This House believes legal empowerment is provided for women through land titling.

This House believes legal empowerment is provided for women through land titling.

A key debate being raised within urban studies internationally includes the power land titling can have to reduce poverty and empower individuals[1]. Formal land titles are defined as legal rights attached to property by the state; they represent a means of legal land tenure[2]. The possession of land titles is suggested to put individuals on the map: enabling the ability to demand services and rights, and providing an opportunity to enter markets and invest. However, what are the real benefits of granting land titles; and what happens when individuals are included under persisting inequalities?

The provision of land titling has recently shifted to include women. In promoting the rights of women, action is being taken to grant land titles to women, globally[3]. Two programme streams have been introduced - joint-titling, whereby the land title indicates shared ownership between partners, and female ownership, meaning women can be recognised as the legal title holder. Across Africa data shows 67% of countries have equal gender property rights, while no countries have equal inheritance rights[4].

This debate focuses on what type of ‘empowerment’ is provided for women through formal land titles in the African context, and the extent changing the rules of land tenure should be used as a means of ‘empowerment’. The focus is placed on the power of the title deed, having ones name formally recognised as owner/co-owner, which may be gained through payment, inheritance and/or land transfers. As programmes continue to be rolled out is the provision of land titles can land titles enable women to become equal citizens; justify rights; and enable social security?

[1] Three groups may be identified: structuralists, legalists, and neo-liberalists (see AlSayyad, 2004). The debates are currently being raised within African nations, however, the status of women within the discourses requires greater consideration.

[2] For definitions on land tenure, and its importance, see the FAO.

[3] Worldwide projects have been implemented with mixed success i.e. in Brazil, Peru, Buenos Aires, India, Kenya, Rwanda and more. Organisations include UN, World Bank, and OXFAM.

[4] United Nations, 2011. 

 

Open all points
Points-for

Points For

POINT

Land titles mean women will be recognised as citizens, with rights. Women will be included in the system of justice and their rights to occupy, build, and use, land, recognised. Titles will provide bottom-up empowerment. A physical and psychological sense of security will be provided; and a sense of social belonging, and place, is enabled. Legal security has benefits for health (mental and physical) and reduces risk. For example, access to titles will reduce the vulnerability of women to ‘property grabbing’.

In the case of Ethiopia, the introduction of joint land-titling and household registration in 2003[1] has been shown to have changed women’s perception of tenure security. Previously, the prevalence of polygamous relationships meant only the first wife was granted legal rights and recognition, leaving other wives and households without rights to land. The provision of land titles ensures women equal security within a legal framework. Women are entitled to rights; and titles provide the security to use the legal system.

[1] The Joint titling program in Ethiopia was a implemented as a partnership between the government and World Bank, see further readings: Girma and Giovarelli, 2013; Barne, 2010; and Deninger, 2008.

COUNTERPOINT

Land titles mean women will be recognised as citizens, with rights. Women will be included in the system of justice and their rights to occupy, build, and use, land, recognised. Titles will provide bottom-up empowerment. A physical and psychological sense of security will be provided; and a sense of social belonging, and place, is enabled. Legal security has benefits for health (mental and physical) and reduces risk. For example, access to titles will reduce the vulnerability of women to ‘property grabbing’.

In the case of Ethiopia, the introduction of joint land-titling and household registration in 2003[1] has been shown to have changed women’s perception of tenure security. Previously, the prevalence of polygamous relationships meant only the first wife was granted legal rights and recognition, leaving other wives and households without rights to land. The provision of land titles ensures women equal security within a legal framework. Women are entitled to rights; and titles provide the security to use the legal system.

[1] The Joint titling program in Ethiopia was a implemented as a partnership between the government and World Bank, see further readings: Girma and Giovarelli, 2013; Barne, 2010; and Deninger, 2008.

POINT

Due to a lack of access to formal titling women have been pushed into acquiring, and living in, slums[1]. Land titling programmes benefit slum dwellers and inhabitants living in informal housing across African cities. Titles for women mean a sense of security to inhabit space is provided; and women will be encouraged to invest in their land. Titling provision has resulted in slum upgrading, investing in changing the structure of urban Africa.

Second, being recognised as title holders means women are able to demand new services - such as access to water, sanitation, and lights. Such demand will ensure improved health for women. Women are able to use the law to interact with the state and change their future by demanding crucial services.

[1] Slums are officially defined as a group of individuals living in a household which lacks safe housing, sufficient living space, access to water, adequate sanitation, and/or security of tenure (UN-Habitat, 2003). 

COUNTERPOINT

Although titles may initiate slum upgrading the quality and time-scale of services provided remains questionable. Services can be of poor-quality as states rush to meet demands, and the area whereby women are given titles may remain unsafe and unhealthy spaces. Titling therefore does not fundamentally improve, or provide, services and infrastructure.

Further, women are given the burden (time and physical) of building decent homes. The provision of land titling transfers responsibility from the state to women.

In many cases across Africa land is not owned by the state, but rather private actors and international organisations. Such realities have implications in whether women are able to invest in, and build, homes as land titles need to be respected, and recognised, by multiple actors not only the state.

POINT

Access to titles is a means of poverty alleviation for female-headed households and women. Having recognised land rights means first, their land becomes exchangeable and profits can be gained through different strategies. Second, women are able to access credit and finance with the granting of a formal land title. Women are able to become entrepreneurs establishing businesses, agricultural cultivation, and the ability to sell property and land. Such investments have positive benefits for the whole economy. For example by encouraging crop cultivation to small-scale farmers food security can be provided, and the agrarian market revitalised.[1]

In the case of Ethiopia, the economy remains highly dependent on agricultural production. The security land titles provides has encouraged agricultural cultivation to women nationwide. Women are able to build a new food market and earn an income to sustain their livelihoods.

[1] See further readings: Oseni, 2013.

COUNTERPOINT

Are women really able to access credit and finance, and should they be able to enter such markets if there is an inability to return payments or get equal profits? Accessing credit with a high interest rate may put women are greater risk. We need to think about the credit lenders, what they charge, and if it can be paid back. Women may be less willing to use their primary asset to gain credit due to the potential risk of loss.

Studies in Madagascar[1] have shown limited differences in the degree of plot investment on land whereby titles were held, or not. The provision of a title has minimal impact in the case of rural Madagascar, suggesting women will be no more ‘entrepreneurial’ than initially believed[2]. Land speculation may become more of a concern with the provision of titles, as land is believed to be of value and thus occupied, but with minimal investments made.

[1] Jacoby and Minten, 2007.

[2] See further readings: Fenske, 2011.

POINT

One of the main forms of gender-based violence includes violent acts carried out by husbands or partners[1]. Evidence shows the provision of land titles reduce risks to female health and vulnerabilities to violence. Women become accepted as, and confident, decision makers within their homes as titling redistributes power within households. Furthermore possessing a land title enables safer sexual relations by offering legal protection. Research in Kenya has shown titles will reduce the risk of spreading HIV/AIDS and rape[2]. Due to gender norms widows are forced into traditional ‘cleansing’ rituals, rape and forced marriage, in order to hold onto physical assets and inherit their rightful land from in-laws. Land titles are therefore a means of tackling gender discrimination and providing freedom of choice on how women can act. Women are less likely to be forced into unsafe sex, following the death of their husband or divorce, to occupy the land.

Additionally, returning to the case of Kenya, FIDA have reported how a woman's choice to divorce her partner often leaves many property-less[3]. Women may be more likely to remain in an unhappy, dangerous, marriage without changes in property legal systems.

[1] Defined by WHO, 2013.

[2] Sweetman, 2008.

[3] Migiro, 2013.

COUNTERPOINT

The case of Kenya is not representative of evidence across all African nations. In Rwanda, where post-conflict recovery has put gender equality as a fundamental objective, underlying tensions are emerging. Land titles have been distributed to women however male counterparts are beginning to raise doubts over the extent of gender 'equality', arguing policies reflect a gender bias in favour of women.[1]

In societies where women live in a ‘man’s world’ land titles are not the means of safety and security. Rape, harassment, and abuse occur in public spaces across cities, due to fear, police relations, and social acceptance.

[1] Bikorimana, 2012. 

POINT

Giving women the right to land will provide the path for gender equality in the present and future. Girls will be granted equal access rights to family land and inheritance in the future, and decisions around marriage dowry can be changed.  

COUNTERPOINT

Having rights does not ensure there will be an awareness of how to use rights and education on what such rights do. To ensure land titles contribute to promoting gender equalities women, and girls, need to be made aware of the meaning of rights and how to use them. Land titles are not the means of providing inter-generational equality, but rather one piece of the puzzle. To ensure equality education and awareness is required. 

Points-against

Points Against

POINT

Land titles mean women will be recognised as citizens, with rights. Women will be included in the system of justice and their rights to occupy, build, and use, land, recognised. Titles will provide bottom-up empowerment. A physical and psychological sense of security will be provided; and a sense of social belonging, and place, is enabled. Legal security has benefits for health (mental and physical) and reduces risk. For example, access to titles will reduce the vulnerability of women to ‘property grabbing’.

In the case of Ethiopia, the introduction of joint land-titling and household registration in 2003[1] has been shown to have changed women’s perception of tenure security. Previously, the prevalence of polygamous relationships meant only the first wife was granted legal rights and recognition, leaving other wives and households without rights to land. The provision of land titles ensures women equal security within a legal framework. Women are entitled to rights; and titles provide the security to use the legal system.

[1] The Joint titling program in Ethiopia was a implemented as a partnership between the government and World Bank, see further readings: Girma and Giovarelli, 2013; Barne, 2010; and Deninger, 2008.

COUNTERPOINT

Land titles mean women will be recognised as citizens, with rights. Women will be included in the system of justice and their rights to occupy, build, and use, land, recognised. Titles will provide bottom-up empowerment. A physical and psychological sense of security will be provided; and a sense of social belonging, and place, is enabled. Legal security has benefits for health (mental and physical) and reduces risk. For example, access to titles will reduce the vulnerability of women to ‘property grabbing’.

In the case of Ethiopia, the introduction of joint land-titling and household registration in 2003[1] has been shown to have changed women’s perception of tenure security. Previously, the prevalence of polygamous relationships meant only the first wife was granted legal rights and recognition, leaving other wives and households without rights to land. The provision of land titles ensures women equal security within a legal framework. Women are entitled to rights; and titles provide the security to use the legal system.

[1] The Joint titling program in Ethiopia was a implemented as a partnership between the government and World Bank, see further readings: Girma and Giovarelli, 2013; Barne, 2010; and Deninger, 2008.

POINT

Due to a lack of access to formal titling women have been pushed into acquiring, and living in, slums[1]. Land titling programmes benefit slum dwellers and inhabitants living in informal housing across African cities. Titles for women mean a sense of security to inhabit space is provided; and women will be encouraged to invest in their land. Titling provision has resulted in slum upgrading, investing in changing the structure of urban Africa.

Second, being recognised as title holders means women are able to demand new services - such as access to water, sanitation, and lights. Such demand will ensure improved health for women. Women are able to use the law to interact with the state and change their future by demanding crucial services.

[1] Slums are officially defined as a group of individuals living in a household which lacks safe housing, sufficient living space, access to water, adequate sanitation, and/or security of tenure (UN-Habitat, 2003). 

COUNTERPOINT

Although titles may initiate slum upgrading the quality and time-scale of services provided remains questionable. Services can be of poor-quality as states rush to meet demands, and the area whereby women are given titles may remain unsafe and unhealthy spaces. Titling therefore does not fundamentally improve, or provide, services and infrastructure.

Further, women are given the burden (time and physical) of building decent homes. The provision of land titling transfers responsibility from the state to women.

In many cases across Africa land is not owned by the state, but rather private actors and international organisations. Such realities have implications in whether women are able to invest in, and build, homes as land titles need to be respected, and recognised, by multiple actors not only the state.

POINT

Access to titles is a means of poverty alleviation for female-headed households and women. Having recognised land rights means first, their land becomes exchangeable and profits can be gained through different strategies. Second, women are able to access credit and finance with the granting of a formal land title. Women are able to become entrepreneurs establishing businesses, agricultural cultivation, and the ability to sell property and land. Such investments have positive benefits for the whole economy. For example by encouraging crop cultivation to small-scale farmers food security can be provided, and the agrarian market revitalised.[1]

In the case of Ethiopia, the economy remains highly dependent on agricultural production. The security land titles provides has encouraged agricultural cultivation to women nationwide. Women are able to build a new food market and earn an income to sustain their livelihoods.

[1] See further readings: Oseni, 2013.

COUNTERPOINT

Are women really able to access credit and finance, and should they be able to enter such markets if there is an inability to return payments or get equal profits? Accessing credit with a high interest rate may put women are greater risk. We need to think about the credit lenders, what they charge, and if it can be paid back. Women may be less willing to use their primary asset to gain credit due to the potential risk of loss.

Studies in Madagascar[1] have shown limited differences in the degree of plot investment on land whereby titles were held, or not. The provision of a title has minimal impact in the case of rural Madagascar, suggesting women will be no more ‘entrepreneurial’ than initially believed[2]. Land speculation may become more of a concern with the provision of titles, as land is believed to be of value and thus occupied, but with minimal investments made.

[1] Jacoby and Minten, 2007.

[2] See further readings: Fenske, 2011.

POINT

One of the main forms of gender-based violence includes violent acts carried out by husbands or partners[1]. Evidence shows the provision of land titles reduce risks to female health and vulnerabilities to violence. Women become accepted as, and confident, decision makers within their homes as titling redistributes power within households. Furthermore possessing a land title enables safer sexual relations by offering legal protection. Research in Kenya has shown titles will reduce the risk of spreading HIV/AIDS and rape[2]. Due to gender norms widows are forced into traditional ‘cleansing’ rituals, rape and forced marriage, in order to hold onto physical assets and inherit their rightful land from in-laws. Land titles are therefore a means of tackling gender discrimination and providing freedom of choice on how women can act. Women are less likely to be forced into unsafe sex, following the death of their husband or divorce, to occupy the land.

Additionally, returning to the case of Kenya, FIDA have reported how a woman's choice to divorce her partner often leaves many property-less[3]. Women may be more likely to remain in an unhappy, dangerous, marriage without changes in property legal systems.

[1] Defined by WHO, 2013.

[2] Sweetman, 2008.

[3] Migiro, 2013.

COUNTERPOINT

The case of Kenya is not representative of evidence across all African nations. In Rwanda, where post-conflict recovery has put gender equality as a fundamental objective, underlying tensions are emerging. Land titles have been distributed to women however male counterparts are beginning to raise doubts over the extent of gender 'equality', arguing policies reflect a gender bias in favour of women.[1]

In societies where women live in a ‘man’s world’ land titles are not the means of safety and security. Rape, harassment, and abuse occur in public spaces across cities, due to fear, police relations, and social acceptance.

[1] Bikorimana, 2012. 

POINT

Giving women the right to land will provide the path for gender equality in the present and future. Girls will be granted equal access rights to family land and inheritance in the future, and decisions around marriage dowry can be changed.  

COUNTERPOINT

Having rights does not ensure there will be an awareness of how to use rights and education on what such rights do. To ensure land titles contribute to promoting gender equalities women, and girls, need to be made aware of the meaning of rights and how to use them. Land titles are not the means of providing inter-generational equality, but rather one piece of the puzzle. To ensure equality education and awareness is required. 

POINT

On the one hand, land titles do not provide increased tenure security for women and will legitimise gentrification. In urban areas, if women are granted rights over a desired plot of land holding titles may be more of a curse. Poor women may be forced, and enticed, to sell their homes at prices under their market value. Titles often results in urban gentrification, as the spaces become legally mapped and property markets work for the elite.

On another hand, land titles in African states are based on bad governance, rent-seeking, and corrupt desires. The idea land titles will provide empowerment, security and poverty reduction is based on a Western model of the state. However, the boundary between what is legal and illegal in African states remains less clear-cut. The case of Zimbabwe’s ‘Operation Murambatsvina’ (‘Restore Order’) in 2005 is a case in point. Mass evictions occurred despite the homes being classified as ‘legal’ and titles being held. Livelihoods were destroyed as a result. The ability for land titles to empower in a repressive or mercurial state is questionable. Propositions for land titling are based on inadequate blueprints and ideas of the state.

COUNTERPOINT

The possession of a formally recognised entitlement to land presents a win-win scenario - being an indicator of good governance and enabling the promotion of good governance. Land titles represent an effective economic institution in society, of which enables democratic, political institutions, such as an accountable state. Land titles mean corruption and rent-seeking behaviour can be monitored.

POINT

The cost of obtaining land titles is higher than the benefits sought. Research has shown that although there is a desire, by women, to obtain land titles the reality is land titles remain unaffordable. To empower land titles need to be more affordable to include a diverse range of women able to obtain titles and rights[1]. Having expensive titles limits empowerment to the comparatively wealthy. To make matters worse the provision of titles increases the burden on women - introducing additional costs, time commitments, and worries on top of normal activities.

Cheaper, and more effective, alternatives are available to provide rights and security of tenure for women. For example Toulmin (2009) emphasises the potential role of using local institutions to register rights. Community organisations, for saving (etc) as in South Africa which prevent the need to go to loan sharks, are a positive alternative to empower women.[2] For real empowerment women need to be included in the process of designing land titles.

[1] See further readings for the case of Dar-es-Salaam: Ayalew et al, 2013.

[2] Frederikse 2011

COUNTERPOINT

Programmes implemented have taken action to reduce costs. The recent government program in Ethiopia has been government-sponsored and used a participatory model to ensure affordability across a large-scale. 

POINT

Titles provide a path for the state to gain, and mobilise, resources - such as taxation. Therefore the provision of land titles to women will mean they are forced to pay taxes (including land tax and additional government taxes). Such a reality has major consequences for single female-headed households who represent a disproportionate number of the poor[1]. Increased expenses will impact multiple dimensions of their livelihoods.

[1] For debates on Female-Headed Households in Africa as the ‘poorest of the poor’ see further readings: Chant, 2007. 

COUNTERPOINT

Female-headed households are not the poorest of the poor, and taxation is required. Taxation is vital resource to enable the government to mobilise key services and as a redistributive tool. By developing an effective functioning taxation system, social policies can be put on the agenda in Africa - providing social support and security to those in need.

Having access to titles will reduce poverty by encouraging entrepreneurialism, productive use of land, security, better health, and opportunity to enter property markets.

POINT

About 50% of the poor across Africa, including women, used rental accommodation[1] , many are landless. Although it remains debatable as to whether women enter the rental market by choice or not, renting has been noted to provide a greater degree of flexibility. Renting provides flexibility to relocate and manage finances effectively over a short-term. Land titles may therefore increase immobility to those using the rental markets; and enable landlords to raise prices of renting. Titles don’t help those who rent.

[1] Edwards, 1990, p.255

COUNTERPOINT

Renting holds fewer benefits for women than ownership. For empowerment more women need to become home, and landowners. The provision of land titles to women means they have a sense of stability. In the case of Johannesburg, South Africa, a majority of young, female renters engage in different forms of transactional sex due to the expense of renting[1]. Equality in land titling will ensure women are able to save and seek safer livelihood options.

[1] See further readings: Action Aid, 2012.

POINT

Land title provision for women across Africa is occurring in informal settlements and slums - therefore the question is whether titles provide an ability to relocate through the property market. First, land titles in the case of South Africa have left inhabitants stuck on the lower-end of the property market[1].  Lemanski (2010) shows homeownership, in Cape Town, does not bring the hoped for financial return. Low-income households are unable to trade their asset (land or home) due to low returns, preventing movement into upgraded houses and areas. Second, dangers emerge as to the degree of future sustainability when considering climate change and the hazardous nature of environments. In Mathare slum, Kenya, landslides are a frequent occurrence. The provision of titles in such areas does not have sustainable.  

[1] Lemanski, 2010. 

COUNTERPOINT

Real empowerment needs to enable strategic, and practical, gender needs (Moser, 1989). Land titling for women enables women to change their position in society and thus how they are viewed by the state and communities. Having a land title means women in high-risk areas can demand changes to be made by the state.

Bibliography

Bikorimana, D. ‘Rwanda: The Land of Gender Equality?’, Think Africa Press, 2012. http://thinkafricapress.com/rwanda/women-gender-equality

Edwards, M., ‘Rental Housing and the Urban Poor: Africa and Latin America Compared’, in Amis P., ed., Housing Africa’s Urban Poor, Manchester 1990.

Frederikse, J., ‘South Africa: Poor Make Money by Saving in Groups’, AllAfrica, 2011. http://allafrica.com/stories/201108121139.html

Jacoby, G, H., and Minten, B. ‘Is Land Titling in Sub-Saharan Africa Cost-Effective? Evidence from Madagascar’, The World Bank Economic Review, 21, 3, pp461-485. 2007. http://wber.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/3/461.short

Lemanski, C. ‘Moving up the Ladder or Stuck on the Bottom Rung? Homeownership as a Solution to Poverty in Urban South Africa’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35, 1, pp 57-77. 2010. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00945.x/abstract;jsessionid=19AD0B99B3E0C9D928C9A0EF16AB788B.f01t04?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

Migiro, K. ‘Kenyan Women to Fight Bill Denying Them Property Rights in Divorce’, All Africa,  2013. http://allafrica.com/stories/201311141193.html

Sweetman, C.  ‘How Title Deeds Make Sex Safer: Women's property rights in an era of HIV’, Oxfam International: From Poverty to Power Series, 2008. http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/how-title-deeds-make-sex-safer-womens-property-rights-in-an-era-of-hiv-112407  

Toulmin,  C. ‘Securing Land and Property Rights in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Role of Local Institutions’, Land Use Policy, 26, 1, pp 10-19. 2009. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837708000811

United Nations, 2011. http://progress.unwomen.org/statistical-index/

UN-HABITAT, 2003. http://ww2.unhabitat.org/mdg/

WHO (World Health Organisation), 2013.  http://www.who.int/gender/violence/gbv/en/

World Bank, 2013. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SG.GEN.PARL.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2012+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=asc  

Have a good for or against point on this topic? Share it with us!

Login or register in order to submit your arguments
Login
Share Points For or Against Image
Loading...