Agric. Econ. - Czech, 2026, 72(6):341-357 | DOI: 10.17221/62/2025-AGRICECON
Do farmers normalise land tenure insecurity? Evidence from a choice experiment in UzbekistanOriginal Paper
- 1 Department of Agricultural-, Environmental- and Food Policy, Institute of Agricultural and Nutritional Sciences, Natural Sciences Faculty III, Martin-Luther-University of Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany
- 2 Department of Geoecology, Institute of Geosciences and Geography, Natural Sciences Faculty III, Martin-Luther-University of Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany
- 3 National Research University 'Tashkent Institute of Irrigation and Agricultural Mechanization Engineers', Tashkent, Uzbekistan
- 4 Department of Environmental Sociology, Faculty of Philosophy I, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany
- 5 German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
- 6 Centre for Interdisciplinary Regional Studies (ZIRS), Martin-Luther-University of Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany
Land reforms can create tenure insecurity for farmers, a critical issue in developing countries with a dominant role of the state in agriculture. Our study focuses on Uzbekistan, characterised by a state-led transition from a more collective and socialist to a more individualistic and market-based approach to land allocation and management. To understand how farmers normalise tenure insecurity under land reallocation in Uzbekistan, we examine farmers' perceptions of tenure security under ongoing risks to their land tenure. We conducted a farm survey (n = 153), employing a novel approach to explore farmers' perceptions of tenure security and to elicit their preference patterns for key attributes of the land contract through a discrete choice experiment. We find that despite the institutionalisation of tenure insecurity, most farmers do not perceive it as a normal phenomenon. The choice model results show that farmers have the highest mean willingness to pay for contract security compared to other contract attributes. Our findings suggest that understanding and incorporating farmers' strong preference for secure land tenure is a crucial consideration for the design and implementation of land reform policies. Theoretically, our findings challenge the need for a dominant role of the state in agriculture.
Keywords: agrarian reform; dominant state; property rights; stated preferences
Received: February 12, 2025; Revised: December 24, 2025; Accepted: January 6, 2026; Published: June 30, 2026 Show citation
Supplementary files:
| Download file | 62-2025_AE_ESM_onlinepub.pdf File size: 268.83 kB |
References
- Admasu W.F., Van Passel S., Nyssen J., Minale A.S., Tsegaye E.A. (2021): Eliciting farmers' preferences and willingness to pay for land use attributes in Northwest Ethiopia: A discrete choice experiment study. Land Use Policy, 109: 105634.
Go to original source... - Akhmadiyeva Z., Herzfeld T. (2021): How does practice matches land laws in Central Asia? Land Use Policy, 109: 105726.
Go to original source... - Alberini A. (2012): Repeated questioning in choice experiments: Are we improving statistical efficiency or getting respondents confused? Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 1: 216-233.
Go to original source... - Arnot C.D., Luckert M.K., Boxall P.C. (2011): What is tenure security? Conceptual implications for empirical analysis. Land Economics, 87: 297-311.
Go to original source... - Acemoglu D. (2003): Why not a political Coase theorem? Social conflict, commitment, and politics. Journal of Comparative Economics, 31: 620-652.
Go to original source... - Ashforth B.E., Anand V. (2003): The normalization of corruption in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25: 1-52.
Go to original source... - Babadjanov J., Petrick M. (2023): Uzbekistan's cotton clusters in the context of the industrial policy debate. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 66: 354-383.
Go to original source... - Bambio Y., Agha S.B. (2018): Land tenure security and investment: Does strength of land right really matter in rural Burkina Faso? World Development, 111: 130-147.
Go to original source... - Bellemare M.F. (2013): The productivity impacts of formal and informal land rights: Evidence from Madagascar. Land Economics, 89: 272-290.
Go to original source... - Bridges J.F., Hauber A.B., Marshall D., Lloyd A., Prosser L.A., Regier D.A., Johnson F.R., Mauskopf J. (2011): Conjoint analysis applications in health - A checklist: A report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value in Health, 14: 403-413.
Go to original source... - Broegaard R.B., Vongvisouk T., Mertz O. (2017): Contradictory land use plans and policies in Laos: Tenure security and the threat of exclusion. World Development, 89: 170-183.
Go to original source... - Bryman A. (2016): Social Research Methods. 5th Ed. London, Oxford University Press: 747.
- Deininger K., Jin S., Xia F., Huang J. (2014): Moving off the farm: Land institutions to facilitate structural transformation and agricultural productivity growth in China. World Development, 59: 505-520.
Go to original source... - Djanibekov N., Herzfeld T., Petrick M. (2024): Agriculture and rural development reforms. In: Mirkasimov B., Pomfret R. (eds): New Uzbekistan. London, Routledge: 112-134.
Go to original source... - Fenske J. (2011): Land tenure and investment incentives: Evidence from West Africa. Journal of Development Economics, 95: 137-156.
Go to original source... - Gao Z., House L.O., Yu X. (2010): Using choice experiments to estimate consumer valuation: The role of experimental design and attribute information loads. Agricultural Economics, 41: 555-565.
Go to original source... - Goibov M., Schmitz P.M., Bauer S., Ahmed M.N. (2012): Application of a choice experiment to estimate farmers preferences for different land use options in Northern Tajikistan. Journal of Sustainable Development, 5: 2.
Go to original source... - Hensher D.A., Rose J.M., Greene W.H. (2015): Applied Choice Analysis. 2nd Ed. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 1216.
Go to original source... - Ho H.A. (2021): Land tenure and economic development: Evidence from Vietnam. World Development, 140: 105275.
Go to original source... - Ho P. (2014): The 'credibility thesis' and its application to property rights: (In) secure land tenure, conflict and social welfare in China. Land Use Policy, 40: 13-27.
Go to original source... - Holden S.T., Ghebru H. (2016): Land tenure reforms, tenure security and food security in poor agrarian economies: Causal linkages and research gaps. Global Food Security, 10: 21-28.
Go to original source... - Hoyos D. (2010): The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecological Economics, 69: 1595-1603.
Go to original source... - Hu W., Sun S., Penn J., Qing P. (2022): Dummy and effects coding variables in discrete choice analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 104: 1770-1788.
Go to original source... - Jacoby H.G., Li G., Rozelle S. (2002): Hazards of expropriation: Tenure insecurity and investment in rural China. American Economic Review, 92: 1420-1447.
Go to original source... - Johnson F.R., Lancsar E., Marshall D., Kilambi V., Mühlbacher A., Regier D.A., Bresnahan B.W., Kanninen B., Bridges J.F. (2013): Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: Report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value in Health, 16: 3-13.
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed... - Krinsky I., Robb A. L. (1986). On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 68(4), 715-719. https://doi.org/10.2307/1924536
Go to original source... - Lawry S., Samii C., Hall R., Leopold A., Hornby D., Mtero F. (2017): The impact of land property rights interventions on investment and agricultural productivity in developing countries: A systematic review. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 9: 61-81.
Go to original source... - Linkow B. (2016): Causes and consequences of perceived land tenure insecurity: Survey evidence from Burkina Faso. Land Economics, 92: 308-327.
Go to original source... - Ma X., Heerink N., Feng S., Shi X. (2015): Farmland tenure in China: Comparing legal, actual and perceived security. Land Use Policy, 42: 293-306.
Go to original source... - Mamine F., Fares M., Minviel J.J. (2020): Contract design for adoption of agrienvironmental practices: A meta-analysis of discrete choice experiments. Ecological Economics, 176: 106721.
Go to original source... - Markussen T., Tarp F., Van Den Broeck K. (2011): The forgotten property rights: Evidence on land use rights in Vietnam. World Development, 39: 839-850.
Go to original source... - McFadden D. (1974): Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P. (ed.): Frontiers in Econometrics. New York, Academic Press: 105-142.
- Meinzen-Dick R.S., Pradhan R., Di Gregorio M. (2020): Understanding Property Rights. In: Meinzen-Dick R.S., Di Gregorio M. (eds): Collective Action and Property Rights for Sustainable Development. Washington, D.C., IFPRI. Available at https://hdl.handle.net/10568/157457
- Niyazmetov D., Soliev I., Theesfeld I. (2021): Ordered to volunteer? Institutional compatibility assessment of establishing agricultural cooperatives in Uzbekistan. Land Use Policy, 108: 105538.
Go to original source... - Omura M. (2008): Property rights and natural resource management incentives: Do transferability and formality matter? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90: 1143-1155.
Go to original source... - Penn J.M., Hu W., Cox L.J. (2019): The effect of forced choice with constant choice experiment complexity. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 44: 439-455.
- Qin P., Carlsson F., Xu J. (2011): Forest tenure reform in China: A choice experiment on farmers' property rights preferences. Land Economics, 87: 473-487.
Go to original source... - Ren G., Zhu X., Heerink N., Feng S., Van Ierland E.C. (2022): Persistence of land reallocations in Chinese villages: The role of village democracy and households' knowledge of policy. Journal of Rural Studies, 93: 336-344.
Go to original source... - Schlager E., Ostrom E. (1992): Property-rights regimes and natural resources: A conceptual analysis. Land Economics, 68: 249-262.
Go to original source... - Sikor T., Müller D. (2009): The limits of state-led land reform: An introduction. World Development, 37: 1307-1316.
Go to original source... - National Statistics Committee of the Republic of Uzbekistan (2021): Demography. Available at https://stat.uz/en/official-statistics/demography
- Tseng T.W.J., Robinson B.E., Bellemare M.F., BenYishay A., Blackman A., Boucher T., Childress M., Holland M.B., Kroeger T., Linkow B., Diop M., Naughton L., Rudel T., Sanjak J., Shyamsundar P., Veit P., Sunderlin W., Zhang W., Masuda Y.J. (2021): Influence of land tenure interventions on human well-being and environmental outcomes. Nature Sustainability, 4: 242-251.
Go to original source... - Train K.E. (2009): Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. 2nd Ed. New York, Cambridge University Press: 400.
- van Gelder J.L. (2010): What tenure security? The case for a tripartite view. Land Use Policy, 27: 449-456.
Go to original source... - Uz D., Buck S., Sunding D. (2022): Fixed or mixed? Farmer-level heterogeneity in response to changes in salinity. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 104: 1343-1363.
Go to original source... - Zorya S., Djanibekov N., Petrick M. (2019): Farm Restructuring in Uzbekistan: How Did It Go and What is Next? Washington, D.C., World Bank Group. Available at: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/686761549308557243/pdf/134322-WP-P162303-PUBLIC-Report-Farm-Restructuring-in-Uzbekistan-eng.pdf
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0.), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

ORCID...