The gender gap in access to land

The debate about the feminization of agriculture and the rural economy - which is taking place not only in Latin America, but also in many other parts of the developing world (FAO, 2002) - takes on special significance in the face of gender-based differences in access to key productive resources and markets. If rural women are playing larger and larger roles in food security, income generation and the rural economy as a whole, it is important to understand the barriers they may face in fulfilling their economic responsibilities and providing for themselves and their families. We first address land as a crucial asset for women’s effective participation in the rural economy, important because property rights in land confer both economic and social access to various livelihood strategies. The following section then considers women’s participation in off-farm rural employment.

On the one hand, land ownership clearly confers direct economic benefits as a key input into agricultural production; as a source of income from rental or sale and as collateral for credit, which can be used for either consumption or investment purposes. Depending on the norms governing intra-household decision-making and income pooling, women may not fully participate in these benefits if they do not share formal property rights over the land. Only independent or joint ownership can assure women access to control over land-based earnings. Comparative analysis of data from Nicaragua and Honduras, for example, suggests a positive correlation between women’s property rights and their overall role in the household economy: greater control over agricultural income, higher shares of business and labour market earnings and more frequent receipt of credit (Katz and Chamorro, 2002).

In addition to the short- and medium-term economic gains generated by greater access to product, capital and land markets, women with stronger property rights in land are also less likely to become economically vulnerable in their old age, or in the event of the death of or divorce from a spouse. In her study of gender and inheritance in rural Honduras, for example, Roquas (1995) finds that widows (and women landowners in general) are more likely to work their lands indirectly, relying on some combination of hired labour, family labour and rental to generate income, and/or using the property as collateral for loans for non-agricultural undertakings. Moreover, for widows, land ownership may be one of the few vehicles through which elderly women can elicit economic support from their children, either in the form of labour contributions to agricultural production or cash or in-kind transfers. In the absence of other forms of social security, the elderly rural population relies heavily on inter-generational transfers for their livelihoods, and children are more likely to contribute to their parents’ well-being if the latter retain control over a key productive (and inheritable) resource such as land.

In addition to the direct economic benefits of land ownership, property rights may serve to empower women in their negotiations with other household members and with the community and society at large. Intra-household economic theory suggests that the strength of spouses’ “fallback positions” or “threat points” (how well they can do in the absence of economic cooperation with their partners) is an important determinant of their ability to shape household preferences and therefore resource allocation decisions (see, for example, Katz, 1997). Data from Central America, for example, indicate that greater female landholdings are associated with modest increases in food expenditures and child educational attainment, controlling for other relevant household characteristics and unobserved preferences, with elasticities in the.01-.05 range (Katz and Chamorro, 2002). As discussed above, the bargaining power effects of property rights may also be important from an inter-generational standpoint: parents with inheritable land may be able to exert greater influence over their grown children in matters of economic support. Even beyond increasing bargaining power within the household, land rights may empower individuals to participate more effectively in their immediate communities and in the larger civil and political aspects of society. From a gender perspective, facilitating women’s greater participation in these extra-household institutions has both the value of diminishing male dominance of community-level decision-making and the benefit of building up women’s organizational skills, social networks and social capital. Women with property rights are more likely to be active members of their communities, and as a result, community institutions themselves are more likely to be responsive to the needs of women.

How do Latin American women acquire land? Data from several countries indicate that inheritance is the most important medium through which women become independent land owners: 54 percent of female-owned land in Brazil was inherited, 84 percent in Chile, 43 percent in Ecuador, 76 percent in Mexico, 75 percent in Peru, 47 percent in Nicaragua and 57 percent in Honduras (Deere and Leon, 2002; Katz and Chamorro, 2002). Laws and customs governing inheritance are therefore key to the gender distribution of land.^[15] Women are eligible to receive property primarily in their roles as wives and daughters. Many Latin American countries limit the portion of an individual’s property that s/he can freely will to others and subject the remainder to certain rules regarding the distribution to surviving spouses and children. In Nicaragua and Honduras, for example, property owners may cede up to 75 percent of their estate - high by Latin American standards - to whomever they choose, and the remaining 25 percent is set aside for widows (porción conyugal) (Deere and León, 2001). In the case of an intestate death, all Latin American countries designate the legitimate children of the deceased, regardless of sex, as the first beneficiaries of equal shares of the property (less the marital share). However, given widespread land scarcity, it is common for families to consolidate inherited property either through sales or more informal arrangements that allow one or several (usually male) siblings to retain control of the farm. In most of the region, only if there are no living children do wives become primary beneficiaries, eligible to share the estate with the parents of the deceased.

It is also noteworthy that the laws governing inheritance of property in general do not necessarily apply to land acquired under government-sponsored agrarian reform programmes; provisions for the latter are often more geared toward preventing fragmentation of holdings by limiting the number of inheritance beneficiaries to a surviving spouse and/or single child. From a gender perspective, the upshot of all of the laws governing inheritance is that landowners who leave wills have a fair amount of discretion regarding the disposition of their property - and are therefore likely to be influenced in their decision by intra-household norms and expectations - while those who die intestate (especially common among the poor) are subject to national law which gives priority to children and some protection to spouses.

Deere and León (2002), who have pioneered the research on gender and land in Latin America, argue that inter-generational inheritance patterns appear to be demonstrating greater gender equality over time. They attribute this trend to four factors: (1) rising literacy, which raises wives’ and children’s awareness of their legal rights regarding inheritance; (2) smaller family sizes associated with falling fertility, which leads parents to divide property more equally among siblings; (3) higher migration rates of young people, further reducing the number of potential heirs interested in remaining in the agricultural sector; and (4) the declining importance of agriculture in the livelihood strategies of rural households, reducing the income value of land and therefore making it less coveted by male family members.

TABLE 11
Gender and land reform in Latin America

^a/ Refers to state land redistribution programs covering the following periods: Bolivia 1954-1994; Brazil 1964-1996; Colombia 1961-1991; Cuba 1959-1988; El Salvador 1980-1991; Honduras 1962-1991; Guatemala 1962-1996; Mexico 1920-1992; Nicaragua 1981-1990.

^b/ Refers to state land allocation and titling programs covering the following periods: Chile 1993-1996; Colombia 1995-1998; Costa Rica 1990-1992; Ecuador 1992-1996; El Salvador 1993-1996; Honduras 1995-2000; Mexico 1993-1998.

Sources: Deere and Leon (2001), Tables 3.2 and 10.1

A second important means by which women in Latin America acquire land is through state-sponsored redistribution and titling programmes. Dating back to the 1960s for most Latin American countries, the majority of agrarian reform legislation privileged men by designating only household heads with agricultural experience as potential beneficiaries (Deere and León, 2001). Women, therefore, make up fewer than 20 percent of the beneficiaries in ten countries for which gender-disaggregated data are available (Table 11). However, a “second generation” of agrarian reform - one in which the clarification and legalization of property rights has taken precedence over redistribution - has seen the share of allocations and titles issued to women in the 1990s increase to close to 40 percent. Continued progress in the alleviation of legal, institutional and social barriers to women’s land rights is crucial to reconciling the gap between women’s participation in the rural economy and their access to productive resources.^[16]