Planning the Unequal City Critical issues of urban policy design in high social inequality context for developing countries.

GY499_73704_UD London School of Economics and Political Science

1

Planning the Unequal City

Critical issues of urban policy design in high social inequality context for developing countries.

Candidate Number: 73704

MSc Urbanisation & Development

Department of Geography and Environment

The London School of Economics and Political Science

Word Count: 9905 Abstract: Urbanisation is an engine for development and inequality is detrimental for it. Ironically the larger the city the higher the inequality. For developing countries to harness all the potential of the cities, urban planners must face inequality from a new mindset. This dissertation systematically revises current urban policy to proposes a shift in the institutional framework of urban planning to include a social factor. By promoting cooperation and competitivity between citizens it properly address the challenges high inequality poses for the development of a society.


2

“Insanity is to do the same thing over and over again, and expect different results”

Albert E.

Thanks to all the great people I met at LSE; to my family and Claudia Rica!


3

INTRODUCTION 4

METHODOLOGY 6

FRAMEWORK: 7

POLICY SELECTION 8

LIMITS 8

INEQUALITY AND DEVELOPMENT 9

COMPETITION 10

COOPERATION 12

URBAN INEQUALITY OR INEQUALITY IN THE CITY 14

POLICY ANALYSIS 15

TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SPACE 15

SERVICE COVERAGE 19

SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY MAPS 20

QUALITY OF EDUCATION 21

LAND PRICE 24

CITY SIZE AND REGIONAL PLANNING 25

URBAN LIMITS 25

PARTICIPATORY PLANNING AND COOPERATION 26

PROYECTO B 28

OTHER POLICY EXAMPLES 28

CONCLUSION 29

PROLONGED SOCIAL WORK 30

REGIONAL PLANNING 30


4

Introduction

During the last three decades income inequality has received increasing levels of attention

amongst scholars. Twenty years ago, of every 1000 published papers in peer-‐reviewed journals 2

where about income inequality; a decade later it was 4; and today the number is over 8 1. Usually

being a favourite amongst sociology scholars the subject has diversified, in great part thanks to

the slow but steady rise on inequality in developing countries (Stiglitz, 2012)(Piketty T. , 2013)

and some recent Wall Street excesses (Economist, 2014). In fact the subject has been source of

great controversy and extensive media coverage regarding social policy in developed nations and

the origin of global public demonstration groups like 99% and Occupy Wall Street.

Be it social, income or racial, inequality has become growing part of Economics, Public policy and

Developmental studies. It has evolved from the symptomatic role along Kuznets’s curve in the

road to development (Kuznets, 1955), to become a key player on the growth and efficiency of an

economy (Stiglitz, 2009); a common denominator for multiple socially corrosive processes

(Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009) and the source of exclusive institutions that are a pivotal variable to

explain the situation of development in the worlds economies (Acemoglu, Johnson, & Robinson,

2001).

Another mayor change of role in development studies during the past 20 years has been the

significance given to the city in achieving higher standards of living, better services and higher

productivity. As compounded by Glaeser in his book The Triumph of the City (2011) urbanisation

in understood now as an engine for development. Making us smarter, faster, happier and more

efficient. It also has come to play an important role lowering our environmental impact (Kahn,

2000) and increasing entrepreneurship and innovation (Rosenthal & Strange, 2010).

1 True for a ProQuest search conducted the 21st of August 2015 with the terms “income inequality” over ” “ for English

language publications.


5

Together these major changes in the developmental discourse have refuelled a 20year-‐old debate

amongst sociologist and economists; around the explanation for the positive correlation between

city size and their level of inequality. Though this correlation has existed since ancient times

(Glaeser & Ades, Trade and Circuses: Explaining Urban Giants, 1995), the definitive reasons

behind it are unclear. Some authors like Florida see it as an essential part of large cities (2015)

others like Baum-‐Snow understand it as the simpler coincidental product of initial inequalities

and personal location choices based on labour opportunities (2012). One thing both sides agree

on is the strength and the perseverance of the correlation.

As inequality is shown to be an active force hindering the developmental process and

urbanisation in seen as an engine for it, it becomes crucial for rapidly urbanising nations to

address urban inequality if they want to harness the developmental push urbanisation lends.

There for it is not surprising that International predevelopment organisations like the United

Nations (with Habitat III) and the World Bank (against historic prevalence) have decided to

dedicate growing part of their effort to aid adequate urban planning in the developing nations

(United Nations, 2015) (IMF; World Bank, 2013). Though it is clear that apt urban planning is

essential to fully harness the benefits cities offers for its inhabitants (United Nations, 2014); the

capacity of urban planning to address the issues of urban inequality is far less studied. This issue

becomes pressing when we take in account that over 15% of the world’s population will move to

urban areas in the next 15 years (United Nations, 2014). Further urgency is added to the matter

when we take into account that this urbanisation will take place mainly in developing countries,

many of them with deep and prolonged social inequality.

In order to understand how planners must face the unequal cities to aid development the first

aim of this dissertation will be to revise the current inequality literature and identify the critical

processes by which it hinders development. The second objective will be to use these identified

processes, as framework to revise urban planning’s ability to respond to them. By analysing

common urban panning tools and current urban policy in countries of high inequality we hope to

provide a tangible recommendation for urban policy designers facing the ever-‐increasing

challenge of high inequality.


6

Though urban planning policy effects on urban inequality have been revised from a sociologic

and economic perspective, especially in relation to racial and education level segregation, this

dissertation is original in revising the matter from a developmental approach, specifically

focusing in the manner high inequality deters development. In other words the question is not

new but it's approach, at least as far the author’s knowledge is very original.

The rest of the document is structured as follows: Second.) A brief methodology description and

its limitations. Third). The revision of the current literature on inequality that provides a

framework by which to analyse public policy. This section identifies the deterring of free

competition and cooperation as the critical challenges inequality poses for development. Fourth.)

A case evaluation of urban planning tools based on their ability to improve competition and

cooperation. Fifth) A conclusion showing how urban planning’s ability to promote development

in highly unequal contexts is limited because of its institutional framework towards physical and

spatial problematic. Giving the social planning little effective tools, in what is today a mainly

physical planning process for cities that face social problem2.

Methodology

To understand the problems inequality causes for development we start by defining

development. From this definition we inter-‐disciplinarily revise the inequality and

developmental literature to identify the features by which inequality hinders development. Using

this identified features as a framework to ii) analyse the capacity of urban public policy to

address them, revising examples of the most common policy tools by which planners shape the

unequal cities. iii) We will conclude with recommendations to particular policies in the

developing world whose main aim is to address inequality, like habitat III and the new Chilean

land legislation reform.

2 Focusing on middle-‐income countries of high inequality.


7

Framework:

From a spatial economics point of view cities are human agglomerations. By reaching such

densities they change the return on many activities and investments, such as paving a road,

sewage, lighting, building a hospital or even planning and organizing for the future. Cities are a

physical expression of our societies needs. At the same time the cities shape: infrastructure,

technology and equipment distribution affect us retroactively. Hence planning a city is planning

part of society and planning urban society is planning the city. On this major assumption we base

our framework analysis. If we want our public policy to be able to address urban inequality we

must understand the way urban inequality hinders development in society. Given the assumption

city is society we must first understand the largest challenges inequality plants for the

development of societies. To do this we revise the latest developmental literature including

economists like Acemoglu, sociologists like Tilly and anthropological biologists like Diamond.

Having identified the most urgent challenges for the development of unequal societies, we set out

to analyse how the urban planning tools promote the identified aspects critical for development

of unequal societies. We organize our policy revision under 5 lines of though based on their main

intervention, but as the reader well knows in the city everything is connected. They are as

follows:

o Transport infrastructure and public space -‐ Gentrification.

o Service coverage segregation -‐ Quality

o City Size and Regional Planning– Secondary agglomerations inclusiveness

o Participatory planning and Cooperation – Benefits of a common goal

o Other tools

By taking the aspects of the policies that best address the problems identified in our framework,

and comparing them to the historical state of inequality we will be able to propose priority issues

for achieving proper urban equality policy design. These priorities will be addressed to some of

today's public policy in efforts to produce recommendations to them and ground them in

practical scenarios.


8

Policy selection

The policies selected for evaluation are based on the urban planning tools in disposition of the

planners. The most common planning tools such as zoning & code, urban transport systems &

infrastructure, housing programs, subsidies & cash transfers, sensitising & educational programs,

public space & service provision. In addition to the governmental policy we will look at some

large scale private efforts and urban/social interventions that have had extensive use or well in

they’re way on becoming public policy. Suchas the work of the non-‐governmental organisation

“Mi Parque” and smaller Foundations like “Projector B”. A third criteria used was the availability

of data and the existence of first source analysis of their effect. Consequently all the policies

selected are well studied by multiple authors in a diversity of contexts. This provides us with

enough data to look at their effects under the two main lenses of cooperation and competitivity.

Hence all research is secondary.

Though many of these interventions and policies might or not been directly intended to face

inequality, like the case of urban infrastructure, they will be analysed because they affect

accessibility which is a major topic in urban inequality.

Limits

The main limit of our methodology is the assumptions contained in the framework itself. This

essay builds on the assumption that inequality’s greatest challenges are of social order; hence our

analysis of the public policy will result skewed towards social needs rather than spatial. At the

same time the notion that inequality is of social origin is quite precise. Inequalities are

differences amongst some individuals, and given that social behavior is the interaction between

individuals, inequalities are in fact of social nature. A more tangible limit of this dissertation is

the extent of detail it can comprehend, given a time limit it will not be possible to produce

practical and new urban policy, it will although restrain itself to the revision of new urban public

policy to address inequality and recommendation for them.


9

Inequality and Development

Development

Development in this document has the very broadest possible definition of the term: it

comprehends traditionally units of measure such as the Human Development Index including

income level (GDP/Capita), education (schooling years) and life expectancy at birth (United

Nations, 2013). It also understands as development the multiple variations on the capabilities

approach and the measurement of self-‐satisfaction and reporting of happiness. What we

understand as development understands all this units of measurements as some of the possible

solutions of development, given a set of characteristics of the environment and circumstances.

But it does not see them as the ends of development itself, in fact the term in this definition is the

very opposite of ends, but a continuous change in the aim of an ever-‐morphing problem. This

document avoids a rigid definition because it assumes that humans in optimal condition will

naturally tend to make societies that adapt in the best possible way to accommodate their needs

in their environments. Given that the environment and circumstances will change constantly due

to medium shifts or changes in technology, the best solution is a society that is able to adapt, one

that is capable to find the most efficient way of solving its needs sustainably. In this dissertation a

developed society is not the one that gives the highest returns on investment or keeps all its

citizens in a state of utter blissfulness. But the one that, from a quasi natural selection point of

view, is more capable to adapt and succeed in its ecology. This definition is specifically practical

for extremely long term planning. Given that all suppositions are flexible the best position is the

mobile one, or at lest the one that guarantees that the society will mobilise. A society that

Challenges it self, and at the same time conserves its capacity to organise and cooperate. This

might come as a contradiction or a waste of resources in first instance but if we look at it from an

evolutionary or ecological perspective it’s the correct choice to guarantee that the creative

destruction process takes place and it gives a higher possibility of success or survival. In these

sense the concept development in this document is true to the most archaic form of the

expression: change. Beyond a moral judgement, one that assures better chances of the society in

question to adopt new technologies; have incentives in line with reality and can successfully

coordinate it self to face challenges. Ironically some of the best-‐coordinated multi-‐organic beings


10

like ants are highly rigid in their operation but they hold variability and competition at a colony

level through the queen’s reproduction and colony competition ( (West, Pen, & Griffin, 2002)).

What must be understood is that the term development in this document is a processs. Not a

correct solution, but a succession of them (Cities between Competitiveness and Cohesion:

Discourses, Realities and Implementation, 2008).

Inequality

By the same token a complete understanding of inequality requires us to recognize its positive

and its negative effects. In fact inequality plays a crucial role in the creation of incentives and

competition. As identified by Adam Smith over two centuries ago, who identifies amongst the

negative aspects of inequality the “useful inequality” between the industrious and idle workers

(Smith, 1759). Inequality is a drive for competition and this ultimately allows for efficiency and

sustainability of our society; as in ecology, diversity is essential for adaptation of species (Walker,

Holling, Carpenter, & Kinzig, 2004). Ironically, history shows that societies with high levels of

inequality tend to block this competition channels (Guerrero, Lopez-‐Calva, & Walton, 2006) and

reduces the chances for social mobility (Chetty, Henderson, & Saez, 2014). As power groups limit

the competition of other members to safeguard their stability, they reduce incentives and

consequently the proper functioning of their community, as shown by many authors analysing

multiple countries and time frames (Diamond, 2005) (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009) (Mingo, 2014).

Competition

From a developmental point of view, what is most damaging of inequality is it’s persistence

through time, as shown by Charles Tilly (1998) in Durable inequality. The differences become

entrenched by several social mechanisms such as segregation, racism and other rationalizations

of human differences. The rationalisations themselves are not bad but it is their ability to outlast

their time and location is the origin of negative consequence. These differences in turn are used,

by elites to create extractive or exclusive institutions, which tend to limit the ability of individuals

to collect the fruit of their effort or reduce the chances of improving their situation. Thus

inequality can become a barrier to the process of creative destruction and the capacity of


11

societies to adapt to their environment and improve their wellbeing as shown by Acemoglu &

Robinson (2001) By looking at the initial levels of racial inequality of the colonies the authors

draw evidence of this behaviour. In colonies where the foreign power couldn’t thrive and did not

settle, they did not see as equals the population to govern, and in such rationalisation they

justified building abusive and exclusive institutions.

At the same time authors like Piketty (2013) have extensively recorded the higher return on

capital over work, which leads to a constant division amongst the wealthy and the poor. Because

of deeper separation of the level of education, connections, appearance and many other

circumstances this differences not only repeat themselves across time and generations but also

this is reflected in the return on wealth. Again the incapacity to compete on a level field tends to

cause a distortion of the incentives from reality or the creation of violence. This can well occur by

too much equality like in the USSR (Popov, 2010) or extreme inequality like tsarist Russia, it is

not the level of equality that made them collapse but the miss placed motivations due to an

impossibility to collect personal benefit over work. Eventually this leads to a reduction of

competition due to little change on the return of my marginal work.

There is extensive work showing the link between the competitively of an economy and its level

of inequality, such as the work of The World Bank (2006) and (Guerrero, Lopez-‐Calva, & Walton,

2006) which shows how the income inequality allowed for billionaires to buy state services such

as water, communications, farming and finances. Though regulation was in place and monopoly

judgements had been expressed by competent authorities, the services also obtained through

political lobby a “state pardon” that allowed them to continue their operations. In fact interesting

things shown by Guerrero is that high levels of inequality existing in the Mexican income lead the

way for the creation of monopolies on the service sectors that the state privatise like

communications and finances. These monopolies in turn give way to suboptimal market

solutions in the way of lower coverage, low investment & quality and higher prices for the

telecommunications market making it 3 or 4 times more profitable than their closest competitors

in South America. On the other hand the financial system in Mexico suffered one of the lowest

rates of credit lending and highest banking return rates in the world. This not only puts

everybody worse off, but also shows deliberate intentions to block competition with the “State

Pardons”. Opposing competition generates suboptimal market solutions in economic terms,


12

which translates in practical terms as not achieving the best possible use of the available

resources.

Cooperation

On the other hand there is the recent and extensive work regarding the correlation between

inequality and violence, low life expectancy, distrust, unhappiness (Luttmer, 2005) and many

other socially corrosive processes that contribute to the fragmentation of society (Wilkinson &

Pickett, 2009). Inequality divides society, and it does so by alienating individuals, creating the

THEM and US inside of what should be an US. This occurs due to consistent separation of realities

in the same society and impossibility to change situations. It would not be possible to have trust

if there are no common grounds with the other part (Tonkiss, Passey, Fenton, & Hems, 2000).

This not only generates inefficiencies in public policy as with the two-‐decade delay on HIV

response in South Africa (Varun Gauri, 2006), but also generates distrust and reduces

cooperation, (Lascaux, 2012). Cooperation is crucial for the inner working of a society, it not only

allows for faster and more coordinated responses but it is the reason why we are capable of

living in groups. As evolutionary biology shows us working in community not only allows to

increase surviving chances but also gives greater variability in the species. The size of our genetic

bank, represented by the differences of each of our individuals, allows specie to respond to

changes in environment quicker and more accurately. Following the parallel between

evolutionary biology of species and societies and their development, it’s a bout changes and

probabilities. The more diversity when facing a problem, the higher are the chances of getting it

right.

Cooperation also provides the chance of specialisation or the other way around (Noe &

Hammerstein, 1994). This is appreciated in symbiotic organisms up to the neurons in our brain.

Just as our bodies cells teamwork allowed our ancestors to develop a brain and before that legs

and eyes in the competition for the acquisition of food, our societies cooperation allowed us to

develop farming (Diamond J. , 1997) techniques, engines and invent airplanes. Cooperation

allows for inequalities to coexist, in aims of a common good. When the inequalities are too high it

can produce a lack of common purpose, which holds this cooperation in sense. In the case of

cancer, mutated cell becomes very effective and absorbs all the nutrients multiplying

uncontrollably, as a consequence the person could die. If this happens in a country where one


13

group take al the resources and goods the society will soon collapse as other members would

migrate or die. Showing that proper cooperation needs of naturally occurring, similarly efficient

competing forces to work properly as a trait and stay in place (Wilson & Sober, 1994).

Extending the parallel to biology, racial inequality could be parallel to an autoimmune disease

like lupus. When our immune system over reacts to a protein present in our knee it attacks it.

Though they are function part of our society we might recognize them as different to such an

extent as to create conflict. This them and us is the drawing of the line of my cooperation group,

where we draw the line depends in circumstances, but as the auto immune system we can be

wrong, terribly wrong. In this sense social norms allow for group traits to be selected as shown

by O'Gorman et al (2008).

Kin Selection: Cooperation also offers an outstanding perk for the adaptation on environment best

known in evolutionary biology as kin selection if I work for my genetic similarity benefit my

genetic material will have a better chance to survive. This explains why we are social animal, our

ancestors where and they children had a better chance of survival. But this concept of self-‐

sacrifice only makes since if there is cooperation in both ways. If all other parts of the community

do not act the same way the trait will not subsist.

By Product: The entire urban infrastructure could be catalogued under the “by product” of us as

partners having a shared interest. Take for example the roads you walk in. You are willing to pay

your share of them because you use them, as is the next person. Most of the urban infrastructure

falls in this category.

Indirect benefits on fitness: cooperation or selfless actions is most likely amongst bacteria that do

not separate, meaning that they are kin surrounded (Griffin, West, & Buckling, 2004). If we do not

recognize as our own our citizens we will readily cooperate with them. We must share some sort

of common identity, ranging from a football match to a war this events provide new definitions of

kinship and byproduct.

For group traits like cooperation take place we must recognize our self’s with our fellow citizens.

How much? Its not possible to give an amount as the correct amount will vary on context but

what human society seams to agree on now these days, is that there is need for more of

cooperation.


14

In summary the benefits of cooperation amongst others are security (survival of kin) and

(specialization), but to achieve them the system must find a common objective.

Urban Inequality

The main problematic of inequality is its ability to persist and deepen in time hampering with our

ability to compete and cooperate. Which damages the ability of communities or societies to adapt

and react to the environment. Consequently we must look at how urban inequality limits the

competitively of the citizens and hinders cooperation amongst them.

Urban inequality usually translates to the spatial realm as physical segregation. There is no place

where inequality is more visible and deeper than in the cities, in fact the correlation between city

size and its levels of inequality have been well known for the as 3 decades. This makes the role of

urban planners in addressing inequality an important one, not only because UN estimates 66 per

cent of the human population living in cities by the year of 2050 (United Nations, 2014) but also

because this cities will host larger inequalities that the ones the world faces today as it is in the

developing world that this urbanisation will take place.

In the city, density allows for social characteristics to take physical shape. Human concentration

and use is so high that many social aspects come forward in physical shape. From urban

furniture, parks to the section of streets the density is such that many social needs become

expressed in the medium. This is true for a need of recreation and rest with parks, benches and

cinemas or churches for communion up to the need to differentiate and security with fences, and

cameras. Some of these expressions are planned and organised products like pavement and

public lighting that rarely contest opposition. Although most off this expressions are a

consequence of the addition of multiple individuals taking personal decisions, from the fact of

agglomeration to urban segregation. This nature of the city makes urban planning take a

predominantly physical concern.

This tight correlation and retroactive influence between society and the Physical nature of the

city creates both a challenge and an opportunity for urban planners. It is not coincidence that one

of the main discussion topics of the UN Habitat III forums has been how to face the inequality of

presenting these cities. Most of the efforts to face the inequality in cities (levelled playing field)

take a physical shape, but the problems arising from inequality are not of physical origin and


15

spatial segregations and fenced neighbourhoods are just the symptoms. Urban Planning for

inequality is not spatial but a social matter

Policy Analysis

Understanding that the major threat inequalities pose for the sustainability and of societies its

capacity to adapt is their durability. The urban projects and policies that tackle inequality should

promote social mobility and create community rather than spaces. To show this, this paper will

look at the projects that have faced urban inequality and intend to draw from them that the key

issues urban planners should prioritize when facing inequality.

(i) First we will look at the improvement of transport infrastructure and access to services and

urban amenities aimed to reduce social inequality and the limiting improvement in competitivity

it can have due to gentrification. (ii) Secondly how efforts to improve homogeneity of services

(education and health) is of little effect addressing competitivity of the local dwellers when

limited by quality difference. (iii) Thirdly, the effects on regional planning in the improvement of

cooperation and competition (iv) Fourth, how two neighbourhood improvement programs, that

have similar context and different methodologies, produce different efficiency in the generation

of cooperation. (v) Finally A short mention of other policies and their effects on competitivity and

cooperation.

Transport infrastructure and public space

Transportation infrastructure has been praised as a stepping-‐stone for development. There are

many studies exploring the correlation between economic growth and investment in transport

infrastructure (Hong, Chu, & Wang, 2011). Others more bluntly state that transport

infrastructure triggers growth (Pradhan, 2010). Some even estimate a social return ratio of 1.5 to

8 dollars for every dollar spent in transport infrastructure (Leduc & Wilson, 2013). Other more

conservative authors like Farhadi agree that there is a positive relation between growth and

transport infrastructure but warn that it is not as substantial as investment on equipment and


16

service that have a return rate of over 200%, well above the 20-‐25% of transport in OECD

countries (Farhadi, 2015).

Transport infrastructure defines the way goods and people are moved and it is what allows for

trade to have the scale we know today, they literally make us wealthier as they allow the markets

in the city access more goods for less. In side the city they providing access to all the goods a city

can offer to itself, from workers to food, they define the market area of any entity operating in the

city as they determine the travel time and transport costs (Allaway, Black, Richard, & Mason,

1994). The main drive for this close relation between transport and city growth is that transport

infrastructure and economic outcome mutually defined each other(Ahlfeldt, Moeller, &

Wendland, 2014).

Though the relation between economic growth and transport is strong, the understanding of its

effects over urban inequality and the opportunities to whom it serves are less evident.

Investment in transport will not generate inclusion and local economic development

automatically (Vickerman, Spiekermann, & Wegener, 1999). Improvements in Accessibility

(Public Transportation & transport infrastructure) without addressing the skills and social

content of the neighbourhoods have only tangential effects in improving the labour skill set of the

dwellers of such segregated areas. As multiple studies show that improving connectivity with

transportation investment specially ones improving accessibility (lowering transport time and

cost) to job centers, increase land price. So tightly correlated are this processes that The World

Bank recommends the use of the rise in land value to partly finance the cost of infrastructure in

developing economies (Peterson, 2009).

These recommendations make plenty of sense if one is looking at the creation of infrastructure

and economic growth as the ultimate goal of development. Contrarily, understanding

development as the ability of all citizens to have equity of opportunities it only tangentially

addresses the issue. As exposed by authors like Hess & Almeida (2007) the reduction in travel

time to the employment centers reflects in the ability to pay for the land, and as shown by

Cervero & Duncan this can have a premium on homes values, varying on their proximity to the

transit systems which ranges from 6 to 45% (Cervero & Duncan, 2004). A very similar result is

shown by Agostini & Palmucci (2006) that showed how metro stations but not bus stations in

Santiago, Chile increased the land value of 4 to 6%. The improvement in transit ends up “pricing-‐


17

out” the previous inhabitants; this is one of the best-‐known forms of gentrification (Pollack,

Bluestone, & Billingham, 2010). This issue is well exposed by authors like Jeffry Lin (2002) and

Mathew Kahn (2007) whom developed model explicitly addressing the displacement by the

improvement in public transport in multiple cities, showing that accessibility improvement like

underground stations can also change the demographic composition of surrounding

neighbourhoods.

The process of Gentrification reveals that only addressing the connectivity problems of a

segregated or a lower income area helps only tangentially to increase the competitiveness of the

dwellers. Their skill base or racial composition will stay the same and their possibility to increase

income will not be seriously affected by this new infrastructure. In fact this causes the problem to

be displaced and not addressed.

To make a case take the hypothetical situation of a city that continues to improve the accessibility

of the entire city either by transport subsidies or having impeccable roads serving every inch of

the city. In either case the capacity to reduce the effects of inequality remain tangential.

Homeowners of the owners will receive a one-‐time cash transfer when their property is sold or

an increase return on their property as the rent rises. Given that the majority of lower income

neighbourhoods for micro-‐economical reasons are renters (Desmond & Weihua, 2015) a large

amount of the population will be priced out or slightly better condition.

These findings are not opposing transport infrastructure improvements, al contraire, it

recognizes that well planned transport policy creates growth, but it advises that this alone will do

little to promote equality of opportunities or social cohesion. The advantages given by

investment on transport should be accompanied by urban social policy improving the education

and employability of the individual in those areas. The infrastructure will act as one time cash

transfer, rather than an increase in productivity or income for the long term.

The disassociation between improvements of accessibility and increase in cooperation and

competitivity is seen in the Medellin “Metrocable”. Medellin is a city in Colombia of higher middle

income and high levels of inequality, with a violent past. Medellin’s “Metrocable” improved

accessibility of low-‐income periphery neighbourhoods by building cable cars that reached hard

to get hills in low income and high crime rate areas of Medellin. Though the cable gondolas are


18

not technically a mass transport system they do provide improvement on travel times to the

wealthier and more job intensive parts of the city, at a subsidise rate. This means people living in

this neighbourhoods are able to reach markets, jobs and services at a lesser cost they did before,

in practical terms the accessibility of this neighbourhoods has improved drastically. After the

intervention the state report show a significant drop in homicides and an increase of small

businesses activity (Leibler & Brand, 2012) (Coupé & Cardona, 2013).

The initial project of metro cable did not include all the neighbourhood investment, only after the

municipality opened the first line it realized the opportunity this accessibility meant, not as

transport but as a point that marks presence of the state and allows for the injection of resources

and human capital available in the city. As expressed by Brand and Davila (2013) “lack of

accessibility is simply one of a number of urban deficiencies experienced by the inhabitants of

those sectors… it would be illogical to suppose that …the Metrocable … will provoke, in and of

themselves, broader processes of urban improvement”. Brnad & Davila show that the Social

Urbanism process started after the opening of the line including creating libraries, community

centers, and entrepreneurship a programs is the real source of improvements and not because of

accessibility, In fact only 10% of its users of the cable cars are local dwellers (Leibler & Brand,

2012). Though all the authors show caution in suggesting the silver bullet of this compound

intervention, due to the fact that the entire city has shown economic growth and drop in violence.

Though this essay agrees with Fay and Morrison (2007), the WEF (2008), and other authors in

their argument that extensive transport infrastructure investment help to reduce the effects of

inequality by lowering the effects of spatial segregation, it also sustains it does in a tangential

manner. They produce better connections to work and reduce the cost of transport of goods, this

is essential in securing an income and create growth, but it does nothing regarding kind of work

this individual can reach, nor the distribution that this growth will have in society. This will have

to do more with the education level the individuals hold, their skill set, and technology available

to them (Glaeser, INEQUALITY, 2005) (Katz, 1992).

Many public policy advisors discussion platforms including the UN Habitat III call for the

improvement of infrastructures as one of the ways to fight inequality, but the authors gathered in

this section show that the effects are manly in economic growth not in its distribution.


19

The positive growth effects of transport infrastructure and its limited effects on inclusion suggest

it is tool that must be used strategically. As a promoter of growth it might be a priority in

communities that have very low income as it will provide an economic stability which is a useful

starting point for development (Gauthier, 1968), at the same time the access to markets and

goods suggest that it might be a adequate tool for regional and national planning as it foments

the growth and competition of cities**. On the other hand in large cities that enjoy higher income

and productivity, but are segregated as consequence of deep inequalities in cultural, racial or

income bases, it becomes a far less effective tool to promote equality.

Service Coverage

Spatial theory tells us that the size and distribution of urban agglomerations is a consequence of

the benefits derived from the location of individuals. Most of the times cities grow because they

offer more net benefits than other locations, causing immigration. The city will grow until the

rise in transport costs will reduce the net benefit of living in them, down to the same level of

benefits from living in the countryside (or other cities). Cities size will be determined by the costs

of transport to, in and from them (O'Sullivan, 2012); the productivity of their industries;

available capital for investment, age structure and other factors that influence the costs and

benefits of living in it. These benefits that attract, include innumerable variables, from job

opportunities to the availability of capital including natural amenities and in some cases political

power (Glaeser & Ades, Trade and Circuses: Explaining Urban Giants, 1995) (Henderson, 2015).

There is extensive literature addressing how urban inequality translates into segregation

(SCARPA, 2015). In many lower income countries this segregation is accompanied by lower

accessibility to services such as schools, hospitals, retail, security, and culture. This makes

international agencies step towards insuring better coverage of basic services as a priority

(UNDP, 1999) (United Nations, 2015). But in middle and higher income countries reduce

accessibility to services in segregated areas is not the dominant case (Allard, 2004). In effect this

section suggests that over a certain level coverage is not the main relevance in improving

competitiveness and cooperation. In change the quality of the services becomes a crucial factor in

determining the (Fernandez & Rogerson, 1996). In fact one of the strongest predictors of

residential land value is school quality (Ottensmanna, Paytona, & Man, 2008). This suggest that


20

more than the distance to arrive to school or the hospital is the quality of the services received

the larger determinant of the equal competitivity of youths and as consequence of the durability

of inequality. The excessive focus on coverage of central governments might leave the real

problem unsolved.

The example case we will revise is Santiago de Chile’s accessibility to health and education, a

country with a GINI index of 50 (The World Bank, 2011). The services coverage is combined

responsibility of the respective Ministry (MINSAL/MINEDUC) for the secondary and tertiary

services and a local municipality in charge smaller primary service attention points.

Service accessibility maps

The following maps (Pg. 22 Figure 1 Service accessibility by Public Transport. Left) Education.

Right) Health.) are of the accessibility to education and heath services. They show the amount of

services in question that can be accessed by public transport in 10 minutes time by every block in

the city. This is calculated by using GIS vector analysis of the public transport, full information on

the methodology can be found in Camilo Olivos’s working paper (Olivos, 2013) composed during

his time at the urban planning office Urbana E&D. For Education the more schools (private or

public) in the 10 min travel range will determine the darker the colour of the block. For health

services the author compiled an index depending on the complexity the facilities can treat

ranging from primary to tertiary. The darker green colours are the blocks that can access more

beds and of higher complexity, with no distinction on private and public health care, which in

Santiago vary extensively with quality.

Predominant Socio Economic Group:

(Pg.23Figure 3.) This map was produced by the City Observatory of the Catholic University in

Chile (OCUC). The Socio-‐Economic classification based on the British NRS Social Grade

(Wilmshurst & MacKay, 1999), they are manly used for marketing and they do not posses official

recognition. They are based on goods owned by each household collected during the census data

of the year 2012. In this case we use them as an estimated income derived from the number of

goods a family has and its preferences at the time of the measurement. There are 5 categories

shown in the map, ABC1; C2; C3; E; D and they are 11;19;25;35;10% of population respectively.

The smallest unit is the census block. Though the measurements are 5 years apart, it’s possible to


21

appreciate through the naked aye that there is little or no correspondent between the

accessibility to services and the predominant socio-‐economic group of the census blocks.

Quality of education

The quality of education maps where compounded by the OCUC (2014) they show the average

score for census districts. The first map (Pg.23 Figure 4 Left) base on the results of the 2005

SIMCE, a national level diagnostic test done for the 10th grade equivalent in the Chilean education

system, the second map (Pg.22 Figure 4right) is based on the university entrance test equivalent

to the SATs for the USA.

This maps though a blunter picture than the accessibility and socio economic maps help us

appreciate by the naked eye the positive correlation of quality of education with socio economic

groups location. Understanding the lack of correlation of socio economic level and accessibility

and the strong correlation with the quality we could infer that what is more determinant for the

competitivity or income level is the quality of education rather than at its spatial distribution.

This shows it is a more social problem than a spatial one, suggesting that after a certain coverage

and income level of a community; the fight for the competitivity and cooperation of our society

must be done at the capacity level. It is human capital that must be the focus of the policies.


22

Figure 1 Service accessibility by Public Transport. Left) Education. Right) Health. (Olivos, 2013)

Figure 2 Land value interpolation Santiago, Chile 2011 (Mingo & Solar, 2014)


23

Figure 3 Predominant Socio Economic Group (OCUC, 2014)

Figure 4 Quality of education by census district. National valuation Left) 10th; Right) 12th grade.

(OCUC, 2014)


24

Land Price

Another way of looking at it is the land price. The map in Figure 2 Land value interpolation

Santiago, Chile 2011 page 22 shows an interpolation of land values in Santiago. As seen in our

short introduction to this section spatial economics dictates that land prices are the revealed

benefit perceived by that location (O'Sullivan, 2012). This includes in decreasing level of

relevance in the current literature: Income, travel time & cost to work, Schools, retail, health,

security and emergency services, education level of neighbours and so on (Ottensmanna,

Paytona, & Man, 2008). Though it is impossible for us to list them all, as they change from person

to person, the ones mentioned explain very well the price for land in cities across the developed

world. Given that the land price is a good estimation of the benefit obtained by the use of the

location. We can use it to make an estimative comparison between the benefits obtained on

locations and their accessibility to services that are commonly referenced in literature as

increasing social integration and increase skill sets that define the income level such as education

health and work. At first sight it is appreciable that the revealed benefits do not match the

accessibility to such services. This the benefits or social returns obtained by this services are not

as expected by the current urban planning literature or most likely there is: i) a extensive

difference of the quality obtained by this services, meaning the education received in one private

school in a rich area is much better than the one a lower income child can access in his equally

accessible school but with worse education capacity (Figure 4). Or complementary ii) there is a

hidden variables, like social capital, that gives a different benefit on these locations.

Which ever we choose, the fact remains that inequality of access to the benefits of urbanisation

(which includes the possibility of future rise in income) is not being determined by the access to

the schools and education. It is the author’s opinion that this difference in benefits it’s in part due

to all the factors expressed above, income, benefits, capacity of purchase. And the direct way of

improving the benefits perceived by the lower price locations is both increasing the capacity to

pay and the quality. It is not impossibility to measure but an expression that all this variables are

confounded and a mixed approach must be the best. Improving the education quality of these

schools, which in turn will produce a more skilled individual, which can be more productive.

Being more productive allows him to have a better income.


25

City Size and Regional Planning

Based on spatial economics analysis the way the system of cities grows in a nation does say much

about the distribution of opportunities. Cities that hoard all the population say that they are the

only ones that offers opportunities of higher income or any income in the case of under employed

economies.

This is why competitivity should be rise not only at the individual level but also amongst cities;

some authors say this allows for maybe slower growth but a more inclusive one. Secondary cities

and villages allow for knowledge transfer and enough economies of scale to make investments

that increase productivity such as schools. At the same time whilst offering competition to the

largest cities will incentivise for better administration to cut unnecessary costs, improve

transport systems an infrastructure. Perhaps the most important point of regional planning is in

relation to the theory of scales in evolutionary biology (Griffin, West, & Buckling, 2004). Which

states that unless that by cooperation the individuals increase their success cooperation will not

make sense. In this sense having rival cities will increase the idea of belonging and cooperation.

In general this will allow for cities to become more competitive and cooperative. In the case of

only having one large city concentrating all human and monetary capital the chances of achieving

higher efficiency in the long run without exploitations of cheap labour or distorting natural

resources, are rather lower.

In fact secondary cities allow growth and poverty reduction with lower inequality that mega

cities. This helps support the idea that regional planning is a crucial step for proper urban

planning as concentrating all in primary cities will only further the problems, development might

be slower but it will more inclusive and durable (BERDEGUE, CARRIAZO, JARA, MODREGO, &

SOLOAGA, 2015).

Urban Limits

The city limit is a tempting way of doing this. By limiting the size of a city that wants is growing

what we do is increase the average land value and expel the population that would be coming to

smaller cities (O'Sullivan, 2012) (Glaeser, 2011). The problem here is that we put a brake on the

natural productivity and growth of a city, comparable to the stick, very quick and maybe cheaper,


26

but in the long run the carrot goes much further. We could promote growth in the secondary

cities by incentivizing and subsidizing knowledge transfer and capital investment that increases

workers productivity and improving city administrative capacities the other cites. Instead of

clamping down on growth of the mega city to promote the growth of the secondary and tertiary

agglomerations, it is better to make them more competitive so they attract a larger share of the

population. This solution based on the freedom to choose is more likely to reach an optimal use

or resources as it the people choosing to locate. Limiting the size of a city is only advisable when

all the possibilities of increasing secondary city growth against an urban giant are useless and the

ability to plan for and allocate these individuals in the primary city is not attainable. In these

cases the productivity of this workers is so low it will not make much of a difference to put the

limit now but the benefits could be reach latter. An interesting case is London; in part by limiting

its growth permits the city has seen immense rise in rents (The Economist, R.A., 2013) reducing

inequality in part because the poorest renters must commute.

Participatory planning and Cooperation

Many of the following projects where not created to face inequality but to address poverty and

lack of proper urban infrastructure such as parks, pavement, and public lighting. Though not

directly addressing inequality some of these interventions have secondary effects due to

methodologies used that do have an effect on cooperation and competitions in a society. They do

provide certain evidence important to this dissertation and are one of many urban planning

tools.

The first of them is “Quiero my barrio”(QMB) a state sponsored program implemented in the

most vulnerable neighbourhoods in Chilean cities. As by product of the extreme hurry to resolve

the housing deficit back in the 80s the SERVIU, service arm or the Chilean Ministry of Housing

and Urbanisation, did not take express care of in the planning, services, accessibility or housing

quality. The little urban infrastructure the areas had, was left to decay and disrepair. In this

context the executive proposed a 2 stage plan called “Love My Hood” (QMB) (MINVU, 2006). The

first part a team of economist, sociologist and architects established local community meetings to

determine the main urgencies and problematic faced by the neighbours. After tea, cookies and 9

to 10 meetings the team concluded with a series of physical projects and infrastructure


27

improvement, I make note that the projects where by express mandate physical in nature. This

was the starting point for the second part, where planners and architects developed the projects;

approved them technically in the central offices of the SERVIU and received the pre approved

fiscal funds to carry on the public competition for its edification. Many authors and international

institutions like the IDB have revised this program; most of them agree that the impact was

limited if not null on the quality of the neighbourhoods and promotion of social cohesion showed

not significant differences (Nieto, 2010) (Arriagada & Bustos, 2012).

Fundacion Mi Parque

Many of the public social housing developments are required to produce certain level of public

space such as parks. These most of the times falls on under the responsibility and care of poorly

funded municipalities with already operate with over-‐stretched finds. The result is that most of

green areas located in public housing developments turn into what is called commonly brown

areas (the space of the park but just dirt) (Jordán, 2014).

This is when the Mi Parque comes in to play. With a simple methodology of sensing the response

of the community they choose to intervene the parks that show more interest and capacity of

organisation. Then come a series of meetings where the team of the foundation and the

neighbours decides on the best features of the design of the park. After several iterations and a

written commitment of the community to take care of the park, with register responsible, the

foundation offers the project to social responsibility teams of large companies, retailers or other

private actors. Within a few days of previous preparatory works, the park is built over a weekend

of volunteer action, many of them employed by the same private sponsorships.

The before and after images of the intervention are almost as impressive as the positive response

rate of community, with a adequate or great care for the parks of over 90% of positive response

after 1 year (Jordán, 2014). It doesn’t take an Inter American development bank study to

understand that what happens here is more than a bit of grass, swings and seesaws. What this

foundation really gives is social capital ability to organize, take over a under valued public space

and given the chance to the community to improve it, it is empowerment and ability to change.

The key difference between these policies is their rate of success in improving cooperation

amongst citizens. Understanding the comparison is out of place because the methodology of Mi


28

Parque specifically selects more cooperative communities. It’s not a systematic attack on public

space on all the vulnerable neighbourhoods of the country, but a focalized attempt to produce

community through the commitment in a physical change. This difference make them adequate

policies to look at what actually enables urban areas cooperate and show that a strictly physical

approach poses unnecessary restrains on what should be a policy aiming towards people. And

people are not a one-‐time investment they require a program operating daily in perseverance.

Planning institutional framework limitation.

Proyecto B

Another private endeavour that serves as a referent is “Proyecto B”. Privately funded NGO

focuses in capacitating youngsters to find jobs that give them a higher salary. The funder of

“Proyecto B” understood it was the impossibility of these young individuals to get a job they liked

what was making them relapse. He proposed to some sponsors to fund instruction classes in

machinery operation for some of the most interested individuals and a few months later and a lot

of hard work, they where off the streets with a new job they appreciated and a higher pay than

they expected. This is how the foundation started 4 years ago what today is about to be adopted

as a national policy.

Other Policy examples

Other urban planning tools not revised in this dissertation and do support the notion of urban

planning framework to be changes towards a more socially active spectrum are: (i) location

subsidies and how they have proven effective for children’s social mobility (Moelis Institute,

2015), but their limited effect on mobility when applied at a national scale because they can

produce a land price surge and not have the intender relocation effect. (ii) Housing programs like

the very World Bank recommended Chilean model, can improve services and housing quality, but

at the same time segregate and if applied locally deepen the inequality (Di Girolamo, 2014). (iii)

the fact that the best explanation for urban inequality surge in the past years is unskilled

immigration and the increase on return for the skill premium (Glaeser, Resseger, & Tobio,

URBAN INEQUALITY, 2008). Making it mainly a human capital issue ore than a physical one.


29

Conclusion

When addressing urban inequality, urban planning might be part of the problem (Watson, 2009).

The cases exposed Suggest the current framework in urban planning is only approaching

inequality tangentially (Campbell, 1996). I hope that by this dissertation I have at least convinced

the reader that the way of going about urban planning in highly unequal contexts must be

rethought, by adding the social perspective into planning. As shown in the examples, the social

variable makes planning more effective in securing competitive and cooperative cities. This is

especially true for middle-‐income countries like Colombia and Chile with high levels of

inequality. Although this view is not particularly new, urban policy in these nations has hardly

included the legal framework to allow planning address this matters. Perhaps this reluctance to

change has to do with persuading specific literacy or income goals as the ends for development.

Failing to understand development as a system that allows for the best solution to come about,

whether to accomplish this in a free market approach or centralized planning is particular to the

time and circumstances of every nation. For the case of Chile this conclusion will revise the

current urban planning situation and propose some changes:

Chile

Chile has one of the highest GINI coefficients between the OECD countries (2011) with a GINI

index of 50.8 (The World Bank, 2011). This high inequality is reflected in the urban segregation

not only income wise (Scarpacia, Infanteb, & Caetec, 1988) but also in areas with higher

environmental risk factor (Romero, et al., 2010). Though some effort has been done to

decentralize by giving autonomy and capacity building, the urban planning instruments remain

highly centralized (CED, 1994). Shown not only by the state of public space of regional urban

areas but also by the collection of 95% of all taxes by the central government (MINVU, 2006).


30

Facing this situation the executive has order several reforms in line with her election campaign.

Amongst the largest and controversial ones are: Tax increase (4%)3; Free Education (tertiary); a

land reform (draft) and an all-‐new QMB15 program (Consejo Nacional de Desarrollo Urbano,

CNDU, 2015). The later policies are of particular importance to the essays conclusion. The new

land reform policy organized by the CNDU is well intended as it recognizes the priority and main

problems that inequality causes (in rather amazing similitude with this essay) but it limits its

actions to physical in the city such as the size limit of land plots, which is particularly frustrating,

as it should include changes in the institutional framework for planning.

Prolonged social work

Not all is bad, the program QMB15 is reinstated with changes like prolonged stay in the

neighbourhoods to improve its cohesion after the physical works are completed. Though its

approach remains mainly physical in investment, in includes a new focus in cooperation and

community link strengthening, adopting many of the practices of Fundacion Mi Parque.

It is the work of private start up foundations aiming to improve societies cohesion like “Mi

Parque” and competitivity like “Proyecto B” which in turn improve the capacity of the state

providing new policies and practices. This comes to shows that it is an overall cooperative spirit

and a competition for the best resulting methods what will allow to effectively face the dantesque

task that urban inequality poses for development.

Regional planning

Given the social nature of the problems inequality generates it is relevant to take care on the

scale of the policy which the national commission for urban development proposes theoretically

but fails to produce any changes in the legislation for it to happen. For example: Implementing

unban policies like housing subsidies, health services, education and investment in only one city

and not nation wide, if successful will cause the city to attract more population, as the citizens in

this location enjoy more benefits or higher income that what they currently do.

A strong proof of this is Chinas special economic zones that attract forging investment and

created jobs in the costal cities causing the migration of almost 300 million workers (National

3 Mainly tax over the retune of investment and manufacturing. Income tax represents a small

fraction of fiscal revenue.


31

Bureau of Statistics of China, 2013). Another example of how the unequal application of policies

can unbalance the natural city size is ancient Rome. Which at its peak hosted almost 1 million in

habitants, from the original 300 thousand before the free oil bread and circus was instated

(Glaeser & Ades, Trade and Circuses: Explaining Urban Giants, 1995)

Urban planning and policy must also be looked at a regional and national scale to produce better

effects of social cooperation and competition. As seen in evolutionary biology cooperation lets us

achieve more only when sharing a common goal, either an enemy or need. Inter city competition

might initially look as a waste of resources ( (Basolo, 1999)) but it can allow the incentive to

improve local capital, organizational skills and more importantly unite the city, this in turn could

reduce inequality by increasing cooperation. Naturally the recommendation is not to wage war

between cities, but football matches proof very effective in this matter. The national state policy

in the case of Chile should loose centrality and allow local governance to shape up, and mediate

as a sort of safety playground keeper.


32

Bibliography Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. (2001). The

Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation. The American Economic Review.

Ache, P. (2008). Cities between Competitiveness and Cohesion: Discourses, Realities and Implementation. London: Springer Science & Business Media.

Agostini, C., & Palmucci, G. (2006). Claudio Agostini * Gastón Palmucci †. Departamento de Economía, , 25.

Ahlfeldt, G. M., Moeller, K., & Wendland, N. (2014, March). Chicken or Egg? The PVAR Econometrics of Transportation . SERC DISCUSSION PAPER 158 , 34.

Allard, S. (2004). Accsess to Social Services: the Changing urban geography of poverty and service provision. The Brookings Institution , 19.

Allaway, A. W., Black, W. C., Richard, M. D., & Mason, J. B. (1994). Evolution of a retail market area: An event-‐history model of spatial diffusion . Economic Geography , 70 (1), 23.

Arriagada, C., & Bustos, C. (2012). Neighborhood Regeneration in Chile -‐ El Programa de Regeneración de Barrios en Chile “Programa Quiero Mi Barrio” y sus efectos sobre factores de valorización y deterioro del precio de suelo: Revisión de efectos en el uso de a espacios públicos y reducción de la inseguridad urbana. Boston: Lincoln Institute of land policy.

Bartlett. (1996). The Role of transport and trading inamerican cities.

Basolo, V. (1999). The Impacts of Intercity Competition and Intergovernmental Factors on Local Affordable Housing Expenditures. Housing Policy Debate , 10 (3), 659-‐688.

Baum-‐Snow, N., & Pavan, R. (2012, July). Inequality and City Size. National Science Foundation Award SES , 23.

BERDEGUE, J. A., CARRIAZO, F., JARA, B., MODREGO, F., & SOLOAGA, I. (2015). Cities, Territories, and Inclusive Growth: Unraveling Urban–Rural Linkages in Chile, Colombia, and Mexico. World Development , 73, 56–71.

Berg, A., & Ostry, J. (2011). Inequality and Unsustainable Growth: Two Sides of the Same Coin? IMF, Research Department. INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND.

Brand, P., & Dávila, J. D. (2013). Metrocables and Social urbanism: Two Complementary Strategies. In J. D. Dávila, Urban mobility & Poverty (pp. 46-‐54). Medellin: Litoimpresos y Servicios.

Burgers, J., & Musterd, S. (2002). Understanding Urban Inequality: A Model Based on Existing Theories and an Empirical Illustration. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research , 26 (2), 403-‐413.

Butler, T. W. (2007). chapter 5: New Spatial and Social Divisions of Labour. In T. W. Butler, Understanding Social Inequality (p. 85). SAGE.

Caldeira, T. (1996). Fortcified Enclaves: The New Urban Segregation. Public Culture , 8 (2), 303-‐328.

Campbell, S. (1996). Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities?: Urban Planning and the Contradictions of Sustainable Development. Journal of the American Planning Association , 62 (3), 296 -‐312.

Castañeda, T., & Quiroz, J. (1985). LAS POLÍTICAS DE VIVIENDA EN CHILE Y SU IMPACTO REDISTRIBUTIVO EN 1969 Y 1980-‐1983. Taller de Recursos Humanos, Empleo y Pobreza, Departamento de Economía de la Universidad de Chile . Santiago: Estudios Publico.

CED, C. d. (1994). La Política de Desarrollo Urbano de los Años 90 en Chile: Lineamientos para una nueva política de desarrollo urbano. Working Document Number 12, SUR Profesionales, Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo, Santiago.

Cervero, R., & Duncan, M. (2004). Neighbourhood Composition and Residential La. Urban Studies , 41 (2), 299–315.

Chetty, R., Henderson, N., & Saez, E. (2014). Where is The Land of opportunity? The geography of integration mobility in the US. Internal Revenue Service or the U.S. Treasury Department. MIT PRESS.

Clarke, G. (1995). More evidence on income distribution and growth . Journal of Development Economics , 47, 403-‐427.

Consejo Nacional de Desarrollo Urbano, CNDU. (2015). Propuesta para un Política de Suelo para la Integración Social Urbana. MINVU, CNDU. Santiago: MINVU.

Coupé, F., & Cardona, J. G. (2013). Impact of the Metrocables on the Local Economy. In J. Dvila, Urban Mobility & Poverty (pp. 89-‐103). Medellin: Litoimpresos y Servicios.

Desmond, M., & Weihua, A. (2015). Neighborhood and Network Disadvantage among Urban Renters. Sociological Science , 2, 329-‐350.

Di Girolamo, J. L. (2014). Vivienda como capital para los residentes de campamentos en Chile: (in)ecuaciones de valor sobre informalidad, políticas e identidad. Revista del Centro de Investigación Social de un Techo para Chile (17), 50-‐72.

Diamond, J. (1997). Guns, germs and steel: The fate of human societies. NYC: W.W. Norton & Co.

Diamond, J. M. (2005). Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York, USA: Viking Press.

Duranton, G. (2014, Jun). Agglomeration Effects in Colombia. University of Pennsylvania .

Duranton, G. (2008). From Cities to Productivity and Growth in Developing Countries. The Canadian Journal of Economics V , 41 (3), 689-‐736.


33

Economist, T. (2014, May 3). A modern Marx -‐ Capitalism and its critics . The Economist , p. 338.

Farhadi, M. (2015). Transport infrastructure and long-‐run economic growth in OECD countries. Transportation Research Part A-‐Policy and Practice (74), 73-‐90.

Farías, I. (2014). Improvising a market, making a model: social housing policy in Chile. Economy and Society , 43 (3), 346-‐369.

Fernandez, R., & Rogerson, R. (1996). Distribution, Communities, and the Quality of Public Education. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 111 (1), 135-‐164.

Florida, R. (2015, 2 6). www.citylab.com. Retrieved 4 14, 2015 from citylab: http://www.citylab.com/politics/2015/01/the-‐connection-‐between-‐successful-‐cities-‐and-‐inequality/384243/

Galiani, S. P. (2014). Shelter from the Storm: Upgrading Housing Infrastructure in Latin American Slums. Inter-‐American Development Bank, Office of Strategic Planning and Development Effectiveness. Washington: IInter-‐American Development Bank.

Garcia de freitas, F., Magnabosco, A. L., & Cunha, P. H. (2013). Chile: Subsidios, crédito y déficit habitacional . CEPAL. Santiago: Revista Cepal.

Gatica, M. (2009). Metodologias de evaluacion del espacio publico. Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile. Santiago, Chile: Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile.

Gauthier, H. L. (1968). TRANSPORTATION AND THE GROWTH OF THE SÃO PAULO ECONOMY. Journal of Regional Science , 8 (1), 77-‐94.

Glaeser, E. (2005, Jun). INEQUALITY. NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH , 25.

Glaeser, E. (2011). Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier. Penguin Books.

Glaeser, E., & Ades, A. (1995). Trade and Circuses: Explaining Urban Giants. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 110 (1), 195-‐227.

Glaeser, E., Kahn, M., & Rappaport, J. (2008). Why do the poor live in cities? The role of public transportation. Journal of Urban Economics , 63 (1), 1-‐24.

Glaeser, E., Resseger, M., & Tobio, K. (2008). URBAN INEQUALITY. NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH .

Green, M., Rosas, J., & Valenzuela, L. (2008). Santiago Urbano. Santiago, RM, Chie: ARQ.

Griffin, A., West, S. A., & Buckling, A. (2004). Cooperation and competition in pathogenic bacteria. Nature , 430 (7003), 1024–1027.

Griggs, J. (2008). The costs of child poverty for individuals and society. http://www.jrf.org.uk/system/files/2301-‐child-‐poverty-‐costs.pdf. London: Joseph Rowentry Fundation.

Guerrero, I., Lopez-‐Calva, L. F., & Walton, M. (2006). The Inequality Trap and its Links to Low Growth in Mexico. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from http://iepecdg.com.br/uploads/artigos/walton-‐ingles-‐24-‐11-‐17122006.pdf .

Henderson, J. (2015). Chapter 13. Urbanization and the Geography of Development in Countries. In J. Henderson, G. Duranton, & W. Strange, Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics. Elsevier.

Hess, D. B., & Almeida, T. M. (2007). Hess, D. B., and T. M. Almeida. 2007. Impact of proximity to light rail rapid transit on station-‐area property values in Buffalo, New York. . Urban Studies , 44 (5/6), 1041–1068.

Hong, J., Chu, Z., & Wang, Q. (2011). Transport infrastructure and regional economic growth: evidence from China. Transportation (38.5), 737-‐752.

IMF; World Bank. (2013). Global Monitoring Report (GMR). New York: The World Bank.

Jordán, M. (2014). Implementation Evaluation Design Mi Parque Program -‐ Thesis. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND -‐ SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY .

Kahn, M. (2007). Gentrification Trends in New Transit-‐Oriented Communities: Evidence from 14 Cities That Expanded and Built Rail Transit Systems. REAL ESTATE ECONOMICS , 35 (2), 155–182.

Kahn, M. (2000). The environmental impact of suburbanization. E. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , 19 (41), 569-‐586.

Katz, L. a. (1992). “Changes in Relative Wages, 1963-‐1987: Supply and Demand Factors” . Quarterly Journal of Economics , 107 (1), 35-‐78. .

Kopel, D. (2002). Silencing opposition in the EU. EU: Chronicles.

Krugman, P. (2014, August 7). Inequality Is a Drag. The New York Times .

Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic Growth and Income Inequality. American Economic Review (45), 1-‐28.

Lascaux, A. (2012). Money Trust and Hierarchies: Understanding the Foundations for Placing Confidence in Complex Economic Institutions. Journal of Economic Issues , 46 (1), 75-‐99.

Leduc, S., & Wilson, D. (2013). Roads to Prosperity or Bridges to Nowhere? Theory and Evidence on the Impact of Public Infrastructure Investment . In D. Acemoglu, J. Parker, & M. Woodford, NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2012, Volume 27 (pp. 89-‐142). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Leibler, L., & Brand, P. (2012). Movilidad e inclusión social: la experiencia desde la periferia de Medellín y el primer Metrocable. Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Études Andines , 41 (3), 363-‐387.


34

Lin, J. (2002). Gentrification and Transit in Northwest Chicago. Transportation Quarterly; , 56 (4), 175.

Linton, M. (2006). Robespierre and the Terror. History Today , 56 (8).

Little, D. (2012). Durable Inequalities. In D. Little, Varieties Of Social Explanations: An introduction to the philosophy of social Science. Westview Press, Inc.

Lizarraga, C. (2012). Metropolitan expansion and mobility: the case of Caracas. Eure , 38 (113), 99-‐126.

López-‐calva, L. F. (2006). The Inequality Trap and its Links to Low Growth in Mexico. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University.

Luttmer, E. (2005). Neighbors as negatives: relative earnings and well-‐being. Quarterly Journal of Economics , 120, 963 – 1002.

Mingo, O., & Solar, M. (2014). Mapa valor de suelo para Modelo de inteligencia teritorial MEDIT. URBANA VALOR, Geography. Santiago: URBANA VALOR.

MINVU. (2004). El déficit habitacional en Chile: Medición de los requerimientos de vivienda y su distribución espacial. Política Habitacional y Planificación. Santiago, Chile: Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo de Chile.

MINVU. (2006, JAN 1). MINVU. Retrieved AUG 1, 2015 from Programa Actualización de Instrumentos de Planificación Territorial: Actualización de Instrumentos de Planificación Territorial

Moelis Institute, F. A. (2015). Housing, Neighborhoods, and Opportunity: The Location of New York City’s Subsidized Affordable Housing. NYC: NYC Furman Center.

National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2013, Feb 22). National Bureau of Statistics of China. Retrieved Aug 23, 2015 from Statistical Communiqué of the People's Republic of China on the 2012 National Economic and Social Development: http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/NewsEvents/201302/t20130222_26962.html

Navarro, M. (2005). Housing Finance Policy in Chile: The Last 30 Years . Land Lines , 17 (3).

Nieto, M. d. (2010). Quiero mi Barrio, Chile. In E. Rojas, Building Cities Neighbourhood Upgrading and Urban Quality of Life (p. 123). NYC: Inter-‐American Development Bank.

Noe, R., & Hammerstein, P. (1994). Biological markets: supply and demand determine the effect of partner choice in cooperation, mutualism and mating. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol , 35, 1-‐11.

OCUC. (2014, Jun 20). Observatorio de Ciudad Universidad Catolica. Retrieved Aug 27, 2015 from Descargas: http://www.ocuc.cl/?page_id=18

OECD. (2011). OECD. Retrieved AUG 20, 2015 from OECD Income Distribution Database (IDD): Gini, poverty, income, Methods and Concepts:

http://www.oecd.org/social/income-‐distribution-‐database.htm

O'Gorman, R., Wilson, D. S., & Sheldon, K. M. (2008). "For the good of the group? Exploring group-‐level evolutionary adaptations using multilevel selection theory". . Group Dynamics-‐Theory Research and Practice , 12 (1), 17-‐26.

Olivos, C. (2013, Jun). Análisis de Proximidad a servicios y equipamiento para el Área Metropolitana de Santiago (AMS). (http://bit.ly/1ND2T41, Ed.) PROYECTO DE PRACTICA PROFESIONAL , 107.

O'Sullivan, A. (2012). Chapert 1 intro. to urban axioms & 2 why do cities exist? In A. O'Sullivan, Urban Economics (8th ed., pp. 1-‐33). NYC: McGraw Hill.

Ottensmanna, J. R., Paytona, S., & Man, J. (2008). Urban Location and Housing Prices within a Hedonic Model. JRAP , 38 (1), 19-‐35.

Page, E. C. (2005). THE ORIGINS OF POLICY. In M. Moran, & M. G. Rein, The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy (p. 205). Oxford: Oxford Handbooks of Political Science.

Penteado, S. (2013, 7 19). Neighbourhood Recovery Programme "I Love My Neighbourhood" (Programa Quiero Mi Barrio) -‐ Chile. Retrieved 4 26, 2015 from Participedia: http://participedia.net/en/cases/neighbourhood-‐recovery-‐programme-‐i-‐love-‐my-‐neighbourhood-‐programa-‐quiero-‐mi-‐barrio-‐chile

Peterson, G. E. (2009). Unlocking Land Values to Finance Urban Infrastructure. TRENDS AND POLICY OPTIONS No.7. Washington DC : The World Bank.

Piketty, T. (2013). Kapital in the XXI century. Paris. Piketty, T., & Saez, E. (2003). ncome Inequality in the

United States, 1913–1998. Quarterly Journal of Economics , 118 (1), 1-‐39.

Pollack, S., Bluestone, B., & Billingham, C. (2010). Maintaining Diversity In America’s Transit-‐Rich Neighborhoods:. Northeastern University. Boston, MA: Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy.

Popov, V. (2010). Life Cycle of the Centrally Planned Economy: Why Soviet Growth Rates Peaked in the 1950s. Federal Bank St. Louis. USA: IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEc.

Pradhan, R. P. (2010). Transport Infrastructure, Energy Consumption and Economic Growth Triangle in India: Cointegration and Causality Analysis . Journal of Sustainable Development , 3 (2 ), 167-‐173.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). The dark side of Social Capital. In R. D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (p. 350). NYC: Simon & Schuster.

Romero, H., Vásquez, A., Fuentes, C., Salgado, M., Schmidt, A., Banzhaf, E., et al. (2010). Assessing urban environmental segregation (UES) The case of Santiago de Chile. Ecological Indicators (23), 76–87.


35

Rosenthal, S. S., & Strange, W. C. (2010). Urban economics and entrepreneurship. Journal of urban economics , 67 (1), 1-‐14.

S&P. (2014). How Increasing Income Inequality Is Dampening U.S. Economic Growth, And Possible Ways To Change The Tide. NYC: Standard & Poor Capital IQ.

SCARPA, S. (2015). THE SPATIAL MANIFESTATION OF INEQUALITY Residential segregation in Sweden and its causes. Linnaeus University Dissertations (201).

Scarpacia, J. L., Infanteb, R. P., & Caetec, A. (1988). PLANNING RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION: THE CASE OF SANTIAGO, CHILE. Urban Geography (1), 19-‐36.

Sivy, M. (2012, November 1). What Should Be Done About Growing Inequality? Time .

Smith, A. (1759). The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Edinburgh: A. Kincaid and J. Bell.

Stiglitz, J. (2009). The global crisis, social protection and jobs . International Labour Review , 148 (1-‐2), 1-‐13.

Stiglitz, J. (2012). The Price of Inequality. NYC, USA: W.W. Norton & Company.

Temple, J. (1999). The New Growth Evidence. Journal of Economic Literature , 37 (1), 112-‐156.

The Economist, R.A. (2013, Jun). London house prices The parasitic city. The Economist .

The World Bank. (2011, Jan 1). World Bank (DATA). Retrieved 08 20, 2015 from GINI index (World Bank estimate): http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI/

Tilly, C. (1998). Durable Inequality. CA: University of California Press.

Tonkiss, F., Passey, A., Fenton, N., & Hems, L. C. (2000). Trust and Civil Society. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

UNDP. (1999). HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 1999. United Nations Development Programme. NYC: Oxford University Press, Inc.

United Nations. (2015). HABITAT III ISSUE PAPERS 1 -‐ INCLUSIVE CITIES. Habitat III. New York: UN.

United Nations. (2013). Human Development Report – "The Rise of the South: Human Progress in a Diverse World"". HDRO. New York: Development Programme.

United Nations. (2014). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/352). . Department of Economic and Social Affairs, . New York: UN Population Division .

Varun Gauri, E. S. (2006). Boundary institutions and HIV/AIDS policy in Brazil and South Africa. Studies in Comparative International Development , 47.

Vickerman, R., Spiekermann, K., & Wegener, M. (1999). Accessibility and economic development in Europe . Regional Studies , 33 (1), 1-‐15.

Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Looking Outside In: Social Influences on Competitiveness. Ecology and Society , 9 (2), 5.

Watson, V. (2009). ‘The planned city sweeps the poor away: Urban planning and 21st century urbanisation. Progress in Planning (72), 151–193.

West, S. A., Pen, I., & Griffin, A. S. (2002). Cooperation and Competition Between Relatives. Science , 296 (5565), 72-‐75.

Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2010). The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone. London: Penguin.

Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2009). The spirit level: Why equality is Better for Everyone. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

Wilmshurst, J., & MacKay, A. (1999). The Fundamentals of Advertising.

Wilson, D., & Sober, E. (1994). Reintroducing group selection to the human behavioral sciences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 17 (4), 585–654.

Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social Capital: Implications for Development Theory, Research, and Policy. The World Bank Research Observe , 15 (2), 225-‐49.

World Bank, The . (2006). Mexico's competitiveness : reaching its potential. Mexico. Washington, DC: : The World Bank.

Zúñiga, C. (2010, november 25). El “saco sin fondo” del déficit habitacional: 900 mil familias sin casa en Chile. Retrieved April 25, 2015 from Diario Universidad De Chile: http://radio.uchile.cl/2010/11/25/el-‐saco-‐sib-‐fondo-‐del-‐deficit-‐habitacional-‐900-‐mil-‐familias-‐sin-‐casa-‐en-‐chile

Planning the Unequal City Critical issues of urban policy design in high social inequality context for developing countries.

Documents