Abstract
This paper will be based on recent action research in Mozambique
and Angola, both of which are developing new land and planning legislation
largely reflecting their situation in opening to market forces,
but also post-war democracy. A crucial issue for both countries
has been to what extent emerging land markets are formally recognized,
and under what forms of tenure, as land formally remains nationalized
and/or under state control.
The research has been focused on the impact on the urban poor of
the new legislation and market tendencies. It deals mainly, but
not exclusively with the two capital cities, and in peri-urban areas
of these - seen as the urban-rural interface, as in these areas
both urban and rural-based traditions are active. It has sought
to identify appropriate urban land management mechanisms that are
politically acceptable, socially legitimate, economically sound
and institutionally practicable. Rather than starting from a best
practice approach, these research projects have concentrated initially
on a political economic analysis of the context, as well as in-depth
analysis of the socio-economic situations and cultural perceptions
of the urban poor, including actual urban land management/market
mechanisms, which are mostly informal. This has been seen as necessary
to both permit political and social awareness of the need for appropriate
mechanisms, and ground these in local institutions (mental models
and organizational structures). The research can then draw from
international experience and assess how to apply this locally, and
the on-going nature of the legislative changes lead to this being
termed action research.
The paper provides a short introduction to the urban land management
situation in both countries, with specific focus on Maputo and Luanda,
followed by the results of the research available to date (institutional
attitudes and initial fieldwork), on the basis of which it reviews
the possible applicability of international experience. Overall
the research, while accepting that market activity is a fact and
can be an appropriate exchange mechanism for urban land, argues
for socially modified market mechanisms to be established to both
protect the poor majority and create a solid basis for improved
urban efficiency. In this it is critical of more simplistic state-nationalised
or "free-market" approaches to urban land management in
such situations, where both the state and the formal market are
weak.
|
