And there are other hurdles that can prevent women from seeking legal recourse: In the Democratic Republic of Congo and Liberia, women still are required to obtain permission from their spouses before initiating a legal proceeding (and, for the DRC, to register land) (Hallward-Driemeier, Hasan, and Rusu 2013). Women may also be less aware of their rights or lack the capital (both financial and social) to undertake a potentially costly and lengthy exercise. Literacy, mobility, and time constraints may further dampen women’s willingness to defend and adjudicate their claims to property (World Bank 2011).

And women may also be at a disadvantage when trying to access government services to improve property rights. For example, there may be gender differences in access to land administration services, particularly given the default selection of the household head for documentation (World Bank, FAO, and IFAD 2008).<sup>30</sup> Lastarria-Cornhiel (1997) argues that the individualization of private property during the land formalization process, with its emphasis on the male household head, can lead to an erosion of women’s secondary rights to use and cultivate land within the household. There is, however, little empirical evidence from impact evaluations to support this assertion.<sup>31</sup>

# **_Gender constraints: Endowments_**

#  **Time availability**

Women’s household and reproductive roles place limits on their time availability, and female land managers in particular tend to live in smaller, more labor-constrained households (World Bank and The ONE Campaign 2014). The risk of expropriation is a key channel through which property rights can affect economic outcomes. In a context with insecure or uncertain tenure arrangements, individuals may engage in strategic – yet inefficient – behaviors to guard their claims to property. For example, insecure property rights can lead one to spend more time than is necessary (for production alone) on agricultural labor to serve as a signal of one’s claim over land and to lower the risk of expropriation (Besley and Ghatak 2010; Houngbedji 2015). Experimental evidence from Benin has shown that, when women face differential tenure security over their plots of land, they reallocate their labor and production toward less secure land – and this strategy has adverse consequences for their overall yields (Goldstein et al. 2015). Time availability may also limit women’s participation and control over other productive assets as well. For example, Waithanji et al. (2013) argue that women’s time constraints, among other factors, likely impede their participation in livestock markets.

#  **Information**

Even when the legal and regulatory environment is favorable toward women, they may be less aware of their rights under existing law and may thus be less likely to exercise those rights (Deininger and Feder 2009). Indeed, the sex-segregated nature of women’s information networks and the smaller size of these networks in Africa may impinge on women’s ability to benefit from policy and regulatory reforms (World Bank and The ONE Campaign 2014).

The available evidence suggests that there is indeed a gender gap in the _awareness_ of property rights in Africa. Kumar and Quisumbing (2015) analyzed nationally representative data from Ethiopia following land certification and family law reforms. They found that female-headed households were significantly less likely to have heard of the country’s land registration process (90% vs. 75%), were

> 30 While there are clear gender differences in access to agricultural extension services (World Bank and IFPRI 2010), the evidence on possible gender gaps in livestock extension and veterinary services is much less robust.

> 31 Yet there is stronger evidence of gender differences in service delivery _across_ households. Keswell and Carter (2014) recently examined the impact of a market-oriented land redistribution program in South Africa. When comparing approved households in the pipeline to receive a grant, they found that female-headed households were significantly less likely than male-headed households to receive a grant for the purchase of land.

13