저 시-비 리- 경 지 2.0 한민
는 아래 조건 르는 경 에 한하여 게
l 저 물 복제, 포, 전송, 전시, 공연 송할 수 습니다.
다 과 같 조건 라야 합니다:
l 하는, 저 물 나 포 경 , 저 물에 적 된 허락조건 명확하게 나타내어야 합니다.
l 저 터 허가를 면 러한 조건들 적 되지 않습니다.
저 에 른 리는 내 에 하여 향 지 않습니다.
것 허락규약(Legal Code) 해하 쉽게 약한 것 니다.
Disclaimer
저 시. 하는 원저 를 시하여야 합니다.
비 리. 하는 저 물 리 목적 할 수 없습니다.
경 지. 하는 저 물 개 , 형 또는 가공할 수 없습니다.
도시계획학 사학 논문
Land Ownership Types across
Countries
2015년 2월
울대학 환경대학원
환경계획학과 도시 지역계획 전공
민
Abstract
Thisstudyaimstoinvestigatethevariousformsofland
ownershipsystemsintheworld.Landownershipstatusissues
arebeingconsideredasoneofthebasicrequirementsforthe
countries’development;itisbecausethelandtenuresystemsare
thefundamentaleffortofhumanlifeconditionsonland.Secure
landownershipisfundamentaltoshelterandlivelihoodsaswell
astherealisationofhumanrights,povertyreduction,economic
prosperityandsustainabledevelopment.
Theobjectiveofthisresearchistoanalyzetheownership
systemsintheworldwherethegovernment,civilsociety,private
sector and development cooperation initiatives have been
implemented.Thustheproblem definitioncanbeformulatedasa
research question which is “How does the land ownership
systemsdifferintheworld?”
According to the literature surveys conducted for the
research,the land tenure ownership representcountries with
differentculture,socio-economic,legalaspectand land-related
histories.Itcantakevariousformsamong countries,including
statutory,customary,public,crown,communal,informaland
formalformsoflandtenure.
This thesis paper comprises five chapters. chapter 1
includestheintroductionofthestudy,Chapter2providesreviews
ofthetheoreticalbackgroundthroughthreekeyterminologiesof
the study:Land tenure,tenure security and land rights.It
illustratesdefinitionsandconceptsoftheterminologiesthatare
the background ofthe study.This chapteralso conducts an
extensiveliteraturereview,whichaddresstheimportanceofthis
researchandpointsoutthedifferencebetweenpreviousstudies
andthisthesis.Chapter3presentsgeneralcontextofexisting
tenuretypesacrosstheworld.Throughthischapter,analysisof
the land tenure systems and the categorization of existing
ownershipsystemsintoinstitutionalframes.Chapter4continues
withanalyzingstudyfindingsfrom thepreviouschapterandland
ownershiptypes.Itdemonstratesanalysisandidentifiesthekey
factorsofeachlandownershiptypology.Theanalysisisableto
delineatetheadvantageanddisadvantageofeachsystem.Asa
closingremark,thisthesisendswithprovidingconclusionwith
implicationsofthestudyandsuggestionsoffuturestudyagenda.
Throughthestudy,analysisofthelandownershipsystems
andcategorizingthem intoinstitutionalframes:‘Statutory-private
ownership’,‘Customary-privateownership’,‘Communalownership’,
‘Religiousownership’,‘Publicownership’and‘Informalownership’,
itwillprovide an overview ofexisting land tenure systems
acrosstheworldasaspectrum.Theanalysisisabletodelineate
theadvantageanddisadvantageofeachtype.
◆ Keywords Land tenure, Tenure security, Land right, Land
ownership type, Land ownership categorization
◆ Student number : 2013-22004
TABLEOFCONTENTS
Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION ·····················································1
1.1 Research Background and Objectives ······························1
1.1.1 Research Background ····················································1
1.1.2 Research Objectives ······················································7
1.2 Research Methodology and Organization of Study ·····9
1.2.1 Research Methodology ··················································9
1.2.2 Organization of the study ··········································10
Ⅱ. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND
LITERATURE REVIEW ···············································13
2.1 Theoretical Background ·····················································13
2.1.1 Land Tenure ··································································13
2.1.2 Tenure security ····························································15
2.1.3 Land rights ···································································18
2.2 Literature Review ·······························································21
Ⅲ. Land Tenure Categorization ································25
3.1 Current Land Tenure Systems ·······································25
3.2 Land Ownership Categorization ······································35
Ⅳ. The Characteristics of Land Ownership
Typology ··········································································39
4.1 Statutory-Private Ownership ··········································39
4.2 Customary-Private Ownership ·······································40
4.3 Public Ownership ································································46
4.4 Religious Ownership ···························································49
4.5 Communal Ownership ·······················································52
4.6 Informal Ownership ··························································57
Ⅴ. CONCLUSION ························································63
5.1 Summary of Major Findings and Implication of the
study ·····························································································63
5.2 Future Research Agendas ················································67
Reference ·········································································69
LIST OFTABLES
Table 1 Land Tenure Systems ··············································20
Table 2 Announced Land Tenure Systems ······················26
Table 3 Existing Land Tenure Systems ···························26
Table 4 Categorized Land Tenure Systems ······················27
LIST OFFIGURES
Figure 1 Research Framework ···············································9
Figure 2 Continuum of land rights ·····································15
Figure 3 Land Ownership Categorization ··························29
Figure 4 Urban Housing Units by Water and Toilet
Facilities ························································································45
Figure 5 Summary of informal settlement levels in the
Sub-Saharan region ·······································46
- 1 -
Ⅰ.INTRODUCTION
1.1ResearchBackgroundandObjectives
1.1.1ResearchBackground
Thelandhasbeen being increasingly recognizedasan
important governance issue.The world today faces many
complexchallenges,includingpoverty;rapidpopulationgrowth;
rapidurbanization;increaseddemandfornaturalresources;food,
water and energy insecurity;naturaldisasters;and violent
conflict.Manyofthesechallengeshaveaclearlanddimension:
unequalaccesstotheland;insecurityoftenure;unsustainable
landuse;weakinstitutionsfordisputeandconflictresolution
andetc.(Fricskaetal.,2009).
Inprincipal,suchatenuresystem isabletoshapethe
fundamentalconditionsofpeopleon theland.Leaseholdsare
basedonthenotionofrentalsforlongperiods,inpractice,the
issuingof99-yearsleasesisconsideredtobeassecureasan
ownershipsystem.Thelandbelongingtooneentityamongan
individual,collective or the state by contractualagreement,
leasedtoanotherentity.Theleaseagreementisthenregistered
againstthetitleofthatlandtocreatereallandrightsthatare
enforceable(EconomicCommission forAfrica,2004).Accessto
- 2 -
land and the associated security of land ownership has
significantimplicationsfordevelopmentandrealestatemarket.
Realestateisamajorsourceofvalueinmostofthecountries
intheworld.Forexample,householdsintheUnitedStateshave
$9.6trillionoftheirwealthinrealestate,whichisabout16
percentoftheirwealth,Peruvianhasabout70percentoftheir
wealthinrealestate,andtheWorldBankconfirmsthatinmost
economies,there are one-halfand three quarters ofwealth
exist(Dam,2006;Economic Research Service,2005;De Soto,
1993;WorldBank,2006).However,atenuresystem cannotbe
easilydefinedorderivedasthefollowinguniversalnormsbut
rather adjusting to localconditions by considering history,
culture,legal aspects and economic condition which may
influencehuman’sperceptionsandbehavior(Rudiarto,2006).
Securelandand property rightsarecriticalforreducing
numerous globalissues,such as poverty,enhancing economic
development,genderequalityandsocialstability.Secureaccess
tothelandprovidesavaluablesafetynetasasourceofshelter,
foodandincomeintimesofhardship.Securedlandownershipis
aprerequisiteforpovertyreduction,becausewhenthelandis
improperly managed,theproblemsoften leadtodisputes,land
degradation,and losteconomic and developmentopportunities.
Casesofpoorly managedlandsarefoundinmany developing
countries(UnitedNation,2013).An estimated700million urban
poorlivein conditionsofinsecuretenureandan estimated2
- 3 -
millionpeopleareforciblyevictedeachyear.According tothe
UN-Habitat,900millionpeopleliveininformalsettlements,which
isexpectedasincreasingto1.4billionby2020andto2billion
by 2030. Secure tenure promotes investment in homes,
neighborhoods, livelihoods and urban agriculture to urban
poor(Fricskaetal.,2009).Properdevelopmentalsystem ofthe
landownership should be established to reorganize,utilize and
conducttheunexploitedland.
Countries which havebeen subjectto colonialism have
particularly complex tenurearrangements.Sincenon colonized
countries also have very complex tenure as indigenous and
imposed tenurepatternsmay existatthesametimein the
samearea.Itisclearthatlandownershipsystemsarevery
diverse among countries and between the developed and
developing countries.The form ofsystems can be various,
includingthestatutory,customary,religiousandinformalforms
oflandownership(MendsandMeijere,2006).
Thelandtenuresystemsthathavebeen being evolved
overtime,including therangeofland rightsthatexist;the
operationofthelandmarkets,includingthemainconstraints;
andtheinstitutionsthatregulatetenureandmarket(Fricskaet
al.,2009).
Understandingthelandownershipsystem inacountryor
a group of countries are related aspects of the country’s
historicalbackground.Historicalfactofbeingcolonizedorstill
- 4 -
beingsemi-colonizedbyacountryorcommunityhasastrong
effectonthelegalsystem ofthecountryandcommunity.The
historydeterminestheshapeofinstitutionsinpresentday.Over
thetimeinthepast,differentformsofthelandtenurehave
been established.In an overview ofcontemporary history of
land tenure,itstarts with the system offeudalism.Feudal
tenureallowsthelordstohavefullcontrolovertheland.At
thattime,landownershipimpliedtheirstatusinsocialwealth.
Theconceptoffeudalexistedforalongperiodtimeofhuman
history;itissimilartostateowned property,which isalso
calledthepublictenuretoday.
Aftertheendofdynastyrulesthestates,politicalpower
by members of the aristocracy diminished.Then,the two
politicalview ofstatesappears,twodirectlyopposedconceptof
states: capitalistic states and socialist states. Transition
countriesseatsinbetweentherangeofthetwoconcepts,they
areinrevisingprocessfrom socialiststatetocapitalisticstate.
In capitalistic states,land,production and income are
mostlyorentirelyownedbyprivates.Alloftheownershipand
transactions on the lands are recorded,and restrictions and
written regulations exist.The tenure system in capitalistic
states have a similar characteristic with statutory tenure
system,whichisoperatedandcontrolledbywrittenregulations.
Statutorytenurehasfoundinmanycapitalisticcountriestoday.
Socialiststateshaveasocialeconomicsystem withsocial
- 5 -
ownership.Itischaracterizedwithproductionandco-operative
managementoftheeconomy.Insocialiststates,thereareno
landmarketandlandusedecisionsaremadeadministratively.
Landadministrationsystem insocialiststatearesimilartothe
public tenure system,where land is administered by the
governmentorlocalauthority.
Transition countries are known as the post-socialist
transitioncountriesfrom socialism tocapitalism.Thecountries
arelocatedin centralandEasternEuropeaswellasformer
SovietUnion,which includes the 27 transition countries in
Europe and North West Asia, such as China, Vietnam,
CambodiaandCubaareincluded.Inthosecountries,thepublic
land ownership remains significant,and those land is not
effectivelyprivatized.Lackinginmanagementofthelandlimits
growth ofnew businesses(Bezemer,2006).In thosecountries
marketinlandwereverylimitedorinsomedidnotexisted.In
some country like Poland,a marketin ruralland remained
throughoutthecommunistperiodbuturbanlandwassubjectto
strictStatecontrol.InBulgaria,urbanlandisabletopurchase
with a price dictated by the government,butruralland is
administeredbyacooperativesystem withnoownershiponthe
landforagriculturaluse(UnitedNation,1996).Inmanytransition
countries,‘cadasters’varyincharacterbuttendtoincorporatea
detailedclassificationofsoiltypeandpermittedlanduse.They
arefrequentlymaintainedinalaborintensivemannerfaithfully
- 6 -
preserving theoriginalcharacterofthedocument.Itisalso
generallythecasethattheusestowhichthecadastersareput
do not warrant the time and expense applied to their
maintenance.
The subject of land registration has received much
attentioninmosttransitioncountriesbutinmany,thesituation
remains less than completely satisfactory. Some of the
underlyingreasonsarerelevanttothedesignofpropertytax.
Good land managementwill promote economic and social
developmentinbothurbanandruralareas.
Even though the importance of the land ownership
securityiswidelyacknowledgedanditsurgencyisrecognized,
thishasnotledtoanyconsensusastowhatitexactlyentails
andinwhatwayitshouldberealized(Gelder,2010).Theland
security in countriesneedsto beaddressed atmany levels.
Land ownership security is important not only for urban
communitybutalsoruralcommunity.Itallowspeopleinthe
communitytodiversifytheirlivelihoodsbyusingtheirlandasa
realestate.Theycandealandinvestmoneyintheproperty
asset.Thereareseveralwayslikeusingtheirlandascollateral,
renting itoutorselling it.Tenure security also affectthe
everyday choices ofpoor ruralpeople on their agricultural
production,anditinfluencefarmerstoinvestintheirland.Land
ownershipsecurity isjustonestepon theroadtoreducing
globalissues like poverty(InternationalFund forAgricultural
- 7 -
Development,2012).
The aim ofthis study is to investigate the different
institutional frameworks of land tenure system in many
countries in the world.This study focuses specifically on
investigating the state and differentexisting forms ofland
ownershipatnationalandcitylevels.
1.1.2ResearchObjectives
Theobjectiveoftheresearchistoanalyzethelandtenure
system thataffects the land managementand development
statusintheworld.Analyzethetenuresystemsintheworld
where the government, civil society, private sector and
developmentcooperationinitiativeshavebeenimplemented.The
landtenuresystem isincreasinglyrecognizedasanimportant
governanceissue.Acknowledgingthelandtenuresystem isthe
wayofprovidingsecurelandright,whichisveryimportantfor
development and poverty reduction. Poverty issue is a
well-known globalproblem,as wellastheland governance
problem atthecountrylevelacrossallregions.Thoseproblems
haveasignificantrelationshipwiththelandtenuresystems.
Un-HabitatandGLTN definetheterminology‘Typology
ofTenure’asdominantlandtenureprevailingeitherformallyor
informally. Country specific classification that is public
ownership/ use,private ownership/use and indigenous and
non-indigenouscommunitytenure.Inthisthesis,thetypologyof
- 8 -
tenureisfocusedonlandownershipstatus.Landownershipis
thekeycomponentintermsofdevelopmentandmanagement.
Withouttheownershipinformationonaproperty,noactionscan
betakenontheproperty.
Thelandownershipsystemsareverycomplicatedsoone
cannotpredicta country’s land system withoutan in-depth
researchofit.Allthelandsareunderdifferentstatusofthe
landtenuresystem,thereforeunderstandingthecurrentstatusis
thekeypointtodecidewaysinmanagingtheland.Thusthe
problem definition ofthe research can be formulated as a
research question of“How doestheland ownership systems
differintheworld?”
Theobjectivesoftheresearchisbasedontheassumption
ofnumberofdifferentlandownershiptypesoftenuresystems
exists in the world:statutory,customary,public,religious,
communalandinformaltenure.Thisstudywouldserve,ona
worldwidelevel,asananalysisofownershipsystem typologies
whichprovideanoverview ofexistinglandownershipsystems
acrosstheworldasaspectrum.Moreover,thisstudypresents
characteristicsofeachtypeindetail,itisabletodelineatethe
advantageanddisadvantageofeachsystem.
- 9 -
1.2ResearchMethodologyandOrganizationof
Study
1.2.1ResearchMethodology
Thisthesisaddressesthelandtenureissuesintheworld,
particularly land ownership status.To address the research
objectiveofthestudy,thisthesisisexaminedthroughliterature
surveyanalysismethodology,qualitativeinnature.Thepurpose
oftheliteraturesurvey forthisstudy istocollectalotof
numberofpublicationsandpapersrelatedtothestudytopic.
Collectionoftheliteratureresearchwasdonethroughvarietyof
resourcesincluding thearticlesofjournals,published papers,
thesispapersandpublishedbooks.
A searchhasbeenconductedontheterms‘landtenure’,
‘tenuresecurity’,‘landright’,‘landlaw’,‘customaryownership’,
‘statutory ownership’,‘communalownership’,‘religious tenure’
and ‘property ownership’,in numerous database sources to
completereview ofliteraturefortheproposedstudy,including
one-journalsweb-sites.
The information from literature survey research is
illustrated in chaptertwo,three and fourin this thesis,to
review and collectinformation ofthestudy topic.With the
informationfrom theliteraturesurvey,Chaptertwoclarifiesthe
previousstudiesinsimilartopictothethesis,andillustratesthe
- 10 -
criticalissuesofthisstudythatdifferentiateitfrom previous
research.In chapterthree,through the literature survey,it
provide the listofcurrentexisting land tenure systems to
classifythelandownershiptypesintheworld.Thisisbased
onthesystemsthatarealreadypublishedbyotherinternational
organizations.Inchapterfour,itanalyzethecharacteristicsof
eachlandownershiptypes.
1.2.2Organizationofthestudy
Thisthesiscomprisesfive(5)chapters(Figure1).Following
Chapteroneistheintroduction,onthebackground,objectives
and methodologies ofthis thesis.The introduction discuses
generaldescriptionsoftheresearchoutline,background,purpose,
methodologyandstructureofthestudy.
Chapter two provides reviews of the theoretical
backgroundthroughthreekeyterminologiesofthestudy:Land
tenure,tenuresecurityandlandrights.Itillustratesdefinitions
andconceptsoftheterminologies.Thischapteralsoconductsan
extensiveliteraturereview,whichaddresstheimportanceofthis
researchandpointsoutthedifferencebetweenpreviousstudies
andthisthesis.
Chapterthreeconductanalysisofthelandtenuresystems
withtwoparts.Firstpart,overview ofthegeneralcontextof
thelandtenuresystem typologyandtenuresystem formation
withanalyticalframework,andthesecondpartiscategorizing
- 11 -
the ownership systems into six types. There are global
organizationsworkson land issuesin theworld.Thisthesis
studyonthelandtenuresystemsthatthoseorganizationshave
announced.UN-Habitat,WorldBank,andGLTN havereported
differentlandtenuresystems. From thepublishedreportsby
theorganizations,listoftenuresystemsarecollected:freehold,
delayed freehold,registered leasehold,public rental,private
rental,shared equity,customary ownership,religious tenure
systems- islamic, non-formal tenure systems, squatters,
pavement dwellers, easements, sharecropping, community
ownershipandetc.Thoselandownershipsystemsintheworld
canbeclassifiedintotheframe. Throughthischapter,analysis
ofthelandtenuresystemsandthecategorizationofexisting
tenuresystemsintoinstitutionalframes.
Chapter four continues with analyzing the research
findingsfrom thepreviouschapters.Itdemonstratesanalysisof
the each land tenure system types,and identifies the key
factorsofeachlandownershiptypes.Theanalysisisableto
delineatetheadvantageand disadvantageofeach system in
development.As a closing remark,this thesis ends with
providing conclusionofimplicationsofthestudy and future
studyagenda.
- 12 -
Figure 2 Research Framework
- 13 -
Ⅱ.THEORETICALBACKGROUND
ANDLITERATUREREVIEW
2.1TheoreticalBackground
2.1.1LandTenure
Thelandtenurestructuresarecomplexandvarybetween
andwithincountries,therearedifferentdefinitionsandconcepts
ofit.Thelandtenureisderivativeoftheconceptofnatural
resource tenure,which in essence refers to the terms and
conditions under which natural resources are held and
use(Bruce,1986;Moyo,1995;Shivjietal.,1998).Theconceptof
theland tenurelieson asocialconstructwhich definesthe
relationshipbetweenindividualsandgroupsofindividuals.The
land tenure consists ofthe socialrelations and institutions
governingaccesstoandownershipofthelandnatureresources.
Itisrightsandobligationsdefinedwithrespecttocontroland
useoftheland(Costa,2013).
In fundamentalnature oftheissues in human society,
therearemany definitionsof‘land tenure’exist.UN-Habitat
reportsin2008;definesitasthewaylandisheldorownedby
individuals and groups,or set of relationships legally or
customarily defined amongstpeople with respectto land.In
- 14 -
otherwords,tenurereflectsrelationshipsbetween peopleand
landdirectly,andbetweenindividualsandgroupsofpeoplein
theirdealingsontheland.TheGlobalLandToolNetworkat
UN-Habitat defines it more concisely as the relationship,
whether legally or customarily defined, among people,as
individualsorgroupswith respecttotheland.Definition of
‘Landtenure‘istherelationship,whetherlegallyorcustomarily
defined,amongpeople,asindividualsorgroups,withrespectto
land(The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nation,2002).Rulesoftenuredefinehow property rightsto
landaretobeallocatedwithinsocieties.Therulesoftenure
definehow rightstolandareassignedwithinsocieties.They
define how access is granted to rights to use,controland
transfer land, as well as associated responsibilities and
restrictions.Insimpleterms,thelandtenuresystemsdetermine
who can usewhatresourcesforhow long and underwhat
conditions(FAO,2002).Thelandtenuremaybedefinedasthe
terms and conditions on which the land is held,used and
transacted(Adamsetal.,1999).Inbrief,tenuredetermineswho
canusewhatlandandhow(Lastarria-Cornhiel,1995).
AccordingtoFAO reportin1995,thelandtenureisoften
categorizedasprivate,communal,openaccessandstateland
tenures.Privateistheassignmentofrightstoaprivateparty,
aswithinacommunity,individualfamiliesorgroupofpeople
mayhaveexclusiverightstoresidentialoragriculturalparcels.
- 15 -
Othermembersofthecommunitycanbeexcludedaccessingthe
resourceswithouttheconsentofthosewhohold therights.
Communal is a right of commons may exist within a
community,asmembersofacommunitymayhavetherightto
useindependentlytheholdingsofthecommunity.Openaccess
isspecificrightsthatarenotassignedtoanyoneandno-one
canbeexcluded.Itusuallyincludesnaturalresourcessuchas
marine,rangelandsandforeststhatarefreetoaccess.State
land tenure is property rights that are assigned to some
authorityinthepublicsector.
The concepts and definitions of the land tenure are
presented by various institutions and scholars overin-depth
studies.Theimportanceofthelandtenureisacknowledgedas
thelandtenuresystem encompassesincommunityandcountry
level.Understandingandaddressingissuesofsecurelandtenure
iscriticalelementsinanydevelopmentalstrategy.
2.1.2Tenuresecurity
Tenuresecurityisameansofrecognizingtherightsof
thepoorbyextendingasenseofpermanenceandstabilityto
previouslymarginalizedpeople,allowingthem todesignshelter
andsurvivalstrategiesonthebasisoftheirprotectedhuman
rights(UnitedNation,2004).Providingsecurityoftenurefora
widerangeofthelandrightshasprovedsurprisinglyresistant
toresolution.Forexample,thereareanestimated700million
- 16 -
people living in informal settlements without security of
tenure(UN-Habitat,2003).Itimpliesthattherightofaccessto
anduseofthelandandthepropertyisunderwrittenbyaset
ofjustifiablerules.
Inboththeoryandpolicy,theideaoftenuresecurityfor
low-incomesettlementdwellersisencounteredinthreedistinct
forms:tenuresecurityasperceivedbydwellers,tenuresecurity
asalegalconstructanddefactotenuresecurity(VanGelder,
2009).Thisisfrom the‘tripartiteview’:conceptualization of
tenuresecurity.Inalllegalapproaches,tenuresecurityrefersto
thelegalstatusoftenureanditsprotectionbackedupbystate
authority.Thedefactoview oftenuresecurityisbasedonthe
actualcontrolofproperty,regardless ofthe legalstatus in
whichitisheld.Defactotenuresecuritycanbestbedefined
bytheelementsthatcomposeitorcontributetoit,suchasthe
lengthoftimeofoccupation,theolderasettlement,thehigher
theleveloflegitimacyandprotection,thesizeofthesettlement,
andthelevelandcohesionofcommunityorganizationasthe
bettertheorganization,thehighertheprobabilityofasuccessful
strategyofnon-compliance(Durand-Lasserve,2006;Payne,1997,
2001; Varley, 1987). The third form of tenure security
encounteredintheliteratureregardssecurityasitisperceived
bydwellers.Generally,thistakestheform ofahouseholdlevel
chanceestimatetowardstheperceivedprobabilityofevictionby
thestateorthelandownersometimescomplementedwithother
- 17 -
factorsthatmay causeinvoluntaryrelocationsuchasthreats
from and land conflicts with neighbors,gangs or family
members(VanGelder,2007,2009).
Differentcommunitiesexperiencedifferentlevelsoftenure
security,and the importance of tenure security is widely
acknowledged.According to Fricska(2009),The benefits of
tenuresecurityinclude:increasedinvestmentbypeopleintheir
homes,farms,villagesandneighborhoods;increasedagricultural
productivity,foodsecurityandmoresustainableuseofnatural
resources;improvedlivelihoodsfortheurbanpoor,particularly
forwomen,throughhome-basedenterpriseandlesstimespent
protecting theirasset(home);increased incentives forinward
investmentinbothruralandurbanareas;moreefficientland
markets;improved health and quality oflife,particularly in
informal settlements; increased Government revenue from
land-based taxesthatcan bereinvested in improved service
delivery;andimprovedsocialsolidarity.Inadditiontoitsrolein
protecting the fundamentalrightto land and houses,tenure
securityprovidesnumerousadditionalbenefits.Mostimportantly,
assecurityincreases,familiesinvestmoresavingsandsweat
equity to improve their housing.Increased security is also
associatedwithgreaterpoliticalstrengthandabilitytodemand
services(Ehrenberg,2006).
Without secured tenure,residents’sense of insecurity
preventsthem from investingsignificantlyintheirownshelter,
- 18 -
in consenting topay therelatively largeconnection feesfor
water,sanitation,andelectricity,andfrom contributinglaboror
money to upgrading or maintaining minimally adequate
environmentalconditionsandequipmentwithinthecommunity.
Insecurity of tenure also serves to make residents more
vulnerable to exploitation by criminals,politicians,or local
bosses.Moneythatmightotherwisebeinvestedinhousingor
landaform ofsavingisinsteadspentonobtainingpromisesof
protectionfrom eviction(Wstendorff,2009).
2.1.3Landrights
Thelandisacriticalasset,becauseitprovidesameans
oflivelihoodthroughtheproductionandsaleofcropandother
products.Inanycountry,thetypesoftenurecanbeexpressed
asa‘continuum oftenure’orasarangeofthelandrights.
Theserightsvarygreatlywithregardtowhatapersonholding
sucharightcandowiththeland(Fricskaetal.,2009).The
landrightisalsocalledaspropertyright.Thenatureofthe
propertyrightshasbeenshowntohaveanobservableimpact
onawiderangeofeconomicoutcomes.Thus,enforcementof
property rights through legal or social structures is a
prerequisite forproduction,investmentand exchange in the
economy.Propertyrightsrequiregovernanceinstitutionsstrong
enoughtoenforcethem,butatthesametimethesegovernance
institutions have to be constrained enough to limit
- 19 -
expropriation(Levine,2005;RiedingerandYadav,2011).
Therightsrelatedtothelandandpropertyincluderights
topossess,use,manage,alienate,transferandgainincomefrom
property.Inbrief,therearethreerightsapplyonthelands:use
rights,controlrightsand transferrights.Therightsarean
instrumentofsocietyandderivetheirsignificancefrom thefact
thatthey helpaman form thoseexpectationswhich hecan
reasonablyholdinhisdealingswithothers(Demsetz,1967).
Userightisarighttousethelandforgrazing,growing
subsistencecrops,gatheringminorforestryproducts,etc(FAO,
2002).Everyrightsrequiredtoberegistered,tohavetheforce
ofthelaw.NationalassemblyofSocialistRepublicofVietnam
states that registration of the land use right means the
recordingofthelawfullanduserightwithrespecttoadefined
parceloflandinthecadastralfileaimedatcreatingtherights
andobligationsofthelanduser.Thisissimilartomostofthe
socialistcountries.
Control right is the components of ownership that
comprise personal control and consumption of a
resource(Christman,1991).Itistomakedecisionshow theland
shouldbeusedincludingdecidingwhatcropsshouldbeplanted,
and to benefitfinancially from the sale ofcrops and etc.
Chsistman(1991)also have mentioned thatthe grantoffull
controlrightstoindividualswilldirectlyaffectthewell-beingof
surroundingindividuals.
- 20 -
Figure 3 continuum of land rights
(source: UN-Habitat,2008)
Transferrightisarighttosellormortgagetheland,to
conveythelandtoothersthroughintra-communityreallocations,
to transmit the land to heirs through inheritance,and to
reallocate use and controlrights(FAO,2002).Tribal,feudal,
colonial,capitalist,socialist and religious societies have all
evolved distinctiveconceptsconcerning theuseright,control
rightandtransferrightofland.
The Figure above illustrates the land rightsituations
foundinmanycountriesintheworld.Itclearlydemonstrates
thedegreeoftenuretypesandtherangeoflandrightsinthe
world.UN-Habitat(2008)expresstherangeofpossibleformsof
tenureasa continuum,and each ofthem providesdifferent
degreesofsecuritywithdifferentsetsofrights.However,there
arelimitationsinthislinearpresentation,asitdespitethatthere
aremanyothercategoriesofothertenuresystems.Thereare
- 21 -
systemsofferequally high levelsofsecurity and legality as
registeredfreeholdorequallylow levelsofsecurityandlegality
asperceivedtenureapproaches.Alsoitimpliesthatcustomary
tenuresystem isrelativelyinformal,butitvarydependonthe
landandtenuresituation.
2.2LiteratureReview
Thisanalysis ofthe land tenuresystem typespresents
relevantinformationthatcanbenefitfuturelandpractices.The
purposeofthisthesisistoprovideaframeworkfortheland
ownershiptypesintheworldandtodescribethecharacteristics
ofthem.Thepurposeofthisstudyisoutliningtypologyofthe
landownershipsystemsthroughtheprocessofliteraturesurvey.
This research is importantfrom an academic pointofview.
Muchhasbeenpublishedonthelandtenure,butnoneofthe
previousstudiespresentthelandtenuresystemsonlyfocuson
ownership status.Meaning,they arelargely executed without
understanding thecriticalrelationship oftheland development
andthelandownershipsystem.Therearefew previousefforts
to analyze the land tenure systems,as numberofpublished
documentsprovidegeneralinformationofthelandtenure.There
aremanypublicationsrelatedtothelandtenurethatfocuseson
aspecificcountry,groupofcountrieswithsimilarbackgrounds,
developingcountries,orreligiouspointofview.
- 22 -
Therearepreviousstudiestrytoidentifyandemphasisthe
importance of each country’s land tenure system,property
security and itsrelated policy and laws(2004;2011;Abdulahi,
2007;AfridiandBaryalay,2010;Aliet al., 2014;Anderson,2006;
Arko-Adjei,2011;Aumann,1974;Barryetal., 2007;Besley,1995;
Boggs,2007;Chevalier,1967;congress,2007;Cotula,2006;De
VanyandSanchez,1979;Development,2010b,c,e,a,d;Dixon,
2009;Durand-Lasserve,2012;Ensminger,1997;Firman,1997;
Gebeyehu,2013;Gil,2000;HanstadandDuncan,2001;Institute,
2004;Kong,2012;Brandtetal., 1998;LusuggaKironde,2000;
Grosjeanetal., 2011;Ampadubetal., 2011;Ollennu,1962;Place
andOtsuka,2001;Programme,2012;Renger,1995;Rudiarto,2006;
Salerno,2011;Savant-Mohit,2004;Thirkell,1996;UN-Habitat,
2005a,b,c,d,2014;Wily,2011;Wily,2003;ChoiandJung,2008).
Thereareliteraturereviewsonthelandtenurewhichpays
attentionsonaspecificcountry,groupofcountrieswithsimilar
cultural,socio-economical,religious backgrounds ordeveloping
countriespointofview(Baranyietal., 2004;Bertaudetal., 1995;
Boydelletal., 2008;ChauveauandCotula,2007;Cousinsand
Claassens,2004;Crais,2006;Dam,2006;Development,2012;
Doebele,1987;ECE,1996;Fernandes,2011;Franzsen,2002;
Hofstee,1972; Kajoba,2002; Kasper,2007; Khamaisi,1995;
Menezes,1988;Napier,2002;Okoth-Ogendo,2000;Payne,1997;
Programme,2010;Quizon,2013;RakodiandLeduka,2004;Roth
and Haase,1998;Saitand Lim,2006;saitand Peters,2011;
- 23 -
Tannous,1951;UN-Habitat,2005,2010;WienerBravo,2011;
Zimmermann,2011).
Therearealsoexistingstudiesthattriedtoconductways
ofthelandreform instudyingcountries(BarracloughandReform,
1999;Besley and Burgess,2000;Brown,2004;Bruce,2006;
Coldham,1995;DeiningerandFeder,2009;Fairley,2013;Johnson,
1998;Kalabamu,2000;Lee,2000;Marsh and MacAulay,2002;
ThompsonandWilson,1994;Lee,2001).
Therehavebeennumerousresearchesonthelandtenure
system andthelandownershiptodeductimplicationsforthe
reunificationofcountrieslikeNorthandSouthKorea,problem of
poverty,orissuesrelated to urbanization aswell(Alchian and
Demsetz,1973; ALIYU,2009; Augustinus,2003; Bell,2006;
Bezemer,2006;Bruce,1998;Christman,1991;Claassens,2014;
Cohen,2006;Congressi,2009;Cotula etal.,2004;Creekmore,
2000;Cymet,1992;Deininger,2003;Demsetz,1967;Development,
2012;Dunning,1990;Durand-Lasserve,2006;Durand-Lasserve
andRoyston,2002;Durand-LasserveandSelod,2009;ehrenberg,
2006;Ellickson,1993;Engels,1999;Enterprise,2009;Evans,1921;
Evers,1984;Federand Noronha,1987;Firman,2004;Greene,
2005;Grindle,2004;Ho,2001;Huffman,1998;Jimenez,1984;
Johnson,1972;Kameri-Mbote,2005;Kehoe,1976;Khemroand
Payne,2004;KivellandMcKay,1988;KombeandKreibich,2000;
Loynsetal.,2000;Kameri-Mboteetal.,2007;Mennen,2012;
MontalvoandRavallion,2010;Nations,2014;NorfolkandTanner,
- 24 -
2007; Fricska et al.,2009; Payne,2001,2004; Payne and
Durand-Lasserve,2012;Pottier,2005;Powell,1998;Programme,
2012;Report,2013;RuralDevelopmentandLandReform,2013;
Houseetal.,2005;Secretariat,2008;Sietchiping etal.,2012;
UN-Habitat,2008,2012;Van Gelder,2010;Westendorff,2009;
WhiteandMartin,2002;Wright,1989;Yiri,2006;LeeandLee,
2004;ChoiandLee,1998).
Inbrief,therearepreviousstudiesfocusononespecific
country,groups ofthem with similar culturalor historical
backgrounds.Therearealsostudiestogiveimplicationsona
landrelatedglobalissues.Allofthesefactorssuggestthegreat
importanceofthisthesis,aswellastheneedfordocumenting
theland tenuresecurity system acrossthecountriesin the
world.Therefore,thisthesiscanstimulatediscussionandfuture
effortstoresearchthelandsystems.Categorizationoftheland
tenuresystem intheworld,descriptionofeachsystem type’s
characteristic, and qualitative analysis of advantage and
disadvantageofeachtypearethecriticalissueofthisstudy
whichdifferentiateitfrom previousresearches.
- 25 -
Ⅲ.LandTenureCategorization
3.1CurrentLandTenureSystems
There are numerous international organizations and
institutionsthatstudy onglobalconcernsrelatedtotheland
issues.UN-Habitat,WorldBankandGLTN arethewell-known
globalorganizationsthatworksonthelandtenuresecurityin
the world. The global organizations have announced the
numbersofdifferentlandtenuresystems.
The United Nations Human Settlements Programme,
UN-Habitat,istheUnitedNationagencyforhumansettlements
andamemberoftheUnitedNationsDevelopmentGroup.Itis
mandatedbytheUnitedNationsGeneralAssemblytopromote
socially andenvironmentally sustainablelandsandsustainable
urbandevelopment.Ithasagoalofprovidingadequateshelter
forall.UN-Habitatworksinmorethan70countriesin five
continentsfocusingonsevenareas:UrbanLegislation,Landand
Governance; Urban Planning and Design; Urban Economy;
Urban Basic Services;Housing and Slum Upgrading;Risk
Reduction and Rehabilitation;Urban Research and Capacity
Development.
UN-Habitat(2008)hasanalyzedthelandtenuresystems:
- 26 -
Tenure
systemCharacteristics Advantages Limitations
FreeholdOwnership in
perpetuiry
High degree
of security.
Freedom to
dispose, or
use
as collateral
for loans.
Maximises
commercial
value,
potential for
Costs of
access
generally high.
Collateral
value may not
be
relevant if
incomes are
low or
financial
institutions are
Table 1 Land Tenure Systems
freehold,delayed freehold,registered leasehold,public rental,
private rental,shared equity,co-operative tenure,customary
ownership,religioustenuresystems,intermediateortemporary
tenuresystemsandnon-formaltenuresystems.Thetablebelow
(table1)isfrom UN-Habitatreportin2008,showseachform
oftenuresystem,itscharacteristics,benefitsandlimitationsin
differentcontexts.Itprovides an overview ofsome ofthe
distinguishingfeaturesofthedifferentapproaches.Therangeof
tenure system categories include a wide range of legal,
semi-legal and non-legal categories, and serves different
demandandneedsofvarioussocioeconomicgroups.Asshown
inthetable,somesystemsareoftennotdocumentedandcan
varyindegreeofsecurity.
- 27 -
increases in
asset
values.
weak.
Property
values can go
down as
well as up.
Delayed
freehold
Conditional
ownership.
Title
is granted on
payment or
when
developments
have been
completed.
Same high
degree of
security
as freehold
when
payments
are made on
schedule or
developments
are completed.
Freedom to
dispose, or
use as
collateral for
loans.
Maximises
commercial
value,
potential for
increases in
asset
values.
Default in
payments or
developments
may result in
eviction and
loss of funds
invested.
Collateral
value may
not be
relevant if
incomes are
low. Property
values can go
down as well
as up.
Expectations
of increased
values
can divert
investments
from
more
productive
- 28 -
sectors.
Registered
Leasehold
Ownership for
a specified
period from a
few months to
999 years.
As secure as
freehold, but
only
for the period
specified in
the
lease.
Requires legal
framework.
Costs of
access
generally high.
Public rental
Rental
occupation of
Stateowned
land or house
Provides a
high degree of
security,
providing
terms and
conditions of
occupation are
met.
Limited supply
may restrict
access. Often
badly located
for
access to
livelihoods.
Terms
often
restrictive.
Deterioration
may result if
maintenance
costs
not met.
Private rental
Rental of
privately
owned land
or property.
Good security
if protected
by
legally
enforceable
contract.
Open to abuse
by
disreputable
owners.
Deterioration
may
- 29 -
Provides
tenants with
flexibility
of movement.
result if
maintenance
costs not
met.
Shared equity
Combination of
delayed
freehold and
rental in which
residents
purchase a
stake in
their property
(often 50%)
and
pay rent on
the remainder
to
the other
stakeholder.
Combines the
security and
potential
increase in
asset value
of delayed
freehold and
the
flexibility of
rental.
Residents can
increase their
stake over
time,
ultimately
leading to full
ownership.
Requires a
proper legal
framework
and efficient
management.
Co-operative
tenure
Ownership is
vested in the
cooperative
or group of
which
residents are
co-owners
Good security.
Maintains
social
cohesion.
Requires a
proper legal
framework.
Restrictions
may reduce
incentives to
invest.
Requires
double
- 30 -
registration
first of land
and of
association
Customary
ownership
Ownership is
vested in the
tribe, group,
community or
family. Land is
allocated by
customary
authorities such
as
chiefs.
Widely
accepted.
Simple to
administer.
Maintains
social
cohesion.
May lose its
legal status in
urban areas.
Vulnerable to
abuse under
pressure of
urban
and market
development.
Poor
customary
leadership
may
weaken its
legitimacy.
Religious
tenure
systems
(e.g. Islamic)
Islamic tenure
has four main
categories:
‘Waqf ’ is
religious
trust land and
addresses
landlessness;
`mulk’, is full
individual
ownership;
Facilitates
family/group
tenures
and accessible
and affordable
land
management
procedures
Because they
are outside
the
commercial
land market,
waqf
lands are
often
inefficiently
managed.
Inheritance
- 31 -
`miri’,
is state
owned/controlle
d land
which carries
usufruct rights,
whilst
`musha/mushta
rak’, is
collective/tribal
ownership.
disputes
can cause
land conflicts
Intermediate,
or
temporary,
tenure
systems
There are
many pragmatic
arrangements,
including land
certification,
‘Certificates
of Comfort’,
Temporary
Occupation
Licenses, etc.
These provide
reasonable
security for
households to
invest, whilst
protecting
long
term public
interest
options for
change.
Costs may be
incurred by
authorities or
residents if
relocation is
required. If
these
prove
excessive,
redevelopment
can be
inhibited.
Non-formal
tenure
systems
These include
many
categories
with varying
degrees of
legality
or illegality.
Some of these
non-formal
categories,
such as
squatting,
started as a
response to
As demand
has
intensified,
even
these informal
tenure
categories
- 32 -
They include
regularised and
un-regularised
squatting,
unauthorised
subdivisions on
legally owned
land and
various forms
of
unofficial rental
arrangements.
In some cases,
several forms
of tenure may
co-exist on the
same plot, (e.g.
tenants and
sub-tenants),
with each party
entitled to
certain rights.
the
inability of
public
allocation
systems or
formal
commercial
markets to
provide for
the
needs of the
poor and
operated
on a socially
determined
basis.
have become
commercialize
d,
so that access
by lower
income groups
is increasingly
constrained.
(source: UN-Habitat,2008)
TheWorldBankandGLTN alsohaveannouncedthe
numberofdifferentlandtenuresystems.TheWorldBankisan
United Nations international financial institution that is
- 33 -
componentoftheWorldBank Group,alsoamemberofthe
UnitedNationsDevelopmentGroup.Thisorganizationprovides
loanstodevelopingcountriesforcapitalprograms,withagoals
to achieve by 2030 which is ending extreme poverty by
decreasingthepercentageofpeoplelivingonlessthan$1.25a
daytonomorethan3percent(WorldBank,2008;2011).There
hadbeen voluminousstudiesandreportspublishedby World
Bankrelatedtopovertytoimprovethelandusage.
TheGlobalLandToolNetwork(GLTN)isanalliance
organizationofglobalregionalandnationalpartnerfacilitatedby
UN-Habitat.Itcontributestopovertyalleviation,improvedthe
landmanagementandsecurityoftenure.Itsmainobjectiveis
to contributeto poverty alleviation through theland reform,
improved theland managementand security oftenure,with
principlesin thedevelopmentofthelandtoolsthatare;pro
poor, good governance, equity, subsidiarity, sustainability,
affordability,systematiclargescaleandgendersensitiveness.
The table below (table 2)is the listofthe tenure
systemswhich theorganizationshasannounced.Thelistof
existingtenuresystemsbyUN-Habitatincludesbothleasehold
andownershipincountries,wherethelistbyWorldBankis
morefocusedonleaseholdsystem and GLTN presentsmore
connoted listoftenure systems.The hierarchy ofthe land
tenuresystemsaredifferentbetween theorganizations.Each
servesdifferentsectionsofdemandsandneedsofdifferent
- 34 -
UN-Habitat WorldBank GLTN
1.Freehold
2.Delayedfreehold
3.Registered
Leasehold
4.Publicrental
5.Privaterental
6.Sharedequity
7.Co-operative
tenure
8.Customary
ownership
9.Religioustenure
systems
-Islamic
10.Intermediate,or
temporary,
tenuresystem
11.Non-formal
tenuresystems
1.Squatters
2.Pavement
dwellers
3.Occupantsin
unauthorizedland
subdivisions
4.Holdersof
temporary
permitstooccupy
5.Holdersof
long-term or
renewable
permitstooccupy
6.Leaseholderswith
nocontract
7.Leaseholderswith
formalcontract
8.Long-term
leaseholders
9.Freeholders
1.Statutory/formal
tenure
2.Customarytenure
3.Informaltenure
4.Rental,Easements
5.Sharecropping
6.Communityor
groupowner-ship
Table 2 Announced Land Tenure Systems
society groups.Some systems exist under different tenure
systems.Forexample,publicrental,privaterentalandregistered
leaseholdarerestoredtotenuresystems.Also,differentlength
ofleasehold systems can be suggested into concise tenure
systems.Thetable3isthelistofthelandtenuresystemsafter
- 35 -
eliminating theduplicates.Thecombined listofthesystems
announcedbytheorganizations.
ExistingLandTenureSystems
1.Freehold
2.Delayedfreehold
3.Leaseholder(Registeredleasehold,tenantwithcontract)
4.Rental(public,private)
5.Sharedequity
6.Co-operativetenure
7.Statutorytenure
8.Customarytenure(formaltenure)
9.Religioustenuresystem (Islamic)
10.Communaltenure(communityorgroupownership)
11.Publictenure
12.Intermediateortemporarytenuresystem
13.Non-formal(informal)/squattertenant/extralegaltenure
Table 3 Existing Land Tenure Systems
3.2LandOwnershipCategorization
Thelandsystemsfrom thelistofexistinglandtenure
systems can be re classified into fourcategories:rental(use
right),uncertain ownership,collectiveownership and individual
ownership.Table4showseachtenuresystem withitsuseright
statusandownershipstatusclearly.Thisthesisistoinvestigate
- 36 -
Rental
(useright)
Uncertain
ownership
Collective
ownership
Individual
ownership
Freehold InformaltenureReligious
tenuresystemStatutorytenure
Delayed
freehold
Communal
tenure
Customary
tenure
Leaseholder Publictenure
Rental(public,
private)
Sharedequity
Co-operative
tenureIntermediate,
temporary
tenure
Table 4 Categorized Land Tenure Systems
andanalyzetheexisting landownershipsystem in theworld,
acknowledgingtheimportanceofthelandownershipinreducing
globalissueslikepoverty,developmentandimprovingrealestate
market.Focusing on the ownership status,those published
existingtenuresystemscanbedifferentiatebetweenrentaland
ownership.
Thefigure3illustratesthelandownershipcategorization
processinflow.Throughtheanalysisofthepilotstudiesonthe
land tenure systems,the systems could be categorized into
institutional frames: Statutory-private ownership,
Customary-private ownership, Public ownership, Religious
- 37 -
ownership,CommunalownershipandInformalownership.Each
ownershipsystem differin radicalfacts,such aswhetherthe
land has cadaster or not,to whom and how the land is
registeredandmanaged,andwhohastheownershiptotheland.
Thetenuresystemslandscapeinbothindustrializedand
developingcountriesconsistsofapatchworkofgovernment/state,
communal/private and individual/private property rights
arrangements(Bruce,1986).Dualormultiplelandtenuresystems
may co-existin many countries depends on severalfactors:
statutory law alongsideinformal,customary practices,religious
law and etc.A range of customary,statutory and hybrid
institutionsandregulationshavingdejureordefactoauthority
overthelandrightsco-existinthesameterritory,aphenomenon
referred to as legalpluralism(Cotula et al.,2004,2).The
ownershiptypology providesan overview oftheexisting land
tenure systems, which may improve the accessibility of
developmentprocess.Approachestolanddevelopmentdiffercase
bycase,buthavingtheknowledgeofthelandownershipstatus
ofthelandallowseasieraccessfordecisionmaking.
- 38 -
Figure 3 Land Ownership Categorization
- 39 -
Ⅳ.TheCharacteristicsofLandOwnership
Typology
4.1Statutory-PrivateOwnership
Theconceptofprivatepropertyrightsisanintegralpart
ofthelegalstructureofEuropeansociety(UnitedNations,1973).
The ‘Statutory-Private ownership’ system prioritizes
individualizationofthelandownership.Itistheofficialsystem
ofpeople’s relationship to the land,embedded within legal
documentationandupheldthroughanadministrativesystem for
creating and maintaining the land rights.Itis enforced by
writtencertificatesandformallykeptlandregistries.
AccordingtoFoodandAgricultureOrganizationofthe
UnitedNations(2002),statutory-privatesystem assignsrightsto
aprivatepartywhomaybeanindividual,amarriedcouple,a
group ofpeople,oracorporatebody such asa commercial
entity or non-profit organization. For example, within a
community,individualfamilies may have exclusive rights to
residentialparcels,agriculturalparcelsandcertaintrees.Other
membersofthecommunitycanbeexcludedfrom usingthese
resourceswithouttheconsentofthosewhoholdtherights.
Thestatutory-privateownershipsystem canbeillustrated
as a synonym with the formalwritten law.Administration
- 40 -
system ofstatutorytenuresystem prioritizesindividualizationof
thelandownershipthatisassignedtosomeauthority in the
public sector.The land is protected by legally enforceable
contract.Withalegalframeworkandefficientmanagement,the
system hasgoodsecurity.
The statutory-private ownership system forthe land
managementusually operatewith considerablepossibilitiesfor
negotiation(Chauveau and Jean-Pierre, 2007). The system
providesahighdegreeofsecurity,aswellasafreedom to
dispose or use as collateralfor loans.It can maximizes
commercialvalue,enablingpeopletorealizesubstantialincrease
inassetvalues.
4.2Customary-PrivateOwnership
Customary-privateownershipsystemshasitsuseand
allocationofthelandareundercontrolofacommunity;itmay
bedeterminedbythetriballeadersorbytraditionandrestricts
whatoccupantsofthelandmay dowith it.Thecustomary
systems are usually managed by a land or village chief,
traditionalrulerorcouncilofelders.The customary-private
landownershipsystem ischaracterizedbyitslargelyunwritten
nature,as itis generally connoted with the informalland
arrangements.The system is based on localpractices and
norms,and is flexible,negotiable and location specific.Its
- 41 -
principlesstem from rightsestablishedthroughfirstclearanceof
the land or conquest.This tenure type is notstatic,but
continuallyevolvingasaresultofdiversefactorslikecultural
interactions,socio-economicchangeand politicalprocesses.It
reflectstheparticularneedsofthelocalcommunity,mirrorsthe
culturalandsocialvaluesofthegroup.
AsFisher(1993),hasnoted,themajorcharacteristicof
customarytenureisthatthelandisregardedasbelongingnot
totheindividualbuttothewholesocialgroup.Thecustomary
landisnotsubjecttopersonalownership,althoughuse-rights
arealienablewithinandbetweenmembersofthecommunity.
Thereisabirthrighttosubsistenceopportunityforeachfamily
head;each family is granted use-rights of habitation and
cultivationaccordingtotheirneed.
The customary-private land ownership type evolved
from largely agriculturalsocieties in which there was little
competitionfortheland,andthereforethelandhadnoeconomic
valueinitself.Inthesystem,thelandisregardedassacred,
and man’s role is considered to be one ofstewardship,to
protectthe interests offuture generations.A single person
usuallyadministersthelandonbehalfofthegrouporcountry
member. Allocation, use, transfer and other land related
activitiesaredeterminedbyleadersofthecommunityaccording
to itsneeds,ratherthan through paymentwith token,beer,
moneyorcattle(Payne,2001).A recentreportsfrom FAO and
- 42 -
UN-Habitatcallsthesecustomarychiefsa‘livingcadaster’and
customarysystems‘themostenduringandflexiblemechanisms
forthemajority ofpeopletosecureaccesstotheland and
resolveconflicts’.Yiri(2006)hasdefinedthecustomarylandsas
comprisingoflandsownedbystools,skins,clansandfamilies.
Thelandsfollow traditionalrulerswhoaretheoccupantsof
stoolsandskins.Underthechieftaincyallcitizensofthestate
haveaccesstotheland.
ThetenuretypeisfoundinmostpartsofAfrica,Middle
East,Melanesia and once upon a time in North America.
Customary formsoftenurearealsorecognized in Indonesia,
Thailand,severalPacific Island states,including Papua New
Guinea,and in severalCentraland Latin American countries
includingBrazil,Ecuador,HondurasandMexico(Fricskaetal.,
2009).InRwanda,thecustomaryownershipsystemsarewell
suitedtoresolvingconflictswithinacommunitybutfacemuch
greaterdifficulty inreducing conflictacrossgroups,ethnicity,
and type of land use such as pastoralist and sedentary
agriculturalists(GershonandKlaus,2013).
Inthiscontext,traditionsarecontinuouslyreinventedto
backconflictingclaimsofdifferentsocialgroups(Cotula,2006).
Undercustomarylaw,therightsofindividualstoplotsofthe
land wereusufructuary only,though individualfarmerscould
passthelandontotheirheirs.Ownershipwasgenerallyvested
inalineageorclan,andachieforagroupofelderscontrolled
- 43 -
thelandsheldbysuchgroups(Dunning,1990).
InMalawi,thepowersofcustomaryauthoritiesoverthe
landcease.Inaddition,exceptwiththeconsentinwritingof
the Allocation Officer,no person or customary owner can
proceedwithortakecognizanceofanydisputeconcerningland.
Then,atthesecondstateoftheprocess,ademarcationofficer
entertainsclaimsonthelands,allocatedpursuanttotheterms
oftheallocationstatutes.Form oflaw andgovernment(Dunning,
1990).
CountrieslikeBotswanaand Nambiahassimilarland
ownershipsystem.Thecustomarylandrightforresidentialand
arablepurposesaresecuredbyanAct,Customarylandgrant
certificate.UndertheAct,thecustomary land rightmay be
cancelled with board approval,in severalcasessuch asfor
failuretoobservethelanduserestrictions,whenthelandis
required for public use,to ensure fair and equitable land
distributions,when the use ofland in contravention ofthe
customarylandlaw,andforfailuretocultivateordevelopthe
land within aspecificperiod.Underthecustomary law,the
governmentoperatewithin each tribalterritory allocating the
land forresidential,arable,industrial,commercialand other
purposes.In both Botswana and Nambia,they require the
written consentofthetraditionalauthority when transferring
thecustomarylandrights(USAID,2008).
InKenya,thecollectivelandholdingsystemsexistover
- 44 -
sixty-fivepercentofthecountry.Lack oflegally enforceable
rights to trustland caused generalland problems,such as
vulnerabilitytointerferenceorsettingapartofcustomaryrights
by the government,difficulty in securing creditand other
development finances using the land as collateral,lack of
administrativesupportforthecustomarysystem oflandrights,
makingthepositionoftheoccupantsofthevulnerable,andlack
ofenforceablecustomarylandrightstograntcommunitylandin
exchangeformoneyortobolstertheirpersonalpower.Legal
insecuritymakesitdifficultforpeopletoprotecttheirland.The
demandforaregimeofcommunity landtenurehasresulted
from whether from setting apart,or any other form of
compulsoryacquisition
There have been recognitions of the need of
documenting and mapping the existing customary land
ownership systems to derive broad policy principles that
facilitatethecustomarylaw.Itwillestablishaclearlegislative
framework,protection ofthe customary rights to land and
land-basedresources.NationalLandPolicyFormulationProcess,
NLPFP,istoestablishframeworktooperatethelandmarket
moreefficientlyandeffectively.Themostimportantofproviding
framework for the management and administration of the
community land ofthe customary land law has significant
implicationsforsecurityofthelandownershipofthemajority
ofKenyanswhoderivelivelihoodsfrom communityheldland
- 45 -
andtheland-basednaturalresources(TheConstitutionofKenya,
2007).
InMozambique,formalizationofcustomaryownershipis
onlyavailableatthecommunitylevel,nottheindividuallevel.
Thecommunitiesarefreeto abideby theirown customary
rulesandgovernancestructureswithintheircollectiveholding
andadaptthem asneeded.Thereareonlysingleform ofthe
landrightestablishedbythelandlaw inMozambique,referred
toasa‘DUAT’,DireitodeUsoeAproveitamentodeTerra,
whichistherightofuseandbenefittotheland.Inthesystem
ofDUAT,thereisarecognition oflong-standing occupancy,
whichisthecustomaryoccupation.Itistheoccupationofthe
landby individualpersonsorby localcommunitieswith the
accordance of customary norms(Norfolk,2009).The DUAT
system affordscommunitiesandgoodfaithoccupier’sperpetual
useandexploitationrights.Withthesystem,rightholdersare
abletotransfertheirrightstothelandtoothers.Therightto
theland are vested in alladultmemberofthecommunity
whichcanbeestablishedbydocumentaryproofandthroughthe
oraltestimony ofcommunity members(Norfolk,2009;USAID,
2008).
Incustomary-privateownershipsystem type,alltheland
areallocatedbycustomaryauthoritieslikechiefs.Peopleliving
undercustomaryownershipsystems,placemoreimportanceon
equity and respect for cultural traditions.The benefit of
- 46 -
customary ownership isminimization ofthetransaction costs
anditissimpletoadminister(boydelletal.,2008).Itmaintain
theirtraditionalpowerandsocialresponsibilitiestoallocatethe
rights to use, resolve conflicts and carry out overall
managementofthe customary land.Itresults vulnerable to
abuse under pressure of urban development. Also, poor
customaryleadershipmayweakenitslegitimacy.Thecustomary
ownership also has vulnerability in markets,as customary
ownershipexistmostly in rurallandofcountries,ruralland
markets are highly limiter,the customary landowners are
asset-rich,cash poorandhavevery littleinformation onthe
real opportunity cost value of their land(Anderson, 2006;
Anthony,2010).
4.3PublicOwnership
Publicownershipisasystem appliesonthepublicland,
inthecustodianshipofstate,municipalityorlocalauthority.It
is known as the outcome ofsocialistideology.In socialist
countries,allrightsarevested in thestate.Theconceptof
publiclandownershipenableallsectionsofsocietytoobtain
accesstotheland(Payne,2001).Thepublicorprivatedomainof
thestateand oflocalgovernment(LasserveandSelod,2007).
Virtually allsocietiesacknowledgetheconceptofpublicland
ownership to some degree.Buildings for public institution,
- 47 -
governmentoffice,andnationalparksinanycountriesvestin
publicownership.Initsextremeform,somecountrieslikein
Africa,thestatemay own alloftheland and alsoallocate
rights to access, use, development and transfer, a
situation(DuncanandHanstad,2001).
PublicOwnershipmaybereservedforareasofstrategic
importanceorbenefitforcommunity.Italsomaybereservedin
case of future need.Public ownership reduce the inequity
betweenthelandownerswhodoordonotreceivedevelopment
permission,and forensuring thatthe community gains the
overallfinancialbenefit(KivellandMckay,1987).
Ontheotherhand,theconcepthavelimitationsofthe
demandswhichitplacesuponthecapabilityandintegrityof
administrativesystemsandtheirabilitytorespondefficientlyto
changes in demand.Ithas rarely achieved high levels of
efficiencyduetobureaucraticinefficiency.Difficultiesinpractice
haveraisedthecostsoflandmanagementandconstrainedlevel
ofinvestmentand developmentwhich would have benefited
lowerincomegroups(Payne,1996;2001).
ThelandsinsocialistcountrieslikeChinaandVietnam
areunderpubliclandownershipsystems.InVietnam,seventy
percentofthepopulationlivesinruralareas,primarilyworking
in agriculture,and aboutone-third ofthe land area is in
agriculturaluse.ThelandinVietnam belongstothepopulation
asawhole,andisadministeredbythestateonthepublic’s
- 48 -
behalf.Citizensandorganizationsrelyupontheland-userights,
butdo notown the land.They only have usufructrights,
meaningrightholdersmayusetheland,butlandownershipis
notallowed.Theuserightsincludetherighttoastate-issued
land-userightcertificate,calledLURC.Itentitlesholderstosell,
rent,exchange,mortgageandbequeaththeiruserights,andto
excludeothersfrom theland.Thecertificateisforsecured
tenure,formalland transactions,accessto formalcreditand
legalprotection ofthe land use right(United States Agency
International,2010).The land law governs the powers and
responsibilitiesoftheStateasrepresentativeoftheownership
ofthelandbytheentirepeopleforuniform administrationof
thelandandtheregimeforadministrationanduseoftheland;
and therightsand obligationsoftheland users.Chinahas
achievedagreatsuccessinreducingpovertythrougheconomic
growth since the economic reforms thatstarted in the late
1970s.Localadministrativeallocationofthelandtherefore,cases
oflandlessnessisveryrareinChina(Montalvoetal.,2010).The
land belongs to the entire people with the State as the
representativeowner.
The State shallexercise the rightofdisposalwith
respecttothelandwhendecidinglandusepurposesbypassing
decisionsandbyconsideringandapprovingthelandusezoning
andthelanduseplans,decidingthequotasonallocationofland
andondurationoflanduse,decidingallocationofland,leaseof
- 49 -
land,landrecoveryandpermissionforconversionoflanduse
purposeanddetermininglandprices.Statecarriesoutuniform
stateadministrationofthelandasrepresentativeofownership
of the land by the entire people.The State shallissue
certificates ofthe land use rightto the people when they
allocating landbyorleasing landfrom theState,exceptfor
leasesofagriculturallandtouseforcommunitypurposesofa
commune,ward ortownship (SocialistRepublic ofVietnam,
2004).
4.4ReligiousOwnership
Many literatureshavebeen studiedon religioustenure,
whichisdifferentfrom the‘religiousownership’inthisthesis.
Thereligiousownership which thisthesisdefinesistheland
belongstotheking,emir,royallineagesorsultans.Inmostof
thecountries,theroyalregimehasbeeneliminated,butcountries
likeSaudiArabia,Bhutan,Brunei,UnitedArabEmirates,andetc.
stillremains some degrees ofthe monarchy and theirland
ownershipsystem.KingofMorocco,SultanQuaboosofOman,
KingAbdullahofJordan,theEmirofKuwaitandSheikhHamad
ofQatararethecasesoftheroyallineages.Theprevalenceof
therulerastheultimateownerofthelandistypicalinthose
countries.Thoserulersarethelargestindividualland owner.
Withamonarchatitshead,thestatethatclaimsownershipof
- 50 -
all land and is feudal in its conception and often
totalitarian(Cahill,2011).Thecentralleveldecisionsoftenoverride
theirlocalmanagementfunctions,itbases on the normative
frameworkwhichhasinconsistencies.Morethan3/4ofallland
is public land in the countries,and those land remains not
completed.Being partialinterestorsecondary land rightsare
neither registered nor robust, results issues of
insecurity(Zommermann,2011).
UAE is a federation ofseven emirates:Abu Dhabi,
Ajman,AlFujayrah,Dubai,RasalKhaymah,Sharjah,andUmm
alQaywayn.Eachhasitsowngovernment,whichfunctionsin
tandem withthefederalgovernment.Thelargestemirate,Abu
Dhabi,has its own centralgoverning body,the Executive
Council,chairedbythecrownprince.Similartootheremirates
the NationalConsultative Councilfunctions like the Federal
National Council, and local departments carry out various
administrativefunctions(libraryofcongress,2007).
UAE hasaveryrapid growthintermsofpopulation
andeconomy.Forexample,fiftyyearsago,thestatusofDubai
wasaninsignificant,poverty-riddensettlementof30,000.Today
itis a city-state of1.4 million people expanding its global
outreachandundertakingarangeofhigh-profileinvestmentsand
acquisitions.Thereligiousownershipfunctionsasthekeyfactor
ofinsuccessoftherapiddevelopment.UAEhasaveryunique
developmentrecord.Ithas been government-led development,
- 51 -
whichmeansthegovernment,nottheprivatesector,takesthe
leadinthedevelopment.
The decision-making structure in UAE is extremely
centralized.Althoughnotademocraticideal,centralizationallows
for fast decision making and significant coordination of
developmentactivitiesandinvestments.Indecisionmakingandin
implementation,speedhasbecomeatrademarkofDubai,andit
allows much tighter integration and easier decision making.
Centralizedapproachisoneofthedefiningcharacteristicsofthe
developmentalstateparadigm inDubai-hasbeenreinforcedby
the traditional tribal(patrimonial) leadership style. This has
enabled the city-state to carefully build a portfolio of
complementary assets that possess significantbackward and
forward linkages in the economy and thus secures a high
developmentalimpactforDubai(Hvidt,2009).
Theknownreligiouslandtenuresystem isaconceptof
dualownership.Withitsreligiousterms,allpropertyandland
vest in God,but are temporally enjoyed by human with
responsibility.LiteraturesreferthereligioustenureasanIslamic
landtenuresystem.UnderIslamictheory,thestate’sroleinland
managementisseenassupervisinglandultimatelybelongingto
God. Lim(2006) defines, Islamic property rights framework
conceives ofland as a sacred trustbutpromotes individual
ownershipwitharedistributiveethos.
Both ofthereligiousownershipand thereligiousland
- 52 -
tenureshareacommoncharacterofIslam,themonotheisticand
AbrahamicreligionarticulatedbytheQur’an.Islam istheworld’s
secondlargestreligion.Over1.6billionorabout23.4% ofthe
worldpopulationareMuslims,anditisdominantreligioninthe
Middle East,Africa,and some countries ofAsia.Religious
Propertyrightsacrossthe57Muslim majoritycountries.Cannot
begeneralizedaboutortooeasilyattributedtoreligiousinfluence
or history alone.It is conditionalon the requirement that
propertynotbeusedwastefullyorexploitatively,orinaway
thatwilldepriveothersofheirjustlyacquiredproperty.Religious
ownershiplandsareoutsideofthecommerciallandmarket,sois
ofteninefficientlymanaged.
4.5CommunalOwnership
What ‘communal’ generally means is a degree of
communitycontroloverwhoisallowedintothegroup,thereby
qualifyingforanallocationoflandforresidenceandcropping,
aswellasrightsofaccesstothecommonpropertyresources
usedbythegroup(Claassensetal.,2004).Withthemeansof
communal,communallandownershipsystem ischaracterizedas
aterritoryinpossessionofthatunderacommunalsystem.The
communalencompassrightofcommons may existwithin a
communitywithrighttouseindependentlytheholdingsofthe
community.
- 53 -
The generalcharacteristic of communalland tenure
system typeisthatrightstothelandandnaturalresourcesare
sharedandrelative.Therightshaveflexibleboundariesbetween
avariety ofsocialunits,anditexistwithin ahierarchy of
sociallevels.Thecommunallandrightsandthecommunalland
regimesrefertothetenurepatternsamongstcommunalgroups
ofpeople(Ostrom,2001).The communalland tenure system
referstomultiplelevelsofcommunitydecisionmakingaround
locallandissuessuchasthelandrightsandaccess,spatial
arrangements, the land use management and governance
practices(UN-Habitat,2010).
Underthe system ofcommunalownership,traditional
leaderssuch as chiefs,family headsand community leaders
controlindividualeconomics.Theleadersarewhodecide,asa
whole,how thevillagelandwillbemanaged.Thelandtenure
in the community is heavily influenced by the traditional
precedents, and its management determined by communal
decision making conducted in a traditionalframework(Powell,
1997).Asthetribalchiefsandheadmenplaykeyrolesinthe
landadministration,thelandisallocatedandadministeredby
traditionalauthorities.Mostsouthern African countries have
communalland managementsystem wherelocalcommunities
participate in managementactivities.Communaltenure deny
publicinvestmentin infrastructure,industrialand agricultural
development.Thishasresultedconcentrationareasofthepoor
- 54 -
and underdeveloped communities, highest levels of
unemployment,andlowestlevelofliteracy.
In thecommunalownership areas,reformshavebeen
bogged down by an uneasy balanceofpowerbetween local
governmentandtraditionalauthorities,limitedindependentcivil
society organization,and a continuing lack ofcertainty by
governmentonwhichapproachtoadopt.Thecommunalland
rightsareincreasinglycircumscribedandlimitedbygovernment
regulations.A distortedandlegallyinsecureform ofcommunal
tenureresulted(Claassensetal.,2004).Communaltenureand
theirAfricancommunalethicof‘universalaccess’totheland
have resulted constrained emerging between rich and poor
peasants,peasantsandproletarians.
In brief,on one hand,the retention ofa form of
communal tenure facilitated cheap labor policies and
cost-effectivecontrolofruralpopulationsfrom above;onthe
other, systems of the communal land rights underpinned
independentland-basedlivelihoods,andfacilitatedresistanceto
policiesofexploitationandexternalcontrol,andweretherefore
often actively defendedby ruralcommunities.Ruralstruggles
sometimesshowedthe‘emancipatorypossibilities’ofinvocations
of custom and community(Mamdani,1996).The communal
tenurepracticestendtodiscouragetheexistenceofanactive
urban land marketwhich help corporatesand institutionsto
developtheurbanlandandindividualstogainaccesstothe
- 55 -
urbanland(UN-Habitat,2010).
Between1994and1998,tenurereform havebeencreated
byDepartmentofLandAffairs,tosecuretherightsoflabor
tenantsandfarm workers,alsotocreatenew form oflegal
entityforholdinglandrightsincommon.In1996,Communal
PropertyAssociationAct28wasestablished,whichintendedas
atemporarymeasuretosecuretherightsofpeopleoccupying
the land without formal documentary rights, pending the
introductionofmorecomprehensivereform.Intheabsenceof
such legislation,the Act has been extended annually and
remainsinforce.
Most controversial remains the issue of traditional
authority and its role in communaltenure regimes.Political
dealsmayhaveinformedtherapidprogressoftheCommunal
Land Rights Bill through Parliament, but the long-term
prospectsforchiefsandheadmenarenotatallclear(Claassens
etal.,2004).Thishasresultedinwideracceptanceofthecore
featuresofcommunaltenure:rightsto theland and natural
resources are shared and relative,flexible boundaries exist
betweenavarietyofsocialunits,andrightsarenestedwithina
hierarchy of social and administrative units or
levels(Okoth-Ogendo,2002).
In mostofthe ruralAfrican communities are under
communaltenuresystem,communitiesoperateto expressan
order,ownership,possession and accessto regulateuseand
- 56 -
transferofthelandunderthecommunallandtenurepolicy.
InEthiopiapastoralism isextensivelypracticed,asmore
than60percentofthetotallandmassofthecountryandare
home to pastoralcommunities.The pastoralist communities
under socio-economic and cultural systems are based on
communality.Pastoralism is,oneofthemany socio-economic
strategiesbasedonherding domesticatedlivestockongrazing
lands communally owned and used by the communities and
theirmembers.Thelandisheldtraditionallyunderthecollective
possessionandownershipoftheircommunity.Theircommunal
landtenurearrangementshavetraditionalrulesandregulations
thataim atharmonizingecological,economicandsocialbenefits.
Traditionaleldersareatthecoreofcommunalnaturalresources
management,asthelandforpastoralistcommunitiesarealso
communallyownedandadministeredbytraditionalelders.Thus,
communalpropertyrightsaresimplygrouppropertyrights,but
sometimes,common property is logically extended to public
property or state property-with the community being the
countryasawhole(Abdulahi,2007).
Dam(2006)pointsthatalthoughthelandsystemstoday
unquestionably differgreatly from country to country,even
withinareasonsuchasinSub-SaharanAfrica,allcommunal
ownershipissoinefficientthatitisanobstacletoeconomic
development.
- 57 -
4.6InformalOwnership
Informal ownership applies on the land remaining
unregistered,whicharenotundertheofficiallandmanagement
system,therefore there are no oronly little information in
settlements.Informalsettlements are synonym forunofficial,
unceremonious, intimate, irregular, unplanned, spontaneous,
unpretentious, squatting and unauthorized settlements. The
conceptof‘informalownership’isanumbrellaterm whichis
usedtocapturevarietysituationsoftheinsecurelandtenure.
Within acategory ofinformality therearevarioussituations,
including numerous tenure types such as owners without
registered titles, “squatting, unauthorized subdivisions, and
unofficialrentalarrangement.”Informaltenure exists without
officialapproval,itcan bedescribed asunwritten customary
tenuresystem(Lamba,2005;Sliuzas,2004p.3;UNHSP,2002).
Therearevarietyofwaystodefineinformalsettlements,
on one hand there is general agreement on their core
characteristics such as most houses are self-built by the
families occupying them using initially temporary building
materials, the settlements are illegal in some way, the
settlementslackinbasiclivingservices,andtheyaremostly
occupiedby peopleliving insituationsofpoverty(Gilbertand
Gugler,1992;Napier2002).
Informaltenuresystem hasvarioussituationssuchas
- 58 -
ownerswithorwithoutregisteredtitles,possessorswithwritten
proof of purchase,possessors who bought an irregular or
clandestineplotthroughacontractthatisnotvalidtotransfer
theproperty,thelandoccupierswhoareconvertedintoowners
when thetimeforprescription oftherightsoftheoriginal
owners have elapsed,buyers ofplots orpublic housing by
meansofthetransferofadocumentofproofofpurchasenot
recognized by the state, and informal owners who use
front-personstoregistertheirproperties(UN-Habitat,2005).
Informalsettlements and slums are both under the
informalownershipsystem,buttheyareslightlydifferentina
way.AccordingtotheOECD,informalsettlementsareinthe
areas where groups of housing units which have been
constructedonthelandthattheoccupantshavenolegalclaim
tooroccupyillegally;theyareunplannedsettlementsandareas
wherehousingisnotincompliancewithcurrentplanningand
building regulations.Informal ownership has very insecure
tenure characteristic which induce problems such as urban
poverty,lacking basichousing services and health problems.
UN-Habitatdefinesslum asanareainacitycharacterizedby
substandardhousingandsqualorandlackingintenuresecurity.
The characteristics of slum area vary between geographic
regions, they are inhabited by poor people and socially
disadvantagedpeople.Similartoinformalsettlementsmostof
theslumslackincleanwater,electricity,sanitationandother
- 59 -
basiclivingservices.Slum dwellershavenochoicebuttorely
oninformalserviceproviders.Theservicesareprovidedata
cost that is much higher than that which other urban
householdspay,althoughtheinformalsettlementshasnochoice
ofrelyingontheservices(AlainDurand-Lasserve,2006).
Poorpeoplewholivesininformaltenuresettlementsare
oftenlocatedonmarginalland,includingriverbanks,steepgullies
andmangroveswamps,and/oronlandwithdisputedownership.
Thosesettlementsin such locationsareatagreaterrisk of
being affected by naturaldisasterssuch as flooding.Poverty
induces insecure tenure,which itselfworsens the poverty in
slums.Ithasstructuralnegativeimpactonthesituationofthe
poorinnumerouswayssuchasprecariousness,vulnerabilityto
harassment,pooraccesstobasicservicesandhealthproblems.
Insecure tenure also has a negative impact from the
governments’pointofview,itinfluences on therate oftax
recovery through localtaxation on property and on economic
activities.Governmenthasdifficultyincostrecoveryforservices
andinfrastructureswithoutproperidentificationofurbanservices
beneficiaries(Chandetal.,2008).
UN-Habitat(2006) has announced that in 2005, an
estimated 934 million people lived withoutsecure tenure in
informalsettlementsintheurbanareasofdevelopingcountries.
Toimprovelandownershipsecurity,informalsettlementsmust
beregisteredandregulated.Informalsettlementissueshasbeen
- 60 -
observedinmanydevelopingcountriesandAfrica.Thesecurity
oflandownershipisoneofthemostimportantlandissues,as
itis the key factor ofthe rightfor quality ofavailable
infrastructure,developthelandandprovidesocialandphysical
basicservicestotheland.
Urbangrowthanddevelopmentincreasethepressureon
suchsocialinstitutions.Theyweakenandbreakdown,andlead
toincreasedtenureinsecurity.Toimprovethesecuritythrough
policyandpractice,abetterunderstandingisneededofhow the
informalsystemsthroughwhichhalformoreoftheresidential
landincitiesisdeliveredoperate,areevolvingandinteractwith
the formalland administration systems(Leduka and Rakodi,
2004).
Figure 4 Urban Housing Units by Water and Toilet Facilities
(source: Napier, 2002; UNCHS, 2001)
- 61 -
Itisclearthatresidentsareregularly exposedtothe
harshrealitiesofspatialandenvironmentalmarginalizationthat
accompanylivingininformalsettlements.Alsointhecontextof
rapidurbanization,growingincomepovertyandhumanpoverty
andalackofappropriateresponsesbygovernmentsarefactors
drivenbyurbanexpansion.TheAfricancontinenthasrangeof
formsofinformalsettlement.Especiallysub-SaharanAfricais
knowntohaveahighestpercentageofpeoplelivinginpoverty
andinsecuresettlementsthathavevulnerabilitytoawiderange
ofenvironmentalhazards(Fourie,1999;Napier,2002;UNCHS,
2001).
Figure 5 Summary of informal settlement levels in the
sub-Saharan region
(source: Napier, 2002)
- 62 -
Morethan 50percentoftheperi-urban population in
Africa live underinformalownership system.also about40
percentin Asia live in informalsettlements,and around 70
percentofKampala’sresidentsinUgandaliveinslums(Dam,
2006;Deininger,2003).In Jamaica has a large number of
squatters,20% of the population,lives below the national
povertyline.USAID announcedthatthelandtenureinJamaica
can be classified into legal,extralegal,and customary.The
informal land delivery processes have provided a high
percentageofallresidentiallandinBeninCity.Theinformal
sectorhasdominatedthelandmarket,anditappearstooperate
unfetteredforaverylongtime(Justin,2012).
Inhabitantsliveunderinformalownershipsystems,their
occupationofthelandandhousingisillegal.Undertheinformal
ownership,thereareslum settlementswhichisthegenericterm
used to classify informal, illegal or unplanned
settlements(UN-Habitat,2006).
- 63 -
Ⅴ.CONCLUSION
5.1 Summary of Major Findings and
Implicationofthestudy
Accesstothesecurelandandhousingisaprerequisite
forreducingthegloballandissuessuchaspoverty.Thereare
millionsofpeopleliving withoutsufficientsecurityandunder
threatofeviction.They sufferfrom theinsecurelandtenure
andarelimitedtothebasiclivingservicesontheirland.The
securelandownershipisfundamentaltoshelterandlivelihoods
aswellastherealizationofhumanrights,povertyreduction,
economicprosperityandsustainabledevelopment.
Theobjectiveofthisresearch istoanalyzetheland
ownership systems in the world where government,civil
society, the private sector and development cooperation
initiativeshavebeenimplemented.Thelandownershipsystem
isverycomplicatedsoonecannotpredictacountry’ssystem
withoutanin-depthstudying.Theproblem definitionformulates
aresearch question:“How doestheland ownership systems
differintheworld?”
Manyorganizationsandinstitutionshavebeenreported
aboutthelandtenuresystemsinmanyaspects,butnostudies
- 64 -
havefocusedonalloftheexistingownershipsystemsinthe
world.Therearepreviousstudiestrytoidentifyandemphasis
theimportanceofeachcountry’slandtenuresystem,property
security,anditsrelatedpolicyandlaws.Thereareliterature
reviewsonthelandtenuresystemswhichpaysattentionsona
specific country,group of countries with similar cultural,
socio-economical,religiousbackgroundsordevelopingcountries
pointofview.Therewerealsoexisting studiesthattriedto
conductwaysofthelandreform intheirstudying countries.
Therehadbeennumerousresearchesonthelandtenuresystem
and the land ownership to deduct implications for the
reunificationofcountrieslikeNorthandSouthKorea,problem
of poverty, or issues related to urbanization as well.
Categorization of the land ownership system with an
institutionalframes and describing each types’characteristics
arethecriticalissueofthisstudy thatdifferentiateitfrom
previousresearch.
According to the literature surveys have conducted,
manydifferenttypesofthelandtenuresystem werefound,as
many nationalorganizations and institutions have published
voluminousliteraturesonthelandtenure.Thoseexistingtenure
typesarecondensedthroughthisthesis.Thelandownership
andthelandrightsvarywithincitiesandcountriesundertheir
tenure system.Each ownership types have advantages and
limitationswiththeircharacteristicsandbackgroundofthem.
- 65 -
Toclassifythelandownership,asthisthesisfocuseson
thelandownershipstatusissues,firsttheexistinglandtenure
systems can be divided into two groups of rental and
ownership.The ownership group can be classify into small
groupsaccording towhohastheland ownership:individual,
collectiveandnoownership.Then,sortsthem intominorgroups
dependsonitsstatus,whetherthelandisregulatedornotand
who controls the land.Through the classification,the land
tenure systems have been categorized into six types:
‘Statutory-private ownership’, ‘Customary-private ownership’,
‘Publicownership’,‘Religiousownership’,‘Communalownership’
and ‘Informalownership’.Thisstudy serveson a worldwide
level,asthecategorizedownershipsystemsprovideanoverview
ofthelandtenuresystemsacrosstheworldasaspectrum.
The statutory-private ownership system is the basic
system thatappliesonwesternpreoccupationswiththerights
of the individual. The land ownership system prioritizes
individualizationofthelandownership.Itistheofficialsystem
ofpeople’s relationship to the land,embedded within legal
documentationandupheldthroughanadministrativesystem for
creating and maintaining the land rights.Itis enforced by
writtencertificatesandformallykeptlandregistries.
Thecustomary-privateownershipsystemshasitsuse
andallocationofthelandareundercontrolofacommunity;it
may bedeterminedby thetriballeadersorby traditionand
- 66 -
restricts whatoccupants ofthe land may do with it.The
customaryownershipsystemsareusuallymanagedbyalandor
village chief, traditional ruler or council of elders. The
customarylandtenureischaracterizedbyitslargelyunwritten
nature, as it is generally connoted with informal land
arrangements.The system is based on localpractices and
norms,andisflexible,negotiableandlocationspecific.
Publicownershipisasystem appliesonthepublicland,
in thecustodianshipofstate,municipality,orlocalauthority.
Public Ownership may be reserved for areas of strategic
importanceorbenefitforcommunity.Italsomaybereservedin
case of future need.Public ownership reduce the inequity
betweenthelandownerswhodoordonotreceivedevelopment
permission,and forensuring thatthe community gains the
overallfinancialbenefit(KivellandMckay,1987).
Thegeneralcharacteristicofthecommunallandtenure
system typeisthatrightstolandandnaturalresourcesare
sharedandrelative.Therightshaveflexibleboundariesbetween
avariety ofsocialunits,anditexistwithin ahierarchy of
sociallevels.Undera system ofthecommunalland tenure,
traditionalleaderssuchaschiefs,familyheadsandcommunity
leaders controlindividualeconomics.The leaders are who
decide,asawhole,how villagelandwillbemanaged.Theland
tenureinthecommunityisheavilyinfluencedbythetraditional
precedents, and its management determined by communal
- 67 -
decisionmakingconductedinatraditionalframework(Powell,
1997).
There are variety of ways to define Informal
settlements,but there is generalagreement on their core
characteristics such as most houses are self-built by the
families occupying them using initially temporary building
materials, the settlements are illegal in some way, the
settlementslackinbasiclivingservices,andtheyaremostly
occupiedby peopleliving insituationsofpoverty(Gilbertand
Gugler,1992;Napier,2002).
Therehasbeengrowingtrendtoaffordlegalrecognition
to governing the land tenure.Access to the land and the
associatedsecurity oftenurehavesignificantimplicationsfor
developmentand realestate market.Realestate is a major
sourceofvalueinmostofthecountriesintheworld.
5.2FutureResearchAgendas
Therearenumberofresearchlimitationsinthisthesis.
Toaddresstheresearch objectiveofthestudy,thisthesisis
examined through literature survey analysis methodology,
qualitativeinnaturetocollectalotofnumberofpublications
and papers related to the study topic.The collection ofthe
literaturereviewshavebeendonethroughvarietyofresources
includingthearticlesofjournals,publishedpapers,thesispapers
- 68 -
andpublishedbooks.
InqualitativeresearchtheInformationcollectedisinthe
form ofanalyticalnarratives ratherthan statistically treatable
data.Qualitative research method also requires training and
experience.Conducting the literature survey,there have been
limitationsintimeframe.Thequalitativeresearchgenerallytakes
moretimeto collectthedata when compared to quantitative
research,dataanalysisisoftentimeconsuming.Therearemany
previousstudiesrelatedtothethesistopicwhichhavenotbeen
reviewedandanalyzed.Therewerealsoissuesincollectingthe
literatures,duetothelanguagerestriction,thereareonlyEnglish
andKoreanliteraturesusedinthethesis.Havingaccesstomore
languages permits wider-ranging review of the collected
documents.Enhancing those limitations of the research will
improvethequalityofthestudyaswellasbeabletopresent
morein-depthstudy.
- 69 -
Reference
Abdulahi,Mohammud.2007."Thelegalstatusofthecommunalland
holdingsystem inEthiopia:thecaseofpastoralcommunities."
InternationalJournalonMinorityandGroupRights14(1):85.
Afridi,HaiderK,andHaroonBaryalay.2010."UnitedArabEmirates."
Alchian,Armen A,and Harold Demsetz.1973."The property right
paradigm."Thejournalofeconomichistory33(01):16-27.
Ali,DanielAyalew,Klaus Deininger,and Markus Goldstein.2014.
"Environmentalandgenderimpactsoflandtenureregularization
inAfrica:pilotevidencefrom Rwanda."JournalofDevelopment
Economics.
ALIYU,NUHU.2009."compulsory acquisitionofcommunallandand
compensationissues:TheCaseofMinnaMetropolis."
Anderson,Tim.2006."On theeconomicvalueofcustomary landin
PapuaNew Guinea."PacificEconomicBulletin21(1):138-152.
Arko-Adjei, Anthony. 2011. Adapting land administration to the
institutional framework of customary tenure: the case of
peri-urbanGhana:IOSPress.
Augustinus,Clarissa.2003.Handbook on bestpractices,security of
tenure,and access to land:implementation ofthe Habitat
Agenda:Un-habitat.
Aumann,Moshe.1974.LandownershipinPalestine,1880-1948:Israel
AcademicCommitteeontheMiddleEast.
AustralianGovernment,DepartmentofForeignAffairsandTrade.2008.
"Case studies on customary land and development in the
Pacific."
Baranyi,Stephen,CarmenDianaDeere,andManuelMorales.2004.land
and developmentin latin america:Internationaldevelopment
- 70 -
researchcentre.
Barraclough,SolonLovett,andUnitedNationsResearchInstitutefor
SocialDevelopment.Grassroots initiatives for Land Reform.
1999.Land Reform in developing countries:Theroleofthe
state and other actors.Vol.101:United Nations Research
InstituteforSocialDevelopmentGeneva.
Barry,MB,D Dewar,JF Whittal,and IF Muzondo.2007."Land
ConflictsinInformalSettlements:WallacedeneinCapeTown,
SouthAfrica."UrbanForum.
Bell,K.2006."Land Administration and Management:theNeed for
InnovativeApproachestoLandPolicyandTenureSecurityin
EastAsia."FIGCommission.
Bertaud,Alain,Bertrand Renaud,and Banco Mundial.1995.Cities
withoutlandmarkets:locationandlanduseinthesocialistcity:
World Bank,Transportation,Water,and Urban Development
Department, Transport Division and Financial Sector
DevelopmentDepartment.
Besley,Timothy.1995."Property rights and investmentincentives:
Theory and evidence from Ghana." journal of Political
Economy:903-937.
Besley,Timothy,and Robin Burgess.2000."Land reform,poverty
reduction,andgrowth:evidencefrom India."QuarterlyJournal
ofEconomics:389-430.
Bezemer,DirkJ.2006."Povertyintransitioncountries."JEconBus
9:11-35.
Boggs,Patton.2007."Propertylaw intheUAE".
Boydell,Spike,GarrickSmall,andCommissionerJohnSheehan 2008.
"Review ofFinancialManagementofCustomaryandOtherLand
inthePacific."
- 71 -
Brown,Jennifer.2004.Ejidosand comunidadesin Oaxaca,Mexico:
Impactofthe1992reforms:RuralDevelopmentInstitute.
Bruce,John W.1998.Review oftenure terminology:Land Tenure
Center,UniversityofWisconsin-Madison.
Bruce,JohnW.2006.Landlaw reform:Achievingdevelopmentpolicy
objectives:WorldBankPublications.
Cahill,Kevin.2001.“Whoownstheworld?:TheQueen,thefamilyof
theactressNicoleKidman,KingAbdullahofSaudiArabiaand
themediatyco.”NewStatesman.
Chand,Satish,andCharlesYala.2008."Informallandsystemswithin
urbansettlementsinHoniaraandPortMoresby."Makingland
work2:85-106.
Chauveau,Jean-Pierre,andLorenzoCotula.2007.Changesincustomary
landtenuresystemsinAfrica:Iied.
Chevalier,Francois.1967."TheejidoandpoliticalstabilityinMexico."
ThePoliticsofConformityinLatinAmerica:158-91.
Christman,John.1991."Self-ownership,equality,andthestructureof
propertyrights."PoliticalTheory:28-46.
Claassens,Aninka.2014."‘Communal Land’,Property Rights and
TraditionalLeadership."
Cohen,Barney.2006."Urbanization in developing countries:Current
trends,futureprojections,andkeychallengesforsustainability."
Technologyinsociety28(1):63-80.
Coldham,Simon.1995."Landtenurereform inTanzania:legalproblems
andperspectives."TheJournalofModernAfricanStudies33
(02):227-242.
Compact,Nambia's Millennium Challenge. 2011. "Communal Land
Support (CLS) Sub-activity: Communication Strategy &
ImplementationPlan."
- 72 -
company,Practicallaw.2011."countryQnA:UnitedArabEmirates."
congress,libraryof.2007."countryprofile:UNITEDARABEMIRATES."
Congressi,Kennedy.2009."<Thegrowingdemandforland.pdf>."
Cotula,Lorenzo.2006.Land and waterrightsin the Sahel:tenure
challengesofimproving accesstowaterforagriculture.Vol.
139:IIED.
Cotula,Lorenzo,CamillaToulmin,andCedHesse.2004.Landtenure
and administration in Africa: lessons of experience and
emerging issues:InternationalInstitute forEnvironmentand
DevelopmentLondon.
Cousins,Ben,and Aninka Claassens.2004."Communalland rights,
democracy and traditional leaders in post-apartheid South
Africa." Securing Land and Resource Rights in Africa:
Pan-AfricanPerspectives:139-54.
Crais,CliftonC.2006."Custom andthepoliticsofsovereigntyinSouth
Africa."journalofsocialhistory39(3):721-740.
Creekmore,Mitch.2000."EJIDO LAND VS.PRIVATE PROPERTY–
WHAT’STHEDIFFERENCE?"ARIZ.J.REALEST.& Bus.,
Mar:1,1-2.
Cymet,David.1992.From ejido to metropolis,another path:an
evaluation on ejido property rights and informal land
developmentinMexicoCity:P.Lang.
Dam,KennethW.2006."land,law andeconomicdevelopment."
DeVany,Arthur,andNicolasSanchez.1979."Landtenurestructures
and fertility in Mexico." The Review of Economics and
Statistics:67-72.
Deininger,K.,andG.Feder.2009."LandRegistration,Governance,and
Development:EvidenceandImplicationsforPolicy."TheWorld
Bank Research Observer 24 (2):233-266. doi:
- 73 -
10.1093/wbro/lkp007.
Deininger,Klaus W.2003.Land policies for growth and poverty
reduction:WorldBankPublications.
Demsetz,Harold.1967."Toward a theory ofproperty rights."The
Americaneconomicreview:347-359.
Development,InternationalFund forAgricultural.2012a."land tenure
securityandpovertyreduction."
Development,UnitedStatesAgencyInternational.2010a."LandTenure
IndonesiaProfile."
Development,UnitedStatesAgencyInternational.2010b."LandTenure
JamaicaProfile."
Development,UnitedStatesAgencyInternational.2010c."LandTenure
MongoliaProfile."
Development,UnitedStatesAgencyInternational.2010d."LandTenure
MoroccoProfile."
Development,UnitedStatesAgencyInternational.2010e."LandTenure
Vietnam Profile".
Development,United States Agency International.2012b."Integrating
customarylandtenureintostatutorylandlaw."
Dixon,Tim.2009."Urbanlandandpropertyownershippatternsinthe
UK: trends and forces for change." Land Use Policy
26:S43-S53.
Doebele,William A.1987."Theevolution ofconceptsofurban land
tenure in developing countries." Habitat International 11
(1):7-22.
Dunning,BrianC.1990."ComparativeStudyofLegalIdeology:African
LandTenureSystems,A."BCThirdWorldLJ10:297.
Durand-Lasserve,Alain.2006."InformalsettlementsandtheMillennium
DevelopmentGoals:globalpolicydebatesonpropertyownership
- 74 -
andsecurityoftenure."GlobalUrbanDevelopment2(1):1-15.
Durand-Lasserve,Alain,and Lauren Royston.2002.Holding their
ground:securelandtenurefortheurbanpoorindeveloping
countries:Earthscan.
Durand-Lasserve,Alain,andHarrisSelod.2009."Theformalizationof
urban land tenure in developing countries." In Urban Land
Markets,101-132.Springer.
Durand-Lasserve,Selod 2012. "Land Markets and Land Delivery
SystemsinrapidlyexpandingWestAfricancities.Thecaseof
Bamako."
ECE,UN.1996."Landadministrationguidelines."Withspecialreference
to countries in transition. Geneva, Switzerland, United
Nations/EconomicCommissionforEurope.
ehrenberg, david. 2006. "The importance and benefits of tenure
security."Propertyrightsandlandtenureissues13.
Ellickson, Robert C. 1993. "Property in land." Yale Law
Journal:1315-1400.
Engels,Benno.1999."Propertyownership,tenure,anddisplacement:in
search of the process of gentrification." Environment and
PlanningA31(8):1473-1496.
Ensminger,Jean.1997."Changing property rights:Reconciling formal
andinformalrightstolandinAfrica."Thefrontiersofthenew
institutionaleconomics:165-196.
Enterprise,HighlandsandIslands.2009."CommunityLandOwnership."
Evans,AlvinE.1921."OwnershipofCommunityProperty."Harv.L.
Rev.35:47.
Evers,Hans‐Dieter.1984."Urbanlandownership,ethnicityandclassin
southeastAsian cities†."InternationalJournalofUrbanand
RegionalResearch8(4):481-496.
- 75 -
Fairley,ElizabethC.2013."Upholding customary landrightsthrough
formalization? evidence from Tanzania‘s program of land
reform."UNIVERSITYOFMINNESOTA.
Feder,Gershon,andRaymondNoronha.1987."Landrightssystemsand
agriculturaldevelopmentin Sub-Saharan Africa."The World
BankResearchObserver2(2):143-169.
Fernandes,Edésio.2011.RegularizationofinformalsettlementsinLatin
America:LincolnInstituteofLandPolicyCambridge,MA,USA.
Firman,Tommy.1997."Landconversionandurbandevelopmentinthe
northern region ofWestJava,Indonesia."Urban Studies34
(7):1027-1046.
Firman, Tommy. 2004. "Major issues in Indonesia's urban land
development."LandUsePolicy21(4):347-355.
Franzsen,RielCD.2002."Propertyassessmentforratingpurposesin
SouthernandEastAfrica:presentstatusandfutureprospects."
8thAnnualConferenceofthePacificRim RealEstateSociety,
Christchurch.
Gebeyehu,ZEMEN HADDIS.2013."TowardsImprovedTransactionsof
LandUseRightsinEthiopia."AnnualWorldBankConference
onLandandPoverty.
Gil,F.Margarita.2000."securityoflandownershipinthedominican
republic:alegalandhistoricalanalysis."
Gilbert, A. J. Gugler (1992) Cities, poverty, and development:
urbanizationinthethirdworld.OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford.
Greene,Craig.2005."Land,Rights,Laws:IssuesofNativeTitle."
Grindle,MerileeS.2004."Goodenoughgovernance:povertyreduction
andreform indevelopingcountries."Governance17(4):525-548.
Hanstad,Timothy M,and Jennifer Duncan.2001.Land reform in
Mongolia: observations and recommendations: Rural
- 76 -
DevelopmentInstitute.
Ho,Peter.2001."WhoownsChina'sland?Policies,propertyrightsand
deliberate institutional ambiguity." The China Quarterly
166:394-421.
Hofstee,EW.1972."LAND OWNERSHIPIN DENSELY POPULATED
AND INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES1."SociologiaRuralis12
(1):6-36.
Huffman, James L. 1998. "Land Ownership and Environmental
Regulation."EcologyLQ25:591.
Hvidt,M.2007.TheDubaiModel:Anoutlineofkeycomponentsofthe
developmentprocessinDubai.CentreforContemporaryMiddle
EastStudies,UniversityofSouthernDanmark.
Institute,RuralDevelopment.2004."landpolicychallengesinIndonesia
-finalprojectreportofthelandlaw initiative."
Jimenez,Emmanuel.1984."Tenuresecurityandurbansquatting."The
reviewofeconomicsandstatistics:556-567.
Johnson,Nancy.1998."Landandcreditreform inMexico:Implications
forejidocredituse,investment,andproduction."International
Center for Tropical Agriculture, Latin American Studies
Association.http://168.96200.
Johnson,OmotundeEG.1972."Economicanalysis,thelegalframework
and land tenure systems." Journal of Law and
Economics:259-276.
Kajoba,GearM.2002.LandUseandLandTenureinAfrica:towards
an evolutionary conceptual framework: Council for the
DevelopmentofSocialScienceResearchinAfrica.
Kalabamu,FaustinT.2000."Landtenureandmanagementreformsin
EastandSouthern Africa–thecaseofBotswana."Land Use
- 77 -
Policy17(4):305-319.
Kameri-Mbote,Patricia.2005."Genderissues in land tenure under
customarylaw."
Kasper,Wolfgang.2007."MontPèlerinSociety,RegionalMeeting:The
InstitutionalFrameworkforFreedom inAfrica."
Kehoe,Dalton.1976.Publiclandownership:frameworksforevaluation:
arecordofideaanddebate:LexingtonBooks.
Khamaisi,Rassem.1995."Land ownership as a determinantin the
formationofresidentialareasinArablocalities."Geoforum 26
(2):211-224.
Khemro,Beng Hong Socheat,and Geoffrey Payne.2004."Improving
tenuresecurityfortheurbanpoorinPhnom Penh,Cambodia:an
analyticalcasestudy."HabitatInternational28(2):181-201.
Kivell,PT,and IMcKay.1988."Public ownership ofurban land."
TransactionsoftheInstituteofBritishGeographers:165-178.
Kombe,WilbardJ,andVolkerKreibich.2000."Reconcilinginformaland
formalland management::an agenda for improving tenure
security and urban governance in poor countries." Habitat
International24(2):231-240.
Kong, Taryn M. 2012. "Understanding Land Management and
Desertification in the South African Kalahari with Local
KnowledgeandPerspectives."
Löffler,Ulrich.1996.LandtenuredevelopmentsinIndonesia:Deutsche
GesellschaftfürTechnischeZusammenarbeit(GTZ).
Lee,James.2000."From welfare housing to home ownership:the
dilemma of China's housing reform." Housing Studies 15
(1):61-76.
Li,Guo,ScottRozelle,andLorenBrandt.1998."Tenure,landrights,
and farmer investment incentives in China." Agricultural
- 78 -
Economics19(1):63-71.
Libraryofcongress.2007.“Militery-Government”GlobalSecurity
Loyns,RMA,Ronald D Knutson,KarlDean Meilke,and Antonio
Yunez-Naude.2000.PolicyHarmonization and Adjustmentin
the North American Agriculturaland Food Industry:Texas
A&M University,University ofGuelph and ElColegio de
Mexico.
LusuggaKironde,JM.2000."Understanding land marketsin African
urbanareas::thecaseofDaresSalaam,Tanzania."Habitat
international24(2):151-165.
Marsh,SallyP,andT GordonMacAulay.2002."Landreform andthe
developmentofcommercialagricultureinVietnam:policy and
issues."AgribusinessReview10.
Meinzen-Dick,Ruth,PatriciaKameri-Mbote,andHelenMarkelova.2007.
"Propertyrightsforpovertyreduction?".
Menezes,LM.1988."UrbanlandpolicytrendsinAsia:anoverview."
Landusepolicy5(3):291-300.
Mennen,Tiernan.2012."customarylaw andlandrightsinsouthsudan."
Montalvo,JoseG,andMartinRavallion.2010."Thepatternofgrowth
and poverty reduction in China." Journal of Comparative
Economics38(1):2-16.
Mullan,Katrina,PaulineGrosjean,andAndreasKontoleon.2011."Land
tenure arrangements and rural–urban migration in China."
WorldDevelopment39(1):123-133.
Napier,Mark.2002."Informalsettlementintegration,theenvironment
andsustainablelivelihoodsinsub-SaharanAfrica."proceedings
of Improving Post-Disaster Reconstruction in Developing
Countries:23-25.
Nations,United.2014."LandTerritoriesandResources."
- 79 -
Norfolk,Simon,and Christopher Tanner.2007."Improving tenure
securityfortheruralpoor."Rome:FAO.
Nyasulua,Tapiwa Uchizi, and Richard Ameyaw Ampadub. 2011.
"CustomaryLandAccessandAccountabilityinGhana:Effects
ofLandAllocationPracticesonLocalLivelihoods."
Okoth-Ogendo,Hasting WO.2000."TheTragicAfricanCommons:a
centuryofexpropriation,suppressionandsubversion."University
ofNairobi& Fellow ofthe Kenya NationalAcademy of
Sciences.
Ollennu,NiiAmaa.1962."Principlesofcustomarylandlaw inGhana."
PrinciplesofcustomarylandlawinGhana.
Organization,Food and Agriculture.1995.FAO land tenure studies:
FAO.
Palmer,David,SzilardFricska,andBabetteWehrmann.2009."Towards
improvedlandgovernance."FoodandAgricultureOrganization
(FAO)–UnitedNationsHumanSettlementsProgramme.
Payne,Geoffrey.2001."Urban land tenure policy options:Titles or
rights?"HabitatInternational25(3):415-429.
Payne, Geoffrey. 2004. "Land tenure and property rights: an
introduction." Habitat International 28 (2):167-179. doi:
10.1016/s0197-3975(03)00066-3.
Payne,Geoffrey,and Alain Durand-Lasserve.2012."Holding On:
SecurityofTenure-Types,Policies,PracticesandChallenges."
PreparedfortheSpecialRapporteurontheRighttoAdequate
Housing.
Payne,Geoffrey K.1997."Urban landtenureandproperty rightsin
developingcountries."
Place,Frank,andKeijiroOtsuka.2001."Population,tenure,andnatural
resource management:The case ofcustomary land area in
- 80 -
Malawi."JournalofEnvironmentalEconomicsandManagement
41(1):13-32.
Pottier,Johan.2005."Customarylandtenureinsub-saharanafricatoday
meaningsandcontexts."
Powell,PhilipT.1998."Traditionalproduction,communallandtenure,
andpoliciesforenvironmentalpreservationintheSouthPacific."
EcologicalEconomics24(1):89-101.
Programme,UnitedNationsEnvironment."<UN-securitytenure.pdf>."
Programme,United Nations Human Settlements.2010."Urban Land
Markets,EconomicconceptsandtoolsforengaginginAfrica."
Programme,UnitedNationsHumanSettlements.2012a.Thechallengeof
slums:globalreporton human settlements 2003:Taylor&
Francis.
Programme,United Nations Human Settlements.2012b."Innovative
UrbanTenureinthePhilippines(SummaryReport)."
Quizon,AntonioB.2013."LandGovernanceinAsia:Understaindthe
debaeson landtenurerightsandlandreformsin theAsian
context."
Rakodi,Carole,and ClementLeduka.2004."Informalland delivery
processesandaccesstolandforthepoor:acomparativestudy
ofsixAfricancities."PolicyBrief6.
Renger, Johannes 1995. "institutional, communal, and individual
ownershporpossessionofarablelandinancientmesopotamia
from theendofthefourthtotheendofthefirstmillennium
B.C.".
report,Conference proceedings.2013."Community land law:Best
PracticesandApproachesfortheProtectionofCommunityLand
RightsinKenya."
Roth,Michael,and DwightHaase.1998.Land tenure security and
- 81 -
agriculturalperformanceinSouthernAfrica.USAID.
Rudiarto,Iwan.2006."StatusofLandTenureSecurityinIndonesia."
RuralDevelopment& Land Reform,RepublicofSouth Africa.2013.
"communallandtenurepolicy".
Sait,M Siraj,HilaryLim,andDuncanHouse.2005."Islam,Land&
PropertyResearchSeries."Paper3:3-11.
Sait,Siraj,andHilaryLim.2006.Land,law andIslam:propertyand
humanrightsintheMuslim world.Vol.1:ZedBooks.
sait,Siraj,and Britta Peters.2011.Islamic Principles and Land ,
Opportunities for Management:opportunities for engagement.
Originaledition,UN-Habitat.
Salerno,Tania.2011."transnatonallanddealsinmindanao- situating
ambivalentfarmer."
Savant-Mohit,Radhika.2004."Securityoftenureandthewayforward:
ThecaseofSamakeePattana,Bangkok."HabitatInternational
28(2):301-316.
Secretariat,PacificIslandsForum.2008."CustomaryLandManagement
andConflictMinimisation:GuidingPrinciplesandImplementation
Framework for Improving Access to Customary Land and
MaintainingSocialHarmonyinthePacific."
Settles,Burr.2010."Activelearning literaturesurvey."Universityof
Wisconsin,Madison52:55-66.
Sietchiping,Remy,A Dyfed,NefiseBazoglu,ClarissaAugustinus,and
M Gora.2012."Monitoringtenuresecuritywithinthecontinuum
ofland rights:Methods and practices."AnnualWorld Bank
ConferenceonLandandPoverty,WorldBank,Washington,DC.
Tannous,AfifI.1951."Land reform:key to the developmentand
stabilityoftheArabworld."MiddleEastJournal5(1):1-20.
Thirkell,AllysonJ.1996."Playersinurbaninformallandmarkets;who
- 82 -
wins?wholoses?AcasestudyofCebuCity."Environmentand
Urbanization8(2):71-90.
Thompson,GaryD,andPaulNWilson.1994."EjidoreformsinMexico:
Conceptual issues and potential outcomes." Land
Economics:448-465.
UN-HABITAT.2005a."IslamicLaw,LandandMethodologies."ISLAM,
LAND & PROPERTY3.
UN-HABITAT.2005b."Law,LandTenureandGenderReview:Latin
America(Brazil)."Landtenure,housingrightsandgender.
UN-HABITAT.2005c."Law,LandTenureandGenderReview:Latin
America(Colombia)."Landtenure,housingrightsandgender.
UN-HABITAT.2005d."Law,LandTenureandGenderReview:Latin
America(Mexico)."Landtenure,housingrightsandgender.
UN-HABITAT.2005e."Law,LandTenureandGenderReview:Latin
America(Nicaragua)."Landtenure,housingrightsandgender.
UN-HABITAT.2008."Securelandrightsforall."
UN-HABITAT.2010."A Training Course on Land,Property and
HousingRightsintheMuslim World."
UN-HABITAT.2012."Handling land ,Innovative Tools for Land
GovernanceandSecureTenure."
UN-Habitat.2014."LandTenureSecurityinSelectedCountries."
VanGelder,Jean-Louis.2010."Whattenuresecurity?Thecasefora
tripartiteview."LandUsePolicy27(2):449-456.
VIETNAM,SOCIALISTREPUBLICOF.2004."Law onland."
Westendorff,DavidGantt.2009."Threeessayson urban governance
andhabitatindevelopingcountries."CornellUniversity.
White,Andy,and Alejandra Martin.2002."Who owns the world’s
forests."ForestTrends,Washington,DC.
WienerBravo,E.2011."TheconcentrationoflandownershipinLatin
- 83 -
America: An approach to current problems." CISEPA
contribution to ILC Collaborative Research Project on
CommercialPressuresonLand(Rome:ILC).
Wily,Liz.2011.WhoseLandisIt?:TheStatusofCustomaryLand
TenureinCameroon:CentreforEnvironentandDevelopment.
Wily,LizAlden.2003.Landrightsincrisis:Restoringtenuresecurity
inAfghanistan:AREU.
Wright,BrettA;Cordell,H Ken;Brown,TommyL;Rowell,AllenL.
1989."Thenationalprivatelandownershipstudy:Establishing
thebenchmark."Outdoorrecreationbenchmark1988:proceedings
ofthenationaloutdoorrecreationforum.USDA ForestService,
Southeastern Forest Exp. Sta., Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-52.
Asheville,NC.
Yiri,Kumbun-Naa.2006."customary lands administration and good
governance-thestateandthetraditionalrulersinterface."
Zimmermann, Willi 2011. "land governance and land tenure
developmentsinthearabregion."
이상 .2001."체제 환국의 도시발 과 북한에 한 시사 :Urban
DevelopmentinTransition EconomiesanditsImplicationsfor
NorthKorea."
이상 ,and 이성수.2004."SpecialEconomic Zones in Transition
EconomiesanditsImplicationsforNorthKorea:Basedonthe
DemandandSupplyofSpecialEconomicZonesinPolandand
China-체제 환국의 경제특구 개발과북한 경제특구 개발에 한
시사 :폴란드와 국 경제특구 개발의 수요와 공 을 심으로."
정매화,and최막 .2008." 국 토지이용제도 특성에 한 연구."국토계
획 43(3):99-109.
최상철,and이 성.1998."논문:통일 후 북한지역에서의 토지소유 이
용에 한 연구."지역연구 14(2):1-33.
국문 록
세계 토지소유권 유형에 한
연구
이 유민
서울 학교 환경 학원
환경계획학과 도시 지역계획 공
각 나라의 토지이용형태는 그 도시의 역사 ,경제 ,사회
구조의 배경에 향을 받기 때문에 국가마다 토지이용형태 규
제는 매우 다양하다.토지는 삶의 터 이며,생산 요소 가운데 매
우 요한 부분으로 사회성,공공성이 강한 재화이므로 타재화에
비해 공 개입의 필요성이 특히 강조된다.
즉,토지는 이에 한 종합 인 리기반이 필요하고 이는 토
지 장의 필요를 뜻한다.토지 장은 토지의 황을 명확하게 하
기 한 공부로서,토지에 한 일체의 사항이 등기되어 있는
장이다.이는 상 토지의 소재,지번,지목,지 ,소유자,주소,
성명 는 명칭,지상권의 목 인 토지의 경우 지상권자의 주소,
성명 는 명칭 등의 내용을 포함하고 있다.
- 85 -
이 연구의 목 은 첫째,토지 장의 존재여부가 불분명함을
인식하고 세계의 토지법제를 악하는 것이다.둘째,세계의 제도
들의 비교를 통하여 토지소유권을 여섯 가지로 유형화하며,각
토지소유권이 어떠한 양상으로 나타나는지 분석하고자 한다.즉,
각 나라의 토지이용과 그 나라의 토지소유권이 제도화되어 있는
지를 문헌검토를 이용한 비교법 고찰을 통해 황을 악하고
세계의 토지소유권을 유형화하는 연구이다.
연구 결과,세계의 토지제도는 법 토지 소유권, 례 토
지 소유권,공동 토지 소유권,종교 토지 소유권,공공 토지 소
유권,불분명한 토지 소유권의 여섯 가지로 유형화할 수 있다.본
연구는 각 제도유형의 특징을 바탕으로 이루어진 비교분석을 통
하여 그 제도의 문제 과 시사 을 도출하여 추후 토지개발
련 연구에 기 자료를 제공하고,길잡이 역할을 할 수 있다는
에서 연구의 의의를 찾을 수 있다.
◆ 주요어 :토지 보유권,토지 권리,토지 소유권,토지 제도,토지
소유권 유형
◆ 학 번 : 2013-22004