Review of Public Administration and Management

Determinants of Good Governance Practice in Assosa Zone Rural Land Administration: Benishangul Gumuz Region

Muluadam Ayenew^* Department of Public Administration and Development Management, Injibara University, Injibara, Ethiopia
^*Correspondence: Muluadam Ayenew, Department of Public Administration and Development Management, Injibara University, Injibara, Ethiopia, Email:

Received: 17-Feb-2024, Manuscript No. RPAM-24-24947; Editor assigned: 22-Feb-2024, Pre QC No. RPAM-24-24947 (PQ); Reviewed: 07-Mar-2024, QC No. RPAM-24-24947; Revised: 07-Apr-2025, Manuscript No. RPAM-24-24947 (R); Published: 14-Apr-2025, DOI: 10.35248/2315-7844.25.13.475

Introduction

Background of the study

Developing an effective land governance system in Ethiopia is essential to the economic success as the government sets priorities and implements land reforms since nearly 85% of the population is rural relies upon agriculture for their livelihoods by which land is a fundamental asset. Since Ethiopia has an agrarian country, the majority of the population are dependent on land. Thus, administering this huge land was in important concern of government in terms of good governance principles practical in Ethiopian context.

The importance of land administration for good governance is highly relevant to the agendas of all countries. Good governance is recognized as essential for the success of any organization and it is considered as more important than ever. It is a fundamental tool in achieving the benefits of the protection of property rights and development of efficient and effective land administration system. Good governance in land administration is not a new issue and is as an important in the developing and developed countries.

Good governance in land administration has a political, legal, social, technical, ecological and dimension covering land policy, land laws and all involved institutions. Therefore, a well functioning and effective land administration is a substantial ingredient for good governance and stability of political system.

However, weak land governance were part of the overall problem of governance which lacks transparency, accountability as well as corruption. Good governance is central to delivery of appropriate, effective and efficient land administration in both developing and developed countries.

Good land administration is much related with land administration issues like the quality of civil service, especially accountability and transparency that is considered as crucial for proper land administration system. Therefore; it is difficult to implement effective land administration without good governance in land sector. Similarly, good governance is at the heart of good land administration. Governance is the process of governing. Land administration is therefore essentially about good governance. Conversely, weak governance in land administration leads to massive over-regulation, production of conflicting and gap-ridden bodies of laws, standards and documents, but with little cohesion and mutual reinforcement of legal and economic norms [1].

According to FAO land is the single greatest resources in most countries. As a result, lack of competence in land administration can be an important constraint on development and the eradication of poverty.

Good land administration is central to economic growth, tenure security and social development. In similar manner, adherence to the principles of good governance such as efficiency, effectiveness, equity, fairness and impartiality is vital to the successful administration of land.

In most African countries however, weak governance has undermined effective protection of land rights. Further, the effects of weak land governance will be particularly harmful for the poor in developing countries for whom land is a primary means to generate a livelihood, a key vehicle to invest, accumulate wealth and transfer such wealth between generations and a key part of their identity. Because land comprises such a large share of the asset portfolio of the poor, giving or subsidizing the acquisition of secure property rights to the land they already use can increase the wealth of poor people who are not able to afford the (official and unofficial) fees needed to deal with the formal system. This also implies that improved land governance has great potential to directly and indirectly benefit the poor.

Land is a vital resource and a driver of economic growth and development. Thus, the way land is governed administered is therefore has a significant impact on a certain country's future. In a similar talking, land was not only the major asset limited in quantity but also its value is likely rising rapidly due to urbanization and economic development.

In most countries, land accounts for between half to three quarters of national wealth. Moreover, in most societies there were competing demands on land for many purposes including agriculture, industrial development, forestry, infrastructure, urbanization, ecological and environmental protection etc. Therefore, many countries have facing great difficulty in balancing the needs of these competing demands. This is due to the fact that land is continuing to be a fundamental cause of social, ethnic, cultural and religious conflicts. Many countries, many wars and revolutions have been fought over rights to land. This is because land is a major asset in any economy, a fundamental factor of agricultural production and food security.

Rural land also needs to be managed cautiously. Pressure on rural land is increasing as a result of a rising world population (now at seven billion), climate change, declining soil fertility and the need for global food and fuel security.

In the era of globalization and population pressure, land shortage is the notorious element in Africa where land and land related conflicts increasing. This was aggravated by current African situation which is not well equipped to resolve such conflicts.

Like in many other developing countries, land is the major socioeconomic asset for the rural population in Ethiopia. Land rights influence the use and development of land resources and hence, the economic growth. Good land administration is a key issue for the development of a country. The quality of land administration can be achieved by the rules of good governance, where indicators like equity, reliability or transparency are essential.

Land in Ethiopia requires a careful attention by public officials and enforcing agents to make sure that good governance exist in practice. Thus, good governance in rural land administration is an important agenda for an agrarian country like in Ethiopia because of the existing unresolved land and land related issues [2].

Moreover, land administration were getting continual challenges where both developed and developing countries confronted by land corruption and related issues, access to judicial system was time consuming and very costly to the extent that justice is inequitable which favors the rich and educated section of the society. Land administration system is more often exhibit corruption in collection of fees; multiple rent seeking and unnecessary processes; delivery of multiple and ineffective titles to parcels; arbitrary allocation of land and negligible capacity for planning or controlling building quality. Repeated problems in developing countries include legitimating of mass land theft; failure to police uncontrolled evictions; inability to manage interaction between competing tenure holders especially between landowners and users and resource takers; and inability to manage state assets. Besides to this, in some countries the judicial system may be corrupt and the decision of judges influenced by informal payments. Not only this but also, the administrative land dispute resolution system were still at infant stage which cannot answer the ever increasing questions of land and its related issues.

Statement of the problem

The world population is facing large scale challenges with an ever increasing competition over land at transnational, national, sub-national, local and family level which was aggravated by population growth and urbanization. Land has long been known to be one of the sectors that are most affected by bad governance, something that is not difficult to understand in light of the fact that land is not only a major asset but also that its value is likely to rise rapidly in many contexts of urbanization and economic development. The most authoritative survey of global corruption finds that, after the police and the court, land services are the most corrupt sector, ahead of other permits, education, health, tax authorities or public utilities.

Studies show that majority of people in developing countries do not have legally recognized and well documented land rights. Similarly, an overwhelming majority of the people who live below poverty line comes from sub Saharan Africa and south Asia, the root cause of poverty were poor land governance, lack of effective conflict resolution, unequal access to land and tenure insecurity. Hence, without good land governance the goal to promote economic growth and sustainable poverty reduction may never be realized in developing countries. In many countries of the world land administration systems have failed due to poor management of land and lack of good governance. Zakout identifies key obstacles hindering changes in African good governance in land administration. These are; weak judiciary, incoherent and inconsistent legal framework, poor public sector management and widespread political and beaurocratic corruption [3].

Good land governance in land administration aims to protect the property of individuals and enterprises as well as state by introducing such principles like transparency, accountability, rule of law, equity and participation into land related public sector. In support to the above idea, African countries those institutions responsible for land and land related issues were incompetent and its employees who were hired for land administration lacks skill and knowledge, land administration was associated with the most corrupt sector in public Administration. Ethiopia which is one of African countries the practice of good governance in land administration sector remained unsatisfactory and the most subtle. Access to land in Ethiopia is a potent political issue and extremely important and has become a major socioeconomic asset. This reality is especially true for rural land where Ethiopia has a very large rural population that consists of 83%-85% of the total population since 1998.

In Ethiopia, all land is under the public or state ownership by which land is not subject to sale or any other means of exchange. Hence, the government does recognize use rights and holdings. The country's legal and institutional structure with regard to land administration has been criticized for being unnecessarily complicated, plurality of laws and institutions as well as the federal structure led to a co-existence of different laws and institutions with unclear responsibilities at different levels.

Moreover, Ethiopia does not have sufficient land record keeping system. This risk undermines the land administration system which causes tenure insecurity of land in rural areas. Rural land has to be managed cautiously, because pressure on rural land is increasing as a result of rising population and for other purposes.

Several challenges were affecting land administration system in Ethiopia. Among others; land becomes the potential entry for corrupt activities to occur, these includes lack of clear land policies, weak institutions, lack of transparency and limited public participation as well as capacity challenges relating to rural land.

At the local level weak institutional setup and capacity limitation had contributed for the weak governance in land administration in Ethiopia. The practice of good governance at grassroots level is not determined by the theoretical existence of institutions and good governance packages but, by the practical applicability of these good governance packages and principles. Moreover, currently the issue of land administration got high concern by both government and individuals in case of Ethiopia. Now the government gives much more attention to the area and screened out as the highest area where rent seeking behaviors taking place. The situation in Benishangul Gumuz particularly Assosa zone was not different from the national phenomenon by which there was a problem of good governance in land administration. Previous empirical studies by Birhanu, Dinka, conducted in Oromiya region areas, Takele conducted research in Hawassa city. They focused on good governance in urban land administration by ignoring the rural land where vast proportion of population depend on rural land that determines the overall political, socio-economic issues in Ethiopia.

Besides to this, unlike the previous researches listed above, which were statistically descriptive but this research was analyzed by multiple linear regression ordinary least square model and to the level of my knowledge the area Assosa zone rural land administration which is found in Benishangul Gumuz region was not studied with regard to determinants of good governance practices. Moreover, the researcher has experience and exposure as resident in the area and has been working in the community made the researcher interested to study the determinants of good governance practices in Assosa zone rural land administration [4].

Therefore, the purpose of the research is to assess the practice and determinants of good governance in land administration particularly in Assosa zone rural land administration selected two woredas of Bambasi and Assosa.

In order to address the gaps the following questions will be answered.

• What were the practices of good governance in rural land administration?
• What is the effect of institutional factor on good governance?
• What is the effect of skilled labor on good governance?
• How good governance is determined by resources allocated for rural land?

Objectives of the study

In order to address the above research questions, the following main and specific objectives were designed.

General objective: The major objective of the study is to assess the determinants of good governance practices in Assosa zone rural land administration.

Specific objectives:

• To investigate the practice of good governance in Assosa rural land administration.
• To see the effect of institutional factor on good governance.
• To examine effect of skilled labor on good governance.
• To see the effect of resources on good governance.

Conceptual definition

Governance: Governance is a process of decision making and the process by which decisions are implemented or not implemented. Governance is broader than government. Because it is inclusive that includes state and non-state actors. Therefore, governance in land issues reflects a broad spectrum of state actors, customary authorities, professionals, private and other stakeholders. Moreover, governance is cooperation than a confrontation especially in land; it is a cooperation of various stakeholders.

In other words, governance is defined as the exercise of authority or control. It is a system by which the state exercises its control. Chaka defines governance as the structures and processes that are designed to ensure accountability, transparency, responsiveness, rule of law, stability, equity and inclusiveness, empowerment as well as broad based participation [5].

Land governance: Is the process by which decisions are made regarding access to land use, the manner in which those decisions are implemented as well as conflicting interests are reconciled. Land governance is the processes of determining, recording and disseminating information about the ownership, value and use of land when implementing land management policies.

Land governance includes state structures such as land agencies, courts and ministries responsible for land as well as nonstatutory actors such as traditional bodies and informal agents.

Land administration: Is defined as the process of determining (adjudication), recording and disseminating, information about ownership, value and use of land and its associated resources.

Good governance: According to OECD, good governance can be explained as participation, transparency and accountability, effective, equity promoting rule of law. Saada, views good governance as transparent and accountable management of human, natural, economic and financial resources of a country in the drive towards equitable and sustainable development. The United Nations defines good governance as the exercise of authority through political and institutional processes that are transparent and accountable and encourage public participation.

Principles of good governance for land administration: Good governance in a society can only be achieved through a wellmanaged process. In a process where citizens participate in decision making, governments become accountable to citizens and are obliged to observe the rules and laws. Such a process also means that government is well-managed and inclusive and delivers the desired outcomes. According to FAO, good governance in land administration involves more participatory and transparent processes and aims to protect the property rights of individuals and enterprises based on a set of commonly held principles. These principles can be made operational through equity, efficiency, transparency and accountability, public participation and security, as defined below.

Efficiency: Land registration should be simple, efficient and effective. Formulated policies should also be implemented and delivered to society in a timely and efficient manner. Efficiency and effectiveness is the quality of processes of managing land while making the best use of it to meet user needs (service levels and costs) without wastage. The indicators of efficiency and effectiveness, to mention some, are customer satisfaction; risk of bribery; competency; land conflict resolution mechanisms; land registration systems; and time, cost and clarity of procedures to access land [6].

Equitability: Land administration services should not favor a particular group or individual, whether on the basis of gender, ethnicity, religion, age or political affiliation. Equity is a way of providing equal opportunity for all to access land and land information without legal impediments and procedural difficulties. The indicators of equity include: Equitable access to land and land information and fair compensation.

Accountability: Land administration agencies should prove their responsibility by responding to questioning and providing evidence of their actions and functions. They should be independently audited and regularly publish their accounts and performance indicators. Accountability is answerability of institutions or/and servants for the action and resulting consequence in implementing land policies. The indicators of accountability include: Mechanism of reporting, mechanisms of declaration of financial statements, mechanisms for questioning and appeal mechanisms for conflict resolution.

Transparency: Land information should be freely accessible, subject to the protection of privacy. It should be clearly stated which institution takes responsibility for land administration (in the national, regional or local government) and has the right to generate income from that land. Citizens should have the right to discuss and seek resolution to any objections that they raise about land use and land tax assessment. In other words, transparency means information is freely available and accessible; land management decisions and their enforcement are made honestly and fairly by institutions mandated for the same. The indicators of transparency include: Clarity of land delivery processes, clarity and accessibility of the laws and rules regulating land delivery, free flow of and accessible land market information to all.

Public participation: Citizens should be enabled to participate in land-related policies either via elected politicians or civil society, without limitation on freedom of expression and association.

Participation is the act of engagement of stakeholders at various levels in decision making processes regarding land issues that affect their interest. The indicators of participation include: The extent of involvement of community members in the land delivery processes, plan preparation, policy decisions and implementations of laws and regulations.

Security: Good governance in land administration requires a consistent and coherent legal framework, a fair and transparent judiciary and general prevalence of the rule of law to protect property rights. Zakout identifies eight key principles of good governance for land administration, summarized in the following way:

Efficiency: Procedures to register property transactions should be short and simple. The fewer steps there are, the less opportunity for informal payments. Effectiveness, the effectiveness of land administration depends on capacity building and financial provision, as well as on the general sociopolitical conditions, such as political will and commitment, the rule of law, regulatory quality and political stability [7].

Transparency, consistency and predictability: Transparent recruitment of staff and transparent service standards and costs of services will contribute to higher efficiency, accountability, fairness and confidence in agency integrity.

Integrity and accountability: Accountability in land administration can be improved through the implementation of uniform service standards that are monitored, codes of conduct for staff (as well as mechanisms of sanction) and incentives such as awards for outstanding employees.

Subsidiary, autonomy and de-politicization: Increasing the autonomy of local land administration, while introducing checks and balances at the national level, can improve services and reduce corruption. Civic engagement and public participation client orientation and responsiveness in land administration can be achieved through improved access to information, customer surveys to measure customers satisfaction and hotlines to enable customers to report corruption and misconduct.

Equity, fairness and impartiality: All people should have the same access to service and receive the same service standards independent of their political or economic status. The introduction of counter offices and a numbering system for customers arrival (first come first served) may achieve this objective.

Legal security and rule of law: Good governance in land administration requires a consistent and coherent legal framework, a fair and transparent judiciary and general prevalence of the rule of law to protect property rights. These principles would generally apply to overall civil service good governance.

Benefits of applying good governance in land administration

Some of the benefits of applying good governance in land administration are:

Economic growth and opportunity: Introducing an easy customer-oriented land registration system improves the security of land rights, providing incentives for investment and development of financial markets.

Properly managed state-owned land: Under good land administration, state-owned lands are allocated transparently. Governments also have accurate records and clear policy objectives for state land management, whereby citizens have equal land use rights, customary rights or resource rights.

Property taxation and land valuation: Property taxes are an important source of income for local governments. Having a transparent and accountable system in the use of such taxes allows the state to benefit from land taxation and prepare better land use plans.

Land use planning: Effective land use planning policies and procedures are critical determinants of the value of land. In the case of agricultural development, transparent state land management helps protect the environment from inappropriate conversion of agricultural land for urban use [8].

Criteria and features of good governance in land administration

In 2007, FAO published the following criteria and features that describe good governance in land administration:

• The distribution of land rights is balanced between all citizens. There is no discrimination on basis of race, gender or religion.
• The national policy framework on land tenure and land rights issues is appropriate and the system for recording and communicating land rights is legally based and accessible.
• Land agencies serve all citizens.
• The legitimacy of land agencies and land administrators is recognized by citizens.
• The processes for public land management, disposal and privatization as well as for expropriation or eviction for public purposes are transparent, fair and accountable.
• The system for property valuation and taxation is transparent, equitable and accountable.
• Services of land agencies fulfill the needs of customers and they are provided efficiently, effectively and competently as well as with integrity, transparency and accountability.
• The results of the services of land agencies are consistent, predictable and impartial.

Rural land in Ethiopia: Rural land administration is delegated to the regions. However, unclear responsibilities at different levels of government have led to overlaps. For example, in rural areas, both the land administration institutions and the investment authorities have a mandate to allocate land to investors. In addition, land registration and certification is also delegated to voluntary, community-elected land administration committees at Kebele (village) and Woreda (district) level. While these committees have been argued to build community trust in land registration others point out that these committees are not always provided with sufficient resources. The Ethiopian constitution maintains that all rural residents are entitled to indefinite-term use rights to land. However, the transferability of use rights is primarily restricted to inheritance. Moreover, land laws also mandate that landholders either farm their land or risk losing it through redistribution or expropriation. In other words, rural landholders cannot lease out and stay away from their holdings and pursue non agricultural livelihood strategies. For example, in the Tigray region, land use right can be lost if the holder leaves the kebele for more than two years.

Critics of the government-owned land system have argued that the fear of land redistribution have heightened the farmer's sense of tenure insecurity and undermined investment in productivity. At the same time, critics also argue that it diminishes rural urban mobility as farmers are bound to a life of farming in order to remain landholders. While experts have praised Ethiopia's rapid, pro-poor and gender-sensitive rural land right registration over the past years, issues still remain. For example, only five of the nine regions have actually enacted laws to register rural land holdings. In addition, Ethiopia does not have sufficient land record-keeping systems. This risks undermining the land registration process it-self. The tenure insecurity that this causes is argued to lead to informality and hinder rural income diversification (Figure 1) [9].

Figure 1: Conceptual framework of the study.

Materials and Methods

Research design

Cross-sectional surveys are used to gather information on a population at a single point in time. Thus, cross sectional research design was used in order to include across the organization from top management, employees to customers of the organization.

Research approach

Quantitative research approach is defined as the systematic investigation of phenomena by gathering quantifiable data and performing statistical, mathematical or computational techniques. Hence, quantitative approach was applied while conducting the research. Quantitative involves the generation of data in quantitative form which can be subjected to rigorous quantitative analysis in a formal and rigid fashion. Therefore, quantitative approach of research was used in the research [10].

Data type and data sources

The researcher was used both primary and secondary data sources to accomplish this study.

Primary data: Primary data was gathered from respondents who are working in selected woredas of Bambasi and Assosa within Assosa zone. In addition, to this land holder of these two woredas were randomly selected from 12 kebeles in order to collect the primary data.

Secondary data: Secondary data were gathered by reviewing different relevant literatures and previous researches in the subject matter, related books, journal articles, annual reports, regional and federal constitutions, internet and any valid source of information were assessed and used to strengthen the study as the secondary source of data.

Population of the study

The study population for the research was the management, employees and landholders of the Bambasi and Assosa woreda land administration are the total population for the study.

Sampling design and sample size

Kothari identified the characteristics of a good sample design as: Sample design must result in a truly representative sample, sample design must be such which results in a small sampling error, sample design must be viable in the context of funds available for the research study, sample design must be such so that systematic bias can be controlled in a better way, sample should be such that the results of the sample.

Based on purposive sampling Bambasi and Assosa Woredas were selected from Assosa zone. Because, these two woredas have high population and conflict of land interest between rural and urban residents were there in rural land related issues were existing in these two woredas. Both purposive and simple random sampling techniques were applied on these two woreda respondents to the study. Therefore, the sample size is based on Yamane a formula to calculate a representative sample for proportions.

n=N/(1+N(e²)

Where,

n=sample size

N=Total population

e=level of precision at 95% confidence level

hence; 388 were the sample size of the study.

In this regard, from the selected two woredas, Assosa woreda randomly selected 7 kebeles and from bambasi woredas randomly 5 kebeles were considered in the study as a survey respondents. Accordingly based on the above formula, the sample size of the study was 388 and the response rate was 374 (96.3%).

Data analysis and interpretation

The data that has been collected from the samples through questionnaire was analyzed using SPSS-v20. Good governance practice was analyzed through descriptive statics; such as percentage, frequency presented in tables. Whereas, determinants of good governance were analyzed by were analyzed by frequency, percentage, mean and standard deviation. In the process of data analysis, those questions that have been measured in 5-point Liker scale.

Multiple regression ordinary least square method of inferential statstics was applied to see the relationship and significance of independent variables in the study [11].

Reliability and validity test of instruments

Validity test: Validity of instrument of data collection was checked through various mechanisms. The researcher tried to refer how to develop questionnaires. Besides to this, proper detection by experts who have knowledge about the research issue was taken to ensure validity of the instruments. In this regard, validity of the instrument was tested by using a pre-test of the questionnaire with potential respondents out of the sample areas to avoid the probability of responding the questionnaire twice by the sample respondent. So that inputs and corrective measures were considered before data collection.

Reliability test: The reliability of the data was tested by Cronbach's Alpha by which the resultof each variables shows greater than 0.7 which indicates that the data were reliable.

Results and Discussion

The practice of good governance in Assosa zone rural land administration

Good governance practices in rural land administration are evaluated by the so called principles of good governance such as participation, accountability, effectiveness, transparency and fairness. Hence, good governance practice was assessed by the above elements in detail (Table 1).

Table 1: The practice of public participation of rural land in Assosa zone land administration.

Regarding public participation in rural land administration in Assosa zone 68.4% of the respondents said that participation was not implemented. Despite the above idea, 31.6% of the respondents judged that public were participated in land related issues and decision making activities. According to the idea of respondents public participation was not practically implemented. So, the result was similar with Mosisa [12].

As shown in Table 2 land officials were not accountable to their decisions. In other words they are not liable what they decide which in fact affects the people. Because 67.9% of the respondents believed that land officials were not accountable by their decisions.

Table 2: Practice of accountability rural land in Assosa zone land administration.

Among the collected questionnaires effective service delivery to the customers in terms of time, cost and quality 89.3% of the respondents were not satisfied with the service that the land administration office offers. As a result the service rendered by the land sector was not satisfactory (Table 3).

Table 3: Effectiveness in service delivery by the land office.

About 78.1% of the respondents said that all customers were not treated fairly. That means customers were treated unfairly by some backgrounds, such as based on wealth, status, bad patronage, working for relatives and friends were exercised which shows practice against equal treatment of customers from getting service. However, 21.9% of the respondents assure impartial treatments were exercised irrespective of any segregated backgrounds (Table 4).

Table 4: The practice of fair treatment of customers by the Assosa zone land administration.

Transparency in Assosa zone rural land administration freely accessible by which 17.5% of respondents confirmed. However, land rights and land information were not freely accessible to the public. These were confirmed by 82.9% of the respondents (Table 5) [13].

Table 5: The practice of accessibility to land rights and land information to the public.

From the below table the level of public participation in rural land administration decision making matters 46.5% and 25.7% of respondents confirmed that there were low and very low level of public participation which aggregately accounts 72.2% of the respondents. However, 7.4% of the respondents believed that high and very high and rest 20.3% said that undecided in terms of participation of the public in rural land matters (Table 6).

Table 6: Level of good governance practices.

Despite the Benishangul Gumuz regional state land administration proclamation no. 85/2002 which guarantees public participation at the heart of rural land administration system. The level of public participation were not promissory or not pragmatic in rural land administration system.

Similarly as indicated in the above table the practice of accountability were low which the respondents confirmed 78.6% where as 9.6% of the respondents said that there exercises accountability. Therefore, land officials in Assosa zone rural land administration were not accountable while making land and land related matters.

Respondents from the above table labeled that effective service delivery to the customers by land administration office was the following, 75.2% of respondents were confirmed that there were low service delivery, 20.1% of the respondents evaluated as undecided and 4.8% of the respondents believed that there were high service delivery. Hence, from this the service delivery of Assosa zone land administration was not effective to the customers.

Moreover, respondents said that 78.4% low and very low in serving all customers equally. While 13.6% of the respondents believed there were undecided and the remaining 8.1% were high and very high treatment of customers by the Assosa zone Land administration.

As shown on table land rights and access to land information were high and very high which accounts 4.2% the other 74.6% of the respondents low and very low level of transparency. Whereas the rest 21.1% of the respondents said undecided in terms of transparency practice. Hence, this tells that the execercise of transparency were not satisfactory. In other words, transparency were poorly exercised by the Assosa zone land administration (Table 7) [14].

Table 7: Pearson correlation coefficient of respondents.

In order to examine the size and magnitude of the relationship between the variables pearson correlation coefficient was performed. Therefore, from the above table indicates a direct relation found between institutional factors and good governance practice at p-value of 0.01 significant level? Then it interpreted, as any change in the institutional factor would result in a change in good governance in the same direction.

Similarly, as indicated in the above table there exists a positive correlation found between skilled labor and physical resources with (r, 0.558) and (r, 0.531). Hence, any change in skilled labor and physical resources in Assosa zone rural land administration have a positive change in good governance. In the same manner, institutional factors have direct relationship with good governance at (r: 0.639) meaning 63.9% of institutional factor affects good governance (Table 8).

Table 8: Co-linearity statistics.

According to Hair another way of multi co linearity test is known as co linearity. It is occurs when two or more independent variables contain strongly redundant information. The implication is that researchers should be careful about putting highly correlated variables into regression equations. To check for co linearity, start by measures include the tolerance value and its inverse-the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). He recommend that a very small tolerance value (0.10 or below) or a large VIF value (10 or above) indicates high co linearity. But in this study above table shows that VIF is less than 10 and tolerance value also above 0.10, so it can conclude there is no co linearity problem (Table 9) [15].

Table 9: Model summary of R-square.

The R-square statistic measures the regression model’s usefulness in predicting outcomes indicating how much of the dependent variable’s variation is due to its relationship with the independent variable(s). The model summary table shows the Rsquare is 0.47, meaning institutional strength, skilled labor and physical resources explains 47% of the good governance variation. This below ANOVA table indicate that the p-value for the regression model F test is 0.000, this means the model is highly significant and it shows good fitness of data (Table 10).

Table 10: ANOVA test.

Regression result of the respondents

In order to examine the relative impact of each independent variable, by controlling all the factors, multiple linear regression is employed. In this research, the dependent variable is good governance and the independent variables are institutional factor, skilled labor and physical resources (Table 11) [16].

Table 11: Result of multiple linear regression analysis of good governance.

Gg=βo+β1If+β2Sl+β3pr+£

Gg=-0.015+0.475If+0.217Sl+0.226Pr+£

Based on the above table, all predictors which are included in model have found to be significant impact on good governance. Those are discussed in the following paragraph. In support with institutional factor which is included in model has found to be significant impact on good governance with p-value of 0.000 is less than 0.05 and the un-standardized coefficients β has positive value (0.475). Then it interprets as that a certain increment in the institutional factors would result a positive variation in good governance in the Assosa zone rural administration, the other variables in the model are held constant [17].

Skilled labor has also found to be significant impact on good governance with p-value of 0.000 is less than 0.05 and the unstandardized coefficients β has positive value (0.217). In that case a certain increment in the skilled labor would result a positive variation in good governance in the Assosa zone land administration, the other variables in the model are held constant. Physical resources has positive and significant impact on good governance, since the P-value 0.000 is less than 0.05 and statistically significant. Its unstandardized coefficients β has positive value (0.226). Then it implies a certain increment in the physical resources would result a positive variation in good governance in Assosa zone rural land administration, the other variables in the model are held constant [18].

Findings

Good governance for rural administration was undoubtfully, decisive for effective land governance. However, in support to Birhanu, the practice of good governance in Assosa zone rural administration was poorly implemented. Even though BGRSRLA indicated the need for participatory land administration in proclamation 85/2002 and in contrast with Mhrtey, public participation in rural land administration matters were low by which 72.2% of the respondents confirmed. Accountability issue also unsatisfactory too. So that the land officials were not accountable for the decisions which affect land holders [19].

Moreover, like Takele effectiveness practice which was measured by service delivery interms of time, quality and amount were at low level. Not only this but also transparency was not good that respondents evaluated as low. Besides to this, fairness was poor which hampers good governance practice.

Based on the regression results institutional factors, skilled labor and physical resources were significant at p-value of 0.01 and positively determine the success of good governance in rural land administration at Assosa zone land administration [20].

Conclusion

Based on the findings the following conclusions were derived. Though good governance in rural land administration is a decisive for the public, the practical applicability of good governance were lagged behind. public participation in Assosa zone rural land administration was not suffice where people do not participate and their voice were not considered in decision making affairs.

Based on the regression results institutional factors, skilled labor and physical resources were significant at p-value of 0.01 and positively determine the success of good governance in rural land administration at Assosa zone land administration.

Recommendations

Based on the results and conclusions of the study, the following recommendations are forwarded:

Facilitate avenues for public participation on rural land administration: Community participation with land and land related issues strengthens the performance of good governance in Assosa zone rural land administration. Hence, participation of the public were the best solution for problems associated with rural land. Because, it is the public which brings solutions for the prevailed problems.

Strengthening the culture of accountability: Accountability promotes trust between customers and the land institution. However, as observed on this study accountability practice was poor. Thus, accountability has to be ensured with responsibility which also ensures rule of law on those which fails to observe the land laws.

Set service standards: Without enforceable service standards, inefficiency can develop unchecked, which, in turn, creates opportunities for bribery, corruption and favoritism. Hence, Assosa zone rural land administration shall set service standards for institutional functions.

Building modern and sustained land registration system: Many studies recommend the need for modern land registration system. This data has to be updated continuously so as to ensure transparency in land information system. As a result, modern land information system improves good governance efforts in Assosa zone land administration. So, Assosa zone rural land administration need to be strengthen modern and continuous land registration system.

Enhancing institutional and organizational capacity: Land institution capacity is enhanced through allocating budgetary, physical resources and training the staff. Consequently, Assosa zone rural land administration had better focus on equipping its employees with sound ethics in order to improve service delivering capacity by increasing attitudinal change. Additionally due attention shall give in budget allocation by the government in order to solve human and material problems.

Use of anti-corruption agencies and whistle blowers: Evidence of wrongdoing is often exposed by insiders, sometimes referred to as whistle blowers. Hence, encouraging anti-corruption agencies and whistle blowers are important for Assosa zone rural land administration.

The need for skilled labor in land administration: A human resources policy embraces all aspects of employing people. Land agencies must ensure that staff have the right skills and attitudes and are motivated to serve. Assosa zone rural land administration shall facilitate technical and long term training of its employees. Because land administration now a day's become more technical and complex this demands skilled experts in order to run day to day activities. So, Assosa zone rural land administration shall stress on human development.

References

1. Behailu D, Kasa A. Land governance in Ethiopia: Towards evaluating global trends. J Soc Sci Res. 2018;4(3):35-46.

   [Google Scholar]

2. Rahmatizadeh S, Rajabifard A, Kalantari M. A conceptual framework for utilising VGI in land administration. Land Use Policy. 2016;56:81-89.

   [Google Scholar]

3. Udessa F, Adugna D, Workalemahu L. Challenges to practice good governance in urban land management; the case of Gelan and Lega Tafo Lega Dadi Towns. Amer J Geograph Inform System. 2021;10:44-59.

   [Google Scholar]

4. Berger E. Access to land in Ethiopia: The impact of land laws, industrial development, villagization and land-grab in rural areas. Bachelor Thesis. Lund University, Lund, Sweden. 2014.
5. Kefela G. Good governance enhance the efficiency and effectiveness public spending-Sub Saharan countries. African J Busi Manag. 2011;5(11):3995.

   [Google Scholar]

6. de Vries M. The challenge of good governance. Innovation J. 2013;18.

   [Google Scholar]

7. Sungena TN, Serbeh-Yiadom KC, Asfaw M. Strengthening good governance in urban land management in Ethiopia: A case-study of Hawassa. J Env Earth Sci. 2014;4:96-107.

   [Google Scholar]

8. Navratil G, Mansberger R. Land administration to decrease the poverty?. InReal Corp 2017 Proceedings/Tagungsband 2017;337-344.

   [Google Scholar]

9. Tikue MA. Good governance in land administration from below: The case of Naeder Adet Woreda, Ethiopia. Int J Afr Asian Stud. 2016;23:85-97.

   [Google Scholar]

10. Pal RP. Challenges and prospects of good governance in reduction of poverty: A case study of Buee Town 01 Kebele, Ethiopia. Glob J Polit Sci Admin. 2017;5(3):13-27.

    [Google Scholar]

11. Sungena TN, Serbeh-Yiadom KC, Asfaw M. Strengthening good governance in urban land management in Ethiopia: A case-study of Hawassa. J Env Earth Sci. 2014;4:96-107.

    [Google Scholar]

12. Sungena TN, Serbeh-Yiadom KC, Asfaw M. Strengthening good governance in urban land management in Ethiopia: A case-study of Hawassa. J Env Earth Sci. 2014;4:96-107.

    [Google Scholar]

13. Zakout W, Wehrmann B, Torhonen MP. Good governance in land administration. World Bank: Washington, DC, USA. 2006.

    [Google Scholar]

14. van Ryzin MJ, Dishion TJ. From antisocial behavior to violence: A model for the amplifying role of coercive joining in adolescent friendships. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2013;54(6):661-669.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

15. Shulman EP, Steinberg LD, Piquero AR. The age–crime curve in adolescence and early adulthood are not due to age differences in economic status. J Youth Adolesc. 2013;42:848–860.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

16. Adu-Mireku S. Fear of crime among residents of three communities in Accra, Ghana. Int J Comp Soci. 2002;43(2):153-168.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

17. Alexander C, Pain R. Urban security: Whose security? Everyday responds to fears. In: Ceccato, V. (ed.). The urban fabric of crime and fear. New York and London, Springer, 2012;37-53

    [Google Scholar]

18. Aning EK. An overview of the Ghana Police Service. J Secur Sector Manag. 2006;4(2):1-37.

    [Google Scholar]

19. Appiahene-Gyamfi J. Urban crime trends and patterns in Ghana: The case of Accra. J Criminal Justi. 2003;31(1):13-23.

    [Google Scholar]

20. Owusu G, Owusu AY, Oteng-Ababio M, Wrigley-Asante C, Agyapong I. An assessment of households' perceptions of private security companies and crime in urban Ghana. Crime Sci. 2016b;5(5).

    [Google Scholar]