less likely to be aware of public information meetings prior to their occurrence, and were less likely to receive written materials about the intervention (Kumar and Quisumbing 2015). Similarly, in Benin, female heads of household were less aware of the country’s certification program when compared with male heads, and they were less likely to attend informational meetings about the program (Goldstein et al. 2015). And, in the wake of Uganda’s 1998 Land Act, which lifted nondiscrimination exemptions for customary law, females under customary land tenure regimes reported lower levels of overall knowledge about their land rights than males (Deininger, Ali, and Yamano 2008).<sup>32</sup> Nevertheless, the extent to which these knowledge gaps translate into differences in property rights has not been established.

#  **Assets**

While it may seem tautological, gender differences in capital assets may widen the gender gap in women’s ownership, use, and control of property. In particular, gender differences in credit access may limit women’s access to productive assets through market channels. For example, to acquire livestock, women tend to rely on gifts (from a spouse or family), inheritance, grants from development projects, and market purchases (Kristjanson et al. 2014). However, women may face added barriers not only to purchase large pack animals, but also to maintain the animals with feed, inputs, and veterinary services. Similarly, women’s access to land markets could be undermined by a relative disadvantage in credit or savings availability.

Gender differences in asset levels may also affect a woman’s access to formal savings via a bargaining channel, to the extent that a woman’s relative asset position determines her bargaining power within the household. Addressing gender differences in other assets such as land could therefore expand women’s access to and control over savings products.

 **Skills** Gender differences in skills and financial literacy could also be a factor behind gender gaps in property rights – although there is relatively little evidence to support this assertion. For example, it has been argued that skills differentials in terms of livestock management and care – stemming from gender differences in training and extension access – may also shape women’s ownership and control over livestock holdings (FAO 2013). And, given that financial literacy may also serve as an important constraint for financial account access (Cole, Sampson, and Zia 2011), such a constraint could bind for women in particular.<sup>33</sup> In addition, gaps in financial literacy may also hinder women from getting a mortgage in the few cases where mortgage markets function properly.

#  **Networks**

Social networks may mediate women’s access to and control over productive assets as well.<sup>34</sup> As noted previously, women tend to have smaller (female-dominated) networks and those networks tend to have less social and political power. Differential access to networks may be particularly salient for savings, since one’s social peer groups can influence savings decisions (Karlan, Ratan, and Zinman 2014). Women with larger social networks, meanwhile, may have a higher degree of access to property. Njuki and Mburu (2013) analyzed the correlates of livestock ownership in Kenya, Mozambique, and Tanzania and found that, while group membership was not correlated with the

> 32 The statistical significance levels of these gender differences were not reported.

> 33 However, the causal link between savings and knowledge constraints has not been well established empirically (Karlan, Ratan, and Zinman 2014).

> 34 Leveraging women’s networks may also help women expand their asset base. Quisumbing and Kumar (2011) observe a positive correlation between group-targeted agro-fishery interventions and women’s asset levels – along with a narrowing of the gender asset gap – using panel data from Bangladesh.

14