rural areas) may be explained by the high correlation between the WBL variables and other country-level historical variables reflecting social norms around inheritance and family structures, which suggests that legislative changes may not be as effective in increasing women’s land ownership in environments with adverse social norms.

We briefly discuss our historical and current controls at the country-level. Confirming the descriptive analysis, there is no significant relationship between per capita GDP and property ownership, which suggests that economic prosperity _per se_ is not a key driver of women’s property ownership. With respect to the variables reflecting historical cultural attitudes and gender norms only the absence of historical inheritance rights and the prevalence of extended families in the society (especially in rural areas) are significantly associated with women’s property ownership. The absence of inheritance rights historically is linked to the absence of private property rights _per se,_ which according to Engels (1902) implies a relatively more gender egalitarian society. A high prevalence of extended families in rural areas has a negative association with both land and housing ownership, reflecting perhaps a larger number of claimants to immoveable property reducing women’s chances of even joint ownership. A higher proportion of the population following matrilocality (patrilocality) in the society historically is associated with higher (lower) property ownership among women but the effects are not statistically significant.

Model (3) includes a rich set of individual, spouse, couple and household characteristics. Individual attributes such as age and education of women show the expected associations for property ownership – older women are more likely to own property as are highly educated women (mostly greater than 13 years of education). Wives’ property ownership in urban areas is positively impacted when both spouses are working, reflecting greater purchasing ability. Rather surprisingly, women’s own employment is either negatively associated (mostly in urban locations) or has no association (mostly in rural locations) on her ownership. Being assigned head of household is beneficial for wives in rural areas when compared to the husband being the head. A wife being considered a head is not a common occurrence in the sample and possibly reflects traditions where lineage is through the woman and/or she is considered a key decision maker. However, a household member other than the husband being assigned the head has negative effects on women’s property ownership in rural areas, and across locations if the head is female. This headship structure is indicative of an extended family, where the couple is living with parents or other relatives. Thus, older members are more likely to own the property; even if the husband owns the property it will likely be joint with other household members and not necessarily with his wife.

The regional fixed effects are large and statistically significant in model (1), with all regions experiencing lower ownership rates of immovable property compared to East Asia and the Pacific. However, the regional dummies for South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa turn insignificant once we control for GDP, religion and historical social norms (in model (2)), indicating that the relative disadvantage of these two regions can be explained by these variables. Conversely, the regional fixed effects for the Middle East and North Africa (except for land in urban areas) and for Latin America and the Caribbean tend to stay negative and significant in models (2) and (3), which suggests that women in those regions are disadvantaged by forces that are not accounted for by our regression models. However, it is important to note that both regions are represented by only a few countries in our sample (Middle East and North Africa: Jordan; Latin America and the Caribbean: Colombia, Haiti) so that the results are not easily generalizable.

18