The land must remain always controlled by State. Constitutionally the land must be a State matter to guarantee the equal distribution of urban charges and benefits to all inhabitants over any private interests.

Most high-income countries have a mix of private and public ownership of (urban) land. Publicly owned land (not only state but also municipal and/or federal) may leased for life or be available as hereditary leasehold. Often, private land owners pay an annual land tax. The land tax income may be earmarked for public services related to land (e.g. waste collection) or goes to the treasury like all other taxes.

Some mid-income countries have established state ownership of all/most (urban) land and lease land for 50 or 99 years to private parties for defined purposes in agreement with the land use zoning.

The "squatter" issue appears under both public and private ownership. It seems common in areas with a high urbanization rate and/or economic/employment growth outstripping development of affordable residences. Under strong growth/urbanization central urban land becomes scarce and prices/rents go up. If government caps such prices, an underground land market will develop. Here comes land use zoning into play. An amount of land is often zoned for low cost residential purposes with various specs. This means bidders for vacant or newly developed urban land, can only use it for such purposes and their investors offices, shops will not drive up land prices. However, the other side of the coin is that the land developers (street, sewage, amenities), either government or private parties will not pay high prices for land allocated to low-cost housing.

Anyhow, it is hard to find comprehensive literature on principles and practices of urban land markets and land tenure. The above are just quick & dirty outlines flowing from my pen based on global experience.

Biya Girma Hirpo It is a very delicate and intricate matter. But, I would say yes!

Private ownership and relatively free markets produce a result which approximates the maximization of the long-term income from real property, the "highest and best" use. This may or may not be what you are trying to achieve.

People who would develop property whether they are commercial developers or, at the other extreme, slum producers will fear government takings. Thus, development is inhibited by the potential of takings. On the other hand, necessary takings (for roads and sewers, etc.) may not be especially disruptive if they are properly compensated.

Residents of slums, just as residents of high income properties, need to have established property rights. Without such rights, there will be no mortgages and slums will be worse than otherwise. I would suggest to you to read almost anything by Hernando de Soto.

I would also recommend my paper on the subject: Article Investor Efficiency in the Face of Takings.

It is very interesting for Myanmar context. Urban land Management is only responsibility of government in Myanmar. Commonly, government could not control the whole of urban areas from squatting in practice. If private ownership or under both public and private ownership may be better for prevention of squatting with commercial benefits. But, urban land is ultimate resource without depreciation and its price is always increase with urbanization in the developing countries. If government could not firmly control, uneven development in the major cities especially with insufficient public transport. Therefore, urban land management under both public and private ownership is better for slum agendas.

I think slums exist independently from ownership. There are slums in many countries, also in those where there is mixed sorts of ownership.

When the state is the land owner he could do something to improve living conditions when the political will is there. If it is private that will not happen, only rent collection.

So it is better to have public ownership. Then there is still hope for bettering things in some future.

Well, that depends from the political system. In a democratic society people can influence what is happening.

Neclection of course always leads to grave problems afterwards.

In Germany we have the problem that many local communities have not enough land to built affordable homes and fight against real estate speculation. Some of them nevertheless laid on a building land reserve in time so that they can act in times of need.

The reason that the quality of slums is so abysmal is that many slums are created by squatters. They have no property rights, so they cannot have confidence that their slums will be protected. They need property rights, either Torrens or title insurance.

The reason that some owners cannot able to service their (mortgage) loans is that the price is not sufficiently low for those people to be owners. So why can't they acquire lower quality or smaller sized homes? The answer is that these homes are not allowed by building or housing codes. So when these lesser homes come into existence, they are outside the realm of government approved housing.

Transferring state ownership of land to individuals itself may cause urban expansion if that also means loosening of land use control. Of course, urban expansion doesn't necessarily mean slum expansion. But, I guess slums go with formal urban expansion. So, it includes really two issues: the existence of slum and its expansion.

We should probe further before making an attempt at the question. transferring land: Is the government transferring land through securing land title? Are there specific years to hold that right? Is the transferred land under the control of a government agency? I want to say that this may be a good approach to the development of housing. however, the government must provide services like roads, electrification, water etc. The truth is that bad governance is a reflection of poor urban planning. where the government cannot produce regional plans, master plans and neighbourhood plans to guide development. In most African countries individuals have resorted to self-help in providing housing for themselves. If the government can produce plans (Neighbourhood plans) and allow the transfer of land titles, the agency will control development in line with the plans. but if done arbitrary, then there going to be an increase in the slum. we should encourage the government to produce plans before embarking on land transfer titles to guide development.

Ownership of land in urban areas by individuals especially low income earners may reduce the emergence of slum formation as they may have access to land easily and make formal their buildings with durable materials, legitimate the land their building occupied and consider planning regulations and standards. This will promote sustainable urban land management and urban environmental quality.