Producción y transporte de sedimentos en cuencas

The preceding sections have clearly established that incursions into indigenous tenure systems and their related customary institutions in Sub Saharan Africa are fraught with difficulties. In many cases, attempts to reform land tenure regimes have led to a dead end, as practitioners have as yet been unable to manufacture systems that consistently outperform indigenous creations - and often these external fabrications do worse.

Therefore, something is clearly missing from the analysis. It will be argued below that the root of this ineffectiveness can ultimately be traced to limitations in the prevailing conception of land tenure that are extant in much of the contemporary literature.

As was described previously, many developmental practitioners have considered land tenure as somewhat of an isolated theoretical problem, and have focused upon solutions aimed at targeting the rules underlying that specific institution. However, as will be demonstrated, a land tenure system comprises many dimensions beyond its apparent legislative role. It is also a central component of a given society, comprising cultural norms and reflecting important political and economic relationships. This is a fact that will become clearer when we consider the specific example of Ethiopia in chapters there and four. For now though, the point to note is simply that there are other legitimate ways of considering the role of land tenure in a society, even when one is exclusively concerned with its impact upon economic behaviour, beyond merely its legislative status. Therefore, studies that comprise a broad and multifaceted conception of, and approach to, the issue are likely to yield the most plausible solutions to its concomitant problems. Such a methodology is notably absent in the contemporary literature on land reform, and hence it will be the objective of this thesis to produce such a reconceived, expanded and contextually integrated conceptual framework through which problems of land tenure can be evaluated for our case study country. The final section of this chapter will seek to lay the groundwork for this undertaking, by more clearly outlining the relevant and contiguous contextual phenomena that have been neglected in much of the recent analyses. These omissions will be uncovered by way of further reflection on some of the material we have examined thus far.

Perhaps the most efficient way to go about our investigation into the limits of the prevailing discourse would be to go to straight to the heart of it, and examine the core assumptions upon which depictions of land tenure have rested. In so doing, what immediately comes to the fore is in fact an issue that we encountered earlier in the

analysis and at that point left unresolved. That is of course the primary enterprise of using land reform to reinforce tenure security as a means to enhance productive investment. Earlier data that was examined proved to be inconclusive on the matter, and it was noted that it is empirically difficult to establish the extent of the link between feelings of security and investment decisions. In light of this limitation, interventionist strategies have generally been formulated under the assumption that there is nevertheless a critical link, even if it is as yet empirically unsubstantiated, and have proceeded to try and augment the envisioned security-investment bond by way of formalised titling. Two pertinent questions could be asked of this approach, and they will be dealt with in turn below.

The first obvious question would seem to be, is it legitimate in the sphere of land tenure reform to formulate strategies based on this unsubstantiated premise? In light of the sketchy empirical data, it could be the argued that the theoretical basis for an investment-tenure security link is unsound. Nevertheless, like the evolutionary effect discussed above, there would seem to be something quite fundamental and intuitively plausible about the theory. After all, the very essence of a property right system is that is secures property, and hence if a given system does not assure its users that their property is secure, then it would seem to be reasonable to postulate that this will have a limiting effect on the amount of property they accrue - in this context by way of the level of productive investment carried out upon their land. Perhaps then we can tentatively accept the premise that tenure security is an important determinate of investment decisions. If this is indeed the case, then it may be that the shortcomings observed in the field are not so much due to the theory itself but rather its interpretation and application.

In light of the above, the second key question that could be asked is: to what extent is formal titling an effective means of imparting greater tenure security in the African context? In the prescriptive literature it seems that feelings of tenure security have

simply been equated with formality of registration, and in so doing it has been implicitly assumed that formal titling is superior to customary tenure in providing it. However, for this to be so it must necessarily be the case that imposed formal legal arrangements comprise a greater degree of social legitimacy than customary laws and institutions. After all, it is feelings of security that dictate investment decisions according to the above theory, hence what should matter more is not what the official legal documents say but rather where ordinary farmers perceive accountability to rest. If in a given case there is a high degree of distrust in the efficacy of a county’s governmental institutions to impart the law fairly and without ulterior motives, then farmers may choose to exercise caution and restraint in their investment decisions - despite the formal protection they have been imparted. Legislation may be extant that guarantees individuals’ holdings, but if the political entity that underpins the legislation is perceived as unstable or untrustworthy, then title deeds may do very little to assure farmers that they will reap the fruits of their investments. Conversely, if a given customary tenure system is held to be socially legitimate and reliable, then investment may proceed uninhibited under this arrangement, despite its informality. Furthermore, if formal tenure constitutes an effective usurpation of power over land from the community to the state, then it could in fact be the case that security is diminished under formalisation. This is because farmers may feel better able to affect the decisions of community level customary authorities than arms of the state, in ensuring that their investment outlays are respected. Clearly then, providing tenure security is not simply a matter of issuing an ownership deed, but rather it pertains to the entire political economy within which that deed is to be issued. For the security-investment bond to hold, legislating authorities must comprise social legitimacy. This is a fact that has been neglected in much of the developmental prognosis, and would seem to be a rather glaring omission – especially given the infamous political record of some African regimes past and present.

In light of the above, it would seem to be increasingly apparent that the limited efficacy of much of the contemporary prognosis has been due to a persistent failure to apprehend the ways in which land tenure functions as an interconnected rather than an isolated mechanism. Clearly a more rounded conceptualisation of land tenure in Africa is urgently required – an exercise that would necessitate the inclusion of variables that have been omitted from prior analysis. In particular, a much fuller discussion of the political and economic bounds within which land tenure systems function would seem to be especially overdue. Therefore, having sufficiently laid the groundwork for an expansion of our conceptual framework to include such phenomena, the final objective of this chapter has now been met. It will be the purpose of the next chapter to build upon this foundation by providing an account of African politics, and the ways in which it relates to issues of economic development. Before that though, a brief summary of the above will be undertaken.