Content uploaded by William Baah-Boateng
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by William Baah-Boateng on Jan 15, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
W
e-Yiadom
Measuring the Gender Asset Gap in Ghana
Measuring the Gender
Asset Gap in Ghana
Abena D. Oduro
W. Baah-Boateng
L. Boakye-Yiadom
Published for
The Department of Economics
University of Ghana
Legon
by
Woeli Publishing Services
Email: woeli@wopelipublishing.com
woeli@libr.ug.edu.gh
Website: www.woelipublishing.com
© Abena D. Oduro, W. Baah Baah-Boateng, L. Boakye-Yiadom, 2011
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ISBN 978–9988–8510–6–4
Cover Design by John Abato
PRODUCED IN GHANA
Typesetting by Woeli Publishing Services, Accra
Printing & binding by Royal Crown Printing Press, Accra
This publication was made possible
through support provided by the Dutch
Government. The opinions expressed
herein do not necessarily reflect the views
of the Dutch Government. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the
Netherlands
i
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ i
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures ...................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... vii
Project Team .................................................................................................................... viii
Foreword ........................................................................................................................... ix
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER 1 ..........................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1
Background .....................................................................................................................1
Existing Evidence on Gender Gaps in Asset Ownership .................................................2
The Ghanaian Context ....................................................................................................3
Customary Norms and Law.........................................................................................3
Formal Legal Rules ......................................................................................................4
Chapter 2 ............................................................................................................................7
The Sample and Methodology ...........................................................................................7
Introduction ....................................................................................................................7
The Qualitative Survey ...................................................................................................7
The Quantitative Survey .................................................................................................9
The Sample .................................................................................................................9
The Survey Instrument ................................................................................................9
Characteristics of the Sample ...................................................................................... 10
Concepts and Method of Analysis ............................................................................... 14
Calculating the Gender-Asset Gap ........................................................................... 14
Calculating the Gender Wealth Gap ........................................................................ 15
Chapter 3 ......................................................................................................................... 16
Wealth in Ghana .............................................................................................................. 16
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 16
Socio-economic Conditions in Ghana .......................................................................... 16
Economic Activity and Employment ........................................................................ 16
ii
Amenities ................................................................................................................. 17
Incidence of Asset Ownership by Households ............................................................ 19
Composition of Total Gross Wealth ............................................................................ 23
Regional Distribution of Total Gross Wealth ............................................................... 24
Chapter 4 ......................................................................................................................... 25
The Gender Asset and Wealth Gaps ................................................................................ 25
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 25
Distribution by Form of Asset Ownership ................................................................... 25
Physical Assets ......................................................................................................... 25
Financial Assets........................................................................................................ 27
Gender Asset Gaps ...................................................................................................... 28
Gap 1: Distribution by Sex of Asset Owners- Physical Assets .................................. 28
Gap 1: Distribution by Sex of Asset Owners (Financial Assets) ................................ 30
Gap 2: The Incidence of Asset Ownership by Sex (Physical Assets) ......................... 30
Gap 2: The Incidence of Asset Ownership by Sex (Financial Assets) ........................ 31
The Gender Wealth Gap .............................................................................................. 33
Characteristics of Female Owners ............................................................................... 36
Intra-Household Asset Ownership .............................................................................. 37
Asset Quintiles ............................................................................................................. 37
The Gender Dimension of the Distributions of Asset Owners and Wealth across
Quintiles ................................................................................................................... 42
The Relative Magnitudes of Wealth across the Quintiles ........................................ 44
The Asset Shares of Wealth across Quintiles ........................................................... 44
Concluding Thoughts on the Quintile Analysis ........................................................ 45
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 46
Chapter 5 ......................................................................................................................... 47
Ownership Rights............................................................................................................. 47
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 47
5.1: The Right to Sell and Sex of the Owner of the Asset ............................................ 47
The Right to Bequeath and Sex of the Owner ............................................................. 50
The Right to Use the Asset as Collateral and Sex of the Owner .................................. 52
Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 53
iii
Chapter 6 ......................................................................................................................... 54
Modes of Asset Acquisition ............................................................................................. 54
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 54
Modes of Acquisition by Form of Ownership .............................................................. 55
Modes of Asset Acquisition by Men and Women ....................................................... 56
Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 58
Chapter 7 ......................................................................................................................... 59
Decision-Making and Mobility ......................................................................................... 59
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 59
Decision-Making .......................................................................................................... 59
Decision to be Employed or be Involved in an Income Generating Activity............. 59
Decision on How to Spend One’s Income................................................................. 60
Decision to Access Health Services .......................................................................... 62
Mobility........................................................................................................................ 63
Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 64
Chapter 8 ......................................................................................................................... 65
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 65
References ....................................................................................................................... 67
Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 70
iv
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Sampled Localities, Inheritance Regimes and Dominant Ethnic Groups...........7
Table 2.2: Demographic Characteristics of Household Members....................................11
Table 2.3: Distribution of Households by Respondents Coverage...................................11
Table 2.4: Demographic Characteristics of respondents.................................................12
Table 2.5: Relevant Characteristics of Principal Respondents by Sex & Location............13
Table 3.1: Type of Employment for Household Members aged 15+ (%).........................17
Table 3.2: Household Amenities......................................................................................18
Table 4.1: Form of Asset Ownership: Physical Assets......................................................26
Table 4.2: Form of Asset Ownership: Financial Assets.....................................................27
Table 4.3: Measures of the Gender Wealth Gap..............................................................34
Table 4.4 Characteristics of Female Owners of Major Asset Categories (%)...................36
Table 4.5: Ownership of Assets within the Household (%)..............................................37
Table 4.6: Gender Distribution (%) of Value of Assets, by Quintiles; National................38
Table 4.7: Gender Distribution (%) of Value of Assets, by Quintiles; Urban....................39
Table 4.8: Gender Distribution (%) of Value of Assets, by Quintiles; Rural......................40
Table 4.9: Contributions (%) of Assets to Total Wealth, by Quintiles; National...............44
Table 5.1: The Right to Sell by Sex of Owner...................................................................48
Table 5.2: The Right to Sell and Form of Ownership........................................................49
Table 5.3: The Right to Bequeath by Sex of Owner.........................................................50
Table 5.4: The Right to Bequeath by Form of Ownership................................................51
Table 5.5: Right to Use Assets as Collateral and Sex of Owner........................................52
Table 5.6: Right to Use Asset as Collateral and Form of Ownership................................53
Table 6.1: Modes of Acquisition by Ownership Type – Individual and Joint (%)..............55
Table 6.1: Modes of Acquisition by Ownership Type – Individual and Joint (%)..............56
Table 7.1: Asset Ownership and Indicators of Mobility...................................................63
v
List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Regional Distribution of Households (%).......................................................10
Figure 3.1: Industry of Employment (%)..........................................................................16
Figure 3.2: Incidence of Household Ownership by Asset Category (%)..........................20
Figure 3.3: Household Ownership of Agricultural Equipment (%)...................................20
Figure 3.4: Household Ownership of Consumer Durables...............................................21
Figure 3.5: Incidence of Household Ownership by Types of Livestock (%).....................22
Figure 3.6: Composition of Total Gross Wealth...............................................................23
Figure 3.7: Regional Distribution of Gross Wealth...........................................................24
Figure 4.1: Distribution of All Asset Owners by Sex (%)...................................................28
Figure 4.2: Distribution of Urban Asset Owners by Sex (%).............................................29
Figure 4.3: Distribution of Rural Asset Owners by Sex (%)...............................................29
Figure 4.4: Incidence of Asset Ownership % (Men and Women 18 years and older)...31
Figure 4.5: Incidence of Urban Asset Ownership % (Men & Women 18 years & older)..32
Figure 4.6: Incidence of Rural Asset Ownership (Men and Women 18 years & older)....33
Figure 4.7: Women’s Share of Total Gross Physical Wealth by Region............................35
Figure 4.8: Women’s Share of Gross Wealth and Women’s Share of Owners (%)..........35
Figure 4.9: Gender Shares of Total Wealth, by Quintiles; National.................................39
Figure 4.10: Gender Shares of Total Wealth, by Quintiles; Urban Localities...................40
Figure 4.11: Gender Shares of Total Wealth, by Quintiles; Rural Localities.....................41
Figure 4.12: Females’ Shares (%) of Asset Owners and Wealth, by Quintile; National....43
Figure 4.13: Mean Value of Assets, by Quintile and Sex; National..................................43
Figure 4.14: Contributions (%) of Assets to Total Wealth, by Quintiles; National...........45
Figure 6.1: Modes of Asset Acquisition by Sex Regardless of Ownership Structure (%)..57
Figure 7.1: Decision to Be Employed- Homeowners and Non-Homeowners..................60
Figure 7.2: Decision to Be Employed: Agricultural & Non-Agricultural Land Owners.....60
vi
Figure 7.3: Decision to Spend One’s Income- Homeowners and Non-Homeowners......61
Figure 7.4: Decision to Spend One’s Income- Agricultural & Non-Agricultural Land
Owners................................................................................................................61
Figure 7.5: Decision to Access Health Services- Homeowners and Non-Homeowners...62
Figure 7.6: Decision to Access Health Services–Agricultural & Non-Agric. Land
Owners................................................................................................................62
Appendix Figure 1: Females’ Shares (%) of Asset Owners & Wealth, by Quintile;
Urban..................................................................................................................70
Appendix Figure 2: Females’ Shares (%) of Asset Owners and Wealth, by Quintile;
Rural....................................................................................................................70
Appendix Figure 3: Mean Value of Assets, by Quintile and Sex; Urban...........................71
Appendix Figure 4: Mean Value of Assets, by Quintile and Sex; Rural...........................71
vii
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank our funder, the MDG3 Fund of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, for providing the financial support for this project. It would not have been
possible to undertake this large comparative research project without this support.
We would also like to thank the Institute for Statistical, Social and Economic Research
(ISSER) of the University of Ghana, Legon for making their sampling frame available to
us. The technical support provided by Dr. Isaac Osei-Akoto of ISSER is highly
appreciated.
The study benefited from frequent interactions amongst members of the project teams
at project meetings and in cyber space. We extend our appreciation to the co-Principal
Investigators: Carmen Diana Deere, Caren Grown, Cheryl Doss and Hema Swaminathan.
We extend our sincere appreciation to the contact persons in the communities who
provided invaluable support by paving the way for our entry into the communities to
conduct focus group discussions and key informant interviews.
viii
Project Team
Abena D. Oduro
William Baah-Boateng
Louis Boakye-Yiadom
Hellen Seshie
Dorcas Opai-Tetteh
ix
Foreword
In my close to three decades of intellectual activist engagement with gender
inequalities in Ghana, I have come to appreciate the importance of routinely collected
gender disaggregated statistics as well as data generated by more targeted gender
research and analysis. In countless encounters with policy makers, fellow academics
and the general public, the demand for hard data has silenced the most eloquent
arguments, even when based on painstaking qualitative research and experiential
knowledge. In spite of a growing consensus on the need for public and private
institutions to collect gender disaggregated data, progress has been painfully slow, and
the resources devoted to this enterprise rather meagre. In the area of land tenure, the
paucity of gender disaggregated statistical data has fuelled intractable debates about
the existence and nature of gender inequalities in the land tenure system. This has
contributed in no small measure to policy inertia on gender issues in the face of far-
reaching land tenure reforms.
Measuring the Gender Asset Gap in Ghana, authored by three well established
economists based at the Department of Economics at the University of Ghana, is a
study which is long overdue and most welcome. National in coverage, and focused on
measuring gender inequalities in assets holdings and the implications of assets holdings
for women’s ability to participate in certain kinds of household decision making, this
study represents the most comprehensive effort to date to address these issues.
Through a careful selection of indicators and a focus on individuals and households,
several inequalities which were not very visible before have been laid bare.
The findings are not surprising in their general thrust although some of their details are
startling. They confirm the existence of significant gender inequalities in the ownership
and control of immoveable property and other physical and financial assets. They
confirm that although more women than men own businesses, in terms of their value,
men are far ahead of women. The study also shows that women who own assets are
more likely to be involved in household level decision making than women who do not.
There are aspects of the study which speak to other debates on women’s control and
ownership of physical assets. For example, the table on women’s share of total gross
physical wealth by region suggests that the differences between matrilineal and
patrilineal areas are more questions of degree than absolutes. The same table suggests
that gender inequalities are greatest in the regions with the highest levels of poverty in
Ghana. These findings have policy implications which can be addressed by reforms in
macro-economic policies, sectoral policies in agriculture and employment and the
ongoing Land Administration Project (LAP), but only if there is a will. The study will
encourage more research of this kind, as well as qualitative studies which explain the
quantitative findings.
x
The authors make an effort to present their findings in clear and simple language. Thus
the monograph will speak to a broad range of actors- policy makers looking for
evidence on which to base socio-economic policy, researchers looking to build on this
and other studies and gender equity activists seeking to show the evidence demanded
of them. It is my hope that the monograph will be widely circulated, read and used by
all these different publics. It would be an even greater bonus if the data set was made
widely accessible to students and other researchers for further analysis.
August, 2011 PROF. DZODZI TSIKATA
Institute of Statistical, Social and Economic Research (ISSER)
University of Ghana
Director, Centre for Gender Studies and Advocacy (CEGENSA)
University of Ghana
xi
Executive Summary
Introduction
There is an increasing recognition that the ownership of, access to and control over
assets constitute a critical element in the determination of the well-being of households
and individuals. Owing largely to data constraints, however, there has been a tendency
for studies on assets and well-being/poverty to use the household as the unit of
analysis. Such an approach tends to ignore the importance of intra-household
disparities in asset ownership and well-being. Moreover, the dearth of individual-level
data on asset ownership makes it extremely difficult to analyze gender disparities in
asset ownership, wealth and well-being. As rightly noted by Grown et al. (2005), this
lack of data seriously hampers efforts to track the progress of countries toward the
Millennium Development Goal of gender equality and women’s empowerment.
The project, In Her Name: Measuring the Gender-Asset Gap in Ecuador, India and
Ghana, was created in 2009 by an international team of researchers as part of efforts to
understand the extent of the gender asset gap in order to effectively redress it. With
initial funding from the Dutch Foreign Ministry MDG3 Fund, the project has collected
individual-level asset data in these three countries. Extensive qualitative work in each
country led to the creation of survey questionnaires that allowed for both international
comparisons and the development of comparable measures of the gender asset and
gender wealth gaps, while also ensuring that the results would be relevant in the local
context to answer policy relevant questions. The surveys were fielded in 2010 to 2011.
Data was collected that is nationally representative of Ecuador and Ghana and is
representative at the level of the state of Karnataka in India.
This publication presents findings from the Ghana Household Asset Survey conducted in
2010. The data was collected by the Department of Economics of the University of
Ghana. The main research questions are:
What are the patterns of asset ownership by men and women?
What is the extent of owners’ rights over their assets and are there gender
differences in these rights?
What are the main channels of asset acquisition for men and women?
Is there a relationship between asset ownership and household decision-making
and how does it differ between men and women?
The Survey, Data and Methodology
The data for our analysis was obtained from a household survey that was carried out
from May to July 2010, which was preceded by a qualitative survey that spanned the
period August 2009 – January 2010. The qualitative survey was carried out partly to
inform the design of the quantitative survey. In the quantitative survey, a two-stage
xii
sampling procedure was employed. In the first stage, enumeration areas were selected
from each of Ghana’s ten administrative regions. The number of enumeration areas
selected was determined by each region’s share of the total population. In the second
stage, 15 households were randomly selected from each of the enumeration areas. The
selection of our sample was informed by the sample frame for a Yale/ISSER survey that
had just been completed. In all, a total of 2,170 households covering all ten regions of
the country were surveyed.
The questionnaire was structured into four main sections. The first section mainly
collected information on the demographic characteristics of household members. The
second section, the household inventory, collected data on physical assets owned by
household members and on the owners of each asset, including those who are not
household members. These physical assets include agricultural land, place of residence,
other real estate, agricultural equipment, livestock, consumer durables and businesses.
The third section collected data on consumption expenditure of the household. The
fourth section, intended to be administered to two adult members of the household,
collected more detailed information on the respondents’ asset ownership. In addition,
this section collected information about the financial assets owned/owed by the
respondents and about their ownership, control and decision-making regarding assets
and any income they generate. The individual respondents further provided
information on shocks and losses, conflict over assets, as well as knowledge of the
marital and inheritance regimes.
The gender asset gap can be measured in two ways. The first (Gap 1) is based on the
gender distribution of asset owners, while the second (Gap 2) is based on the incidence
of asset ownership by sex of owner. These measures are calculated for each category of
asset. The gender wealth gap, on the other hand, can be measured in three ways. The
first is a comparison of the gross value of assets owned by men and women. The second
is a comparison of the mean gross value of assets owned by men and women and the
third is the share of the gross value of assets owned by women. Our findings are based
on an analysis of these gender asset and wealth gaps.
We also assess the intra-household gender differences in asset ownership by comparing
the incidence of households that have male owners with those that have female
owners of the asset of interest. This comparison is restricted to asset-owning
households that contain at least one male and one female. The basis for excluding
same-sex households is that for such households, the notion of a gender asset gap is
meaningless.
xiii
The Gender Asset and Wealth Gaps
The first measure of the gender asset gap, i.e. “Gap 1” is the gender distribution of
asset owners. For every asset, with the exception of businesses and consumer durables,
males constitute a higher proportion of owners. For example, in the case of the
household’s place of residence, about 61 percent of owners are male. Similarly, about
62 percent of owners of agricultural land are male, while only 37 percent of owners of
other real estate are female. The gender distribution of ownership of agricultural
equipment is, however, more equal: about 47 percent of owners are female.
Regarding the incidence of asset ownership by sex of owner, i.e., the “Gap 2” measure
of the gender asset gap, there is again a bias in favour of men for almost all asset
categories and definitions of ownership. For instance, in the case of agricultural land,
whereas about 15 percent of men are owners, a much smaller proportion (about 7.0
percent) of women owns this type of asset. It is only in the case of businesses that the
bias is in favour of women, with approximately 40 percent of women owning
businesses compared to about 20 percent of men. It is notable that in the case of
consumer durables, both men and women have an incidence of ownership that exceeds
80 percent, although that of men is slightly higher. When the category of consumer
durables is disaggregated, we find that the incidence of reported female ownership is
higher than that of males for jewellery, uncut cloth, sewing machines, large cooking
pots, lanterns and stoves. Excluding businesses that have a bias towards women, the
difference in the incidence of asset ownership is largest for radios and mobile phones.
The total value and the mean value of gross wealth of women are lower than those of
men for all asset categories, irrespective of the definition of ownership. With most
assets, there is a considerable difference between the mean value of an asset owned by
men and the mean value of the same asset owned by women. However, there is a
greater variation in the value of assets owned by men than those owned by women.
The standard deviation of the mean value of women’s assets is almost always lower
than that of men. This suggests a clustering of women’s assets among lower valued
assets.
Our findings on the intra-household gender differences in asset ownership are also
notable. Amongst mixed-sex asset-owning households, the incidence of male
ownership is higher than that of female ownership for virtually all assets. For example,
the incidence of male ownership of agricultural land is about twice that of female
ownership. It is only in the case of businesses that the proportion of households with
female owners is higher than the incidence of male ownership.
The information provided by household wealth quintiles has further enhanced our
understanding of the gender distribution of total wealth across household quintiles. We
note that while females generally outnumber males in asset ownership, males tend to
have a greater share of asset values. This pattern is generally consistent across urban
xiv
and rural communities. Our findings further suggest that in comparison with females, a
higher percentage of males tend to own more valuable assets such as places of
residence, other real estate, large businesses and agricultural land. Regarding the
overall gender wealth gap (i.e., irrespective of asset), although there is a bias in favour
of females for some (typically poor) household quintiles, rich quintiles exhibit
considerable bias against females and the overall bias is clearly in favour of males.
Ownership Rights
Here, we focus on owners’ rights to make decisions regarding the sale, bequest, or
collateralization of the four major categories of assets, i.e., place of residence, other
real estate, business and agricultural land. At least 60 percent of owners of each asset
category - irrespective of their sex- have the right to sell it either on their own or after
consultation. Individual rights are the most frequently reported irrespective of the sex
of the owner or the type of asset, although such rights are proportionately more
common amongst male owners in general. A small percentage of owners from each
asset category indicated explicitly that someone else has the right to sell their asset and
notably, the proportion of female owners in this category is consistently higher than
that of males.
In contrast to the right to sell, a higher percent of owners have the right to bequeath
their assets (i.e., place of residence, agricultural land and other real estate) with or
without having to consult or seek permission. This is not an unexpected difference since
a bequest will probably keep the asset within the extended family. With the exception
of agricultural land, the proportion of women who have the right to bequeath the asset
without consultation or permission was lower than that of men.
About 70 percent of owners have the right – independently or after consultation - to
use assets as collateral. However, female owners are less likely than male owners to
have the exclusive right to put up assets as collateral. A non-trivial proportion of owners
cannot use their asset as collateral and here, the form of asset ownership appears to be
an important influence. As with the right to sell and the right to bequeath, individual
ownership does not always endow the owner with the right to collateralise the asset.
Women who own assets individually are less likely than men to have exclusive rights to
do this. Female individual owners of the place of residence and other real estate are
almost twice as likely as men to own property that cannot be used as collateral.
Modes of Asset Acquisition
Our examination of the modes of acquisition focused on four major assets in terms of
contribution to gross wealth. These are agricultural land, place of residence, business
xv
and other real estate. We find that the mode of acquisition is the same for individually
and jointly owned assets. For both sole and joint owners of agricultural land,
inheritance is the main mode of acquisition, followed by transfer from family members
and gifts. The places of residence are either built by the owner or inherited. Businesses
are established, acquired as a gift or purchased. The main means of acquisition of other
real estate is through outright purchase.
There are also broad similarities between men and women in the pattern of asset
acquisition. The most frequently reported means of acquisition of each asset is identical
for both sexes. Inheritance is the most frequently reported mode of acquiring land for
both men and women and construction is the modal form of acquisition of places of
residence for both men and women. Additionally, most men and women acquire other
real estate by purchasing it, whilst both set up their businesses with their own
resources. Women and men who are joint owners are more likely than individual
owners to have inherited their assets. The exception to this is individual male owners of
agricultural land who are just as likely as joint owners to have inherited the land. Both
men and women who are sole owners of their assets are more likely than joint owners
to have acquired them as gifts.
In spite of the highlighted similarities in the mode of asset acquisition, some differences
are worth mentioning. Men are more likely than women to inherit agricultural land and
to claim ownership by virtue of their being members of land owning families. Women
are more likely than men to own agricultural land that is a gift. A lower proportion of
women than men construct their own place of residence; women are more likely to
have inherited their place of residence or to have received it as a gift.
Decision-Making and Mobility
In examining the link between asset ownership on the one hand and decision-making
and mobility on the other, we focused on two assets (place of residence and
agricultural land). Three areas of decision-making were investigated. These are the
decision on whether to engage in an income-generating activity, the decision on how to
spend one’s income and the decision to access health services. Regarding women’s
mobility, we analyze information on whether the woman requires permission in respect
of any of the following activities: a market trip, a visit to the family home (i.e., if it is in
another location) and attending a funeral.
Single men and women have more autonomy in decision-making than married women
and men, and women and men in consensual unions. In addition single men and
women are less likely to be subject to mobility restrictions than partnered women.
Among partnered women, those who do not own their place of residence or
agricultural land are less likely to make decisions autonomously. Of the different
xvi
categories of men and women with respect to asset ownership and marital status,
women who do not own assets have the lowest incidence of autonomy in decision-
making. They are also more likely to require permission before they can leave the
home. These findings would suggest that asset ownership matters for the
empowerment of women.
Conclusion
Our findings highlight the prevalence of gender disparities in asset ownership and
control and further suggest that asset ownership is crucial for the empowerment of
women. These findings strongly point to the need for policy measures that will address
the underlying causes of the disparities, a task that requires the involvement of all
stakeholders. The study additionally confirms the importance of collecting nationally
representative individual-level data on asset ownership.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Background
It is increasingly recognized that ownership of, access to and control over productive assets
are important determinants of the well-being of individuals and households. Assets
generate income and facilitate access to capital and credit. They strengthen households’
ability to cope with and respond to shocks by enhancing their ability to diversify their
income and ease liquidity constraints. Assets are also a store of wealth which can be sold
to generate income.
Policy initiatives and research analyses that have examined implications of asset ownership
for well-being and poverty reduction traditionally use the household as the unit of analysis.
However, literature over the last decade has conclusively established that individual well-
being and household well-being do not necessarily move together, with gender being one
of the main differentiating factors.
Relatively little data exist on the magnitude of gender asset gaps within and across
countries. Few national level household surveys collect individual-level information on the
ownership of or control over land, housing, livestock or other productive assets. Because
data on assets is collected at the household level, it is difficult to determine individual-level
ownership patterns. Yet, data from small-scale studies suggest that gender asset gaps are
substantial (Deere and Leon 2003; Doss 2005; and Wrigley-Asante 2008). It is thus
understandable that the UN Millennium Task Force 3 called on countries to collect
systematic data on women’s share of land and housing.
The lack of national level data hampers governments’ effort to reduce poverty and
vulnerabilities experienced by poor and marginalized individuals, households and
communities. It is a serious constraint for policy makers and practitioners who are working
towards the goal of gender equality.
There are several reasons why individual-level asset data have not been collected:
• Policymakers and survey designers have not yet been convinced of the importance
of such data for policy making.
• The feasibility and efficacy of data collection on this topic has not yet been
demonstrated.
2
• There are many conceptual and methodological difficulties in obtaining valid data
which need to be resolved before questions can be incorporated into multi-
purpose household questionnaire.
The project, In Her Name: Measuring the Gender-Asset Gap in Ecuador, Ghana and India,
was created in 2009 by an international team of researchers as part of efforts to
understand the extent of the gender asset gap in order to effectively redress it. With initial
funding from the Dutch Foreign Ministry MDG3 Fund, the project has collected individual-
level asset data in these three countries. Extensive qualitative work in each country led to
the creation of survey questionnaires that allowed for both international comparisons and
the development of comparable measures of the gender asset and gender wealth gaps,
while also ensuring that the results would be relevant in the local context to answer policy
relevant questions. The surveys were fielded in 2010 to 2011. Data were collected that
are nationally representative for Ecuador and Ghana and is representative at the level of
the state of Karnataka in India.
The focus of this project is on physical and financial assets. While some researchers and
policy makers are taking a much broader view of assets, including human capital and social
capital, much more data are already available at the individual-level, especially on health
and education.
This report presents findings from the Ghana Household Asset Survey conducted in 2009
and 2010. The data was collected by the Department of Economics of the University of
Ghana. The main research questions are:
What are the patterns of asset ownership by men and women?
Is there a relationship between asset ownership and household decision making and
how do these differ between men and women?
What are the main channels of asset acquisition for men and women?
What is the extent of asset owners’ rights over their assets and are there gender
differences in these rights?
Existing Evidence on Gender Gaps in Asset Ownership
Recent evidence suggests that assets in the hands of women empower them, significantly
enhances their decision-making capabilities (Agarwal 1998), improves well-being at an
individual, household and community level and has a greater impact on the health and
welfare of children (Katz and Chamorro 2003). In Ghana women’s share of assets has been
found to have an impact on some categories of household expenditure (Doss, 2006). A few
3
studies suggest women’s ownership of assets may also reduce their experience of domestic
violence (ICRW 2006; Panda and Agarwal 2005; Friedemann-Sánchez 2006). Improving
women’s claim to assets under these circumstances is an important policy lever to protect
them from becoming marginalized.
The Ghanaian Context
In 2011 Ghana joined the ranks of the low middle-income countries. Growth rates have
averaged more than 5 percent in the last decade. Ghana remains a primary commodity
exporting country with more than 50 percent of its export earnings coming from cocoa
beans and gold.
Significant gains have been made in reducing the incidence of poverty which declined from
39.5 percent in 1998/99 to 28.5 percent in 2005/06. Poverty remains endemic in the
northern sector of the country, with the poverty headcount ratio in the Upper East and
Upper West regions standing at 70.4 percent and 87.9 percent respectively in 2005/06.
Despite the decline in the incidence of poverty, there is growing inequality. The
consumption based Gini index increased from 0.37 in 1991/92 to 0.42 in 2005/06
(Coulombe and Wodon, 2007).
Urbanisation has been moving apace. In 1970 just over 70 percent of the population was
rural. By 2000 this had declined to 56.2 percent.
Laws and norms and practices define the parameters (for example, the inheritance and
marital regimes) that determine access to, ownership of and control over assets. Ghana has
a plural legal system. Act 11 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana provides that the laws of
Ghana shall comprise the Constitution, statutes, orders, rules and regulations and common
law. Customary law falls under common law. The difficulty with this plural legal system is
that it brings about complexity. In the case of land tenure, for example, Minkah-Premoh
and Dowuona-Hammond (2005) observe that the plural legal system presents difficulties,
particularly to women and the urban and rural poor.
Customary Norms and Law
There are two lineage systems in Ghana: matrilineal and patrilineal. In the matrilineal
system, the members of a family comprise the maternal grandmother and her uterine
siblings, her children and the children of her daughters. Thus, in the matrilineal system,
children and their fathers do not belong to the same family. In the patrilineal system, the
members of the family comprise the paternal grandfather and his paternal siblings, his
4
children and the children of his sons. In this system, mothers and their children do not
belong to the same family.
Customary law distinguishes between self-acquired assets and family assets. Self-acquired
assets, as the name suggests, are assets that have been acquired with personal effort and
resources. Family assets belong to the lineage and family members have rights to the use of
such assets. Thus, for example, an Akan man cannot bequeath family property to his wife
or children. Self-acquired assets, on the other hand, can be gifted or bequeathed to non-
family members. Family property is managed by the family head. Amanor (2001, p. 76)
notes that “it is difficult for individuals to sell family land since there are multiple interests
in this land”.
Customary practices recognise spouses as individuals with separate identities. Under
customary law, spouses have no claim to each other’s assets. Customary law does not
confer on the woman rights to her husband’s property and a widow or divorcee cannot
stake a claim to her husband’s property (Dowuona-Hammond, 1998).
Formal Legal Rules
In Ghana the relevant laws are the Intestate Succession Law (PNDCL 111), the Customary
Marriage and Divorce (Registration) Law (PNDCL 112), the Wills Act 360, 1971 and the
Matrimonial Causes Act 367, 1971. The Intestate Succession Law provides for the surviving
spouse and children when the deceased dies intestate. The Law spells out the proportion of
the deceased’s property the surviving spouse and children can acquire. When the husband
has not adequately provided for the wife and/or children the Wills Act 360 provides an
opportunity for redress. The Matrimonial Causes Act 367 regulates the dissolution of
monogamous marriage. It gives the court the authority to determine what interest, if any, a
spouse seeking divorce has in property acquired during marriage. Article 22 of the 1992
Constitution of Ghana makes provision for the property rights of spouses when a marriage
is dissolved due to divorce or death. The first paragraph of the Article states that a spouse
shall not be deprived of a reasonable provision out of the estate of a spouse, whether or
not the spouse died having made a will. It is stated in the third paragraph that spouses shall
have equal access to property jointly acquired during the marriage and that assets which
are jointly acquired during the marriage should be shared equally between the spouses
when the marriage is dissolved. In addition, Article 22(2) states that “Parliament shall, as
soon as practicable after the coming into force of this Constitution, enact legislation
regulating the property rights of spouses”. Almost two decades after the coming into force
of the Constitution, the Parliament of Ghana has not enacted this legislation.
Under both customary law and the formal legal laws, the marital regime is that of
separation of property. Assets acquired before marriage do not become the property of the
5
couple after marriage and assets acquired during the marriage through individual savings,
inheritance or gifts are not the joint property of the spouses (Kuenyehia and Ofei-Aboagye,
1998).
Customary law and practices are biased against women’s acquisition of assets through
inheritance and marriage. It was to address this injustice in the traditional system and the
unfairness of the Marriage Ordinance provision on inheritance that PNDC Law 111 was
enacted in 19851. The Law applies to all forms of marriage –customary, Mohammedan
Ordinance and Marriage Ordinance. The Law provides some, but not complete protection
for widows (Dowuona-Hammond, 1998). For example, the Law does not discriminate
between children born within a marriage and those born outside the marriage. Thus the
house(s) a woman acquires with her husband, if not registered in both their names, will be
shared by all children, including those born outside the marriage. If she does not register
her interest in any business she invested in with her husband, her share can get diluted
when the property is divided using the formula provided in the Law. Although the
Matrimonial Cause Act gives the court the authority to distribute property when a marriage
is dissolved, it does not provide guidelines as to how this is to be done (Premo-Minka and
Dowuona-Hammond, 2005). As a result of this grey area, when there is divorce, a woman
can risk losing the assets she acquired during the marriage. In a judgement on a case, it was
stated that:
“... a wife by going to live in the matrimonial home, the sole property
of the husband did not acquire any interest therein. The law does not
recognise any such interest. She only has a right to live in the matrimonial
home as long as the marriage subsists. That right is conferred on her by
virtue of her status as a wife. The right would terminate automatically
after divorce.”2
The position of the courts has changed somewhat over the years, as the following
statement shows:
“Judicial opinion today shows that the trend is to give credit to the wife for
her services in kind as a housekeeper or for the use of her own income or savings
in such a way as to enable her husband to use his for the purchase of a house.”3
1 There were different provisions for women and men under the Marriage Ordinance. Under the
Marriage Ordnance a man could inherit the entire estate of his deceased spouse. However, a widow
could inherit only a part of the deceased spouse’s estate.
2 Taken from Kuenyehia and Ofei-Aboagye (1998, p. 44).
3 Taken from Kuenyehia and Ofei-Aboagye (1998, p. 43).
6
The onus is on the wife to prove that she contributed to the acquisition of the asset. The
current laws and regulations of the formal legal system are not adequate to address the
biases inherent in the customary laws and practices. Two Bills have been drafted that seek
to close these loopholes. The first Bill is proposing amendments to address anomalies of
the current Intestate Succession Law. The second, the Property Rights of Spouses Bill takes
its authority from Act 22 of the 1992 Constitution.
This study has eight chapters. The second chapter presents the methodology and a
description of the characteristics of the sample. The third contains background information
on socio-economic conditions in Ghana, the incidence of asset ownership by household,
the composition of total gross wealth and its regional distribution. This sets the stage for a
discussion of gender gaps in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 investigates the rights of asset owners
and Chapter 6 provides evidence on the modes of acquisition of assets. Chapter 7 examines
the link between asset ownership and decision-making. Chapter 8 is the concluding
chapter.
7
Chapter 2
The Sample and Methodology
Introduction
This chapter discusses the methods of the qualitative and quantitative data collection,
presents the sample descriptive statistics and outlines two sets of measures developed to
capture gender differences in asset ownership. The first set of measures captures the
gender asset gaps. The second set captures the gender wealth gap.
The Qualitative Survey
The qualitative data was collected between August 2009 and January 2010 and was used to
determine the design of the questionnaire for the quantitative data survey. The qualitative
data was collected through focus group discussions and key informant interviews. Focus
group discussions were held in nine of the ten administrative regions of the country (see
Table 2.1) for a total of eighteen all-female and nine all-male groups. The discussions were
guided by four main themes: (1) livelihoods and vulnerability to shocks, (2) the definition of
assets and markets for assets, (3) asset acquisition over the life-cycle and (4) empowerment
and decision-making.
Table 2.1: Sampled Localities, Inheritance Regimes and Dominant Ethnic Groups
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Key informant interviews were held in all regions. Chiefs, queen-mothers and local
community leaders were interviewed to obtain in-depth information that was difficult to
Region Community Rural/Urban Ecological Zone Inheritance Regime
Northern Walewale Urban Savannah Patrilineal
Upper West Wa Urban Savannah Patrilineal
Upper East Basengo Rural Savannah Patrilineal
Eastern Pokrom-Nsabaa Rural Middle/forest Matrilineal
Central Saltpond-Ankaful Rural Coastal Matrilineal
Western Esiamah Peri-Urban Coastal/forest Matrilineal
Brong Ahafo Kintampo Urban Middle Matrilineal
Greater Accra La Urban Coastal Patrilineal
Volta Woeti Rural Middle/forest Patrilineal
8
capture with focus groups. In particular, these key informant interviews provided
information on the mode of inheritance and marital regimes within the different
communities.
Map 2.1: The Administrative Regions of Ghana
Source: www.ghanaimmigarion.org/Reg_map
The sample consisted of the northern savannah ecological zone, the coastal belt and the
middle/forest belt of the country (Table 2.1). Five of the localities sampled are urban or
peri-urban communities. All the communities selected for the qualitative survey from the
9
northern savannah, Greater Accra and Volta regions practise the patrilineal system of
inheritance, whereas the communities in the Eastern, Central, Western and Brong-Ahafo
regions practice the matrilineal system.
The Quantitative Survey
The Sample
The household survey to collect quantitative data was implemented from May to July 2011.
A two-stage sampling procedure was employed. In the first stage enumeration areas were
selected from each of the ten administrative areas. The number of enumeration areas
selected was determined by each region’s share of the total population. In the second stage
15 households were randomly selected from each of the selected enumeration areas. The
selection of our sample was informed by the sample frame for a Yale/ISSER survey that had
just been completed. Sample weights were generated for each enumeration area. In all, a
total of 2,170 households covering all ten regions of the country were surveyed.
The Survey Instrument
The data sets collected by the project have several unique features. Within each household,
the questionnaire was administered to two adults, usually principal male and female
respondents. Conventional practice is to interview only one household member, typically a
male. Specifically, the survey asked for information about the physical assets owned by
household members, i.e., agricultural and non-agricultural land, the household’s place of
residence and any other real estate. It also asked about the household’s livestock,
agricultural equipment, businesses and consumer durables. Data was collected on the
financial assets and debts of two members of the household.
The questionnaire was structured into four main sections. The first section mainly collected
information on the demographic characteristics of household members. The second
section, the household inventory, collected data on physical assets owned by household
members and on the owners of each asset, including those who are not household
members. The third section collected data on consumption expenditure of the household.
The fourth section, intended to be administered to two adult members of the household,
collected more detailed information on the respondents’ asset ownership. This fourth
section additionally collected information about the financial assets and debts of the
respondents, as well as information relating to the respondent’s ownership, control and
decision-making over assets and any income they generate. Additional information
obtained in this section of the questionnaire includes respondents’ shocks and losses,
10
conflict over assets, as well as knowledge of the marital and inheritance regimes.
Conventional surveys usually do not ask about all types of assets or about this level of
detail. They are also often inconsistent in the way valuation questions are asked. By
contrast, the instrument included different measures for valuing each asset.
Characteristics of the Sample
Figure 2.1 provides information on the regional distribution of the sample of households
and shows that the Ashanti Region has the highest proportion of households with 15.8
percent, followed by Greater Accra with 11.8 percent. The lowest proportion of households
is in the Upper West Region. The regional distribution of the sample households is
consistent with that of the population counted during the 2010 census. The Ashanti Region
still has the highest population share (19.5 percent) and the Upper West Region has the
lowest (2.8 percent).
Figure 2.1: Regional Distribution of Households (%)
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010.
About 63 percent of the sampled households are urban (Table 2.2). There are 7,984
household members in the 2,169 households sampled. The average household size is 3.7
members. The average size of rural households (3.9 members) is higher than that of urban
households (3.2 members). Overall, females account for 52.4 percent of household
members, compared with 47.6 percent of males. About 41 percent of those aged 18 and
Western, 10.33
Central, 9.64
Greater
Accra,
11.8
Volta, 9.68
Eastern, 11.76
Ashanti, 15.81
Brong
Ahafo,
11.76
Northern,
10.42
Upper
East, 5.3
Upper West,
3.5
Regional Distribution of Households (%)
11
above (18 being the legal age for marriage) are in a monogamous marriage and about 6
percent are in a polygamous marriage. About 11 percent are in a consensual union, 17
percent are divorced, separated or widowed and 23 percent have never married.
Table 2.2: Demographic Characteristics of Household Members
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Although the target number of people to interview in the household was two, in about 55
percent of urban households and 45 percent of rural households there was only one
respondent (Table 2.3). There are two reasons for this situation. First, although about 60
percent of household members aged 18 years and over are married or in a consensual
union, couples may live apart because, for example, one spouse has migrated. Besides, in
polygamous marriages not all the wives may reside in the same households as their
husbands. Second, there are many single-adult households. This is consistent with the fifth
Ghana Living Standards Survey conducted in 2005/06 that finds that about 20 percent of
households are single person households and about 8 percent of households with children
have only one adult (Ghana Statistical Service, 2008).
Table 2.3: Distribution of Households by Respondents Coverage
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Percent
Rural 63.4
Urban 36.6
Sex Male 47.8
Sample=7,984 Female 52.2
Age All 26.6
Sample=7,905 Male 25.4
Female 27.0
Married: Monogamous 41.3
Married: Polygamous 6.0
Sample=4,240 In Consensual Union 11.5
Never married 23.0
Divorced, separated, or widowed 17.1
Betrothed or Deserted 1.1
Marital status (18+)
Demographic Characteristics
Location
Respondents Rural Urban National
Principal couple 48.4 37.1 44.3
Other dual respondent 6.8 8.1 7.3
Single respondent 44.8 54.8 48.5
Total number of households 1,374 795 2169
12
The demographic characteristics of primary and secondary respondents are reported in
Tables 2.4 and 2.5. The majority of primary respondents are men and almost all secondary
respondents, i.e., about 89 percent, are women (Table 2.4). Compared to the primary
respondents, a higher percentage of the secondary respondents are married or in a
consensual union whilst a smaller proportion is divorced, separated or widowed. The
percentage of female secondary respondents who are married or in a consensual union far
exceeds the proportion of partnered female primary respondents (Table 2.5).
Table 2.4: Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Female primary respondents are more likely to have been married in the past than to be
currently married. Primary respondents are on average older than secondary respondents
irrespective of sex and location (Table 2.5). Most of the respondents are either Christian or
Primary Respondents Secondary Respondents
48.2 38.6
Male 63.9 10.6
Female 36.1 89.4
Married 24.7 38.6
In Consensual Union 6.9 5.3
Never married 49.6 52.7
Divorced, separated, or widowed 18.9 3.5
77.9 76.7
No education 25.9 27.0
Pre-school 4.6 5.5
Basic education 54.4 57.6
Secondary education 10.6 7.9
Higher education 4.4 2.0
Christian 76.8 70.7
Muslim 15.8 21.9
Traditional 4.1 5.2
Other religion 0.4 0.3
No Religion 3.0 2.0
Akan 48.4 39.7
Ga/Adangbe 9.3 8.3
Ewe 12.1 11.8
Guan 3.3 2.7
Gurma 6.8 10.4
Mole-Dagbani 12.9 18.0
Grusi 3.6 5.0
Mande 0.7 0.7
Non-Ghanaians 3.0 3.5
Demographic Characteristics of Principal Respondents
Sex
Marital status
Highest level of education
Religion
Major Ethnic Groups
Age (in years)
Attended school ( %)
13
Muslim, that is, believers in the two predominant religions in Ghana (Table 2.4). The single
largest ethnic group of both primary and secondary respondents is the Akan. This is to be
expected since the Akan is the largest ethnic group in Ghana.
Table 2.5: Relevant Characteristics of Principal Respondents by Sex & Location
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
About three-quarters of both primary and secondary respondents have ever attended
school, with the former having a slight edge over the latter. Primary respondents are more
likely than secondary respondents to have post-basic education (Table 2.4). Illiteracy is
highest amongst rural respondents, particularly the females. A higher proportion of both
primary and secondary female respondents cannot read or write in any language (Table
2.5).
Men Women Men Women
% Primary Respondent
67 33 59 41
Average Age
48 53 45 47
% Illiterate
55 80 26 49
% Never Married
7 6 15 15
% Currently Married
71 19 60 25
% In Consensual Union
12 814 13
% Widowed/Seperated/Divorced/Des erted
10 67 10 48
%Wage employee
11 539 11
% Self-employed
82 77 42 63
% Casual labour
0 1 2 1
% Contributing family worker
0 1 0 1
% Not Working
617 15 23
Total number of respondents
910 455 469 323
% Secondary Respondent
991 13 87
Average Age
34 39 35 38
% Illiterate
29 80 21 47
% Never Married
54 352 8
% Currently Married
35 81 42 77
% In Consensual Union
813 613
% Widowed/Seperated/Divorced/Des erted
3 3 0 3
%Wage employee
8 3 23 7
% Self-employed
46 66 26 60
% Casual labour
1 0 0 1
% Contributing family worker
721 2 7
% Not working
37 849 22
Total number of respondents
72 696 48 314
Respondents
Rural
Urban
14
The incidence of employment is higher amongst primary respondents (Table 2.5), as is the
incidence of wage employment and self-employment. A negligible proportion of primary
respondents are contributing family workers. This contrasts with the case of secondary
respondents. The incidence of contributing family workers is highest amongst rural female
secondary respondents. The pattern of employment amongst secondary respondents - who
are predominantly women -suggests that their income earning capacity is lower than that
of primary respondents and that they will be less likely to acquire assets through purchase.
Concepts and Method of Analysis
Ownership may be conceptualised in four different ways. The first is based on perception,
which was determined by asking respondents who the owner of the asset is. Second,
ownership may be based on legal claims established by having one’s name on a document.
The third concept of ownership is based on marital laws. Finally, ownership may be defined
based on control over the asset. This study will investigate gender gaps that emerge from
the different definitions of ownership excluding legal claims based on the marital laws. The
latter is excluded because Ghana has neither a full nor a partial community marital regime.
Two sets of measures have been developed to capture gender differences in asset
ownership. The first is the gender asset gap and the second is the gender wealth gap.
Calculating the Gender-Asset Gap
The gender asset gap can be measured in two ways. The first is the distribution of assets
owned by sex – Gap 1. The second is a comparison of the proportion of men who own
assets with the proportion of women who own assets – Gap 2. These measures are
calculated for each category of asset.
Gap 1: captures the distribution by sex of asset owners irrespective of the form of
ownership or the number of the particular category of assets owned. This means that if
one asset is owned by multiple people, all individuals with a claim to that one asset are
considered owners and that if one individual owns multiple of the same asset, that
individual is only counted once. This gap measures the proportion of female owners and
male owners of all owners of the asset. The unit of observation is an individual man or
woman. It is calculated as follows:
15
Gap 2: measures the incidence of asset ownership as the percent of female owners of all
women and the percent of male owners of all men. It is calculated for persons aged 18
years and over as follows:
These two measures consider an individual to be an owner, regardless of whether he or she
owns an asset individually or jointly.
Calculating the Gender Wealth Gap
The indicator used to measure the gender wealth gap is the gross value of assets. The
advantage of this measure of the gender gap is that it contains information on the quality
of the asset owned. Three sets of valuation data were collected. These are the replacement
cost of the asset if it is purchased today, current market price (i.e. the sale value) and the
present value using the rental value. This study uses the market price of assets.
The gender wealth gap can be measured in three ways. The first is a comparison of the
gross value of assets owned by men and women. The second is the share of the gross value
of assets owned by women and the third is a comparison of the mean gross value of assets
owned by women and men. The results of gender asset and gender wealth gaps are
presented and discussed in chapter four.
16
Chapter 3
Wealth in Ghana
Introduction
This chapter presents information on the ownership of assets by households and the
composition and regional distribution of gross wealth. It begins by presenting background
information on the economy and socio-economic conditions in Ghana.
Socio-economic Conditions in Ghana
Economic Activity and Employment
The composition of employment by industry can provide some insights into the patterns of
economic activity in the country. Agriculture employs the largest proportion of the working
population aged 15 years and above (Figure 3.1). It is the most important sector of rural
employment. The services sector employs the largest proportion of urban workers.
Agriculture is the single largest employer of men, but not of women. Females are spread
more evenly between agriculture and the services sector (Figure 3.1). In the services sector
women are concentrated in the wholesale, retail and repairs sub-sector. This sub-sector
employs about 28 percent of working women.
Figure 3.1: Industry of Employment (%)
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Male
Female
Rural
Urban
All
Agriculture including
Fishing
Industry
Service
17
The workforce aged 15 years and above is largely made up of self-employed workers who
do not employ others (Table 3.1). Over three-quarters of the rural workers and about 74
percent of working women are in this category. About 6 percent of the working population
own a business and employ others. The preponderance of self-employed workers with no
employees presents a picture of an economy dominated by micro-enterprises and small-
sized farms.
Table 3.1: Type of Employment for Household Members aged 15 years and above (%)
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Amenities
Pipe-borne water is the source of drinking water for about 40 percent of households (Table
3.2). Provision of pipe-borne water is more prevalent in urban areas and it is the source of
drinking water for over 60 percent of urban households. Next in importance as a source of
drinking water for urban households is the purchase of sachet or bottled water (Table 3.2).
Comparable statistics from the fifth Ghana Living Standards Survey conducted in 2005/06
suggest that consumption of sachet and bottled water has expanded rapidly amongst urban
households, having increased from 4 percent (Ghana Statistical Service, 2008).
Rural households obtain their drinking water from boreholes, protected wells, pipes and
natural sources. Only a quarter of these households obtain their drinking water from pipes
and less than 5 percent have piped water within the place of residence.
Type of Employment Male Female Urban Rural All
Wage Employment - Public 8.8 4.1 10.8 3.9 6.2
Wage Employment - Private 16.1 2.9 18.6 3.8 8.9
Self-employed with employees (or Employers) 6.5 5.1 9.2 4.0 5.8
Self-employed without employees (or Own account work) 62.3 73.6 52.3 76.8 68.4
Casual/Day Labourer 1.5 0.9 1.8 0.8 1.2
Contributing family work 3.0 11.0 2.8 9.7 7.4
Domestic employment/work 0.6 0.5 1.3 0.2 0.5
Apprentice 1.2 1.9 3.2 0.8 1.6
Other 0.1 0.0 0.03 0.01 0.04
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Sample 1,480 1,770 1,017 2,233 3,250
18
About 65 percent of households light their places of residence using electricity (Table 3.2).
The use of electricity for lighting is more widespread amongst urban than rural households.
Expansion in the use of electricity for lighting has been quite rapid amongst rural
households, having risen from 27 percent in 2005/06 to 52 percent in 2010.
Less than half of households have toilet facilities within the place of residence (Table 3.2).
Urban residents who do not have toilet facilities within the dwelling can make use of public
toilet facilities. These facilities are less prevalent in rural areas.
Table 3.2: Distribution of Household Amenities (%)
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Urban Rural All
Source of Drinking Water
Pipe-borne Water
Piped water in home 31.7 4.3 14.9
Piped water outside dwelling 31.9 20.7 25.0
Wells
Borehole and Protected Well 10.9 45.6 32.1
Unprotected Well 0.3 4.6 2.9
Natural Sources
River, Stream, Dugout 1.6 21.4 13.8
Other Water Sources
Sachet Water/bottled water 22.8 2.3 10.2
Water Trucks and Vendors 0.5 0.3 0.3
Source of Lighting
Electricity 86.4 51.9 65.3
Kerosene 12.6 23.5 16.5
Candles/Torches 7.8 23.2 17.2
Toilet Facilities
Flush Toilet 24.1 1.8 10.5
KVIP in Dwelling 4.5 6.8 5.9
Pit Latrine in Dwelling 12.9 25.9 20.8
Toilet in Another House 1.2 4.7 3.4
Public Toilet (Flush/Bucket/KVIP) 49.5 34.8 40.5
No Toilet Facility (Use bush, beach) 5.6 22.4 15.9
Other 2.2 3.7 3.1
19
Incidence of Asset Ownership by Households
Ownership of the place of residence, agricultural land (not including family land),
agricultural equipment and livestock is higher amongst rural households (Figure 3.2). Over a
quarter of the owned places of residence are family houses. Ownership of family houses is
more prevalent amongst urban households. About 30 percent of agricultural land that is
owned or farmed is family land.
Most real estate is not registered. Less than 5 percent of households own the place of
residence or agricultural land that has any form of supporting documentation and not all
the names on these documents belong to members of the households (Figure 3.2). The
Land Title Registration Law, 1986 (PNDCL 152) was enacted to encourage the registration
of land. The low incidence of land owning households with documents suggests that this
policy has not been successful. Kasanga and Kotey (2001) attribute the low registration to
design and implementation defects of the Law. Alhassan and Manuh (2005, p. 16) in a study
on land registration in the Western and Eastern regions find that “indigenous people do not
usually register their landholding as they believe they have a natural right to land”
Almost all households own agricultural equipment. Agriculture in Ghana is not highly
mechanised and farming households tend to use small tools, for example, machetes, hoes,
rakes and shovels. While about 74 percent of households own such smaller agricultural
equipment, only about 14 percent own larger equipment such as tractors and ploughs
(Figure 3.3).
Ownership of other real estate and businesses is higher among urban households (Figure
3.2). Almost fifty percent of all households have a member who owns a business. This is not
surprising because of the high rate of self-employment amongst the working adult
population. Businesses are largely sole proprietorships.
Almost all households, whether urban or rural, own at least one consumer durable. Income
and the availability of utilities and telecommunications infrastructure can explain the
difference in the composition of consumer durables owned by rural and urban households.
Between 60 and 70 percent of rural households own torches and lanterns (Figure 3.4). This
is not unexpected because about 48 percent of rural households do not use electricity for
lighting. A higher proportion of urban households own consumer durables that are run
using electricity, for example, televisions, refrigerators, electric fans and deep freezers. The
incidence of ownership of uncut cloth is similar across urban and rural households. During
the focus group discussions it was mentioned that this item is an asset which is usually
owned by women and can be sold when they are in urgent need of cash.
20
Figure 3.2: Incidence of Household Ownership by Asset Category (%)
Note: The financial asset data contains data from only the primary and secondary respondents.
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Figure 3.3: Household Ownership of Agricultural Equipment (%)
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
0 20 40 60 80 100
Principal Residence, with documents
Agricultural Land, with documents
Other Real Estate with documents
Principal Residence
Agricultural Land
Ag Equipment & Installations
Other Real Estate
Animals
Non-Farm Businesses
Consumer Durables
Savings**
Loans Made**
Rural
Urban
National
0 20 40 60 80 100
Total Ag Equipment & Installations
Large equipment
Small equipment
74
14
74
49
7
49
90
18
90
Rural
Urban
National
21
Figure 3.4: Household Ownership of Consumer Durables
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Over 80 percent of urban households and about 53 percent of rural households own mobile
phones (Figure 3.4). Ownership of mobile phones has spread like wildfire in the last five
years. Mobile phone ownership by rural and urban households was 7 percent and 37
percent respectively in 2005/6 (Ghana Statistical Service, 2008). Rising incomes, the
expansion in mobile phone networks by service providers and the declining price of mobile
phones and their chips can explain this rapid expansion in ownership. The ownership of
several other consumer durables such as furniture, refrigerators, televisions, sewing
010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Dishwasher
TV stand
Home Theatre
Gun
Washing machine/Dryer
Typewriter
Gas cylinder
Printer
Air conditioner
Microwave
Truck/buses
Plastic chairs
Landline telephone
Camcorder/Video Player
Record player
Satelite dish
Electricity Generator
Car
Deep freezer
Food Processor/grinder (electric)
Computer
Large Water storage tank
Sound syetem
Gas/Electric Stove
Motorcycle
Refrigerator
Sewing Machine
VCD/DVD player
Electric fan
Bicycle
Iron
Radio casette player
Television
Jewelry
Cooking pots (large or used)
Radio
Mobile phone
Furniture
Uncut Cloth
Lantern
Torches
Incidence of Household Ownership of Consumer
Durables - Rural (%)
020 40 60 80 100
Typewriter
Gas cylinder
TV stand
Dishwasher
Home Theatre
Gun
Truck/buses
Electricity Generator
Air conditioner
Washing machine/Dryer
Camcorder/Video Player
Printer
Record player
Satelite dish
Plastic chairs
Large Water storage tank
Landline telephone
Motorcycle
Microwave
Deep freezer
Car
Computer
Bicycle
Sound syetem
Cooking pots (large or used)
Sewing Machine
Food Processor/grinder (electric)
Gas/Electric Stove
Radio casette player
VCD/DVD player
Radio
Lantern
Refrigerator
Jewelry
Electric fan
Iron
Torches
Uncut Cloth
Television
Furniture
Mobile phone
Incidence of Household Ownership of
Consumer Durables - Urban (%)
22
machines and video-cassette recorders has expanded since 2005/6. This is an indication of
rising standards of living.
Figure 3.5: Incidence of Household Ownership by Types of Livestock (%)
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
About 60 percent of rural households own livestock. Most of these households own poultry
(for example, chickens, ducks and guinea fowls) and small livestock (for example, sheep,
goats and pigs) (Figure 3.5). Fewer households own the more expensive large livestock (for
example, cattle and donkeys).
Information was collected on three categories of financial assets: formal and informal
financial assets, insurance and loans given out. Formal financial assets are made up of bank
accounts, treasury bills, shares and deposits with savings and loans companies. Informal
financial assets include cash savings and informal savings programs. Ownership of financial
assets is predominant among individuals living in urban households (Figure 3.2). The rural-
urban gap is wider for formal financial assets such as bank accounts, share holdings and
deposits with savings and loans companies.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
All Animals
Large stock
Small Stock
Poultry
44
4
29
34
22
2
11
16
58
6
41
46
Rural
Urban
National
23
Composition of Total Gross Wealth
Gross total wealth was obtained by summing up the total value of assets owned by
individuals in the household. The calculation of wealth does not exclude debt owed. Assets
were valued on the basis of their selling price. The place of residence contributes the
largest share to total gross wealth. Other real estate, businesses and agricultural land
contribute 20 percent, 18 percent and 16 percent respectively (Figure 3.6). Despite the
widespread ownership of consumer durables and agricultural equipment, these contribute
16 percent to total gross wealth because they are lower valued assets.
Figure 3.6: Composition of Total Gross Wealth
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Principal
Residence
27%
Other Real
Estate
20%
Businesses
18%
Agricultural Land
16%
Consumer
Durables
15%
Livestock
3%
Ag Equipment &
Installations
1%
24
There is a significant difference in the composition of urban and rural wealth. The place of
residence contributes the most to total urban wealth whilst the largest contributor to rural
wealth is agricultural land (Table 3.6). The contributions of businesses and consumer
durables to total urban wealth are higher than they are for rural wealth.
Regional Distribution of Total Gross Wealth
Fifty eight percent of wealth is owned by urban households. The regional distribution of
wealth is provided in Figure 3.7. Two regions account for more than half of the country’s
total gross wealth. These are the Greater Accra Region and the Ashanti Region. The Greater
Accra Region is the wealthiest. It is home to the nation’s capital city and contributes about
37 percent to the total gross wealth. The second wealthiest region is the Ashanti Region. It
accounts for about 17 percent of total gross wealth. The contribution to total gross wealth
of the three northern regions – the regions with the highest poverty headcounts – and of
the Volta Region is less than the share of the Ashanti Region.
Figure 3.7: Regional Distribution of Total Gross Wealth
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Central
5%
Western
10%
Greater Accra
37%
Eastern
11%
Brong Ahafo
7%
Ashanti
17%
Volta
4%
Northern
3%
Upper
East
5%
Upper West
1%
Share of total wealth
Region
Central
Western
Greater Accra
Eastern
Brong Ahafo
Ashanti
Volta
Northern
25
Chapter 4
The Gender Asset and Wealth Gaps
Introduction
As discussed in chapter 2, the gender asset gap can be measured in two ways. The first is
the distribution of assets owned by men and women (Gap 1). The second is the incidence of
assets owned by women and men (Gap 2). These measures are calculated for each category
of asset. The gender wealth gap can be measured in three ways. The first is a comparison
of the gross value of assets owned by men and women. The second is the share of the total
value of assets owned by women and the third is a comparison of the mean gross value of
assets owned by women and men. In this chapter the gaps will be examined using two
definitions of ownership. The first definition used is reported owners and the second is
legal ownership. Reported owners are those who declare themselves or are identified by
another household member as the owners of the assets in question. Legal owners have
their names on documents to support their claims to ownership of the assets.
The next section examines the distribution of assets by form of ownership. Here, we
analyze the data in terms of the different ways in which assets are owned. In the third
section, we analyze the gender asset gap for different categories of assets. In doing this, we
focus on two forms of the gender asset gap. The analysis of the gender wealth gap is the
focus of the fourth section, while the fifth section presents a profile of female owners of
some major assets. In section six, we examine intra-household gender differences in asset
ownership. Before concluding the chapter, we analyze – in the seventh section – the
distribution of wealth across household asset quintiles, with a focus on the gender shares
of wealth within quintiles.
Distribution by Form of Asset Ownership
Physical Assets4
For each asset there are six classifications of owner: individual male, individual female,
principal couple, all household members, other joint ownership by household members
and joint ownership with persons who are not members of the household. Persons who are
4 Agricultural land does not include family land.
26
not members of the household and who jointly own assets with household members are
parents, siblings or other relatives of a member of the household.
Table 4.1: Form of Asset Ownership: Physical Assets
Note: Rows may not sum up to 100 percent because of rounding.
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Total
Individual
Male
Individual
Female
Owned by
PRINCIPAL
Couple
Owned by all
Household
members
Other joint
ownership
Principal Residence 453 171 88 014 102 828
51 25 11 0 1 12 100
Principal Residence, with documents 47 12 3 0 0 4 66
71 19 5 0 0 5 100
Agricultural Land 456 178 18 0 0 31 683
64 29 4 0 0 4 100
Agricultural Land, with documents 49 18 5 0 0 4 76
70 22 5 0 0 3 100
Other Real Estate 310 143 27 32 0 4 516
59 30 6 6 0 1
100
Other Real Estate with documents 140 53 612 0 1 212
64 27 3 6 0 0.3
100
Livestock 15602 5290 933 1045 113 236 23219
60 30 4 4 0.3 1 100
Large stock 951 81 266 080 1180
84
8 1 2 0 5 100
Smal l stock 5251 1761 279 182 23 88 7584
61 29 4 3 0.3 1 100
Po ultry 9400 3448 652 797 90 68 14455
55 34 5 5 0.3 0
100
Agricultural Equi pment 2738 1073 372 402 178 17 4780
54 26 8 8 3 0.4 100
Large equi pment 327 56 0 7 0 1 391
83 15 0 2 0 0.2
100
Smal l equipment 2411 1017 372 395 178 16 4389
52 27 9 9 3 0.4 100
Businesses 332 872 2 0 21 34 1261
27 69 0.3 0 1 3
100
Consumer Durabl es 7695 5936 187 1238 30 118 15204
50 40 1 8 0.2 1 100
V ehicles 192 22 9 5 0 2 230
82 9 4 3 0 1
100
House hold consumer durables 4207 4171 102 893 18 79 9470
45 43 1 9 0.3 1 100
Stov e 79 111 13 36 1 3 243
34 47 413 1 1 100
Ref rigerat ors 224 166 18 67 1 3 479
47 36 413 0.3 1 100
Je wellery 135 611 12 6 2 8 774
19 77 2 1 0 1
100
Entertai nment 980 326 54 182 514 1561
62 22 311 0.4 1 100
Radi o 1163 362 1135 3 7 1671
68 24 0.1 8 0.1 0.3 100
Compu ter 92 19 911 1 2 134
70 12 6 9 1 2 100
Ce ll phone 926 425 0 6 1 6 1364
66 34 0 0.4 0.1 0.4
100
number owned as
percent of total
Individual Property
Dwelli ngs
Plots or parcels
percent of total
Real Estate
Each animal
Each piece of
equipme nt
Each Business
Each consumer
durable
percent of total
percent of total
percent of total
number owned as
number owned as
number owned as
number owned as
number owned as
percent of total
percent of total
number owned as
percent of total
number owned as
number owned as
percent of total
number owned as
percent of total
number owned as
percent of total
number owned as
percent of total
number owned as
percent of total
number owned as
number owned as
percent of total
percent of total
number owned as
percent of total
number owned as
percent of total
number owned as
number owned as
percent of total
number owned as
percent of total
Dwelli ngs
number owned as
Plots or parcels
percent of total
percent of total
percent of total
number owned as
percent of total
Unit
Asset
Joint Property
Ownership by house hold members only
Joint
ownership
with
household
members
and non-
household
members
Total number
of that asse t,
n
number owned as
percent of total
number owned as
27
Individual ownership - using both definitions of ownership - is the most frequent form of
ownership. At least 75 percent of each category of assets is owned individually (Table 4.1).
With the exception of consumer durables (particularly jewellery) and businesses, assets are
predominately owned by individual men. About 70 percent of the legal owners of places of
residence and agricultural land and 64 percent of the legal owners of other real estate are
men. Couples, whether married or in a consensual union, do not tend to own assets
together. The place of residence and agricultural equipment in rural households are the
only assets that have ownership by couples exceeding ten percent. Few assets are owned
by all household members. Of all the types of assets, consumer durables and livestock are
the most likely to be jointly owned by all members of the household.
Financial Assets
Individual ownership is the predominant form of ownership of financial assets (Table 4.2).
Informal financial assets (informal savings programs and cash savings) are more likely to be
owned by women and formal savings accounts are more likely to be owned by men.
Ownership of financial assets by couples is rare. This finding supports evidence obtained
during the focus group discussions.
Table 4.2: Form of Asset Ownership: Financial Assets
Note: Rows may not add up to 100 percent because of rounding
The financial data is from individual-level surveys. Unlike the data on other assets, the financial
asset data contains data from only the primary and secondary respondents and not from everyone
in the household.
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Total
Individual
Male
Individual
Female
Owned by
PRINCIPAL
Couple
Owned by all
Household
members
Other joint
ownership
Savings 997 857 1 0 26 91890
51 47 0 0 1 0.31 100
Formal 556 381 1 0 14 7959
57 41 0 0 2 0.51
100
Informal 321 425 0 0 8 2 756
41 58 0 0 1 0.13 100
Insurance 120 51 0 0 4 0 175
67 31 0 0 2 0 100
Each account
number owned as
percent of total
percent of total
number owned as
percent of total
number owned as
percent of total
number owned as
Ownship by household members only
Joint
ownership
with
household
members
and non-
household
members
Total number
of that asset,
n
Unit
Asset
Individual Property
Joint Property
28
Gender Asset Gaps
Gap 1: Distribution by Sex of Asset Owners- Physical Assets
This measure of the gender asset gap is the distribution by sex of asset owners irrespective
of whether the asset is owned individually or jointly, or the number of the particular
category of assets owned. This gap measures the share of female owners and male owners
of all owners of the asset.
Women are the majority of owners of businesses and consumer durables. About 70 percent
of the owners of businesses are women. Sixty seven percent of urban owners (Figure 4.2)
and about 74 percent of rural owners of businesses are female (Figure 4.3). Women are
52.5 percent of the owners of consumer durables (Figure 4.1). Unpacking the category of
consumer durables reveals that a greater proportion of the reported owners of jewellery
and household consumer durables (i.e., sewing machines, uncut cloth, large cooking pots
and microwave ovens) are female.
Figure 4.1: Distribution of All Asset Owners by Sex (%)
Note: The financial data is from individual-level surveys. Unlike the data on other assets, the
financial asset data contains data from only the primary and secondary respondents and not from
everyone in the household.
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
73
68
67
61
62
63
57
53
30
48
51
50
27
32
33
39
38
37
43
47
70
53
49
50
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Principal Residence, with documents
Agricultural Land, with documents
Other Real Estate with documents
Principal Residence
Agricultural Land
Other Real Estate
Animals
Ag Equipment & Installations
Businesses
Consumer Durables
Savings
Loans Made
Male Owners
Female Owners
29
Figure 4.2: Distribution of Urban Asset Owners by Sex (%)
Note: The financial data is from individual-level surveys. Unlike the data on other assets, the
financial asset data contains data from only the primary and secondary respondents and not from
everyone in the household.
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Figure 4.3: Distribution of Rural Asset Owners by Sex (%)
Note: The financial data is from individual-level surveys. Unlike the data on other assets, the
financial asset data contains data from only the primary and secondary respondents and not from
everyone in the household.
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
76
70
69
52
58
62
56
55
33
45
48
46
24
30
31
48
42
38
44
45
67
55
52
54
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Principal Residence, with documents
Agricultural Land, with documents
Other Real Estate with documents
Principal Residence
Agricultural Land
Other Real Estate
Animals
Ag Equipment & Installations
Businesses
Consumer Durables
Savings
Loans Made
Male Owners
Female Owners
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Principal Residence, with documents
Other Real Estate with documents
Agricultural Land
Animals
Businesses
Savings
69
67
65
64
63
64
57
52
26
49
54
52
31
33
35
36
37
36
43
48
74
51
46
48
Male Owners
Female Owners
30
Men are more likely than women to own all other assets. About 73 percent of individuals
who own the household’s place of residence are male and 27 percent are female; 69
percent of individuals who own agricultural land are male and 31 percent female; and
nearly 62 percent of individuals who own other real estate are male and 38 percent female.
The distribution of agricultural tools between men and women is more equal. Agricultural
equipment and tools comprise mainly small tools and almost 48 percent of the owners of
such tools are women.
Amongst the subset of legal owners, men dominate the ownership of places of residence,
agricultural land and other real estate (Figure 4.1). About 73 percent of the legal owners of
places of residence and 69 percent of the legal owners of agricultural land are men. The
proportion of owners who are male is higher amongst urban owners than amongst rural
owners (Figures 4.2 and 4.3).
Gap 1: Distribution by Sex of Asset Owners (Financial Assets)
The distribution of owners of financial assets is almost evenly divided between the sexes
(Figure 4.1). Just over fifty percent of the owners of loans given out are women and about
51 percent of the owners of savings accounts are men (Figure 4.1). The classification of
owners by location reveals a different pattern. The majority of urban owners of financial
assets are women and the majority of rural owners of financial assets are men (Figures 4.2
and 4.3).
Gap 2: The Incidence of Asset Ownership by Sex (Physical Assets)
This measure of the gender asset gap compares the incidence of the ownership of assets by
adult males and females. That is, it measures the percentage of adult female owners of all
women and the percent of adult male owners of all men.
The direction of the bias is towards men for all asset categories and definitions of
ownership except businesses (Figure 4.4). This direction is essentially the same in urban
and rural areas (Figures 4.5 and 4.6). Almost 40 percent of women report owning
businesses, compared to about 20 percent of men. Over 80 percent of men and women
respectively own consumer durables. There is no significant difference between women
and men in the incidence of reported ownership of consumer durables. When the category
of consumer durables is disaggregated we find that the incidence of reported female
ownership is higher than that of males for jewellery, uncut cloth, sewing machines, large
cooking pots, lanterns and stoves. Excluding businesses that have a bias towards women,
the difference in the incidence of asset ownership is largest for radios and mobile phones.
31
Few men and women have legal ownership of their household’s place of residence,
agricultural land and other real estate (Figure 4.4). Only slightly more than three percent of
men 18 years and older and one percent of women of the same age group have legal
ownership of the place of residence. About 17 percent and 8 percent of men and women
aged 18 years and older are legal owners of other real estate.
Figure 4.4: Incidence of Asset Ownership % (Men and Women 18 years and older)
Note: The financial data is from individual-level surveys. Unlike the data on other assets, the
financial asset data contains data from only the primary and secondary respondents and not from
everyone in the household.
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Gap 2: The Incidence of Asset Ownership by Sex (Financial Assets)
The incidence of ownership of formal savings accounts and insurance is higher for men
than for women (Figure 4.4). This is because men are more likely to have formal sector jobs
that require ownership of a bank account for payment of wages and salaries. In addition,
the higher incidence of reported ownership of insurance by men occurs because formal
sector employers and employees are required to make social security contributions.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Principal Residence, with documents
Agricultural Land, with documents
Other Real Estate with documents
Principal Residence
Agricultural Land
Other Real Estate
Animals
Ag Equipment & Installations
Businesses
Consumer Durables
Savings
Loans Made
Percent of people who own
Percent of women who own
Percent of men who own
32
The two measures of the gender asset gap - Gap 1 and Gap 2 - are generally consistent in
indicating the direction of bias. They both point to a bias towards women in the ownership
of businesses, informal savings and a sub-set of consumer durables (jewellery, large
cooking pots, sewing machines and uncut cloth).
Figure 4.5: Incidence of Urban Asset Ownership % (Men and Women 18 years and older)
Note: The financial data is from individual-level surveys. Unlike the data on other assets, the
financial asset data contains data from only the primary and secondary respondents and not from
everyone in the household.
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Principal Residence, with documents
Agricultural Land, with documents
Other Real Estate with documents
Principal Residence
Agricultural Land
Other Real Estate
Animals
Ag Equipment & Installations
Businesses
Consumer Durables
Savings
Loans Made
Percent of people who own
Percent of women who own
Percent of men who own
33
Figure 4.6: Incidence of Rural Asset Ownership (Men and Women 18 years and older)
Note: The financial data is from individual-level surveys. Unlike the data on other assets, the
financial asset data contains data from only the primary and secondary respondents and not from
everyone in the household.
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
The Gender Wealth Gap
The gender wealth gap is measured by comparing (i) the total gross value of assets of men
and women and (ii) the mean gross value of assets of men and women. The third measure
is women’s share of the gross value of assets. The gross value of total wealth is the sum of
the reported market value of each asset owned by each household member converted into
purchasing power parity U.S. dollars. When the asset is jointly owned the value of the asset
is distributed evenly across the owners. For businesses the value of the asset is distributed
between owners based on their share of the business. Debt is not netted out of the
calculation.
The total value and the mean value of gross wealth of women are lower than those of men
for all asset categories, irrespective of the definition of ownership (Table 4.3). For most
assets, there is a significant difference in the mean value of the asset owned by men and
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Principal Residence, with documents
Agricultural Land, with documents
Other Real Estate with documents
Principal Residence
Agricultural Land
Other Real Estate
Animals
Ag Equipment & Installations
Businesses
Consumer Durables
Savings
Loans Made
Percent of people who own
Percent of women who own
Percent of men who own
34
women. However, there is a greater variation in the value of assets owned by men than
those owned by women. The standard deviation of the mean value of women’s assets is
almost always lower than that of men’s. This suggests a clustering of women’s assets
among lower valued assets.
Women own 30.2 percent of total gross physical wealth. The asset category in which
women’s share of gross wealth is the highest is businesses and the asset category with the
lowest share is agricultural equipment (Table 4.3).Whilst there is not much difference in
women’s share of urban and rural total gross wealth (they are 31 percent and 29 percent
respectively) there is substantial regional variation. Women’s share of total gross wealth
ranges from 4 percent in the Upper West region to 14 percent in the Upper East region and
38 percent in the Central region (Figure 4.7).
The patterns for financial assets are similar to those of physical assets. In general, women
own financial assets of lesser value than do men. The share of the total value in savings
owned by women is 39 percent (Table 4.3).
Table 4.3: Measures of the Gender Wealth Gap
Note: The financial data is from individual-level surveys. Unlike the data on other assets, the
financial asset data contains data from only the primary and secondary respondents and not from
everyone in the household.
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Asset
Total value of
assets owned by
men
(000 US$)
Total value of
assets owned by
women
(000 US$)
Share of total
value owned by
women
(%)
Mean value of
assets owned by
men
(000 US$)
Mean value of
assets owned by
women
(000 US$)
Standard
Deviation of
assets owned by
men
(000 US$)
Standard
Deviation of
value of assets
owned by
women
(000 US$)
Principal Resi dence 17,352,460 10,052,990 37 10.9 10.1 24.8 23.6
Principal Resi dence, with documents 6,012,291 1,365,425 19 35.2 20.2 46.6 33.9
Agricultural Land 12,621,040 4,026,670 24 22.3 10.9 76.8 19.7
Agricultural Land, with documents 4,307,063 851,192 17 34.9 13.6 107.4 20.6
Other Real Estate 15,822,906 4,243,468 21 16.2 8.1 42.8 21.6
Other Real Estate with documents 9,583,146 1,710,456 15 22.5 8.4 60.7 19.6
Animals 2,335,236 378,012 14 1.0 0.2 3.8 0.3
Agricultural Equipment 991,571 75,387 7 0.2 0.0 2.1 0.1
Businesses 11,321,940 7,039,947 38 9.9 2.5 50.1 11.9
Consumer Durables 10,615,893 4,892,639 32 1.6 0.7 9.1 2.7
Savings 1,828,342 1,097,325 39 0.8 0.5 3.8 1.8
Formal 1,399,351 838,926 37 0.9 0.7 4.6 2.4
Informal 313,497 201,254 39 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.3
Insurance 115,379 82,557 42 0.8 1.5 1.9 2.8
Loans made 2,094,758 775,059 27 1.9 0.7 8.7 7.6
35
Figure 4.7: Women’s Share of Total Gross Physical Wealth by Region
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Figure 4.8: Women’s Share of Gross Wealth and Women’s Share of Owners (%)
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
The two sets of measures of the gender gap, i.e., the gender asset gap and the gender
wealth gap, present two different dimensions of the gender gap. This is illustrated in Figure
4.8 where a comparison is made between women’s share of wealth and women’s share of
owners. For every asset category women’s share of owners is larger than women’s share of
wealth. Businesses are a good illustration of the evidence on the gender gap using the two
sets of measures. Both measures of the gender asset gap are biased towards women.
However, because women own micro- and small-scale businesses with a low mean value,
their share of the total value of businesses is not commensurate with their share of owners.
Central, 38%
Western,
30%
Greater
Accra,
32%
Eastern ,
29%
Brong
Ahafo, 29%
Ashanti, 35%
Volta, 27%
Northern, 10%
Upper East, 14%
Upper West, 4%
Central
Western
Greater Accra
Eastern
Brong Ahafo
Ashanti
Volta
Northern
Upper East
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Principal
Residence
Agricultur al
Land
Other Real
Estate
Livestock
Agricultur al
Equipment
Businesses
Consumer
Durables
37
24
21
14
7
38
32
39
38
37
43
47
70
53
Share of Total Gross W ealth
Share of Owners
36
Characteristics of Female Owners
Table 4.4 presents the characteristics of female owners of the places of residence,
agricultural land, other real estate and businesses. Women who own these assets tend
either to be currently married or to have been married in the past. The proportion of
female owners of businesses is almost evenly spread across the ten administrative regions.
Female owners of the places of residence and agricultural land are more likely to be found
in the Ashanti, Brong-Ahafo, Central and Western Regions. Most female owners of these
four assets either have never been to school or have at least 9 years of basic education.
Unsurprisingly, female owners of assets are predominantly self-employed.
Table 4.4 Characteristics of Female Owners of Major Asset Categories (%)
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Characteristics of Female Owners Place of Residence Agricultural Land Other Real Estate Businesses
Marital Status
Married 43.4 36.0 45.1 57.9
Consensual Union 6.2 11.2 9.8 11.6
Separated/Divi rced/Widowed 47.4 50.9 39.4 23.2
Never Married 3.1 1.9 5.7 7.3
Location
Urban 27.7 25.5 46.3 44.7
Rural 72.3 74.5 53.7 55.3
Region
Western 13.9 18.6 7.9 7.1
Central 15.4 12.4 13.4 10.5
Greater Accra 9.5 3.1 26.4 14.9
Eastern 20.0 14.9 3.9 14.2
Volta 8.6 3.7 9.1 12.2
Ashanti 15.7 20.5 26.5 12.9
Brong-Ahafo 6.5 18.6 11.3 9.8
Northern 4.9 4.4 0.5 10.5
Upper East 4.3 3.1 1.0 4.9
Upper West 1.2 0.6 0.0 2.9
Education
Never Been to School 41.8 45.9 27.8 33.1
Basic Education 48.4 50.3 58.4 56.3
Secondary 5.1 3.2 3.8 8.0
Tertiary 4.4 0.6 9.2 2.1
Other 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.6
Employment
Wage Employment - Public 4.2 2.1 6.2 1.4
Wage Employment - Private 1.5 3.6 2.5 0.5
Self- employment with employees 8.8 5.7 8.3 7.2
Self- employment, no employe e 80.1 85.8 80.6 83.6
Other 5.4 2.8 2.4 7.3
Age
Less than 15 years 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.3
15-64 years 72.6 70.2 83.3 94.1
65 and over 27.1 29.2 16.3 5.6
Total Women Owne rs 325 161 168 874
37
Intra-Household Asset Ownership
Having looked at the incidence of individual ownership of assets, we will assess the intra-
household gender differences in asset ownership by comparing the incidence of
households that have male owners with those that have female owners of the asset of
interest. This comparison will be restricted to asset owning households that contain at least
one male and one female. The basis for excluding same-sex households is that for such
households, the notion of a gender asset gap is meaningless.
With the exception of businesses, male ownership dominates in mixed-sex asset-owning
households (Table 4.5). For example, the proportion of agricultural land owning households
that contain a male owner is about double that of households that contain a female owner.
With respect to places of residence, 38 percent of mixed-sex households owning the place
of residence have female owners compared to about 80 percent of similar households with
male owners. Thus in a large proportion of households that own land and/or the place of
residence men are the only owners of these assets. Women are more likely to be the only
owners of businesses in their households. However, the mean value of women’s business
assets is low.
Table 4.5: Ownership of Assets within the Household (%)
Note: The financial data is from individual-level surveys. Unlike the data on other assets, the
financial asset data contains data from only the primary and secondary respondents and not from
everyone in the household.
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Asset Quintiles
This section of the chapter focuses on the information provided by household asset
quintiles. In this regard, we rank households in ascending order of total value of physical
assets and divide them into five roughly equal groups, with the first quintile being the
poorest. We then examine, across quintiles, the value of household assets and the shares
Male Female Male Female Male Female
Place of residence 79.9 38.3 70.8 53.0 82.8 33.5
Other real estate 74.3 41.1 73.3 44.1 75.2 39.1
Consumer durables 75.3 73.0 67.7 73.4 79.5 72.7
Agricultural land 76.4 38.4 67.1 46.7 79.1 36.0
Agricultural equipment 79.2 66.3 76.1 53.4 80.2 70.6
Livestock 74.2 53.3 71.6 52.5 74.8 53.4
Business 34.8 84.9 40.5 83.8 30.2 85.8
Financial savings 68.6 68.3 64.8 75.6 71.8 61.9
Asset
National
Urban
Rural
38
of both males and females. By analyzing household asset quintiles, we gain insight into
both the gender distribution and asset shares of wealth within quintiles. Table 4.6 shows,
for each asset quintile, the shares (percentages) of total wealth owned by males and
females, as well as the corresponding shares across the entire population of households
irrespective of quintile. In Figure 4.9, we show graphically the statistics in Table 4.6 as well
as the total values of assets owned by males and females across the various quintiles.
An examination of the wealth quintiles shows that it is only within the poorest quintile that
females’ share of wealth (59.3 percent) exceeds that of males (see Table 4.6 and Figure
4.9). In each of the other quintiles, the shares of wealth that accrue to males are higher
than those accruing to females. It is worth noting that while the fifth (richest) quintile is not
the only one that has males taking a greater share of wealth, the extent of gender
inequality in the distribution within the quintile is very pronounced, with female-owned
wealth representing a mere 28 percent of total wealth.
Table 4.6: Gender Distribution (%) of Value of Assets, by Quintiles; National
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
The striking gender disparity in the fifth quintile’s distribution of wealth appears to
considerably influence the overall distribution of wealth between males and females. As
shown in Table 4.6 and Figure 4.9, when all households (i.e., irrespective of quintile) are
considered, male-owned wealth constitutes almost 70 percent of total wealth. While the
richest quintile’s gender disparity in wealth distribution is conspicuous, what is probably
even more striking is the fact that this inequality in wealth distribution (i.e., in the fifth
quintile) appears to largely account for the very unequal gender distribution of overall
wealth.
Given the importance (to developing countries) of the urban-rural categorization, it would
be useful to examine the extent to which the observed pattern of wealth distribution is
similar to (or different from) what is found in urban and rural localities. To this end, Tables
4.7 and 4.8 show the gender shares of asset values across household asset quintiles for
urban and rural communities, respectively. These Tables are complemented by Figures 4.10
Poorest Second Third Fourth Richest All
Male 40.7 53.3 50.4 58.5 72 69.8
Female 59.3 46.7 49.6 41.5 28 30.2
All 100 100 100 100 100 100
Household Wealth Quintiles
Sex
39
and 4.11, which show the gender distribution of wealth across quintiles in both absolute
and percentage terms.
Table 4.7: Gender Distribution of Value of Assets, by Quintiles (%); Urban
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Figure 4.9: Gender Shares of Total Wealth, by Quintiles; National
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Poorest Second Third Fourth Richest All
Male 38.7 43.3 44.5 56.4 71.5 69.3
Female 61.3 56.7 55.5 43.6 28.5 30.7
All 100 100 100 100 100 100
Household Wealth Quintiles
Sex
116,206.80
625,950.70
1,569,129.00
5,249,676.00
63,500,010.00
71,060,970.00
169,554.50
548,521.30
1,546,483.00
3,718,471.00
24,726,160.00
30,709,190.00
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Poorest
Second
Third
Fourth
Richest
All
Gender Shares of Quintile Wealth
Household Asset Quintiles
Total value of assets owned by males (US$ '000)
Total value of assets owned by females (US$ '000)
40
Figure 4.10: Gender Shares of Total Wealth, by Quintiles; Urban Localities
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
In urban localities, females have a greater share of wealth in each of the first three
quintiles, with the poorest quintile registering the highest female share (61.3 percent).
Although male dominance in the distribution of wealth occurs in the fourth and fifth
quintiles only, this is enough to sway the overall gender distribution of wealth in favour of
males. From Figure 4.10 and Table 4.7, we can see that approximately 70 percent of the
wealth in urban Ghana is held by males. In rural localities, the male dominance in the
distribution of wealth is slightly more pronounced, relative to the observed pattern in the
urban areas. Akin to the pattern for the entire country, it is only in the poorest quintile that
the gender share of rural wealth favours females (see Table 4.8 and Figure 4.11).
Table 4.8: Gender Distribution of Value of Assets, by Quintiles (%); Rural
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
56,404.85
250,776.20
704,413.90
2,671,970.00
37,702,290.00
41,385,860.00
89,260.22
328,147.50
880,179.70
2,065,637.00
15,007,420.00
18,370,650.00
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Poorest
Second
Third
Fourth
Richest
All
Gender Shares of Quintile Wealth
Household Asset Quintiles
Total value of assets owned by males (US$ '000)
Total value of assets owned by females (US$ '000)
Poorest Second Third Fourth Richest All
Male 44.6 53.4 56.7 60.1 73.1 70.6
Female 55.4 46.6 43.3 39.9 26.9 29.4
All 100 100 100 100 100 100
Household Wealth Quintiles
Sex
41
Figure 4.11: Gender Shares of Total Wealth, by Quintiles; Rural Localities
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Our data show that the gender distribution of wealth in Ghana is biased in favour of males
and this is true even when the distribution patterns in urban and rural communities are
analyzed separately. It is worth noting also that irrespective of the focus of the analysis
(i.e., national, urban, or rural), the richest two quintiles always have females registering a
smaller share of wealth than what accrues to males. It turns out also that the share of
wealth in the poorest quintile is always in favour of females. However, given that the
quantum of wealth in the poorest quintile is relatively very low, the dominance of females
in the distribution of wealth in this quintile is generally inadequate to considerably improve
the gender balance in the overall distribution of wealth. The relevance of this point is
strengthened by the fact that while males always have a larger share of the wealth in the
richest quintile, this quintile invariably registers the widest gap in the gender distribution of
wealth.
69,346.01
339,375.00
968,224.00
2,723,719.00
25,574,440.00
29,675,110.00
86,280.21
296,302.90
738,473.60
1,810,348.00
9,407,135.00
12,338,540.00
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Poorest
Second
Third
Fourth
Richest
All
Gender Shares of Quintile Wealth
Household Asset Quintiles
Total value of assets owned by males (US$ '000)
Total value of assets owned by females (US$ '000)
42
In order to facilitate our understanding of the observed gender distributions of wealth
across quintiles, it would be useful to examine the following four issues:
i) The gender dimension of the distribution of asset owners across quintiles;
ii) The gender dimension of the distribution of asset values across quintiles;
iii) The relative magnitudes of wealth across the quintiles; and
iv) The asset shares of wealth across quintiles.
The Gender Dimension of the Distributions of Asset Owners and Wealth across
Quintiles
We begin the analyses of the above issues by examining for each quintile, the female (or
male) share (%) of asset owners, together with the corresponding shares (%) of wealth
accruing to females (or males). Figure 4.12 provides this set of information for females. The
graph shows that for each quintile, females’ share of asset owners exceeds their share of
wealth. In other words, in each quintile, the share of wealth that accrues to females is
proportionately less than females’ contribution to the population of asset owners. The
graph further indicates that in terms of sheer numbers, female asset owners outnumber
their male counterparts in every quintile with the exception of the fifth. Additionally, the
largest gender disparity in the two shares (i.e., share of asset owners and share of wealth)
occurs in the richest quintile, whereas the smallest gap is registered in the poorest quintile.
In the richest quintile, females get only 28 percent of wealth despite accounting for 49.3
percent of asset owners. In the poorest quintile on the other hand, the gap in the two
shares is less than one percentage point. Clearly, the above pattern of wealth distribution
implies that the share of wealth accruing to males exceeds their contribution to the
population of asset owners.
It should be noted that the just described pattern of gender distribution of wealth strongly
suggests that the mean wealth of female asset owners is less than that of males. This point
is confirmed by Figure 4.13, where for every quintile, the mean wealth of male asset
owners is larger than that of their female counterparts. To a large extent, the information
in Figure 4.13 mirrors that of Figure 4.12. In particular, while the poorest quintile has the
smallest difference in mean wealth between males and females, the richest quintile has the
most pronounced gap.
43
Figure 4.12: Females’ Shares (%) of Asset Owners and Wealth, by Quintile; National
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Figure 4.13: Mean Value of Assets, by Quintile and Sex; National
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
60.0
52.1
54.8
53.3
49.3
53.2
59.3
46.7
49.6
41.5
28.0
30.2
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Poorest
Second
Third
Fourth
Richest
All
Females' Shares (%) of Asset Owners and
Wealth
Household Asset Quintiles
Females' Share (%) of Asset Owners
Females' Share (%) of Total Wealth
151.9
522.3
1139.2
3093.3
31070.5
10034.4
147.6
420.2
926.4
1922.0
12460.2
3818.3
0.0
5000.0
10000.0
15000.0
20000.0
25000.0
30000.0
35000.0
Poorest
Second
Third
Fourth
Richest
All
Mean Value (US$) of Assets Owned
Household Asset Quintiles
Mean Value (US$) of Assets Owned by Males
Mean Value (US$) of Assets Owned by Females
44
The Relative Magnitudes of Wealth across the Quintiles
In examining the magnitudes of wealth for the various quintiles, we observe that the
richest quintile’s wealth is extremely large relative to that of the other quintiles. From the
gender-disaggregated total values of assets across quintiles (see Figure 4.9), it can be seen
that the richest quintile accounts for approximately 86.7 percent of the wealth of all
households. It is also evident from Figure 4.13 that the mean wealth in the richest quintile
is relatively so vast that even the fourth quintile’s mean wealth does not come close to it. It
is therefore not surprising that the gender distribution of overall wealth is driven
overwhelmingly by the gender distribution within the richest quintile. As shown in Table 4.6
and Figure 4.9, females’ share of the richest quintile’s total wealth is 28 percent and this is
very similar to the 30.2 percent female share of overall total wealth.
The Asset Shares of Wealth across Quintiles
Given the observed gender distributions of asset owners and wealth across the quintiles,
we would enhance our understanding of the issues by analyzing the extent to which asset
shares of wealth vary across quintiles. Our focus here is on seven assets, namely,
agricultural land, agricultural equipment, place of residence, livestock, other real estate,
consumer durables and business. We show in Table 4.9 and Figure 4.14 the percentage
contribution of each of these assets to total wealth within each quintile.
Table 4.9: Contributions (%) of Assets to Total Wealth, by Quintiles; National
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
It is evident that in the poorest three quintiles, consumer durables constitute the dominant
asset. This asset’s percentage shares in total wealth within the poorest, second and third
quintiles are 67.9, 55.6 and 37.4, respectively. On the other hand, the asset that
contributes most to wealth in the richest two quintiles is place of residence, the shares in
the fourth and fifth quintiles being 30.4 percent and 27.0 percent, respectively.
Interestingly, while consumer durables’ percentage contribution to total wealth decreases
with the level of household wealth, the percentage contribution of place of residence
Quintile
Agricultural
Land
Agricultural
Equipment
Place of
Residence
Livestock
Other Real
Estate
Consumer
Durables
Business
Poorest 0.05 5.52 2.97 10.54 0.73 67.88 12.31
Second 1.56 3.19 9.85 13.43 3.25 55.6 13.13
Third 4.57 1.75 22.9 10.93 6.14 37.41 16.3
Fourth 10.24 1.26 30.45 7.41 14.97 20.79 14.89
Richest 17.65 0.96 27.02 1.72 20.96 13.18 18.51
All 16.36 1.05 26.93 2.67 19.72 15.24 18.04
45
generally exhibits a converse pattern. The share of agricultural equipment also decreases as
household wealth increases. For all households combined, place of residence is the asset
with the largest percentage contribution to total wealth, followed by other real estate,
business, agricultural land, consumer durables, livestock and agricultural equipment in that
order. It is important to note that this overall pattern of asset shares is the exact pattern for
the richest quintile, again reflecting the richest quintile’s dominance of asset ownership.
Figure 4.14: Contributions (%) of Assets to Total Wealth, by Quintiles; National
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Concluding Thoughts on the Quintile Analysis
The information provided by Figures 4.12 and 4.13 definitely enriches our understanding of
the gender distribution of total wealth across household quintiles. We note that while
females generally outnumber males in asset ownership, males tend to have a greater share
of asset values. This pattern is generally consistent across urban and rural communities (see
Figures 4.1 – 4.4 in the Appendix). Our findings further suggest that in comparison with
females, a higher percentage of males tend to own more valuable assets such as place of
residence, other real estate, large businesses and agricultural land.
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
Poorest
Second
Third
Fourth
Richest
All
Share (%) of Asset in Quintile Wealth
Household Asset Quintiles
Agric Land
Agric Equipment
Place of Residence
Livestock
Other Real Estate
Consumer Durables
Business
46
Conclusion
While gender differences exist in asset ownership in terms of both percentage shares of
owners and asset value, the nature of the gaps partly depends on the asset in question.
Thus, although for business and consumer durables the majority of owners are females, in
the case of place of residence, other real estate, agricultural land, agricultural equipment
and livestock, females are underrepresented. We also find that for almost all asset
categories, the incidence of ownership is higher for men than for women. Our analysis
further shows that for most assets, the intra-household wealth distribution is biased
against females. Regarding the overall (i.e., irrespective of asset) gender wealth gap,
although there is a bias in favour of females for some (typically poor) household quintiles,
rich quintiles exhibit a considerable bias against females and the overall bias is clearly in
favour of males.
47
Chapter 5
Ownership Rights
Introduction
The previous chapters have provided estimates of the gender gaps using two definitions of
ownership, i.e., reported and legal ownership. Ownership can also be conceptualised as
control over the assets. Control over assets can be viewed as the rights a person has over
the assets. The discussion will be centred on the four assets that contribute the most to
total gross wealth, i.e., agricultural land, place of residence, other real estate and
businesses. Ownership of an asset gives the owner the rights to the benefits of holding the
asset. These benefits are determined by the conventions and customs pertaining to
property rights within an area and may include access to the asset; the right to use the
asset; the right to the outputs produced using the asset; the right to improve or change the
asset; and/or the right to rent out, collateralize, pawn, bequeath, gift, or sell the asset. This
chapter focuses on the reported owner’s right to make decisions regarding the sale,
bequest, or collateralization of the four key assets, independently or in consultation with
others.5
5.1: The Right to Sell and Sex of the Owner of the Asset
At least 60 percent of owners of each asset category - irrespective of their sex- have the
right to sell it either independently or after consultation (Table 5.1). Individual rights are
the most common, irrespective of the sex of the owner or the type of asset (Table 5.1).
Individual rights dominate amongst male owners and 50 percent or more of male owners
have individual rights in three of the four assets. This contrasts with the pattern of rights of
female owners; it is only with regard to one asset, i.e., businesses, that more than half of
female owners have individual rights. A slightly higher proportion of women than men can
sell agricultural land without consultation (Table 5.1).
The claim to individual or sole ownership of an asset does not always imply exclusive rights
to sell the asset. Amongst individual owners of the place of residence, for example, about a
5 The questionnaire asks if the reported owner can make decisions regarding the sale, bequest and
collateralisation of the asset alone, in consultation with others, or with the permission of others.
However, the incidence of having to obtain permission from another person before the decision can
be taken is quite low. For the purposes of the analysis, therefore, this category of responses was
combined with responses indicating that consultation was required.
48
fifth of male owners and 14 percent of female owners have to consult with someone else
before a decision to sell can be taken. With the exception of agricultural land, females who
are sole owners of the asset are less likely than their male counterparts to have exclusive
rights to sell (Table 5.2). A small percentage of owners indicated explicitly that someone
else has the right to sell their assets. The proportion of female owners who fall into this
category is greater than that of men.
Table 5.1: The Right to Sell by Sex of Owner
Source: Measuring the Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
However, a significant proportion of owners of places of residence, agricultural land and
other real estate, in response to the question whether they have the right to sell the asset,
stated that the asset cannot be sold (Table 5.1). This suggests that they do not have the
right to sell and neither does anyone else. Respondents who owned the asset jointly with
someone else were more likely to own assets that cannot be sold (Table 5.2). The incidence
of this response – with the exception of agricultural land - was higher amongst female
owners.
Asset Alone
In
consultation
Someone else
has the right
Cannot be
sold
There is no
market
Total
Male
Number 304 150 6118 13 591
Percen t 51 28 119 2100
Female
Number 124 72 15 94 0305
Percent 39 24 532 0100
Male
Number 439 137 6399 42 1023
Percent 46 16 0.5 35 3100
Female
Number 180 67 5129 0381
Percent 48 19 132 0100
Male
Number 284 122 352 3464
Percent 59 28 112 0100
Female
Number 116 72 455 3250
Percent 42 30 324 2100
Male
Number 238 70 025 2335
Percent 70 22 0 8 0.4 100
Female
Number 554 165 292 10 823
Percen t 67 20 0.2 12 1100
Place of
Residence
Agriculture
Land
Other Real
Estate
Business
49
Table 5.2: The Right to Sell and Form of Ownership
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Some land tenancy arrangements confer ownership status on the tenant that does not
extend to the right to sell6. Some assets probably cannot be sold because they are family
assets. Family assets tend to stay within the family and are to be handed down from one
generation to the next. About 56 percent of the owners of family houses report that they
cannot be sold. Women are more likely than men to claim ownership to family assets. The
incidence of ownership of family houses amongst female owners is 30 percent compared to
6 One such contract is the Yemayenkye. The tenant has usufruct rights to the land. These rights can
be taken over by the spouse, children or relatives after the death of the original tenant (Takane,
2002).
Asset
Alone
In
consultation
Someone
else has
the right
Cannot be
sold
There is no
market
Individual (%)
60
22
0.5
16
2
Number
300
96
2
79
13
Joint (%)
5
55
4
37
0
Number
4
54
4
39
0
Individual (%)
56
14
2
28
0
Number
122
28
3
47
0
Joint (%)
3
44
13
40
0
Number
2
44
12
47
0
Individual (%)
47
16
1
34
3
Number
375
106
6
328
38
Joint (%)
5
26
0
69
0
Number
4
20
0
46
0
Individual (%)
61
11
0.5
28
0
Number
169
30
2
84
0
Joint (%)
2
51
3
43
0
Number
2
30
2
32
0
Individual (%)
61
27
1
12
0
Number
281
114
3
47
3
Joint (%)
12
57
0
31
0
Number
3
8
0
5
0
Individual (%)
46
27
2
23
2
Number
113
58
3
48
3
Joint (%)
15
52
4
30
0
Number
3
14
1
7
0
Individual (%)
74
19
0
7
0
Number
225
53
0
20
2
Joint (%)
20
60
0
21
0
Number
5
16
0
5
0
Individual (%)
67
18
0.1
12
1
Number
532
142
1
84
7
Joint (%)
21
64
3
12
0
Number
6
16
1
4
0
Male
Female
Place of
Residence
Agricultural
Land
Other Real
Estate
Business
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
50
17.4 percent amongst male owners. In the case of land it is 21 percent and 18 percent
respectively.
Individuals who are sole owners also report that the assets cannot be sold (Table 5.2).
Owners of individually owned assets may not envisage selling because they want to leave
an inheritance for their children or other relatives (Berry, 2009). This category of owners
may have the right to sell their assets but choose not to exercise it.
The Right to Bequeath and Sex of the Owner
In contrast to the right to sell, a higher proportion of owners have the right to bequeath
their assets (i.e., places of residence, agricultural land and other real estate) with or
without having to consult or seek permission. This is not an unexpected difference since a
bequest will probably keep the asset within the extended family. With the exception of
agricultural land, the proportion of women who have the right to bequeath an asset
without consultation or permission was lower than that of men (Table 5.3).
Table 5.3: The Right to Bequeath by Sex of Owner
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Compared to the right to sell, a lower percentage of owners of places of residence cannot
bequeath. With respect to the agricultural land and other real estate, no comment can be
Asset Alone
In
consultation
Someone else
has the right
Cannot be
bequeathed
Don’t
Know
Total
Male
Number 385 136 562 0588
Percent 66 25 0.01 8 0 100
Female
Number 184 63 22 35 0304
Percent 64 20 7 8 0 100
Male
Number 682 164 45 .. 124 1015
Percent 68 17 4.. 10 100
Female
Number 257 93 27 .. 9386
Percent 70 22 6.. 2100
Male
Number 293 120 7.. .. 420
Percent 68 30 2.. 100
Female
Number 143 83 5.. .. 231
Percent 61 36 3.. 100
Place of
Residence
Agriculture
Land
Other Real
Estate
51
made on the incidence of owners who cannot bequeath because the question was not
asked them. However, an interesting observation is the significant proportion of owners of
agricultural land who do not know whether they can bequeath their land. A higher
proportion of men than women who are sole owners of agricultural land do not know
whether they have the right to bequeath (Table 5.4).
Individual ownership of an asset does not always confer exclusive rights to bequeath the
asset. Compared to the right to sell, however, a higher percentage of sole owners, in
particular female owners of places of residence and agricultural land, have the right to
bequeath without consultation (Table 5.4).
Table 5.4: The Right to Bequeath by Form of Ownership
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Asset
Alone
In
consultation
Someone
else has the
right
Cannot be
bequeathed
Don’t
Know
Total
Individual ( %) 77 16 0 6 0 100
Num ber 375 79 232 0488
Joint (%) 14 63 320 0100
Num ber 10 57 330 0100
Individual (%)
86 9 2 3 0 100
Num ber 168 18 5 8 0 199
Joint (%) 21 42 18 19 0100
Num ber 16 45 17 27 0105
Individual (%)
71 15 3.. 11 100
Num ber 584 118 26 .. 111 839
Joint (%) 23 50 23 .. 4100
Num ber 19 32 12 .. 669
Individual (%)
84 12 2.. 1100
Num ber 229 37 13 .. 5284
Joint (%) 22 58 18 .. 2100
Num ber 10 41 11 .. 264
Individual (%)
70 28 2.. .. 100
Num ber 291 107 7.. .. 405
Joint (%) 8 92 0.. .. 100
Num ber 213 0.. .. 15
Individual (%)
66 30 4.. .. 100
Num ber 139 64 4.. .. 207
Joint (%) 20 79 2.. .. 100
Num ber 419 1.. .. 24
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Place of
Residence
Agricultural
Land
Other Real
Estate
52
Table 5.5: Right to Use Assets as Collateral and Sex of Owner
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
The Right to Use the Asset as Collateral and Sex of the Owner
About 70 percent of owners have the right – independently or after consultation - to use
the assets as collateral. Female owners are less likely than males to have exclusive rights to
put up the assets as collateral (Table 5.5).
A not insignificant proportion of owners cannot use their property as collateral (Table 5.5).
The form of ownership, for example, joint ownership, may determine whether assets can
be used as collateral. Women are more likely than men to own assets that cannot be used
as collateral.
As with the right to sell and the right to bequeath, individual ownership does not always
endow the owner with the right to collateralise the asset (Table 5.6). Women who own
assets individually are less likely than men to have exclusive rights to do so. Female
individual owners of the place of residence and other real estate are almost twice as likely
as men to own property that cannot be used as collateral (Table 5.6).
Asset
Alone
In
consultation
Someone
else has the
right
Cannot be
used as
collateral
Don’t
Know
Total
Male
Number 325 153 3106 0587
Percent 54 29 116 0100
Female
Number 128 70 10 95 2305
Percent 42 24 331 1100
Male
Number 611 143 13 260 01027
Percent 61 16 122 0100
Female
Number 194 71 9107 1382
Percent 51 21 226 0.1 100
Male
Number 260 111 146 .. 418
Percent 59 29 0.2 11 .. 100
Female
Number 115 71 540 .. 231
Percent 45 30 322 .. 100
Place of
Residence
Agricultural
Land
Other Real
Estate
53
Table 5.6: Right to Use Asset as Collateral and Form of Ownership
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Conclusion
Women and men who are reported asset owners do not have the same extent of control
over their assets. Women who are reported owners are more likely than men not to have
rights to the assets, either because someone else has the right or because it cannot be sold,
bequeathed or used as collateral. When they do have rights to the assets, female reported
owners are less likely to have individual rights, irrespective of whether they own the asset
individually or jointly.
Asset
Alone
In
consultation
Someone
else has the
right
Cannot be
used as
collateral
Don’t
Know
Total
Individual (%) 64 21 114 0100
Number 320 93 272 0487
Joint (%) 7 67 125 0100
Number 560 134 0100
Individual (%) 60 11 127 1100
Number 125 23 249 1200
Joint (%) 6 48 738 1100
Number 347 846 1105
Individual (%) 62 16 121 .. 100
Number 527 112 9209 .. 857
Joint (%)
16 31 648 .. 100
Number 10 22 433 .. 69
Individual (%) 65 11 0.3 23 .. 100
Number 183 29 271 .. 285
Joint (%) 2 49 11 37 .. 100
Number 231 726 .. 66
Individual (%)
61 28 0.2 11 .. 100
Number 258 103 142 .. 404
Joint (%) 12 73 016 .. 100
Number 2 8 0 4 .. 14
Individual (%) 49 26 222 .. 100
Number 111 57 335 .. 206
Joint (%) 19 58 518 .. 100
Number 414 2 5 .. 25
Male
Female
Male
Female
Other Real
Estate
Agricultural
Land
Place of
Residence
Male
Female
54
Chapter 6
Modes of Asset Acquisition
Introduction
There are different channels through which assets can be acquired, such as through
inheritance, gifts, purchases and marriage. These channels tend to depend on the sex of
the individual, the type of asset and an area’s customs. Inheritance regimes, for instance,
determine who can inherit and what can be inherited. In the matrilineal inheritance system
in Ghana a man’s assets are to be inherited by a uterine brother or his sister’s son, whereas
in the patrilineal inheritance system, a man’s assets are inherited by his children. Gift
transfers are another means whereby assets can be acquired (Kotey and Tsikata 1998). For
instance, it is custom for the bride and her family to receive gifts from the groom. The type
of asset given at marriage varies by ethnic group. The gifts presented to the bride at the
time of marriage usually include assets such as jewellery and uncut cloth, but among some
ethnic groups in the Upper East, Upper West and Northern Regions the groom’s family
presents livestock to the bride’s family. Assets may be acquired as gifts in exchange for
labour. In cocoa growing areas a husband may present a gift of land to his wives and
children in exchange for labour they would have provided on his farms (Duncan 2010 and
Quisumbing et al, 2001).
The acquisition of assets is also determined by whether a mode of acquisition is available.
Being able to purchase an asset depends on the existence of a market for the asset. The
focus group discussions revealed that some rural communities do not have housing
markets. Additionally, the land tenure system can slow down the process of land
purchases. According to a key informant in the Upper East region, “Selling family land will
usually require a consensus, which tends to make the process [of buying] slow and land
more expensive”.
In this chapter we explore the mode of acquisition of four major assets by two principal
respondents each of 2,170 households. The assets are agricultural land, place of residence,
other real estate and business. The chapter discusses the modes of acquisition of these
assets by ownership structure (individual or joint ownership) and by the sex of the owner.
55
Modes of Acquisition by Form of Ownership
Table 6.1 reports the different modes of asset acquisition by form of ownership.
Agricultural land is acquired largely through inheritance, gift transfers and by virtue of
membership of a land-owning family. The places of residence are either built by the owner
or inherited. About 68 percent of owners built their places of residence. The main means
of acquisition of other real estate is through outright purchase. About 69 percent of owners
of other real estate purchased it (Table 6.1). Businesses are established, acquired as a gift
or purchased. Besides the 90 percent of owners of business who acquired their businesses
through self-finance, about 8 percent either acquired them through gift transfer or
purchased them, with only 1 percent owning business through inheritance.
The pattern of the mode of acquisition is the same for individually and jointly owned assets.
For both individual and joint owners of agricultural land, the main mode of acquisition is
through inheritance, followed by transfer from family members and gifts. The owners of
places of residence and businesses (built or self-financed) principally acquired these assets
through the same means, regardless of ownership, and both individual and joint owners of
other real estate acquired these assets mostly through outright purchase.
Table 6.1: Modes of Acquisition by Ownership Type – Individual and Joint (%)
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Despite these similarities between individually and jointly owned assets, some significant
differences do emerge. Joint owners are more likely than individual owners to have
inherited their assets. For instance, about 58 percent of joint owners of agricultural land
acquired the property through inheritance, compared with about 49 percent of the
individual agricultural land owners. The proportion of joint owners of places of residence
Agricultural Land Place of Residence Other Real Estate Business
Individual Joint Total Individual Joint Total Individual Joint Total Individual Joint Total
Purchas e 8.3 7.3 8.2 3.9 1 .2 3.0 69.2 69.0 69.2 4.3 3.2 4.2
Inheri tance 48.9 58.2 50.1 18.7 33.4 23.6 14.5 22.7 15.1 0.9 4.4 1.0
Gift 16.9 8.4 15.8 6.7 1.5 5.0 10.8 6.1 10.5 4.1 10.0 4.4
Adjudication 4.74 0.0 4.2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Famil y La nd 16.3 20.9 16.9 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Buil t/Self-fi nanced --- --- --- 70.3 63.9 68.1 2.8 0.0 2.6 90.0 78.6 89.6
Co-financed --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
0.2 3.9 0.3
Other 4.9 5.2 4.9 0.5 0.0 0.3 2.7 2.1 2.7 0.5 0.0 0.5
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Total Owners 1,120 136 1,256 625 310 935 736 52 788 1 ,081 53 1,134
Mode of Acquisition
56
who inherited the property is almost double that of individual owners (Table 6.1).
Individual owners are more likely to have built their place of residence or established their
business. About 70 percent of the individual owners of places of residence built their
homes, compared to about 64 percent of joint owners. With the exception of owners of
businesses, individual owners are more likely than joint owners to have acquired their
assets as gifts.
Modes of Asset Acquisition by Men and Women
There are broad similarities in the patterns of asset acquisition by women and men. For
each asset the most common means of acquisition is identical for both sexes (Figure 6.1).
Inheritance is the most frequently reported mode of acquiring land for both women and
men and construction of the place of residence is the modal form of acquisition for both
women and men. Additionally, most men and women acquire other real estate by
purchasing it, whilst both men and women set up their businesses with their own
resources. Women and men who are joint owners are more likely to have inherited their
assets, compared to individual owners (Table 6.2). The exception to this pattern is
individual male owners of agricultural land who are just as likely as joint owners to have
inherited the land. Both women and men who are sole owners of their assets are more
likely to have acquired them as gifts, compared to joint owners (Table 6.2).
Table 6.2: Modes of Asset Acquisition Owned Individually and Jointly, by Sex (%)
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
I
N
D
I Purchase 8.3 8.4 4.3 3.0 74.5 60.6 3.3 4.7
V Inheritance 50.8 44.5 13.5 29.1 11.7 18.9 1.0 0.8
I Gift 10.1 32.7 4.3 11.6 7.5 16.3 4.0 4.1
D Family Land 18.6 11.0 --- --- --- --- --- ---
U Built/Self Financed --- --- 77.5 55.7 3.5 1.6 91.2 89.6
A Adjudication 6.7 0.2 --- --- --- --- --- ---
L Other 5.6 3.3 0.4 0.7 2.8 2.7 0.5 0.8
Purchase 9.6 5.2 1.2 1.2 81.6 61.7 5.0 1.4
J Inheritance 50.5 65.3 33.1 33.7 7.1 31.9 0.9 7.9
O Gift 6.6 10.1 0.8 2.2 5.6 6.4 7.3 12.6
I Family Land 30.7 11.8 --- --- --- --- --- ---
N Built/Self Financed --- --- 64.8 62.9 --- --- 79.1 78.1
T Co-Financed --- --- --- --- --- --- 7.8 0.0
Other 2.6 7.6 -- - --- 5.8 0.0 --- ---
Mode of Acquisition
Ownership
Male
Female
Male
Agricultural Land
Place of Residence
Other Real Estate
Business
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
57
Figure 6.1: Modes of Asset Acquisition by Sex Regardless of Ownership Structure (%)
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
While there are some similarities, some significant differences between the two sexes also
exist in the modes of asset acquisition. Men are more likely than women to inherit
agricultural land and claim ownership by virtue of being members of land-owning families
(Figure 6.1). Women are more likely than men to own agricultural land that is a gift. A lower
proportion of women compared to men construct their own place of residence. Women
are more likely to have inherited the place of residence or to have received it as a gift. Over
70 percent of male owners of other real estate purchased it, compared to about 60 percent
of female owners.
0.8
0.3
0.0
0.0
1.0
4.4
3.4
90.2
3.4
2.9
7.4
11.5
74.8
0.3
3.5
3.4
18.8
74.1
6.1
5.3
8.4
19.6
9.8
50.8
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.0
4.4
4.6
89.3
1.4
2.4
15.1
20.5
60.7
0.4
2.2
6.0
31.1
58.9
0.1
4.1
7.7
11.1
28.3
48.6
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
Co-Financed
On credit
Financed by Spouse
Other
Inheritance
Gift/Transfer of Ownership
Purchase with loan
Self-Financed
Built
Other
Gift
Inheritance
Purchase
Other
Purchase
Gift
Inheritance
Built
Adjudication
Other
Purchase
Family Land
Gift
Inheritance
Business
Other Real Estate
Place of
Residence
Agland
Female
Male
58
On the other hand, the proportion of women who inherited their real estate is higher than
that of men. A higher proportion of women established their business with borrowed
money.
Conclusion
The modes of acquisition differ across categories of assets. Land tenure systems and the
absence of housing markets in many rural communities can explain why most owners do
not acquire agricultural land and houses through purchase. The differences between
women and men in the modes of acquisition may be explained by several factors. Men are
more likely than women to have purchased their assets because on average men have a
greater opportunity to earn an income and they earn higher incomes than do women.
Women have a lower labour force participation rate than men. Baah-Boateng (2009)
estimates the labour force participation rate of women as 68 percent, 3 percentage points
lower than that of their male counterparts. In addition, higher proportions of working
women than men are self-employed running micro-enterprises or are contributing family
workers. Their average earnings are estimated to be lower than those of men (see Baah-
Boateng, 2009), thereby limiting their capacity to acquire assets through outright purchase
relative to their male counterparts. During the focus group discussions women indicated
that they spend earned income on housekeeping and care of their children. In the words of
a participant, “we invest in the education of our children”.
In societies where the matrilineal system of inheritance is practised, fathers and spouses
gift their self-acquired assets to children and wives (Amanor, 2001; Duncan 2010 and
Quisumbing et al, 2001). This may explain why women are more likely than men to acquire
assets as gifts. Businesses are usually one-person establishments that do not survive after
the demise of the owner. This can explain why the incidence of acquiring businesses
through inheritance and gifts is very low.
59
Chapter 7
Decision-Making and Mobility
Introduction
Previous work on decision-making amongst couples in Ghana finds that “earning cash
makes a significant difference to women’s decision-making power” (Oppong, 2005, p. 34).
This chapter examines the patterns between asset ownership (i.e., ownership of places of
residence and agricultural land) and decision-making and women’s mobility.
Decision-Making
Three areas of decision-making are investigated. These are the decision on whether to be
employed or be involved in an income-generating activity, the decision on how to spend
one’s income and the decision to access health services. Respondents were asked whether
each of these decisions can be made alone, in consultation with someone else or after
seeking permission, or whether the decision is made by someone else.
In all three areas, individuals who are not married or in a consensual union are more likely
than those who are to make decisions without recourse to another person. This pattern
holds for both men and women, whether or not they own assets. Other patterns emerge
for those who are married or in a consensual union. The following discussion on asset
ownership and decision-making focuses on those individuals who are partnered, i.e.,
married or in a consensual union.
Decision to be Employed or be Involved in an Income Generating Activity
Asset ownership would appear to be important in determining whether a partnered
woman can make the decision to be employed without prior consultation. Women who do
not own their place of residence or agricultural land are more likely than those who own
such assets to have to consult when making such a decision. Partnered women are more
likely than their male counterparts to consult another person before the decision is taken
(Figures 7.1 and 7.2).
60
Figure 7.1: Decision to Be Employed- Homeowners and Non-Homeowners
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Figure 7.2: Decision to Be Employed: Agricultural & Non-Agricultural Land Owners
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Decision on How to Spend One’s Income
Women who own their place of residence or agricultural land are more likely than those
who do not own these assets to have autonomy in deciding how to spend their income.
Comparing this pattern of decision-making with that of men indicates that a larger
proportion of partnered women who own these assets have autonomy in decision-making
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Male single
homeowner
Female
single
homeowner
Male
partnere d
homeowner
Female
partnered
homeowner
Male single
non-home
Female
single non-
homeowner
Male
partnered
non-
homeowner
Female
partnere d
non-
homeowner
Alone
With Someone
Don't take decision
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Male single
landowner
Female
single
landowner
Male
partnere d
landowner
Female
partnere d
landowner
Male single
non-
landowner
Female
single non-
landowner
Male
partnere d
non-
landowner
Female
partnere d
non-
landowner
Alone
With Someone
No
61
than their male counterparts. The incidence of autonomy in deciding how to spend one’s
income is about the same between men and women who do not own their place of
residence or agricultural land (Figures 7.3 and 7.4).
Figure 7.3: Decision to Spend One’s Income- Homeowners and Non-Homeowners
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Figure 7.4: Decision to Spend One’s Income- Agricultural & Non-Agricultural Land Owners
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Male single
homeowner
Female
single
homeowner
Male
partnered
homeowner
Female
partnered
homeowner
Male single
non-home
Female
single non-
homeowner
Male
partnered
non-
homeowner
Female
partnere d
non-
homeowner
Alone
With Someone
Don't take decision
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Male single
landowner
Female
single
landowner
Male
partnered
landowner
Female
partnered
landowner
Male single
non-
landowner
Female
single non-
landowner
Male
partnere d
non-
landowner
Female
partnered
non-
landowner
Alone
With Someone
No
62
Decision to Access Health Services
A higher percentage of partnered women asset owners can make the decision to access
health services without prior consultation than women who do not own their place of
residence or agricultural land (Figures 7.5 and 7.6). Partnered women, irrespective of
whether or not they own any of these assets, are more likely than men to consult when
they have to access health services.
Figure 7.5: Decision to Access Health Services- Homeowners and Non-Homeowners
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Figure 7.6: Decision to Access Health Services–Agricultural & Non-Agric. Land Owners
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Male single
homeowner
Female
single
homeowner
Male
partnered
homeowner
Female
partnere d
homeowner
Male single
non-home
Female
single non-
homeowner
Male
partnere d
non-
homeowner
Female
partnered
non-
homeowner
Alone
With Someone
Don't take decision
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Male single
landowner
Female
single
landowner
Male
partnere d
landowner
Female
partnered
landowner
Male single
non-
landowner
Female
single non-
landowner
Male
partnere d
non-
landowner
Female
partnered
non-
landowner
Alone
With Someone
No
63
Mobility
Constraints on women’s movements outside the home can undermine their opportunities
for income generation and limit the types of social capital they can build. Women were
asked if they require permission to go to the market, visit the family home if it is in another
location, or attend a funeral. The market is an important place for women because among
the many that are self-employed, trading is a major occupation and they need to visit the
market to undertake purchases. Visits to the family home are critical for maintaining
strong family links. In the absence of publicly provided social insurance and social
assistance the family is an important institution. Funerals are an important rite of passage
in Ghanaian society. For the living, attendance at funerals is a means to build and maintain
social capital.
Single women are less likely than partnered women to require permission to move outside
the home. Partnered women who own agricultural land or their place of residence are less
likely to require permission than those who do not own these assets. Rural partnered
women have less autonomy than urban partnered women irrespective of whether they
own assets (Table 7.1).
Table 7.1: Asset Ownership and Indicators of Mobility
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Single Partnered Single Partnered Total
Go to the Market
Urban 3.90 15.41 7.58 31.93 20.87
Rural 2.21 31.46 6.30 46.94 30.70
Visit Family Home in Another Town
Urban 0.86 34.97 8.91 54.96 34.80
Rural 4.20 49.63 10.99 73.06 48.35
Attend a Funeral
Urban 3.29 41.60 7.73 56.24 35.91
Rural 2.29 45.39 9.08 68.64 44.68
Go to the Market
Urban 0.00 22.34 7.64 30.50 20.84
Rural 1.84 36.11 6.43 46.14 30.74
Visit Family Home in Another Town
Urban 0.00 27.76 7.85 54.91 34.82
Rural 3.67 62.01 10.95 70.91 48.38
Attend a Funeral
Urban 0.00 32.99 7.58 56.53 35.93
Rural 2.90 56.30 8.59 66.78 44.70
Land Owners N= 273
Non-Land Owners N=1476
Percentage of Women who Require
Permission To
Home Owners N=208
Non-Home Owners N=1543
64
Conclusion
Single women and men have more autonomy in decision-making than partnered women
and men and are more likely to make decisions independently. Single women are less likely
to be subject to mobility restrictions than partnered women.
Amongst married women and women in a consensual union, those who do not own their
place of residence or agricultural land are less likely to make decisions autonomously. Of
the different categories of men and women with respect to asset ownership and marital
status, women who do not own assets have the lowest incidence of autonomy in decision-
making. They are also more likely to require permission before they can leave the home.
The findings from this chapter would suggest that asset ownership matters for the
empowerment of women.
65
Chapter 8
Conclusion
Summary
In Ghana, as in many other countries, data on assets is often collected at the household
level, making it difficult to disaggregate and ascertain the patterns of ownership of assets
by individuals. This study on the gender gap in asset ownership is the first in Ghana that is
based on a large-scale survey that collected individual-level data on the ownership of a
wide range of assets including place of residence, agricultural land, other real estate,
agricultural equipment, livestock, businesses, consumer durables, financial assets and debt.
The study develops measures to calculate the gender asset gap and the gender wealth gap.
Overall, men are more likely than women to own assets. Indeed, there is a higher incidence
of ownership for men than for women for virtually all asset categories except businesses
and some consumer durables such as jewellery and stoves. In addition, the values of
females’ assets are generally lower than those of males. Our findings also reveal
heterogeneity within the sexes in the patterns of asset ownership. Females in the lowest
wealth quintile own a greater share of household wealth than do those in the highest
quintile. However, the mean value of wealth owned by females in the highest wealth
quintile is considerably larger than that of their counterparts in the poorest quintile. These
patterns of asset ownership between males and females can be explained largely by
inheritance and marital regimes, norms and practices regarding the kind of assets females
can own and the relatively lower participation of women in income-generating activities.
The study employed three measures of ownership, i.e., reported ownership, ownership
backed by documentation and rights over the asset. Very few owners, particularly women,
have documents to support their claim to the ownership of land, places of residence and
other real estate. Women are less likely than men to have rights over the assets they own.
Assets are mostly owned individually and the channel of asset acquisition differs across
assets and sex of the owner. We further find that compared to women, men are more likely
to have purchased their assets. Given that on average, men have a greater opportunity to
earn an income and earn higher incomes than women, this finding is not surprising.
66
Policy Recommendations
This study shows that it is possible to obtain information on the ownership of assets by
individuals. While it will be unrealistic to expect national statistical agencies to include – in
multipurpose household surveys – many individual-level questions on asset ownership, it is
feasible to obtain valuable data on individual-level asset ownership by including a few
questions. We therefore recommend that the Ghana Statistical Service incorporates a few
questions on the ownership of assets by individuals in its Living Standards Survey
instrument. Gender equity in asset ownership – in terms of both incidence and value – is
an essential ingredient for the attainment of gender equality and women’s empowerment
as stipulated in the Millennium Development Goals. The collection of individual-level data
on asset ownership will facilitate the tracking of progress towards the attainment of this
Millennium Development Goal as well as monitor the implementation of laws on
inheritance and marital regimes.
The observed gender asset and wealth gaps point to obvious weaknesses in national
policies and institutional frameworks. Formal laws in Ghana are silent on property rights of
spouses. The Intestate Succession Act (PNDCL 111) that seeks to protect spouses is neither
well-known nor widely implemented and has design weaknesses. The Intestate Succession
Bill and the Property Rights of Spouses Bill reflect attempts at addressing these gaps and
weaknesses. It is therefore imperative that these Bills be passed into law without much
delay.
Additionally, relevant Government ministries, departments and agencies, NGOs, gender
advocacy groups and religious bodies should institute (or enhance) public education
programmes on the existence of legal provisions that protect women’s rights in the
acquisition of assets. There should also be greater education on the implications of cultural
practices that undermine women’s rights and impede their access to certain categories of
economic activity.
67
References
Agarwal, B. (1998) “Widows vs. Daughters or Widows as Daughters? Property, Land and
Economic Security in Rural India in M. Chen (ed.) Widows in India: Social Neglect
and Public Action, Sage Publications, New Delhi.
Amanor, K.S. (2001) Land, Labour and the Family in Southern Ghana. A Critique of Land
Policy under Neo-Liberalisation, Research Report No. 116, Nordiska
Afrikainstitutet, Uppsala.
Baah-Boateng, W. (2009) Gender Perspective of Labour Market Discrimination in Ghana,
Unpublished PhD Thesis, Department of Economics, University of Ghana
Berry, S. (2009) “Building for the Future? Investment, Land Reform and the Contingencies
of Ownership in Contemporary Ghana” World Development, Vol. 37, No. 8, pp.
1370-1378.
Coulombe, H. And Q. Wodon (2007) Poverty, Livelihoods, and Access to Basic Services in
Ghana Ghana CEM: Meeting the Challenge of Accelerated and Shared Growth,
The World Bank, Washington D.C.
Deere, C.D. and M. Leon (2003) “The Gender Asset Gap: Land in Latin America” World
Development, Vol. 31, No. 6, pp. 925-47.
Doss, C. (2006) “The Effects of Intrahousehold Property Ownership in Expenditure Patterns
in Ghana” Journal of African Economies, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 149-180.
Dowuona-Hammond, C. (1998) “Women and Inheritance in Ghana” in A. Kuenyehia (ed.)
Women and Law in West Africa. Situational Analysis of Some Key Issues Affecting
Women, Women and Law in West Africa, University of Ghana, Legon.
Duflo, E. (2003) “Grandmothers and Granddaughters: Old-Age Pensions and Intrahousehold
Allocation in South Africa”, The World Bank Economic Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp.
1-25.
Duncan, B.A. (2010) “Cocoa, Marriage, Labour and Land in Ghana: Some Matrilineal and
Patrilineal Perspectives”, Africa, Vol. 80, No. 2, pp. 301-321.
68
Fenrich, J. and T.E. Higgins (2001) “Promise Unfulfilled: Law, Culture and Women’s
Inheritance Rights in Ghana”, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 25, pp.
259-341.
Freidemann-Sanchez, G. (2006) “Assets in Intrahousehold Bargaining among Women
Workers in Colombia’s Cut-Flower Industry”, Feminist Economics, Vol. 12, Nos. 1
& 2, pp. 247-69.
ICRW (2006) Property Ownership and Inheritance Rights of Women for Social Protection –
the South Asia Experience, A Synthesis Report of Three Studies.
Kasanga, K. and N. A. Kotey (2001) Land Management in Ghana: Building on Tradition and
Modernity, International Institute for Environment and Development, London.
Katz, E. And J.S. Chamorro (2003) Gender, Land Rights and the Household Economy in Rural
Nicaragua and Honduras, Conference of the Latin American and Caribbean
Economics Association, Puebla, Mexico
Kotey, N.A. and D. Tsikata (1998) “Women and Land Rights in Ghana” in A. Kuenyehia (ed.)
Women and Law in West Africa, Situational Analysis of Some Key Issues Affecting
Women, Women and Law in West Africa, University of Ghana, Legon.
Kuenyehia, A. and E. Ofei-Aboagye (1998) “Family Law in Ghana and its Implication for
Women” in A. Kuenyehia (ed.) Women and Law in West Africa, Situational
Analysis of Some Key Issues Affecting Women, Women and Law in West Africa,
University of Ghana, Legon.
Minkah-Premo, S. and C. Dowuona-Hammond (2005) Review of Land and Gender Studies
and Identification of Resources in Ghana, Ghana Land Administration Project,
Accra.
Oppong, C. (2005) Conjugal Resources, Power, Decision Making and Domestic Labour: Some
Historical and Recent Evidence of Modernity from Ghanaian Families, Institute of
African Studies, Occasional Research Papers Series, University of Ghana, Legon.
Panda, P. and B. Agarwal (2005) “Marital Violence, Human Development, and Women’s
Property Status in India”, World Development, Vol. 33, No. 5, pp. 823-50
69
Quisumbing, A.R., E. Payongayong, J.B. Aidoo and K. Otsuka (2001) “Women’s Land Rights
in the Transition to Individualized Ownership: Implications for Tree-Resource
Management in Western Ghana” Economic Development and Cultural Change,
Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 157-181.
Takane, T. (2002) The Cocoa Farmers of Southern Ghana. Incentives, Institutions, and
Change in Rural West Africa, Institute of Developing Economies Occasional
Papers Series no. 37, Japan External Trade Organisation, Chiba.
Wrigley-Asante, C. (2008) “Men are Poor but Women are Poorer: Gendered Poverty and
Survival Strategies in the Dangme West District of Ghana” Norsk Geografisk
Tidsskrift-Norwegian Journal of Geography, Vol. 62, pp. 161-170.
70
Appendices
Appendix Figure 1: Females’ Shares (%) of Asset Owners & Wealth, by Quintile; Urban
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Appendix Figure 2: Females’ Shares (%) of Asset Owners and Wealth, by Quintile; Rural
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
61.9
58.4
57.0
54.4
50.0
55.2
61.3
56.7
55.5
43.6
28.5
30.7
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Poorest
Second
Third
Fourth
Richest
All
Females' Shares (%) of Asset Owners and
Wealth
Household Asset Quintiles
Females' Share (%) of Asset Owners
Females' Share (%) of Total Wealth
58.9
51.6
51.3
53.2
48.8
52.0
55.4
46.6
43.3
39.9
26.9
29.4
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Poorest
Second
Third
Fourth
Richest
All
Females' Shares (%) of Asset Owners and
Wealth
Household Asset Quintiles
Females' Share of Asset Owners
Females' Share (%) of Total Wealth
71
Appendix Figure 3: Mean Value of Assets, by Quintile and Sex; Urban
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
Appendix Figure 4: Mean Value of Assets, by Quintile and Sex; Rural
Source: Ghana Household Asset Survey, 2010
209.3
701.9
1597.1
4636.5
47396.4
16964.1
204.2
655.2
1504.8
3010.3
18851.6
6112.8
0.0
5000.0
10000.0
15000.0
20000.0
25000.0
30000.0
35000.0
40000.0
45000.0
50000.0
Poorest
Second
Third
Fourth
Richest
All
Mean Value (US$) of Assets Owned
Household Asset Quintiles
Mean Value (US$) of Assets Owned by Males
Mean Value (US$) of Assets Owned by Females
144.1
405.8
997.6
2590.7
19630.0
6392.5
125.0
332.2
723.2
1516.3
7586.2
2449.4
0.0
5000.0
10000.0
15000.0
20000.0
25000.0
Poorest
Second
Third
Fourth
Richest
All
Mean Value (US$) of Assets Owned
Household Asset Quintiles
Mean Value (US$) of Assets Owned by Males
Mean Value (US$) of Assets Owned by Females
