IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v132y2023ics0264837723003071.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Women’s land rights, gendered epistemic tensions, and the need for a feminist approach to land administration

Author

Listed:
  • Ho, Serene
  • Tanyag, Maria
  • Scalise, Elisa

Abstract

Women’s land rights (WLRs) are now firmly established in global human rights and development agendas, including in land reforms which are mainstreaming gender equality as part of project design and outcomes. Despite this, the evidence on the effectiveness of land administration and titling interventions for securing WLRs is sometimes problematic. This article critically analyses the gendered processes in land administration knowledge production with a focus on the cadastre as the source of its epistemic foundations. The aim is to make visible and interrogate epistemological and methodological assumptions informing land administration, which to date, remains limited. A feminist method supports the critique of the cadastre as a political technology that has been instrumentalised for colonialism and neoliberalism, reducing socially and politically complex tenure systems to a simplistic ownership-based framework for efficient legal administration. These erasures have served to disembody and de-legitimise WLRs information. The analysis also highlights how the ‘maleness’ of the land administration profession is problematic: masculinised cadastral regimes undermine the performance of land administration as a practice and field of expertise that aims to have women as beneficiaries by perpetuating the distribution and durability of gendered behaviours. Importantly, the paper’s findings echo other feminist scholarship that shows how a focus on ‘tech fixes’ for achieving gender equality focuses on counting about women and not counting for women. As land administration becomes more reliant on digital technologies and ICTs, foundational epistemic biases built into cadastral regimes may negate efforts at promoting broader participation in land administration and may even unintentionally generate adverse consequences for women and other marginalised groups. The paper concludes by arguing the urgent need to re-articulate what is feminist about feminist land administration and offers three starting propositions for addressing the gap between formalising gender equality goals through land administration and for engaging directly with the complexity of gender and land relations. We invite readers to engage with these propositions in their practices to contend with the task of specifying and implementing feminist land administration.

Suggested Citation

  • Ho, Serene & Tanyag, Maria & Scalise, Elisa, 2023. "Women’s land rights, gendered epistemic tensions, and the need for a feminist approach to land administration," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:132:y:2023:i:c:s0264837723003071
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106841
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837723003071
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106841?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Unger, Eva-Maria & Lemmen, Christiaan & Bennett, Rohan, 2023. "Women’s access to land and the Land Administration Domain Model (LADM): Requirements, modelling and assessment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    2. Krasner, Stephen D., 1982. "Structural causes and regime consequences: regimes as intervening variables," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(2), pages 185-205, April.
    3. Catherine Boone, 2019. "Legal Empowerment of the Poor through Property Rights Reform: Tensions and Trade-offs of Land Registration and Titling in Sub-Saharan Africa," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(3), pages 384-400, March.
    4. Namita Datta, 2006. "Joint Titling — A Win-Win Policy? Gender And Property Rights In Urban Informal Settlements In Chandigarh, India," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1-2), pages 271-298.
    5. Ray Trewin, 1997. "How Land Titling Promotes Prosperity in Developing Countries," Agenda - A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics, vol. 4(2), pages 225-230.
    6. Doss, Cheryl & Meinzen-Dick, Ruth, 2020. "Land tenure security for women: A conceptual framework," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lambrecht, Isabel Brigitte & Synt, Nang Lun Kham & Win, Hnin Ei & Mahrt, Kristi & Win, Khin Zin, 2024. "“It doesn’t matter at all—we are family”: Titling and joint property rights in Myanmar," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    2. Mengesha, Ayelech Kidie & Damyanovic, Doris & Mansberger, Reinfried & Agegnehu, Sayeh Kassaw & Stoeglehner, Gernot, 2021. "Reducing gender inequalities through land titling? The case of Gozamin Woreda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    3. Ayelech Kidie Mengesha & Reinfried Mansberger & Doris Damyanovic & Sayeh Kassaw Agegnehu & Gernot Stoeglehner, 2022. "The Contribution of Land Registration and Certification Program to Implement SDGs: The Case of the Amhara Region, Ethiopia," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, December.
    4. Emma Tyrou & Guillaume Soullier & Mamadou Coulibaly, 2023. "Unpacking policies for the development of agricultural growth poles in West Africa," Post-Print hal-03983251, HAL.
    5. Park, Mi Sun & Lee, Hyowon, 2019. "Accountability and reciprocal interests of bilateral forest cooperation under the global forest regime," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 32-44.
    6. Nathan Jensen, 2007. "International institutions and market expectations: Stock price responses to the WTO ruling on the 2002 U.S. steel tariffs," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 261-280, September.
    7. Onyebueke, Victor & Walker, Julian & Lipietz, Barbara & Ujah, Oliver & Ibezim-Ohaeri, Victoria, 2020. "Urbanisation-induced displacements in peri-urban areas: Clashes between customary tenure and statutory practices in Ugbo-Okonkwo Community in Enugu, Nigeria," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    8. Diana Tuomasjukka & Staffan Berg & Marcus Lindner, 2013. "Managing Sustainability of Fennoscandian Forests and Their Use by Law and/or Agreement: For Whom and Which Purpose?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-32, December.
    9. Ronald Mitchell, 2013. "Oran Young and international institutions," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, March.
    10. Nathan, Iben & Chen, Jie & Hansen, Christian Pilegaard & Xu, Bin & Li, Yan, 2018. "Facing the complexities of the global timber trade regime: How do Chinese wood enterprises respond to international legality verification requirements, and what are the implications for regime effecti," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 169-180.
    11. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/eu4vqp9ompqllr09i41p71525 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, 2022. "Ordering global governance complexes: The evolution of the governance complex for international civil aviation," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 293-322, April.
    13. Swaminathan, Hema & Lahoti, Rahul & Suchita, J. Y., 2012. "Women’s Property, Mobility, and Decisionmaking: Evidence from Rural Karnataka, India:," IFPRI discussion papers 1188, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    14. Paul R. Hensel & Michael E. Allison & Ahmed Khanani, 2009. "Territorial Integrity Treaties and Armed Conflict over Territory," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 26(2), pages 120-143, April.
    15. Genschel, Philipp & Werle, Raymund, 1992. "From National Hierarchies to International Standardization: Historical and Modal Changes in the Coordination of Telecommunications," MPIfG Discussion Paper 92/1, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    16. Varley, Ann, 2007. "Gender and Property Formalization: Conventional and Alternative Approaches," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1739-1753, October.
    17. Mengying Chen & Peter Van Oosterom & Eftychia Kalogianni & Paula Dijkstra & Christiaan Lemmen, 2024. "Bridging Sustainable Development Goals and Land Administration: The Role of the ISO 19152 Land Administration Domain Model in SDG Indicator Formalization," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-27, April.
    18. Arts, Bas & Brockhaus, Maria & Giessen, Lukas & McDermott, Constance L., 2024. "The performance of global forest governance: Three contrasting perspectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    19. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/5405 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Robert Wood, 1985. "The Aid Regime and International Debt: Crisis and Structural Adjustment," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 16(2), pages 179-212, April.
    21. Kadam, Parag & Dwivedi, Puneet & Karnatz, Caroline, 2021. "Mapping convergence of sustainable forest management systems: Comparing three protocols and two certification schemes for ascertaining the trends in global forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    22. Ozili, Peterson Kitakogelu, 2021. "Financial inclusion and legal system quality: are they correlated?," MPRA Paper 110518, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:132:y:2023:i:c:s0264837723003071. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.