| dc.description.abstract | Theoretically, land policy is presented as a necessary intervention by governments in
order to iron out the inefficiencies inherent in land markets. The result would be a smooth
working urban land market, yielding an equitable and efficient land use structure. In practice
though, land policy is part and parcel, and, indeed, a paradigm of the wiser issues of
governance. Historically, land policy has been used to serve colonial interests; to achieve
• segregation between social groups in society; to justify and concretise exploitation and social
inequalities; and to allocate wealth, power, and privilege. Laws can be passed, or
inappropriate laws upheld by those who control land policy to help them benefit from this
policy rather than meet-the perceived ends of society.
This study surveys the impacts of various tools of land policy on the land use structure
of Oar es Salaam. over a period spanning a century from the 1890s. At no time has land
policy been found to have aimed at smoothening the workings of the urban land market.
Throughout, land policy has been found .to have been geared to serving colonial interests, and
the interests of government officials and politicians. The result has been an inefficient and
inequitable land use structure for Oar es Salaam characterized by social segregation, land
grabbing and hoarding, urban sprawl, poor land servicing, prevalent squatting, unequal access
to planned and serviced land, violation of land use regulations, disregard of public interests
in land use (e.g. diminution of public open spaces and hazard lands).
Government intervention in land markets through land policy is seen as necessary, but
past policies are seen as having been inappropriate since they are shown to have been geared
towards perpetuating inequality and privilege. A new approach to land policy has been
therefore called for. Recommendations put forward for this new land policy include:
The retuning of land policy so that in principle and practice land policy addresses and
caters for the interests of the majority of the urban population by, for example,
working with, and supporting the actions of the majority of urbanites, and thus
stopping conceiving land use schemes in terms of benefitting those who are socially
powerful to the complete disregard of of those who are socially weak; and here,
policies like land poling and adjustment can prove to be very useful;
Transparency and social accountability in the delivery of land policy;
The reviewing of major tools of land policy such as the Land Ordinance, the Town and
Country Planning Ordinance, the Land Acquisition Act, and the various land use and
building regulations so that they protect and enhance the interests of the majority;
The generation of more revenue from the current planned land schemes so as to enable
the authorities to adopt a more dynamic land policy as a way of reaching more people,
removing inequity, and enhancing positive externalities as well as minimising harmful
ones;
Effective devolvement of land delivery powers to local and neighbourhood authorities
.and rnaximisation of public participation;
Removing unnecesary bureaucracv in land delivery; and
generally, smoothening the working of the urban land market in both the informal and
formal sectors.
The basic principle guiding land policy must be the interests of the majority of the urban
population. This way, both efficiency and equity in the delivery of land policy can be realist | en |
