Ideologischer oder pragmatischer Mehrwertausgleich? Eine interkantonale Untersuchung zum Einfluss der politischen Legitimation auf die Ausgestaltung des Ausgleichs planungsbedingter Vorteile in der Schweiz

IF 0.7 Q3 GEOGRAPHY
Louis Scheiwiller, Andreas Hengstermann
{"title":"Ideologischer oder pragmatischer Mehrwertausgleich? Eine interkantonale Untersuchung zum Einfluss der politischen Legitimation auf die Ausgestaltung des Ausgleichs planungsbedingter Vorteile in der Schweiz","authors":"Louis Scheiwiller, Andreas Hengstermann","doi":"10.14512/rur.154","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As one of the few examples worldwide, Swiss law serves for an instrument to compensate for planning-related increases in land value. The provision at the federal level however is not directly applicable, but merely a binding legislative mandate to the cantons. Beyond the minimum requirements under federal law, the cantons are given far-reaching discretion in the legislative process. This paper exploits this constellation in order to examine how the political legitimacy of the instrument affects the concrete legal configuration. Based on the planning literature, two schools of thought hold precedence. First, that pragmatic arguments would lead to farreaching cantonal regulations, e.g., through the explicit considerationof rezoning and upzoning as further taxable eventsin addition to the federal law requirement of zoning. Second, that ideological arguments are likely to only lead to minimal implementations, e.g., to a levy rate that does not exceed the minimum 20 percent prescribed by federal law. However, thiscomparative study based on the cantons of Basel-Stadt, Basel-Landschaft, and Bern instead points to a reverse correlation. In contrast to international experience, ideological arguments in Switzerland lead to amore far-reaching design of value added capture under planning law.","PeriodicalId":45221,"journal":{"name":"Raumforschung und Raumordnung-Spatial Research and Planning","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Raumforschung und Raumordnung-Spatial Research and Planning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.154","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

As one of the few examples worldwide, Swiss law serves for an instrument to compensate for planning-related increases in land value. The provision at the federal level however is not directly applicable, but merely a binding legislative mandate to the cantons. Beyond the minimum requirements under federal law, the cantons are given far-reaching discretion in the legislative process. This paper exploits this constellation in order to examine how the political legitimacy of the instrument affects the concrete legal configuration. Based on the planning literature, two schools of thought hold precedence. First, that pragmatic arguments would lead to farreaching cantonal regulations, e.g., through the explicit considerationof rezoning and upzoning as further taxable eventsin addition to the federal law requirement of zoning. Second, that ideological arguments are likely to only lead to minimal implementations, e.g., to a levy rate that does not exceed the minimum 20 percent prescribed by federal law. However, thiscomparative study based on the cantons of Basel-Stadt, Basel-Landschaft, and Bern instead points to a reverse correlation. In contrast to international experience, ideological arguments in Switzerland lead to amore far-reaching design of value added capture under planning law.
情景还是情景?关于瑞士设计公民权的政治合法性影响的一个跨国研究
作为世界上为数不多的例子之一,瑞士法律是补偿与规划有关的土地价值增加的工具。然而,联邦一级的规定并不直接适用,而仅仅是对各州具有约束力的立法授权。除了联邦法律规定的最低要求外,各州在立法过程中享有广泛的自由裁量权。本文利用这一组合来考察文书的政治合法性如何影响具体的法律配置。根据规划文献,有两种思想流派占据主导地位。首先,这种务实的论点将导致影响深远的州法规,例如,通过明确考虑在分区的联邦法律要求之外,将重新分区和升级分区作为进一步的应税事件。其次,意识形态的争论可能只会导致最低限度的实施,例如,征税率不超过联邦法律规定的最低20%。然而,这项基于巴塞尔城市州、巴塞尔土地州和伯尔尼州的比较研究却指出了相反的相关性。与国际经验不同的是,瑞士的意识形态争论导致了对计划法下附加价值捕获的深远设计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
28.60%
发文量
54
审稿时长
29 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信