International audienceIntroductory speech highlighting the divergence between land and real estate studie

Aveline-Dubach, Natacha

Archive Ouverte a LUniversite Lyon 2

Introductory speech

HAL-Paris1

Introductory speechNatacha Aveline-DubachTo cite this version:Natacha Aveline-Dubach. Introductory speech . ” Land and real estate dynamics: multidisci-plinary perspectives on China and India’s urbanization”, Jul 2015, Pondicherry, India. 2015.<halshs-01242576>HAL Id: halshs-01242576https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01242576Submitted on 18 Dec 2015HAL is a multi-disciplinary open accessarchive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-entific research documents, whether they are pub-lished or not. The documents may come fromteaching and research institutions in France orabroad, or from public or private research centers.L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, estdestine´e au de´poˆt et a` la diffusion de documentsscientifiques de niveau recherche, publie´s ou non,e´manant des e´tablissements d’enseignement et derecherche franc¸ais ou e´trangers, des laboratoirespublics ou prive´s.« Land and real estate dynamics: multidisciplinary perspectives on China and India’s urbanization” International workshop organized by the FINURBASIE network, French Institute of Pondicherry, July 17-18, 2015.	  	  Introductory	  speech	  by	  Natacha	  Aveline	  	  	  Welcome	   to	   this	   workshop	   organized	   by	   the	   FINURBASIE	   project,	   a	   4	   years	   project	  funded	  by	  the	  French	  National	  Research	  Agency.	  As	   the	   principal	   investigator	   of	   FINURBASIE,	   I	   would	   like	   to	   convey	   my	   gratitude	   to	  Aurélie	  Varrel	  who	  has	  efficiently	  undertaken	  the	  organization	  of	  this	  workshop.	  Aurelie	  has	  spared	  no	  effort	  to	  prepare	  our	  stays	  in	  Pondicherry,	  taking	  personally	  care	  of	  each	  guest.	   I	   feel	   very	   grateful	   for	   her	   strong	   involvement	   and	   her	   patience	   during	   the	  preparation	  of	   this	  event.	   I	  would	  also	   like	  to	   thank	  the	  director	  of	   IFP	   for	  hosting	  the	  workshop	  and	  providing	  us	   logistic	   resources.	  And	   I	   thank	  all	   of	   you,	  on	  behalf	  of	   the	  FINURBASIE	  team,	  for	  showing	  your	  interest	  for	  our	  project	  through	  your	  participation	  to	  this	  workshop.	  	  During	   the	   two	   coming	   days,	  we	  will	   be	   discussing	   on	   the	   development	   of	   urban	   and	  peri-­‐urban	  areas	  of	  India	  and	  China	  though	  the	  lens	  of	  land	  and	  real	  estate	  dynamics.	  	  There	  should	  be	  no	  strong	  distinction	  between	  land	  and	  real	  estate	  in	  our	  understanding	  of	  urbanization,	  as	  land	  is	  a	  major	  component	  of	  real	  estate,	  and	  real	  estate	  is	  in	  turn	  a	  main	   target	   of	   land	   development	   in	   urban	   and	   peri-­‐urban	   areas.	   Yet	   the	   academic	  literature	  clearly	  puts	  boundaries	  between	  land	  studies	  and	  real	  estate	  studies.	  	  Land	   studies	   have	   a	   very	   old	   history,	   dating	   back	   to	   the	   18e	   century.	   At	   that	   time,	  agriculture	  was	  the	  main	  source	  of	  wealth,	  and	  the	  formation	  of	  land	  value	  was	  a	  major	  subject	  of	  discussion	  within	  the	  scientific	  and	  political	  community.	  This	  discussion	  went	  so	  far	  as	  to	  cause	  the	  emergence	  of	  economics	  as	  a	  distinctive	  scientific	  discipline.	  	  However,	   now	   that	   agricultural	   land	   has	   turned	   urban	   in	   major	   places,	   getting	   land	  involved	  in	  speculative	  mechanisms	  of	  large	  magnitude	  (in	  that	  context,	  the	  potential	  of	  wealth	  creation	   is	   far	  higher	  than	   in	   former	  agricultural	  economies)	   ,	  economists	  have	  deserted	   the	   field	   (apart	  a	   few	  number	  of	  neo-­‐Marxian	  or	  other	  heterodox	  authors,	  of	  which	  we	  had	  the	  chance	  to	  gather	  some	  interesting	  specimens	  here).	  	  	  Rather,	  land	  studies	  are	  mostly	  being	  developed	  by	  geographers	  and	  sociologists,	  and	  to	  a	   lesser	   extend	   by	   political	   scientists	   and	   anthropologists.	   The	   obvious	   reason	   is	   that	  land	   is	   not	   a	   full	   commodity	   that	   is	   freely	   tradable	   on	   the	   markets.	   Land	   values	   are	  shaped	  by	  property	   rights	   and	   land-­‐use	   regulations	   pertaining	   to	   spatially	   fixed	   objects	  (as	   defined	  by	  David	  Harvey).	   Therefore,	   there	   is	   generally	   no	   such	   thing	   as	   a	   unique	  land	  market,	  but	   rather	  highly	   fragmented	  and	  opaque	   sub-­‐markets,	   that	  often	  do	  not	  behave	   according	   to	   the	   ‘market	   forces’.	   It	   is	   interesting	   to	   note	   that	   land	   studies	   are	  more	  developed	  in	  countries	  where	  land	  is	  the	  most	  institutionally	  embedded	  —	  where	  the	   understanding	   of	   the	   tenure	   systems,	   mechanisms	   and	   actors,	   is	   the	   most	  challenging—,	  such	  as	  in	  Africa,	  but	  also	  in	  India	  and	  China.	  In	  France,	  they	  are	  slightly	  re-­‐emerging	  after	  a	  break	  of	  about	  20	  years.	  However,	  land	  studies	  generally	  do	  not	  deal	  with	  real	  estate,	  and	  do	  not	  explore	  deeply	  the	  economic	  dimensions	  of	  land.	  	  	  On	  the	  other	  hand,	  we	  have	  real	  estate	  studies,	  whose	  picture	  is	  quite	  different.	  Contrary	  to	  land,	  real	  estate	  has	  been	  transformed	  into	  a	  full	  commodity.	  To	  overcome	  the	  spatial	  fixity	  of	   the	   land	  component,	   financialized	   instruments	   (such	  as	  private	  equity	  or	  Real	  estate	  investment	  trusts)	  have	  been	  developed	  to	  channel	  capital	  through	  global	  circuits	  of	   finance.	   These	   instruments	   have	   been	   sized	   by	   institutional	   investors,	   which	   have	  grown	  at	  a	  rapid	  pace	  over	  the	  past	  two	  decades.	  Financialization	  has	  also	  considerably	  increased	   transparency	   in	   real	   estate	   markets,	   along	   with	   the	   development	   of	  information	   technologies.	   This	   has	   encouraged	  mainstream	   economists	   to	   apply	   their	  models	  and	  valuation	   techniques	   to	  new	  sets	  of	  data.	  As	  a	  result,	   so-­‐called	   ‘real	  estate	  economics’	  have	  developed,	  but	  this	  strand	  of	  literature	  does	  not	  consider	  real	  estate	  in	  a	  situated	  context.	  It	  totally	  ignores	  the	  processes	  and	  actors	  that	  shape	  the	  materiality	  of	   real	   estate	   and	   bears	   no	   interest	   in	   the	   urban	   and	   social	   outcomes	   of	   real	   estate	  investment.	  	  Real	  estate	  economists	   focus	  on	  the	  performance	  of	   the	  various	  real	  estate	   investment	  tools,	  and	  assess	  the	  added	  value	  of	  real	  estate	  in	  the	  portfolios	  of	  institutional	  investors.	  Although	  they	  contribute	  to	  the	  understanding	  of	  the	  real	  estate	  market	  dynamics,	  they	  serve	  primarily	  the	  interests	  of	  institutional	  investors,	  with	  no	  regard	  for	  the	  interests	  of	  urban	  stakeholders.	  With	  their	  sophisticated	  models	  and	  risk	  assessment	  techniques,	  we	  would	  expect	  them	  to	  predict	  or	  at	  least	  to	  explain	  systemic	  crises	  originating	  from	  real	  estate.	  Take	  the	  example	  of	  the	  Great	  Financial	  Crisis	  (subprime	  mortgage	  crisis).	  Their	  models	   could	   give	   valuable	   insight	   into	   the	   mechanisms	   that	   disseminated	   the	   crisis	  within	  the	  global	  financial	  markets	  (because	  these	  models	  were	  precisely	  the	  ones	  that	  contributed	  to	  disseminate	  the	  ‘bubble’	  and	  its	  subsequent	  bust).	  However,	  they	  would	  not	   engage	   in	   such	   a	   project,	   and	   remain	   unable	   to	   explain	   the	   major	   cause	   of	   the	  speculative	  mechanism:	  the	  simple	  fact	  that	  mortgages	  were	  massively	  granted	  to	  poor	  households	  without	  proper	  assessment	  of	  the	  risk.	  Why?	  Because	  the	  main	  drivers	  of	  the	  bubble	   were	   the	   dissemination	   of	   the	   risks	   operated	   by	   an	   increasing	   number	   of	  investment	   channels	   and	   the	   misleading	   expectations	   regarding	   the	   future	   of	   the	   real	  estate	  markets	   in	   the	  US.	   Both	  drivers	   are	   incompatible	  with	   the	  basic	   assumptions	  of	  mainstream	  economics.	  	  In	   a	   similar	   vein,	   mainstream	   economists	   have	   been	   constantly	   insisting	   that	   China	  should	  open	  up	  its	  financial	  and	  real	  estate	  markets	  to	  foreign	  investment.	  This	  is	  what	  several	   South	  East	  Asian	   countries	  did	   in	   the	   early	  1990s,	   under	   the	  pressure	  of	  Wall	  Street.	   In	  1997,	  Thailand’s	  economy	  was	  severely	  hit	  by	  the	  bust	  of	  a	  real	  estate	  crisis,	  which	   became	   systemic	   and	   impacted	   the	   whole	   region.	   We	   are	   very	   fortunate	   that	  China	  has	   taken	  the	   lessons	  of	   the	   Japanese	   land	  bubble	  bust	  and	  the	  Asian	  crisis,	  and	  has	   been	   reluctant	   to	   develop	   transnational	   financial	   channels	   to	   boost	   its	   real	   estate	  industry	   (China	   has	   securitized	   its	   markets	   but	   only	   on	   a	   domestic	   basis).	   Given	   the	  recent	   turndown	   of	   the	   property	   markets	   in	   China,	   a	   more	   financialized	   real	   estate	  economy	  would	  be	  surely	  causing	  a	  severe	  trouble	  to	  other	  countries.	  In	  a	  context	  of	  increasing	  transnational	  circulation	  of	  capital	  for	  real	  estate	  investment,	  it	   is	   necessary	   to	   become	   aware	   of	   the	   changes	   occurring	   in	   the	   whole	   chain	   of	  production	  governing	  the	  built	  environment.	  Therefore,	  the	  current	  boundaries	  between	  land	   and	   real	   estate	   studies	   should	   be	   transcended	   to	   allow	   a	   more	   comprehensive	  understanding	  of	  (re)	  development	  processes	  (from	  the	  development	  of	  building	  land	  to	  the	  materiality	  of	  constructed	  urban	  objects);	  The	  growing	  importance	  of	  transnational	  and	  financialized	  channels	  fuelling	  capital	  into	  real	  estate	  have	  a	  significant	  incidence	  on	  power	  relations	  between	  various	  social	  groups,	  and	  on	  local	  governance	  structures;	  this	  in	   turn	  affects	   the	   transformation	  of	   standardized	   real	   estate	   investment	  vehicles	   into	  locally-­‐embedded	  instruments.	  The	   FINURBASIE	   project	   aims	   to	   document	   these	   transformations	   by	   mobilizing	  multidisciplinary	   approaches.	  We	  have	  decided	   to	   limit	   our	   geographic	   scope	   to	   India	  and	  China,	  two	  demographic	  giants	  that	  are	  experiencing	  a	  dramatic	  growth	  of	  property	  markets,	   with	   tremendous	   potential	   wealth	   creation,	   but	   also	   with	   all	   the	   associated	  risks	   in	   terms	   of	   social,	   political,	   and	   economic	   potential	   effects.	   During	   the	   first	   two	  years	   of	   the	   project,	   we	   have	   conducted	   separate	   research	   in	   India	   and	   China,	   as	   we	  needed	  first	   to	  get	  a	  broad	  picture	  of	   the	  property	  development	  processes,	  actors,	  and	  financial	   channels	   in	   each	   country.	   But	   we	   are	   now	   moving	   towards	   a	   comparative	  perspective.	  This	  workshop	  is	  a	  very	  an	  important	  milestone	  in	  this	  regard.	  	  	  Natacha	  Aveline,	  July	  17,	  2015	  	  

Hal-Diderot

Introductory speech
Natacha Aveline-Dubach
To cite this version:
Natacha Aveline-Dubach. Introductory speech . ” Land and real estate dynamics: multidisci-
plinary perspectives on China and India’s urbanization”, Jul 2015, Pondicherry, India. 2015.
<halshs-01242576>
HAL Id: halshs-01242576
https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01242576
Submitted on 18 Dec 2015
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destine´e au de´poˆt et a` la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publie´s ou non,
e´manant des e´tablissements d’enseignement et de
recherche franc¸ais ou e´trangers, des laboratoires
publics ou prive´s.
« Land and real estate dynamics: multidisciplinary perspectives 
on China and India’s urbanization” 
International workshop organized by the FINURBASIE network, 
French Institute of Pondicherry, July 17-18, 2015.	  	  Introductory	  speech	  by	  Natacha	  Aveline	  	  	  Welcome	   to	   this	   workshop	   organized	   by	   the	   FINURBASIE	   project,	   a	   4	   years	   project	  funded	  by	  the	  French	  National	  Research	  Agency.	  As	   the	   principal	   investigator	   of	   FINURBASIE,	   I	   would	   like	   to	   convey	   my	   gratitude	   to	  Aurélie	  Varrel	  who	  has	  efficiently	  undertaken	  the	  organization	  of	  this	  workshop.	  Aurelie	  has	  spared	  no	  effort	  to	  prepare	  our	  stays	  in	  Pondicherry,	  taking	  personally	  care	  of	  each	  guest.	   I	   feel	   very	   grateful	   for	   her	   strong	   involvement	   and	   her	   patience	   during	   the	  preparation	  of	   this	  event.	   I	  would	  also	   like	  to	   thank	  the	  director	  of	   IFP	   for	  hosting	  the	  workshop	  and	  providing	  us	   logistic	   resources.	  And	   I	   thank	  all	   of	   you,	  on	  behalf	  of	   the	  FINURBASIE	  team,	  for	  showing	  your	  interest	  for	  our	  project	  through	  your	  participation	  to	  this	  workshop.	  	  During	   the	   two	   coming	   days,	  we	  will	   be	   discussing	   on	   the	   development	   of	   urban	   and	  peri-­‐urban	  areas	  of	  India	  and	  China	  though	  the	  lens	  of	  land	  and	  real	  estate	  dynamics.	  	  There	  should	  be	  no	  strong	  distinction	  between	  land	  and	  real	  estate	  in	  our	  understanding	  of	  urbanization,	  as	  land	  is	  a	  major	  component	  of	  real	  estate,	  and	  real	  estate	  is	  in	  turn	  a	  main	   target	   of	   land	   development	   in	   urban	   and	   peri-­‐urban	   areas.	   Yet	   the	   academic	  literature	  clearly	  puts	  boundaries	  between	  land	  studies	  and	  real	  estate	  studies.	  	  Land	   studies	   have	   a	   very	   old	   history,	   dating	   back	   to	   the	   18e	   century.	   At	   that	   time,	  agriculture	  was	  the	  main	  source	  of	  wealth,	  and	  the	  formation	  of	  land	  value	  was	  a	  major	  subject	  of	  discussion	  within	  the	  scientific	  and	  political	  community.	  This	  discussion	  went	  so	  far	  as	  to	  cause	  the	  emergence	  of	  economics	  as	  a	  distinctive	  scientific	  discipline.	  	  However,	   now	   that	   agricultural	   land	   has	   turned	   urban	   in	   major	   places,	   getting	   land	  involved	  in	  speculative	  mechanisms	  of	  large	  magnitude	  (in	  that	  context,	  the	  potential	  of	  wealth	  creation	   is	   far	  higher	  than	   in	   former	  agricultural	  economies)	   ,	  economists	  have	  deserted	   the	   field	   (apart	  a	   few	  number	  of	  neo-­‐Marxian	  or	  other	  heterodox	  authors,	  of	  which	  we	  had	  the	  chance	  to	  gather	  some	  interesting	  specimens	  here).	  	  	  Rather,	  land	  studies	  are	  mostly	  being	  developed	  by	  geographers	  and	  sociologists,	  and	  to	  a	   lesser	   extend	   by	   political	   scientists	   and	   anthropologists.	   The	   obvious	   reason	   is	   that	  land	   is	   not	   a	   full	   commodity	   that	   is	   freely	   tradable	   on	   the	   markets.	   Land	   values	   are	  shaped	  by	  property	   rights	   and	   land-­‐use	   regulations	   pertaining	   to	   spatially	   fixed	   objects	  (as	   defined	  by	  David	  Harvey).	   Therefore,	   there	   is	   generally	   no	   such	   thing	   as	   a	   unique	  land	  market,	  but	   rather	  highly	   fragmented	  and	  opaque	   sub-­‐markets,	   that	  often	  do	  not	  
behave	   according	   to	   the	   ‘market	   forces’.	   It	   is	   interesting	   to	   note	   that	   land	   studies	   are	  more	  developed	  in	  countries	  where	  land	  is	  the	  most	  institutionally	  embedded	  —	  where	  the	   understanding	   of	   the	   tenure	   systems,	   mechanisms	   and	   actors,	   is	   the	   most	  challenging—,	  such	  as	  in	  Africa,	  but	  also	  in	  India	  and	  China.	  In	  France,	  they	  are	  slightly	  re-­‐emerging	  after	  a	  break	  of	  about	  20	  years.	  However,	  land	  studies	  generally	  do	  not	  deal	  with	  real	  estate,	  and	  do	  not	  explore	  deeply	  the	  economic	  dimensions	  of	  land.	  	  	  On	  the	  other	  hand,	  we	  have	  real	  estate	  studies,	  whose	  picture	  is	  quite	  different.	  Contrary	  to	  land,	  real	  estate	  has	  been	  transformed	  into	  a	  full	  commodity.	  To	  overcome	  the	  spatial	  fixity	  of	   the	   land	  component,	   financialized	   instruments	   (such	  as	  private	  equity	  or	  Real	  estate	  investment	  trusts)	  have	  been	  developed	  to	  channel	  capital	  through	  global	  circuits	  of	   finance.	   These	   instruments	   have	   been	   sized	   by	   institutional	   investors,	   which	   have	  grown	  at	  a	  rapid	  pace	  over	  the	  past	  two	  decades.	  Financialization	  has	  also	  considerably	  increased	   transparency	   in	   real	   estate	   markets,	   along	   with	   the	   development	   of	  information	   technologies.	   This	   has	   encouraged	  mainstream	   economists	   to	   apply	   their	  models	  and	  valuation	   techniques	   to	  new	  sets	  of	  data.	  As	  a	  result,	   so-­‐called	   ‘real	  estate	  economics’	  have	  developed,	  but	  this	  strand	  of	  literature	  does	  not	  consider	  real	  estate	  in	  a	  situated	  context.	  It	  totally	  ignores	  the	  processes	  and	  actors	  that	  shape	  the	  materiality	  of	   real	   estate	   and	   bears	   no	   interest	   in	   the	   urban	   and	   social	   outcomes	   of	   real	   estate	  investment.	  	  Real	  estate	  economists	   focus	  on	  the	  performance	  of	   the	  various	  real	  estate	   investment	  tools,	  and	  assess	  the	  added	  value	  of	  real	  estate	  in	  the	  portfolios	  of	  institutional	  investors.	  Although	  they	  contribute	  to	  the	  understanding	  of	  the	  real	  estate	  market	  dynamics,	  they	  serve	  primarily	  the	  interests	  of	  institutional	  investors,	  with	  no	  regard	  for	  the	  interests	  of	  urban	  stakeholders.	  With	  their	  sophisticated	  models	  and	  risk	  assessment	  techniques,	  we	  would	  expect	  them	  to	  predict	  or	  at	  least	  to	  explain	  systemic	  crises	  originating	  from	  real	  estate.	  Take	  the	  example	  of	  the	  Great	  Financial	  Crisis	  (subprime	  mortgage	  crisis).	  Their	  models	   could	   give	   valuable	   insight	   into	   the	   mechanisms	   that	   disseminated	   the	   crisis	  within	  the	  global	  financial	  markets	  (because	  these	  models	  were	  precisely	  the	  ones	  that	  contributed	  to	  disseminate	  the	  ‘bubble’	  and	  its	  subsequent	  bust).	  However,	  they	  would	  not	   engage	   in	   such	   a	   project,	   and	   remain	   unable	   to	   explain	   the	   major	   cause	   of	   the	  speculative	  mechanism:	  the	  simple	  fact	  that	  mortgages	  were	  massively	  granted	  to	  poor	  households	  without	  proper	  assessment	  of	  the	  risk.	  Why?	  Because	  the	  main	  drivers	  of	  the	  bubble	   were	   the	   dissemination	   of	   the	   risks	   operated	   by	   an	   increasing	   number	   of	  
investment	   channels	   and	   the	   misleading	   expectations	   regarding	   the	   future	   of	   the	   real	  
estate	  markets	   in	   the	  US.	   Both	  drivers	   are	   incompatible	  with	   the	  basic	   assumptions	  of	  mainstream	  economics.	  	  In	   a	   similar	   vein,	   mainstream	   economists	   have	   been	   constantly	   insisting	   that	   China	  should	  open	  up	  its	  financial	  and	  real	  estate	  markets	  to	  foreign	  investment.	  This	  is	  what	  several	   South	  East	  Asian	   countries	  did	   in	   the	   early	  1990s,	   under	   the	  pressure	  of	  Wall	  Street.	   In	  1997,	  Thailand’s	  economy	  was	  severely	  hit	  by	  the	  bust	  of	  a	  real	  estate	  crisis,	  which	   became	   systemic	   and	   impacted	   the	   whole	   region.	   We	   are	   very	   fortunate	   that	  China	  has	   taken	  the	   lessons	  of	   the	   Japanese	   land	  bubble	  bust	  and	  the	  Asian	  crisis,	  and	  has	   been	   reluctant	   to	   develop	   transnational	   financial	   channels	   to	   boost	   its	   real	   estate	  industry	   (China	   has	   securitized	   its	   markets	   but	   only	   on	   a	   domestic	   basis).	   Given	   the	  recent	   turndown	   of	   the	   property	   markets	   in	   China,	   a	   more	   financialized	   real	   estate	  economy	  would	  be	  surely	  causing	  a	  severe	  trouble	  to	  other	  countries.	  
In	  a	  context	  of	  increasing	  transnational	  circulation	  of	  capital	  for	  real	  estate	  investment,	  it	   is	   necessary	   to	   become	   aware	   of	   the	   changes	   occurring	   in	   the	   whole	   chain	   of	  production	  governing	  the	  built	  environment.	  Therefore,	  the	  current	  boundaries	  between	  land	   and	   real	   estate	   studies	   should	   be	   transcended	   to	   allow	   a	   more	   comprehensive	  understanding	  of	  (re)	  development	  processes	  (from	  the	  development	  of	  building	  land	  to	  the	  materiality	  of	  constructed	  urban	  objects);	  The	  growing	  importance	  of	  transnational	  and	  financialized	  channels	  fuelling	  capital	  into	  real	  estate	  have	  a	  significant	  incidence	  on	  power	  relations	  between	  various	  social	  groups,	  and	  on	  local	  governance	  structures;	  this	  in	   turn	  affects	   the	   transformation	  of	   standardized	   real	   estate	   investment	  vehicles	   into	  locally-­‐embedded	  instruments.	  The	   FINURBASIE	   project	   aims	   to	   document	   these	   transformations	   by	   mobilizing	  multidisciplinary	   approaches.	  We	  have	  decided	   to	   limit	   our	   geographic	   scope	   to	   India	  and	  China,	  two	  demographic	  giants	  that	  are	  experiencing	  a	  dramatic	  growth	  of	  property	  markets,	   with	   tremendous	   potential	   wealth	   creation,	   but	   also	   with	   all	   the	   associated	  risks	   in	   terms	   of	   social,	   political,	   and	   economic	   potential	   effects.	   During	   the	   first	   two	  years	   of	   the	   project,	   we	   have	   conducted	   separate	   research	   in	   India	   and	   China,	   as	   we	  needed	  first	   to	  get	  a	  broad	  picture	  of	   the	  property	  development	  processes,	  actors,	  and	  financial	   channels	   in	   each	   country.	   But	   we	   are	   now	   moving	   towards	   a	   comparative	  perspective.	  This	  workshop	  is	  a	  very	  an	  important	  milestone	  in	  this	  regard.	  	  	  Natacha	  Aveline,	  July	  17,	  2015	  	  


Name not available

https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01242576

Introductory speech

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Archive Ouverte a LUniversite Lyon 2

HAL-Paris1

Hal-Diderot

Name not available