A/HRC/22/46 affluence in the West and the lack of it in developing countries. 19 Consequently, home ownership rates worldwide have been generally climbing since the 1950s.20 35. This process has overshadowed other well-established forms of tenure. Government support of other forms was reduced, for instance for collective ownership or rental housing.21 Furthermore, the prevalence of individual freehold over any other tenure arrangements has increased the tenure insecurity of all other forms of tenure. 22 36. More recently, international institutions have become increasingly aware of the limitations of strategies based predominantly on the formalization of urban land markets and have recognized that there is a variety of tenure instruments that can be employed. 23 However this trend has not permeated all spheres of practice and policy. A number of agencies and governments still adhere to a preponderant focus on private property ownership, with debatable results. 24 The “continuum of land rights” E. 37. The above sections highlight the existing tensions in development and housing policy between recognizing the complexity and diversity of tenure arrangements worldwide, and promoting one single form—formalized, registered freehold—as the ideal model for secure tenure and socioeconomic development. 38. Such tensions are apparent in a model suggested originally by UN-Habitat and the Global Land Tool Network, and used by other agencies since,25 called the ―continuum of land rights‖. While the continuum was intended to express the range and diversity of tenure situations, it is illustrated by a linear diagram, with an arrow going from left (informal land rights) to right (formal land rights). 26 39. This linear diagram has several limitations. First, by placing individual freehold at the very end of the continuum (the most formal and secure form of tenure), it could be interpreted as reflecting the dominant economic and housing model discussed just above. It appears to suggest that registered individual freehold is an ideal type or ultimate goal, despite the fact that many other categories in other tenure systems offer equally high levels of security and legality. In fact, tenure categories reflect diverse social and economic contexts, and thus there can be no such ideal category—registered individual freehold—as the sole guarantee for secure tenure and route to economic development. Rather, it should be one option, among others. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 See Hernando De Soto, The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else (2000). See A/HRC/10/7 and A/67/286. For instance, in 1992 the Government of Mexico reformed article 27 of the Constitution, which had paved the way for the creation of a social property sector consisting of ejidos and agrarian communities, to allow for the privatization of social sector land. Willem Assies, ―Land tenure and tenure regimes in Mexico: an overview‖, Journal of Agrarian Change, vol. 8, No. 1, p. 33. See Geoffrey Payne, ―Urban land tenure policy options: titles or rights?‖, Habitat International, vol. 25, No. 3. See also International Union of Tenants, ―Affordable rental housing for the young: facts and news‖, available from www.iut.nu/HabitatDay/2011/FactsNews_Daniela.pdf. See, for example, Robert M. Buckley and Jerry Kalarickal, eds., Thirty Years of World Bank Shelter Lending: What Have We Learned? (World Bank, 2006), pp. 30-31. See, for example, A/HRC/22/46/Add.2. See, for example, German Agency for International Cooperation, ―Securing land rights‖, briefing note (2011). UN-Habitat and Global Land Tool Network, Secure Land Rights for All (2008), p. 8. 9