The DOI matches its Crossref record; 74 of the 74 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Women's land rights as a pathway to poverty reduction: Framework and review of available evidence
Open accessAbstract
This paper reviews the literature on women’s land rights (WLR) and poverty reduction. It uses the Gender, Agriculture and Assets Project (GAAP) conceptual framework to identify pathways by which WLR could reduce poverty and increase wellbeing of women and their households in rural areas. It uses a systematic review search methodology to identify papers for inclusion, but adopts a more synthetic approach to assess the level of agreement and the amount of evidence within this literature. The paper examines the evidence from qualitative as well as quantitative studies on each of these pathways. Owing to the scarcity of experimental studies, the review of empirical work is based mostly on observational studies. We find some evidence on these relationships, but many of the key pathways have not been empirically analyzed. The evidence is strong for relationships between WLR and bargaining power and decision-making on consumption, human capital investment, and intergenerational transfers. There is a high level of agreement, but weaker evidence on the relationship between WLR and natural resource management, government services and institutions, empowerment and domestic violence, resilience and HIV risk, and consumption and food security. There is less agreement and insufficient evidence on the associations between WLR and other livelihoods, and a higher level of agreement, but still limited evidence on associations between WLR and credit, technology adoption, and agricultural productivity. Notably, we find no papers that directly investigate the link between WLR and poverty. Many gaps in the evidence arise from a failure to account for the complexity of land rights regimes, the measurement of land rights at the household level, the lack of attention paid to gender roles, and the lack of studies from countries outside Africa. Many studies are limited by small sample sizes, the lack of credible counterfactuals, lack of attention to endogeneity and selection bias, and possible response bias on questions of domestic violence and empowerment. There are very few rigorous evaluations of reforms that strengthened WLR. The paper concludes that gaps in the evidence should not deter the careful design and implementation of programs and policies to strengthen WLR, given the ongoing land tenure reforms in many countries. Different modalities and mechanisms for strengthening WLR could be tested, with appropriate counterfactuals. Program designers and evaluators can strategically identify pathways and outcomes where evidence gaps exist, and deliberately design studies to close those gaps.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(2000) · Cited by 5,104
Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide
(2006) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.43-5664 · Cited by 4,089
Property-Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis
Schlager, E., & Ostrom, E. (1992) · Land Economics · doi:10.2307/3146375 · Cited by 2,663
Property rights and investment incentives: theory and evidence from Ghana
Besley, T. (1995) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/262008 · Cited by 2,016
A Field of One's Own: Gender and Land Rights in South Asia.
Harriss, J., & Agarwal, B. (1996) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2235579 · Cited by 1,260
The profits of power: land rights and agricultural investment in Ghana
Goldstein, M., & Udry, C. (2008) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/595561 · Cited by 1,142
Quisumbing, A. R., & Maluccio, J. A. (2003) · Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1111/1468-0084.t01-1-00052 · Cited by 779
Self-citationIn Sickness and in Health: Risk Sharing within Households in Rural Ethiopia
Dercon, S., & Krishnan, P. (2000) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/316098 · Cited by 693
Marital violence, human development and women’s property status in India
Panda, P., & Agarwal, B. (2005) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.01.009 · Cited by 651
The gender asset gap: What do we know and why does it matter?
Deere, C. D., & Doss, C. R. (2006) · Feminist Economics · doi:10.1080/13545700500508056 · Cited by 594
Self-citation
Cited by
Fanzo, J., Haddad, L., Schneider, K. R., Béné, C., Covic, N. M., Guarin, A., Herforth, A. W., Herrero, M., Sumaila, U. R., Aburto, N. J., et al. (2021) · Food Policy · doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102163 · Cited by 341
Influence of land tenure interventions on human well-being and environmental outcomes
Tseng, T.-W. J., Robinson, B. E., Bellemare, M. F., BenYishay, A., Blackman, A., Boucher, T., Childress, M., Holland, M. B., Kroeger, T., Linkow, B., et al. (2020) · Nature Sustainability · doi:10.1038/s41893-020-00648-5 · Cited by 140
Land tenure security for women: A conceptual framework
Doss, C., & Meinzen-Dick, R. (2020) · Land Use Policy · doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105080 · Cited by 142
Self-citationGendered effects of land access and ownership on food security in rural settings in South Africa
Masuku, M. M., Mthembu, Z., & Mlambo, V. H. (2023) · Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems · doi:10.3389/fsufs.2023.1158946 · Cited by 43
Metadata
- Authors
- Meinzen-Dick, R., Quisumbing, A., Doss, C., & Theis, S.
- Venue
- Agricultural Systems
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-06
- Volume
- 172
- Pages
- 72-82
- ISSN
- 0308-521X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2756870425
- Cited by
- 336
- References
- 74
- FWCI
- 13.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Women's land rights as a pathway to poverty reduction: Framework and review of available evidence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.10.009
- The paper
- Meinzen-Dick, R., Quisumbing, A., Doss, C., & Theis, S. (2019). Women's land rights as a pathway to poverty reduction: Framework and review of available evidence. Agricultural Systems. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.10.009
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.