Content uploaded by Dorina Pojani
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dorina Pojani on Dec 12, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Unlanded class:
Albania’s gender gaps in land ownership and inheritance
Authors
Dr Edvin Zhllima, Agriculture University of Tirana, Albania; CERGE EI, Prague, Czech
Republic, ezhllima@ubt.edu.al
Dr Dorina Pojani, The University of Queensland, Australia, d.pojani@uq.edu.au
Dr Elvina Merkaj, Marche Polytechnic University, Italy, e.merkaj@univpm.it
Dr Drini Imami, Agriculture University of Tirana, Albania; Czech University of Life Sciences
and CERGE EI, Prague, Czech Republic, dimami@ubt.edu.al
This is an Authors’ Original Manuscript of an article whose final and definitive
form, the Version of Record, has been published in Feminist Economics, 2022,
copyright Taylor & Francis, available online at:
https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2022.2125167
Abstract
This study investigates gender gaps in access to land ownership and land inheritance in Albanian
rural areas by combining a large-scale survey and five in-depth focus groups discussions. We
consider three sets of variables: Place-based characteristics; Family characteristics; and Individual
characteristics. We find that that rural societies lack awareness around legal property rights,
undermine the confidence of women in myriad ways and continue to rely on customary laws.
Current inequalities are placed in the context of Albania’s entrenched patriarchal system. Culture
and tradition are as important as, if not more important than, legal frameworks surrounding land
ownership and inheritance. The findings bring intersectionality issues into high relief: where
patriarchy is combined with poverty, gender inequality is exacerbated. Our findings call for a more
holistic approach which combines efforts to improve legal literacy, raise awareness among all
genders and alleviate poverty for boosting women inclusion in the economy.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded through a grant from UN Women, Albania. The authors thank Izela
Tahsini for her research assistance, and all the study participants who responded to surveys and
partook in focus group discussions.
2
Introduction
Land inequality is pivotal in feminist economics and legal theory (Kfir, 2014). While women make
critical contributions to rural development, they face constant discrimination in access to land
ownership and inheritance (Agarwal, 2003; Doss, 2005; Deere and Doss 2006; Allendorf, 2007;
Alkire et al., 2013; Ossome, 2014; Doss et al 2014). The gender gap is much more pronounced in
the Global South, where rural households have been undergoing changes in terms of internal
composition and structure while facing external institutional transitions (Deere et al., 2013).
Ensuring gender equality in access to land ownership and inheritance does not merely satisfy an
abstract feminist agenda, but it can have tangible outcomes, including increased agricultural
production and improved food security for adults and children (FAO, 2011; World Bank, 2010).
This study focuses on Albania, a post-communist country in Southeast Europe, which has
historically experienced an array of economic problems and accompanying imbalances in terms of
equal rights and opportunities (Sabates-Wheeler, 1998; Sabates-Wheeler et al., 2003; Zhllima et
al., 2010; Mandro-Balili, 2012; Demeti et al., 2015). Traditionally a patriarchal nation, Albania
continues to be dominated by customary norms (Bardhoshi, 2013; UN Women, 2011). This flies
in the face of Albania’s official candidacy to the European Union, awarded in 2014, which implies
harmonization of laws and institutions with the rest of the EU members.
Two institutional settings coexist in Albania: (1) a rural, traditional, and patriarchal society that
favors men in every way, and (2) a modern state which aims to guarantee gender equality across
the nation but in reality is more effective in urban areas. Owing to its socialist legacy of universal
literacy, widespread female employment, and public healthcare, Albania performs relatively well
in global development indexes. A few positive examples include the 2020 Global Gender Gap
Index compiled by the World Economic Forum, the 2019 Gender Equality Index compiled by the
European Union, the 2019 Gender Inequality Index of the Human Development Report compiled
by the UNDP, and the 2019 Women, Peace and Security Index compiled by Georgetown Institute.
These indexes are composites that combine various aspects of politics, education, society, and
economics. However, averages conceal major urban-rural inequalities within Albania. While urban
women enjoy formal representation in politics1 and access to university education and the labor
market, their rural counterparts participate much less in economic life and struggle to access
essential productive resources (INSTAT, 2019).
Moreover, within Albania rural women are known to be in a much weaker position with regard to
land ownership (INSTAT, 2018; ORA, 2020). However, little effort has been made to
systematically examine the problem and to quantify the inequalities and the associated casual
factors. No assessment has been made of rural women’s literacy and perceptions around legal and
customary rules governing land ownership and inheritance. Most information to date is based on
small-scale surveys or inferred from secondary data (see Lemel, 2000; IDM, 2010; Zhllima et al.,
2010).
The objective of this study is to assess, in a comprehensive manner and based on primary data,
rural women’s perceptions around equality in land ownership and inheritance. We also seek to
identify the main factors influencing those perceptions. We assume that perceptions are a first but
critical step in the direction of actual equality – in the much the same way that intentions are
crucial to actual behavior as posited by the Theory of Planned Behaviour, a well-known
psychological model (Ajzen 1991). We define ‘perceptions’ as women’s own beliefs (influenced
by individual, household, and place-based characteristics). ‘Perceptions’ are linked to ‘actual
3
equality’ which is defined as owning and/or inheriting land as prescribed by Albanian state law
(the latter is gender-blind).
A few other studies on land rights in rural areas are similarly based on women’s own perceptions,
expectations, and lived experiences (see Agarwal 2003; Kumar and Quisumbing 2012). Other
studies in this research space have taken other approaches. For example, Mason et al. (1998) use
women’s ownership of a plot of land as a proxy for land rights more broadly. Allendorf (2007)
explores the extent to which women own land, either individually or in conjunction with their
partners, while Goldstein and Udry (2008) consider gender gaps in land tenure. All approaches
have advantages and limitations.
We probe into issues of patrilineage in participants’ family of origin and their husband’s family.
The underlying assumption is that women face a “double whammy” due to traditional gender
norms and hegemonic masculinity in rural communities (see Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005).
We provide a full picture by combining quantitative and qualitative methods, including a large-
scale survey and a series of in-depth focus groups discussions conducted around Albania.
A study focus on a single country does not mean to imply that Albania is unique or that the situation
is static. In the Global South, it is common for formal and informal institutions to coexist in society,
and hamper rather than promote gender equality. Land rights, in particular, are often managed on
the basis of community norms while governments are cast in the role of ‘the enforcer’. In post-
communist contexts, in the Balkans particularly, conflicts and confusion over women’s rights
issues abound because here multiple formal and informal institutions are in place:
• Some formal institutions survive from the communist era. The role of aldermen has been
preserved and farmers still expect top-down directions from the state (FAO, 2019).
• New formal institutions have been created during the post-communist transition. For
example, a land reform has taken place which has established village commissions and
charged them with identifying and resolving land disputes.
• Some informal institutions have been inherited from the pre-communist period, which
preceded WWII. These were created in the context of a quasi-feudal society and include
neighborly cooperation and exchange during farming activities.2 A traditional institution,
the ‘councils of elders’, has reappeared in villages.
• New informal institutions have emerged, which may also be considered as a revival of
customary rights (Nelson et al., 1997; Conning and Deb, 2007). Similarly, patrilineal land
inheritance practices have evolved (Zhllima et al., 2010).
In this context, it would be reductive to limit our analysis to the formal sphere. We consider the
role of both formal land rights, such as those based on the Law of Land and the Family Code, and
customary land rights, which survived during the communist period and were revived later
(Ossome, 2014). We focus on land ownership and inheritance rather than land use, because our
preliminary analysis revealed that the latter is not a critical issue; in fact, female farmers
numerically dominate. In other contexts, where women are prevented from working the land,
research has emphasized this issue (e.g., see Pradhan et al. 2019 on Nepal).
We posit that in Albania, there are gaps are in land ownership and inheritance. While rural women
have many de jure rights, their de facto rights are quite weak, owing to a limited presence of state
regulators in the rural hinterland and a persisting patriarchal structure based on customary laws.
We argue that improving the legal base cannot, by itself, address gender gaps in land ownership
and inheritance. We point to cultural shifts, education, and economic empowerment of women as
4
the critical tool to loosen the grip of customary laws and overcome the entrenched patriarchy in
rural areas.
Historical background: women’s land rights (or wrongs) in Albania
Prior to proceeding to the empirical portion of the article we review the history of women’s legal
rights in Albania from the Middle Ages to the present. This historical background reveals that
gender issues intersect with transborder realities and cultural hierarchies which are mutually
transformed during Byzantium, Ottoman Empire, Monarchic regimes, Communism and later post
socialism.
Under the Byzantine Empire, two types of land tenure existed in the region that now comprises
Albania. The mountainous areas of the north had a free peasantry, organized around large
patriarchal clans (Bica, 2007). Along the flat regions of the south and west, in which most
productive agricultural land was located, a feudal structure of tenure prevailed, with big landlords
(Despots) and a dependent peasantry (Meçani, 2009). In both cases, Byzantine Canon laws applied,
which did not guarantee women equal rights to land ownership, and cast wives as subordinate to
husbands (Megalommati, 2017).
Later on, under the Ottoman Empire (14th to 20th century) land ended up divided into small units
(timar), which were assigned to sipahi (cavalrymen), who, in return, served in the army (Mezini
and Pojani, 2014). As usufruct land was tied to army service, women were not assigned land
directly (Imber, 2012). Peasants (men and women) were serfs under the timar system, working for
their own monetary gain (Pulaha, 1988). By the 17th century, a new land management system,
called çiflik, appeared which lasted until Albania’s independence from the Ottoman Empire in
1912. Çiflik were private, inheritable, land holdings, ruled by feudal lords (bey). Patrilineality was
the norm whereas daughters only received a symbolic trousseau at marriage, such as clothes, linen,
and houseware (Bardhoshi, 2012).
Mostly rural and peripheral within the Empire, Albanian women did not enjoy the rights to
inheritance and land ownership sanctioned by sharia law in large Ottoman urban centers (Attila
Aytekin, 2009; Aral, 2004; Gerber, 1980). The picture was complicated by a quadruple legal
system that existed in Albania through the 19th century. In addition to sharia law, Byzantine law
(covering Orthodox Christians), Roman law (covering territories under Venetian control), and
local Kanuns (sets of traditional Albanian laws) applied here (Elezi, 1983). In the remote Albanian
hinterland, local Kanuns3 prevailed over sharia (Kocabicak, 2018). Kanun laws were coded or
orally transmitted and covered all aspect of community living, including land tenure. They were
heavily focused on the concept of manhood or masculinity. Men were favored in every respect,
whereas women were treated as chattel (Lastarria-Cornhiel and Sabates-Wheeler, 1998). This
complex legal co-existence was tolerated as it reduced military costs at the edges of the Empire
(Pritchard, 2016; Kocabicak, 2018).
After independence in 1912, Albania went through a period of political instability. Eventually, a
self-proclaimed local monarch, King Ahmet Zog I, seized power. He made a substantial effort to
Westernize laws and institutions dealing with land ownership. Public notaries, a Civil Code and a
cadaster system (hipoteka) were introduced. However, these were operational only in cities - where
only a fifth of the population lived (Stanfield, 2002). In rural areas, the legacy of sharia laws and
5
local Kanuns endured through the postwar period. While nearly 85% of rural households owned
some land, women still remained, for the most part, excluded (Stanfield, 2002).
Right after WWII, a communist regime was installed in Albania, led by a strongman, Enver Hoxha.
Under his rule, private land was expropriated and collectivized. The collectivization process was
long and did not complete until 1967. But by the 1950s, all land transactions, including sale and
inheritance, were prohibited (Stanfield, 2002). While eliminating private property, Hoxha made
gender equality a centerpiece of his regime, at least in rhetorical terms (Figure 1). Women were
encouraged (or forced) to participate in the labor force, both in cities and in the countryside (Këlliçi
and Danaj, 2016). Despite these efforts, patriarchy and the Kanun laws of earlier eras continued to
dominate family relationships, especially in rural areas. The family home, villagers’ only
immovable asset, was commonly inherited by the adult son(s) who continued to live with their
parents even after marriage. Daughters were expected to live with their in-laws once married and
renounce any claims to the family home (Bardhoshi, 2012; Lelaj, 2015).
Figure 1. Socialist realism painting from the 1960s, which glorifies farming and highlights the emancipation of rural
women. Female farmers are shown hard at work but also reading the newspaper. Image courtesy of the National Art
Gallery.
In 1990, when the communist regime was overthrown, individual rights to land ownership
returned. Agricultural cooperatives and state farms were dissolved, and land was transferred, free
of charge, to the former staff. In most cases, the land was split following state law, by distributing
parcels equally to each household, on a per-capita basis, with no differentiation by gender.
6
However, in northern Albania, many communities applied Kanun laws (Bardhoshi, 2012), which
accounted for pre-communist land titles in carrying out land transfers. Approximately 15-20% of
agricultural land in Albania was transferred in this manner (Morone, 1997; Bardhoshi, 2004). In
some areas, a mixed approach was used, where land was distributed on a per-capita basis but pre-
communist property boundaries were respected (Kodderitzsch, 1999).
The discrimination of women with regard to land and house ownership recommenced at this stage
(Zhllima et al., 2010). Where Kanun laws applied, patrilineality was reestablished (Bardhoshi,
2013). The ‘council of elders’ tradition was revived for the purpose of adjudicating common
community and family disputes, with membership opened to men only (De Waal, 2004).
Meanwhile, due to a massive out-migration of men, and their employment in non-farm activities,
the agricultural sector became feminized (Lawson and Saltmarshe, 2002). Women were now made
to work land that they could not own.
State law provisions adopted in the first post-communist decade were unfavorable to women too.
In theory, the Albanian Constitution (1998), the Civil Code (7850/1994), the Family Code
(9062/2003), and the Land Law (7501/1991) guaranteed gender equality. However, portions of
these laws were written in such a way that invited misinterpretation or abuse. For example, the
original land titles issued in the 1990s were in the name of the ‘householder’ – in other words, ‘the
man of the family’. According to the Civil Code, although the agriculture land is registered in the
name of the head of household, it is entitled to the family members, which together make up the
agricultural family. Thus, all family members present in the current family certificate, benefit equal
ownership on land. The agricultural family can change in time (new members can join the family
through kinship, marriage, birth, adoption or acceptance of a member, and others can leave it
through marriage or subdivision) but land remain part of the current family (nuclear family) in
order to create sustainable living to the family members.
De jure, those (women or men) who marry and leave the agriculture family, ceases to own their
share of land. Before leaving the family each one has the right to request his or her share of property
from the family of origin in cash or land (if minimum size necessary for allowing agriculture family
to be self-sustained is respected). For instance, women who do not ask their share or land lose it
after marriage since they become part of the husband family. In case of divorce, women leaving
husband family should claim her share and if returned to their family of origin become again part
with equal share with other members living currently there.
De facto, women getting married and leaving the agriculture family neglect or feel ashamed to do
any formal request and leave their share to her family of origin. Most women give up their share
– and family provide no equal share since their opinion is that daughters will take part of the
husband’s family land. This arrangement was based on a series of outdated assumptions: (a)
women would marry once and never separate, divorce, or remarry, and (b) giving land to women
would turn into giving land to her husband, which increase the risk for land loss, c) the land to
which a woman would have been entitled in the family of origin would be equal in value to the
land she might gain in the husband’s family, given that traditionally marriages were arranged
between families of equal socio-economic standing (Mandro-Balili, 2012; UN Women, 2016).
On their side, women as new arrivals in their husband family feel to have no legal partake. In case
of divorce or separation it is increasingly common that women do not require their share of land
from husband family. Upon their return to the family of origin they risk also to be left with no
equal share (UNWOMEN, 2016). In reality, according to majority of legal experts, land is
7
perceived to be ownership of father and other male hairs or husband. (Mandro-Balili, 2012). As a
result of these legal shortcomings, by mid-2010s most agriculture real estate in the country was
held by men, and women led a very modest share of the total land transactions (FAO, 2014).
In recent years, as awareness of gender issues has increased. Efforts have been made to redress the
legal framework and strengthen women’s formal property rights. The new Notary Law (110/2018)
stipulates that, when a married couple sells or buys real estate, a statement of co-ownership be
included with the transaction.4 Similarly, the new Cadaster Law (111/2018) requires that any real
estate asset purchased after marriage be recorded in the name of both spouses. Preexisting records
can also be updated to include both spouses, should the disadvantaged party (usually the wife)
request this. Some of the land titles issued in the 1990s have been updated to distribute property
more equally among male and female heirs.
Going forward, feminist legal theory predicts that the amended legislation will improve women’s
position. We argue that this is not the case in Albania. Oppressed women here may be unlikely to
request changes to property titles held by male family members for decades, as this may have come
to be seen as a law of nature. That is why it is important to investigate the perceptions and lived
experiences of women in addition to the legal framework surrounding land. In addition, the
intersection of patriarchy and poverty is crucial too. In this study, we focus on these aspects.
Methodology
The theoretical framework that guided this study, and the data collection and analysis procedures
are delineated below.
Conceptual framework
The intersectionality theory (Patil, 2013; Hovorka, 2015; Pradhan et al., 2019; Mollet, 2017;
Muriaas et al., 2019) is helpful in exploring the barriers to land ownership and inheritance in rural
Albania. This theory posits that women face a set of interrelated systems of oppression (or
privilege) based on gender and race (Crenshaw, 1991). In the case of rural Albania, we posit that
women’s individual, family, and clan position adds to their oppression or privilege. Moreover, the
physical setting (i.e., the village) that women inhabit can aggravate or alleviate women’s
oppression, based on its location, presence of family networks, level of development, and so on.
These systems are not static: they shift and intersect in dynamic ways over time (May, 2015). So
do women’s own identities and perceptions around their rights (McCall, 2005; West and
Fenstermaker, 1995). For example, more education can strengthen a woman’s position within her
family. However, the family’s material poverty relative to the broader social network can serve to
put that same woman “in her place” if she demands more rights. On this basis, we have constructed
a conceptual framework in Figure 2 which combines individual traits, household characteristics,
and place-based features (Byrne, 2003; Cush et al., 2018). As noted, we consider both formal and
informal land rights (see Agarwal, 1997; Pradhan et al., 2019). The variables contained in the
framework, detailed below, are based on a review of the literature and our understanding of the
Albanian context:
(1) Place-based characteristics which relate to the level of access / isolation of a rural setting.
We expect more isolated villages to have less information around changes to the formal legal
system be more likely to follow to customary rights. Patriarchal pressure will be higher here
8
than in villages which are less distant from urban areas. Moreover, land values are generally
lower in isolated villages - although these settings are also less susceptible to fluctuations in
land prices. In high-demand areas (typically flat and less remote), where land is more valuable,
women may be more active in pursuing their rights to ownership and inheritance, as they stand
to gain more.
(2) Individual characteristics pertaining to women themselves. Demographic characteristics
such as age, marital status, and education level are important because, in rural areas, older age,
marriage (as opposed to “spinsterhood”), and better education afford women more authority
and decision-making power within the family and community. Women who are able to
financially contribute to the family may be more empowered as well (see Agarwal, 1997;
Allendorf, 2007; Kfir, 2014; Hanmer and Klugman, 2016). Legal literacy and trust in formal
laws can produce more confidence among women (see Bezabih et al., 2011; Whitehead and
Tsikata, 2003; Agarwal, 1997; Von Benda-Beckmann and von Benda-Beckmann, 2000). So
can the proximity and support of the family of origin (Rashid, 2013). On the other hand,
overreliance on customary laws is detrimental as these are biased against women.
(3) Family characteristics which mostly relate to the financial position of a woman’s family,
expressed through proxies such as overall education level, access to advisory services, and land
ownership. Belonging in wealthier families, with better access to professional services in
agriculture, leads to more support and empowerment for women (see Allendorf, 2007; Kabeer,
1999).
This framework guided the data collection process, and was later tested through regression
analyses.
9
Figure 2. Conceptual framework.
Data collection and analysis
This study combines quantitative methods (survey and regression analysis) and qualitative
methods (focus groups). The data collection and analysis procedures are described below, and the
survey and focus group locations are shown in Figure 3.
Perceptions of
equality in land
ownership /
inheritance
Place-based characteristics
Remoteness
Physical distance to cities
Household characteristics
Education
Land area avilability
Acess to agricultural
advisory services
Actual equality in
land ownership
and inheritance
(as defined by
state law)
Individual characteristics
Age
Marital status
Education level
Economic empowerment
(financial contribution to family)
Legal literacy (formal and/or
customary laws)
Trust to land regulations effect
Presence of family of origin in
the same commune
10
Figure 3. Data collection points. Map by authors.
Quantitative approach
A large, face-to-face survey was conducted in 2014 and 2015, which targeted rural women in
clusters distributed throughout Albania. The survey questions were designed to assess women’s
contributions to economic activities, their perceived access to property rights, and their inclusion
in decision-making within the family. Some questions were binary (yes/no) whereas others asked
participants to rate statements on a Likert scale. A stratified multi-stage sampling technique was
employed in order to account for the diversity of women’s socioeconomic and cultural profiles in
rural areas. A ‘primary sampling unit’ was applied to 306 communes (a type of administrative
unit), which were predominately low-density and rural. These were selected based on two criteria:
fragmentation and physical proximity to the respective urban center. A primary stage of sampling
involved the selection of 20 ‘thinly populated areas’ located across 19 districts or 12 regions.
Therein, the 24 largest villages in terms of number of households were selected. This approach
allowed us to increase the number of responses5 while reducing the study cost. In each village, 50-
100 households were randomly selected for participation in the survey. To ensure responsiveness,
Focus group
Surveys
Capital
(Tirana)
Legend
11
female surveyors were employed. Consequently, the response rate was very high (94%). A total
of 1258 completed questionnaires were collected.
Based on this dataset, two binary logistic regressions6 were estimated to identify the factors
associated with women’s perceptions around land rights. We were interested in both the right to
inherit land from one’s family of origin and the right to own land in one’s current family. The
variables used in the regressions, as well as some basic descriptive statistics, are listed in Table 1.
The significance and impact are described for each variable used in the regressions, based on the
guidance by Miller and van der Meulen Rodgers (2008).
Table 1. Variables used in the binary logit equation.
VARIABLE LABEL
DEFINITION
TYPE
OBS.
MEAN
SD
MIN
MAX
Dependent variables
Land right inequality
perception
Same rights to land ownership as
men in marital family (perception)
Binary
(1-Yes, 0-No)
1,253 0.81 0.39 0 1
Land inheritance right
perception
Same rights to land inheritance as
men in origin family (perception)
Binary
(1-Yes 0-No)
1,202 0.44 0.50 0 1
Independent variables
Place-based variables
Distance to the center
Driving distance (minutes) from
home of respondent to nearest
urban center
Continous
(minutes) 1,007 31.26 24.33 2 90
Region NUTS2
Respondent lives in North Albania
(a less developed setting)
Binary
(1-Yes, 0-No)
1,258 0.28 0.45 0 1
Individual variables
Age Age of respondent
Continous
(years)
1,256 47.11 12.59 15 83
Marital status (married)
Respondents is currently married
(divorcee and widows excluded)
Binary
(1-Yes, 0-No)
1,258 0.89 0.31 0 1
Family origin lives in the
same commune
Respondent’s family of origin
lives in the same commune.
Binary
(1-Yes, 0-No)
1,054 0.46 0.50 0 1
Education
Respondents has high school and
university education
Binary
(1-Yes, 0-No)
1,257 0.42 0.49 0 1
Land law literacy
Respondent has some knowledge
about the land law
Binary
(1-Yes, 0-No)
1,250 0.75 0.44 0 1
Customary law literacy
Respondent has some knowledge
about customary laws
Binary
(1-Yes, 0-No)
1,246
0.71 0.46 0 1
Land law trust
Respondent trusts the land law in
regulating land tenure
Binary (1-
Yes 0-No)
1,251 0.24 0.43 0 1
Women main contributor
to incomes
Respondent is the main
contributor to household income
Binary
(1-Yes. 0-No)
1,158 0.06 0.25 0 1
Household variables
Household education
The average of education years of
the family members
Continous
(years)
1,247 9.14 2.38 0 16
Land area availability
Amount of land per capita owned
by family were women live
Continous
(hectares)
1,121 1.98 2.03 0.05 28
Advisory services access
Respondent (or household) has
had access to agricultural advice
in past three years
Binary
(1-Yes, 0-No) 1,240 0.30 0.46 0 1
12
Qualitative approach
The qualitative data for this study derived from five focus group discussions with a total of 58
women from rural areas throughout Albania. These were conducted in Albanian during 2015. The
majority of participants were between 45 and 60 years old. More than 90% were married. More
than 80% had a primary education and the rest a secondary education (mainly vocational
education). The sample was deemed sufficient for thematic saturation. Focus group discussions
were led by a facilitator and an assistant, who also noted any relevant nonverbal communication.
Each focus group lasted between 90 and 120 minutes. The topics and questions sought to probe
further into the issues revealed by the survey, and provide more nuance to the study. Importantly,
the focus groups provided a more complete picture of the life circumstances of rural women, their
work burden, their expectations, and their relationships with male family members. The sessions
were voice recorded and transcribed. The coding procedure was manual, and followed a standard,
iterative template analysis. Two coders worked independently on the transcripts in order to cross-
check the identified themes.
Findings
The key findings which emerged from the survey and the focus groups are discussed below. We
weave together qualitative and quantitative data so as to avoid an excessive “focus on the statistical
machinery at the expense of emphasizing the issues that really matter – the substantive research
question at hand” (Miller and van der Meulen Rodgers 2008:1). This approach is recommended
by Miller and van der Meulen Rodgers (2008) in their critique of neoclassical economics studies.
Where direct quotes are reported in the text, they are derived from the focus groups. In direct
quotes, only the respondent’s village and region are noted; all other information is withheld to
protect the privacy of participants. Any statistics pertain to the survey, unless otherwise noted.
Alongside the findings from the models, we present an overview of the lifestyles of rural women
in Albania, and the enduring importance of customary laws, as revealed in the focus groups (see
also FAO 2016). The situation is particularly dire for the people who are left behind in rural areas
as those with more means have already moved to the capital and other urban areas during large
internal migration waves in the past few decades. (While less than 30% of the Albanian population
lived in cities in 1990, now the country is 60% urbanized.) This is important because the barriers
to land ownership which women face do not occur in a vacuum.
Rural women’s triple oppression
Rural women in Albania face three layers of oppression: (a) patriarchy and authoritarianism in
government, (b) male hegemony within their communities and families, and (c) poverty,
sometimes extreme, caused by a high dependence on subsistence farming. The lot of rural women
is much harder than the rest of Albanian women’s.
A history of neglect and oppression on part of consecutive governments was detailed earlier in the
article. In line with historical trends of exclusion, the study reveals that female farmers have much
less access to government services than male farmers. While both men and women are poorly
informed about government subsidy schemes for the agriculture sector,7 the channels of
information are male-dominated (see Gërxhani, 2007). Only 5% of agricultural subsidy recipients,
13
and just above 10% of the farmers who had some contact with professional agronomists, are
women. Prior studies have reported similar findings (MoHSP and MEFA, 2019).8
Following, we focus on the role of patriarchal family and community relationships, and the
additional burden that material deprivation imposes on women. The study reveals that often, only
the head of the household (usually a man) is formally registered in the cadaster,9 as the
representative of the family farm. Rural women tend to refer to themselves as ‘housewives’, thus
devaluing their agricultural labor. In reality, they carry out a combination of household chores and
productive farming work. On the other hand, women participation in the market (selling produce
or buying household goods and farm materials) is very limited and occasional. In most cases, men
are in charge of the bureaucratic aspects of running a farm and family (e.g., tax and utility
payments). In other words, men carry out most transactions that involve money.
The small-scale agriculture practiced in Albania is mostly unprofitable and characterized by
deteriorating returns. About 86% of farms operate at semi-subsistence or subsistence level, and
their owners have limited access to markets. The ability to obtain financing for improvements is
constrained too. In our study, only 10% of respondents have obtained credit from banks, and the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations reports that the agriculture sector absorbs
just 2% of the total loan portfolio in Albania (FAO, 2020).
Off-farm incomes are very limited. Only a few examples of female entrepreneurs are reported,
usually involving small shops or workshops, financed through savings from migration. Some
women – of all ages – would happily quit farming if they could obtain a modest job, even one that
offered no benefits. But a low level of industrialization and a lack of motorized transport to reach
employment centers make access to non-farming jobs a distant prospect. Many make ends meet
through the remittances sent by their children abroad (boys in particular). Older people who
worked in communist-era agricultural cooperatives or state farms until 1990 are entitled to a small
pension which is often the main source of cash in the household. Average pensions for rural
residents are about €60 per month10 and lower for women (FAO, 2020).
Table 2. Women’s perceptions of rights to decision-making within the family (descriptive statistics).
Statement
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
My husband and I make every family decision together 6% 29% 65%
My opinion is always considered in the family decision-making 13% 24% 64%
My family’s peace and harmony is more important than my rights 22% 30% 48%
While all the household members contribute to farming, women - especially younger ones
regardless of marital status - are the most overworked and marginalized.11 They work longer hours
than men and tend to abide by the decisions of their husbands, fathers, brothers, and even sons.
Women gain more authority within the household as they grow older; however, their tasks remain
distinct to men’s. While many women (more than a third) are aware that their views count less
than men’s, they are willing to sacrifice their rights in order to preserve peace and harmony within
the family (see Table 2).
Both women and men keep farming through infirmity as they have no other option to sustain
themselves. A typical day for a rural woman starts at 5 or 6 am, and in summer does not end until
14
10 or 11 pm. Some have to walk up to thirty minutes in one direction to reach their land plot, as
houses are usually grouped together in the center of the village and land parcels are fragmented
around the village. Men work hard in the fields too, but often can rest around midday as women
clean the house and prepare lunch (the main meal in Albania).
Mothers of young children tend to work non-stop until bedtime because childcare (as elderly care)
falls on women. Unlike male family members who socialize with other men in local cafés, women
rarely leave the house for recreation purposes. They meet their female circle typically at weddings,
funerals, and other community events. Home visits for coffee and chats take place infrequently
because women’s work burden is heavy and leaves them with little time to themselves. These
circumstances preclude any level of grassroots political organization.
Younger families throughout the focus group sites - especially those who have returned from a
period of migration in Western countries (most often Italy, Greece, and England) - tend to be more
gender-egalitarian. Younger fathers help not only with farming work but also with childcare tasks,
such as diaper changing, which was unthinkable in the past. Some older mothers are accepting of
these new norms within their adult children’s family units while others find them shocking:
Living in Italy separately from us my son has become used to minding toddlers and
cleaning the house (Begjunec, Dibër).
Even in families with no migration experience, mores are changing due to exposure to urban
lifestyles via the television and sometimes the internet.
New generations [of men] are more involved in childcare. They carry out chores that
our husbands would not touch before. They were ashamed to be seen helping the wife
(Reç, Shkodër).
Enduring importance of customary laws
Survey results reveal that informal institutions and customary laws prevail in rural Albania,
especially around land rights (less so with regard to land sales). Rural women are very familiar
with customs and traditions around land ownership and inheritance. In fact, they are nearly as
informed on customs as on formal laws regulating land property (see Table 3).
Table 3. Information about legal frameworks (formal and informal) on land property (descriptive statistics).
Type of legal framework
Yes
No
Are you informed on formal land laws?
75%
25%
Are you informed on customary land laws?
70%
30%
Customary laws disfavor women when it comes to property ownership, inheritance, and decision-
making more generally. Therefore, there is a risk that, close familiarity with these laws may lead
women to internalize a patriarchal conception of rights and thus subjugate themselves to men’s
will without objection. In fact, the study reveals that women are not particularly worried about
their landless state as they trust custom and kin (52% of respondents) more than the law (46% of
respondents). Alarmingly, less than half of the survey respondents believe that state law is, or
should be, followed when making decisions on land sales (Table 4).
15
Table 4. Most trusted entities in decision-making regarding land sales (descriptive statistics, i.e., responses to the
question “What is the frame of reference when making decisions on land sales”).
Options
Percentage
State law is followed
46%
Custom is followed
5%
Men decide
16%
Family decides*
31%
Other/no answer
2%
*Note that this does not necessary imply a consensual decision.
Focus group discussions provide more insight into the enduring importance of customary laws,
which take control away from women. Generally, women are quite passive or accepting of this
situation. They refrain from engaging in decisions around land sales or tenure, and tend to follow
men’s guidance. Adhering to traditional gender norms, women believe that their husbands, fathers,
brothers, and male in-laws will make the ‘right’ decisions on behalf of the family, even if this
means no access to land ownership for women. The following quotes are typical:
In this village, most land is in men’s name; they’re the commanders (Fushë-Draç,
Durrës).
The paperwork came out in my husband’s name; that’s all I know (Bradadesh,
Elbasan).
A large share of the respondents (27% of survey participants) have never even seen the ownership
certificates of the land that they help cultivate. In northern Albania this is more common. The
following quote from the focus groups exemplifies the attitude of many:
I have no business with land certificates. I can’t have my husband retort that the land
is his and didn’t come with my dowry (Bugjunec, Dibër).
The picture is complicated by the fact that land ownership is often unclear due to a prevalence of
informal arrangements:
Our land ownership is tangled up. I used to live with my in-laws, and we decided to
let my father-in-law hold the land titles, since he has three sons. We figured that, as a
parent, he would divide the land up among the sons later. So we work the land but it’s
not really ours, we don’t have papers. We should have split the parcels in the cadaster
from the start; now it’s too expensive to do so (Fushë-Draç, Durrës).
The comment on the high cost of regularizing land ownership refers to the fact that, at the time of
the survey, the institutions handling land registrations have moved from the local level to the
regional level. This means longer travel distances to reach the relevant offices, and longer waiting
times. Being poor, farmers are very sensitive to small increases in costs.
Women’s perception of access to land ownership
Women’s general perception is that the formal legal framework on land ownership is not enforced
in a way that guarantees equality of access to all family members. When asked about their own
family, nearly a fifth of female survey respondents report that they do not sense that they are
entitled to the same land ownership rights as men. A number of factors affect women’s perception
16
of having lower status, and the results of the regression analysis shed more light into these (Table
5).
As seen, many of the factors listed in the conceptual framework (see Figure 2) carry some weight.
Women who are better informed about the formal legal framework tend to see themselves as more
equal to men compared to women who little legal literacy. Similarly, those who trust the Albanian
legal system are more likely than those who do not trust the system to see themselves as having
the same land rights as men (a difference in probability of nearly 12%). On the contrary, women
who have more knowledge about customary rules (which cast women as inferior) tend to view
themselves as not having the same ownership rights as men compared to women with little
knowledge or interest in the kanun (a difference in probability of nearly 7%). Awareness and
knowledge of customary rules is higher in those regions where women’s subjugation is also higher.
Table 5. Marginal effects of the logistic regression: factors influencing perceptions of inequality around land rights.‡
Variable†
Coefficient
SE
Distance to the center
-0.003
0.000***
Region NUTS2
-0.066
0.030**
Age
-0.001
0.001
Marital status (married)
0.100
0.035**
Education (non-obligatory level)
-0.031
0.029
Land law trust
0.123
0.031***
Land law literacy
0.116
0.039***
Customary law literacy
-0.067
0.037*
Woman main contributor to incomes
0.054
0.070
Family of origin lives in the same commune
0.028
0.025
Household education (years)
0.016
0.006***
Land area availability (hectare per capita)
0.056
0.013***
Advisory service access
0.057
0.031*
Notes
N = 823
Pseudo R2 = 0.17
Log‐likelihood: -314.38
Robust standard errors (SE): *** p<0.01; ** p<0.05; * p<0.1.
†The full definitions of the variables are provided in Table 1.
‡The results are robust to the change in percentiles for the continuous variables.
Formal education helps in fostering equality, but the level of education of individual women is less
important than a family’s overall level of education.12 In other words, men’s education is as crucial
as women’s, as the latter cannot fight their battles alone in a context populated by uneducated,
domineering men. Other family-related variables, such as land ownership and access to subsidies
and advisory services provide a more equitable environment for women. This suggests that
families in better economic conditions tend to support rural women and boost their confidence,
whereas poverty and deprivation produce oppression.
Marital status is important too, as in rural Albania marriage is considered as a crucial milestone in
a woman’s life. The stigma of ‘spinsterhood’ is quite strong. In line with this understanding,
17
married women in this study are more likely to believe that they are entitled to land ownership.
Meanwhile the presence of the family of origin in the same commune does not influence women
perceptions of equality in land ownership.
As expected, place-based variables are also important. Women who live in more remote villages
(where agricultural production is scarce) and in northern regions (where customary rights are
dominant) tend to regard themselves as inferior. Surprisingly, the contribution of women to the
family incomes, although positively associated with equality in land rights, is not statistically
significant. This suggest that simply working on or off farm, is not sufficient to empower women.
Women’s perception of access to land inheritance
Customarily in Albania family land was inherited by sons rather than daughters. The survey reveals
that in about half of the cases, sons are still set to inherit the parents’ land. In rural areas, this is
seen as a rational decision motivated by a need to preserve the structure of the farm and not
fragment it into many parcels. At times, the expectation is that all siblings will receive some land
but the son who lives with, and takes care of, the parents in their old age will receive more. Thus,
the land serves as an old-age insurance or pension. After marriage, the family of origin provides
financial support to daughters only on key occasions such as weddings, serious illnesses, or
funerals, which involve major expenses. Also, uncles (in particular, maternal uncles) are expected
to provide a safety net for nephews and nieces and act in loco parentis if needed. A focus group
participant explains:
When we are married, we get a small trousseau, a suitcase of linen, some bedding, and
that’s it. We never touch our parents’ land. No good daughter would. It is custom for
maternal uncles to cover some of their nephews’ wedding expenses later on - the music
band, a calf perhaps - in return for having kept the land (Begjunec, Dibër).
Decision-making processes regarding land inheritance show clear patriarchal patterns - much more
so that in the case of land sales. Customary law and tradition are clearly as, or more, important
than state law when deciding on inheritance (Table 6). Patrilineage continues to be the norm for
about half of the rural population, and most women are aware of this. More than half of surveyed
women (57%) entrust decisions on inheritance matters to the men or the family.
Table 6. Most trusted entities in decision-making regarding land inheritance (descriptive statistics, i.e., responses to
the question “What is the frame of reference when parents decide on the distribution of land to heirs?”).
Options
Percentage
State law is followed
24%
Custom is followed
18%
Men decide
14%
Family decides*
43%
Other/no answer
1%
*Note that this does not necessary imply a consensual decision.
Our regression analysis (Table 7) shows that those women who are more informed on, and trusting
of, the state laws on land inheritance also believe that they will inherit from their parents the same
amount of land as their brothers. They are respectively 11% and 12% more likely to perceive equal
land rights compared to their peers. Women’s level of knowledge about customs and traditions is
18
negatively associated with their perceptions of equality. This means that in areas where customary
rules prevail and women are familiar with those, patrilineal inheritance is dominant.
Table 7. Marginal effects of the logistic regression: factors influencing perceptions of land inheritance rights.‡
Variable†
Coefficient.
SE
Distance to the center
-0.004
0.001***
Region NUTS2
-0.330
0.035***
Age
-0.004
0.001***
Marital status (married)
-0.062
0.054
Education (non-obligatory level)
0.007
0.037
Land law literacy
0.109
0.042***
Land law trust
0.122
0.037***
Customary law literacy
0.097
0.042**
Woman main contributor to income
0.038
0.073
Family of origin lives in the same commune
0.009
0.032
Household education (years)
-0.008
0.008
Land area availability (hectare per capita)
-0.047
0.015***
Advisory service access
0.009
0.036
Notes
N = 816
Pseudo R2 = 0.14
Log‐likelihood: -474.57.81;
Robust standard errors (SE): *** p<0.01; ** p<0.05; * p<0.1.
†The full definitions of the variables are provided in Table 1.
‡The results are robust to the change in percentiles for the continuous variables.
Education seems to be again not influential on the perception of land ownership equality. This
finding may reflect the dualized role of education in perceptions, which makes the relation
statistically insignificant. Education may raise the perception of inequality among repressed
women or it may reduce the perception of equality among empowered women. With regard to age,
egalitarian views prevail among younger women and are not typically shared by older women. A
woman’s marital status is not statistically significant in this case. Being currently married does
little to change women’s perceptions around land inheritance. Possibly, egalitarian (or patriarchal)
views are formed early on, during one’s upbringing. It may well be that young girls grow up
internalizing the notion that their parents’ land will eventually belong to their brothers. The
presence of the family of origin in the same village does not play any role in women’s perceptions
on rights to land inheritance.
Household factors differ in terms of influence. Overall family education and access to advisory
services do not have any statistically significant association with the perception of equality in land
inheritance. Surprisingly, the amount of land that a family owns is inversely related to women’s
perceptions of equality in land inheritance for her origin family. Possibly, richer is the husband
family in terms of land, lower are the expectations of women about the land inheritance and higher
are the inequalities accompanying it. Moreover, wealthier families with more land, provide more
conditions for male heirs to lead the farm survival, a condition which enforce patrilineal
inheritance customs. As with perceptions of access to land ownership, women residing in northern
regions (where customary laws prevail) feel less entitled to inherit land.
19
Overall, these findings bring intersectionality issues into high relief: where patriarchy is combined
with poverty, gender inequality is exacerbated. In poorer households, financial tensions run high
and women are cast as ‘useless’ for not being able to augment a family’s income by much:
We take care of the house but this kind of work is invisible. Men’s work is what brings
in the money. … We learn to shut our mouths and sit still since we can’t help. … As
kids grow, they need more cash… We [mothers] are less and less helpful with the little
money we collect by selling jam and herbs (Begjunec, Dibër).
Age is a crucial determinant of power within the family. Also, there is an understanding that people
who currently reside within the family home are privileged over those who have left. Daughters
are still seen as chattel:
Daughters aren’t really ours, we raise them to send to their real family [the husband’s
family] (Reç, Shkodër).
In focus groups, women sometimes express their desire to self-exclude from inheritance: they do
not plan to request their share of land from their parents and brothers because they do not want to
compromise family relationships or ‘lose face’. In some cases, married women have no use for the
parents’ land because it has no commercial value and is located in another village to which they
cannot commute daily for agricultural practices. However, where the land value is very high, as
near the capital or along the coast, intra-family disputes over land ownership and inheritance are
more common and often involve women. In extreme cases, these disputes have led to fratricide. In
a few cases, women have gathered the courage to go to court to claim their share of land or ask for
financial compensation.
But more typically, disputes are resolved informally, with older relatives or reputable villagers
acting as arbitrators, and father or brothers giving in to peer pressure. Focus groups also reveal that
some families are now prepared to bequeath land to daughters. Some parents are keen to follow
the state law, which they re-conceptualize in terms of customary law:
Yes, our daughters will get their land share; it’s the law, and it’s their dowry (Mollaj,
Korçë).
All of us will give our daughters their land share. It’s best that way, so we don’t lose
face with our sons-in-law (Bradashesh, Elbasan).
Moreover, some parents realize that marriages are no longer stable, and by bequeathing land to
their daughters, they can protect them from economic hardship in case of a divorce. At the same
time, other parents are reluctant to bequeath land to married daughters for the same reason: if they
end up divorcing, part of the land would be lost to former in-laws. Where married daughters are in
a difficult financial position, parents and brothers are more willing to hand them their land share
or a cash equivalent - or at least allow them to use the land for subsistence agriculture.
Television has been instrumental in educating rural women about their land. Several focus group
participants refer to an Albanian program called ‘See you in court!’ as eye opening. Hosted by a
female attorney, this is a reality court show, in which property disputes are heard. It has been
running for nearly a decade on a national television channel. While containing a dose of
sensationalism, the show has helped rural women understand that their plight is not unique, intra-
family conflicts over land ownership are common, and not all women are meek and submissive.
20
Conclusion
This study explored the situation of rural Albanian women with regard to land ownership and
inheritance. The context is one of engrained patriarchy, poverty, agricultural stagnation, and
authoritarian and uncaring government institutions. While Albania’s formal legal system is
modern and aligned with the European Union (Albania is an official candidate country), it coexists
with customary, informal laws which disregard women or treat them as second-class citizens.
While this type of duality is common in the Global South (see Altman and Chemers 1984), Albania
may be a special case within Europe. Rural societies here lack awareness around legal property
rights, do not value gender equality, and continue to rely on customary laws. Alarmingly, a fifth
of rural women do not believe that they are entitled to the same land ownership rights as men.
Women appear to know more about customary rules than state laws, which favor men. Thus their
confidence is undermined. Less educated women, residing in more remote villages tend to fare
worse.
Clearly, all three sets of factors (place-based, individual, household) delineated in the conceptual
framework are relevant, thus providing empirical evidences for the intersectionality theory. Present
patterns of gendered access to land ownership have deep roots in Albanian history. In a strongly
patriarchal system built over the course of centuries, poverty, sexism, and government neglect
intersect to impede progress toward gender equality and entrench male dominance even further.
Improving laws in favor of women helps but the effect is limited given current attitudes around
gender roles and entitlements. A belief that the law alone may propel the materialization of gender
equality in rural Albania may be quixotic. Most of the institutions that govern land rights are likely
to remain informal in the foreseeable future given that culture and tradition are as important as, if
not more important than, legal frameworks surrounding land ownership and inheritance.
Policy recommendations
The conclusions delineated above are not meant to endorse the status quo. A number of steps can
and should be taken to strengthen women’s position in rural areas. Obviously, women’s role in
agricultural work and their land ownership rights must be formally acknowledged. Rural women,
as men, need better access to the social insurance system, farm subsidy program, and professional
advisory services. Our argument is that efforts toward gender equality in rural areas must reach
well beyond the law. A more holistic approach is needed which combines efforts to raise awareness
among all genders and poverty alleviation programs. As such, the findings have several policy
implications, which are relevant for Albanian public institutions but also foreign donor
organizations.
Legal literacy clearly empowers women, especially young ones, and as such it should be supported.
More information, awareness raising, and free legal assistance would help women gain the courage
to claim their land rights. Since women’s perceptions of equality are closely linked to family
education, awareness-raising campaigns should target men too. Pro-equality attitudes are higher
in villages with better access to urban centers. While physical distances are immutable, policy
interventions can focus on improving transport linkages between cities and their rural hinterland,
but also on boosting digital and media access. Grassroots organizations that help build capacity,
promote democratic principles in rural areas, and advocate for gender equality, are crucial and
need to be championed (see Cush et al. 2018; Franić and Kovačićek, 2019). Northern Albania,
where customary rules prevail, should be the main target of their activities.
21
In addition to vocational education, boosting women’s agriculture and off-farm employment
opportunities is important not only to ensure women’s independence and bargaining power but
also because families which are in a better financial position overall appear to be less patriarchal.
More inclusion in economic life can be achieved through tailored advisory services within a
reasonable physical distance of villages. Providing low-interest capital funding (combined with
mentorship) for existing women-led start-ups in rural areas may encourage other women to follow
suit and thus gradually overcome gender stereotypes. In addition, the criteria for obtaining
agricultural subsidies could be tweaked to prioritize female farmers. Joint titling could be made
into a condition for obtaining agricultural subsidies. And, any agricultural and rural development
policies - such as the EU Instruments of Pre Accession in Agriculture and Rural Development -
should be based on gender mainstreaming principles and include ex ante and ex post gender
analyses.
Such changes might have knock on effects and help shift gendered patterns of work divisions and
land ownership access/inheritance. However, they need to be framed in positive terms as
benefitting the whole family (the latter being dear to villagers), rather than in adversary terms
pitching women against men. More remote villages need to be prioritized during interventions, as
women’s position is the weakest there. Finally, we stress that gender equality in land ownership
and inheritance is not a standalone issue. It can only be achieved in the context of equality in other
arenas, including employment and education.
References
Agarwal, B. (1997). ''Bargaining'' and gender relations: Within and beyond the household. Feminist Economics,
3(1), 1-51.
Agarwal, B. (2003). Gender and land rights revisited: exploring new prospects via the state, family and market.
Journal of Agrarian Change, 3(1‐2), 184-224.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
50(2):179-211.
Alkire, S., Meinzen-Dick, R., Peterman, A., Quisumbing, A., Seymour, G., & Vaz, A. (2013). The women’s
empowerment in agriculture index. World development, 52, 71-91.
Allendorf, K. (2007). “Do women’s land rights promote empowerment and child health in Nepal?” World
Development, 35.11, pp. 1975–1988.
Altman, I., & Chemers, M. M. (1984). Culture and environment (No. 2). CUP Archive.
Aral, B. (2004). The idea of human rights as perceived in the Ottoman Empire. Human Rights Quarterly, 454-482.
Attila Aytekin, E. (2009). Agrarian relations, property and law: an analysis of the Land Code of 1858 in the Ottoman
Empire. Middle Eastern Studies 45(6):935-951.
Bardhoshi, N. (2004). E drejta kanunore dhe shteti i së drejtës [Canonian law and the rule of law]. Polis 3(1):19-29.
Bardhoshi, N. (2012). Family property in Albanian customary law. In Hemming, A., Kera, G., Pandelejmoni, E.
(eds.), Albania: Family, society and culture in the 20th century, pp. 67-78 Munich: Lit Verlag.
Bardhoshi, N. (2013). Legal dynamics in a border area: between customary law and state law. Journal of Legal
Anthropology 1(3):314-332.
Bezabih, M., Kohlin, G., & Mannberg, A. (2011). Trust, tenure insecurity, and land certification in rural Ethiopia.
The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40(6), 833-843.
22
Bica, F. (2007). Trashëgimia në të Drejtën Mesjetare Shqiptare : instituti i Trashëgimisë në Kanunin e Lekë
Dukagjinit dhe atë të Skënderbeut / Fjona Bica. Nr. 2243, 25 nëntor, 2007, f.17 - 19.
Byrne, A. (2003). Developing a sociological model for researching women's self and social identities. European
Journal of Women's Studies. 10, 443-464.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of
Color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241-1299.
Conning, J., & Deb, P. (2007). Impact evaluation for land property rights reforms. World Bank, Poverty Reduction
and Economic Management, Thematic Group on Poverty Analysis, Monitoring and Impact Evaluation.
Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender &
society, 19(6), 829-859.
Cush, P., Macken-Walsh, Á., & Byrne, A. (2018). Joint farming ventures in Ireland: gender identities of the self and
the social. Journal of Rural Studies, 57, 55-64.
De Waal, C. (2004). Post-socialist property rights and wrongs in Albania: an Ethnography of Agrarian Change.
Conservation & Society 2(1):19-50.
Demeti A., Rebi E., Demeti T. (2015). Female entrepreneurship in Albania: state, trends, and challenges. In: V.
Ramadani, S. Gërguri-Rashiti, A. Fayolle (eds), Female entrepreneurship in transition economies, pp. 181-
200. London: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Deere, C. Doss, C. (2006). The gender asset gap: what do we know and why does it matter? Feminist Economics,
12:1-2:1-50.
Deere, C., Oduro, A., Swaminathan, H. Doss, C. (2013). Property rights and the gender distribution of wealth in
Ecuador, Ghana and India. Journal of Economic Inequality 11:249–265.
Doss, C. (2013). Intra-household bargaining and resource allocation in developing countries. The World Bank
Research Observer, 28(1), 52-78.
Doss, C., Deere, C., Oduro, A. Swaminathan, H. (2014). The gender asset and wealth gaps. Development 57:400–
409.
Elezi, I. (1983). E drejta zakonore e shqiptarëve. Tirana: 8 Nëntori.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2011). Assessment of the human capacity development
needs for, and gaps in, the agricultural advisory services in Western Balkans. Report, Budapest, Hungary.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2014). Gender disaggregated data: Western Balkans
statistical reports 2005-2013. Report, Budapest, Hungary.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2016). Gender equality in rural Albania country: gender
assessment for agriculture and rural development. Report, Budapest, Hungary.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2019). Evaluation and impact assessment of agriculture
and rural development support policies in Albania. Report prepared by Institute for Economic Studies and
Knowledge Transfer in the framework of FAO TCP/ALB/3606.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2020). Smallholders and Family Farms in Albania -
Country Study Report, available at http://www.fao.org/3/ca7450en/CA7450EN.pdf, last visited September
2020
Franić, R., & Kovačićek, T. (2019). The Professional status of rural women in the EU. Report, European Parliament,
Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs, Directorate General for Internal Policies of
the Union, Brussels, Belgium.
Gerber, H. (1980). Social and economic position of women in an Ottoman city, Bursa, 1600-1700. International
Journal of Middle East Studies 12(3):231-244.
Gërxhani, K. (2007). Explaining gender differences in tax evasion: the case of Tirana, Albania. Feminist Economics,
13(2), 119-155.
23
Goldstein, M., & Udry, C. (2008). The profits of power: Land rights and agricultural investment in Ghana. Journal
of political Economy, 116(6), 981-1022.
Hanmer, L., & Klugman, J. (2016). Exploring Women's agency and empowerment in developing countries: where
do we stand?. Feminist Economics, 22(1), 237-263.
Hovorka, A. J. (2015). The Gender, Place and Culture Jan Monk Distinguished Annual Lecture: Feminism and
animals: exploring interspecies relations through intersectionality, performativity and standpoint. Gender,
Place & Culture, 22(1), 1-19.
Imber, C. (2012). The law of the land. In C. Woodhead (ed.), The Ottoman world, pp. 41-56. London: Routledge.
Institute for Democracy and Mediation (IDM). (2010). Empowering Albanian rural women economic and social
perspectives. Report, Tirana, Albania.
International Labour Office (ILO), (2012), Working children in the Republic of Albania - The results of the 2010
National Child Labour Survey, available at
https://www.ilo.org/ipecinfo/product/download.do?type=document&id=21295, last visited May 2021.
INSTAT. (2018). Demographic Health Survey 2017-2018, Albania, available at:
http://www.instat.gov.al/media/5050/adhs-2017-18-pdf.pdf. Last accessed on 15 August 2021.
INSTAT. 2019. Arsimi dhe punësimi [Education and employment]. Report, available at:
http://instat.gov.al/kapitulli/arsimi-dhe-pun%C3%ABsimi/. Last accessed on 21 June 2021.
Kabeer, N. (1999). Resources, agency, achievements: Reflections on the measurement of women's empowerment.
Development and Change, 30(3), 435-464.
Këlliçi, K., Danaj, E. (2016). Promoting equality, perpetuating inequality: gender propaganda in Communist
Albania. History of Communism in Europe 7:39-61.
Kfir, I. (2014). Feminist Legal Theory as a Way to Explain the Lack of Progress of Women's Rights in Afghanistan:
The Need for a State Strength Approach. The William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law, 21, 87.
Kodderitzsch, S. (1999). Reforms in Albanian agriculture: assessing a sector in transition. Technical paper no. 431,
World Bank, Tirana, Albania.
Kocabicak, E. (2018, July). What excludes women from landownership in Turkey? Implications for feminist
strategies. In Women's Studies International Forum (Vol. 69, pp. 115-125). Pergamon.
Kumar, N., & Quisumbing, A. R. (2012). Beyond “death do us part”: The long-term implications of divorce
perceptions on women’s well-being and child schooling in rural Ethiopia. World Development, 40(12), 2478-
2489.
Lastarria-Cornhiel, S., & Sabates-Wheeler, R. (1998). Gender, ethnicity, and landed property in Albania.
Lawson, C. W., & Saltmarshe, D. K. (2002). The psychology of economic transformation: The impact of the market
on social institutions, status and values in a northern Albanian village. Journal of economic
psychology, 23(4), 487-500.
Lelaj, O. (2015). Nën shenjën e modernitetit: Antropologji e proceseve proletarizuese gjatë socializmit shtetëror
[Under modernity’s insignia: an anthropology of proletarianization processes during state socialism]. Tirana:
Pika pa siperfaqe.
Lemel, H. (2000). Rural property and economy in post-communist Albania. New York: Berghahn Books.
Mandro-Balili, A. (2012). The property rights of women in Albania: analysis of legal standards and its
implementation in practice. Report, UN Women, Tirana, Albania.
Mason, K. O., Tsuya, N. O., & Choe, M. K. (1998). Changing family in comparative perspective: Asia and the
United States. Honolulu: East-West Center.
May, V. M. (2015). Pursuing intersectionality, unsettling dominant imaginaries. Routledge.
McCall, L., (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of women in culture and society, 30(3),
pp.1771-1800.
24
Meçani, D. (2004). “Pronësia mbi tokën”, Shtëpia botuese Albaper. 12.
Megalommati, N. (2017). Women and family law in Byzantium: Some notes. Historical Reflections 43(1):19-32.
Mezini, L., Pojani, D. (2014). Defence, identity, and urban form: the extreme case of Gjirokastra. Planning
Perspectives, 30(3):397-428.
Miller, J., van der Meulen Rodgers, Y. (2008). Economic importance and statistical significance: Guidelines for
communicating empirical research, Feminist Economics, 14:2, 117-149,
Mollett, S. (2017). Irreconcilable differences? A postcolonial intersectional reading of gender, development and
Human Rights in Latin America. Gender, Place & Culture, 24(1), 1–7. doi:10.1080/0966369x.2017.1277292
Morone, G. (1997). Sviluppo umano e sostenibile in Albania, 1997-1999. [Human and sustainable development in
Albania, 1997-1999]. Milan: Franco Angeli.
MoHSP and MEFA. (2019). “National review for the implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action
Beijing+25”, available upon request by UNWOMEN Albania.
Muriaas, R. L., Wang, V., Benstead, L., Dulani, B., & Rakner, L. (2019). Why the gender of traditional authorities
matters: Intersectionality and women’s rights advocacy in Malawi. Comparative Political Studies, 52(12),
1881-1924.
Nelson, J., Tilly, C., Walker, L. 1997. Transforming post-communist political economies. Washington D.C.:
National Academy Press.
Ombudsman of Republic of Albania (ORA). (2020), Alternative report on the implementation of the convention on
the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women (CEDAW) in Albania (2016-2020), available at
https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CEDAW/Shared%20Documents/ALB/INT_CEDAW_IFN_ALB_44253
_E.docx, last visited, June 2021.
Ossome, L. (2014). Can the law secure women's rights to land in Africa? Revisiting tensions between culture and
land commercialization. Feminist Economics, 20(1), 155-177.
Patil, V. (2013). From patriarchy to intersectionality: A transnational feminist assessment of how far we've really
come. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(4), 847-867.
Pradhan, R., Meinzen-Dick, R., & Theis, S. (2019). Property rights, intersectionality, and women's empowerment in
Nepal. Journal of Rural Studies, 70, 26-35.
Pritchard, E. (2016). Nested comparisons: nation-building through comparative thinking about Albanian law.
International Journal of Law in Context 12(4):469-483.
Pulaha, S. (1988). Pronësia Feudale Në Tokat Shqiptare (SHEK. XV-XVI). By Selami Pulaha. Tiranë: Akademia e
Shkencave e RPS të Shqipërisë, 1988. pp. 518.
Rashid, S. R. (2013). Bangladeshi women’s experiences of their men’s migration: Rethinking power, agency, and
subordination. Asian Survey, 53(5), 883-908.
Sabates-Wheeler, R. (1998). Past and present land tenure systems in Albania: patrilineal, patriarchal, family-
centered. Working paper no. 13, Land Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wi, USA.
Sabates-Wheeler, R., Waite, M. (2003). Albania, country brief: Property rights and land market. Report, Land
Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wi, USA.
Stanfield, J. D. (2002). Final Performance Report on the Albanian Land Market Development Cooperative
Agreement.
UN Women. (2011). National report on the status of women and gender equality in Albania. Report, Tirana,
Albania.
UNWOMEN. (2016). Women’s property rights in Albania-An Analysis of Legal Standards and their Application,
Second edition, available
at:http://www.un.org.al/sites/default/files/WOMEN%E2%80%99SPROPERTY%20RIGHTS%20IN%20AL
BANIA_0.pdf. Last accessed on 15 August 2021.
25
Von Benda-Beckmann, F., & von Benda-Beckmann, K. (2000). Gender and the multiple contingencies of water rights
in Nepal. In Water, land and law: changing rights to land and water in Nepal: proceedings of a workshop held
in Kathmandu 18-20 March 1998, 17-39.
Whitehead, A., & Tsikata, D. (2003). Policy discourses on women's land rights in Sub–Saharan Africa: The
implications of the re–turn to the Customary. Journal of Agrarian Change, 3(1‐2), 67-112.
World Bank. (2010). Gender dimensions of investment climate reform. Report, Washington, D.C.
West, C., & Fenstermaker, S. (1995). Doing difference. Gender and Society, 9, 8–37.
doi:10.1177/089124395009001002.
Zhllima, E., Viaggi, D., Müller, D. (2010). Property rights of land and its perception in rural part of central Albania.
New Medit 3:56-64.
Notes
1 Nearly half of municipal council members nationwide are women, and about a quarter of the Albanian Parliament
is comprised of women (InStat 2019).
2 For example, water irrigation, property maintenance, and land tillage.
3 The main Kanuns include: Kanun of Skanderbeg, Kanun of Lekë Dukagjini, Kanun of Luma, Kanun of Labëria,
Kanun of Dibra.
4 Unless spouses have entered into a contractual agreement to separate their assets.
5 Due to a high level of out-migration, there are many empty houses left behind in Albanian villages. Therefore, the
number of responses can be quite low in smaller settlements.
6 A binary regression is formally described in the following equation:
1=Pr[= 1| ]=exp (′)
1+exp (′)
where:
: binary dependent variable
x: regressor vector used to explain the changes in the dependent variable
: parameter vector that reveals the estimated magnitude of the effects
7 77% of men and 87% of women are entirely uninformed on the matter.
8 Only 1.3% of the farms receive support from the government and less than 5% are contacted directly by advisory
services (MoHSP and MEFA, 2019).
9 The local government land register.
10 Urban pensions are nearly twice as high, on average.
11 We did not collect data on the involvement of children in farm work. Prior studies have found that rural children
in Albania often partake in the productive activities, mainly livestock husbandry and harvesting (ILO, 2012).
12 Women’s education is negatively associated with the perception of equality, but the relation is not statistically
significant.
