This paper investigates the extent to which slum notification, a tenure formalization policy that officially recognises settlements as slums and ensures the occupancy rights of the residents, has stimulated housing investment by the households in India. In using a nationally representative data set, propensity score methods are employed to reduce selection bias. This paper finds that given the observed household characteristics adjusted by propensity scores, slum notification will increase the average amount of money spent on housing construction, though the proportion of households who would improve their houses is estimated to be higher in non-formalized settlements. The findings suggest that not only formalizing slums but also supporting self-help efforts by the residents of non-formalized slums would be effective for improving their housing conditions.
ArnotCDLuckertMKBoxallPC (2011) What is tenure security? Conceptual implications for empirical analysis. Land Economics87(2): 297–311.
2.
AustinPC (2011) An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research46: 399–424.
3.
BanerjeeB (2002) Security of tenure in Indian cities. In: Durand-LasserveA (ed.) Holding Their Ground: Secure Land Tenure for the Urban Poor in Developing Countries. London: Earthscan, pp. 37–58.
4.
BanerjeeB (2007) Impact of tenure and infrastructure programmes on housing conditions in squatter settlements in Indian cities. In: ShawA (ed.) Indian Cities in Transition. Chennai: Orient Longman, pp. 104–124.
5.
BangHRobinsJM (2005) Doubly robust estimation in missing data and causal inference models. Biometrics61: 962–972.
6.
BeckerSOCaliendoM (2007) Sensitivity analysis for average treatment effects. The Stata Journal7(1): 71–83.
7.
BenjaminS (2008) Occupancy urbanism: Radicalizing politics and economy beyond policy and programs. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research32(3): 719–729.
8.
BesleyT (1995) Property rights and investment incentives: Theory and evidence from Ghana. Journal of Political Economy103(5): 903–937.
9.
BhanGJanaA (2013) Of slums or poverty: Notes of caution from Census 2011. Economic and Political Weekly48(18): 13–16.
10.
CrumpRKHotzVJImbensGW. (2009) Dealing with limited overlap in estimation of average treatment effects. Biometrika96(1): 187–199.
11.
De SotoH (2000) The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. New York: Basic Books.
12.
DeiningerK (2003) Land Policies for Growth and Poverty Reduction. Washington DC, Oxford: World Bank and Oxford University Press.
13.
DemsetzH (1967) Toward a theory of property rights. American Economic Review57(2): 347–359.
14.
DoebeleWA (1987) The evolution of concepts of urban land tenure in developing countries. Habitat International11(1): 7–22.
15.
Durand-LasserveARoystonL (eds) (2002) Holding Their Ground: Secure Land for the Urban Poor in Developing Countries. London: Earthscan.
16.
Durand-LasserveASelodH (2009) The formalization of urban land tenure in developing countries. In: LallSVRajackR (eds) Urban Land Markets: Improving Land Management for Successful Urbanization. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 101–132.
17.
EdelmanBMitraA (2006) Slum dwellers’ access to basic amenities: The role of political contact, its determinants and adverse effects. Review of Urban and Regional Development Studies18(1): 25–40.
18.
FieldE (2005) Property rights and investment in urban slums. Journal of the European Economic Association3(2–3): 279–290.
19.
FieldEToreroM (2006) Do property titles increase credit access among the urban poor? Evidence from a nationwide titling program. Department of Economics, Harvard University. Available at: http://www.economics.harvard.edu/files/faculty/18_FieldTorerocs.pdf (accessed 27 March 2013).
20.
GalianiSSchargrodskyE (2010) Property rights for the poor: Effects of land titling. Journal of Public Economics94(9–10): 700–729.
21.
GilbertA (2002) On the mystery of capital and the myths of Hernando de Soto: What difference does legal title make?International Development Planning Review24(1): 1–19.
22.
Government of India (2010) Report of the Committee on Slum Statistics/Census. New Delhi.
23.
HiranoKImbensGWRidderG (2003) Efficient estimation of average treatment effects using the estimated propensity score. Econometrica71(4): 1161–1189.
24.
KiddleGL (2010) Key theory and evolving debates in international housing policy: From legalisation to perceived security of tenure approaches. Geography Compass4(7): 881–892.
25.
KumarP (2010) Declining number of slums: Nature of urban growth. Economic and Political Weekly45(41): 75–77.
26.
LeuvenESianesiB (2012) PSMATCH2: Stata module to perform full Mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing. Available at: http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s432001.html.
NakamuraS (2013) Tenure Formalization, Tenure Security, and Housing Investment: The Relevance of Self-Help Housing in India Re-examined. In: GarlandA (ed.) Innovation in Urban Development: Incremental Housing, Big Data, and Gender.Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, pp. 87–107.
29.
National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) (2003) Condition of Urban Slums. 58th Round. NSSO.
30.
National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) (2004) Housing Condition in India: Housing Stock and Constructions. 58th Round. NSSO.
31.
National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) (2010a) Some Characteristics of Urban Slums 2008–09. 65th Round. NSSO.
32.
National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) (2010b) Housing Condition and Amenities in India 2008–09. 65th Round. NSSO
33.
PayneG (2001) Urban land tenure policy options: Titles or rights?Habitat International25(3): 415–429.
34.
PayneG (ed.) (2002) Land, Rights & Innovation: Improving Tenure Security for the Urban Poor. London: ITDG Publishing.
35.
PayneGDurand-LasserveARakodiC (2009) The limits of land titling and home ownership. Environment and Urbanization21(2): 443–462.
36.
ReerinkGVan GelderJL (2010) Land titling, perceived tenure security, and housing consolidation in the kampongs of Bandung, Indonesia. Habitat International34(1): 78–85.
37.
RisbudN (2009) The poor and morphology of cities. In: Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation Government of India (ed.)India: Urban Poverty Report 2009. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 177–198.
38.
RobinsJMRotnitzkyA (1995) Semiparametric efficiency in multivariate regression models with missing data. Journal of American Statistical Association90(429): 122–129.
39.
RosenbaumPR (1987) Model-based direct adjustment. Journal of the American Statisitcal Association82: 387–394.
40.
RosenbaumPR (2002) Observational Studies. Second Edition. New York: Springer.
41.
RosenbaumPRRubinDB (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika70(1): 41–55.
42.
RoyA (2009) Why India cannot plan its cities: Informality, insurgence and the idiom of urbanization. Planning Theory8(1): 76–87.
43.
RoyAAlSayyadN (eds) (2004) Urban Informality: Transnational Perspectives from the Middle East, Latin America, and South Asia. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
44.
RubinD (1974) Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology66: 688–701.
45.
SharmaABarmanS (2006) Land Tenure Security: Is Titling Enough? NIUA Working Paper, 06–03 (December).
46.
SjaastadEBromleyDW (2000) The prejudices of property rights: On individualism, specificity, and security in property regimes. Development Policy Review18(4): 365–389.
47.
StataCorp (2009) Stata Statistical Software: Release 11. Computer software. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.
48.
StuartEARubinDB (2007) Best practices in quasi-experimental designs: Matching methods for causal inference. In: OsborneJ (ed.) Best Practices in Quantitative Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 155–176.
49.
SubbaramanRO’BrienJShitoleT. (2012) Off the map: The health and social implications of being a non-notified slum in India. Environment and Urbanization24(2): 643–663.
50.
TurnerJFC (1967) Barriers and channels for housing development in modernizing countries. Journal of the American Planning Association33(3): 167–181.
51.
TurnerJFC (1968) Housing priorities, settlement patterns, and urban development in modernizing countries. Journal of the American Planning Association34(6): 37–41.
52.
TurnerJFC (1976) Housing by People. London: Marion Boyers.
53.
TurnerJFCFichterR (1972) Freedom to Build: Dweller Control of the Housing Process. New York: Macmillan.
Van GelderJL (2009) Legal tenure security, perceived tenure security and housing improvement in Buenos Aires: An attempt towards integration. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research33(1): 126–146.
56.
VarleyA (1987) The relationship between tenure legalization and housing improvements: Evidence from Mexico City. Development and Change18: 463–481.
57.
WardP (1982) Self-help Housing: A Critique. London: Mansell.
58.
World Bank (1993) Housing Enabling Markets to Work. Washington, DC: World Bank.
