On recognizing land administration as critical, public good infrastructure
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)
- et al.
The role of land administration in the accession of Central European Countries to the European Union
Journal of Land Use Policy
(2002) The dynamic aspect of land administration: an often-forgotten component in system design
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems
(2002)- et al.
Developing cadastres to service complex property markets
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems
(2006) - et al.
Building land markets
Journal of Land Use Policy
(2006) Land administration best practice providing the infrastructure for land policy implementation
Journal of Land Use Policy
(2001)Re-engineering land administration systems for sustainable development—from rhetoric to reality
International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation
(2001)Strengthening Public Infrastructure Investment Policy in China
(2002)- et al.
Information infrastructures and public goods: analytical and practical implications for SDI
Information Technology for Development
(2006) - et al.
Information infrastructure: The World Bank Group's Experience: A Joint Operations Evaluation Department, Operations Evaluation Group Review
(2001) From Gutenberg to the global information infrastructure: access to information in the networked world
(2003)