Wednesday 1 December 2010

Why relief efforts in Haiti are failing so badly

From Money Week:

Why isn't rebuilding taking place?

Lack of money, incompetent governance, and the sheer quantity of rubble are all factors... Put simply, it is hard to be sure who owns what. So the motivation to rebuild is – for the time being – minimal. Most of those living in tents did not own their homes; they were renting.

But even those who did own property are unlikely to have proof. Only about 5% of Haiti's land is accounted for in public records – and the building that housed title deeds was flattened in the earthquake. Long before the quake, land ownership was hugely contentious in Haiti, where land is concentrated in the hands of a few big landowners, known as grandons (or grands-hommes, big men).

Moreover, there is no proper land-registry system. Land titles pass informally from one generation to the next, largely because titling costs several thousand dollars and public officials are generally held to be corrupt.

What has been the result?

According to the UN, the "prevalence of the informal land tenure as well as contradictory laws and weak institutions of enforcement" mean "land tenure security is not established". That has been made worse by the chaos of a city in ruins: with around a quarter of a million people dead, the inheritance and sale of land is subject to even greater uncertainty. For example, is the property owner known to be dead and/or does he have any living heirs?

Moreover, insecure land and property rights have not only undermined reconstruction, but are stifling the chances of an economic recovery. Many small businesses struggle to get loans because the owners cannot prove they own property, and foreign investors – and donors – are discouraged from investing in the country.

The reality on the ground

Corail-Cesselesse is a Westminster-sized area of disused sugarcane land between the sea and the barren mountains about 15km to the north of Port-au-Prince – real estate that has been earmarked for a major new post-earthquake city. The government wants to build 300,000 new homes here – transitional shelters at first; later expanding into permanent homes. But the area is subject to all the land issues that plague the whole reconstruction effort, and no progress is being made.

Multiple families claim ownership of almost every scrap of land. Homeless people 'squatting' the land in makeshift homes are locked in constant battle with hired thugs working for big landowners, and the government lacks the power to negotiate compulsory purchase orders at reasonable prices.

------------------------------------------------
As I always like to say...

1.'Land ownership' and 'the state' are synonymous. You cannot have one without the other. There appears to be no particular government in Haiti, the place is run by [thousands of] different relief agencies, who are doing a pretty bad job of it because the 'land owners' (who have contributed nothing to the relief efforts) are trying to enforce any claims they might have had against the old government, which has ceased to exist, against the new government (the relief agencies), who are stupidly trying to respect them.

2. As a general rule, when faced with any economic or social problem, the first question is "Would Land Value Tax sort this out? And if so, why?" In this case, it's pretty clear. You can't have LVT without land registration, but with LVT, nobody would claim more land than he can put to good use (for living, farming or business). Right now, the rental value of land in Haiti would appear to be very, very low, so by the same token, LVT receipts would be very, very low. The relief agencies could simply give each family $10 and let them get bidding.

3. If there are 'competing claims' all with equal validity, let's say, then whoever sets the tax rate can bump it up auction-fashion until only one party is left in the bidding. There's no need for a particular compensation scheme - whatever the revenues are can be put to good use building homes and factories and infrastructure, once the economy has got going again, the surplus LVT goes in a pot and gets dished out as a Citizen's Dividend.

4. The new government can announce in advance where the roads, sewage works, schools, housing etc is going, and so they will be able to tell quite quickly which of these projects 'add value', because the amount of LVT that people are prepared to pay for a plot in those areas will be correspondingly higher.

6 comments:

AntiCitizenOne said...

Generally it's a LACK of LVT that causes problems!

Derek said...

In 1906, San Francisco was flattened by an earthquake, then burnt to bits. I don't think anyone came and stomped on the remains but it wouldn't surprise me. This being 1906, relief efforts were tiny in comparison to what they would be nowadays.

However the new post-earthquake Mayor, E.R. Taylor, being a Georgist knew exactly what to do. He implemented a citywide LVT. As a result SF grew in size by 22% during the 1900s despite the earthquake and went on to repeat that growth rate in the 1910s and the 1920s.

If the modern Haitian government had done the same, far more would have been achieved with far less cost. Likewise, if the New Orleans city council had taken that approach, I am convinced that the city would be on a far better footing than it currently is.

Mason Gaffney provides a good read on this topic for those who are interested.

Bayard said...

What I expect will happen is that the aid agencies will muddle on until the grandoms organise themselves another government, divide up the land between them and tell the agencies "Thanks, now bugger off (but keep the money coming in)".

Mark Wadsworth said...

AC1, yup. It's like Homer Simpson's beer.

B, that might be the general idea, modelled on Africa, I guess.

Chuckles said...

MW, Indeed without security of property it is difficult to achieve anything. That said, I'm not sure a state is necessary for such, simply a credible threat of sufficient violence to deter the alternatives.

Regarding aid agencies and rebuilding, there is the much simpler proposition which is that the aid agencies and departments exist to give employment to their staff. The idea that they ostensibly give assistance to disaster victims is simply the hook on which to hang the money flow.
The fact that they have been there a year and achieved nothing would seem to support this, as would the fact that St. Lucia (just round the corner from Haiti) was hit by a hurricane a couple of months ago, but no appeals, no fanfares, no aid. i.e. the cashflow from Haiti is sufficient for our needs...
And the usual perverse incentive that if you acrually rebuild everything or anything, the money stops...

And totally OT, a slightly different twist here -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/picturesoftheday/8173142/Pictures-of-the-day-1-December-2010.html

Mark Wadsworth said...

Ch: "I'm not sure a state is necessary for [security of exclusive possession of land], simply a credible threat of sufficient violence to deter the alternatives."

That's all that 'the state' is - it's a 'credible threat of sufficient violence'. Whether that force is used to benefit all citizens or those wielding the force is a separate issue.