IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v85y2009i3p442-453.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Land Tenure and Productivity: Farm-Level Evidence from Papua New Guinea

Author

Listed:
  • Satish Chand
  • Charles Yala

Abstract

Does land tenure form affect farm-level productivity? The answer, from farm-level data for an oil palm project in Papua New Guinea, is in the affirmative. Analysis of farm-level output, controlling for all measured inputs, shows systematic differences in productivity across three land tenure types, namely, farms under customary purchase agreements, those under the land settlement scheme, and those under village-owned land schemes. The empirics suggest that the higher productivity is due to benefits from economies of scale and absence of income sharing enjoyed by farms with improved tenure security.

Suggested Citation

  • Satish Chand & Charles Yala, 2009. "Land Tenure and Productivity: Farm-Level Evidence from Papua New Guinea," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 442-453.
  • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:85:y:2009:i:3:p:442-453
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/85/3/442
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.

    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. Gavian, Sarah & Ehui, Simeon K., 1999. "Measuring the production efficiency of alternative land tenure contracts in a mixed crop-livestock system in Ethiopia," Agricultural Economics of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 20(1), January.
    2. Thomas SchweigertAuthor-Email: schweigt@uww.edu, 2006. "Land title, tenure security, investment and farm output: evidence from Guatemala," Journal of Developing Areas, Tennessee State University, College of Business, vol. 40(1), pages 115-126, September.
    3. Sjaastad, Espen & Bromley, Daniel W., 1997. "Indigenous land rights in sub-Saharan Africa: Appropriation, security and investment demand," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 549-562, January.
    4. Michael R. Carter & Pedro Olinto, 2003. "Getting Institutions “Right” for Whom? Credit Constraints and the Impact of Property Rights on the Quantity and Composition of Investment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 173-186.
    5. Myyra, Sami & Pietola, Kyosti & Yli-Halla, Markku, 2007. "Exploring long-term land improvements under land tenure insecurity," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, pages 63-75.
    6. Myyra, Sami & Pietola, Kyosti & Yli-Halla, Markku, 2007. "Exploring long-term land improvements under land tenure insecurity," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, pages 63-75.
    7. Gavian, Sarah & Ehui, Simeon, 1999. "Measuring the production efficiency of alternative land tenure contracts in a mixed crop-livestock system in Ethiopia," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, pages 37-49.
    8. Besley, Timothy, 1995. "Property Rights and Investment Incentives: Theory and Evidence from Ghana," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(5), pages 903-937, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Carol Newman & Finn Tarp & Katleen van den Broeck, 2015. "Property Rights and Productivity: The Case of Joint Land Titling in Vietnam," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(1), pages 91-105.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q15 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:uwp:landec:v:85:y:2009:i:3:p:442-453. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.