Introduction
The neoliberal economic framework, which prioritises market efficiency and individual property rights, has significantly shaped global development policies over the past few decades. As David W. Kennedy (2011) highlights, the fixation on “clear and strong” property rights as a cornerstone of economic growth often disregards the complexities of local land tenure systems. In Malawi, where customary land tenure predominates, this orthodoxy poses significant challenges. Customary systems are inherently plural, relational, and socially embedded, reflecting community ties, historical practices, and collective identities rather than individual ownership. This essay examines how the neoliberal push for formalised property rights fails to accommodate these characteristics and, indeed, contributes to their erosion. It explores the nature of customary land tenure in Malawi, analyses the impact of neoliberal reforms on these systems, and considers the broader social and economic implications of such policies. By drawing on academic literature and policy analyses, this essay argues that the imposition of formal property rights undermines the cultural and social fabric of Malawian communities, often to the detriment of equitable development.
The Nature of Customary Land Tenure in Malawi
Customary land tenure in Malawi governs approximately 60-70% of the country’s land, primarily in rural areas where the majority of the population resides (Holden and Otsuka, 2014). Unlike Western notions of individual ownership, customary tenure is rooted in communal and familial structures, where land is held collectively by clans or villages under the custodianship of traditional leaders such as chiefs. Rights to land are not absolute but relational, often tied to social obligations, lineage, and community consensus. For instance, land access might depend on one’s role within the community or contributions to communal welfare, rather than a legal title (Chirwa, 2008). This pluralistic system allows for flexible arrangements, accommodating diverse needs such as farming, grazing, and cultural practices within the same spatial context.
Furthermore, customary spaces in Malawi are not merely economic assets but are imbued with social and spiritual significance. Sacred sites, burial grounds, and communal gathering spaces are integral to community identity, yet they often fall outside the purview of formal land categorisation. The inherent fluidity and embeddedness of these systems contrast sharply with the neoliberal emphasis on fixed, individualised property rights, which prioritises market transactions over social cohesion. Consequently, the push for formalisation often overlooks these nuanced relationships, treating land solely as a commodity rather than a multifaceted resource.
Neoliberal Property Rights and Their Disconnect from Customary Systems
The neoliberal orthodoxy, as critiqued by Kennedy (2011), assumes that formal property rights—secured through titling and registration—will enhance economic efficiency by enabling land to be bought, sold, or used as collateral. This perspective, rooted in the work of economists like Hernando de Soto, posits that formalisation unlocks the “dead capital” trapped in informal systems, thereby fostering investment and growth (De Soto, 2000). In Malawi, this approach has manifested in policies such as the 2016 Customary Land Act, which seeks to register customary land and convert it into private holdings under certain conditions (Government of Malawi, 2016). While the intention is to provide security of tenure, the policy framework often fails to account for the plural nature of customary rights.
For instance, formalisation processes typically prioritise individual ownership, which can marginalise communal rights holders, particularly women and vulnerable groups who often access land through relational ties rather than direct ownership. Chirwa (2008) notes that in matrilineal communities in Malawi, women traditionally inherit land through their lineage, yet titling initiatives often register land under male household heads, thereby eroding women’s customary entitlements. Additionally, the focus on “clarity” disregards overlapping claims inherent in customary systems, where multiple stakeholders might hold simultaneous rights over the same piece of land for different purposes. Reducing these complex arrangements to a single title holder simplifies tenure but often at the cost of social harmony and equitable access.
Erosion of Socially Embedded Customary Spaces
The imposition of neoliberal property rights not only fails to accommodate but actively erodes the socially embedded nature of customary spaces in Malawi. Formalisation often involves demarcating and mapping land, processes that can exclude culturally significant spaces not deemed “productive” under market logic. For example, sacred groves or communal lands used for rituals may be redesignated or privatised, stripping them of their cultural value (Peters, 2013). This commodification of land undermines the social fabric of communities, as it prioritises economic utility over collective identity and historical continuity.
Moreover, the drive for formal property rights can exacerbate inequalities within communities. As Holden and Otsuka (2014) argue, powerful individuals or elites often manipulate registration processes to consolidate control over land, dispossessing poorer or less connected community members. In Malawi, there have been documented cases where traditional leaders, under pressure to comply with formalisation, allocate land to external investors or local elites, disrupting communal access and fuelling conflict (Peters, 2013). Such outcomes reveal a critical flaw in the neoliberal model: its inability to address power imbalances and social dynamics inherent in customary systems. Instead of promoting growth, formalisation can deepen exclusion and erode the relational trust that underpins customary tenure.
Broader Implications for Development in Malawi
The failure of neoliberal property rights to account for customary systems has significant implications for development in Malawi. Economically, the anticipated benefits of formalisation—such as increased investment—often fail to materialise due to resistance from communities who view titling as a threat to their way of life. Socially, the erosion of customary tenure systems can lead to displacement, conflict, and the breakdown of communal support structures, which are vital in a country where formal safety nets are limited (Chirwa, 2008). Furthermore, the loss of customary spaces diminishes cultural heritage, arguably weakening the social cohesion necessary for sustainable development.
Critically, the neoliberal approach assumes a universal applicability that disregards contextual realities. In Malawi, where poverty levels are high and institutional capacity for implementing land reforms is limited, formalisation can create more problems than it solves. As Kennedy (2011) warns, the fixation on property rights as a panacea for economic growth can obscure alternative pathways to development that prioritise equity and cultural preservation over market efficiency. Therefore, policies must be reimagined to integrate customary systems rather than replace them, recognising the value of their plural and relational nature.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the neoliberal orthodoxy of “clear and strong” property rights, as critiqued by Kennedy (2011), fundamentally fails to account for the plural, relational, and socially embedded nature of customary land tenure and spaces in Malawi. By prioritising individual ownership and market efficiency, formalisation efforts such as those encapsulated in the 2016 Customary Land Act often erode communal rights, marginalise vulnerable groups, and diminish the cultural significance of land. The resulting social and economic consequences—ranging from inequality to community conflict—highlight the limitations of a one-size-fits-all approach to land reform. For development to be equitable and sustainable in Malawi, policymakers must move beyond the neoliberal fixation on formal property rights and instead design frameworks that respect and incorporate the complexities of customary systems. Only through such an approach can the balance between economic progress and social cohesion be achieved, ensuring that land remains not just a commodity, but a cornerstone of community identity and resilience.
References
- Chirwa, E. W. (2008) Land Tenure, Farm Investments and Food Production in Malawi. Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape.
- De Soto, H. (2000) The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. Basic Books.
- Government of Malawi (2016) Customary Land Act, No. 19 of 2016. Government Printer, Lilongwe.
- Holden, S. T. and Otsuka, K. (2014) The Roles of Land Tenure Reforms and Land Markets in the Context of Population Growth and Land Use Intensification in Africa. Food Policy, 48, pp. 88-97.
- Kennedy, D. W. (2011) Some Caution about Property Rights as a Recipe for Economic Development. Accounting, Economics, and Law, 1(1), pp. 1-62.
- Peters, P. E. (2013) Conflicts over Land and Threats to Customary Tenure in Africa. African Affairs, 112(449), pp. 543-562.
