The implicit assumption in most surveys is that ownership is equivalent to management (which is not always the case), or that irrespective of individual plot ownership, the household head manages the land. In other words, that which needs to be investigated in a gender analysis is assumed away. Only a handful of questionnaires, Ghana (1991-92), Honduras (2004) and Nicaragua (1998, 2001, and 2005) collect individual data on _both_ plot ownership and management, allowing this relationship to be investigated by gender (see Table A2). The results from the Nicaragua 2001 survey are instructive. Although women are the sole landowner in 16.3 percent of the households, they are considered to be the most knowledgeable person about its agricultural activities in only 8.3 percent of these households and they make the agricultural decisions in only 8.5 percent these households (authors’ calculations, ENVI Nicaragua 2001).

The IFPRI questionnaires for Bangladesh, Ghana, the Philippines, and Sumatra, as well as the KIDS survey from South Africa<sup>26</sup> investigate who owns each plot of land by sex (Table A4). However, they do not inquire whether the land is jointly owned. Neither are they concerned with whose names are on the titles for the individual plots, since they only ask whether the household has a title to each plot. Information is thus lost on whether men or women are more likely to have a title to their plot of land and thus secure access. These surveys also gave little attention to farm management by gender.

The best practice is that followed in the ICRW questionnaires where individual and joint ownership by sex was investigated at the plot level (Sri Lanka, Kerala, and West Bengal) (Table A5). Moreover, some of these surveys elicited information on the meaning of ownership rights, asking questions, for example, about the rights of use and disposition of the plot, as well as on how land was acquired at the individual level (Kerala, West Bengal). However, ICRW did not gather information on either titling or plot management. In addition, a major limitation is that this survey was administered only to women and thus yields no information that can be used to calculate the gender asset gap.

_Livestock_ . Of the LSMS reviewed here, only three collect individual ownership data on farm animals (see Table A2), with most treating all livestock as the presumed property of the “household,” or its head rather than of the individuals within it. Again, a gender analysis requires data on who owns and manages livestock at the individual level, but none of the LSMS provide both pieces of data. The Mexico (2002) and Ghana (2005-06, 1998-98) questionnaires are the only ones that solicit individual level data on the management of livestock, but fail to ask about who owns the various animals. Afghanistan (2007) asks who decides to sell the livestock, giving the same response options as for sales of land, but does not ask about ownership of the animals.

The IFPRI questionnaires for Bangladesh, Ethiopia and the Philippines also collected ownership data by individuals for each type of livestock (Table A4), but failed to collect management data as well, with the implicit assumption that those who own the animals also manage them. The survey data collected through the USAID PARIMA project, which specifically examines pastoralist households, also asks individual level questions on livestock ownership (Table A6). The surveyors interviewed the household head about all of the livestock owned by anyone within the household. They then interviewed the 24