US$ 35 (at a mean of US$ 71). This is well above the cost of issuing titles in a systematic effort that is based on a proper regulatory framework and reasonably cost-effective approach.

Regression analysis allows exploration of issues of gender and non-response. While having documentation implies significantly higher levels of transferability, regression results suggest that women are less likely to be involved in transfer decisions for titled as compared to untitled land. Instead of helping to redress gender bias, in Zambia formal titling reinforces it. Zambia’s legal framework makes obtaining title possible only for State but not for customary land. Having title to land (not just informal documents) is associated with a reduction of tenure insecurity by 24% and demand and willingness to pay for title are higher on transferable parcels with insecure tenure, in line with the notion that formal registries reduce insecurity and allow land transfers beyond the immediate community.

Three policy implications emerge. First, our results do not justify universal titling: 45% of respondents without title have no interest in formal documents. One interpretation is that, as long as there is little demand for transfers to outsiders, customary arrangements work well as access to local information and an ability to quickly adjudicate disputes or enforce resolutions often allows relevant institutions to be more flexible than formal ones. Efforts to demarcate traditional authorities’ area boundaries, improve land use (e.g., via zoning and planning), and strengthen internal accountability -by clarifying that public recognition of chiefs’ rights come with responsibilities- can make such arrangements more robust to deal with future stress or shocks.

Second, the strong links between formal title and tenure security from regressions -compared to more limited effects of informal documents- together with demand and willingness to pay for formal title suggest that, if there is demand for title, full title seems preferred to half-way solutions. The high willingness to pay by the 55% of respondents who want formal title reinforces this and calls for measures to either increase efficiency of public land administration service delivery or explore properly structures of public-private partnerships (PPPs) ideally in a build-operate-transfer (BOT) mode for issuance and initial maintenance of titles at an affordable cost while building public sector capacity to ensure maintenance in the medium term.

Third, by documenting that, despite legal provisions mandating gender equality, access to land is biased against women and that formal systems reinforce rather than redress female exclusion, LFS data strengthen the case for more gender-sensitive land policy. To reduce the risk of the recently launched National Land Titling Program permanently disempowering women, measures are needed to make women aware of their land rights, ensure women’s joint land rights are documented, and monitor gender impacts.

Data for the Prindex global poll in Zambia were collected concurrently with the LFS. Prindex data suggest that having property rights documented does not matter economically -regressions point to no link between documented rights and the ability to transfer land and even a negative and significant link between informal documentation and the ability to use land as collateral. While omission of most non-residential agricultural 3