land or finding alternative appropriate land close to the illegal settlements for the site of publicly provided urban services and infrastructure. At the same time there has been a partial abandonment of the central areas as many of the wealthier families have opted to move to new exclusive neighbourhoods and some of the middle classes opted to buy their own plot rather than rent in the main city areas resulting in a proliferation of abandoned buildings in the city. Overall this has led to a negative growth rate in central areas equivalent to -2.1% per annum between 1991 and 2000 (Torres, et al, 2007). In 2007 there was estimated to be about 620,000 abandoned buildings in the city which was more than the estimated housing deficit in the MRSP at about 612,000 units (UN-Habitat, 2010). Eighty one percent of the housing deficit, however, is among the poorest groups with up to 3 Minimum Salary that have the least ability in the market and it is also occurring largely in the periphery where there is the largest urban population growth at present. This shifting spatial geography has other major social and environmental impacts. On the one hand it has brought a distinct form of segregated social mix with walled high income neighbourhoods or enclaves among or in very close proximity to poor favelas whereby the former also creates service jobs for the a large population of the latter. In the case of Paraisopolis the second largest favela in Sao Paulo it is estimated that 80% of the economically active population work in the nearby up market neighbourhood of Morumbi (Ibid). Secondly, however, it has also brought in to conflict real estate developers against favelados. Forced evictions by court order have been continuing to date particularly in favelas located in the more valuable central and commercial areas. The most famous example of this is perhaps the case of Jardim edite favela that was situated next to the new CBD centre in the South West quadrant of the city. This favela that was itself the last of 68 different informal settlements in the area was finally demolished in 2009 despite its designation as a Zone of Special Social Interest that should have in theory protected it and allowed slum upgrading (UN-Habitat, 2010).. The main reason for this is the construction of major avenues to better service the new CBD and also real estate speculation on a land that was originally around US$100 US per square meter in the early 1980s and is now worth over US$4000 as a result of the developments that have occurred in the area (Ibid). The case also highlights the complexities of inclusive development and conflicting claims on land with economic and market forces on the one hand and constitutional rights and civil movements on the other. What is important here is that in spite of the demolitions the remaining residents have managed to mobilize and assert their rights under the City Statute and continue to live in the rubble. Ultimately with the support of the local public defender and civil organisations such as Uniao dos Movimentos de Moradia (UMM) have filed a civil action against the city forcing the municipality to pledge to build replacement housing on the same site with 240 units, a nursery and a garden for a small fraction of the original residents who did not take any of the options initially offered for their removal. At the same time while industry is still an important driver of the city’s economy there has been a gradual de-industrialisation process with a number of large factories shifting to other parts of Brazil. This has left behind a large number of brown field sites both in the old industrial belts and in the more peripheral locations. Some of these have now been converted to commercial uses, e.g., hypermarket, but many other remain derelict and in need of redevelopment. This has created highly visible pockets of urban decay that has been accentuated in the centre with the high number of abandoned buildings and old markets where attempts have been made for civic boosterism projects with initial public investment for redevelopment of key buildings and areas as part of efforts for attracting private investment for large scale regeneration of these neighbourhoods. A prime example of this is the conversion of one of Sao Paulo’s abandoned main railway stations (Estação Ferroviaria Júlio Prestes) in to a major concert hall (Sala Sao Paulo) in 1999 as part of a major urban regeneration effort in the centre of the city. Finally, an important negative consequence of the urban sprawl in Sao Paulo is environmental degradation and deforestation of the Atlantic Rainforest Biosphere Reserve. In the 10 year period between 1991 and 2000 the forest cover in the MRSP region has reduced from 34.6% to 32.8% (Torres et al, 2007). While these figures tell a relatively positive story in terms of the slow rate of deforestation, they are nevertheless indicative of continuing expansion on to protected land. In addition the rate of highest population growth is occurring in the peripheral areas where there is the highest level of forest cover although there is not a direct correlation between high population growth and deforestation in all areas (Ibid). At the same time there is unregulated expansion of development on to protected Water Source Preservation areas. There are over 1.8 million people living in such areas in 17 out of 39 municipalities where over 50% of their land is protected by the relevant regulation on water sources protection. In the view of many commentators on Sao Paulo the main driver of urban sprawl and the distinct spatial geography of the city is the dynamics of the formal property market, particularly the speculative high land and housing prices in the centre, concentration of the formal housing market on middle and high income groups and abandonment (mothballing) of large numbers of land and buildings in the centre that has pushed low income groups increasingly to the periphery and peri-urban areas (Torres et al, 2007; UNHabitat, 2010). In our view these trends are accentuated by global drivers that are likely to increase with the rapid global economic integration in Brazil and the role of Sao Paulo as the main gateway city in to the country. Indeed evidence from China, Eastern Europe and India suggests that with increasing global economic success there is both a derived and direct impact on the real estate markets. The former addresses spatial consequences of economic restructuring, e.g., increased demand for high quality office space, development of leisure and knowledge based economies, regeneration of abandoned industrial neighbourhoods as well as meeting increased housing requirements of new middle classes and low income workers. The latter is increased direct demand for real estate investment from both local and international investors. In Chinese cities for example a major driver for local economic development is the investment demand of the local population in housing developments that has in some cases created major and unsustainable speculative bubbles leading to large scale bankruptcies at individual, corporate and city levels (Cao and Keivani, 2007). At the same time with the opening up of local real estate markets international funds and speculative investors become active particularly in the commercial .real estate but also housing markets. In Brazil this is already evident not only by the presence of international firms but also setting up of specialist investment funds by specialist companies, e.g., DTZ corporate finance, that specialize in acquiring minority stakes in residential, office and industrial projects in order to facilitate greater international investment. All this has a knock on effect on the operation of the land market at the local level that in the absence of appropriate governance mechanisms can lean to increased marginalization of the lower income groups from access to land and housing. Towards an analytical framework The degree to which low income groups can utilize the operation of land markets to their own benefit largely depends on the institutional processes surrounding land tenure, development, use and exchange. To this must be added actions and interactions of local, national and international actors and ability of local inhabitants and small firms in devising appropriate strategies for benefitting from the commercialisation process and property market functions. In essence, therefore, it is the form and process of urban governance in terms of facilitating and regulating urban development (including access to and using land resources) and the function of the property market (both formal and informal) as the implementation mechanism for physical development that are the critical issues of consideration. Governance is commonly defined as the relationship between the civil society and the state and the resultant interaction and power relations in determining policy and allocating resources (McCarney et al, 1994). It is therefore broader than government and ultimately about exercise of power and associated networks for achieving stated objectives (Rakodi, 2004). Drawing on an extensive 10 city research in developing countries Devas (2001) argues that it is in the conjuncture of three key elements that urban governance will work to the benefit of the poor on a more sustainable basis. These are 1) a more inclusive political process, 2) greater capacity of city government to respond to the needs of the poor and 3) greater pressure from civil society. These factors are included in the assessment of UN-Habitat (2010) on conditions necessary for creating an inclusive city. More specifically at municipal level they note the importance of four elements in terms of a) facilitating the use of new institutions and strengthening existing ones, b) building new multi-level relations and alliances for reducing poverty, c) demonstrating sustained vision to promote inclusiveness and d) ensure redistribution of opportunities. In the context of Sao Paulo the state government and municipalities have undertaken major steps to improve the housing conditions of the slum dwellers in the past 30 years or so and particularly since the beginning of 1990s. For example in 1986 the State level housing development company CDHU was building houses in only 3% of the city’s municipalities. However, by 2008 this had expanded to 96% of the state’s administrative areas making it one of the largest housing development companies in the world with an annual budget of US$750 million. Since its inception in 1949 CDHU has built over 440,000 housing units benefitting 2 million people in 617 municipalities in the State of Sao Paulo (Ibid). Similarly the city municipal housing authority (SEHAB) has also increased its activities particularly for slum upgrading since 2001. This has included creating a specialist database for recording housing indicators in 1,635 favelas, 1,942 corticos and 1,120 illegal plot allotments which has proved an important tool for prioritizing municipal level interventions (Ibid). Of particular importance has been national level policies that have allowed for more secure occupation of land and provided greater municipal capacity for increasing the social function of property and extracting social value from land development. The two critical policies are the Usucapia Urbano (adverse possession) and the City Statute. The former establishes title of ownership to residents after five years continuous residence of informal or illegal land and the latter has instituted participatory planning particularly in all housing policy processes and enables more direct public regulation of the land market and urban development including the innovative clause for giving option to municipalities for establishing Zones of Special Social Interest (ZEIS). In addition there are also national level social housing schemes such as Fundo Nacional de Habitacao de Interesse Social (FNHIS) that allows subsidies to be allocated on a much larger scale and in a more consistent and long term basis (Valenca, 2010). However, it is not sufficient to have good laws. What is also important is the capacity and mechanisms for their effective implementation. As such the role of public leadership with the political will to both interoduce and implement innovative and pro-poor legislation becomes critical. In Sao Paulo, for example, much is owed to the administration of Mayor Marta Suplicy (2001-2004) that was committed to improving the housing situation of the low income groups in both centre and the periphery (UN-Habitat, 2010). During this four year period the administration instituted a raft of pro-poor policies including increased decentralization of decisions making through creation of 31 municipal government subunits and maximising public participation on housing matters. Creating the informal settlement integration programme (Bairro Legal) that has enabled the MSP Secretariat for Housing to develop sub-programmes directly related to legalizing informal housing and supporting people who live in them. In quantitative terms this led to 23,000 new low income housing units, 45,000 individual land titles in 160 favelas and upgrading and regularising irregular settlements benefitting 42,000 families by the end of 2004 (Ibid). Other initiatives included legalizing the situation of public housing residents through assistance for legally registering their apartments (which had been paid for) and cancelling outstanding debts. In addition the administration used the provisions of the Statute of the City to also define nearly1000 Zones of Special Social Interest in the municipal master plan. This covered nearly 14,000 hectares within MSP. Eighty five percent of these were corticos, favelas and popular irregular settlements in the periphery but 11% were either empty/underused areas or corticos in the city centre, both of which were aimed at promoting low income housing. Another 3% were environmentally protected areas (Ibid). While the pace of low income housing interventions have slackened since the change of administration particularly in central areas the integration and upgrading programmes have continued in the periphery. This, however, is seen by some critics as perpetuating the danger of social spatial segregation with the centre being increasingly emptied of lower income groups. In addition other critics have noted that while the participatory approach is a significant social tool, its universal application, for example, in the implementation of ZEIS process means that representatives of the real estate lobby and the higher income groups are in many cases able to outmaneuver the representatives of the low income groups as the case of the Jardim edite favela illustrated earlier. Therefore, we go back, to the previous debate on the effectiveness of implementation and evaluation of laws and policies for maximizing their pro-poor impact. Otherwise in a contested terrain the political and financial power of the old elite and vested (real estate) interest groups means that they will have the capacity to dominate and/or divert the implementation process to their own benefits. In the words of UN-Habitat (2010) “an inclusive city needs to do more than simply adhere to constitutional or national laws asserting rights, responsibilities and freedoms – it must create the necessary conditions to transform all these rights in to practice.” This however, is a highly contentious, complex and politically difficult process. Requiring multilevel stakeholder interventions, collaborations and compromises that are ultimately manifested in the form and processes of urban governance. There are, however, different discourses on governance in relation to urban development. A succinct and useful summary is given by Brownil (2010) in the context of London Docklands. Here she notes differences between those viewing governance as an extension of the neo-liberal agenda for strengthening market-led urbanization and driving urban competitiveness as part of broader city global integration (Swyngedouw et al, 2002; and Moulaert et al, 2003 cited in Brownil 2010) to those who adopt a more relational view which sees possibilities for building alternative responses to the processes of globalization and redefining the relationship between the local and the global (Massey, 2007; Amin, 2000 both cited in Brownil 2010). The former, therefore, may be said to be incapable of ‘squaring the circle’ between competitiveness and equity, the latter on the other hand takes a more pragmatic view based on institutional context, and agency dynamics and power relations. In quoting Newman (2001) she distinguishes different forms of governance (hierarchical, networked and participatory forms) all of which can co-exist at the same time producing a dynamic where shifts in balance between different discourses can provide the possibility for new and varied forms of governance emerging which are able to be more responsive and flexible in the face of current global challenges. The debate on governance links directly to developing an institutional perspective to the study of land markets that brings together both economic and social drivers of property development. An important consideration here is the framework offered by the New Institutional Economics (NIE) that was developed by Coase (1937, 1960) and subsequently by North (1981, 1990), Williamson(1994) and others (all cited in Nee 2003 and Mooya and Cloete, 2007). There are different variations of NIE but in essence and in contrast to neo-classical economics it explicitly recognizes the impact of transaction costs and institutional constraints on economic activity and market development. The former refers to the cost of negotiating, securing and completing transactions in a market economy. A critically important issue here relates to information problems and can include costs of searching for information (e.g., price, quality, rights and ownership, identifying buyers and sellers); making, monitoring and enforcing contracts; and protecting property rights (Eggertsson, 1990 cited in Mooya and Cloete, 2007). The latter, on the other hand, are not just formal and informal rules, regulations and customs that determine the incentives, define the rules and reduce uncertainties and friction (i.e., transaction costs) for economic activity, but can be defined as “social structures which provide a conduit for collective action by facilitating and organizing the interests of actors and enforcing principal agent relationships“(Nee, 2003, p23). These can evolve spontaneously as a result of individual or group action or by design through regulation. However, while accepting their general impact for facilitating economic activity, they also reflect influence and power of interest groups and reduce transaction costs for those groups and not others (Keogh and D’arcy, 1999 cited in Mooya and Cloete, 2007). This means that “institutional change involves not simply remaking the formal rules [or for that matter cultural shifts] but fundamentally it requires the realignment of interests, norms and power“(Nee, 2003 p23). This political economy view of institutions takes us back to the issue of governance and connects with more sociological perspectives that have emphasized the importance of structure and agency relationships to better explain the behaviour of the property market and spatial development. An early but highly influential model was offered by Healey and Barret (1990) and Healey (1991) whereby the key to understanding the processes involved in land and property development is identified as the relationship between the interests, strategies and actions of agents involved in land development and the socioeconomic and political framework including rights and values regarding land, property, buildings and the environment which governs or structures their decisions. There is, therefore, a need to understand the 'relation between structure, in terms of what drives the development process and produces distinctive patterns in particular periods, and agency, in terms of the way individual agents develop and pursue their strategies' (Healey and Barret,1990, p90). The relationship between the structure and agency, however, cannot be seen as static or one sided. Rather such a relationship must be regarded as dialectical and dynamic. Whereby the agents are not just passive rule governed players within the structure without any influence on its form and extent, instead they are actively and continuously involved in reshaping the structure through individual and organised pressure and activity in pursuit of their interests which is itself affected and shaped by the external pressures put upon them by the structure. The production of space therefore “is captured best as the complex articulation between structure and agency, which is always in motion” (Gottdeiner, 1994, cited in Guy and Henneberry, 2000). However what is important here is to focus on the duality of the model without dichotomizing or prioritizing either side of the equation “whereby one layer of agency can become, in another context, the next layer of structure and so on” (Guy and Henneberry, 2000, p2413). Finally they emphasise the importance of connecting property research with the wider debate on the social production of urban space in order to better understand national patterns of investment and dynamics of local development. A related conceptual tool for assessing the impact of land markets on the urban poor is the Capital Asset Framework. This framework sees a direct link between well being of the poor households and their ability to access and consolidate capital assets and the external conditions (including institutional context and market operation) which impact on their accumulation and regulate their use (Rakodi, 1999; Mooya and Cloete, 2007). As such poverty alleviation efforts are dependent on increasing the capabilities of low income households to accumulate assets and remove obstacles to the productive use of it. Werna (1997) for example notes that at least one in every ten houses in cities of developing countries (both rented and owner occupied) incorporates home-based enterprises that contribute on average 40% to household incomes. Clearly, therefore, any intervention that can increase their security of tenure and better facilitate productive activities through these enterprises will be beneficial to the low income households and aid poverty alleviation objectives. Indeed Moser (1998) (cited in Mooya and Cloete, 2007) sees this as possibly the most effective single intervention for poverty alleviation in constrained economic and employment conditions that may be dominant for low income groups in developing countries. We must, however, distinguish between security of tenure and formal titling. Some authors have argued that formal titling is not necessarily the best option for increasing security of land tenure and that it can in fact lead to displacement of the low income groups either through sale (possibly distressed or by choice) or eviction of renters as result of increased commercialization (Payne et al, 2009). This is a similar process that has been observed in gentrification of some cities in Western Europe and North America. Nevertheless, others disagree and suggest that the key to poverty alleviation is not so much quantity of provision of land but ensuring legal right and reducing transaction costs that predominantly arise as a result of unclear and informal titles. In fact the key institutional consideration in NIE is that of property rights. This can be seen in terms of the right to use the property, the right to earn income from the property and the right to alienate and sell the property (Eggertsson, 1990 cited in Mooya and Cloete, 2007). From this perspective, therefore, increased security of property rights means better ability to use the property as a productive asset and to earn income from it either directly or indirectly for example as collateral. The most influential proponent of this line of thought is Hernando de Soto (2000) where he sees the informality of property ownership and therefore its inability to provide a standard tradable commodity for impersonal exchange as the real reason for not only ineffective low income housing supply but lack of entrepreneurial capacity, the under development of the economy and persistent poverty in developing countries in general. The key then is unlocking the latent capital value in property through formal tradable titles that is considered as the basis of a functioning property market. However, as Mooya and Cloete (2007) point out extending this principle to an a priori assumption that lack of titles negatively impacts formal land markets is not necessarily true by noting research that show in Vietnam and Bogota land markets function very well with incomplete or lack of land titles. In fact in Bogota the high cost of titling seems to have reduced land market activity (Gilbert, 2002 cited in Mooya and Cloete, 2007). In Ghana, on the other hand, informal transactions were the most optimal solution in light of high transaction costs and a highly bureaucratic formal market system. A major concern therefore is the cost and complexities involved in providing legal titles that inevitably increase transaction costs. This means that from an NIE and institutional perspective informal secure rights to land may in fact be preferable to formal but costly titles that impede rather than facilitate market activity. In informal markets, therefore, the issue is not so much legal titles per se but the degree to which they are transferable that can increase liquidity and enable low income groups to capitalize on the value of their assets (Mooya and Cloete, 2007). This brings to the fore the role of informal institutions that allow informal property market transactions that includes measures for regulating market behaviour of buyers and sellers and in the case of Tanzania for example included authenticating ownership, transfer and sale and controlling fraudulent transactions (ibid). The question therefore is under what set of governance, market and institutional arrangements can we maximize the benefits to the low income groups? Concluding remarks In order to answer the question posed above Mooya and Cloete (2007) suggest that we must examine the informal property market process in terms of the link between property rights, transaction costs, market turnover and capital accumulation for the urban poor. We would, however, also highlight the link between the formal and informal sides of the urban development process particularly in the context of rapid and globally induced economic growth and restructuring, urban development and spatial transformation. In addition we must recognise that for many low income families housing (whether titled or not) is a social rather than market asset (Payne et al, 2009; Varley, 2002). As such they may not be readily prepared to engage in market transaction however secure their rights and low their transaction costs may be. There is, therefore, a need for better understanding not only informal housing processes but also the broader governance processes and formal market dynamics that frame the informal market processes and also have a direct impact of their own. Key areas, therefore, that need to be addressed as part of any future research agenda include the following: a) urban governance forms and processes on land use and property development (who decides, what are the bases for these decisions and how are different stakeholders involved in the decision making process, what does this mean for increasing inclusion and urban equity, etc), b) the institutional context of the property market (main global/local actors, main laws and regulations on ownership, use and exchange; ownership patterns, etc) particularly their impact on transactions costs and property rights and the way the market interacts with the broader social and economic developments to determine the spatial geography/development of the cities concerned, c) informal market processes particularly institutions on, and linkages between, property rights, transaction costs and market turnover, d) interface of the formal and informal markets (how is the formal market impacting on informal and low income areas and communities) and, e) the scope for low income asset consolidation and capital accumulation particularly in terms of extending low income rights (to own, use and exchange) over land and property whether formal or informal. References Benjamin, S. (2004) Urban land transformation for pro-poor economies. Special issue of GeoForum on urban poverty and politics in South Africa and India 35, 177-187. Benjamin, S. (2000) Governance, economic settings and poverty in Bangalore. Environment and Urbanizatio.n 12.1, 35-58. Boonchuen, P. (2002) Globalization and urban design – Transformation of civic space in Bangkok. IDPR 24.4, 401-417. Brownill, S. (2010) London Docklands Revisited; The Dynamics of Waterfront Regeneration, in Desfor G , Stevens, Q, Schubert, D eds The Fixity and Flow of Waterfront Regeneration, Routledge, New York. Cao, J., and Keivani, R. (2007) Why China, Why Now? The role of property markets in supporting social and economic development in China, RICS Research Report, London. Castells, M.(1996) The Rise of the Network Society, Blackwell, Oxford. Castells, M.(2000) Materials for an exploratory theory of the network society, British Journal of Sociology, 51(1), pp 5-24. Clinton, L. (2010) The remaking of a slum: the world is watching Dharavi, http://beyondprofit.com/the-remaking-of-a-slum-the-world-is-watching-dharavi/ [accessed January 2011]. Davoudi, S., and Healey, P. (1995) City Challenge – Sustainable Process or Temporary Gesture, Environment and Planning C 13, pp 79-95. 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. Devas, N. (2001) Does City Governance Matter for the Urban Poor, International Planning Studies 6.4, 393-408. Durand-Lasserve, A (2002) Current changes and trends: Benin, Burkina Faso and Senegal. In G. Payne (ed.), Land, rights and Innovation, ITDG, London, 114-135. Fainstein, S. (1995) Urban development and public policy in London and New York, in Healey, P, Cameron, S, Davoudi, S, Graham, S and Madani-Pour, A (eds) Managing Cities: the new urban context, Wiley: Chichester, pp127-144. Firman, T. (1998) The restructuring of Jakarta Metropolitan Area: A “global city” in Asia. Cities: The international journal of urban policy and planning 15.4, 229-243. Goodwin, M. (1996) Governing the spaces of difference: regulation and globalisation in London, Urban Studies, 33(8), pp1395-1406. Graham, S. (1999) Global Grids of Glass: On Global Cities, Telecommunications and Planetary Urban Networks, Urban Studies, 5-6, pp 929-949. Guy, S. and Henneberry, J. (2000) Understanding urban development processes: integrating the economic and the social in property research, Urban Studies, 37(13)pp 2399-2416. Harris, N. (2001) Preparing an economic and strategic vision for a city, in: M. Friere, and R. Stren, The Challenge of Urban Government: Policies and Practices, World Bank Institute, Washington, pp 53-62. Healey, P. (1991) Models of the development process: a review, Journal of Property Research, 8, pp 219-238. Healey, P. and Barret, S.M. (1990) Structure and Agency in Land and Property Development Processes: Some Ideas for Research, Urban Studies, 27(1), pp 89-104. Keivani, R. and Mattingly, M. (2007) The interface of Globalisation and Peripheral land in developing countries: implications for local economic development and urban governance, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,31(2), pp 459-474 . Keivani, R. and E. Werna (2001) Modes of housing provision in developing countries. Progress in Planning 55.2, 65-118. Leaf, M. (2002) A Tale of Two Villages – Globalization and Peri-Urban Change in China and Vietnam, Cities: The international journal of urban policy and planning 19.1, 23-31. Lungo, M. (2002) Large Urban Projects: A Challenge for Latin American Cities, Land Lines Page newsletter of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge Massachusetts October. McCarney, P., M. Halfani and A. Rodriguez (1994) Towards an understanding of Governance., in R. Stren (ed.), Urban Research in the Developing World, University of Toronto, Toronto. Mooya, M.M and Cloet, C.E. (2007) Informal Urban Property Markets and Poverty Alleviation: A Conceptual Framework, Urban Studies, 44(1), pp 147-165. Nee, V. (2003) The New Institutionalism in Economics and Sociology, GSES Working Paper Series Number 4, http://www.economyandsociety.org/publications/wp4_nee_03.pdf [accessed January 2011]. Orueta, F. D., and Fainstein, S.S. (2008) The New Mega-Projects: Genesis and Impacts, IJURR, 32(4), pp 759-767. Pain, K. (2009) London, the pre-eminent global city, GaWC Research Bulletin 328, http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb328.html [accessed February 2011] Payne, G. (2001) Urban land tenure policy options: titles or rights?, Habitat International 25, 415-429. Payne, G. (1997) Urban land tenure and property rights in developing countries: A review, Intermediate Technology Publications, London. Payne, G., Duran-Lasserve, A and Rakodi, C. (2009) The limits of land titling and home ownership, Environment and Urbanization, 21(2), pp443-462. Rakodi, C (1999) A capital assets framework for analying household livelihood strategies: implications for policy, Development Policy Review, 17, pp 315-324. Rakodi, C. (2004) Representation and responsiveness – urban politics and the poor in ten cities in the South, Community Development Journal 39.3, 252-265. RREEF (2010) Latin American real estate markets in perspective, RREEF San Francisco, www.rreef.com [accessed November 2010] Rossi, E.C., Beaverstock, J.V., and Taylor, P.J. (2007) Transaction links through cities: ‘decision cities’ and ‘service cities’ in outsourcing by leading Brazilian Firms, Geoforum, 38, pp 628-642. Sassen, S. (2001) The Global City:New York, London, Tokyo . Princeton University Press: Princeton, N.J. Sassen, S. (1994) Cities in a World Economy, Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, California. Schiffer, S.R. (2002) Sao Paulo: Articulating a Cross-Border Region, in Sassen, S (Ed) Global Networks, Linked Cities, Routledge. Shatkin, G. (2004) Globalization and Local Leadership: Growth, Power and Politics in Thailand’s Eastern Seaboard. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 28.1, 11-26. Shatkin, G. (2000) Obstacles to Empowerment: Local Politics and Civil Society in Metropolitan Manila, the Phillippines. Urban Studies 37.12, 2357-2375. Swyngedouw, E., Moulaert, F and Rodriguez, A. (2002) Neoliberal Urbanization in Europe: Large-Scale Urban Development Projects and the New Urban Policy, Antipode 34(3), pp 542-577. Torres, H., Alves, H and De Oliveira, A. (2007) Sao Paulo peri-urban dynamics:some social causes and environmental consequences, Environment and Urbanization, 19(1), pp 207-223. UNCHS/ILO (1995) Shelter provision and employment generation. UNCHS/ILO, Geneva. UN-Habitat (2010) Sao Paulo a tale of two cities, UN-Habitat, SEADE, http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=2924 [accessed November 2010]. Valenca, M.M. (2010) Editorial: Social rental housing for Brazilian cities? Lessons from military housing and a right-to-buy programme, Geoforum, 41, pp519-521. Varley, A.M. (2002) Private or public: debating the meaning of tenure legalisation, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 26(3), pp 449–461. Vaswani, K. (2007) Mumbai slum dwellers fight development http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6970800.stm, [accessed January 2011]. plan,