Suchergebnisse

As England's Industrial Revolution started the process of urbanization that has since characterized development throughout the world, a poet worried about the "dark satanic mills" that were such a fundamental part of this revolution. However, despite his misgivings, he also suggested that it was necessary for societies to arm themselves with "chariots of fire" and other weapons so that they could master this process. In a somewhat more prosaic poetic vein World Bank President Robert McNamara launched the bank's shelter assistance programs saying that 'If cities do not begin to deal more constructively with poverty, poverty may begin to deal more destructively with cities.' These concerns would appear to have even more resonance today as the population of cities in developing countries increasing by unprecedented levels of more than 1 billion people per year for the next 15 years. This magnitude suggests the scale of the increase in the investment in shelter needed to meet the needs of this growing population.

This housing policy in developing countries, conjectures and refutations article discusses housing policy in developing economies. It examines recent research findings in light of earlier arguments as to the benefits of more market-oriented approaches. It also looks at whether the recommendations of earlier work have been refuted or developed in subsequent analyses and policy measures. In particular, it reviews the empirical analysis of the effects of policy on housing supply, the richer understanding of the effects that land market regulations have on housing affordability and the functioning of urban areas, and the alleged mysterious effects that researchers claim effective property rights have on housing policy and on development more generally. It also examines the effects of the increased emphasis on community participation, showing how it helps to more fully reconcile the incentives faced by beneficiaries of housing policy and donors. Finally, it examines recent literature on the welfare effects of rent control. The article shows that some of the conjectures as to the likely benefits of more market-based policy have been refuted, but large welfare gains for poor people can still be realized by adapting this approach. Furthermore, this approach appears to be gaining ground as the consensus approach to effective housing policy.

AbstractIn a number of articles Alexeev (1988a) and (1988b) shows that in the former Soviet Union the administrative rationing of housing was partially replaced by market forces acting through the second economy. This paper uses a much richer dataset to update his analysis for Russia to consider housing demand in 1992, the last year of the administrative allocation system. Almost immediately after the survey used for this analysis Russia began to privatize the housing stock as part of its movement towards a market economy. The questions we ask are: Were households really able to beat the system, as argued by Alexeev and, if so, were they still able to do so in 1992? Our answer to the second question is that in 1992 households were not able to beat the system. Income had no observable effect on housing demand. Furthermore, we do not think that the difference in our empirical results and Alexeev's is due only to the broader economic changes that occurred since his estimation or the richer dataset available to us. Indeed, our answer to the first question is that there are good reasons for arguing that Alexeev's estimates of the income elasticity of housing demand are biased upwards.

Urbanization and growth : setting the context / Patricia Clarke Annez and Robert M. Buckley -- Rethinking economic growth in a globalizing world : an economic geography lens / Anthony J. Venables -- Are cities engines of growth and prosperity for developing countries? / Gilles Duranton -- Urbanization, agglomeration, and economic development / John M. Quigley -- Spatial inequality and economic development : theories, facts, and policies / Sukkoo Kim -- Housing policy in developing countries : the importance of the informal economy / Richard Arnott -- The U.S. subprime mortgage crisis : issues raised and lessons learned / Dwight M. Jaffee.

For 18 months in 2009–2010, the Rockefeller Foundation provided support to establish the Roundtable on Urban Living Environment Research (RULER). Composed of leading experts in population health measurement from a variety of disciplines, sectors, and continents, RULER met for the purpose of reviewing existing methods of measurement for urban health in the context of recent reports from UN agencies on health inequities in urban settings. The audience for this report was identified as international, national, and local governing bodies; civil society; and donor agencies. The goal of the report was to identify gaps in measurement that must be filled in order to assess and evaluate population health in urban settings, especially in informal settlements (or slums) in low- and middle-income countries. Care must be taken to integrate recommendations with existing platforms (e.g.,Health Metrics Network, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation) that could incorporate, mature, and sustain efforts to address these gaps and promote effective data for healthy urban management. RULER noted that these existing platforms focus primarily on health outcomes and systems, mainly at the national level. Although substantial reviews of health outcomes and health service measures had been conducted elsewhere, such reviews covered these in an aggregate and perhaps misleading way. For example, some spatial aspects of health inequities, such as those pointed to in the 2008 report from the WHO's Commission on the Social Determinants of Health, received limited attention. If RULER were to focus on health inequities in the urban environment, access to disaggregated data was a priority. RULER observed that some urban health metrics were already available, if not always appreciated and utilized in ongoing efforts (e.g., census data with granular data on households, water, and sanitation but with little attention paid to the spatial dimensions of these data). Other less obvious elements had not exploited the gains realized in spatial measurement technology and techniques (e.g., defining geographic and social urban informal settlement boundaries, classification of population based amenities and hazards, and innovative spatial measurement of local governance for health. In summary, the RULER team identified three major areas for enhancing measurement to motivate action for urban health—namely, disaggregation of geographic areas for intra-urban risk assessment and action, measures for both social environment and governance, and measures for a better understanding of the implications of the physical (e.g., climate) and built environment for health. The challenge of addressing these elements in resource-poor settings was acknowledged, as was the intensely political nature of urban health metrics. The RULER team went further to identify existing global health metrics structures that could serve as platforms for more granular metrics specific for urban settings.

For 18 months in 2009–2010, the Rockefeller Foundation provided support to establish the Roundtable on Urban Living Environment Research (RULER). Composed of leading experts in population health measurement from a variety of disciplines, sectors, and continents, RULER met for the purpose of reviewing existing methods of measurement for urban health in the context of recent reports from UN agencies on health inequities in urban settings. The audience for this report was identified as international, national, and local governing bodies; civil society; and donor agencies. The goal of the report was to identify gaps in measurement that must be filled in order to assess and evaluate population health in urban settings, especially in informal settlements (or slums) in low- and middle-income countries. Care must be taken to integrate recommendations with existing platforms (e.g.,Health Metrics Network, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation) that could incorporate, mature, and sustain efforts to address these gaps and promote effective data for healthy urban management. RULER noted that these existing platforms focus primarily on health outcomes and systems, mainly at the national level. Although substantial reviews of health outcomes and health service measures had been conducted elsewhere, such reviews covered these in an aggregate and perhaps misleading way. For example, some spatial aspects of health inequities, such as those pointed to in the 2008 report from the WHO's Commission on the Social Determinants of Health, received limited attention. If RULER were to focus on health inequities in the urban environment, access to disaggregated data was a priority. RULER observed that some urban health metrics were already available, if not always appreciated and utilized in ongoing efforts (e.g., census data with granular data on households, water, and sanitation but with little attention paid to the spatial dimensions of these data). Other less obvious elements had not exploited the gains realized in spatial measurement technology and techniques (e.g., defining geographic and social urban informal settlement boundaries, classification of population based amenities and hazards, and innovative spatial measurement of local governance for health. In summary, the RULER team identified three major areas for enhancing measurement to motivate action for urban health—namely, disaggregation of geographic areas for intra-urban risk assessment and action, measures for both social environment and governance, and measures for a better understanding of the implications of the physical (e.g., climate) and built environment for health. The challenge of addressing these elements in resource-poor settings was acknowledged, as was the intensely political nature of urban health metrics. The RULER team went further to identify existing global health metrics structures that could serve as platforms for more granular metrics specific for urban settings. ; Copyright Information: 2011 The New York Academy of Medicine