# **2.1 The debate on land regularization**

A property rights system and registry that allows unambiguous identification of owners is an important part of countries’ institutional infrastructure. If established transparently,<sup>1</sup> it can increase scope for investment and for more effective land use by reducing expropriation risk, including for women, and facilitating market transactions (Besley and Ghatak 2010). The literature on impacts of efforts to secure and maintain property rights to land and associated property globally (Lawry _et al._ 2016) and in Africa (Fenske 2011) suggest that benefits can increase in the level of insecurity and scope for transactions.

Reduced risk of land loss will increase investment incentives and obviate the need to spend private resources on protecting property, helping primarily the poor. Studies show that better property rights through land demarcation and certification lead to higher long-term investment (e.g., increase in fallowing) and free up labor for other productive uses rather than time spent guarding less secure plots, e.g., women shifting labor to less secure plots after participating in a certification program in Benin (Goldstein _et al._ 2015) and increased work away from home after urban land titling in Peru (Field 2007). Such effects will be most pronounced if land is scarce and traditional institutions are no longer able to guarantee broad-based access to and secure tenure of land or if conflict precluded efficiency-enhancing investments. Beyond traditional expropriation risk, e.g., in the context of land redistribution, reasons may include competition for land resources, e.g., from urban growth (Adam 2014), large scale land demand by outside investors (Deininger and Byerlee 2011), or speculative land acquisition by urban individuals (Sitko and Jayne 2014).<sup>2</sup> With land a key asset, the way in which land rights are distributed across household members will affect not only the efficiency of land use but also autonomy by females. Female property rights to land and other assets can affect girls’ survival rates (Qian 2008), their anthropometric status (Duflo 2003), level of schooling (Deininger _et al._ 2013; Luke and Munshi 2011), and the ability to take advantage of economic opportunities and cope with risks (Deere _et al._ 2013). Joint titling can empower women and benefit their offspring (Menon _et al._ 2014) with no negative productivity effect (Newman _et al._ 2015). As traditional systems often restrict inheritance rights by women (Colin 2008) or widows (Chapoto _et al._ 2011),<sup>3</sup> experience from India where inheritance reforms countered discrimination (Deininger _et al._ 2013) with benefits for the next generation (Deininger _et al._ 2014) is of interest.

Economic development normally involves specialization and a move of part of the labor force out of the agricultural sector, creating heterogeneity in skills and scope for efficiency-enhancing land transfers.

> 1 Key issues relate to dissemination to eliminate informational advantages by the rich and well-connected (Peters 2004) which otherwise could well result in such interventions disempowering the poor (Jansen and Roquas 1998) and entrenching inequality in land access (Easterly 2008).

> 2 ‘Land grabs’ may coincide with program to secure property rights (Sitko _et al._ 2014), highlighting the importance of careful design and monitoring. 3 In 15 Sub-Saharan African countries, less than half of widows inherited land (Peterman 2012) and their ability to hold on to their husband’s land is highly unpredictable (Chapoto _et al._ 2011). Provisions to make their inheritance rights more secure are thus important (Cooper and Bird 2012).

4