158
Table 5.4: Percentage distribution of husbands and wives by selected rights of use and
transfer
Right |
Husband' |
Wife" | ||
Southern |
Eastern |
Southern |
Eastern province | |
Cultivate perennials: | ||||
No rights |
1 |
4 |
36 |
9 |
Yes, without permission |
97 |
36 |
7 |
8 |
Yes, with spousal permission |
2 |
60 |
57 |
83 |
Fence: | ||||
No rights |
1 |
17 |
55 |
44 |
Yes, without permission |
98 |
57 |
3 |
4 |
Yes, with spousal permission |
1 |
26 |
42 |
52 |
Plant trees: | ||||
No rights |
1 |
4 |
46 |
23 |
Yes, without permission |
98 |
49 |
5 |
11 |
Yes, with spousal permission |
1 |
47 |
49 |
66 |
Alienate land from family: | ||||
No rights |
59 |
62 |
88 |
65 |
Yes, without permission |
40 |
11 |
0 |
0 |
Yes, with spousal permission |
1 |
27 |
12 |
35 |
a. The respondent is the household head commenting on spousal rights. This is a male only in 66 percent of
the cases in Southern province and 75 percent in Eastern province.
Spousal rights over land transfer are extremely weak. Table 5.4 shows that no spouse has the
unilateral right to alienate land outside the family. In Eastern province, wives would be consulted in
about one-third of households, but in Southern province only 12 percent of wives would be included
in this type of decision.
E. Exclusion rights
The ability to exclude others from using one's farmland was relatively common and suggests
a high degree of individualized property rights. In general, nonhousehold members are not permitted
to use a household's land for crop or tree cultivation without prior permission of the household head.
In addition, chiefs and headmen have established penalties for crop damage and unauthorized tree
cutting by others on farmers' own fields. Moreover, farmers claim to have the right to fence off land
(see above).