Although economic growth is essential to reduce poverty, it is not enough to reverse it. A comprehensive approach is needed to transform the conditions of exclusion. Socio-urban integration promotes the development of those living in poor neighbourhoods by improving structural conditions. Argentina has been working along this line for years and today it is a State policy. We must avoid going backwards with actions that defund what has already been established. Instead, it is essential to explore new financing schemes to maximize the benefits of this tool and broaden its impact.
Illustration: Guillermo Meza.
What is social and urban integration and why is it needed?
Popular neighbourhoods are the areas where structural poverty is concentrated in our country. The first settlements arose in the early 1900s a product of internal and external migrations- and grew at the pace of urbanization and local industrialization. Today there are 6467 such neighbourhoods throughout the country, where more than five million people live.
The social and urban integration policy recognizes all the existing inequalities in these neighborhoods and proposes concrete policies to solve them. It seeks to intervene in these settlements to generate minimum conditions and equalize the development possibilities of each person. This translates into addressing three major dimensions: housing, urban and socioeconomic. This comprehensive approach makes this public policy a fundamental tool for generating fundamental changes to combat structural poverty.
This multidimensional approach focused on improving living conditions in poor neighbourhoods has proven to be effective both in Argentina and in the region. In the last four years, the interventions carried out through this public policy have benefited more than 1.5 million people. Its continuity and deepening are essential to achieve the construction of a sustainable and inclusive Argentina.
From the problem of informal housing to State polic
Before moving on to the current challenges, let us briefly review the history of these policies. The Argentine State recognized the housing problem early on (with the right to decent housing expressed in the National Constitution). However, the approaches from which habitat was addressed were not always the same and did not always enjoy great consensus.
1960-1970 | Eradication and resettlement
In response to the growth of poor neighbourhoods, policies were implemented that focused mainly on the illegality of the occupations and their eviction. In some cases, resettlement in housing built by the State was also contemplated. These strategies were very costly: because of the construction costs, the displacement costs and the social pressures generated. Moreover, they were limited to housing, only one dimension of a more complex problem.
1980-1990 : Physical integration and regularisation
With the return to democracy, an approach that prioritized the physical integration of the settlements with the rest of the city prevailed. Infrastructure works were carried out (new roads and streets) and improvements in sanitation (connection to water, sewage and rainwater networks). Actions were undertaken to improve the housing deficit. And the regularization of land tenure was promoted.
2003 - 2015 : Improvement of living condition
Marked by the 2001 crisis, the proposals of these years sought to solve the public problem of the housing deficit and promote the productive reactivation of the sectors involved. Between 2003 and 2013, more than 700,000 housing solutions were provided (including new housing and improvements to existing ones). However, the benefits of this physical integration were reduced in the context of the social problems faced by the inhabitants of the settlements, raising the need for new approaches.
Towards an integral perspective
Among civil society, academia and state decision-makers, the need to emphasize the housing deficit and the problem of exclusion (and all its dimensions) is gaining momentum. Thus, socio-urban integration was established as a public policy aimed at comprehensively combating structural poverty, and promoting a redesign of housing policies.
Socio-urban integration policies
The problem of informal habitat has a long history in Argentina. Although there were previous experiences driven, above all, by civil society, until 2016, there was no systematized and official information that would allow us to know in an aggregate way the reality of popular neighbourhoods. During the government of Mauricio Macri, the first steps were taken towards the creation of the socio-urban integration policy at the national level. This was driven, fundamentally, by the first survey of popular neighborhoods at the national level, the establishment of a specific legal framework that culminated in the law, and the design of a specific financing mechanism to enable the required scale and sustainability.
These bases were consolidated during the administration of Alberto Fernández, when FISU was put into operation, provided with resources, the first major works were executed and the RENABAP updates were published. This specific path shows that, unlike other agendas, the socio-urban integration policy underwent, during the last eight years, a process of consolidation that transcended partisan differences.
Survey of popular neighbourhood
The 2016 National Survey of Popular Neighborhoods was the first step in the process of institutionalizing the integration policy. It meant a new step in the identification of the target population of the public policy. It offered a comprehensive knowledge of the living conditions in the neighborhoods, fundamental information to delimit the scope of application of the socio-urban integration policy .
According to the data collected:
- Approximately four million people (935,000 families) lived, at that time, in the 4416 popular barrios identified throughout the country.
- About 38% of those living in the barrios were under 15 years of age, and almost 70% were under 29 years of age.
- In terms of basic services, it was estimated that 93% of the households did not have formal access to the running water network, 98% did not have formal access to the sewage network, 70% did not have formal access to the electricity network and 98% did not have access to the formal Natural Gas network.
Popular neighborhoods law
In October 2018, Law 27,453 on the Regime of Property Regularization for Sociourban Integration -better known as the “Popular neighborhoods law”- was sanctioned with a broad consensus of all political forces. It became the regulatory pillar to work on the socio-urban integration of popular neighbourhoods in a systemic way.
Socio-Urban Integration Fund (FISU)
The main purpose of FISU is to finance social and urban integration projects for the Barrios Populares that are registered in the National Registry and to create serviced lots. It was created to try to circumvent the risks associated with fiscal restrictions that could affect the implementation of the Popular Neighborhoods Law. Along these lines, in December 2019, Congress voted on the Economic Emergency Law. It established the creation of the PAÍS tax and allocated 9% of the proceeds to finance the FISU, becoming its main source of resources.
Secretariat for Social and Urban Integration (SISU)
The 2019 decree that gave rise to the FISU designated the Secretariat of Socio-urban Integration (SISU) as the authority for the implementation of public policy. From the flow of resources, in 2021, its first actions began to be implemented, organized around four pillars: 1) socio-urban integration of popular neighbourhoods, 2) access to housing; 3) access to land; and 4) socio-productive integration.
According to a management report between 2020 and 2023, more than 1,200 works were carried out in more than 1,000 neighborhoods. Seventeen per cent of the budget was allocated to comprehensive projects and the remaining 83 per cent to projects with a more focused scope. Although these projects have a high social value and represent a significant starting point for addressing complex and vulnerable territories, they do not yet represent comprehensive urbanizations.
Challenges of socio-urban integration policy
Even with nuances and differences in its implementation, during the last two administrations of the national government, actors from different political forces worked to consolidate the integration of working-class neighbourhoods as a State policy. The progress made during the last years in the diagnosis, design and implementation of the socio-urban integration policy was clear. However, much remains to be done. We chose to emphasize two strategic aspects: titling and financing.
Continue the process of land regularisation to ensure security of tenure and open up new avenues for intervention
The “Popular neighborhoods law” defined the need to establish a special regulatory framework for the regularization of ownership of the dwellings identified in the national registry, a task that is still pending. Throughout these years, progress was made in the provision of Family Housing Certificates (CVF), which in 2023 reached 70% of the registered families. Possessing the FHC is the first step, but making progress in the generation of the special regime is essential to provide a fundamental solution that allows not only to regulate what already exists, but also to think of new proposals for land use.
Diversify sources and modes of funding to ensure its long-term sustainability
Although these initial resources were crucial, they fell far short of the amount needed to achieve the goal of integrating Argentina’s poor neighbourhoods. According to estimates made during SISU’s first administration, US$26 billion were needed to integrate the 4,000 neighbourhoods originally surveyed. FISU revenues represented only 4% of that initial value.
More financing is needed to achieve the proposed objective. But it is also necessary to exploit other modalities of access to financing, on the scale of what the tool enables. These include additional funding options (such as multilateral funds and resources raised in the capital market) which, so far, have been little explored.
Another key point is how these resources are executed. Until now, most of the funds have been allocated to the executing units as non-recoverable transfers. FISU incorporates the possibility of providing funds in the form of loans. This opens up the possibility for the counterparts (provinces, municipalities or civil society organizations) to make repayments, thus allowing the funds to be reinvested in the financing of new projects. This approach not only promotes the financial responsibility of the parties involved but also enhances the capacity to generate their resources to maintain the continuity and expansion of socio-urban integration initiatives.
