Looking at asset ownership through a gender-lens

In his Second Treatise of Government published in 1690, John Locke wrote, "The spouse, children, servants, and slaves are subordinate to the man, who is the master of the family. This responsibility naturally falls to the man's share, as the abler and the stronger."

The view that men are superior to women and hence should take the reins in society has persisted throughout history. 

However, during the second wave of feminism in the 1970s, this view was greatly challenged. With the advancement of the idea that gender is sociologically constructed rather than biologically determined, changing gender norms and rejecting the subordination of women seemed plausible.  

While markets and technologies change rapidly, institutions governing these markets evolve much slower due to rigidity in cultural values and social norms. In many cases, economic transactions and exchange are influenced by gender relations which in turn reinforce the subordination of women.

For instance, in a recent article, a leading local newspaper correctly pointed out that there is a general reluctance to fund female entrepreneurs - the loan disbursement for women remained extremely low at 3.54% in the last fiscal year. 

Furthermore, the article identified lack of property ownership and inability to provide collateral against loans as the major impediments in accessing loans for females. 

If we take a closer look, we will see a significant difference in asset and wealth ownership between men and women. According to a World Bank study titled 'Women, Business and the Law 2020', it was reported that two-fifths of countries in the world fail to ensure women's equal right to property.

A study analysing gender gaps in land rights among Asian countries reported that men in Bangladesh are the sole owners of more than 86% of all officially owned plots while women own only under 12% of plots and 2% are owned jointly by both men and women. 

Moreover, women owned plots are significantly smaller in size compared to those owned by men. In 2019, the World Bank also published a similar study using Bangladesh Integrated Household Survey (BIHS) data which found that only 13% of rural women in Bangladesh reported owning, solely or jointly, agricultural land.

The existing data provides evidence of significant gender inequality in land ownership in Bangladesh, but the true picture might be even grimmer. There are numerous cases where even though women are the legal owners of a piece of land, the actual control over the land and its use is retained by their husbands. This severely restricts women's ability to exercise their property rights. 

The prevalence of various market imperfections prevent women from acquiring land or other productive assets through market mechanisms. In such cases, inheritance becomes the primary means through which women can own land or other assets.  

According to Islamic inheritance jurisprudence, also known as al-fara'id, a son is entitled to a share in the property which is equal to that of two daughters. 

Moreover, a husband is entitled to get half of the deceased wife's share if she leaves no children behind whereas the wife will get only one-fourth of the deceased husband's share. 

Islamic scholars and believers across the world deem this distribution to be fair on the grounds that men are also responsible for providing for their wives and children. 

In March 2011, when the government declared the draft of the National Women Development Policy (Jatiyo Naree Unnoyon Neeti 2011), it faced resistance and harsh criticism from different religious groups on the claims that it gave women equal rights to inheritance. 

Much of the uproar including the country-wide protests was far from necessary since the much-debated clause (25.2) only proposed "To give women the rights to wealth and resources earned through income, succession, loan/credit, land and market management." This only states that women would be allowed full rights to control the wealth they have obtained, but by no means ensures equal rights to property for women. 

But the more important question is: why does asset ownership matter? Asset ownership and equal rights to property are essential to support women empowerment. 

Ownership of wealth and resources in the form of land or property gives women greater control over decision-making within the household. Furthermore, assets can generate rent or be a means of production, ensuring a reliable source of income for the household. 

Asset ownership also gives women collateral needed to secure funding in order to start their own businesses. They also give females the ability to cope with idiosyncratic shocks such as divorce, illness or a natural disaster. 

There is also significant evidence that the gender distribution of wealth in an economy matters. Improving women's ownership of assets and wealth can augment women's bargaining power within the household, leading to higher investment in child healthcare and education. 

While reforms related to property ownership are necessary in the present socioeconomic context, passing such reforms are difficult due to existing religious and cultural norms that influence how property is inherited and passed to future generations. 

In addition to inheritance laws, other factors including access to education and employment, access to credit and funding, pro-gender development policies can help to redress the disparities in land and asset ownership. 

Syeda Tasfia Tasneem completed her MSc in Development Economics from the University of Oxford. She is currently the director of Mariners Bangladesh. 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.