jordan chamberlin 1,2, munguzwe hichaambwa 2, nicholas sitko 1,2 (1) michigan state university, usa...

Jordan Chamberlin1,2, Munguzwe Hichaambwa2, Nicholas Sitko1,2

(1) Michigan State University, USA(2) Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute, Zambia

GENDERED IMPACTS OF SMALLHOLDER LAND TITLING:

A plot-level analysis in rural Zambia

MICHIGAN  STATEU  N  I  V  E  R  S  I  T  Y 

Land titling in Zambia

• Most land in Zambia is under customary tenure• However, increasing conversion of customary to

leasehold tenure• 1995 Land Act formalized conversion mechanisms• Ministry of Lands: plots titled for agricultural purposes

has increased by 183% since 1995• Survey data for 2012:

• 8.4% smallholders have title to at least some portion of their the land under their control

• 9.8% of smallholder land area

2

Titling & agricultural development• Theory is straightforward:

title security, collateral investments• Empirical evidence elsewhere in SSA is mixed• Institutional context may favor access by elites

• Land Act does not identify development objectives• But productivity growth is a major policy objective of gov’t

• Primary access mechanisms:• Via state: settlement and resettlement schemes, farm blocks • Direct conversion (requires approval of chief)

Vehicle for elite land capture and patronage? If so, are such acquisitions for speculative or productive purposes?

3

What role does land titling play in smallholder agricultural development in Zambia?

Research questions:1. Who acquires title?2. What are the impacts of title on farm investment,

productivity & income? • Are there important gender dimensions to participation

and/or impacts? • How does the institutional setting condition these

outcomes in systematic ways?

4

Data & methods

• Rural Agricultural Livelihoods Survey: 2012• 8,600+ smallholder households

• Geospatial data: access, population density

• Household econometric model• Determinants of title acquisition• Impacts of title possession on farm orientation &

investments

• Host of endogeneity issues…

5

Perceptions about land availability, access and institutions

% of households indicating "yes"

 all male-

headedfemale-headed

difference (male-female)

p-value  

"Is it possible to change the tenure status of customary land in this village (i.e. to convert customary land into titled property)?"

31.3% 32.0% 28.9% 3.1% 0.042 **

"Is it possible to buy or sell customary land in this village, without first changing it to titled land?" 24.0% 24.6% 22.1% 2.5% 0.055 *

"In your perception, do village headmen/authorities still have unallocated arable land that could be given to households in this area?"

45.9% 46.3% 44.6% 1.7% 1.080

6

Credit and collateral

Total # of households

Households with agricultural loans

Households with loans who used 

collateral

Households using collateral who used land 

title deeds n n % n % n %Households without title 7780 1305 17% 362 28% 14 4%Households with title 935 121 13% 47 39% 1 2% Total 8715 1426 16% 409 29% 15 4%

7

Descriptive statistics for male- and female-headed householdstotal title-holders

  male female male female% households 80.8% 19.2% 81.6% 18.4%% with title 10.8% 10.3% -- --% with title - State land 6.4% 5.1% 59.2% 50.0%% with title - former customary land 4.4% 5.1% 40.8% 50.0%

Avg. age of head 44.4 50.5 47.1 49.1Avg. education of head 6.6 4.3 8.4 6.3Avg. adult equivalents 5.0 3.7 5.1 4.3Avg. farm size 3.0 1.9 2.9 2.0Avg. # of plots 4.0 3.3 3.7 3.2Avg. % of plots controlled by females 8% 98% 11% 98%Avg. % of plots with title -- -- 92% 93%

% of HHs which are local 88% 91% 82% 84%

farm income per capita ('000s ZMW) 1,231 1,209 1,155 1,148off-farm income per capita ('000s ZMW) 857 774 1,360 1,556total income per capita ('000s ZMW) 2,075 1,956 2,564 2,606

8

Descriptive statistics for male- and female-headed householdstotal title-holders

  male female male female% of plots acquired from chief 44% 45% 19% 14%% of plots acquired from family 38% 38% 19% 20%% of plots acquired from gov't 4% 4% 32% 31%% of plots acquired from pvt actors 7% 7% 25% 31%% of plots acquired as "self-given" 6% 5% 5% 4%

% with irrigation 19% 13% 26% 19%% with erosion control structures 23% 20% 23% 32%% with agroforestry 4% 3% 4% 6%% using inorganic fertilizer 59% 44% 77% 70%

9

Determinants of title acquisition (household-level model) APE p-value

Female head (=1) 0.0036 -0.702Age of head -0.0001 -0.746Education (years) 0.0085*** 0Farm size (ha) 0.0009 -0.562Adult equivalents 0.0009 -0.623Assets (ZMK) 0.0000*** 0Chief kin (=1) -0.0318*** -0.001Immigrant (=1) 0.0246** -0.035Civil service (=1) 0.0142 -0.476Number of plots 0.0052*** -0.01Polygamous (=1) 0.0015 -0.912Conversion ok 0.0033 -0.858Unallocated -0.1450*** 0Resettlement area (=1) 0.6399*** 0Pop. density 0.0008*** 0Hours to town -0.0047*** 0N 8362

10

Determinants of land-productivity investment decisions

(1) (2) (3) (4)  Irrigated Erosion control Agroforestry Fertilizer coef./p-value coef./p-value coef./p-value coef./p-valueFemale head (=1) -0.0078** -0.0035 -0.0026 -0.0297*** (0.048) (0.609) (0.267) (0.001)Has title (=1) 0.0214*** 0.0490*** 0.0031 0.0745*** (0.002) (0.000) (0.320) (0.000)Plot size -0.1213*** -0.0134*** -0.0006* -0.0022* (0.000) (0.000) (0.071) (0.065)Age of head -0.0006*** -0.0007*** -0.0000 -0.0011*** (0.000) (0.000) (0.512) (0.000)Education (years) 0.0004 -0.0011 0.0003 0.0266*** (0.499) (0.201) (0.278) (0.000)Farm size (ha) 0.0039*** 0.0028*** 0.0001 0.0084*** (0.000) (0.001) (0.675) (0.000)Adult equivalents 0.0005 0.0065*** 0.0006 0.0063*** (0.541) (0.000) (0.160) (0.000)

11

Change in predicted probability of investments with respect to change in tenure status, by household type

Irrigation Erosion structures Agroforestry Fertilizer

dy/dx p-value dy/dx p-value dy/dx p-value dy/dx p-value

male-headed 0.0225 0.002 *** 0.0487 0.000 *** 0.0015 0.644 0.0679 0.000 ***

female-headed 0.0172 0.245 0.0514 0.000 *** 0.0097 0.226 0.1009 0.001 ***

12

Determinants of land-productivity investment decisions (1) (2) (3) (4)

  Irrigated Erosion control Agroforestry Fertilizer coef./p-value coef./p-value coef./p-value coef./p-valueFemale control (=1) -0.0410 -0.0169 -0.0535 -0.0562** (0.339) (0.572) (0.393) (0.033)Has title (=1) 0.2269*** 0.1435*** 0.0618 0.2382*** (0.001) (0.004) (0.412) (0.000)Fem. control * titled -0.0389 0.2470*** 0.0536 0.0255 (0.768) (0.009) (0.745) (0.796)Plot size -1.3867*** -0.0636*** -0.0168* -0.0073* (0.000) (0.000) (0.063) (0.061)Age of head -0.0076*** -0.0033*** -0.0012 -0.0038*** (0.000) (0.000) (0.431) (0.000)Education (years) 0.0045 -0.0057 0.0075 0.0864*** (0.493) (0.178) (0.277) (0.000)Farm size (ha) 0.0453*** 0.0134*** 0.0026 0.0278*** (0.000) (0.001) (0.658) (0.000)Adult equivalents 0.0072 0.0315*** 0.0163 0.0224*** (0.396) (0.000) (0.136) (0.000)

13

Conclusions

• On the whole, smallholder titleholders are:• Economically orientated toward wage earnings, rather

than agriculture • Earn less agricultural income than those with customary

tenure

• Results suggest speculative rather than productive objectives for title acquisition

14

Conclusions

• However, women and men appear to utilize titled land in different ways

• Female title-holders: more productive orientation• Lower productivity of FHHs is partially offset by title

possession

• Gendered results likely associated with lower security under customary tenure systems…

15

Policy implications

• Update land policy to better articulate objectives• What is the goal of titling and other land policies with

respect to agricultural growth and rural development objectives?

• Figure out how to better engage women in titling process (+/or other security-enhancing institutions)

• Lower institutional & cultural access barriers

16

Thank YouFor more information visit:

http://fsg.afre.msu.edu/zambia/

or contact me at:

chamb244@msu.edu