Our Land Thoughts: Does joint titling advance gender equality?

Whether encouraged by incentives, or made mandatory, joint titling has become a popular tool among development practitioners to avoid the default position that land is recorded only in the name of one owner, typically a man. In the context of land, joint titling (aka joint registration) refers to the practice of documenting the names of both members of a couple as the legal owners of marital property, or a home in which they cohabit. Co-ownership is the outcome, but this can take different forms. Let’s consider a husband and wife who co-own their family home:

• If they are joint tenants, they both equally own 100% of the property. If the husband dies, the wife automatically inherits his rights and would become the sole owner of the property.
• If they are tenants in common, they still own 100% of the property but this ownership is treated more like shares, and these can be unequal in size (ie: a husband could own 80% of the property, and the wife 20%). In this case, if the husband dies, his share is inherited according to whoever is nominated in his will.

So far, so clear, but there is a lot of nuance involved.

For example:

What property are we talking about? In countries such as Thailand, any property owned prior before the marriage is separate. Only the marital property (either purchased post-marriage, or cohabited by the couple) should be jointly owned. But if inheritance processes are dominantly patrilineal, women will continue to lost out in the property ownership stakes.

Should we only consider formal marriages? De facto and non-registered marriages remain the norm in many contexts, but may not be viewed the same as ‘marriage’ under the law. In the case of Rwanda, many authors have raised concerns that women living in de facto relationships were excluded from joint titling initiatives. Polygamy is another conundrum, in terms of how to legislate as well as how to ensure the most equitable outcomes.

Whilst there are a number of research papers exploring this topic, it’s clear that there is more to be done, particularly in understanding the direct impact of reforms. For now, the research tells us that:

Joint titling can increase security of tenure by

• Ensuring a right of inheritance for wives on the death of their husbands.
• Preventing a property being sold by a husband, without a wife’s knowledge.
• Increasing the perception of tenure security by women.
• Increasing women’s property and financial knowledge.
• Enabling women to access credit.
• Increasing the agency and financial decision making of women within a marriage, also reportedly improving the balance of power within relationships

However, the research also identifies some limitations:

• Women can still be coerced, and rights to inherit, and the ability to prevent a property being sold depend on social practice as much as law.
• Access to credit also increases liability, and women have reported decreased perceptions of tenure security brought by fears of debt liability.
• Legal reform must translate into social practice and to do so it must be understood and backed both by implementers and communities
• The impact of joint titling on decreasing gender-based violence is unclear – the evidence goes both ways in suggesting that joint titling may on the one hand decrease GBV (see e.g. Mor, 2016; and Bayisenge, 2018), and on the other hand increase (see e.g. Panda and Agarwal, 2005).

So what should we do? Some good practices have emerged, including:

1. Legal and policy frameworks must clearly set out policy aims and applications. The type of joint titling and how it is applied must be clearly communicated and must fit the context.
2. Incentivised joint titling appears more likely to result in cultural change than mandatory joint titling – possibly as a result of community education (see e.g. Cherchi et al. 2019)
3. Joint titling efforts must be complemented by community-level awareness and action to address existing tensions. Examples include education interventions for both men and women, including entrepreneurial training for women.
4. More research is needed! And of course, formalisation is not the only route to tenure security. Governments and practitioners must keep intended outcomes front of mind and adapt as needed.

*This article has been adapted from an internal LEI paper that Madison Durham authored.

References:

Bayisenge, J. (2018). From Male to Joint Land Ownership: Women’s Experiences of the Land Tenure Reform Programme in Rwanda. Journal of Agrarian Change 18(3), 588–605.

Cherchi, L. et al (2018). Incentives for Joint Land Titling: Experimental Evidence from Uganda. Annual World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty.

Mor, T. (2016). Land Rights for Women Deter Violence and Leverage Equality. Women Deliver.

Panda, P, & Agarwal B. (2005). Marital Violence, Human Development and Women’s Property Status in India. World Development 33(5), 823–850.

Vanhees, K. (2014). “Property Rights for Women in Rwanda: Access to Land for Women Living in De Facto Unions”. Master Thesis, Ghent University.