Corruption risks and mitigation measures in land administration

Filed under - Land

Published on 30 May 2016 as a U4 Helpdesk answer
Please provide a summary of the key corruption risks and potential mitigation measures in land administration


  1. Corruption risks in land administration
  2. Mitigation measures
  3. References


Corruption in land administration has significant societal costs, and can have a major effect on the livelihoods of people worldwide. Corruption in this sector can reduce peoples’ access to land, and harm the livelihoods of small-scale producers, agricultural labourers, indigenous communities and landless rural and urban poor. Women, young people and ethnic minorities suffer most by having their access to land hindered by corruption.

Corruption in land administration takes on different forms in different countries and contexts, ranging from petty and grand corruption to state capture. Moreover, land corruption can be driven by poor oversight, weak institutions, a lack of capacity, and by not including civil society and other key stakeholders in the land administration process.

However, there are ways to mitigate these corruption risks. According to the literature, increased transparency, the inclusion of local communities in decision-making processes and strong legislation can all make a difference in tackling corruption in land administration. International donors can support these processes by variously providing support for national government-led initiatives, by supporting the legal recognition of ownership and user rights, providing technical assistance and information technology support and establishing conflict resolution mechanisms to support the land administration process.

There are also international standards and guidelines available that provide recommendations for good governance in land administration, such as free, prior and informed consent of local communities in land deals and increased transparency levels. They constitute a good first step by providing standards by which civil society, at both a national and international level, can hold governments to account. However, these standards have rarely been enforced, thus their impact has largely been inconsistent and limited.

Author(s): Ben Wheatland, Transparency International,
Reviewed by: Marie Chêne, Transparency International Annette Jaitner, Transparency International Finn Heinrich, PhD, Transparency International,
Publication date: 30 May 2016
Number: 0

Download full answer

Country / Territory - International   
Region - Global   
Language(s) - English   
Topic - Land   |   Public services   
Tags - Land management   

Contact the Anti-Corruption Helpdesk

If you work for one of our supporting partner organisations, submit your query to the Helpdesk:

More Helpdesk answers


Public financial management reforms in developing and postconflict countries

Please provide an overview of: (i) the Public finance management (PFM) reforms most relevant and often used in developing and post-conflict countries ...

See the answer


Measuring the value of bribes

Has any country ever done a survey on the average value of bribes involved in transactions with government agencies from the perspective of companies ...

See the answer