Land tenure conflicts in Ghana and Zimbabwe: An institutional perspective
研究了加纳和津巴布韦土地权属制度的演变及相关冲突，发现无论是分权的新习惯法模式还是集权的国家主义模式，都未能有效保障边缘群体权利，冲突解决效果取决于制度保障的合法性与能力。
Land frontiers in Africa are closing rapidly, with significant implications for family, clan, and chieftaincy conflicts. This study examines the evolution of land tenure systems and related conflicts in Ghana and Zimbabwe using a neocustomary and statist archetypal exploratory framework, drawing on national survey data, the Social Conflict Analysis Database (SCAD), and qualitative interviews in conflict hotspot regions of both countries. While both nations inherited British colonial land management systems with some similarities, their postcolonial trajectories diverged: Zimbabwe adopted a statist approach, while Ghana pursued a decentralised neocustomary model, shaping their flagship reforms—the Fast-Track Land Redistribution (FTRP) and the Land Administration Project (LAP) respectively. The results indicate that neither regime type inherently possesses effective conflict management mechanisms, as both fail to safeguard the rights of the marginalised. While conflicts in Ghana tend to be localised and protracted, often with high mortality, Zimbabwe’s statist mechanisms can suppress disputes quickly, though often without guarantees of fairness. For policy and research, the study underscores that neither statist nor neocustomary regimes deliver egalitarian outcomes in conflict resolution by design; both require robust accountability mechanisms and safeguards to protect vulnerable groups. Decentralisation may allow deliberative and inclusive outcomes, but evidence of the numerous conflicts, lengthy dispute resolution processes, and high conflict mortality shows this is not guaranteed. Similarly, centralised systems may be expeditious but risk politicisation, top-down bureaucratic inefficiencies, and inequitable outcomes. Ultimately, the effectiveness of conflict resolution depends less on regime type and more on the legitimacy and capacity of embedded institutional safeguards.