This article was downloaded by: [University of Illinois Chicago]

On: 15 October 2014, At: 20:50

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Feminist Economics
Publication details, including instructions for authors
and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfec20

Land, Gender, and Food Security

a b c
Cheryl Doss , Gale Summerfield & Dzodzi Tsikata
a
African Studies and Economics, Yale University, New
Haven, CT 06520-8206, USA
b
Women and Gender in Global Perspectives
Program and, Department of Human and Community
Development, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, 320 International Studies Bldg., 910 S.
Fifth St., Champaign, IL 61820, USA, e-mail:
c
University of Ghana – Institute of Statistical, Social,
and Economic Research (ISSER), P.O. Box LG 74, Legon,
Ghana, e-mail:
Published online: 24 Mar 2014.

To cite this article: Cheryl Doss, Gale Summerfield & Dzodzi Tsikata (2014)
Land, Gender, and Food Security, Feminist Economics, 20:1, 1-23, DOI:
10.1080/13545701.2014.895021

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2014.895021

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or
suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed
in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the
views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should
not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,
claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
 This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-
licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 20:50 15 October 2014
 Feminist Economics, 2014
Vol. 20, No. 1, 1–23, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2014.895021

LAND, GENDER, AND FOOD SECURITY

Cheryl Doss, Gale Summerfield, and Dzodzi Tsikata

ABS T R A C T
Since 2008, a surge in large-scale land acquisitions, or land grabs, has been taking
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 20:50 15 October 2014

place in low- and middle-income countries around the globe. This contribution
examines the gendered effects of and responses to these deals, drawing on nine
studies, which include conceptual framing essays that bring in debates about
human rights, studies that draw on previous waves of land acquisitions globally,
and case studies that examine the gendered dimensions of land dispossession
and loss of common property. Three key insights emerge: the evolving gender
and land tenure literature provides valuable information for understanding the
likely effects of land deals; some of the land deal issues transcend gender-equity
concerns and relate to broader problems of dispossession and loss of livelihoods;
and huge gaps remain in our knowledge of gender and land rights that require
urgent attention and systematic integration of gender analysis into mainstream
research.
K EY W O RD S
Gender, land rights, land acquisitions, food security, land grabs

JEL Codes: O13

I N T R O D U C T I ON
Beginning in 2000, but particularly since 2007–8, industrialized countries
and wealthier developing countries began leasing and acquiring large tracts
of land in developing countries. According to one estimate, governments
and private companies from South Korea, China, India, the United Arab
Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa (as well as from the United
States, the United Kingdom, and Australia) sought rights to about 50
million hectares of farmland in poorer countries for the cultivation of
food, biofuels, and other agricultural commodities since 2000 (Land Matrix
2013).1 Although many of the target countries were in Africa (Ethiopia,
Sudan, Mali, Ghana, Kenya, and Tanzania), acquisitions were also made or
attempted in Asia (the Philippines, Cambodia, Indonesia, India, and Papua
New Guinea) and Latin America (Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay).

© 2014 IAFFE
 INTRODUCTION

The acquisitions, which reflect a surge in the demand for arable land,
have been attributed to the global food price crisis of 2007–8, population
pressures, escalating energy prices, and arable land and water shortages
in certain parts of the world. Between 2005 and 2009, concerns about
climate change led the US and the European Union to create mandates
and subsidies for biofuels, resulting in an increased global demand
for land. This and the growing market for other nonfood agricultural
commodities and rising (though fluctuating) agricultural commodity prices
represented investment opportunities that provided additional impetus for
land acquisitions (see Lorenzo Cotula, Sonja Vermeulen, Rebeca Leonard,
and James Keeley [2009]; Julia Behrman, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, and Agnes
Quisumbing [2011]; and Land Matrix [2013] for more detailed discussions
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 20:50 15 October 2014

of the factors fueling the recent land acquisitions).

This current wave of land acquisitions was preceded by two earlier
periods – the 1980s/90s rush for land for tourist facilities, mining, and
logging operations following the adoption of economic liberalization
policies in developing countries; and the massive colonial-era acquisitions,
particularly in settler colonies, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
(Sam Moyo, Paris Yeros, and Praveen Jha 2012). However, this latest period
of land deals is distinguished from the past by the following factors: the
upsurge is associated with the search for food security and alternative energy
feed stocks in response to the global crises of the late 2000s; the acquisitions
are more rapid and often more extensive than in previous efforts;
wealthier developing countries as well as industrialized countries are major
investors; and biofuel policies in more developed countries are playing a
significant role.
The current wave of acquisitions has been enabled by the maturation
of the market reforms of the early 1980s. Foreign direct investment
liberalization, privatization, export orientation, and reduced government
regulations have accelerated the development of markets in land, setting
the stage for land acquisitions that have deepened land concentration as
well as landlessness for small farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America,
and Asia (Shahra Razavi 2003; Dzodzi Tsikata 2010; Saturnino M. Borras, Jr.,
Cristóbal Kay, Sergio Gómez, and John Wilkinson 2012; Moyo, Yeros,
and Jha 2012). In many countries, foreign investors have gained access to
land through policies that provide extremely favorable terms and long-term
leases at very low rates per hectare. There is growing concern that foreign
investors’ scramble for land, food, and biofuels will contribute to increasing
inequalities between countries as well as within the countries that lease or
sell land.
To understand the full impacts of the land deals and their implications
for inequalities, livelihoods, food security, and agrarian transitions, it is
important to examine the gendered effects of and responses to these
deals. However, in spite of the growing literature about land deals, their
2
 LAND, GENDER, AND FOOD SECURITY

gender impacts on local land tenure systems and livelihoods have largely
been missing (see Tinyade Kachika [2010]; Behrman, Meinzen-Dick, and
Quisumbing [2011]; Jessica Chu [2011]; Julia and Ben White [2011]; and
Elizabeth Daley [2011] for a few examples of literature discussing gender
impacts of land deals). This is somewhat surprising because, as recent
research notes, much is known about gender disparities in agriculture and
land rights. Indeed, over the past three decades, a substantial body of work
has developed on these issues, as well as on the gender implications of
globalization and land-market liberalization for the livelihood prospects of
local communities. For example, there is evidence that such acquisitions
are putting unsustainable pressure on higher-value lands, particularly tracts
with irrigation potential or proximity to markets. Such high-value lands are
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 20:50 15 October 2014

often under the control of men in developing countries. However, even the
marginal lands included in these transactions often belong to or are used
by women for their alternative or supplementary livelihood activities, to
farm or to gather food, fuel, medicinal herbs, and building materials. While
women generally have less control over land than men do, differences among
women (related to age, marital status, residence, household composition,
and social status) are equally important determinants of the strength of their
land interests. In particular, women’s changing relationships – whether as
members of landholding families, as members of groups that do not own
land, as migrants and spouses of migrants, and as divorcées or widows –
structure their access to and control of land. Indeed, a woman’s relationships
and social status will determine how vulnerable she is to being dispossessed
in cases of land grabbing and growing land scarcity.
We argue that the lack of attention to gender issues is due in large part
to two connected problems: (1) the current discourse is focused more on
uncovering the size and spread of acquisitions and the key players involved
than on analyzing their effects on different social groups; and (2) the chronic
gender blindness of mainstream literature (which has resulted in a parallel
development of a gender literature).
This special issue of Feminist Economics helps to deepen and systematize
existing knowledge about the gendered nature of the livelihood effects
of large-scale land transactions. Taken together, the articles represent
a first step in trying to push beyond generalities and challenge us to
stop conflating women’s experiences with men’s or treating women as
a homogeneous category. This issue’s nine essays feature three sets of
contributions. The first set focuses on framing the issues, and either critiques
existing analytical frameworks or offers insights into how we might more
effectively frame the issue for gender analysis. The second demonstrates
the continued utility of more generic research on gender inequalities
in land tenure and agrarian production systems to our understanding
of the gendered implications of the recent large-scale acquisitions. Of
particular salience are issues such as how far land ownership rights and
3
 INTRODUCTION

gender-equitable titling and registration measures protect women in times

of land dispossession; the potential of customary law rules for protecting
women’s land interests in a context of land-market liberalization; and the
cumulative effects of micro land dispossessions that women have suffered
since the colonial period. Finally, case studies examine the gendered
implications of recent large-scale land acquisitions. These focus on how
land dispossession and loss of common property resources impact livelihood
activities and employment, reproductive work, and women’s social status.
While deepening and consolidating our knowledge of gender and large-
scale land acquisitions, these contributions also highlight striking gaps in
our knowledge of gendered effects and their policy implications.
There is no agreement on the appropriate terminology for the recent
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 20:50 15 October 2014

land acquisitions in the gender literature. While some contributions in this

volume use the terms “land grab,” “land rush,” and “scramble” to highlight
the size and speed of acquisitions, the legally questionable processes used in
these deals, and the tendency of these processes to dispossess smallholders
(Elizabeth Daley and Sabine Pallas 2014; Ritu Verma 2014), other studies use
more neutral terms such as “deals,” “acquisitions,” “transactions” (Dzodzi
Tsikata and Joseph Awetori Yaro 2014; this volume), and “investments”
(Daley and Pallas 2014). It is also pertinent to note that in some cases,
terminology is used interchangeably – for example, “investments” or
“transactions” in Daley and Pallas; “deals” or “appropriations” in Poul
Wisborg (2014; this volume); and “grabbing” or “deals” in Marit Widman
(2014; this volume).
The more neutral usages, though critiqued for sanitizing what are
essentially coercive processes of dispossession, arguably enable distinctions
to be made between the different legal and business models used for
large-scale acquisitions. Thus, freehold purchases, leases, concessions, and
contract farming can be differentiated and their implications discussed.2 As
well, these terms allow for a distinction to be made between acquisitions and
their effects. Finally, neutral terms encourage an exploration of the striking
diversity of land transactions, even within the same country.
However, certain neutral terms – such as “investments” – do convey a sense
of the consensual character of these land transactions and reinforce the
literature that suggests land transactions could result in win–win situations.
This view suggests that the parties are operating on a level playing-field
and that both sides benefit. It also assumes that land deals are made with
the explicit purpose of helping smallholders. Noemi Miyasaka Porro and
Joaquim Shiraishi Neto (2014; this volume) challenge this view by deploying
the term “coercive harmony” to describe the environment after a land
acquisition, which enjoins us to look beyond superficial appearances of
agreement and harmony to understand the lack of choice in transactions
that result not only in the loss of land, but also in the loss of survival strategies
and a way of life.
4
 LAND, GENDER, AND FOOD SECURITY

In this contribution, we use the various terms as they have been used by
the authors we refer to, thus using the terms interchangeably. We do this
in recognition of the fact that the debates on terminology are not settled;
and also because, in our view, the phenomena under discussion deserve
full scrutiny to contribute to the search for appropriate terminologies and
typologies.
This special issue offers three insights. First, the existing gender literature
and new studies of gender and land tenure provide invaluable information
for understanding the likely effects of land deals. Second, some of the long-
standing concerns in the gender literature – such as the value and limitations
of gender-equity measures such as joint titling and registration of land,
women’s participation in local land administration, and the effects of land
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 20:50 15 October 2014

market liberalization – are all issues that transcend gender-equity concerns

and relate to broader problems associated with land grabs. Third, although
much information exists about the gender dimensions of changes in land
tenure and agrarian production systems, there are nevertheless huge gaps
in our knowledge of these gender issues. These gaps need urgent attention
and require the systematic integration of gender analysis into mainstream
research.

L A ND D EA LS : G LO BAL A N D REG IO N A L A S P E C T S
Although African countries have been the targets of many land deals and
much of the research on the topic, this is a global phenomenon that is best
understood from a global perspective. The Land Matrix (2013) provides
useful summary data for land transactions in low- and middle-income
countries; as of November 2013, their website showed 886 completed deals.3
Their data confirm that industrialized and wealthier developing countries
around the world provide investors for land deals that target developing
countries in all regions. Most of the deals have been concentrated in Africa
and Asia: 380 are in African countries and 364 in Asia (mostly in Southeast
Asia). These data indicate the global reach of the acquisitions as well as
regional breakdowns that vary in context and can be expected to have
divergent impacts on the poor in general and women in particular.
Though many of the factors that drive the land rush apply to all affected
countries, it is important to keep cultural and regional contexts in mind.
Borras, Jr. et al. (2012) present seven misconceptions about large-scale land
deals that can be corrected by examining experiences in Latin America. In
particular, they note that investors do not simply target fragile governments
(an assumption based on several African experiences). They also show that
regional capital has driven much of the land leasing in the area and note
that reducing arrangements by foreigners is not likely to slow regional land
deals. Overall, they call for more cross-regional studies that place land grabs
within the perspective of the political economy of global capitalism. Michael
5
 INTRODUCTION

Kugelman (2013) provides insights into land deals in Southeast Asia, also
illustrating the need for regional studies. He shows that there is notable
variation in how the different governments in the region react to the recent
land deal rush. Thailand, for example, has forbidden many types of contracts
while Cambodia has leased more than half of its agricultural land (a move
that has resulted in numerous demonstrations).
The need to contextualize is doubly true when using a gendered lens, since
the gender impacts of legal traditions and cultural norms differ significantly
among regions. While most of the contributions to this volume center on
African countries or general issues, two studies focus on areas in South
America and Asia. These are highlighted below to stress that land deals
require both global and regional analyses.
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 20:50 15 October 2014

Porro and Shiraishi Neto (2014) draw on a long-running women’s

movement in the Brazilian Amazon that has worked to secure rights to
continue harvesting the babassu palms in the face of companies’ efforts
to take over land rights in the area. After citing a case from 1987, they focus
on large-scale land acquisitions by two regional paper and pulp companies
since 1990, stressing the period after a major deal in 2008. Local efforts
to protect land in the babassu area of the Amazon from being seized
by the landlord were suppressed with violence in the 1987 case; at the
time, the group of women that the authors studied took action because
they were less likely to be killed than the men in their families. By the
late 2000s, as part of their efforts to continue harvesting the palms, the
women had established a political presence and participated in negotiations
with the investing companies that stress corporate social responsibility.
Still, the authors argue that the apparent harmony of these negotiations
belies what is actually a coercive process in which the small gains from
the negotiations are overshadowed by the threats to livelihoods from the
land acquisitions and the unwillingness of the Brazilian government and
companies to address land rights. Porro and Shiraishi Neto argue that
gender and land rights of traditional communities in the Amazon are part of
complex social arrangements that are best understood through long-term
studies and discussions with those involved. This regionally specific study of
the global land deals phenomenon reveals the threat to the livelihoods and
security of the babassu women and their families and questions the meaning
of social responsibility.
Daley and Pallas (2014) examine land deals in the Philippines and India
(as well as two African countries). The case of the Philippines addresses how
large areas of mangroves that were formerly common property are being
enclosed, depleted, and restricted as large tracts of land are acquired for
commercial aquaculture and private resort beaches. New work opportunities
do not typically compensate for the income lost from use of the mangroves,
and the changes affect women and men differently. The authors find, for
example, that mangrove depletion hurts women more than men because
6
 LAND, GENDER, AND FOOD SECURITY

women depend on the mangroves for a larger share of their incomes.

However, in the Philippines, women are well represented politically at both
the local and national levels and are therefore being included in efforts to
find solutions to the problems associated with the land deals.
Daley and Pallas (2014) also discuss the proliferation of special economic
zone development in rapidly growing India. Almost 600 proposals for new
zones were approved between 2005 and 2010. As the special economic
zones were set up, hundreds of thousands of rural people were evicted or
dispossessed, and relatively few qualified for work in the new zones. This has
resulted in organized resistance to the zones. In one of these zones, Polepally,
because women traditionally farmed while men migrated for work, women
were hit harder by the loss of land rights and therefore have taken an active
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 20:50 15 October 2014

role in the resistance. Despite the loss of income and other problems, Daley
and Pallas conclude that the politicization of poor Indian women was a
positive outcome of their trying to maintain their land rights.
While the contributions discussed above present important studies
of regional issues, they also illustrate the global scope of recent land
acquisitions. This global aspect and the rapid rate of leasing make the
extensive transfer of land rights to regional and transnational companies
more of a threat to the poor than a few isolated cases and require studies
that consider both local and global issues. In response, global discourses
have emerged in the literature and the following are particularly relevant
for understanding the current phase of land acquisitions.
The human rights framework stresses government obligations to
honor rights to food, water, work, housing, and health under human
rights instruments such as the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of
Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the International Covenant
on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (Ingunn Ikdahl, Anne Hellum,
Randi Kaarhus, Tor A. Benjaminsen, and Patricia Kameri-Mbote 2005;
Elizabeth Wickeri and Anil Kalhan 2010). Human rights frameworks in
general have drawn attention to the exclusion of women and others from
decision-making processes of land acquisitions and from compensation
for their losses. In addition, these frameworks are relevant when thinking
about the precariousness of women’s land rights, their loss of informal land
interests, and the gender inequalities that prevent women from enjoying
the employment and alternative livelihood options that result from land
deals. The rights to food, home, work, property, and political representation
are implicated in thinking about gender inequalities arising from land
transactions. Indeed, many of the studies in this volume provide empirical
information that can enable the development of a gendered human rights
framework for analyzing land transactions.
In addition to improving our understanding of land deals with a gendered
lens, human rights discourses have also offered commentary on some of the
issues being discussed in mainstream debates about land deals. For example,
7
 INTRODUCTION

Wisborg’s (2014) discussion of utilitarian and human rights approaches to

transnational land deals interrogates the extent to which these approaches
are sensitive to gender differences, whether they have been used to justify
or challenge land appropriations, and whether their feminist potential is
realized. Though he draws attention to the current gender blindness of
these frameworks, he argues that both are capable of being engendered
and recommends a human rights framework that incorporates the insights
of utilitarian approaches.
The liberal economic framework stresses the need to pay attention
to enhancing the benefits of gender equity in land deals, such as
boosting agricultural productivity and profitability, increasing agricultural
sustainability, improving food security and nutrition, and reducing poverty
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 20:50 15 October 2014

through empowerment (Agnes Quisumbing 1995; Ruth Meinzen-Dick,

Agnes Quisumbing, Julia Behrman, Patricia Biermayr-Jenzano, Vicki Wilde,
Marco Noordeloos, Catherine Ragasa, and Nienke Beintema 2011). This
framework provides micro evidence of changes in gender and land relations
and explores the efficacy of solutions to gender inequalities in land tenure
systems such as the formalization of land rights through joint titling and
registration and the involvement of women in local land governance
structures. It also contributes to our understanding of customary land tenure
systems, moving us beyond dichotomies of bad customary laws and good
statutory laws (Ikdahl et al. 2005).
The feminist political economy approach situates gender and land deals
within the contexts of globalization, economic liberalization, and agrarian
change (Razavi 2003; Tsikata 2010). It speaks directly to the far-reaching
implications of globalization and economic liberalization. Razavi (2003),
on the basis of case studies from three continents, has argued that the
impacts of economic liberalization on land relations and rural livelihoods
are generally gendered but locally specific and therefore have to be
examined beyond generalities. Razavi also draws attention to the importance
of situating discussions of women and land in the broader context of
capitalist transformations in developing countries. Other studies have taken
up this latter issue. In an introduction to an edited collection of essays
based on empirical research in Brazil, Cameroon, Ghana, and Vietnam,
Tsikata (2010) draws attention to the gendered impacts of large-scale land
acquisitions, land conversions, and changes in land tenure arrangements.
She argues that different aspects of globalization are foregrounded in
each of the case studies – economic liberalization policies in Ghana
and Vietnam, transnational agricultural investments (Brazil), and the
construction of a transnational oil and gas pipeline project (Cameroon).
These differences demonstrate the importance of contextual specificities,
such as the regulatory role and powers of the state in land governance; the
biophysical characteristics of the land and natural resources as well as the
economic, institutional, and social arrangements for their exploitation; and
8
 LAND, GENDER, AND FOOD SECURITY

agricultural production systems, specifically land and labor relations, to how

the gendered outcomes of land deals occur.
While these approaches have different emphases, many studies of
gender and land borrow from all three to analyze both the broader
political economy questions and the more specific issues of intrahousehold
production relations.

FR A M I NG T HE D I S C U S S I O N O N W O M E N A N D L A N D G R A B S
To the extent that gender is discussed within the broader debates on land
grabs, it is deeply embedded in the long history of scholarship and advocacy
on women’s property rights. Feminist scholars, notably Bina Agarwal (1994)
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 20:50 15 October 2014

on India and Carmen Diana Deere (1985; Carmen Diana Deere and
Magdalena Leon 2001) on Latin America, have long emphasized the
importance of women’s property rights.4 This scholarship raises a number
of key issues relevant to this broader discussion of women and large-scale
acquisitions of land.
Women’s property rights are often discussed in terms of their ownership
of and control over land. Women’s property rights often differ from those of
men, and thus the impacts of large acquisitions of land may have gendered
differences. As Cheryl Doss, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, and Allan Bomuhangi
(2014; this volume) note, one classification of property rights includes access
(the right to be on the land); withdrawal (the right to take something from
the land, such as water, firewood, or produce); management (the right to
change the land in some way, such as to plant crops or trees); exclusion (the
right to prevent others from using the land); and alienation (the right to
transfer land to others through rental, bequest, or sale; see Edella Schlager
and Elinor Ostrom [1992]). An understanding of ownership may include
all or most of these rights. Yet, they are not necessarily bundled together,
and women may have fewer rights over land than men. Women may have
access, withdrawal, and even management rights, but are less likely to have
exclusion and alienation rights.
The literature often distinguishes between women’s access to, ownership
of, and control over land. In this framework, “access” to land again includes
access, withdrawal, and management rights; access to land typically means
that a woman may use the land to produce food for her family and may be
able to sell any small surplus. “Ownership” of land may include having the
formal title to land and alienation rights. When people speak of “control”
over land, this would include management rights, including the rights to
determine how the land will be used, and may include alienation rights. It
is the alienation right, the right to sell the land, that is often viewed as the
key right defining the owner.
Because women often have fewer rights over land than men, they may
not be seen as the owner by people in their household or their community.
9
 INTRODUCTION

Mwangi wa Gı̃thı̃nji, Charalampos Konstantinidis, and Andrew Barenberg

(2014; this volume) note that because women in Kenya farm smaller plots
and those with less valuable crops, they are often not viewed as farmers. This
concern echoes earlier work by Deere (1985) on Latin America, where she
claims that because women are not seen as farmers, they were not included in
most land reforms. This continuing perception may result in women being
less likely to be included in community discussions about land. Focusing on
Uganda, Doss, Meinzen-Dick, and Bomuhangi (2014) examine the various
rights held by men and women and find that although women are often
considered joint owners of land, they typically have fewer land rights than
their husbands.
Women’s land ownership and property rights impact a range of outcomes
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 20:50 15 October 2014

relevant to the well-being of women and their families and communities.

Researchers have used a variety of approaches to analyze these relationships.
One approach is to examine the impact of women’s ownership of any
land on household decisions. For example, Keera Allendorf (2007) finds
that women in Nepal with land rights are less likely to have malnourished
children and more likely to participate in household decisions than women
without land rights. A second approach is to consider the share of land
owned by women within the household as a measure of their bargaining
power. Using this approach, Cheryl Doss (2005) finds that the share of
farmland held by women in Ghana affects household expenditures. Finally,
since current land holdings may be endogenous to women’s bargaining
power, Agnes R. Quisumbing and John A. Maluccio (2003) examine the
impacts of assets brought to marriage, including land and livestock, and
find that for Ethiopia, women’s share of assets brought to marriage affects
household expenditure patterns. Yet Michael Kevane and Leslie Gray (1999)
argue that it is important to consider the gendered patterns of land rights
and not to simply focus on the bargaining within households. Land rights
shape the processes of household decision making and outcomes.
Much of the literature on women and property rights focuses on the
threats that women’s property rights face from within their families and
communities. Patterns of inheritance favor men in most of the world.5
The rights of widows to retain access to or ownership of land owned by
their husband may be limited. Widows often do not inherit from their
husbands; an analysis of fifteen Demographic and Health Surveys from Sub-
Saharan Africa found that more than half of the widows reported inheriting
no assets – land or other assets – from their husband (Amber Peterman
2012). The death of a spouse is a key event that threatens women’s property
rights. Pauline E. Peters (2010) suggests that in Malawi, new laws to promote
inheritance by both sons and daughters may actually worsen land rights for
women in matrilineal areas.
Thus, women face two types of tenure insecurity. The first is due to the land
being lost to the household, through large-scale land acquisitions or through
10
 LAND, GENDER, AND FOOD SECURITY

other means, such as selling the land to deal with negative economic shocks.
The second is that a woman herself may lose land rights, even if the land
remains within the household. Yet, as Cecile Jackson (2003) notes, women
not only face threats to their land from families, but also they acquire their
rights to the land through these same institutions. Thus, the challenges are
how to strengthen women’s property rights without putting them further
at risk. Verma (2014) suggests that individual women’s small losses of land
may add up to large-scale losses of land by women overall.
The best approaches to protecting women’s property rights may differ
across contexts and will vary depending upon the rights they hold and
how they are perceived. One debate is the extent to which customary
laws and norms protect women’s property rights, in contrast to statutory
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 20:50 15 October 2014

rules and regulations, including the titling of land. Lyn Ossome (2014;
this volume) argues that the discussions of customary versus statutory law
often focus on an incorrect version of customary law (a static version
acknowledged by colonialists), and that, in fact, women may be able to use
customary law to protect their rights. Others have raised concerns about
the reliance on customary law, arguing that many gender inequities may be
embedded in local power structures (Ann Whitehead and Dzodzi Tsikata
2003; Shahra Razavi 2007). In many places, especially in Africa, there are
myriad different sets of laws about property ownership, including different
customary, religious, and statutory laws and traditions. Each of these may
have different implications for women. In any given context, it is important
to see how these pluralist legal systems work to identify what may be best for
women.
Recently, there has been a push to formally title land, in order to increase
tenure security and allow market forces to increase the productivity of land.
The link between titling and tenure security is not as direct as this approach
suggests. Households and communities may have more secure land tenure
when customary law predominates, and there are few land markets. For
titling to increase tenure security, institutions must be in place to ensure
that land is titled to the rightful owners, and they will be able to protect
their land if so desired.
A few of the recent land titling programs have taken gender concerns
seriously. In some regions of Ethiopia, joint titling was required, and photos
of the owners were included on the titles (Klaus Deininger, Daniel Ayalew
Ali, Stein Holden, and Jaap Zevenbergen 2008). Having a second line on the
title document to allow a second owner to be listed seems to have a positive
impact on whether women’s names are included on the title. This simple step
has been remarkably resistant to change; it has been a key recommendation
of gender analysts since the 1990s (see, for example, Irene Tinker and Gale
Summerfield [1999] for studies on China and Laos). Namita Datta (2006)
reports on the win–win situation of joint titling of squatter settlements in
India, where the joint titles provided women with additional bargaining
11
 INTRODUCTION

power within their household, and reports indicated that men were less likely
to sell the land. Widman (2014) examines the gendered impact of a land
titling program in Madagascar. In this case, little effort was made to ensure
women’s names on titles, and women are significantly underrepresented as
owners of titled land.
Although getting women’s names on individual and joint titles to land is
expected to be beneficial, we note that there is little or no evidence that titles
to land protect anyone, men or women, from large-scale land acquisitions.
This is difficult to analyze rigorously because the areas that are most likely
to be titled are also likely to be favorable lands that may be of interest to
outside buyers or leasers. Furthermore, Daley and Pallas (2014) argue that
when investors target marginal lands and common pool resources, areas
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 20:50 15 October 2014

that are frequently not titled, women are more likely to be hurt in such
transactions (also see Tsikata and Yaro [2014]). Titling by itself does not
guarantee tenure security for women or men, but it may be a piece in a
multidimensional effort to secure rights.
Finally, it is critical to consider the role of the market in providing women
with land rights. The market as an institution is gendered, and the ways
in which gender affects market transactions must be carefully considered.
Women are disadvantaged in land markets simply due to the fact that they
earn less income than men. Carmen Diana Deere and Magdalena Leon
(2003) note that in Latin America, although men are more likely than
women to inherit land, the most common means for women to acquire land
is through inheritance. This suggests that women are more disadvantaged
in land markets than in inheritance.

RES PO N S ES T O LAN D A C Q U IS IT IO N S
The size and scope of global land acquisitions and the connection with crises
indicate that the potential for displacement and other negative impacts need
to be addressed through a variety of instruments and actions at different
levels, including global negotiations (such as the Voluntary Guidelines on
the Responsible Governance of Tenure) that explicitly consider gender
issues (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO]
2012), as well as local formal and informal political activity and social
movements. Much time and expense went into the formulation of the
Voluntary Guidelines, which were approved at the UN Committee on World
Food Security meeting in 2012. The approval followed a participatory
approach that included numerous regional meetings with representatives
of governments and civil society over several years. The guidelines stress
that states and other actors should promote equitable legal environments,
transparency of transactions, consultation with all affected parties, and
monitoring of arrangements. Multiple places in the documents explicitly
mention promotion of gender equality.
12
 LAND, GENDER, AND FOOD SECURITY

Although institutions such as the FAO and the World Bank as well
as nongovernmental organizations such as the International Food Policy
Research Institute (IFPRI) often propose voluntary guidelines or codes of
conduct, many authors have critiqued the shortcomings of these measures.
Saturnino M. Borras, Jr. and Jenny Franco (2010) view the codes not only
as ineffective but also as counterproductive, since they often distract from
crucial issues, such as the role of land in achieving what they view as
a questionable economic development model as well as how poor rural
residents’ land rights and concerns can be protected and advanced. Borras,
Jr. and Franco argue that codes are not only problematic because they are
voluntary but also because they place excessive emphasis on mechanisms
such as titling programs and transparency, which do not assure pro-poor
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 20:50 15 October 2014

outcomes. Taking a similar position, Verma (2014) calls instead for a

minimal set of enforceable regulations and legal mechanisms for states and
investors that center on women and men’s human rights.
Whether they are addressing local activism as part of a multidimensional
strategy or as the preferable, bottom-up opposition to land deals, many
authors center on resistance at the local level via women’s movements
and land rights’ groups. Borras, Jr. et al. (2012) identify two main types
of resistance from below: that against dispossession and that against
exploitation associated with new employment or terms of incorporation.
These two types sometimes work jointly, but often are separate arenas and
may even produce tensions between their respective activists as occurred
in Brazil when rural workers’ trade unions opposed peasant land rights
movements.
Many of the studies in this volume address responses to land acquisitions.
Daley and Pallas (2014), for example, focus on local resistance to
dispossession in two Asian cases and two African cases. They identify practical
arenas for action that would be beneficial for women in areas of productive
resources, relative income poverty, and political participation. Porro and
Shiraishi Neto (2014) stress that the response of local activists to become
involved in discussions with the government and business proved to be
an illusion of harmony and that the discussions, though useful for some
projects, were actually part of a threat to the women’s basic sources of
livelihood from the land. Wisborg (2014) argues that one of the reasons
there is such difficulty with gender equity in land deals is that those who
most suffer discrimination often have the least power to defend themselves.
Therefore, he stresses the need for broad alliances between women’s
rights activists, gender-equity activists, and others concerned about local
communities.
Overall, the studies in this volume not only address the gender aspects of
land deals, but also make an effort to show that both women and men are
active in resisting the threat to their rights. The variations in local aspects
of land deals are crucial to our understanding of the types of effective
13
 INTRODUCTION

responses. They note that neither women nor the poor are homogeneous
groups, and there are different winners and losers in each case, which affect
the type of responses to the land deals. No single approach to resistance can
be expected to be successful in the dynamic, global arena of land deals.

ST U DYI NG LAN D G R A BS F RO M A G E N D E R P E R S P E C T IV E :
F RAM EW O RKS AN D M E T H O D S
Which frameworks and methods of research are best suited for uncovering
the socioeconomic implications of land deals for local communities? A
recent forum in the Journal of Peasant Studies highlights the methodological
challenges of obtaining data on large-scale land acquisitions:
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 20:50 15 October 2014

This JPS Forum identifies a profound uncertainty about what it is that

is being counted, questions the methods used to collate and aggregate
“land grabs,” and calls for a second phase of land grab research which
abandons the aim of deriving total numbers of hectares in favor of more
specific, grounded and transparent methods. (Ian Scoones, Ruth Hall,
Saturnino M. Borras, Jr., Ben White, and Wendy Wolford 2013: 469)

Some of the contributions to the forum discuss the methodological pitfalls

that influence both research topics and findings and their implications for
policy effectiveness (Marc Edelman 2013; Carlos Oya 2013).
Oya (2013), for example, argues that the existing ways of framing land
deals – such as the focus on the size of deals, the contrast between
large- and small-scale agriculture, and the contrast between foreign and
local capital – may miss wider questions about the effects of different
scales of farming on employment, livelihood activities, off-farm incomes,
and regional economies. Also, the focus on smallholders may obscure
wider questions about labor and the implications that paid labor on
commercial farms has for women and men’s autonomous income earning.
Oya (2013) recommends a renewed focus on labor and exploitation as
important analytical categories. Studies of the gendered aspects of land
acquisitions should use these important points. However, focusing on labor
and exploitation will not necessarily tackle gender issues systematically,
unless studies also take up gendered analytical categories such as the sexual
division of productive and reproductive labor; access to, ownership of,
and control of resources; and gender ideologies of labor and exploitation
(Dzodzi Tsikata 2009).
Typically, discussions of the gendered impacts of large-scale land deals
have not been generated from dedicated and rigorous gender and land
studies. Daley and Pallas (2014) discuss four case studies of large-scale
acquisitions of land, but the case studies were not originally designed to
focus on gendered effects and responses. Instead, the authors drew the
14
 LAND, GENDER, AND FOOD SECURITY

gender lessons from a set of more general case studies they analyzed
for the International Land Coalition, an international grouping of
nongovernmental land organizations. Similarly, the case study by Tsikata
and Yaro (2014) is based on fieldwork that was not designed to focus
mainly on gender issues, although the study did examine gender differences
in the distribution of project benefits and in the experience of project-
induced losses. The contribution by Porro and Shiraishi Neto (2014) applies
anthropological and juridical approaches to examine the interactions of
a group of women babassu palm harvesters with government and large
corporations and draws lessons for understanding the limits of working
within these organizations for reform when land rights are omitted from
discussions. All three articles have drawn useful conclusions on the gender
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 20:50 15 October 2014

differential impacts of large-scale acquisitions of land and provide insights

for future studies that focus primarily on gender.
In framing their study, Daley and Pallas (2014) argue that while women’s
experience of commercial pressures on land could differ on account of
their socioeconomic statuses, women are likely to be affected differently
and are more likely to suffer adverse impacts than men. They identify four
sources of vulnerabilities: (1) women’s limited access to and control of land
under both customary and statutory laws, and their difficulties in enforcing
their rights during times of rapid social, political, and economic change;
(2) systemic gender discrimination in sociocultural and political relations,
particularly in decision making on lives and livelihoods issues, which lead
to women being bypassed in consultations and decisions about proposed
land deals; (3) women’s relative cash income poverty, which is perpetuated
by poor access to the wage employment generated by large-scale land deals;
and (4) women’s vulnerability to domestic violence, sexual exploitation, and
practices such as widow inheritance and sexual cleansing. Using these as a
grid, Daley and Pallas show that in most land acquisitions, women experience
the effects of at least two of these disadvantages.
Tsikata and Yaro (2014) compare particular land acquisition projects’
promises of employment, increased incomes, and ancillary benefits to the
actual, observed costs and benefits (both gendered and not) that result
from such projects. Several discussions of land acquisition projects use
this method (Cotula et al. 2009; Borras, Jr. and Franco 2010; Behrman,
Meinzen-Dick, and Quisumbing 2011). Using these factors, Tsikata and
Yaro identify four areas of gendered implications: (1) employment and new
income benefits; (2) land holdings and preexisting livelihood activities; (3)
access to the commons and reproductive activities; and (4) the enjoyment of
ancillary benefits. They argue that in all four areas, benefits and losses were
gendered, with women being disproportionately affected by losses and less
able to derive benefits (although men and women were suffering adverse
effects overall). As well, there was evidence that those who suffered the most
severe disruptions to their pre-acquisition livelihood activities were younger
15
 INTRODUCTION

women (who had not yet established strong land interests), women who
were spouses of migrants, and members of families that did not own land.
The case studies in this volume have identified clear gender differentials in
the effect of land acquisitions but have been unable to systematically identify
the implications of these differences for women’s prospects in agrarian
transitions and the wider political economy. These are issues that await
further study. While a political economy approach to such a study would
be invaluable, it needs a systematic gender lens and the ability to combine
observations about broad socioeconomic trends with micro-level inquiry
about households and intrahousehold relations. Additionally, it requires
tools to identify which rights (as enumerated by international human rights
instruments such as CEDAW, the International Covenant on Economic,
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 20:50 15 October 2014

Social and Cultural Rights, and various ILO Conventions) have been violated
as a result of changes in the political economy/livelihood prospects and how
countries have sought to mitigate or eliminate such violations.
Regarding methods, the case studies discussed in this volume have
largely used qualitative techniques – that is, focus group discussions, key
informant interviews, in-depth interviews and, in a few cases, life stories.
While these methods are useful for studying long-term processes of agrarian
change, livelihood diversification, land concentration, and related processes
about which little is known, they are not favored in the social sciences,
particularly among mainstream economists and in policy debates (which
are inordinately influenced by so-called “killer” facts, which refer to often-
repeated startling statistical data that everyone comes to accept as accurate,
even if such statistics are often dubious; see Scoones et al. [2013]). At
the very least, a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods is
recommended for the production of research that can effectively speak to
policymakers.

R E SE A R C H AG EN D A F O R F EM I N IS T E C O N O M IS T S
While feminist economists have provided important insights into issues
surrounding women’s land and rights, there continues to be a lacuna
of strong theoretical or empirical work on gender and large-scale land
acquisitions. This volume marks a solid beginning for such work and
promises to stimulate further discussion and research of its kind.
Two important issues raised at the beginning of this article require further
analyses by feminist economists: government mandates for increased use
of biofuels and concerns about food security. Although two articles in this
special issue engage with these issues, further work is needed.
Daley and Pallas (2014) discuss how biofuel crop production is tied to
women’s diminished access to the commons and pesticide-related health
issues. Many of the concerns regarding biofuels focus on whether food or
nonfood crops are being used and whether the use of food crops drives
16
 LAND, GENDER, AND FOOD SECURITY

up the price of food. However, competition for land exists regardless of

whether the biofuel feedstock is a commodity consumed as food by humans
(such as corn) or is an inedible commodity (such as jatropha; see Jurgen
Scheffran and Gale Summerfield [2009]). Although women farmers could
benefit from the higher prices of the commodity grown for biofuel use, the
poorest farmers are usually net consumers and end up being hurt by higher
prices. Urban consumers also lose out from the higher prices (although they
potentially could benefit from the availability of biofuel). The production
of biofuels is closely linked to US and EU policies to promote biofuels
as an alternative to petroleum.6 A change in policies could easily change
the profitability of this market. The rapidly changing technologies provide
additional risk to smallholder farmers who are engaging in this market. With
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 20:50 15 October 2014

very limited resources to invest in this quickly evolving market, poor farmers
who commit their land to biofuels may be left behind.
Understanding the gendered impacts and organizing efforts related to
large-scale land acquisitions is important in its own right. However, it
is also related to the broader issues of global food security, and future
feminist research needs to more clearly address the links between land
rights and food security. The challenge is to ensure that, as the agricultural
sector changes, both women and men (and especially poorer farmers on
smallholdings) are able to gain some of the benefits. The landscape is
shifting, and it is critical that both women and men have a voice in how
it changes and what their roles will be.
One of the strengths of the feminist economics literature is that it situates
local issues within the broader context of the global political economy.
While much of the economics literature continues to focus on narrower
and narrower topics, the feminist economics literature considers both the
local and the global. Within the discussions of global political economy
issues (including employment, global crises, and food security), feminist
economists should pay greater attention to issues faced by those living on
and working the land.
In addition, a feminist economics approach to issues of land acquisitions
would not only consider the impact on women’s property rights and
livelihoods, but also on the broader arena of gender relations. The literature
on intrahousehold dynamics and power relations between men and women
within communities and institutions suggests that changes (such as those
that are happening in the rural landscapes) will have an impact on gender
relations more broadly. This is an area that would be ripe for feminist
economics analysis.
While there is some research on the global food crisis and how it affects
women, there is further space for considering gender issues in a broader
range of food security issues. Gender issues are often incorporated into
more narrowly defined studies, such as those that consider agricultural
productivity and in the work on agricultural value chains. The contribution
17
 INTRODUCTION

by wa Gı̃thı̃nji, Konstantinidis, and Barenberg (2014) adds to the literature

on gender and agricultural productivity by demonstrating that households
in which women are the primary farmers are not less efficient than those
in which the primary farmers are men, after controlling for land size and
crop choice. But it is important to consider gender issues across the full
range of food security issues. Neha Kumar and Agnes R. Quisumbing link
food security and gender issues; they find that in Bangladesh, female-headed
households are more resource poor than male-headed households and have
a harder time providing food for their family; they also find that “land –
particularly better-quality land – has a protective effect against food price
shocks” (2011: 2).
Given the important roles of women as producers and consumers of
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 20:50 15 October 2014

agricultural products and of gender equality for long-run growth, there is

a need for additional research on the gendered impacts of large-scale land
acquisition. The context of food crises, particularly in Africa, also heightens
the policy importance of conducting gender-aware research on the effects of
the recent wave of leases and acquisitions. This volume makes an important
contribution to filling this gap and suggests avenues for future research.

Cheryl Doss
African Studies and Economics, Yale University
New Haven, CT 06520-8206, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
Gale Summerfield
Women and Gender in Global Perspectives Program and
Department of Human and Community Development
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
320 International Studies Bldg., 910 S. Fifth St., Champaign, IL 61820, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
Dzodzi Tsikata
University of Ghana – Institute of Statistical, Social, and Economic Research
(ISSER)
P.O. Box LG 74, Legon, Ghana
e-mail: [email protected]

N O T ES O N C O N TRI B U T O R S
Cheryl Doss is Senior Lecturer in African Studies, Economics and the
School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University. Her current
research focuses on the gender asset and gender wealth gaps. She has worked
extensively on intrahousehold issues and issues of women and agriculture,
especially in Africa. She has co-edited two other special issues of Feminist
18
 LAND, GENDER, AND FOOD SECURITY

Economics, “Women and the Distribution of Wealth” (2006) and “AIDS,

Sexuality, and Economic Development” (2005).
Gale Summerfield is former director of the Women and Gender in Global
Perspectives Program and Associate Professor Emerita of Human and
Community Development and Agricultural and Consumer Economics at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Since receiving her doctorate
in economics from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, she has written
extensively on gender, development, and globalization addressing economic
reforms, human security (income, property rights, and food security), and
migration. Recent publications include a co-edited special issue of Feminist
Economics, “China, Gender, and the WTO.”
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 20:50 15 October 2014

Dzodzi Tsikata is Associate Professor at the Institute of Statistical, Social,

and Economic Research (ISSER) at the University of Ghana. Her research
is in the areas of gender and development policies and practices, land
tenure reforms and large-scale commercial land deals, and informal labor
conditions. Her publications include the co-edited book Land Tenure, Gender,
and Globalization: Research and Analysis from Africa, Asia, and Latin America
(with Pamela Golah, 2010) and a co-guest edited issue of Feminist Africa on
“Land, Labor, and Gendered Livelihoods” (with Dede Esi Amanor Wilks,
2009).

A C K N O W LED G EM E N T S
We thank the editors and staff at Feminist Economics for all of their help with
the special issue; Stephanie Seguino for her editorial involvement in the
initial stages of developing the special issue; the many reviewers of submitted
papers; discussants at the workshop in Barcelona; and the Ford Foundation,
Rice University, and the University of Utah for supporting this study.

N O T ES
1 The exact figures of these acquisitions are heavily disputed because of inconsistencies
in what is being computed and variations in time frame (Ian Scoones, Ruth Hall,
Saturnino M. Borras, Jr., Ben White, and Wendy Wolford 2013). Though these figures
are imprecise, we use this figure (which is one of the lowest estimates) mainly because
it indicates the scale of the issue.
2 A freehold interest is acquired when land is given in perpetuity, without any term limits.
It is the highest interest in land after the allodial or radical title, which is usually held
by the customary or statutory land authorities. Leases and concessions are land sales
that have term limits, often determined by land laws. Concessions are minerals bearing
land leased to companies for mining purposes. Contract farming involves land being
exchanged for either labor and or crops and is often a rolling arrangement from one
planting season to the next, but can be the subject of an agreement over a specified
number of years.
3 The Land Matrix is an independent land monitoring initiative. The main initiative is
called the Global Observatory; it was launched in a test version in 2012 and formally in
19
 INTRODUCTION

June 2013. The partners overseeing the Land Matrix include the International Land
Coalition (ILC), Centre de Cooperation Internationale en Recherche Agronomique
pour le Développement (CIRAD), Centre for Development and Environment (CDE),
German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA), and Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). Because land deals are constantly evolving and
not transparent, the data are an indication of what we know but cannot be considered
accurate at this point. They will be constantly updated as information becomes available
and are expected to become more reliable through this open process. A land deal
is referred to as an intended, concluded or failed attempt to acquire
land through purchase, lease or concession that meets the criteria defined
below. The Global Observatory includes deals that are made for agricultural
production, timber extraction, carbon trading, industry, renewable energy
production, conservation, and tourism in low- and middle-income countries.
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 20:50 15 October 2014

Deals must:
• Entail a transfer of rights to use, control or ownership of land through sale,
lease or concession;
• Have been initiated since the year 2000;
• Cover an area of 200 hectares or more;
• Imply the potential conversion of land from smallholder production, local
community use or important ecosystem service provision to commercial use.
(Land Matrix 2013)
4 See also Susana Lastarria-Cornheil (1997) on Africa.
5 See Cheryl Doss, Mai Truong, Goretti Nabanoga, and Justine Namaalwa (2012) for
evidence on Uganda, and Deere and Leon (2001) for evidence on a range of Latin
American countries.
6 Brazil’s program for sugarcane ethanol does not appear to have had the same order of
global impact (Scheffran and Summerfield 2009).

REF ER EN C ES
Agarwal, Bina. 1994. A Field of One’s Own: Gender and Land Rights in South Asia. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Allendorf, Keera. 2007. “Do Women’s Land Rights Promote Empowerment and Child
Health in Nepal?” World Development 35(11): 1975–88.
Behrman, Julia, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, and Agnes Quisumbing. 2011. “The Gender
Implications of Large-Scale Land Deals.” Discussion Paper 01056, International Food
Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
Borras, Jr., Saturnino M. and Jenny Franco. 2010. “Towards a Broader View of the Politics of
Global Land Grabbing: Rethinking Land Issues, Reframing Resistance.” ICAS Working
Paper Series 001, Initiatives in Critical Agrarian Studies, Land Deal Politics Initiative,
and Transnational Institute.
Borras, Jr., Saturnino M., Cristóbal Kay, Sergio Gómez, and John Wilkinson. 2012.
“Land Grabbing and Global Capitalist Accumulation: Key Features in Latin America.”
Canadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue Canadienne d’études du développement 33(4):
402–16.
Chu, Jessica. 2011. “Gender and ‘Land Grabbing’ in Sub-Saharan Africa: Women’s Land
Rights and Customary Land Tenure.” Development 54(1): 35–9.
Cotula, Lorenzo, Sonja Vermeulen, Rebeca Leonard, and James Keeley. 2009. Land Grab
or Development Opportunity? Agricultural Investment and International Land Deals in Africa.
Rome: IIED, FAO, and IFAD.

20
 LAND, GENDER, AND FOOD SECURITY

Daley, Elizabeth. 2011. Gendered Impacts of Commercial Pressures on Land. Rome:

International Land Coalition.
Daley, Elizabeth and Sabine Pallas. 2014. “Women and Land Deals in Africa and
Asia: Weighing the Implications and Changing the Game.” Feminist Economics 20(1),
doi:10.1080/13545701.2013.860232.
Datta, Namita. 2006. “Joint Titling – A Win-Win Policy? Gender and Property Rights
in Urban Informal Settlements in Chandigarh, India.” Feminist Economics 12 (1/2):
271–298.
Deere, Carmen Diana. 1985. “Rural Women and State Policy: The Latin American
Agrarian Reform Experiences.” World Development 13(9): 1037–53.
Deere, Carmen Diana and Magdalena Leon. 2001. Empowering Women: Land and Property
Rights in Latin America. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
———. 2003. “The Gender Asset Gap: Land in Latin America.” World Development 31(6):
925–47.
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 20:50 15 October 2014

Deininger, Klaus, Daniel Ayalew Ali, Stein Holden, and Jaap Zevenbergen. 2008. “Rural
Land Certification in Ethiopia: Process, Initial Impact, and Implications for Other
African Countries.” World Development 36(10): 1786–812.
Doss, Cheryl. 2005. “The Effects of Intrahousehold Property Ownership on Expenditure
Patterns in Ghana.” Journal of African Economies 15(1): 149–80.
Doss, Cheryl, Mai Truong, Goretti Nabanoga, and Justine Namaalwa. 2012. “Women,
Marriage, and Asset Inheritance in Uganda.” Development Policy Review 30(5): 597–616.
Doss, Cheryl, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, and Allan Bomuhangi. 2014. “Who Owns the
Land? Perspectives from Rural Ugandans and Implications for Large-Scale Land
Acquisitions.” Feminist Economics 20(1), doi:10.1080/13545701.2013.855320.
Edelman, Marc. 2013. “Messy Hectare: Questions about the Epistemology of Land
Grabbing Data.” Journal of Peasant Studies 40(3): 485–501.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2012. Voluntary
Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context
of National Food Security. Rome: FAO.
Ikdahl, Ingunn, Ann Hellum, Randi Kaarhus, Tor A. Benjaminsen, and Patricia Kameri-
Mbote. 2005. “Human Rights, Formalisation and Women’s Land Rights in Southern
and Eastern Africa.” Studies in Women’s Law 57, Institute of Women’s Law, University
of Oslo.
Jackson, Cecile. 2003. “Gender Analysis of Land: Beyond Land Rights for Women?” Journal
of Agrarian Change 3(4): 453–80.
Julia and Ben White. 2011. “The Gendered Politics of Dispossession: Oil Palm Expansion
in a Dayak Hibun Community in West Kalimantan, Indonesia.” Paper presented at the
International Conference on Global Land Grabbing, Institute of Development Studies,
University of Sussex, April 6–8.
Kachika, Tinyade. 2010. “Land Grabbing in Africa: A Review of the Impacts and the
Possible Policy Responses.” Pan Africa Programme, Oxfam International.
Kevane, Michael and Leslie Gray. 1999. “A Woman’s Field is Made at Night: Gendered
Land Rights and Norms in Burkina Faso.” Feminist Economics 5(3): 1–26.
Kugelman, Michael. 2013. “Southeast Asia: The Global Land Rush’s Overlooked Ground
Zero.” The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs. http://www.fletcherforum.org/2013/04/24/
kugelman/.
Kumar, Neha and Agnes R. Quisumbing. 2011. “Gendered Impacts of the 2007–08 Food
Price Crisis: Evidence Using Panel Data from Rural Ethiopia.” Discussion Paper 01093,
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
Land Matrix. 2013. “Online Public Database on Land Deals.” Landmatrix.org.
Lastarria-Cornheil, Susana. 1997. “Impact of Privatization on Gender and Property Rights
in Africa.” World Development 25(8): 1317–33.

21
 INTRODUCTION

Meinzen-Dick, Ruth, Agnes Quisumbing, Julia Behrman, Patricia Biermayr-Jenzano, Vicki

Wilde, Marco Noordeloos, Catherine Ragasa, and Nienke Beintema. 2011. Engendering
Agricultural Research, Development, and Extension. Washington, DC: International Food
Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
Moyo, Sam, Paris Yeros, and Praveen Jha. 2012. “Imperialism and Primitive Accumulation:
Notes on the New Scramble for Africa.” Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy 1(2):
181–203.
Ossome, Lyn. 2014. “Can the Law Secure Women’s Rights to Land in Africa? Revisiting
Tensions between Culture and Land Commercialization.” Feminist Economics 20(1),
doi:10.1080/13545701.2013.876506.
Oya, Carlos. 2013. “Methodological Reflections on ‘Land Grab’ Databases and ‘Land
Grab’ Literature ‘Rush.”’ Journal of Peasant Studies 40(3): 503–20.
Peterman, Amber. 2012. “Widowhood and Asset Inheritance in Sub-Saharan Africa:
Empirical Evidence from 15 Countries.” Development Policy Review 30(5): 543–71.
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 20:50 15 October 2014

Peters, Pauline E. 2010. “‘Our Daughters Inherit Our Land But Our Sons Use Their
Wives’ Fields’: Matrilineal-Matrilocal Land Tenure and the New Land Policy in Malawi.”
Journal of Eastern African Studies 4(1): 179–99.
Porro, Noemi Miyasaka and Joaquim Shiraishi Neto. 2014. “Coercive Harmony in Land
Acquisition: The Gendered Impact of Corporate ‘Responsibility’ in the Brazilian
Amazon.” Feminist Economics 20(1), doi:10.1080/13545701.2013.876507.
Quisumbing, Agnes. 1995. “Gender Differences in Agricultural Productivity: A Survey
of Empirical Evidence.” FCND Discussion Paper 5, Food Consumption and Nutrition
Division, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
Quisumbing, Agnes R. and John A. Maluccio. 2003. “Resources at Marriage and
Intrahousehold Allocation: Evidence from Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and South
Africa.” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 65(3): 283–327.
Razavi, Shahra. 2003. “Introduction: Agrarian Change, Gender and Land Rights.” Journal
of Agrarian Change 3(1–2): 2–32.
———. 2007. “Liberalisation and the Debates on Women’s Access to Land.” Third World
Quarterly 28(8): 1479–500.
Scheffran, Jurgen and Gale Summerfield, eds. 2009. Swords and Ploughshares: Sustainable
Biofuels and Human Security. Champaign, IL: Program in Arms Control, Disarmament,
and International Security, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Schlager, Edella and Elinor Ostrom. 1992. “Property-Rights Regimes and Natural
Resources: A Conceptual Analysis.” Land Economics 68(3): 249–62.
Scoones, Ian, Ruth Hall, Saturnino M. Borras, Jr., Ben White, and Wendy Wolford. 2013.
“The Politics of Evidence: Methodologies for Understanding the Global Land Rush.”
Journal of Peasant Studies 40(3): 469–83.
Tinker, Irene and Gale Summerfield, eds. 1999. Women’s Rights to House and Land: China,
Laos, Vietnam. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Tsikata, Dzodzi. 2009. “Gender, Land and Labour Relations and Livelihoods in Sub-
Saharan Africa in the Era of Economic Liberalisation: Towards a Research Agenda.”
Feminist Africa 12: 11–30.
———. 2010. “Introduction.” In Land Tenure, Gender and Globalisation: Research and Analysis
from Africa, Asia and Latin America, edited by Dzodzi Tsikata and Pamela Golah, 1–34.
New Delhi and Ottawa: Zubaan and International Development Research Centre
(IDRC).
Tsikata, Dzodzi and Joseph Awetori Yaro. 2014. “When A Good Business Model Is Not
Enough: Land Transactions and Gendered Livelihood Prospects in Rural Ghana.”
Feminist Economics 20(1), doi:10.1080/13545701.2013.866261.
Verma, Ritu. 2014. “Land Grabs, Power, and Gender in East and Southern Africa: So,
What’s New?” Feminist Economics 20(1), doi:10.1080/13545701.2014.897739.

22
 LAND, GENDER, AND FOOD SECURITY

wa Gı̃thı̃nji, Mwangi, Charalampos Konstantinidis, and Andrew Barenberg. 2014.

“Small and Productive: Kenyan Women and Crop Choice.” Feminist Economics 20(1),
doi:10.1080/13545701.2013.878467.
Whitehead, Ann and Dzodzi Tsikata. 2003. “Policy Discourses on Women’s Land Rights
in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Implications of the Re-turn to the Customary.” Journal of
Agrarian Change 3(1–2): 67–112.
Wickeri, Elisabeth and Anil Kalhan. 2010. “Land Rights Issues in International Human
Rights Law.” Malaysian Journal on Human Rights 4(10): 16–25.
Widman, Marit. 2014. “Land Tenure Insecurity and Formalizing Land Rights in
Madagascar: A Gender Perspective on the Certification Program.” Feminist Economics
20(1), doi:10.1080/13545701.2013.873136.
Wisborg, Poul. 2014. “Transnational Land Deals and Gender Equality: Utilitarian and
Human Rights Approaches.” Feminist Economics 20(1), doi:10.1080/13545701.2013.
862341.
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 20:50 15 October 2014

23