# **1. Introduction**

Ownership and control of physical and financial assets are essential to an individual’s wellbeing. Assets generate and help diversify income; provide collateral to gain access to credit; alleviate liquidity constraints in the face of shocks; and provide status in society (Deere and Doss, 2006). A large body of literature demonstrates the critical role that assets, and not just income, play in poverty reduction (see Johnson et al. (2016) for a review). Although economic research focused on asset ownership and wealth has traditionally assessed household asset portfolios, an increasing number of studies over the last decade have emphasized the importance of the collection and analysis of individual-level information on ownership and control of physical and financial assets. This represents an important shift because it acknowledges that men and women often have differential access to, control over, and ability to benefit from assets.

The empirical utility of high-quality, individual-level data on asset ownership and control cannot be overstated. First, these data enrich the analyses of gender differences in wealth, revealing the extent of economic disadvantage accumulated by women over the life cycle and providing a long-term and more holistic overview of the gender dimensions of economic inequality (Warren, 2006; Deere and Doss, 2006; Ruel and Hauser, 2013). Second, in comparison to household-level analyses, asset studies focused on individuals provide more nuanced insights into the determinants of poverty and vulnerability by capturing additional vulnerabilities faced by women, whose rights over assets often disappear upon dissolution of her household whether due to death, divorce, or separation.<sup>2</sup> Third, the desired individual-level data directly inform microeconomic research that focuses on women’s empowerment and intrahousehold bargaining and cooperation and that often utilizes control of assets as a proxy for the individual’s empowerment/bargaining power. Evidence suggests that the decisions made within the household are different when women have higher bargaining power and that the outcomes generally increase the wellbeing of women and their children (Allendorf, 2007; Beegle et al., 2001; Deininger et al., 2010; Doss, 2006; Duflo, 2003; Haddad et al., 1997; Menon et al., 2014; Quisumbing and Maluccio, 2003; Thomas, 1990). Finally, understanding who uses and controls assets is crucial for appropriate design and targeting of livelihood interventions to not only enhance the productivity of farmers and entrepreneurs but also ensure that these interventions do not have unintended consequences.<sup>3</sup>

> 2 For instance, Quisumbing et al. (2011) find that, in Bangladesh, weather-related shocks impact men’s assets more than women’s assets, but shocks related to illness have a larger impact on women’s assets. In Uganda, drought shocks have an effect on women’s assets, but not on men’s assets.

> 3 Evidence has demonstrated that secure land rights increase agricultural production at the household level, but very little research exists on this topic at the individual level. Goldstein and Udry (2008) find that in Ghana, women farmers had less secure land rights than men, and were thus less likely to leave their land fallow due to their increased risk of losing land that they were not actively farming. Quisumbing et al. (2001) reveal also in Ghana that women were more likely to invest in land with secure property rights by planting

2