Elsevier

Land Use Policy

Volume 30, Issue 1, January 2013, Pages 84-93
Land Use Policy

On recognizing land administration as critical, public good infrastructure

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.02.004Get rights and content

Abstract

Failure to recognize land administration systems as infrastructure creates potential funding and maintenance problems. Wider economic, social, and environmental benefits of effective land administration are consequently put at risk. Land administration must be recognized as critical, public good infrastructure. An evaluation method for testing land administration as an infrastructure is developed and applied. The method utilizes tools for defining and classifying infrastructure, public goods, and critical infrastructures. Arguments for land administration as infrastructure are revealed to reside within the land administration discipline: mainstream views regularly fail to recognize the argument. Reasons include the internal focus of scientific disciplines, the failure of land administrators to engage across disciplines, the global disparity of approaches to land administration, and the lack of visible or physical presence for land administration infrastructure. The results of three empirical studies support the notion that land administration is a critical, public good infrastructure. It concluded that infrastructure funding and maintenance regimes need to be depoliticized, potentially through the development of evidence based metrics, that land administrators must continue to promote land administration outwardly, and that the evaluation approach be extended and enhanced for use in directed land administration projects and studies.

Highlights

► Failure to recognize land administration systems as infrastructure creates potential funding and maintenance problems. ► Only land administrators tend to argue for land administration as an infrastructure. ► Multiple evaluation approaches demonstrate that land administration is an infrastructure. ► Infrastructure funding and maintenance regimes need to be depoliticized.

Introduction

Generally speaking, land administration systems are not recognized as infrastructure. Despite the efforts of land administrators to suggest otherwise (NRC, 1993, Groot, 1997, Coleman and Nebert, 1998, Finley et al., 1998, McLaughlin, 1999, Williamson, 2001b, Enemark, 2001, Bogaerts et al., 2002, Aanestad et al., 2006, Roberge and Kjellson, 2009, Williamson et al., 2010), the core literature dealing with infrastructure design, construction, management, and finance regularly fails to include land administration systems (c.f. Rainer, 1990, Niskanen, 1991, World Bank, 1994, Targowski, 1996, Borgman, 2003, Howes and Robinson, 2005, Nickolov, 2005, OECD, 2006, Brooks and Menon, 2008, Underhill, 2010, Weber and Alfin, 2010). The lack of recognition also exists in practice. In the contemporary context across many developed countries, key government agencies and projects dealing with infrastructure provision regularly fail to consider land administration systems. Examples include Australia (Infrastructure Australia, 2008), the United States (Moteff et al., 2003), the United Kingdom (Infrastructure UK, 2010), Germany (Bundesministerium des Innern, 2009), and the Netherlands (Luiijf et al., 2003).

The failure to recognize land administration systems as infrastructure creates at least two distinct problems. First, the public exposure and funding channels available to more recognized infrastructures such as public transport and water supply networks become difficult to access. Williamson, 2001a, Williamson, 2001b explains how the significant policy focus afforded to physical infrastructures is disproportionate to the attention given to land administration infrastructures, the systems that underpin their design and construction. Second, the need to apply flexible or adaptive management approaches to land administration systems is not recognized. Adaptive management ensures learning, rehabilitation, regeneration, and decommissioning programs are built into the lifecycle of an infrastructure (c.f. CMP, 2007). The concept first gained prominence in the field of natural resource management (Bormann et al., 1999; c.f. Holling, 1978). In the context of land administration these approaches are essential: people-to-land relationships and their management regimes must be dynamic (Van der molen, 2002). Without adaptive management, infrastructures stagnate, decay and eventually fail. Williamson, 2001a, Williamson, 2001b relates how many land administration systems were not adapted from 19th century management paradigms and are unable to play the integrative role crucial to modern economic management, urban planning, and environmental management.

The prevailing outcome is that recognized benefits inherent to land administration are put at risk: gains in public capital created through transaction fees and taxation are threatened (Dale and McLaughlin, 1999); growth of private wealth enabled by effective markets in real property, mortgages, and complex commodities is jeopardized (Wallace and Williamson, 2006a, Wallace and Williamson, 2006b); the stability and order provided by secured land tenures is potentially compromised (Feder and Nishio, 1998, Deininger and Binswanger, 1999, Deininger, 2003); and the ability to make sustainable decisions relating to the environment is weakened (UN-FIG, 1999). Further, the secondary benefits of accessible and affordable land information within a society are also put at risk: good governance, transparency, social inclusion, effective disaster management, and spatially enabled societies, amongst other things, are more difficult to achieve if static, inadequately funded land administration systems prevail.

Given the importance placed on infrastructures in contemporary society, this paper begins with the premise that land administration must be better recognized as core, public good, critical infrastructure. The aim is to explore and determine the status of land administration as infrastructure. Further, it attempts to understand why awareness has been lacking and how this might be overcome. A review of theories linking land administration and infrastructure is undertaken. Inadequacies identified lead to a detailed examination of the infrastructure concept including tools for defining infrastructure (Star and Ruhleder, 1996), critical infrastructure (Moteff et al., 2003), and public goods infrastructure (Kaul et al., 1999). The tools are applied to land administration systems in a number of independent studies. The synthesis of the reviews and studies reveals the reasons for poor recognition of land administration as infrastructure. Approaches for overcoming the lack of recognition are also provided. The conclusion summarizes key findings.

Section snippets

Evaluating land administration as an infrastructure

The notion that land administration systems are infrastructures was tested through two literature reviews, three discrete observational studies (using recognized evaluation tools), and a subsequent qualitative synthesis (Fig. 1). The first literature review examined existing arguments for land administration systems as infrastructure. The second studied definitions and uses of the term ‘infrastructure’ in other disciplines. An appreciation of the gaps in dialogues across disciplines was gained.

Contemporary arguments for land administration as an infrastructure

The term land administration gained prominence in the mid 1990s. It is generally defined as the collection of processes run by government, using public or private sector agencies, related to managing land tenure, land value, land use, and land development (UN-ECE, 1996, UN-FIG, 1999, Dale and McLaughlin, 1999, Williamson et al., 2010). Land administration systems implement land policies in support of sustainable development and include institutional arrangements, legal frameworks, processes,

Existing definitions and models of infrastructure

The term ‘infrastructure’ was first used in the 18th century to describe the tracks and rights of way required for train networks to function (Groot, 1997). Over the centuries the term evolved to include many shared structures and services: water supplies, sewage networks, electricity grids, and road networks for example. The term was reserved for public assets that aided production and public-policy discussions that focused on investment and maintenance of public works. There was acceptance

Testing land administration against the infrastructure dimensions

The results of the test against Star and Ruhleder's (1996) infrastructure dimensions are presented in Table 1. Fourteen countries were tested against the eight criteria. Where possible, multiple countries from each regional grouping were tested. Analysis was based on the methodology used in the World Bank's Doing Business indications reports (World Bank, 2010). An assessment of each country against the eight dimensions based on the perceptions of an expert panel in the realm of comparative land

Testing land administration as a public good infrastructure

The results from the study utilizing Kaul et al.’s (1999) public good axes are presented in Fig. 3. Data points were derived from quantitative measures provided by The World Bank's Doing Business report (World Bank, 2010). The metrics deal with regulatory aspects of business climate in various economies. The original study was published in 2003 and updated periodically. This study made use of the 2010 increment. It is internationally recognized as an objective and extensive knowledge product

Testing land administration as a critical infrastructure

The results from the study based on Moteff et al.’s (2003) critical infrastructure criteria are presented in Table 2. Moteff et al.’s (2003) argument is that an infrastructure, such as land administration, need only satisfy a single criterion to be considered critical. Data utilized in the study included the comparison of land administration systems by Land Equity (2006) and Burns (2007), the International Property Rights Index Report (Dedigama and de Soto, 2009) and the Economic Freedom of the

Infrastructure needs to be depoliticized

The term infrastructure has a diverse range of uses, exhibits a subjective quality, and appears open to manipulation. In contemporary times the term has been politicized: interest groups use it to further various causes. This appears particularly evident in the context of large-scale financial investments undertaken by governments and the investment-bankers. Although the long-term returns are large for society, land administration systems represent a small outlay and return for these interest

Conclusion

Using the approach developed in this paper, the status of land administration systems as infrastructures was explored and confirmed. The evaluation approach developed enabled testing of the notion: all three studies revealed that formalized land administration systems adhere to the requirements of infrastructure, public goods, and critical infrastructure. It was surmised that infrastructure funding and maintenance regimes need to be depoliticized, potentially through the development of evidence

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the Australian State Governments of New South Wales, Victoria, and Western Australia, and PSMA Australia Limited for their support towards the research underpinning this paper. They also wish to acknowledge the support of the researchers and students at the Centre for SDIs and Land Administration at The University of Melbourne.

References (77)

  • B.T. Bormann et al.

    Ecological Stewardship: A Common Reference for Ecosystem Management

    (1999)
  • Bundesministerium des Innern

    National Strategy for Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP Strategy)

    (2009 June)
  • T. Burns

    Land Administration Reform: Indicators of Success and Future Challenges, Agricultural and Rural Development—Discussion Paper 36

    (2007)
  • Clinton, W.J., 1996. Executive Order 13010—Critical Infrastructure Protection, Federal Register, July 15, vol. 61(138),...
  • CMP, 2007. Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation, The Conservation Measures Partnership, Version...
  • P. Choate et al.

    America in Ruins: The Decaying Infrastructure

    (1981)
  • D. Coleman et al.

    Building a North American Spatial Data Infrastructure

    Cartography and Geographic Information Science

    (1998)
  • H. De Soto

    The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalizes Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else

    (2003)
  • P. Dale et al.

    Land Administration

    (1999)
  • Dedigama, A., de Soto, H., 2009. International Property Rights Index (IPRI), Property Rights Alliance,...
  • K. Deininger

    Land Policy for Growth and Poverty Reduction

    (2003)
  • K. Deininger et al.

    The evolution of the World Bank's Land Policy: principles, experience, and future challenges

    World Bank Research Observer

    (1999)
  • S. Enemark

    Land administration infrastructures for sustainable development

    Property Management

    (2001)
  • G. Feder et al.

    The benefits of land registration and titling: economic and social perspectives

    Land Use Policy

    (1998)
  • D.B. Finley et al.

    The provincial land information infrastructure for New Brunswick: from early visions to design to reality

    Geomatica

    (1998)
  • GLTN (Global Land Tool Network)

    Secure Land Rights for All

    (2008)
  • R. Groot

    Spatial data infrastructure (SDI) for sustainable land management

    ITC Journal

    (1997)
  • J. Gwartney et al.

    Economic Freedom of the World 2010 Annual Report

    (2010)
  • G. Hardin

    The Tragedy of the Commons

    Science

    (1968)
  • R. Howes et al.

    Infrastructure for the Built Environment: Global Procurement Strategies

    (2005)
  • Infrastructure Australia, 2008. A Report to the Council of Australian Governments, Australian Government, December,...
  • Infrastructure UK

    National Infrastructure Plan 2010

    (2010 October)
  • I. Kaul et al.

    Advancing the concept of public goods

  • Land Equity

    Land Administration: Indicators of Success, Future Challenges, Land Equity International, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia

    (2006)
  • J. Leaning et al.

    Human Security: A Framework for Assessment in Conflict and Transition, Linking Complex Emergency and Response Initiative (CERTI)

    (2000)
  • Cited by (19)

    • 3D Cadastres in India: Examining the status and potential for land administration and management in Delhi

      2020, Land Use Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      With development of complex 3D structures, a socio-economic need has been generated to identify and demarcate clearly the tenure rights in multi-storey buildings with individual and common ownership claims. Numerous use cases were identified within the study, and whilst these are yet to be assessed in terms of costs against economic gains, like other contexts (Bennett et al., 2013) it is these drivers that likely will pull the development of any 3D land information systems. With advances in data capture, storage and visualization technologies, and relevant international standards emphasizing the design, spatial and building material sciences, suitable policy measures need to be devised.

    • Transition from 2D to 3D real property cadastre: The case of the Slovenian cadastre

      2017, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems
      Citation Excerpt :

      The land cadastre (also the real property cadastre), as the engine of land administration (Williamson, Enemark, Wallace, & Rajabifard, 2010), should underpin an integrated land administration and control system, effective land markets, protection of property rights, and documentation of public and private rights on land. In turn, these tools delivered, respectively, a common agricultural policy, institution building, an effective free market, protection of human rights, and environmental sustainability (Bennett, Tambuwala, Rajabifard, Wallace, & Williamson, 2013). Here, it must be emphasized that in many legal systems, land is traditionally defined as a physical thing that encompasses the surface of the Earth and all things attached to it, both above and below the Earth's surface (soil, buildings, other natural and built objects, etc.).

    • Land Administration Standardization for the integration of cultural heritage in land use policies

      2015, Land Use Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      During the last two decades LASs have evolved into Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) systems, in the fields of land registration, implementation of Cadastres and GIS representation, providing possibilities for integration of different data sets and interoperability between various data base systems and organizations. Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) and ICT have played an important role in the development of LASs (Bennett et al., 2013). Therefore, good practices internationally imply their standardization.

    • Absolute and relative power gains among state agencies in forest-related land use politics: The Ministry of Forestry and its competitors in the REDD+ Programme and the One Map Policy in Indonesia

      2015, Land Use Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      These new and often cross-cutting issues may threaten traditional forest bureaucracies through, e.g., a redistribution of power among a number of land-use-related state agencies. Fundamentally, state agencies, as bureaucratic politics and related literature reveal (e.g., Krott, 2005; Olsen, 2006; Peters, 2001; Giessen et al., 2014; Buijs et al., 2014; Kumar and Kant, 2005; Bennett et al., 2012, 2013), compete for power in the form of formal mandates to pursue policies in these emerging issue areas and to acquire staff and budgets. This competition for power has been identified as an important factor in land use and forest politics (Pedersen, 2010; Krott et al., 2014; Aurenhammer, 2011, 2012; Ojha et al., 2014; Ongolo, 2015).

    • The politics of land - Selective government reforms in Gujarat

      2015, Geoforum
      Citation Excerpt :

      Lastly, land is a complex and multi-dimensional object of study (McAuslan, 2003), representing great challenges to academic discussions. In order to avoid selective representation, I use the land administration literature (for an overview Bennett et al., 2013), as a guiding systematic framework. This helps to better situate change within a policy context, which consists of four operational components: land tenure, -value, -use and -development (Enemark et al., 2005).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text