ISSN: 2222-6990
Open access
A quality assessment framework that assesses the performance of institutional arrangement of land administration is essentially needed considering the framework is where the legal process and property rights are ensured. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) by World Bank is developed as a diagnostic instrument to assess country’s land administration system at national or sub-national level. This study explored the appropriateness of this assessment framework by interviewing experts from Department of Land and Mines, Department of Surveying and Mapping in Penang Land and Mines Office, and Department of Town Planning and Consumer Association of Penang to determine the suitability based on twelve indicators of institutional arrangement and policy highlighted in LGAF. The result shows that, out of twelve indicators, only eleven indicators are highly suitable to be evaluate by Malaysia’s land administration system. Through this study, a formal land administration system can be supported and guided via the scheduled evaluations based on the indicators which will be a beneficial for land authorities.
Auzins, A., & Kapostins, E. (2012). New Land Management Law for Providing a Sustainable Land Management in the Republic of Latvia. publication. editionName, 1-15.
Baizerman, M. (2012). Introduction. Evaluation and Program Planning, 35(1), 139–147.
Bandeira, P., Sumpsi, J. M., & Falconi, C. (2010). Evaluating land administration systems: A comparative method with an application to Peru and Honduras. Land Use Policy, 27(2), 351-363.
Bennett, R., Wallace, J., & Williamson, I. (2008). Organising land information for sustainable land administration. Land Use Policy, 25(1), 126-138.
Burns, T., Grant, C., Nettle, K., Brits, A. M., & Dalrymple, K. (2006). Land administration reform: indicators of success. Future Challenges.
Cousins, J. B., Goh, S. C., Elliott, C., Aubry, T., & Gilbert, N. (2014). Government and voluntary sector differences in organizational capacity to do and use evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 44, 1-13.
Daigneault, P. M. (2014). Taking stock of four decades of quantitative research on stakeholder participation and evaluation use: A systematic map. Evaluation and program planning, 45, 171-181.
Deere, C. D. (2003). Women's land rights and rural social movements in the Brazilian agrarian reform. Journal of Agrarian Change, 3(1?2), 257-288.
Deininger, K., Selod, H., & Burns, A. (2011). The Land Governance Assessment Framework: Identifying and monitoring good practice in the land sector. The World Bank.
Eo, G. (2010). The GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Policy 2010. Evaluation Document No.4: Global Environment Facility Evaluation Office. Retrieved from: https://www.gefieo.org/sites/default/files/ieo/evaluations/gef-me-policy-2010-eng.pdf\
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction. Boston: Pearson.
Hagedorn, K., Arzt, K., & Peters, U. (2002). Institutional arrangements for environmental co-operatives: a conceptional framework. Hagedorn, Konrad (Hg.) (2002): Environmental Co-operation and Institutional Change. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 3-25.
Hagedorn, K., Arzt, K., & Peters, U. (2002). Institutional arrangements for environmental co-operatives: a conceptional framework. Hagedorn, Konrad (Hg.) (2002): Environmental Co-operation and Institutional Change. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 3-25.
Youker, B. W., Ingraham, A., & Bayer, N. (2014). An assessment of goal-free evaluation: Case studies of four goal-free evaluations. Evaluation and program planning, 46, 10-16.
Jabot, F., Turgeon, J., & Carbonnel, L. (2011). The evaluation of the PACA regional public health plan: Reconciling the managerial, scientific and democratic finalities. Evaluation and program planning, 34(3), 196-205.
Mughal, H. A. (2019). Support at Work and its Relationship with Employee Performance: Critical Insights for Early Scholars. Annals of Contemporary Developments in Management & HR (ACDMHR), 1(3), 16-21.
Lee, N., & Lings, I. (2008). Doing Business Research: A Guide to Theory and Practice. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
McCoy, A., Rose, D., & Connolly, M. (2014). Approaches to evaluation in Australian child and family welfare organizations. Evaluation and program planning, 44, 68-74.
Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2009). Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Spilsbury, M. J., Norgbey, S., & Battaglino, C. (2014). Priority setting for evaluation: Developing a strategic evaluation portfolio. Evaluation and program planning, 46, 47-57.
Steudler, D. (2004). A framework for the evaluation of land administration systems (Doctoral dissertation). University of Melbourne.
Whitehead, A., & Tsikata, D. (2003). Policy discourses on women's land rights in Sub–Saharan Africa: The implications of the re–turn to the Customary. Journal of Agrarian Change, 3(1?2), 67-112.\
Williamson, I. P. (2001). Land administration “best practice” providing the infrastructure for land policy implementation. Land Use Policy, 18(4), 297-307.
Williamson, I. P., & Grant, D. (2000). The United Nations-International Federation of SurveyorsDeclaration on Land Administration for Sustainable Development.
Zahir, A., Tuladhar, A. M., Zevenbergen, J. A., & Bhatti, M. A. (2014). Implementing total quality management concepts to land administration system in Pakistan. American journal of rural development, 2(4), 74-80.
In-Text Citation: (Samsudin, 2020)
To Cite this Article: Samsudin, S. (2020). The Suitability of Institutional Arrangement and Policy Assessment Indicator in Malaysia’s Land Administration System. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 10(11), 1414-1425.
Copyright: © 2021 The Author(s)
Published by HRMARS (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode