We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This chapter traces the complex trajectory of land tenure reforms in Benin since the democratic transition and liberalisation of the economy in the early 1990s. It shows that conceptions of the problem of land tenure insecurity and the responses to it have often clashed. Attention paid to sectors (rural vs urban) has varied as well as the timing and the nature of land tenure reforms. The solution of formal land titling propounded by international donor and local supporters has been considered by many as both inaccessible and unsuited to the needs of the majority of the population, hence the search for legal and institutional alternatives. This history of land reforms reveals intricate conflicts involving corporatist struggles, conflicts of interest between different stakeholders, and divergent social choices. It highlights the political economy dimension of land tenure problems and their instrumentalisation by some actors and competing public policy networks, the strengths and limitations of attempts to implement policy reforms, and the influence of donors in reform processes. It also questions the capacity of the intended reforms to modify practices and have enough inclusiveness.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.