Introducing More Transparent and Efficient Land Management in Post-Socialist Cities: Lessons from Kyrgyzstan

• Authors: Olga Kaganova , Abdirasul Akmatov , Charles Undeland

Title variants

LT

Skaidresnės IR Efektyvesnės Žemėtvarkos Įvedimas Posovietiniuose Miestuose: Kirgizijos Pamokos

Abstracts

EN

The Urban Institute (UI) worked with five cities in post-Soviet Kyrgyzstan to apply better management practices through the development of Strategic Land Management Plans. Kyrgyzstan transferred property to local governments, but municipal land management had remained poor owing to a proliferation of responsible agencies, lack of rule of law, corruption, and passiveness on the part of local governments. UI worked with local governments to make an inventory of municipal land, publicize the results, and develop a strategy that articulated principles for land management and an implementation plan. This led to several improvements including proper registration of parcels and proactive policies to lease and sell land through open competition. It also established a model for determining public policy that countered corruption and public deliberation of costs and benefits in the use of local assets. Donor involvement to promote good land legislation, the property registration system, and decentralization was also critical to success.

LT

Urbanistikos institutas bendradarbiavo su penkiais posovietinės Kirgizijos miestais, kad, plėtodamas strateginės žemėtvarkos planus, įvestų geresnę vadybos praktiką. Kirgizijoje nuosavybė perduota vietos valdžiai, tačiau žemėtvarkos būklė savivaldybėse išliko vargana dėl atsakingų tarnybų gausos, įstatymų trūkumo, korupcijos ir vietos valdžios pasyvumo. Urbanistikos institutas bendradarbiavo su vietos valdžia, siekdamas inventorizuoti savivaldybių žemę, paskelbti rezultatus ir sukurti strategiją, pabrėžiančią žemėtvarkos principus ir įgyvendinimo planą. Tai leido kai ką patobulinti, įskaitant deramą sklypų registravimą ir aktyvią žemės nuomos bei pardavimo per atvirus konkursus politiką. Be to, sudarytas modelis, nustatantis viešąją politiką, kovojančią su korupcija, ir viešus sąnaudų ir naudos svarstymus naudojant vietinį turtą. Prie gerų žemės įstatymų, nuosavybės registravimo sistemos ir decentralizacijos sėkmingo propagavimo daug prisidėjo ir rėmėjai.

Keywords

EN

Land management; Local government; Municipal property; Decentralization; Transparency

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: International Journal of Strategic Property Management
• Year: 2008
• Volume: 12
• Issue: 3
• Pages: 161-181

Contributors

author

Olga Kaganova

• Urban Institute, 2100 M St., NW, Washington, DC 20037, USA

author

Abdirasul Akmatov

• Land Management Expert, Urban Institute/Bishkek, 195 Tynystanova St, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan

author

Charles Undeland

• Independent consultant, 45 Orozbekov St., Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan

References

• Atack, J. and Margo, R.A. (1998) "Location, location, location!" The price gradient for vacant urban land: New York, 1835 to 1900,Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 16(2), pp. 151-172.
• Bertaud, A. and Renaud, B. (1997) Socialist cities without land markets,Journal of Urban Economics, 41(1), pp. 137-151.
• Bramley, G. (2001) Monitoring and Managing Urban Growth in the United Kingdom. In: Gerrit J. Knaap (ed.)Land Market Monitoring for Smart Urban Growth, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, pp. 335-366.
• Buckley, R.M. and Kalarickal, J. (eds.) (2006)Thirty years of World Bank shelter lending: What have we learned?Washington, DC: The World Bank.
• FIAS (2005) Land Reform Privatization Procedures and Monitoring System. Final Report on Business Access to Land, Prepared for the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation.
• Garba, S.B. and Al-Mubaiyedh, S. (1999) An assessment framework for public urban land management intervention,Land Use Policy, 16(4), pp. 269-279.
• Hall, C. (2001) Identifying Vacant and Buildable Land. In: Gerrit J. Knaap (ed.)Land Market Monitoring for Smart Urban Growth.Cambridge, Massachusetts: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, pp. 53-68.
• Kaganova, O. (2006) A Need for Guidance in Countries with Emerging Markets. In: Kaganova, O. and McKellar, J. (eds.),Managing Government Property Assets, Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press, pp. 255-295.
• Kaganova, O., Tian, V. and Undeland, C. (2001) Learning how to be efficient property owners and accountable governments: The case of Kyrgyzstan's cities,Public Administration and Development, 21(4), pp. 333-341.
• Kaganova, O. (1999) Russian home-building in transition,Journal of Real Estate Literature, 7(1), pp. 65-76.
• Moundon, A.V. and Hubner, M. (2000) Current Land Monitoring Practices and Use of GIS: Challenges and Opportunities. In: Moundon, A.V. and Hubner, M. (eds.)Monitoring Land Supply with Geographic Information Systems, New York, Chichester, Weinheim, Brisbane, Singapore, Toronto: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 17-40.
• Peterson, G. (2007) Land Leasing and Land Sales as an Infrastructure Financing Option. In: Peterson, G. and Annez, P.C. (eds.)Financing Cities, The World Bank, pp. 284-306.
• Peterson, G. (2006) Municipal Asset Management: A Balance Sheet Perspective. In: Kaganova, O. and McKellar, J. (eds.)Managing Government Property Assets, Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press, pp. 145-169.
• Rajack, R. (2007) Does the ownership and management of public land matter to land market outcomes? Commissioned Research Paper,4thInternational Urban Research Symposium, World Bank, May, 2007.
• Strong, A.L. (2003) Tenure Choice for Urban Land Privatization in Ukraine. In: Bourassa, S. and Hong, Yu-H. (eds.)Leasing Public Land: Policy Debates and International Experiences, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, pp. 179-204.

Identifiers

DOI

10.3846/1648-715X.2008.12.161-181