Answer to the Study’s Question

Now that the research questions have been answered, answering the study’s questions is feasible. The study’s question reads:

How do the technical, legal, and organizational aspects and their interrelations affect the way a system of land registration is able to provide adequate legal security to owners and purchasers of real property within a given jurisdiction?

A part of this question led to the hypotheses presented in Figure 5.1 which looked at the interrelated impact of the quality of the three types of aspects. The cases do not supply the information needed to accept or reject the hypotheses formulated in the research design, although they contain some indications that the hypotheses might hold, and –thus– that the organizational aspects would be the most important in making a land registration “go ‘round”. The interrelations between the different types of aspects turn out to be even greater than expected. Furthermore the aspects grouped under organizational aspects are so different that they can not really be given one joint qualification. It can be concluded that the hypotheses are based on too small a number of dimensions to be able to accept or reject them based on the cases studied.

The study’s question already implies that the technical, legal and organizational aspects have effect on the system of land registration and on it achieving its goal(s). The same goes for the interrelations between them. We can conclude that the interrelations are even stronger than expected beforehand.

The subsystems that can be seen as being part of land registration, as well as the functions needed to fulfill land registration, may –to a certain extent– be described and experienced as the domain of one aspect system (lawyer, surveyor, IT-specialist). Nevertheless aspects of other aspect systems are always influencing the constraints and possibilities (like the use of new technologies which depends on the way the survey regulations are phrased and on the financial and human resources available to acquire and use them). A description based on one type of aspects should therefore always be viewed with the overall system in mind. This study provides (conceptual) models of this overall system of land registration, which could help those studying part systems of land registration to put their results into the right perspective.

In the end the daily practice, for better or worse, determines to a large extent if the system achieves its goal(s) and if it can be trusted. What can be considered a less than perfect theoretical solution –if that can be agreed on– from a technical, legal or organizational point

86 _{For instance graphical cadastral maps (like in the Netherlands, much of Austria) or}

maps derived from medium scale topographic maps (like in the Ghanaian ‘records room’, but also on the British Isles), instead of precise and controlled registry maps or numeric cadastral maps (like the Austrian boundary cadastre, but also the Australian Torrens’ systems).

87 _{For instance deeds systems in the Netherlands, South-Africa and the Scottish Register}

of Sasines, instead of title systems (like Austria).

88 _{For instance the land book courts and survey departments in Austria (which cooperate}

well), instead of combined agencies (like the Netherlands, but also Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic).

89 _{Compare Williamson/Fourie 1998 and Barry/Fourie 2002, who say “Too often situations}

are oversimplified for technical project management purposes leading to incorrect decisions and quick fixes. This is especially true in developing countries undergoing change.” (Barry/Fourie 2002: 25).

90 _{Compare Otto (2000: 10), who says the same with regard to legal systems in general.} 91 _{The studies on performance indicators and benchmarking are working on this.}

of view, might work in practice. Examples are index maps86_{, deeds systems}87_{, and} separated registries88_{. The opposite, bad daily practice of a theoretically sound solution,} can also be found quite easily. Especially worrying are the cases where one part system or function is theoretically perfected, whilst leaving the rest of a weak system of land registration as it is. This happens when a project to improve or reform a system has too narrow a focus (e.g. mechanizing the existing tasks with computers), or when the project has not been prepared on the basis of a wide enough (case) study into the existing situation89_{. The latter resembles the situation where a system –or elements of it– from one} country are ‘parachuted’ into another country. The realization that such an approach is not appropriate is expressed by virtually all authors on land registration and cadastre, but it still seems to creep into the design and especially implementation of many projects. None of us can escape our primary training and field experience, which is usually limited to one or two countries.

In the study’s question a system of land registration has to provide adequate legal security to owners and purchasers of real property within a given jurisdiction. In this study this is not measured in any quantitative way, but eventually expressed by the system’s trustworthiness. This trustworthiness of the system of land registration, is a so-called emergent property of that same system. An important characteristic of emergent properties is that they can not be reduced to adding up attributes of elements. Therefore there is little use in distinguishing the aspects, and interrelations between them, of a system of land registration in the context of this study’s question. Thus the answer to the study’s question could be said to be “together as a whole”; highlighting the usefulness of the systems approach for the topic at hand. This means that the appropriateness of the combination of (solutions of) subsystems or elements and interrelations far outweighs the individual solution chosen for any specific subsystem or element. The damage from one weak link, far outweighs the benefits from another link that is made extra strong. Although any comparison only partly holds, it can be described as “the chain is only as strong as its weakest link”.90 _{Unfortunately we do not know (yet) how to measure the strength of each} link in a comparable way91_{, and perhaps the comparison should be with a cord of many} strands, in which a weaker spot in one strand could be covered by enough strength in the

other strands. All in all, only pulling the whole chain or cord will tell us its strength, ergo the trustworthiness of the system of land registration.

The answer to the study’s question is:

The interrelations between the technical, legal and organizational aspects are so strong, that –in the context of this study– only the overall effect can be determined through the level of trustworthiness, and we thus have to assume that the aspects affect the system fulfilling its goal together as a whole.

92 _{For a description of such problems in Sub-Saharan Africa, as well as an appropriate}

tenure and required registry model see Mulolwa 2002.

7.2 Other Findings

In addition to the just given exposé on answering the research questions and the study’s question, other findings came up during this study. Partly these are directly drawn from the case study (also see § 6.5), partly from the study overall.