Policy Research Working Paper 11100 Capitalizing on Digital Transformation to Enhance the Effectiveness of Property Institutions Conceptual Background and Evidence from 85 Countries Klaus Deininger Thea Hilhorst Jaap Zevenbergen Emmanuel Nkurunziza Development Economics Development Research Group April 2025 Policy Research Working Paper 11100 Abstract Property registries have long been a pillar of state capac- digital registry service provision. Data from 85 countries ity and a basis for private market activity. While registry highlight vast differences and provide suggestions for stra- establishment and operation traditionally were costly and tegic reforms as well as a basis for measuring progress over time consuming, digital technology makes low-cost registry time. Expanding geographical coverage and collecting operation and wide outreach easier. To guide developing these indicators on a regular basis could provide guidance countries aiming to establish such registries and measure to improve the way in which, by protecting property, the progress, this paper develops indicators (in terms of digital state creates the basis for widely shared prosperity and a coverage, interoperability, and property taxation for local livable environment. service delivery and public land management) of effective This paper is a product of the Development Research Group, Development Economics. It is part of a larger effort by the World Bank to provide open access to its research and make a contribution to development policy discussions around the world. Policy Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http://www.worldbank.org/prwp. The authors may be contacted at kdeininger@worldbank.org; thilhorst@worldbank.org; j.a.zevenbergen@utwente.nl; and ebnkurunziza1@gmail.com. The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. Produced by the Research Support Team Capitalizing on Digital Transformation to Enhance the Effectiveness of Property Institutions: Conceptual Background and Evidence from 85 Countries Klaus Deininger* Thea Hilhorst* Jaap Zevenbergen& Emmanuel Nkurunziza$ * World Bank, Washington DC & University of Twente, Enschede $ Regional Center for Mapping of Resources for Development, Nairobi JEL Codes: O10, P14, Q24, R3, K11 Keywords: Property rights; institutions and growth; digital interoperability; public land management; property taxation We would like to thank Nicolas Nogueroles and Mihai Taus for invaluable collaboration throughout this project, participants at the 2024 IPRA- CINDER Congress in Costa Rica, the Governing Council Meeting of RCMRD, the African Land Policy Conference, and the World Bank Land Conference for helpful comments, and Mohamed Abdou, Emilio Bolívar Abrate, Basilio Aguirre, Moses Akali, Luis Alberto Aliaga Huaripata, Ignacio Jr. Almira, Juma Mgeni Ameir, Gabriela Carranza Araya, Gabriella Baccarani, Thomas Barwihigire, Galmandakh Boldbaatar, Manfred Buric, Tony Burns, Alfonso Candau, M. Bouchaib Chahi, Radu Stefanescu Codrut, Anilda Pereira Da Veiga, Ronny Dehaes, Abdoulaye Diagne, Cheickine Dieffaga, Svatava Dokoupilova, Claudia Lavinia Figueroa Perdomo, Matus Fojtl, Maria Elena Garcia Flores, Joseph Gauci, Tigistu Gebremeskel, Lourdes González, Daniela Gray-Johnson, Luc Groot, Andri Hadjimarkou, Jennifer Henderson, Kirsten Hommann, Jin Hu, Roberto Hung, Deoyani Hurrynag, Mercedes Vera Ibarra, Paul Idude, Sergio Jacomino, Mariam Jobarteh, Jasper Kakooza, Carlize Knoesen, Markus Olavi Kukkonen, Maris Kumerdanks, Moses Kusiluka, Wilfred Kwabena, Ny Razafimanantena Lando, Heidi Leppikus, Mikael Lilje, Dennis Linden, Jennifer Lisher, Mirjana Ljumovic, Georges Maarrawi, Dmytro Makarenko, Luis Maldonado Croqueville, Prisca Mandimika, Roberta Marconi, Aboubakarr Marigo, Angela Matcov, Eric Mbah, Masida Mbano, Juan Carlos Mejía Coto, Agustín García Meléndez, Albert Mhlanga Mhlanga, Bronislovas Mikuta, Carlos Milano, Gundega Milere, Maria Carmen Miqel, Fawcus Mmolawa, Shaikh Al-Khalifa Mohammed, Liz Moreno, Ivonne Moreno, Robert Muir, Janne Murtoniemi, Zied Ahmad Mustafa Al Zobi, Hossein Najafi, Michael Ngugi, Kari Niemi, Grace Nishimwe, Ricardo José Noboa Gañán, Anim Odame, Henry Pacis, Me Plante Patrick, Dragan Pavlovic, Tomaz Petek, Elena Prada, Mijo Pyun, Janak Joshi Raj, Pheello Ramotubei, Vonisoa H. Razafinime, Bernard Reisch, Bastiaan Reydon, Wadii Rhouma, Johanna Andrea Rodriguez Herrera, Filomena Rosa, Ezra Aliija Rwakazooba, Alexander Samborsky, Erick Manuel Sánchez Vargas, Jolyne Sanjak, Claude Sapiano, Safol Sharifzoda, Treta Sharma, Maria Jose Magalhaes Silva, Deviantee Sobarun, Gregory Steves, Armando Miguel Subauste Bracesco, Antonio Sustic, Emelyne Talabis, Mihai Taus, Emmanuel Tembo, Mats'Eliso Thobei, Remigio Timbrine, Aidan Timmins, Mika Torhonen, Sadettin Tunas, Carlos Varela, Jacques Vos, Urad Vsrs, Darko Vucetic, Rania Wafa, Cheriese Walcott, Marcus Wandinger, Maritim Weldon, Mulualem Birru Yeshitila, Abebe Zeluel, and Patedjore Zoukalne for support in data collection, validation, and insightful discussions. Support from the Multi-Donor Trust Fund on ‘Land Policies for Growth and Poverty Reduction (TF055155) supported by the Governments of France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and UN Habitat is gratefully acknowledged. Capitalizing on Digital Transformation to Enhance the Effectiveness of Property Institutions: Conceptual Background and Evidence from 85 Countries 1. Background and motivation Economic development is associated with far-reaching changes in land use: small parcels are consolidated as people move out of agriculture; cities expand and grow vertically; infrastructure is put in place to connect people and provide services; and natural amenities become increasingly valuable. Securely registered property rights to land that can be mortgaged or transferred at low cost and information on prices generated in this process are essential to provide the basis for private decisions on investment and land use. Public registries for land and real estate are an essential element of state capacity that contributed to growth globally (D’Arcy et al. 2024) by supporting market operation. They were also instrumental in increasing land values, diversifying land use, and providing access to economic opportunities over the long term in the United States (Dippel et al. 2024; Libecap and Lueck 2011; Smith 2024). A key function of land registries is to make reliable information on rights to immovable property public and thus reduce the cost of transferring and enforcing such rights. This provides essential information for the courts to settle disputes and make the repossession of mortgages after a default or the foreclosure of public or private debts faster and safer. In addition, land registries can add tremendous value by collaborating with other institutions to improve the effectiveness and quality of public service delivery, including the ability to design and enforce land use regulations, tax property to set in motion a virtuous cycle between land value increases and public good provision, and prevent money laundering and fraud. By affecting how information is acquired, processed, and linked to other data, digital technologies can profoundly affect registries’ operational efficiency and, by enhancing the independence of the registry and the checks performed to register rights, the quality and reliability of information they provide. They also increase the ease with which registry data can be accessed; expand the range of individuals or institutions able to do so; and multiply uses to which such information can be put. As all economic activity happens on land, combining data on land rights with other data sources offers tremendous opportunities for using AI and machine learning to improve economic decision-making. This is one of the reasons for a quadrupling of the number of countries with digital registries between 2005 and 2020, with further increases since then. The benefits from digital technologies can be greatly enhanced by registry quality and coverage as well as regulations that ensure digital evidence is legally acceptable, auditable workflows that protect third party rights exist, information on rights and encumbrances can be accessed widely and at low cost, valuation for tax purposes is based on market values and widely available, and public as well as private land is managed transparently. Given the technical complexity and political sensitivity of the underlying issues, a lack of 2 ways to draw policy makers’ attention to these issues and measure improvements over time can seriously limit the ability of developing countries to develop a key piece of institutional infrastructure. Based on a review of the main functions of registries as well as their interaction with other public and private bodies and how digital connectivity, interoperability, and remote sensing affect them, we developed a country/jurisdiction-level questionnaire that defines actionable indicators for presence and use of digital records; interoperability and access to information; measures to protect existing rights; property taxation to deliver public goods; and public land management. To show data for these indicators can be collected and produces actionable results, we report results from pilot application of these criteria to 85 jurisdictions. Without detracting from the rich nature of the data, three broad findings stand out: First, although digital records were adopted very quickly across the globe, digitization of registries alone did not result in a significant reduction of registration cost or time. 1 Digitization thus seems to be a necessary but not a sufficient condition for better registry service delivery and integration with other data sources. One issue is that registry digitization without discontinuation of manual procedures may offer little advantage or, by having parallel systems, even increase cost: data show that in 60% of countries with a digital registry and cadaster, changes to the record are not required to be authenticated digitally. This may undermine gains from digitization by making it difficult to establish an electronic audit trail, prevent manual record tampering, and pass on cost savings from digital workflows to landowners. Also, a focus exclusively on private rights that excludes land that is public or managed by user groups will make it difficult to realize the full governance and decentralization benefits from secure and digitally accessible rights. Second, jurisdictions, including virtually all developed countries, that successfully digitized their registries over the last decades were able to derive significant benefits. These include improvements in data quality that made rights more reliable by establishing procedures and checks to ensure any pre-existing rights or encumbrances that may affect a new registration are automatically retrieved and brought to parties’ and officials’ attention; automating links to the personal and company registry (including beneficial ownership); and moves towards e-conveyancing that reduce the scope for fraud. More reliable and accessible data helped to improve land and financial market functioning by allowing access to registry and price data in machine- readable format, establishing tighter links to property taxation (including market-based valuation for tax purposes) as a basis for effective decentralization and local service provision. They also allowed to monitor land use, design low-cost and incentive-compatible mechanisms to incentivize provision of amenities and environmental services and prevent abuse of public land. Countries that designed their registries in a digital way from the start often enjoyed a ‘latecomer advantage’ over those that incrementally digitized legacy systems, creating numerous opportunities for experience sharing between countries at all income levels. 1 As discussed in more detail below, these are as measured by the ‘registering property’ part of the World Bank’s Doing Business (DB) index. 3 Third, the cumulative nature of progress with digital technology implies that countries that rely on paper- based systems with often very partial scope and coverage risk being caught on the wrong side of a widening digital divide. The increased availability of foundational public digital networks and infrastructure such as digital personal IDs, digital payment systems, and increasing digitization of other public services allows to improve on such a situation in a way that provides benefits in a wider range of electronic administrative governance processes and uses, to harness a broader set of benefits more quickly than has been possible in traditional approaches. In doing so, and without losing focus on the national scope of a system, it may make sense to prioritize urban areas to achieve quick wins given that, in addition to infrastructure that is more easily accessible, land values and the scope for economic and gender impacts from better functioning of land and financial markets or more effective taxation and local service delivery are all much higher in urban than in rural areas. Piloting of integrated approaches to establish digital records in a way that is attuned to local needs and economic benefits could also extend to tracts of public land of interest to private investors, ideally linking to successful efforts to establish farmer registries. This paper contributes to three strands of literature. The importance of security and transferability of land rights as a basis for investment, land and financial market operation and the social contract (Besley and Ghatak 2010). While this justified efforts to strengthen country-level property institutions, the impact of interventions to establish or improve registries has often been mixed, especially in Africa (Bromley 2009; Easterly 2008; Lawry et al. 2017). Institutional frictions (Henderson et al. 2021), partial coverage and high operating cost (Galiani and Schargrodsky 2016) or lack of attention to local realities have been cited as underlying reasons. Based on a thorough review of the literature, we argue that digital connectivity, interoperability, and use of remote sensing, if judiciously applied, can increase the outreach and benefits from registries while reducing the cost of establishing and operating them. Combined with digital scalability, this can allow even countries that have so far struggled to benefit from well-functioning property registries to do so. Yet, data show that, without a good legal design and clarity on the regulatory underpinnings for land registry operation, such efforts are often more complex and less impactful than is possible. This prompts us to define an initial set of actionable indicators based on the literature. Data from 85 jurisdictions points towards great differences in the extent to which such regulations are in place and suggests that attention to these at a strategic level is an important precondition to create the institutional preconditions for social and economic development. 2 Digital public infrastructure can provide opportunities to enhance state capacity, harness network effects, and foster growth of the private sector. India’s digital ecosystem, comprising a unique digital ID, payment 2 As in many countries (e.g., Brazil, India, Nigeria, Germany, the United States), regulations governing land administration are at sub-national level implies that, especially if heterogeneity across these is large, it may make sense to implement this framework at a lower administrative level. 4 system, and a data exchange layer, supported financial inclusion, competition, and innovation, and improved the efficiency of public service delivery (Alonso et al. 2023). 3 China’s use of digital technology allowed integration of remote rural areas into national markets via e-commerce and improved factor market operation. Roll-out of digital payment systems transformed rural areas in Africa (Batista and Vicente 2023). This triggered support to digital IDs and use of digital channels for better public service delivery. We provide evidence to show that, although registration of land is more complex technically, legally, and politically than digital IDs, use of digital infrastructure already put in place allows countries to harness benefits such as empowerment and entrepreneurship, access to markets for finance and insurance, and accountability through a social contract, that will be essential to address the challenges of the 21st century. As in the case of earlier digital innovations (such as digital payments), access to technology is less of a constraint than a presence of regulation that facilitates innovation. The indicators presented here can provide a basis for assessing readiness overall and in specific areas. From 2003 to 2020 when it was discontinued, the World Bank’s Doing Business (DB) indicators provided a global benchmark for key aspects of starting a business that included a section on ‘registering property’. 4 By allowing comparison and signaling between peers, DB became very influential as a catalyst for policy reforms (Besley 2015). The ‘registering property’ part of DB initially aimed to measure the time, number of steps, and cost to register a hypothetical property (a warehouse at the capital’s outskirts). 5 Partly in response to concerns about a neglect of the reliability of registry data (Arruñada 2007) and reforms inspired by DB that focused on cost reductions but threatened to reduce registry quality and sustainability, coverage, ease of conflict resolution, and gender (Deininger et al. 2015; Djankov et al. 2022) added in 2015. To assess the status of public registries, we use a similar approach to obtain information from experts that is by evidence and quantitative data but substantively improve on this approach in several respects: we acknowledge that regulations affect transaction cost and record quality simultaneously and focus on outcomes or regulation directly affecting them. 6 This reduces the scope for gaming the system, enhances 3 Documented use cases include biometric identification (Muralidharan et al. 2016), expanded access to fintech and benefit transfer directly into individuals’ bank accounts (Banerjee et al. 2020), as well as monitoring of service providers (Muralidharan et al. 2021). 4 Areas covered by the index were firm registration, enforcing a debt contract, hiring and firing workers; and resolving insolvencies (Djankov 2016). The project grew to include additional areas, namely starting a business; dealing with construction permits; getting electricity; registering property; getting credit; protecting investors; paying taxes; trading across borders; enforcing contracts; resolving insolvency; and employing workers (no longer reported in 2015). Information was obtained from practicing local lawyers. 5 Large differences between the time and cost of certain processes de jure as documented in DB and de facto as reported by enterprises have been a key concern regarding the DB methodology (Hallward-Driemeier and Pritchett 2015). Moreover, in any digital registry, data on the actual time needed to complete different types of registry actions (as well as cost) can be routinely obtained for the universe of transactions (Ali and Deininger 2024), allowing more granular and far-reaching analysis that is unconstrained by the difficulties of fixing a ‘typical’ case. 6 This includes whether e-signature is mandatory for officials, a fully digital process of conveyancing is possible, information on rights or prices is public and can be accessed through API, the land registry is digitally integrated with other databases and services, tax rolls and valuations are linked to land records and regularly updated, among others. While these can be objectively verified, in-depth domain knowledge may be needed, prompting us to rely on professionals in public institutions for information. This could increase officials’ understanding of the methodology. 5 the potential for cross-country learning, and accounts for the fact that the legal and regulatory framework will determine the sustainability and effectiveness of any land administration system. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: To provide background and motivation, section 2 discusses key registry functions, how digitization can help perform these more effectively, and evidence on digital adoption and impact. Section 3 discusses our survey, and how it aims to measure digital service delivery, safeguarding of third-party rights, public land management, and the link to property taxation and service delivery. Section 4 presents data from 85 jurisdictions and discusses potential policy implications. Section 5 concludes with policy and research implications. 2. Conceptual background and the unequal spread of digitization Having rights to land and associated immovable property documented in a public registry can foster growth via many channels, including individual empowerment, evolution of markets for finance and insurance, property taxation, and public land management. The opportunities created by connectivity, interoperability, and remote sensing enhance the scope for achieving this objective. However, digitization has not automatically achieved this objective, suggesting a more detailed investigation of underlying channels is warranted. 2.1 Key functions of land institutions Land registries are public institutions that allow to acquire secure ownership and other rights to immovable assets that are valid against everyone through registration without having to fear eviction or surfacing of unexpected claims, that provide public evidence of such rights, and that allow enforcement of such rights via the courts. This produces important economic and social benefits, in particular it empowers landowners to invest and take up entrepreneurship instead of spending resources on defending rights. Registration also allows rights to be exchanged with strangers through impersonal transactions, 7 independently of the underlying asset (e.g., by registering a mortgage), and for the long term. It also provides the informational basis for effective property tax collection, planning and regulation of land use, and management of public land and associated public goods in urban and rural contexts. 2.1.1 Provide enforceable information on rights to land Empower right holders, especially women: Having secure rights to property affects individuals’ ability to take risk and take up entrepreneurial activity in the short term (Aragón et al. 2020; Sodini et al. 2023) and across generations (Bartels et al. 2024). Documented rights shift individuals’ attitudes towards individual responsibility (Dari-Mattiacci and Fabbri 2023; Di Tella et al. 2007), reducing the need to rely on social 7 Law-based institutions that enable impersonal exchange are characterized by a high fixed setup cost but a low marginal cost for establishing new exchange relationships (Greif 2006). 6 networks (Balan et al. 2020) or kinship taxation (Squires 2024). Inter-generational transmission of land assets is often biased in favor of males and assets may not be effectively shared in the household (Udry 1996). Documenting land rights in women’s name will make them easier to defend against challenges, increasing empowerment (Ayala-Cantu and Morando 2020; Muchomba 2017; Wang et al. 2024a) and participation in land (Holden et al. 2011), labor (Field 2007; Goldstein et al. 2018; Zhao 2020) or financial markets (Ali and Deininger 2024; Wang 2014) with downstream effects on fertility choice (Ali et al. 2022; Chen and Xie 2025) and investment in children’s human capital (Wang et al. 2024b). Investment and reduced conflict potential: Insecure land rights reduce incentives for investment attached to land by reducing the likelihood that those making the investment will be able to reap the associated benefits (Besley 1995), and urban parcels with insecure rights are valued at a significant discount (He et al. 2024). If land rights are not publicly enforced, individuals may perceive a need to spend resources on defending their rights in socially unproductive ways (De Meza and Gould 1992), creating negative environmental externalities (Berry et al. 2019) or triggering violence (Fetzer and Marden 2017). Programs to document rights and make enforcement easier increased investment in land by individuals (Ali et al. 2014; Diao and Song 2024; Holden et al. 2009; Melesse and Bulte 2015) and communities (Baragwanath and Bayi 2020; Wren-Lewis et al. 2020). In the United States, centralized ways to demarcate land uniformly and make registration of transfers easier had far-reaching impact on land values, use, and population densities (Libecap and Lueck 2011) as well as irrigation investment (Lueck and Ramos Pastrana 2024). 2.1.2 Allow impersonal land transactions with strangers Labor mobility and structural transformation: Documented rights make it easier for those with limited agricultural skill to lease out land for longer periods, allowing tenants to invest (Fan and Yeh 2019; Ricker- Gilbert et al. 2022), fostering structural transformation. Nation-wide documentation of rights triggered rural out-migration (Valsecchi 2014) and mechanization (de Janvry et al. 2015) in Mexico. Successive legal reforms to increase land tenure security fostered rapid structural change in China by allowing agricultural households to lease out land (Adamopoulos et al. 2024; Bu and Liao 2022; Deininger et al. 2019) while increasing housing supply in cities (Niu et al. 2021). In India, land markets created opportunities for structural transformation (Deininger et al. 2018) and spatial reallocation of food production (Madhok et al. 2022). Credit access: Exogenous shifts in access to collateral increased individuals’ propensity to assume debt and take up entrepreneurship, resulting in creation of persistently larger firms (Schmalz et al. 2017) and firms’ ability to borrow and capital-labor ratios (Basco et al. 2025). Legal changes affecting the ability to use land as collateral increased property values (Kumar and Liang 2024; Zevelev 2021) directly. Participation in financial markets in turn increases trust in strangers (Jha et al. 2025). In developing countries, alleviating 7 households’ credit constraints increased human capital accumulation (Burchardi et al. 2024) and reductions in transaction cost for credit had large and persistent effects on entrepreneurial activity (Bari et al. 2024). Insurance against environmental risk: Warming temperature will increase yield variability and exposure to extreme weather events in Africa (Conte 2022) and India (Cruz and Rossi-Hansberg 2021). While farmers may try to self-insure via land fragmentation (Ali et al. 2019; Knippenberg et al. 2020) or sharecropping (Burchardi et al. 2019), these are costly compared to alternatives (Das et al. 2019). Better access to factor markets allowed adjustments to offset some of the negative impacts of climate change in China (Chen and Gong 2021). While common property resources can provide some buffer (Noack et al. 2019), the poor will be most affected by extreme weather events in rural areas (Pignède 2025). 2.1.3 Help establish the informational basis for property tax and public land management Basis for social contract and local service delivery: Taxation of land and property underpins the social contract where taxpayers pay taxes in return for services (Besley and Persson 2014). As land is immobile and any land rents are a true scarcity rent, taxing it allows to raise revenue in ways that are less distortive than taxes on mobile factors, e.g. capital and labor, that carry high costs (Peralta-Alva et al. 2023) especially in developing countries. Local public goods such as access to groundwater (Edwards et al. 2025), sewers (Coury et al. 2024), public transit (Gupta et al. 2022), clean-up of water pollution (Cassidy et al. 2023) or street paving (Gonzalez-Navarro and Quintana-Domeque 2016) are capitalized into land (Lutz 2015) or property values (Livy 2018). Public service provision increased actual property tax payments (Carrillo et al. 2021) or willingness to pay (Kresch et al. 2023). In Shanghai, most property tax liabilities were capitalized into housing prices (Lyu 2024), implying that, if the rich hold a larger share of their wealth in immovable property than the poor, taxing it will be progressive (Bonnet et al. 2021). If returns to capital differ across individuals, this increases productivity (Guvenen et al. 2023). Property tax proceeds were more effective in increasing local public good provision than equally- sized outside transfers in Colombia (Martínez 2023). In fact, even in fragile low-income settings, taxing land resulted in a “political participation dividend” (Weigel 2020) and demands for greater accountability (Prichard et al. 2025). Informing taxpayers about the redistributive nature of taxes also increased tax morale and compliance (Hoy 2025). Limiting local bodies’ ability to levy property taxes will make it less likely for them to make efforts to attract large industrial plants (Fraenkel and Krumholz 2025). Public land assignment: Local officials’ ability to transfer public land to supporters non-transparently in corrupt ways (Chen and Kung 2016; Chen and Kung 2019; Fang et al. 2019) that negatively affect job creation and investment (Kahn et al. 2021) and the scope for more transparent mechanisms or audits to reign in such behavior has been documented for China (Chen et al. 2023). Transfers of public land to land 8 reform beneficiaries in Mexico (Fergusson et al. 2022) or the military in Paraguay (González et al. 2025) similarly undermined state capacity or economic performance for short-term political gain as did allocation of land to judges for them to sanction public land acquisition in Pakistan (Mehmood and Ali 2024). Investment in infrastructure and land conversion: Informal or fragmented land tenure has long been known to impede land consolidation or assembly (Deininger and Ali 2024; Leonard and Parker 2021). In India, ambiguous land records, land market frictions, and cumbersome procedures for land use change (Blakeslee et al. 2021) all increase the cost of getting access to land by industry (Sood 2022) and the public that are mirrored by benefits from SEZs (Gallé et al. 2024) where eminent domain is used to deal with this. 2.2 The cross-cutting effects of digitization affect the ability to perform these functions Digital connectivity, interoperability, and remote sensing can profoundly change the coverage and usefulness of land registries. Connectivity allows to communicate directly with right holders, thus improving coverage with and content of rights; reducing the need for intermediaries when registering rights; and making information easier to access. Interoperability can reduce costs of record maintenance; eliminate duplication and improve the usefulness of records for public and private purposes. Use of remotely sensed information makes data on land use easy to access, allowing use of such information to manage public land; develop and enforce land use regulations including by linking to mobility data transmitted by cell phones; and foster private contracts incorporating parcel-specific land use information. Rapid advances in AI and machine learning that can be deployed quickly and at scale suggest benefits from adopting digital records will accumulate over time. 2.2.1 Connectivity Direct communication: Using digital channels to communicate directly with and obtain consent from landowners or users reduces the cost of issuing or updating land documents, with likely benefits to those in otherwise inaccessible areas (Cohen 2024). It also makes registration and enforcement of more complex rights, e.g., joint ownership by married couples, easier than in a paper-based system as evidenced by the fact that in Rwanda or Lesotho simple nudges increased the share of parcels owned by women (jointly or individually) from 10%-20% before to 60%-80% after systematic registration (Ali et al. 2021). 8 Lower cost of information acquisition and the scope for right holders to communicate with each other and private parties (Agarwal et al. 2025a) allows to link contracts in land, credit and insurance markets, reducing factor market imperfections that mostly affect small farmers (LaFave et al. 2024), improving equity and efficiency. Easier access to information: As owners’ assessment of property values may be imprecise (Le Roux and Roma 2019) due to inaccurate beliefs (Baldauf et al. 2020) or lack of up-to-date information (Genesove 8 Of course, awarding documents of low quality and limited legal value may increase conflicts as was the case in Benin (Arruñada et al. 2022). 9 and Hansen 2023), access to anonymized market prices and property characteristics can improve the quality of decisions on land-related investment or land market participation. 9 Access to data in machine-readable form will enable intermediaries, such as registrars, mortgage lenders, insurers, brokers or central banks, to assess the quality and riskiness of mortgage portfolios to allow lower cost sharing of risk (Kahn et al. 2024). Less need for intermediaries: The ability to conduct transactions without the involvement of intermediaries reduces transaction costs. As brokers and notaries often enjoy considerable market power, savings in intermediary fees may be substantial even if intermediaries continue to be involved by shifting bargaining power between parties (Agarwal et al. 2025c). Digital communication channels also allow to implement conditional land exchanges (Bryan et al. 2022) that can help thicken markets and facilitate land assembly and consolidation to realize economies of scale from agricultural machinery use (Foster and Rosenzweig 2021), urban expansion or regeneration (Brooks and Lutz 2016), renewable energy generation (Klingler et al. 2024; Winikoff and Parker 2024), biodiversity, and mining (Leonard and Parker 2021). 2.2.2 Interoperability Reduce registry maintenance cost and improve policy: The challenge of record maintenance has undermined sustainability of titling programs globally for a long time (Atwood 1990; Galiani and Schargrodsky 2016; Pinckney and Kimuyu 1994). By linking records of ownership or use rights to other types of records (tax, planning and permitting) that may be updated more frequently, synergies can be realized. Using digital cadastral maps as a base-layer of spatial information can make it easier to set up an up-to-date database of properties that can be used for increased tax collection and public good delivery (Casaburi and Troiano 2016), with additional potential from linking to market valuations (Cammeraat and Crivelli 2021), and possible links to the property registry. In South Africa even one-time synchronization with the commercial registry triggered a large expansion of the business taxpayer net with no negative effects on registration (Lediga et al. 2025). Better access to credit and insurance: Digital records improved credit access in urban India (Deininger and Goyal 2012) by making it easier for banks to examine whether or not charges existed on a property and to check if transactions are legitimate and performed by the rightful owner (Agarwal et al. 2025a). Better access to data can allow greater use of amortizing mortgages as a key mechanism to build equity (Bernstein and Koudijs 2024). Digital access to price and other data from land registries in the US allowed traders to identify properties, often those owned by racial minorities, that, due to human bias, were undervalued and to correct such bias through market purchases (Raymond 2025). Electronic conveyancing and entry of 9 As price expectations affect individuals’ decisions (Bottan and Perez-Truglia 2025), incorrect perceptions of land characteristics or values can lead to sub-optimal investment (Gourevitch et al. 2023; Hino and Burke 2021). Easier access to price information (Ben-Shahar and Golan 2019) or relevant property attributes has indeed affected potential buyers’ behavior (Fairweather et al. 2023). 10 mortgages in real time can eliminate the potential for fraudulent transfers during the ‘registration gap’, i.e. when an entry in the registry was pending but not yet completed. 10 Machine learning techniques have also been used to use anomalies as a tool for fraud detection (Eliason et al. 2024; Ensminger and Leder-Luis 2025) and can be used to improve property tax collection enforcement (Kapon et al. 2024). Large data analysis: Lining the universe of property transactions to property characteristics allowed to make inferences on the impact of regulation (Hilber and Vermeulen 2016), scenario planning (Nolte et al. 2024), or irregularities (Chen et al. 2023). Registries of firms (Cheng and Gawande 2024) or beneficiaries of public programs (Yu and Lim 2024). In agriculture, digital technology and artificial intelligence allow vast amounts of geo-referenced data on growing conditions to be collected (Khanna et al. 2022). In urban contexts, anonymized records can help analyze impacts of mobility on land use and prices (Kreindler and Miyauchi 2021). 2.2.3 Integration with spatially explicit data on land use Enforce land use regulation: Satellite imagery that is increasingly freely available allows to model land use (Doblas et al. 2022), and yield (Burke et al. 2020; Lobell et al. 2020), floorspace (Arribas-Bel et al. 2021; Esch et al. 2025), and crowding (Krause and Seidel 2024) at a granular level. If regulation allows links to digital cadastral maps and risk-based follow-up action, such data can reduce illegal deforestation (Bragança and Dahis 2022) at the property (Assunção et al. 2020; Assunção et al. 2023a) or local government (Assunção et al. 2023b) level and implications from migration for environmental protection (Brewer et al. 2022). It can also inform planning rules and building codes to ensure these can be enforced and do not drive people into informality (Alves 2021). 11 Analysis of the expansion of building stocks in locations prone to sea-level rise, the resulting challenges for policy-makers (Lin et al. 2024), options for adaptation policies, and the impact of such policies on house prices in affected and unaffected areas (Agarwal et al. 2025b). Provide a basis for private contracting on land use outcomes: With users’ consent, with remotely sensed data, such contracts can support rural index insurance (Carter 2022), which, combined with information on land rights from public registries, will allow such information to be referred to in private contracts. Such contracts can support industry commitments to ‘zero deforestation’ (Moffette et al. 2021) in soy (Heilmayr et al. 2020), oil palm (Lee et al. 2020) or other value chains, or increase biodiversity via results-based payments (Schaub et al. 2025). By increasing competition in electronic auctions, connectivity can also increase benefits from public land as in China where a 2007 industrial land market reform increased 11 This space of time is also known as the “black period” when fraudulent double sales or double mortgages can take place as the person that appears in the registry as the person entitled to dispose of the property has previously sold or mortgaged the same plot of land. Historically, registry systems tried to solve this problem in various ways, not always satisfactorily. Digital interoperability allows to send a transaction to the registry electronically the moment it is formalized so it is visible to relevant parties and enjoys priority against subsequent transactions. 11 See (Lall 2017; World_Bank 2023) and (Deininger and Xia 2018) for the potential increments in public revenue from proper accounting. 11 competition and led to greater transparency in land sales (Tian et al. 2024) or in Ukraine where mandatory use of e-auctions to transfer rights to public land more than doubled lease prices (Deininger et al. 2023). 2.3 Spread and impact of land registry digitization To understand to what extent past digitization of land registries and cadasters managed to take advantage of these opportunities to reduce cost and time for property registration as conventionally measured, we use the fact that, in 2005, the ‘Registering Property’ part of the World Bank’s ‘Doing Business’ indicators obtained information on the extent to which the registry and cadaster were digital and integrated. The same information was collected in 2020, allowing to document the change in registry digitization for 170 countries that provided information in both periods. 12 In 2005, 14 economies or 8% of the total, all of them located in either Europe and Central Aisa or high-income parts of East Asia, had fully digitally interoperable register and cadaster in place. 13 The figures in table 1 panel A illustrate that this increased more than five- fold, to 72 countries or 42% of the total, by 2020. Moreover, the transition to a digitally integrated registry and cadaster happened in countries of all regions and income levels, implying that the technical or financial requirements of digitizing land records no longer create barriers that low-income countries cannot overcome and that there may be more scope for developing countries to learn from developed countries’ digitization experience than is commonly believed. Data in table 1 illustrate that three broad regional groups had emerged by 2020: In OECD and Eastern and Central European countries digitization of registries was, with more than 75%, close to universal. In East Asia and the Pacific, the Middle East and North Africa, and Latin America and the Caribbean, the share of countries relying on digitally integrated land records was between one-third and 50%. In South Asia and Africa, less than 20% of countries adopted digitally integrated property registries. Panel B shows that during the same period, the amount of time, steps, and cost of registering dropped from 89 to 47 days, 6.34 to 5.86 steps, and 7.2% to 5.4% of property value. To explore if digitization had any role, we run a standard difference-in-difference panel regression. Results, summarized in table 2, point to a significant time trend in all variables: in the average country, time, number of procedures, and cost to register decreased by 33 days , 0.31 procedures, and 2.3%, respectively. Adoption of a digitally integrated registry significantly reduced the number of procedures by a further 0.47, most likely via a more integrated digital workflow. It had no significant impact on time needed to register (though the point estimate is negative) and significantly increased registration cost with a point estimate of 12 Data for 2005 was obtained by email from Caralee McLiesh, then the project manager for the ‘Registering Property’ part of the ‘Doing Business’ project. Data for 2020 is available at https://archive.doingbusiness.org/en/data/exploretopics/registering-property. 13 These economies are Armenia, Australia, Switzerland, Hungary, Italy, Kyrgyz Republic, Lithuania, Moldova, Netherlands, New Zealand, Singapore, Slovak Republic, and Taiwan, China. 12 1.4%. Available data do not allow to identify if cost savings were realized but not passed on to clients, 14 or if a failure to realize cost savings can be attributed to incomplete digitization (and parallel operation of two systems) or a lack of business process re-engineering to fully exploit the potential of digital technology. Irrespective of the reason, this finding suggests, though, that digitization without regulations to allow effective deployment of digital technology is not a miracle cure–and, if not applied in a proper regulatory context, may increase rather than reduce complexity and transaction costs. 3. Measuring institutional performance in a digital environment To assess the status of land registry digitization and help guide countries on how to use digital opportunities effectively, we designed a survey jointly with the International Property Registries Association Centro Internacional de Derecho Registral (IPRA/CINDER) and the Regional Center for Mapping of Resources for Development (RCMRD). The survey aimed to provide information on the extent of (i) digitization of property registries; (ii) use of digital interoperability to improve functioning of and regulation of land and financial markets; and (iii) use of digital records to improve property taxation and public provision of public goods. The questionnaire was administered on a pilot basis to registry officials who were encouraged to share it with colleagues in cadastral or tax agencies in case more specialized input was required. Clarifications were sought from respondents via follow-up queries, resulting in useable data from 85 jurisdictions (see annex 2 for respondents and countries). Before discussing results, we review the rationale for specific questions and indicators as detailed in annex 1. 3.1 Scope and digitization of property registries To allow large-scale utilization of the opportunities inherent in digital registries, they need to be linked to a plot of land that is unambiguously identified on a map at a reasonable cost, have reasonable coverage (of both public and private land), and digital signatures be mandatory. National scope: Registering rights aims to encourage investment and exchange by making such rights easier to enforce and less contestable. If some types of rights, such as customary ones, cannot be registered, efforts at registering rights may increase contestability or reduce tenure security especially for individuals holding such non-registrable rights. The fact that in several countries customary rights can be registered only if they have been converted to statutory tenure is reported to have resulted in an unclear situation where rents were paid simultaneously to customary chiefs and state representatives (Gochberg 2021; Honig 2021) as an ‘insurance policy’ that increased wealth bias (Honig 2017) and resulted in title acquisition for speculative purposes (Chimhowu 2019; Leeson and Harris 2018; Lentz 2010; Sitko and Jayne 2014) with few if any 14 In countries such as Tanzania, governments added unrelated charges to registration fees (Ali et al. 2016), implying that registration cost bears little relation to the real associated expenses (Manara and Regan 2021). 13 productivity benefits (Ali and Deininger 2022; Huntington and Shenoy 2021). To capture this aspect, the survey asks if a digital registry with national rather than only partial scope is in place (question 1.1). Geo-referenced mapping: To enjoy full benefits from digitization, including the ability to link information on the spatial extent of rights with data on land use from other sources, maps from the cadaster need to be geo-referenced, machine readable, and linked to the registry through a unique parcel identifier. The survey asks whether a digital cadaster with national scope exists (question 1.3). Coverage: While the establishment of a registry has a high fixed cost element, the variable cost of extending coverage to additional owners or parcels is low. If digitally enabled registration processes keep costs low, registry benefits, e.g., in terms of allowing interaction with potential trading partners, increase exponentially with coverage, implying that full or close to full coverage desirable. However, obtaining information on the extent of coverage or informality is difficult in the absence of a full register. 15 We therefore ask experts to categorize the share of private land area covered by the registry or the cadaster (questions 1.2 and 1.4) as well as the share of public land mapped and registered (question 1.9) in four groups, namely whether the level of coverage is (i) below 10% (i.e., either just at the beginning or limited to the most influential and powerful); (ii) between 10% and 50%; (iii) between 50% and 90%, or (iv) above 90%, implying almost full coverage of the relevant category. Registry-cadaster interoperability: Registration of rights is a judicial act whereas surveying is a technical process. These differences imply that registry and cadaster are often under different parts of government, with registries generally under Ministry of Justice and surveying under Ministries responsible for Economy, Land, Environment, or Agriculture. 16 Lack of coordination and data sharing between registry and cadaster will make first registration complex and costly and, if it impedes simultaneous updating of records, may lead to divergence between actual and recorded land ownership and use (e.g. joint ownership of unrecorded subdivision) that will increase transaction costs and can give rise to boundary disputes over time. If relevant regulations and IT infrastructure are in place, digital back-end integration allows to achieve full real-time integration of data and seamless processing of registration workflows. The survey therefore asks if cadaster and registry data are held by the same institution, by different institutions but with digitally linked databases or by separate institutions each with their own database (question 1.5). 15 If a digital registry and cadaster exist, overlays of land use with registered rights in the cadaster can help identify cultivated or built land without any formal rights although this does not account for the possibility that rights may be outdated, an issue that can be properly addressed only through a household survey (Ali et al. 2021), though several shortcuts to obtain an approximation can be considered. Issues have also been encountered regarding the definition of legally valid rights, which is something that may need to be added in future versions (no need to go back to colonial times if these have been extinguished by a statute of limitations). 16 In the 1990s, institutional restructuring and integration were seen as the only way to ensure authenticity of registry data and workflows. However, the complexity and disruption associated with institutional changes often led to high costs. There is now consensus that if basic IT practices (e.g., use of unique parcel IDs) are followed, digital integration at the back end allows integration at much lower cost (de Vries et al. 2016). 14 Legacy map digitization: As cadastral parcels constitute the basic units of land use, use of the cadastral fabric as a digital base-layer for topographical maps and other spatial products is cost-efficient and ensures consistency. Cadastral data needs to be georeferenced and in vector format to be used as a digital base-layer and we ask if this is the case or, if not, to what extent scanning of legacy maps as the first step in the process has been completed (question 1.7). Mapping of public land: Better access to local information implies that management of public land is often better done locally subject to central oversight. If public land is not mapped, it is virtually impossible to prevent squatting or trespassing or to transfer responsibility for managing it to local governments or private parties in a way that allows compliance with use conditions to be monitored objectively, e.g., by using satellite imagery. Digital mapping of public land is an essential first step towards the data integration that will make this task much easier. The survey thus asks if public land is digitally mapped and, if yes, the approximate share covered (questions 1.8 and 1.9). Digital authentication of registration actions: Engaging in more complex transactions or defending against challenges to property rights in court is easier and often less costly if any actions that modify rights, together with supporting documentation, are digitally logged, archived, and authenticated by authorized officials via electronic signature. By creating a time-stamped digital audit trail, a mandatory digital signature will also reduce the scope for record tampering and petty corruption. It can also help pave the way for fully digital decentralized registry service delivery, either via land service delivery points at local government level or private operators. In addition to having in place means to digitally authenticate officials, it requires regulation to ensure digitally signed documents are legally valid. To capture this aspect, the survey asks if use of electronic signature is mandatory or optional for public officials (question 1.6). 3.2 Reducing the cost of land and financial market operation A key function of registries is to put information up for public notice. If digital records with sufficient coverage are available, digital interoperability can help increase their quality, and reduce the resources needed to maintain the registry as well as the transaction cost for land and financial markets to operate, including by reducing the need to rely on intermediaries. This can increase participation in and liquidity of land and financial markets while better information on prices can improve the quality of related decisions. Validation of seller’s rights: In contrast to business registries, land registries define rights against a property (in rem) rather than an individual, allowing them to be unaffected by changes in ownership (e.g., a mortgage will survive a change of ownership). 17 Although it will not affect the quality of the underlying records, 17 The most common forms of registries are title registration and deed recording systems. In the former, registration is evidence of the right and the registrar is obliged to check existing records before making any entry in the registry, whereas under the latter, registration only established priority among registered rights by date of registration (Arruñada and Garoupa 2005). 15 digital data integration makes it easier to check that any rights the transfer of which is to be registered, exist, thus making the task of the registrar (or the record in a deeds system) easier. To capture this aspect, the survey asks (question 2.10) if, before registering a transfer of rights, the validity of rights to be transferred or modified is checked digitally against existing records before registration and if mechanisms to automatically update registries after registration are in place. Checking and flagging of encumbrances: The purpose of a registration system is that, by checking other encumbrances before any new entry in the registry is made, it ensures absence of conflicting claims through the process of registration, facilitating the use of land as collateral. Digitization makes this information more easily available, obviating physical enquiry at the registry office. Without discussing what encumbrances are registrable, the survey asks (question 2.11) if registered encumbrances on a property are flagged before completing a registration so transacting parties are aware and can take additional precautions as deemed necessary rather than risk finding out about these later and getting embroiled in costly disputes. Link to court cases: By reducing firms’ access to capital, pending land disputes can have large economic effects (Rao 2024). 18 Reflecting ongoing court proceedings through an entry in the registry is the easiest way to ensure everybody is aware of this and takes it into account. 19 An increasing number of countries have made the transition to digital court systems, prompted by the improved access, efficiency, and fairness this can bring (Ramos-Maqueda and Chen 2025). With digital case management, adding a searchable field with the cadastral ID of any land parcel that may be involved in a court case is straightforward technically if legal provisions that clarify the relevance of these data are in place. This will protect parties by allowing to check for pending court decisions that may affect a property automatically before completing a transaction. It can also help monitor frequency and rate of disposal of property-related court cases. The survey asks (question 2.12) if a real-time link is in place or whether the property registry is regularly digitally synchronized with the courts to reflect this aspect. Low transaction cost of mortgage lending: The cost of checking for mortgages or other rights on a property offered as collateral for a loan is part of banks’ cost of mortgage origination. Providing accredited banks with digital access to the mortgage registry to perform such checks can, by reducing cost, expand credit access at the intensive and extensive margin as documented in Rwanda (Agarwal et al. 2023) and India (Deininger and Goyal 2012; Deininger et al. 2024b). To capture this aspect, the survey asks whether data on mortgages is recorded digitally (question 2.13) and whether banks can access the mortgage registry digitally in read only or read and write mode (question 2.14). 18 In India, hiring additional judges to dispose such cases created benefits 30 times higher than the cost of this intervention (Rao 2024). Analysis of court records has also been used to determine if inheritance legislation did provide women with their legal share (Agarwal and Naik 2024). 19 In Germany or Switzerland, a ‘Vormerkung’ or ‘Anmerkung’ to this effect is required since the 1930s, with France making it mandatory later. 16 Access to price and right information: Public access to information on property prices can improve individuals’ decisions on land market participation and, as it allows to better appreciate associated payoffs, the quality of land-related investment. Having information on land values will also allow local bodies to evaluate the benefits of investments in infrastructure or service provision and compare them to potential increments in tax revenue from higher land values triggered by such investment. The survey asks whether regulations that ensure recording of and public access to historical price information is in place (question 2.7) and whether the registry or cadaster can be accessed via API (questions 2.8 and 2.9). Authentication of transacting parties: While the registry provides information on rights, authentication of the parties to a transaction to prevent fraud was traditionally the responsibility of notaries who were granted significant privileges to ensure this function is performed impartially (Verboven and Yontcheva 2024). Digital IDs for individuals such as India’s aadhar or for firms allow to perform ID checks automatically and reliably. They can also be used to check for absence of any regulatory impediments that could make a transaction problematic and result in disputes down the line. If firm IDs are linked to a registry of beneficial ownership, measures to protect against money-laundering via real estate investment (Alstadsæter and Økland 2022) will be possible. The survey asks (questions 2.4 and 2.5) if, as part of the registration process, checks are performed automatically, required to be implemented by an authorized agent, may be conducted by an agent on an optional basis, or are impossible because a digital personal or firm ID does not exist. Possibility of electronic conveyancing: While auditable workflows are key for outsiders to trust the data provided by land institutions, digital interoperability of relevant databases including digital IDs is required for e-conveyancing, either by intermediaries or owners. In Singapore’s high-transaction setting, the ability (often not realized) to complete transactions without intermediaries is estimated to have resulted in broker fee reductions of 10%–12%, mainly via greater bargaining power and reduced search costs (Agarwal, Wang and Zhang 2025c). In developing countries where distance and road quality often impede public service access, a shift to digital processes allows delegation from central agencies to local governments or private agents to improve access to services in geographically remote locations. 20 The survey thus asks (question 2.6) if e-conveyancing is possible and can be performed by clients or via authorized agents. 3.3 Fair property taxation and accountable public land management Drawing on land registry and cadastral data increases the yield, fairness, and progressivity of recurrent property taxes, that are far less distortionary than transfer taxes or taxes on capital and income, reduces implementation cost, and can help with enforcement. Linking the tax roll to the registry can, if taxes are paid by owners, help keep both current as owners will not want to pay tax for properties they sold. Registry 20 While sector land managers in Rwanda (Ali et al. 2017) are an early example, India is building on lessons from aadhar for digital service delivery in the land sector, e.g., by digitizing revenue courts and allowing e-conveyance. The state of Madhya Pradesh has been a protagonist in this respect. 17 data will be invaluable to inform design of policy and near-real-time evaluation of its impact, allowing a more evidence-driven approach to policy design. Tax roll based on digital cadastral data: Property taxes make up the lion’s share of local revenue in many countries as an essential part of the social contract. Full interoperability of tax roll and cadastral data is the most cost-effective and fair way to establish the informational basis for property tax collection and foster decentralization. It will help keep maps updated, explore options for recognizing use rights or link them to rights, and, by quickly brining new structures on the roll, ensure fairness and possibly help mature use into ownership rights. 21 Lack of cadastral data sharing between levels of government may force local bodies to engage in costly efforts to establish free-standing databases not related to the registry of rights or the cadaster. For jurisdictions that have a property tax in place, 22 the survey therefore asks (questions 3.1 and 3.2) if digital cadastral information is used as a basis for the tax roll and how frequently it is updated. Property valuation based on registry records: All over the world, and especially in developing countries where cities often grow rapidly, urban land prices have increased considerably (Glaeser et al. 2017; Knoll et al. 2017). If valuations for tax purposes do not keep up with market values, tax yield, buoyancy, and fairness are reduced and local bodies’ ability and incentives to increase land values by proactively planning for urban expansion are diminished. Such a failure may also make property taxes more regressive and encourage speculative instead of productive use of urban land. Unless policy distortions reduce incentives to truthfully declare transaction prices, 23 use of such prices as a basis for computer-assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) that is regularly updated to reflect changed conditions is the most expedient and transparent way of ensuring currency of valuations for tax purposes and associated incentives for public investment. Making valuations public will also be useful to inform decisions in land markets. The survey asks (questions 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5) if taxable values are updated regularly based on CAMA, when the last update was conducted, and if valuations for tax purposes can be accessed digitally beyond the period when objections are heard. 24 Digital tax enforcement: In several countries, the cost of paying property taxes, often in person to multiple local bodies, may exceed the amount to be paid, making non-payment a rational choice. Harmonization with digital property records allows to provide access to portals for digital billing and payment to make this process less costly and increase the perceived fairness of property taxation. While of tax administration is beyond the scope for property registries, enforcement can be strengthened by requiring documentation that outstanding tax bills have been cleared as a precondition to register changes or to digitally report to tax 21 Recurrent tax payment records can keep ownership records current and, if no ownership records exist, explore legal options to mature unopposed use rights into ownership over time. 22 To ascertain the extent to which local bodies will benefit from property tax revenue, a question on sharing arrangements, such as question 3.0, should be added in future versions of the questionnaire. 23 While individuals may under-report purchase prices to save taxes (Anagol et al. 2022), use of reported purchase prices as a starting point for capital gains taxes can incentivize truthful reporting, while property listings can serve as a check. 24 Exemptions or tax relief are beyond our scope but may reduce tax morale and tax revenue with few benefits (Horton et al. 2024). 18 authorities that taxes have not been paid. This is less draconian than alternatives, 25 and can, in a digital system, be routine part of pre-transaction checks. The survey asks (question 3.6) if a digital tax payment certificate is part of the registration process, must be obtained separately, or not needed for registration. Gender equity: While legal provisions mandating equal land rights for women exist in virtually all countries (Djankov et al. 2022), enforcement varies widely and assuming equal intra-household asset sharing will underestimate levels and changes in individual wealth inequality (Frémeaux and Leturcq 2020). As joint land ownership empowers women and is surprisingly responsive to policy initiatives, 26 it can signal to what extent legal provisions are implemented. The survey inquires (question 3.7) if it is possible to determine right holders’ gender from administrative records directly or indirectly and report results to guide policy. Use of digital cadastral maps to monitor land use: Rapid increases in affordability, resolution, and coverage of remote sensors imply that overlaying digital cadastral maps with results from analysis of satellite imagery can provide increasingly valuable and fine-grained information about type or intensity of land use in rural areas or the location and volume of buildings in urban settings. We ask (question 3.9) if remotely sensed data is routinely used to monitor land use and action can be taken based on the results from such monitoring. Use of digital maps for public programs: Beyond helping to update tax maps and design and enforce land use regulation, digital maps can help target and monitor public programs that directly or indirectly affect land use or land values. This requires the ability to use either registered information on land rights or data on past land use at the parcel level to either determine eligibility or monitor use of financial or other support and is most frequent in agriculture. 27 The questionnaire inquires if remote sensing at the parcel level is used to either determine eligibility for agricultural support programs or monitor their performance (question 3.8). Public land transfers: If use or ownership rights to public land are transferred in a non-transparent way, it is difficult to ascertain if transfer conditions are complied with. Several studies also link such transfers to loss of public revenues, corruption, and lower efficiency of the way in which such land is used. Models to conduct electronic auctions transparently are available and have been shown to result in higher revenue for the public and sustainable use. Using such models and publicity of results from public auctions will facilitate monitoring of compliance with contractual terms and provide a point of reference for similar transactions. The survey asks (questions 3.10 and 3.11) if public land transfers are competitive and relevant contracts available publicly to allow third-party monitoring. 25 While local bodies could foreclose properties that defaulted on property tax payment, such draconian enforcement has been shown to be associated with negative external effects in the United States (LaPoint 2022) and is likely infeasible in most developing countries. 26 Nudges to increase female co-ownership encountered little resistance (Ali et al. 2016), and making joint titling the default for conjugal property increased the share of parcels owned by women (jointly or individually) from 10%-20% to 60%-80% in Rwanda and Lesotho (Ali et al. 2021), increasing female credit access (Ali and Deininger 2024), possibly reducing frictions to female labor market participation (Lee 2024). This can be implemented in several ways, e.g., including fields on gender in the registry or internally linking to national ID systems to report aggregate data. 27 Given the large resources transferred via its common agricultural policy, the European Commission developed guidelines for an integrated assessment and control system (IACS) that member states need to meet to be eligible for such support. See (Deininger et al. 2024a) for an example. 19 4. What does the evidence say? To demonstrate the viability of collecting data on the above parameters and illustrate the actionable nature of these, this section discusses evidence from responses to the pilot questionnaire from 85 jurisdictions globally. Data show that even countries with a digital system have many opportunities to enhance the uses made of it and help identify innovative ways for countries that lack such a system to take advantage of existing infrastructure to avoid being caught on the wrong side of a widening digital divide. 4.1 Establishing the basis for effective digital service provision Data in table 3 illustrate that, although countries are making progress with digitization, the extent to which this is used to ensure trust in the registry like through electronic signature remains low, at 41%. WENA has good digital registry and cadaster as well a public land coverage but lags behind ECA in e-signature (partly because of institutional frictions and the existing system also works without it). Full interoperability at least between cadaster and registry is another area for improvement in LAC. MENA and ECA have low coverage of public land while cadastral coverage is an issue in EAP. Africa has only one country where e-signature is mandatory for officials and, given the region’s low level of coverage, can benefit from ways to expand coverage and use of digital registry and cadaster data. Our pilot survey data point towards substantial progress with land record digitization in all regions and income groups, though there are pronounced regional differences: Progress was particularly large in Eastern and Central Europe where a ‘latecomer advantage’ implies that many countries are now more digitally integrated than OECD ones that require digitizing legacy systems. In the EAP, MENA, and LAC regions, the level of integration with cadastral records and coverage of public land is between 30% and 50%. In Africa, only 20% of countries have a digital registry and only 10% cover more than half the country’s private land, though many have started to establish digital registries with less than full national scope. These could ideally serve as a testbed for regulation that, once proven successful, could be expanded nationally. A regional divide in terms of access to digital right documentation: Data show that close to 70% or 85% of responding jurisdictions globally operate a digital registry with national or sub-national scope, respectively. In WENA and ECA, the share of countries with a digital registry exceeds 90% but in Africa it is only 20%. While more than 85% of respondent countries had digital registries in MENA and EAP (with 78% and 71%, respectively, exceeding 50% coverage), this share is slightly lower in LAC. Of the 25 African countries that responded to the survey, 40% started to implement a digital registry with less than national coverage while 40% have no digital registry. Considering that, of the 5 African countries with a digital registry with national scope only three, Rwanda, Ethiopia, and Mauritius, managed to cover more than 50% of private land, this points to a clear digital divide. Rwanda’s experience suggests that developing and carefully monitoring 20 models to suit a diversity of local tenure types that can then be integrated into a sustainable nation-wide registry is a promising approach, the progress of which can be monitored over time. Registry-cadaster interoperability and cadastral coverage are particularly weak in LAC: Although more than 80% of sample countries in EAP and MENA have a digital registry and cadaster and more than 70% have registry and cadaster fully interoperable, interoperability of land institutions remains low in LAC where 43% of countries have registry and cadaster integrated and only 64% or 36% have more than half their private land registered or mapped, respectively, and only about 21% have more than half of their public land mapped. While in part attributable to historical reasons, low cadastral coverage reduces the scope for tax collection, planning and public service delivery. 28 Urban expansion is thus often driven by informal settlements that tend to be regularized ex post at a cost that is much higher than it would be to provide arterial infrastructure and allow gradual upgrading (Michaels et al. 2021). Lack of maps makes protecting public land and accessing climate finance more difficult. As in LAC more than 80% of the wealthiest decile’s assets are held in real estate, compared to about 40% in the United States (World Bank, 2024), weak cadastral data impede tapping this vast source of potential local tax revenue. Unrealized scope to increase accountability via use of e-signature: Although 62% of countries have digitally integrated registry and cadaster, only 41% require officials to certify validity of registration actions with their electronic signature. This share is, with 73%, highest in ECA, followed by EAP and LAC (58%) and WENA (53%), pointing towards scope for greater use of digital signatures to improve auditability of the registry process. With 25% of countries mandating officials to use e-signature in MENA and only one country (Rwanda) doing so in Africa, providing ample scope for regulatory change to make use of electronic signatures mandatory. This will be essential to improve record quality and lay the groundwork for the transition to a fully digital registry that eliminates the possibility for unauthorized tampering (Sagashya and Tembo 2022). Given the low levels of trust in land registries’ impartiality in Africa (Deininger and Goyal 2024) and the fact that the ability to create trust in a way that is low-cost and scalable is a key advantage of digital registries compared to potential alternatives such as blockchains (Budish 2024), doing so is essential for land registries to be able to reach their potential. In fact, unless private sector actors can trust the land registry, efforts to expand coverage are unlikely to have economic impact. 4.2 Reducing transaction cost by improving access to information and protecting third-party rights Data on digital interoperability in table 4 illustrate that, even if a fully (or partly) digital system is in place, regulations to allow taking advantage of digital registries can greatly enhance associated benefits in two respects. First, to reduce transaction cost of land market participation by making transaction prices public, 28 Property tax collection makes up 0.4% of GDP in LAC as compared to 2.9% in North America (Maloney et al. 2024). 21 allow digital (API) access to registry and cadaster, and establish fully digital workflows for e-conveyancing. Second, to facilitate mortgage lending by allowing digital access to mortgage registries and an archive of court decision and ensure liens are automatically flagged before a transaction is registered. Regulations in both areas can be piloted in urban areas where potential impact is higher even if the registry lacks national scope coverage. If cost-effectiveness and impact have been demonstrated, expanding coverage will be easier. Reliable property registries reduce the cost of enforcing rights (ideally obviating the need for specific enforcement action) by documenting and protecting registered rights. Interoperability with other public registries or private databases can significantly increase such advantages. Checks for registered rights and encumbrances: While more than 80% of countries have a digital registry (with national or partial scope), only about 50% use information from this registry to ascertain the legality of rights to be transferred before a transaction is registered or to notify parties of any existing rights (table 3). This gap is particularly large in EAP and in Africa. In EAP, 86% of countries have a digital registry, but only 43% require that the legality of rights or display registered encumbrances before a transaction is registered. This share is particularly low in Sub-Saharan Africa: of 25 countries in the region that responded to the survey, only 3 (Cabo Verde, Rwanda, and Mauritius) validate the existence of registered rights digitally before registering a new transaction. Digital flagging of pending court cases: Uncertainty about pending court cases can increase the cost of land transactions. Of our sample countries, 37% link data between at least a subset of courts and the registry, in most cases (29%) via digital transmission of court files at regular intervals and in some (8%) via a real time link (8%). Across regions, a digital link exists in two-thirds of the countries in ECA, 60% in WENA, and 57% in EAP only 14% of countries in LAC and about 11% in Africa. Digital storage and access to mortgage information: In line with the importance of land registry data to facilitate mortgage lending, mortgages are stored digitally in the land registry or a registry that is digitally linked to it in 80% of all countries outside Africa but only in 3 or slightly above 10% of those in Africa. Land titling in Africa will not trigger credit access unless this is addressed and procedures for banks to register mortgages and access information on existing liens and foreclose in case of default are put in place. While trustworthy records and low-cost mechanisms to foreclose on properties in case of default are critical for banks to accept land as collateral for mortgages, digital access to the mortgage registry by accredited banks, either in read-only or with the possibility of registering charges directly, will make it easier and faster to check for pre-existing liens, reducing the cost of loan processing. In a competitive market, this will reduce margins and increase credit access. While information on mortgages is digitally kept in almost two-thirds of pilot countries but digitally accessible only in 40%, implying that rules to making existing information (that is already stored digitally) available to trusted parties can be a quick win to reduce mortgage costs. 22 Improved record quality via digital ID: Countries are increasingly moving to digital IDs for physical persons (or digital business registration). Linking these IDs to property records using a unique digital identifier that is ideally spatially referenced will also increase record quality and reduce the scope for fraud by combining data on the object over which rights are defined with those for the subject holding such rights. Having a digital ID with proper security features is a precondition to move to e-conveyancing. With 73% of countries overall having a link to digital personal and firm ID, ECA is the undisputed leader, followed by MENA (56% and 44%), WENA (47% and 40%), EAP (43% for both), LAC (36% and 29%), and Africa (28% and 20%). The high level of coverage in ECA shows that proven methods to make quick progress are available. Moreover, the example of India shows that digital personal ID can be a catalyst to link individuals to financial institutions and allow them to take the first rung on the ladder to access credit. The advances made with establishing digital IDs systems in developing countries can thus help capitalize on an existing infrastructure, including personal authentication, to enhance the usefulness of digital property registries. Access to prices to improve functioning of land and other factor markets: Access to price information as well as other property characteristics will reduce the cost of information acquisition for market participants. It can help increase land market liquidity and create scope for more efficient functioning of related markets (e.g. those for land-related investment, insurance, and mortgages). Collecting transaction prices in machine- readable format during registration is straightforward. It is surprising to see less than 25% of pilot countries globally provide digital access to historical price data to market participants. This share is particularly low in Africa (8%), EAP (14%), ECA (20%) and MENA (22%) but, with 47%, remains below 50% in WENA. Access to a base-layer of cadastral boundaries and anonymized parcel attributes and transaction prices via API (Application Programming Interface) will allow private players to offer products, such as insurance against natural hazards, more precisely tailored to specific local environments. It also will also allow the public sector at the national or local government level to draw up regulations that account for local realities and enforcement capacity, use fiscal incentives instead of a command-and control approach for implementation, and are in sync with property taxation regimes, implying that technical limitations that prevent them from accessing land registry data can act as a barrier to effective decentralization by depriving local governments of the means of effectively monitoring land use and taxing land transparently. The fact that only 21% and 29% of countries in LAC and EAP, respectively, compared to 87% in ECA and 67% in MENA and WENA allow API access to cadastral shapefiles, suggests regulatory change could help create more conducive conditions for decentralization and local planning by allowing local governments to access such data. This potential is particularly great in countries that already provide API access to the registry. Technical support to documentation of good practice on how access to such information is regulated and used in countries that already make such data publicly available, possibly combined with 23 pilots to help tailor regulations to specific country contexts and use cases without impinging on legitimate concerns about privacy could yield significant benefits at rather low cost. Lower transaction cost via e-conveyancing: Electronic conveyancing requires that registration workflow can be entirely conducted online with user authentication via digital ID. This is possible in 29% of countries (in 17% directly by the owner and in 12% only by an agent), 60% of them in ECA, 53% in WENA, 43% in EAP, and 36% in LAC. As there is evidence that, in urban contexts, engaging in land and financial market transactions directly without a need for intermediaries can reduce transaction cost and improve credit access, a move towards e-conveyancing for standard transactions may be advisable for countries with high levels of digitization such as MENA. Through lower transaction cost and greater land and financial market activity, such a move could have positive economic impacts. At the same time, the large gains from digital IDs and payment systems and the often unexpected uses to which these have been put in the developing world suggest if digital data structures such as farm registries are in place, users including in rural areas can take control of their data and use documentation of their use or ownership rights to reduce adverse impacts of imperfections in markets for factors other than land (e.g., capital or insurance) and output to reduce risk. It could allow farmers to build up a digital identity over time, access location-specific services such as agro-advisories tailored to their fields and integrate into value chains in ways that ensure traceability and compliance with developed countries’ food safety standards, improving environmental sustainability via commodity roundtables. Having a regulatory framework for data sharing can help catalyze private sector investment and market integration. 4.3 Public land management and property taxation The data in table 5 suggest that infrequent updating of tax rolls and valuations and a failure to publicize taxable values often reduced property tax yields in LAC and Africa, in contrast to EAP: 29 only 17% and 10% of countries in LAC and Africa, respectively, updated tax rolls in the last 3 years; less than 10% or 5% of countries, respectively, use objective mass valuation methods using market prices to assess taxable values, and only one country in all of LAC and Africa updates taxable land values annually. Advances in the ability to disaggregate land registry data by gender in Africa show countries’ ability to respond to new challenges. Data also point to scope for increasing effectiveness and transparency of public land management, including ways to combine local management with central oversight. High cost of property tax collection: Although the land registry and property tax roll use the same data, many countries or cities use separate systems for the two. Data show that only 50% of countries in our sample use cadastral data as a basis for the tax rolls, pointing to ample scope for saving cost and realize 29 Several countries in the MENA region do not levy a property tax and some of the pilot countries did not provide information on this topic. 24 synergies through data harmonization in both directions. Regionally, the potential for two-way coordination between registry and cadaster is highest in LAC and Africa where 50% and 15% of countries use cadastral data to update the tax and where more than 80% of countries use tax rolls that are more than 3 years old. Such an inability to harness synergies increases cost, creates a risk of disputes arising from discrepancies, and makes it difficult to use recurrent property tax payment as a mechanism to keep information on rights up to date. Even if spatial data is outdated, imagery from drones or high-resolution satellites is increasingly affordable, allowing to use machine learning to generate building footprints to identify priority zones for updating or ground enumeration, possibly on a pilot basis, to reduce the cost and enhance the benefits, in terms of increased revenue and cadastral coverage, from such approaches. Buoyancy of tax yield: Failure to use valuations that are updated automatically based on market prices reduces yield, progressivity, and fairness of property tax assessments, possibly undermining tax morale. Low recurrent tax revenue or ability to deploy instruments for land value capture will jeopardize local governments’ ability to plan and invest ahead of urban expansion to provide a basic level of services that could allow rapidly growing urban populations to realize their full potential and may set in motion increased residential segregation if the rich use private substitutes (e.g. septic tanks) to avoid having to rely on public services. Pilot data point to scope for improvement as only 27% and 22% of countries update taxable values annually or use computer-assisted mass appraisal (CAMA). In developing countries where less developed financial markets and cultural values often prompt individuals to hold a much higher share of their wealth in real estate than in financial assets, this potential is particularly large (Maloney et al. 2024). Regional differences are pronounced: CAMA based on market prices is used by all EAP countries except one in EAP but only by some 30% in WENA (Canada, Netherlands, Portugal, and Sweden) or ECA (Estonia, Lithuania, Lativia, Moldova), and by 10% or less in LAC (Uruguay), Africa (Mali and Namibia), and MENA (where many countries do not levy a property tax). Only 30% of respondent countries make information on land valuations for tax purposes public. Beyond providing a reference value for private sector land transactions, such publicity can also benchmark fair compensation in case land has to be acquired for public purposes, thereby avoiding that court proceedings delay infrastructure projects—and state or developers to try and sidestep due process. Countries in EAP in our sample seem to have been able to make much larger investment in infrastructure without suffering delays from disputes about compensation through two factors. First, they almost all use CAMA to value properties for tax purposes, resulting in more buoyant property tax receipts that can be used for investment in infrastructure. Second, they make valuations available digitally at property level, providing a benchmark for fair adjudication of compensation claims that make positive welfare outcomes in case of expropriation more likely (Huang et al. 2024). 25 Enforcing property tax payment: Complex or overlapping arrangements for billing or collection of property taxes, often reinforced by lack of reminders and inconsistent collection of property tax arrears, reduce collection efficiency in many developing country cities. Electronic billing and payment options can reduce the cost of property tax collection. Once tax maps and valuation procedures are in place, requiring a digital tax clearance certificate before any change can be registered is a low-cost way to ensure that arrears will be paid off when a property is sold, transferred by inheritance or mortgaged. implicitly defer property tax payment until a new registration takes place, dealing with potential hardship from the fact that property tax is levied on a relatively illiquid asset Data suggesting that less than 20% of pilot countries did so point to scope for improvement. Competitive and transparent public land transfers: Even if land should be public, day-to-day management can often be outsourced to the private sector or local bodies. If rights to use or manage public land (for a limited period) are transferred and no local claims are affected, competitive transfers tend to increase social benefits and publicity of contractual provisions will allow third-party monitoring. Only about 45% of countries have regulations to allow competitive public land transfers, only about 25% make any contracts available, pointing to considerable scope for improvement. While 80% of countries in ECA allow competitive land transfers (and close to 50% publish contracts), only about 50% allow competitive transfers in in EAP, WENA and MENA, shares are about one-third in LAC and less than 20% in Africa. Even of the sample countries allowing competitive transfers in MENA or Africa, none makes contracts public, highlighting the scope for cross-country sharing of experience, regulations, and once the legal framework has been adjusted even software to conduct collusion-proof auctions and facilitate contract monitoring. Use of registry data to inform gendered asset access: A very encouraging sign emerging from our data is that in regions such as MENA and Africa where women have traditionally been disadvantaged, considerable progress has been made to ensure that digital records can be disaggregated by gender, with two-thirds of MENA countries and more than half of countries in Eastern and Southern Africa providing such data, compared to about one-third in ECA and LAC. 4.4 Identifying and addressing gaps As the main purpose of the indicators presented above is to motivate improvements at the country level and to measure progress over time, it is straightforward to use the detailed country-level data included in the appendix tables to identify areas where specific countries can improve as well as examples of good practice either in the same region or beyond, that can illustrate how to do so. To illustrate this potential, we note that Costa Rica, Türkiye, and Rwanda are all relatively good performers in LAC, MENA, and Africa, respectively, but the data identify specific actionable areas for each of them: 26 Costa Rica does not allow API access to cadaster and registry, has only a look-up link to the national digital personal and firm IDs, lacks legal provisions for CAMA or regular updating of valuations, does not use remote sensing to monitor land use and lacks a way to identify the gender of right holders. Türkiye lacks provisions for mandatory e-signature by officials and e-conveyance, restricts information on rights (and mortgages) to intermediaries and persons with a defined interest, allows access to sales prices only in the aggregate rather than at property level, has only a paper-based link to the courts, lacks provisions for CAMA, and does not publicize information on disposal of public land. Rwanda has a digital land registry with full coverage but lacks a link to the courts, has not yet moved to e-conveyancing (though a system has been developed and is currently undergoing testing), and fails to use available cadastral or registry records for the different aspects of property taxation (elaboration and updating of the tax roll and updating of valuation schedules). While it would be easy to identify opportunities for other countries in a similar way, having an agreed set of indicators can have advantages in two respects: First, technical staff in relevant agencies are often aware of opportunities for improvement and try to address them. Having an accepted set of indicators may help reinforce this message and get the high-level political support needed to address these issues and complete reforms within a given timeline. Second, countries with a well-functioning digital system will be able to use these data to implement quantitative indicators to more widely demonstrate the functionality and reliability of their registries (e.g., in terms of mortgage market activity or court disputes related to land) to attract domestic or foreign investment. 5. Implications for policy and next steps Motivated by the fact that a massive move towards registry digitization does not seem to have resulted in consistent cost reductions for clients and building on a discussion of the benefits from property registries and the way in which digitization can help realize these more effectively, this paper identified indicators and collected data from 85 jurisdictions on a pilot basis. Results suggest that collecting such information is possible and allows to identify jurisdictions’ strengths and weaknesses in a actionable forward-looking way. The pilot provided valuable lessons, in terms of framing questions and validating responses, that will be useful for any expansion of the range of countries covered. Moreover, as several countries in the sample are already actively working on regulatory reforms to improve digital registry performance, collecting the same data at regular time intervals can help to motivate and identify reforms while also increasing the scope for experience sharing and beneficial competition across jurisdictions. Although the framework presented here draws on a large body of literature, the impact of regulatory reform on access to documented land rights and the benefits realized by using such rights in a digital environment 27 are relatively under-studied. Beyond being used to motivate and orient policy reforms at a strategic level, the indicators used here could also serve as a heuristic tool to identify reforms in key areas for more detailed analysis. Collaboration with countries that are implementing reforms could help generate evidence on quantitative impacts of regulatory change that could illustrate their importance while also providing guidance on ways to overcome implementation challenges. This is an important area for future research. 28 Table 1: Changes in registry digitization and cost, time, and procedures to register property from 2005 to 2020 Total WENA ECA EAP LAC MENA SAS SSACW SSAES Panel A: Registry digitization Digital in 2005 0.076 0.150 0.240 0.167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Digital in 2020 0.418 0.850 0.760 0.458 0.355 0.444 0.143 0.077 0.105 Panel B: Cost to register Time 2005 89.3 42.3 126.0 81.7 83.1 53.8 143.1 133.4 63.5 Time 2020 46.6 21.7 21.3 52.0 60.5 32.2 129.0 59.1 42.9 Cost 2005 7.23 4.79 3.75 4.43 6.39 6.87 6.78 14.82 9.39 Cost 2020 5.38 4.79 2.20 4.57 5.74 5.83 5.49 8.05 6.49 Procedures 2005 6.34 5.15 6.48 5.42 7.23 6.44 7.29 6.15 6.89 Procedures 2020 5.86 4.68 4.71 5.32 7.39 5.85 7.19 5.60 6.70 No. of obs. 170 20 25 24 31 18 7 26 19 Source: Own computation from data collected for the ‘Doing Business’ Registering Property Indicator as described in the text. Note: ‘Digital’ means that in 2005 (or 2020) registry and cadaster are digital and integrated. WENA = Western Europe and North America; ECA = Eastern Europe & Central Asia; EAP = East Asia & Pacific; LAC = Latin America & Caribbean; MENA = Middle East & North Africa; SAS = South Asia; SSACW = Central and Western Sub-Saharan Africa; SSAES = Eastern and Southern Sub-Saharan Africa. 29 Table 2: DID estimates of the impact of registry digitization Time to register Cost to register Registration procedures (days) (share of value) (number) Time*treat -28.698 1.399** -0.478** (19.353) (0.577) (0.237) Time -32.868*** -2.327*** -0.310*** (6.960) (0.348) (0.103) Constant 89.287*** 7.228*** 6.335*** (3.840) (0.139) (0.050) Standard errors in parentheses. * p<0.10, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.010 Note: Registry digitization means that a digitally integrated land registry and cadaster were in place. 30 Table 3: Descriptive evidence on digital registry coverage World WENA ECA EAP LAC MENA SSACW SSAES Digital registry w. national coverage 68.2 93.3 93.3 85.7 78.6 88.9 20.0 20.0 Digital registry w. partial coverage 15.3 6.7 14.3 30.0 46.7 Registry coverage > 50% 60.0 93.3 86.7 71.4 64.3 77.8 10.0 13.3 Digital cadaster 72.9 100.0 93.3 85.7 71.4 88.9 30.0 40.0 Cadastral coverage > 50% 55.3 93.3 86.7 42.9 35.7 77.8 20.0 20.0 All maps vectorized or scanned 62.4 93.3 80.0 85.7 35.7 88.9 20.0 40.0 Public land coverage > 50% 47.1 73.3 66.7 85.7 21.4 55.6 20.0 20.0 Registry & cadaster integrated 62.4 86.7 80.0 71.4 42.9 77.8 30.0 46.7 e-signature mandatory for officials 40.5 53.3 73.3 57.1 57.1 25.0 10.0 0.0 No. of obs. 85 15 15 7 14 9 10 15 Source: Own tabulation based on World Bank, IPRA/CINDER, and RCMRD survey as discussed in the text. Note: In this and subsequent tables WENA = Western Europe and North America; ECA = Eastern Europe & Central Asia; EAP = East Asia & Pacific; LAC = Latin America & Caribbean; MENA = Middle East & North Africa; SAS = South Asia; SSACW = Central and Western Sub-Saharan Africa (Burundi, Cabo Verde, Gabon, Ghana, Gambia, Liberia, Mali, Rwanda, Senegal, Chad); SSAES = Eastern and Southern Sub-Saharan Africa (Botswana, Comoros, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mozambique, Mauritius, Malawi, Namibia, Eswatini, Tanzania, Uganda, South Africa, Zambia). 31 Table 4: Descriptive evidence on digital interoperability World WENA ECA EAP LAC MENA SSACW SSAES Market liquidity & transaction cost Reg. links to digital ID 44.7 46.7 73.3 42.9 35.7 55.6 20.0 33.3 Reg. links to dig. firm ID 37.6 40.0 73.3 42.9 28.6 44.4 10.0 20.0 e-conveyance possible 29.4 53.3 60.0 42.9 35.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Past prices digitally accessibly 24.7 46.7 20.0 14.3 42.9 22.2 0.0 13.3 API access to Registry 49.4 60.0 73.3 42.9 57.1 88.9 20.0 6.7 API access to Cadaster 43.5 66.7 86.7 28.6 21.4 66.7 10.0 13.3 Protection of existing rights Seller's rights verified w. digital help 51.8 73.3 73.3 42.9 64.3 77.8 20.0 6.7 Court cases shown in registry 36.5 60.0 66.7 57.1 14.3 33.3 10.0 13.3 Mortgage with registry 62.4 93.3 86.7 71.4 78.6 77.8 20.0 6.7 Mortgage data accessible digitally 40.0 66.7 60.0 57.1 42.9 33.3 10.0 6.7 Source: Own tabulation based on World Bank, IPRA/CINDER, and RCMRD survey as discussed in the text. 32 Table 5: Descriptive evidence on use of registry data for taxation, public good provision, and policy design World WENA ECA EAP LAC MENA SSACW SSAES Property valuation & taxation Tax roll uses digital cadastral data 50.0 75.0 84.6 57.1 50.0 66.7 0.0 23.1 Tax roll dig. updated less than 3 a ago 49.3 91.7 84.6 85.7 16.7 50.0 0.0 26.7 Taxable value updated annually 27.1 66.7 23.1 71.4 0.0 66.7 0.0 7.7 Market-based valuation using CAMA 21.9 33.3 30.8 71.4 8.3 0.0 10.0 6.7 Tax values public at property level 30.4 50.0 38.5 71.4 25.0 0.0 0.0 15.4 Digital tax clearance cert 21.2 20.0 13.3 14.3 50.0 33.3 10.0 6.7 No. of obs. for taxation 73 12 13 7 12 4 10 15 Public land transfers Public land transfers competitive 44.7 53.3 80.0 57.1 35.7 44.4 10.0 26.7 Contracts digital and public 24.7 46.7 46.7 42.9 28.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Use of registry data to inform policy RS to monitor & enforce land use 19.5 35.7 30.8 42.9 0.0 33.3 0.0 6.7 Gender identifiable in all records 44.7 46.7 33.3 42.9 35.7 66.7 40.0 53.3 Cadaster to award/monitor support 29.6 38.5 46.7 57.1 8.3 44.4 0.0 20.0 No. of obs. 85 15 15 7 14 9 10 15 Source: Own tabulation based on World Bank, IPRA/CINDER, and RCMRD survey as discussed in the text. 33 ANNEX 1: VARIABLES CONSIDERED AND CORRESPONDING RESPONSE CODES 1. REGISTRY DIGITIZATION 1.1 Digital registry exists: Digital registry with national scope = 1; Digital registry at local level of for certain types of land only = 0.5; No digital registry = 0. 1.2 if yes, coverage: A registry with national scope may still be only partially implemented. The approximate share of land covered is scored as: 91-100% = 1; 51-90% = 0.5; 11-50% = 0.25; 1-10% = 0. 1.3 Digital cadaster exists: Digital cadaster with national scope = 1; Digital cadaster at local level of for certain types of land only = 0.5; No digital cadaster = 0. 1.4 if yes, coverage: Coverage is scored as above for the digital registry: 91-100% = 1; 51-90% = 0.5; 11-50% = 0.25; 1-10% = 0. 1.5 Registry cadaster interoperability: Same database or seamless integration = 1; digital data exchange = 0.75; paper-based data exchange = 0.5; fully independent databases = 0. 1.6 e-signature mandatory for officials: Yes = 1; No = 0. To ensure transparency through workflows that are fully digital and auditable, a score of 1 is given only if use of digital signature is mandatory and not optional. 1.7 Cadastral maps converted: To allow cadastral data to be used as a digital base-layer of information, it needs to be georeferenced and available in vector format. Scanning of maps is a first step towards this objective and half a point is given if almost all existing maps or plans are scanned, and 0.25 when some of the maps are scanned. All cadastral maps are kept as vector data in a GIS system = 1; All cadastral maps are available in scanned format = 0.5; some cadastral maps are available in scanned format = 0.25; cadastral maps are predominantly kept on paper = 0. 1.8 Public land is digitally mapped: Yes = 1; No = 0. Mapping public land is a basic precondition for the ability to manage it and to add additional information (like concessions, or management responsibility) and plan. A digital system for mapping public land is in place = 1; no digital system to map public land = 0. 1.9 if yes, coverage of public land mapping: Coverage is scored as above: 91-100% = 1; 51-90% = 0.5; 11-50% = 0.25; 1-10% = 0. 2. DIGITAL INTEROPERABILITY & RIGHT PROTECTION 2.1 Digital access to rights information: Legally, everybody can digitally access information on existence of rights (possibly against a fee) and subject to prevailing privacy rules = 1; only persons with a defined interest can access information on existence of rights digitally = 0.75; only service providers/intermediaries can access information on existence of rights digitally = 0.5; information is only available on paper or not at all = 0. Persons with a defined interest are right holders (or professionals representing them) and officials. 2.2 Registry data is accessible online: Online access means that the registry is kept digitally not only on a standalone computer or server supported by a local area network but in a way that can be accessed online by anybody. Yes, public portal is available = 1; Yes, data can be accessed but only by intermediaries = 0.5; No = 0. Note that the score on this indicator cannot be higher than that for existence of a digital registry (i.e., if digital registry is only partial, this question will score 0.5 even if full public access is in place). 2.3 Cadastral data is accessible online: Yes, public portal is available = 1; Yes, data can be accessed but only by intermediaries = 0.5; No = 0. 2.4 Link to digital register of individual IDs: Fully automated data exchange in place = 1; look-up function in place = 0.75; no link in place = 0. 34 2.5 Link to digital register of companies: Fully automated data exchange in place = 1; look-up function in place = 0.75; no link in place = 0. 2.6 Scope for e-conveyancing: e-conveyance can be done entirely by citizen = 1; e-conveyance can be completed by service providers only = 0.75; only part of the conveyancing process digitized = 0.5; conveyancing is paper based = 0. Note, that the possibility e-conveyancing requires use of electronic signatures; thus, it is only possible to score on this indicator if electronic signature by officials is mandatory (and optional for clients). 2.7 Sales price history accessible digitally: Yes, at property level in bulk = 1; yes, in some form of aggregation by location and/or property type or only for people with a defined interest = 0.5; only property by property or via extraction form transaction documents (generally as pdf’s) that are digitally accessible = 0.25; No, or only on paper = 0. Note that, to receive a score higher than 0.25, transaction prices need to be recorded in a separate field in a digital registration system. 2.8 API access to registry: Yes = 1; Yes, and incomplete = 0.5; No = 0. Note that the score on this indicator cannot be higher than that for existence of a digital registry (i.e., if digital registry is only partial, this question will score only 0.5). 2.9 API access to Cadaster: Yes, and complete = 1; Yes, and incomplete = 0.5; No = 0. Note that the score on this indicator cannot be higher than that for existence of a digital cadaster (i.e., if digital cadaster is only partial, this question will score only 0.5). 2.10 Digital verification of seller’s right before registration: Digital check of seller’s rights mandatory before a transaction can be registered = 1; digital check of seller’s rights optional by official in a digital system = 0.5; law demands (paper) check before transaction is registered = 0.25; sellers right not checked = 0. 2.11 Digital verification of encumbrances/mortgages before registering a transaction: Presence of mortgages or other encumbrances automatically checked and notified by software before new rights are registered = 1; check of encumbrances mandatory by official in a digital system = 0.75; encumbrance check optional for official in a digital system = 0.5; analog (paper-based) check of presence of encumbrances before registering a new right mandated by law = 0.25; no mandatory check = 0. 2.12 Digital display of pending court cases in registry: Court registry can be queried digitally by property ID = 1; court regularly digitally informs registry of property IDs with pending cases = 0.75; court informs registry in paper form = 0.25; no link = 0. 2.13 Mortgage information recorded digitally: Information on existence of a mortgage and the identity of the mortgagee (but not other related details such as loan size, interest rate, etc.) included in digital property registry = 1; mortgages kept in a separate database that is digitally linked to the registry with at least daily updates = 0.75; mortgages kept in a separate digital database not digitally linked to the registry = 0.25; mortgages only on paper = 0. Note that the score on this indicator cannot be higher than that for existence of a digital registry (i.e., if digital registry is only partial, this question will score only 0.5). 2.14 Information on mortgages or other encumbrances accessible digitally: Everybody can access information in bulk (possibly against a fee) = 1; only parties with defined interest, service providers, or intermediaries can access information = 0.5; information can only be accessed property by property or via extraction form transaction documents (generally as pdf files) that are digitally accessible = 0.25; information is not available digitally at all = 0. Note that the score for this question cannot be higher than that for the previous question. 35 3. TAXATION & PUBLIC GOOD PROVISION 3.0 A local property tax in place: Yes, urban property tax is primarily a local tax (i.e., local government receives more than 50 % of revenues and has some discretion in setting rates) = 1; Yes, urban property tax is primarily a national tax (i.e. local governments receive less than 50% of revenues) = 0.5; no property tax in place = 0. If the response to this question is ‘no’, property tax is not ranked. 3.1 Use of digital cadastral information as basis for the tax roll: Yes, full interoperability = 1; yes, one- way digital connectivity = 0.5; no, separate digital databases or paper files only = 0. Note that the value of this variable is bounded by the coverage of the cadastral map. 3.2 Frequency of tax roll updating: At least annually (or fully synchronized with updates to the registry) = 1; at regular intervals but at least every 3 years = 0.75; at regular intervals but at least every 5 years = 0.25; ad hoc or less frequently than 5 years = 0. 3.3 Property tax valuation based on CAMA using market prices: Yes = 1; Legislation mandates market- based valuation but no computerized process, or valuation is done on a property-by property basis = 0.5; No = 0. 3.4 Frequency of valuation updating: At least annually = 1; at least every 3 years = 0.75; at regular intervals but at least every 5 years = 0.5; ad hoc or less frequently than every 5 years = 0 3.5 Assessed values are accessible digitally: Having property valuations for tax purposes digitally will ensure transparency and fairness and provide a reference for real estate markets. Yes, at property level = 1; yes, in some form of aggregation by location and/or property type = 0.5; no = 0. 3.6 Digital tax clearance certificate required for registration: A clearance certificate is needed and obtained automatically as part of the registration workflow = 1; a clearance certificate is needed and can be obtained by accessing digital property tax records before finalizing the registration = 0.5 a certificate is needed and only paper is available = 0.25; property tax liability is not checked before registering a transaction = 0. 3.7 Gender of natural persons holding registered rights digitally extractable: Yes, gender is a separate field for all properties = 1; yes, gender is a separate field for properties registered after a certain date = 0.5; digitally extractable from ID numbers or link to digital ID register = 0.25; no = 0. 3.8 Agricultural support links digitally to cadaster: Yes, cadaster is used to determine eligibility for support and monitor its use = 1; yes, cadaster is used to determine eligibility but not to monitor use = 0.5; no = 0. 3.9 Remote sensing routinely used to monitor public (and private) land use: Yes, all land is covered and remote sensing is routinely used as the basis for administrative decisions (e.g., enforcement of land use restrictions) = 1; yes part of public land (e.g., areas of high biological diversity or protected areas) is covered and remote sensing systematically used and acted upon = 0.5; yes, remote sensing is used to monitor land use but does not form a basis for routine administrative decisions = 0.25; no, remote sensing of land use is not used = 0. Note: Only the share of public land that is mapped can be covered. 3.10 Transfer of (lease or ownership) rights to public land is competitive: Yes, via public and transparent e-auction = 1; yes, via tender procedures = 0.5; No = 0. 3.11 Public land contracts are digitally available: Yes, for all right transfers = 1; yes, for right transferred after a certain date or certain types of contracts = 0.5; no = 0. 36 Appendix table 1: List of respondents ISO3 Name Position Organization Country AUT Manfred Buric Senior Advisor Federal Ministry of Justice, Austria Austria BEL Ronny Dehaes Head of Administration of Legal Security Administration of Patrimonial Documentation Belgium CNB Gregory Steves Vice President, Policy and Legal Services Land Title & Survey Authority of British Columbia Canada, BC Officier de la publicité foncière du Québec et CNQ Me Patrick Plante directeur général Ministère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts Canada, QC CYP Andri Hadjimarkou Senior Lands Officer Department of Lands and Surveys Cyprus DEU Marcus Wandinger Secretary General Working Committee of Länder Surveying Authorities Germany ESP Basilio Aguirre Director del Centro de Estudios Registrales Registro de la Propiedad de Espana Spain FIN Kari Niemi Chief Specialist, lawyer National Land Survey of Finland Finland FIN Janne Murtoniemi Director National Land Survey of Finland Finland GBS Jennifer Henderson Keeper and Chief Executive Registers of Scotland Scotland IRL Aidan Timmins Head of Legal Standards The Property Registration Authority Ireland Servizio Libro Fondiario e Catasto - Autonomous ITA Elena Prada Government Official & Elra Contact Point Province of Trento Italy ITA Roberta Marconi Agenzia delle Entrate (Italian Revenue Agency) Italy LUX Bernard Reisch Administration of the Cadastre and Topography Luxembourg NLD Jacques Vos Kadaster, Land Registration & Geography Netherlands Netherlands' Cadastre, Land Registry and Mapping NLD Luc Groot Regional Manager Agency Netherlands PRT Maria Jose Magalhaes Silva Land Registrar IRN, IP (part of but not representative) Portugal Instituto dos Registos e do Notariado - Institute of PRT Filomena Rosa President of the board Registries and Notary Portugal Head of Planning and development, Land SWE Dennis Linden Registration Land Registration Sweden Swedish mapping cadastral & land registration SWE Mikael Lilje Head, International Department authority Sweden BGR Registry Agency Registry Agency of Bulgaria Bulgaria CZE Svatava Dokoupilova state counsellor for international relations Czech Office for Surveying, Mapping and Cadastre Czechia EST Heidi Leppikus Head of Land Register team Center of Registers and Information Systems Estonia HRV Antonio Sustic Director General State Geodetic Administration Croatia LTU Bronislovas Mikuta Head of International Cooperation Division State Enterprise Centre of Registers Lithuania LVA Gundega Milere Staff expert The State Land Service Latvia Head of Information system development LVA Maris Kumerdanks division Court administration Latvia MDA Angela Matcov Head of the Department of Cadaster Public Services Agency Moldova MNE Mirjana Ljumovic Head of department for special registers Real Estate administration - Montenegro Montenegro ROU Mihai Taus Vice-president Romanian Land Registrars Association Romania ROU Radu Codrut Stefanescu National Agency for Cadastre and Land Registration Romania SRB Dragan Pavlovic Director of Procurement Implementation Unit Republic Geodetic Authority Serbia SRB Darko Vucetic Director for Development and Innovation Republic Geodetic Authority Serbia Geodesy, Cartography and Cadastre Authority of the Slovak SVK Matus Fojtl Geodesy and international relations Slovak Republic Republic SVN Urad Vsrs Land Registry under Supreme Court Slovenia SVN Tomaz Petek General Manager Surveying and Mapping Authority Slovenia TJK Safol Sharifzoda Первый заместитель директора SUE Registration of Immovable Property Tajikistan Tajikistan UKR Dmytro Makarenko Acting Chairman State Service for Geodesy, Cartography and Cadaster Ukraine UZB Alexander Samborsky National Geospatial Consultant National Centre of Geodesy and Cartography Uzbekistan Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Natural Resources Title CHN Jin Hu Deputy Director Confirmation and Registration China FJI Treta Sharma Administrator General Ministry of Justice Fiji KOR Mijo Pyun Manager Korea Land and Geospatial Informatix Corporation Korea, Rep. MNG Galmandakh Boldbaatar Head of Cadastral Association ALAGAC Mongolia NPL Janak Raj Joshi Executive Director/Joint Secretary Ministry of Land Reform and Management Nepal NZL Robert Muir Registrar-General of Land Land Information New Zealand New Zealand PHL Ignacio R. Almira Jr. Department of Environment and Natural Resources Philippines PHL Emelyne Talabis Department of Environment and Natural Resources Philippines PHL Henry Pacis Assistant Regional Director Department of Environment and Natural Resources Philippines BRA Sergio Jacomino Instituto de Registro Imobiliario do Brasil Brazil BRA Bastiaan P. Reydon Professor Titular Universidade Estadual de Campinas – UNICAMP Brazil CHL Luis Maldonado Croquevielle Conservador Propiedad Conservador Bienes Raices de Santiago Chile Johanna Andrea Rodriguez COL Herrera Asesora Superintendencia de Notariado y Registro Colombia CRI AgustíN MeléNdez GarcíA Director General Registro Nacional de Costa Rica Costa Rica CRI Gabriela Carranza Araya Subdirectora Registral, Registro Inmobiliario Registro Nacional Costa Rica Dominican DOM Erick Manuel SáNchez Vargas Gerente Legal Registro Inmobiliario Republic Dominican DOM Ricardo José Noboa Gañán Administrador General del Registro Inmobiliario Registro Inmobiliario - Consejo del Poder Judicial Republic Claudia Lavinia Figueroa GTM Perdomo Socio Consultor Consultando Guatemala HND Juan Carlos Mejía Coto Superintendente de Recursos Instituto de la Propiedad Honduras JAM Cheriese Walcott CEO/ Commissioner of Lands National Land Agency_Jamaica_Kingston Jamaica MEX Maria Elena Garcia Flores Asociada IPRA CINDER Mexico City PAN Gabriella Baccarani Head of Property Registro Publico de Panama Panama Armando Miguel Subauste Superintendencia Nacional de los Registros Públicos - PER Bracesco Superintendente SUNARP Peru Superintendencia Nacional de los Registros Públicos PER Luis Alberto Aliaga Huaripata Vocal del Tribunal Registral (SUNARP) Peru 37 PRY Mercedes Vera Ibarra Directora del Registro Inmobiliario Direccion General de los Registros Publicos Paraguay PRY Liz Moreno General Director Servicio Nacional del Catastro Paraguay Lourdes González/ Mercedes Dirección General de los Registros Públicos y PRY Vera. Directora General de los Registros Públicos Dirección del Registro Inmobiliario Paraguay URY Carlos Milano Asesor tecnico registral Direccion General de Registros Uruguay VEN Emilio BolíVar Abrate Director General Instituto Venezolano de Derecho Registral IVEDER Venezuela, RB VEN Roberto Hung Director Cultura Juridica ORG Venezuela, RB BHR Shaikh Mohammed Al-Khalifa Chief Executive Officer Survey and Land Registration Bureau Bahrain Organization of Deeds and Property Registration and Iran, Islamic IRN Hossein Najafi Real estate expert Notaries Rep. JOR Rania Wafa Manager Department of Lands and Survey Jordan LBN Georges S. Maarrawi Director General Land Registry and Cadastre Lebanon Agence National de la Conservation Foncière du MAR M. Bouchaib Chahi Cadastre et de la Cartographie Morocco MLT Joseph Gauci Malta Planning Authority Malta MLT Claude Sapiano LAND REGISTRAR Malta Land Registry Malta QAT Zied Ahmad Mustafa Al Zobi ICS Consultant Ministry of Justice_Qatar Qatar Président Directeur Général de l'Office National TUN Wadii Rhouma de la Propriété Foncière Conservation de la Propriété Foncière Tunisia TUR Sadettin Tunas Head of Department General Directorate of Land Registry and Cadastre Türkiye Directeur de la Cartographie et de la BDI Thomas Barwihigire Topographie Geographic Institute of Burundi (IGEBU) Burundi CPV Carlos Varela Land Project Director Millennium Challenge Account Cabo Verde CPV Anilda Pereira Da Veiga Conservador Notário Land Registry (Registo, Notariado e Identificacao) Cabo Verde GAB Eric Mbah Responsable Informatique Conservation Fonciere Gabon Gabon GHA Wilfred Kwabena Anim-Odame Senior Technical Advisor (retired) National Development Planning Commission Ghana Ministry of Land, Regional Government & Religious GMB Mariam Jobarteh GIS Specialist Affairs The Gambia Ministry of Lands Local Government and Religious GMB Aboubakarr Marigo Land Technical support staff Affairs The Gambia LBR Daniela Gray-Johnson Project Director Liberia Land Authority Liberia Secrétaire Permanent de la Reforme domaniale Ministère des affaires foncières de l’urbanisme et de MLI Cheickine Dieffaga et foncière au Mali l’habitat Mali Director General and Chief Registrar of Land Rwanda Land Management and Use Authority, Office RWA Grace Nishimwe Titles of the Registrar of Land Titles Rwanda SEN Abdoulaye Diagne Direction Générale des Impôts et Domaines Sénégal Senegal TCD Patedjore Zoukalne Conseiller Ministère des Finances et du Budget Chad BWA Fawcus Mmolawa Director Department of Surveys & Mapping Botswana COM Mohamed Abdou Territorial Development and Urban Planning Comoros Ministry of Agriculture Rural land Administration & ETH Tigistu Gebremeskel Lead Executive Use Directorate Ethiopia ETH Mulualem Yeshitila Birru Lead Executive Officer Space Science and Geospatial Institute Ethiopia ETH Abebe Zeluel Land & Cadaster Lead Executive officer Ministry of Construction and Urban Development Ethiopia Directorate of Resource Surveys and Remote Sensing KEN Moses Akali DIRECTOR (DRSRS) Kenya Survey of Kenya, Ministry of Lands and Physical KEN Maritim Weldon Director of surveys Planning Kenya LSO Pheello Ramotubei Chief Surveyor Dep. LSPP, Min. Local Government and Chieftainship Lesotho LSO Mats'Eliso Thobei Physical Planner Land Administration Authority Lesotho MDG Vonisoa H. Razafinime Chef de Division Suivi et Conception Direction des Domaines et de la Propriété Foncière Madagascar MDG Ny Lando Razafimanantena Direction Générale des Services Fonciers Madagascar MOZ Remigio Timbrine MozLand Project Coordinator National Fund for Sustainable Development Mozambique MUS Deoyani Hurrynag Registrar General, Mauritius Mauritius MUS Deviantee Sobarun Registrar General's Department Mauritius Dept. of Surveys, Ministry of Lands, Housing and MWI Masida Mbano Surveyor General Urban Development Malawi NAM Prisca Mandimika Special Advisor to the Minister Ministry of Land Reform Namibia Surveyor General Department, Ministry of Natural SWZ Albert B.N. Mhlanga Surveyor General Resources and Energy Eswatini TZA Juma Ameir Mgeni Director of Survey and Mapping Department of Survey and Mapping, Zanzibar Tanzania TZA Moses Kusiluka Chief Secretary Government of Tanzania Tanzania Department of Surveys and Mapping, Ministry of UGA Jasper Kakooza Senior Staff Surveyor Lands, Housing and an Development Uganda Department of Agriculture, Rural Development and ZAF Carlize Knoesen Chief Registrar of Deeds Land Reform South Africa ZMB Emmanuel Tembo Project Manager Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources Zambia 38 Appendix table 2: Detailed indicators on digitization of property registries Digital registry Digital cadaster Reg-Cad. e-signature Cad. maps Public land exists coverage exists coverage integration mand. off converted mapped cvge Western Europe & North America AUT 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 BEL 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.25 CNQ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 CNB 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 CYP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 DEU 0.50 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ESP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.25 FIN 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 GBS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 IRL 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ITA 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LUX 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 NLD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PRT 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.25 1.00 0.25 SWE 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Eastern Europe & Central Asia BGR 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 CZE 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 EST 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 HRV 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LTU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 LVA 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 MDA 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 MNE 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 ROU 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.25 0.00 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.25 SRB 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 SVK 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 SVN 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 TJK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 1.00 0.00 UKR 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 UZB 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 East & South Asia, Pacific 0.0 CHN 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FJI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 KOR 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MNG 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NPL 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 0.75 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.25 NZL 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHL 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.25 0.75 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 Latin America & Caribbean BRA 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.75 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 CHL 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 1.00 0.50 COL 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.00 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CRI 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 DOM 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.25 GTM 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.25 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 HND 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.00 JAM 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.25 0.75 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.25 MEX 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 PAN 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PER 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.25 PRY 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.25 1.00 0.25 URY 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.75 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.25 VEN 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 39 Appendix table 2 (cont’d): Detailed indicators on digitization of property registries Digital registry Digital cadaster Reg-Cad. e-signature Cad. maps Public land exists coverage exists coverage integration mand. off converted mapped cvge Middle East & North Africa BHR 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 IRN 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.25 JOR 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 LBN 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 MAR 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 QAT 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 TUN 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 TUR 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 Sub-Saharan Africa West & Center BDI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CPV 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.25 GAB 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 1.00 0.25 GHA 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.25 1.00 0.25 GMB 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LBR 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 MLI 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 RWA 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 SEN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 TCD 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 Sub-Saharan Africa Eastern & Southern BWA 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 COM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ETH 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.75 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 KEN 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.25 1.00 0.25 LSO 0.50 0.25 0.50 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.25 1.00 0.00 MDG 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 MOZ 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.25 0.75 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.25 MUS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.25 1.00 0.50 MWI 0.50 0.25 0.50 0.25 1.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.25 NAM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 SWZ 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 TZA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 UGA 0.50 0.25 1.00 0.25 0.75 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.25 ZAF 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 ZMB 0.50 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.25 1.00 0.25 Source: Own tabulation based on World Bank, IPRA/CINDER, and RCMRD survey as discussed in the text. 40 Appendix table 3: Detailed indicators on reducing the cost of land and financial market operation Rights Online access to Link to digital e-cnve Hist. API access to Digital verification of Mortgage data info. Reg Cad. ID firm ID poss Sale Cad. Reg seller encbc court digitally acc’e prc ac rights dec. kept acc’e Western Europe & North America AUT 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 BEL 0.75 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.75 0.75 1.00 CNQ 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 CNB 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 CYP 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.50 DEU 0.75 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.75 0.50 0.50 ESP 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 1.00 0.50 FIN 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 GBS 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 IRL 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.25 1.00 1.00 ITA 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 LUX 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.25 1.00 0.00 NLD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.25 1.00 1.00 PRT 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 SWE 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.50 Eastern Europe & Central Asia BGR 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.25 1.00 1.00 CZE 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 EST 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 HRV 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 LTU 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.25 1.00 0.50 LVA 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MDA 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.50 MNE 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.75 1.00 ROU 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.50 0.25 1.00 1.00 SRB 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.50 SVK 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00 1.00 SVN 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 TJK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 UKR 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.25 1.00 0.50 UZB 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.50 East & South Asia, Pacific CHN 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FJI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 KOR 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.00 MNG 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.75 1.00 NPL 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.50 NZL 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.50 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 PHL 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 Latin America & Caribbean BRA 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.75 0.00 CHL 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.25 0.75 1.00 COL 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.25 1.00 0.00 CRI 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 DOM 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.75 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 GTM 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.75 0.75 0.25 1.00 1.00 HND 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 JAM 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.25 0.75 1.00 MEX 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.25 1.00 0.50 PAN 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.25 1.00 1.00 PER 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 0.00 PRY 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 URY 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.50 VEN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 Middle East & North Africa BHR 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.50 IRN 0.75 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 JOR 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 1.00 0.50 LBN 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 1.00 MAR 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 1.00 0.50 MLT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 QAT 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.50 TUN 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.75 0.75 0.25 1.00 1.00 TUR 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.50 41 Appendix table 3 (cont’d): Detailed indicators on reducing the cost of land and financial market operatoin Rights Online access to Link to digital e-cnve Hist. API access to Digital verification of Mortgage data info. Reg Cad. ID firm ID poss Sale Cad. Reg seller encbc court digitally acc’e prc ac rights dec. kept acc’e Sub-Saharan Africa - West & Center BDI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CPV 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.50 GAB 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 GHA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 GMB 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 LBR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 MLI 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.50 RWA 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.75 1.00 SEN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 TCD 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-Saharan Africa - Eastern & Southern BWA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 COM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ETH 0.75 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 KEN 0.75 0.50 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.75 0.50 0.50 LSO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 MDG 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 MOZ 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MUS 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 MWI 0.75 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.50 NAM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 SWZ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 TZA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UGA 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 ZAF 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 ZMB 0.75 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.50 0.50 Source: Own tabulation based on World Bank, IPRA/CINDER, and RCMRD survey as discussed in the text. 42 Appendix table 4: Detailed indicators on property taxation and public land management Tax roll Valuation for tax purposes Digital Gender Remote sensing used for Public land transfers based on updated CAMA updated public clearance can be agric. land use compet. contracts cadaster < 3a ago based digitally access cert. extracted support monitor’g process public Western Europe & North America AUT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 BEL 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 CNQ 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 1.00 CNB 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CYP 0.25 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 DEU 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 ESP 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 FIN 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 GBS 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 IRL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ITA 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 LUX 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 NLD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 PRT 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 SWE 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Eastern Europe & Central Asia BGR 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 CZE 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 EST 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 HRV 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 LTU 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LVA 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.25 0.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 MDA 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 MNE 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ROU 0.00 0.00 SRB 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 SVK 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 SVN 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.00 TJK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 UKR 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.50 UZB 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 East & South Asia, Pacific CHN 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 FJI 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 KOR 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MNG 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 NPL 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.25 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NZL 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 PHL 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.25 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 Latin America & Caribbean BRA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 CHL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 COL 0.50 0.00 CRI 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 DOM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 GTM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 HND 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 JAM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 MEX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PAN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PER 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 PRY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 URY 0.25 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.25 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 VEN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Middle East & North Africa BHR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 IRN 0.25 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 JOR 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 LBN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 MAR 0.00 0.00 MLT 1.00 0.00 QAT 1.00 1.00 TUN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 TUR 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.00 43 Appendix table 4 (cont’d): Detailed indicators on property taxation and public land management Tax roll Valuation for tax purposes Digital Gender Remote sensing used for Public land transfers based on updated CAMA updated public clearance can be agric. land use compet. contracts cadaster < 3a ago based digitally access cert. extracted support monitor’g process public Sub-Saharan Africa - West & Center BDI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CPV 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 GAB 1.00 0.50 0.00 GHA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 GMB 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LBR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 MLI 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RWA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.00 SEN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TCD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-Saharan Africa - Eastern & Southern BWA 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 COM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ETH 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 KEN 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 LSO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.25 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 MDG 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MOZ 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 MUS 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MWI 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 NAM 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SWZ 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 TZA 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 UGA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ZAF 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 ZMB 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 Source: Own tabulation based on World Bank, IPRA/CINDER, and RCMRD survey as discussed in the text. 44 References Adamopoulos, T., et al. 2024. "Land Security and Mobility Frictions." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 139 (3): 1941-1987. Agarwal, B. and S. Naik. 2024. "Do Courts Grant Women Their Inheritance Shares? An Analysis of Case Law in India." World Development 182: 106688. Agarwal, S., et al. 2023. "Serving the Underserved: Microcredit as a Pathway to Commercial Banks." The Review of Economics and Statistics 105 (4): 780-797. Agarwal, S., M. Desai, P. Ghosh and N. Vats. 2025a. "Bridging the Information Gap: Sowing the Seeds of Productivity with High-Speed 4g Internet." National University of Singapore, Singapore. Agarwal, S., Y. Qin, T. F. Sing and C. Zhan. 2025b. "Sea Level Rise Risks, Adaptation Strategies, and Real Estate Prices in Singapore." Journal of Public Economics 241: 105290. Agarwal, S., Y. Wang and J. Zhang. 2025c. "The Digital Revolution: Bridging the Information Gap in the Consumer Credit Market." National University of Singapore, Singapore. Ali, D. A., K. Deininger and M. Goldstein. 2014. "Environmental and Gender Impacts of Land Tenure Regularization in Africa: Pilot Evidence from Rwanda." Journal of Development Economics 110 (0): 262-275. Ali, D. A., et al. 2016. "Small Price Incentives Increase Women's Access to Land Titles in Tanzania." Journal of Development Economics 123: 107-122. Ali, D. A., K. Deininger and M. Duponchel. 2017. "New Ways to Assess and Enhance Land Registry Sustainability: Evidence from Rwanda." World Development 99: 377-394. Ali, D. A., K. Deininger and L. Ronchi. 2019. "Costs and Benefits of Land Fragmentation: Evidence from Rwanda." The World Bank Economic Review 33 (3): 750-771. Ali, D. A., K. Deininger, G. Mahofa and R. Nyakulama. 2021. "Sustaining Land Registration Benefits by Addressing the Challenges of Reversion to Informality in Rwanda." Land Use Policy 110: 104317. Ali, D. A. and K. Deininger. 2022. "Institutional Determinants of Large Land-Based Investments’ Performance in Zambia: Does Title Enhance Productivity and Structural Transformation?" World Development 157: 105932. Ali, D. A., K. Deininger and N. Kemper. 2022. "Pronatal Property Rights over Land and Fertility Outcomes: Evidence from a Natural Experiment in Ethiopia." The Journal of Development Studies 58 (5): 951-967. Ali, D. A. and K. Deininger. 2024. "Using Registry Data to Assess Gender-Differentiated Land and Credit Market Effects of Urban Land Policy Reform: Evidence from Lesotho." World Development 175: 106478. Alonso, C., et al. 2023. "Stacking up the Benefits: Lessons from India's Digital Journey." International Monetary Fund, IMF Working Papers: 2023/078. Alstadsæter, A. and A. Økland. 2022. "Hidden in Plain Sight: Offshore Ownership of Norwegian Real Estate." Norwegian University of Life Sciences, As. Alves, G. 2021. "Slum Growth in Brazilian Cities." Journal of Urban Economics 122: 103327. Anagol, S., V. Balasubramaniam, T. Ramadorai and A. Uettwiller. 2022. "A Bad Bunch: Asset Value under-Reporting in the Mumbai Real Estate Market." University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Aragón, F. M., O. Molina and I. W. Outes-León. 2020. "Property Rights and Risk Aversion: Evidence from a Titling Program." World Development 134: 105020. Arribas-Bel, D., M. À. Garcia-López and E. Viladecans-Marsal. 2021. "Building(S and) Cities: Delineating Urban Areas with a Machine Learning Algorithm." Journal of Urban Economics 125: 103217. Arruñada, B. and N. Garoupa. 2005. "The Choice of Titling System in Land." Journal of Law and Economics 48 (2): 709-727. Arruñada, B. 2007. "Pitfalls to Avoid When Measuring Institutions: Is Doing Business Damaging Business?" Journal of Comparative Economics 35 (4): 729-747. Assunção, J., C. Gandour, R. Rocha and R. Rocha. 2020. "The Effect of Rural Credit on Deforestation: Evidence from the Brazilian Amazon." The Economic Journal 130 (626): 290-330. Assunção, J., C. Gandour and R. Rocha. 2023a. "Deter-Ing Deforestation in the Amazon: Environmental Monitoring and Law Enforcement." American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 15 (2): 125-156. Assunção, J., R. McMillan, J. Murphy and E. Souza-Rodrigues. 2023b. "Optimal Environmental Targeting in the Amazon Rainforest." The Review of Economic Studies 90 (4): 1608-1641. Atwood, D. A. 1990. "Land Registration in Africa: The Impact on Agricultural Production." World Development 18 (5): 659-671. Ayala-Cantu, L. and B. Morando. 2020. "Rental Markets, Gender, and Land Certificates: Evidence from Vietnam." Food Policy 94. Balan, P., A. Bergeron, G. Tourek and J. Weigel. 2020. "Land Formalization in Weak States: Experimental Evidence from Urban Property Titling in the D.R. Congo." Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Baldauf, M., L. Garlappi and C. Yannelis. 2020. "Does Climate Change Affect Real Estate Prices? Only If You Believe in It." Review of Financial Studies 33 (3): 1256-1295. Banerjee, A., et al. 2020. "E-Governance, Accountability, and Leakage in Public Programs: Experimental Evidence from a Financial Management Reform in India." American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 12 (4): 39-72. Baragwanath, K. and E. Bayi. 2020. "Collective Property Rights Reduce Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117 (34): 20495. Bari, F., K. Malik, M. Meki and S. Quinn. 2024. "Asset-Based Microfinance for Microenterprises: Evidence from Pakistan." American Economic Review 114 (2): 534-574. 45 Bartels, C., S. Jäger and N. Obergruber. 2024. "Long-Term Effects of Equal Sharing: Evidence from Inheritance Rules for Land." The Economic Journal 134 (664): 3137-3172. Basco, S., D. Lopez-Rodriguez and E. Moral-Benito. 2025. "House Prices and Misallocation: The Impact of the Collateral Channel on Productivity." The Economic Journal 135 (665): 1-35. Batista, C. and P. C. Vicente. 2023. "Is Mobile Money Changing Rural Africa? Evidence from a Field Experiment." The Review of Economics and Statistics: 1-29. Ben-Shahar, D. and R. Golan. 2019. "Improved Information Shock and Price Dispersion: A Natural Experiment in the Housing Market." Journal of Urban Economics 112: 70-84. Bernstein, A. and P. Koudijs. 2024. "The Mortgage Piggy Bank: Building Wealth through Amortization." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 139 (3): 1767-1825. Berry, K., E. P. Fenichel and B. E. Robinson. 2019. "The Ecological Insurance Trap." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 98: 102251. Besley, T. 1995. "Property Rights and Investment Incentives: Theory and Evidence from Ghana." Journal of Political Economy 103 (5): 903-937. Besley, T. and M. Ghatak. 2010. "Property Rights and Economic Development." in M. R. Rosenzweig and D. Rodrik (eds.), Handbook of Economic Development Vol 5, Elsevier, Oxford and Amsterdam. Besley, T. and T. Persson. 2014. "Why Do Developing Countries Tax So Little?" Journal of Economic Perspectives 28 (4): 99- 120. Besley, T. 2015. "Law, Regulation, and the Business Climate: The Nature and Influence of the World Bank Doing Business Project." Journal of Economic Perspectives 29 (3): 99-120. Blakeslee, D., R. Chaurey, R. Fishman and S. Malik. 2021. "Land Rezoning and Structural Transformation in Rural India: Evidence from the Industrial Areas Program." The World Bank Economic Review. Bonnet, O., G. Chapelle, A. Trannoy and E. Wasmer. 2021. "Land Is Back, It Should Be Taxed, It Can Be Taxed." European Economic Review 134: 103696. Bottan, N. and R. Perez-Truglia. 2025. "Betting on the House: Subjective Expectations and Market Choices." American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. Bragança, A. and R. Dahis. 2022. "Cutting Special Interests by the Roots: Evidence from the Brazilian Amazon." Journal of Public Economics 215: 104753. Brewer, J., A. Larsen and F. Noack. 2022. "The Land Use Consequences of Rural to Urban Migration." American Journal of Agricultural Economics n/a (n/a). Bromley, D. W. 2009. "Formalising Property Relations in the Developing World: The Wrong Prescription for the Wrong Malady." Land Use Policy 26 (1): 20-27. Brooks, L. and B. Lutz. 2016. "From Today's City to Tomorrow's City: An Empirical Investigation of Urban Land Assembly." American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 8 (3): 69-105. Bryan, G., et al. 2022. "Market Design for Land Trade: Evidence from Uganda and Kenya." London School of Economics, London. Bu, D. and Y. Liao. 2022. "Land Property Rights and Rural Enterprise Growth: Evidence from Land Titling Reform in China." Journal of Development Economics 157: 102853. Budish, E. 2024. "Trust at Scale: The Economic Limits of Cryptocurrencies and Blockchains." The Quarterly Journal of Economics. Burchardi, K., J. de Quidt, S. Gulesci and M. Sulaiman. 2024. "Borrowing Constraints and Demand for Remedial Education: Evidence from Tanzania." The Economic Journal 134 (662): 2621-2637. Burchardi, K. B., S. Gulesci, B. Lerva and M. Sulaiman. 2019. "Moral Hazard: Experimental Evidence from Tenancy Contracts." Quarterly Journal of Economics 134 (1): 281-347. Burke, M., A. Driscoll, D. Lobell and S. Ermon. 2020. "Using Satellite Imagery to Understand and Promote Sustainable Development." National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, NBER Working Papers: 27879. Cammeraat, E. and E. Crivelli. 2021. "Justifiably Unpopular? The Italian Property Tax and Inequality." Applied Economics Letters 28 (17): 1468-1473. Carrillo, P. E., E. Castro and C. Scartascini. 2021. "Public Good Provision and Property Tax Compliance: Evidence from a Natural Experiment." Journal of Public Economics 198: 104422. Carter, M. R. 2022. "Can Digitally-Enabled Financial Instruments Secure an Inclusive Agricultural Transformation?" Agricultural Economics 53 (6): 953-967. Casaburi, L. and U. Troiano. 2016. "Ghost-House Busters: The Electoral Response to a Large Anti-Tax Evasion Program." Quarterly Journal of Economics 131 (1): 273-314. Cassidy, A., R. C. Meeks and M. R. Moore. 2023. "Cleaning up the Great Lakes: Housing Market Impacts of Removing Legacy Pollutants." Journal of Public Economics 226: 104979. Chen, S. and B. Gong. 2021. "Response and Adaptation of Agriculture to Climate Change: Evidence from China." Journal of Development Economics 148: 102557. Chen, S. and B. Xie. 2025. "The Abolition of People’s Communes and Fertility Decline in Rural China." Journal of Development Economics 172: 103375. Chen, T. and J. K. S. Kung. 2016. "Do Land Revenue Windfalls Create a Political Resource Curse? Evidence from China." Journal of Development Economics 123: 86-106. 46 Chen, T. and J. K.-s. Kung. 2019. "Busting the 'Princelings': The Campaign against Corruption in China's Primary Land Market." Quarterly Journal of Economics 134 (1): 185-226. Chen, T., L. Han, J. Kung and J. Xie. 2023. "Trading Favours through the Revolving Door: Evidence from China's Primary Land Market." Economic Journal 133 (649): 70-97. Cheng, H. and K. Gawande. 2024. "Bringing Dead Capital to Life: Property Rights Security in China." The Journal of Law and Economics 67 (2): 265-294. Chimhowu, A. 2019. "The ‘New’ African Customary Land Tenure. Characteristic, Features and Policy Implications of a New Paradigm." Land Use Policy 81: 897-903. Cohen, I. 2024. "Technology and the State: Building Capacity to Tax Via Text." Journal of Public Economics 236: 105154. Conte, B. 2022. "Climate Change and Migration: The Case of Africa." University of Barcelona, Barcelona. Coury, M., T. Kitagawa, A. Shertzer and M. A. Turner. 2024. "The Value of Piped Water and Sewers: Evidence from 19th Century Chicago." The Review of Economics and Statistics: 1-47. Cruz, J. L. and E. Rossi-Hansberg. 2021. "The Economic Geography of Global Warming." National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, NBER Working Papers: 28466. D’Arcy, M., M. Nistotskaya and O. Olsson. 2024. "Cadasters and Economic Growth: A Long-Run Cross-Country Panel." Journal of Political Economy 132 (11): 3785-3826. Dari-Mattiacci, G. and M. Fabbri. 2023. "How Institutions Shape Morality." The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 39 (1): 160-198. Das, N., A. de Janvry and E. Sadoulet. 2019. "Credit and Land Contracting: A Test of the Theory of Sharecropping." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 101 (4): 1098-1114. de Janvry, A., K. Emerick, M. Gonzalez-Navarro and E. Sadoulet. 2015. "Delinking Land Rights from Land Use: Certification and Migration in Mexico." American Economic Review 105 (10): 3125-3149. de Vries, W. T., T. N. Muparari and J. A. Zevenbergen. 2016. "Merger in Land Data Handling, Blending of Cultures." Journal of Spatial Science 61 (1): 191-208. Deininger, K. and A. Goyal. 2012. "Going Digital: Credict Effects of Land Registry Computerization in India." Journal of Development Economics 99 (2): 236-243. Deininger, K., F. Meunier and T. Hilhorst. 2015. "How 'Doing Business' Can Help Improve Quality of Land Administration: Evidence, Challenges, and Country Experience." in T. Hilhorst and F. Meunier (eds.), How Innovations in Land Administration Reform Improve on ‘Doing Business’ World Bank, Washington DC. Deininger, K., S. Jin, Y. Liu and S. K. Singh. 2018. "Can Labor-Market Imperfections Explain Changes in the Inverse Farm Size- Productivity Relationship? Longitudinal Evidence from Rural India." Land Economics 94 (2): 239-258. Deininger, K. and F. Xia. 2018. "Assessing the Long-Term Performance of Large-Scale Land Transfers: Challenges and Opportunities in Malawi’s Estate Sector." World Development 104: 281-296. Deininger, K., et al. 2019. "Property Rights Reform to Support China's Rural–Urban Integration: Village-Level Evidence from the Chengdu Experiment." Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 81 (6): 1214-1251. Deininger, K. and D. Ali. 2024. "Land Price Effects of Informality, Farm Size, and Land Reform: Evidence from More Than One Million Transactions in Ukraine ", World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 11013, Washington DC. Deininger, K., et al. 2024a. "Using Satellite Imagery and a Farmer Registry to Assess Agricultural Support in Conflict Settings the Case of the Producer Support Grant Program in Ukraine ", World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 10912, Washington DC. Deininger, K., et al. 2024b. "Credit Impacts of Documenting Rights to Rural Habitation Land: Exploratory Evidence from India’s Svamitva Scheme." Paper presented at the World Bank Annual Land Conference, May 14-16, 2024, Washington DC. Deininger, K. and A. Goyal. 2024. Land Policies for Resilient and Equitable Growth in Africa. World Bank, Washington DC. Deininger, K. W., D. A. Ali and R. Neyter. 2023. "Impacts of a Mandatory Shift to Decentralized Online Auctions on Revenue from Public Land Leases in Ukraine." Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 213: 432-450. Di Tella, R., S. Galiani and E. Schargrodsky. 2007. "The Formation of Beliefs: Evidence from the Allocation of Land Titles to Squatters." Quarterly Journal of Economics 122 (1): 209-241. Diao, L. and H. Song. 2024. "Does Improved Tenure Security Reduce Fires? Evidence from the Greece Land Registry." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 127: 103002. Dippel, C., D. Frye and B. Leonard. 2024. "Property Rights without Transfer Rights: A Study of Indian Land Allotment." Journal of Political Economy: Microeconomics. Djankov, S. 2016. "The Doing Business Project: How It Started: Correspondence." Journal of Economic Perspectives 30 (1): 247-248. Djankov, S., E. Glaeser, V. Perotti and A. Shleifer. 2022. "Property Rights and Urban Form." Journal of Law and Economics 65 (1Spec): S35-64. Doblas, J., et al. 2022. "Deter-R: An Operational near-Real Time Tropical Forest Disturbance Warning System Based on Sentinel- 1 Time Series Analysis." Remote Sensing 14 (15): 3658. Easterly, W. 2008. "Institutions: Top Down or Bottom Up?" The American Economic Review 98 (2): 95-99. Edwards, E. C., N. P. Hendricks and G. S. Sampson. 2025. "The Capitalization of Property Rights to Groundwater." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 107 (2): 390-410. Eliason, P., et al. 2024. "Ambulance Taxis: The Impact of Regulation and Litigation on Health Care Fraud." Journal of Political Economy. 47 Ensminger, J. and J. Leder-Luis. 2025. "Detecting Corruption: Evidence from a World Bank Project in Kenya." World Development 188: 106858. Esch, T., K. Deininger, R. Jedwab and D. Palacios-Lopez. 2025. "Outward and Upward Construction: A 3d Analysis of the Global Building Stock." World Development 188: 106857. Fairweather, D., M. E. Kahn, R. D. Metcalfe and S. Sandoval-Olascoaga. 2023. "The Impact of Climate Risk Disclosure on Housing Search and Buying Dynamics: Evidence from a Nationwide Field Experiment with Redfin ", Cambridge, MA. Fan, E. and S. j. Yeh. 2019. "Tenure Security and Long‐Term Investment on Tenanted Land: Evidence from Colonial Taiwan." Pacific Economic Review 24 (4): 570-587. Fang, H., Q. Gu and L.-A. Zhou. 2019. "The Gradients of Power: Evidence from the Chinese Housing Market." Journal of Public Economics 176: 32-52. Fergusson, L., H. Larreguy and J. F. Riaño. 2022. "Political Competition and State Capacity: Evidence from a Land Allocation Program in Mexico." The Economic Journal 132 (648): 2815-2834. Fetzer, T. and S. Marden. 2017. "Take What You Can: Property Rights, Contestability and Conflict." Economic Journal 127 (601): 757-783. Field, E. 2007. "Entitled to Work: Urban Property Rights and Labor Supply in Peru." Quarterly Journal of Economics 122 (4): 1561-1602. Foster, A. D. and M. R. Rosenzweig. 2021. "Are There Too Many Farms in the World? Labor Market Transaction Costs, Machine Capacities, and Optimal Farm Size." Journal of Political Economy 130 (3): 636-680. Fraenkel, R. and S. Krumholz. 2025. "Property Taxation as Compensation for Local Externalities: Evidence from Large Plants." Journal of Public Economics 243: 105294. Frémeaux, N. and M. Leturcq. 2020. "Inequalities and the Individualization of Wealth." Journal of Public Economics 184: 104145. Galiani, S. and E. Schargrodsky. 2016. "The Deregularization of Land Titles." Man & the Economy 3 (2): 169-188. Gallé, J., D. Overbeck, N. Riedel and T. Seidel. 2024. "Place-Based Policies, Structural Change and Female Labor: Evidence from India’s Special Economic Zones." Journal of Public Economics 240: 105259. Genesove, D. and J. Hansen. 2023. "Auctions and Negotiations in Housing Price Dynamics." The Review of Economics and Statistics: 1-39. Glaeser, E., W. Huang, Y. Ma and A. Shleifer. 2017. "A Real Estate Boom with Chinese Characteristics." Journal of Economic Perspectives 31 (1): 93-116. Gochberg, W. 2021. "The Social Costs of Titling Land: Evidence from Uganda." World Development 142: 105376. Goldstein, M., et al. 2018. "Formalization without Certification? Experimental Evidence on Property Rights and Investment." Journal of Development Economics 132: 57-74. Gonzalez-Navarro, M. and C. Quintana-Domeque. 2016. "Paving Streets for the Poor: Experimental Analysis of Infrastructure Effects." Review of Economics and Statistics 98 (2): 254-267. González, F., J. Miquel-Florensa, M. Prem and S. Straub. 2025. "The Dark Side of Infrastructure: Roads, Repression and Land in Authoritarian Paraguay." The Economic Journal 135 (666): 653-669. Gourevitch, J. D., et al. 2023. "Unpriced Climate Risk and the Potential Consequences of Overvaluation in Us Housing Markets." Nature Climate Change 13 (3): 250-257. Greif, A. 2006. Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy : Lessons from Medieval Trade. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Gupta, A., S. Van Nieuwerburgh and C. Kontokosta. 2022. "Take the Q Train: Value Capture of Public Infrastructure Projects." Journal of Urban Economics 129: 103422. Guvenen, F., et al. 2023. "Use It or Lose It: Efficiency and Redistributional Effects of Wealth Taxation." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 138 (2): 835-894. Hallward-Driemeier, M. and L. Pritchett. 2015. "How Business Is Done in the Developing World: Deals Versus Rules." Journal of Economic Perspectives 29 (3): 121-140. He, Z., M. Hu, Z. Wang and V. Yao. 2024. "Valuing Long-Term Property Rights with Anticipated Political Regime Shifts " American Economic Review. Heilmayr, R., L. L. Rausch, J. Munger and H. K. Gibbs. 2020. "Brazil’s Amazon Soy Moratorium Reduced Deforestation." Nature Food 1 (12): 801-810. Henderson, J. V., T. Regan and A. J. Venables. 2021. "Building the City: From Slums to a Modern Metropolis." The Review of Economic Studies 88 (3): 1157-1192. Hilber, C. A. L. and W. Vermeulen. 2016. "The Impact of Supply Constraints on House Prices in England." Economic Journal 126 (591): 358-405. Hino, M. and M. Burke. 2021. "The Effect of Infromation About Climate Risk on Property Values." Proeedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118 (17). Holden, S. T., K. Deininger and H. Ghebru. 2009. "Impacts of Low-Cost Land Certification on Investment and Productivity." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91 (2): 359-373. Holden, S. T., K. Deininger and H. Ghebru. 2011. "Tenure Insecurity, Gender, Low-Cost Land Certification and Land Rental Market Participation in Ethiopia." Journal of Development Studies 47 (1): 31-47. Honig, L. 2017. "Selecting the State or Choosing the Chief? The Political Determinants of Smallholder Land Titling." World Development 100: 94-107. 48 Honig, L. 2021. "The Power of the Pen: Informal Property Rights Documents in Zambia." African Affairs 121 (482): 81-107. Horton, E., et al. 2024. "Property Tax Policy and Housing Affordability." National Tax Journal 77 (4): 861-901. Hoy, C. 2025. "How Does Progressivity Impact Tax Morale? Experimental Evidence across Developing Countries." Journal of Development Economics 172: 103398. Huang, W., M. Luo, Y. Ta and B. Wang. 2024. "Land Expropriation, Household Behaviors, and Health Outcomes: Evidence from China." Journal of Development Economics 171: 103358. Huntington, H. and A. Shenoy. 2021. "Does Insecure Land Tenure Deter Investment? Evidence from a Randomized Controlled Trial." Journal of Development Economics 150: 102632. Jha, S., M. Shayo and C. M. Weiss. 2025. "Financial Market Exposure Increases Generalized Trust." Journal of Public Economics 242: 105303. Kahn, M. E., W. Sun, J. Wu and S. Zheng. 2021. "Do Political Connections Help or Hinder Urban Economic Growth? Evidence from 1,400 Industrial Parks in China." Journal of Urban Economics 121: 103289. Kahn, M. E., A. Ouazad and E. Yönder. 2024. "Adaptation Using Financial Markets: Climate Risk Diversification through Securitization." National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series No. 32244. Kapon, S., L. Del Carpio and S. Chassang. 2024. "Using Divide-and-Conquer to Improve Tax Collection." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 139 (4): 2475-2523. Khanna, M., et al. 2022. "Digital Transformation for a Sustainable Agriculture in the United States: Opportunities and Challenges." Agricultural Economics 53 (6): 924-937. Klingler, M., N. Ameli, J. Rickman and J. Schmidt. 2024. "Large-Scale Green Grabbing for Wind and Solar Photovoltaic Development in Brazil." Nature Sustainability 7 (6): 747-757. Knippenberg, E., D. Jolliffe and J. Hoddinott. 2020. "Land Fragmentation and Food Insecurity in Ethiopia." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 102 (5): 1557-1577. Knoll, K., M. Schularick and T. Steger. 2017. "No Price Like Home: Global House Prices, 1870-2012." American Economic Review 107 (2): 331-353. Krause, M. and A. Seidel. 2024. "Unlocking Neighborhood Density." Journal of Urban Economics 144: 103708. Kreindler, G. and Y. Miyauchi. 2021. "Measuring Commuting and Economic Activity inside Cities with Cell Phone Records." Review of Economics and Statistics. Kresch, E. P., et al. 2023. "Sanitation and Property Tax Compliance: Analyzing the Social Contract in Brazil." Journal of Development Economics 160: 102954. Kumar, A. and C.-Y. Liang. 2024. "Labor Market Effects of Credit Constraints: Evidence from a Natural Experiment " American Economic Journal: Economic Policy. LaFave, D., E. Peet and D. Thomas. 2024. "Farm Profits, Prices and Household Behavior." Journal of Development Economics: 103423. Lall, S. V. 2017. "Renewing Expectations About Africa's Cities." Oxford Review of Economic Policy 33 (3): 521-539. LaPoint, C. 2022. "Property Tax Sales, Private Capital, and Gentrification in the U.S.", Yale School of Management, New Haven. Lawry, S., et al. 2017. "The Impact of Land Property Rights Interventions on Investment and Agricultural Productivity in Developing Countries: A Systematic Review." Journal of Development Effectiveness 9 (1): 61-81. Le Roux, J. and M. Roma. 2019. "Accuracy and Determinants of Self-Assessed Euro Area House Prices." European Central Bank, Working Paper Series: 2328, Frankfurt. Lediga, C., N. Riedel and K. Strohmaier. 2025. "What You Do (Not) Get When Expanding the Net - Evidence from Forced Taxpayer Registrations in South Africa." Journal of Development Economics 172: 103388. Lee, J. S. H., et al. 2020. "Does Oil Palm Certification Create Trade-Offs between Environment and Development in Indonesia?" Environmental Research Letters 15 (12): 124064. Lee, M. 2024. "Allocation of Female Talent and Cross-Country Productivity Differences." The Economic Journal 134 (664): 3333-3359. Leeson, P. T. and C. Harris. 2018. "Wealth-Destroying Private Property Rights." World Development 107: 1-9. Lentz, C. 2010. "Land Inalienable? Historical and Current Debates on Land Transfers in Northern Ghana." Africa 80 (1): 56-80. Leonard, B. and D. P. Parker. 2021. "Fragmented Ownership and Natural Resource Use: Evidence from the Bakken." The Economic Journal 131 (635): 1215-1249. Libecap, G. D. and D. Lueck. 2011. "The Demarcation of Land and the Role of Coordinating Property Institutions." Journal of Political Economy 119 (3): 426-467. Lin, Y., T. K. J. McDermott and G. Michaels. 2024. "Cities and the Sea Level." Journal of Urban Economics 143: 103685. Livy, M. R. 2018. "Intra-School District Capitalization of Property Tax Rates." Journal of Housing Economics 41: 227-236. Lobell, D. B., et al. 2020. "Eyes in the Sky, Boots on the Ground: Assessing Satellite‐ and Ground‐Based Approaches to Crop Yield Measurement and Analysis." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 102 (1): 202-219. Lueck, D. and J. A. Ramos Pastrana. 2024. "The Institutional Legacy of the Mexican Rancho System in California." The Journal of Law and Economics 67 (1): 31-66. Lutz, B. 2015. "Quasi-Experimental Evidence on the Connection between Property Taxes and Residential Capital Investment." American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 7 (1): 300-330. Lyu, X. 2024. "Revisiting Property Tax Capitalization." Regional Science and Urban Economics 108. Madhok, R., F. Noack, A. M. Mobarak and O. Deschenes. 2022. "Rural-Urban Migration and the Re-Organization of Agriculture." Yale University Working Paper, New Haven, CT. 49 Maloney, W., et al. 2024. "Latin America and the Caribbean Economic Review, October 2024: Taxing Wealth for Equity and Growth." World Bank Latin America and Caribbean Region, Washington DC. Manara, M. and T. Regan. 2021. "Eliciting Demand for a Publicly Provided Good from Community Leaders: Evidence from an Rct with Title Deeds in Urban Tanzania." University of Oxford, Oxford. Martínez, L. R. 2023. "Natural Resource Rents, Local Taxes, and Government Performance: Evidence from Colombia." The Review of Economics and Statistics: 1-28. Mehmood, S. and B. Ali. 2024. "Judicial Capture." Economic Journal 134 (659): 1287-1301. Melesse, M. B. and E. Bulte. 2015. "Does Land Registration and Certification Boost Farm Productivity? Evidence from Ethiopia." Agricultural Economics 46 (6): 757-768. Michaels, G., et al. 2021. "Planning Ahead for Better Neighborhoods: Long-Run Evidence from Tanzania." Journal of Political Economy 129 (7): 2112-2156. Moffette, F., M. Skidmore and H. K. Gibbs. 2021. "Environmental Policies That Shape Productivity: Evidence from Cattle Ranching in the Amazon." Journal of Environmental Economics & Management 109: 102490. Muchomba, F. M. 2017. "Women’s Land Tenure Security and Household Human Capital: Evidence from Ethiopia’s Land Certification." World Development 98: 310-324. Muralidharan, K., P. Niehaus and S. Sukhtankar. 2016. "Building State Capacity: Evidence from Biometric Smartcards in India." American Economic Review 106 (10): 2895-2929. Muralidharan, K., P. Niehaus, S. Sukhtankar and J. Weaver. 2021. "Improving Last-Mile Service Delivery Using Phone-Based Monitoring." American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 13 (2): 52-82. Niu, D., W. Sun and S. Zheng. 2021. "The Role of Informal Housing in Lowering China’s Urbanization Costs." Regional Science and Urban Economics (91): 103638. Noack, F., M.-C. Riekhof and S. Di Falco. 2019. "Droughts, Biodiversity, and Rural Incomes in the Tropics." Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 6 (4): 823-852. Nolte, C., et al. 2024. "Data Practices for Studying the Impacts of Environmental Amenities and Hazards with Nationwide Property Data." Land Economics 100 (1): 200-221. Peralta-Alva, A., X. S. Tam, X. Tang and M. M. Tavares. 2023. "Tax Revenues in Low-Income Countries." The Economic Journal 133 (653): 2001-2024. Pignède, E. 2025. "Who Carries the Burden of Climate Change? Heterogeneous Impact of Droughts in Sub-Saharan Africa." American Journal of Agricultural Economics n/a (n/a). Pinckney, T. C. and P. K. Kimuyu. 1994. "Land Tenure Reform in East Africa: Good, Bad or Unimportant?" Journal of African Economies 3 (1): 1-28. Prichard, W., S. Jibao and N. Orgeira Pillai. 2025. "Sub-National Property Tax Reform and Tax Bargaining: Lessons from a Quasi-Randomized Reform Program in Sierra Leone." World Development 185: 106796. Ramos-Maqueda, M. and D. L. Chen. 2025. "The Data Revolution in Justice." World Development 186: 106834. Rao, M. 2024. "Front-Line Courts as State Capacity: Evidence from India." University of DElaware, Newark, DE. Raymond, L. 2025. "The Market Effect of Algorithms." MIT, Cambridge, MA. Ricker-Gilbert, J., J. Chamberlin and J. Kanyamuka. 2022. "Soil Investments on Rented Versus Owned Plots: Evidence from a Matched Tenant-Landlord Sample in Malawi." Land Economics 98 (1): 165-186. Sagashya, D. G. G. and E. Tembo. 2022. "Zambia: Private Sector Investment in Security of Land Tenure. From Piloting Using Technology to National Rollout." African Journal on Land Policy and Geospatial Sciences; Vol 5, No 1: Special Issue - January 2022DO - 10.48346/IMIST.PRSM/ajlp-gs.v5i1.30440. Schaub, S., T. Roth and P. Bonev. 2025. "The Effect of Result-Based Agri-Environmental Payments on Biodiversity: Evidence from Switzerland." American Journal of Agricultural Economics n/a (n/a). Schmalz, M. C., D. A. Sraer and D. Thesmar. 2017. "Housing Collateral and Entrepreneurship." Journal of Finance 72 (1): 99- 132. Sitko, N. J. and T. S. Jayne. 2014. "Structural Transformation or Elite Land Capture? The Growth of “Emergent” Farmers in Zambia." Food Policy 48 (0): 194-202. Smith, C. 2024. "Land Concentration and Long-Run Development in the Frontier United States." Univerity of Maryland, College Park, MD. Sodini, P., S. Van Nieuwerburgh, R. Vestman and U. von Lilienfeld-Toal. 2023. "Identifying the Benefits from Homeownership: A Swedish Experiment." American Economic Review 113 (12): 3173-3212. Sood, A. 2022. "Land Market Frictions in Developing Countries: Evidence from Manufacturing Firms in India ", Working Paper, University of Toronto, Toronto. Squires, M. 2024. "Kinship Taxation as an Impediment to Growth: Experimental Evidence from Kenyan Microenterprises." The Economic Journal 134 (662): 2558-2579. Tian, W., Z. Wang and Q. Zhang. 2024. "Land Allocation and Industrial Agglomeration: Evidence from the 2007 Reform in China." Journal of Development Economics 171: 103351. Udry, C. 1996. "Gender, Agricultural Production, and the Theory of the Household." Journal of Political Economy 104 (5): 1010- 1046. Valsecchi, M. 2014. "Land Property Rights and International Migration: Evidence from Mexico." Journal of Development Economics 110: 276-290. 50 Verboven, F. and B. Yontcheva. 2024. "Private Monopoly and Restricted Entry—Evidence from the Notary Profession." Journal of Political Economy 132 (11): 3658-3707. Wang, D., P. Zhang, S. Chen and N. Zhang. 2024a. "Adaptation to Temperature Extremes in Chinese Agriculture, 1981 to 2010." Journal of Development Economics 166: 103196. Wang, H., Z. Cheng and R. Smyth. 2024b. "Parental Early-Life Exposure to Land Reform and Household Investment in Children’s Education." World Development 173: 106391. Wang, S.-Y. 2014. "Property Rights and Intra-Household Bargaining." Journal of Development Economics 107: 192-201. Weigel, J. L. 2020. "The Participation Dividend of Taxation: How Citizens in Congo Engage More with the State When It Tries to Tax Them*." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 135 (4): 1849-1903. Winikoff, J. B. and D. P. Parker. 2024. "Farm Size, Spatial Externalities, and Wind Energy Development." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 106 (4): 1518-1543. World_Bank. 2023. "Building Regulations in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Status Review of the Building Regulatory Environment." World Bank, Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery, Washington DC. Wren-Lewis, L., L. Becerra-Valbuena and K. Houngbedji. 2020. "Formalizing Land Rights Can Reduce Forest Loss: Experimental Evidence from Benin." Science Advances 6 (26): eabb6914. Yu, J. and S. Lim. 2024. "Understanding Inequality in U.S. Farm Subsidies Using Large-Scale Administrative Data." American Journal of Agricultural Economics n/a (n/a). Zevelev, A. A. 2021. "Does Collateral Value Affect Asset Prices? Evidence from a Natural Experiment in Texas." The Review of Financial Studies 34 (9): 4373-4411. Zhao, X. 2020. "Land and Labor Allocation under Communal Tenure: Theory and Evidence from China." Journal of Development Economics 147: 102526. 51