Unintended Consequences of Land Rights Reform: The Case of the 1998 Uganda Land Act
Open accessAbstract
Empirical studies of land rights privatisation have tended to underemphasise the unintended impacts of land rights reform relative to establishing whether the predicted impacts have occurred. This article, in reviewing some of the unintended consequences of the 1998 Uganda Land Act, draws attention to ways in which intended impacts may be undercut by lack of both consultation and foresight in anticipating responses to new legal provisions and by lack of adequate resourcing of the reform process. It also recognises that unintended outcomes may sometimes reflect appropriate adaptations of legal provisions at the local level, and briefly considers what light the Ugandan experience can throw on recent proposals for Normalisation of informal property rights in the Third World.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Some commentators suggested that the gap of several years between the LSSP's issuance and implementation was costly in terms of loss of momentum and credibility of the new system.
“Some commentators have suggested that the gap of several years between the LSSP's issuance and implementation was costly in terms of loss of momentum and credibility of the new system (McAuslan 2003;Hunt 2004).”
From Agricultural Land Redistribution and Land Administration in Sub-Saharan Africa: Case Studies of Recent Reforms (2014) · cites this paper as Hunt 2004
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Land Registration, Governance, and Development: Evidence and Implications for Policy
Deininger, K., & Feder, G. (2009) · The World Bank Research Observer · doi:10.1093/wbro/lkp007 · Cited by 387 · see citing works
Doss, C., Meinzen-Dick, R., & Bomuhangi, A. (2014) · Feminist Economics · doi:10.1080/13545701.2013.855320 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
(2014) · World Bank · doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-0188-4 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hunt, D.
- Affiliations
- University of Sussex (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Hunt, Diana
- Venue
- Development Policy Review
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-02-16
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 173-191
- ISSN
- 0950-6764 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-7679
- OpenAlex
- W1995811384
- Cited by
- 109
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 7.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- papers.ssrn.com
- Locations
- Development Policy Review (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Land Rights and Reforms
- Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Urban and Rural Development Challenges
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › African studies and sociopolitical issues
- Keywords
- land rights reform, unintended consequences, land privatization, land tenure law, legal advice, informal property rights, land policy implementation
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