188体育

Date Published:
Jun 01, 2000
Focus Area(s):
Code:
DP 2000-20

This paper examines land use planning in Metro Manila and the urban fringe and analyzes its effect on transactions in the urban land and real estate market. The analysis begins with a historical review of land use planning strategies in the metropolitan area and the attendant bureaucratic changes that occurred. The effects of these planning strategies on the urban land and real estate market are then analyzed using the transaction cost framework of the new institutional economics (NIE). It is argued that transaction costs in the land and real estate market in the Philippines has been significant due to the confusion brought about by unclear land use policies of the government. These costs have been noted to increase as government shifted from an interventionist and centralized system to a liberal and decentralized system of land use planning. The system of permits and licensing has become more complicated and inefficient overtime. To economize on transaction costs, real estate development companies engage in a lot of contracting and sub-contracting in the market. Relational contracting in the forms of "grease鈥� money and procedural short-cuts has been common to obtain development approvals. The high transaction costs are reflected in the prices of urban real estate. While Metro Manila has the lowest per unit costs of construction among neighboring cities in Asia, the high transaction costs make housing more expensive in the country than elsewhere in Asia. Contradicting policies on Philippine land use have to be corrected. Moreover, stronger and more direct government presence in the land and real estate market through land use planning and urban management seems necessary.

Citations

This publication has been cited 11 times

In other Publications
  1. Ballesteros, Marife M.. 2001. . Discussion Papers DP 2001-15. Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
  2. Ballesteros, Marife M.. 2002. . Research Paper Series RPS 2002-01. Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
  3. Ballesteros, Marife M.=. 2002. . Discussion Papers DP 2002-16. Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
  4. Dasgupta,Basab, Somik V. Lall, and Nancy Lozano Gracia. 2014. . Policy Research Working Paper Series 7110. The World Bank. .
  5. Lavado, Rouselle F. and Leizel P. Lagrada. 2010. . Philippine Journal of Development PJD, 35, no. 2. Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
  6. Meerow, Sara . 2017. . Environment and Planning A, 49, no. 11, 2649-2672.
  7. Monsod, Toby C.. 2011. . Philippine Review of Economics, 48, no. 1, 125-146. University of the Philippines School of Economics and Philippine Economic Society.
  8. Navarro, Adoracion M.. 2014. . Discussion Papers DP 2014-37. Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
  9. Senate Economic Planning Office (SEPO). 2015. . Working Papers id:7083. eSocialSciences.
  10. Shatkin, Gavin. 2004. . Urban Studies, 41, no. 12, 2469-2484 . Urban Studies Journal Limited.
  11. Yujuico, Emmanuel. 2015. . Journal of Transport Geography, 42(C), 48-56. Elsevier.


Main Menu

Secondary Menu