Global Frameworks,Local Realities: The Myth of Land Formalisation in Women's Access to Bank Finance

Abstract

This article interrogates international development frameworks that link land formalisation to women's access to bank finance, arguing that such models misrecognise the socio-legal complexity of property relations in plural legal systems. Using Ghana as a case study, the analysis advances three central claims: first, that gendered divisions of unpaid labour constrain women's capacity to accumulate the capital needed for land acquisition, even where legal entitlements exist; second, that land is not simply an economic asset, but a culturally embedded resource shaped by kinship, lineage, and spiritual obligation; and third, that these embedded meanings generate widespread reluctance to use property as collateral, despite formal title. Drawing on mixed-methods data, the article demonstrates that while formalised property rights are necessary to meet bank lending requirements, they are insufficient to overcome the structural and cultural constraints that shape women's financial trajectories. Development strategies must engage with the semi-autonomous social fields through which gender, land, and finance are negotiated.

Introduction

Over the past several decades, development agendas have increasingly emphasised women's economic empowerment, with poverty alleviation often framed as contingent on women's full participation in the financial sphere. A cornerstone of these efforts is expanding women's access to credit, a crucial element of the broader goal of inclusive finance. Dominant development discourses claim that by supplying women with credit, states can spur capital accumulation, foster national- and firm-level growth, and reduce income inequality through broader financial inclusion (Barr et al., 2007; Beck et al., 2007a; Demirguc-Kunt et al., 2013; Hudon, 2009; Morsy, 2020; Ozili, 2021; Sen, 2014; World Bank Group, 2019).

Recent policy shifts reflect a turn away from microfinance as a universal remedy for women's economic constraints, instead focusing on established, growth-oriented enterprises (Ubfal, 2023). The argument is that while microloans enable basic market entry, they are insufficient for scaling businesses into competitive entities (Alliance for Financial Inclusion (AFI), 2010: 9; Megan and Wilfred, 2011: 5655; Natile, 2020; World Bank Group, 2019). As a result, mainstream development narratives promote the formal banking sector as the most viable channel for sustained capital inflows. Researchers emphasise that access to bank financing offers an avenue for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to expand and addresses organisational and risk-related obstacles impeding business performance (Manji, 2010; Ubfal, 2023).

The global emphasis on bank financing as a tool for economic development has gained significant traction, particularly through the World Bank Group's ‘smart economics’ strategy. This approach advocates for targeted interventions to secure women's property rights and expand their access to formal financial instruments (UN Statistics Division, 2006: 5). Programmes such as women-specific credit lines and national property law reforms are now seen as central to advancing the broader goal of gender-inclusive economic development (World Bank Group, 2010: 10, 2). However, as the Ghanaian context demonstrates in this paper, these global prescriptions – however well-conceived – must meaningfully engage with the complex socio-cultural dynamics that shape women's access to and control over economic resources.

Despite the promise of the ‘smart economics’ agenda (IFC and McKinsey & Company, 2010) introduced in 2010 to advance women's economic empowerment through improved access to finance, the global financing gap for micro-, small-, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) has continued to widen. The International Finance Corporation (IFC) and McKinsey & Company initially estimated the gap at approximately USD 2 trillion (GBP 1.58 trillion). By 2019, the IFC and the SME Finance Forum reported that the gap in developing countries alone had increased from USD 4.4 trillion (GBP 3.48 trillion) in 2015 to USD 5.7 trillion (GBP 4.5 trillion) – a 27% rise during a period when global GDP ¹ grew at an average annual rate of just 3.07% (World Bank, 2020). Women-owned businesses account for 34% of this unmet demand, amounting to USD 1.9 trillion (GBP 1.5 trillion), or over 7% of GDP in developing markets (SME Finance Forum, 2023).

In sub-Saharan Africa, the gap stands at USD 331bn (GBP 261bn), with 51% of the region's 44 million formal MSMEs unable to access the capital required for growth (SME Finance Forum, 2023). These figures highlight a critical disconnect: while legal and institutional frameworks for financial inclusion have expanded, structural and socio-cultural barriers continue to constrain women's access to finance. Legal formalisation, though necessary, remains insufficient without deeper engagement with the realities that shape financial exclusion.

This article deepens the conversation on women's access to formal finance by offering a contextually grounded, socio-legal examination of the role of land-related property rights in shaping the financing trajectories of women-owned and led small- and medium-scale enterprises (WSMEs) in Ghana. Through the integration of quantitative survey data and qualitative insights from interviews and focus groups, the study unpacks how legal frameworks and social norms interact in shaping women's access to finance. It reframes property rights not simply as legal entitlements, but as social practices embedded within broader economic and cultural realities. It foregrounds how cultural contexts mediate the utility of property as collateral, reframing access to finance as a socially embedded process rather than a purely legal or economic challenge.

By interrogating the efficacy of land formalisation policies within Ghana's pluralistic legal environment, the article brings empirical precision to prevailing global assumptions. It shows that while such policies are central to international development strategies, their success often hinges on navigating socio-cultural and customary legal barriers that are not easily addressed through statutory reform alone. In so doing, the article contributes a critical, empirically informed lens to ongoing debates in international economic law. It highlights the importance of embedding socio-legal insights into the design and evaluation of global financial inclusion policies – particularly those targeting women – thereby offering an original contribution with relevance for both academic and policy communities.

The article begins by exploring international financial perspectives on the role of land ownership in enabling SMEs to access bank financing. It then critiques the emphasis on land formalisation within legally pluralistic societies, where formal property rights often conflict with customary norms that govern women's access to land. The methodology section outlines the mixed-methods approach used to examine how property rights shape financing opportunities for women entrepreneurs. The analysis connects global development frameworks with the Ghanaian context, showing how legal and cultural systems interact to influence women's control over land. The findings reveal that while property rights matter for accessing credit, socio-cultural norms continue to shape how – and whether – women use land as collateral.

Role of Landed Property in Bank Financing

The interplay between property rights and financial access has become a central concern in international development literature, especially in relation to women's economic empowerment. Formalised property rights are widely understood as a mechanism for facilitating access to credit, primarily by allowing land and other immovable assets to be used as collateral. This assumption underpins a host of global initiatives that link poverty reduction and inclusive economic growth to expanded legal access to property (DeRouen and Goldfinch, 2012; Fukuyama, 2014; Weingast, 1995).

Numerous studies establish a strong correlation between property ownership and the availability of bank financing. Research consistently shows that banks prioritise tangible assets – particularly land and housing – when evaluating collateral for loans and overdrafts (Bencheikh and Taktak, 2017; Domeher, 2012, 2013; Fleisig, 2006). For instance, Woodruff (2001: 1216) observes that traders lacking immovable collateral face restricted access to credit markets, often foregoing potentially profitable opportunities. Similarly, Abor and Biekpe (2007: 99–100) find that SMEs with a greater proportion of tangible assets experience significantly improved loan accessibility.

These findings converge on the view that formal land titles are crucial to unlocking bank finance (Arner et al., 2006; Deininger, 2003). In the absence of a clear legal title, landed property cannot be leveraged as collateral. The prevailing consensus, then, is that stable, legally recognised property rights form the bedrock of a credit system that relies on collateral to allocate risk (Besley, 1994; Llanto, 2007).

In light of this, prevailing development narratives identify women's limited ownership of property – which can serve as collateral for credit – as a primary barrier preventing women entrepreneurs from accessing bank financing (Megan and Wilfred, 2011: 5646; Owoicho et al., 2023; Umar et al., 2023). These narratives argue that WSMEs struggle to provide sufficient collateral due to having a smaller asset base compared to their male counterparts (Bamfo and Asiedu-Appiah, 2012; Global Partnership For Financial Inclusion (GPFI) and International Finance Corporation (IFC), 2011; World Bank Group, 2013, 2019: 90). This perceived constraint is seen as directly linked to women's landed property rights, where women often lack access to and control over land that could be used to secure bank credit. For instance, the World Economic Forum report examining why 80% of women-owned firms’ finance needs remain underserved or unmet boldly stated that without collateral and access to land, ‘the bank is the end of the road for many women entrepreneurs’ (African Development Bank, 2018; Kende-Robb, 2019). Additionally, these narratives highlight that community customs and practices continue to pose significant barriers for female entrepreneurs, even in contexts where statutory laws and regulations aim to promote gender equality (Beck and Cull, 2014; Hallward-Driemeier and Gajigo, 2015; World Bank Group, 2012, 2015).

According to International Finance Institutions (IFIs), customary law – an uncodified traditional legal system – further exacerbates these challenges by preventing women from obtaining equal access to landed property, even in regions where statutory provisions nominally ensure such equality. IFIs recognise that customary practices often take precedence over official legal frameworks, restricting women's rights to own, inherit, or control land. This gap between statutory laws and customary traditions is argued to create a significant obstacle for women attempting to use land as collateral for bank financing (Beck and Cull, 2014; Hallward-Driemeier and Gajigo, 2015; World Bank Group, 2012, 2015).

To address this issue, IFIs development policies promote the availability of landed property on a ‘willing-to-sell-willing-to-buy’ basis and land title registration, to circumvent harmful customary practices and give women unfettered access to land (Boone, 2019; Britwum et al., 2014; Manji, 2003; Minkah-Premo, 2018; Njoh et al., 2017; Ossome, 2014). These initiatives typically include legal reforms, community engagement, and capacity-building programmes designed to empower women and ensure that land titles are both accessible and enforceable (Britwum et al., 2014).

According to these narratives, land formalisation gives a person access, control, and ownership of land. The purchaser controls the land in the sense of their ability to use the land and sell or gift their interest. This is different from mere access to land, which allows a person to use the land without a formal transfer of rights or the ability to control who else can use it. Thus, land formalisation reduces women's customary disadvantages in accessing and owning land (Britwum et al., 2014). Further, when business owners obtain land titles, they can use their land as collateral to secure loans for their business's expansion (Brabazon, 2022; Manji, 2010; Musembi, 2007). Championed by the World Bank, these policies on land privatisation and land titling have been a critical feature of structural adjustment programs (SAPs), poverty reduction strategy papers (PRSPs), and gender mainstreaming policies over the past few decades (Borras and Ross, 2007; Britwum et al., 2014). Target 5a of the sustainable development goals follows this notion by targeting access to ownership and control over land and other forms of property to give women equal rights to economic resources. This target is measured by ‘the proportion of countries where the legal framework (including customary law) guarantees women's equal rights to land ownership and/or control’ (Sustainable Development Goals, 2015: 5).

This international development approach is rooted in market-led development approaches that promote individual land ownership (Goldfinch, 2015: 88; Manji, 2014). Influenced by Hernando de Soto's seminal work, IFIs link access to bank financing with the formalisation of land rights. De Soto advocates for the formalisation of land ownership as a catalyst for economic development among impoverished populations (De Soto, 2000; Griffiths, 2019: 20; Manji, 2010). His premise is that formal land rights enable individuals living in poverty to generate economic productivity by converting their land into tangible capital, which can then be leveraged to obtain credit (Bruce et al., 2007: 5, 8). Consequently, land is viewed as ‘dead collateral’ that, once formalised, can be mobilised to support women's economic growth. This method seeks to transform land from a dormant asset into an active financial resource, aiming to unlock credit opportunities for women entrepreneurs. By doing so, it supports the expansion of their businesses and contributes to broader economic progress (Manji, 2010).

This emphasis on removing structural barriers is complemented by various international and regional efforts, which aim to effectively align legal frameworks with these principles to support women's economic empowerment.

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) 1979 – often referred to as the International Bill of Rights for Women – is seen as a foundational element in the global framework for gender equality in economic spheres. CEDAW mandates that women must have equal rights to bank loans, mortgages, and other forms of financial credit. ² As Freeman highlights, the term ‘access’ was intentionally replaced with ‘equal right’ during the drafting process to emphasise that Article 13(b) encompasses both the availability and the conditions surrounding the provision of financial services by public and private institutions. By emphasising bank loans without the need for collateral, CEDAW directly addresses the structural barriers that can exclude women – especially those with lower incomes or living in poverty – from traditional lending systems (Freeman et al., 2021: 403; Rehof, 1993).

More recently, the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (2003) (commonly known as the Maputo Protocol) builds on this narrative, framing women's access to credit and landed resources as essential instruments for advancing women's economic development. Article 19 of the Maputo Protocol categorises and guarantees women's access to land and access to credit as rights to sustainable development. It mandates State parties to implement measures to encourage women's control over productive resources, such as land, and to uphold their property rights. It also pushes State parties to increase women's access to credit in rural and urban areas to improve women's quality of life and lower their poverty rate. The link between land rights and access to credit in the Maputo Protocol recognises the interconnectedness of these rights for African women's economic development. The Protocol associates women's land ownership and access to credit with wealth and economic security (Boshoff, 2020; Ibe, 2021; Ngang, 2021).

Yet, as the following section explores, this link between land rights and access to finance is not straightforward – especially in contexts where multiple legal systems shape property ownership and control.

Land Formalisation, Legal Pluralism, and the WSME Financing Gap

Land formalisation – especially through title registration and market-based property transfers – has become a cornerstone of development policy aimed at enhancing economic productivity in the Global South. Within this framework, land is treated as a dormant asset awaiting activation through legal recognition. Formalisation is promoted as a pathway for women entrepreneurs to secure landed capital, which can then be used as collateral to access credit – narrowing the persistent financing gap faced by WSMEs (Bruce et al., 2007: 5, 8; Musembi, 2007).

This policy logic is underpinned by the assumption that secure, legally recognised property rights are a pre-condition for market participation and bank financing. In this view, property becomes economically meaningful only when its ownership is assured through state-sanctioned documentation. The rationale aligns closely with commercial banking policies that treat land as the most reliable form of collateral (Amoako-Adu et al., 2018).

However, this dominant approach has been widely critiqued for ignoring the social embeddedness of land and the plural legal environments in which property rights are negotiated. Legal pluralism – defined as the co-existence of multiple legal systems within a single setting – offers a more nuanced lens (Beck, 2013; Calice et al., 2012; De Soto, 2000; Goldfinch, 2015; Griffiths, 2019; Manji, 2010). In contexts like Ghana, where statutory law, customary norms, and religious practices simultaneously shape ownership, women's access to land and credit cannot be effectively addressed solely through land formalisation (Dowuona-Hammond, 2003; Minkah-Premo and Dowuona-Hammond, 2005; Whitehead and Tsikata, 2003).

As Moore (1973) famously argued, the enforceable law of the state is only one of many regulatory forces operating within what she called ‘semi-autonomous social fields’. These fields generate their own rules, norms, and enforcement practices, which often carry equal or greater weight than statutory law in everyday decision-making. Moore (1973: 743) posits that:

[T]he law (in the sense of state-enforceable law) is only one of a number of factors that affect the decisions people make, the actions they take and the relationships they have. Consequently, important aspects of the connection between law and social change emerge only if law is inspected in the context of ordinary social life… Individuals within every State ‘belong’ to and are regulated by ‘different’ smaller organised social fields.

Landed property relationships are shaped by semi-autonomous social fields that exert distinct yet interconnected influences on how individuals interact with land. Property rights function as both legal and social constructs, varying across formal, customary, and religious systems (Knight, 2010). In pluralistic societies, land transcends its economic value, becoming integral to social identity, cultural values, and collective notions of justice. These deep-rooted associations, influenced by the social norms of diverse ethnic groups, create a complex ‘web of relations’ that significantly shapes perceptions and the importance of land. This intricate interplay between legal frameworks and cultural practices determines how land is perceived, valued, and utilised within communities (Cotula, 2014: 185; Munzer, 1990).

Legal frameworks establish formal property rights and regulatory mechanisms that govern land transactions and collateral use, positioning the state's laws at the forefront of land governance. However, these legal structures operate within broader cultural and economic contexts that maintain their own autonomous norms and values. Cultural fields imbue land with communal and spiritual significance, dictating perceptions and uses that extend beyond mere economic utility. Economic fields, including the banking and finance sectors, impose market-driven imperatives that prioritise land as a tradable asset for capital accumulation and business expansion. The interaction between these semi-autonomous fields often creates tensions, particularly when formal legal policies fail to harmonise with entrenched cultural practices and economic realities (Hellum et al., 2007; Manji and Stewart, 2022: 102; Merry, 2003, 2006; Moore, 1973: 719). This dissonance can limit the effectiveness of land formalisation initiatives, as they do not fully account for the socio-cultural dimensions that influence women's access to and control over property (Anne Griffiths, 2002: 304; Nyamu, 2000: 382).

The narratives surrounding women's access to landed property and their utilisation of it as collateral for financing present a dichotomous framing that does not fully capture the complex web of relations influencing women's interactions with landed property. On the one hand, the focus on land formalisation as a means to navigate negative cultural practices often frames women primarily as kinswomen and caregivers. This view is predicated on the idea that women's access to land is predominantly mediated through kinship ties, focusing on overcoming social barriers but failing to fully recognise women as autonomous political citizens with inherent rights or as economic actors capable of independently engaging in land transactions on a willing-buyer, willing-seller basis (Agbosu, 1990; Boone, 2019; Manji, 2003).

Conversely, the narrative that promotes the collateralisation of landed property through land titling and registration positions women as economic agents, suggesting that such formalisation processes can unlock the economic potential of land and align with banking policies that favour titled property as collateral. This perspective champions market-oriented frameworks and financial inclusion, emphasising economic agency and the potential for women to leverage land as an economic asset. However, it does not adequately address the underlying social norms that can restrict women's ability to exercise complete control over their property, even when it is legally recognised (Anne Griffiths, 2002: 304; Nyamu, 2000: 382).

The juxtaposition of these two narratives oversimplifies the complex realities of women's interactions with landed property, making it difficult to develop strategies that genuinely support financial inclusion. By framing women either as dependent kinwomen or as independent economic agents, this binary approach fails to account for the multi-faceted roles women navigate simultaneously, shaped by both cultural obligations and economic imperatives. Such oversimplification risks producing policies that are misaligned with the practical realities women face, particularly in contexts where societal norms and gendered inequalities continue to influence property rights. Rather than addressing the structural and cultural factors that limit women's autonomy over land, this fragmented framing reinforces existing challenges, offering partial solutions that fail to address the root causes of inequity.

Research further substantiates the limitations of this fragmented approach, showing that land formalisation efforts aimed at bypassing cultural constraints primarily benefit women in rural and peri-urban areas or those from lower-income backgrounds, whose access to land is primarily mediated through kinship ties. This focus, while addressing certain vulnerabilities, overlooks the diverse experiences of women, particularly those in urban contexts or engaged in growth-oriented enterprises, who often acquire property through commercial transactions (Agbosu, 1990; Boone, 2019; Manji, 2003).

Moreover, the presumption that owning a registered land title will automatically enable women to leverage it for bank financing oversimplifies the issue. Evidence shows that the mere possession of a titled property does not guarantee its use as collateral for loans. Many women, including those who hold formal titles, are reluctant to use their land in this way, often due to deeply rooted socio-cultural norms that prioritise land as a familial or communal asset over its economic utility. This hesitation highlights the gap between formal legal ownership and the practical realities of accessing financial resources. Thus, while land titling and registration may appear to offer a pathway to closing the gender finance gap, the reality is far more nuanced. Effective land formalisation requires more than legislative reforms; it must engage with and adapt to the socio-cultural norms that continue to influence land rights and ownership (Dowuona-Hammond, 2003; Goldfinch, 2015; Musembi, 2007; Roth et al., 1994).

The remainder of this paper examines the international economic law discourse on land formalisation as a strategy to bridge the bank financing gap, focusing on Ghana's local context and using Ghanaian WSME owners’ experiences as a case study. It critically evaluates how international frameworks aimed at enhancing financial inclusion translate into the realities faced by these entrepreneurs. The analysis highlights the interaction between global economic policies and Ghana's socio-legal landscape, revealing the practical implications and challenges of implementing these norms within a specific cultural and economic setting.

Having explored these tensions, the next section presents the study's empirical design – grounding abstract debates in lived experience.

Current Study

This innovative study is the first to utilise methodological triangulation across various stakeholders and geographic regions, exploring the utilisation of landed property for bank financing by WSMEs in Ghana's major urban centres – Accra, Tema, Kumasi, and Takoradi. This research engages in a socio-legal enquiry that prioritises the lived experiences of Ghanaian urban WSMEs, providing crucial insights into the intersection of landed property rights, bank lending policies, and gendered power dynamics. This approach enhances our understanding of women SME owners’ ability and willingness to collateralise their landed property in different commercial and industrial contexts (Hunter, 2019: 260).

In collaboration with key organisations such as the Ghana Union of Traders’ Association (GUTA) and various women entrepreneurs’ groups, the study engaged a broad spectrum of participants, enriching the dataset and deepening the understanding of the unique challenges and opportunities present in these hubs.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data for this article were collected using a mixed-methods approach, integrating both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis methods (Clark et al., 2021: 558; Creswell, 2009; de Kock, 2015). For the quantitative component, self-completion surveys were administered to 381 women entrepreneurs using purposive sampling methods. Based on recommendations by Gill et al., a sample size of 380 is considered adequate for a population of up to 1 million, with a 5% margin of error and a 95% confidence level. Given that Ghanaian policy reports estimate that 405 000 of the 2.1 million registered businesses are SMEs, and 46% of these are owned by women (approximately 186 300 WSMEs), the chosen sample size is deemed appropriate and robust for statistical analysis (Gill and Johnson, 2002; Taherdoost, 2017: 238).

For the qualitative component, the study conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with 97 participants, including SME owners, bankers, legal practitioners, and representatives from governmental and non-governmental organisations. This method provided a comprehensive understanding of the nuanced interactions between property rights and financing, allowing for an in-depth exploration of how WSMEs navigate the challenges and opportunities within Ghana's economic landscape.

Data analysis occurred in two stages, integrating quantitative and qualitative methods to understand the research problem robustly. First, survey responses were pre-coded and processed using Microsoft Excel and IBM SPSS to uncover demographic patterns and identify correlations between property use and financing options. Second, qualitative data from 60 interviews and three focus groups – comprising 37 participants – were fully transcribed using Otter AI, checked meticulously, and analysed using NVivo software. The thematic analysis focused on the extent to which WSMEs autonomously register property in their names, their level of comfort in using such property as collateral, and how banking policies and gendered norms shape these financing decisions (Clark et al., 2021: 383). The triangulation of survey results with interview and focus group findings strengthened the study's validity and yielded a comprehensive view of WSMEs’ use of landed property in Ghana.

All data collected – survey responses, interview transcripts, and focus group discussions – were securely stored on encrypted drives in compliance with ethical research protocols. Participant anonymity was preserved by removing identifying information prior to analysis. The dataset has been curated for long-term preservation. It will be made available to other researchers via the University of Leicester's data repository, subject to appropriate anonymisation and institutional permissions.

Limitations

Despite the breadth of methods employed, several constraints shaped data collection and analysis. Time and funding limitations curtailed the scope of fieldwork, while the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted face-to-face interactions, necessitating digital tools that posed challenges for participant engagement and consent (Caride, 2021; Gruber et al., 2021; Lobe et al., 2020; Reñosa et al., 2021). Recruiting senior governmental and financial officials was also hindered by bureaucratic delays. These obstacles were mitigated by leveraging personal networks, targeting mid-level officials, and collaborating with partner organisations such as GUTA and regional women's groups. Despite these challenges, the study's triangulated methodology – spanning multiple cities and stakeholder groups – offers a robust contribution to understanding the intersections of gender, legal frameworks, and entrepreneurial finance in Ghana.

Land Tenure and Legal Pluralism in Ghana

The legacy of the British colonisation of Ghana shows its impact on land rights in Ghana's legal regime. Ghana's legal regime on land rights is pluralistic and based on the ‘co-existence of different regulatory systems, consisting of a hybrid of English Common Law principles, the Ghanaian customary law principles, constitutional provisions and statutory provisions’ (Agbosu et al., 2007: 32–33). The Constitution of the Republic of Ghana 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the Ghanaian Constitution) allows for this legal plurality. Under Article 11(2) of the Ghanaian Constitution, customary law, deemed as part of common law, is one of the sources of law in Ghana.

Under customary law in Ghana, land is held communally, with allodial title – the highest form of interest in land – vested exclusively in the stool, skin, or family. Individual members of the landholding group, however, may acquire a usufructuary interest. Unlike the classical Roman law notion of usufruct, which is typically non-heritable and non-alienable, the Ghanaian usufruct is inheritable, alienable, and potentially perpetual. In this respect, it bears a closer resemblance to the English common law concept of freehold. Because these usufructuary interests are transferable, they form the basis of most commercial land transactions. Although the usufruct coexists with the allodial interest, its continued validity often depends on the performance of customary obligations, such as rendering services to the stool (Asante, 1965; Gyan, 2019; Ollenu and Woodman, 1985).

The sacred status of land necessitated its retention within the family or community, with access typically mediated through lineage-based claims. In both patrilineal and matrilineal systems of inheritance, men generally enjoyed direct access to land. Conversely, women's access was constrained by restrictions within their natal lineage and, upon marriage, by the landholding status of their husband's family (Minkah-Premo, 2018: 11).

The Ghanaian Constitution represents the country's larger matrix of State enforcement and legislation (Moore, 1973: 743). Ghana practices constitutional supremacy (Abotsi, 2017). All legislative and regulatory provisions must be consistent with the Ghanaian Constitution – the Supreme Law in Ghana. Since the commencement of the Fourth Republic, which ushered in the Ghanaian Constitution, the country has upheld high human rights standards. It entrenches the right to equal opportunities and people's social, economic, and cultural rights regardless of gender in the country's laws. It also provides a right for all persons to own property alone or in association with others.

The Ghanaian Constitution also allows international human rights instruments, which recognise and apply particular categories of human rights, to be automatically applicable in the country and enforceable in Ghanaian Courts, even though Ghana is a dualist nation. Ghana ratified CEDAW in 1986 and the Maputo Protocol in 2007 without reservation.

Successive land law reforms have sought to correct socio-cultural norms and biases against women, particularly regarding inheritance and the right to property acquired during marriage (Dowuona-Hammond, 2005; Mensa-Bonsu, 2011; Mensa-Bonsu and Mensa-Bonsu, 2021; Vitoh, 2023). These land law reforms signify official action being taken on the social system's most visible and generally regarded as more amenable to legislative action components (Moore, 1973: 741). For instance, the Intestate Succession Law addresses the problem of disinheriting widows (Dowuona-Hammond, 2005; Mensa-Bonsu, 2011). It provides that widows are entitled to a percentage of their deceased spouse's property, regardless of their community's inheritance system.

Similarly, the Ghana Lands Act seeks to correct women's ‘structural dependence on men for access to resources’ caused by their weak economic position. Notably, it addresses the rights to property acquired during marriage (matrimonial property). The Act has legislated case law principles on the presumption of joint ownership into law. The Act legislates the principle established by the Ghanaian Supreme Court that there is a presumption in favour of joint ownership of all properties acquired during the marriage unless the spouses state a contrary intention. So, unless the spouses explicitly state on the face of the conveyance that the registered property belongs to only one spouse, the inference will be valid. However, even if the conveyance is made in only one spouse's name, it gives the other spouse beneficial ownership of property acquired in marriage. The spouse with the legal title here holds the property in trust for themself and the other spouse(s).

The effect of this statutory provision addresses the visible ethnic social system where the man, as head of the family, could dispense with matrimonial property without the knowledge or consent of his spouse, who is traditionally deemed his subordinate. These customary gender norms are evident in proverbs and adages. For instance, among the Akans, the proverb ‘akokɔ bere nso nim adekyeɛ, nso ɔhwɛ onini ano’ (The hen also knows daybreak, yet she waits for the rooster's crow) or, ‘ɔbaa nyansafoɔ na ɔse: “Mehwɛ deɛ abusua bɛka”’ (A wise woman says: ‘I look to what my matriclan will say’) all signify the traditional belief that women must be submissive, as the subordinates in the nuclear and extended family (Appiah et al., 2007: 16; Diabah and Appiah Amfo, 2015: 15; Dzahene-Quarshie and Omari, 2021: 137).

Thus, in entrenching women's equal ownership of property in the Ghanaian Constitution and legislative instruments, statutory law attempts to correct socio-cultural norms and biases against women that hinder them from owning property. Although statutory provisions cannot immediately extend equally the informal advantages gained through social positions and networks within the social field, they can provide the right structure for others to gain those advantages (Moore, 1973: 741).

The Ghanaian Supreme Court – the apex court – has had to grapple with what Moore (1973: 723) explains as the difficulty of legislation to abolish completely informal positions or advantages enjoyed by members in a group. The Court has, for decades, borne the responsibility of enforcing the Ghanaian Constitution's provision of women's equitable rights to property and moving the Ghanaian society away from customary practices that infringe on women's rights to equal access to property (Dowuona-Hammond et al., 2020; Mensa-Bonsu, 2011; Mensa-Bonsu and Mensa-Bonsu, 2021).

In relation to matrimonial property, the Court has moved steadily from its initial approach, where women had no claim to such property (Settles, 1996). This approach reinforced the traditional hierarchical family structure, where women and children are seen as helpers whose contributions only support the man's economic advancement (Boni, 2002). The Court currently advances the ‘equality is equity’ principle. It asserts that where the spouses have no contrary agreement, any property acquired during the subsistence of the marriage is deemed joint property to be shared equitably on divorce.

The Supreme Court has also made strides to protect the usufructuary rights to landed property, thus preventing allodial title holders from arbitrarily repossessing people's land. The Court insists that the allodial titleholder's customary ability to appropriate land owned and in possession of usufruct would be repugnant to natural justice, equity, and good conscience (Asante, 1965: 874).

The interaction among traditional, national, and international legal frameworks highlights the complex governance of property rights in Ghana, where different systems coexist and influence one another. The convergence of statutory laws, customary practices, and international human rights norms creates semi-autonomous fields that are both complementary and contradictory. Customary law, deeply rooted in Ghanaian society, treats land as an integral part of family and community identity rather than just an economic asset. This contrasts sharply with statutory laws that promote individual land ownership and view property as a means of economic capital. At the same time, international norms advocating for gender equality and anti-discrimination face challenges in implementation, shaped and sometimes constrained by these local legal and cultural paradigms. These various legal systems, each with its distinct authority and influence, intersect in ways that significantly affect individuals’ abilities to exercise and navigate their land-related rights and responsibilities.

Research Findings

This section presents the study's empirical findings, organised into three thematic strands that examine how landed property shapes financing decisions among women-led SMEs in Ghana. It first explores the role of collateral in banking practices, then assesses whether land formalisation facilitates independent property ownership. Finally, it considers the cultural and personal meanings attached to land, particularly women's willingness to use it as collateral. Together, these strands assess the extent to which formal property rights translate into meaningful financial inclusion.

Collateral, Credit Risk, and Lending Practice

This section examines how collateral functions within Ghana's banking system, drawing on international regulatory standards, domestic legal frameworks, and insights from banking professionals. The findings corroborate earlier research indicating that collateral plays a crucial role in the bank financing process (Amoako-Adu et al., 2018; Beck, 2013; Beck et al., 2007b, 2008; Boucher et al., 2009; Mashenene et al., 2014; Megan and Wilfred, 2011). The international banking regulatory frameworks, particularly under the Basel II and Basel III Accords, place substantial emphasis on the use of collateral as a crucial mechanism for mitigating credit risk (Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and Bank for International Settlements, 2017; Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, 2023; Bindseil and Lamoot, 2011; Giang et al., 2024; Mohammed Ahmed, 2016). These regulations mandate that banks hold less capital against loans secured by high-quality collateral, thereby reducing the risk-weighted assets on their balance sheets (Heller et al., 2024; Pahnecke and Bohoslavsky, 2021). However, the Basel frameworks do not limit recognised collateral to merely tangible assets. Intangible and tangible assets can serve as collateral, provided they adhere to the required valuation, enforceability, and stability criteria. Thus, the Basel banking supervision framework (2023) encompasses a broad spectrum of qualifying collateral types, ranging from financial assets like cash, government bonds, and other marketable securities, which may not be tangible in the conventional sense, to tangible assets such as real estate under mortgage that meets regulatory standards (Heller et al., 2024; Scott, 2020).

These international standards find resonance within Ghanaian law through a regulatory and legislative framework designed to progressively align Ghana's banking regulations with the Basel requirements progressively. The Bank of Ghana (BOG), under the Banks and Specialised Deposit-Taking Institutions (BSDI) Act (2016), mandates banks to take collateral security of at least 120% of the market value of the outstanding amount of the credit exposure before any credit is deemed as secured. This is known as the collateral security coverage ratio (AskBanking, 2016; Sexton, 2023; Wood, 2020). The BSDI Act lists immovable/landed property as one of the forms of collateral security banks are permitted to take.

The bankers interviewed support these BOG regulations, acknowledging that collateral is essential. To them, collateral is a fallback. It is significant, but ‘not the game-changer’ (Banker 3, personal communication, July 2021) and ‘put[s] clients’ skin in the game’ (Banker 13, personal communication, July 2021). One banker explained the importance of collateral thus:

The fact is that security is not a significant factor in lending. What it does is that it puts the borrower in a situation where they know that if they don’t pay, they tend to lose their security. You want to see that the borrower is committed. Their skin is in the game, so to say. If not, you end up giving money to somebody, and the people don’t feel committed. Most of these borrowers have very little in the business. Because they don’t have a well-structured business where there are floating shares, etcetera, you have situations where the bank's money in the business is way more than they have in the business as their equity or share in the business. So, they don’t lose anything when they squander the money. The whole idea is to get them to get committed and have equity. It makes the conversation easier because they know they are also committed….  (Banker 1, personal communication, July 2021)

Thus, according to the Ghanaian bankers interviewed, banks require collateral as proof that borrowers have the capacity to repay the debt they incur with them. In using the ‘skin in the game’ analogy, they show an interest in obtaining the commitment of their borrowers to undertake the business activity for which they have borrowed the money, in order to repay the credit extended. With collateral, banks ensure that borrowers do not ‘squander the money’. Banks do not want to give a business all the financing for capital. To them, that would be tantamount to ‘tak[ing] over the business’ (Banker 2, personal communication, July 2021).

The findings also confirm other researchers’ assertions that lenders prefer landed property as collateral assets. These findings further show a correlation between access to credit and (W)SMEs having large proportions of tangible assets (Abor and Biekpe, 2007: 99–100). In Ghana, although the BOG prohibits banks from engaging in activities relating to immovable property, it permits banks to accept immovable property as collateral security for debts or other liabilities.

The bankers interviewed acknowledged that landed property is the primary asset business owners use as security collateral for credit facilities:

I will say landed property is a higher proportion of collateral. I will say 70/30. If someone has money, they won’t come for a loan. So usually, you will see that the landed property takes a larger proportion…primarily for business that will take a loan, 70–80% will be landed property. (Banker 2, personal communication, July 2021)

Only a lower percentage of businesses borrow without landed property as collateral because think about it, if a business has money, then why would they need to borrow?. (Banker 6, personal communication, July 2021)

The bankers acknowledge that apart from cash as collateral, they prefer landed property with registered title. According to the bankers interviewed, on average, credit facilities secured by landed property accounted for up to 70% of their institution's portfolio. These findings from the qualitative interviews with the bankers confirm a link between ownership of landed property and access to credit facilities from the banks’ perspective. This link is further substantiated by the Government of Ghana's report on the collateral registry, which states that GHS 150bn ³ in funding backed by collateral had been registered, with 73% of the finance flowing to SMEs as of December 2017 (Ministry of Finance, 2018: XIV). Although these figures are not from recent data, the bankers’ responses show that landed property remains the predominant form of collateral security in Ghana.

To triangulate the bankers’ views on the significance of landed property as collateral, Question 9 of the online self-completion questionnaire asked respondents, ‘Did you use your property as collateral?’ This question followed Question 8, which enquired whether participants had ever used bank financing for their business. The responses from the questionnaire aligned with the qualitative interview findings regarding the use of landed property as collateral security. Among the 170 respondents who had accessed credit facilities from banks or microfinance institutions, 57% reported using their landed property as collateral. Similarly, qualitative interview data revealed that, of the 12 individuals who had borrowed from financial institutions, six (50%) had used their landed property as collateral. Consistent findings emerged from the focus groups, where all 15 trader representatives who had obtained credit facilities from banks confirmed using their landed property as collateral.

While landed property remains the primary form of collateral in Ghanaian banking practice, it is not always utilised – even when available. Many women entrepreneurs instead rely on personal savings, business inventory, informal lending, or guarantees. These choices may reflect practical constraints, such as documentation or asset availability, but also point to deeper factors beyond formal regulation. The cultural dimensions of this reluctance are explored in a later section. This next section shifts focus to the acquisition and ownership of property, assessing whether land formalisation policies have enabled women to register and control land independently, or whether access remains shaped by kinship ties, gender norms, and social obligations.

Land Formalisation and Women's Access to Property in Practice

Having established how collateral functions within Ghana's regulatory and banking frameworks, this section turns to the question of ownership – specifically, whether land formalisation policies have enabled women SME owners to acquire and register property independently. Drawing on survey and interview data, this section examines how urban WSMEs navigate property acquisition and assesses the extent to which legal reforms have translated into independent control over land.

Ghana's Constitution integrates customary land laws into the national legal system, recognising traditional rights while affirming the supremacy of constitutional protections. This legal framework underpins formalisation policies aimed at strengthening ownership rights and enabling access to finance by clarifying women's legal claims to land in commercial transactions.

Survey data revealed that a substantial majority (76.7%) of WSME owners reported having purchased landed property. Property acquisition was particularly prevalent among respondents aged 35–44, who also represented the largest demographic group in the survey.

Gender analysis from the interviews showed an almost equal split between male and female property owners, with 51.61% male and 48.38% female respondents. This near parity supports the hypothesis that gender does not significantly impede the ability to purchase property in Ghana. Additional analysis revealed no significant variations in property ownership based on marital status, as both married and single interviewees reported similar levels of property acquisition.

Insights from bankers corroborated the data gathered from SME owners. The bankers conveyed that collateral requirements typically do not prevent WSMEs from obtaining financing, as many of these enterprises already possess the requisite assets. One respondent elaborated:

So even, yes, sometimes collateral can be an issue, but typically, they [WSMEs] are not the type that comes into their space, and when they come in, they actually have what it takes. A clear case in point is if you come into the market Okaishie area and try and follow the businesses that own properties within the Okaishie space, you realise that more females who are trading there have actually acquired properties in the market. (Banker 13, personal communication, July 2021)

At first glance, the data suggest that urban women WSME owners in Ghana face few legal or economic obstacles to acquiring property. Notably, 76.7% have secured landed property, and 57% have successfully used it as collateral, indicating a seemingly narrow gender gap in property ownership and access to bank financing. At first glance, these figures may seem to affirm the effectiveness of Ghana's constitutional reforms in advancing women's property rights and economic inclusion.

However, closer examination reveals that this apparent parity masks deeper structural and generational inequalities. The majority of property-owning respondents were in older age brackets, with ownership rates increasing significantly with age. For instance, 100% of respondents aged 65 and over owned property, while 96% of those aged 55–64 had also acquired land. This trend suggests that the accumulation of landed assets occurs gradually over the life course and may not reflect the experience or capacity of younger or early-stage women entrepreneurs. Age, therefore, appears to positively influence the ability to acquire property.

Moreover, as discussed later in the section on Land, Credit, and Cultural Constraints, socio-cultural norms surrounding land ownership also shape how women hold property. Even when land is acquired through commercial means, women may choose – or feel compelled – to register it jointly with spouses or in the names of other family members, rather than holding it individually. As a result, legal ownership does not always translate into full control or independent decision-making power.

In addition, these acquisition patterns must be read alongside the enduring impact of social reproductive labour on women's economic trajectories. Gendered expectations around unpaid care and domestic responsibilities continue to limit women's ability to generate and retain the financial resources required to purchase commercially available landed property. The double burden of running a business while maintaining household duties reduces both the time and capital women can devote to business expansion, savings, and investment (Momsen, 2009; Owoo and Lambon-Quayefio, 2021).

The challenge of balancing domestic and entrepreneurial responsibilities presents a significant barrier to business continuity and financial growth. Many WSME interviewees describe this balancing act as ‘challenging’, ‘difficult’, ‘draining’, and ‘tough’. One WSME owner, for instance, had to shut down her enterprise during extended school holidays to care for her children, severely disrupting the stability and scalability of her business. These accounts illustrate how the burden of unpaid care work not only limits the time women can devote to their businesses but also constrains their ability to generate and retain income. Over time, this reduces their capacity to accumulate the financial resources required to purchase property. In this context, property ownership among women – while increasingly visible – may reflect longer trajectories of economic struggle, informal support, or delayed acquisition, rather than evidence of broad-based economic empowerment.

Yet, within these constraints, women actively negotiate support through familial and communal networks. The data show that some WSME owners, particularly those with greater financial means, mitigate the burden of social reproductive labour by outsourcing domestic tasks or drawing on kinship support – such as assistance from parents, siblings, or older children. These informal arrangements can ease immediate pressures and help sustain business activity. However, this reliance on kinship and community is often framed by participants themselves as ‘help’, ‘luck’, or ‘generosity’, rather than as a shift in deeply rooted gender norms. As such, while kinship ties may provide practical relief, they also serve to reinforce the normative expectation that caregiving is inherently a woman's duty. The result is a paradox in which women's strategies for coping with unpaid labour simultaneously reveal the resilience of informal support systems and the persistence of the very socio-cultural structures that limit women's long-term economic autonomy.

These insights challenge the central assumption behind many land formalisation policies: that removing legal barriers alone is sufficient to enable women to purchase and leverage property for financial gain. In practice, the expectation that women will independently accumulate the capital to buy land on a willing-buyer, willing-seller basis fails to account for the constraints imposed by their dual roles in the household and marketplace. While land formalisation is essential for improving property security, its transformative potential is diminished when implemented in isolation from broader socio-economic realities.

Land, Credit, and Cultural Constraints

Building on the previous discussion of land acquisition and formalisation, this section shifts focus to how property is actually used – or not used – as collateral. While development frameworks frequently assume that land titling will unlock access to credit, the findings reveal a more complex reality. Legal ownership does not automatically translate into a willingness to use property as collateral, and many women SME owners are reluctant to leverage land, even when formally titled.

Development approaches that link property rights to credit access tend to overlook these socio-legal dynamics. As former US President Bill Clinton remarked in support of Hernando de Soto's property rights model, legal titling was expected to ‘bring the assets of poor people…into the legal system’ and thereby unlock financial capital (Manji, 2003: 82; The Guardian, 2002). To assess whether landed assets actually translate into bank financing for WSMEs in Ghana, further analysis was conducted on bankers’ responses regarding the role of property and collateral in lending decisions.

The findings show that bankers do not see landed property as the ultimate reason to lend to businesses. Many bankers reiterated that banks ‘are not real estate agents’ and are thus not inclined to take landed property for the sake of it (Semi-Structured Interviews with Senior-Level Bankers, July 2021).

The BOG supports this notion by clearly stating in the BSDI Act that banks must not engage in commercial real estate activities except when taking or dealing with landed property used as collateral security. Where banks take landed property as collateral security, BOG regulations require that they offload them from their portfolio within 1 year, or time extended by the BOG, when the loan goes into default. Thus, based on regulatory requirements, banks are restricted when they take collateral security in the form of landed property.

Bankers also highlight the difficulty in selling realised landed property used as collateral when borrowers default. One banker explained:

…the fact is that it is difficult to sell collateral. In my experience as an SME lender, for over 15 years in my previous bank, we had no less than 30–50 collateral from defaulting clients but were able to only sell about 3 of such properties. So, it is not an interesting area for us at all. We do not want to start going to selling property because it is difficult to get people to buy other people's property. (Banker 2, personal communication, March 2024)

This challenge sheds light on a deeper cultural reality: as shown throughout this article, in many Ghanaian communities, land is often regarded as a familial anchor – preserving lineage, belonging, and obligations – rather than as a commodity to be monetised. Although empirical data is limited, anecdotal evidence and qualitative insights suggest that this perception discourages potential buyers from acquiring land that has been repossessed or associated with another family. Concerns about spiritual implications, community resistance, or the cultural inappropriateness of severing land from its lineage roots may all contribute to the reluctance. As a result, the resale market for such land remains weak, making collateral difficult to liquidate in practice.

These insights align with the scepticism scholars express regarding the effectiveness of land formalisation as a strategy to unlock the economic potential of landed property in developing countries (Gilbert, 2002; Manji, 2010). While the idea of integrating the assets of the economically disadvantaged into the legal system suggests that formal property rights should facilitate access to credit by serving as collateral, the reality in contexts like Ghana diverges significantly.

In Ghana, the banking sector's stringent credit assessment processes and the perceived high risk associated with WSMEs imply that the formalisation of land may secure legal recognition but does not guarantee access to loans. Banks prioritise detailed financial reviews over the mere existence of collateral, assessing factors such as cash flow stability and transaction history to mitigate potential risks (Amoako-Adu et al., 2018; Arner et al., 2006: 528). Moreover, the inherent challenges in valuing and liquidating landed property – evidenced by the low success rate in selling collateralised assets – further complicate the situation. These difficulties highlight the disconnect between the theoretical benefits of land title formalisation and the practical realities of using such assets as leverage in the banking sector.

Beyond the structural limitations that diminish the influence of landed property in banks’ lending decisions, the findings reveal a pronounced reluctance among Ghanaian WSME owners to leverage their commercially acquired and registered land as collateral for bank financing. This hesitation is prevalent across most age groups, with the exception of the 45–54 age bracket, which shows a marginally higher willingness to pledge land. In the 35–44 age group, attitudes towards using land as collateral remain largely unchanged, indicating minimal variation in their approach. Furthermore, marital status does not significantly impact this reluctance, suggesting that the decision to retain land transcends personal relationship dynamics.

Responses to follow-up questions shed additional light on the underlying reasons for this hesitation. One respondent expressed a distrust of loan agreements requiring collateral, likening it to ‘selling your soul to the Banks’ and fearing the loss of property if repayment becomes unfeasible. Another highlighted the inadequacies of Ghana's banking system, which deterred them from taking such financial risks (Semi-Structured Interviews with SME Owners, July 2021).

Female WSME owners primarily avoid using land as collateral to ensure that property remains within their families. This decision is rooted in strong communal and spiritual values that emphasise maintaining familial legacy and community stability over personal financial benefits. Bankers have supported these findings, observing that many SME owners, especially women, consider their land to be a spiritual or communal asset meant to stay within the family. This perspective is closely tied to their nurturing roles and the desire to protect their family's well-being, leading them to be cautious about risking their property for financial purposes. As one banker noted:

And we women naturally, because of how careful we are, tend to invest in these things. It's rather their willingness to put them up for collateral that becomes the challenge by the time they get to that size. Again, because of a fear that ‘what if I don’t get it right and I lose?’ A guy won’t care. Okay. But I know a woman will think from here to Kumasi ⁴ before they make a decision on whether to put up their asset for collateral, because they’re thinking of their children; you know, the woman are the nurturers. They are thinking of their children, their grandchildren, and their family. ‘What if this thing gets lost in the family? What will happen?’ and all that, you see?. (Banker 7, personal communication, March 2024)

The communal relationship with land is further evidenced in property registration practices. The findings show that in contrast to 80% of married male SME owners, only 20% of married WSME owners register their property solely in their names, while 50% opt for joint registration with their spouses. Additionally, 17% of WSME owners register their property in the names of family members, particularly their children – a practice absent among male SME owners. This disparity highlights the influence of socio-cultural norms on property registration, where women are more inclined towards collective ownership arrangements that reflect their roles within the family and community. The preference for joint or family-based registration signifies a communal approach to property ownership aimed at preserving land within the family unit and protecting it from financial risks such as loan defaults. Consequently, even with legally registered and commercially acquired property, WSME owners prioritise land's familial and communal significance over its use as financial collateral.

The reluctance to leverage landed property as collateral, despite formal ownership and registration, reveals a significant disconnect between the objectives of land formalisation policies and the lived realities of WSME owners (Alshareef, 2022). Land formalisation aims to transform land from ‘dead collateral’ into a dynamic economic asset by legally integrating it into the financial system, thereby enabling owners to secure loans and enhance their incomes. This approach is based on the premise that formalising property rights will unlock economic potential by allowing land to be used as collateral, as advocated by initiatives seeking to bring assets of the economically disadvantaged into the legal system.

However, the findings demonstrate that for many WSME owners, especially women, land holds profound social and cultural significance that transcends its economic utility. Land is deeply embedded within social constructs and is viewed not merely as an asset for financial gain but as a cornerstone of familial and communal identity. The preference among male SME owners to register land solely in their names reinforces traditional gender roles, positioning men as the primary economic providers and heads of the family. For female WSME owners, joint or family-based registration reflects a collective approach to ownership aimed at safeguarding land for future generations and maintaining family stability.

This communal valuation of land undermines the assumption that formalisation alone can repurpose land into effective collateral. The cultural imperative to preserve land for familial purposes limits its use as a financial tool despite legal frameworks that facilitate property registration. To bridge the financing gap for WSMEs, land formalisation policies must go beyond legal and structural measures and engage with the socio-cultural values that influence property-related decisions. This could involve developing financial instruments that respect communal ownership practices or implementing support systems that alleviate the economic burdens on women, enabling them to leverage land without compromising their familial and communal obligations.

Consequently, the gap between the theoretical benefits of land formalisation and the practical challenges in using landed property as collateral contributes to the persistent gender finance gap, even after decades of promoting the land formalisation agenda. Internationally and nationally, collateral alone is insufficient for deeming a business creditworthy. Ghanaian banks enforce strict lending practices that emphasise comprehensive financial assessments beyond mere ownership of assets, complicating the loan acquisition process for SMEs, particularly based on land titles alone. Additionally, the profound impact of cultural and social dynamics on women's relationships with their property – where strong communal and familial ties discourage the use of land as collateral – demonstrates that practical approaches to addressing the gender finance gap must not isolate women's roles in society but must comprehensively engage with the various semi-autonomous fields in which women operate. This approach would recognise and adapt to the nuanced socio-cultural factors influencing women's financial decisions and interactions with the banking system.

Conclusion

Ghana's experience demonstrates that formal land title systems and legally recognised ownership – often championed in international economic law as the route to narrowing the SME financing gap – are not, by themselves, sufficient. While frameworks such as the World Bank's ‘smart economics’ agenda, the IFC's sustainable financing strategies, and international legal instruments like CEDAW and the Maputo Protocol endorse stronger legal rights and institutional reforms to promote women's financial inclusion, they frequently overlook the social and cultural dimensions that shape how these rights are exercised in practice.

In the Ghanaian context, female entrepreneurs’ reluctance to use their registered property as collateral highlights a fundamental tension between global prescriptions and local realities. On the one hand, international frameworks promote land formalisation as a means of creating ‘bankable’ assets; on the other, long-standing social values often view land as a communal resource, deeply tied to family legacy and social identity. The potential loss of such property through loan default is experienced not merely as an economic risk but as a rupture in familial and societal continuity.

This reflects the earlier critique of binary development models – those that position women as either dependent caregivers or entrepreneurial agents – without accounting for the fluid roles women actually inhabit. By assuming that land formalisation alone will transform property into usable financial capital, these frameworks often fail to account for the embedded cultural meanings of land – particularly in contexts where land functions as more than a commodity. Thus, the Ghanaian case reveals the need for development strategies attuned to the interplay between formal law and socio-cultural norms.

The fact that the MSME financing gap – particularly in sub-Saharan Africa – continues to widen despite decades of global policy interventions is itself a testament to this disconnect (Kouam and Asongu, 2022). The persistence of this gap suggests that formal legal reforms, even when robust on paper, remain insufficient when they do not resonate with the social realities that inform women's financial decision-making. It signals the need for a reorientation of global economic strategies to incorporate cultural context into financial inclusion efforts more meaningfully.

The article contributes to existing scholarship by illustrating how socio-legal dynamics mediate the uptake and effectiveness of formalisation policies. It suggests that bridging the SME financing gap requires more than expanding formal rights; it demands an integrated approach that addresses the normative and relational contexts in which women make financial decisions. Banks and policymakers must recognise that even robust legal frameworks may be underutilised if the risks associated with leveraging property are perceived to outweigh the benefits.