Search

Legibility and political authority are often conflated in debates over formalization processes, including land titling. This can lead to a fundamental misunderstanding of what it is that citizens anticipate would strengthen their property rights. This study examines the effects of legibility on citizens’ evaluations of property rights in Malawi, a country with limited but increasing land titling. We argue that legibility is a strategic resource for citizens, which has value in itself. To disentangle the effects of legibility and authority on tenure security, we employ a survey experiment. Our findings show that respondents perceived land with written property rights to be more secure and more desirable regardless of whether a state or customary authority granted these land rights. In contrast to scholarship that examines legibility as a technology of state control, this research suggests that legibility can help citizens advance their interests.

This article explores the expansion of informal property rights documents through the case of chiefs’ titles in Zambia. Entrepreneurial chiefs have created written land rights for citizens on customary land in the form of letters, signed maps, and certificates. These documents are an alternative to state land titling that allows chiefs to maintain their control over land. However, chiefs’ titles are extra-legal: they are enforced by the same traditional leaders who govern unwritten customary rights, raising doubt about whether written land rights can strengthen citizens’ land claims without changing the existing power structures. Evidence from 121 interviews with chiefs, bureaucrats, and smallholder farmers and a survey of over 5,500 citizens shows that, despite their flaws, chiefs’ titles do increase citizens’ perceptions of tenure security. This suggests that informal property rights documents can be a powerful tool in a citizen’s arsenal. Further, these findings illustrate a process of adaptation and change within customary land institutions.

Land Politics examines the struggle to control land in Africa through the lens of land titling in Zambia and Senegal. Contrary to standard wisdom portraying titling as an inevitable product of economic development, Lauren Honig traces its distinctly political logic and shows how informality is maintained by local actors. The book's analysis focuses on chiefs, customary institutions, and citizens, revealing that the strength of these institutions and an individual's position within them impact the expansion of state authority over land rights. Honig explores common subnational patterns within the two very different countries to highlight the important effects of local institutions, not the state's capacity or priorities alone, on state building outcomes. Drawing on evidence from national land titling records, qualitative case studies, interviews, and surveys, this book contributes new insights into the persistence of institutional legacies and the political determinants of property rights.

Addressing climate change requires coordinated policy responses that incorporate the needs of the most impacted populations. Yet even communities that are greatly concerned about climate change may remain on the sidelines. We examine what stymies some citizens’ mobilization in Kenya, a country with a long history of environmental activism and high vulnerability to climate change. We foreground efficacy—a belief that one’s actions can create change—as a critical link transforming concern into action. However, that link is often missing for marginalized ethnic, socioeconomic, and religious groups. Analyzing interviews, focus groups, and survey data, we find that Muslims express much lower efficacy to address climate change than other religious groups; the gap cannot be explained by differences in science beliefs, issue concern, ethnicity, or demographics. Instead, we attribute it to understandings of marginalization vis-à-vis the Kenyan state—understandings socialized within the local institutions of Muslim communities affected by state repression.

One determinant of the success or failure of political revolutions is whether there is a split among the ruling elites. Elite defections in a competitive authoritarian regime can tip the balance in...

Summary This article examines the effect of customary institutions on smallholder land titling in Sub-Saharan Africa. It argues that the individual’s status within the customary institution conditions his or her demand for land titles. Individuals with greater customary privilege gain advantages from maintaining customary property rights, including stronger tenure security. For households with lower privilege within the customary institution, the benefits of adopting state land titles are higher. Analysis of an original survey of smallholder farmers in Senegal and an existing survey in Zambia demonstrates that households with greater customary privilege are less likely to adopt state land titles, independent of ethnicity, wealth, and land values. I find additional support for the argument in measures of increased tenure security for those with greater customary privilege. Qualitative interviews with customary authorities and smallholder farmers help establish the mechanism. These findings update the dominant wisdom that land values and material transaction costs drive smallholder land titling, demonstrating the important effect of status within the customary institution on demand for land titles. By examining the political underpinnings of customary property rights, this article contributes to our understandings of which farmers benefit most from land titling. This has implications for the improved design of land governance programs.

Traditional leaders have a significant role in the social, political, and economic lives of citizens in countries throughout Africa. They are defined as local elites who derive legitimacy from custom, tradition, and spirituality. While their claims to authority are local, traditional leaders, or “chiefs,” are also integrated into the modern state in a variety of ways. The position of traditional leaders between state and local communities allows them to function as development intermediaries. They do so by influencing the distribution of national public goods and the representation of citizen demands to the state. Further, traditional leaders can impact development by coordinating local collective action, adjudicating conflicts, and overseeing land rights. In the role of development intermediaries, traditional leaders shape who benefits from different types of development outcomes within the local and national community. Identifying the positive and negative developmental impacts of traditional leaders requires attention to the different implications of their roles as lobbyists, local governments, political patrons, and land authorities.