Cited by 249Land Rights and ReformsAgricultural Innovations and PracticesUrban and Rural Development Challenges

Is land titling in Sub-Saharan Africa cost effective? Evidence from Madagascar

Open access
Jacoby, Hanan G., Minten, Bart·2007·The World Bank Economic Review

Abstract

Formalizing land rights has been promoted as a way to encourage agricultural investment and stimulate land markets, yet little is known about the benefits of such policies in Sub-Saharan Africa, where the preconditions for success are less favorable. The analysis uses a large sample of plots from an intensively titled rice-growing area of Madagascar and compares land-specific investments, land productivity, and land values for titled and untitled plots cultivated by the same household. Having a title has no significant effect on plot-specific investment and correspondingly little effect on land productivity and land values. These results are broadly consistent with a simulation of a theoretical model of investment under expropriation risk calibrated to the same data. A cost–benefit analysis suggests that the current system of formal titling should not be extended in rural Madagascar and that any new system of land registration would have to be quite inexpensive to be worthwhile.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/wber/lhm011

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The cost of conventional land titling approaches (US$20 to US$60 per parcel for first-time adjudication in successful projects, and much larger in Africa) could undermine outreach and sustainability of desirable programmes.

    “the cost of conventional approaches, US$20 to US$60 per parcel for first time adjudication alone in what were considered successful projects (Burns 2007) and much larger than this in Africa (Jacoby and Minten 2007; Larbi 2011), could undermine outreach and sustainability of the most desirable programmes”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jacoby, H. G., & Minten, B.
Affiliations
  • World Bank (US)
  • International Food Policy Research Institute (US)
Venue
The World Bank Economic Review
Published
2007-01-01
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
461-485
ISSN
  • 0258-6770 (ISSN-L)
  • 1564-698X
OpenAlex
W2119142250
Cited by
249
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 7
FWCI
19.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The World Bank Economic Review (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • IFPRI E-brary (International Food Policy Research Institute) (submittedVersion)
  • CGSPace A Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research) (submittedVersion)
  • International Food Policy Research Institute (International Food Policy Research Institute) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Land Rights and Reforms
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Innovations and Practices
  • Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Urban and Rural Development Challenges
Keywords
land titling, land registration, cost-effectiveness, land investment, land productivity, land value, expropriation risk, rice cultivation, rural Madagascar, sub-Saharan Africa

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