This story originally appeared in our October 8, 2010 e-magazine. Click here to subscribe.

For over a billion poor people in the developing world, changing their relationship to the land they live upon could measurably improve their quality of life. Granting access to land and legalizing rights to the land could lead to an increase in income, improve social security, and enhance opportunity.

Addressing the issue of property rights is also a key aspect of increasing economic growth of developing countries. In overlooking the role of land and land rights, have we neglected a key element in the fight to bring the poor out of poverty?

Much of the development dialogue of the last decade has focused on microfinance, and before that, on aid, infrastructure, and governance. And, indeed, all are important tools in poverty alleviation. But, we must also understand the development imperative of securing land and land tenure for the poor.

The majority of the poor live in rural areas where land is the key asset: a source of food security, income, credit, status, and power.  Without fair distribution of land and secure rights, millions of poor people suffer, and the economies of developing countries lose the opportunity to realize billions of dollars in assets for growth and investment. Creating a unified system that enables access to land and land rights is an essential component of fighting poverty.

The Importance of Land in Poverty Alleviation

According to Tim Hanstad, President of the Rural Development Institute, there are 1.2 billion people worldwide who own or lease physical property for which they do not hold formal rights or documentation, or live without permanent homes or access to land altogether.  Landlessness, a symbol of poverty in many developing countries, is a result of rapid population growth, lack of land, low agricultural productivity, arcane legal systems, and ineffective policies. Between 600 and 700 million people have access to land, but have insecure tenure.  Another 400-500 million are completely landless.

Land rights are directly and indirectly linked to human rights, the welfare of women and girls, and the cyclical nature of poverty. Providing the poor with land, and/or helping them to legally secure the land they live and work upon has overwhelming affects on many other aspects of development and can alter many of the factors that currently lead to global instability:

  • Identity: Acknowledging property rights goes hand in hand with identifying a man or a woman as a part of a community and country, a fundamental human right.
  • Women’s Empowerment: Women produce 60-80% of food in developing countries, but own less than 5% of the land. If women had the same access to land and seeds that men do, agricultural productivity would go up by at least 20%.  When women have secure rights to land, they invest more in nutrition and education for their children, they are more empowered in their household, and are much less likely to be victims of domestic abuse.
  • Sustainable Growth and Climate Change Resilience: Secure access to land rights serves as an incentive to invest in the land with a long-term vision. Land users are more likely to manage resources carefully, and care for the land over time.
  • Decrease Migration and Slow Urbanization: Legally recognized land ownership helps farmers increase their financial stability and reduces the likelihood of urban migration.
  • Business Development: Land rights can enable entrepreneurs to transform land into collateral to access bank loans and start new businesses.
  • Peace and Political Stability: Many conflicts are created by overlapping claims to land, which can lead to human strife, violence, land grabs and population displacement. Respect for property rights can contribute to greater peace and stability.

Property Rights and Economic Development

The argument that formal land rights could unlock potential for the poor and their countries’ economies was popularized by the Peruvian economist Hernando De Soto, in his book The Mystery of Capital (2000).  Called the “blueprint for a new industrial revolution,” the book describes the process by which developing countries can transform themselves and their economies by creating a system that legally represents people and their property. De Soto writes, “Leaders of [developing countries] need not wander the world’s foreign ministries and international financial institutions seeking their fortune. In the midst of their own poorest neighborhoods and shantytowns, there are—if not acres of diamonds—trillions of dollars, all ready to be put to use if only the mystery of how assets are transformed into live capital can be unraveled.”

With recognized rights to land and physical assets, owners are brought into the formal economy. These resources become live capital to owners, enabling them to buy, sell, or leverage as collateral so that they are able to take advantage of their most significant asset. By recognizing and honoring rights to property and land, developing countries can unlock capital and create unparalleled opportunity for their citizens.

While the tenuous relationship between the land and the poor goes back centuries, there are recent examples of the potential that can result from land reform. In the 1980s, China provided broad-based access to private land ownership in rural households through its “Household Responsibility System .”  This incentive system—which transformed China’s agricultural sector from collective to private production—increased yields, reallocated communal land to peasant households, and gave millions of smallholder farmers relative freedom over land use. The system lowered the number of people living in poverty from 542 million to 375 million within the decade.

In Taiwan, from 1949-1953, the land ownership framework was completely turned inside out, giving over 400,000 families land and title in a very short time. The reforms put the power of capital into the hands of many, instead of the few. The farmers suddenly had something they never had before: disposable income.  As a result, farmers invested more time, money, and fertilizer in their lands, diversified crops, and increased production at an annual rate of 5.6% from 1953 through 1970.

Change Comes with Time

While many development tools address symptoms of poverty, taking on the issues of land rights gets at the root cause of poverty. Landlessness is one of the strongest predictors of poverty, more so than gender or caste. When land rights are in place, many other things fall into place, such as health, education, and income generation.

The process of changing systems to give the poor better access and secure rights to land will require innovative action, policy reform, and patience. Hanstad of the Rural Development Institute (RDI) has likened the process to banking reform: “Success in this field is measured in decades. We can’t expect change to happen quickly. You’re never exactly done.”

There are organizations and governments around the world that are conducting research, running community level pilots, and implementing dynamic programs that are contributing to change.

Last month, at the Clinton Global Initiative in New York City, the NIKE Foundation, Omidyar Network, and RDI together announced a US$6.5 million commitment to create opportunities for 50,000 poor, rural girls in Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia by helping to strengthen their rights to land. The pledge aims to bring needed attention to these issues.

Scenarios: Women, Land, and Rights

Having unequal and undefined rights brings insecurity to poor women and girls around the world.

Inheritance: In West Bengal, a young girl from a farming family fears a fate she has seen befall her sisters. With no legal inheritance rights, girls are often married off or pushed out of the home at a young age.

Unequal Rights: In Rwanda, a woman struggles to cultivate enough food on her small plot to feed five children. When her husband leaves her, he denies her access to the land. She is left to care for her children without any formal rights to the property that can support her family.

Landlessness: In Indonesia, a woman and her family live next to a rice paddy field, which they cultivate. Although they live on the land, plant the field, and harvest the crop, they do not own it, and are considered landless. Their lives are dependent upon the whim of the land owner—and are therefore subject to removal at any time.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Tumblr
  • Reddit
  • Posterous
  • Google Buzz
  • E-Mail
  • Delicious

8 Comments »

  1. संदीप नारायण शेळके (Sandeep Shelke) Said,

    October 9, 2010 @ 7:54 am

    I thank Abby for this informative article. Really very interesting article.
    I got a glimpse of change that property rights can bring to the nations like Bharat(India).

    But how to achieve the property rights reform?
    Any links for further reading? Any research? Case study?

    Jai Bharat!

  2. Sanjeev Sabhlok Said,

    October 9, 2010 @ 4:10 pm

    Dear Abby

    De Soto made a vital point that in his brilliant book that confirms classical liberal views of the world.

    The issue with India, though, is not that property rights don’t exist – except perhaps in urban slums – (indeed, they are “officially” quite precise and well-organised), but that there is a lot of corruption during the transfer of property rights. Also, the rights of girls are often transferred to their brothers without formal documentation. [urban slums are an exception to this, and that, btw, is what de Soto focused on]

    On the other side of the coin, though – and this point is particularly important – (and I’m assuming that much of this article applies to agricultural land) – agriculture is no longer an appropriate occupation for more than half of India’s villagers. They must move on to other jobs that use/ give better return for their (mental) talents. Land ceilings need to be removed to allow efficient farmers to buy out their less efficient neighbours.

    I therefore don’t believe that this particular issue is particularly relevant to most of India (it might have been to China, but India always had reasonably assured property rights). (It does, though, have applicability to urban slums.)

    What is far more relevant is direct transfers (negative income tax) to eliminate poverty – and education of children to prepare them for a totally different world where knowledge and capital matters, not mere manual labour. We can’t aspire to keep people on farms who use primitive technology. Their capacity must be developed and used more productively in manufacture and innovation.

    In my book, Breaking Free of Nehru, I talk about the gaps in property rights in India; but most importantly there are significant gaps in governance in India (and other developing nations) that de Soto does not highlight. I believe they are equally, if not more important, if the developing nations are to progress rapidly.

    Regards
    Sanjeev

  3. Rich Brubaker Said,

    October 11, 2010 @ 11:39 am

    This issue is one that many cities, particularly in developing nations, need to spend more time focused on. As De Soto’s book lays out, this is a key issue for a number of the economic, societal, and environmental issues faced, and I see that every day as a resident of Shanghai (where 1/3 of the resident population is migrant).

    It affects adults, who remain mobile, and their children in tow in every way as economic opportunities are missed, discrimination breeds, and crimes are more easily committed.

    R

  4. Rosemary Porter Said,

    October 14, 2010 @ 6:00 pm

    Arcane legal systems and even arcane agricultural systems are a major problem. I witnessed this first-hand in the southern province of Zambia (provincial capital: Choma). Land became desertified because of the overgrowth of corn since Zambia was part of Africa’s “breadbasket”.

    However, many of these changes will be challenging due to the fact that many who have the potential to come in and make those radical changes (i.e. in the legal systems and farming methods) are in more developed countries and will more than likely not go back to their country of origins. This is their choice and it must be respected; however therein lies the danger of outside sources imposing their cultural nuances that may not be appropriate for the cultures they are attempting to help. It is best these changes are made from within or implemented by someone who is a native from these developing countries. The people will trust and be able to cultivate realistic expectations of what results may be at hand. When I was in Zambia, as a Peace Corps member, the people in my village took one look at me and believed that I could make miracles happen (I wish). The truth was that I had no intimate understanding of the land, or the culture, and possessed absolutely no rapport with the people. They based their hopes on the fallacy that white people can make anything happen in the blink of an eye. If sustainable development is to happen, it needs to come from within and employ those who have an intimate understanding of the land and understand its nature from an organic point of view. Outsiders from developed countries (and I am guilty of this too this is why I am no longer involved in international development) have a theoretical foundation to do their work. If I were a Zambian in this situation, I would rather have a Zambian work with me than someone from a distant country who has never had to work the same soil I have, or who has experienced the same political injustices as I have.

    My hope is that with these ideas of property rights and changing the relationship farmers have with the land they are implemented from within and not from outside organizations with a g-d-complex. I have heard from many in the NGO sector that new arc of work will be done through the locals of the developing countries so they will become empowered and not kept in a state of dependence of foreign assistance as so many developing countries are today.

  5. HoneyCheeseGuys Said,

    October 15, 2010 @ 1:17 pm

    Interesting and important story. My hope is that by empowering honey and cheese people, local people can use their lands or their spaces to make money without having to have radical impacts on their physical spaces. Particularly for honey gatherers. The world markets WANT more and more and more honey, for sure, and I trust that the followship we are trying to build online will help. Would love to know what experts like you think of this idea. My best.

  6. Guest Post Said,

    October 15, 2010 @ 1:41 pm

    Hi Sandeep,
    Thanks for your comments! Glad you enjoyed the article.

    For further reading, check out our Related Reading list on this topic at this link: http://beyondprofit.com/land-rights-related-reading/

    Best wishes,
    Lindsay

  7. Guest Post Said,

    October 15, 2010 @ 1:43 pm

    Dear Sanjeev,
    Thanks for your comments on the article. We are looking forward to checking out your book to learn more about the specific situation in India. And thanks for your nuanced comments on agricultural land and direct transfers. We will have an article on cash transfers in the next issue!

    Best wishes,
    Lindsay

  8. ProsperityUnbound Said,

    October 24, 2010 @ 9:41 pm

    Lindsay Clinton has done a wonderful job in introducing readers to one of the most important pre-requisites for sustained economic growth: namely the formalization of ‘unreal’ estate and building property markets with TRUST.
    To add to this discussion, I would like to refer you to the work done by Elena Panaritis in this space. Ms. Panaritis is an institutional economist and social entrepreneur. Her groundbreaking reform work in Peru, which resulted in nine million people entering the formal market and become a part of the middle class within only three years, suggests that innovative land and property reform targeting informality is a fundamental key to breaking the cycle of wealth inequality and poverty in today’s globalized world.

    Ms. Panaritis worked for over seven years to convince policymakers, development organizations, and local stakeholders in Peru that transformation of informal property is indeed possible. The rigorous, holistic approach behind this transformation is now an established methodology called “Reality Check Analysis,” and the subject of her book, Prosperity Unbound: Building Property Markets with Trust (Palgrave Macmillan, 2007).

Leave a Comment