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