Thinking in Silos (3): “No Wives Need Apply” for Land Ownership

Returning to my favourite metaphor for thinking that is artificially constrained and deals in isolation with things that need to be thought of in a broader context: the round concrete silos used for storing grain. A further example of such “silo-ized” thinking comes from the fact that so few women’s names appear on land titles, even where land is being given out in new land reform programmes or in the break-up of collective farms.

Why are their names missing? Well, because the land is being given to the “household”, isn’t it? And naming the “head of household” on the title document should be quite sufficient, shouldn’t it? And, therefore, preparing that document with just one blank space to identify a recipient of the land, beneath which is the label “head of household” should do the job, shouldn’t it?

Well, no, especially if this is one of the cultures that overwhelmingly identify the husband as “head” of household.

Problematic and an invitation to the wife’s future dispossession? You bet. The husband may want to sell the land, for example, when the wife may not (she is a lot less likely than her husband to need the money for gambling or carousing). Or the husband may die sooner, as happens on average in most countries. The husband may abandon his wife and children (a lot more likely than vice versa). Or there may be a divorce. What are the rights of the unnamed wife, in any of these cases?

Yes, maybe the law says that the wife has veto power, gets the inheritance or possesses equal rights to the land, even if she is not named on the deed. But does she know the law, have any real voice or the money and knowledge to hire a lawyer? In any case, wouldn’t it be better, in the first place, just to have two (or more) blank spaces on the title document, each labelled “joint recipient”? (Or, if that is not culturally acceptable, at least two spaces labelled “head of household” and “spouse”?)

In fact, where the wife’s name is included on the title, experience with the distribution of house-and-garden plots in India, for example, shows crucial social impact that goes well beyond the strictly law-related ones. Women gain a sense of empowerment and status that comes from the simple fact that their name appears on the title, an improved ability to benefit the kids with the products of the land and, even, a sharp reduction in spousal abuse.

Yes, the land may be going to the “household”. But let us peer for a moment beyond the silo labelled “head of household”, and simply include an additional space for the spouse’s name as joint recipient. A seemingly small thing? Yes. A very big deal for wives in the battle for equality, and the fight against global poverty? Again, yes.

Roy L. Prosterman

 

Editors Note
Roy L. Prosterman, Founder and Chairman Emeritus, Rural Development Institute (RDI), USA;
Social Entrepreneur; Schwab Fellow of the World Economic Forum

For over 40 years, the Rural Development Institute has partnered with governments around the world on reforms that have helped provide secure land rights to more than 100 million families.