Land Brokers and Co-Production of Land Administration Services in Nairobi's Urban Peripheries

Caption: a public notice photo inside one of the land registries informing the land registry clients and/or the public, in general, that land searches are offered at no cost.

Photo:: Dennis Muthama, 2023

Photo:: Dennis Muthama, 2023

Dennis Mbuga Muthama and Catherine Gateri

When you think about public service administration, and how to make it more effective my guess is that formal decentralization measures may come to mind such as Kenya’s Huduma Centres. In general, under a decentralized system services are brought closer to the citizens within a given jurisdiction. The expectation here is that through decentralization residents can cheaply and conveniently access these services since they for example do not have to travel long distances for these services. But all this is better said than done in Kenyan urban peripheries. In these contexts, public service delivery is not simply a procedural matter, rather we argue here it is a messy affair that involves several public and private actors leading to what we term a co-produced outcome.

Zooming into the urban peripheries of Nairobi and land administration, the concept of co-production as understood here means land administration services are not delivered by the public officials “rather it is the product of relationships, negotiations and collaborations” (Mitlin & Bartlett, 2018 p. 355) in different land transaction processes at whose core land brokers are situated. While it is not our goal to delve deeper into the concept here. We think such an approach to understanding the land administration service delivery in urban peripheries may be relevant to understanding the ubiquitous nature of land brokers in these situations. What do we mean? land administration processes and transactions by virtue of their design are complicated processes even for professionals who deal with these matters every day. Therefore, it is not a wonder that citizens seeking these services look for land brokers to assist them with the processing of some of their documents. It is through the interaction of these land brokers with different actors in the land transaction process that citizens get the services sought hence our co-produced service delivery approach.

To start, who are these brokers that mediate the land transaction process? The answer to this question depends on who you ask, to some they are the helpful minders that walk you through the land transaction process making it manageable and bearable and to others, they are the weakest link in the land administration process and the corruption conduit. In sum, the answers offered lie along a continuum ranging from corrupt to helpful agents. Given this, it is not necessary to engage in are they good or bad debate here. For such analysis see for example Ouma & Karugu (2019) or Rutten & Mwangi (2016).

It is not unusual to see land brokers hanging around by the land registry offices of urban peripheries in different areas in Kenya (Ouma & Karugu, 2019). The land brokers who hang out by these offices offer different services to land administration services clients seeking to undertake the different land transactions offered in these offices. It is important to note that these brokers are not officially acknowledged and what they offer can be best summed up as a hold-your-hand type of service. Think of a person being assisted to cross the road, the reasons they are being assisted could be many, however, the main point is that the person being assisted walks with the person offering the help, across the zebra crossing, and after they get to the other side of the road the helper’s work is done. Similarly, land brokers will guide their prospective clients through the land transaction process telling them what to do, not to do, and what is required for a smooth land transaction process. As a result, they only interact with the process in their shepherding role. What this shepherding role actually involves, and costs is not readily available and is based on the understanding between the broker and his client.

The other side of the coin on land brokers is that they are to blame for land administration messes in rapidly urbanizing urban peripheries (Rutten & Mwangi, 2016). Some of the reasons that have been proffered by land administration analysts for this state of play include corruption and greed by the land brokers. For example, it is not surprising for such brokers to be involved in double allocation land transactions leaving unsuspecting buyers with the arduous task of proving their land ownership. And while it is easy for an observer to blame these buyers for not doing their due diligence it is important to remember that the land brokers work in collaboration with some government officials. So, for instance, and as one official told us, it is possible for a potential buyer to do a search and have the details be as provided by the land broker, what the buyer may not know is that the broker and the land registry clerk to whom he or she is applying for the search are working together. This essentially means that it is possible for a potential land buyer to do all the due diligence but still be defrauded by the land broker’s network.

So, what does all this mean for our understanding of land administration services delivery in urban peripheries that are rapidly urbanizing and digitizing? This is one of the questions the Regional Futures project will provide an answer to as the study progresses. However, at this early stage it has become clear that land brokers are an important part of a large network that is involved in the delivery of land administration services in the rapidly urbanizing and digitizing peripheries. Simply labelling land brokers as either good or bad is not helpful for an analysis aimed at unravelling the complex network of land administration actors in urban peripheries. In our view, it is better to understand the delivery of land administration services as something that is continually co-produced at every stage of a given land transaction process where both official and unofficial actors interface. It is in these interfaces that land administration service delivery practices that have both official and unofficial characteristics emerge. It is in understanding these practices, the intricate relationships the brokers have woven within the system, and the official and unofficial actors interface platform that we can start to appreciate how the transition to land digitisation and digitalisation will impact the Kenyan urban peripheries rapid urbanisation processes. 

References

Mitlin, D., & Bartlett, S. (2018). Editorial: Co-production – key ideas. Environment and Urbanization, 30(2), 355–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247818791931

Ouma, G. A. & Karugu, W. (2019). Influence of Land Brokers on Cost of Private Land in Mosocho Division of Kisii County, Kenya. International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, 7(6), 136-158. (Available here:https://ijecm.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/7610.pdf)  

Rutten, M. & M. Mwangi (2016) The Land Broker –  The Underrated Role of the Broker in Land Transfers in Africa, Cocoon Initiative Kenya Working Paper No 4 (Available here:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314950207_THE_LAND_BROKER_The_Underrated_Role_of_the_Broker_in_Land_Transfers_in_Africa)