URPL-GP4606
COMPARATIVE LAND USE: RIGHTS, INSTITUTIONS & INTERVENTIONS
Spring 2018
Wednesday, 4:55-6:35pm, Silver 508
Bernadette
Office Hours: Wednesday 3:45-4:45 or by appointment
Course Description:
Land underpins everything, and configurations of land rights and institutions can dramatically shape how cities grow, and for whom. As one of the most contentious aspects of planning, land use is also arguablya central way for the public sector can intervene in urban development to promote more equitable and just outcomes. How land is framed and codified contributes to patterns of existing ownership, physical form, mix of uses, mobilities, housing and transport.
The course will investigate the central ideas and empirical practices acrossthree core arenas of land use. First, conceptions of land rights draw from a diverse global array of legal traditions and practices that touch on key questions of externalities, transaction costs, land rent, public interest, rights and obligations, fairness and access to property. While ‘customary’ practices are often positioned as mutually exclusive with ‘modern’ freehold regimes, experiences of colonization and development yieldmore complex permutations and histories of conflict and adaptation. Through empirical cases mixed with theory, we will tease out intersections between ideas, politics and other institutional arrangements in shaping practices of land use and interventions. Finally, many governments, especially in an era of reduced public funding and decentralization, are increasingly turning towards land as a space of opportunity for planning. ‘Established’ tools, such as zoning and exactions are being updated, expanded and critiqued for a variety of planning goals. Others, such as expropriation, are less tenable in an area of greater resident organization. How the new or reconfigured practices, such as inclusionary zoning, TDR, land readjustment, land banking etc., spread among cities and implement will shape the urban fabric of the future.
Learning objectives
By the end of this course, students will be able to
- Describe the range of conceptions of land rights & public interventions in land across the world. Trace the dominant schools of thought of the past half-century in development and planning, and identify their usage in contemporary practices.
- Think pragmatically about the politics of policy-making and the challenges ofimplementation, and describe the day-to-day intersections implied in navigating land use, especially in the South.
- Frame land use problems in different global contexts, with attentiveness tocontext-specific variables such as legal doctrines, social norms and existinginstitutional practices
- Identify the range of institutional actors involved in land use planning and thinkcritically about their institutional incentives, comparative advantages and conflictinginterests in the planning process
Course requirements & grading
Class participation and discussion: 20%Reading reflections and questions & case:30%
Final class presentation: 10%
Final paper: 40%
Active participation
Close reading and active engagement in class are central to this course, and will help deepen and synthesize your knowledge of the materials. Your contributions to the discussion and demonstrated knowledge of readings if questioned, along with attendance, will be noted. Active class participation means completing the assigned readings and being ready to engage in a reflective discussion in class. Since the class is based on a comparative mode of inquiry, students are encouraged to contribute cases and experiences from countries they are familiar with.
Reading reflections
All students will be required to upload critical reflections and questions on the week’s readings (ca. 250-350 words) for four of the five weeks with assigned readings (nothing is required the first week). The responses should be around 200-350 words that go beyond simple summaries to include questions of interest that can be further discussed in class, cases of relevance and challengesto the way the writings think about a problem.
In addition, for each session, two students will be responsible for presenting the
following to the rest of the class (1) summaries ofquestions fellow students have raised in their reading responses and (2) a summary of a relevant case or place from their own experience that links to topics covered in that week’s readings.
Final presentation and project
For the final project, students will produce a presentation to class and an analytic research paper comparing land use concepts, practices or tools. The project can be done solo (3000-3500 words) or as a collaboration between two students (4500-5000 words). The paper can be a comparison of similar concepts across two countries, such as contrasting Brazil’s social function of property clause with hybrid Islamic jurisprudence in Kuwait, the uses of eminent domain in two different countries, or of similar forms of property ownership that may have different outcomes in different countries (comparing, for instance, the community land trusts, in the United States with the shared ownership of land by collectives in China). Alternately, upon discussion with the instructor, the case could be an in-depth exploration of a topic such as (a) a lesser-known land use planning mechanism (b) less common land rights configuration or (c) a profile of a conflict over a regulatory taking.
Students will submit team names on the 2nd week of class, January 31st, and a one-page abstract by the 4th class, February 14, along with 5-10 key references. In the following weeks, the teams will meet with the instructor to discuss and refine their project.
Writing: Good writing is direct and clear, and always gets better with more drafts and more readers. Make use of the Wagner tutors or the NYU Writing Center: This site also has useful links on citations and plagiarism.
Internet: Use of the Internet for unrelated topics not permitted during class sessions, and all devices should be put away or open just to the readings or a search engine if you want to look up visuals, definitions or supplementary material on a case. Cell phones should be completely silenced during class. Failure to adhere to these guidelines may result in significant deductions from the Participation portion of the grade.
Plagiarism: Academic integrity is a vital component of Wagner and NYU. Each student is required to sign and abide by Wagner’s Academic Code. Plagiarism of any form will not be tolerated since you have all signed an Academic Oath and are bound by the academic code of the school. Every student is expected to maintain academic integrity and is expected to report violations to me. If you are unsure about what is expected of you, ask. Academic integrity is essential in this course and your career. It is your responsibility to identify quotes and to cite facts and borrowed ideas. I take this very seriously, and will search papers and will refer all cases of plagiarism directly to the appropriate disciplinary committee at Wagner.
Henry and Lucy Moses Center for Students with Disabilities at NYU
Academic accommodations are available for students with disabilities. Please visit the Moses Center for Students with Disabilities (CSD) website at and click on the Reasonable Accommodations and How to Register tab or call or e-mail CSD at (212-998-4980 or ) for information. Students who are requesting academic accommodations are strongly advised to reach out to the Moses Center as early as possible in the semester for assistance.
NYU’s Calendar Policy on Religious Holidays states that members of any religious group may, without penalty, absent themselves from classes when required in compliance with their religious obligations. Please notify me in advance of religious holidays that might coincide with exams to schedule mutually acceptable alternatives.
NYU Classes
All announcements, resources, and assignments will be delivered through the NYU Classes site. I may modify assignments, due dates, and other aspects of the course as we go through the term with advance notice provided as soon as possible through the course website.
Learning Assessment Table
Graded Assignment / Course Objective CoveredParticipation / All
Reading responses / A & C
Reflection & case / C
Final presentation / B & C
Final written assignment / D C
Grading Scale and Rubric
Students will receive grades according to the following scale:
There is no A+
A = 4.0 points
A- = 3.7 points
B+ = 3.3 points
B = 3.0 points
B- = 2.7 points
C+ = 2.3 points
C = 2.0 points
C- = 1.7 points
There are no D+/D/D-
F (fail) = 0.0 points
Student grades will be assigned according to the following criteria:
(A) Excellent: Exceptional work for a graduate student. Work at this level is unusually thorough, well reasoned, creative, methodologically sophisticated, and well written. Work is of exceptional, professional quality.
(A-) Very good: Very strong work for a graduate student. Work at this level shows signs of creativity, is thorough and well-reasoned, indicates strong understanding of appropriate methodological or analytical approaches, and meets professional standards.
(B+) Good: Sound work for a graduate student; well-reasoned and thorough, methodologically sound. This is the graduate student grade that indicates the student has fully accomplished the basic objectives of the course.
(B) Adequate: Competent work for a graduate student even though some weaknesses are evident. Demonstrates competency in the key course objectivesbut shows some indication that understanding of some important issues is less than complete. Methodological or analytical approaches used are adequate but student has not been thorough or has shown other weaknesses or limitations.
(B-) Borderline: Weak work for a graduate student; meets the minimal expectations for a graduate student in the course. Understanding of salient issues is somewhat incomplete. Methodological or analytical work performed in the course is minimally adequate. Overall performance, if consistent in graduate courses, would not suffice to sustain graduate status in “good standing.”
(C/-/+) Deficient: Inadequate work for a graduate student; does not meet the minimal expectations for a graduate student in the course. Work is inadequately developed or flawed by numerous errors and misunderstanding of important issues. Methodological or analytical work performed is weak and fails to demonstrate knowledge or technical competence expected of graduate students.
(F) Fail: Work fails to meet even minimal expectations for course credit for a graduate student. Performance has been consistently weak in methodology and understanding, with serious limits in many areas. Weaknesses or limits are pervasive.
Course overviewWeek 1January 24Conceptions of land and property rights
Submit: bios and country interests
Week 2January 31Land planning & regulation: zoning, plans,
exceptions
Submit: final project team preferences
Week 3February 7State takings: expropriations and exactions
Week 4February 14Not-so-silver bullets: titling, readjustment,
pooling, banks, trusts.
Appointments to discuss final project
Week 5February 21‘Financialization’ of land interventions: TDR, LVC Appointments to discuss final project
Week 6February 28New scales of agency: land use actions in the face
of growth, war, climate change and disasters.
Week 7March 7Project presentations & final notes
March 9thFinal paper due
Detailed schedule & readings
Week 1January 24 / Conceptions of land and property rightsSubmit: bios and country interests
Demsetz, Harold. 1967. “Toward a Theory of Property Rights.” The American Economic Review.
Sait, Siraj., & Lim, H. (2006). Land, law and Islam: property and human rights in the Muslim world (Vol. 1). Zed Books. Chapter 1.
Ong, Aihwa. 2006. ‘Zoning Technologies in East Asia.’ In Neoliberalism as Exception, p. 102-118. Duke University Press.Note: scanned chapter starts on page 96, read if interested.
Kim, Annette M. 2007. “North versus South: The Impact of Social Norms in the Market
Pricing of Private Property Rights in Vietnam.” World Development 35 (12): 2079–95.
Ellickson, Robert C. 1993. “Property in Land.” The Yale Law Journal 102 (6): 1315–
1400.
Recommended
Monkkonen, Paavo, and Lucas Ronconi. "Comparative Evidence on Urban Land-Use
Regulation Bureaucracy in Developing Countries." Slums: How informal real estate markets work (2016): 24.
de Soto, Hernando. The Other Path. New York: Harper and Row, 1989.
Ingram, Gregory K., and Yu-hung Hong. 2008. “Examining Land Policies from a
Property Rights Perspective.” In Property Rights and Land Policies, edited by Gregory K.Ingram and Yu-Hung Hong, 3–22. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Week 2January 31 / Land planning & regulation: zoning, plans, exceptionsSubmit: final project team preferences
Fischler, R. (1998). Toward a genealogy of planning: zoning and the Welfare State. Planning
Perspectives, 13(January 2014), 389–410.
Lens, Michael C., and Paavo Monkkonen. "Do Strict Land Use Regulations Make
Metropolitan Areas More Segregated by Income?." Journal of the American Planning Association 82, no. 1 (2016): 6-21.
Roy, Ananya. 2005. “Urban Informality: Toward an Epistemology of Planning.” Journal of
the American Planning Association 71 (2): 147–58.
Rose, Carol. 1986. “The Comedy of the Commons: Custom, Commerce, and Inherently
Public Property.” University of Chicago Law Review 53: 711-781.
[read Introduction pp. 711 - 723, Implications and Conclusion pp. 774- 781, and skim the rest]
Recommended:
Aguilar, Adrián G., Peter M. Ward, and C. B. Smith Sr. "Globalization, regional development, and mega-city expansion in Latin America: analyzing Mexico City’s peri-urban hinterland." Cities 20, no. 1 (2003): 3-21.
Fischel, W. A. (2015). Zoning rules! The economics of land use regulation.
Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for
Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Week 3February 7Overlays and ‘takings’: SEZs, special districts
expropriation and exactions
Altshuler, Alan A, and Jose A Gomez-Ibanez. 2000. Regulation for Revenue: The Political Economy of Land Use Exactions. Brookings Institution Press.Chapter selections forthcoming.
Haila, Anne. 2016. Urban Land Rent : Singapore as a Property State. Chicester: Wiley Blackwell. Pp. 79-85; if time also 95-101.
Lombard, M., & Rakodi, C. (2016). Urban land conflict in the Global South: Towards an analytical framework. Urban Studies, 53(13), 2683–2699.
Weber, Rachel. From boom to bubble: How finance built the new Chicago. University of Chicago Press, 2015. Chapter selections forthcoming.
Recommended:
Sagalyn, Lynne B., “Land Assembly, Land Readjustment and Public/Private Redevelopment” Ch. 7 in Hong, Yu-hung, and Barrie Needham. Analyzing Land Readjustment: Economics, Law, and Collective Action. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2007.
Ghandour, Marwan, and Mona Fawaz. "The Politics of Space in Postwar Reconstruction Projects: Wa ‘d and SOLIDERE." In Middle East Centre Conference, Negotiation of Space: The Politics of Destruction and Reconstruction in Lebanon, St Antony’s College, University of Oxford, pp. 13-14. 2008.
“Special Economic Zones” in Reshaping Economic Geography. World Development Report 2009. Washington, D.C: World Bank, 2009. Pp. 254-255
Week 4February 14 Development interventions: titling,
readjustment, pooling, banks, trusts.
Appointments to discuss final project
Daniel W. Bromley “Formalising Property Relations in the Developing world: The Wrong Prescription for the Wrong Malady,”Land Use Policy20 (1), 2009, 20-27.
Sorensen, A. (2000). Conflict, consensus or consent: implications of Japanese land readjustment practice for developing countries. Habitat International, 24(1), 51–73.
Gilbert, A., 2009. The rise (and fall?) of a state land bank. Habitat International, 33(4), pp.425-435. (Metrovivienda)
Payne, Geoffrey. 2001. “Urban Land Tenure Policy Options: Titles or Rights?” Habitat International ,25 (3):415-429.
Recommended:
Espen Sjaastad and Ben Cousins, “Formalizing Land Rights in the South: An Overview,”Land Use Policy20 (1), 2009, 1-9.
Week 5February 21‘Financialization’ of land interventions: TDR, LVC
Appointments to discuss final project
Haila, Anne. 2016. Urban Land Rent : Singapore as a Property State. Chicester: Wiley Blackwell. Selection forthcoming.
Xiao, Yuan. (2015). Making Land Fly–Land Quota Markets in Chinese Urbanization. Columbia Law School Working Paper.
Sclar, Elliott. (forthcoming). “Castles in the air: Transferable development rights and the privatization of zoning in New York City” 1–15.
Shih, Mi, and Hsiutzu Betty Chang. "Transfer of development rights and public facility planning in Taiwan: An examination of local adaptation and spatial impact." Urban Studies 53, no. 6 (2016): 1244-1260.
Recommended:
Bertaud, Alain, and Bertrand Renaud. 1997. “Socialist Cities without Land Markets.”
Journal of Urban Economics 41 (January): 137–51.
Alterman, Rachelle. (2012). Land Use Regulations and Property Values: The’Windfalls Capture’Idea Revisited. Chapter in:’The Oxford Handbook of Urban Economics.
Week 6February 28New scales of agency: city hall and land use
Interventions in the face of growth, war, climate change and disasters.
Balakrishnan, S. Periurban land markets in the Bangalore region. In Slums: How informal real
estate markets work. Eds. Eugenie L. Birch, Shahana Chattaraj, Susan M. Wachter. Penn: Philadelphia. 2016.
Baird-Zars, B. & Salman, L. Municipal margins: land use interventions in post-Spring Syria
and Tunisia. ACSS conference paper, Princeton. 2015.
Bou Akar, Hiba. “The lacework of Zoning” in For the War Yet to Come: Planning Beirut’s
Peripheries. Ch. 4. Stanford. 2018. (will scan and make available)
Anguelovski, Isabelle, Linda Shi, Eric Chu, Daniel Gallagher, Kian Goh, Zachary Lamb, Kara
Reeve, and Hannah Teicher. "Equity impacts of urban land use planning for climate adaptation: Critical perspectives from the global North and South." Journal of Planning Education and Research 36, no. 3 (2016): 333-348.
Week 7March 7Project presentations & final notes
March 9thFinal paper due
1