Search results

The purpose of this paper is to review the issues involved in land value taxation and betterment and the issues involved in apportioning value between land and improvements.

The theoretical and valuation issues in betterment are reviewed and a case study of a betterment tax introduced in the UK is used to illustrate the practical problems in implementation.

The idea of land value taxation depends upon being able to apportion property values between land and improvements. This raises both theoretical and practical problems that are difficult to overcome.

The apportionment property values between land and improvements produces results that cannot be verified by market evidence, suggesting that an alternative approach be adopted through value-based recurrent property taxes revalued at frequent intervals.

Much of the literature has concentrated on the theoretical advantages of land value taxation rather than examining the practical problems of implementation. These suggest a different approach with less emphasis on betterment taxes and more on how recurrent property taxes can be an effective instrument for value capture.

This study aims to present the findings from a series of case studies that examine the problems faced by countries seeking to introduce value-based recurrent property taxes to replace the ones levied on the basis of area or inventory value. It identifies that two of the most significant barriers are the absence of comprehensive list of taxable properties and inadequate data on transaction prices. Both of these can be overcome with sufficient resources, but this raises the question as to why governments are reluctant to do so, in spite of the advantages of such a change.

The paper makes particular use of case studies of Moldova, Poland, Serbia and Turkey, which have explored the potential of introducing value-based recurrent property taxes and the issues they have faced. The case studies have been produced by participant observers who have had the opportunity to examine developments over long periods of time. The case studies are set against a wider statistical analysis of the role of recurrent property taxes in tax systems.

Putting in place comprehensive systems for registering properties and recording their characteristics and systematically collecting data on transaction prices require significant investment over a long period of time. This requires commitment on behalf of governments. Governments may be reluctant to support this because of the opposition such reforms can face unless confronted with compelling fiscal or external pressures to act.

The issues identified are the ones that many countries seeking to introduce value-based recurrent property taxes will face and puts forward how they can be tackled. The case study countries are middle-income ones with relatively well-developed infrastructure, which low-income countries may lack.

The solutions to overcoming the barriers to value-based recurrent property taxes encountered in the case study countries are the ones that are applicable to many other countries, who can learn from their experience.

The paper provides a perspective on overcoming the issues encountered in introducing value-based property taxes from the viewpoint of those who have been involved in working out ways of overcoming them and so provides insight that is a useful addition to the literature.

This paper aims to report the findings of a study of nine countries in Europe and Central Asia (ECA) that have either recently introduced or are working towards the introduction of value-based recurrent property taxes. Although many countries have recurrent property taxes, often, they are not value-based and raise relatively little revenue. This paper examines the barriers to the introduction of value-based property taxes and discusses how they can be overcome.

Case studies of recurrent property taxation were undertaken for eight countries from the World Bank’s ECA region. The sample included countries at different stages in the development of value-based property tax systems. A ninth country, The Netherlands, which has a well-developed mass valuation system, was included for comparison.

Barriers to the introduction of value-based recurrent property taxes are technical and political or governance ones. The technical barriers include the comprehensiveness of property registration, the quality of transaction price data, the extent to which the valuation infrastructure meets internationally recognised standards and the quality of tax collection systems. The principal political and governance problems are the unpopularity of property taxes, the need to convince the public that they are fair and the lack of champions of property taxation in government.

The case studies are drawn from the ECA region, but the issues raised apply in many other parts of the world. A case study approach produces rich data for each example that enables key issues to be explored in depth.

The study has identified issues and ways of approaching them that are relevant to countries seeking to introduce value-based recurrent property taxes so that they can learn from the experience of others.

The approach has enabled a systematic comparison between countries so that common experiences and issues are identified.

The article aims to examine why residential property price indices (RPPI) are important, particularly in the European Union (EU) with its highly integrated financial system and examines the problems in developing a pan-European price index that aggregates the indices of different countries.

The reasons why RPPI are important is explored through a review of the literature on residential price bubbles and the issues with the indices through studies of individual examples.

Financial integration in the EU has taken place without adequate consideration having been given to diversity in residential property markets. The development of means of monitoring them has lagged behind integration with the national price indices using a variety of methods and approaches to data that limit the extent to which they can be aggregated.

The article shows the need for better quality data about house price trends in Europe if the consequences of future bubbles are to be avoided. Current initiatives are unlikely to satisfy this, as they leave too many choices about methodology and data in the hands of individual countries.

Land governance plays an important part in influencing the quality of valuations. The purpose of this paper is to review the different meanings of governance.

The World Bank Indicators of Governance, Jones Lang LaSalle's Global Real Estate Transparency Index (GRETI) and other data sources have been consulted.

The paper discusses what is meant by good governance and how this can be measured.

The paper presents some evidence to suggest that market transparency requires freedom of information and association, and is associated with factors such as the quality of institutions, the absence of corruption, and the quality of corporate governance.

The purpose is to review what is known about property bubbles and their causes.

The method has been to review the literature on bubbles in the property and other asset markets to examine their likely causes and whether there are specific aspects of the property market that make it more prone to bubbles.

The property market has features that make it susceptible to bubbles, particularly inelasticity in supply and the absence of short selling. Bubbles can develop where there are heterogeneous beliefs. The way in which property tends to be financed helps to facilitate bubbles and transmit their effects onto the wider economy.

The collapse in property prices after the financial crisis of 2008, like previous bubble collapses, has inflicted serious damage on the wider economy through losses of banks' capital, reductions in lending, and increased risk aversion. Understanding why bubbles exist offers the potential to devise policies to limit the impact of their collapse.

Much of the literature on asset bubbles is based on securities markets. It is important to recognise the differences between the property market and securities markets, particularly how investment is financed.