Despite the importance of individual-level data on asset ownership and control, and the fact that most assets are owned by individuals, either solely or jointly, it is typical for the micro data on asset ownership to be collected largely at the household-level, often from only one respondent per household (Doss et al., 2008; Deere et al., 2012; Ruel and Hauser, 2013). Even when household survey data are collected at the individual-level, with identification of reported or documented owners of a given asset within the same household, the information is often collected from a single respondent, often the household member designated as the “most knowledgeable” household member. Further, data on ownership are seldom paired with data identifying individuals who hold various rights to assets, limiting our understanding of the inter-relationships among ownership and rights, and whether these relationships vary across individuals (Kilic and Moylan, 2016).

Accurate measurement of ownership, control, and use of assets is essential for correctly diagnosing problems and developing recommendations to address these challenges within developing countries. Although sex-disaggregated asset ownership indicators are part of the data agenda for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), gaps remain in our knowledge of how best to collect these data. Identifying the best practices on questionnaire design and respondent selection protocols is in turn necessary to promote the availability and comparability of these indicators on a cross-country basis (Kilic and Moylan, 2016).

This paper assesses what we know and what we do not know regarding best practices for collecting individual-level data on the ownership, control, and use of assets in the context of household and farm surveys.

Section 2 defines assets, control, use, and ownership, and identifies the challenges to both measuring and understanding exclusive and joint forms of asset use, control, and ownership. Section 3 provides an overview of existing approaches to micro data collection on asset use, control, and ownership, highlighting how different methods have operationalized different definitions. Section 4 assesses the strengths and weaknesses of diverse approaches to three key methodological questions: (1) Who should be interviewed: Can one proxy respondent for the entire household provide adequate information? Does reporting vary by sex of respondent? (2) How can one define and measure control, access, and ownership of assets within a survey? (3) How can one reliably measure asset quantity, value, and quality? Section 5 concludes by identifying methodological questions that can be answered through analysis of existing data or through the collection and analysis of new data, and the implications of answering these questions.

cocoa trees. While more research is needed to understand the conditions under which strengthening women’s property rights will increase aggregate agricultural productivity and sustainable management practices (Doss 2017), sufficient evidence has demonstrated that livelihood interventions that do not recognize the gender asset gap run the risk of exacerbating inequalities (Meinzen-Dick et al. 2011).

3