International organisations increasingly encourage land regularisation programmes as a component of urban policy in developing countries, yet research on the mechanisms of these programmes is limited. This paper examines the land regularisation system in Tijuana, Mexico, which has had limited success after several decades of operation. A theoretical model of the demand for land regularisation in urban areas is developed based on models of demand for registration of agricultural land. A unique combination of census and administrative data on informally developed neighbourhoods in Tijuana is used to test the model empirically. Results are mostly consistent with theory. One of the central predictions, however—that more valuable land will have a higher rate of regularisation—is rejected. When considered alongside the incentives to regularise land, this result suggests that the land regularisation system is not well structured to encourage land market efficiency or the upgrading of low-income neighbourhoods.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlegríaT.OrdoñezG. (2005) Legalizando la Ciudad [Legalizing the city]. Tijuana: El Colegio de la Frontera Norte.
2.
AlstonL. J.LibecapG. D.MuellerB. (1999) Titles, Conflict and Land Use: The Development of Property Rights and Land Reform on the Brazilian Amazon Frontier. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
3.
Azuela de la CuevaA. (1987) Low income settlements and the law in Mexico City, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 11, pp. 522–542.
4.
AzuelaA.DuhauE. (1998) Tenure regularization, private property and public order in Mexico, in: FernandesE.VarleyA. (Eds) Illegal Cities: Law and Urban Change in Developing Countries, pp. 157–171. London: Zed Books.
5.
BassettE. M. (2005) Tinkering with tenure: the community land trust experiment in Voi, Kenya, Habitat International, 29(3), pp. 375–398.
6.
BensonB. L. (1984) Rent seeking from a property rights perspective, Southern Economic Journal, 51(2), pp. 388–400.
7.
CalderonJ. (2004) The formalization of property in Peru 2001–2002: the case of Lima, Habitat International, 28, pp. 289–300.
8.
ConnollyP. (2003) Urban slums reports: the case of Mexico City, Mexico. Case study prepared for the United Nations Global Report on Human Settlements.
9.
DeiningerK.ChamorroJ. S. (2002) Investment and income effects of land regularization: the case of Nicaragua. Working Paper No. 2752, World Bank Policy Research, The World Bank, Washington, DC.
10.
DemsetzH. (1967) Toward a theory of property rights, American Economic Review, 57(2), pp. 347–359.
11.
DoebeleW. A. (1988) The evolution of concepts of urban land tenure in developing countries, Habitat International, 11(1), pp. 7–22.
12.
DowallD. E.LeafM. (1991) The price of land for housing in Jakarta, Urban Studies, 28(5), pp. 707–722.
13.
Durand-LasserveA.SelodH. (2009) The formalization of urban land tenure in developing countries, in: LallS. V.FreireM.YuenB.. (Eds) Urban Land Markets, pp. 101–132. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
14.
FieldE. (2005) Property rights and investment in urban slums, Journal of the European Economic Association, 3(2/3), pp. 279–290.
15.
FieldE. (2007) Entitled to work: urban property rights and labor supply in Peru, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(4), pp. 1561–1602.
16.
FriedmanJ.JimenezE.MayoS. K. (1988) The demand for tenure security in developing countries, Journal of Development Economics, 29, pp. 185–198.
17.
GalianiS.SchargrodskyE. (2004) Effects of land titling on child health, Economics and Human Biology, 2(3), pp. 353–372.
18.
GalianiS.SchargrodskyE. (2005) Property rights for the poor: effects of land titling. Working Paper No. 249, Stanford Center for International Development, Palo Alto, CA.
19.
HiernauxD.LindonA.NoyolaJ. (Eds) (2000) El Valle de Chalco: la construcción social de un territorio emergente [Chalco valley: the social construction of an emerging region]. Mexico City: El Colegio Mexiquense.
20.
ImparatoI.RusterJ. (2003) Slum upgrading and participation: lessons from Latin America. The World Bank, Washington, DC.
21.
Instituto Nacional de Geografía y Estadística (2000) XII censo de población y hogares [XII census of population and housing]. INEGI, Aguascalientes.
22.
IrachetaA. X.RenardV.SmolkaM. (2000) Los pobres de la ciudad y la tierra [The poor of the city and land]. Mexico City: El Colegio Mexiquense.
23.
Joint Center for Housing Studies (2004) The State of Mexico’s Housing—2004. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
24.
JonesG. A.WardP. (1998) Privatizing the commons: reforming the ejido and urban development in Mexico, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 22(1), pp. 76–93.
25.
KimA. (2004) A market without the ‘right’ property rights, Economics of Transition, 12(2), pp. 275–305.
26.
LanjouwJ.LevyP. (2002) Untitled: a study of formal and informal property rights in urban Ecuador, The Economic Journal, 112(482), pp. 986–1019.
27.
LongJ. S. (1997) Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
28.
MagigiW.MajaniB. B. K. (2006) Community involvement in land regularization for informal settlements in Tanzania: a strategy for enhancing security of tenure in residential neighborhoods, Habitat International, 30(4), pp. 1066–1081.
29.
MiceliT. J.SirmansC. F.KieyahJ. (2001) The demand for land title registration: theory with evidence from Kenya, American Law and Economics Association, 3(2), pp. 275–287.
30.
MonkkonenP. (2011) The housing transition in Mexico: expanding access to housing finance, Urban Affairs Review, in press.
31.
de TijuanaMunicipio (1995) Programa de desarrollo urbano del centro de población [Urban development programme in the main population centre]. Tijuana, Baja California, México.
32.
MuthR. F. (1961) The spatial structure of the housing market, Papers in Regional Science, 7, pp. 207–220.
33.
PayneG. (2001) Urban land tenure policy options: titles or rights?, Habitat International, 25(3), pp. 415–429.
34.
PayneG. (2002) Land, Rights and Innovation: Improving Tenure Security for the Urban Poor. London: ITDG Publishing.
35.
PayneG. (2004) Land tenure and property rights: an introduction, Habitat International, 28(2), pp. 167–179.
36.
PerlóM. (1999) Mexicali: a success story of property tax reform, Land Lines, 11(5), pp. 6–7.
37.
PlatteauJ. P. (1996) The evolutionary theory of land rights as applied to sub-Saharan Africa: a critical assessment, Development and Change, 27(1), pp. 29–86.
38.
RoseC. M. (1990) Property as storytelling: perspectives from game theory, narrative theory, feminist theory, Yale Journal of Law & Humanities, 2, pp. 37–57.
39.
SchteingartM. (2009) Antecedentes y contexto de la regularización de la tenencia de la tierra en México [Background and context of land tenure regularisation in Mexico]. Paper presented at the International Seminar on Land Tenure Regularization: Urban Planning and Sustainable Development, El Colegio de México, September.
40.
de SotoH. (2000) The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. London: Bantam Press.
41.
StruykR. J.LynnR. (1983) Determinants of housing investment in slum areas: Tondo and other locations in metro Manila, Land Economics, 59(4), pp. 444–454.
42.
VarleyA. (1996) Delivering the goods: solidarity, land regularisation and urban services, in: AitkenR.CraskeN.JonesG. A.StansfieldD. (Eds) Dismantling the Mexican State, pp. 100–120. London: Macmillan.
43.
VarleyA. (1998) The political uses of illegality: evidence from urban Mexico, in: FernandesE.VarleyA. (Eds) Illegal Cities: Law and Urban Change in Developing Countries, pp. 172–190. London: Zed Books.
44.
VarleyA. (1999) A new model of urban land regularisation in Mexico? The role of government opposition, The European Journal of Development Research, 11(2), pp. 235–261.
45.
VartanianT. (1999) Adolescent neighborhood effects on labor market and economic outcomes, Social Service Review, 73, pp.142–167.
46.
WardP. M. (2001) The rehabilitation of consolidated irregular settlements in Latin American cities: towards a third generation of public policy housing analysis and development. Paper presented at the ESF/N-AERUS Workshop: Coping with Informality and Illegality in Human Settlements in Developing Countries, Leuven and Brussels, May.
47.
WardP. M.RodríguezV. E. (2000) New federalism and state government in Mexico: bringing the states back in. US–Mexican Policy Report No. 9, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin.
48.
WilliamsonO. (2000) The new institutional economics: taking stock, looking ahead, Journal of Economic Literature, 38, pp. 595–613.
