Informal housing in the XXI century. Characteristics of the informal land and housing supply in Bogota during the first decade of the XXI century

This article characterizes the conditions of the informal land and housing supply during the first decade of the xxi century in Bogota, regarding magnitude and location of the informal urban growth (new occupations in the periphery and informal densification of consolidated areas), housing  conditions in recent occupations and the characteristics of the land market. The situation of the  last decade has been reconstructed based in aerial photography analysis, census data quantification  and data analysis from planning and control public entities. Results suggest that due to the relative  land scarcity in Bogotá, among other aspects, the informal market dynamics have experimented changes compared to previous decades, because the growth in consolidated urban areas becomes  more important than the informal urbanization of the peripheries, but at the same time informality  transcends the municipal perimeter to the neighboring municipalities.

The Bureaucratic Impact of the mobilization for Land. Lessons from the Liberal Republic

The State-building process must be understood through the study of the agencies in charge of each of its regulatory functions. One such function is the regulation of property rights. During the Liberal Republic, as a reaction to the massive mobilization,new tools to better regulate property rights were promoted: colonization, parceling, the award of public lands and, at the end, a new legal framework. In spite of its purposes, they faced and failed to solve the challenges every organization experiences when growing: resource scarcity, controlling its agents, and keeping technical simplicity.

The project of land restitution in Colombia: an illustration of the civilizing force of hypocrisy?

This article offers a theoretical interpretation of the dispositions on land restitution contained in the famous “Victims’ Bill”, which was debated in the Colombian Congress during the year 2008. The bill included specific mechanisms aimed at guaranteeing the restitution of land to victims of the Colombian armed conflict. At the time, the bill was endorsed by all the main political actors in the country –notably the government and the elites that support it, on the one hand, and victims’ and human rights organizations and other opposition groups, on the other–. The fact that the restitution of land to victims of the Colombian armed conflict was being considered as a serious possibility by all political actors in the country seemed to indicate the existence of a consensus among actors whose positions are ordinarily opposed, on an issue that has traditionally led to high levels of polarization. This consensus is quite puzzling, because it seems to be at odds with the interests and/or the conceptions of justice advocated by these political actors, and because the restitution of land faces enormous difficulties both from a factual and a normative point of view, which indicates that it may not necessarily be the best alternative for dealing with the issue of land distribution in Colombia. This article offers an interpretation of said consensus, arguing that it is only an apparent consensus in which the actors are actually misrepresenting their interests and conceptions of justice, while at the same time adopting divergent strategies of implementation aimed at fulfilling their true interests. Nevertheless, the article concludes that the common adherence by all actors to the principle of restorative justice might bring about its actual realization, and thus produce an outcome that, in spite (and perhaps even because) of being unintended, might substantively contribute to solving the problem of unequal land distribution in Colombia. Even though the article focuses in some detail on the specificities of the 2008 Bill, it attempts to make a general argument about the state of the discussion on how to deal with the issue of land distribution in the country. Consequently, it may still be relevant today, especially considering that a new Bill on land restitution is currently being discussed in Congress, which includes the same restitution goals as the Victims’ Bill and many of its procedural and substantive details, and which therefore seems to reflect a similar consensus to the one analyzed in the article.