Dac Diem Kinh Te Nong Thon VN

0
c im Kinh t Nng thn Vit Nam: Kt qu iu tra H gia nh Nng thn nm 2006 ti 12 tnh
Bo co nghin cu trong khun kh Chng trnh H tr Khu vc Kinh doanh (BSPS) v Chng trnh H tr Khu vc Nng nghip (ASPS) do Danida ti tr
c im kinh t nng thn vit nam : Kt qu iu tra h gia nh nng thn Nm 2006 ti 12 tnh
Thng 8, 2007
Characteristics of the Vietnamese Rural Economy: Evidence from a 2006 Rural Household Survey in 12 Provinces of Vietnam
Mc lc
Danh mc cc Hnh............................................................................................................................. 5 Danh mc cc Bng ............................................................................................................................ 6 Cc ch vit tt ................................................................................................................................... 7 Li ni u .......................................................................................................................................... 8 Li cm n .......................................................................................................................................... 8 GII THIU ..................................................................................................................................... 10 1. C IM CC H C KHO ST ................................................................................. 13 2. THAM GIA TH TRNG LAO NG V CC HOT NG TO THU NHP ............ 21 2.1. Cc hot ng to thu nhp........................................................................................................ 22 2.2. a dng ha ............................................................................................................................... 25 2.3. Tm quan trng ca s phn b thi gian lao ng cho tng loi hot ng i vi vn to thu nhp....................................................................................................................................... 29 2.3.1. S phn chia thi gian cho cc hot ng lao ng ca h .................................................... 29 2.3.2. Tm quan trng ca lao ng v thu nhp .............................................................................. 31 2.4. Kt lun ...................................................................................................................................... 33 3. T AI: C IM, S DNG T, U T V TH TRNG.................................. 34 3.1. S phn b v chia t thnh mnh ........................................................................................... 36 3.2. Tnh trng S ........................................................................................................................ 43 3.3. S dng t ................................................................................................................................ 46 3.4. u t vo t ............................................................................................................................ 50 3.5. Th trng t ............................................................................................................................ 54 3.6. Kt lun ...................................................................................................................................... 59 4. U VO SN XUT NNG NGHIP HIN NAY............................................................... 60 4.1. u vo cho sn xut nng nghip ............................................................................................ 61 4.2. Th trng u vo v u ra ..................................................................................................... 64 4.2.1. Khong cch thng mi ........................................................................................................ 64 4.2.2. Cung u vo v cu u ra .................................................................................................... 66 4.2.3. Kh nng tip cn th trng u vo v u ra ..................................................................... 68 4.3. Kt lun ...................................................................................................................................... 71 5. TN DNG ................................................................................................................................... 71 5.1. Th trng tn dng nng thn ................................................................................................... 72 5.2. Cc ngun v iu kin vay ....................................................................................................... 73 5.3. Tip cn, chi ph v s dng tn dng ........................................................................................ 81 5.4. Cc h b t chi v t hn ch mnh......................................................................................... 87 5.5. Kt lun ...................................................................................................................................... 89
6. QUN L RI RO ........................................................................................................... .901 6.1. Nhng ri ro v x l ri ro .................................................................................................... 901 6.2. Bo him chnh thc ................................................................................................................ 967 6.3. Vn x hi.............................................................................................................................. 1012 6.4. Cc kt lun v ngha .......................................................................................................... 1034 7. TIP CN THNG TIN ........................................................................................................ 10405 7.1. Tip cn cc ngun thng tin chung ........................................................................................ 105 7.1.1. Tip cn bo ch .................................................................................................................... 105 7.2. Tip cn internet....................................................................................................................... 106 7.3. Cc ngun thng tin phc v sn xut nng nghip ................................................................ 107 7.3.1. Cc ngun thng tin chnh phc v sn xut nng nghip ................................................... 107 7.3.2. Cc hot ng dch v khuyn nng..................................................................................... 108 7.3.3. Cc h n gp t chc khuyn nng: .................................................................................. 108 7.3.4. Cc cuc ving thm h ca cc t chc khuyn nng: ....................................................... 110 7.3.5. nh gi ca h v cc hot ng khuyn nng................................................................... 110 7.4. Cc ngun thng tin v thay i chnh sch ............................................................................ 110 7.5. Trnh hiu bit ca h v Lut t ai 2003 ....................................................................... 111 7.5.1. Cc hot ng trin khai tuyn truyn v Lut t ai 2003........................................... 111 7.5.2. S h gia nh c bit v Lut t ai 2003......................................................................... 112 7.5.3. Trnh hiu bit ca h v Lut t ai 2003 .................................................................... 113 7.6. Kt lun .................................................................................................................................... 114 8. KT LUN................................................................................................................................. 114 Ph lc bng biu............................................................................................................................ 117 Ti liu tham kho........................................................................................................................... 124
Danh mc cc Hnh
Hnh 1.1: Cc h do n v nam lm ch h theo nhm tiu dng lng thc...............15 Hnh 1.2: T l h dng ngun nc an ton ung v un nu l chnh ......19 Hnh 1.3: S phn b ngun nhin liu cho un nu ...20 Hnh 1.4: Tin nghi v sinh, s phn b gia cc tnh......21 Hnh 1.5: Phn b s rc (trong 12 thng qua)..21 Hnh 2.1: S lng trung bnh thnh vin h tham gia lao ng c thu nhp....22 Hnh 2.2: T l dn s trong tui lao ng tham gia 4 loi hot ng ......................... ....24 Hnh 2.3: a dng ho s lng ngnh ngh v thu nhp ................................................................ 26 Hnh 2.4: Phn cng lao ng h gia nh, theo tnh (%).............................................................. 30 Hnh 2.5: C cu thu nhp ca h theo ngun thu phn theo tnh (%)............................................. 32 Hnh 2.6: Lao ng phi nng nghip ca h..34 Hnh 3.1: S phn b t ai ni chung v theo khu vc ................................................................. 39 Hnh 3.2: Hm phn chia t tch lu theo tnh a .............................................................................. 40 Hnh 3.3: T l cc mnh t c S ............................................................................................. 43 Hnh 3.4: S lng thnh vin h ng k tn trong S .............................................................. 44 Hnh 3.5: T l t khng b hn ch la chn cy trng, theo tnh trng S ca t ................. 48 Hnh 3.6: T l t c ti, theo mc ch s dng v vic c S hay khng.................52 Hnh 3.7: S ph thuc v h tng c s cng cng/HTX v kin nhn xt..55 Hnh 3.8: t c c thng qua th trng mua bn t v h mua bn t .................................. 56 Hnh 3.9: Ngi nhn t, tng v nhm ngho nht so vi nhm giu nht....59 Hnh 3.10: Ni tp trung giao dch t theo khu vc.....60 Hnh 4.1: T l cc h thu lao ng cho trng trt v chn nui..................................................... 63 Hnh 4.2: T l cc h trng trt hoc chn nui vay vn cho sn xut.......................................... 635 Hnh 4.3: T l cc x c ch.............................................66 Hnh 4.4: Khong cch trung bnh (km) t h n ng giao thng gn nht ....66 Hnh 4.5: Ngi cung cp la ging cho h...67 Hnh 4.6: Ngi tiu th sn phm cy trng....68 Hnh 4.7: T l sn phm bn cho h v thng li...69 Hnh 4.8: T l h gp kh khn khi tip cn th trng...70 Hnh 4.9: Cc loi kh khn khi tip cn th trng u vo hin nay..71 Hnh 5.1: S khon tn dng trn 100 h c iu tra theo tnh. .............................................. 79 Hnh 5.2: Phn b cc khon tn dng theo ngun v tnh (unweighted) ........................................ 80 Hnh 5.3: T l h c vay (%) v s khon vay/100 h .............................................................. 81 Hnh 5.4: T l h c d n vo thi im phng vn phn theo tnh (%) ..................................... 82 Hnh 6.1: T l h chu mt mt trong 5 nm qua .......................................................................... 912 Hnh 7.1: T l h c bo............................................................................................................ 1056 Hnh 7.2: T l h c bo hng ngy phn theo nhm tiu dng ............................................... 1056 Hnh 7.3: S dng internet ca h ................................................................................................ 1067 Hnh 7.4: Tip cn cc im internet ............................................................................................ 1067 Hnh 7.5: Tc ng ca khuyn nng n quyt nh ca h....................................................... 1090
Danh mc cc Bng
Bng 1.1: c im chung cc h c kho st theo tng tnh...................................................... 13 Bng 1.2: c im h, theo gii tnh v mc tiu dng lng thc............................................... 15 Bng 1.3 Trnh hc vn ca ch h, ph thng v chuyn nghip dy ngh............................... 16 Bng 1.4 Khong cch ti trng v tr s U ban Nhn dn ......................................................... 17 Bng 2.1: Cc hot ng ca dn s trong tui lao ng theo gii, nhm tiu th lng thc (%) ........................................................................................................... 23 Bng 2.2: a dng hot ng xt v c nhn (%)............................................................................. 27 Bng 2.3 a dng hot ng trn bnh din h gia nh (%)............................................................ 28 Bng 2.4 T l lao ng dnh cho cc loi hot ng h gia nh (%) .......................................... 29 Bng 2.5: Tm quan trng ca lao ng v thu nhp (%) ................................................................ 31 Bng 3.1: Phn b t v s chia t ra tng mnh.......................................................................... 37 Bng 3.2 : Din tch t iu chnh cho ph hp vi quy m v cht lng h.......................... 38 Bng 3.3: Ngun gc cc mnh t .................................................................................................. 42 Bng 3.4: C cu tn ng k trong S ....................................................................................... 45 Bng 3.5: Hn ch i vi cc mnh t (ch i vi t khng phi t ).................................... 47 Bng 3.6: S dng t (cho tt c cc mnh t khng phi t , khng phn bit t ca h hay h i thu) (%)............................................................................................................................ 49 Bng 3.7: Tnh trng u t vo t hin nay - Thy li v cy lu nin..51 Bng 3.8: u t ca h t 2002 v gi tr u t trong 12 thng qua..54 Bng 3.9: H b mt t trong 5 nm qua...56 Bng 3.10: Cc kiu b mt t ca h (nhng mnh b mt trong 5 nm qua).58 Bng 4.1: T l h trng trt s dng u vo .................................................................................. 62 Bng 5.1: Phn b khon vay theo ngun vn v nm (phn trm) ................................................. 74 Bng 5.2: c im chnh ca cc khon vay phn theo ngun (tt c cc khon vay)................... 76 Bng 5.3: Nhng c im ch yu ca cc khon tn dng phn theo ngun (ring 2005) .......... 78 Bng 5.4: Khong cch trung v n ni vay phn theo tnh v ngun ............................................ 82 Bng 5.5: Chi ph lm th tc xin vay v bt hp php phn theo ngun ........................................ 83 Bng 5.6: S dng mn vay phn theo ngun (Tt c mn vay, %) ................................................ 84 Bng 5.7: Ngun vay phn theo nhm tiu dng.............................................................................. 86 Bng 5.8: Ngi chu trch nhim chnh i vi khon vay (ch 2 khon ln nht)...................... 867 Bng 5.9: T l cc h b t chi, cc h t hn ch v cc h c nhu cu tn dng (%)................. 88 Bng 5.10: Nhu cu tn dng theo nhm tiu dng trong vng 12 thng trc khi phng vn........ 89 Bng 6.1: T l h chu thit hi phn theo nguyn nhn v tnh..................................................... 92 Bng 6.2: Mt s thng tin v gi tr thit hi phn theo v tr v nguyn nhn (000 VND) ......... 93 Bng 6.3: Cc bin php x l ri ro .............................................................................................. 945 Bng 6.4: Mc phc hi sau thit hai ........................................................................................ 956 Bng 6.5: Cc h mua bo him ..................................................................................................... 978 Bng 6.6: T l ngi c bo him phn theo loi bo him ....................................................... 9899 Bng 6.7: L do khng tham gia bo him phn theo loi bo him.............................................. 990 Bng 6.8: Nhng nguyn nhn khng tham gia bo himtheo nhm thu nhp v gio dc. ....... 1001 Bng 6.9: Vn x hi - t l h tr li c .................................................................................. 1023 Bng 6.10: Nim tin vo cng ng ............................................................................................. 1034 Bng 7.1: Nhng ngun thng tin chnh ca h ........................................................................... 1045 Bng 7.2: T l h nhn c s h tr trong trong vng 12 thng trc khi phng vn (%) .... 1078 Bng 7.3: Cc hot ng khuyn nng trong trong vng 12 thng trc khi phng vn ............ 1089 Bng 7.4: Cc ngun thng tin quan trng v thay i chnh sch (%)........................................ 1101 Bng 7.5: X t chc cc hat ng tuyn truyn v Lut t ai 2003 ..................................... 1112 Bng 7.6: Hiu bit v Lut t ai 2003 (phn trm)................................................................. 1123
Cc ch vit tt
TN CIEM DFID GDP GSO HG ILO IMF GCNQSD MARD MOLISA BSCL BTB B NGOs TB QTDND BSH Rosca NB NTB USD VARHS VBARD VBSP VHLSS VN WTO Ty Nguyn Vin Nghin cu Qun l Kinh t TW B Pht trin Quc t (Vng quc Anh) Tng sn lng quc ni Tng cc Thng k H gia nh T chc Lao ng Quc t Qu Tin t Quc t Giy chng nhn quyn s dng t B Nng nghip v Pht trin Nng thn B Lao ng, Thng binh, X hi ng bng sng Cu Long Ven bin Bc Trung b ng Bc T chc phi Chnh ph Ty Bc Qu Tn dng Nhn dn ng bng sng Hng T chc quay vng tit kim v tn dng ng Nam b Ven bin Nam Trung b la M iu tra Kh nng Tip cn Ngun lc Nng thn Vit Nam Ngn hng Nng nghip v Pht trin Nng thn Vit nam Ngn hng Chnh sch x hi iu tra Mc sng H gia nh Vit Nam Tin ng Vit Nam T chc Thng mi Th gii
Li ni u
Khi u ca bo co nghin cu ny c bt u t nm 2002 khi cuc iu tra v tip cn ngun lc ca h gia nh (VARHS) c trin khai ln u tin ti cc tnh H Ty, Ph Th, Qung Nam v Long An (Mekong, 2004). Kt qu ca cuc iu tra VARHS02 gm 932 h gia nh nm l ngun khch l Vin Nghin cu Qun l Kinh t Trung ng (CIEM) thuc B K hoch v u t (MPI), Vin Chnh sch Chin lc Nng nghip v Pht trin Nng thn (IPSARD) thuc B Nng nghip v Pht trin Nng thn (MARD) v Vin Khoa hc Lao ng v Cc vn x hi (ILSSA) thuc B Lao ng Thng binh v X hi (MOLISA) cng vi Danida ln k hoch, trin khai nghin cu xy dng nn bn bo co ny. Bo co ny c hnh thnh trn c s cuc iu tra vi tn gi VARHS06 c trin khai trn phm vi 12 tnh Vit Nam. iu tra trn 2300 h gia nh ti 12 tnh, trong (i) 4 tnh (H Ty, Khnh Ha, Ngh An v Lm ng) do Danida ti tr trong khun kh Chng trnh BSPS v (ii) 5 tnh (c Lc, c Nng, Lo Cai, in Bin v Lai Chu) do Danida ti tr trong khun kh Chng trnh ASPS, (iii) 3 tnh (Ph Th, Qung Nam v Long An) l cc tnh c iu tra t nm 2002. Bo co ny c xy dng da trn thng tin 1462 h mi c iu tra nm 2006 v 932 h h gia nh c iu tra lp li ca nm 2002. Vin Khoa hc Lao ng v Cc vn x hi (ILSSA) thuc B Lao ng Thng binh X hi (MOLISA) thc hin cng vic t lp k hoch n iu tra trn thc t. Khoa Kinh t (DoE) thuc i hc Tng hp Copenhagen phi hp vi CIEM, IPSARD v ILSSA trong cc hot ng v yu cu k thut, hng dn, tng cng nng lc theo tha thun. Ngn hng Th gii h tr ti chnh thng qua y thc Danida/World Bank ng thi a ra cc bnh lun trong qu trnh trin khai nghin cu. Cc cuc iu tra VARHS02 v VARHS06 c thit k l kt qu ca s phi hp hiu qu nhm b sung cho cuc iu tra h gia nh cp quc gia quy m ln hn c gi l iu tra Mc sng h gia nh Vit Nam (VHLSS) (GSO, 2002 v 2004). Mu iu tra ca VARHS bao gm c h gia nh l nhng h c iu tra trong VHLSS. V th iu tra VARHS c xem l vi quy m nh hn nhng thu thp s liu chuyn hn, tp trung vo tip cn ngun lc ca h gia nh v cc cn tr m h nng thn ang i mt trong qun l sinh k ca h. t ai l vn c dnh nhiu cng sc trong nghin cu ny, bao gm c tc ng ca Lut t ai 2003; VARHS06 c bit ch n thu thp thng tin ti tn tng tha t ca tng h nng dn. Ngoi ra, chng ti cn c gng lm r cc vn khc nh s khc nhau v vn gii v tnh trng i ngho. Bo co ny c tnh cht m t nhm mc tiu a ra tng quan cc loi thng tin c trong c s d liu ca VARHS06 v nhiu vn c th phn tch su. Tuy nhin cn ch rng, c gi nn tham kho c nhng ni dung gii thiu trong bo co ny v cc bng cu hi thu thp thng tin ca h gia nh v bng thu thp thng tin cp x m chng ti s dng thu thp thng tin c danh mc tng hp cc cu hi t ra trong qu trnh phng vn. Cc bng cu hi c th ti xung t trang web; tt nhin, c s d liu ca iu tra phong ph hn nhiu so vi nhng g trnh by trong bo co m t ny. Hin chng ti ang trin khai cc nghin cu su v mt s vn ca kinh t nng thn Vit Nam v cc cuc iu tra tip theo vo nm 2008 v 2010 cng c chp thun s cung cp tt hn c s d liu xuyn sut theo thi gian phn nh s pht trin ca kinh t nng thn Vit Nam.
Li cm n
Tp th tc gi bit n TS. inh Vn n - Vin trng Vin Nghin cu Qun l Kinh t Trung ng v TS. ng Kim Sn - Vin trng Vin Chnh sch Chin lc Nng nghip v Pht trin Nng thn hng dn trong sut qu trnh t khi bt u n khi kt thc nghin cu v m bo s cng tc hiu qu vi CIEM v IPSARD. Chng ti dnh li cm n c bit ti ngi Peter Lysholt-Hansen - i s Vng quc an Mch ti Vit Nam, ngi lin tip ng h cho vic nghin cu, ng thi cm n s h tr ti chnh ca Danida (BSPS v ASPS) v u thc World Bank/Danish cung cp ti chnh cho nghin cu ny. Thnh phn chnh ca nhm nghin cu pha Vit Nam gm TS. Nguyn Ngc Qu, b Nguyn L Hoa (IPSARD), b ng Thu Hoi v ng Nguyn Hu Th (CIEM). Pha Nhm Nghin cu Kinh t Pht trin (DERG) ca Khoa Kinh t, i hc Tng hp Copenhagen gm 3 ngi, trong TS. Katleen Van den Broeck l tc gi chnh ca bo co ny, TS. Mikkel Barslund - ngi ng vai tr chnh trong VARHS02, chu trch nhim thc hin chng v tn dng v nhiu cng vic hon thin bo co. GS. Finn Tarp thc hin vic iu phi v hng dn nhm trong sut qu trnh trin khai nghin cu. Cng vic ca chng ti khng th hon thnh c nu thiu vng s hp tc trao i chuyn mn, gi v khch l t pha cc t chc v c nhn m trong phi k n l: Chn thnh cm n nhm iu tra ca Vin Khoa hc Lao ng v Cc vn x hi (ILSSA) v tinh thn cng tc mang tnh xy dng v khch l ca h. Nhm iu tra c iu phi bi TS. Nguyn Hu Dng, TS. o Quang Vinh, TS. Nguyn Th Lan Hng v cc cn b ca Vin gm ng L Ng Bnh, ng L Hong Dng, ng Nguyn Kin Quyt, ng Nguyn Vn D v b Trn Thu Hng. Nu khng c s c gng ca nhm iu tra ILSSA trong vic hon thin bng hi, tp hun iu tra vin, trin khai vic iu tra trn thc a, lm sch s liu th tt c nhng cng vic khc u tr nn ho huyn. ILSSA cn m trch vic hp tc vi Tng cc Thng k (GSO) v ng Nguyn Phong, ngi a ra nhng li khuyn b ch trong qu trnh chn mu. c bit bit n cc ng nghip ti CIEM v IPSARD v s ng h v hng dn ca h trong qu trnh nghin cu, l TS. Chu Tin Quang v ng Lu c Khi ca CIEM, TS. Nguyn Anh Tun, ng Phng c Tng v b Trn Th Qunh Chi ca IPSARD. ng thi cng c bit cm n TS. Phm Th Lan Hng ca CIEM. Chng ti nh gi cao nhng kin t vn ca TS. Sarah Bales v li khuyn ca TS. Tim McGrath v GS. Phil Abbott, i hc Purdue - ngi gip mt cch su sc, tp trung vo xy dng bng hi. GS. Phil Abbot cn tham gia iu tra th cng vi thnh vin nhm nghin cu gm ng Thomas Markussen v ng Pablo Selaya ca DoE. ng Thomas Markussen cn
a ra cc bnh lun su sc vo bn tho bo co do TS. Patricia Silva chun b. H l thnh vin ca nhm nghin cu su ca TS. Carol Newman thuc trng Trinity, Ireland. Cm n cc thnh vin tham d cc hi tho ti Vit Nam ng gp v gi hon thin bo co. Trong bao gm hi tho do CIEM t chc ti H Ni ngy 27/11/2006, hai hi tho khc cng do CIEM t chc ti Khnh Ho v Ngh An vo ngy 3 v 8/5/2007. Hi tho quc gia do IPSARD t chc ti H Ni ngy 14/5/2007. Ti cc cuc hi tho ny, bn d tho bo co c a ra trnh by v tho lun. Chng ti nh gi cao s phi hp ca TS. Klaus Deininger v ng Tore Olsen t Ngn hng Th gii. Cm n cc nhn vin ca S qun an Mch, nhng ngi h tr cng vic nghin cu ca chng ti gm ng Henrik Vistesen v b V Hng Mai, b Cathrine Dolleris, b Nguyn Th Lan Phng v cu c vn Danida cng cc nhn vin pha Vit Nam lm vic ti Chng trnh ASPS, ng Ole Sparre Pedersen. Bit n v s hp tc chuyn mn lin tc ca TS. John Rand ca DoE; b Helene Bie Lilleor a ra li khuyn ngay t giai on u ca nghin cu ny; s h tr ca sinh vin Maja Henriette trong vic hon thin bo co.
Trong qu trnh nghin cu c rt nhiu c gng tng cng nng lc nghin cu, trong nhn mnh n hai hot ng l: T 20-24/11/2006, TS. Katleen Van den Broeck v TS. Carol Newman (h h bi b Jeanet Bentzen) t chc kho hc 1 tun tp trung v phn tch iu tra h gia nh ti IPSARD, H Ni. C 15 hc vin n t IPSARD, CIEM v ILSSA tham gia kho o to, t r s nhit tnh v quan tm n ti liu, tch cc tham gia vo chun b thc hnh trn my tnh. T 25/1 n 15/2/2007, nhm nghin cu pha Vit Nam n DoE cng lm vic v hc tp xy dng nn bo co ny. Chuyn cng tc ny cng vi s phi hp v sau ti Vit Nam l mt phn quan trng trong hon chnh nghin cu ca chng ta.
Ngoi ra, chng ti rt cm n trn 2300 h gia nh ti 12 tnh dnh thi gian cho chng ti trong qu trnh iu tra. Chng ti hy vng rng bo co ny s l ti liu tham kho quan trng trong qu trnh xy dng chnh sch hng ti ci thin sinh k ca h. Cui cng, mc d chng ti nhn c rt nhiu li khuyn t ng nghip v bn b, nhng nhm nghin cu chu hon ton trch nhim v nhng li, thiu st trong bo co ny. Katleen Van den Broeck, Mikkel Barslund, Finn Tarp, Nguyn Ngc Qu, Nguyn L Hoa, ng Thu Hoi v Nguyn Hu Th
GII THIU
Khi u ca nghin cu ny c bt u t nm 2002 khi cuc iu tra Tip cn Ngun lc ca h gia nh (VARHS) ln u tin c trin khai ti cc tnh H Ty, Ph Th, Qung Nam v Long An (Mekong, 2004). VARHS02 iu tra 932 h gia nh, y l nhng h c iu tra ti VHLSS02. Mc tiu c bn ng sau ca VARHS02 l gip hiu r v mt nh lng tip cn ngun lc ca h gia nh nng thn. Cu hi trc tin c t ra l h gia nh ang i mt vi nhng cn tr g v mc nh th no trong tip cn ngun lc. iu tra VARHS02 c thit k b sung cho iu tra quy m ln do Tng cc Thng k thc hin l VHLSS c thc hin 2 nm mt ln. VARHS02 nhm b sung thm thng tin cn thit cho mc tiu nghin cu t 932 h gia nh, y chnh l nhng h hon thnh bng cu hi iu tra ca Tng cc Thng k v thu nhp v chi tiu trong 6 thng u nm 2002. tng chnh ng sau VARHS02 lc l do khi VHLSS khng cung cp thng tin c bn cn thit hiu r cc vn phc tp ang ni ln v c im ca th trng t ai, lao ng v vn. Rt him nhng thng tin v tip cn ca h gia nh ti cc th trng ny (c bit l h gia nh nng thn), v chnh vic thiu nhng thng tin thu ht s quan tm xt v vic pht trin ng n th ch th trng l iu kin tin quyt Vit Nam chuyn t nn kinh t k hoch ho tp trung sang nn kinh t th trng. S cn thit ny vn khng thay i trong qu trnh thit k VARHS06 l cuc iu tra tip ni ca VARHS02. V d, th trng t ai v th trng tn dng hot ng hiu qu hn vn l vn chnh v khng gim tm quan trng duy tr s pht trin khu vc t nhn Vit Nam ngy nay so vi nm 2002. Nu khng tnh cc vn khc th iu ny ng rng cn phi hiu r hn vai tr ca th trng t ai c v mt lm v cha lm c trong vic phn b ngun lc t ai cho khu vc nng nghip bao gm c cc nh hng tch cc ca vic giao t n nh i vi khuyn khch u t vo nng nghip. Tng t, c th hin trong thit k v trnh by, cn o su nghin cu mc giao dch ca th trng t ai, liu rng vic thu v chuyn nhng quyn s dng t thc s i vo hot ng v pht huy tc dng. Mt v d na v vn t ai l tc ng ca cc iu khon hp ng v t c thc s hiu lc v hiu qu (v d hp ng tr tin thu c nh so vi hp ng tr bng nng sn thu hoch). Mt v d na v s cn thit phi b sung thng tin, s liu l v s hot ng ca th trng tn dng nng thn v mc cn tr ca tn dng i vi pht trin nng nghip. Nghin cu su nhng vn ny (vi gc hon thin vic ra quyt nh) trc tin i hi phi c s liu v khi lng tn dng m nng dn thc s vay, nhng cng cn phi bit s liu v d n u t khng thc hin c do thiu tn dng cng nh v cc khon chi tiu cho tiu dng m h khng trang tri c. Trong iu kin kh khn , nu khng tip cn c vi tn dng tiu dng th c bng chng cho thy nng dn phi vin n la chn t hn, chng hn nh phi bn t liu sn xut ca gia nh. Nu th trng tn dng khng hot ng mt cch ng n th nng dn khng th mua li ti sn mt trc , hu qu h i ngho cn tr nn i ngho hn, iu
10
gi rng th trng tn dng khng hon ho s dn n nhng tc ng tiu cc v tiu dng v tnh trng i ngho. Ni mt cch khc, y c s tng tc gia pht trin th trng, th ch v i ngho cn c quan tm nghin cu. V d th ba, y l vn c nht tr ngay t khi thit k l tip tc thu thp thng tin v s liu v cc vn lin quan n tnh trng manh mn t ai. lm c iu ny cn phi thu thp thng tin ca tng mnh t. VARHS06 c thit k c bit thu thp nhng loi thng tin ny, nh cung cp thng tin chi tit hiu r hn v sn xut nng nghip m trc y khng c c. iu tra ln ny cn cho php tm hiu cc vn lin quan cho nh vai tr ca gii v i ngho trong tham gia th trng lao ng, sn xut nng nghip v tip th, tip cn tn dng, ri ro v tip cn thng tin. C s d liu cn c thit k phn tch thm cc vn vai tr ca ngi dn tc thiu s. iu tra VARHS06 c thc hin c cp x v h gia nh vi nhng loi thng tin c th vi tng loi nh sau: a. Phiu hi x v h gia nh tip cn ngun lc Mc 1: Thng tin v nhn khu hc v tnh hnh chung ca x Mc 2: Nng nghip: Trng trt, tho thun mua bn v thu t, loi hnh v quy m t ai, thu nhp ngy cng nng nghip Mc 3: Thu nhp v vic lm: Ngun thu nhp/vic lm chnh, hot ng kinh doanh Mc 4: C s h tng: ng t, ng thu, in , ch, trng hc Mc 5: Thi tit v thin tai: Din bin giai on 2002-2006 Mc 6: Qun l thu li: Cng trnh thu li ca HTX/cng ng Mc 7: Lut t ai 2003: Trin khai thc hin Lut, ph bin thng tin v Lut Mc 8: Tn dng v tit kim: Cc t chc tn dng v tit kim: Ngn hng, Qu tn dng, on th, ngi cho vay Mc 9: Quan h x hi, tin tng v hp tc b. Phiu hi h gia nh tip cn ngun lc Mc 1: Trang ba: iu tra vin, ngy thng, dn tc/ngn ng Mc 2: Danh sch h, c im chung cc thnh vin ca h Mc 3: t nng nghip (ti tng mnh) v sn xut nng nghip Mc 4: Chn nui, lm nghip, thu sn, dch v nng nghip, tip cn th trng Mc 5: Ngh nghip, thi gian s dng v cc ngun thu nhp khc Mc 6: Chi tiu lng thc thc phm v cc chi tiu khc, tit kim, hng ho lu bn ca h Mc 7: Tn dng Mc 8: Kh khn v x l ri ro Mc 9: Quan h x hi v mng li
11
Vic thit k iu tra v iu tra th c trin khai trong 6 thng u nm 2006. Vic iu tra trn thc a c trin khai t thng 7 n thng 9 trn a bn 12 tnh, l: Bn tnh (H Ty, Ngh An, Khnh Ho v Lm ng) do Danida ti tr trong khun kh Chng trnh BSPS Nm tnh (c Lc, c Nng, Lo Cai, in Bin v Lai Chu) do Danida ti tr trong khun kh Chng trnh ASPS Ba tnh (Ph Th, Qung Nam v Long An) l cc tnh c iu tra VARHS02.
Tng cng c 2324 h c iu tra trong VARHS06 bao gm c cc h iu tra trong VARHS02. Trong tng s h mi iu tra ngoi s h iu tra nm 2002, c 1312 h c iu tra lp li t cuc iu tra thu nhp v chi tiu VHLSS04. S h mi chnh l s h c iu tra ti cuc iu tra thu nhp v chi tiu VHLSS04 ti 12 tnh trong VARHS06. Tuy vy, vic chn mu iu tra cng phi i mt vi mt s thch thc do 3 l do sau: (i) Tng cc Thng k thay i vic chn mu nm 2004 theo nh m t ca Phng c Tng v Nguyn Phong (2007) (ii) mt s khu vc thuc a bn nng thn tr thnh khu vc th do s chia tch n v hnh chnh trong giai on 2004-2006; (iii) s gim st tiu chun, do phi la chn ngu nhin khong 150 h gia nh tng s 1462 h iu tra. Nhng h ny c nh gi theo trng s VHLSS04 (xem Phng c Tng v Nguyn Phong, 2007). Nhm nghin cu quyt nh khng a VARHS02 vo trong bo co ny v kh khn trong vic lng ghp (trng s) VARHS02 vi VARHS06 do mu iu tra thay i. Tuy vy, cc nghin cu su sau ny vn c th s dng c s liu iu tra VARHS06 v VARHS02. Cng cn lu rng, s liu iu tra v x ch c thu thp i vi nhng x c t nht 3 h gia nh c iu tra. Bo co m t ny c chun b da trn thng tin ca 1462 h iu tra nu trn. Ngoi phn gii thiu, bo co cn bao gm 7 chng sau: c im ca h iu tra Tham gia th trng lao ng v hot ng to thu nhp t ai: c im, s dng, u t v th trng u vo cho sn xut nng nghip Tn dng Qun l ri ro Tip cn thng tin.
Cui cng, xin lu rng cc s liu c du tn v vy tt c danh tnh c b ra ngoi trc khi phn tch theo quy trnh chun.
12
1. C IM CC H C KHO ST
Bo co ny c xy dng trn c s phng vn 1462 h gia nh ti cuc iu tra Kh nng Tip cn Ngun lc Nng thn Vit Nam nm 2006 (VAHRS06) ti 12 tnh, nh ch r trong Bng 1.1. Phn ln mu tp trung H Ty, Ph Th, Ngh An v c Lc. Do phng php chn mu nn bn tnh ny c s h c chn nhiu hn (xem phn Gii thiu); trong cc tnh ny, bn cnh cc h kho st trong cuc iu tra Mc sng H gia nh Vit Nam nm 2004 (VHLSS04), cn bao gm cc h c kho st trong VAHRS02. C th c gi s quan tm n mt s tnh c th, nn chng ti s dng mt c cu tnh xuyn sut hu ht bo co. Chng 1 trnh by tnh hnh chung ca cc h c kho st. Chng ti cp c im ch h (gii, thnh phn dn tc, ngn ng v trnh hc vn), cc vn ngho i lin quan (ni c tr ca cc h ngho nht trong mu v h c c im g khc khng), kh nng tip cn dch v (trng hc) v cc iu kin sng (tip cn ngun nc, ngun nng lng v phng tin v sinh trong gia nh). 20% h trong mu kho st do n lm ch h; 82% ch h l ngi Kinh; 98% ch h ni c ting Vit v 86% s h ni ting Vit l chnh. Trong cc x cc tnh Lai Chu v in Bin (khu vc Ty Bc), ch c 14% v 7% dn s l ngi Kinh v 16% v 12% cc ch h dng ting Vit nh ngn ng chnh. Theo phn loi ca chnh quyn, 22% s h trong mu kho st xp loi ngho.1 S h ngho ny phn b khng u trn cc tnh, tp trung nhiu Lai Chu, Lo Cai, Lm ng, Qung Nam v in Bin v mt t l nh Long An v H Ty. Bng 1.1: c im chung cc h c kho st theo tng tnh
Tn sut % Gii tnh ch h (% Nam) Tnh
a
Ch h thuc nhm dn tc no (% Kinh) 98.4 23.7 83.3 14.1 7.1 89.6 96.5 92.3
Ting Vit l Ch h ni ngn ng chnh ting Vit ca ch h (%) 100.0 100.0 98.5 65.7 93.8 99.4 100.0 100.0 (%) 99.5 57.2 93.3 15.8 11.6 90.6 97.3 82.2
H ngho theo phn loi ca chnh quyn (%) 8.6 39.0 22.2 45.4 31.4 24.5 32.0 22.1
H Ty (BSH) Lo Cai (B) Ph Th (B) Lai Chu (TB) in Bin (TB) Ngh An (BTB) Qung Nam (NTB) Khnh Ha (NTB)
187 90 131 116 112 196 114 78
12.8 6.2 9.0 7.9 7.7 13.4 7.8 5.3
77.8 89.0 80.1 92.2 90.3 83.3 72.8 69.2
S liu ca B LTBXH (MOLISA). Characteristics of the Vietnamese Rural Economy: Evidence from a 2006 Rural Household Survey in 12 Provinces of Vietnam
13
k Lk (TN) k Nng (TN) Lm ng (TN) Long An (BSCL) Total

a
143 108 69 118 1,462
9.8 7.4 4.7 8.1 100
82.2 83.7 78.8 65.8 79.1
71.5 76.5 63.7 100.0 82.1
90.4 97.1 100.0 100.0 97.7
78.3 79.3 69.6 100.0 85.8
18.9 25.1 37.3 14.6 22.0
Tn Khu vc: BSH (ng bng sng Hng), B (ng Bc), TB (Ty Bc), BTB (Bc Trung B), NTB (Nam Trung b), TN (Ty Nguyn),
BSCL (ng bng sng Cu Long) trong mu kho st khng bao gm cc h khu vc NB (ng Nam b).
S khc bit trong kh nng tip cn ngun lc c l khng hn do c im khu vc a l m cn v nhng nguyn nhn khc nh gii v nhm giu ngho. Hu ht cc m t trong chng ny v cc chng tip theo s ni r gii ca ch h (i khi l gii ca c nhn) v nhm (cc h c chia thnh 5 nhm - ng phn v) tiu th lng thc2. S h do n lm ch h tng i t h ngho hn (30% trong hai nhm ngho v ngho nht) so vi h do nam gii lm ch h (43%) (Hnh 1.1). S liu ca VHLSS04 cng cho thy cc h do n lm ch h c thu nhp v mc tiu th trung bnh cao hn. Hnh 1.1: Cc h do n v nam lm ch h theo nhm tiu dng lng thc
Ch h n
Ch h nam
Ngho nht 16.6 Ngho nh 13.1
Giu nht 25.9
Ngho nht, 21.3
Giu nht, 18.4
T rung bnh 25.8
Giu nh 18.7
Ngho nh, 21.5 T rung bnh, 18.5
Giu nh, 20.3
2 Ng phn v s tiu dng lng thc c tnh da trn s tiu dng lng thc trn u ngi (ca cc thnh vin c mt trong h). Khi xy dng cc ng phn v, chng ti da trn s tiu dng ch khng da trn thu nhp nh hu ht cc ti liu nghin cu s ngho i da trn thu nhp tnh bng tin. Tranh lun v khuynh hng thin v tiu dng trong nghin cu s ngho i hn l bin php nghin cu da trn thu nhp c th tm trong Deaton (1997, 2003) v Ravallion (1994). Nhng ngay c khi s dng cc bin php da trn tiu dng, cng phi thn trng khi so snh, xem Lanjouw v Lanjouw (2001). Trong VAHRS06 khng c phn ni v tt c mi kha cnh ca s tiu dng. Ch c s liu v s tiu dng mt s loi lng thc hoc nhm lng thc (13 nhm khc nhau). Tuy nhin, cc nhm lng thc c la chn c quan h cht ch vi nhau v do chng c th i din cho tng s lng thc c tiu dng.
14
C v nh phn ln cc h do n lm ch l ngi Kinh v ting Vit l ngn ng chnh ca ch h (Bng 1.2). Cng c v nh cc h do n lm ch h thng c con ci tch khi h tr gip khi cn thit. S khc bit ln gia cc nhm tiu dng lng thc lin quan n tnh cch sc tc, vi t l h ngi Kinh v h s dng ting Vit lm ngn ng chnh c tiu dng lng thc cao hn. 50% s h c kho st nm trong nhm tiu dng lng thc thp nht l cc h ngho v ch c 5% nm trong nhm giu nht. Mc d mt s h c th b xc nh sai, nhng xem ra php chia ng phn v trong mu ni chung c khng nh bi tiu chun phn loi chnh thc. Bng 1.2: c im h, theo gii tnh v mc tiu dng lng thc
Ch h Ting Vit l Nhm dn tc ni ting ngn ng ca ch h Vit chnh ca (% Kinh) ch h Ch H N Nam Nhm tiu dng LTTP Ngho nht Ngho nh Trung bnh Giu nh Giu nht 65.3 76.6 80.9 91.8 96.4 95.5 96.9 96.8 99.3 99.8 70.0 80.5 87.2 94.2 97.2 28.6 29.2 37.5 35.7 37.9 76.7 76.5 76.8 69.3 74.2 50.1 25.0 19.4 10.5 5.2 92.3 79.5 98.1 97.6 92.9 83.9 40.2 32.1 71.5 75.6 28.1 20.4 S tr gip ca con ci tch h Sinh ra ti x (ch h, v chng hoc cha m) H c chnh quyn xp loi ngho
Bng 1.3 cho thy tng quan trnh hc vn vi nhng khc bit r rng gia cc nhm. Tnh theo gii th t l n ch h khng bit c bit vit cao hn gp i so vi nam ch h. S khc bit c bit ln cp trung hc3. Cng tng t, tng i nhiu n ch h khng c ngh chuyn mn, ch yu mi c giy chng nhn tham gia cc kho o to chuyn nghip ngn ngy. Trong cc nhm chi tiu lng thc, t l ch h khng bit c bit vit gim t 20% nhm ngho nht xung 3% nhm giu nht. V t l ch h khng c o to ngh chuyn mn gim t 87 cn 67%.4
3 4
S khc bit ny mt phn c th do s khc bit v tui. Trung bnh cc n ch h gi hn nam ch h ti 9 tui. Theo Behrman v Knowles (1999), t l tr em c n trng Vit Nam lin quan cht ch n thu nhp h. S lin quan cht ch gia thu nhp ca h v t l tr em i hc, cho thy tnh di ng x hi gia cc th h km v cc c hi bnh ng km. Characteristics of the Vietnamese Rural Economy: Evidence from a 2006 Rural Household Survey in 12 Provinces of Vietnam
15
Bng 1.3: Trnh hc vn ca ch h, ph thng v chuyn nghip dy ngh

Ch h c trnh hc vn ph thng cao nht Ch h c trnh trung cp chuyn nghip dy ngh cao nht Chuyn nghip <12thng 15.6 1.1 9.1 9.5 1.9 15.2 6.2 2.5 5.0 5.6 1.4 5.9 4.6 10.7 Chuyn Trung Cao nghip cp K ng, >=12thng thut i hc 2.7 0.0 6.8 4.3 0.9 5.0 4.4 2.5 4.2 2.9 1.4 1.7 3.0 3.8 4.2 2.2 6.0 1.9 3.7 3.5 1.8 2.6 4.3 7.5 5.8 2.5 3.6 3.9 1.6 0.0 3.0 1.7 0.0 4.6 2.6 2.6 0.7 2.7 0.0 2.5 1.3 2.6
Khng bit Hon thnh Hon thnh Hon thnh Khng c c bit vit cp 1 cp 2 cp 3 ngh Tnh H Ty Lo Cai Ph Th Lai Chu in Bin Ngh An Qung Nam Khnh Ha k Lk k Nng Lm ng Long An Ch h N Nam Nhm tiu dng LTTP Ngho nht Ngho nh Trung bnh Giu nh Giu nht Tng 19.6 10.0 11.1 3.8 3.6 9.6 16.5 21.4 22.7 23.8 20.2 20.9 30.2 35.3 34.4 36.1 32.3 33.6 9.5 7.7 10.6 14.7 25.8 13.6 86.8 86.7 85.1 78.8 66.7 80.8 16.8 7.8 19.6 21.2 20.3 37.1 7.6 15.2 87.6 79.1 4.5 20.0 0.8 46.1 36.5 6.8 7.9 10.2 14.3 5.9 18.6 6.9 18.4 30.7 12.1 16.6 9.7 16.3 29.0 25.6 25.2 27.8 27.7 25.9 43.9 7.7 56.7 8.7 22.1 45.6 23.6 11.7 23.7 29.4 23.4 19.6 15.4 3.2 18.2 5.3 1.9 18.9 10.4 14.1 11.3 22.3 11.4 7.5 75.9 96.7 75.0 82.6 93.6 71.6 85.1 89.8 85.9 81.3 91.4 87.4
6.5 7.6 8.1 13.2 11.7 9.4
3.1 4.1 1.9 2.4 6.8 3.6
3.3 1.6 3.1 3.4 7.6 3.8
0.4 0.1 1.8 2.3 7.2 2.3
V mt tip cn trng hc (bng 1.4), s khc bit gia cc tnh hay cc nhm tiu th lng thc rt r, cp hc cng cao s khc bit cng ln. Trung bnh cc trng tiu hc (cp 1) cch nh khong 1-2 km v s khc bit tng i t. Cc trng cp 2 cch nh khong t 1 km (H Ty) n 3.6 km (c Nng) v cc h ngho nht sng cch xa trng nht. Cc trng cp 3 cch nh t 4.3 km (Khnh Ho) n 25.5 km (Lai Chu), v s khc bit gia cc tnh v cc nhm chi tiu lng thc l ng k.
16
L mt trong cc c im v pha cung i vi ngnh gio dc, khong cch ti trng hc c vai tr quan trng i vi s lng hc sinh ti trng (xem Handa v Simler, 2006 v Duflo, 2001 v cc trng tiu hc Mozambique v Indonesia). C s tng quan r rng gia khong cch ti trng v trnh hc vn. Ba trong s bn tnh c khong cch trung bnh t nh n trng cp 3 xa hn 10 km, in Bin, Lo Cai v Lai Chu c t l ngi ln hon thnh cp 3 thp nht. Cc h ngho nht khng ch sng rt xa trng hc, m thng cn rt xa trung tm v cc dch v ca thn bn, nh khong cch trung bnh ti tr s U ban Nhn dn, c coi l nm trung tm x. Bng 1.4: Khong cch ti trng v tr s U ban Nhn dn
Khong cch ti trng tiu hc (km) Tnh H Ty Lo Cai Ph Th Lai Chu in Bin Ngh An Qung Nam Khnh Ha k Lk k Nng Lm ng Long An Ch H N Nam Nhm tiu dng LTTP Ngho nht Ngho nh Trung bnh Giu nh Giu nht Tng 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.2 1.3 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 10.1 8.1 7.2 6.5 5.2 7.4 2.4 2.3 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.1 1.2 1.3 1.8 2.0 6.2 7.7 1.8 2.2 0.8 1.7 1.1 1.0 1.7 1.5 1.5 0.9 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.5 1.0 3.2 1.5 1.9 3.0 1.8 2.5 1.7 2.3 3.6 2.9 2.8 3.3 10.7 6.4 25.5 19.4 6.3 7.4 4.3 9.5 14.9 8.5 7.4 1.0 3.0 1.4 3.1 4.5 1.9 2.4 1.4 3.4 2.4 2.8 2.3 Khong cch ti trng Khong cch ti trng cp 2 (km) cp 3 (km) Khong cch ti U ban Nhn dn (km)
17
Hnh 1.2 sho thy t l phn trm s h dng nc sch cho n ung. 74% s h dng nc sch cho n ung, nhng ch c 61% s h ngho nht s dng, trong khi t l h giu nht s dng nc sch l 88%. Nhiu h do ph n lm ch s dng nc sch hn. S khc bit gia cc tnh v vn ny rt ln, trong cc x k Nng ch c 9% s h dng nc sch, trong khi t l ny H Ty l 95%. Cng nh vy, Lai Chu (41%), Khnh Ha (56%) v k Lk (56%) c t l s dng nc sch kh thp. Tr Lai Chu, hnh nh nhiu tnh pha Bc c nhiu kh nng tip cn ngun nc an ton hn. Hnh 1.3 trnh by s phn b cc ngun nng lng khc nhau c s dng nu n. S khc bit gia cc tnh v cc nhm tiu th lng thc kh ln. Nhn chung, ci v cc sn phm ph nh rm r, thn cy ng, rc, mnh g vn, tru v.v l 2 ngun cht t quan trng nht (47% v 29%). Vic s dng in nng thn l khng ng k, ch c di 1% s h trong mu dng in nu n. Bn cnh ci v cc sn phm ph, kh ga t nhin phn no cng thng c s dng (17%). T l h dng ci gim mnh theo nhm chi tiu lng thc, trong khi t l dng ga t nhin li tng theo nhm chi tiu lng thc. in c s dng ch yu bi nhm giu nht. Cc h nhng khu vc cng v pha Nam cng s dng nhiu ga t nhin hn. Trong cc tnh pha Ty Bc (in Bin v Lai Chu) rt t h s dng cc ngun nhin liu khc ngoi ci (91% v 92% s h trong 2 tnh ny dng ci). Hnh 1.2: T l h dng ngun nc an ton ung v un nu l chnh
100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0
Kh n h N gh Tr o n u n h g b G nh i u nh T L y o C ai h u H o An La iC Lo ng N am
18
Hnh 1.3: S phn b ngun nhin liu cho un nu
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

N gh Tr o n un h g b G nh i u nh H T L y o C ai C h u o An Lo ng N am H
ci
in
Kh n h
La i
du
than
gas t nhin
rm, thn ng v ph phm khc
V cc tin nghi v sinh (Hnh 1.4), ng ch l h cng giu, cng t h khng c toa-lt hoc ch dng h phn hoc h x hai ngn. Khi h tr nn giu c hn, h cng c iu kin s dng x bt hoc x xm c nc git. V vn v sinh, hai loi nh x ni n trong 2 ct u ca hnh di y (x bt c nc git toilets- v x xm di nc (latrine) c coi l an ton hn ba loi x t bin t din ni n cui hnh. Ni chung cc h Lai Chu v in Bin thng t dng thit b v sinh hn cc h cc tnh khc. iu ny c l l do t l ngho i ti cc tnh ny cao hoc h t c tip cn thng tin v thc hnh v sinh hn. Mt vn v sinh cn xem xt na l rc thi. a phng duy nht thu thp c mt khi lng rc ng ch l H Ty (38%). Ni chung, dch v thu gom rc khng ph bin, ch c 11% s h s dng dch v ny. Khng ngc nhin l t l thu gom rc tng ln theo nhm tiu th lng thc. Cch x l rc thng thng nht l t. Duy ch c Lai Chu v in Bin, ngi ta thng rc thnh ng.
19
Hnh 1.4: Tin nghi v sinh, s phn b gia cc tnh

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
x bt c git nc
Kh n h
x xm c di nc
h x 2 ngn
cu tm
N gh Tr o n un h g b G nh i u nh
h x o khng h x
khc
H T L y o C ai La iC h u
An
Hnh 1.5: Phn b s rc (trong 12 thng qua)

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
t hu gom
? i t?p trung mang ti n mang t ?i h rc
Lo ng
?t t
chn lp chn l?p
Cc bng v hnh trn ch r iu kin sng, v nhng khc bit gia cc nhm h c kho st. C s khc bit ln trong iu kin sng gia cc h ngho v ngho nht, cng c th hiu l s khc bit ln gia cc tnh. Khng c du hiu g chng t h do n lm ch h ngho hn hoc iu kin sng ti hn h do nam gii lm ch, nhng ngun vn nhn lc ca cc h do n lm ch h thng km hn nhiu lin quan n trnh hc vn ph thng v chuyn nghip dy ngh. Cc h ny c th duy tr iu kin sng thng qua s gip ca con ci tch ra ring hoc do h c xp loi h ngho. Trong phn cui bo co ta c th thy s khc bit trong kh nng tip cn cc ngun lc v d c hi vic lm, t ai, u vo hoc tn dng gia cc h do n v nam lm ch h, iu ny c th do s khc bit v trnh hc vn.
20
N am
v?t xu?ng sng, h vt xung sng, h?
2. THAM GIA TH TRNG LAO NG V CC HOT NG TO THU NHP

To ngun thu nhp l iu rt quan trng i vi nng dn. Nhm hiu r kh nng tip cn cc ngun lc ca h, cn phn tch chi tit c th cc ngun lc. L mt phn ca ton b cng trnh nghin cu, chng ny s tp trung vo mt trong nm ngun lc chnh, l ngun nhn lc. Nhn lc l ngun vn quan trng, bao gm k nng, kin thc, kh nng lao ng v sc kho tt. Ngun vn nhn lc cho php ngi ta theo ui cc chin lc ngh nghip khc nhau v thnh cng trong cc ngh nghip . Xt trn h gia nh, vn nhn lc bao gm s lng v cht lng lao ng c trong h. iu ny thay i tu theo qui m h, trnh k nng, trnh hc vn, nng lc ch h, tnh trng sc kho v.v... Ngun vn nhn lc l c bn c th tn dng c c bn ngun vn khc.5 Phn ny s phn tch tp trung vo s s dng lao ng lin quan n thu nhp h. c bit, phn tch c cu hot ng l cn thit nhm xc nh s ng gp ca hot ng nng nghip, lm thu/lm cng, hot ng phi nng nghip v.vvo tng thu nhp ca h. Chng ti ch n s phn cng lao ng, c cu lao ng v cc hot ng a dng lin quan n thu nhp t cc hot ng ny. S phn tch cp c nhn v h. i vi cc hot ng chung m mi ngi cng tham gia, s phn tch cp c nhn. Trong phn ni v a dng ha, chng ti s cp c cp c nhn v h tin so snh. Trong phn cui, s phn tch tm quan trng ca lao ng v thu nhp cp h gia nh. Khi phn tch chng ti ch bao gm nhng c nhn ang tui lao ng, nhm ny bao gm dn s nam tui t 15 n 60 v n t 15 n 55. Trong khi kho st, chng ti phng vn h v cc hot ng chnh ca h (tin cng do lm thu, hot ng nng nghip trn t ca h, hot ng phi nng nghip m thu nhp khng phi lng, khai thc ti nguyn cng cng v cng vic ni tr). Tuy nhin, phn ni v cc hot ng c thu nhp s tp trung vo cc hot ng to thu nhp. Khi phn tch s khng bao gm cng vic ni tr.
Xem Bng ch gii Hng dn Hc Ngh bn vng t xa ca DFID. Bn ngun lc khc l vn x hi, vn vt cht, vn t nhin v vn ti chnh. Characteristics of the Vietnamese Rural Economy: Evidence from a 2006 Rural Household Survey in 12 Provinces of Vietnam
21
Hnh 2.1: S lng trung bnh thnh vin h tham gia lao ng c thu nhp 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0
H Lo Ty Cai Ph Lai in Ngh Qung Khnh c c Lm Long Th Chu Bin An Nam Ho Lc Nng ng An Tng
Thnh vin h
Thnh vin h lm vic
Thnh vin h c thu nhp
Trong cc h c kho st, trung bnh mi h c khong 4 thnh vin. in Bin c quy m h ln nht, xp x 6 ngi/ h. Ti tt c cc tnh kho st, trung bnh mi h c khong 3 ngi tham gia lao ng v c thu nhp (Hnh 2.1). Hu ht lm nng nghip (khong 2-3 ngui), sau l lm thu ly tin cng (khong 1-2 ngi) v cc hot ng phi nng nghip (khong 0-1 ngi). C khc bit trong cc hot ng theo gii ca ch h. Cc h do nam gii lm ch h c nhiu lao ng hn. Th nht, cc h ny c nhiu thnh vin hn. Th hai, c nhiu ngi lao ng v c thu nhp hn cc h do n lm ch h. Theo nhm tiu th lng thc,6 cc nhm h ngho c nhiu thnh vin hn cc nhm giu. Trung bnh, s thnh vin trong mt h ngho nht khong 5 ngi, trong khi mt h giu ch c 4 ngi. in Bin, Lai Chu, Lo Cai v k Lk c quy m h ln nht. Cc tnh ny c mt na s thnh vin h lm nng nghip (Bng A4).
2.1. Cc hot ng to thu nhp

Nh ni trn, c 4 loi hot ng c coi l hot ng kinh t, to thu nhp. u tin l lm thu ly tin cng, c nh ngha l cc hot ng trong c nhn lao ng c tr lng. Hot ng th hai l lm nng nghip, bao gm ngi tham gia sn xut trong h lin quan n nng nghip (trng la hoc cc cy trng khc), chn nui, lm nghip v nui trng thu sn. Th ba l hot ng phi nng nghip v tin lng, bao gm bun bn, dch v, vn chuyn, v cc cng vic khc nh hot ng t to vic lm. Cui cng trong cc hot ng to thu nhp l khai thc ti nguyn cng cng v d sn bt, nh c trn bin hay trn h cng cng, thu hi mt ong hoc hoa tri v.v
6
Cc nhm (theo ng phn v) c tnh ton da trn mc tiu dng lng thc trn u ngi.
22
Theo kt qu kho st, khong 94% s dn trong tui lao ng ang lm vic, v 89% tham gia vo cc hot ng to thu nhp. 74% s thnh vin h lm nng nghip, 34% lm thu ly tin cng v 17% tham gia cc hot ng phi nng nghip, khng c tin lng. Cn ghi nhn rng, t l ngi lm cng vic ni tr l cao (68%), mc d cng vic khng c bao gm trong cc hot ng to thu nhp. Bng 2.1 quan st s khc bit trong cc hot ng theo gii tr hot ng nng nghip. V d, ch c 28% ph n i lm thu ly tin cng, trong khi t l ny nam gii l 39%. Cng tng t i vi hot ng phi nng nghip v khai thc ti nguyn cng cng. Cng nn xt n thc t l 87% ph n phi lm cng vic ni tr, trong khi ch c 49% nam gii lm nhng vic ny. iu nht qun vi s phn cng lao ng truyn thng theo gii tnh Vit Nam, theo ph n phi m trch cng vic ni tr. Bng 2.1: Cc hot ng ca dn s trong tui lao ng theo gii, nhm tiu th lng thc (%)
Tham gia lao ng Gii N Nam Nhm chi tiu LTTP Ngho nht Ngho nh Trung bnh Giu nh Giu nht Trung bnh 95.0 96.1 95.2 93.3 88.4 93.6 93.2 93.5 92.3 88.2 83.9 90.3 32.0 32.9 34.6 32.0 34.0 33.1 88.4 82.8 81.2 72.2 55.3 76.1 11.6 15.7 18.3 22.2 25.0 18.5 16.4 11.6 7.9 6.3 4.2 9.4 69.2 65.2 64.5 61.9 57.8 63.8 94.7 92.5 90.3 90.2 26.1 40.0 78.0 74.1 20.3 16.7 7.0 11.8 85.9 41.7 Hot ng to thu nhp Lm thu ly tin cng Nng nghip Phi NN Khai thc ti nguyn cng cng Ni tr
Nhn vo s phn b theo nhm tiu th lng thc, c mt s im th v ng lu . Trong hai nhm giu v giu nht c t l thnh vin lm nng nghip thp hn. Tng t i vi cng vic khai thc ti nguyn cng cng. Trong khi , t l ngi tham gia hot ng phi nng nghip trong hai nhm ny li cao hn cc nhm ngho hn. Mt iu quan trng cn nghin cu l mi quan h gia cc hot ng phi nng nghip v vn to thu nhp cho h. Nu iu gii thch v sao nhng h ny tr nn giu c hn th cn gip cc h nng thn thay i c cu hot ng nhm gip cc h ngho nht tng thu nhp v thot ngho.
23
Nh trnh by trong Hnh 2.2B, cc tnh min ni in Bin, Lai Chu v Lo Cai c nhiu ngi lm nng nghip, khong 90%. Cc tnh Khnh Ha, Lo Cai, k Lk v Long An (Hnh 2.2A) c s ngi i lm thu nhiu nht. T l trung bnh trong cc tnh ny l 45%. tnh min ni in Bin, hu ht mi ngi lm nng nghip (90%). Hn na t l ngi khai thc ti nguyn cng cng cng cao. T l ngi i lm thu v tham gia cc hot ng phi nng nghip li thp. Hnh 2.2: T l dn s trong tui lao ng tham gia 4 loi hot ng
A: T l dn s trong tui lao ng i lm cng lnh lng B: T l dn s trong tui lao ng lm nng nghip
100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0
a T La ay o Ph Ca u i La Th iC o D ha ie n u N Bie Q g he n ua ng A n Kh N a n am h H D oa ak D ak L ak La N o m ng D Lo o ng ng An
o Ph Ca u i La Th iC o D ha ie n u N Bie gh n Q ua e A ng n Kh N a n am h H D oa ak D ak Lak La N o m ng D Lo o ng ng An La Ta H a y
100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0

H a T L a ay o Ph Ca u i La Th iC o D ha ie n u N Bie gh n Q ua e A ng n Kh N a n am h H D oa ak D ak La k La N o m ng D Lo o ng ng An
C: T l dn s trong tui lao ng tham gia cc hot ng phi nng nghip

100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0
H a T La ay o Ph C a u i La Th iC o D ha ie n u N Bie gh n Q ua e A ng n Kh N a n am h H D oa ak D ak Lak La N o m ng D Lo o ng ng An
D: T l dn s trong tui lao ng khai thc ti nguyn cng cng

100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0
H Ty chng ti thy c s khc bit trong hot ng (Hnh 2.2C). y 32% s ngi tham gia cc hot ng phi nng nghip, t l cao nht trong cc tnh kho st. Bn cnh , mt t l ln i lm thu ly lng (29%). Hn na, t l lm nng nghip li thp. Cng tng t i vi tnh Khnh Ha.
24
2.2. a dng ha
C nhiu nh ngha lin quan n a dng ho ngun thu nhp. Cc m hnh a dng ha thay i theo nh ngha. Trong nghin cu ny, s a dng ha thu nhp c m t ngn gn l tnh a dng ca cc ngun thu nhp. nh ngha ny st nht vi ngha gc ca t ny. N cp s gia tng s lng ngun thu nhp hoc s cn bng gia cc ngun thu nhp khc nhau. H c hai ngun thu nhp thng a dng hn h ch c mt ngun. Hn na, h c hai ngun thu nhp, mi ngun ng gp mt na tng thu nhp, thng a dng hn h cng c hai ngun thu nhp, nhng mt ngun ng gp 90% v mt ngun ch ng gp c 10% (Joshi v cng s, 2002; Ersado, 2003). Khi nim a dng thu nhp cng c s dng miu t phn ng gp ca thu nhp t cc hot ng phi cy trng hoc phi nng nghip. S gia tng t l thu nhp t cc hot ng phi nng nghip thng tng quan vi tng thu nhp ca h v c nc. nh ngha ny v a dng thu nhp lin quan n khi nim chuyn i c cu cp quc gia. N c nh ngha l qu trnh gim lu di t trng ng gp ca khu vc nng nghip vo GDP v lao ng nng nghip. Kinh nghim nghin cu ch ra rng trong mt s trng hp, tnh a dng ca thu nhp l mt chin lc qun l ri ro ca cc h ngho nhm i ph vi thi tit thay i bt thng v tim nng thp ca sn xut nng nghip. Trong cc trng hp khc a dng thu nhp cn gn lin vi nhng nng dn c thu nhp cao hn, nhng ngi bit thay i c cu cy trng vi nhng loi cy c gi tr cao v cc hot ng phi nng nghip. S a dng trong cc hot ng phi nng nghip gn lin vi s gia tng yu cu i vi cc sn phm phi lng thc khi thu nhp ca cc h tng ln. Phn ng gp ca cc hot ng phi nng nghip vo tng thu nhp ca h thng nhiu hn trong cc h c trnh hc vn cao hn, khu vc c in, th trng tt, v c thu nhp tng i cao. Trong mt s trng hp, thu nhp t hot ng phi nng nghip cng quan trong i vi h ngho nng thn. c bit khi a phng c nhiu h khng c t trng trt, v h phi da vo ngun thu nhp t vic i lm thu nhng cng vic n gin, ph thng kim tin.7 Trong phn tch c s dng hai bin php a dng ho. Mt l s lng hot ng ngoi 4 hot ng ni trn; v hai l ch s Simpson.8 Bin php th nht thng xem xt s a dng
Ch s Simpson v tnh a dng c s dng rng ri trong sinh hc o mc a dng sinh hc ca mt h sinh thi. Ch s Simpson v tnh a dng c xc nh nh sau: SID = 1- Pi2. Trong Pi l t l cc cc sinh vt c xp trong cc loi i. Ch s Simpson v tnh a dng cng c th c din gii l xc sut cho rng hai sinh vt c la chn ngu nhin l cng loi. Chng ta c th s dng ch s Simpson so snh gia thu nhp v a dng ngnh ngh ti nhiu khu vc trong ton quc. y, Pi l t l gia hot ng /ngun thu nhp i trng tng s thi gian lao ng hay c thu nhp. Gi tr ca SID lun ri vo gia 0 v 1. Nu ch c mt hot ng, P1=1, th SID=0. V s lng hot ng/ngun thu nhp gia tng, nn cc phn (Pi) gim i, cng nh tng ca cc khon ng gp cn bng, v vy SID s tin ti 1. Nu hot ng k /cc ngun thu nhp gim i, th SID s ri vo khong gia ) v 1-1/k. Characteristics of the Vietnamese Rural Economy: Evidence from a 2006 Rural Household Survey in 12 Provinces of Vietnam
Minot v cng s. (2006).
25
ho ngun thu nhp. Bin php th hai thng xem xt a dng ho ngnh ngh v a dng ho thu nhp.9 C th p dng ch s Simpson v tnh a dng v bn a dng ngnh ngh v a dng thu nhp. Ch bi mu sm hn l a phng c nhiu ngnh ngh/thu nhp hn. Hnh 2.3 ch r cc tnh nh in Bin, Lai Chu, Khnh Ha v.v c ngnh ngh v thu nhp a dng hn cc tnh khc. Hnh 2.3: a dng ho s lng ngnh ngh v thu nhp
Ch sim s nIn v a J bDho ific tio ngh SSimpsond x of dng ive sngnhn po e o r a
e Sims Simpsonof Incom Diversification Chpson Index v a dng ho thu nhp
Xt v c nhn, kt qu kho st cho thy hu ht thnh vin h trong tui lao ng tham gia 1-2 loi hot ng. 53% tham gia 1 loi hot ng v 43% tham gia hai loi hot ng. Mt t l nh thnh vin h tham gia 3 loi hot ng (4%). Hnh nh ph n tham gia t hot ng hn nam gii. S a dng hot ng cho thy mt khc bit nh v gii ca ch h. Nhn chung, t l cc hot ng ca nam ch h v n ch h l tng t. Thng thng, nam l ngi lao ng v ngun thu nhp chnh ca gia nh, v nam gii cng thng l ch h. Nhng nu trng hp n l ch h, ch yu l qu ph th lc h li l lao ng chnh v ngun thu nhp chnh ca gia nh. c th l l do ti sao s lung hot ng ca cc ph n ny li ngang bng nam ch h.
Ch s Simpson c tnh vi quyn s. Pi cho a dng ngnh ngh tnh theo ngi /ngy cho mi hot ng v Pi cho a dng thu nhp tnh theo mi ngun thu trong tng s cc ngun thu nhp.
26
Bng 2.2 cho thy mt im th v. Cc hot ng ca ngi giu hn t a dng hn. Ch c 3% s ngi trong nhm giu tham gia 3 hot ng v 0.3% c 4 hot ng. Trong khi 6,2% trong nhm ngho nht tham gia 3 hot ng v 0% c 4 hot ng. C th gii thch s khc bit ny l nhm h giu tp trung vo mt hot ng m h thnh tho chuyn mn hn. Nu ng nh vy, n s gip nhm ny tng thu nhp v khng cn thit lm phi a dng hot ng. Ngh An v k Nng v Ph Th c t l cao nht v s ngi tham gia mt hot ng, trong khi in Bin c t l thp nht. T l cao nht v s ngi tham gia 3 hot ng l Long An v Lai Chu.
Bng 2.2: a dng hot ng xt v c nhn (%)
Mt loi hot ng Gii N Nam Ch h N Nam Nhm tiu dng LTTP Ngho nht Ngho nh Trung bnh Giu nh Giu nht Tnh H Ty Lo Cai Ph Th Lai Chu in Bin Ngh An Qung Nam Khnh Ha k Lk k Nng Lm ng Long An Tng 50.9 40.8 64.1 47.5 24.7 64.4 58.2 57.3 55.1 62.2 53.7 56.6 55.6 47.6 53.7 33.2 43.0 68.8 32.0 37.1 36.2 41.4 35.6 44.0 34.5 40.4 1.5 5.5 2.1 9.3 6.0 3.4 4.7 6.5 3.5 2.2 2.2 8.9 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 51.8 53.7 50.8 56.7 66.4 42.0 43.1 44.8 40.1 30.6 6.2 3.0 4.4 3.0 2.7 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 60.1 54.7 37.3 41.0 2.6 4.2 0.0 0.2 59.7 51.6 38.0 42.6 2.2 5.5 0.0 0.2 Hai loi hot ng Ba loi hot ng Bn loi hot ng
27
Khi so snh bnh din c nhn vi h gia nh, chng ti thy s a dng nhiu hn cc c nhn. T l c nhn ch tham gia mt hot ng thp hn nhiu so vi t l tham gia 2-3 hot ng. Hn na, cc h do n lm ch h c t l thnh vin tham gia 1-2 hot ng thu nhp cao hn mt cht, v t l thnh vin c 3-4 hot ng t hn mt cht so vi h do nam gii lm ch h. Khi so snh s liu bnh din h gia nh vi c nhn theo nhm tiu th lng thc, chng ti thy trong tt c cc nhm (ng phn v) t l h tham gia mt hot ng u thp hn, trong khi t l h tham gia nhiu hn mt loi hot ng th tng ng bnh din c nhn. Nhiu h trong cc nhm giu hn c 1-2 hot ng hn cc h trong cc nhm ngho hn. Trong khi , t l tham gia 3-4 loi hot ng trong cc h giu hn li thp hn. Bng 2.3: a dng hot ng trn bnh din h gia nh (%)
Mt loi hot ng Ch h N Nam Nhm tiu dung TTP Ngho nht Ngho nh Trung bnh Giu nh Giu nht Tnh H Ty Lo Cai Ph Th Lai Chu in Bin Ngh An Qung Nam Khnh Ha k Lk k Nng Lm ng Long An Tng 25.3 10.4 25.0 16.4 2.7 32.0 23.9 27.9 33.6 33.6 21.1 17.3 25.5 51.7 68.6 62.2 47.6 68.6 50.2 55.8 39.9 53.3 57.3 60.8 52.0 54.1 23.0 21.0 10.6 29.8 27.0 16.1 19.5 30.9 13.1 9.1 18.2 28.9 19.4 0.0 0.0 2.2 6.2 1.8 1.6 0.9 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.0 27.7 18.3 23.8 27.7 29.9 49.8 61.7 55.5 50.9 52.7 21.7 19.1 19.3 20.1 16.8 0.8 1.0 1.4 1.3 0.6 % 28.9 24.7 Hai loi hot ng % 57.1 53.3 Ba loi hot ng % 13.7 20.8 Bn loi hot ng % 0.3 1.2
28
Theo l thuyt th s a dng ngnh ngh c th gip H gim thiu ri ro m bo thu nhp n nh hn. iu ny ng nh kt qu kho st, cho thy s a dng ngnh ngh c th khng t c mc thu nhp nh mong mun, v nu chuyn v mt hot ng c th mang li nhiu li ch hn. im ny c th thy r hn khi nhn vo s a dng hot ng tng tnh. Trong hai tnh in Bin v Lai Chu, ngi dn tham gia nhiu loi hot ng hn cc tnh khc. Tuy nhin mc a dng ho ngnh ngh cao nh vy li khng dn n thu nhp cao hn cc tnh khc. Do vy khng th kt lun rng s a dng ha lin quan trc tip ti gia tng thu nhp cho cc tnh ny so vi cc tnh khc.
2.3. Tm quan trng ca s phn b thi gian lao ng cho tng loi hot ng i vi vn to thu nhp
2.3.1. S phn chia thi gian cho cc hot ng lao ng ca h S chuyn i c cu lao ng trong cc hot ng c th l nhn t quan trng gim ngho. Bng 2.4 cho thy t l phn b thi gian lao ng cho cc hot ng khc nhau ca cc h c kho st. Trung bnh cc h vn dnh nhiu lao ng cho cc hot ng nng nghip nht, v t l ny l gn 37% tng thi gian lao ng ca h. Sau l vic ni tr, lm thu v hot ng phi nng nghip, vi cc t l tng ng l 28%, 21% v 12%. Hot ng khai thc ti nguyn cng cng chim khong 2% tng thi gian lao ng ca h. T l sc lao ng dnh cho lm thu v hot ng nng nghip ph thuc vo gii ca ch h. H do n lm ch dnh nhiu thi gian i lm thu hn cc h do nam lm ch. Ngc li, h li dnh t thi gian cho cng vic nng nghip hn cc h do nam gii lm ch. i vi hot ng phi nng nghip v cc hot ng khc hu nh khng my khc bit khi so snh gii ca cc ch h. Bng 2.4: T l lao ng dnh cho cc loi hot ng h gia nh (%)
Lm nng nghip 27.3 39.5 43.6 40.4 38.7 37.2 25.2 37.0 Hot ng phi nng nghip 11.7 11.8 6.2 9.0 8.8 14.7 20.5 11.8 Khai thc ti nguyn cng cng 1.0 2.5 3.3 2.7 1.6 1.4 2.2 2.2
Lm thu Ch h N Nam Nhm tiu dng LTTP Ngho nht Ngho Trung bnh Kh Giu nht Tng 15.4 20.5 22.2 19.9 26.5 20.9 26.8 19.4
Vic ni tr 33.1 26.7 31.6 27.4 28.7 26.8 25.6 28.0
Ghi ch: S liu c tnh ton da trn tng s ngy lao ng trong 12 thng qua dnh cho tng loi hot ng
29
Xu hng phn cng lao ng thy rt r theo nhm tiu th lng thc. Cc nhm giu hn c xu hng dnh nhiu thi gian lao ng i lm kim tin v hot ng phi nng nghip. Thi gian nhm giu nht dnh i lm c lng l 27%, trong khi t l ny nhm ngho nht l 15%. Mt hnh nh tng t rt r nt khi xem xt cc hot ng phi nng nghip, nhm giu nht dnh 21% thi gian cho cc cng vic ny trong khi nhm ngho nht dnh c 6%. Kt qu ny cho thy cc nhm giu hn dnh t thi gian cho cc hot ng nng nghip v khai thc ti nguyn cng cng hn. Trong khi , cc nhm ngho hn th ngc li, h dnh nhiu thi gian hn cho cc hot ng nng nghip. Thng thng nhm ngho nht dnh 44% thi gian. Thng thng, cc h s dnh hu ht thi gian lm cng vic chnh, thng l ngun thu nhp chnh ca h. Khi xem xt cc nhm tiu th lng thc, ta thy r khng nhng s khc bit v t l phn cng lao ng gia cc nhm h gia nh, m cn c nhng khc bit trong c cu hot ng ca cc nhm ny. C gng tm hiu s khc bit v c cu gia cc nhm h ta thy mt im quan trng l thu nhp t vic lm cng n lng v cc hot ng phi nng nghip c vai tr then cht trong vic tng thu nhp cho cc nhm h giu hn. Do , xem ra c th s thay i c cu hot ng c th gip cc nhm ngho hn gim ngho, nhng h ny hin nay ch yu cuc sng vn da vo cc hot ng nng nghip. Hnh 2.4: Phn cng lao ng h gia nh, theo tnh (%)
100 80
% 60
40 20 0 H Lo Ph Lai in Ngh Qung Khnh c c Lm Long Ha TayLao Cai Dak Dak Lam Dongng L Th Dien Bien Bin Ty Phu Thoai Chau Chu Nghe AnAn Nam Cai Nam Ho Lak Nong Nng Long AnAn Lc Quang Khanh Hoa % lm thu % phi nng nghip % khc % lm nng nghip % khai thc ti nguyn cng cng
30
C s khc bit trong s phn b thi gian lao ng gia cc tnh. Khnh Ha, Long An v Qung Nam dnh nhiu thi gian i lm thu hn cc tnh khc. Cc tnh min ni nh Lai Chu, in Bin v k Nng dnh t thi gian cho hot ng ny hn. Cc tnh ny ch yu da vo hot ng nng nghip v h dnh 50-60% tng thi gian lao ng cho cng vic ny. Tng t i vi cc tnh khc nh Lo Cai, Lm ng, k Lk, Ph Th v Ngh An (Hnh 2.4). Xem xt cc hot ng phi nng nghip ta thy t l cao nht H Ty, khong 35%. Sau l Qung Nam v Khnh Ha. L do l hai tnh ny c nhiu hot ng kinh doanh. 2.3.2. Tm quan trng ca lao ng v thu nhp T l ng gp vo tng thu nhp l ch tiu quan trng nh gi nng sut lao ng mt cch tng i. Hn na, khi phn tch thu nhp, s phi kho st t m s thay i trong t l ng gp vo thu nhp theo tng nm hiu su hn. Trong phn ny s a ra bc tranh hin trng da trn s liu iu tra VARHS06. Nh ni trn, s phn b thi gian lao ng v thu nhp c lin quan cht ch vi nhau. Bng 2.5 cho thy thi gian lao ng v thu nhp t cc hot ng khc nhau. C bn, thi gian lao ng nhiu nht v thu nhp cao nht l t hot ng nng nghip, trung bnh chim 37%. iu ny ch r tm quan trng ca nng nghip i vi cc h nng thn. Hot ng chim nhiu thi gian th hai l cng vic ni tr bao gm nu cm, lau nh v.v chim 28% thi gian ca ngi trong tui lao ng ca h. Khng c thu nhp ngay t cc hot ng ny. Hot ng quan trng th hai lin quan n thi gian lao ng v thu nhp t lao ng l lm thu. Khong 21% thi gian lao ng c dnh cho vic ny v thu nhp t hot ng ny chim 28%. i vi hot ng phi nng nghip, thi gian lao ng v thu nhp chim khong 12%. Thu nhp t vic khai thc ti nguyn cng cng chim 2% tng s thi gian lao ng v tng thu nhp. Xt theo gii ca ch h, kt qu cho thy cc h do nam lm ch h dnh nhiu thi gian hn cho hot ng nng nghip hn cc h do n lm ch h trong khi i vi thi gian lm thu th ngc li. Bng 2.5: Tm quan trng ca lao ng v thu nhp (%)
Phi nng nghip, khng lng Thi gian Phn thu nhp t Lao ng Khai thc ti nguyn cng cng Thi gian Phn thu nhp t lao ng Ni tr Thi gian
Lm thu Thi gian Ch h N Nam Nhm tiu dng LTTP Ngho nht 15.4 25.1 26.8 19.4 35.5 26.5 Phn thu nhp t Lao ng
Nng nghip Thi gian Phn thu nhp t lao ng
27.3 39.5 43.6
25.1 39.8 43.8
11.7 11.8 6.2
10.9 12.7 7.0
1.0 2.5 3.3
0.7 3.0 3.7
33.1 26.7 31.6
31
Ngho nh Trung bnh Giu nh Giu nht Tng
20.5 22.2 19.9 26.5 20.9
32.5 30.8 23.2 30.0 28.4
40.4 38.7 37.2 25.2 37.0
41.3 37.5 38.9 22.2 36.8
9.0 8.8 14.7 20.5 11.8
10.1 9.5 15.4 20.0 12.3
2.7 1.6 1.4 2.2 2.2
2.3 1.8 1.8 3.0 2.5
27.4 28.7 26.8 25.6 28.0
Ghi ch: T l thu nhp c tnh ton da trn s liu ca 12 thng qua. y chng ti ch tnh thu nhp t lao ng, cn thu nhp t cho thu nh, bn nh hay cc ngun thu nhp khc khng bao gm vo tng thu nhp. Cc phn thi gian lao ng c tnh ch da trn thi gian ca ngi trong tui lao ng (15 n 59 tui). u tin tnh ton mc h gia nh, sau ly s trung bnh.
Hnh 2.5: C cu thu nhp ca h theo ngun thu phn theo tnh (%)
100 80 % 60 40 20 0 H Lo Ph Lai in Khnh c c Lm Ha Tay Cai ThoChau Bien Ngh Qung DakDak NongDong Long Lao Phu Lai Dien Nghe AnKhanh Hoa Lak Lam Long An Quang Nam Ty Cai Th Chu Bin An Nam Ho Lc Nng ng An
% TN t lm thu % TN t phi NN % TN t ngun khc % TN t nng nghip % TN t khai thc ti nguyn
Khi so snh cc tnh chng ti thy cng v pha nam tm quan trng ca vic i lm thu cng ln v ngi dn dnh nhiu thi gian v c nhiu thu nhp t hot ng ny hn. Cc tnh c phn thu nhp cao nht t i lm thu l Qung Nam, Khnh Ha v Long An (min Nam) v Ph Th (min Bc). Cc tnh ni cc h c ngun thu nhp chnh l nng nghip bao gm in Bin, Lai Chu, k Nng, Lo Cai, Ngh An, Lm ng, Ph Th v k Lk (tt c u hn 50%). Vic khai thc ti nguyn cng cng c tm quan trng c bit in Bin v Qung Nam l ni m cc hot ng ny mang li ngun thu ng k cho h.
32
Hnh 2.6: Lao ng phi nng nghip ca h
100
80 percent 60 40 20
0 2004 2006 2004 2006 2004 2006
Min Bc
% TN lm thu % TN phi nng nghip % TN khc
Min Trung
Min Nam
% TN t nng nghip % TN t khai thc ti nguyn cng cng
Hnh 2.6 cho thy s thay i c cu thu nhp t cc hot ng kinh t t 2004 n 2006 t kt qu tnh ton t hai cuc iu tra theo ba min Bc, Trung, Nam. Ti c ba min, t trng thu nhp t nng nghip u gim trong khi thu nhp t lm thu tng ln. iu ngc nhin l thu nhp t cc hot ng kinh doanh phi nng nghip li gim i trn c 3 min trong khi thu nhp t cc ngun khc tng ln pha Bc nhng li gim i min Trung v pha Nam. mt chng mc no , kt qu iu tra ch ra rng hot ng phi nng nghip t lm ca h to ra thu nhp tng i cao. Trong phn ln cc trng hp, hot ng phi nng nghip t lm cho thu nhp cao hn so vi lm nng nghip hoc i lm thu. Ti mc no , kt qu iu tra cho thy cc hot ng t to vic lm phi nng nghip mang li thu nhp tng i cao. Trong hu ht trng hp, hot ng t to vic lm phi nng nghip c li nhun cao hn c hai hot ng nng nghip v lm cng n lng. Ni chung, hot ng phi nng nghip c v l mt nhn t quan trng i vi dn c nng thn, khng ch v mt to vic lm m cn v mt hiu qu lao ng cao hn, mang li nhiu li nhun hn.
2.4. Kt lun
Phn tch hin nay cho thy cc h thng bao gm 4 ngi, 3 trong s h lao ng v c thu nhp. Hot ng quan trng nht l nng nghip, v cc hot ng khc c xp th t nh sau: ni tr, lm thu v cng vic c cho thu nhp. Ni chung cc h dnh hu ht sc lao ng ca mnh cho sn xut nng nghip. Cc hot ng khc c xp th t nh sau: lm thu, phi nng nghip v cc cng vic khc.
33
Nhn chung, cc h u c hai loi hot ng to thu nhp chnh. Xem ra s a dng ngnh ngh mang li thu nhp cao hn, v thu nhp cn c th ph thuc vo cht lng hot ng. V vn nng sut lao ng, hiu qu ca cc hot ng nng nghip khng bng cc hot ng khc. Thi gian dnh cho hot ng nng nghip nhiu, trong khi phn thu nhp t nng nghip li thp. Trong khi , lm thu v hot ng phi nng nghip hnh nh hiu qu cao hn. iu quan trng l phi nhn vo phn thu nhp v phn lao ng phn b cho mi hot ng xc nh xem hot ng no l tt cho h. Kt qu trn y cho thy phi pht trin hn na nn kinh t nng thn Vit Nam, ni qu di do lao ng v cht lng lao ng tng i thp. R rng l trong tng lai phi tp trung m rng cc hot ng phi nng nghip.
3. T AI: C IM, S DNG T, U T V TH TRNG

Cng vi lao ng, t ai l nhn t ch cht sn xut cc u ra nng nghip nguyn khai nh lng thc, nng sn hng ha v gia sc, gia cm. Kh nng tip cn t ai l s sng cn i vi sn xut nng nghip; v vic s dng t ca h v kh nng tip cn t ai b chi phi bi mt lot cc lut t ai vi mc ch m bo s phn chia t ai v quyn s dng t mt cch cng bng. Ton b t ai Vit Nam l t cng v thuc v nhn dn Vit Nam v do Nh nc qun l. Cc lut chi phi vic phn b t c ci cch nhiu ln t khi phi tp th ho nm 1988. Theo Lut t ai u tin, t c chia cho cc h trong mt thi hn n 30 nm tu theo quy m h. n Lut t ai nm 1993 cc h mi c php chuyn nhng t. Theo lut ny, cc h c quyn chuyn nhng, trao i, tha k, cho thu v th chp t ai. Cng vi cc quyn ny, nh nc s cp Giy Chng nhn Quyn s dng t GCNQSD (thng c gi l S ) nh mt bng chng php lut cho h c quyn s dng t. t c giao quyn s dng ti 50 nm v sau khi ht hn s c gia hn. Mc d lut c p dng hn 10 nm, nhng S vn cha c cp cho tt c cc mnh t v cn rt nhiu khc bit gia cc vng, min. Lut t ai mi nht nm 2003 m bo ci tin h thng ng k t ai v nhng th tc hnh chnh r rng hn (v nhanh chng hn). Mt nt mi trong lut ny l S yu cu ghi tn c v ln chng nu c hai ngi u c quyn s dng mnh t . Mt h qu c th xy ra cng vic xut hin th trng t ai l s phn b t ai c th km cng bng hn nh ban u. Cc h ngho hn c th gp kh khn khi tip cn th trng. Chng ti s ni v vn phn b t ai v S trong Phn 3.1 v 3.2, xt theo tnh v cc nhm tiu th lng thc. t ai Vit Nam rt manh mn, c bit min Bc ni cc h c chia nhiu mnh rung v cc mnh rung nh hn, thng khng lin k nhau. u tin ngi ta chia cho cc h nhng
34
mnh t c c im khc nhau (v mt cht lng t v a im) m bo tnh cng bng v c quy m v cht lng t. Tuy nhin, s chim gi nhng mnh rung manh mn thng lm cho sn xut nng nghip km hiu qu. Nhng th trng t ai linh hot hn s cho php nng dn hp nht t ai ca h. Mt ln na, c im khu vc a l v nhm giu ngho li c th hn ch tc hp nht t ai (Mc 3.1). Bng chng chnh thc v quyn i vi ti sn t ai thng c coi l gip tng cng s u t vo t mt cch hiu qu hn (Feder v Onchan, 1987; Hayes, Roth v Zepeda, 1997). Tuy nhin, cc kt qu phn tch trn lnh vc ny ang tr nn m h (Holden v Yohannes, 2002) hoc ph thuc vo tn dng v kh nng s dng t th chp (Feder v Feeny, 1991; Carter v Olinto, 2003) hoc thm ch cho thy bng chng v nguyn nhn ngc li, ngha l u t vo t m bo quyn tip tc c s dng t, ch khng phi u t l kt qu ca quyn c tip tc s dng t, ngha l tnh ni sinh ca quyn s dng t (Besley, 1995; Brasselle, Gaspart v Platteau, 2001). Bn cnh , nhng hn ch trong s dng t, c bit l s la chn cy trng, vn cn tn ti Vit Nam. iu ny c th hn ch hiu qu u t ca vic cp S . Tip theo chng ti s tm hiu m hnh gia vic s dng t, u t v quyn s dng chnh thc (Mc 3.3 v 3.4). Vic tm ra nguyn nhn l vt qu phm vi ca nghin cu ny. Nghin cu VAHRS06 thu thp thng tin v 5 loi t: t l ti sn ca h v do h s dng; t do h s dng nhng l thu hoc mn; t l ti sn ca h nhng cho ngi khc thu hoc mn; t thu hoc mn trc y (trong 5 nm qua); v t l ti sn trc y. Theo h s ghi chp, 81% cc mnh t l ti sn ca h v do h s dng. V vn ny, gia cc tnh c nhiu khc bit; Lai Chu v in Bin, 99% cc mnh t l ca h v do h s dng, trong khi t l ny Ngh An ch l 71% v l tnh c t l h mt t cao nht10. Tt c cc h u s dng t (nu khng cho sn xut nng nghip th cng ) v hu nh tt c cc h u c t. trong mu ch c 1% s h l khng c t. Tuy nhin, khi khng k t , ch c 86% c t nng nghip (ngha l dng cho mc ch khc ngoi ). S liu ny hi cao hn s liu quc gia nm 2004 l 86% (Brandt, 2005). Ch c 79% h do n lm ch c t khng phi t , 88% h do nam lm ch c loi t ny. 20% h ang thu t trong khi mt t l nh hn nhiu cho thu t (10%). Cc h giu nht t i thu t m hay cho thu t. Th trng thu v cho thu t mt s tnh t ra si ng hn cc tnh khc. S khc bit gia cc tnh v cc nhm tiu th lng thc cng xut hin y, 26% h tng mua t nht mt mnh t. S khc bit cng tng t khi xt theo tnh v nhm tiu dng LTTP. Chng ti cng cp n hot ng ca cc th trng thu, cho thu bn t v nhng thay i trong th trng ny mt cch ngn gn (Mc 3.5).
Thay v l ch tiu ca mt th trng bn t si ng, chng ta s thy r (Bng 4.11-Ngh An) rng 90% cc mnh t ny b nh nc hay x ly v ch c 0,5% bn. Characteristics of the Vietnamese Rural Economy: Evidence from a 2006 Rural Household Survey in 12 Provinces of Vietnam
10
35
Nhm xt n nhng khc bit v a l, chng ti gi c cu xy dng tnh. Hn na, kho st t m nhng cch tip cn khc nhau i vi s dng t v u t vo t da trn gii chng ti tnh ton cc s liu thng k theo gii ca ch h. Nhm tm hiu xem cc h ngho hn c b gt ra ngoi kh nng tip cn s dng t hay khng chng ti cng a ra cc con s thng k v t qua cc nhm tiu th lng thc (cc nhm ng phn v da trn s tiu dng lng thc).
3.1. S phn b v chia t thnh mnh

Tng quan v s phn b v chia t thnh mnh cho cc h trong mu kho st trnh by trong Bng 3.1 v 3.2. u tin, l s khc bit rt ln v quy m t trung bnh ca mt h trn 12 tnh kho st, theo gii ca ch h. S trung bnh v trung v nh nht l H Ty v rng nht l in Bin v k Nng. Trung bnh din tch t ca cc h do n lm ch cha c mt na din tch t ca h do nam lm ch h (44% thm ch cn thp hn s liu quc gia l 54%, Mekong Economics, 2004b). Mt phn ca s khc bit ny c th gii thch l quy m cc h do n lm ch h thng nh hn (trung bnh ch c 4 ngi/h trong khi h do nam lm ch h thng c 5 ngi) nhng ngay c khi hiu chnh cho ph hp vi quy m h, din tch t ca cc h ny vn ch bng 61% din tch ca cc h c ch h l nam. Nhm ngho nht c din tch t/ h rng nht, nhng sau khi chnh li theo quy m h kt qu li cho thy nhm h giu nht (20%) c ti sn t ln nht. Bn cnh s khc bit v din tch t trn u ngi, cht lng t cng c th khc bit mt cch c bn. V d, t vng ng bng v chu th sng l ph nhiu nht trong khi t vng ni c cht lng km hn nhiu. Hnh nh t ca cc h do n lm ch h c gi tr cao hn cc h do nam lm ch h, c bit l t trng cy hng nm. Nhng s liu v nhm ngho nht li cho thy t l t c cht lng tt ca h (tnh bng gi tr bn) ch bng mt na so vi nhm giu nht. c bit t trng cy lu nin, gi bn mt mt vung loi t ny tng mnh theo nhm tiu th lng thc. Nh vy, xem ra nhm ngho nht khng ch c din tch t nh hn m cn km gi tr hn. Khong 78% din tch t ngoi t l t trng cy hng nm. Tr hai tnh H Ty v in Bin c t l cao nht tng ng vi 93% v 89%. Cc tnh Ty Nguyn nh k Lk, k Nng v Lm ng ng cui bng vi t trng cy hng nm ch chim cha ti 43, 32 v 26% tng din tch t. V tnh bnh ng trong phn b t ai, hnh nh ti nhiu tnh mt s h ng u bng c din tch t tng i ln so vi nhng h cn li trong mu kho st, do lm cho quy m t trung bnh tng ln. iu ny thy r trong tt c c cc nhm tiu th lng thc. thy r hn tnh bnh ng chng ti trnh by cc th v s phn b t ni chung v t trng cy hng nm (Hnh 3.1 v 3.2).
36
Bng 3.1: Phn b t v s chia t ra tng mnh

Tng din tch t (m2) Trung bnh Trung v Tnh H Ty Lo Cai Ph Th Lai Chu in Bin Ngh An Qung Nam Khnh Ha k Lk k Nng Lm ng Long An Ch h N Nam Nhm tiu dng LTTP Ngho nht Ngho nh Trung bnh Giu nh Giu nht Tng 10,632 8,582 5,406 6,438 8,891 7,989 3,391 3,420 3,000 3,000 2,352 3,050 4,492 3,353 2,582 2,735 4,617 3,556 4.9 5.4 4.8 4.7 4.0 4.7 17 19 16 14 18 19 13.4 15.3 13.2 12.6 22.6 15.1 2,172 1,599 1,132 1,373 2,250 1,688 500 432 400 432 460 432 4,016 9,037 2,000 3,420 2,103 3,939 3.8 5 16 19 13.2 15.5 1,062 1,813 360 462 1,931 11,330 4,131 11,929 24,128 5,986 12,487 6,323 11,209 22,161 10,032 10,717 1,728 7,505 3,000 9,500 10,120 2,516 2,480 2,822 8,500 17,900 7,600 5,742 1,575 5,231 1,959 9,758 10,732 2,550 5,023 3,415 2,742 3,932 1,474 8,295 5.8 5.1 7.4 6.3 6.9 4.9 4.3 2.5 3.3 3.2 2.6 2.9 14 14 17 16 19 14 12 12 10 10 8 15 6.8 7.7 11.0 19.6 27.7 11.9 7.7 21.2 26.5 31.6 19.0 54.9 331 2,217 559 1,894 3,498 1,227 2,888 2,583 3,420 6,899 3,849 3,674 250 960 312 1,200 780 430 500 1,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 t trng cy hng nm a (m2) Trung bnh S lng cc mnh t T l cc mnh t lin k cc Din tch mnh (m2)
Tr. bnh Ln nht mnh khc Trung bnh Trung v
37
95% s h c din tch t di 36.000 m2 trong khi 5% s h c din tch t t 36.000 n 766.217 m2. Hnh 3.1a v b cho thy hnh nh phn b t ai cho 95% h ngho hn trong mu. a s h c kho st c t din tch t (70% c t hn 1 ha). S h c nhiu t cc tnh min Nam cao hn mt cht ( min Bc t l h c t hn 1 ha l 76%, trong khi min Nam l 55%). Hnh 3.1c cho thy s phn chia t ai trn c hai min u khng hon ton bnh ng, nhng khng min no bnh ng hn trong vic chia t. Bng 3.2 : Din tch t iu chnh cho ph hp vi quy m v cht lng h
Din tch t trung (m2) Tnh H Ty Lo Cai Ph Th Lai Chu in Bin Ngh An Qung Nam Khnh Ha k Lk k Nng Lm ng Long An Ch H N Nam Nhm chi tiu LTTP Ngho nht Ngho Trung lu Giu Giu nht Total 1,783 1,783 1,346 1,530 2,259 1,739 814 699 671 658 1,229 814 26 56 78 40 46 51 28 58 85 41 46 53 7 30 16 31 49 28 1,157 1,892 608 868 92 42 97 44 16 29 486 2,347 1,099 2,204 3,895 1,339 2,301 1,355 2,224 5,054 2,451 2,983 398 1,022 515 1,745 1,711 576 1,226 706 523 845 427 2,272 160 7 11 3 2 10 12 14 15 26 25 28 159 7 11 3 2 9 12 11 9 33 40 28 210 5 6 1 6 49 7 24 21 22 16 7 Din tch t cy c lng gi c lng gi tr c lung gi tr tr bn t trng trt bn t trng cy bn t trng cy hng nm lu nin ngi (m2)
bnh trn u ngi hng nm trn u
38
H s Gini v phn chia t ai l 0,68 i vi tng din tch t v 0,65 i vi t trn u ngi. Con s ny cao hn nhiu h s Gini quc gia nm 1998, Gini v phn chia t nng thn trn u ngi l 0,50 (Deininger v Jin, 2003) nhng li tng t h s Gini 2004 v tng din tch t nng nghip l 0,64 (Brandt, 2005). S bt bnh ng cng khng khc nhau lm gia min Bc v min Nam (cc h s t Gini l 66% trn c hai min; cc h s t Gini trn u ngi khc nhau mt cht gia min Bc l 61% v min Nam l 65%). Tuy nhin, nu ch nhn vo t trng cy hng nm, vi nhng hn ch chnh thc ch cho php c nhiu nht l 3 ha, th s phn chia cc tnh min Bc l bnh ng hn. Hnh 3.1: S phn b t ai ni chung v theo khu vc
a. Phn b t ai di 95%, kho st tng din tch
.2
b. Phn b t ai di 95%, theo khu vc

north
.2
south
.15
Fraction .1
Fraction
.05
0 0
.05
.1
.15
10000
20000
30000
10000
20000
30000
10000 20000 total HH land owned in sqm
30000
total HH land owned in sqm

Graphs by one of 2 regions HH belongs to
c. Phn b tng din tch t ai (ng cong Lorenz), theo khu vc

1
d. Phn b t trng cy hng nm (<= 3 ha), theo khu vc

1
.2
.4 .6 Cumulative population proportion north south
.8
0 0
Lo ren z a nlan da rea (b y re gion 2) .2 .4 .6 .8
Lorenz lan darea (b y re gion2) .2 .4 .6 .8
.2
.8
39
Trong Hnh 3.2a v c chng ta thy mt s tnh min Bc (Ngh An v in Bin) v mt s tnh min Nam (Qung Nam, Khnh Ho v Long An) c s bt bnh ng trong phn b t (cc h s Gini cho t ca cc tnh ny tng ng vi 0,69 v 0,68; 0,84, 0,69 v 0,63). H Ty c h s Gini nh nht (0,31), ngha l c s phn chia bnh ng nht. Nm 2004, BSH cng c h s Gini cho t nng nghip nh nht l 0,40 trong khi ng Nam B c h s ln nht l 0,75 (Brandt, 2005). Nh vy, in Bin v k Nng l cc tnh c din tch t trung bnh ln, k Nng c s phn b t bnh ng hn nhiu (Gini 0,48). H Ty c s trung bnh nh nht ng thi c s phn chia t bnh ng nht. Hnh 3.2: Hm phn chia t tch lu theo tnh a
a. Tng din tch t, cc tnh min Bc
1
b. t cy hng nm (>= 3 ha), cc tnh min Bc

L o re n z a n la n d a re a (b y tin h _ 2 0 0 6 ) .2 .4 .6 .8 1 0 0
L o re n z la n d a re a (b y tin h _ 2 0 0 6 ) .2 .4 .6 .8
.2
.4 .6 Cumulative population proportion Ha Tay Phu Tho Dien Bien Lao Cai Lai Chau Nghe An
.8
.2
.8
c. Tng din tch t, cc tnh min Nam

1
d. t cy hng nm (<= 3 ha),cc tnh min Nam

L o re n z a n la n d a re a (b y tin h _ 2 0 0 6 ) .2 .4 .6 .8 1
.2
.4 .6 Cumulative population proportion Quang Nam Dak Lak Lam Dong
.8
0 0
.2
.8
Khanh Hoa Dak Nong Long An
th tng din tch t v t trng cy hng nm ca h; din tch trn u ngi cng c m hnh tng t.
40
i vi t trng cy hng nm c din tch di 3 ha, Hnh 3.2b v d cho thy cc tnh min Bc nhn chung c s phn b t bnh ng hn cc tnh min nam. Theo thi gian, s bt bnh ng trong t ai ngy cng tng ln nhng iu ny khng phi lc no cng a n s bt bnh ng trong thu nhp, nu cc h mun chuyn sang cc hot ng phi nng nghip (xem Chng 2, phn thu nhp t nng nghip ca 12 tnh gim trong giai on 2002/4 v 2006). V vn chia t thnh mnh, cc h H Ty khng ch c quy m t trung bnh nh nht, m mi h cn s dng nhiu mnh m ch c khong 7% s mnh t lin k nhau (Bng 3.1). Ni chung, cc tnh pha Bc c hin tng chia t thnh mnh nhiu hn v h c lch s chia t trn nguyn tc ca ch ngha qun bnh. Tuy nhin, nu so vi ton b cc tnh min Bc, cc h kho st li c nhiu mnh t hn. Theo Brandt (2005), s mnh t trung bnh mt h min Bc c gim i t 6 trong nm 1998 cn cha n 5 mnh trong nm 2004 nh thc hin vic dn in i tha trn min Bc. Xem ra ch c t ai ca cc h trong nhm giu nht l t manh mn, h c t mnh l hn v t l cc mnh lin k cao hn, nh vy t ai ca cc h giu nht hp nht hn. So snh vi kt qu ca VAHRS02 (Mekong Economics, 2004a) hnh nh hin nay xu hng hp nht t ai ang gia tng mt cht (c ngha l n nm 2006 trung bnh s mnh t ca cc h t hn). Bng 3.3 cho thy hu ht hot ng ca th trng t tp trung cc tnh min Nam. Tr Qung Nam, ti cc tnh min Nam khc ch c cha n 1/3 tng s mnh t ca cc h l do Nh nc hoc x cp. T l cc mnh t c c do mua bn cao nht k Nng, sau l k Lk (tng ng vi 41% v 38%). Ti Long An 56% s mnh t c c thng qua tha k. T Bng 3.3, kh c th nh gi c t do nh nc giao hay mua bn trn th trng dn n s phn b t ai mt cch bnh ng hay bt bnh ng. H Ty ni bnh ng nht v Qung Nam, ni bt bnh ng nht u c t l t do Nh nc v x giao cao (hn 80%) trong khi k Lk v k Nng, ni c khong 40% cc mnh t c c do mua bn trn th trng, u c h s bt bnh ng tng i thp (0.48). V tnh trng t ai manh mn, hnh nh c s tng quan gia mt th trng si ng v tch t rung t (nhng cha th rt ra nguyn nhn). Ni no cha n 1/3 cc mnh t ca h c nh nc hoc x giao cho, th 19% hay hn trong s lin k nhau. Tr in Bin ni 58% s mnh l do nh nc giao v 28% trong s lin k nhau.
41
Bng 3.3: Ngun gc cc mnh t

c Nh nc/ x giao Tnh H Ty Lo Cai Ph Th Lai Chu in Bin Ngh An Qung Nam Khnh Ha k Lk k Nng Lm ng Long An Ch h N Nam Nhm chi tiu LTTP Ngho nht Ngho nh Trung bnh Giu nh Giu nht Tng
a
Tha k
Th trng (=mua)
Khai hoang v ln chim
Trao i
Tng s mnh (100%a)
T l s mnh lin k mnh khc
H s GINI da trn quy m t ca h
81.1 50.4 86.7 18.1 57.6 78.9 79.5 31.8 16.3 8.7 3.8 15.6
13.5 21.9 9.4 15.4 11.0 7.7 10.9 29.5 12.9 6.9 13.6 56.1
3.6 4.5 2.7 1.1 0.1 5.9 3.5 25.6 37.8 40.6 15.4 25.5
0.0 23.0 0.8 65.1 31.1 7.1 5.9 11.6 32.0 43.5 67.3 2.3
1.5 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
1650 312 1046 186 291 1576 544 174 579 90 174 382
6.8 7.7 11.0 19.6 27.7 11.9 7.7 21.2 26.5 31.6 19.0 54.9
0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6
63.9 64.4
16.2 13.9
9.5 9.0
9.3 11.9
0.7 0.5
1169 5833
13.2 15.5
0.6 0.7
61.3 66.9 69.9 66.8 54.8 64.3
12.7 14.6 14.1 11.9 18.7 14.3
7.2 5.9 6.1 10.3 18.0 9.1
18.2 11.6 9.4 10.4 6.9 11.5
0.5 0.7 0.1 0.5 1.1 0.6
1469 1567 1416 1387 1164 7006
13.4 15.3 13.2 12.6 22.6 15.1
0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7
S liu khng hon ton y 100 v c mt s loi khc khng trnh by y.
Khng thy nhiu khc bit gia cc h do nam v n lm ch h v mt chia t thnh mnh, s bt bnh ng v ngun gc t. Cc h giu nht c t l t thng qua mua bn v tha k cao hn cc nhm khc v do h c gng lm sao c c nhiu mnh t lin k hn.
42
3.2. Tnh trng S

GCNQSD hay S c coi nh mt bng chng lut php v quyn s dng t ca h theo Lut t ai nm 1993. Theo Lut t ai 2003, nu c hai v chng u c quyn s dng mt mnh t th trong S phi ghi tn c hai ngi. Trong mc ny, chng ti nghin cu c hai vn , bt u bng quyn s hu S trong Hnh 3.3 (S ca cc h kho st). Hnh 3.3: T l cc mnh t c S
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
H Phu Ph Lai Nghe Ngh KhnhDak Nong Dong An in c c Lm Ha Tay Cai Tho Dien Bien An Lao Lo Khanh Dak Lak Lam Long Quang Nam Hoa
Total female N Nam Ngho Ngho riches Long male poorest middle TB Giu Giu Tng 2nd richest 2nd poorest Ty Cai Th Chu Bin An Ho Lc Nng ng An nht nh nh nht
Tt c
t cy lu nm
78% cc mnh t ca h c cp S (ngha l nhng mnh t h c quyn s dng lu di). Con s ny cao hn s trung bnh ton quc nm 2004, l 76,5% (Brandt, 2005). C s khc bit ln gia cc tnh v tnh trng cp S v qu trnh cp. iu ny xy ra ngay ti cc tnh nm lin k nhau nh H Ty v Ph Th, Lo Cai v Lai Chu, k Nng v Lm ng. Ph Th v Long An, hu ht cc mnh t ca h u c S trong khi in Bin, Lai Chu v k Nng ch cha n 60% s mnh c cp. Trong 4 tnh kho st trong VAHRS02 (H Ty, Ph Th, Qung Nam v Long An), ba tnh c mt s tin b trong t l cp S trong khi t l Qung Nam vn gi nguyn (l 88%). H Ty, i vi 47% cc mnh t cha c S nm 2002 (VAHRS), cc h u np n xin cp v ch cn ch c cp, trong khi Qung Nam ch c 5% np n. Bn cnh , trong s 68% trng hp cha c S Qung Nam, cc h ni l khng cn giy chng nhn cho cc mnh ny. iu ny c th gii thch hin trng tnh . Nhm 12 tnh kho st c mt s tin b v cp S so vi t l trung bnh c cp nm 2004. Nm 2004, 77% cc mnh t c cp S (VHLSS04, 12 tnh). y xem ra khng phi m hnh khu vc v trn c hai min Bc v Nam u c nhng tnh c t l t c cp S cao (nh Ph Th min Bc v Long An min Nam) v cc tnh c t l t c cp GCN thp (nh in Bin min Bc v k Nng min Nam).
43
T l cc mnh t c s cng ph thuc nhiu vo loi t, t trng cy hng nm hay lu nin, t , t lm nghip hay mt nc. t c t l c cp s cao nht l t trng cy hng nm (77%) v t trng cy lu nm (76%), theo sau l t (75%), t ng c 973%), din tch mt nc (72%) v t rng (67%). Hnh nh t l cc mnh t c cp s ca cc h do n lm ch h cao hn (84 so vi 76%). Cc h ngho nht c t l mnh t c cp s thp nht. Cc mnh t ca cc h c ch h l n trong nhm ngho nht c s khng cao hn cc h c ch h l nam. Sang vn trong S s ghi tn bao nhiu ngi trong h,11 trong Hnh 3.4 chng ti gii thch mi quan h vi ch h ca ngi (nhng ngi) ng k S v gii ca cc thnh vin h c tn trong S (Bng 3.4). Hnh 3.4: S lng thnh vin h ng k tn trong S
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
Kh n h
Ngi ngoi h Ng?i ngoi h?
1 thnh vin h h?
2 thnh vin h h?
Ba nm sau ban hnh lut t ai 2003, ch c 9% cc mnh t c tn hai ngi. Trong 86% mnh t c S ch c 1 thnh vin h c ghi tn l ch s dng v trong hu ht trng hp l ngi ch h (81%). Trong 3% tng s s , mt ngi (chng, v) c ng k l ngi ch s dng duy nht v trong 8%, c ngi ch h v v (chng) c ng k. Trong cc h c n ch h 10% S ng k tn ngi ngoi h, trong khi t l ny cc h c nam ch h l 4%. S khc bit gia cc tnh rt ln (xem Hnh 3.4) vi Lai Chu v Khnh Ha xp trn cng cc tnh c ng k tn hai ngi trong S v nhiu tnh ng cui hng, nh H Ty, Ph Th, Qung Nam v k Nng ch c cha n 1% s S c ghi tn hai ngi. Mt ln na li thy s thiu nht qun gia cc vng mc d c bit Khnh Ha t ra tin b hn trong cc tnh min Nam.
11
Con s ny c th l 0 nu mt ngi ngoi h ng k l ch GCNQSD.
44
N gh Tr o n u n h g b G nh i u nh
T L y o C ai
C h u
An
La i
Lo
ng
N am
Bng 3.4: C cu tn ng k trong S

% tn ph n ng k trong S Tn hng th nht Tnh H Ty Lo Cai Ph Th Lai Chu in Bin Ngh An Qung Nam Khnh Ha k Lk k Nng Lm ng Long An Ch H N Nam Nhm tiu dng LTTP Ngho nht Ngho nh Trung bnh Giu nh Giu nht Tng
a
C cu tn trong S Ch c ch h Ch c v/chng C ch h v v/chng ch h Tn ngi khc (a)
Tn hng th hai
Tt c cc tn
21.9 8.1 24.1 1.0 8.5 11.7 24.5 35.8 15.1 16.2 21.3 37.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 96.5 46.2 90.0 khng 78.3 18.7 khng 100.0 75.4
22.3 20.5 24.7 44.5 13.0 26.5 24.5 53.8 15.2 16.2 23.3 37.5
91.4 80.0 86.1 18.6 81.8 71.2 89.4 24.9 80.9 81.4 91.8 79.7
3.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 2.2 1.7 2.1 4.9 1.8 6.4 6.7 6.3
0.5 15.1 0.6 77.6 3.7 19.4 0.0 57.3 2.1 0.0 0.7 0.6
5.2 4.9 7.2 3.8 12.2 7.8 8.6 12.9 15.2 12.3 0.9 13.4
94.1 4.4
28.9 92.9
91.2 12.5
81.1 81.2
2.2 3.4
2.1 8.8
14.6 6.7
12.0 13.3 23.9 22.3 30.1 19.7
93.4 92.0 97.1 80.2 69.3 86.7
21.3 21.8 27.7 25.0 33.9 25.7
79.7 77.2 85.4 85.5 76.2 80.7
1.5 3.8 1.0 4.6 6.4 3.3
11.3 10.5 5.2 3.9 7.0 8.1
7.5 8.5 8.4 6.0 10.4 8.0
Khc c th l bt k ai c ng tn trong ng k, bao gm c ngi ngoi h.
45
Ti hu ht cc tnh, hn 80% S ch ghi tn ch h (tr Lai Chu, Khnh Ha v Ngh An, Xem Bng 3.4), v cc tnh min Nam c t l cao hn i vi S ch c tn chng/v ch h hoc kt hp nhiu tn. Nh vy tr mt s ngoi l, xem ra Lut t ai nm 2003 yu cu ng k 2 tn trong S vn cha c p dng rng ri. C th do thiu thng tin (xem Chng 7) hoc chi ph ng k hoc do quan im ca h v s hu mnh t. Hai nhm ngho nht c t l S c 2 tn cao hn (v t l cao nht l tn ch h v v/chng). c bit nhm trung bnh v kh, t l t ch ghi tn ch h cao hn mc trung bnh. V c cu tn trong S , hng u thng ghi tn nam gii (xem Bng 3.4) trong h do nam lm ch h v tn ngi ph n trong h c ch h l n. Mc d H Ty, Ph Th, Qung Nam, Lm ng v Long An c v nh khng nhiu S c ng k tn ngi th hai, h li c s cn bng v gii trong cc s ch c mt tn. Mt ln na Khnh Ha li cho thy mt ngoi l vi 54% cc tn ng k (ghi c hng trn v hng di) l n. in Bin min Bc v k Lk, k Nng min Nam km hn, t ghi tn ph n trong S hn. Nhm giu nht c t l ph n c tn trong S cao nht. Nhn chung, ch c 26% tng s tn trong S l ph n.
3.3. S dng t
Trong mc ny chng ti m rng phn tch ra tt c mi mnh t c s dng bi cc h khng phn bit h c hay i thu. Chng ti cng xem liu c mi quan h no gia mnh t v tnh trng c S hay khng. iu ny bao gm, c th hn, liu quyn chnh thc v ti sn c kch thch u t lu di hay khng. Vic s dng t c th b nhng hn ch. y l trng hp ca 71% cc thn c kho st, v c im ny c th hn ch hiu qu ca quyn s dng t v u t hoc cc quyt nh ca h v a dng ha hoc hin i ho. Hu ht cc gii hn hin nay u p dng cho t nng nghip, cm s dng cho cc mc ch phi nng nghip v gii hn trong la chn cy trng, nhng cng hn ch vic xy dng cc cng trnh lu di trn t nng nghip (Bng 3.5). u tin, cc tnh cng v pha nam c t l cao nht cc mnh t khng b hn ch s dng. c bit k Lk, k Nng v Lm ng khu vc Ty Nguyn, cho thy t l cao nht v khng hn ch s la chn cy trng v c t l thp nht trong hai ct cui. Nhn chung, hn mt na s mnh t b hn ch trong s la chn cy trng. Khong 70% cc x bo co rng h c k hoch quy nh nng dn s dng t phn ln trong s h c bao gm s hn ch trong s la chn cy trng v cc mnh rung khng c xy cng trnh vnh vin hoc chuyn i sang mc ch phi nng nghip.
46
Bng 3.5: Hn ch i vi cc mnh t (ch i vi t khng phi t )

Nhng hn ch chnh thc v s la chn cy trng Phi theo k hoch Tnh H Ty Lo Cai Ph Th Lai Chu in Bin Ngh An Qung Nam Khnh Ha k Lk k Nng Lm ng Long An Ch H N Nam Nhm chi tiu LTTP Ngho nht Ngho nh Trung bnh Giu nh Giu nht Tng
a
Loi hn ch i vi s la chn cy trng Trng la Trng la c nm mt s v Khc
Xy dng cng i sang mc trnh c nh (% khng c php)a ch phi NN (% khng c php)a
Hn ch khc
Khng hn ch
77.7 32.6 65.6 26.2 45.3 67.6 58.1 28.4 14.1 9.3 4.2 21.0
0.2 2.9 2.1 0.8 0.7 0.7 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7
22.1 64.5 32.3 73.0 54.0 31.8 39.5 71.6 85.9 90.7 95.8 74.4
28.6 83.3 15.3 58.5 90.2 9.5 55.9 69.4 84.5 32.4 28.6 29.9
66.5 12.4 72.3 40.4 3.8 82.6 28.1 25.4 3.5 67.6 42.9 66.3
4.9 4.4 12.4 1.1 6.0 8.0 16.0 5.3 12.0 0.0 28.6 3.9
92.0 76.1 88.1 69.7 97.3 83.1 85.6 78.7 26.8 30.5 43.2 53.1
93.1 80.1 88.3 70.9 97.1 83.8 82.3 77.9 25.8 30.1 41.7 52.5
58.3 55.1
1.6 1.1
40.1 43.9
35.2 27.2
54.5 65.0
10.3 7.9
76.3 78.9
76.1 79.2
54.2 61.7 54.3 55.6 48.6 55.5
1.1 0.7 1.6 1.2 1.4 1.2
44.7 37.6 44.1 43.2 49.9 43.3
33.96 23.3 28.1 26.9 32.4 28.4
56.84 69.34 66.6 62.6 57.7 63.4
9.2 7.4 5.3 10.5 9.9 8.2
79.2 80.7 80.5 77.6 72.1 78.5
79.2 81.9 81.7 77.3 70.6 78.8
T l tr li khng c php l t l ca tng s cc cu tr li r rng, khng k loi cu tr li khng bit m
10% s h a ra (cho c hai ct cui cng).
47
Xem ra cc h c ch h n c t l tng t i vi cc mnh t khng b hn ch (40% so vi 44% h nam gii lm ch h), nhng 8 im phn trm nhiu hn v hn ch i vi mnh t bt buc phi trng la trong tt c cc v trong nm. iu ny lm h c t quyn t do a dng cy trng hoc chuyn sang nhng loi cy phi truyn thng. Nhm giu nht t ra c nhiu quyn t do hn mt cht trong la chn cy trng v s dng mnh t ca h cho mc ch khc. Nhm nghin cu su hn mi quan h gia s hn ch la chn cy trng v tnh trng S chng ti trnh by t l cc mnh t khng hn ch la chn cy trng, chia ring nhng mnh c v khng c S trong Hnh 3.5. Mt iu kh ngc nhin l s liu cho thy nhng mnh khng c S ni chung li t b hn ch v mt la chn cy trng. T l cc mnh c S khng b hn ch la chn cy trng thp hn nhiu. c bit Ph Th v in Bin pha Bc, s khc bit l rt ln, ng ch . Trong khi t l cc mnh t khng c S khng b hn ch l cao nht trong nhm ngho nht, th t l cc mnh c S khng b hn ch li cao nht trong nhm giu nht. i vi cc loi hn ch khc cng vy, S xem ra khng c tc ng gii phng. T l tr li C i vi cu hi c c php xy dng cng trnh lu di v chuyn i sang mc ch s dng phi nng nghip l tng i ng u gia cc mnh c v khng c S . Tuy nhin, t l tr li khng c php r rng cao hn i vi cc mnh c S . iu ny l khng phi do s gim i ca t l tr li c php m l t l khng bit sau khi mnh t c nhn S . Thm ch s liu cn cao hn khi ch xt n t trng cy hng nm. Nh vy, mc d vic nhn S c v nh s gii quyt nhiu vn khng r rng lin quan n nhng quy nh hn ch, nhng S li khng gip gia tng s u t hoc a dng ha nh l ra n c th v nhng hn ch i vi vic s dng mnh t li tr nn r rng hn. Hnh 3.5: T l t khng b hn ch la chn cy trng, theo tnh trng S ca t
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
H T L y o C ai
C S S? ? Khng c S S? ?
La iC Ph Th h u
KhNgh An n h Qung Nam H a
in Bin
N gh Ngho nht Tr o n un h g b G nh i u nh
k Nng Lo n Lmgng An
Giu nht
k Lk
Bng 3.6 cho thy cc mc ch s dng khc nhau i vi cc mnh t ca h. 10% cc mnh t l t thun tu, ngha l mnh t trn gia nh dng nh . Chng ti khng k loi t ny trong phn tch di y. a s mnh c s dng u trng cy hng nm (77%).
48
N N am
Tng
Trung bnh, cc tnh cng v pha Bc cng c cc t l cao hn v nhm giu nht c t l thp hn i vi cc mnh t trng cy hng nm. Ch c 7% cc mnh t l dnh cho cy lu nin nh cy n qu, c ph v ch. Cc tnh Ty Nguyn nh k Lk, k Nng v Lm ng dnh t l cao hn nhiu cho cy lu nin, cc h dnh ti hn 40% cc mnh t ca h trng cy lu nin. iu ny c th gii thch do nhng hn ch bt nghim ngt hn i vi vic la chn cy trng ti khu vc cho php ngi dn c nhiu kh nng a dng ha hoc do iu kin kh hu thun li hn cho vic trng cc loi cy ny. Tm li, cc tnh pha Nam xem ra c nhiu c hi a dng cy trng hn. Bng 3.6: S dng t (cho tt c cc mnh t khng phi t , khng phn bit t ca h hay h i thu) (%)
Cy hng nm Cy lu nin t rng Ao c/ tm Tnh H Ty Lo Cai Ph Th Lai Chu in Bin Ngh An Qung Nam Khnh Ha k Lk k Nng Lm ng Long An Ch H N Nam Nhm tiu dng LTTP Ngho nht Ngho nh Trung bnh Giu nh Giu nht Tng
a
Bi c
t khc (a)
Tng
92.1 70.0 80.2 77.9 88.6 80.9 80.3 67.9 44.5 35.4 24.8 69.1 79.6 77.0 80.0 78.7 78.7 73.9 73.6 77.4
1.6 8.6 5.2 4.3 0.4 0.8 3.2 12.4 40.8 40.0 44.9 1.4 5.0 7.6 5.0 5.7 7.2 10.7 8.6 7.2
0.1 4.3 1.2 0.8 4.0 2.8 1.8 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.7 1.6 1.9 1.5 1.3 0.8 1.5
0.7 2.2 3.4 2.2 5.3 0.8 3.1 2.9 0.0 6.2 0.6 4.6 1.4 2.0 1.1 2.1 1.4 2.3 2.9 1.9
0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.6 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.2
5.3 14.9 10.1 14.8 1.5 14.7 11.7 16.0 13.2 17.7 29.2 24.0 13.6 11.6 12.3 11.3 11.1 11.7 13.6 11.9
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Loi Khc l kt hp gia t v t trng trt, tc l t nh v t vn
49
La vn l cy trng chnh c trng trn 64% cc mnh t. V 56% cc mnh t vn cn b hn ch i vi s la chn cy trng v 92% s ny bt buc phi trng mt hoc hn mt v la, nn s liu ny cao l khng ng ngc nhin. Cc mnh t c S c t l trng la cao hn nhng mnh khng c S (tng ng 65% v 57%). V cc mnh c S b nhiu hn ch trong s la chn cy trng hn, nn c t l trng la cao l mt h qu l-gch. Nhn chung, nhm giu nht dnh mt t l t thp hn trng la, v t l t c S trng la cn thp hn na.
3.4. u t vo t
Trong mc ny chng ti xem xt tnh trng u t vo cc mnh t vi s hin din ca h tng thu li v trn mnh t c cy ci v hnh vi u t ca cc h trong 5 nm qua. Cng nh trc, chng ti kim tra xem liu c mi quan h no vi s s hu S hay khng. Nu cc mnh t c S b nhiu hn ch, iu ny s gy tr ngi cho vic u t vo cc cng trnh hoc cy trng lu nm trn mnh t . u tin chng ti xem xt tnh hnh i vi cc mnh t do h s dng (tr cc mnh t ) trong Bng 3.7. Sau , chng ti phn tch cc loi u t khc nhau ca h gn y (Bng 3.8). Sau cng, chng ti s trnh by nhn thc chung ca h v cht lng cc cng trnh thu li ca x (Hnh 3.7). Nu ngi dn hi lng vi cc dch v thu li ca x, c th phn u t ca c nhn khng cn nhiu. Bng 3.7: Tnh trng u t vo t hin nay - Thu li v cy lu nin
T l c ti Tt c cc mnh t ca H, t s dng Tnh H Ty Lo Cai Ph Th Lai Chu in Bin Ngh An Qung Nam Khnh Ha k Lk k Nng Lm ng 86.5 43.6 65.2 41.4 48.1 61.1 71.0 42.0 69.2 53.0 53.7 87.7 19.9 25.9 26.6 6.5 62.7 57.1 19.0 44.4 43.6 47.5 86.4 47.5 68.0 52.3 78.9 58.9 74.7 47.0 80.4 63.6 56.2 3.8 15.0 15.3 17.0 6.5 12.4 8.6 29.1 51.9 58.1 64.9 2.6 17.8 57.9 16.5 7.6 10.9 18.6 43.1 36.6 54.7 82.1 4.0 14.3 14.7 17.5 5.8 14.4 7.8 28.5 62.1 67.1 61.8 khng S T l t c cy /bi cy t ca H, Tt c cc mnh t ca H, t ca H, c S t s dng khng S c S
50
Long An Ch H N Nam Nhm tiu dng lng thc Ngho nht Ngho nh Trung bnh Giu nh Giu nht Tng
75.9
87.6
74.7
30.7
12.4
33.0
70.0 66.6
66.0 57.1
70.3 70.0
15.1 17.1
18.9 17.1
15.3 18.2
58.9 65.5 71.5 70.7 71.2 67.0
48.4 46.3 64.1 65.3 62.7 55.1
63.7 69.1 72.8 71.5 72.0 70.1
15.3 14.1 16.0 18.8 22.6 16.8
15.8 11.8 20.9 14.7 27.6 17.4
14.5 16.2 14.6 23.0 21.7 17.9
67% cc mnh t do h s dng c ti, thay i t 41% Lai Chu n 87% H Ty. Cc h c n ch h c ti ti 70% s rung, trong khi h c nam ch h c ti 67% trong tng s mnh t. Cc h trong nhm ngho nht c ti c 59% so vi 71% trong nhm giu nht. Nc ti ch yu thng qua cc con knh c bit cc tnh pha Bc. Cc tnh pha nam s dng tng i nhiu ging ti hn. R rng l, nhu cu ti ph thuc vo mc ch s dng mnh t. Nh ta thy trong Hnh 3.6, cc mnh rung dnh cho cy hng nm thng c ti nhiu hn cc mnh khc. Cc mnh c S trng cc loi cy khc nhau hnh nh c ti nhiu hn nhng mnh khng c (nhng cha th ni g v nguyn nhn). Hnh 3.6: T l t c ti, theo mc ch s dng v vic c S hay khng
90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 ?t cy hng nm t cy hng nm ?t cy lu nm t cy lu nm ?t r?ng t rng M?t n?c NTTS Mt nc NTTS T?t c cc mnh t Tt c? cc m?nh ?t Khngc S Khng c S? ? C S C S? ?
t khc ?t khc
Tng T?ng
51
Mt loi hnh u t vo t na l trng cy hoc bi cy a dng thu nhp hoc chng xi mn. 7% mnh t c trng cy loi ny nhng khc bit gia cc tnh rt ln. min Bc v tnh cc bc ca min Nam l Qung Nam, ch c cha n 17% t c cc h trng cy trong khi t l ny cc tnh min Nam l t 29% n 65%. Cc h giu nht c t l t trng cy cao hn, c bit trn cc mnh t khng c S . Tr nhm giu nht, khng thy c mi lin h cht ch hoc nht qun no gia S v cy trng trn t. Tip theo chng ti xem xt hnh vi u t gn y ca h. Bng 3.8 cho thy hin trng u t ca cc h vo cc hot ng trong 5 nm qua v trung bnh u t bao nhiu trong 12 thng trc kho st. V cu hi ny c t ra i vi h gia nh ch khng phi i vi mnh t nn khng th lin kt tnh trng u t mi y vi tnh trng S 12. u t mi y vo thu li v trng cy l ng k (tng ng 25% v 30% vn u t ca h), c v nh cc tnh min Bc v cc h ngho hn u t nhiu hn vo thu li, nhng trung bnh cc tnh min Nam v cc h giu nht dnh nhiu vn u t cho thu li hn. Khng thy xut hin cc loi u t khc mt cch nht qun khu vc ny hay khu vc khc hoc nhm tiu th lng thc mc d hnh nh cc tnh Ty Nguyn u t vo trng cy nhiu hn. S khc bit gia cc h c n v nam ch h rt ln, h c n ch h t u t thng xuyn vo cc hot ng hn. Tuy nhin, khi h u t hnh nh h u t nhiu vn hn (tr u t vo trng cy). Nhng khc bit v hnh vi u t ny c th phn nh s chnh lch trong kh nng tip cn (i) cc dch v m rng sn xut nng nghip, (ii) thng tin chung, (iii) tn dng, (iv) cc loi t khc nhau v mt v tr hoc cht lng, v (v) thi khc nhau i vi ri ro v s i mi. 80% s h nm trong su tnh pha Bc ph thuc cng trnh thu li ca nh nc/hoc x. Trong 6 tnh pha Nam, ch c Qung Nam ph thuc nhiu. Cn 5 tnh kia ch c cha n 64% s h ph thuc cng trnh thu li ca nh nc/ hp tc x. 80% s h ti 4 tnh tr li tnh trng cc cng trnh thu li l ti hoc khng tt cng khng ti, trong khi cc tnh min Nam ch c Long An l c t l cao cc h c cng cu tr li. Nh vy nhn chung hnh nh cc tnh min Bc va ph thuc nhiu va khng hi lng nht vi tnh trng cc cng trnh thu li ca nh nc/ hp tc x ( y chng ti cng thy mc u t c nhn cao). Cc h trong nhm giu nht t ph thuc hn v cng t bt mn hn vi cc cng trnh cng cng.
66% s h c S cho tt c cc mnh rung ca h, 10% s h khng c mt S no cho cc mnh t ca h v 24% s h c S cho mt s mnh.
12
52
Bng 3.8: u t ca h, t 2002 v gi tr u t trong 12 thng qua

Loi hot ng u t: Tnh H Ty Lo Cai Ph Th Lai Chu in Bin Ngh An Qung Nam Khnh Ha k Lk k Nng Lm ng Long An Ch H N Nam Nhm tiu dng lng thc Ngho nht Ngho nh Trung bnh Giu nh Giu nht Tng 26.8 30.9 24.5 24.9 19.2 25.2 158 224 270 703 1,582 519 5.4 5.0 5.9 9.0 3.7 5.8 1,611 586 2,279 888 2,077 1,405 13.4 16.2 12.4 17.8 11.2 14.2 7,975 1,675 1,,005 1,501 3,277 2,968 32.4 32.6 28.0 32.2 26.3 30.3 416 264 512 423 360 396 13.0 28.5 217 555 2.1 6.7 1,528 1,351 9.0 15.5 2,062 3,122 20.0 33.0 171 430 Thu li/t / bo m nc % 30.9 29.0 54.4 48.4 57.0 29.3 2.6 7.6 14.4 3.6 9.8 12.6 Gi tr (000) 321 85 7 26 9 98 331 12,760 2,266 4,551 1,849 573 % 3.7 9.4 16.0 3.5 18.7 7.4 1.7 1.3 2.1 11.1 2.8 1.7 Cng trnh nui trng thu sn Gi tr (000) 2,939 1,916 1,067 79 1,756 690 1,750 1,000 51 1,029 2,500 5,000 Cng trnh c nh (bn c nh) % 7.3 8.2 22.0 21.5 2.7 33.1 5.3 10.3 2.7 12.2 21.2 1.7 Gi tr (000) 6,805 2,447 2,641 225 639 3,002 5,046 1,100 2,737 2,243 102 100
Cy v bi cy % 11.7 30.1 50.7 41.6 12.6 34.3 12.4 15.3 40.4 62.3 71.7 25.4 Gi tr (000) 392 462 82 82 343 387 1,084 41 401 2,059 445 11
53
Hnh 3.7: S ph thuc vo h tng c s cng cng /HTX v kin nhn xt

100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0
N gh Tr o n u n h g b G nh i u nh T L y o C ai C h u a An Lo ng N am H Kh n h
La i
% ph thuc cng trnhtrnh cng c?ng/HTX % ph? thu?c cng cng cng/HTX
% ti hoc khng tt khng xu x?u % t?i ho?c khng t?t khng
3.5. Th trng t
Vi s cp GCNQSD (S ), th trng t c th tr nn si ng hn. Nh chng ta thy trn, hot ng trn th trng thu t nng thn rt gii hn. Ch c 8% tng s mnh t do h s dng c c qua th trng thu/mn v 5% tng s mnh t c bn. Trong khi 20% s h thu hoc mn t v 10% cho thu hoc cho mn t. Xt v mnh t, th trng thu/cho thu t ra khng si ng trong my nm qua. Trong nm 1992/3, 6,2% t trng cy hng nm l do h i thu v con s ny l 5,1% vo nm 1998 (Ravallion v van de Walle, 2003). Nm 2004, 3,6% t nng nghip v 5,7% t trng cy hng nm l t i thu (Brandt, 2005). Xt v h gia nh, t l t thu c tng mt cht t 1998 (khi c 16% h nng thn i thu t) n 2004 (khi c 10,7% s h i thu t nng nghip). T l h cho thu t ch c 4% vo nm 1998, v 6% vo nm 2004 (Deininger v Jin, 2003; Brandt, 2005). Nh vy, hot ng ca th trng thu mn t khng thay i nhiu trong cc nm qua xt v s lng t trao i nhng xt v s lng h tham gia th trng ny c tng mt cht. Hnh 3.8 trnh by t l mnh t mi nhm c c thng qua th trng mua bn t v t l H c c t nht mt mnh t bng cch mua. 8% cc mnh t ca h c c l thng qua th trng mua bn nhng 26% s h c t nht mt mnh bng cch mua. T l ny thp hn s liu ca Brandt (2005) l 15,5 nhng xt v s h mua li cao hn rt nhiu so vi 7% do Deininger v Jin a ra cho nm 1998. Hnh nh kh nng tip cn th trng ca cc h c nam v n ch h l nh nhau. Tuy nhin, s khc bit gia nhm ngho nht v giu nht kh ln, ch c 19% cc h ngho nht mua t trong khi t l h giu nht l 38%. C s khc bit ln gia cc tnh pha bc v pha nam (vi Qung Nam ging cc tnh min Bc hn). Th trng mua bn t t ra si ng hn min Nam. Theo Brandt (2005), th trng ny c xy dng nm 2004 vi t l cc h tham gia mua bn t min Nam cao gp 3 ln min Bc.
54
Hnh 3.8: t c c thng qua th trng mua bn t v h mua bn t

70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0
Kh n h gh Tr o n u n h g b G nh i u nh T L y o C ai h u H An La iC Lo ng N am a
m?nh?t mua mnh t mua
h mua t h? mua ?t
Bng 3.9 v 3.10 cho thy t l h b mt t trong 5 nm qua v cc kiu b mt t. C 15% s h b mt t, trung bnh l 2 n 3 mnh. Ch c 2,2% cc h bn t trong 5 nm qua. Con s ny cao hn tng t l bn t nng thn vo nm 1998 l 1,7% (Deininger v Jin, 2003). Mt ln na, c s khc bit ln gia cc tnh, c Nng c 13% s h bn t trong 5 nm qua. Nhn chung, hnh nh trong my nm qua hot ng bn t ch tng rt t. Ch c 6% s mnh t b mt l do bn, l do quan trng nht ca vic mt t l do nh nc thu hi chim 58%. Bng 3.9: H b mt t trong 5 nm qua
Tng s h % s h b mt t Tnh H Ty Lo Cai Ph Th Lai Chu in Bin Ngh An Qung Nam Khnh Ha k Lk 16.0 20.1 9.9 2.6 2.6 23.4 13.2 7.7 15.0 1.6 1.1 0.0 1.7 1.8 0.5 0.9 3.9 5.3 2.5 2.0 1.8 2.7 1.0 4.3 1.9 1.5 1.4 30 18 13 3 3 47 15 6 21 874 615 1,224 918 767 1,135 775 985 6,661 804 847 695 1,614 1,831 795 817 1,102 1,678 16.0 20.1 9.9 2.6 2.6 23.4 13.2 7.7 15.0 Tn sut (h) H b mt t S trung bnh % s h mnh t b mt Tn sut bn t trn h (h) Cc mnh t c trc y Cc mnh t va mi c Khong cch gia mnh t v nh (m)
55
k Nng Lm ng Long An Ch H N Nam Nhm tiu dng lng thc Ngho nht Ngho nh Trung bnh Giu nh Giu nht Tng
15.6 6.3 8.4
12.8 4.9 3.4
1.2 1.0 1.7
17 4 10
1,174 2,047 1,110
2,371 1,182 544
15.6 6.3 8.4
17.5 13.9
3.2 1.9
2.3 2.9
44 143
736 1,556
797 978
17.5 13.9
16.1 15.1 11.2 14.2 16.8 14.7
2.2 2.0 1.2 2.7 3.0 2.2
2.7 3.3 3.0 2.4 2.4 2.7
39 38 28 36 46 187
881 1,138 1,351 2,910 976 1,387
1,061 938 820 832 1,109 948
16.1 15.1 11.2 14.2 16.8 14.7
Hnh 3.9 cho thy mt s khc bit ng ni gia ngi nhn t trong nhm tiu dng lng thc ngho nht v nhm giu nht. S trao i khng chnh thc (ngha l khi ngi nhn t l h hng, ngi thn) din ra tng i nhiu hn trong nhm ngho nht trong khi nhng i tng nh hng xm v c bit ngi khc xut hin nhiu vi t cch ngi nhn trong nhm giu nht. iu ny cho thy c nhiu hot ng trao i t chnh thc trong nhm ny. Bng 3.10 tch ring cc kiu t b mt trong tng s cc mnh t b mt v cc mnh c S vo thi im b mt. iu ny gi rng liu S c thc s m bo s an ton cho t khng b nh nc thu hi v s chuyn i quyn s dng i vi nhng mnh t hay khng. Ni chung, mnh t c S hay khng hnh nh khng nh hng g n vic n b mt. Ngh An nhiu mnh t ca h b nh nc hoc x thu hi, v hnh nh nhng mnh c S b mt theo kiu c nhiu hn mt cht. Nhng rt c th cc h np n xin cp S trc cho cc mnh khng an ton. Do , khng th bit r vn nhn qu ng sau vn ny. Ni tm li, S khng nh hng n vic mnh t b mt nh th no cng nh tng tnh an ton cho mnh t. Tng tnh an ton cho mnh t thng qua vic cp S nhm khuyn khch u t sn xut, thng c coi l hiu qu bo him (Platteau, 2000), hiu qu u t c th b hn ch (cng vi nhng hn ch nu trc y v chnh sch i vi cy trng).
56
Bng 3.10: Cc kiu b mt t ca H (nhng mnh t b mt trong 5 nm qua)

% t bn ca tt c mt Tnh H Ty Lo Cai Ph Th Lai Chu in Bin Ngh An Qung Nam Khnh Ha k Lk k Nng Lm ng Long An Ch H N Nam Nhm tiu dngLTTP Ngho nht Ngho nh Trung bnh Giu nh Giu nht Tng 5.0 4.1 3.6 7.9 7.8 5.6 5.2 1.5 2.3 7.2 7.6 4.5 12.8 19.3 25.7 30.5 13.8 19.7 13.4 18.7 26.7 28.5 12.9 19.7 68.8 60.6 49.6 48.6 57.4 57.9 65.7 64.2 54.9 51.6 62.5 60.3 9.9 15.4 7.9 11.5 14.6 12.1 11.9 15.6 8.8 10.9 9.6 11.7 8.4 4.9 7.1 3.9 20.3 19.6 16.8 20.4 45.3 61.1 43.1 64.5 22.4 9.5 28.5 7.6 4.0 2.7 0.0 37.0 66.7 0.5 3.5 34.1 25.9 74.6 77.7 23.8 3.2 3.7 0.0 25.0 100.0 0.7 3.8 25.6 16.0 85.9 100.0 23.8 18.6 70.6 45.7 37.0 0.0 3.2 42.9 65.9 63.3 20.5 22.3 64.5 17.5 74.9 45.3 75.0 0.0 1.2 46.2 74.4 84.0 14.1 0.0 64.5 25.4 21.3 45.8 0.0 0.0 89.7 17.6 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 11.7 27.1 21.5 45.4 0.0 0.0 93.3 11.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.7 50.7 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 25.2 0.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.7 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ca cc b mt % t cho i ca tt c mt ca cc b mt % t b nh nc/ x thu hi ca tt c mt ca cc b mt % t trao i ca tt c mt ca cc b mt
cc mnh b mnh c S cc mnh b mnh c S cc mnh b mnh c S cc mnh b mnh c S
Cc kiu mt t cng li khng c 100. Nhng loi khng c i din trong mu l do ngi khc ly (0,5% tng s t b mt), t b (0,8%) v khc (2,7%).
57
Hnh 3.9: Ngi nhn t, tng v nhm ngho nht so vi nhm giu nht
b m khc con
anh em ngi thn khc hng xm
khc
x/nh nc
b. Ngho nht
b m khc Con Anh em ngi thn khc Hng xm ngi khc
c. Giu nht
b m khc con Anh em Hang xm ngi thn khc
ngi khc
X/nh nc
X/nh nc
Cc th cui cng ca chng ny (Hnh 3.10) cho thy s phn b cc mnh t b bn, mua, thu/ mn v cho thu/cho mn cc tnh, c iu chnh cho ph hp vi s h kho st, nh v xem a s cc loi giao dch khc nhau tp trung u. Hnh 3.10 ch r cc hot ng mua bn t tp trung nhiu min Nam. Ngc li, thu/mn v cho thu/cho mn hnh nh tp trung nhiu hn min Bc. iu gi rng s trao i t ni t ai c giy t v chuyn quyn s dng thng xy ra min Nam hn, trong khi s trao i t khng c giy t thng xy ra min Bc. Tuy nhin, c hai kiu giao dch u c th gip gia tng hiu qu s dng t bng cch chuyn t t ngi c nhiu sang ngi c t t.
58
Hnh 3.10: Ni tp trung giao dch t, theo khu vc
H Ty Lo Cai Ph Th Lai Chu in Bin Ngh An Qung Nam Khnh Ho c Lc c Nng Lm ng Long An
a. Phn b t bn theo tnh (43)
b. Phn b t mua theo tnh (689)
c. Phn b t thu/mn theo tnh (444)
d. Phn b t cho thu/mn theo tnh (267)
3.6. Kt lun
Ni chung, t l t c S ang tng ln, ti gn 100% mt s tnh trong khi t l ny cc tnh khc li km xa. Hiu qu ca Lut t ai 2003 quy nh vic ghi tn v v chng trong S cha c trin khai rng trong 3 nm qua, tng s ch c 9% s mnh t c ghi tn hai ngi, mt s tnh hu nh cha thc hin c vic ny. Cho n nay, vic cp S xem ra cha c tc ng tch cc n tnh c ng (mua bn, chuyn i) v s an ton trong s dng t. Mc d t l t mua ang tng ln, nhng ch mt s mnh c em bn cn hu ht b nh nc thu hi. Hu ht hot ng trn th trng mua bn tp trung cc tnh c kho st min Nam trong khi hot ng thu mn li din ra nhiu min Bc. Hu ht hot ng trn th trng t hnh nh din ra trong nhm giu nht. Cc h giu nht hng v th trng nhiu hn v t ra c nhiu mnh t c hp nht hn. H c t s mnh hn nhng quy m trung bnh li ln hn v t l cc mnh lin k ln hn. Hn na, hnh nh h t b
59
hn ch trong phng n s dng t hn, lm h c nhiu c hi tt hn cho a dng ha. Nhn chung, s hn ch mc ch s dng t vn cn nhiu v thm ch cc mnh t c S b hn ch nhiu hn mt cht, iu ny hn ch hiu qu tng cng u t ca vic cp S . Mc d cc mnh t c S hnh nh c ti nhiu hn, nhng vn cha tm ra nguyn nhn ti sao. t c S c v t c trng cy hn, iu ny cho thy c th trng cy l mt cch lm khc chng t quyn i vi ti sn hoc ngi ta t n lc u t lu di vo t c S . S km tng quan gia S v u t vo t hoc tnh c ng ca t cho nhng vn ni sinh trong quyn s dng t. Lut t ai 2003 vn cha c hiu qu lm i vi vic ng k tn ca v/chng ch h vo S sau 3 nm Lut ra i. Ch c 8% cc mnh t ghi chp c trong cuc iu tra c ghi tn hai ngi trong S v mt s tnh, con s ny hu nh bng 0. T l cao nht cc mnh t c ghi hai tn trong S c tm thy hai nhm ngho nht. iu ny c th do thiu thng tin, chi ph ng k hoc quan nim ca H i vi quyn s dng t. C s khc bit ln gia cc tnh lin quan n cc lnh vc nghin cu, trong khi s khc bit v ti sn v gii l hin nhin mt s lnh vc . c bit v quy m t, t ca cc h do n lm ch h ch bng khong mt na ca h nam gii. Hnh nh t ca h do n lm ch h cng b hn ch nhiu hn, c ngha l nhng hn ch i vi cy trng trn t cht ch hn (v d, tt c cc v u phi trng la). t ca h c n ch h cng t c u t hn. Tuy nhin, nu chng c u t, c v h li b nhiu tin hn. V nhm tiu th lng thc, s liu thng k tm tt cho thy s h nm trong nhm 20% giu nht c t l t trn u ngi cao nht v cht lng t tt hn, c bit l t trng cy lu nm. Mi quan h gia tiu th lng thc v t cng rt hin nhin trong cc th trng t chnh thc v qu trnh cp S cng c rt t i din h ngho nht. H c t l t c cp S , t c c hoc mt i thng qua th trng mua bn chnh thc thp hn. Nhng khc bit v kh nng tip cn t, s dng t, u t vo t v hp nht v/hoc a dng ha c th dn n nhng khc bit v hiu qu sn xut v gi tr u ra ca cy trng, v trong qu trnh ny mt s nhm s b gt ra ngoi l. Nhng lnh vc ny cn kho st t m hn.
4. U VO SN XUT NNG NGHIP HIN NAY

c c u ra, nng dn khng ch s dng lao ng v t ai ca h, c c inh trong h v gia cc v sn xut. Nng dn cn nhiu u vo a dng hn trong qu trnh sn xut ca h. Vic s dng v cc loi u vo a dng s tc ng ln nng sut ngn hn ca t ai v lao ng. Tuy nhin, vic s dng u vo ca nng dn c th b hn ch do thiu thng tin hoc khng c th trng hoc th trng khng hon ho.
60
Cuc iu tra VAHRS06 c bao gm cu hi v cc loi u vo trong qu trnh sn xut nng nghip (c trng trt v chn nui). Chng ti xy dng mt mc ring nh gi nhng hn ch ngi nng dn gp phi khi tip cn cc u vo v khi bn cc u ra. Trong chng ny chng ti bn v s s dng v kh nng tip cn u vo i vi trng trt v chn nui v bn cc sn phm ca hai loi hot ng ny. S sn c v s dng u vo c th ph thuc vo khu vc a l hoc nng dn c th b hn ch ti chnh hay hn ch khc. Do chng ti duy tr c cu nh trong Chng 4 i vi hu ht cc bng nhm mc ch pht hin nhng khc bit gia cc vng, cc nhm tiu th v gii.
4.1. u vo cho sn xut nng nghip

87% s h trong mu kho st lm trng trt trong khi 77% chn nui. Cc h c n ch h t tham gia c trng trt (78% so vi 90% trong s h do nam lm ch h) v chn nui (63% so vi 81% h do nam lm ch h). Tuy nhin, khi cc h c n ch h lm chn nui, hnh nh h khng nui s lung t. T l h tham gia c trng trt v chn nui gim theo nhm tiu dng lng thc thc phm (t 92 xung 72% i vi h trng trt v 84 xung 64% i vi h h chn nui ca nhm h ngho nht v nhm h giu nht. Thc t cho thy, hot ng sn xut nng nghip tp trung vo nhm ch h l nam v nhm h ngho (xem chng 2). Trong chng ny, chng ti ch nghin cu v hnh vi mua vt t u vo cho sn xut trng trt v chn nui ca h Ngi ta hy vng rng vi qu trnh thng mi ho ngy cng cao, cc nng tri Chu s tr nn cng tr nn chuyn mn ho hn v nhng yu cu c th v sn phm, k thut v k nng qun l v u t vo h tng c s (Pingali, 1997). Do , nhng u vo khng phi mua, v d rm r kh, phn chung, s gim i so vi nhng u vo phi mua nh phn ho hc, thuc tr su v.v.. Bng 4.1 cho thy t l s dng nhng loi u vo phi mua cho sn xut nh phn ho hoc, ht ging v thuc tr su kh cao, trong khi i vi nhng vt t mi c qung b, mc s dng li rt khim tn (nh thuc dit c, phn hu c t to v cy ging) v nhng th khc (nh mua phn hu c) li rt t. V chi ph nhn cng c hi ngy cng tng nn c th ngi ta s s dng nhiu hn cc loi u vo hin i, v d thuc dit c thay cho nhn cng nht c. i vi hu ht cc vt t cho ngnh trng trt, s h c n ch h s dng u vo cho trng trt t hn s h c nam ch h. Khng thy c m hnh s dng nht qun no gia cc nhm tiu th lng thc. Ni no nhm trng trt ngho nht c t l h s dng ht ging v cy con cao nht, h cng c t l h s dng phn ho hc v phn hu c v thuc dit c thp nht.
61
Bng 4.1: T l h trng trt s dng u vo

Ht ging Cy con Ch h N Nam Nhm tiu dng LTTP Ngho nht Ngho Trung lu Giu Giu nht Tng S lng*/m2 Ch h N Nam Nhm tiu dng LTTP Ngho nht Ngho Trung bnh Giu Giu nht Tng
a
Phn ho hc
Phn hu c (t cung cp)
Phn hu c (mua)
Thuc tr su
Thuc dit c
82.8 88.6
28.5 30.8
91.2 94.1
43.9 59.9
8.6 8.4
82.3 86.9
66.4 67.8
94.5 92.7 86.4 84.5 76.9 87.5 (kg)
29.9 35.7 34.5 26.4 23.7 30.3 (nr)
87 95.8 97.1 97 90.5 93.5 (kg)
53.8 63.4 62.9 59.7 42.2 56.9 (kg)
4.3 8.2 7.8 9.5 13.5 8.4 (kg)
81.6 89.1 89 88.8 80.9 86 (kg)
58.9 69.6 71.3 72.4 65.4 67.5 (kg)
0.016 0.014
1.46 0.484
0.15 0.137
0.986 1.058
1.392 0.626
0.047 0.065
0.011 0.018
0.012 0.014 0.016 0.016 0.017 0.015
0.321 0.432 0.529 1.339 1.181 0.65
0.116 0.133 0.157 0.142 0.15 0.14
1.08 1.085 1.003 1.115 0.892 1.048
0.218 0.764 1.178 0.356 1.052 0.796
0.062 0.106 0.05 0.055 0.034 0.061
0.035 0.014 0.017 0.014 0.006 0.016
S lng trn mt mt vung t nng nghip (t trng cy hng nm v lu nin)
Ni no t l h c n ch h s dng la ging thp hn h c nam ch h, th s lng u vo trn mt mt vung li khng thp hn, hoc ngc li. Nh vy c th lc u cc h c n ch h gp mt s hn ch hn, nhng c l khng c s khc bit v s lng. Tuy nhin, trng hp cc nhm tiu th lng thc li ngc li. Trong khi khng thy m hnh nht qun no v nhng khc bit lc mi bt u s dng u vo, s lng u vo trn mt mt vung thng cho thy xu hng i ln t nhm ngho hn n nhm giu hn (tr thuc tr su v thuc dit c).
62
Hai loi u vo khc trong qu trnh sn xut hi khc nhng loi u vo bn n trn mt cht l thu lao ng v vay vn cho sn xut. Hnh 4.1 v 4.2 cho thy t l h trong mi nhm thu lao ng cho trng trt v chn nui hoc tr li vn vay cho sn xut trong 12 thng qua. Th nht, t l s dng lao ng lm thu trong chn nui hu nh bng khng, tr mt s h Khnh Ho. T l ny tm thy trong cc h c n ch h v cc h trong nhm giu nht. Thu lao ng v coi nh y l mt u vo cho trng trt thng gp nhiu hn c bit trong cc h min Nam. y mt ln na chng ti li thy c s tng ln theo nhm tiu th lng thc. V mt tr li vn vay chng ti thy mt iu th v. Nhn chung, cc h chn nui c t l vay vn cao hn (cho chn nui) so vi cc h trng trt (vay vn cho cy trng). Hnh nh h cc tnh min Bc thng hay vay vn cho chn nui hn trong khi cc h min Nam li hay vay vn cho trng trt hn. Trong mu kho st hu nh khng thy cc h min Bc vay vn cho trng trt, tr Lo Cai. So snh gii cho thy trong cc h c n ch h thy rt t h tr li (vn vay) cho c hai loi hot ng nng nghip ny. iu ny cho thy c th cc n ch h gp kh khn trong tip cn ngun tn dng hoc h khng thch ng u vi ri ro, y l mt vn cn kho st t m hn. So snh nhm tiu th lng thc cho thy hnh nh cc h ngho hn d vay vn cho chn nui hn l cho trng trt (khong cch gia t l tr li vn vay cho chn nui v trng trt l ln nht trong nhm ngho nht v gim i theo nhm tiu th lng thc). iu ny c th lin quan n loi vn vay hoc t chc tn dng khc nhau m cc nhm tiu th khc nhau vay vn. Trong c hai trng hp, hu nh chc chn l tch thu sc vt d hn ma mng hoc t nu ngi vay b v n (xem mc tn dng trong Chng 6). Tm li, xem xt theo gii v cc nhm giu ngho ta thy c nhiu knh tip cn vn vay cho sn xut khc nhau. Tuy nhin, tnh hnh c th ra sao cn phi nghin cu su hn na. Hnh 4.1: T l cc h thu lao ng cho trng trt v chn nui
70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

N gh Tr o nh un g b nh G i u nh C h u T L y o C ai a An Lo ng N am
trng trtr?t tr?ng t
Kh n h
La i
chn nui
63
Hnh 4.2: T l cc h trng trt hoc chn nui vay vn cho sn xut
60 50 40 30 20 10 0
N gh o Tr n u n h g b nh G i u nh T L y o C ai C h u a An Lo ng N am
ttrng trt tr?ng tr?t
Kh n h
La i
chn nui
4.2. Th trng u vo v u ra
Kh nng tip cn th trng u vo v u ra l mt yu t quan trng trong qu trnh sn xut v tm kim thu nhp. Trong mc ny chng ti xem xt khong cch thng mi ca cc x (t l cc x c ch v khong cch t h ra tuyn ng c th i li trong mi thi tit), ni nng dn mua ht ging v ai l ngi mua cc sn phm nng nghip. Chng ti cng nh gi xem khu no trong qu trnh sn xut ngi nng dn gp kh khn nht. Nhng nghin cu trc y ch ra tm quan trng ca s bnh n gi v thng tin v gi, kh nng tip cn nhiu loi sn phm v sn phm c cht lng cao v tip th sn phm (Mekong Economics, 2004a). 4.2.1. Khong cch thng mi Nh ta thy trong Hnh 4.3, 72% s x kho st c cn ch.13 T l cc x c ch hp hng ngy l 51%. Hot ng ca ch hng ngy hnh nh thng dng hn cc x trong cc tnh pha Nam. Trong cc tnh pha Bc, ch c H Ty, k cn H Ni, l c tng i ph bin ch hp hng ngy ti cc x iu tra. Tnh tt c cc loi ch, ch c cc x cc tnh vng xa min Ty Bc nh Lai Chu v in Bin l c rt t ch. Mc d in Bin c v nh c nhiu ch hn mt cht so vi 28% l s liu thu thp Ty Bc nm 2001 (GSO, 2001), t l ch Lai Chu vn thp hn t l trung bnh ca khu vc nm 2001. Tt c cc x kho st cc tnh, tr Lai Chu v Long An, u c t l ch cao hn t l trung bnh ca khu vc nm 2001. T l ch Long An thp hn nhiu so vi t l trung bnh ca khu vc nm 2001.14
13 14
Cc loi ch nh cp trong bng cu hi cho h, v d ch hng ngy, ch phin hoc ch bn bun. Khu vc BSCL cho thy t l cao nht nm 2001 (71%), theo sau l ng Nam b (69%), NTB (65%) v BSH (63%). Hot ng th trng thp nht tm thy Ty Bc (28%) theo sau l Ty Nguyn (38%) v ng Bc (43%) v VBBTB (58%).
64
Hnh 4.3: T l cc x c ch
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 H Ty Lo Cai Ph Th? Lai Chu i?n Bin Ngh? Qu?ng Khnh An Nam Ha ?k L?k ?k Lm Nng ?ng Long An T?ng
ch hng ngy ch? hng ch phin ngy
ch? phin
So snh khong cch t h n tuyn ng giao thng gn nht c th i li trong mi thi tit (Hnh 4.4) ta thy h cng giu, cng sng gn ng. Nhn chung cc h Lo Cai, in Bin, Lm ng v Long An sng xa ng hn cc h cc tnh khc. Nh vy, khong cch ny rt khc bit gia cc tnh. V d, in Bin c rt t x c ch hp hng ngy v trung bnh cc h sng cch xa ng giao thng khong hn 2 km. Khnh Ha, hu ht cc x u c ch hp hng ngy v cc h sng ch cch ng giao thng cha n 500 mt. c im v h tng c s ny c th nh hng n h, ni mua cc loi u vo v ni bn sn phm ca h v bn cho ai. Hnh 4.4: Khong cch trung bnh (km) t h n ng giao thng gn nht
3.0 2.5 2.0 km 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0
Kh n h
gh o n Tr u n h g b nh G i u nh
h u
ai
T y
La iC
Lo ng
L o
An
65
4.2.2. Cung u vo v cu u ra 49% s h sn xut la, v tng mua la ging, mua HTX hay x, 21% mua t cng ty ging, 13% mua t ngi bun la ging, 7% mua ch a phng v 11% mua t cc ngun khc. HTX/ x l ngi cung cp la ging ch yu cho cc h min Bc tr tnh Ph Th ni m vai tr ca HTX/x v cc cng ty ging c nh gi l tng ng nhau trong cung cp dch v cho h. Tr Khnh Ha, vai tr ca HTX/x trong cung cp la ging t quan trng hn nhiu i vi cc h min Nam ni cc cng ty ging v ngi bun la ging t ra nng ng hn nhiu (Hnh 4.5).15 C cu cung cp u vo gia hai gii v cc nhm tiu th lng thc l tng t mc d t l h mua ging t cng ty ging tng ln theo nhm tiu th. Hnh 4.5: Ngi cung cp la ging cho h
80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Trung bnh
Ph Th Ph Th? Lm ?ng Lm ng
Khnh Ho
Qung Nam Qu?ng Nam
Ngho nh
k Nng ?c Nng
Ngh An Ngh?An
in Bin i?n Bin
Lai Chu
Giu nh
Long An
HTX/x
Cng ty ging gi?ng
Ng?i bun ging Ngi bun gi?ng
Hnh 4.6 v 4.7 cho thy tng quan v tm quan trng ca ngi tiu th u ra cho sn phm h (s liu da trn hai v ma quan trng nht). Cc h v thng li l hai nhm tiu th sn phm cy trng quan trng nht. Nhn chung i vi nhm ngho nht, cc h ng vai tr quan trng hn nhiu hn so vi nhm giu nht. Cc h trong nhm giu nht thng tip cn thng li
S la chn ngi cung cp c th tng quan vi k hoch s dng t ca x. Trong 36% thn vic la chn la ging b gii hn bi k hoch ca x. Cc t l ny thng cao hn nhiu cc tnh min Bc, t 3% k Lk n 81% Ngh An.
15
66
Ngho nh?t Ngho nht
Giu nht Giu nh?t
k L?c ?c Lk
Tng s? T?ngs
H Ty
Lo Cai
Nam
N N?
nhiu hn. Bn c sn phm cho thng li l iu quan trng tng thu nhp. Cc h c nam ch h bn nhiu sn phm cho thng li hn cc h c n ch h mt cht (nhng tt c cc hot ng thng mi t i vi cc cng ty nc ngoi u do nam ch h tin hnh). C s khc bit ln trong t l sn phm cy trng bn cho thng li gia cc h min Bc v cc h min Nam. c bit in Bin, ni c cc thn kho st xa nht, xem ra khng c kh nng bn nng phm cho thng li (98,5% l bn cho cc h khc). Hnh 4.6: Ngi tiu th sn phm cy trnga
Tng
h t thng HTX DNNN CT nc ngoi khc
giu nht
ng ho nht
S liu da trn lng sn phm bn ra ca hai v quan trng nht
67
S thy r hn nu so snh vi cc h (i) Lo Cai, ni cc h sng xa ng giao thng hn nhng li c nhiu ch hn, hoc (ii) Lai Chu, ni h c t ch hn nhng li sng gn ng hn. Lo Cai v Lai Chu, thng li u hot ng mnh hn, cho thy tm quan trng ca h tng c s. So snh vi 4 tnh kho st trong VAHRS02, chng ti thy t l sn phm cy trng bn cho h gia nh gia tng mnh H Ty v Ph Th (tung ng t 50% n 70% v t 39% n 82%) v gim mnh Qung Nam v Long An (tng ng t 21% xung 11% v t 25% xung 6%). Xu hng bn sn phm cho h tng hay gim i lin vi xu hng ngc li i vi thng li. T l bn sn phm cho nhng i tng khc khng thay i (gn bng 0 trong c hai nm). Trong khi cc thng li c mt cc tnh min Nam th tm quan trng ca h ngy cng nng cao, v ni no khi mi bt u hot ng h km quan trng, th vai tr ca h li ngy cng gim i. Tc ng ca xu hng ny ln kh nng to nhu nhp ca nng dn cn c kho st t m hn. Hnh 4.7: T l sn phm bn cho h v thng li
100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0
T y
C h u
ai
An
L o
Kh n h
La i
h h?
thng li
4.2.3. Kh nng tip cn th trng u vo v u ra Cn nhc s xa xi ca mt s x v s c mt (khng c mt) ca ngi cung cp v ngi mua nng phm, c th thy cc h s gp nhiu kh khn khi mua u vo v bn sn phm. Mt mc trong Bng hi c thit k thy s khc nghit trong v vn kh khn m cc h c th gp phi trn th trng u vo v u ra. Mc d cc h u ni kh khn trong th trng u vo v u ra thng i cng nhau (Hnh 4.8), t l cao nht cc h tr li gp kh khn trong c hai th trng (hn 50%) l cc x ti Lai Chu, in Bin v Lm ng. y chnh l cc tnh c t ch nht (xem Hnh 4.3) v cc h tng i xa ng giao thng (Hnh 4.4). T l h tr li gp kh khn trong c th trng u vo v u ra gim i theo nhm tiu th lng thc. i vi hai nhm ngho v ngho nht, vic tip cn u vo c v c bit kh. i vi hai nhm giu v giu nht, cc h gp nhiu hn ch hn khi tm th trng cho u ra, trong khi cc h trung lu thy b hn ch c hai th trng.
68
Lo n
N am
So vi VAHRS02, t l h gp kh khn khi tip cn u vo tng ng k c 4 tnh (H Ty t 8% ln 20%; Ph Th t 4% ln 33%; Qung Nam t 32% ln 38%; Long An t 7% ln 29%). S h gp kh khn tng ln tt c cc nhm tiu th, nhng tng nhiu hn nhm h ngho nht. iu ny gi c th khong cch gia ngi giu v ngi ngho trong s tip cn u vo ang ln dn.16 V kh khn i vi u ra hnh nh cng c xu hng gia tng ti 3 trong 4 tnh. Ch c Long An t l h gp kh khn i vi u ra sn phm gim i t 34% xung 31%. Hnh 4.8: T l h gp kh khn khi tip cn th trng (%)
100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0
N gh Tr o n u n h g b G nh i u nh T L y o C ai C h u a An ng N am
sn ph?m ?u s?n phm u rara
Kh n h
La i
u vo hin nay ?u vo hi?n nay
Mc tng i ca cc loi kh khn m cc h gp phi trong th trng u vo c th hin trong Hnh 4.9. Gi u vo hin nay cao vn l vn chnh (vn ny cng c 54% s h gp kh khn cp trong VAHRS02; Mekong Economics, 2004a). K l l iu ny hnh nh quan trng hn i vi nhm tiu th cao nht. Vn kh khn ln th hai l h tng giao thng ti t, c bit ph bin i vi nhm ngho nht (Hnh 4.4 cho thy cc h ngho nht sng xa ng giao thng nht). iu ny c 28% s h tr li l kh khn ln nht khi tip cn u vo nhng ch c 6% s h trong nhm giu nht tr li nh vy. So snh cc tnh cho thy h tng c s ngho nn l hn ch ln nht khi tip cn u vo i vi s h gp kh khn in Bin v Lai Chu (ni c t ch nht), tip theo l Lm ng v Lo Cai (ni cc h xa ng nht). i vi cc h trong nhm ngho nht, vic khng th mua chu cc khon u vo cng l mt kh khn ln (19% tr li y l vn quan trng nht). c bit cc h in Bin tr li thiu thng tin l mt hn ch. Nh vy, trong khi gi c vn l mt kh khn ln i vi nhiu H, th h tng c s ngho nn ngy cng b coi l mt hn ch, c bit i vi cc h ngho hn trong cc tnh c t ch v/ hoc khong cch xa gia h v ng giao thng.
So snh t l gia tng s h gp kh khn khi tip cn u vo gia s liu ca VAHRS02 cc nhm (ng phn v) tiu dng trn u ngi v VAHRS06 cc nhm (ng phn v) tiu th lng thc trn u ngi cho thy: ngho nht (tng thm 31% s h), ngho (28%), trung lu (21%), giu (19%), giu nht (17%). Characteristics of the Vietnamese Rural Economy: Evidence from a 2006 Rural Household Survey in 12 Provinces of Vietnam
16
Lo
69
Hnh 4.9: Cc loi kh khn khi tip cn th trng u vo hin nay
Tng
6.2 14.7
10.7
thiu nh cung cp gi qu cao thiu thng tin khng c kh nng mua chu 35.0 thiu tip cn tn dng c s h tng vn ti ngho nn khc
6.4
18.6 8.5
ngho nht
9.7 11.4
giu nht
7.7 11.8 7.8
18.0
5.2
33.1
32.2
4.1
13.6 10.1
31.1
4.2
Sang nhng kh khn h gp phi trong ch bin v bn sn phm u ra, ta thy thiu kh nng ch bin ban u (k c phi, sy kh) thng c cc h cp nht (35% cc h gp kh khn), tip theo l thiu thng tin v gi th trng v chi ph vn chuyn cao (tng ng 19% v 15%). Vn chi ph vn chuyn cao xem ra ngy cng gia tng v nm 2002 n hu nh khng c nhc n. Vn ny cng ln i vi nhm ngho nht (18% v 10%) so vi nhm giu nht (12% v 4%), trong khi vn thiu thng tin ni bt trong nhm giu nht (31% so vi 14% trong nhm ngho nht). Thiu nng lc s ch c hu ht cc h nh gi tng i ng u ngay c trong nhm giu nht v nhm ngho nht (tng ng 33% v 32%) trong nhiu tnh cp nh mt kh khn ln nht i vi sn phm sau thu hoch. Tr Ph Th ni nhiu h ni nhu cu mua
70
sn phm khng nhiu v coi y l vn ln nht; in Bin vi vn chi ph vn chuyn cao; Khnh Ha, k Nng v Long An tr li thiu thng tin v gi th trng l kh khn ln nht. Thiu nng lc s ch nng phm l vn ph bin nht. i vi cc h ngho nht v cc tnh vng su vng xa, h tng giao thng km l vn ln, trong khi s thiu thng tin l vn quan trng th hai i vi cc h giu hn.
4.3. Kt lun
Nhu cu s dng nhng loi u vo phi mua nh ging, phn ha hc, thuc tr su v thuc dit c nhn chung tng i cao, nhng hnh nh cc h c n ch h gp nhiu hn ch khi tip cn th trng ny hn. Tuy nhin, khi h s dng cc loi u vo ny, s lng cng bng vi cc h c nam ch h. Mc d khng thy du hiu no cho thy hn ch ca cc h ngho hn i vi u vo, h t s dng u vo hn cc h giu. Quan st cho thy nhng kh khn, mc d khc nhau v bn cht, i vi h c n ch h v h ngho nhm t nng sut trung bnh nh cc h c nam ch h v h giu. Mt hn ch c trng c th l kh nng tip cn tn dng. Mt s bng chng trong s liu cho thy trong cc h do n lm ch h t l vn vay cho sn xut, bt k l cho trng trt hay chn nui, u thp hn cc h c nam ch h. Mt hn ch na khi tip cn c th trng u vo v u ra l nhng kh khn v h tng c s ti nhiu cng ng, c bit vn thiu ch v khong cch gia ni ca h v ng giao thng qu xa. Nhng cng ng khng c ch v xa ng giao thng v cng kh khn khi mun mua vt t u vo v bn sn phm u ra. iu ny thm ch cn c phn nh trong cc loi i tng tiu th sn phm cho h. Thng li thng c mt nhiu hn nhng cng ng d tip cn. Kh khn v h tng v vn chuyn c nhiu h cp nh mt hn ch ln trong sn xut v sau thu hoch, c bit l cc h ngho hn. Chng ti cng thy tng quan gia s ngho i v vng su vng xa, nh vy vic nng cp h tng c s c th c tc ng ln n nhng n lc gim ngho.
5. TN DNG
Phn tn dng trong bng hi iu tra VAHRS06 bao gm 5 mc tng hp v cc kha cnh khc nhau ca cc khon vay, cc n vay b t chi v cc h quan tm n vic lm th tc vay nhng b t chi v l do no . Trong phn tip theo, nhm h cui cng ny c miu t l nhm t hn ch s lng. Cc mc v cc khon vay v cc khon b t chi bao trm tt c cc khom vay m cc h yu cu v cc n vay b t chi trong thi gian t nm 2002 n thi im iu tra. Mc v cc h t hn ch s lng l v khong thi gian 12 thng trc khi phng vn. i vi cc khon vay phn bao gm cc cu hi v ngun, cc iu kin vay (quy m, thi hn, li sut, phng thc thanh ton, v.v.), chi ph lm th tc, cc yu cu th
71
chp/bo lnh, tnh trng khng tr c n v mc ch vay vn. Mc v cc khon vay b t chi gm cc cu hi v ngun tn dng t chi cho vay, quy m mn vay, cc iu kin mong mun v cc h lm g khi b t chi. Cui cng, mc v cc h t hn ch s lng a ra l do v sao cc h khng lm n vay, hiu bit ca h v cc mc li sut hin hnh v mc li sut m cc h mun vay. Tn dng rt cn i vi cc h nng nghip nh nng thn so vi cc ngh khc bi v khong thi gian gia lc s dng u vo v ma thu hoch di. iu lin quan n c kinh ph mua u vo (ging, thu lm t, v.v) ln lao ng. i vi cc h nh yu cu vn lu ng rt kh c th tm thy t ngun tin tit kim v cn phi tip cn ngun tn dng ngn hn . Thm vo , tn dng dng lm vn lu ng, tn dng thc y u t v lm cng c cn bng tiu dng khi c cc c sc (Ray, 1999). Cc khon u t tng nng sut cp trang tri, v d nh chuyn dch t trng cy ngn ngy sang cy di ngay, thng phi mt thi gian m thiu cc khon vay u t ny c th khng kh thi v t c th b b l. Sn xut nng nghip rt d b ri ro v bin ng theo thi tit xu v dch hi. Vo nhng nm ma mng t di mc trung bnh, nng dn thng muosn (hoc phi vay cn i tiu dng gia cc v ma v. Nu khng c ngun vay tiu dng vo nhng nm ma mng thua thit th nhng h nng nghip nng thn s buc phi dng n ti sn l t liu sn xut c th bn c tn ti mc ti thiu. Vic t bo him ca cc h i vi nhng c sc nh b bn v mng li l rt kh do tnh cht ca cc c sc trong nng nghip thng c xu th nh hng n tt c cc h nng dn trong vng. Chng ny trnh by tm tt cc s liu lin quan n th trng tn dng nng thn 12 tnh thuc iu tra VAHRS06. Cc khon vay c trnh by ny (hoc c s dng nh l cc qu cn), bng gi tr nm 2006 vi mc gim pht c tnh theo ch s gi tiu dng (IMF, 2006). Di y l phn gii thiu ngn gn v th trng tn dng nng thn Vit Nam.
5.1. Th trng tn dng nng thn

Th trng tn dng nng thn Vit Nam ng tr bi hai ngn hng quc doanh l Ngn hng nng nghip v pht trin nng thn (NH NN&PTNT hay VBARD) v Ngn hng chnh sch X hi (VBSP).17 Bo co ca Nghim v Laurenceson (2005) cho thy th phn ca hai ngn hng ny i vi ngi ngho cp quc gia chim ti trn 80% vo nm 2002. VBARD khng cn chu trch nhim v cho vay chnh sch nh mong i theo li sut th trng thng mi bn vng na. Cn VBSP c chnh thc thnh lp vo nm 2003 m trch tn dng chnh sch vi li sut bao cp t Ngn hng ngi ngho (thay th bi Ngn hng phc v ngi ngho). Nm 2005 VBSP c 600 vn phng giao dch tt c cc tnh, thnh v gn vi 61 chi nhnh (T chc Lao
17
Mc ny da theo ILO (2005) v World Bank (2004a).
72
ng quc t (ILO), 2005). Quy m mn vay trung bnh ta VBSP nh hn so vi VBARD v vi li sut thp hn. ha hon ton thy r mc d thnh cng ca VBSP trong vic tip cn cc h ngho nht (World Bank, 2004b). Gn vi hot ng ca VBARD v VBSP l cc Hip hi m ni bt nht l Hi lin hip ph n Vit Nam (VWU), Hi nng dn Vit Nam (VFU), Hi cu chin binh Vit Nam (VWVU). Nhng t chc chnh tr, x hi ny c th bo lnh v gii thiu cc h vi hai ngn hng ny. mt s tnh cc t chc ny cn ng ra cho vay tn dng nh do cc t chc phi chnh ph (NGOs) quc t h. Theo Ngn hng th gii (WB) c t nht NGOs hot ng Vit Nam (WB, 2003). Cc qu tn dng c thnh lp vo cui nm 2003 tip tc gi vai tr nh. Cc ngn hng t nhn cng tham gia th trng tn dng nng thn, mc d hot ng ca h cn non tr. Cc t chc cho vay v thng nhn thng cho vay ngn hn. Ngi cho vay thng di hnh thc c nhn cho vay khng chnh thc v di hnh thc hiu cm vi iu kin phi cm c. Nhng khon vay ny thng l ngn hn v li sut th trng cao hn li sut thng mi. Ngi thn v bn b vn l cc ngun tn dng ph bin v thng khng li sut v nhng vic ly li sut dng cng khng cn l bt thng. Mc d vay ngi thn v bn b thng tiu dng, n cng rt quan trng trong vic cp vn u t cc dng khc nhau, t nht l cc tnh c iu tra. Thng nhn cho vay ngy cng tr nn quan trng Vit Nam (ILO, 2005). cc thng nhn thng gn cc khon vay vi vic mua ging v cc u vo nng nghip khc.
5.2. Cc ngun v iu kin vay

Cng c iu tra bao trm tt c cc ngun tn dng hin c cho cc h nng thn Vit Nam.18 C ngun tn dng nh nc chnh thc v t nhn u c i din v c hai loi ngun phi chnh thc l t thng cho vay v bn b/ngi thn. T thng v ngi cho vay tin l hai loi ring bit, cng nh cc hip hi v qu TDND cng l hai loi khc nhau. Kt qu iu tra ch ra rng vic phn loi cc ngun tn dng c bn thnh 8 ngun chnh l hon ton t nhin. Chng gm VBSP, VBARD, cc Hip hi, (k c qu TDND), cc ngn hng t nhn (NHTN), t thng, ch cho vay t v bn b/ngi thn. Loi th 8 gm cc khon vay t cc TCTD khc, cc NHNN khc v cc chnh quyn a phng (CQF) sau y c gi l cc ngun khc. Bng 5.1 cho thy phn b cc khon vay theo ngun i vi mu tng ng, cc khon vay nm 2002 v 2005. Nhn vo tng nm 2002 v 2005 (l cc nm c y thng tin) c th nh gi xem c cu mn vay c thay i trong thi k nh gi hay khng .
Bao gm VBSP, VBARD, cc ngn hng nh nc khc, cc chnh quyn a phng, cc ngn hng t nhn, cc t chc on th, chnh tr, x hi nh (Hi nng dn, Hi Ph n, Hi cu chin binh v qu tn dng nhn dn) , cc t chc tn dng khc , ngi cho vay c th, t nhn, t thng, bn b, ngi thn v cc t chc tn dng phi chnh thc, k c cc hi, nhm tn dng quay vng (Roscas). Characteristics of the Vietnamese Rural Economy: Evidence from a 2006 Rural Household Survey in 12 Provinces of Vietnam
18
73
Bng 5.1: Phn b khon vay theo ngun vn v nm (phn trm)

Ton mu Cha phn Ngun VBSP VBARD Hip hi Ngn hng t nhn T thng Ngi cho vay Bn b/ngi thn Khc Cng Tng mu (N) 15 37 10 1 11 6 14 6 100 7 61 7 2 4 5 7 7 100 3,492 14 40 9 1 12 6 13 4 100 496 6 67 4 1 2 3 11 6 100 17 35 10 1 9 6 16 6 100 963 9 58 7 2 3 7 8 7 100 Phn theo quy m khon vay Cc khon vay nm 2002 Cha phn Phn theo quy m khon vay Cc khon vay nm 2005 Cha phn Phn theo quy m khon vay
Ghi ch: Cc mn vay dng o theo gi 2006.
i vi mi trong ba mu (mu y v mu 2002 v mu 2005), c hai ct. Ct th nht cho thy t l phn trm trong tng s mn vay ca mi ngun. Ct th hai l t l gii ngn nhng i vi mi khon vay phn theo quy m mn vay. Do , cc khon vay c quy m nh hn quy m trung bnh s c tnh l mn nh hn mt khon. Tng t, i vi cc khon vay c quy m ln hn quy m trong bnh th s c tnh l ln hn 1. Ct th hai cho thy tm quan trng v mt ti chnh ca mi ngun. Trc ht hy xem mu y , VBSP v VBARD l hai ch cho vay ln nht v s lng khon vay. Hip hi, t thng v bn b/ngi thn cng l cc loi quan trng chim 35% cc khon tn dng gii ngn. Nhn chung, cc NHTN vn c vai tr hn ch trong th trng tn dng nng thn Vit Nam. T nhn kinh doanh tn dng ch chim 6% tng s tn dng. V tin cho vay (Ct 2) VBARD chim u th trn th trng tn dng nng thn. Ton b 61% tin cho vay l t VBARD. VBSP, cc hip hi v bn b/ngi thn, m loi chim 7%. Ct 2 cng ch ra rng VBARD c quy m khon vay trung bnh ln hn kh nhiu so vi quy m trung bnh chung, trong khi quy m trung bnh cc khon ca VBSP nh nht. iu ny ni ln cc mc ch khc nhau ca VBSP v VBARD. Nh lu trn, VBSP nhm vo ch l cc h ngho hn vi cc mn vay bao cp nh hn so vi cc khon vay theo iu kin thng mi ca VBARD (ILO, 2005).
74
Bn ct sau ca Bng 5.1 cc khon cho vay tng ng ca cc nm 2002 v 2005. C mt s thay i r rt. Nm 2005, VABRD c th phn nh hn so vi 2002, c v s khon vay v mn cho vay. Mt khc, VBSP c th phn tng ln, cng nh cc hip hi, mc d ca cc hip hi khng ln lm. i vi VBSP th tng th phn c mong i nh c cc chi nhnh mi m theo kt qu phng vn x (khng bo co) c thnh lp trong thi gian t 2002 n 2005. i vi cc ngun khc, bc tranh kh r nt. Ch tn dng t nhn tng th phn ca h ln hai ln v tin nhng khng tng v s lng khon vay. i vi ngun t bn b/ngi thn th ngc li. Nhiu khon vay t ngun ny nhng tm quan trng v ti chnh li gim. i vi cc ngun khc th ch thay i cht t cng nh i vi ngun t thng v NHTN. Nh lu trn, cc ngun tn dng khc nhau c tho lun lin quan n Bng 5.1 khc nhau v quy m v mc ch cho vay, v v th quy m v iu kin vay cng khc nhau, nh c trnh by Bng 5.2. Bng 5.2 trnh by nhng c im then cht ca cc khon tn dng t cc ngun khc nhau. Ct 1 v 2 trnh by cc quy m khon vay trung bnh v trung v. Ct 3 l cc thi hn trung bnh theo thng i vi cc khon vay ny, trong thi hn c c th ho ct 4 ch ra cc t l cc khon vay m thi hn khng c tho thun r rng. Ct 5 v 6 l cc mc li sut trung bnh v t l cc khon vay li sut tng ng bng khng. Ct c u th chp l t l cc khon vay phi th chp ca mi ngun v tng t, t l khon vay bo lnh c trnh by ct 8. Cui cng l s ngy trung bnh khon vay c duyt ct 9. Nhng im khc nhau v quy m theo ngun c th hin bng 5.1. VBARD v NHTN cho vay cc khon ln hn quy m trung bnh, trong khi cc ngun khc cung cp cc khon nh hn quy m trung bnh, (tr loi khc). i vi VBSP khon vay ph bin nht l 5 triu ng (7% tng s vn vay) vi thi hn 36 thng (48% tt c cc khon). i vi VBARD, cc con s tng ng l 10 triu VND (7%) 12 thng (56%). i vi cc hip hi: cc con s nm khong gia cc con s ca VBSP v VBARD. Cc khon vay t cc ngun ny c thi hn c nh c t l rt nh v khng ch r thi hn c th ct 4.
75
Bng 5.2: c im chnh ca cc khon vay phn theo ngun (tt c cc khon vay)
Quy m khon vay Trung bnh 000 (1) Ngun VBSP VBARD Hip hi Ngn hng t nhn T thng Ngi cho vay Bn b/ngi thn Khc Cng 7,263 15,329 10,765 2,570 5,000 5,771 11 15 18 66 15 17 1.5 1.2 1.2 85 27 22 0 38 43 8 20 27 1 1 3 9,241 3,462 11 42 2.9 4 4 6 1 30,375 3,728 6,450 1,928 12 5 0 26 1.0 2.6 0 65 100 0 0 3 1 1 5,289 16,240 9,032 5,000 10,000 5,375 30 18 19 2 1 1 0.5 1.1 1.2 1 0 3 0 97 45 94 13 53 7 5 5 Trung v 000 VND (2) Thi hn Thng (3) T trng % (4) Li sut %/ thng (5) T l khng li % (6) C th chp % (7) T l tn chp % (8) Thi gian duyt Trung v ngy (9)
Ghi ch: Tt c cc mn vay theo gi 2006.
T thng thng cung cp cc khon tn dng nh v thi hn ngn v i vi cc khon th ba th khng nu thi hn. Cc khon tn dng khng c thi hn c nh c th ch tho thun mi lm ch cho vay n h v v v thu cht l ngn hn. Quy m trung v ca mi khon tn dng t ngun nhng c nhn nh, 3,5 triu ng nhng c mt s mn ln t ngun ny, trung bnh gn bng ca ngun hip hi. Thi hn cho vay khng nu c th i vi gm mt na s khon tn dng ca cc c nhn cho vay. Nh c th thy, nhn chung cc mn vay t ngun bn b/ngi thn nh v khng c thi hn c th (66 % tt c cc khon). Quay li cc mc li sut theo thng ct 5, c cc im khc nhau r rt. VBSP c cc mc li sut trung bnh thp nht, th hin r mc tiu ca Ngn hng l cung cp tn dng cho cc h nng thn ngho. VBARD, hip hi v NHTN c cc mc li sut cao gp khong gn hai ln. Vic VBARD v NHTN c mc li sut cao gp hai ln ch ra rng VBARD cam kt cho vay theo li sut thng mi ging nh cc NHTN. Tuy nhin, s lng vay hn ch t cc NHTN (23 trong
76
tng s) m bo s thn trng so vi cc ngun khc. i vi ngun t cc hip hi, mc li sut trung bnh b nh hng bi mt s khon vay c mc li sut rt cao, khi loi chng ra th mc li sut trung bnh ca cc hip hi l 0,9% thng. Cc t thng v c nhn cho vay li sut cao hn kh nhiu. i vi t thng, mc li sut trung bnh l 2,6% thng, nhng ch i vi khong 35% cc khon vay. Cn li khng li sut r rng nhng c v l v c tr li sut ngm bng gi cc u vo cao hn v/hoc gi u ra thp hn khi h quan h bun bn vi t thng. V iu ny cng c th l s tht i vi cc khon tn dng phi tr li sut, c th coi mc li sut 2,6% thng thp hn mc li sut thc t. C nhn cho vay i trung bnh 2,9% thng. minh ho tm quan trng ca cc mc li sut gia cc ngun c th so snh mc li sut ca c nhn cho vay vi mc li sut ca cc NHTN i vi khon vay c thi hn tng t, 12 thng. Li gp gc hng nm khc nhau vi khong 28 im phn trm. Mt mn vay 10 triu ng mt NHTN s phi tr gc v li l 12,7 triu sau 1 nm. Mt khon vay tng t ca c nhn c th phi tr 14,9 triu sau 1 nm. Cc mn vay bn b/ngi thn trong 8/10 trung hp khng phi tr li. Tuy nhin, khong 15% cc khon vay ngun ny c ph tr li trung bnh cao hn li sut thng mi 1,5%/thng. Th chp bt buc i vi cc khon tn dng t VBARD v cc NHTN v khong 45% cc khon vay qua cc hip hi. i vi cc ngun khc khong 40% cc khon vay phi th chp ci g . Trong 90% cc trng hp th chp bao gm giy t t v nh ca ch h. Phn ln cc khon tn dng t VBSP v hip hi yu cu bo lnh. Ct cui cng l cc trung v v s ngy i hi ph duyt khon tn dng. Trnh by trung v l v i vi tt c cc ngun s trung bnh b nh hng ln bi mt s quan st vi thi gian ph duyt rt di, xp hng cc ngun v trung v thi gian ph duyt kh ph hp vi mong i trc . Cc ngun phi chnh thc nh t thng, c nhn cho vay v bn b/ngi thn chp nhn (hoc t chi) ngay lp tc (trung v l 1 ngy, trong khi cc ngun chnh thc mt nhiu ngy hn. i vi VBSP, VBARD v cc hip hi, thi gian ph duyt trung v tng ng l 7 ngy, 5 ngy v 5 ngy. Bng 5.3 di y ging nh bng 5.2, nhng s liu ch v cc khon c vay nm 2005, l nm hon chnh cui cng m iu tra thc hin. C hai l do trnh by bng ny. Th nht, n cho thy bc tranh c cp nht v cc iu kin tn dng chung i vi th trng tn dng nng thn cc tnh iu tra. Th hai, bng cch so snh vi Bng 5.2 c th thy c nhng bin i ln qua thi gian hay khng. Xem qua cc ct v so snh vi Bng 5.2 dng nh l cc iu kin vay nm 2005 rt ging nh i vi mu hon chnh. Ch c cc NHTN l c ci khc g . Tuy nhin, cn nh rng ch c 5 quan st (khon vay) t NHTN nm 2005.
77
Bng 5.3: Nhng c im ch yu ca cc khon tn dng phn theo ngun (ring 2005)
Quy m khon tn dng Trung bnh000 VND (1) Ngun VBSP VBARD Hip hi Ngn hng t nhn T thng Ngi cho vay Bn b/ngi thn Khc Cng (N=3,492) 5,703 15,949 8,170 37,453 3,497 13,915 5,727 11,156 10,564 5,375 10,750 5,375 6,450 1,612 4,300 2,687 3,225 5,375 29 19 20 19 5 11 11 16 19 2 0 1 0 32 41 62 14 17 0.5 1.1 1.3 1.1 2.7 2.5 1.4 1.1 1.2 3 0 2 0 71 8 83 26 22 0 96 37 100 0 7 0 32 42 92 13 53 0 3 6 8 25 28 7 5 6 1 1 1 1 1 3 Trung v 000 VND (2) Thi hn Thng (3) Khng xc nh % (4) Li sut Li sut =0 % (6) T l c th chp % (7) T l bo lnh % (8) Thi gian duyt Trung v ngy (9)
%/thng (5)
Ghi ch: Cc mn vay theo gi 2006
C mt im khc na. Li sut ca nhng ngi cho vay t nhn l 2,5%/thng so vi 2,9% ca ton mu. iu ny cho rng nhng ngi cho vay t nhn yu cu li sut thi k sau thp hn vo k trc. Tuy nhin, iu ny khng ph hp vi iu thy 4 tnh m VAHRS02 iu tra (Mekong Economics, 2004). i vi nm 2002 nhng ngi cho vay t nhn i li sut 1,8%/thng trong khi li sut ca VBSP v VBARD tng t nh kt qu nghin cu y. iu c th cho thy l mt s tnh t nht mc li sut danh ngha (khng nht thit l mc li sut thc) m nhng ngi cho vay t nhn ly tng ln ch khng gim i trong thi k . So vi VAHRS02 th thi hn trung bnh ca mn vay tng ln i vi c VBSP v VBARD. i vi VBSP tng thi hn t 21 ln 29 thng v t 14 ln 19 thng vi VBARD. Phn trn ch trng vo s phn b v cc c im ca khon tn dng tt c cc tnh. Tuy nhin, th trng tn dng nng thn khc nhau cc tnh (Mekong Economics 2004, Barslund v Tarp 2006) v l im s c i su phn tip theo. Biu 5.1 minh ho s lng cc khon tn dng trn 100 h iu tra mi tnh i vi mu ton din v i vi cc khon tn dng vay nm 2005. ng y l ng trung bnh trn s lng cc khon trn 100 h cc tnh min Nam v min Bc tng ng i vi mu y . N cng ch ch ra nhng im khc nhau s b gia hai min.
78
Hnh 5.1: S khon tn dng trn 100 h c iu tra theo tnh.

300 250 200 150 100 50 0
Ch u
T y
ai
T?t c? cc nm Tt c cc nm Ring 2005 Ring 2005

Trung bnh cc tnh pha Nam v v pha B?c bnh cc t?nh pha Nam pha Bc
Biu 5.1 minh ho s khc nhau trong hot ng th trng tn dng nng thn cc tnh min Bc v min Nam iu tra. Trong khi s lng cc khon trung bnh trn 100 h cc tnh min Nam ch di 200 (ch mc 195) th s cc tnh min Bc l gn mt na s (111). i vi tt c cc tnh min Nam, tr Khnh Ho, c trn 100 khon tn dng trn 100 h trong mu thi k t nm 2002 n gia nm 2006. Nh vy, tnh trung bnh mi h c th vay c mt mn trong c giai on. min Bc, Ph Th v Lai Chu cha t cn Ph Th v in Bin th s khon tn dng trn 100 h ng bng 100. Th trng tn dng nng thn c Lc, Lm ng v Long An tch cc nht v trm hn tnh Lo Cai. Nhng pht hin y c th so sanh vi nhng g Barslund and Tarp (2006) s dng trong s liu VAHRS02 t nm 2002. H thy rng tnh Long An c th trng tn dng tch cc hn H Ty, Ph Th v Qung Nam. Khc vi kt qu ca h (tc l Qung Nam c th trng tn dng nng thn t tch cc nht) Biu 5.1 cho rng Qung nam c nhu giao hn H Ty v Ph Th trong mu hin ti. S tch cc trong nm 2005 phn nh s tch cc i vi mu y . Lai Chu l mt ngoi l. Lai Chu c s khon tn dng thc hin ln hn vo nm 2005 trn 100 h so vi s khon nh mong i t mu ln hin ti. Nhng im khc nhau trong gii ngn tn dng gia cc tnh th hin Biu 5.1 du nhng khc bit v c cu ni bt v tm quan trng ca cc ngun tn dng khc nhau phm vi mt tnh. xem xt cc ngun tn dng khc nhau cp tnh, cn phi tng hp chng thnh 3 phn:
Kh n h
La i
Lo ng
L o
An
79
chnh thc, phi chnh thc v bn b/ngi thn. Phn khc th trng chnh thc gm cc ngun c th ch ho nh VBSP, VBARD, cc hip hi v cc NHTN v cc ngn hng quc doanh khc. Phn khc th trng tn dng phi chnh thc gm nhng ngi cho vay t nhn v t thng. Cui cng l nhm bn b/ngi thn, mc d l phi chnh thc nhng thnh mt nhm ring cho tin. T liu v tn dng nng thn thng phn loi cc ngun tn dng thnh cc phn chnh thc v phi chnh thc (xt v mt th ch) (xem v d Zeller 1994, Barslund v Tarp 2006, Doung v Izumida 2002). L do l cc ngun tn dng khc nhau thuc cc phn khc khc nhau thng phc v cc mc ch khc nhau v c cc iu kin khc nhau km theo (Xem Bng 5.2). Tuy nhin, Vit Nam, bn b/ngi thn cho vay khng li ng vai tr kh ln trong qu trnh huy ng vn, m bo c coi l mt phn khc th trng ring. Hnh 5.2: Phn b cc khon tn dng theo ngun v tnh (unweighted)
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 H Ty Lo Cai Ph Th? Lai Chu i?n Bin Ngh? An

Ph Th in Bin Ngh An
Qu?ng Nam Nam
Qung
Khnh Ha
Bn b B?n b
k Lk
?k L?k
k ?k Nng
Nng
Lm ng ?ng
Lm
Long An
Chnh thc Chnh th?c
Phi chnh thc Phi chnh th?c
Biu 5.2 ch ra tm quan trng ca cc phn khc khon tn dng ca cc ngun chnh thc, phi chnh thc v bn b/ngi thn theo tnh. Cng ba ct ca mi tnh khng t 100 v cn c mt loi "khc" nh na. i vi 6 tnh nm pha Bc c nhng im khc nhau nhng cc kiu chung ging nhau. Cc khon tn dng chnh thc chim a s trong tng s cc khon, cc khon phi chnh thc khng quan trng lm, tr tnh Ph Th chim 11% tng s khon vay. Bn b/ngi thn ch c vai tr nh. Mc d Khnh Ho chng mc no ging cc tnh ngoi Bc, bc tranh ca hon ton khc so vi cc tnh pha Nam. Qung Nam v c Lc, tn dng ph chnh thc ng vai tr c bn cc th trng tn dng nng thn v l ngun ln nht tnh c Lc. Tn dng chnh thc vn quan trng tt c cc tnh nhng mc d t hn so vi pha Bc. Qung Nam v Lm ng bn b/ngi thn cung cp 20% cc khon vay ( Qung Nam trn 30%) v, tr Long An, h chim trn 10% cc khon vay cc tnh khc. Cng vi biu 5.1, Biu 5.2. khng nh tm quan trng ca nhng im khc nhau gia cc tnh Vit Nam.
80
5.3. Tip cn, chi ph v s dng tn dng

Mc ny tp trung vo s tip cn v s dng tn dng ca h trong thi k iu tra. Biu 5.3 cho thy t l h c vay trong thi k (cc ct) phn theo tnh. ng chm chm l s lng khon tn dng trn 100 h c phng vn v tng ng vi cc thanh trong biu 5.1. Nu cc h tip cn tn dng mi tnh c vay ng mt khon th ng chm chm ca tnh s trng vi thanh. Nh vy, cc thanh ni ln s h c vay trong thi k v cc du chm l s lng ti a h c th c vay vi s khon vay nht nh.19 T l h c vay t nht mt khon dao ng t 46% tnh Khnh Ho n 92% tnh Lm ng. C mi lin h tch cc gia tng s khon tn dng thc hin v s h tip cn tn dng mc d khng thng ng nh vy. V d, Lai Chu v Qung Nam c t l cc h tip cn gn nh nhau. Tuy nhin, s khon vay trn 100 h khc vi Qung Nam c 136 v Lai Chu c 67 khon trong thi k . im c bit l th ca Biu 5.3 l thiu s khc bit c tnh h thng cc h tip cn gia cc tnh min bc v min Nam, d c s khc bit ln v s khon tn dng/h (Xem biu 5.1). C t l h tng t b loi tr khi th trng tn dng c hai min. Nn nh rng vic khng c c cc l do v sao cc h khng tip cn tn dng i hi phi nghincu su hn v cc tnh c cc l do khc nhau. Hnh 5.3: T l h c vay (%) v s khon vay/100 h 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 85 46 72 58 75 64 58 46 76 71 92 78 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
H Lo Ph Lai in Ngh Qung Khnh c c Lm Long Ha Tay Cai ThoChau Bin An Nam Ho Dak NongDong An Ty Cai Lai Dien Bien An Lc Nng Long Lao Phu Th Chu Nghe Khanh Dak Lak Lam ng An Quang Nam Hoa
T s h nhn c khon vay
T s khon vay/h (x 100)
Cc tnh c trn 100 khon vay trn 100 h th ng chm khng trng vi thanh bi v thanh t n mc ti a 100 trong khi tt c cc h trong tnh c t nht mt mn vay. Characteristics of the Vietnamese Rural Economy: Evidence from a 2006 Rural Household Survey in 12 Provinces of Vietnam
19
81
Biu 5.4 trnh by t l h c vay vo thi im phng vn mi tnh. tt c cc tnh trn di 40% h c d n (H Ty c 32%). Lo Cai khong h c n ti thi im phng vn. Nhng khc nhau gia cc h min Bc v min Nam nh. S h trung bnh ang c d n cc tnh pha Nam 55 v pha Bc l 59. Tuy vy, nhg khc bit gia cc tnh kh ln, vi 45% im phn trm gia Lo Cai ln nht v H Ty c t h c d n nh nht. Hnh 5.4: T l h c d n vo thi im phng vn phn theo tnh (%) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 32 10 0
H
77 59 47
69 48 50 38
67
64
73 61
Ha Tay Cai Tho Chau Bien An Nam Ho Dak Nong Dong An Lao Phu Lai Chu Bin Ty Cai Th Dien Nghe An Lc Nng Long Khanh Dak Lak Lam ng An Quang Nam Hoa T l h d n
Lo
Ph
Lai
in Ngh Qung Khnh c c
Lm Long
Cc tnh khng ch khc nhau v v tr a l pha Bc hay pha Nam m cn kh nng tip cn. Mt s im khc bit mc tch cc trong th trng tn dng nng thn c th do khc bit v a l xa, ho lnh. Bng 5.4 cho thy khong cch trung v t h n a im vay cng vi t l h c d n. Khong cch trung v t trong tm x n VBSP hoc VBARD ca cc x c trnh by ct cui cng. Bng 5.4: Khong cch trung v n ni vay phn theo tnh v ngun
H c d n % Tnh H Ty Lo Cai Ph Th 32 77 59 1 6 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 5 3 Khong cch n: Chnh thc Km Phi chnh thc Km Bn b/ ngi thn Km Khong cch trung v t trung tm x n VBARD/VBSP Km
82
Lai Chu in Bin Ngh An Qung Nam Khnh Ha k Lk k Nng Lm ng Long An
47 69 48 50 38 67 64 73 61
5 4 2 3 1 7 5 5 6
.. 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 2
1 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 2
15 0 5 3 3 7 3 0 4
Ch thch: .. = khng c thng tin. 0 = nh hn 0.5 km.
Lu trc tin l ct 2, 3 v 4 l khong cch n cc t chc tn dng chnh thc, khng chnh thc v bn b/ngi thn ch c c thng tin i vi cc h vay. iu khng ni g v cc trung v ca mu. Nu cc h gn ni vay hn c th d vay hn th cc con s cc ct ny h thp cc trung v ca mu ln. C th l bi v khi cc h ny s c th c i din bi hn mt khon vay. Cc t chc tn dng phi chnh thc v bn b/ngi thn thng gn hn cn cc t chc tn dng chnh thc thng xa hn. Tuy nhin, khng tnh no c khong cch trung v qu xa. Mt quan st th v trong Bng 5.4 l c mi tng quan n gin r rng tch cc gia t h c d n v khong cch trung v n cc t chc tn dng chnh thc v mc nh hn n nhng c nhn v bn b/ngi thn. Ngha l, tnh m cc h i vay xa hn th s h c d n ln hn. Nhiu cu chuyn c th gii thch cho thc t ny. V d, c th l kt qu ca vic m rng thnh cng din vay n cc h vng su, xa cc tnh c s lng d n ln. Cn c phn tch su hn nu bt cc c ch dn n kiu c quan st. Bng 5.5: Chi ph lm th tc xin vay v bt hp php phn theo ngun
Chi ph lm th tc vay Trung bnh 1 h tr 000 VND Ngun VBSP VBARD Hip hi Ngn hng t nhn T thng Ngi cho vay Bn b/Ngi thn Khc Tng Ch thch: a) Da trn 5 quan st hoc t hn. 13 14 15 19 13 25
a) a)
L ph bt hp php Trung bnh 1 h tr 000 VND 95 54 30 200 .. .. 150 26

a) a) a)
% h tr % 61 79 58 68 2 1 4 34
% h tr % 4 9 9 2 0 0 0 3
12 26
83
Bng 5.5 trnh by chi ph lm th tc xin vay v l ph bt hp php phn theo ngun m cc h phi np. Cc chi ph lm th tc xin vay kh khim tn i vi tt c cc ngun v quan trng nht l ch khong 1 US$. i vi cc ngun chnh thc a s cc khon vay c khon l ph chnh thc trong khi a s khon c chi ph phi chinh thc nh hn km theo. Mc d vy, cc chi ph khng chnh thc cao hn chi ph chnh thc, trung bnh chng vn mc c th qun l c v kh c th tin rng n ng s m rng din ca cc t chc tn dng theo mt cch quan trng no . Bng 5.6 mc ich s dng mn vay theo ngun. i vi mi loi vic s dng mn vay c tng hp t mt danh mc rt di nhng kh nng trong bng hi. Trng trt bao gm trng la v cc cy mu khc k cc cc u vo (khong mt na cc khon vay thuc loi ny l trng la). Chn nui bao gm tt c cc loi vt nui. u t vo hng lot cc hot ng k c cho cc h vay li, xy dng, mua nh ca, mua t hay cc loi ti sn khc. Vay hc hnh, chm sc sc kho, chi cho hiu h, tang ma, ci hi v tiu dng ni chung c phn thnh vay tiu dng. Loi khc gm tt c cc mn vay cha c lit k trn, nhng ch yu l c s dng cho cc hot ng phi nng nghip chc chn v mc ch s dng tin vay trn, s dng cc cu hi v mc ch nh sn (ghi trong n vay) v tin s dng trong thc t. Mc ph hp gia mc ch nh trc v s dng thc t cao. Ch c 10% s dng tin vay khc vi d nh trong n vay. iu phn nh ln rng i vi khong 1/3 mn vay t chc tn dng n tn h xc minh rng vic s dng tin vay ph hp vi mc ch ghi trong n vay. Bng 5.6: S dng mn vay phn theo ngun (Tt c mn vay, %)
Trng trt Ngun VBSP VBARD Hip hi Ngn hng t nhn T thng Ngi cho vay Bn b/ngi thn Khc Cng T l vay : Trng trt Unweighted Trung bnh 34 25 Chn nui 24 17 Tr n vay khc 2 2 u t 13 19 Tiu dng 13 5 Khc 14 31 Cng 100 100 6 36 6 2 27 8 6 9 100 29 40 13 1 4 4 5 3 100 16 49 20 0 0 8 8 0 100 12 40 9 0 4 5 27 2 100 12 17 9 0 7 13 39 2 100 17 42 16 1 0 5 14 4 100 15 36 10 1 12 7 14 5 100 Chn nui Tr n vay khc u t Tiu dng Khc Cng
Ghi ch: Tt c cc mn vay dng tnh theo gi nm 2006. Chi ph cho gio dc v sc kho gp vo chi tiu dng.
84
Trc khi chuyn sang phn trn ca bng 5.6, trc tin hy lu n hai dng cui. Hai dng ny trnh by s phn b cc khon vay theo loi mc ch s dng. Dng th nht cho thy s phn b s lng khon vay cn dng th 2 cho thy s phn b trung bnh theo quy m khon vay. V vy dng 2 ni nhiu hn v khon tn dng c s dng cho nhiu mc ch hn. Khong 60% c s dng cho mc ch trng trt v chn nui. Cc khon vay ny nh hn so vi khon vay trung bnh, ng rng khong 40% lng tn dng trong k c s dng cho cc mc ch ny. Vay tra n vay khc ch chim mt phn nh. Vay tiu dng chim 13% trong tng s nhng nh hn nhiu (5%) khi tnh theo quy m khon vay. u t v s dng cho cc mc ch khc quan trng xt v khi lng tn dng t 50% tng s khon vay so vi 27% s khon vay. Vay u t chim 19% khi tnh v gi tr trung bnh. Khi lng khon vay c s dng cho cc mc ch khc l pht trin cc hot ng phi nng nghip v nhng khon ny thng ln hn nhiu so vi mn trung bnh gii thch cho l do v sao cho mc ch ny chim khng di 31% tng lng tn dng. Nhn vo phn trn ca Bng 5.6 c th a ra mt s quan st. Th nht, mc d cc ngun chnh thc (VBSP, VBARD, hip hi, ngn hng t nhn) cung cp phn ln khon vay cho sn xut nng nghip, cc ngun phi chnh thc, nht l cc t thng, chim gn mt na cc khon vay cho mc ch trng trt. Vai tr tch cc ca t thng l mt hin tng trong thi gian gn y. iu tra VAHRS02 khng c im ny (ILO 2005, Mekong Economics 2004). Th hai, vay tiu dng ch yu l t cc ngun phi chnh thc, nhng ngun chnh thc dng nh cng c vai tr tch cc hn trong thi gian gn y so vi nhng pht hin ca iu tra VAHRS02. Th ba, mt lng tn dng ln c s dng cho cc mc ch u t l t ngun phi chnh thc v phn ln l t bn b/ngi thn. iu ny ph hp vi kt qu ca iu tra VAHRS02. Cui cng l, nhng ngun chnh thc cung cp phn ln tn dng cho cc hot ng phi nng nghip. Trong khi Bng 5.6 minh ho cc ngun tn dng khc nhau gn vi mc ch s dng nh th no th c thm mt th v xem xt xem v th kinh t x hi ca h c nh hng n loi ngun h chn vay hoc buc phi chp nhn hay khng.20 Tng t nh chng trc, tiu dng thc phm u ngi trong 4 tun trc c s dng lm thc o th tnh trng kinh t x hi. i vi tn dng ngi ta cho rng n c th c vn hn cc chng trc. R rng l c th vay tin tiu dng do cn phait nh l phn tch thn trng cn nghin cu su.
Cn nhn mnh rng nhng tc ng thn trng khng c khai thc y. Do , nu quan st thy cc h ngho vay t mt ngun c th th l mt la chn c tnh ton bi v t chc tn dng phc v cho nhu cu ca h ngho tt hn cc ngun khc, hoc c th l v cc h ngho khng th vay bt k t chc tn dng no khc. Characteristics of the Vietnamese Rural Economy: Evidence from a 2006 Rural Household Survey in 12 Provinces of Vietnam
20
85
Bng 5.7: Ngun vay phn theo nhm tiu dng

S khon vay Nhm tiu dng thc phm Ngho nht Ngho nh Trung bnh Giu nh Giu nht Cng 477 430 420 413 405 2,145 53 64 67 68 68 64 26 14 19 16 19 19 17 18 10 12 13 14 3 4 3 4 0 3 100 100 100 100 100 100 Chnh thc Phi chnh thc Bn b Khc Cng
Bng 5.7 trnh by ngun tn dng phn theo nhm tiu dng. Bc tranh kh r rng. Nhng h giu hn (c o bng tiu dng thc phm u ngi) c kh nng vay c t ngun chnh thc hn v t vay t ngun phi chnh thc v bn b/ngi thn. Tuy nhin, lu rng nhm 20% h giu nht vay 26% s khon vay t khu vc phi chnh thc, bn b/ngi thn ca h. V s khon vay, bc trang khng r nt lm. Nhm ngho nht c vay phn ln cc khon vay, nhng khng thy xu th chung l cng giu th cng t vay. Mc tn dng trong bng hi cng c cc cu hi nh ai trong h chu trch nhim v 2 khon vay ln nht trong c thi k. Trong tng s 93% s 2 khon vay ln nht do ch h hoc chng/v ng ln vay. Nhng khon vay cn li ch yu do nam (ph bin nht) hoc n ng tn. Phn pha trn bn tri ca Bng 5.8 trnh by kt qu phn b v v tr theo gii trong h i vi hai khon vay ln nht m h vay. Phn b ny phn nh rng trong phn ln trng hp ch h chu trch nhim i vi cc khon vay v 80% s h c ch h l nam gii. Ph n chu trch nhim v khon ln nht nh h chu trch nhim v cc khon ln th hai. Bng 5.8: Ngi chu trch nhim chnh i vi khon vay (ch 2 khon ln nht) S khon vay % khon vay:
Nam Quan h vi ch h Ch h Chng/v Khc Qui m Ln nht Ln th 2 Cng 551 491 1,042 203 214 417 754 705 1,459 948 23 71 191 200 26 1,139 223 97 N Chung Ngun VBSP VBARD Hip hi Ngn hng t nhn T thng Ngi cho vay Bn b/ngi thn Khc 17 42 9 1 7 6 15 3 19 30 15 1 8 7 14 6 Nam N
86
Quy m trung bnh: Nam Qui m Ln nht Ln th 2 Cng 13,733 11,262 12,489 11,705 11,716 11,711 N
cng
100
100
Bng 5.8 cho thy phn b gii theo ngun tn dng. Ph n t c kh nng vay hn t VBARD. Tri li, ph n c t l c vay t hip hi cao hn nam v l do h vay t Hi Lin hip ph n. Cui cng l phn di bn tri trnh by cc gi tr mn vay trung bnh i vi cc khon vay ln nht v ln nh phn theo gii ca ngi chu trch nhim chnh. Nhng ngi vay l ph n nhn chung chu trch nhim i vi nhng khon nh hn nam. iu ng vi c khon vay ln nht v ln nh.
5.4. Cc h b t chi v t hn ch mnh

Bng hi cc h lit k tt c cc khon vay b t chi k t nm 2002. Tng s c 85 khon ca 72 h cho c thi k v nm 2005 v 2006 c khong mt na s . V t chc tn dng t chi cc n vay ca h, khong gn 50% l VBARD v VBSP, v 50% cn li l cc ngun khc. Vi gi tr trung bnh v trung v tng ng l t khong 10 n 5 triu ng, quy m cc mn vay b t chi tng ng vi quy m cc mn c duyt vay (Bng 5.2). Thm vo , cc h khng c vay trong thi gian iu tra, bng hi cng xc nh c cc h rt n vay mc d h mun tip cn, c ngha l h t hn ch mnh. c c thng tin chnh xc i vi cu hi ny gii hn thi gian vo 12 thng trc khi thc hin phng vn. Tng s c 99 h c xc nh l t hn ch mnh trong khong 12 thng . Kt hp cc thng tin v h c vay trong 12 thng, cc h khng c vay cng trong thi gian v cc h t hn ch mnh cho php ly c thng tin v s lng h c nhu cu vay (vay mi hoc vay thm) trong 12 thng trc khi phng vn. Bng 5.9 trnh by t l h c nhu cu tn dng phn theo tnh vi nhiu s liu hay.
87
Bng 5.9: T l cc h b t chi, cc h t hn ch v cc h c nhu cu tn dng (%)

B t chi (ton mu) Tnh H Ty Lo Cai Ph Th Lai Chu in Bin Ngh An Qung Nam Khnh Ha c Lc c Nng Lm ng Long An 5 7 7 1 0 4 12 11 8 9 9 2 2 3 1 1 0 0 3 0 5 5 3 2 12 0 3 4 1 14 11 6 3 0 8 10 63 65 45 45 47 63 62 61 82 67 79 82 13 30 39 42 47 21 26 30 14 25 13 9 24 5 16 13 6 16 12 8 5 8 8 10 B t chi (12 thng) T hn ch (12 thng) C nhu cu (12 thng) c d n, khng c nhu cu (12 thng) Khng tham gia (12 thng)
Ct 1 Bng 5.9 ch ra t l cc h khng c vay k t u nm 2002 (ngha l khng phi ch trong 12 thng). Mc d c s khc nhau gia cc tnh, bc tranh chung l ch c mt s t h b t chi n xin vay. Tnh Khnh Ho v Qung Nam l 2 tnh c trn 5% s h phng vn b t chi n vay. Ct 2 ch ra t l cc h b t chi n vay trong 12 thng trc khi phng vn. y l s liu rt quan trng v o lng nhu cu tn dng c miu t trn. Nh c th k vng t cc con s ct 1, s h b t chi trong 12 thng trc nh. C ngoi l l tnh c Nng v c Lc, ni c 5% s h b t chi. Ct 3 trnh by t l h t hn ch. Ct 4 l t l h c nhu cu vay ti mt s thi im trong 12 thng qua. Nhu cu tn dng rt khc nhau gia cc tnh. Cc h min Nam tnh trung bnh c nhu cu tn dng cao hn cc h min Bc. Ct 5 lit k cc t l h khng c nhu cu tn dng trong nm qua nhng li ang c d n. chng mc no h vn c nhu cu vay v v vy h vn c xem l c tham gia vo th trng tn dng. Cui cng, nhng h cn li c th c coi l khng tham gia th trng tn dng nng thn. tnh Lo Cai v c Nng ch c 5% s h phng vn khng tham gia, trong khi H Ty l 24%. Cn phn tch su hn nguyn nhn ca nhng im khc bit ny v xc nh xem nhng khc bit c tc ng n cc bin s kt qu quan trng cp h hay khng.
88
Bng 5.10 cho thy t l h c vay, b t chi, t hn ch v c nhu cu tn dng trong 12 thng qua ca mi trong 5 nhm (quintiles) tiu dng thc phm. Nhng h giu hn t c vay hn, c t l b t chi hoc t hn ch trong 12 thng qua. iu ng rng nhng h giu hn c th c nhu cu tn dng hn trong vng 12 thng trc khi phng vn. Bng 5.10: Nhu cu tn dng theo nhm tiu dng trong vng 12 thng trc khi phng vn
c vay Nhm tiu dng Ngho nht Ngho nh Trung bnh Giu nh Giu nht Tng cng 42 42 40 45 35 41 3 2 1 1 1 2 11 8 7 3 4 7 50 49 44 48 37 46 42 42 40 45 35 41 B t chi T hn ch C cu Cng
5.5. Kt lun
Hai c im then cht l c tm quan trng trung tm khi phn tch th trng tn dng nng thn Vit Nam l xy dng th ch v nhng c im khc nhau r rt gia cc tnh. V th ch, th trng tn dng nng thn chu s chi phi ca hai ngn hng quc doanh l VBARD v VBSP khu vc chnh thc ca th trng v cc t thng v t nhn kinh doanh tin v bn b/ngi thn khu vc phi chnh thc. Nhng t chc tn dng ny chim ti 80% cc khon cho vay c v s lng v gi tr. C s chnh lch ln cc mc li sut gia hai t chc tn dng ln ny v v mc li sut hin hnh ca t thng v c nhn kinh doanh tin. y khng phi l thc t c vn hay khng mong mun l l mt quan st quan trng lu khi xem xt vic tip cn tn dng. Nhng tr ngi trong vay vn l thi gian ph duyt , khong cch n ch vay v chi ph xin vay c v nh hn ch t nht l mc trung bnh. Nhng khon vay khu vc phi chnh thc phn ln l tiu dng, cn vay vn sn xut ch yu do khu vc chnh thc cung cp. Tuy nhin, s khon vay l u t vn l vay t bn b/ngi thn. Trn c s nhm tiu dng thc phm, iu r rng l nhng h giu hn c kh nng vay t cc t chc tn dng chnh thc hn v t vay t cc ngun phi chnh thc v bn b/ngi thn so vi nhng h ngho hn. Nhng h giu hn c t nhu cu tn dng hn trong trong vng 12 thng trc khi phng vn. khng phi l iu t to ra ca vic h giu hn t b t chi vay hay t hn ch mnh m h cng t c vay hn. Trong s 40% h th khong 10% cho rng t h khng
89
xin vay trong khi ch c 3% h b t chi. iu cho thy cc t chc tn dng, c chnh thc v khu vc phi chnh thc, tip cn kh rng ri khc hng cc tnh. Quay li vi nhng im khc bit gia cc tnh, chng mc no cng l do v tr a l ca min Bc v min Nam, mc d khng phi l iu gii thch ng n i vi mi s khc nhau. V d, hy xem xt t l h c vay trong c thi k. Tnh trung bnh, s khc nhau gia 6 tnh pha Bc v 6 tnh pha Nam rt nh. Tuy nhin, nhng im khc nhau gia cc tnh trong min l rt ln, dao ng t 46% s h phng vn Khnh Ho v 85% h Lo Cai. (Biu 5.3). V mc tch cc (tc l s khon vay thc hin) s khc nhau gia pha bc v pha Nam ln v r rng tt c cc tnh, tr Khnh Ho. Mt phn khc bit ny l do th trng khu vc phi chnh thc hot ng song song vi th trng chnh thc pha Nam ln. Cng dch ln pha bc th th trng khu vc phi chnh thc cc tnh ny cng nh dn v tin n khng c th trng ny.
6. QUN L RI RO
Ri ro l c im ni ti ca cc vng nng thn Vit Nam. Nhng ri ro lin quan n SXNN nh bnh dch i vi vt nui, tht bt ma mng rt thng xy ra. Hn na, Vit Nam, ang tch cc hn trong hi nhp kinh t quc t21 v iu c th lm gia tng ri ro v bin ng gi c ca c hng ho nng sn. y l iu ng phi quan tm ca Chnh ph. Phn ln ngi ngho lm vic trong ngnh nng nghip v tnh cht d tn thng ca h c th tmg ln cng vi s dao ng ln xung ca gi c. Trong hon cnh , nn c mt bc tranh tt v ri ro v qun l ri ro cc vng nng thn. Vic ny khng th t c bng cch xem xt cc kt qu ca nhiu cuc iu tra khc Vit Nam m c th thc hin bng VAHRS06. Mc 1 trnh by thng tin v vic ngi dn thng b ri ro nh th no, h b mt mt bao nhiu v quan trng hn l h phc hi sau nhng mt mt nh th no. Hn na, chng ti phn tch vai tr ca bo him chnh thc so vi phi chnh thc. Nhng vai tr ny c ct ngha hai mc cui cng v tho lun v tm quan trng ca vn x hi cc vng nng thn. Tm li, chng ny s xem xt k hn cc vn trn v tt c cc kt qu u da vo cc h c a vo iu tra VAHRS06.
6.1. Nhng ri ro v x l ri ro
Mc ny bt u bng miu t nhng ri ro m cc h gp phi trong 5 nm qua. Biu 6.1 cho thy trung bnh c 47% h chu nhng thit hi v thu nhp khng lng trc c trong thi k ny, trong Lm ng, Lai Chu v c Nng c t l ngi b thit hi rt cao, tng ng l 83,7, 72.4 v 69.3%. Trong khi cc tnh nh in Bin, Long An, H Ty c cc t l thp nht,
21
Vit Nam tr thnh thnh vin ca WTO vo u thng 1 nm 2007.
90
tng ng l 12,6, 21,8, v 27,2%. Biu 6.1 cng ch ra rng cc nhm ngho b thit hi thng xuyn hn cc nhm khng ngho. Trn mt na ngi ngho chu thit hi trong khi t l ny ca cc nhm khng ngho l 42%. Ph hp vi quan st trc y t l ny gim dn khi ngi dn c mc chi tiu cho lng thc phm cao hn. Hnh 6.1: T l h chu mt mt trong 5 nm qua
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
All Tng poor H Lo Ph Lai in Khnh c c Lm Long Khng Ngho Ngho Ngho Trung Giu Giu Ha tay PhuLai chau bien an Qung Dac Nong Long anNon-poor Lao cai thoDien Nghe Ngh Poorest Middle Richest Khanh Dac lacLc Nng ng An Ty Cai Th Chu Quang nam hoa Bin An Nam Ho Lam Dong ngho 2nd poorest richest nh nht nht 2nd bnh nh
Ch thch: H ngho do chnh quyn a phng phn loi. Mc chi tiu cho lng thc thc phm u ngi cao hn c ngha l nhm h c mc tiu dng lng thc phm cao hn trong 4 tun trc khi tin hnh iu tra ny.
Nhn tng th, nhng nguyn nhn gy ra thit hi l m au, t vong ca cc thnh vin trong gia nh (19%), dch bnh vt nui, mt ma (22,9%), v thin tai (10,3%) nh trnh by trong Bng 6.1. Bng 6.1 cho thy tnh Lm ng c t l ngi chu thit hi do thin tai ln nht (36,2%), ngi trong gia m au, cht (29%) v dch bnh/mt ma (27,5%). Lai Chu and c Nng chu mt mt do hai nguyn nhn sau cng. Lai Chu thit hi do dch bnh/mt ma rt quan trng vi trn 2/3. Xu hng ny ging nh i vi nhm ngi ngho v nhm khng ngho, mc d ngi ngho b m nhiu hn. C th lu rng ngi dn cc tnh Lm ng, c Lc v c Nng b tc ng nhiu hn do bin ng gi so vi cc tnh cn li. C th l do bin ng gi c ph trn th trng th gii trong 5 nm qua. Hn na, t l thua l do u t khng thnh cng rt ln tnh Khnh Ho vi 2,6%. C th thy rng t l mt t thp, tr mt s t trng hp Lo Cai v Long An.
91
Bng 6.1: T l h chu thit hi phn theo nguyn nhn v tnh

Thin Ngi nh Bnh dch, Bin tai m, cht mt ma ng gi Mt t Chung Tnh H Ty Lo Cai Ph Th Lai Chu in Bin Ngh An Qung Nam Khnh Ha c Lc c Nng Lm ng Long An 3 6 1 0 0 23 5 19 29 3 36 3 14 20 21 8 1 33 22 15 17 38 29 7 11 46 19 67 12 21 20 8 8 43 28 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 13 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 3 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 3 27.2 59.8 39.7 72.4 12.6 66.1 43.9 41.3 52.3 69.3 83.7 21.8 3 6 1 0 0 23 5 19 29 3 36 3 10 19 23 1 0 Mt vic 0 u t thua l 1 S quan st 10
Khc 1
Chung 46.7
Nhm tiu dng lng thc thc phm Ngho nht Ngho nh Trung bnh Giu nh Giu nht 7 15 14 11 5 25 16 19 17 16 33 25 17 20 17 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 58 48 48 46 33 7 15 14 11 5
Bng 6.2 cho thy mt s thng tin v gi tr thit hi phn theo tnh, nhm tiu dng lng thc phm v nguyn nhn. Cc tnh nh Lm ng, Lai Chu c t l h b thit hi ln nht. iu ny thay i khi tnh gi tr trung bnh ca tng thit hi trn h trong 5 nm. Tnh trung bnh thit hi/h hai tnh ny thp hn so vi cc tnh Long An v H Ty. Cc tnh ny c t l thp l Khnh Ho, c Lc, Long An v c Nng c gi tr thit hi trung bnh cao nht. Tnh trung bnh, mt h mt 9 triu ng trong vng 5 nm qua.. Thit hai ln nht/sc l 500 triu ng do thin tai. S c sc do mt t v u t thua l thp, trong khi c tnh trung bnh i mi c sc li kh cao. Hn na, nhng h ngho nht trung bnh mt 5,9 triu trong 5 nm, trong khi nhm h giu trung bnh mt 23,8 triu.
92
Bng 6.2: Mt s thng tin v gi tr thit hi phn theo v tr v nguyn nhn (000 VND)
Trung bnh Tng s Tnh H Ty Lo Cai Ph Th Lai Chu in Bin Ngh An Qung Nam Khnh Ha c Lc c Nng Lm ng Long An Nhm tiu dng LTTP Ngho nht Ngho nh Trung bnh Giu nh Giu nht Ngho nht Nguyn nhn Thin tai Ngi nh m Ngi nh cht Dch bnh sc vt Bin ng gi Dch hi cy mu Mt t Khng vic lm u t thua l Khc 7,124 4,078 6,558 4,889 6,054 5,497 3,844 7,121 22,627 6,730 2,000 2,000 6,000 1,800 4,000 2,500 4,000 10,500 20,000 6,000 21 100 300 4 500 120 3,000 200 2,000 120 500,000 150,000 25,000 150,000 30,000 45,000 5,000 10,500 50,000 20,000 237 373 54 301 23 128 3 2 17 15 5,984 6,045 7,421 10,458 23,834 3,000 3,000 3,000 4,000 8,000 140 100 21 100 100 57,000 30,000 70,000 100,000 500,000 187 146 136 126 104 16,783 8,034 5,120 2,372 3,888 5,270 11,244 15,246 13,761 14,823 9,305 16,170 3,000 4,900 2,500 1,300 3,000 2,000 3,800 4,400 10,000 11,000 4,500 6,000 140 120 100 100 500 200 100 620 21 200 100 800 500,000 43,000 38,000 16,400 9,500 37,000 120,000 150,000 82,000 57,000 100,000 150,000 51 54 52 83 14 129 50 32 76 75 58 25 9,668 Trung v 4,000 Nh nht 21 Ln nht 500,000 S quan st 699
Ch thch: c tnh tng gi tr mt mt/h trong 5 nm c tnh cho cc nhm h phn theo v tr v nhm tiu dng lng thc phm cp h.
93
Bng 6.3 l cc t liu v nhiu cch thc cc h c gng x l cc c sc. T Bng 6.3 thy r l hu ht cc h da vo chnh mnh hn l vo cc ngun bn ngoi. V d, 67,8% c sc do cc h t lc x l chng hn nh bng cch bn ti sn, gim mc tiu dng, v.v.. Mt s h thm ch x l bng cch khng cho con ci h i hc, bt chng i lm, i n xin, nhng s h ny rt t nh trnh by trong bng 6.3. Bng 6.3. cng cho thy nhng bin php chnh thc gim thiu tc hi ca nhng c sc nh bo him v h tr ca chnh ph ch c vai tr rt khim tn. Nhng khon vay ngn hng ch lm gim 7,2% tt c mt mt, trong khi h tr ca chnh ph/NGO ch gip gim 1,2%. Ch c 2,9% ri ro c x l bng bo him chnh thc. Bo him chnh thc trang tri trong cc trng hp cht, m au, thin tai. S tho lun v bc tranh v bo him chnh thc mc 6.2 gii thch nhng hn ch ca n. X l sc khng chnh thc ng vai t kh ln. iu ging vi nhng pht hin ca mt s nghin cu kinh t lng cc nc ang pht trin. Nhng nghin cu pht hin rng cc mi quan h x hi ph bin rt quan trng i vi cc c ch cung cp bo him phi chnh thc (Coate v Ravallion, 1993; Townsend, 1994).22 Cuc iu tra ny cho thy h tr v vay mn bn b/ngi thn gip gim 18,5% s thit hi. T l ny cao hn nhiu i vi nhm ngho, 28,6%. Anh ch em v tr em l ngi thn thng gip nhau trong cc trng hp b sc. S phn tch chi tit hn v vn x hi mc 6.3. Bng 6.3: Cc bin php x l ri ro
Cc bin php T lc Bn t Bn cc ti sn khc Hon u t Hon tr n Tm vic lm mi Gim thnh vin trong h Con ci ngh hc Con ci i lm i n xin Gim tiu dng Khng lm g Chung 67.8 1.1 13.4 3.3 1.3 2.8 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.5 22.5 22.4 Khng ngho 72.3 0.7 14.3 3.1 1.2 2.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.8 25.1 24.5 Ngho 57.8 2.0 12.0 4.0 1.5 4.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.7 19.1 S lng quan st 783 13 155 39 15 33 3 0 1 6 260 259
22
Coate v Ravallion, 1993; Townsend, 1994.
94
Phi chnh thc bn b/ngi thn gip Vay bn b/ngi thn Chnh thc Vay ngn hng H tr ca chnh ph/NGO Vay ngun khc Tr bo him Cng
18.2 12.3 5.88 14.0 7.25 1.17 2.71 2.89 100
13.3 7.7 5.7 14.4 7.2 1.1 2.4 3.7 100
28.6 22.4 6.2 13.6 7.6 1.4 3.2 1.4 100
210 142 68 161 84 13 31 33 1,154
Mc d ang s dng nhiu bin php x l sc, khong 35,4% h b nh hng khng hon ton phc hi t nhng thit hi ca h. Nhng h ngho gp nhiu kh khn hn trong qu trnh phc hi. Trn 30% ngi ngho vn phi chu ng sc. Bng 6.4 cho bit mc phc hi trong mi quan h vi vn x hi23 v nhng h l thnh vin ca t chc t ra phc hi tt hn24. Bng 6.4: Mc phc hi sau thit hai
Nm trung bnh (*) Chung Tnh H Ty Lo Cai Ph Th Lai Chu in Bin Ngh An Qung Nam Khnh Ha c Lc c Nng 1.5 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.0 74 70 65 64 21 67 66 40 58 8 4 21 19 7 11 16 17 21 14 18 8 13 72 19 12 31 13 4 8 6 4 0 3 6 12 8 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 51 54 52 83 14 129 50 32 76 1.2 Hon ton phc hi 65 Phc hi mt phn 14 Vn cn thit hi 16 Vn cn thit hai nng 5 Chung 100 S lng quan st 699
23 24
Vn x hi y c nh ngha l tham gia thnh vin ca t nht 1 t chc thay v khng l thnh vin ca t chc no. H s tng quan spearman ca chng l -0.1 vi ngha thng k l t 0 n d i 1% Characteristics of the Vietnamese Rural Economy: Evidence from a 2006 Rural Household Survey in 12 Provinces of Vietnam
95
Lm ng Long An
1.2 1.1 1.7
57 81 36
24 7 20
9 12 28
9 0 16
100 100 100
75 58 25
Nhm tiu dng lng thc phm Ngho nht Ngho nh Trung bnh Giu nh Giu nht Ngho nht Khng c bo him (**) Bo him (**) Khng l thnh vin ca t chc no Thnh vin ca 1 t chc 1.0 1.2 51 66 27 13 12 17 10 5 100 100 71 628 1.2 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.3 0.8 0.8 48 58 72 81 69 53.5 58.5 18 15 12 9 13 17.7 17.0 22 25 9 8 16 18.7 17.0 11 1 7 3 2 10.1 7.5 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 187 146 136 126 104 587 241
Ghi ch (*)c trung bnh s nm k t nm b sc lu nht n 2006; (**) Ch p dng cho ba loi bo him, c th l bo bim i sng, sc kho v sc kho khng mt tin cho tr em v mc phc hi thit thi do ngi nh m au hoc cht .
6.2. Bo him chnh thc

Trong mu, 84,5% h phng vn c t nht 1 loi bo him chnh thc. Trong s 12 tnh iu tra cc tnh c t l ny cao nht gm in Bin (97.3%), c Lc (95.7%), Qung Nam (93.0%) v Lo Cai (93.4%). H Ty, Long An v Khnh Ha c t l tht nht, tng ng l 72,5, 76,1, v 78,3%. Thot nhn, nhng con s ny cho thy bc tranh kh quan v kh khc bit vi cc kt qu trnh by mc trc. Tuy nhin, tnh hnh xem ra khc khi phn theo cc loi bo him khc. Trong s 11 loi bo him ch c bo him y t, BHYT cho tr em, bo him phng tin vn ti l c t l cao, tng ng l 54,9, 35,4 v 30,1%. Ch c 16,7 % h c BHXH. Nh li phn ni v cc ri ro trn l rt nhiu h chu thit hi do dch hi cy trng/vt nui, nhng khng c h no c bo him nng nghip. Kt qu ny khng c g ng ngc nhin. S liu thng k chnh thc cho thy ch c 1% trong tng s din tch canh tc/vt nui Vit Nam c bo him.25 Mt quan st khc l cc cng ty bo him khng th cung cp loi bo him ny trong sut giai on
25
Vietnamnet (www.vnn.vn), Bo him nng nghip: Nh nc u?, 08:48' 16/07/2004.
96
1994-98 v 2002, k c cng ty bo him nh nc ln nht Vit Nam l Bo Vit v nhiu l do. Chnh ph cng c gng a ra cc chnh sch bo him nhng n nay vn cha c kt qu. Rt t h c bo him nng dn. Gn y cc tnh Ngh An, Khnh Ho c gng pht trin loi bo him ny. thy kt qu trong iu tra ny. Cc tnh Ngh An v Khnh Ho c t l bo him cao hn cc tnh khc. Tuy vy, t l vn rt thp, ch c khong 5% h iu tra c bo him nng dn hai tnh ny. Kt qu iu tra cho thy nh nc l nh cung cp bo him chnh (Bng 6.5). Ch i vi bo him nhn th mi c s tham gia ca khu vc t nhn trn th trng (nhng cng rt nh, ch chim 8,7% tng s h c bo him). Khu vc nc ngoi ch yu bn sn phm bo him nhn th. Bng 6.5: Cc h mua bo him
Loi bo him C % Nh nc Trong mua ca (%) CTBH trong nc CTBH nc ngoi
Nng nghip Ho hon Nhn th X hi X hi cho nng dn Y t X hi t nguyn Y t v tr em t nguyn Gio dc Phng tin Khc
0.0 0.1 7.0 15.4 1.0 53.3 3.0 36.2 7.2 29.9 3.9
0.0 100.0 71.8 99.7 100.0 99.8 97.1 99.6 97.6 98.9 91.2
0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.9 0.2 0.6 1.0 5.3
0.0 0.0 26.4 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.8 0.1 3.5
Bng 6.6 gii thch thm mt s chi tit v 3 loi bo him ph bin hn khu vc nng thn. Bo him y t, BHXH v BHND. L do xem xt k hn hai loi bo him sau l so snh BHND ( l BHXH cho nng dn) vi BHXH cho ngi lm cng n lng. BHND ban u c thc hin qua mt d n th im v bo him la go 2 huyn Bo Vit vo nm 1982. Nm 1983, d n ny c m rng ra 16 tnh v gn y ngy cng c chnh ph trung ng v mt s chnh quyn a phng ch ti.
97
Trong bng 6.6 c th thy rng phn ln ngi ngho c BHYT (84.7%), trong khi ch c 46.7% ngi khng ngho c loi bo him ny. c th l v BHYT c chnh ph bao cp cho ngi ngho thng qua Qu chm sc sc kho cho ngi ngho. Chnh sch c trin khai t nm 2002 theo quyt nh 139/2002/QG/TTg ca th tng chnh ph. Quyt nh ny quy nh vic thnh lp qu trn cung cp BHYT cho ngi ngho hoc tr cc chi ph khm cha bnh ca ngi ngho cc c s khm cha bnh nh nc. S liu ca chng ti cng ch r (khng bo co) rng BHXH cho cc nhm dn tc thiu s (DTTS), khng phi ngi Kinh, c t l h c hng cao hn so vi BHYT. bng cch bao cp BHYT cho ngi ngho chnh ph a ra mt tn hiu ph hp. Cu hi t ra l chnh sch ny c gip c dn khng v n lm c bao nhiu iu tt p? Kt qu ca iu tra ny cho thy nhiu ngi ngho vn phi chu thit hi do bnh tt/cht chc, nhng vic c c mt nh gi tc ng hon ho i hi phi phn tch su hn. Mt s nghin cu tnh hung a ra l do nghi ng v kha cnh ny.26 C nhng bng chng cho rng chnh ph m bo BHYT ch l trang tri mt phn nh chi tiu cho cc dch v y t ca cc h gia nh. Ngoi ra, cc th tc hnh chnh nhn bo him cn rt phc tp v ngi ngho khng c cc bnh vin i x t t khi h x dng bo him. Cui cng, t bng 6.6. thy r rng l BHXH ch yu do khu vc dn s khng ngho s dng. Bng 6.6: T l ngi c bo him phn theo loi bo him
BHYT BHYT cho tr em BHXH BHXH cho nng dn
Chung
54.9
34.7
2.9
1.7
Khng ngho Ngho Nhm tiu dng LTTP Ngho nht Ngho nh Trung bnh Giu nh Giu nht Khng phi ngi Kinh Ngi Kinh
46.3 84.7
39.3 18.5
3.3 1.7
2.1 0.3
68.9 48.3 52.2 47.4 57.7 83.1 48.8
27.6 35.2 35.1 36.9 38.1 38.6 15.8
1.1 4.2 4.1 2.8 2.4 3.3 1.2
1.8 1.2 2.3 1.4 1.8 2.0 0.4
Xem tnh hung ca tnh Thanh Ha v thc trng cung cp dch v cng cp huyn v x khu vc nng thn CIEM (2006).
26
98
Tnh H Ty Lo Cai Ph Th Lai Chu in Bin Ngh An Qung Nam Khnh Ha c Lc c Nng Lm ng Long An 33.6 74.4 52.0 88.0 92.0 60.0 67.4 25.8 75.5 52.3 44.9 44.8 26.1 18.8 41.6 4.3 20.6 40.0 64.0 54.8 13.2 51.0 36.4 35.2 4.8 0.0 4.6 0.9 0.9 4.0 2.6 3.8 0.0 2.7 2.8 0.8 0.0 1.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 5.1 2.7 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bc tranh chung phn nh rng cn pht trin bo him cc vng nng thn, mong mun t BHYT ch yu do nh nc h tr. Cn lu l ngay c cc nhm khng b hn ch bi thu nhp thp (v d nh nhm tiu dng th nm) hoc nhn thc thp (v d, ch h tt nghip cao ng, i hc) c t l tham gia bo him thp. iu c th phn nh qua vic xem xt cc l do khng c bor him trong bng 6.7. a s nhng ngi tr li ni rng h khng cn bo him v v th khng tham gia. Nhn nh ph hp vi tt c cc loi bo him. Ngay c 50% h b thit hi do bin ng gi nng sn, mt ma hoc dch bnh vt nui trong 5 nm qua cng ni l h khng cn BHNN. L do th hai c nu ra l thiu thng tin. Ngoi ra, nhiu ngi khng hiu bo him l ci g. i vi ngi ngho th thiu tin cng l l do thng c nu. Bng 6.7: L do khng tham gia bo him phn theo loi bo him
Khng cn 47.33 50.91 47.17 53.98 53.17 65.01 Khng hiu 29.61 27.01 15.19 16.51 26.33 6.95 Qu t 10.12 7.45 28.95 15.11 10.64 19.44 Khng tin 0.45 0.4 1.34 0.13 0.49 2.66 Khng thng tin 11.99 13.9 6.77 7.81 8.63 4.43 Khng c BH 0.28 0.21 0.2 0.75 0.38 0.41 S quan st 1,473 1,469 1,344 1,227 1,447 664
Cc loi bo him Nng nghip Ho hon Nhn th X hi X hi cho nng dn Y t
Khc 0.23 0.12 0.39 5.7 0.36 1.1
Chung 100 100 100 100 100 100
99
X hi t nguyn Y t v tr em t nguyn Gio dc Phng tin Khc Cng
55.19 75.37 65.1 76.85 72.28 58.4
22.3 7.5 16.5 5.34 8.65 8.3
14.53 8.19 10.92 10.43 9.76 13.2
0.83 0.11 0.16 0.11 0 0.6
6.5 5.89 6.63 5.94 8.52 18.2
0.27 0.47 0.31 0.27 0.18 0.3
0.39 2.46 0.38 1.06 0.62 1
100 100 100 100 100 100
1,428 964 1,317 1,019 831 13,183
hiu c vic cm gic cn bo him c lin quan vi nhn thc thp hoc t quan l ri ro cao, bng 6.8 gp li cho thy nhng l do khc nhau theo nhm tiu dng thc phm v trnh hc vn i vi BHYT v BHXH. Hai loi bo him ny c chn l bi v chng c p dng cho mi ngi bt k h lm ngh g. ng ch l t l ngi ni h khng cn bo him i vi nhm ngho v khng ngho nh nhau, bt k trnh chuyn mn ngh nghip ca ch h nh th no. Theo bng ny cng cho thy xu th l nhng ngi kho mnh v c hc vn cao cng khng ngh l h cn bo him. iu khng th gii thch bng s hiu bit hn ch v bo him nh cc nghin cu khc nu. Mt gii thch na l nhiu ngi cm thy thoi mi v quen da vo cc bin php t quan l/x l ri ro nh bn trn. im ny dn n mt quan im chung l khng cn bo him chnh thc. iu cng c th l do cc CTBH cung cp qu t dch v v th qu bt tin cho ngi dn s dng. Thc t r rng hn i vi BHYT so vi BHXH, v vy t l ngi ni rng h khng tin tng vo bo him. Cn c nghin cu tip v nhng vn ny. Bng 6.8: Nhng nguyn nhn khng tham gia bo him theo nhm thu nhp v gio dc
Khng cn Nhm tiu dng thc phm Ngho nht Ngho nh Trung bnh Giu nh Giu nht Trnh chuyn mn ca ch h 42.5 55.7 62.5 63.0 66.7 9.5 8.5 6.8 4.7 3.1 22.9 19.9 13.5 14.5 11.1 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.5 1.7 21.7 11.6 11.2 9.4 12.6 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.0 0.9 2.7 2.5 5.2 6.0 3.9 100 100 100 100 100 Khng hiu Qu t Khng tin Khng thng tin Khng c BH Khc Chung
100
Khng gio dc chuyn nghip ao to ngh < 12m o to ngh 12m Trung cp chuyn nghip Cao ng/i hc Trn i hc
57.6 57.9 61.4 62.0 100.0 57.6
7.0 2.9 2.1 17.9 0.0 7.0
17.5 9.6 19.2 7.5 0.0 17.5
0.9 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9
13.3 13.7 8.6 12.6 0.0 13.3
0.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7
3.1 12.4 8.8 0.0 0.0 3.1
100 100 100 100 100 100
6.3. Vn x hi
C th pht trin vn x hi qua vic tham gia vo mt t chc chnh thc hoc trao i v hp tc vi nhng ngi khc trong x hi. Mc ny s xem xt c hai kha cnh ca vn x hi vng nng thn Vit Nam da trn kt qu iu tra. Quan im rng ri cho rng nn thc y vic hnh thnh vn x hi nh l mt yu t ch yu ca cc chin lc nh hng vo gim ngho. V vy, nng cao vai tr ca vn x hi v t c c nhng ng gp ca n vo gim ngho cn c tip tc nghin cu.27 Thot nhn, bng 6.9 cho rng vn x hi c tc ng tch cc trong vic huy ng h tr. Khong 88% h iu tra tham gia t nht vo mt t chc v 2 t chc m ph bin nht l Hi ph n v Hi nng dn. Tng ng 69,8 v 50,6% h c t nht mt thnh vin tham gia cc hi ny. Cc t chc khc cng thu ht cc thnh vin nht nh ca h nh ng cng sn, on thanh nin, hi cu chin binh. Kha cnh th hai ca vn x hi l mc tch cc. Trn 80% thnh vin ca mt t chc tch cc. Mt kt qu r rt na v vn x hi l mi ngi c li khi tham gia thnh vin cc t chc, v d nh c h tr v nhn c cc k nng mi. Lng v cht ca cc k nng mi khc nhau gia cc t chc. Cc kt qu cho thy cc thnh vin cng tham gia cc t chc, hip hi lu th kh nng h nhn c h tr cng ln t cc t chc .28 Cui cng, r rng l ch c 0.6% h tham gia cc t chc hp tc dng nc. L do c th l khng phi nhiu vng nng thn Vit Nam c cc t chc hp tc dng nc c chuyn mn ho. M, ph bin hn l cc nhm h c chung cc dch v nng nghip cung cp cho h nhiu loi dch v hn. Thm vo , khng nht thit phi tham gia hp tc x mi c c dch v thu nng.
27
Mi quan tm cn c y l t liu v vn x hi da trn s tham gia t nguyn, khng ch y m trong mi hon cnh. 28 H s tng quan Spearman ca n l 0.07 (c ngha thng k t 0 n di 5%). Characteristics of the Vietnamese Rural Economy: Evidence from a 2006 Rural Household Survey in 12 Provinces of Vietnam
101
Bng 6.9: Vn x hi - t l h tr li c
L thnh vin T chc/hip hi? ng Cng sn on thanh nin Hi ph n Hi nng dn Hi cu chin binh Nhm tn gio T tit kim/vay vn phi chnh thc HTX dng nc Mt trn T quc Ban lng ging T/Cu lc b h tr Nhm tng h L thnh vin? 11.3 30.0 69.8 50.6 16.2 4.9 4.8 0.6 11.6 3.0 0.5 1.7 tch cc? 96.1 82.7 81.5 83.9 89.7 96.4 97.7 87.8 88.6 91.6 100.0 90.3 Nhn c k nng mi? 58.2 30.6 65.9 73.5 62.4 43.9 41.2 60.0 29.8 45.6 61.4 1.1 Nhn c h tr? 100.0 97.7 94.6 97.2 97.2 100.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Ngoi vic tham gia vo cc t chc chnh tr v x hi chnh thc nu trn, cc quan h x hi gia mi ngi cc vng nng thn dng nh c tp trung bi s tin tng kh cao vo cng ng. Bng 6.10 cho thy 84,2% h mong i mi ngi trung thc v c th c mi ngi tin cy. C ti 91,4% h c nh gi tng t v mi ngi trong x ca h. R rng l c nhiu h ni rng h sn sng gip nhng ngi khc, c v ti chnh (73.8%) v phi ti chnh (79.2%). iu c th gii thch bi s lng ln cc h c bn b/hng xm gip khi h gp ri ro nh trnh by trong mc 6.1. Hn na, chng mc no , cuc iu tra cng ghi nhn c s hp tc gia cc h vi nhau trong SXNN. Mc hp tc gia cc h (khng c bo co) khc nhau, nhng nhiu h sn sng chia s kinh nghim SXNN vi lng ging ca h nu h l nhng nng dn gii. Tuy vy, ch t h (14,6%) thch lm nng nghip chung vi cc h khc nu h c giao 5 ha t thay v 1 ha. R rng l h nng dn vn b nh hng bi phng thc v kinh nghim sn xut trc y v truyn thng, c th l c thi k SXNN tp th phc tp na.
102
Bng 6.10: Nim tin vo cng ng

ng Phn ln mi ngi u trung thc v c th tin cy V c bn phn ln mi ngi trong x u trung thc v c th tin cy Ngi trong x ng tin cy hn nhng ngi cc x khc Cn thn trng trong x ny c ngi khng ng tin cy Nhng ngi khc trong x sn sng gip ti nhng vic phi kinh t nh nu c vo cc ngy l, xy chung ln, v.v. Ti c th cho nhng ngi khc trong x vay tin nu h cn. Nu bn mt mt ci g gi tr, nhng ngi khc trong x tm c s tr li cho bn 54 18 28 100 79 74 10 15 10 11 100 100 91 63 50 7 19 38 2 18 12 100 100 100 84 Khng ng 10 Khng bit 6 Chung 100
Cn phn tch su hn mc hp tc gia cc h trong SXNN v tc ng ca n i vi nmg sut ca cc h cha c cp y.
6.4. Cc kt lun v ngha

Kt qu iu tra cho thy t l ln cc h tri qua cc c sc trong 5 nm qua. Nhng thit hi ch yu l do thin tai, bnh tt/m au ca cc thnh vin trong gia nh v dch hi vt nui, cy trng. Dng nh ngi ngho d b tn thng hn do nhng ri ro. Trong khi cc bin php chnh thc x l ri ro cn hn ch nht l bo him nng nghip. Cc h phc hi sau cc sc ch yu da vo chnh mnh v nhiu h phi chu thit hi hng nm tri sau khi b nh hng, nht l cc h ngho. Cn c s can thip ca Chnh ph bi v cn kh khn trong vic pht trin bo him khi cc h cn thiu cc ngun lc v trnh nhn thc v cc h thng bo him cn hn ch. Cn c cc hot ng song hnh thc y h thng bo him ca khu vc t nhn. Cn lu n nhng im khc nhau gia h thng bo him chnh thc v PCT. Dng nh hin bo him t nhn c vai tr quan trng hn trong vic x l hu qu cc c sc i vi ngi ngho. Cn phn tch su hn nhng l do ch yu v vic vn x hi c gip cc h nng cao nng sut hay khng m y cha lm c.
103
7. TIP CN THNG TIN

7.1. Tip cn cc ngun thng tin chung
Cc h c tip cn vi nhiu ngun thng tin khc nhau. iu tra ny kho st 7 ngun thng tin, t nhng ngun thng tin truyn thng (cc t chc x hi, bn b/ngi thn v hng xm) n cc ngun thng tin hin i (nh bo ch v Internet). Cc ngun thng tin c cc vai tr rt khc nhau. Bng 7.1 cho thy tm quan trng ca cc loi thng tin khc nhau i vi h. Cc chnh quyn a phng (CQF), nh trng thn v UBND x l ngun thng tin quan trng nht i vi 3 lnh vc l thay i chnh sch, SXNN v tn dng v bo him. Tuy nhin, nhng ngun khc cng quan trng. Bng 7.1: Nhng ngun thng tin chnh ca h
SXNN 1. Chnh quyn a phng (trng thn, UBND x) 2. T chc chnh tr x hi 3. Bn b, hng xm, gia nh 4. Bo ch, thng tin i chng 5. Nh cung cp u vo, t thng 6. Khuyn nng 7. Cng ty bo him, t chc ti chnh 80 49 75 62 51 59 24 Tn dng v bo him 75 52 55 43 19 16 57 Thay i chnh sch 90 66 45 70 10 16 20
Mc d cc ngun thng tin truyn thng t ra vn quan trng hn, cc ngun thng tin hin i nh bo ch v Internet cng c tm quan trng v s tr nn quan trng hn vi nhiu thng tin hn v tip cn tt hn trong tng lai. 7.1.1. Tip cn bo ch Tip cn bo ch x ch yu di 2 hnh thc. Mt l bo ch c cung cp nh k cho cc c quan cc x (trung bnh c t 5-10 loi bo). Cc loi bo ny ch yu c cung cp cho cc lnh o ca UBND x v trng thn. Th hai l bo ch cung cp qua nh vn ho v bu in. Loi ny nhiu ngi dn c c. T l h c bo hng ngy l khong 7,2% v gm cc h khng ngho v cn b x. T l h c bo 1 hoc 2 ln/tun l 9,5%. T l cn li 67% cha bao gi c bo. T l ny rt cao cc tnh min ni nh Lo Cai (86,9%), in Bin (91.2%) v Lai Chu (86.1%) (Biu 7.1, 7.2 v bng A1).
104
Hnh 7.1: T l h c bo
7.2% 9.5%
Hng ngy 1-2 ln/tun
17.6% 65.7%
Vi ln/thng Hu nh khng
Hnh 7.2: T l h c bo hng ngy phn theo nhm tiu dng 25.0 20.7 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0
Ngho nht Ngho Trung bnh Giu Giu nht
4.9 2.0 2.5
6.0
7.2. Tip cn internet

Trong s 1462 h iu tra c 72.9% cha bit n internet. T l ny cn cao hn i vi cc tnh min ni nh in Bin (97.4%), Lai Chu (94.7%), Long An (95.0%) v Lm ng (86.0%). Khong 10% h bit internet, nhng khng tip cn s dng. S cn li chim 17% c cc thnh vin trong gia nh bit v c s dng internet (Hnh 7.3, Bng A2). Chnh lch gia nhm ngho v giu nht rt ln. Ch c 5% h ngho nht c s dng internet so vi 32,3% ca nhm giu nht. Ngoi ra, nhiu ngi ngho khng bit internet l ci g (87,6%). Cc h tip cn internet ch yu qua ca hng internet (88,9%). Rt t h c th mua my vi tnh v tip cn internet ti nh mnh (Hnh 7.4, Bng A2).
105
Hnh 7.3: S dng internet ca h 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
88.9
9.9 1.2
Ti nh Ti ni lm vic Qun Internet
Hnh 7.4: Tip cn cc im internet
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
72.9
10.2
Khng bit v internet Bit nhng khng truy cp
16.9
Bit, c truy cp
7.3. Cc ngun thng tin phc v sn xut nng nghip

7.3.1. Cc ngun thng tin chnh phc v sn xut nng nghip Sn xut nng nghip l mt trong 7 lnh vc ch yu ca iu tra ny. Bn lnh vc m cc h nhn c h tr nhiu nht hoc thng tin ph hp nht dch bnh trong chn nui (80%), dch hi (79%), ging mi (69%) v s dng phn bn (68 %). i vi 3 lnh vc cn li l thu nng, thng tin th trng v tn dng th cc t l h nhn c h tr cng khc cao (Bng 7.2).
106
Bng 7.2: T l h nhn c s h tr trong trong vng 12 thng trc khi phng vn (%)
Ngun thng tin % h c h tr T khuyn nng T ngi cung cp v ngi mua hng Bn b/ngi thn CQF v TCXH-on th Thng tin i chng Khc Tng cng Ging mi 69 42 5 18 18 4 13 100 S dng phn 68 34 17 19 15 2 14 100 Thu nng 61 23 3 13 43 3 15 100 Dch hi 79 23 1 13 37 14 12 100 Dch bnh vt nui 80 19 0 10 35 24 12 100 Thng tin th trng 63 7 7 25 10 36 14 100 Tip cn tn dng 55 16 3 22 27 16 16 100
Lu : m th cng cho thy trong trng hp ngi tr li ni n trn mt ngun thng tin v mt vn th ngun cao nht c chn. iu gy ra s thin lch i vi khuyn nng.
Bng 7.2 cng cho thy 5 ngun thng tin c s dng 7 lnh vc SXNN. Cc t chc khuyn nng ng vai tr quan trng trong vic m bo s h tr, cung cp thng tin cc lnh vc nh ht ging v s dng phn bn. Cc CQF v cc t chc x hi l nhng c quan h tr v cung cp thng tin quan trng hn i vi cc vn phng chng dch hi, dch bnh vt nui, thu nng v tip cn tn dng. Thng tin v th trng ch yu l t cc phng tin thng tin i chng. iu ng lu l vai tr quyt nh ca cc CQF, cc TCXH v h thng quyn nng (bng A3). 7.3.2. Cc hot ng dch v khuyn nng Cc knh cung cp thng tin v khuyn nng c nhiu cp. Hin c Trung tm khuyn nng cp tnh, trm khuyn nng cp huyn v khuyn nng vin (KNV) ti a bn cp x (cp c s). cp x nhm cc khuyn nng vin t cc t chc khc nhau chu trch nhim v cng tc khuyn nng. V d, UBND x, ngi dn cc thn/bn hoc i din ca cc t chc chnh tr v x hi nh Hi LH ph n, Hi nng dn, on thanh nin, HTX v doanh nghip. Cc h thng nhn s h tr hoc thng tin t mng li khuyn nng theo hai cch. Th nht l n im khuyn nng ca x hoc tham gia cc kho tp hun v cc cuc hp do cc t chc khuyn nng t chc. Th hai l cc KNV tip cn cc h truyn t thng tin, h tr, trnh din cc phng php SXNN mi cho h. Kt qu nh gi hai hnh thc ny c trnh by di y. 7.3.3. Cc h n gp t chc khuyn nng: Trung bnh c 1/3 s h iu tra 12 tnh n thm cc t chc khuyn nng. S cuc n thm trung bnh l 2-3 ln trong 1 nm. Bng 7.3 cho thy cc tnh sau y c t l h n thm khuyn nng cao: Qung Nam (47%), in Bin (49%), Ngh An (42%) v Lo Cai (43%). Cc tnh c t l ny thp l c Lc (8.3%), Lai Chu (27%) v Long An (24%).
107
Bng 7.3: Cc hot ng khuyn nng trong trong vng 12 thng trc khi phng vn
H n thm khuyn nng % h n thm khuyn nng Tnh H Ty Lo Cai Ph Th Lai Chu in Bin Ngh An Qung Nam Khnh Ha c Lc c Nng Lm ng Long An Ch h N Nam Nhm tiu dng LTTP Ngho nht Ngho nh Trung bnh Giu nh Giu nht Cng 30.1 37.4 37.6 38.8 24.7 33.7 2.0 2.1 2.0 1.9 2.5 2.1 8.3 8.6 8.0 11.5 7.7 8.8 1.6 1.7 1.9 1.7 2.4 1.8 19.6 37.4 2.3 2.1 4.3 10.0 1.4 1.9 39.2 42.6 27.4 27.1 49.0 42.1 47.3 25.5 8.3 28.3 38.5 24.4 1.4 2.6 3.0 1.9 3.2 1.8 2.5 3.1 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.2 8.8 4.6 3.0 30.3 11.7 13.0 7.1 3.9 4.9 4.8 18.1 6.7 1.6 2.0 3.3 1.1 1.4 1.8 1.6 6.3 1.3 2.5 1.9 2.2 S trung bnh (ln) KNV n thm h % h c KNV n thm S trung bnh (ln)
Nhn chung, cc h c ch h l nam gii n thm cc t chc khuyn nng nhiu ln hn l cc h c ch h l n, tng ng l 37.4 v 19,6%. Khng thy c s khc nhau v s ln thm khi phn theo nhm tiu dng tr nhm giu nht. Trung bnh cc h thuc nhm giu nht n thm khuyn nng nhiu ln hn cc nhm khc (Bng 7.3, Bng A4)..
108
7.3.4. Cc cuc ving thm h ca cc t chc khuyn nng: Trong 12 tnh iu tra, trung bnh c 8,8% h c khuyn nng n tn nh, trung bnh 2 ln/nm (Bng 7.3). T l h c khuyn nng n nh rt khc nhau gia cc tnh. Cc tnh c t l cao l Lai Chu (30.3%), Lm ng (18,1%) v Ngh An (13%). Cc tnh khc nh Khnh Ho (3,9%) v Ph Th (3%) c cc t l h m KNV n thm thp hn. 7.3.5. nh gi ca h v cc hot ng khuyn nng Hnh 7.5 cho thy cc quyt nh ca cc h c t chc khuyn nng n thm v cc h n thm t chc khuyn nng chu nh hng nh th no. Khong 1/4 h ni rng thng tin ca khuyn nng c nh hung ln n cc quyt nh ca h (nh hng rt ln), khong mt na s h cho rng ch c tc ng va phi. Tuy nhin, mt s cm thy khng c nh hng g. Hnh 7.5: Tc ng ca khuyn nng n quyt nh ca h
60 55 56 51 50
40
36
30
25 19
23 21 13
nh hng nhiu nh hng trung bnh Khng nh hng
20
10
Trng trt
Chn nui
Nui trng thu sn
7.4. Cc ngun thng tin v thay i chnh sch

thc hin iu tra i vi 7 ngun thng tin (Bng 7.1). i vi thng tin v thay i chnh sch th cc h phi nu cc ngun thng tin quan trng nht. Bng 7.4 cho thy c 88% h thy rng cc CQF v cc t chc chnh tr x hi l ngun quan trng nht; 65% h ni thng tin t cc t chc chnh tr x hi l quan trng nht v tip theo l thng tin i chng (69%). Bn b/ngi thn v hng xm cng l ngun thng tin kh quan trng v nhng thay i trong chnh sch (44%). nh gi ca h v tm quan trng ca cc ngun thng tin khc nhau khng khc nhiu lm gia cc tnh hay cc nhm tiu dng (Bng 7.4, A5).
109
Bng 7.4: Cc ngun thng tin quan trng v thay i chnh sch (%)
T chc chnh CQF Tnh H Ty Lo Cai Ph Th Lai Chu in Bin Ngh An Qung Nam Khnh Ha c Lc c Nng Lm ng Long An Cng (1) 75 97 97 98 81 94 92 79 91 70 91 84 88 tr - x hi (2) 44 69 87 97 54 93 78 20 39 70 61 56 65 Bn b, hng xm (3) 45 2 42 55 30 71 38 22 37 49 37 25 44 Thng tin i chng (4) 51 82 73 67 16 87 69 59 73 61 76 68 69 Ngi cung cp u vo (5) 10 3 10 5 7 12 13 2 8 30 12 9 10 DV khuyn nng (6) 25 6 23 16 22 15 22 3 3 20 13 9 16 CTBH/ TC ti chnh (7) 27 19 14 12 10 27 25 0 2 19 24 20 19
7.5. Trnh hiu bit ca h v Lut t ai 2003

Lut t ai c sa i v cng b vo nm 2003 (Lut t ai 2003) thay th cho Lut t ai 1993. y l s thay i chnh sch ln v c ngha nghin cu v trnh hiu bit ca h v s thay i v cc ngun cung cp thng tin lin quan n t ai. Kt qu iu tra c tho lun trn cc kha cnh sau: 7.5.1. Cc hot ng trin khai tuyn truyn v Lut t ai 2003 93% cc x trong 12 tnh iu tra t chc hp tuyn truyn v Lut t ai 2003 v 89,1% x t chc cc hot ng khc cung cp thng tin v Lut t ai. Ti cc tnh Ph Th, Khnh Ha, Lm ng, H Ty v Qung Nam c hu ht cc x (chim t 95,2%-100%) t chc hp v cc hat ng tuyn truyn khc, trong khi cc tnh khc cha lm tt cng tc ny. Ti Lai Chu, ch c 37,9% x c hat ng tuyn truyn Lut t ai v ti in Bin con s ny l 53,6% (xem bng 7.5).
110
Bng 7.5: X t chc cc hot ng tuyn truyn v Lut t ai 2003

Hp ph bin S x H Ty Lo Cai Ph Th Lai Chu in Bin Ngh An Qung Nam Khnh Ha k Lk k Nng Lm ng Long An Tng 61 20 40 29 21 63 41 27 35 28 24 37 426 T l (%) 89.7 100.0 90.9 100.0 75.0 92.7 97.6 100.0 94.6 96.6 100.0 88.1 93.0 Hot ng ph bin khc S x 66 18 44 11 15 62 40 27 33 27 24 41 408 T l (%) 97.1 90.0 100.0 37.9 53.6 91.2 95.2 100.0 89.2 93.1 100.0 97.6 89.1
7.5.2. S h gia nh c bit v Lut t ai 2003 Phn trc cho thy phn ln cc x u t chc hp hoc cc hot ng khc tuyn truyn v Lut t ai 2003. Nhng iu ni bt y l ch c mt s rt t h gia nh thc s bit v lut mi. Kt qu iu tra cho thy ch c 18% h gia nh c nghe ni v Lut mi, iu c ngha l c ti 82% s h gia nh khng bit v s thay i chnh sch ny. Mc du 3 nm (t 2003 n 206) m mi ch c t l nh h gia nh bit thng tin v Lut mi. Ngoi ra, nhm cung cp thng tin cng hiu bit hn ch v Lut mi, dn n kt qu l ch c 8,8% s h gia nh c hiu bit tng i trong khi ti 86,3% s h gia nh bit rt t hoc khng bit v nhng quy nh ca Lut mi. Tnh trng ny cng din ra tng t ti cp tnh, hu ht cc x u c hot ng tuyn truyn ph bin Lut. V d, ti Lo Cai, tt c cc x u t chc cuc hp ph bin v c ti 90% x t chc cc hat ng tuyn truyn khc, nhng kt qu l trong tnh ny ch c 7% s h c nghe v Lut mi. Mt v d khc l Ph Th, ni c ti 90,9% s x t chc hp ph bin v tt c cc x u t chc cc hat ng tuyn truyn khc, nhng kt qu ch c 8% s h c nghe v Lut mi. Nu nhn theo gc v gii i vi tuyn truyn ph bin Lut, ch h l nam c thng tin tt hn so vi ch h l n. Bng 7.6 cho thy c 20% h gia nh c ch h l nam gii c bit v Lut mi trong khi con s ny i vi ch h l n gii l 10%. Nu xem xt trn gc theo nhm chi tiu LTTP, hai nhm giu nht c hiu bit v lut mi tt hn so vi hai nhm ngho. Bng 7.6 cho thy r mc khc bit v tip cn thng tin, ch c 8% s h thuc nhm ngho nht c bit v lut trong khi ti nhm giu nht c ti 27% s h c bit v lut mi.
111
Bng 7.6: Hiu bit v Lut t ai 2003 (phn trm)

% s h bit v Lut Tnh H Ty Lo Cai Ph Th Lai Chu in Bin Ngh An Qung Nam Khnh Ha k Lk k Nng Lm ng Long An Ch h gia nh N Nam Nhm tiu dng LTTP Ngho nht Ngho nh Trung bnh Giu nh Giu nht Tng 8.2 10.8 20.4 23.6 26.9 18.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 8.8 6.7 5.0 74.2 75.0 57.1 50.9 45.3 56.3 25.8 21.4 30.6 33.3 32.0 30.0 0.0 3.6 8.2 7.0 16.0 8.8 10.4 20.0 7.4 4.7 40.7 58.2 40.7 28.6 11.1 8.5 21.4 7.1 8.3 20.6 2.7 20.2 22.9 33.5 15.5 11.1 15.8 17.6 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.5 19.2 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.0 50.0 72.7 91.7 33.3 59.0 30.8 19.2 50.0 41.7 80.0 61.9 30.0 16.7 9.1 8.3 66.7 41.0 34.6 46.2 22.7 50.0 10.0 23.8 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.1 15.4 18.2 8.3 10.0 14.3 Mc hiu bit v Lut Khng bit Rt t Mt s Tng i
7.5.3. Trnh hiu bit ca h v Lut t ai 2003 Theo kt qu trn, 18% mu iu tra c nghe v Lut. Tuy nhin, iu cha ni g v s ng n ca thng tin. o c mc thng tin hi h 2 cu hi. Mt l (d) Theo Lut t ai 2003 th tn ca c chng v v c c ghi cng trong s khng? V hai l (kh hn) Theo Lut t ai 2003, hn in giao t cy hng nm cho mt h l bao nhiu ha?". Trong s h c hiu bit t, mt cht hoc nhiu v Lut t ai th 2/3 c cu tr li ng i vi cu hi d (Bng A6). Cu hi kh hn cho thy trnh hiu bit trn thc t l kh thp. Khong 85% khng bit, trong khi s cn li cho rng h bit cu tr li. Trong s nhng h ny ch c 1/3 s h c cu tr li ng (Bng A7). Tng cng ch c rt t s h iu tra c hiu bit tt v thay i chnh sch.
112
7.6. Kt lun
Cc h iu tra tip cn thng tin c cc ngun truyn thng v hin i. Tuy nhin, quan trng nht vn l cc ngun truyn thng, trong khi vai tr ca cc ngun thng tin hin i t quan trng hn. iu c bit quan trng i vi SXNN, trong cc h c thng ch yu t cc ngun truyn thng, bao gm t CQF, cc t chc chnh tr, x hi v khuyn nng. Cc ngun ny cung cp thng tin v nhin lnh vc. S dng dch v t cc t chc khuyn nng ca h vn cn t v cc t chc ny vn cha t ra l c thi gian n vi cc h. Nhiu h tip xc vi khuyn nng v p dng thng tin mi m h nhn c. Tuy nhin, ch c mt t l nh cho rng thng tin c tc ng rt ln n cc quyt nh ca h. Tip cn ca h vi thng tin v thay i chnh sch ch yu l t cc CQF, cc t chc chnh tr x hi v thng tin i chng. Mc chia s thng tin gia cc h c thng tin rt thp. V d Lut t ai, ch c 18% c thng tin v lut sau 3 nm v ch c mt s rt t bit v ni dung thay i. y l kt qu thp n ngc nhin v rt nhiu x cc tnh t chc cc cuc hp v hot ng khc thng tin cho cc h. Khng ngc nhin g l t l cc h c thng tin m ch h l nam cao hn t l h c ch h l n. Hn na, cc h giu v giu nht c c nhiu thng tin v thng tin tt hn, cp nht hn so vi cc h ngho nht v ngho. V c nhiu ngun v hot ng thng tin c thc hin thng bo ti h, mc thng tin v t l cc h c thng tin chnh xc t ra qu thp v vy cn c nghin cu tip v thng tin.
8. KT LUN
Nhm tc gi c gng a ra kt lun c th cho tng vn ti cui mi chng. Do phn ny s ch tm tt li v a ra mt s bi hc chung nht rt ra t bo co. Th nht, s liu iu tra VARHS06 phn nh r t l i ngho ti cc tnh min Bc v Ty Nguyn cao hn so vi cc tnh pha Nam, nhm ngi dn tc thiu s c t l i ngho cao hn so vi ngi Kinh, nhm h do ph n lm ch h c t l i ngho cao hn so vi nhm h do nam gii lm ch h theo nh gi ca chnh quyn a phng, nhng nhm n gii ch h li khng phi l nhm ngho hn v lng thc thc phm. C s tng quan ln gia tnh trng i ngho v s ph thuc vo ci lm cht t cho nu n; cc tnh pha Bc c t l tip cn nc sch cao hn so vi cc tnh pha Nam.
113
Th hai, bnh qun mi h c 4 ngi trong c 3 ngi hot ng to ra thu nhp. H dnh phn ln thi gian cho sn xut nng nghip, ngoi ra cn tham gia vo lm cng, phi nng nghip v cc hot ng khc. Nhm c thu nhp cng cao cng a dng ho cc hot ng kinh t v thu nhp t nng nghip tnh theo s dng thi gian gim i tng i, iu c ngha l vic chuyn dch c cu kinh t nng thn ang l thch thc i vi nh hoch nh chnh sch. Th ba, mt s tnh v c bn hon thnh vic cp Giy chng nhn quyn s dng t, nhng mt s tnh tc cp giy cn rt chm. nh hng ca Lut t ai v vic quy nh ghi tn v v tn chng trong Giy chng nhn quyn s dng t cha ln mc du Lut i vo thc hin c 3 nm. Trong s iu tra, ch 9% s mnh c c s ghi tn c v v tn chng, nhng ti mt s tnh con s ny hu nh cha c. Hn na vic c cp Giy chng nhn quyn s dng t khng gip nhiu cho vic chuyn i hoc an ton ca mnh t. H giu c nh hng th trng tt hn v c mnh t ln hn v dng nh t b cn tr hn i vi mnh t s dng. Ni chung, cn tr trong s dng t l ln. Bo co cng phn tch s khc nhau v giu ngho v vn gii trong mt s ni dung nghin cu, v d nh vn v quy m t ai, h c n gii lm ch h c quy m t canh tc ch bng 50% so vi h do nam gii lm ch h. H do n gii lm ch h gp nhiu cn tr hn v c mc u t thp hn. S liu thng k cn cho thy s bt bnh ng trong tip cn t ai, cp giy chng nhn quyn s dng t cho h ngho. Nguy c b gt ra ngoi l ca ngi ngho l ch cn c nghin cu su thm. Th t, h c tng i nhiu hot ng mua bn cc u vo cho sn xut nh phn bn, thuc tr su trong t thng ng vai tr nng ng trong dch v ny. Cc kh khn v c s h tng v vn chuyn ang l vn ln i vi cc h ngho. Bo co cn ch ra c s tng quan thun chiu gia i ngho v mc xa xi, do nng cp h thng c s h tng s mang li nh hng tch cc cho XGN. Th nm, khu vc nng thn, th trng tn dng chnh thc do hai ngn hng ln iu tit cn khu vc tn dng phi chnh thc gm ngi cho vay, t thng, bn b, ngi thn. C s khc bit ln v li sut vay ca hai ngn hng thuc khu vc chnh thc v li sut cc mn vay t khu vc phi chnh thc. Mn vay t khu vc tn dng phi chnh thc thng c s dng trang tri cho tiu dng chung trong khi mn vay t khu vc tn dung chnh thc thng c dng u t cho sn xut. C ti 1/4 s vn u t cho sn xut l vay t bn b, ngi thn. Trong s 40% h ngho nht ch c 10% t nh gi khng thiu vn. iu ny gi rng, th ch tn dng hin ti chnh thc v phi chnh thc c s khc bit gia cc tnh. S khc nhau kh ln v mc hot ng tn dng gia cc tnh min Bc v min Nam. Th su, c t l ng k h gia nh phi chu ri ro trong 5 nm qua. Tn tht ch yu do thin tai, ngi trong gia nh au m/cht, dch bnh gia sc, mt ma. Ngi ngho b tn thng
114
nhiu hn khi gp ri ro, trong khi cc bin php chnh thc gip khi ri ro li rt hn ch, nht l trong trng hp bo him nng nghip. C s khc nhau ln gia h thng bo him chnh thc v bo him phi chnh thc, trong bo him phi chnh thc ng vai tr quan trng i vi ngi ngho. Th by, h nng thn nhn thng tin t nhiu ngun khc nhau nhng chnh quyn a phng v cc c quan on th ng vai tr quan trng trong cung cp thng tin nht l thng tin v nhng thay i chnh sch quan trng. Hot ng ca khuyn nng kh yu nhng nhiu h nng dn c lin h vi c quan khuyn nng thc hin ng dng tin b k thut vo sn xut. C s khc bit trong ph bin thng tin, v d i vi Lut t ai mc du sau 3 nm i vo thc hin nhng ch c 18% c nghe v Lut. Khng ngc nhin khi thy rng bt cng bng v tnh trng i ngho c phn nh thng qua bt cng bng trong tip cn thng tin, v th c nhiu l do tip tc nghin cu su hn cc cng c truyn b thng tin ti ngi ngho. Cui cng, bo co ny tp trung vo cung cp cc thng tin, bng biu, th m t bc tranh mi nht v c im kinh t nng thn Vit Nam t cc bng chng ca iu tra VARHS06. Bo co cng nu ra vn xut kin ngh chnh sch c th th cn phi c cc phn tch su hn v cc mi quan h v cc vn c nu trong bo co ny. V th, hy vng rng nhng phn tch trong bo co ny s khi u cho nhng nghin cu su hn h tr cho chuyn i ca khu vc nng thn Vit Nam trong qu trnh tng trng v pht trin chung ca ton nn kinh t./.
115
Ph lc bng biu
Bng A1: T l h c bo (phn trm)
Hng ngy Tnh H Ty Lo Cai Ph Th Lai Chu in Bin Ngh An Qung Nam Khnh Ha k Lk k Nng Lm ng Long An Tng Theo gii tnh N Nam Nhm chi tiu LTTP Ngho nht Ngho nh Trung bnh Giu nh Giu nht 2.0 2.5 4.9 6.0 20.7 5.2 6.6 6.1 11.7 17.7 13.2 17.2 15.2 23.5 18.2 79.7 73.7 73.9 58.8 43.4 10.6 6.3 7.5 10.0 13.0 18.8 69.0 64.8 5.9 3.5 3.8 1.8 1.8 5.2 11.4 12.8 11.0 7.3 1.4 14.4 7.2 10.8 2.5 9.2 4.4 1.8 8.2 12.3 5.1 13.0 13.8 6.2 12.5 9.5 22.9 7.1 12.2 7.7 5.3 24.0 17.5 12.7 11.0 10.2 23.1 17.6 17.6 60.4 86.9 74.9 86.1 91.2 62.6 58.8 69.5 65.0 68.7 69.3 55.5 65.7 Mt-hai ln/tun Mt s ln trong thng Hu nh khng c
116
Bng A2: T l h s dng internet (phn trm)

Khng bit internet l g Tnh H Ty Lo Cai Ph Th Lai Chu in Bin Ngh An Qung Nam Khnh Ha k Lk k Nng Lm ng Long An Theo gii tnh N Nam Nhm tiu dng LTTP Ngho nht Ngho Trung bnh Kh Giu Tng 87.6 78.6 73.6 66.9 58.1 72.9 7.4 9.2 13.2 11.6 9.6 10.2 5.0 12.2 13.2 21.5 32.3 16.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.9 1.2 11.7 2.6 6.7 7.3 15.4 9.9 88.3 97.4 93.3 92.3 81.7 88.9 76.1 72.1 9.1 10.5 14.8 17.5 0.0 1.5 21.9 7.2 78.1 91.4 57.8 79.8 54.6 94.7 97.4 75.0 54.5 82.2 83.2 78.9 86.0 95.0 15.7 10.0 36.2 3.5 0.0 5.3 9.6 0.0 5.5 0.0 9.8 1.7 26.4 10.1 9.2 1.8 2.6 19.7 35.9 17.8 11.3 21.1 4.2 3.3 0.0 0.0 8.6 52.4 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 10.0 21.7 16.7 47.6 0.0 2.6 0.0 49.9 15.0 5.0 0.0 50.5 90.0 78.3 74.6 0.0 100.0 97.4 97.6 50.1 85.0 86.4 100.0 49.5 Bit nhng khng s dng Bit, c s dng internet Ti nh Ni lm vic Qun internet Ni truy cp internet
117
Bng A3: Ngun thng tin quan trng cho sn xut nng nghip (phn trm)
Chnh quyn a phng (1) Tnh H Ty Lo Cai Ph Th Lai Chu in Bin Ngh An Qung Nam Khnh Ha k Lk k Nng Lm ng Long An Gii tnh N Nam Nhm tiu dng LTTP Ngho nht Ngho Trung bnh Kh Giu Tng 81.5 87.7 85.8 80.8 64.4 81.2 52.7 57.9 53.3 41.6 37.2 51.2 79.3 83.8 79.4 74.7 58.5 72.4 60.8 66.7 65.9 58.5 54.6 59.1 48.5 55.6 57.3 56.7 35.8 51.8 53.6 66.7 69.3 62.2 43.4 59.2 23.8 33.2 23.8 19.9 18.8 23.1 69.3 82.8 36.0 51.9 65.3 77.6 51.5 63.8 36.8 54.4 48.9 61.6 17.9 25.4 86.2 96.2 88.3 97.7 88.9 79.4 77.8 46.5 77.9 65.9 92.8 63.8 32.3 68.7 70.6 95.9 60.4 75.9 46.4 7.7 19.8 37.8 48.8 32.8 76.8 45.8 83.6 97.7 46.1 79.4 80.3 42.7 85.3 47.0 87.2 67.3 57.3 32.9 85.8 88.0 20.5 63.9 56.8 39.7 69.0 36.3 88.8 53.5 33.3 78.7 78.4 85.4 18.8 50.5 53.3 10.1 62.7 33.2 84.7 38.1 55.3 70.0 78.1 94.2 49.7 67.4 55.0 26.8 52.5 30.3 75.8 42.2 22.8 19.9 34.3 46.3 12.5 39.4 16.6 3.8 6.8 9.1 49.1 7.5 T chc chnh tr, x hi (2) Bn b, hng xm (3) Bo ch, thng tin i chng (4) Ngi cung cp u vo (5) Khuyn nng (6) Cng ty bo him/t chc ti chnh (7)
118
Bng A4: Dch v khuyn nng 12 thng qua (phn trm)

T l h khng c tham gia Tnh H Ty Lo Cai Ph Th Lai Chu in Bin Ngh An Qung Nam Khnh Ha k Lk k Nng Lm ng Long An Theo gii tnh N Nam Nhm tiu dng LTTP Ngho nht Ngho Trung bnh Kh Giu Tng 69.9 62.7 62.4 61.2 75.3 66.3 30.1 37.4 37.6 38.8 24.7 33.7 34.6 38.2 32.6 37.1 23.4 33.8 42.0 29.2 44.9 47.7 51.2 42.5 10.7 16.1 12.0 5.3 6.6 10.3 10.5 9.8 7.9 6.9 5.8 8.3 2.2 4.2 2.3 0.6 8.7 3.3 0.0 2.6 0.3 2.4 4.3 1.8 80.4 62.6 19.6 37.4 34.0 33.9 42.8 42.4 6.6 10.9 12.4 7.7 1.2 3.5 3.0 1.7 60.8 57.4 72.6 72.9 51.1 57.9 52.7 74.5 91.7 71.7 61.5 75.6 39.2 42.6 27.4 27.1 49.0 42.1 47.3 25.5 8.3 28.3 38.5 24.4 52.1 12.8 14.8 44.6 11.1 40.3 20.7 47.3 41.6 23.7 28.9 13.7 47.9 33.9 35.2 32.7 34.7 46.4 37.7 16.2 42.0 46.5 40.2 55.4 0.0 29.4 14.6 9.6 3.6 7.1 18.9 10.8 0.0 13.3 23.7 20.6 0.0 23.8 17.5 13.1 29.0 3.7 15.2 5.1 8.2 9.9 3.6 10.3 0.0 0.0 8.9 0.0 18.0 1.2 7.5 10.2 0.0 3.3 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 3.6 1.2 0.0 10.5 8.2 3.3 0.0 0.0 T l h c c tham gia 1 2 3 4 5 Trn 5 S ln c khuyn nng
119
Bng A5: Cn b thm h gia nh trong 12 thngqua (phn trm)

Chnh quyn T chc chnh a phng -1 Gii N Nam Nhm tiu dng LTTP Ngho nht Ngho nh Trung bnh Giu nh Giu nht Tng 81.5 87.7 85.8 80.8 64.4 80.0 52.7 57.9 53.3 41.6 37.2 48.5 79.3 83.8 79.4 74.7 58.5 75.1 60.8 66.7 65.9 58.5 54.6 61.3 48.5 55.6 57.3 56.7 35.8 50.8 53.6 66.7 69.3 62.2 43.4 59.0 23.8 33.2 23.8 19.9 18.8 23.9 80.6 89.3 54.8 67.5 37.1 45.3 66.3 69.3 6.8 11.0 12.3 16.5 14.9 20.4 tr x hi -2 Bn b, hng xm -3 Thng tin Ngi cung bo ch -4 Cn b Cty bo him/
cp vt t khuyn nng CT ti chnh -5 -6 -7
120
Bng A6: T l tn v v tn chng ghi trong Giy chng nhn quyn s dng t (%)
Tr li ng Tnh H Ty Lo Cai Ph Th Lai Chu in Bin Ngh An Qung Nam Khnh Ha k Lk k Nng Lm ng Long An Gii N Nam Nhm tiu dng LTTP Ngho nht Ngho nh Trung bnh Giu nh Giu nht Tng 71.0 76.1 64.2 64.9 64.9 66.7 52.8 68.6 35.0 84.4 100.0 100.0 66.7 91.9 78.5 81.2 29.8 91.8 73.7 61.2
121
Bng A7: T l h bit v mc hn in i vi t cy hng nm (%)

Mc hiu Bit Tnh H Ty Lo Cai Ph Th Lai Chu in Bin Ngh An Qung Nam Khnh Ha k Lk k Nng Lm ng Long An Gii N Nam Nhm tiu dng LTTP Ngho nht Ngho nh Trung bnh Giu nh Giu nht Tng 18.26 17.61 7.35 20.3 12.9 14.63 73.08 46.46 0 17.45 34.94 30.94 16.21 14.41 42.94 29.05 19.65 0 19.75 0 33.33 0 8.65 23.61 27.71 8.26 0 37.92 100 0 0 33.3 0 100 0 0 ng
122
Ti liu tham kho

Barslund, M. and Tarp, F. (2006): Tn dng nng thn Vit Nam, Bi nghin cu, Khoa Kinh t hc, i hc Tng hp Copenhagen. Behrman, J.R. and Knowles, J.C. (1999): Thu nhp ca h v tr em n trng Vit Nam, Tp ch Kinh t Ngn hng Th gii, tp. 13(2), trang.211-256. Besley, T. (1995): Quyn ti sn v khuyn khch u t: L thuyt v thc t ti Ghana, Tp ch Kinh t Chnh tr, tp. 103(51), trang. 903-937. Brandt, L. (2005): Tip cn t ai, Th trng t ai v ng dng vo nng thn Vit Nam. Brasselle, A.S., Gaspart, F. and Platteau, J.P (2001): Bo him t ai v khuyn khch u t: Thc t t Burkina Faso, Tp ch Kinh t Pht trin, tp 67, trang 373-418. Carter, M.R. and Olinto, P. (2003): Th ch ng cho ai? Cn tr tn dng v tc ng ca quyn ti sn v s lng v cu thnh trong u t, Tp ch Kinh t Nng nghip M, tp. 85(1), trang. 173-186. Deaton, A. (1997): Phn tch iu tra h gia nh: Mt tip cn kinh t lng vi m cho chnh sch pht trin, Ngn hng Th gii, Johns Hopkins University Press. Deaton, A. (2003): iu tra h gia nh, Chi tiu, v nh gi i ngho, Nghin cu H thng Kinh t, tp. 15(2), trang.135-159 Deininger, K. and Jin, S. (2003): Th trng bn v thu t trong chuyn i, Bi Nghin cu chnh sch Ngn hng Th gii, WPS 3013. DFID, Thut ng hng dn o to t xa sinh k bn vng (www.livelihoods.org). Duflo, E. (2001): n trng v hu qu th trng lao ng ca xy dng trng Indonesia: Minh chng t mt kinh nghim chnh sch him hoi., Tp ch Kinh t M, tp. 91(4), trang 795-813. Duong, P. B. and Izumida, Y. (2002): Ti chnh pht trin nng thn Vit Nam: Mt phn tch kinh t lng vi m t iu tra h gia nh, Pht trin Th gii, tp 30(2), trang 319-335. Epprecht, M., Le, T. , Minot, N. and Tran, A. and (2006): a dng ha thu nhp v i ngho min ni pha bc Vit Nam, Vin Nghin cu Chnh sch Lng thc quc t. Feder, G. and Feeny, D. (1991): S dng t v quyn ti sn: L thuyt v ng dng chnh sch pht trin, Tp ch Kinh t Ngn hng Th gii, tp. 5(1), trang 135-153.
123
Feder, G. and Onchan, T. (1987): Bo him quyn s hu t ai v u t nng nghip Thi Lan, Tp ch Kinh t nng nghip M, tp. 69(2), trang 311-320. TCTK (GSO) (2001): iu tra nng nghip v thy sn, http://www.gso.gov.vn TCTK (GSO). iu tra Mc sng H gia nh Vit Nam 2002. TCTK (GSO). iu tra Mc sng H gia nh Vit Nam 2004. Handa, S. and Simler, K. (2006): Cht lng hay s lng? Cc nhn t pha cung n trng tiu hc khu vc nng thn ngho nn Tp ch Kinh t Chu Phi, tp 15(1), trang 59-90. Hayes, J., Roth, M. and Zepeda, L. (1997): Bo him s dng t, u t v nng sut nng nghip Gambian: Mt phn tch thm d tng qut, Tp ch Kinh t Nng nghip M tp. 79(2), trang. 369-382. Holden, S. and Yohanes, H. (2002): Phn b li t ai, s dng t khng an ton v cng sn xut: Mt nghin cu v h nng nghip ti nam Ethiopia, Kinh t t ai, tp. 78(4) trang 573-590. ILO (2005): Hng ti khu vc ti chnh vi m hiu qu Vit Nam: Vn v thch thc. ILO Vietnam Working Paper series no. 5. IMF (2006):
IMF Country Report No. 06/423 Ph lc s liu Vit Nam ti:
http://www.informest.it/documentazione/VN_20061016115106_statisticalpercent20appendix_2006_vietnam_fmi.pdf
Lanjouw, J.O. and Lanjouw, P. (2001): Lm th no so snh To v Cam: nh gi i ngho da trn cc chun tiu dng khc nhau, Tp ch Thu nhp v ca ci, tp. 47(1), trang 25-42 Laurenceson, J and Nghiem, H.S (2005): Bn cht ca ti chnh vi m NGO Vit Nam v nh gi hiu qu ca i tc c lin quan, Nhm nghin cu kinh t ng , Bi nghin cu s. 3, i hc Queensland. Mekong Economics (2004a): Tip cn ngun lc: Nghin cu tnh hung h gia nh nng thn Vit Nam, do Mekong Economics chun b, H Ni, Vit Nam. Mekong Economics (2004b): Phn tch hin trng: Nhng vn gii ang ni ln trong qu trnh hi nhp kinh t Vit Nam, do Mekong Economics chun b, H Ni, Vit Nam. Mekong Economics (2004): Tip cn ngun lc. Bi nghin cu ng ti http://www.mekongeconomics.com/Document/Publications/2004/MKE%20Access%20to%20Reso urces.pdf. MARD (2003): Nghin cu nhu cu ca nng dn, H Ni, Vit Nam: Nh xut bn Thng k, trang75 Ravallion, M. (1994): So snh i ngho, Nh xut bn Harwood Academic.
124
Ravallion, M. and van de Walle, D. (2003): Phn b t ai trong qu trnh chuyn i nng nghip Vit Nam, Bi nghin cu chnh sch ca Ngn hng Th gii, WPS 2951. Pingali, P.L. (1997): T t cp t tc sang h thng sn xut hng ha: Qu trnh chuyn i ca nng nghip chu , Tp ch Kinh t Nng nghip M, tp. 79, trang 628-634 Platteau, J.P. (2000): Phn b v thc hin quyn s hu t ai: C ch chnh thc v phi chnh thc ti Subsaharan Africa, Tp ch Kinh t Chnh tr Bc u, tp. 26(1) trang 55-81. Ray, D. (1999): Kinh t hc Pht trin', Princeton University Press. Zeller, M. (1994): Nhn t quyt nh hiu qu tn dng: Mt nghin cu v cc nhm tn dng chnh thc v cho vay chnh thc ti Madagascar, Pht trin Th gii, tp. 22(12), trang. 1895-1907. Ngn hng Th gii (2003): Bo co Pht trin Vit Nam 2004. Bo co s. 27130-VN, Ngn hng Th gii, Washington DC. Ngn hng Th gii (2004a): Ghi ch cc vn chnh sch khu vc ti chnh: Ngn hng Chnh sch X hi Vit, Nhm ch ti chnh, Washington DC. Ngn hng Th gii (2004b): Bo co pht trin Vit Nam 2005, Bo co chung ca cc nh ti tr dnh cho t vn Vit Nam. H Ni, 1-2/12/2004.
125
126
Research Report Funded by Danida in Vietnam under the Business Sector Programme Support (BSPS) and the Agricultural Sector Programme Support (ASPS)
August 2007
127
List of Contents
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 130 List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 131 Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................. 132 Preface............................................................................................................................................. 133 Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................... 135 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 137 1. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SURVEYED HOUSEHOLDS ............................................... 140 2. LABOUR MARKET PARTICIPATION AND INCOME EARNING ACTIVITIES............... 149 2.1. Income earning activities ......................................................................................................... 150 2.2. Diversification.......................................................................................................................... 153 2.3. Importance of activity types in time allocation versus income generation.............................. 157 2.3.1. Household labour allocation in terms of time use................................................................. 157 2.3.2. The importance of labour and income .................................................................................. 159 2.4. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 162 3. LAND: CHARACTERISTICS, USE, INVESTMENT AND MARKETS ................................ 163 3.1. Distribution and fragmentation of land.................................................................................... 164 3.2. Red Book status ....................................................................................................................... 172 3.3. Land use ................................................................................................................................... 175 3.4. Investment in land.................................................................................................................... 177 3.5. Land markets............................................................................................................................ 183 3.6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 189 4. CURRENT INPUTS IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION................................................... 188 4.1. Input use in agricultural production ......................................................................................... 189 4.2. Input and output markets...........................................................................................................192 4.2.1. Commercial remoteness........................................................................................................ 192 4.2.2. Input supply and output demand........................................................................................... 194 4.2.3. Access to input and output markets ...................................................................................... 196 4.3. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 202 5. CREDIT ...................................................................................................................................... 203 5.1. The rural credit market............................................................................................................. 204 5.2. Sources and loan terms ............................................................................................................ 205 5.3. Access, cost and use of credit .................................................................................................. 213 5.4. Rejected and self-constrained households ............................................................................... 220 5.5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 222 6. RISK MANAGEMENT.............................................................................................................. 224 6.1. Risks and risk coping ............................................................................................................... 224 6.2. Formal insurance...................................................................................................................... 230 6.3. Social capital ............................................................................................................................ 235
128
6.4. Conclusions and implications .................................................................................................. 237 7. ACCESS TO INFORMATION .................................................................................................. 237 7.1. Access to general information resources ................................................................................. 237 7.1.1. Access to newspapers............................................................................................................ 238 7.2. Access to internet ..................................................................................................................... 239 7.3. Information sources for agricultural production ...................................................................... 240 7.3.1. The main information sources for agriculture production .................................................... 240 7.3.2. Agriculture extension service activities ................................................................................ 241 7.3.3. Visits to agricultural extension organizations by local households: ..................................... 241 7.3.4. Visits to households by the agricultural extension organizations:........................................ 242 7.3.5. Household evaluation of agricultural extension activities .................................................... 243 7.4. Information sources on policy changes.................................................................................... 244 7.5. Household knowledge of the 2003 Land Law ......................................................................... 245 7.5.1. Activities undertaken to inform the public about the Land Law 2003 ................................. 245 7.5.2. The number of households who have heard about the 2003 Land Law ............................... 246 7.5.3. The level of the household knowledge of the Land Law 2003............................................. 247 7.6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 248 8. CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................... 249 Annex Tables .................................................................................................................................. 251 References....................................................................................................................................... 258
129
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Female and male headed households by food expenditure quintiles ............................142 Figure 1.2: Percentage using safe water as main source of drinking/cooking water .......................147 Figure 1.3: Distribution of main energy source for cooking ...........................................................147 Figure 1.4: Distribution of sanitation facilities ................................................................................148 Figure 1.5: Distribution of garbage disposal (last 12m) ..................................................................148 Figure 2.1: Average number of active age household members working and earning income .......149 Figure 2.2 Percentage of active age population engaged in the four activity types.........................152 Figure 2.3: Diversification in terms of number of job and income..................................................154 Figure 2.4: Work time allocation shares at household level by province (percent).........................159 Figure 2.5: Income shares from income earning activities, by province (percent)..........................161 Figure 2.6: Household non-farm labour...........................................................................................161 Figure 3.1: Total and regional land distribution ..............................................................................168 Figure 3.2: Cumulative land distribution function by provincea......................................................169 Figure 3.3: Percentage of plots with a Red Book ............................................................................172 Figure 3.4: Number of household members registered on LUCs ....................................................173 Figure 3.5: Percentage of unrestricted choice of crops, by Red Book status of plot .......................177 Figure 3.6: Percentage of plots irrigated, by use and by LUC ownership .......................................180 Figure 3.7: Dependence on public/cooperative infrastructure and perception ................................183 Figure 3.8: Plots acquired through land sales market and households who bought plots................184 Figure 3.9: Receiver of land lost, total and poorest versus richest quintile .....................................188 Figure 3.10: Regional concentration of land transactions................................................................189 Figure 4.1: Percentage of crop or livestock producing households using hired labour ...................191 Figure 4.2: Percentage of crop or livestock producing households using production loans............192 Figure 4.3: Percentage communes with markets .............................................................................193 Figure 4.4: Average distance (km) to nearest all weather roads at HH level ..................................193 Figure 4.5: Suppliers where rice producing households buy rice seed............................................194 Figure 4.6: Buyers of crop outputa ...................................................................................................195 Figure 4.7: Percentage of crops sold to households and private traders ..........................................196 Figure 4.8: Share of households with difficulties in accessing markets (percent)...........................197 Figure 4.9: Type of difficulties in accessing markets for current inputs .........................................200 Figure 4.10: Type of post-production difficulties............................................................................199 Figure 5.1: Number of loans per 100 households by province. .......................................................211 Figure 5.2: Distribution of loans by source and province (unweighted) .........................................212 Figure 5.3: Loan receiving households (percent) and number of loans per 100 households...........213 Figure 5.4: Households with outstanding loan at time of interview (percent by province).............214 Figure 6.1: Percentage of households suffering losses during last five years..................................225 Figure 7.1: Reading newspaper in households.................................................................................238 Figure 7.2: Reading newspaper daily by food quintiles (Percent)...................................................238 Figure 7.3: Using internet in households .........................................................................................239 Figure 7.4: Accessing internet places ..............................................................................................240 Figure 7.5: The effect of agriculture extension on household decision making ..............................243
130
List of Tables
Table 1.1: General characteristics of the surveyed households by province ...................................140 Table 1.2: Household characteristics, by sex and food expenditure................................................142 Table 1.3 Education levels of household heads, general and professional education .....................144 Table 1.4 Distance to schools and Peoples Committee Office.......................................................145 Table 2.1: Activities of active age population by gender and consumption quintile (percent) .......151 Table 2.2: Diversification of income earnings activities at individual level (percent) ....................155 Table 2.3 Diversification of income earnings activities at household level (percent).....................156 Table 2.4 Working time allocation shares at household level (percent)..........................................157 Table 2.5: Importance of labour and income (percent)....................................................................160 Table 3.1: Distribution and fragmentation of land...........................................................................165 Table 3.2 : Land holdings adjusted for household size and quality.................................................166 Table 3.3: Acquirement source of plots ...........................................................................................170 Table 3.4: Name registration structure in LUCs ..............................................................................174 Table 3.5: Restrictions on plots (only non-residential used plots)...................................................176 Table 3.6: Use of plot (for all non-residential used plots, owned or rented in) (percent)................178 Table 3.7: Current status of land investment - Irrigation facilities and perennial crops..................179 Table 3.8: Investment of households, occurrence since 2002 and value last 12 months.................182 Table 3.9: Households loss of land over last five years...................................................................185 Table 3.10: Households ways of departing with land (plots lost last five years) ............................187 Table 4.1: Percentage of crop producing households using inputs..................................................189 Table 5.1: Distribution of loans by source and year (percent).........................................................205 Table 5.2: Key characteristics of loans by source (all loans)...........................................................208 Table 5.3: Key characteristics of loans by source (2005 only)........................................................210 Table 5.4: Median distance to lender by province and loan segment ..............................................215 Table 5.5: Application and illegal costs of obtaining a loan by source ...........................................216 Table 5.6: Loan use by source (all loans in percent) .......................................................................217 Table 5.7: Source of loan by expenditure quintile ...........................................................................219 Table 5.8: Person mainly responsible for the loan (two largest loans only)....................................220 Table 5.9: Rejected, self-rationed and household demand for credit (percent) ...............................221 Table 5.10: Credit demand by consumption quintile last 12 months...............................................222 Table 6.1: Percentage of households suffering losses by reasons and provinces ............................226 Table 6.2: Some statistics on loss value by location and reasons (000 VND) ...............................227 Table 6.3: Risk-coping measures .....................................................................................................228 Table 6.4: Level of recovery after the loss.......................................................................................229 Table 6.5: Insurance purchased by households................................................................................231 Table 6.6: Share of people having insurance by insurance types ....................................................232 Table 6.7: Reasons for not having insurance by type of insurance..................................................233 Table 6.8: Reasons for not having insurances by income and education ........................................234 Table 6.9: Social capital share of household answering yes .....................................................235 Table 6.10: Trust in the community.................................................................................................236 Table 7.1: Important sources of information to the households ......................................................237 Table 7.2: Household received assistance or information during last 12 months (percent) ............240 Table 7.3: Agriculture extension activities during the last 12 months.............................................242 Table 7.4: Important sources of information for policy changes (percent) .....................................244 Table 7.5: Commune organized activities to inform public about the Land law 2003....................245 Table 7.6: Knowledge of Land Law 2003 (percent)........................................................................246
131
Abbreviations
CH CIEM DFID GDP GSO HH ILO IMF LUC MARD MOLISA MRD NCC NE NGOs NW PCF RRD Rosca SE SCC USD VARHS VBARD VBSP VHLSS VND WTO Central Highlands Central Institute of Economic Management Department for International Development (United Kingdom) Gross Domestic Product General Statistics Office Household International Labour Organization International Monetary Fund Land Use Certificates Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs Mekong River Delta North Central Coast North East Non Government Organizations North West The Peoples Credit Fund Red River Delta Rotating savings and credit association South East South Central Coast United State Dollars Vietnam Access to Resources Household Survey Agriculture and Rural Development Vietnam Bank for Social Policies Vietnam Household Living Standard Survey Vietnamese Dong World Trade Organization
132
Preface
The origin of the present study goes back to 2002 when the first Vietnam Access to Resources Household Survey (VARHS) was carried out in the rural areas .10 of the provinces of Ha Tay, Phu Tho, Quang Nam and Long An (Mekong, 2004). The results of the VARHS02, which covered 932 households, inspired the Central Institute of Economic Management (CIEM) of the Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI) and the Institute of Policy and Strategy for Agriculture and Rural Development (IPSARD) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) as well as the Institute of Labour Science and Social Affairs (ILSSA) of the Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs (MOLISA) together with Danida to plan and carry out the research, which led to this report. The survey underpinning this report is known as the VARHS06, and it was carried out in the rural areas of 12 provinces of Vietnam. It covered more than 2,300 households, and the 12 provinces are (i) four (Ha Tay, Nghe An, Khanh Hoa and Lam Dong) supported by Danida under the so-called BSPS programme; (ii) five (Dac Lac, Dac Nong, Lao Cai, Dien Bien and Lai Chau) supported under the Danida/ASPS programme; and (iii) three (Phu Tho, Quang Nam and Long An), which were all surveyed in 2002. The present report is based on the 1,462 households for whom valid information is available and who were not surveyed in 2002. Subsequent studies will, however, make use of the fact that a sample of 932 households is available that has been surveyed in both 2002 and 2006. The Institute of Labour Science and Social Affairs (ILSSA) of the Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs (MOLISA) carried out all the complex tasks related to the planning and implementation of the survey in the field; and the Department of Economics (DoE) at the University of Copenhagen collaborated with CIEM, IPSARD and ILSSA on a series of technically demanding and advisory as well capacity building activities under ongoing institutional twinning arrangements. The World Bank provided some financial support under a Danida/World Bank trust fund and supported with various comments along the way. The VARHS02 and VARHS06 were designed as collaborative research efforts with the explicit objective of being complementary to the large and nationally representative household surveys, known as the Vietnam Household Living Standards Survey (VHLSS) (GSO, 2002 and 2004). The samples relied on in the VARHS include households, which have also been surveyed in the VHLSS. The VARHS can therefore be characterised as a smaller and more experimental data collection effort, focused on coming to grips with rural household access to resources and the constraints rural households face in managing their livelihoods. Land issues were central to the
133
effort, including the impact of the 2003 Land Law, and particular attention was in VARHS06 paid to collecting data at the plot level of individual farmers. The same goes for our attempt to bring out other differences such as differences due to gender and poverty status. The present descriptive report aims at providing an overview of the kinds of information that is available in the VARHS06 data base and the insights that can be derived. It is however highlighted that the reader should consult both the introduction to this report and the household and commune questionnaires that were used in the data collection for comprehensive lists of the questions raised during interviews. The questionnaires can be downloaded from the web, and it is clear that the data base is much richer than what can be presented in a relatively brief descriptive report. Further indepth studies of selected issues in the Vietnamese rural economy are underway, and follow-up surveys in 2008 and 2010 have been approved with a view to establishing badly needed panel data capturing the developments in the Vietnamese rural economy.
134
Acknowledgements
The team of authors behind the present report is grateful to the President of CIEM Dr. Dinh Van An and the Director General of IPSARD Dr. Dang Kim Son, who have guided our work from beginning to end and ensured effective collaboration with CIEM and IPSARD. A special vote of thanks is due to the Danish Ambassador in Vietnam H.E. Peter Lysholt-Hansen, who has supported this policy relevant research effort throughout. We acknowledge as well with gratitude the Danida (BSPS and ASPS) financial support and the parallel World Bank/Danish trust fund funding for the research underlying the report that is presented here. The core research team includes Dr. Nguyen Ngoc Que and Ms. Nguyen Le Hoa (IPSARD), Ms. Dang Thu Hoai and Mr. Nguyen Huu Tho (CIEM,) on the Vietnamese side, and three staff associated with the Development Economics Research Group (DERG) at the DoE, on the other. Dr. Katleen Van den Broeck is first and main author of this report, while Dr. Mikkel Barslund, who played a central role in the VARHS02, held particular responsibility for the credit chapter and a variety of other tasks related to the finalisation of this report. Professor Finn Tarp coordinated and supervised the research effort through all its stages. Our work would not have been possible without professional interaction, advice and encouragement from a large number of individuals and institutions. We would in particular like to highlight our: Sincere thanks for productive and stimulating collaboration with the survey teams from the Vietnamese Institute of Labor Science and Social Affairs (ILSSA). They were coordinated by Dr. Nguyen Huu Dzung, Dr. Dao Quang Vinh, Dr. Nguyen Thi Lan Huong and their staff at the ILSSA headquarters, including Mr. Le Ngu Binh, Mr. Le Hoang Dzung, Mr. Nguyen Kien Quyen, Mr. Nguyen Van Du and Ms. Tran Thu Hang. Without the tireless efforts of ILSSA in putting the questionnaires together, training enumerators, implementing the survey in the field and cleaning the data, all other work would have been in vain. ILSSA also managed the coordination with the General Statistical Office (GSO) and Mr. Nguyen Phong, who provided useful advice in the sampling process. Deep felt gratitude to colleagues at CIEM and IPSARD for their guidance and support in the process. Dr. Chu Tien Quang and Mr. Luu Duc Khai at CIEM and Dr. Nguyen Do Anh Tuan, Mr. Phung Duc Tung and Ms. Tran Thi Quynh Chi at IPSARD were key in this regard, and the same goes for Dr. Pham Lan Huong at CIEM. Sincere appreciation for the consultancy advice received from Dr. Sarah Bales as well as the advice from Dr. Tim McGrath and Professor Phil Abbott, Purdue University, who helped shape, focus and develop our questionnaire. Phil Abbott also participated in the pre-testing along members of the research team as did Mr. Thomas Markussen and Mr. Pablo Selaya from DoE. Thomas Markussen also provided many insightful comments on draft versions of the report as
135
did Dr. Patricia Silva. They form part of the group that is now working on further in-depth studies as is Dr. Carol Newman from Trinity College, Ireland. Acknowledgement for insights and guidance received from the participants at a number of workshops/seminars in Vietnam. These events include a seminar (organised by CIEM) in Hanoi on 27 November 2006; two provincial workshops (organized by CIEM) and held in the provinces of Khan Hoa and Nghe An on respectively 3 and 8 May 2007; and a National Workshop held on 14 March 2007 in Hanoi (organized by IPSARD). At these events results of draft versions of the present study were presented and discussed. Appreciation for interaction with Dr. Klaus Deininger and Mr. Tore Olsen of the World Bank. Thanks to the many staff at the Danish Embassy, who have supported us in our work, including Mr. Henrik Vistisen and Ms. Vu Huong Mai, Ms. Cathrine Dolleris and Ms. Nguyen Thi Lan Phuong as well as past Danida advisors and Vietnamese staff associated with the ASPS, including Mr. Ole Sparre Pedersen. Gratitude for continuous professional interaction with Dr. John Rand at DoE; advice in the early stages of this study from Ms. Helene Bie Liller; and student support from Ms. Maja Henriette Jacobsen in completing the report.
As part of the research process and capacity building a variety of efforts were pursued, and we would like to highlight two: From 20-24 November 2006, Dr. Katleen Van den Broeck and Dr. Carol Newman (supported by Ms. Jeanet Bentzen) lectured at a one week intensive course in household survey analysis at IPSARD in Hanoi. Some 15 participants from IPSARD, CIEM, and ILSSA attended the course, and they showed great enthusiasm and interest in the material and were very active in preparing the computer exercises. From 25 January 15 February 2007 the Vietnamese members of the research team visited the DoE for an intensive series of joint working and training sessions related to the elaboration of this report. This visit and subsequent interaction in Vietnam was essential in completing our study.
Moreover, we would like to put on record our deep felt appreciation for the time that more than 2,300 rural households in 12 provinces of Vietnam made available in 2006 during the interviews carried out as part of this study. We hope that the present report will prove useful in the search for better policies geared towards improving their livelihoods. Finally, while we have received advice from many colleagues and friends, we the research team behind the present report, take full responsibility for any remaining errors or shortcomings in interpretation. All the usual caveats apply. Katleen Van den Broeck, Mikkel Barslund, Finn Tarp, Nguyen Ngoc Que, Nguyen Le Hoa, Dang Thu Hoai and Nguyen Huu Tho
136
INTRODUCTION
The origin of the present study goes back to 2002 when the first Vietnam Access to Resources Household Survey (VARHS) was carried out in the rural areas of the provinces of Ha Tay, Phu Tho, Quang Nam and Long An (Mekong, 2004). The VARHS02 covered 932 households, who were also surveyed in the VHLSS02. The basic aim behind the VARHS02 was to obtain a detailed quantitative understanding of access to resources among rural households. Questions of concern included first and foremost how and to what extent households are constrained in accessing such resources. The VARHS02 was explicitly designed as being complementary to the large-scale nationally representative household survey carried out by the General Statistical Office (GSO), i.e. the VHLSS which is now carried out every second year. In effect, the VARHS02 sought to bring out additional information needed for research purposes from the 932 rural households, who were (except for attrition) exactly the ones, who had completed the income and expenditure questionnaires of the GSO/VHLSS in the first six months of 2002. The basic idea behind the VARHS02 was that surveys existing at the time, including the VHLSS, did not provide the background data needed for understanding a series of intricate and pressing issues related to the characteristics of existing markets for land, credit and labour. Only scant information was available on the way in which households (especially in rural areas) access resources in these markets; and this lack of knowledge appeared striking considering that appropriate development of market institutions is an absolutely essential prerequisite in Vietnams ongoing transformation from a command-type to a more market based economy. The above rationale remained unchanged as the VARHS06, the successor of VARHS02, was designed. For example, making land and credit markets more efficient is no less key to sustain private sector development in Vietnam today than it was in 2002. This inter alia implies that there is a clear need to understand better the role land markets play or do not play in the allocation of resources within the agricultural sector, including the possible influence of tenure security on agricultural investment incentives. Similarly, it was in the design and formulation agreed that it is necessary to dig deeper into the extent of land market transactions and whether land rental or land sale transactions are active. Other land issues relate to for example the impact of contract terms (e.g., sharecropping versus fixed-rent contracts) on efficiency and equity. Another example of the need for additional data and information concerns the functioning of rural credit markets and the extent to which credit rationing impedes agricultural development. Further insights into these issues (with a view to improved policy making) presume first of all availability of data on the amounts of credit, which farmers have actually taken. But data is also needed on the investment projects they could not undertake for lack of credit facilities and on the consumption expenditures they could not finance. If consumption credit is not readily available under distress conditions, it is evident that farmers will have to resort to costly alternative survival strategies such as sale of productive assets. And, if credit markets do not work properly, farmers will not be able to
137
repurchase later their lost assets, thereby driving them into chronic poverty, suggesting that imperfect credit markets may have serious impacts on consumption and human welfare. There are in other words interrelated issues of market development, of institutions and of poverty here which it was agreed merit increased attention. As a third example, it was accepted in the design process that there is a continuing need to help bring out data and information on issues related to the fragmentation of the land. For this to be possible, it is however, necessary to collect data at individual plot level. The VARHS06 was specifically designed to illicit such information, providing a basis for a much more detailed understanding of agricultural production than so far possible. It was also established that this understanding should be extended to cover cross-cutting issues such as the role of gender and poverty in labour market participation, agricultural production and marketing, access to credit, risk and access to information. The data base was also designed so as to explore further issues related to the role of ethnicity. The survey instrument used in the VARHS06 included both a commune and a household questionnaire, with the following types of detailed information. a. Commune questionnaire Section 1: Demographic information and general situation of the commune Section 2: Agriculture: crops cultivated, land sales, land rental agreements, types and amount of land, agricultural daily wage Section3: Income and employment: main sources of income/employment, enterprise activity Section 4: Infrastructure: roads, waterways, electricity, markets, schools Section 5: Weather and natural disasters: occurrence 2002-2006 Section 6: Irrigation management: public/cooperative irrigation facilities Section 7: The 2003 Land Law: implementation, information meetings/activities Section 8: Credit and savings: possibilities for credit and saving: banks, funds, unions, moneylenders Section 9: Social capital, trust and cooperation b. Household questionnaire Section 1: Cover page: surveyor, date, ethnicity/language Section 2: Household roster, general characteristics of household members Section 3: Agricultural land (plot level!) and crop agriculture Section 4: Livestock, forestry, aquaculture, agricultural services, access to markets Section 5: Occupation, time use and other sources of income Section 6: Food expenditures, other expenses, savings, household durable goods Section 7: Credit Section 8: Shocks and risk coping Section 9: Social capital and networks
138
Survey design and pre-testing took place during the first half of 2006, and actual implementation in the field was undertaken during the months of July through September in the rural areas of the 12 VARHS06 provinces. They include: Four (Ha Tay, Nghe An, Khanh Hoa and Lam Dong) supported by Danida under the so-called BSPS programme Five (Dac Lac, Dac Nong, Lao Cai, Dien Bien and Lai Chau) supported under the Danida/ASPS programme Three (Phu Tho, Quang Nam and Long An), which were all surveyed in the VARHS02.
A total of 2,324 households were surveyed in the VARHS06, including the households surveyed under the VARHS02. The new households, which were added to the VARHS02 households, include 1,312 households, which completed the income and expenditure questionnaire in the VHLSS04. The new households were originally meant to correspond exactly to the VHLSS04 income and expenditure sample of rural households in the 12 VARHS06 provinces. However, sample challenges were experienced for three reasons: (i) GSO sampling was changed in 2004 as described by Phung Duc Tung and Nguyen Phong (2007); (ii) several rural areas were reclassified as urban and administratively split from 2004 to 2006; and (iii) standard attrition. Some 150 randomly selected households were therefore added to give a total of 1,462 new households. These households were weighted using VHLSS04 weights (see Phung Duc Tung and Nguyen Phong, 2007). It was decided to exclude the VARHS02 households from the present report, as there is no simple way of combining (weighing) the original VARHS02 and new VARHS06 households due to the sample changes. Subsequent in-depth studies will, however, make use of the fact data are available from the VARHS06 survey on the VARHS02 households. It is also noted that the commune questionnaire was only completed in those communes where at least three households were interviewed. The present descriptive report was prepared relying on the information from the above mentioned 1,462 households, and in addition to this introduction and the concluding chapter, the report contains seven chapters, focused on the following topics: Characteristics of the surveyed households Labour market participation and income earning activities Land: Characteristics, use, investment and markets Current inputs in agricultural production Credit Risk management Access to information
Finally, it is highlighted that data were made anonymous, so all names were removed before analysis in accordance with standard procedures.
139
1. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SURVEYED HOUSEHOLDS

The 1,462 households surveyed in the Vietnam Access to Resources Household Survey 2006 (VARHS06) for the present report were spread over 12 provinces, as shown in Table 1.1. A high percentage of the sample is concentrated in Ha Tay, Phu Tho, Nghe An and Dak La,. The higher number of households in these four provinces is due to the sample selection method (see Introduction); and, in addition, the fact that households covered by the Vietnam Household Living Standard Survey 2004 (VHLSS04) and the VARHS02 were also included. As readers of this report may be interested in specific provinces a provincial structure is used throughout most of the report. The first chapter presents a general overview of the situation of the surveyed households. We discuss the characteristics of the household heads (gender, ethnicity, language and education), poverty issues (where are the poorest households in the sample located and how they differ in terms of their characteristics), access to services (schools) and living conditions (access to water and energy, and the households sanitary situation). Twenty percent of the households in the survey have a female household head. Eighty two percent has a Kinh household head. Ninety-eight percent of the households have a household head, who can speak Vietnamese and for 86 percent Vietnamese is the main language. In the communes of the north-western provinces of Lai Chau and Dien Bien only 14 and seven percent are Kinh and only 16 and 12 percent respectively of the household heads use Vietnamese as the main language. Twentytwo percent of the households in the survey are classified as poor by the authorities.29 The households classified as poor are unequally distributed over the provinces with high concentrations in Lai Chau, Lao Cai, Lam Dong, Quang Nam and Dien Bien. Long An and Ha Tay have a low percentage of households classified as poor. Table 0.1: General characteristics of the surveyed households by province
29
By Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs (MOLISA).
140
Freq.
Percent
Sex HH head
Ethnicity of HH head
HH head Vietnamese HH classified speaks main language as poor by Vietnamese of HH head authorities (percent) (percent) (percent)
(percent male) (percent Kinh) Provincea Ha Tay (RRD) Lao Cai (NE) Phu Tho (NE) 187 90 131 12.8 6.2 9.0 77.8 89.0 80.1 98.4 23.7 83.3
100.0 100.0 98.5
99.5 57.2 93.3
8.6 39.0 22.2
Lai Chau (NW) Dien Bien (NW) Nghe An (NCC) Quang Nam (SCC) Khanh Hoa (SCC) Dak Lak (CH) Dak Nong (CH) Lam Dong (CH) Long An (MRD) Total
a
116 112 196 114 78 143 108 69 118 1,462
7.9 7.7 13.4 7.8 5.3 9.8 7.4 4.7 8.1 100
92.2 90.3 83.3 72.8 69.2 82.2 83.7 78.8 65.8 79.1
14.1 7.1 89.6 96.5 92.3 71.5 76.5 63.7 100.0 82.1
65.7 93.8 99.4 100.0 100.0 90.4 97.1 100.0 100.0 97.7
15.8 11.6 90.6 97.3 82.2 78.3 79.3 69.6 100.0 85.8
45.4 31.4 24.5 32.0 22.1 18.9 25.1 37.3 14.6 22.0
Region between brackets: RRD (Red River Delta), NE (North East), NW (North West), NCC (North Central Coast), SCC (South Central Coast), CH
(Central Highlands), MRD (Mekong River Delta) no households from the SE (South East) were included in the survey.
Differences in access to resources may not be based on regional characteristics alone but also for example on gender and wealth. Most of the descriptive in this and later chapters will therefore be shown by gender of the household head (or occasionally by gender of individuals) and by food expenditure quintile of the household.30 A relatively lower presence of poor households is found among the female headed households (30 percent in the two lowest quintiles) compared to the male headed households (43 percent) (Figure 1.1). The VHLSS04 data also showed that female headed households on average have higher income and consumption levels.
Food expenditure quintiles are based on food consumption per capita (of members present in the household). We chose to construct quintiles based on consumption rather than on income as in most of the monetary based poverty literature. Discussions on the preference of consumption versus income based poverty measures can be found in, for example, Deaton (1997, 2003); Ravallion (1994). But even when using consumption based measures, comparability has to be treated cautiously, see for example Lanjouw and Lanjouw (2001). There is no exhaustive consumption section in the VARHS06. Only consumption for selected food items or food groups (13 different groups) is recorded. However, the food groups selected are strongly related to and therefore good proxies of total consumption. Characteristics of the Vietnamese Rural Economy: Evidence from a 2006 Rural Household Survey in 12 Provinces of Vietnam
30
141
Figure 0.1: Female and male headed households by food expenditure quintiles
Fe m ale he ade d hous e holds poorest; richest; 16.6 25.9 2nd poorest; 13.1 2nd richest; 18.7
M ale he ade d hous e holds richest; 18.4 poorest; 21.3
2nd richest; 20.3 middle; 18.5
middle; 25.8
2nd poorest; 21.5
The female headed households are more likely to be of Kinh origin and Vietnamese is more likely the main language of the head (Table 1.2). Female headed households are also more likely to have children outside the household on whom they rely for support in times of need. Strong differences between food expenditure quintiles are related to ethnicity, with an increasing percentage of Kinh households by food expenditure and similarly an increasing use of Vietnamese as the main language. Fifty percent of the surveyed households in the lowest food expenditure quintile are classified as poor and only five percent in the richest quintile. Although some households may be wrongly classified, the quintile division in the sample appears to be generally confirmed by the official classification. Table 0.2: Household characteristics, by sex and food expenditure
Ethnicity of HH head HH head speaks Vietnamese of HH head Support from the household Born in spouse or parent) HH classified as poor by authorities
main language children outside commune (head,
(percent Kinh) Vietnamese Household head Female Male 92.3 79.5 98.1 97.6
92.9 83.9
40.2 32.1
71.5 75.6
28.1 20.4
Food expenditure quintile
142
Poorest 2nd poorest Middle 2 richest Richest

nd
65.3 76.6 80.9 91.8 96.4
95.5 96.9 96.8 99.3 99.8
70.0 80.5 87.2 94.2 97.2
28.6 29.2 37.5 35.7 37.9
76.7 76.5 76.8 69.3 74.2
50.1 25.0 19.4 10.5 5.2
Table 1.3 gives an overview of educational attainments with striking differences between groups. At the gender level, the percentage of female heads who cannot read and write is more than double that of male heads. At higher levels of education, the gender gap is very wide.31 There are also relatively more female heads without a professional education and the difference appears to be mostly due to the short term vocational education for female heads. Regarding food expenditure groups, the percentage of heads that cannot read and write drops from 20 to three percent between the poorest and richest quintile. Further, the percentage of heads without any professional training drops from 87 to 67 percent.32
The difference may be partly due to age differences. Female heads are on average nine years older than male heads. Behrman and Knowles (1999) have indeed shown that child school success in Vietnam is fairly considerably related to household income. A stronger association between household income and child schooling, suggests less intergenerational social mobility and less equal opportunities.
32
31
143
Table 0.3: Education levels of household heads, general and professional education
Highest general education HH head Cannot read and write Province Ha Tay Lao Cai Phu Tho Lai Chau Dien Bien Nghe An Quang Nam Khanh Hoa Dak Lak Dak Nong Lam Dong Long An Household head Female Male quintiles Poorest 2 poorest Middle 2nd richest Richest Total
nd
Highest professional education HH head No profession Vocational Vocational Technical <12m >=12m College
Completed primary
Completed lower secondary
Completed upper secondary
secondary University
4.5 20.0 0.8 46.1 36.5 6.8 7.9 10.2 14.3 5.9 18.6 6.9
18.4 30.7 12.1 16.6 9.7 16.3 29.0 25.6 25.2 27.8 27.7 25.9
43.9 7.7 56.7 8.7 22.1 45.6 23.6 11.7 23.7 29.4 23.4 19.6
15.4 3.2 18.2 5.3 1.9 18.9 10.4 14.1 11.3 22.3 11.4 7.5
75.9 96.7 75.0 82.6 93.6 71.6 85.1 89.8 85.9 81.3 91.4 87.4
15.6 1.1 9.1 9.5 1.9 15.2 6.2 2.5 5.0 5.6 1.4 5.9
2.7 0.0 6.8 4.3 0.9 5.0 4.4 2.5 4.2 2.9 1.4 1.7
4.2 2.2 6.0 1.9 3.7 3.5 1.8 2.6 4.3 7.5 5.8 2.5
1.6 0.0 3.0 1.7 0.0 4.6 2.6 2.6 0.7 2.7 0.0 2.5
16.8 7.8
19.6 21.2
20.3 37.1
7.6 15.2
87.6 79.1
4.6 10.7
3.0 3.8
3.6 3.9
1.3 2.6
Food expenditure 19.6 10.0 11.1 3.8 3.6 9.6 16.5 21.4 22.7 23.8 20.2 20.9 30.2 35.3 34.4 36.1 32.3 33.6 9.5 7.7 10.6 14.7 25.8 13.6 86.8 86.7 85.1 78.8 66.7 80.8 6.5 7.6 8.1 13.2 11.7 9.4 3.1 4.1 1.9 2.4 6.8 3.6 3.3 1.6 3.1 3.4 7.6 3.8 0.4 0.1 1.8 2.3 7.2 2.3
144
In terms of access to schools (Table 1.4), the difference between provinces or food expenditure quintiles is more prominent the higher the school level. Primary schools are on average between one and two kilometres away and differences are fairly small. Lower secondary schools are between one km (Ha Tay) and 3.6 km (Dak Nong) away with the poorest households living furthest away from schools. Upper secondary schools are between 4.3 km (Khanh Hoa) and 25.5 km (Lai Chau) away, and differences between provinces and food expenditure quintiles are considerable. As one of the supply-side characteristics of education, distance to school is known to play an important role in school enrolment (see for example Handa and Simler, 2006 and Duflo, 2001 for primary schools in Mozambique and Indonesia respectively). A positive correlation between distance and education levels appears to exist. Three of the four provinces where the average distance to upper secondary schools is more than 10 km away, Lai Chau, Dien Bien, and Lao Cai, also have the lowest rates of adults with completed upper secondary education. The poorest households not only live further away from schools, but are also generally further away from the centre and services of the village, as seen by the average distance to the Peoples Committee Office suggests (assuming the Peoples Committee Office is located centrally in the village). Table 0.4: Distance to schools and Peoples Committee Office
Distance to primary school (km) Province Ha Tay Lao Cai Phu Tho Lai Chau Dien Bien Nghe An Quang Nam Khanh Hoa Dak Lak Dak Nong Lam Dong Long An 0.8 1.7 1.1 1.0 1.7 1.5 1.5 0.9 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.5 1.0 3.2 1.5 1.9 3.0 1.8 2.5 1.7 2.3 3.6 2.9 2.8 3.3 10.7 6.4 25.5 19.4 6.3 7.4 4.3 9.5 14.9 8.5 7.4 1.0 3.0 1.4 3.1 4.5 1.9 2.4 1.4 3.4 2.4 2.8 2.3 Distance to lower secondary school (km) Distance to upper secondary school (km) Distance to Peoples Committee office (km)
145
Household head Female Male Food expenditure quintiles Poorest 2 poorest Middle 2 richest Richest Total
nd nd
1.2 1.3
1.8 2.0
6.2 7.7
1.8 2.2
1.2 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.2 1.3
2.2 2.1 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0
10.1 8.1 7.2 6.5 5.2 7.4
2.4 2.3 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.1
Figure 1.2 shows the percentage of households, who use safe water for cooking and drinking. Seventy-four percent of all households use safe water for cooking and drinking, but only 61 percent of the poorest households do compared to 88 percent of the richest households. Female headed households appear to be slightly more likely to use safe water. Differences between provinces are quite strong with only nine percent of the households living in the communes in Dak Nong using safe water compared to 95 percent of households in Ha Tay. Lai Chau (41 percent), Khanh Hoa (56 percent) and Dak Lak (56 percent) also have a somewhat low use of safe water sources. Except for Lai Chau, the more northern provinces appear to have a better access to safe water. In Figure 1.3 the distribution of different sources of energy used for cooking is presented. Differences across provinces and food expenditure groups are rather large. In general, firewood and by-products such as rice and corn haulms, waste, scrap wood, rice husk etc. are the two most important sources (47 and 29 percent respectively). The use of electricity is negligible in rural areasless than one percent of the sampled households use it for cooking. Besides firewood and by-products, natural gas is also commonly used (17 percent). The percentage using firewood decreases strongly by food expenditure quintile, whereas the percentage using natural gas increases by food expenditure. Electricity is mainly used in the richest quintile. The more southern the households are located, the more likely they are to be using natural gas. In the north-western provinces (Dien Bien and Lai Chau) households use of anything else than firewood is extremely low (91 and 92 percent use firewood).
146
Figure 0.2: Percentage using safe water as main source of drinking/cooking water
100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0
Ta La y o C Ph ai u T La ho iC Di hau en Bi N en gh Q e ua A ng n Kh Na an m h H Da oa k D Lak ak N La on g m D on Lo g ng An
Figure 0.3: Distribution of main energy source for cooking

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
Ta La y o C Ph a i u T La h o iC D hau ie n B N ie n gh e Q ua A n ng Kh Na an m h H oa D ak L D ak ak N La on g m Do Lo ng ng An fe m al e m al e po 2n or e d p o st or es t m id 2n dl d ri c e he s ric t he st a To ta l
firew ood
electricity
kerosene
coal
natural gas
rice, corn haulm, other byproducts
With respect to sanitation facilities (Figure 1.4), it is again noticeable that the richer the households become the less likely they are not to have a toilet at all, to dig and fill a pit or to use a double vault latrine. Flush toilets get more accessible when households get richer. For hygiene, the first two types (toilets and latrine) are considered safer than the last three improvised type of toilets. In general the provinces of Lai Chau and Dien Bien use safe sanitation less frequently than the households living in the other provinces. This may be due to high poverty in these provinces or less information about safe practices. Another sanitary issue considered is garbage disposal. The only place where there is a notable amount of garbage being collected is in Ha Tay (38 percent). Generally, garbage collection is not a commonly provided service, with only 11 percent of the households using this way of garbage disposal. Not surprisingly the percentage of households with access to garbage disposal increases by food expenditure quintile. The most common practice of garbage disposal is burning. Only in Lai Chau and Dien Bien is it more common to dump garbage.
po 2n ore d s po t or es m t 2n idd le d r ic he s ric t he st
Ha
fe
To ta l
m al e m al e
147
Figure 0.4: Distribution of sanitation facilities

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
Ta La y o C Ph ai u T La ho iC D hau ie n B N ien gh Q ua e A ng n Kh Na an m h H D oa ak D La ak k N La on g m D on Lo g ng An or e p o st or es m t 2n idd le d r ic he s ric t he st 2n d fe m To ta l al e m al e
Ha
flush toilet
squat toilet
double vault latrine
toilet over water
po
dug pit
no toilet
Figure 0.5: Distribution of garbage disposal (last 12m)

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
Ta La y o C Ph ai u T La ho iC D hau ie n B N ie n gh Q ua e A ng n Kh Na an m h H D oa ak D Lak ak N La on g m D on Lo g ng An
collected
to waste site
burned
dumped
dumped in river/lake
2n
The tables and figures presented above give some insights in the living conditions, and the differences between groups of the households in the survey. There are strong differences in living conditions between the poor and poorest households which also translate into strong provincial differences. There are no signs that female headed households are poorer or live in worse conditions than male headed households, but female heads do have a much lower human capital status with respect to general and professional education. They may be able to maintain their living conditions by receiving support from children living outside of the household or because of their classification as poor households. In the rest of the report we may see differences in access to resources such as work opportunities, land, inputs or credit between female and male headed households which may be driven by differences in educational levels.
148
or e p o st or es m t id 2n dl e d r ic he s r ic t he st d
other
H a
fe m
po
To ta l
al e m al e
2. LABOUR MARKET PARTICIPATION AND INCOME EARNING ACTIVITIES

It is very important for farmers to generate income resources. In order to get a better understanding of their access to resources, a detailed analysis on particular resources is necessary. As part of the whole research, this chapter will focus on one of the five main resources, human capital. Human capital is an important resource, which represents skills, knowledge, capacity to work and good health. Human capital enables people to pursue different livelihood strategies and achieve livelihood outcome. At household level human capital is a factor of the amount and quality of labour available. This varies according to the households size, skill level, education, leadership potential, health status etc. To make use of the four other types of resources human capital is essential.33 This analysis will focus on the use of household labour and its relationship to household income. Particularly, an analysis of activity structure is necessary to identify the contribution of agriculture work, paid work, non-farm work etc. to the households total income. Attention will be paid to labour allocation, labour structure and diversification of activities in relation to income from these activities. The analysis will be both at individual and household level. For the general activities people engage in, the analysis is at individual level. In the diversification section, the discussion will be both at individual and household level for comparison. In the last section the importance of labour and income will be analyzed at household level. In the analysis only active age individuals are included; this group is men aged 15 to 60 years and women between 15 and 55 years old. In the survey the households were interviewed about their main activities (wage work, agriculture work on their own farm, non-farm non-wage work, use of common property resources and housework). However, in the income earning activities section focus will be on the activities generating income. Housework is excluded from the analysis. Figure 2.1: Average number of active age household members working and earning income
7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0
An Q ua ng N am K ha nh H oa D ak La k D ak N on g La m D on g Lo ng An C ha u Th o ai B ie n N gh e La o To ta l Ta y C
H a
hu
La i
HH members
D ie
HH members working
HH members earning income
See the DFID Sustainable Livelihoods Distance Learning Guide Glossary. The other four resources are social capital, physical capital, natural capital and financial capital. Characteristics of the Vietnamese Rural Economy: Evidence from a 2006 Rural Household Survey in 12 Provinces of Vietnam
33
149
The average number of people in the surveyed households is about four. Dien Bien has the highest number of people in households, approximately six persons. The average number of people working and earning income in all the surveyed provinces is about three (Figure 2.1). Most people work in agriculture (about two to three people), followed by wage work (about one to two people) and employed with non-farm work (about zero to one people). There are differences in activities by gender of the household head. Households with a male head have more labour available. First, these households have more household members. Second more of their members work and earn income than in female headed households. By food expenditure groups,34 the poor household groups have more members than the richer groups. On average, the number of household members in the poorest group is about five people, while the number of household members in the rich group is four people. Dien Bien, Lai Chau, Lao Cai and Dak Lak have the highest number of people in the household. In these provinces half of the household members are employed with agricultural work.
2.1. Income earning activities

As mentioned above four kinds of activities are considered as income generating/economic activities. The first is wage work, which is defined as activities for which individuals get paid a salary. The second activity is agriculture work, which includes people who participate in household production related to agriculture (rice and other crops), livestock, forestry and aquaculture. The third activity is non-farm non-wage work, which includes trading, services, transportation, and other business as for example self employment. The last income earning activity is use of common property such as hunting, fishing in the sea or lakes not on your property, gathering honey and berries etc. According to the survey results about 94 percent of the active age population is working, and 89 percent are involved in income earning activities. Seventy-four percent of the people are engaged in agriculture, 34 percent in wage work and 17 percent in non-farm non-wage work. It should be noted, that the percentage of people involved in housework is high (68 percent), even though it is not included as an income earning activity. Table 2.1 documents observed differences in activities by gender. For example, only 28 percent of the women are engaged in wage work, whereas 39 percent of men are. Differences are also present for non-farm work and use of common property resources. It should be taken into consideration that 87 percent of the females are engaged in housework, whereas only 49 percent of the men are. This is consistent with the traditional work division of the sexes in Vietnam, where the women have responsibility of the housework.
34
Quintiles are calculated basing on food expenditure per capita.
150
Table 2.1: Activities of active age population by gender and consumption quintile (percent)
Income earning Wage Agriculture Non-farm Working Gender Female Male 94.7 92.5 89.2 89.1 27.5 39.4 76.0 72.9 18.2 15.5 5.4 9.8 87.4 49.3 activity work work work Common property use work Housework
Food expenditure quintile Poorest 2nd poorest Middle 2nd richest Richest Average 95.5 96.8 94.9 92.8 87.8 93.6 93.3 92.2 90.8 87.7 81.4 89.1 33.4 36.7 35.4 29.6 32.8 33.6 86.9 79.9 79.8 74.7 50.0 74.4 9.6 13.2 18.5 19.2 24.0 16.8 14.1 8.3 5.9 5.0 4.7 7.6 74.4 72.0 69.3 64.3 59.2 67.9
Looking at the division by food expenditure groups, there are some interesting things to notice. The percentage of people in the two richest groups has lower shares of people engaged in agricultural work. The same holds for the use of common property resources. Meanwhile there are a higher percentage of people in these groups doing non-farm work compared to the poorer groups. It is of interest to study the relation between non-farm work and the creation of income for households. If this explains why these people become richer, the structure of activities for rural households should be changed in order to help the poorest increase their income and escape poverty. As presented in Figure 2.2b the mountainous provinces like Dien Bien, Lai Chau and Lao Cai, have a high number of people involved in agriculture work; about 90 percent. The highest number of people involved in wage work live in the provinces of Khanh Hoa, Lao Cai, Dak Lak and Long An (Figure 2.2a). The average for these provinces is 45 percent. In Dien Bien, a mountainous province, most people work in agriculture (90 percent). Further the percentage of people engaged in use of common property resources is high. The percentage of people working in wage work and non-farm activities is low.
151
Figure 2.2: Percentage of active age population engaged in the four activity types
a. Percentage of active age population engaged in wage work b. Percentage of active age population engaged in agriculture work
100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0

H a T La ay o Ph C a u i La Th iC o D ha ie n u N Bie Q ghe n ua n An Kh g N a n am h D H oa ak D ak Lak La N o m ng D Lo o n ng g An
100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0

H a T La ay o Ph C a u i La Th iC o D ha ie n u N Bie Q ghe n ua n An Kh g N a n am h H D oa ak D ak Lak La N o m ng D Lo o n ng g An
c. Percentage of active age population engaged in nonfarm work
d. Percentage of active age population engaged in common property use work
100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0

H a T La ay o Ph C a u i La Th iC o D ha ie n u N Bie Q ghe n ua n An Kh g N a n am h H D oa ak D ak L a k La N o m ng D Lo o n ng g An
100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0

H a T La ay o Ph C a u i La Th iC o D ha ie n u N Bie Q g he n ua n An Kh g N a n am h D H oa ak D a k L ak La N o m ng D Lo o n ng g An
A different activity involvement is found in Ha Tay (Figure 2.2c). Here 32 percent is engaged in non-farm work, which is the highest percentage found. Besides that a large part is doing wage work, 29 percent. Further the number of people engaged in agriculture work is low. The same is true for the Khanh Hoa province.
152
2.2. Diversification
There are many definitions relating to income diversification. The patterns of diversification vary depending on the definition used. Within this study, income diversification is briefly described as diversity in income sources. This definition is closest to the original meaning of the word. It refers to an increase in the number of income sources or the balance among the different income sources. A household with two income sources would be more diversified than a household with just one. Furthermore, a household with two income sources, each contributing half, would be more diversified than a household with two income sources, where there shares are 90 to 10 percent among the two (Joshi et al., 2002; Ersado, 2003). Income diversification is also used to describe the share of non-crop or non-farm income. Expansion in the share of income earned from non-farm activities often correlates with total income both for households and countries. This definition of income diversification is linked to the concept of structural transformation at the national level. It is defined as the long-term decline in the contribution share from the agriculture sector to GDP and employment in the agricultural sector. Empirical research indicates that, in some cases, income diversity is a risk-management strategy of the poor households in response to unpredictable weather and low agricultural potential. In other cases income diversity is associated with higher-income farmers switching into high-value crops and non-farm activities. Diversification in non-farm activities is associated with the growth in demand for non-food products as income rises. The share of non-farm income in rural households tends to be greater among households with higher education, electricity, good market access, and relatively high income. In some cases, non-farm income is also important to the rural poor. This is particularly the case if there is a large landless population, who relies on unskilled labour wage income.35 In the analysis two measures of diversification are used. One is number of activities engaged in out of the four discussed above. The second is the Simpson index.36 The first is used to look at income source diversification. The second is used to look at job diversification and income diversification.37
35 36
Minot et al. (2006). The Simpson index of diversity is widely used in biology to measure the bio-diversity of an eco-system. The Simpson index of
diversity is defined as: SID = 1- Pi2. Where Pi is the proportion of organisms that are classified in species i. The Simpson index of diversity can also be interpreted as the probability that two randomly selected organisms will be from the same species. We can use the Simpson index to compare income and job diversification in several regions within the country. Here, Pi is the proportion of activity/income source i in total labour time or income earning. The value of SID always falls between zero and one. If there is just one activity, P1=1, so SID=0. As the number of activity/income sources increases, the shares (Pi) decline, as does the sum of the squared shares, so that SID approaches one. If there are k activity/income sources, then SID falls between zero and 1-1/k.
153
Based on the application of the Simpson index of diversity maps for job diversification and income diversification can be drawn. The darker the colour the more diversified the jobs/income. From Figure 2.3 it is clear that provinces like Dien Bien, Lai Chau, Khanh Hoa etc. are more diversified than other provinces. Figure 2.3: Diversification in terms of number of job and income
Sm so In ex of JobDversifica i p n d i tion
Simpson Index of Income Diversification
At the individual level, the results from the survey show that most household members of active age have one or two types of activities. Fifty-three percent has one activity and 43 percent two. A small percentage of household members have three types of activities (four percent). It seems that women engage in fewer activity types than men. The diversification in activities shows only a small difference in gender of the household head. Generally, the percentage of all activities for male and female household heads is similar. Normally, men will be the main labour and income resource for the family, and men are often the head of the household. But if women are the head of the household, mainly widows, then they are the main labour and income source for the family. This may be a reason for why these women have the same amount of activities as the male heads.
37
Simpson index was calculated with weight. Pi for job diversification follows man/day for each activity and Pi for income diversification follows each income source of total income sources.
154
In Table 2.2 an interesting point appears. Richer people have less diversification of activities. Only 2.7 percent of people in the rich group have three activities and 0.3 percent four activities. Meanwhile 6.2 percent in the poorest group are engaged in three activities and none in four. A possible explanation of this difference is that rich people focus on one activity in which they have expertise. If this is so, it will make this groups income better, which will lower their need to diversify their income activities. Nghe An, Dak Nong and Phu Tho have the highest percentages of people doing one activity, while Dien Bien has the lowest percentage. The highest percentages of people engaged in these activities is found in the provinces of Long An and Lai Chau. Table 2.2: Diversification of income earnings activities at individual level (percent)
One activity type Gender Female Male Household head Female Male Food expenditure quintile Poorest 2nd poorest Middle 2nd richest Richest Province Ha Tay Lao Cai Phu Tho Lai Chau Dien Bien Nghe An 50.9 40.8 64.1 47.5 24.7 64.4 47.6 53.7 33.2 43.0 68.8 32.0 1.5 5.5 2.1 9.3 6.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.2 51.8 53.7 50.8 56.7 66.4 42.0 43.1 44.8 40.1 30.6 6.2 3.0 4.4 3.0 2.7 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 60.1 54.7 37.3 41.0 2.6 4.2 0.0 0.2 59.7 51.6 38.0 42.6 2.2 5.5 0.0 0.2 Two activity types Three activity types Four activity types
155
Quang Nam Khanh Hoa Dak Lak Dak Nong Lam Dong Long An Total
58.2 57.3 55.1 62.2 53.7 56.6 55.6
37.1 36.2 41.4 35.6 44.0 34.5 40.4
4.7 6.5 3.5 2.2 2.2 8.9 3.9
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
When comparing the individual level with the household level, it appears that there is more diversification among individuals. A much lower percentage is engaged in only one activity type and a much higher percentage is engaged in two or three activity types. Moreover, female headed households have a slightly higher share of members with one and two income activities, and a lower share of members with three and four activities, than male headed households. When comparing household level with individual level data by food expenditure groups, the percentage of households engaged in only one activity is lower for every quintile group, whereas the opposite is true for the more than one activity types. There are more households in the richer groups having one or two activities than households in the poorer groups. Moreover, the richer households have a lower percentage in three and four activity types. Table 2.3: Diversification of income earnings activities at household level (percent)
One activity type Household head Female Male Food expenditure quintile Poorest 2 poorest Middle 2nd richest Richest Province Ha Tay Lao Cai Phu Tho Lai Chau 25.3 10.4 25.0 16.4 51.7 68.6 62.2 47.6 23.0 21.0 10.6 29.8 0.0 0.0 2.2 6.2
nd
Two activity types
Three activity types
Four activity types
28.9 24.7
57.1 53.3
13.7 20.8
0.3 1.2
27.7 18.3 23.8 27.7 29.9
49.8 61.7 55.5 50.9 52.7
21.7 19.1 19.3 20.1 16.8
0.8 1.0 1.4 1.3 0.6
156
Dien Bien Nghe An Quang Nam Khanh Hoa Dak Lak Dak Nong Lam Dong Long An Total
2.7 32.0 23.9 27.9 33.6 33.6 21.1 17.3 25.5
68.6 50.2 55.8 39.9 53.3 57.3 60.8 52.0 54.1
27.0 16.1 19.5 30.9 13.1 9.1 18.2 28.9 19.4
1.8 1.6 0.9 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.0
Theoretically the diversification may help households reduce the risks to get a more stable income. This is pursuant to the result of the survey, which shows that diversification may not result in a desired income level, and there are possible benefits of specializing in one activity. This point can be even clearer, when looking at the diversification of activities in each province. In the two provinces, Dien Bien and Lai Chau, people are engaged in more activity types than in any other province. This high degree of diversification is not followed by a similar high income compared to the other provinces. Therefore it is not possible to conclude that the diversification is directly related to more income for these provinces compared to other provinces.
2.3. Importance of activity types in time allocation versus income generation

2.3.1. Household labour allocation in terms of time use The transformation of the labour structure within activities may be an important factor in poverty reduction. Table 2.4 shows the labour allocation shares of the surveyed households for different activities. On average the households still allocate most of their labour to agriculture work, and this share is nearly 37 percent of total household working time. This is followed by house work, paid work and non-farm work, with respectively 28 percent, 21 and 12 percent. Common property use accounts for about two percent of total household working time. The share of labour used in wage work and agriculture work depend on the gender of the household head. Households with a female head spend more time in wage work than those with a male head. In contrast, households with a female head spend less time in agriculture work than households with a male head. As for non-farm work and other work there are almost no differences in terms of the gender of the household head. Table 2.4: Working time allocation shares at household level (percent)
157
Wage work Agriculture work Non-farm work Common property work Household head Female Male Poorest 2 poorest Middle 2nd richest Richest Total
nd
House work
26.8 19.4 15.4 20.5 22.2 19.9 26.5 20.9
27.3 39.5 43.6 40.4 38.7 37.2 25.2 37.0
11.7 11.8 6.2 9.0 8.8 14.7 20.5 11.8
1.0 2.5 3.3 2.7 1.6 1.4 2.2 2.2
33.1 26.7 31.6 27.4 28.7 26.8 25.6 28.0
Note: Calculated based on total working days in last 12 months for each activity
The trend is clear in the allocation of labour by food expenditure group. The richer groups tend to allocate more labour time to wage work and non-farm work. The time spent in wage work for the richest group is 27 percent, while this percentage for the poorest group is 15 percent. A similar picture emerges when it comes to non-farm work, where the richest group uses 21 percent of their time compared to only six percent for the poorest group. This shows that the richer groups spend less time in agriculture work and common property work. Meanwhile, the opposite is true for the poorer groups, who spend far more time in agriculture work. This is most prevalent for the poorest group with 44 percent. Households will normally spend most time doing their main job, which is often their main income source. When we look at food expenditure groups the picture does not only show the differences in the labour allocation shares of the different household groups, but also the differences in activity structure of these groups. Trying to understand the difference in structure among the household groups, it is important that income from wage work and non-farm work play a key role in improving income for the richer household groups. Hence, it would appear that structural change in activities would tend to help the poorer groups, who are now mostly dependent on agriculture work.
158
Figure 2.4: Work time allocation shares at household level by province (percent)
20
percent 40 60
80
100
% time on wage % time on HH business % time on other
The allocation of household working time differs by province. Khanh Hoa, Long An and Quang Nam allocate more time in wage work compared to other provinces. The mountainous provinces like Lai Chau, Dien Bien and Dak Nong spend less time in this activity. These provinces mostly depend on agriculture work and therefore spend 50-60 percent of their total working time there. This holds as well for other provinces such as Lao Cai, Lam Dong, Dak Lak, Phu Tho and Nghe An (Figure 2.4). When it comes to non-farm work, Ha Tay has highest labour share; about 35 percent. It is followed by Quang Nam and Khanh Hoa. A reason for these high percentages is many kinds of business activities in these two provinces. 2.3.2. The importance of labour and income Income shares are an important indicator to assess the relative labour productivity. Furthermore, when doing in-dept analysis related to income, changes of income shares by year will be explored to get a deeper understanding. This section gives a picture of the current situation based on the VARHS06 survey.
Th o C ha u D ie n Bi en N gh e Q An ua ng N am Kh an h H oa D ak La D k ak N on La g m D on g Lo ng An La i
% time on agri % time on common prop
Ta y H a
La o
Ph u
C ai
159
As discussed earlier, the allocation of labour and income have a close relationship. Table 2.5 shows the shares of working time and income shares for different types of activities. Basically, the highest shares of both working time and labour income are in agriculture work, 37 percent for each. It clearly shows the importance of agriculture in the rural households. The second most time consuming activity is house work including all household reproductive activities such as cooking, cleaning, etc, which takes up 28 percent of households active age peoples time. No immediate income is attached to this. The second most important activity in terms of the share of labour income earned is wage work. About 21 percent of working time is allocated to it and the labour income share from wage work is 28 percent. For non-farm work the working time and income share is about 12 percent Income from common property resources accounts for two percent of total income the same as the same of working time in this activity. By gender of the household head it appears that in male headed households a higher share of working time is allocated to agriculture than in female headed households whereas the opposite is true for wage work.
Table 2.5: Importance of labour and income (percent)

Common property Wage work Time Labour Agriculture Time Labour Non-farm non-wage Time Labour Time share resources Labour income share House work Time share
share income share share income share share income share Household head Female Male 26.8 19.4 35.5 26.5 27.3 39.5 25.1 39.8 11.7 11.8 10.9 12.7
1.0 2.5
0.7 3.0
33.1 26.7
Food expenditure quintile Poorest 2nd poorest Middle 2 richest Richest Total
nd
15.4 20.5 22.2 19.9 26.5 20.9
25.1 32.5 30.8 23.2 30.0 28.4
43.6 40.4 38.7 37.2 25.2 37.0
43.8 41.3 37.5 38.9 22.2 36.8
6.2 9.0 8.8 14.7 20.5 11.8
7.0 10.1 9.5 15.4 20.0 12.3
3.3 2.7 1.6 1.4 2.2 2.2
3.7 2.3 1.8 1.8 3.0 2.5
31.6 27.4 28.7 26.8 25.6 28.0
Note: Income shares are calculated based on information from last 12 months. Labour income only, rental income, income from the sales of assets or other income are excluded from the total income considered here. Time shares are
160
based on households active age population only (15 to 59 years old). All shares are first calculated at the household level and then averaged.
Figure 2.5: Income shares from income earning activities, by province (percent)
100 0 20 percent 40 60 80
% inc from wage % inc from HH business % inc from other
When comparing the provinces, the importance of wage work in terms of share of income generated is slightly higher in the more southern provinces, with the highest shares of income from wage work in Quang Nam, Khanh Hoa and Long An and Phu Tho in the North.. The provinces where households derive most of their income from agriculture are Dien Bien, Lai Chau, Dak Nong, Lao Cai, Nghe An, Lam Dong, Phu Tho and Dak Lak (all more than 50 percent). An exceptional importance of common property work in terms of income earning is found in Dien Bien and Quang Nam where households derive on a substantial fraction of their income from common property resource work. Figure 2.6: Household non-farm labour
10 0
p rc n e et
2 0
4 0
6 0
8 0
2004
north
% inc from wage Characteristics of the% inc from agri Vietnamese Rural Economy: % inc from HH business % inc from common prop Evidence % inc a 2006 Rural Household Survey in 12 Provinces of Vietnam from from other
Th o La iC ha u D ie n B ie n N gh e A Q n ua ng N am K ha nh H oa D ak La k D ak N on g La m D on g Lo ng A n
% inc from agri % inc from common prop
2006 2004 2006 2004 2006
Ta y H a
La o
P hu
C ai
central
south
161
Note: 2004 includes only the provinces that are included in 2006 (so only 12 provinces, only Long An is in south, five northern and six central provinces)
Figure 2.6 shows the development in income shares from earnings activities from 2004 to 2006 where the GSO 2004 survey is used to calculate shares for that year. It is presented for North, central and South Vietnam. In all three regions the share of income from agriculture has declined, whereas wage income has increased. Perhaps surprisingly, the income share from household business has declined in all three regions, while income shares from other activities have gone up in the north but down in central and southern part of Vietnam. To some extent, the survey result indicates that non-farm self production results in a relatively higher income. In most cases non-farm self employment creates higher labour return compared to both farm self jobs and wage jobs. Generally, non-farm work seems to be a very important factor to the rural population. Not only in term of job creation, but also in term of higher labour return.
2.4. Conclusion
The present analysis suggests that households generally consist of four people, three of whom are working and earn income. The most important activity remains agriculture work, and the other activities are ranked as follows: housework, wage work and income work. On average households spend most of their labour in agriculture work. The other activities are ranked as follows; paid work, non-farm work and other work. Overall, households have on average two activity types, which generate the main share of the income. It appears that diversification does lead to higher income, and income may depend on the quality of the activity. Turning to labour productivity, the effectiveness of agricultural activities is not as good as for other activities. The working time share in agriculture work is high, while the income share is low. Meanwhile, paid work and non-farm work seem to be more effective. It is important to look at income share and labour allocation share to identify the activities, which is good for the households. The above results call for further development of the rural economy in Vietnam, where labourers with relatively low quality are over-abundant. Future development should clearly focus on the expansion of non-farm activities.
162
3. LAND: CHARACTERISTICS, USE, INVESTMENT AND MARKETS

Together with labour, land is a key factor in the production of primary agricultural outputs such as food, cash crops and livestock. Access to land is vital to agricultural production and household use and access to land has been governed by a series of land laws with a view to ensuring equal distribution of land and land-use rights. All land in Vietnam is owned in common by the people of Vietnam and managed by the state. The laws that govern the distribution of land have been reformed several times since decollectivisation in 1988. Under the first Land Law, land was allocated to households for a period of up to 30 years depending on household size. Only under the 1993 Land Law were households allowed to engage in land transactions. In this law, households were granted the rights to transfer, exchange, inherit lease and mortgage land. Together with these rights, Land-Use Certificates (commonly called Red Books) were issued by the state as a legal proof of household claims to the use of land. Land Use Certificates (LUCs) were granted for up to 50 years and after expiry the term is renewable. Although the law has been in use for more than ten years, land use certificates have not been issued for all plots and strong regional differences prevail. The most recent Land Law of 2003 ensures an improved land registration system and clearer (and faster) administrative procedures. A novelty is the requirement that the LUC bears the names of both husband and wife if the land belongs to both. A possible consequence of the emergence of a land market may be that the distribution of land becomes less equal than originally intended. Poorer households may face difficulties accessing the market. This situation is discussed, by province and food expenditure groups, with respect to land and LUC distribution in Sections 3.1 and 3.2. Land in Vietnam is highly fragmented, especially in the north of the country where households have more and smaller plots, most often not bordering each other. Originally plots with different characteristics (in terms of quality of soil and location) were distributed to households to ensure equity of both size and quality. However, highly fragmented land holdings often entail lower agricultural production efficiency. More flexible land markets will most likely allow farmers to consolidate their land better. Again, regional or wealth characteristics may inhibit consolidation speed (Section 3.1). Formal proof of property rights to land has generally been assumed to enhance productive investment in land (e.g. Feder and Onchan, 1987; Hayes, Roth and Zepeda, 1997). Yet, the results of analysis in this field are becoming more ambiguous (e.g. Holden and Yohannes, 2002) or dependent on the availability of credit and the use of land as collateral (e.g. Feder and Feeny, 1991; Carter and Olinto, 2003) or even showing evidence of reverse causality where investment results in
163
increased tenure security rather than being the result of increased security, i.e. endogeneity of land rights (Besley, 1995; Brasselle, Gaspart and Platteau, 2001). In addition, restrictions on the use of land, particularly on the choice of crops, still exist in Vietnam. This could possibly limit any investment enhancing effect of the issuance of formal property rights. In what follows we look for patterns between land use and investment and titling of plots (Sections 3.3 and 3.4). Establishing causality is beyond the scope of this study. In the VARHS06 survey information was collected on five types of land: land which was owned and used by the household; land which was used but rented or borrowed in; land which was owned but rented or lent out; land which was previously (i.e. within the last five years) rented or borrowed in; and land which was previously owned. The large majority of the plots recorded are owned and used by the household itself (81 percent). Differences between the provinces are large; 99 percent of all recorded plots are owned and used by the household in Lai Chau and Dien Bien, whereas this share is only 71 percent in Nghe An. Nghe An shows the highest percentage of previously owned plots.38 All households use land (if not for agricultural production then for residence) and nearly all households own land. In the sample only one percent of the households are landless. However, when residential land is excluded, 86 percent of the households have agricultural land (i.e. for other than pure residential use). This number is exactly equal to the national 86 percent in 2004 (Brandt, 2005). Only 79 percent of female headed households own non-residential land while 88 percent of male headed households do. Twenty percent of households are renting in land while a much smaller percentage rents out land (10 percent). Renting in land occurs the least frequent amongst the richest households while renting out is most frequent in that category. Also some provinces appear to be more active than others in the rental market. Twenty-six percent of households have bought at least one of their plots. The same provincial and food expenditure quintile differences appear. Activity in rental and sales markets, and changes thereof, are briefly discussed (Section 3.5). To take into account geographical differences, we keep the established provincial structure. Moreover, to explore differential access to use of and investment on land based on gender we calculate summary statistics by gender of the household head. To find out whether poorer households are being marginalized in their access or use of land we also show land statistics by food expenditure quintiles (quintiles based on food consumption).
3.1. Distribution and fragmentation of land

An overview of the distribution and fragmentation of land owned by the households in the survey is presented in Tables 3.1 and 3.2. First of all, there are strong differences in household average land
Rather than indicate an active land sales market, we will see (Table 4.11-Nghe An) that 90 percent of those plots were departed with through taken by state or commune and only 0.5 percent through sale.
38
164
size over the 12 provinces in the survey, and by gender of household heads (but these may be partly related to the unequal distribution of female headed households over provinces, finding more of them in small land provinces). The smallest average and median land holdings are found in Ha Tay and the largest land owners are located in Dien Bien and Dak Nong. Female headed households own on average less than half the area of male headed households (44 percent, which is far lower than the national 54 percentage, Mekong Economics, 2004b). Part of the difference can be explained by the fact that female headed households are smaller (four members on average compared to five members in male headed households) but even when corrected for household size, their land holdings are still only 61 percent the size of male headed households. The poorest quintile has the largest average land holdings, but once corrected for household size, the richest 20 percent households have the biggest per capita land properties. In addition to the difference in per capita land holdings, the quality of land may also differ substantially. For example, the most fertile land is found in the deltas and on the plains while mountain land is of much lower quality. Female headed households appear to have better (sales) value land than male headed, especially with respect to annual crop land. But the poorest quintile appears to have only half as good value land (measured by sales value) as the richest quintile. Especially with respect to perennial crop land there is a strong difference in sales value per square meter between the food expenditure quintiles. So the poorest households appear not only to have smaller per capita land holdings but also less valuable land. Around 78 percent of non-residential land is annual crop land. Exceptions to the higher end are Ha Tay and Dien Bien with 93 and 89 percent respectively. The Central Highland provinces of Dak Lak, Dak Nong and Lam Dong have exceptions to the low end with 43, 32 and 26 percent of agricultural land devoted to annual crop use. In terms of equality of land distribution, many provinces seem to have some households at the upper end of the distribution that have relatively large landholdings compared to the rest of the survey population thereby pushing the average land size up. This appears to be so in all food expenditure quintiles. To visualize the issue of equality better we present graphs with the distribution of total and annual land (Figures 3.1 and 3.2). Table 3.1: Distribution and fragmentation of land
Total land area (in sqm) average Province Ha Tay Lao Cai Phu Tho Lai Chau Dien Bien 1,931 11,330 4,131 11,929 24,128 1,728 7,505 3,000 9,500 10,120 1,575 5,231 1,959 9,758 10,732 5.8 5.1 7.4 6.3 6.9 14 14 17 16 19 6.8 7.7 11.0 19.6 27.7 331 2,217 559 1,894 3,498 250 960 312 1,200 780 median Annual land (in sqm) average Number of plots average max Percent plots share border with other plots Plot area (in sqm) average median
165
Nghe An Quang Nam Khanh Hoa Dak Lak Dak Nong Lam Dong Long An Household head Female Male Poorest 2 poorest Middle 2nd richest Richest Total
nd
5,986 12,487 6,323 11,209 22,161 10,032 10,717 4,016 9,037 10,632 8,582 5,406 6,438 8,891 7,989
2,516 2,480 2,822 8,500 17,900 7,600 5,742 2,000 3,420 3,391 3,420 3,000 3,000 2,352 3,050
2,550 5,023 3,415 2,742 3,932 1,474 8,295 2,103 3,939 4,492 3,353 2,582 2,735 4,617 3,556
4.9 4.3 2.5 3.3 3.2 2.6 2.9 3.8 5 4.9 5.4 4.8 4.7 4.0 4.7
14 12 12 10 10 8 15 16 19 17 19 16 14 18 19
11.9 7.7 21.2 26.5 31.6 19.0 54.9 13.2 15.5 13.4 15.3 13.2 12.6 22.6 15.1
1,227 2,888 2,583 3,420 6,899 3,849 3,674 1,062 1,813 2,172 1,599 1,132 1,373 2,250 1,688
430 500 1,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 360 462 500 432 400 432 460 432
Ninety-five percent of all land holdings are smaller than 36,000 square meters while the upper five percent of the households have land between 36,000 and 766,217 square meters. Figure 3.1a and b present a picture of the land distribution for the lower 95 percent of the sample. The majority of the surveyed population has fairly small land holdings (70 percent has less than a hectare). There are slightly more households in the higher land holdings in the southern provinces (76 percent of households have less than one ha in the northern compared to 55 percent in the southern provinces). Figure 3.1c suggests that both regions are far from having a perfectly equal land distribution, but none of them is stochastically dominant over the other (i.e. none of them is more equal than the other over the whole of the distribution). Table 3.2 : Land holdings adjusted for household size and quality
Average land per capita (in sqm) Province Ha Tay Lao Cai 486 2,347 398 1,022 160 7 159 7 210 5 Average annual land per capita (in sqm) Approx. sales value of cropland Approx. sales Approx. sales value of annual value of perennial cropland cropland
166
Phu Tho Lai Chau Dien Bien Nghe An Quang Nam Khanh Hoa Dak Lak Dak Nong Lam Dong Long An Household head Female Male Food expenditure quintile Poorest 2 poorest Middle 2nd richest Richest Total
nd
1,099 2,204 3,895 1,339 2,301 1,355 2,224 5,054 2,451 2,983
515 1,745 1,711 576 1,226 706 523 845 427 2,272
11 3 2 10 12 14 15 26 25 28
11 3 2 9 12 11 9 33 40 28
6 1 6 49 7 24 21 22 16 7
1,157 1,892
608 868
92 42
97 44
16 29
1,783 1,783 1,346 1,530 2,259 1,739
814 699 671 658 1,229 814
26 56 78 40 46 51
28 58 85 41 46 53
7 30 16 31 49 28
The Gini coefficient of land distribution is 0.66 for total land and 0.64 for land per capita. This number is much higher than the national 1998 Gini of rural land per capita distribution of 0.50 (Deininger and Jin, 2003) but similar to the 2004 Gini of total agricultural land which was 0.64 (Brandt, 2005). The inequality differences are not notably different by the northern versus southern region (land Gini coefficients are 67 and 64 percent in both regions; land per capita Gini coefficients are only slightly different with 62 percent in the north and 64 percent in the south). However, when we look at annual land only, restricted to the 95 percent lowest land holdings, the distribution in the northern provinces is stochastically dominant over that of the southern provinces, i.e. more equal.
167
Figure 3.1: Total and regional land distribution

.2
north
.2
south
.15
Fraction .1
Fraction
.05
0 0
.05
.1
.15
10000
20000 30000 total HH land owned in sqm
40000
10000
20000
30000
40000 0
10000
20000
30000
40000
total HH land owned in sqm

Graphs by one of 2 regions HH belongs to
c. Total land distribution (Lorenz curve), by region

1
d. Annual land (<= three ha) distribution, by region

1 0 0 L o re n z a n la n d a re a (b y re g io n 2 ) .2 .4 .6 .8
L o re n z la n d a re a (b y re g io n 2 ) .2 .4 .6 .8
.2
.8
.2
.8
In Figure 3.2a and c we see that some provinces in the north (Nhge An and Dien Bien) and some provinces in the south (Quang Nam, Khanh Hoa and Long An) drive the land inequality results (land Gini coefficients for these provinces are respectively 0.69 and 0.68; 0.84, 0.69 and 0.63). Ha Tay has the lowest Gini (0.31), i.e. the most equal distribution. In 2004 the Red River Delta also had the lowest Gini coefficient for agricultural land, namely 0.40 while the south east had the highest of 0.75 (Brandt, 2005). So while Dien Bien and Dak Nong were the provinces with high
168
average land holdings, Dak Nong shows a much more equal distribution of land (Gini 0.48). Ha Tay shows the smallest average and at the same time the most equally distributed land holdings. Figure 3.2: Cumulative land distribution function by provincea
a. Total land, northern provinces
1
b. Annual land (>= three ha), northern provinces

.2
.8
0 0
.2
.8
c. Total land, southern provinces

1
d. Annual land (<= three ha), southern provinces

.2
.8
0 0
.2
.8
Graphs for total land and annual land owned by the household; per capita land holdings show the same pattern.
For annual land of less than three ha in size, Figures 3.2b and d show the generally more equal distribution of land in the northern provinces compared to southern ones. Over time, land inequality has increased quite substantially but this does not necessarily entail increased income inequality, if
169
for example households manage to move into non-agricultural activities (see Chapter 2, agricultural income share has decreased between 2002/4 and 2006). With respect to the fragmentation of land, households in Ha Tay have not only the smallest average size of land, but land holdings also consist of many plots where only around 7 percent share a border with another plot (Table 3.1). In general, fragmentation remains much higher in the northern provinces where historically plots were distributed on a more egalitarian basis leading to fragmentation in order to provide households with same quality land. However, compared to the whole of the north, the northern households in the survey still have a higher number of plots. Brandt (2005) reports that the average number of plots held by northern households fell from six in 1998 to slightly less than five in 2004 reflecting mostly land consolidation projects in the north. Only the households in the richest quintile appear to have less fragmented plots both in amount of plots and percentage bordering other plots, so the richest appear to have better consolidated land. Compared to the VARHS02 results (Mekong Economics, 2004a) there seems to be a small tendency towards higher consolidation (i.e. households hold on average a lower number of plots in 2006). Table 3.3 suggests that most of the activity in the land market is concentrated in the southern provinces. With the exception of Quang Nam, less than one third of all plots owned by households in the southern provinces are acquired through the state or commune. The highest percentage of plots acquired through the land sales market is in Dak Nong followed by Dak Lak (41 and 38 percent respectively). In Long An 56 percent of all plots are received via inheritance. Whether land allocations by the state or by the market lead to the more equal or unequal land distribution is difficult to judge from Table 3.3. Both the most equal province of Ha Tay and the most unequal of Quang Nam have a high share of plots received through the state or commune (around 80 percent) while Dak Lak and Dak Nong, which have around 40 percent of plots acquired through the land sales market, both have relatively low inequality (0.48). As regards land fragmentation, an active sales market and more consolidated plots appear to be correlated (but cause or effect relations cannot be drawn from this summary). Where less than one third of the plots are allocated through the state or commune, 19 percent or more of the plots share a common border with another plot. The exception is Dien Bien where a high percentage of plots are allocated through the state (58) but 28 percent of those share a common border. Table 3.3: Acquirement source of plots
State/ commune Inheritance Sales market Cleared and Exchanged Total no. plots (100 Percent plots GINI based share border on HH
170
(=bought) Province Ha Tay Lao Cai Phu Tho Lai Chau Dien Bien Nghe An Quang Nam Khanh Hoa Dak Lak Dak Nong Lam Dong Long An Household head Female Male 63.9 64.4 16.2 13.9 9.5 9.0 81.1 50.4 86.7 18.1 57.6 78.9 79.5 31.8 16.3 8.7 3.8 15.6 13.5 21.9 9.4 15.4 11.0 7.7 10.9 29.5 12.9 6.9 13.6 56.1 3.6 4.5 2.7 1.1 0.1 5.9 3.5 25.6 37.8 40.6 15.4 25.5
occupied
percenta)
with other plots land size
0.0 23.0 0.8 65.1 31.1 7.1 5.9 11.6 32.0 43.5 67.3 2.3
1.5 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
1650 312 1046 186 291 1576 544 174 579 90 174 382
6.8 7.7 11.0 19.6 27.7 11.9 7.7 21.2 26.5 31.6 19.0 54.9
0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6
9.3 11.9
0.7 0.5
1169 5833
13.2 15.5
0.6 0.7
Food expenditure quintile Poorest 2 poorest Middle 2 richest Richest Total

a
nd nd
61.3 66.9 69.9 66.8 54.8 64.3
12.7 14.6 14.1 11.9 18.7 14.3
7.2 5.9 6.1 10.3 18.0 9.1
18.2 11.6 9.4 10.4 6.9 11.5
0.5 0.7 0.1 0.5 1.1 0.6
1469 1567 1416 1387 1164 7006
13.4 15.3 13.2 12.6 22.6 15.1
0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7
Numbers do not completely add up to 100 since there is a small other category which is not presented here.
There are no strong differences between male and female headed households with respect to land fragmentation, inequality and the source of land. The richest households have acquired a higher percentage of their plots through sales and inheritance than the other quintiles and managed to acquire a higher percentage of plots bordering each other.
171
3.2. Red Book status

Land-Use Certificates or Red Books were issued as a legal proof of household claims to the use of land under the 1993 Land Law. Under the 2003 Land Law it became compulsory for both spouses to be registered in the Red Book if both own the land. We investigate both issues in this section, starting with a summary of Red Book ownership in Figure 3.3 (Red Book status of plots is only recorded for land owned by the households in the survey). Figure 3.3: Percentage of plots with a Red Book
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
e t or es m t 2n i dd le d r ic he s ric t he st ai o u Da oa k Da Lak k N La on m g Do ng Lo ng An An y en e Na or es al Ta Th ha C al iC he To Bi H m m ta m l
Ha
fe
po
en
Ph
Ng
ng
La
Di
ua
an
Kh
All plots
Perennial plots
Households have a LUC on 78 percent of plots owned (i.e. plots to which households have longterm use rights). This is higher than the national average in 2004, which was 76.5 percent (Brandt, 2005). There are strong differences among provinces in the status of and the change in issuance of LUCs. This is so even in provinces which are adjacent to each other such as Ha Tay and Phu Tho, Lao Cai and Lai Chau and Dak Nong and Lam Dong. In Phu Tho and Long An households have a LUC for nearly all their plots while in Dien Bien, Lai Chau and Dak Nong less than 60 percent of the plots have a LUC. For the four provinces included in the VARHS02 (Ha Tay, Phu Tho, Quang Nam and Long An) three have made progress while Quang Nam remained at the same level of percentage of LUCs issued (namely 88). In Ha Tay, for 47 percent of the plots without a LUC in 2002 (VARHS), the household had already applied for one and was only waiting to receive it, while this was only five percent in Quang Nam. In addition, in as much as 68 percent of the cases of plots without LUC in Quang Nam, the household mentioned there was no need for a LUC for this plot.
172
2n
po
La
This could explain the status quo in that province. Also compared to the average percentage of plots with a LUC in 2004 there has been some progress in the group of 12 provinces surveyed. In 2004 77 percent of plots had a LUC (VHLSS04, 12 provinces). There does not appear to be a regional pattern, both the northern and southern region have provinces with very high percentages of plots with LUCs (such as Phu Tho in the north and Long An in the south) and provinces with very low percentages of plots with LUCs (such as Dien Bien in the north and Dak Nong in the south). The percentage of plots with a Red Book is also dependent on the type of plot, i.e. whether it concerns annual or perennial land, residential land, forestry or water surface land. The highest percentages of LUCs are on annual (77 percent) and perennial land (76 percent), followed by residential land (75 percent), grass land (73 percent), water surface area (72 percent) and forest land (67 percent). Female headed households appear to have a higher percentage of their plots with LUCs (84 compared to 76 percent). The poorest households have the lowest percentage of plots with LUC. In the poorest quintile however, female headed households do not have a higher percentage of titled plots. Turning to the issue of how many names of household members are in the Red Book,39 we show in Figure 3.4 the percentages of plots with zero, one and two household names. The gender percentages and relationship to the head of the person(s) registered are shown in Table 3.4. Figure 3.4: Number of household members registered on LUCs
100%
80%
60% 40%
20%
0%
e t en u B N g i en he Q ua A ng n Na Kh an m h H D a oa k D a La k k N L a on m g Do Lo ng ng An es m t id 2n d dle r ic he s ric t he st ai o y e or es ha al Ta Th C al iC or To m m ta l
Ha
fe
po
Ph
La
Di
No HH member
One HH member
Two HH members
39
This number can be zero if an extra-household person is registered as the owner of the LUC. Characteristics of the Vietnamese Rural Economy: Evidence from a 2006 Rural Household Survey in 12 Provinces of Vietnam
2n
po
La
173
Three years after the issuance of the law, only nine percent of all plots bear two names. In 86 percent of the plots with a LUC there is only one household member registered as owner to the use rights of the plot and in most cases this is the head of the household (81 percent). In three percent of all LUCs the spouse is registered as the sole owner and in eight percent head and spouse are both registered. In female headed households 10 percent of all LUCs show extra-household ownership while this is only four percent in male headed households. Differences between provinces are quite substantial (Figure 3.4) with Lai Chau and Khanh Hoa at the upper end of having two names in the Red Book and many provinces at the lower end, with Ha Tay, Phu Tho, Quang Nam and Dak Nong having less than one percent of LUCs with two names. Again there is no consistent regional pattern although Khanh Hoa seems exceptional amongst the southern provinces. Table 3.4: Name registration structure in LUCs
Percent female of names registered 1st name Province Ha Tay Lao Cai Phu Tho Lai Chau Dien Bien Nghe An Quang Nam Khanh Hoa Dak Lak Dak Nong Lam Dong Long An Household head Female Male Poorest 2 poorest Middle 2nd richest Richest Total
a nd
Name structure in LUC Only head Only spouse Both head and spouse 0.5 15.1 0.6 77.6 3.7 19.4 0.0 57.3 2.1 0.0 0.7 0.6 2.1 8.8 11.3 10.5 5.2 3.9 7.0 8.1 Othera
2nd name
All names
21.9 8.1 24.1 1.0 8.5 11.7 24.5 35.8 15.1 16.2 21.3 37.0 94.1 4.4 12.0 13.3 23.9 22.3 30.1 19.7
100.0 100.0 100.0 96.5 46.2 90.0 none 78.3 18.7 none 100.0 75.4 28.9 92.9 93.4 92.0 97.1 80.2 69.3 86.7
22.3 20.5 24.7 44.5 13.0 26.5 24.5 53.8 15.2 16.2 23.3 37.5 91.2 12.5 21.3 21.8 27.7 25.0 33.9 25.7
91.4 80.0 86.1 18.6 81.8 71.2 89.4 24.9 80.9 81.4 91.8 79.7 81.1 81.2 79.7 77.2 85.4 85.5 76.2 80.7
3.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 2.2 1.7 2.1 4.9 1.8 6.4 6.7 6.3 2.2 3.4 1.5 3.8 1.0 4.6 6.4 3.3
5.2 4.9 7.2 3.8 12.2 7.8 8.6 12.9 15.2 12.3 0.9 13.4 14.6 6.7 7.5 8.5 8.4 6.0 10.4 8.0
Other can be any other structure of name registration, including extra-household names.
174
In most provinces over 80 percent of the LUCs bear only the name of the head (exceptions are Lai Chau, Khanh Hoa and Nghe An, See Table 3.4), and southern provinces appear to have a higher percentage of LUCs bearing only the spouse name or another composition of names. So with a few exceptions, there does not appear to be a wide application of the 2003 Land Law with respect to the registration of a second name on the LUC. This can be due to lack of information (see Chapter 7) or the cost of registration or the household view on the ownership of the plot. The two poorest quintiles appear to have a higher percentage of LUCs bearing two names (and the highest percentage where both head and spouse are registered). Especially in the middle and second richest quintile, a higher than average percentage of plots bears the name of the household head only. As expected from the structure of names in the LUC, first names are usually males (see Table 3.4) in male headed households and females in female headed households. Although Ha Tay, Phu Tho, Quang Nam and Long An seem to have a less widespread registration of a second name, they have the better gender balance in the sole names that do appear on the LUC. Khanh Hoa shows an exceptional pattern with 54 percent of all names registered (either on the first or second place) being women. Dien Bien in the north and Dak Lak and Dak Nong in the south perform poorly in registering women on the LUCs. The richest quintile shows the highest percentage of women on LUCs and the two poorest quintile have the lowest percentages of women in red books. In general, only 26 percent of all names appearing on LUCs are women.
3.3. Land use

In this section we extend the analysis to all the plots used by the households whether they are owned or rented in. We also consider whether a relation exists with Red Book status of the plot. This includes, more specifically, whether formal property rights seem to induce long-term investment. Land use may be subject to restrictions. This is the case in 71 percent of the survey villages, and this characteristic may limit the effect of land titling on investment or household diversification or modernization decisions. Most existing restrictions apply to the agricultural versus non-agricultural use of plots and the choice of crops, but restrictions with respect to the construction of permanent structures also exist (Table 3.5). Figure 3.5 shows, first of all, the highest percentages of plots with unrestricted use appear to be in the more southern provinces. Especially Dak Lak, Dak Nong and Lam Dong in the Central Highlands region, show the highest percentages of no restriction on the choice of crops and the lowest percentages in the last two columns, i.e. more plots allowed to be conversed or to have fixed structures. In general more than half of the plots are bound by some restrictions on crop choice. Around 70 percent of communes report that they have a plan to regulate farmer use of land and a majority of those include restrictions on the choice of crops.
175
Female headed households appear to have a similar percentage of unrestricted plots (40 percent compared to 44 percent in male headed households) but eight percentage points more of their restricted plots need to be cultivated with rice in all seasons which leaves them less freedom to diversify or shift into non-traditional crops. The richest quintile appears to have slightly more freedom on crop choice and other use of their plots. Table 3.5: Restrictions on plots (only non-residential used plots)
Formal restrictions on choice of crops Follow plan Province Ha Tay Lao Cai Phu Tho Lai Chau Dien Bien Nghe An Quang Nam Khanh Hoa Dak Lak Dak Nong Lam Dong Long An Household head Female Male 58.3 55.1 1.6 1.1 40.1 43.9 35.2 27.2 54.5 65.0 10.3 7.9 76.3 78.9 76.1 79.2 77.7 32.6 65.6 26.2 45.3 67.6 58.1 28.4 14.1 9.3 4.2 21.0 0.2 2.9 2.1 0.8 0.7 0.7 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 22.1 64.5 32.3 73.0 54.0 31.8 39.5 71.6 85.9 90.7 95.8 74.4 28.6 83.3 15.3 58.5 90.2 9.5 55.9 69.4 84.5 32.4 28.6 29.9 66.5 12.4 72.3 40.4 3.8 82.6 28.1 25.4 3.5 67.6 42.9 66.3 4.9 4.4 12.4 1.1 6.0 8.0 16.0 5.3 12.0 0.0 28.6 3.9 92.0 76.1 88.1 69.7 97.3 83.1 85.6 78.7 26.8 30.5 43.2 53.1 93.1 80.1 88.3 70.9 97.1 83.8 82.3 77.9 25.8 30.1 41.7 52.5 Other No restriction restriction Type of restrictions on the choice of crops Rice all seasons Rice some seasons Other Construct fixed Convert into structures (percent not allowed)a non-agri use (percent not allowed)a

a nd nd
54.2 61.7 54.3 55.6 48.6 55.5
1.1 0.7 1.6 1.2 1.4 1.2
44.7 37.6 44.1 43.2 49.9 43.3
33.96 23.3 28.1 26.9 32.4 28.4
56.84 69.34 66.6 62.6 57.7 63.4
9.2 7.4 5.3 10.5 9.9 8.2
79.2 80.7 80.5 77.6 72.1 78.5
79.2 81.9 81.7 77.3 70.6 78.8
The presented percentages not allowed by the total of definite answers, excluding the category dont know which is answered by ten percent of all households (for both two last columns).
176
To dig deeper into the relationship between crop choice restrictions and Red Book status we present the percentages of plots with no crop restrictions divided by the plots with and without Land Use Certificates in Figure 3.5. The numbers suggest that plots without a LUC seem on average to be less prone to restrictions in terms of crop choice. However, this may mainly be due to the fact that restrictions on the plot use are written into the land use certificate leaving less doubt on whether or not there are restrictions on the plot. Especially in Dien Bien, Phu Tho and Lai Chau in the north and Quang Nam in the centre, the difference is strikingly large. The percentage of unrestricted plots with or without a LUC is highest for the richest quintile. Also with respect to the other type of restrictions the Red Book does not seem to have a freeing impact. The percentage that answers yes to the question whether the construction of permanent structures and conversion into non-agricultural use is allowed remains more or less equal between plots with and without LUCs. However, the percentage that answers not allowed is substantially higher for plots with a LUC. This is due to a decrease not in the category allowed but in the category dont know when plots receive a LUC. The numbers are even higher when only annual land is considered. So although receiving a LUC appears to solve a lot of uncertainty regarding restrictions, LUCs may not work as investment or diversification enhancing as they possibly could, due to more clarity on the restrictions that apply to the plot. Figure 3.5: Percentage of unrestricted choice of crops, by Red Book status of plot
100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0
t or es m t id 2n dl e d r ic he s ric t he st
ai
Da o a k Da La k k N La on m g Do ng Lo ng An
en
An
Na
or es
Ta
ha
al
Th
al
Ha
iC
he
fe
po
en
Ph
Ng
ng
La
Di
ua
an
Kh
No LUC
W ith LUC
Table 3.6 shows the different uses of household plots. Ten percent of all plots are purely residential land, i.e. the plot where the family house is located. This type of land is excluded from the following analysis, in other words we only consider productive land which can be used to grow annual or perennial crops, forestry or aquaculture land or grass land. The majority of productive plots are used for the cultivation of annual crops (77 percent).
2n
po
La
To
Bi
ta
177
On average much higher percentages in the more northern provinces and a lower percentage of plots in the richest quintile is cultivated with annual crops. Only seven percent of all plots are allocated to perennial crops such as fruit trees, coffee or tea. Much higher percentages of plots allocated to perennial crops are found in the provinces of Dak Lak, Dak Nong and Lam Dong in the Central Highlands where households allocate more than 40 percent of their plots to perennial crops. This could be explained by the less stringent restrictions on the choice of crops in that region allowing more possibilities of diversification or by the more favourable conditions to grow this type of crops (or the less favourable conditions to grow rice). In sum, there appears to be more diversification of land use in the southern provinces. Table 3.6: Use of plot (for all non-residential used plots, owned or rented in) (percent)
Annual crops Perennial crops Forestry land Fish/shrimp pond Grass land Othera Province Ha Tay Lao Cai Phu Tho Lai Chau Dien Bien Nghe An Quang Nam Khanh Hoa Dak Lak Dak Nong Lam Dong Long An Household head Female Male 79.6 77.0 5.0 7.6 0.4 1.7 1.4 2.0 0.1 0.2 13.6 11.6 100 100 92.1 70.0 80.2 77.9 88.6 80.9 80.3 67.9 44.5 35.4 24.8 69.1 1.6 8.6 5.2 4.3 0.4 0.8 3.2 12.4 40.8 40.0 44.9 1.4 0.1 4.3 1.2 0.8 4.0 2.8 1.8 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.2 3.4 2.2 5.3 0.8 3.1 2.9 0.0 6.2 0.6 4.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.6 1.0 5.3 14.9 10.1 14.8 1.5 14.7 11.7 16.0 13.2 17.7 29.2 24.0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total
Food expenditure quintile Poorest 2nd poorest Middle 2nd richest Richest Total 80.0 78.7 78.7 73.9 73.6 77.4 5.0 5.7 7.2 10.7 8.6 7.2 1.6 1.9 1.5 1.3 0.8 1.5 1.1 2.1 1.4 2.3 2.9 1.9 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.2 12.3 11.3 11.1 11.7 13.6 11.9 100 100 100 100 100 100
178
The category Other is a combination of residential and cultivated land namely housing land and garden
Rice is still the main crop, cultivated on 64 percent of plots. As 56 percent of the plots remain still subject to some restrictions on the choice of crops and 92 percent of those have to be cultivated with rice in one or more seasons this high number is not surprising. The titled plots have a higher percentage cultivated with rice than plots without a LUC (65 versus 57 percent). As plots with a LUC are more subject to restrictions on crop choice, the higher percentage of plots cultivated with rice is a logic consequence. In general, the richest quintile allocates a lower percentage of plots to rice but the difference is smaller for plots with LUC.
3.4. Investment in land

In this section we look at the investment status of plots in terms of presence of irrigation infrastructure and trees and bushes present on the plot and investment behaviour of households over the last five years. As before, we check whether a relation with ownership of a LUC appears. If more restrictions hold on plots with a LUC this may inhibit investment in permanent structures or trees on the plot. First we look at the situation on the plots used by the household (excluding residential plots) in Table 3.7. Next, we analyse different types of recent household investments (Table 3.8). Lastly, we also present general household perception on the quality of the commune irrigation facilities (Figure 3.7). A higher satisfaction with the community irrigation services provided may lead to less necessity of individual investment. Table 3.7: Current status of land investment - Irrigation facilities and perennial crops
Percent of plots irrigated All plots used Province Ha Tay Lao Cai Phu Tho Lai Chau Dien Bien Nghe An Quang Nam Khanh Hoa Dak Lak Dak Nong 86.5 43.6 65.2 41.4 48.1 61.1 71.0 42.0 69.2 53.0 87.7 19.9 25.9 26.6 6.5 62.7 57.1 19.0 44.4 43.6 86.4 47.5 68.0 52.3 78.9 58.9 74.7 47.0 80.4 63.6 3.8 15.0 15.3 17.0 6.5 12.4 8.6 29.1 51.9 58.1 2.6 17.8 57.9 16.5 7.6 10.9 18.6 43.1 36.6 54.7 4.0 14.3 14.7 17.5 5.8 14.4 7.8 28.5 62.1 67.1 Owned plots, no LUC Owned plots, with LUC Percent of plots with trees/bushes All plots used Owned plots, no LUC Owned plots, with LUC
179
Lam Dong Long An Household head Female Male
53.7 75.9
47.5 87.6
56.2 74.7
64.9 30.7
82.1 12.4
61.8 33.0
70.0 66.6
66.0 57.1
70.3 70.0
15.1 17.1
18.9 17.1
15.3 18.2

nd nd
58.9 65.5 71.5 70.7 71.2 67.0
48.4 46.3 64.1 65.3 62.7 55.1
63.7 69.1 72.8 71.5 72.0 70.1
15.3 14.1 16.0 18.8 22.6 16.8
15.8 11.8 20.9 14.7 27.6 17.4
14.5 16.2 14.6 23.0 21.7 17.9
Sixty-seven percent of all used plots are irrigated, ranging from only 41 percent in Lai Chau to 87 percent in Ha Tay. Female headed households irrigate 70 percent of their plots compared to 67 percent of plots in male headed households. Households in the poorest quintile irrigate only 59 percent of their plots compared to 71 percent in the richest quintile. Irrigation is done mainly via canals especially in the northern provinces. The southern provinces use relatively more wells to irrigate their plots. Obviously, the necessity of irrigation depends on the use of the plot. As can be seen in Figure 3.6, plots allocated to annual crops are more likely to be irrigated than other plots. Plots with LUCs are more likely to be irrigated than plots without for each type of use (but nothing can be said about causality). Figure 3.6: Percentage of plots irrigated, by use and by LUC ownership
90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Annual Perennial Forestry All plots Fish/shrimp No LUC LUC Grass All uses
180
Another type of investment on plots is trees or bushes, whether for income diversification or erosion management. Seventeen percent of all plots appear to have trees but strong regional differences prevail. In the north and the northernmost southern province of Quang Nam households grow trees on average 17 percent or less of their plots while this is between 29 and 65 percent in the more southern provinces. The richest households have a higher percentage of plots with trees especially on their plots without a LUC. There is no consistent relation between Red Book and tree status on the plot. Next, we look at the recent investment behaviour of households. Table 3.8 shows whether households have invested in any of the different types during the last five years and how much on average during the last 12 months before the survey. As this question was asked at the household level rather than at plot level, it is not possible to link recent investment with Red Book status. There has been considerable investment in irrigation and trees and bushes (25 and 30 percent of households respectively) with a higher likelihood of investment in irrigation in the northern provinces but on average higher spending on irrigation investments when they do occur in the southern provinces. The richest households are less likely to invest but invest much higher values when they do. Female headed households are half as likely to invest in irrigation as male headed ones and invest half of the value invested by male headed households. The other types of investment do not appear to occur consistently more or less in one or the other region or food expenditure group. Differences between female and male headed households are quite large with female headed households investing less frequently in all types. And when they do invest they appear to spend less (except on investment in aquaculture). These differences in behaviour may reflect differential gender access to (i) agricultural extension services, (ii) information in general, (iii) credit, (iv) different types of land in terms of location or quality, and/or (v) different attitudes towards risk or innovation. In five of the northern six provinces more than four fifth of the households rely on public and/or cooperative irrigation facilities (Figure 3.7). In the southern six provinces dependence is only that high in Quang Nam (other five southern provinces between 38 and 61 percent). The number of provinces where more than 70 percent of households perceive the state of irrigation facilities as bad or neither good nor bad is eight (and six of those are amongst the northern group). So on average there appears to be both a higher dependence on and a higher dissatisfaction level with the state of public/cooperative irrigation facilities in the north (where we also find higher occurrence of individual investment in irrigation facilities).
181
Table 3.8: Investment of households, occurrence since 2002 and value last 12 months
Irrigation/soil/water conservation percent 30.9 29.0 54.4 48.4 57.0 29.3 2.6 7.6 14.4 3.6 9.8 12.6 value (000) 321 85 7 26 9 98 331 12,760 2,266 4,551 1,849 573 Structures for aquaculture percent 3.7 9.4 16.0 3.5 18.7 7.4 1.7 1.3 2.1 11.1 2.8 1.7 value (000) 2,939 1,916 1,067 79 1,756 690 1,750 1,000 51 1,029 2,500 5,000 Other (semi-) permanent structures percent 7.3 8.2 22.0 21.5 2.7 33.1 5.3 10.3 2.7 12.2 21.2 1.7 value (000) 6,805 2,447 2,641 225 639 3,002 5,046 1,100 2,737 2,243 102 100
Investment type: Province Ha Tay Lao Cai Phu Tho Lai Chau Dien Bien Nghe An Quang Nam Khanh Hoa Dak Lak Dak Nong Lam Dong Long An Household head Female Male
Trees and bushes percent 11.7 30.1 50.7 41.6 12.6 34.3 12.4 15.3 40.4 62.3 71.7 25.4 value (000) 392 462 82 82 343 387 1,084 41 401 2,059 445 11
13.0 28.5
217 555
2.1 6.7
1,528 1,351
9.0 15.5
2,062 3,122
20.0 33.0
171 430
Food expenditure quintile Poorest 2nd poorest Middle 2nd richest Richest Total 26.8 30.9 24.5 24.9 19.2 25.2 158 224 270 703 1,582 519 5.4 5.0 5.9 9.0 3.7 5.8 1,611 586 2,279 888 2,077 1,405 13.4 16.2 12.4 17.8 11.2 14.2 7,975 1,675 1,,005 1,501 3,277 2,968 32.4 32.6 28.0 32.2 26.3 30.3 416 264 512 423 360 396
182
Figure 3.7: Dependence on public/cooperative infrastructure and perception
100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0
t or es m t 2n i dd le d r ic he s ric t he st
ai
Da o a k Da La k k N La on m g Do ng Lo ng An
en
An
Na
or es
Ta
ha
al
Th
al
Ha
iC
he
fe
po
en
Ph
Ng
ng
La
Di
ua
an
Kh
% depends on public/cooperative infrastructure
% mentions general state not "good"
3.5. Land markets

With the issuance of Land Use Certificates, a land market might also become more active. As we have mentioned before activity in the rural land rental market is limited. Only eight percent of all plots used by households are obtained through the rental/borrowing market and five percent of all plots owned are rented out. Twenty percent of households rent or borrow in land and ten percent rent or lend out land. At the plot level, the rental market does not appear to have become more active over the years. In 1992/3 6.2 percent of annual crop land was rented in and this number was 5.1 percent in 1998 (Ravallion and van de Walle, 2003). In 2004, 3.6 percent of all agricultural land and 5.7 percent of annual land was rented in (Brandt, 2005). The percentage of households renting out land was only four percent in 1998, and six percent in 2004 (Deininger and Jin, 2003; Brandt, 2005). So activity in rental/borrowing markets has not changed very much in recent years. Figure 3.8 presents the percentage of plots in each group that was acquired through the land sales market and the percentage of households who acquired at least one of their plots through buying. Eight percent of all plots owned by households are acquired through the sales market but 26 percent of households have at least one plot which was bought. The plot level percentage is lower than the 15.5 percent of plots purchased recorded by Brandt (2005), but the household level is much higher than the seven percent recorded in Deininger and Jin for 1998. Male and female headed households appear to have fairly equal access to the market. However, the difference between the poorest and
2n
po
La
To
Bi
ta
183
richest quintile is large with only 19 percent of the poorest households buying land and 38 percent of the richest. Regionally there are strong differences between the northern and southern provinces (with Quang Nam resembling more the northern provinces). The land sales market appears to be more active in the south. This was already established in 2004 with the percentage of households buying and selling land three times higher in the south than in the north as argued by Brandt (2005). Figure 3.8: Plots acquired through land sales market and households who bought plots
60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0
H a T L a ay o C Ph ai u T La h o iC D ha ie n u B N ien gh Q ua e A ng n Kh N an a m h H D oa ak L D ak ak N La on m g D on Lo g ng An
or p o e st or es m t 2n id d d ric l e he s ric t he st
m al e m al e
fe
% plots bought
% HHs bought
Tables 3.9 and 3.10 show the percentages of households who lost land over the last five years and the way the land was departed with. Fifteen percent of all households have lost land, on average between two and three plots. Only 2.2 percent of all households have sold any land over the last five years. This percentage is only slightly higher than the rural total of 1.7 percent in 1998 (Deininger and Jin, 2003). Again, provincial differences are present and Dak Nong, with 13 percent of households selling land in the last five years, stands out. In general, there seems to be only a minor increase in land sale activity over time. Only six percent of all plots lost were sold. The most important reason for losing plots is taken by the state or commune (58 percent). On average, it appears that plots which were departed with were further away from the family house than the currently owned plots, but this does not hold for female headed households or for six of the 12 provinces.
184
2n
po
To ta
Table 3.9: Households loss of land over last five years

Households who lost land Percent HHs lost land Province Ha Tay Lao Cai Phu Tho Lai Chau Dien Bien Nghe An Quang Nam Khanh Hoa Dak Lak Dak Nong Lam Dong Long An Household head Female Male 17.5 13.9 3.2 1.9 2.3 2.9 44 143 736 1,556 797 978 16.0 20.1 9.9 2.6 2.6 23.4 13.2 7.7 15.0 15.6 6.3 8.4 1.6 1.1 0.0 1.7 1.8 0.5 0.9 3.9 5.3 12.8 4.9 3.4 2.5 2.0 1.8 2.7 1.0 4.3 1.9 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.0 1.7 30 18 13 3 3 47 15 6 21 17 4 10 874 615 1,224 918 767 1,135 775 985 6,661 1,174 2,047 1,110 804 847 695 1,614 1,831 795 817 1,102 1,678 2,371 1,182 544 Percent HHs sold land Avg. nr of plots lost per HH Distance plot-family house (m) Frequency (HHs) Previously owned plots Currently owned plots
Food expenditure quintile Poorest 2nd poorest Middle 2nd richest Richest Total 16.1 15.1 11.2 14.2 16.8 14.7 2.2 2.0 1.2 2.7 3.0 2.2 2.7 3.3 3.0 2.4 2.4 2.7 39 38 28 36 46 187 881 1,138 1,351 2,910 976 1,387 1,061 938 820 832 1,109 948
185
Looking at Figure 3.9 some differences between the receivers of the land departed with in the poorest versus richest food expenditure quintile are worth mentioning. Informal exchange (i.e. where the receiver of the plot is a relative) occurs relatively more in the poorest quintile whereas the categories of neighbour and especially other person appear far more as a receiver of land in the richest quintile. This suggests more formal land exchange activity in this category. Table 3.10 separates the channels of how plots were departed with by all plots lost and plots that had a Land Use Certificate at the time it was lost. This gives an idea of whether a LUC actually increases both security against being reclaimed by the state and mobility of use rights to plots. In general, whether or not the plot had a LUC does not appear to affect the way it was departed with. In Nghe An many plots were taken away from households by the state or commune, and it seems that plots with a LUC were even slightly more likely to have been lost that way. But it could well be that households have applied for LUCs first on the most insecure plots. Thus, nothing can be said about causality on this basis. Generally, it appears that LUCs do not affect the way of departing with land nor do they appear to increase tenure security. As increased security is one of the channels through which LUCs could enhance productive investment, often referred to as the assurance effect (Platteau, 2000), investment effects may be further limited (in addition to the limitations posed by restrictive crop policies).
186
Table 3.10: Households ways of departing with land (plots lost last five years)
Percent sold Percent given away Percent taken by state/com. Percent exchanged
of all plots of plots with of all plots of plots with of all plots of plots with of all plots of plots with lost Province Ha Tay Lao Cai Phu Tho Lai Chau Dien Bien Nghe An Quang Nam Khanh Hoa Dak Lak Dak Nong Lam Dong Long An Household head Female Male 8.4 4.9 7.1 3.9 20.3 19.6 16.8 20.4 45.3 61.1 43.1 64.5 22.4 9.5 28.5 7.6 4.0 2.7 0.0 37.0 66.7 0.5 3.5 34.1 25.9 74.6 77.7 23.8 3.2 3.7 0.0 25.0 100.0 0.7 3.8 25.6 16.0 85.9 100.0 23.8 18.6 70.6 45.7 37.0 0.0 3.2 42.9 65.9 63.3 20.5 22.3 64.5 17.5 74.9 45.3 75.0 0.0 1.2 46.2 74.4 84.0 14.1 0.0 64.5 25.4 21.3 45.8 0.0 0.0 89.7 17.6 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 11.7 27.1 21.5 45.4 0.0 0.0 93.3 11.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.7 50.7 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 25.2 0.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.7 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LUC lost lost LUC lost lost LUC lost lost LUC lost
Food expenditure quintile Poorest 2nd poorest Middle 2nd richest Richest Total 5.0 4.1 3.6 7.9 7.8 5.6 5.2 1.5 2.3 7.2 7.6 4.5 12.8 19.3 25.7 30.5 13.8 19.7 13.4 18.7 26.7 28.5 12.9 19.7 68.8 60.6 49.6 48.6 57.4 57.9 65.7 64.2 54.9 51.6 62.5 60.3 9.9 15.4 7.9 11.5 14.6 12.1 11.9 15.6 8.8 10.9 9.6 11.7
Categories of departing with land do not add up to 100. Not represented categories include taken by other person (0.5percent of total land lost), abandoned (0.8percent) and other (2.7percent).
187
Figure 3.9: Receiver of land lost, total and poorest versus richest quintile
a. Total
parent other child sibling other relat neighbour other person commune /state
b. Poorest
parent other child sibling other relative neighbou other pe
c. Richest
parent other child sibling neig other rela
other pe
commune /state
commune /state
The last set of graphs of this chapter (Figure 3.10) shows the provincial distribution of all plots sold, bought, rented/borrowed in and rented/lent out corrected for the number of households surveyed, to locate where the majority of the different types of transactions is concentrated. It is clear from Figure 3.10 that buying and selling of plots is heavily concentrated in the south. In stark contrast, renting/borrowing in and renting/lending out seems to be more concentrated in the northern household group. This suggests that exchange of land where land documents or other use rights shift owner occur relatively more in the south whereas exchange of land without ownership shifting of documents
188
occurs relatively more in the north. However, both transaction types may serve the objective of increasing land efficiency by shifting land between those with an over supply to those in short supply. Figure 3.10: Regional concentration of land transactions
Ha Tay Lao Cai Phu Tho Lai Chau Dien Bien Nghe An Quang Nam Khanh Hoa Dak Lak Dak Nong Lam Dong Long An
c. Provincial distribution of plots rented/borrow ed in (444)
a. Provincial dis tribution of plots s old (43)
b. Provincial distribution of plots bought (689)
d. Provincial distribution of plots rented/lent out (267)
3.6. Conclusion
In general, the percentage of land with a property title is increasing, reaching nearly 100 percent in some provinces while others lag far behind. The effects of the 2003 land law with respect to the registering of spousal names on the LUC are not very widespread three years after the issuance of the law. Only nine percent of all plots recorded in the survey bear two names and this is close to none for some provinces. So far, the titling of plots does not appear to have invigorated land use mobility or security strongly. Although an increasing percentage of plots are acquired through buying, a low number of plots are being departed with and most of it was reclaimed by the state. Most of the activity in the land sales
189
market is concentrated in the southern provinces in the survey while the reverse holds for rental/borrowing activity. Most of the land market activity appears to take place in the richest quintile. The richer households are more market oriented and appear to have more consolidated plots. They have a lower number of plots with higher average size and a higher percentage of bordering plots. Moreover, they also seem to be somewhat less restricted regarding plot use offering better opportunities for diversification. In general, restrictions on the use of plots remain widespread and even slightly more so on plots with a LUC thereby hindering the possible investment enhancing effects of land titling. Although plots with LUC appear to be more likely to be irrigated causality remains to be uncovered. Large regional differences exist for all topics studied, whereas wealth and gender differences are apparent in some but not all topics. Gender differences may be due to different access to resources or different treatment but also to geographical characteristics as the female headed households are not randomly spread over the sample but more concentrated in some of the survey areas. Especially with respect to size, female headed farms are around half the size of male headed farms. Female headed farms also appear to face more restrictions in the sense that if restrictions on crops exist they are often stronger (rice has to be cultivated in all seasons). Investment is less likely to occur on female headed farms and when they do invest a lower amount is spent. With respect to food expenditure group, the summary statistics show that the richest 20 percent households have the highest per capita land holdings and the poorest 20 percent have the lowest quality land, especially of perennial crop land. The relationship between food expenditure and land is also visible in the formal land markets and the land titling process where the poorest households are underrepresented. They have lower percentages of titled plots and of plots acquired or departed with through the formal land sale market. These differences in access to land, use of land, investment in land and consolidation and/or diversification may lead to differences in production efficiency and crop output value marginalizing some groups in the process. These are areas for further exploration.
4. CURRENT INPUTS IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

In order to produce output, farmers not only use household labour and land, which are fixed within and often between cropping seasons. Farmers need other, more variable inputs, in their production process. The use and type of variable inputs will affect the short-term productivity of land and labour. However, farmer use of inputs may be constrained by lack of information or missing/imperfect markets. The VARHS06 includes questions on the type of inputs used in the agricultural production process (of both crops and livestock). Another section was developed to assess how constrained farmers feel
190
in accessing inputs, on the one hand, and in selling outputs, on the other. In this chapter we discuss use of and access to inputs in crop and livestock production and marketing. Availability and use can be regional specific or farmers may be financially or otherwise constrained. We therefore keep the same structure as in Chapter 4 for most of the tables with a view to detecting differences between regional, expenditure and gender groups.
4.1. Input use in agricultural production

Eighty-seven percent of the households in the survey are involved in crop production while 77 percent are involved in raising livestock. Female headed households are less engaged in both crop production (78 percent compared to 90 percent in male headed households) and livestock raising (63 percent compared to 81 percent in male headed households). When female headed households do engage in livestock raising, they also appear to have smaller numbers of them. The percentage of households engaged in crop and livestock production decreases by food expenditure quintiles (from 92 to 72 percent crop producing households and 83 to 64 percent livestock raising households in the poorest and richest quintiles respectively). It appears that agricultural activities are more concentrated in the male headed and poorer households (see also Chapter 2). To study the households input behaviour, we only consider the crop or livestock producing households in the remainder of the chapter. It is expected that with increased commercialization, Asian farms will become less and less integrated (or more specialized into crop or livestock production) due to product-specific requirements in terms of technical and managerial skills and infrastructural investments (Pingali, 1997). Hence reliance on non-traded inputs, such as crop residue fodder and farmyard manure, will be reduced relative to traded inputs such as chemical or other bought fertilizer and commercial fodder. Table 4.1 reveals that the use of traded inputs in crop production is fairly high for chemical fertilizer, seeds and pesticides while other, more recently promoted types, are more moderately used (herbicides, self-provided organic fertilizer and saplings) and still others are hardly used at all (bought organic fertilizer). As opportunity costs of labour rise, use of modern inputs may increase. For example, herbicides are expected to replace hand weeding. For most inputs in crop production, a lower percentage of female headed households are using them compared to male headed households. There is no consistent pattern of use between food expenditure groups. Where the poorest crop producers have the highest percentage of households using seeds they also have the lowest percentage of households using chemical and bought organic fertilizer and herbicides. Table 4.1: Percentage of crop producing households using inputs
Percent of crop Seeds Saplings Chemical Organic Organic Pesticides Herbicides
191
producing HH who use Household head Female Male Food expenditure quintile Poorest 2nd poorest Middle 2nd richest Richest Total Amt/sqma Household head Female Male Food expenditure quintile Poorest 2 poorest Middle 2nd richest Richest Total
a nd
fertiliser
fertiliser
fertiliser
(self provided) (bought)
82.8 88.6
28.5 30.8
91.2 94.1
43.9 59.9
8.6 8.4
82.3 86.9
66.4 67.8
94.5 92.7 86.4 84.5 76.9 87.5 (kg)
29.9 35.7 34.5 26.4 23.7 30.3 (nr)
87 95.8 97.1 97 90.5 93.5 (kg)
53.8 63.4 62.9 59.7 42.2 56.9 (kg)
4.3 8.2 7.8 9.5 13.5 8.4 (kg)
81.6 89.1 89 88.8 80.9 86 (kg)
58.9 69.6 71.3 72.4 65.4 67.5 (kg)
0.016 0.014
1.46 0.484
0.15 0.137
0.986 1.058
1.392 0.626
0.047 0.065
0.011 0.018
0.012 0.014 0.016 0.016 0.017 0.015
0.321 0.432 0.529 1.339 1.181 0.65
0.116 0.133 0.157 0.142 0.15 0.14
1.08 1.085 1.003 1.115 0.892 1.048
0.218 0.764 1.178 0.356 1.052 0.796
0.062 0.106 0.05 0.055 0.034 0.061
0.035 0.014 0.017 0.014 0.006 0.016
Amount per square meter of agricultural land (annual and perennial land)
Where the percentage of input users of female headed households is lower than male headed households, the amount of input used per square meter is not, and in some cases shows rather the opposite. So there may be a stronger initial entry constraint for female headed households but there appear to be no quantity differences. Two other types of inputs in the production process, somewhat different from the variable inputs discussed above, are hired labour and production loans. Figures 4.1 and 4.2 show the percentages of households in each group that hire in labour for crop and livestock production or paid interest on a production loan during the last 12 months. First, the use of hired labour in livestock production is
192
close to nil, although with some use by the households in Khanh Hoa and the households in the richer food expenditure groups. Using hired labour as an input in crop production is much more common, especially amongst the households in the more southern provinces. Here too we find an increasing use by food expenditure quintile. With respect to interest payments an interesting picture arises. In general, a higher percentage of livestock producing households have a production loan (for livestock) compared to the crop producing households (for crops). It appears to be much more common to have a livestock production loan in the households in the northern provinces while it is much more common to have a crop production loan in the southern households. Crop production loans appear close to nonexisting in the northern survey households, except for those in Lao Cai. At the gender level, relatively fewer interest payments (loans) were recorded especially for livestock production, amongst the female headed households. This may indicate constrained access to credit or stronger aversion to risk by female headed households, an issue which may need further exploration. At the food expenditure level, it appears to be much easier for poorer households to get production loans for livestock than for crops (the gap between the percentages of interest paying households for livestock versus crop production loans is largest in the poorest group and decreasing by food expenditure quintile). This may be related for example to the type of loans or institutions the different food expenditure categories rely on or to their credit worthiness. In both cases, it is probably easier to seize livestock than crops in case of default. Concluding, there are some indications of different access to production loans based on gender and wealth. How exactly this works, remains to be established. Figure 4.1: Percentage of crop or livestock producing households using hired labour
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
e t or es m t 2n idd le d r ic he st ric he st u ai o An oa ng ng y An en k e Na or es ha al Ta Th La C al No Do he iC ng To Bi H m m ta m l
Ha
fe
po
en
Ph
ng
Ng
Da
La
an
Da
Di
ua
La
Lo
Kh
crops
livestock
2n
po
La
193
Figure 4.2: Percentage of crop or livestock producing households using production loans
60 50 40 30 20 10 0
e t or es m t 2n idd le d r ic he st ric he st u ai o An Da oa k Da Lak k N La on g m Do ng Lo ng An y en e Na or es ha al Th Ta C al iC he m To Bi H m ta m l
Ha
fe
po
en
Ph
Ng
ng
La
Di
ua
an
Kh
crops
livestock
4.2. Input and output markets

Having access to input and output markets is an important element in the farmer production and income earning process. In this section we look at the commercial remoteness of the communes (percentage of communes with a market and distance of households to an all weather road), where farmers buy seeds and who the different buyers of farmer products are. Furthermore, we assess in which part of the production process farmers face most difficulties. Earlier studies have already pointed out the importance of price stabilisation and information, access to different varieties and good quality products and marketing of products (Mekong Economics, 2004a). 4.2.1. Commercial remoteness As can be seen from Figure 4.3 72 percent of the surveyed communes have markets.40 The percentage having a daily market is only 51. Daily market activity seems to be more prevalent in the communes in the southern provinces. In the northern ones, only Ha Tay which is neighbouring
These can be any type of market from the set specified in the commune questionnaire i.e. daily market, periodic market or wholesale market.
40
194
2n
po
La
Hanoi, has a fairly high presence of daily markets in the survey communes. Turning to all market types recorded, the communes in the remote northern west provinces of Lai Chau and Dien Bien appear to be extremely poorly provided with markets. Although Dien Bien seems to have slightly more markets than the 28 percent recorded for the North West in 2001 (GSO, 2001) Lai Chau remains with less than the 2001 regional average. All provinces except for Lai Chau and Long An have a higher percentage of surveyed villages with markets compared to their 2001 regional average. Long An is the furthest away from its regional 2001 average.41 With respect to distance to the nearest all weather road (Figure 4.4), the two poorest food expenditure quintiles appear to live furthest away from an all weather road. The households in Lao Cai, Dien Bien, Lam Dong and Long An live on average in more remote areas than the households in the other provinces. So there are strong differences in remoteness. In for example Dien Bien there are few communes with daily markets and households live on average more than two kilometres away from an all weather road. In Khanh Hoa, on the other hand, most communes are served with daily markets and households live less than 500 metres away from an all weather road. These infrastructural characteristics may affect the type of inputs households use and where they buy them and where or to whom households can sell their products. Figure 4.3: Percentage communes with markets
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Ha Tay Lao Cai Phu Tho Lai Chau Dien Bien Nghe Quang Khanh An Nam Hoa Dak Lak Dak Nong Lam Dong Long An Total daily markets any markets
Figure 4.4: Average distance (km) to nearest all weather roads at HH level
3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0
C ha u n B ie n N gh e Q An ua ng N am K ha nh H oa Da k La D k ak N on g La m D on g Lo ng An
po or es t po or es t m id dl 2n e d r ic he st ric he st
H a
La
hu
La i
The Mekong River Delta region showed the highest coverage in 2001 (71 percent) closely followed by the South East 0.0 (69 percent), the South Central Coast (65 percent) and the Red River Delta (63 percent). The lowest market activity was found in the North West (28 percent) followed by the Central Highlands (38 percent) and the North East (43 percent) and North Central Coast (58 percent).
Th o ai y o D ie P 2n d To ta Ta C l
41
0.5
195
4.2.2. Input supply and output demand Forty-nine percent of the households who produce rice, and ever buy rice seeds, buy from a cooperative or commune, 21 percent buy from a seed company, 13 percent from a seed stockist, seven percent from the local market and 11 percent from other sources. The cooperative/commune is the main provider of rice seeds in the households in the northern provinces except for Phu Tho where cooperative/commune and seed companies are equally important rice seed providers. With the exception of Khanh Hoa, the role of the cooperative/commune as a seed provider is much less important for the southern households where seed companies and seed stockists appear much more active (Figure 4.5).42 The structure of input supply is very similar across gender and food expenditure groups although the percentage of households buying seeds from a seed company increases by food consumption quintile. Figure 4.5: Suppliers where rice producing households buy rice seed
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
e e t es t m id dl 2n e d r ic he st ric he st ai o u An ng y ng An en oa k Na or es Ta ha al Th La C al No Do he iC ng or To Bi H m m ta m l
Ha
fe
po
en
Ph
ng
Ng
Da
La
an
Da
Di
ua
La
Lo
Kh
cooperative/commune
seed company
local market
seed stockist
The choice of provider may also be correlated with the commune land use plan. In 36 percent of the villages the choice of rice seeds is restricted by commune planning. These percentages are generally much higher in the northern provinces and range from three percent in Dak Lak and 81 percent in Nghe An.
42
196
2n
po
La
Figures 4.6 and 4.7 give an overview of the importance of different buyers of households crop output (the figures are based on the two most important crops). Households and private traders are the two most important buyer categories of crop output. For the poorest quintile, households play on average a much more important role than they do for sellers in the richest quintile, where crop sellers appear to have more access to private traders. Being able to sell to private traders may be important for income generating. Male headed households sell slightly more till private traders compared to female headed households and the latter sell slightly more to households. There is a strong discrepancy between the percentages of crops sold to private traders by the northern versus southern households. In the southern households nearly all is sold to private traders. The contrast is large with Dien Bien, where the most remote of the survey villages are, there seems to be no possibility of selling crops to private traders (98.5 percent is sold to households). Figure 4.6: Buyers of crop outputa
Total
household private traders cooperatives state owned company foreign company other
197
Richest quintile
Poorest quintile
Numbers are based on the sale of the two most important crops
It is illuminating to compare this to the households in (i) Lao Cai, who live on average even further away from an all weather road but have more markets, or (ii) Lai Chau, who have fewer markets but live closer to an all weather road. Both Lao Cai and Lai Chau have more private trader activity, highlighting the importance of infrastructure. Comparing the four provinces which were surveyed in the VARHS02, we find a strong increase in the percentage of crops sold to households in the northern provinces of Ha Tay and Phu Tho (from 50 to 70 and from 39 to 82 respectively) and a strong decrease in the southern provinces of Quang Nam and Long An (from 21 to 11 and from 25 to six respectively). The increased or decreased trend of selling to households was accompanied with an opposite trend of selling to private traders. Sales to the other buyer types remained the same (close to nil in both years). While there was already a higher presence of private buyers in the southern provinces their importance has increased and where they were less important to start with, their importance has decreased even further. The effect of this trend on the income generating capacity of farmers may need further exploration. Figure 4.7: Percentage of crops sold to households and private traders
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 0
e ai au o An ng ng y An en oa k e al Ta Th Na La C al Ch No Do ng m To Bi H m e ta m l
198 10
Ha
gh
La
ng
nh
Ph
Da
ai
Lo
ie
fe
4.2.3. Access to input and output markets Considering the remoteness of some communes and the (non)presence of suppliers and buyers, households may face several difficulties in obtaining the desired inputs or selling products. One section in the questionnaire was designed to assess the severity of a list of difficulties households may encounter in input or output markets. Whether households mention difficulties in input or in output markets often goes hand in hand (Figure 4.8). The percentages of households mentioning difficulties in both markets are highest (more than 50 percent) in the communes in Lai Chau, Dien Bien and Lam Dong. These are exactly the provinces with the lowest market coverage (see Figure 4.3) combined with relatively high distances to an all weather road (Figure 4.4). The percentage of households mentioning difficulties is decreasing by food expenditure quintiles for both the input and the post-production phase (exception in the latter is the fourth quintile which has the second highest respondent rate of mentioning problems). In the two poorest quintiles accessing inputs appears to be particularly troublesome. In the two richest quintiles households experience more constraints in the postproduction phase, while middle quintile households feel equally constrained in both markets. Comparing to the VARHS02, the percentage of households with some sort of difficulties in accessing inputs has increased considerably in all four provinces (Ha Tay from 8 to 20 percent; Phu Thu from four to 33 percent; Quang Nam from 32 to 38 percent; Long An from seven to 29 percent). There is an increase of households facing difficulties in all food expenditure quintiles but much more in the poorest group of households. This suggests that gaps in accessing inputs between poor and rich may be widening.43 With respect to post-production difficulties, also here the trend
Comparing the increase in percentage points of households facing difficulties in accessing inputs between VARHS02 per capita expenditure quintiles and VARHS06 food per capita consumption quintiles gives the following picture: poorest (31 percent more households facing difficulties), 2nd poorest (28 percent), middle (21 percent), 2nd richest (19 percent), richest (17 percent). Characteristics of the Vietnamese Rural Economy: Evidence from a 2006 Rural Household Survey in 12 Provinces of Vietnam
43
199
seems to be increasing in three out of four provinces. Only in Long An did the percentage of households facing post-production problems decrease from 34 to 31 percent. Figure 4.8: Share of households with difficulties in accessing markets (percent)
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
e e t or es m t 2n idd le d r ic he s ric t he st ai o u An ng ng y An en oa k Na or es ha al Ta Th La C al No Do he iC ng m To Bi H m ta m l
Ha
fe
po
en
ng
Ph
Ng
Da
La
an
Da
Di
ua
La
Lo
Kh
current inputs
post-production
The relative importance of different types of difficulties households encounter in the input market is represented in Figure 4.9. The high cost of current inputs appears to be the main problem (also mentioned by 54 percent of the households facing difficulties in VARHS02; Mekong Economics, 2004a). Strangely enough this is felt as a relatively more important problem in the highest consumption quintile. The second most important problem is the poor transport infrastructure, which is especially stringent in the poorest quintile (see also Figure 4.4 where the poorest households live furthest away from an all weather road). In the poorest quintile transport is mentioned as the most important difficulty in accessing inputs by 28 percent of the households but only by six percent in the richest quintile. At the province level, poor infrastructure is the most important constraint to inputs for the households facing difficulties in Dien Bien and Lai Chau (with the lowest market coverage), followed by Lam Dong and Lao Cai (with the highest distances to all weather roads). For the households in the poorest quintile, not being able to buy inputs on credit is also an important problem (mentioned by 19 percent as the most important problem compared to five percent in the richest quintile). Lack of information is especially mentioned by the households in Dien Bien. So while prices have remained an important problem for many households, poor infrastructure is increasingly seen as a constraint, especially among the poorer households in the provinces with low market coverage and/or higher distance to all weather roads. Figure 4.9: Type of difficulties in accessing markets for current inputs
200
2n
po
La
lack of suppliers prices too high not enough information not able to buy on credit not enough access to credit
0.8
Total
0.8 5.2 20.2
1.1 8.8 5.7
poor transport infrastructure

1.1 5.2
20.2
other
8.8 5.7 58.2
58.2
Poorest quintile
1.7 2.4
Richest quintile 0.0 2.3 6.3 3.3 4.8 9.7

46.4
28.3
0.0
18.9 2.3
73.7
Turning to the problems households face in processing and selling their output, the lack of primary processing capacity (incl. drying) was mentioned most often (by 35 percent of the households with difficulties), followed by lack of information about market prices and high transportation costs (by 19 and 15 percent respectively). The problem of high transportation costs appears to have become much more stringent as this was hardly mentioned as one of the problems in 2002. The problem of transportation and access to markets is more important in the poorest quintile (18 and 10 percent respectively) than in the richest (12 and four percent respectively), while the information problem is more prominent in the richest quintile (31 percent versus 14 percent in the poorest quintile). Lack of primary processing capacity is mentioned equally much in the poorest and richest quintile (33 and 32 percent). It is the biggest problem in many of the provinces. Exceptions include Phu Tho where lack of demand for output is mentioned most often as the most import problem; Dien Bien with high transportation costs; and Khanh Hoa, Dak Nong and Long An where lack of information about market prices is the most important problem. Figure 4.10: Type of post-production difficulties
201
lack of suppliers prices too high

14.7
Total
6.2 10.7
not enough information not able to buy on credit not enough access to credit
0.8 poor transport infrastructure 20.2 58.2 8.8 other 5.7 1.1 5.2
6.4 35.0
18.6 8.5
Poorest quintile
9.7 11.4
11.8
Richest quintile
7.7 7.8
18.0
5.2 32.2
4.1
33.1
13.6 10.1
31.1
4.2
4.3. Conclusion
The use of traded inputs such as seeds, chemical fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides is generally fairly high, but female headed farms appear to face more entry constraints in the input market. However, once they do use inputs the quantities are similar to those used in male headed households. Female headed households appear to use less hired labour and less credit in livestock production. The use of hired labour and credit in crop production increases by food expenditure quintile. These observations suggest difficulties, for female headed and poorer households, in reaching the same average productivity levels as male headed and richer households. Another type of constraint in both input and output markets is clearly the infrastructural limitations faced by many communities, especially low presence of markets and long distances to all weather roads. Communities with no market and far from a road face extreme difficulties in accessing inputs and selling outputs. This is even reflected in the type of buyer of their products. Private buyers are much more present in more accessible communities. Infrastructural and transport problems are mentioned by many of the households as a severe constraint in their production and post-production
202
phases, especially by the poorer households. We also found some indications of a positive correlation between poverty and remoteness, so infrastructure upgrading could potentially have an important poverty reducing effect.
5. CREDIT
The credit module in the VARHS06 questionnaire consists of five comprehensive sections covering different aspects of loans obtained, rejected loan applications and households which were interested in obtaining a loan but for some reason refrained from applying. In the following, this last group of households is described as being self-rationed. The sections on loans obtained and rejected loans cover all loans acquired by the households and all loan applications rejected in the period from 2002 up to the interview date. The section on self-rationed households covers the last 12 months prior to the interview. For loans obtained the module included questions on loan source, terms (size, length, interest, mode of repayment etc.), application costs, collateral/guarantor requirements, defaults, and the purpose of the loan. The section on rejected loans has questions on the credit source rejecting the loan, size of loan applied for, desired/expected terms and what the household did upon having the loan rejected. Finally, the section on self-rationed households elicits the reason for the household not having made an application for a loan, household knowledge of current interest rates and the interest rate the household would be willing to pay to obtain a loan. Credit is particularly important for rural agricultural smallholders relative to other occupations because of the considerable time lag between the application of inputs and the harvest of the output. This concerns both financing of inputs (seeds, rent of plough etc.) and labour inputs. For smallholders this working capital requirement can be difficult to finance out of savings and access to credit for a non-trivial length of time becomes necessary. In addition, credit is used to provide working capital, credit facilitates investment and acts as a tool for consumption smoothing in the presence of shocks (Ray, 1999). Productivity enhancing investments at the farm level, e.g. changing from annual to perennial crops, often have a long recap period and without access to credit such investments may not be feasible and thus foregone. Agricultural production is prone to shocks and variability in the form of bad weather and pests. In years with a below average harvest farmers may want to (or have to) borrow in order to smooth consumption between harvests. If credit is not available for consumption purposes in bad years, poor rural agricultural households may be compelled to liquidate productive assets to be able to consume at subsistence level. Self insurance of the household against shocks through friends and networks is difficult due to the nature of agricultural shocks which tend to affect all farmers within a given area.
203
This chapter presents summary statistics related to the rural credit market in the 12 provinces covered by the VARHS06 survey. Where loan amounts are shown (or used as weights) they are in 2006 values with the deflation done with the consumer price index (IMF, 2006). A short introduction to the rural credit market in Vietnam is given below.
5.1. The rural credit market

The rural credit market in Vietnam is dominated by the two state owned banks, Vietnam Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (VBARD) and Vietnam Bank for Social Policies (VBSP).44 Nghiem and Laurenceson (2005) report that their market share among rural poor at the national level exceeded 80 percent in 2002. VBARD is no longer responsible for policy lending as it is expected to offer loans at sustainable commercial market rates. VBSP was formally created in 2003 to take over the policy lending with subsidized interest rates from the former Vietnam Bank for the Poor (alternatively Vietnam Policy Bank). As of 2005 the VBSP had 600 transaction offices represented in all provinces and associated with 61 branches (International Labour Organization (ILO), 2005). The average loan size at VBSP is smaller than at VBARD and with a lower interest rate. To what extent the VBSP is successful in reaching most poor households is not entirely clear (World Bank, 2004b). Related to the operation of VBARD and VBSP are the Unions; notably the Womens Union but also the Farmers and Veterans Unions. These socio-political institutions can sponsor (act as guarantor) and recommend households to either of the two banks. In some provinces they also act as lenders as an agency for micro-credit lending supported by international Non Government Organizations (NGOs). According to the World Bank at least 57 international NGOs operated by the end of 2003 (World Bank, 2003). The Peoples Credit Fund (PCF), which was established in 1993, also continues to play a minor role. Private Banks have entered the rural credit market as well, although operations are in their infancy. Money lenders and traders are often used for short term credit. Money lenders come both in the form of individuals lending money on an informal basis and in the form of pawn-shops requiring collateral for the amount borrowed. These loans are usually short term and with an interest markedly above commercial rates. Relatives and friends remain a popular source of credit. Most often they come with zero interest, but it is not uncommon to charge a positive interest rate. Although loans from friends and relatives are often used for consumption purposes, they are also important in financing investment of various kinds at least in the provinces covered by the present survey. Traders as a source of credit are increasingly important in Vietnam (ILO, 2005). Traders often link loans or credit with the purchase of seeds or other farming inputs.
44
This section relies on ILO (2005) and World Bank (2004a).
204
5.2. Sources and loan terms

The survey instrument covers all sources of credit available to rural households in Vietnam.45 Both private and state owned formal credit sources are represented, and there are two types of informal sources: private traders/moneylenders and friends/relatives. Private traders and money lenders were separate categories, as was the different unions and the peoples credit fund. The results from the survey indicate that is natural to divide the primary sources of rural credit into eight main sources: VBSP, VBARD, Unions (including the Peoples credit fund), private banks, traders, private money lenders and friends and relatives. The eighth category containing loans from other credit organisations, other state-owned banks and local authorities is labelled other in what follows. Table 5.1 presents the distribution of loans by source for respectively the full sample, loans obtained in 2002 and loans obtained in 2005. By looking at 2002 and 2005 (the last full year for which information is available) separately, it is possible to assess if the structure of loan supply has changed in the period under consideration.
Table 5.1: Distribution of loans by source and year (percent)
They include Vietnam Bank for Social Policies (VBSP), Vietnam Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (VBARD), Other State-owned banks, local authorities, private banks, Unions (Farmers, Veterans, Womens and Peoples credit funds), other credit associations, private traders/private money lenders, friends/relatives and informal credit schemes, including Rotating savings and credit associations (Roscas). Characteristics of the Vietnamese Rural Economy: Evidence from a 2006 Rural Household Survey in 12 Provinces of Vietnam
45
205
Full sample Unweighted Source VBSP VBARD Unions Private Bank Trader Money Lender Friends/Relatives Other Total Observations (N) 15 36 10 1 12 7 14 5 100 2,149 7 54 8 3 4 6 10 7 100 Weighted by loan size
Loans obtained in 2002 Unweighted Weighted by loan size
Loans obtained in 2005 Unweighted Weighted by loan size
14 36 10 2 16 7 12 3 100 253
6 56 6 1 3 5 16 7 100
15 36 11 1 9 6 16 5 100 585
8 55 8 3 3 8 9 6 100
Note: Loan amounts used for weighting are in 2006 prices.
For each of the three samples (full sample, 2002 only and 2005 only) two columns are shown. The first column shows the percentage of the total number of loans disbursed from each source. The second column presents the disbursement percentages, but with each loan weighted by the loan size. Thus, loans where the loan size is less than the average loan size will count as less than one loan. Similarly, for loans where the loan size is larger than the average the loan will count for more than one. The second column tells something about the financial importance of each source. Looking first at the full sample, VBSP and VBARD are the two biggest lenders in terms of the number of loans. Unions, traders and friends and relatives are also important categories covering together 36 percent of all loans disbursed. Overall, private banks still play a limited role in the rural credit market in Vietnam. Money lenders account for seven percent of all loans given out. In terms of money disbursed (Column 2) VBARD dominates rural credit market. A full 54 percent of the money disbursed comes from VBARD. VBSP, Unions and friends and relatives provide respectively seven, eight and ten percent. The second column also indicates that VBARD provides loans with an average size that is significantly above the average loan size while the opposite is the case for VBSP. This reflects the different objectives of the VBSP and VBARD. As noted above, VBSP targets poorer households with smaller subsidized loans compared with the larger loans on commercial terms offered by VBARD (ILO, 2005).
206
The last four columns of Table 5.1 show the disbursements in respectively 2002 and 2005. Some changes are evident. VBSP has a rising market share together with the Unions while the market share of VBARD is more or less unchanged. For the VBSP this increase in market share is expected given the number of new branch offices which according to results from the commune questionnaire (not reported) have been established between 2002 and 2005. For the other sources the picture is clear. Private money lenders have increased but not in number of loans. For friends and relatives the opposite holds. More loans are coming from this source but its financial importance is declining. Traders account for fewer loans but they have kept their market share measured by the size of the loans. For the category other only minor changes seem to have happened, and the same is the case for private banks. As noted above, the different credit sources discussed in relation to Table 5.1 differ in scope and purpose and therefore the size of the loans and the terms they offered differ as illustrated in Table 5.2. Table 5.2 lists the key characteristics of loans offered by different credit sources. The first and second columns present mean and median loan sizes. The third column shows the average duration in months for those loans where a period was specified with the fourth column showing the percentage of loans where no period is explicitly agreed. The fifth and sixth columns show average interest rates for interest bearing loans and the percentage of loans with zero interest, respectively. The column with the heading collateral presents the percentage of loans where collateral was required for each source and similarly for loans requiring a guarantor in Column 8. Lastly, the average number of days it took to get a loan approved is shown in Column 9. The size differences across sources were reflected in Table 5.1. VBARD and private banks provide loans larger than the average while the all other sources provide loans which are smaller than the average loan (with the exception of the other category). For VBSP the most common loan is five million Vietnamese Dong (VND) (7 percent of all loans) with a duration of 36 months (48 percent of all loans). For VBARD the numbers are 10 million VND (seven percent) for 12 months (56 percent). For Unions the numbers are lying somewhere in between those for the VBSP and VBARD. Loans from these sources overwhelmingly have a fixed duration as illustrated by the very small percentage of loans with unspecified duration in Column 4.
207
Table 5.2: Key characteristics of loans by source (all loans)

Loan size Mean 000 VND (1) Source VBSP VBARD Unions Private Bank Trader Money Lender Friends/Relatives Other Total (N=2,149) 5,289 16,240 9,032 30,375 3,728 9,241 7,263 15,329 10,765 5,000 10,000 5,375 6,450 1,928 3,462 2,570 5,000 5,771 30 18 19 12 5 11 11 15 18 2 1 1 0 26 42 66 15 17 0.5 1.1 1.2 1.0 2.6 2.9 1.5 1.2 1.2 1 0 3 0 65 4 85 27 22 0 97 45 100 0 4 0 38 43 94 13 53 0 3 6 8 20 27 7 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 3 Median 000 VND (2) Months Percent Duration Share indefinite Interest Share zero interest Percent Share Share Approval time Median days (9)
collateral Guarantor Percent Percent
Percent monthly (5)
(3)
(4)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Note: All Loan amounts are in 2006 prices.
Traders often provide small loans for a limited period and for a quarter of the loans without specifying length. The loans without a fixed duration are likely to be negotiated each time the trader visits the household and as such are short term in nature. The median size of a loan from money lenders is small at around 3.5 million VND but some very large loans are provided by this source, such that the average loan size is close to that of the unions. The lending period is unspecified for almost half the loans obtained from a money lender. As one would expect friends and relatives in general provide small loans without the duration specified (66 percent of the loans). Turning to the monthly interest rates (on interest rate bearing loans) in Column 5 clear differences are present. The VBSP has the lowest interest rate on average, reflecting its mission of providing subsidized loans to poor rural households. VBARD, Unions and private banks charge around twice as much per month. That private banks and VBARD charge around the same interest shows that VBARD is committed to lend at commercial rates like private banks. Yet, the limited number of loans from private banks (23 in total) warrants caution when comparing this source with other sources. For Unions the average interest rate is affected by some loans with very large interest rates
208
leaving these out the average interest rate over all loans from Unions is 0.9 percent per month. Traders and money lenders require substantially higher interest rates. For traders it is on average 2.6 percent per month, but this only applies to around 35 percent of the loans. The remaining loans have zero explicit interest rates, but this is likely to be because the interest is paid implicitly as higher prices for inputs and/or lower prices for outputs when doing business with the trader. Since this can also be true for interest bearing loans the 2.6 percent per month can be seen as a lower bound on the effective interest rate. Money lenders charge on average 2.9 percent per month. To illustrate the importance of the interest rate differential between sources the interest rate of private money lenders can be compared with the one offered by private banks, which on average have almost the same loan duration, i.e. 12 month. The compounded yearly interest rate differs with around 28 percentage points. A 10 million VND loan in a private bank would be paid back with 12.7 million after a year. The same loan with a private moneylender would demand repayment of 14.9 million a year later. Loans from friends and relatives are in more than eight out of 10 cases without interest payment. However, for these 15 percent of the loans that carries interest the average is above the commercial interest rate at 1.5 percent per month. Collateral is compulsory for loans at VBARD and private banks and in 45 percent of loans from Unions. For other sources around 40 percent of loans are covered by collateral of some sort. In nine out of ten of the cases, collateral consists of the land holdings and the house belonging to the household. A guarantor is mostly used for loans in VBSP and in the Unions. The last column shows the median number of days it takes the lending institutions to approve a loan. The median is presented since for all lending sources the mean is heavily influenced by a few observations with very long approval times. The ranking of the sources in terms of median loan approval times conform well to prior expectations. Informal sources like traders, money lenders and friends approve (or reject) loans on the spot (median approval time is one day), whereas formal sources take longer. For VBSP, VBARD and the Unions the median approval time is seven days for VBSP and five days for both VBARD and the Unions. Table 5.3 below is similar to Table 5.2, but the statistics are only for loans obtained in 2005 which is the latest complete year covered by the survey. The table is presented for two reasons. First, it gives the most up to date picture of general loan terms for the rural credit market in the provinces included. Second, by comparing with Table 5.2 it is possible to detect if major changes have taken place over the period. Looking across the columns and comparing with Table 5.2 it seems that the terms and condition pertaining to loans obtained in 2005 are very similar to those in the full sample (including the year 2005). Only for private banks and private money lenders are the entries somewhat different. However, it must be kept in mind that there are only five observations (loans) from private banks in 2005.
209
Table 5.3: Key characteristics of loans by source (2005 only)

Share Interest indefi-nite Share zero interest Share Share Approval collateral Guarantor time Median days (9)
Loan size Mean 000 VND (1) Source VBSP VBARD Unions Private Bank Trader Money Lender Friends/Relatives Other Total (N=585) 5,703 15,949 8,170 37,453 3,497 13,915 5,727 11,156 10,564 5,375 10,750 5,375 6,450 1,612 4,300 2,687 3,225 5,375 Median 000 VND (2)
Duration
Months (3)
Percent (4)
Percent Percent monthly (5) (6)
Percent (7)
Percent (8)
29 19 20 19 5 11 11 16 19
2 0 1 0 32 41 62 14 17
0.5 1.1 1.3 1.1 2.7 2.5 1.4 1.1 1.2
3 0 2 0 71 8 83 26 22
0 96 37 100 0 7 0 32 42
92 13 53 0 3 6 8 25 28
7 5 6 1 1 1 1 1 3
Note: All Loan amounts are in 2006 prices.
One other difference stands out. The interest rate charged by private money lenders is 2.5 percent per month compared to 2.9 in the full sample. This cautiously suggests that private money lenders are charging less in the end of the period compared to the beginning of the period covered. However, this does not conform to what was found for the four province covered by the VARHS02 (Mekong Economics, 2004). For the year 2002 it was found that private money lenders charged around 1.8 percent per month, while interest rates by VBSP and VBARD were roughly in line with the findings here. This makes it likely that in some provinces at least the nominal interest rates (though not necessarily real rates) charged by money lenders have increased rather than decreased in the period. Comparing with the VARHS02 the average duration of a loan has increased for both VBSP and VBARD. For VBSP the increase is from 21 to 29 months and from 14 to 19 months for VBARD. The previous paragraphs have focused on distribution and characteristics of loans across all provinces. However, the rural credit market differs between provinces (Mekong Economics 2004, Barslund and Tarp 2006) and this is in focus in what follows. Figure 5.1 illustrates the number of loans per 100 surveyed households in each province for both the full sample of loans and for loans obtained only in 2005. The full line represents a simple average over the number of loans per 100 households in respectively the southern and northern provinces for the full sample of loans. It serves to indicate rough differences between these two parts of the country.
210
Figure 5.1: Number of loans per 100 households by province.

300 250 200 150 100 50 0
ai C Th o La iC ha u D ie n Bi en N gh e Q An ua ng N am Kh an h H oa D ak La D k ak N on La g m D on Lo g ng An La o a Ta y H
Ph u
All years 2005 only Avg. southern and northern provinces
Figure 5.1 illuminates the difference in the activity in the rural credit market between the northern and southern provinces covered by the survey. While the average number of loans per 100 households over provinces in the south is just below 200 (at 195) it is close to half that number in the north (111). For all provinces in the south except Khanh Hoa there are more than 100 loans per 100 households in the sample period from 2002 to mid 2006. Thus, on average each household could obtain a loan in the period. In the north, Ha Tay and Lai Chau fall short, and in Phu Tho and Dien Bien the number of loans per 100 households is just above 100. The rural credit market is most active in Dak Lak, Lam Dong and Long An in the south and to some lower extent in Lao Cai in the north. The findings here are comparable to those in Barslund and Tarp (2006) using the VARHS02 data from 2002. They find that Long An has a more active credit market than Ha Tay, Phu Tho and Quang Nam. Contrary to their results (i.e. that Quang Nam has the least active credit market) Figure 5.1 suggests that Quang Nam had more transactions than both Ha Tay and Phu Tho in the present sample. The activity in 2005 mirrors the activity for the full sample of loans. Lai Chau is an exception, which has a higher number of loans obtained in 2005 per 100 households than should be expected from the relative small number of loans present in the full sample. The differences in loan disbursements among provinces presented in Figure 5.1 disguise marked structural differences in the importance of the various lending sources within each province. To look at different lending sources at the provincial level it is useful to aggregate them into three segments: formal, informal and friends. The formal segment consists of institutionalised sources such as the VBSP, VBARD, Unions, private banks and other state owned banks. The informal
211
segment is made up of private money lenders and traders. Finally, there is the group of friends and relatives, which, although informal, is convenient to keep as a separate segment. The literature on rural credit most often operates with this division of credit sources into an informal and a formal (institutional) segment (see e.g. Zeller 1994, Barslund and Tarp 2006, Doung and Izumida 2002). The reason for this is that credit sources belonging to different segments often serve different purposes and have different terms attached (see Table 5.2). However, in Vietnam friends and relatives lending at zero interest play a relatively large role in capital mobilisation, warranting the treatment as a separate segment. Figure 5.2: Distribution of loans by source and province (unweighted)
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
ai o u An ng oa ng Do m Lo y Ta Th ha Na Bi La C he No H iC ng An en m k k Da Da k
Ha
en
La
Ph
Ng
ng
La
Di
an
ua
Formal
Inf ormal
Kh
Friends
Figure 5.2 shows the relative importance of the loan segments of formal, informal and friends and relatives by province in unweighted terms (i.e. number of loans disbursed). The three bars for each province does not sum to 100 since there is a small other category. For the six most northern located provinces differences are present, but the overall patterns are similar. Formal loans form the great majority of the total number of loans with informal loans being unimportant, except for Phu Tho where they constitute 11 percent of all loans. Friends and relatives play a minor role. Although Khanh Hoa to some extent resembles a northern province, the picture is starkly different in the rest of the southern provinces. For Quang Nam and Dak Lak informal loans play a fundamental role in the rural credit market and is the largest source in Dak Lak. Formal credit remains important in all provinces but to a lesser extent than in the north. In Quang Nam and Lam Dong friends and relatives provide more than 20 percent of all loans (in Quang Nam more than 30 percent) and excluding
212
La
Long An they are responsible for more than 10 percent of the loans in the other provinces. This together with Figure 5.1 confirms the importance of provincial differences in Vietnam.
5.3. Access, cost and use of credit

This section focuses on household access and use of loans obtained in the period covered by the survey. Figure 5.3 shows the share of households which obtained loans in the period covered (the bars) by province. The dots represent number of loans per 100 households interviewed and they are equivalent to the bars in Figure 5.1. If households accessing credit in a given province had exactly one loan each, the dot for that province would coincide with the bar. Thus, the bars tell how many households obtained credit in the period under consideration, and the dots represent the maximum number, which could have obtained credit, given the number of loans.46 The share of households having taken at least one loan varies from 46 percent in Khanh Hoa to 92 percent in Lam Dong. There is a positive connection between total number of loans disbursed in a province and the number of households accessing credit although it is not straightforward. As an example, take Lai Chau and Quang Nam where approximately the same share of households accessed credit in the period. However, the numbers of loans per 100 households differ with Quang Nam having 136 and Lai Chau 67 loans in the period. The most interesting feature of Figure 5.3 is the lack of a systematic difference in households reached between the northern and southern provinces despite the large difference in number of loans per household (see also Figure 5.1). Around the same share of households is left out of the credit market in the two parts of the country. It should be kept in mind, though, that uncovering the reasons for households not having access credit requires further in-depth study; and different reasons may be operating in different provinces. Figure 5.3: Loan receiving households (percent) and number of loans per 100 households
300 250 200 150 100 50 0
C ha u n B ie n N gh e Q An ua ng N am K ha nh H oa D ak La k D ak N on g La m D on g Lo ng An Ta y La o Th o C ai
300 250 200 150 85 46 92 71 100 78 50 0
72
58
75
64
58
46
76
H a
hu
La i
In provinces with more than 100 loans per 100 households the dots would not coincide with the bars since the bars Cummu. pct. households in a province credit reach a maximum of 100 when all of household accessing have had Loan / household ratio (x 100) at least one loan. Characteristics of the Vietnamese Rural Economy: Evidence from a 2006 Rural Household Survey in 12 Provinces of Vietnam
46
D ie
213
Figure 5.4 presents the share of households which had a loan at the time of the interview in each province. In all provinces more than or just below 40 percent of the households had an outstanding loan (for Ha Tay it is 32 percent). In Lao Cai as many as three quarters of the households had a loan at the time of interview. In terms of differences between the northern and southern located households in the sample these are small. The simple average of households with outstanding loans over provinces is 55 for the southern provinces and 59 for the northern provinces. However, provincial differences are substantial with a 45 percentage point difference between Lao Cai with the largest and Ha Tay with the smallest share of households with an outstanding loan. Provinces differ not only with respect to their north-south location but also in terms of accessibility. Some of the differences in the levels of activity in the rural credit market across provinces may be attributable to geographical differences in terms of remoteness. Table 5.4 shows the median distances to the lender from the household for loans obtained in the survey period together with the share of households with outstanding loans. The median distances from the centre of the commune to either VBSP or VBARD over communes are presented in the last column. Note first, that columns 2, 3 and 4 distance to formal and informal lenders, and friends or relatives only contain information about the distance of households obtaining loans. As such this says nothing about sample medians. If households located closer to a lending source are more likely to obtain a loan, the numbers in these columns will naturally understate the medians in the full sample. This is so in particular since these household will then also be more likely to be represented with more than one loan. Figure 5.4: Households with outstanding loan at time of interview (percent by province)
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Ta
77 59 47 32
69 48 50 38
67
73 64 61
ai
An
ng
ng Do Lo
Th
ha
Na
Bi
La
he
No
iC
Ha
en
La
Ph
ng
Ng
Da
La
an
Da
Di
ua
214
Pct. HH with loan outstanding
Kh
La
ng
An
en
oa
Table 5.4: Median distance to lender by province and loan segment

Distance to: Households with outstanding loan Percent Province Ha Tay Lao Cai Phu Tho Lai Chau Dien Bien Nghe An Quang Nam Khanh Hoa Dak Lak Dak Nong Lam Dong Long An 32 77 59 47 69 48 50 38 67 64 73 61 1 6 3 5 4 2 3 1 7 5 5 6 0 1 2 .. 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 5 3 15 0 5 3 3 7 3 0 4 Formal lender Km Informal Lender Km Friends/Relatives Km Median commune distance to either VBARD/VBSP Km
Note: .. = no information. 0 = less than 0.5 kilometre.
With these caveats in mind the Table 5.4 is informative. Informal lenders and friends and relatives are often located close by. Formal lenders are located further away. However, in no province is the median distance prohibitively far away. An interesting observation in Table 5.4 is that there is a
215
clear positive simple correlation between the share of households with outstanding loans and the median distance to formal lenders, and to a smaller degree informal lenders and friends. That is, in provinces where loans are obtained further from the household larger numbers of households have outstanding loans. A number of possible stories can explain this pattern. For example it may be a result of successful outreach to remote households in provinces with many outstanding loans. Further analysis is needed to pinpoint the mechanisms leading to the observed pattern. Table 5.5: Application and illegal costs of obtaining a loan by source
Applications costs Average amount for paying households 000 VND Source VBSP VBARD Unions Private Bank Trader Money Lender Friends/Relatives Other Total 13 14 15 19 13a) 25
a)
Illegal fees Average amount for paying households 000 VND Percentage of households paying Percent
Percentage of households paying Percent
61 79 58 68 2 1 4 34 46
95 54 30 200 .. .. 150a) 26
a) a)
4 9 9 2 0 0 0 3 5
12 26 15
56
Note:a) Based on five or fewer observations.
Table 5.5 lists by source the average application costs and illegal fees households had to pay. Official application costs are modest for all credit sources and for the most important around the equivalent of one US dollar. For formal sources the majority of loans carry an official fee while a much smaller minority has unofficial fees attached. Although, the unofficial costs are higher than the official ones, they still appear manageable on average, and it is difficult to believe they hinder outreach of credit institutions in any significant way. Table 5.6 shows what the loans were mainly used for by source of lending. Each category for the use of the loan is aggregated from a longer list of possibilities in the questionnaire. Crop production consists of rice and other crops including inputs into farming the crops (roughly half the loans in this category are for rice production). Animals cover all animal husbandry. Investments cover a broad range of activities including re-lending the money to other households, building or buying a house, and buying land or other assets. Loans for education, health, wedding/funeral expenses and
216
general consumption are classified as consumption loans. The category other includes loans not classified above, but consists mainly of loans used for non-farm activities. To make sure the actual purpose of the loan was given, questions were asked both about the stated purpose (in the loan application) and what the loan was actually used for. There is a high degree of correspondence between stated purpose and actual use. Only around 10 percent used the loan for something different than expressed in the application. This likely reflects that for around one third of the loans the credit organisation came to the household to verify that the use of the loan was in accordance with what was stated in the application. Table 5.6: Loan use by source (all loans in percent)
Crop production Source VBSP VBARD Unions Private Bank Trader Money Lender Friends/Relatives Other Total 6 36 6 2 27 8 6 9 100 29 40 13 1 4 4 5 3 100 16 49 20 0 0 8 8 0 100 12 40 9 0 4 5 27 2 100 12 17 9 0 7 13 39 2 100 17 42 16 1 0 5 14 4 100 15 36 10 1 12 7 14 5 100 Animal production Repay other loan Investment Consumption Other Total
Percentage of loans going to Crop production Unweighted Weighted 34 25 Animal production 24 17 Repay other loan 2 2 Investment 13 19 Consumption 13 5 Other 14 31 Total 100 100
Note: All Loan amounts used for weighting are in 2006 prices. Education and health expenditure included as consumption.
Before turning to the top part of Table 5.6, first note the last two rows. They display the distribution of all loans by use categories. The first row shows the distribution of the number of loans, while the second shows the distribution weighted by loan size. The latter therefore tells more about the amount of credit which flows into the different use categories. Around 60 percent of the loans are used for crop or animal production. These loans are smaller than the average loan implying that about 40 percent of the amount of credit in the period went into these uses. Loans for repaying
217
another loan are a small fraction of the total number of loans. Consumption loans account for 13 percent of all loans but considerably less (five percent) when weighted by loan size. Investment and the other category are important in terms of credit volume where they approach 50 percent of all loans compared with 27 percent of the number of loans. Investment accounts for 19 percent in weighted terms. The bulk of the loans for the other category are used for off-farm activities and these loans are often much larger than the average loan explaining why this category is responsible for no less than 31 percent of the total loan amount. Looking at the top part of Table 5.6 several observations can be made. First, although formal sources (VBSP, VBARD, Unions and private banks) supply 50 percent of the loans for crop production, informal sources and in particular traders account for around 40 percent of all loans going to crop production. The active role of traders is a recent phenomenon. It was not present in the VARHS02 survey (ILO 2005, Mekong Economics 2004). Second, consumption loans are primarily covered by informal sources, but formal sources seem to play a more active role recently compared with the findings in VARHS02. Third, a substantial amount of loans for investment purposes comes from informal sources and most often friends or relatives. This is in line with what was found in the VARHS02 survey. Finally, formal sources provide the majority of loans for nonfarm activities (the other category). While Table 5.6 illustrates how different loan sources are tied to the use of loans, it is of additional interest to explore if household socioeconomic status affects which lending source the household chooses or is compelled to accept.47 Similar to the previous chapters, per capita food consumption within the last four weeks is used as a crude proxy for socioeconomic status. In the context of credit this is arguably more problematic than in the previous chapters. Loans can be obtained explicitly to buy food so it is important to keep in mind that a causal analysis requires more in-dept study.
It is important to stress that causal effects are not explored here. Thus, if poor households are observed to lend from one particular source it can be a deliberate choice because that lending institution serves the need of poorer household better than other lending sources, or it can be because poor households cannot get loans in any other institutions.
47
218
Table 5.7: Source of loan by expenditure quintile

Number of loans Food expenditure quintile Poorest 2 poorest Middle 2nd richest Richest Total
nd
Formal
Informal
Friends
Other
Total
477 430 420 413 405 2,145
53 64 67 68 68 64
26 14 19 16 19 19
17 18 10 12 13 14
3 4 3 4 0 3
100 100 100 100 100 100
Table 5.7 displays the source of loans by consumption quintile. The picture is relatively clear. Richer households (measured by per capita food consumption) are more likely to get a loan from formal sources and less likely to obtain loans from informal sources and from friends and relatives. Note, however that the richest 20 percent of households get 26 percent of their loans from either informal sources or friends and relatives. In terms of the number of loans the poorest quintile obtains the most loans, and there is a general tendency towards fewer loans for richer households. The credit section of the questionnaire also included questions as to who in the household was responsible for the two largest loans taken up in the period. In total 93 percent of the two biggest loans are taken up by the head of the household or the spouse. The remaining loans are primarily taken by sons (most common) or daughters. The top left part of Table 5.8 presents the gender distribution and position in the household for the two biggest loan households obtained. The distribution reflects that most often the household head is responsible for the loan/loans and 80 percent of households are headed by a male. Women are as likely to responsible for the largest loan as they are to be responsible for the second largest loan.
219
Table 5.8: Person mainly responsible for the loan (two largest loans only)
Number of loans obtained (in sample) Male Relation to household head Head Spouse Other Size Largest 2nd largest Total 551 491 1,042 203 214 417 754 705 1,459 948 23 71 191 200 26 1,139 223 97 Female Total Source VBSP VBARD Unions Private Bank Trader Money Lender Friends/Relatives Other Mean loan size Male Size Largest 2 largest Total
nd
Percentage of loans obtained (unweighted) Male Female
17 42 9 1 7 6 15 3 100
19 30 15 1 8 7 14 6 100
Total Female
13,733 11,262 12,489
11,705 11,716 11,711
Table 5.8 shows the distribution of gender by loan sources. Women are less likely to get a loan from the VBARD. This is countered by a larger share of women than men having a loan from the Unions, and this is driven by the lending of the Womens Union. Lastly, the bottom left panel presents mean loan values for the largest and second largest loans by gender of the person mainly responsible for the loan. Female lenders responsible for the largest loan obtain a smaller loan than their male equivalent, while it is the other way round with the second biggest loan.
5.4. Rejected and self-constrained households

The questionnaire asks households to state all loans rejected since 2002. In total 85 rejected loans from 72 households were reported for the full period. Of these around one half is reported in 2005 and 2006. Regarding the source of rejected household applications, approximately 50 percent are rejected by VBARD and VBSP, with the remaining 50 percent divided among the other sources. With a mean and a median value of about 10 and five million VND, respectively, the size of the rejected loans compare well with the sample of approved loans (Table 5.2).
220
In addition to households which had a loan rejected in the period covered by the survey, the questionnaire also identified households, which had refrained from applying for a loan even though the household would like to have had access to credit i.e. self-constrained households. To get as accurate information for this question as possible the time horizon was limited to the last 12 month prior to the interview. In total 99 households identified themselves as being self-constrained within the last 12 months. Combining the information on households obtaining a loan within the last 12 months, households having a loan rejected in the same period and self-constrained households makes it possible to get the number of households which demanded (new or additional) credit 12 months prior to the interview. Table 5.9 lists the share of credit demanding households by province together with a number of other interesting statistics. Table 5.9: Rejected, self-rationed and household demand for credit (percent)
Rejected (total sample) Province Ha Tay Lao Cai Phu Tho Lai Chau Dien Bien Nghe An Quang Nam Khanh Hoa Dak Lak Dak Nong Lam Dong Long An 5 7 7 1 0 4 12 11 8 9 9 2 2 3 1 1 0 0 3 0 5 5 3 2 12 0 3 4 1 14 11 6 3 0 8 10 63 65 45 45 47 63 62 61 82 67 79 82 13 30 39 42 47 21 26 30 14 25 13 9 24 5 16 13 6 16 12 8 5 8 8 10 Rejected (last 12 months) Self-rationed (last 12 months) Demand (last 12 months) Outstanding loan but no demand (last 12 months) Not participating (last 12 months)
The first column of Table 5.9 shows the share of households which had a loan rejected since the beginning of 2002 (i.e. not just the last 12 months). Although it varies between provinces, the overall picture is that few households got a loan application rejected. Khanh Hoa and Quang Nam are the only two provinces where more than five percent of the interviewed households got a loan application rejected. The second column shows the share of households with a loan application rejected the last 12 month prior to the interview. This is the important number in relation to the credit demand measure described above. As would be expected from the first column numbers, the
221
numbers of rejected households within the last 12 months are small. Exceptions are Dak Nong and Dak Lak where five percent were rejected. The third column displays the share of self-rationed households. In the fourth column the share of households having demanded credit at some point within the last 12 months is shown. Demand clearly differs among provinces. A household located in southern Vietnam is on average more likely to demand credit than a household located in the northern part of the country. The fifth column lists the share of households which did not demand credit within the last year but already has an outstanding loan. To the extent their loan is still needed in the household these households can also be seen as participating in the credit market. Finally, the remaining households can be considered as not participating in the rural credit market within the last 12 months. Again, regional differences are marked. In Lao Cai and Dak Lak only five percent of households interviewed are not participating, whereas for Ha Tay the share is 24 percent. Further analysis will be required to analyse the source of these differences and establish whether differences affect important outcome variables at the household level. Table 5.10 shows the share of households getting a loan, being rejected, being self-rationed and demanding credit within the last 12 months for each of the five food consumption quintiles. The picture that emerges is that richer households are less likely to have obtained a loan, have had a loan rejected or be self-rationed within the last 12 months. This in turn implies that richer household are less likely to have demand credit in the 12 month period prior to the interview. Table 5.10: Credit demand by consumption quintile last 12 months
Obtained loan Food expenditure quintile Poorest 2 poorest Middle 2 richest Richest Total
nd nd
Loan rejected
Self-rationed
Demand
42 42 40 45 35 41
3 2 1 1 1 2
11 8 7 3 4 7
50 49 44 48 37 46
5.5. Conclusion
Two key features are of central importance when analysing the rural credit market in Vietnam, namely the institutional setup and the apparent provincial differences. On the institutional side, the rural credit market is dominated by two big state owned banks VBARD and VBSP on the formal side of the market and money lenders, traders and friends and
222
relatives on the informal side. Together these lending outfits account for well over 80 percent of loans disbursed both in numbers and values. There is a considerable gap between the interest rate charged by the two big formal institutions and the going rate for a loan at a money lender or a trader. This is not necessarily problematic or undesirable, but it is an important observation to keep in mind when considering access to credit. Obstacles to obtaining loans in the form of time of approval distance to lenders and costs of applying seem limited at least at an average level. Informal loans are mostly used for general consumption, with production loans often being covered by the formal segment. However, one quarter of all loans for investment purposes comes from friends and relatives. Based on food expenditure quintiles, it is clear that richer households are more likely to borrow from formal sources and less likely to borrow from informal sources and friends compared with poorer households. Richer households are also less likely to have had a demand for credit within the last 12 months prior to the interview. This is not only an artefact of richer household being less likely to have a loan rejected or being self-constrained richer households also obtain fewer loans. Among the poorest 40 percent of the households around 10 percent identified themselves as being self-rationed while three percent had a loan rejected. This suggests that the present credit institutions formal and informal have quite broad coverage across provinces. Turning to provincial differences, these are to some extent driven by geography in terms of northern and southern location, although this is by no means true of all differences. As an example, consider the percentage of households having obtained a loan within the period covered. On average the difference between the six most northern located provinces and the six provinces located in the south is small. However, the inter-provincial differences are huge, ranging from 46 percent of surveyed households in Khanh Hoa to 85 percent in Lao Cai (Figure 5.3). In terms of activity levels (i.e. the number of loans disbursed) the north-south difference is large and marked for all provinces except Khanh Hoa. Part of this difference is explained by the substantial informal market operating in the south along side the formal market. In the more northern lying provinces the informal market is small to non-existent.
223
6. RISK MANAGEMENT
Risk is an inherent characteristic of rural life areas in Vietnam. Risks in relation to agricultural production, such as diseases of the livestock and crop failure are particularly prevalent. Moreover, Vietnam is becoming more active in international economic integration,48 and this may intensify the risk of changes in prices, including those of farm products. This should be of great concern to the Government. The majority of the poor are working in the agricultural sector and their vulnerability may rise with the greater volatility in crop prices. In that situation, it would be desirable to have a good picture of risk and risk coping in rural areas. This cannot be done by looking at the results of many other surveys done in Vietnam but it is possible with the VARHS06. The first section presents information on how often people suffer from risks, how much they have lost, and more important how they recover from such losses. Furthermore, we analyze the role of formal versus informal insurance. These roles are explained in the last two sub-sections, and we discuss the importance of social capital in rural areas. In sum, this chapter is meant to take a closer look the above questions, and all results are based on the households included in the VARHS06 survey.
6.1. Risks and risk coping

This section starts with a description of the risks faced by households during the last five years. Figure 6.1 indicates that on average 47 percent of house holds experienced unexpected losses of income during this period. Of which, Lam Dong, Lai Chau and Dac Nong have a very high percentage of people suffering loss, respectively 83.7, 72.4 and 69.3 percent. Meanwhile the lowest rates are found in the provinces of Dien Bien, Long An and Ha Tay, with respectively 12.6, 21.8, and 27.2 percent. Figure 6.1 also shows that the poorest households suffer from losses more often than the non-poor households. Over half of the poor suffer losses while the percentage is only 42 percent for the non-poor group. Consistent with this observation, the percentage of households suffering losses also falls as households move to higher food per capita expenditure quintiles.
48
Vietnam became a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in early January 2007.
224
Figure 6.1: Percentage of households suffering losses during last five years
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
t L a ay o P h c ai u La th o ic Di ha en u b Ng i en Q he ua n an K h g na an m h h D a oa Da c l a c c L a No n m g Do Lo ng ng an No npo or po or l or es t or es M t 2n id d dl e r ic he R i st ch es t d po Al Ha
Note: Poor households are classified as such by criteria set up by MOLISA. Rank of food expenditure per capita by quintiles based on consumption of food during four weeks before the survey took place.
Overall, the main reasons for incurring losses are found in the illness/death of household members (19 percent), the diseases of livestock/failure of the crops (22.9 percent), and natural disasters (10.3 percent) as illustrated in Table 6.1. Table 6.1 shows that Lam Dong has a significant share of people experiencing loss due to natural disasters (36.2 percent), illness/death of household members (29 percent) and diseases/failure of livestock/crops (27.5 percent). Lai Chau and Dak Nong experienced loss due to the last two reasons. In Lai Chau loss due to diseases/failure of livestock/crops is overwhelmingly important with more than two thirds of households incurring such losses. Losses from diseases/failures of livestock/crops are also the major source of losses for both poor and non-poor households. Losses from illness/death of household member come second in occurrence. It is notable that households in Lam Dong, to a large extent, and Dak Lak and Dak Nong, to a smaller extent, are more affected by changes in prices than the rest of the provinces. This is probably due to the volatility of coffee price in the world market during the last five years. Further, the rate of loss due to unsuccessful investment is largest in Khanh Hoa at 2.6 percent of households. Noticeable is also the low percentages of land losses, except for a few cases in Lao Cai and Long An.
2n
Po
225
Table 6.1: Percentage of households suffering losses by reasons and provinces

Illness/ Disease/failure Change Natural Deaths of HH of livestock/ in crop members crops prices disaster Total Province Ha Tay Lao Cai Phu Tho Lai Chau Dien Bien Nghe An Quang Nam Khanh Hoa Dak Lak Dak Nong Lam Dong Long An Poorest 2nd poorest Middle 2nd richest Richest 3 6 1 0 0 23 5 19 29 3 36 3 7 15 14 11 5 14 20 21 8 1 33 22 15 17 38 29 7 25 16 19 17 16 11 46 19 67 12 21 20 8 8 43 28 8 33 25 17 20 17 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 13 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 3 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 1 27.2 59.8 39.7 72.4 12.6 66.1 43.9 41.3 52.3 69.3 83.7 21.8 58 48 48 46 33 10 19 23 1 Loss of land 0
Job loss 0
Unsuccessful Percentages investment Other suffering 1 1 46.7
Note: Percentages calculated over the full sample of households, regardless of whether any losses incurred. Percentages do not add up to 100% since some households report more than one type of loss.
Table 6.2 shows some statistics on the value of losses by province, food expenditure groups, and reasons. Lam Dong and Lai Chau have the highest percentages of households suffering a loss. This changes when estimating the mean value of the total loss per household over the five years. The loss per household is lower for these two provinces than the average, whereas provinces such as Ha Tay and Long An, which have a low percentage of households experiencing loss, have the highest average losses. Khanh Hoa, Dac Lac, Dac Nong, and Quang Nam also have above average mean losses. On average a household lost VND 9.6 million during the five year period. The highest loss per shock is VND 500 million due to natural disaster. The percentage of households incurring losses from unsuccessful investment is low, however the mean estimate for this type shock is quite high VND 22 million. The households in the poorest quintile lost VND 5.9 million on average in the five year period, while households in the richest quintile lost four times as much, VND 23.8 million.
226
Table 6.2: Some statistics on loss value by location and reasons (000 VND)
Mean Total Province Ha Tay Lao Cai Phu Tho Lai Chau Dien Bien Nghe An Quang Nam Khanh Hoa Dak Lak Dak Nong Lam Dong Long An Food expenditure quintile Poorest 2nd poorest Middle 2nd richest Richest Reasons lost Natural disaster Illness of households members Death of households member Loss or disease of livestock Change in crop price Crop disease Loss of land Job loss Unsuccessful investment Others 7,124 4,078 6,558 4,889 6,054 5,497 3,844 7,121 22,627 6,730 2,000 2,000 6,000 1,800 4,000 2,500 4,000 10,500 20,000 6,000 21 100 300 4 500 120 3,000 200 2,000 120 500,000 150,000 25,000 150,000 30,000 45,000 5,000 10,500 50,000 20,000 237 373 54 301 23 128 3 2 17 15 5,984 6,045 7,421 10,458 23,834 3,000 3,000 3,000 4,000 8,000 140 100 21 100 100 57,000 30,000 70,000 100,000 500,000 187 146 136 126 104 16,783 8,034 5,120 2,372 3,888 5,270 11,244 15,246 13,761 14,823 9,305 16,170 3,000 4,900 2,500 1,300 3,000 2,000 3,800 4,400 10,000 11,000 4,500 6,000 140 120 100 100 500 200 100 620 21 200 100 800 500,000 43,000 38,000 16,400 9,500 37,000 120,000 150,000 82,000 57,000 100,000 150,000 51 54 52 83 14 129 50 32 76 75 58 25 9,668 Median 4,000 Min 21 Max 500,000 Number of observations 699
Note: Estimates of the total loss per household during the last five years were calculated for household groups by location and food expenditure quintile at household level.
227
Table 6.3 documents various ways in which the households try to cope with shocks. From Table 6.3 it appears that most households rely on themselves more than on external sources. For example, 67.8 percent of shocks are coped with by self-reliance such as selling assets, reducing consumption, etc. Some households even have to deal with shocks by keeping their children out of school, sending them to work or begging, but this number is very low, as shown in Table 6.3. The table also shows that formal ways of mitigating shocks such as insurance and assistance from the government only play a modest role, even compared with informal ones. Bank loans only reduce 7.2 percent of all households, while assistance from government/NGOs only helps in 1.2 percent of shocks. Notably, only 2.9 percent of losses are covered by formal insurance. The formal insurances mainly cover losses due to death or illness and, in some cases, natural disaster. Formal insurance mechanisms and their limitations will be further discussed in Section 6.2. Table 6.3: Risk-coping measures
Measures Self-reliance Sold land Sold other assets Postponed investment Postponed loan payment Got new job Migration of HH member Children out of school Children to work Begging Reduce consumption Do nothing Informal Assistance from relative/friend Borrow from relative/friend Formal Borrow from bank Assistance from Gov/NGO Borrow from others Insurance payment Total All 67.8 1.1 13.4 3.3 1.3 2.8 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.5 22.5 22.4 18.2 12.3 5.88 14.0 7.25 1.17 2.71 2.89 100 Non-poor 72.3 0.7 14.3 3.1 1.2 2.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.8 25.1 24.5 13.3 7.7 5.7 14.4 7.2 1.1 2.4 3.7 100 Poor 57.8 2.0 12.0 4.0 1.5 4.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.7 19.1 28.6 22.4 6.2 13.6 7.6 1.4 3.2 1.4 100 Number of observations 783 13 155 39 15 33 3 0 1 6 260 259 210 142 68 161 84 13 31 33 1,154
228
Informal shock coping plays a relatively significant role. This is similar to findings in several econometric studies on developing countries. They have found that a diffuse set of social ties are crucial for providing informal insurance mechanisms (Coate and Ravallion, 1993; Townsend, 1994 and 1995). This survey shows that assistance and borrowing from friends/relatives help 18.5 percent of households. This rate is much higher for the poor households, 28.6 percent. Siblings and children are relatives, who often help in the situation of a shock. A more detailed analyzes on social coping mechanism is found in Section 6.3. Although many shock coping measures are in use, about 35.4 percent of households experiencing losses have not completely recovered. Poor households have more difficulties in recovering from the shocks. About a third of the poor are still suffering from their shock experience. Table 6.4 also shows the recovery level of the households in relation to their social capital,49 and those who are a member of any organization tend to recover better after a shock.50 Table 6.4: Level of recovery after the loss
Mean year (*) Total Province Ha Tay Lao Cai Phu Tho Lai Chau Dien Bien Nghe An Quang Nam Khanh Hoa Dak Lak Dak Nong Lam Dong Long An 1.5 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.7 74 70 65 64 21 67 66 40 58 57 81 36 8 4 21 19 7 11 16 17 21 24 7 20 14 18 8 13 72 19 12 31 13 9 12 28 4 8 6 4 0 3 6 12 8 9 0 16 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 51 54 52 83 14 129 50 32 76 75 58 25 1.2 Completely recovered 65 Partly recovered 14 Still suffering some 16 Still suffering badly 5 Total 100 Number of observations 699
49 50
Social capital is here defined as being a member of at least one organization versus not being a member of any. Their spearmans rank correlation efficient is -0.11, statistically significant different from zero at less than 1 percent. Characteristics of the Vietnamese Rural Economy: Evidence from a 2006 Rural Household Survey in 12 Provinces of Vietnam
229
Food expenditure quintile Poorest 2 poorest Middle 2 richest Richest No insurance (**) Insurance (**) Not a member of any organization Member of at least one organization
nd nd
1.2 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.3 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.2
48 58 72 81 69 53.5 58.5 51 66
18 15 12 9 13 17.7 17.0 27 13
22 25 9 8 16 18.7 17.0 12 17
11 1 7 3 2 10.1 7.5 10 5
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
187 146 136 126 104 587 241 71 628
Note (*) Mean estimate of the number of years far from 2006 since the shock took place; (**) This is applied only for three types of insurances, namely life, health and free health for children and the recovery level of the losses due to illness or death of household members.
6.2. Formal insurance

In the sample, 84.5 percent of interviewed households have at least one kind of formal insurance. In the 12 provinces where the survey took place, this rate is highest in Dien Bien (97.3 percent), Dak Lak (95.7 percent), Lao Cai (93.4 percent) and Quang Nam (93.0 percent). Ha Tay, Long An and Khanh Hoa have the lowest rates, respectively 72.5, 76.1, and 78.3 percent. At first glance, these figures show a positive and quite different picture to the results presented in the previous section. However, the situation looks different when divided by the different types of insurance. Among 11 types of insurances, only health insurance, health insurance for children, and vehicle insurance have quite high rates with respectively 54.9, 34.5, and 30.1 percent. Only 16.7 percent of the households have social insurance. Recall from the above description of risks that many households suffer loss due to diseases of livestock/failures of crops. None of these households have agricultural insurance. This result is not surprising. Informal statistics shows that only one percent of total farming areas/live stocks in Vietnam are insured.51 Another observation is the failure of the insurance companies to supply this kind of insurance in the years 1994-98 and 2002, including the biggest state insurance company in Vietnam (Bao Viet), due to various reasons. The government has also tried to establish such insurance policies, but so far without success. Very few households have farmers social insurance. The provinces of Nghe An and Khanh Hoa recently made an effort to develop this kind of insurance. The result is visible in the survey results.
51
Vietnamnet (www.vnn.vn), Agricultural Insurance: Where is the State?, 08:48' 16/07/2004.
230
Khanh Hoa and Nghe An have higher insurance rates than other provinces. However, it remains limited, with only about five percent of the households surveyed having farmers insurance in these two provinces. The survey results show the state as the main provider of formal insurance (see Table 6.5). Only for life insurance is there a sizeable private share of the market (which is relatively small, but still with 8.7 percent of all households insured. The main share of the private insurance market is made up of foreign life insurance companies. Table 6.5: Insurance purchased by households
Types of insurance Yes In percentage Agriculture Fire Life Social Farmer's social Health Free social Free health for child Education Vehicle Others 0.0 0.1 7.0 15.4 1.0 53.3 3.0 36.2 7.2 29.9 3.9 State 0.0 100.0 71.8 99.7 100.0 99.8 97.1 99.6 97.6 98.9 91.2 Of which, supplied by (percent) Domestic 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.9 0.2 0.6 1.0 5.3 Foreign 0.0 0.0 26.4 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.8 0.1 3.5
Table 6.6 explains some further details on the three kinds of insurances, which are widespread in the rural areas and play an important role for households. These are health insurance, social insurance, and farmers social insurance. The reason for looking deeper into the last two is to compare the farmers social insurance with the social insurance, which is offered to wage employees. Farmers social insurance was originally introduced in a first pilot project on rice insurance in two districts in Bao Viet in 1982. In 1993, this project was extended to 16 provinces, and recently has drawn increasing attention from the central government and some local authorities. In Table 6.6 it can be seen that a large majority of the poor have health insurance (84.7 percent) while only 46.7 percent of the non-poor have one. This is probably because the health insurance is subsidized by the government for the poor through Health Care Fund for the Poor. This policy has been implemented since 2002 under Decision 139/2002/QG/TTG of the Prime Minister. This decision regulated the establishment of the above fund, which provides health insurance for the poor or covers
231
the expenses of the state health care centres/hospitals for the poor. It is also clear from our data (not reported) that social insurance for the non-kinh group has a higher percentage of households with health insurance. By subsidizing health insurance to the poor the government sends a relevant signal. The question is whether it helps and how much good it does. The results from this survey show that many poor still suffer from losses due to illness/death of household members, but a proper impact assessment would require deeper analysis. Some case studies suggest reason for scepticism in this aspect.52 There are indications that the government provided health insurance only covers a small part of household expenditures on health services. Besides, administrative procedures to get the insurance are complicated, and the poor are not well treated by the hospitals when they use it. Finally, it is clear from Table 6.6 that social insurance is mainly used by the non-poor population segment. Table 6.6: Share of people having insurance by insurance types
Health insurance Total Non-poor Poor Food expenditure quintile Poorest 2nd poorest Middle 2nd richest Richest Non kinh Kinh Province Ha Tay Lao Cai Phu Tho Lai Chau Dien Bien Nghe An Quang Nam Khanh Hoa Dak Lak Dak Nong 33.6 74.4 52.0 88.0 92.0 60.0 67.4 25.8 75.5 52.3 26.1 18.8 41.6 4.3 20.6 40.0 64.0 54.8 13.2 51.0 4.8 0.0 4.6 0.9 0.9 4.0 2.6 3.8 0.0 2.7 0.0 1.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 5.1 2.7 5.1 0.0 0.0 68.9 48.3 52.2 47.4 57.7 83.1 48.8 27.6 35.2 35.1 36.9 38.1 38.6 15.8 1.1 4.2 4.1 2.8 2.4 3.3 1.2 1.8 1.2 2.3 1.4 1.8 2.0 0.4 54.9 46.3 84.7 Free health insurance for children 34.7 39.3 18.5 Farmer's social insurance 1.7 2.1 0.3
Social insurance 2.9 3.3 1.7
See a case study from Thanh Hoa province on practices in providing public services in rural districts and communes reported in CIEM (2006).
52
232
Lam Dong Long An
44.9 44.8
36.4 35.2
2.8 0.8
0.0 0.0
The overall picture reflects that insurance needs to be developed in rural areas, expect from health insurance, which is mainly subsidized by the government. It is notable that even for the groups, which are not constrained by low income (e.g. the fifth quintile) or low level of awareness (e.g. the head of the household has completed college/university) has a low participation rate in the formal insurance system. Table 6.7 looks at the reasons for not having insurance. The majority of respondents state that they do not need insurance and therefore do not have one, a statement that is consistent for all types of insurances. About half of the households who have suffered from losses due to either change in the crop prices, failure of crops, or disease of livestock during the last five years, say they do not need agricultural insurance. The second most stated reason for not having insurance is the lack of information. Besides, a significant number of people have no idea about what insurance is. For the poor people lack of money is also a typical reason mentioned. Table 6.7: Reasons for not having insurance by type of insurance
Too Types of insurance Agriculture Fire Life Social Farmer's social Health Free social Free health for child Education Vehicle Others Total No need 47.33 50.91 47.17 53.98 53.17 65.01 55.19 75.37 65.1 76.85 72.28 58.4 No idea 29.61 27.01 15.19 16.51 26.33 6.95 22.3 7.5 16.5 5.34 8.65 8.3 expensive 10.12 7.45 28.95 15.11 10.64 19.44 14.53 8.19 10.92 10.43 9.76 13.2 No trust 0.45 0.4 1.34 0.13 0.49 2.66 0.83 0.11 0.16 0.11 0 0.6 No info 11.99 13.9 6.77 7.81 8.63 4.43 6.5 5.89 6.63 5.94 8.52 18.2 Not available 0.28 0.21 0.2 0.75 0.38 0.41 0.27 0.47 0.31 0.27 0.18 0.3 Other 0.23 0.12 0.39 5.7 0.36 1.1 0.39 2.46 0.38 1.06 0.62 1 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Obs 1,473 1,469 1,344 1,227 1,447 664 1,428 964 1,317 1,019 831 13,183
Table 6.8 investigates whether the stated need for insurance is related to low understanding or high self-risk management. It shows the different reasons by food expenditure group and education level
233
for health insurance and social insurance. These are chosen because they apply to everyone regardless of profession. This table also shows a larger percentage of the wealthy and highly educated tend to think they do not need insurance. This cannot be explained by limited understanding of what insurance is, as suggested in other studies. Another explanation could be that many people feel comfortable and are used to rely on self-management measures in coping with risk, as discussed earlier. This may result in the general view that formal insurance is not required. It could also be explained by the insurance companies providing too little service, so it becomes too inconvenient for people to have it. This reason is more pronounced for health than social insurance, where a higher percentage of people state that they do not trust the liability of the insurance. Further study is required to come more fully to grips with these issues. Table 6.8: Reasons for not having insurances by income and education
No need Food expenditure quintile Poorest 2nd poorest Middle 2nd richest Richest Professional level of household head No professional edu Vocational edu < 12m Vocational edu 12m Technical secondary College/university 57.6 57.9 61.4 62.0 100.0 7.0 2.9 2.1 17.9 0.0 17.5 9.6 19.2 7.5 0.0 0.9 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 13.7 8.6 12.6 0.0 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 12.4 8.8 0.0 0.0 100 100 100 100 100 42.5 55.7 62.5 63.0 66.7 9.5 8.5 6.8 4.7 3.1 22.9 19.9 13.5 14.5 11.1 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.5 1.7 21.7 11.6 11.2 9.4 12.6 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.0 0.9 2.7 2.5 5.2 6.0 3.9 100 100 100 100 100 No idea Too expensive No trust No info. Not available Other Total
234
6.3. Social capital

Social capital can be developed either through participation in formal organizations or through exchanges and collaboration with other people in society. This section will take a look at both aspects of social capital in rural Vietnam based on the VARHS06 survey results. It is a widely held view that social capital formation should be promoted as a major element of strategies geared towards poverty reduction. Pursuing the role of social capital and establishing its potential contribution to poverty reduction in Vietnam therefore deserves further study.53 At first glance Table 6.9 suggests that social capital has a positive effect in terms of mobilising assistance. Some 88 percent of the households in the survey participate in at least one organization. The two organizations which are most common are Womens and Farmers unions, with 69.8 and 50.6 percent of the households having at least one member in these unions. Other organizations also attract a certain number of household members, such as the Communist Party, the Youths Union, the Veterans union and parent associations. A second dimension of social capital is the activity level. More than 80 percent of the members of an organization are active. Another noticeable result on social capital is the types of benefits people get from being the members of an organization, such as receiving assistance and acquiring new skills. The amount and quality of the new skills vary among the organizations. The results show that the longer people are members of any association, the higher is the possibility that they can get assistance from them.54 Finally, it is notable that only 0.6 percent of households participate in water collectives. This is probably because not many areas in rural Vietnam have a specialized water collective. It is more common to have a group of households sharing agricultural services, which provides a broader kind of services to farmers. In addition, it is not necessary to participate in the collective in order to get access to irrigation services. Table 6.9: Social capital share of household answering yes
Associations/Organizations Communist party Youth Union Womens Union Farmers Union Veterans Union Religious group Informal savings/credit Member? 11.3 30.0 69.8 50.6 16.2 4.9 4.8 Active member? 96.1 82.7 81.5 83.9 89.7 96.4 97.7 Acquired new skill? 58.2 30.6 65.9 73.5 62.4 43.9 41.2 Received assistance? 100.0 97.7 94.6 97.2 97.2 100.0 100.0
Care needs to be exercised here in the sense that the literature on social capital is based on voluntary participation, which may not be the case here in all circumstances. 54 Their Spearman correlation coefficient is 0.07 (statistically significant different from zero at five percent). Characteristics of the Vietnamese Rural Economy: Evidence from a 2006 Rural Household Survey in 12 Provinces of Vietnam
53
235
Water collectives Parents Associations Neighbourhood Committee Sports club/group Companion in arms
0.6 11.6 3.0 0.5 1.7
87.8 88.6 91.6 100.0 90.3
60.0 29.8 45.6 61.4 1.1
0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Apart from the participation in the formal political and social organizations mentioned above, the social relation between people in the rural areas seems to be consolidated by relatively high trust in the community. Table 6.10 shows that 84.2 percent of households basically expect people to be honest and can be trusted. 91.4 percent of the households have the same assessment of the people in their commune. It is notable the significant number of households who state that they are willing to help other people in the commune, both financially (73.8 percent) and non-financially (79.2 percent). This can explain the high number of households, who have been helped by neighbours/friends when they faced shocks as mentioned in Section 6.1. Further, the survey documents, to some extent, collaboration among households in agricultural production. The level of collaboration between the households (not reported) varies. However, only few households (14.6 percent) would want to farm together with other households if they are given five ha land compared to cultivating one hectare alone. It appears households remain influenced by historical and traditional behaviour and experiences, probably including complex periods of collective farming. Table 6.10: Trust in the community
Agree Most people are basically honest and can be trusted. Most people in this commune are basically honest and can be trusted. People in this commune are more trustworthy than people in other communes. In this commune one has to be careful, there are people you cannot trust. Other people in this commune are willing to give me non-economic help, such as cooking during feasts, building a pigsty, etc. I would lend money to others in this commune if they need it. If you lose something valuable, people in the commune will help look for it and return it to you. 79 74 54 10 15 18 10 11 28 100 100 100 63 50 19 38 18 12 100 100 84 91 Disagree Don't know 10 7 6 2 Total 100 100
More in-depth analysis would be required to uncover the extent of collaboration among the households in agricultural production and its potential effect on household productivity.
236
6.4. Conclusions and implications

The survey results show that a significant percentage of households have experienced shocks during last five years. The losses are mainly due to natural disaster, the death/illnesses of the household members, and diseases of the livestock or failures of crops. The poor seem to be relatively more vulnerable to these risks. Meanwhile the formal measures to cope with risks are limited, especially agricultural insurance. Households mainly rely on themselves to recover from shocks and many suffer for years after being affected, especially the poor households. The involvement from the government seems required because it is hard to develop insurance in a situation where households lack resources and the degree of awareness about insurance systems is limited. In parallel activities must be taken to promote a private insurance sector. Differences between the formal insurance and informal insurance systems can also be noted. The informal seems at present to have a more important role to play in coping with shocks for the poor. To uncover the underlying reasons and whether social capital can help households increase their productivity or improve their livelihood requires deeper analysis.
7. ACCESS TO INFORMATION
7.1. Access to general information resources
Local households have access to different sources of information. The survey captures seven information sources. They vary from traditional sources (social organizations, friends and neighbours) to modern ones (newspapers and the internet). Different sources of information are expected to play different roles. Table 7.1 shows the importance of the different types of information to the households. Local authorities, such as the village head and Commune's People's Committee, are the most important information source when it comes to information in three main areas: agriculture production, credit and insurance, and policy changes. Other information sources, however, are also important. Table 7.1: Important sources of information to the households
Percentage households stating that the source is important for information. 1. Local authorities (Village head and Communes Peoples Committee) 2. Political and social organizations 3. Friends / neighbours / family 4. News/mass media Agriculture production 80 49 75 62 Credit and insurant 75 52 55 43 Policy changes 90 66 45 70
237
5. Input supplier / trader 6. Extension service 7. Insurance company / financial institution
51 59 24
19 16 57
10 16 20
Although traditional information sources appear to be more important; modern information sources such as newspapers and the internet are already of significance and could get more important with more information and better access in the future. 7.1.1. Access to newspapers Access to newspapers in the communes mainly exists under two forms. The first is periodical newspapers supplied for local bodies in communes (from five to 10 types of newspapers on average). This kind of newspapers is mostly for leaders of the Communes Peoples Committee and village heads. The second type is newspapers from the Communes Cultural and Post Office. These are used by all people in the communes. The share of households reading newspapers daily is around 7.2 percent, and they include a larger share of non-poor and commune officials. The share of households reading newspapers once or twice a week is 9.5 percent. However, nearly two thirds of all households never read any newspapers. This share is particularly high in the mountainous provinces such as Lao Cai (86.9 percent), Dien Bien (91.2 percent) and Lai Chau (86.1 percent) (see Figure 7.1, Figure 7.2, and Table A1). Figure 7.1: Reading newspaper in households
7.2% 9.5%
Every day
1-2 times a week
17.6% 65.7%
A few times a month Almost never
Figure 7.2: Reading newspaper daily by food quintiles (Percent)

25.0 20.7 20.0
238
15.0 10.0 5.0 4.9 2.0 2.5 6.0
7.2. Access to internet

Of the 1,462 surveyed households 72.9 percent do not know the internet. This share is even higher for the mountainous provinces such as Dien Bien (97.4 percent), Lai Chau (94.7 percent), Long An (95.0 percent) and Lam Dong (86.0 percent). Some 10 percent of the households have knowledge of the internet, but do not access it. The remaining share of 17 percent has family members who know about the internet and use it (see Figure 7.3, and Table A2). The gap between the poorest and richest quintile is large. Only five percent of the poorest households use the internet compared to 32.3 percent of the richest group of households. Besides, many of the poor do not know what the internet is (87.6 percent). The households mostly access the internet in an internet cafe (88.9 percent). Only a few can afford buying computers and get internet access in their own house. (Figure 7.4, Table A2). Figure 7.3: Using internet in households
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1.2 Hom e W orkpla c e Inte rne tc a fe
88.9
9.9
239
Figure 7.4: Accessing internet places

100 90 72.9 80 70 60 50 40 30 7.3. Information sources for agricultural production 16.9 20 10.2 10 7.3.1. The main information sources for agriculture production 0 Don't know wha t's Know, but not Know, a c c e s s In the survey, seven key areasinte rne t of agriculturalc production t are covered. The a c e s s inte rne inte rne t
four areas where the
households receive most assistance or information are, respectively, livestock disease (80 percent), pest infestation (79 percent), new seeds (69 percent) and use of fertilizer (68 percent). For the last three areas, respectively irrigation, market information and credit, the percentages of households, which are receiving assistance, are also considerable (see Table 7.2). Table 7.2: Household received assistance or information during last 12 months (percent)
Information Sources Percentage of HHs received Received from (percent): From extension agent From suppliers and buyers From neighbours/friend Local authorities and political and social organizations From mass media (radio, TV newspaper) Other Total 18 4 13 100 15 2 14 100 43 3 15 100 37 14 12 100 35 24 12 100 10 36 14 100 27 16 16 100 42 5 18 34 17 19 23 3 13 23 1 13 19 0 10 7 7 25 16 3 22 New Use Pest Live-stock disease 80 Market information 63 Credit access 55
seeds fertilizer Irrigation infestation 69 68 61 79
Note: The enumerator manual describes that in the case when a respondent mentioned more than one source of information for an issue, the source highest on the list should be chosen. This creates a bias in favour of extension agents.
240
Table 7.2 also shows how five information sources were used in the seven areas of agricultural production. Extension agents play a significant role in the supply of assistance and information in areas such as new seeds and use of fertilizer. Local authorities and social organizations are more important providers of assistance and information on pest infestation problems, animal livestock disease, irrigation, and credit access. Information about the market mainly comes from the mass media. Noticeable is crucial role of local authorities and political and social organizations in agricultural production activities, and also the extension organizations (see Table A3). 7.3.2. Agriculture extension service activities Channels providing information on agricultural extension exists at various levels. There is the agricultural extension centre at the provincial level, the agricultural extension station at the district level, and the agricultural extension site at the commune level (grass-root level). At the commune level, a group of officials from several organizations have responsibly for agricultural extension. For example, the Communes Peoples Committee, people from the villages or representatives from political and social organizations, such as, the Womens Association, the Farmers Association, the Youth Union, agricultural cooperatives, and enterprises. There are two ways for households to obtain information on agricultural extension. The first possibility is to visit the agricultural extension agent in the commune or to attend training courses and meetings held by the agricultural extension organizations. The second possibility is that the agricultural extension staffs contacts the local households to disseminate information, provide assistance or demonstrate agricultural methods. The results of the evaluation of these two forms in the survey are discussed below. 7.3.3. Visits to agricultural extension organizations by local households: On average a third of the households surveyed in the 12 provinces have paid visits to an agricultural extension organization. The average number of visits is two per year. Table 7.3 shows that the following provinces have a high percentage of households visiting the extension; Dien Bien (49 percent), Quang Nam (47 percent), Lao Cai (43 percent), and Nghe An (42 percent). Provinces with a low percentage of visiting households include Dac Lac (8.3 percent), Long An (24 percent), and Lai Chau (27 percent). In general, male-headed households pay more visits than female-headed ones, respectively 37.4 and 19.6 percent. When dividing by food expenditure group, we find that households in the richest quintile pay on average more visits than all the other groups (see Table 7.3, Table A4).
241
7.3.4. Visits to households by the agricultural extension organizations: In the 12 surveyed provinces, 8.8 percent of households were visited by extension agents. On average, these household are visited twice a year (see Table 7.3). The percentage of households visited by extension agents varies by provinces. Lai Chau (30.3 percent), Lam Dong (18.1 percent), and Nghe An (13 percent) have the highest percentage of households being visited by extension agents. Other provinces, such as Phu Tho (three percent) and Khan Hoa (3.9 percent), experience considerably lower percentage of visited household.
Table 7.3: Agriculture extension activities during the last 12 months

Household going to extension Percentage of HH who visited extension (percent) Province Ha Tay Lao Cai Phu Tho Lai Chau Dien Bien Nghe An Quang Nam Khanh Hoa Dak Lak Dak Nong Lam Dong Long An Household head Female Male 19.6 37.4 2.3 2.1 4.3 10.0 1.4 1.9 39.2 42.6 27.4 27.1 49.0 42.1 47.3 25.5 8.3 28.3 38.5 24.4 1.4 2.6 3.0 1.9 3.2 1.8 2.5 3.1 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.2 8.8 4.6 3.0 30.3 11.7 13.0 7.1 3.9 4.9 4.8 18.1 6.7 1.6 2.0 3.3 1.1 1.4 1.8 1.6 6.3 1.3 2.5 1.9 2.2 Average number (times) Extension staff visits to households Percentage of HH visited by extension (percent) Average number (times)
242
Food expenditure quintile Poorest 2nd poorest Middle 2nd richest Richest Total 30.1 37.4 37.6 38.8 24.7 33.7 2.0 2.1 2.0 1.9 2.5 2.1 8.3 8.6 8.0 11.5 7.7 8.8 1.6 1.7 1.9 1.7 2.4 1.8
7.3.5. Household evaluation of agricultural extension activities Figure 7.5 shows how the visited/visiting households have been affected in their decision making by the extension organization. Around a quarter of the households mention that agricultural extension information had a large impact on their decisions regarding crop and livestock production (affect very much), while a bit more than half of the households claim to experience a moderate impact (affect moderately). However some of the households feel that the extension organization had no impact on their decision making.
Figure 7.5: The effect of agriculture extension on household decision making
60
55
56 51
50
40
36 Affect very much Affect moderately 23 19 21 13 No effect
30
25
20
10
0 Crop production Raising livestock Aquaculture
243
7.4. Information sources on policy changes

The survey collected information about seven information sources (Table 7.1). With respect to information on policy chances, households had to state the most important sources. Table 7.4 shows that 88 percent of households find that information from local authorities is important; this is followed by the mass media (69 percent) and political and social organizations (65 percent). Friends and neighbours are also fairly important as an information source on policy changes (44 percent).
Table 7.4: Important sources of information for policy changes (percent)

Local authorities (1) Ha Tay Lao Cai Phu Tho Lai Chau Dien Bien Nghe An Quang Nam Khanh Hoa Dak Lak Dak Nong Lam Dong Long An Total 75 97 97 98 81 94 92 79 91 70 91 84 88 Political and social orgs (2) 44 69 87 97 54 93 78 20 39 70 61 56 65 Friends, neighbours (3) 45 2 42 55 30 71 38 22 37 49 37 25 44 News, mass media (4) 51 82 73 67 16 87 69 59 73 61 76 68 69 Input supplier (5) 10 3 10 5 7 12 13 2 8 30 12 9 10 Extension Insurance company/ service (6) 25 6 23 16 22 15 22 3 3 20 13 9 16 financial institution (7) 27 19 14 12 10 27 25 0 2 19 24 20 19
244
The household evaluation of the importance of the different information sources does not vary much among provinces or food expenditure groups (Table 7.4, Table A5).
7.5. Household knowledge of the 2003 Land Law

A new/amended law on land was promulgated in 2003 (Land Law 2003) and replaced the Land Law of 1996. This is a large policy change, and it makes good sense to study household knowledge about this change and the sources providing such information. Survey results are discussed in what follows. 7.5.1. Activities undertaken to inform the public about the Land Law 2003 Ninety-three percent of the communes in the 12 surveyed provinces organized a meeting to inform the public about the Land Law 2003, and 89.1 percent of communes carried out other activities to provide information. In the provinces of Phu Tho, Khanh Hoa, Lam Dong, Ha Tay and Quang Nam, almost all communes (from 95.2 percent to 100 percent) organized a meeting and held other activities. Other provinces did not do as well. In Lai Chau only 37.9 percent of communes took any action and in Dien Bien the percentage was 53.6 percent (see Table 7.5). Table 7.5: Commune organized activities to inform public about the Land law 2003
A meeting to inform Number of communes Ha Tay Lao Cai Phu Tho Lai Chau Dien Bien Nghe An Quang Nam Khanh Hoa Dak Lak 61 20 40 29 21 63 41 27 35 Percentage (percent) 89.7 100 90.9 100 75 92.7 97.6 100 94.6 Other activities to inform Number commune) 66 18 44 11 15 62 40 27 33 Percentage (percent) 97.1 90 100 37.9 53.6 91.2 95.2 100 89.2
245
Dak Nong Lam Dong Long An Total
28 24 37 426
96.6 100 88.1 93
27 24 41 408
93.1 100 97.6 89.1
7.5.2. The number of households who have heard about the 2003 Land Law The previous section showed that a very high share of the communes has organized a meeting or carried out other activities to provide information on the Land Law 2003 to the public. It is therefore striking that only a very small number of the households actually know about the new Land Law. Results from the survey show that only 18 percent of households have heard about the Land Law. This implies that 82 percent of the households have no knowledge about this policy change at all. So after three years (from 2003 to 2006) only a small fraction of the households have received information on the Land Law. Furthermore, the informed group only has little knowledge of the Land Law. The results indicate that only 8.8 percent of households have fairly good knowledge, whereas 86.3 percent of households have very little or some knowledge of it. Table 7.6: Knowledge of Land Law 2003 (percent)
Percentage of HH heard about Province Ha Tay Lao Cai Phu Tho Lai Chau Dien Bien Nghe An Quang Nam Khanh Hoa Dak Lak Dak Nong 21.4 7.1 8.3 20.6 2.7 20.2 22.9 33.5 15.5 11.1 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.5 19.2 9.1 0.0 70.0 50.0 72.7 91.7 33.3 59.0 30.8 19.2 50.0 41.7 30.0 16.7 9.1 8.3 66.7 41.0 34.6 46.2 22.7 50.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.1 15.4 18.2 8.3 The level of knowledge No knowledge Very little Some knowledge Substantial knowledge
246
Lam Dong Long An Household head Female Male Food expenditure quintile Poorest 2nd poorest Middle 2 richest Richest Total
nd
15.8 17.6
0.0 0.0
80.0 61.9
10.0 23.8
10.0 14.3
10.4 20.0
7.4 4.7
40.7 58.2
40.7 28.6
11.1 8.5
8.2 10.8 20.4 23.6 26.9 18.0
0.0 0.0 4.1 8.8 6.7 5.0
74.2 75.0 57.1 50.9 45.3 56.3
25.8 21.4 30.6 33.3 32.0 30.0
0.0 3.6 8.2 7.0 16.0 8.8
This picture also holds for provinces, where almost every commune took action to inform the households. An example is Lao Cai, where every commune organized a meeting, and 90 percent carried out other activities. In this province only seven percent of households have heard about the Land Law. Another example is Phu Tho. Here 90.9 percent of the communes held a meeting, and every commune carried other activities. Still only eight percent of households have heard about the Land Law. When dividing households by gender of the household head, the male headed households are better informed than the female headed. Table 7.6 shows that 20 percent of households in male-headed households have heard about the Land Law, whereas the percentage of female-headed households is only 10 percent. Looking at the household by food expenditure, the two richest groups have a better knowledge of the land law than the two poorest groups. In Table 7.6 the difference in access to information in clear. Only eight percent of the households in the poorest group have heard about the Law, whereas the percentage for the richest group is 27. 7.5.3. The level of the household knowledge of the Land Law 2003 Although 18 percent of the survey population has heard about the Law, this says nothing about the correctness of the information. To measure the level of information households were asked two questions: (i) Question 1 (easy) "In the Land Law 2003, can the names of both the husband and the wife be written into a household's Red Book at the same time?", and (ii) Question 2 (more difficult) "In the Land Law 2003, how many ha is the maximum amount of annual crop land that can be allocated to one household?"
247
Of the households, who had knowledge of the Land Law, two thirds gave the correct answer to the easy question (Table A6). The more difficult question shows that the level of knowledge is in fact fairly low. A large percentage, 85 percent, simply stated they did not know the answer, while the rest claimed they knew the correct answer. Of those households who thought they knew the answer, only one third actually gave the correct answer (Table A7). In sum, out of the total amount of surveyed households only very few really understood the policy change well.
7.6. Conclusion
The surveyed households have access to both traditional and modern information sources. However, the most important are all traditional sources, whereas the role of modern information sources is less important. This is especially so when it comes to agricultural production. Here the information to the households came from traditional information sources, including local authorities, political and social organizations, and agriculture extension, which provide information on different areas of production. The use of the agriculture extension organizations by the households remains low, and these organizations do not appear to spend enough time visiting households. Many of the households, who have been in contact with an agriculture extension organization, have applied the new information they have got. However, only a small percentage thinks the information has affected their decisions very much. Household access to information on policy changes mainly comes from the local authorities, political and social organizations and the mass media. The information level and the share of informed households in this area appear rather low. An example is the Land Law, where only 18 percent had heard about it after three years, and only a very small percent has knowledge of the contents of the changes. This is surprisingly low considering the high percentage of communes in each province which has organized meetings and other activities to inform the households. Not surprisingly, the share of informed households is larger for male-headed ones than female. Further, the richest households have access to more information and are better updated than the poorest households. Since there are many information sources and activities done to provide information to household, the level of information and share of correctly informed households would appear too low, so the information system and the quality of information might merit further study.
248
8. CONCLUSION
An attempt has been made throughout this report to provide specific conclusions at the end of each chapter. The present chapter is therefore meant to sum-up and point to some general lessons that emerge from the report. First, the VARHS06 data clearly reflects the higher levels of poverty in the northern and central highland provinces as compared to their more southern counterparts. Poverty is particularly high among non-Kinh households, and higher percentages of female headed households are classified as poor by the authorities. Yet, female headed households are not food poorer. There is high correlation between poverty and dependence on wood as main energy source for cooking; but the percentage of households with access to safe water is relatively high in the northern provinces. Second, households generally consist of four people, three of whom are working and earn income. Households spend most of their labour time in agriculture work, but other activities include paid work, non-farm work and other work. Diversification appears associated with higher income, and income from agricultural activities measured relative the time spent on this activity seems relatively low, and it is clear that transformation of the rural economy remains a key challenge to policy makers. Third, the percentage of land with a property title is close to 100 percent in some provinces while others lag far behind. The effects of the 2003 land law with respect to the registering of spousal names on the LUC are not very widespread three years after the issuance of the law. Only nine percent of all plots recorded in the survey bear two names and this is close to none for some provinces. Moreover, titling of plots does not appear to have invigorated land use mobility or security strongly. Richer households are more market oriented and appear to have more consolidated plots, and they also seem to be somewhat less restricted regarding plot use. In general, restrictions on the use of plots remain widespread. Wealth and gender differences are apparent in some but not all issues considered in this report. Examples include that with respect to size, female headed farms are around half the size of male headed farms. Female headed farms also appear to face more restrictions, and investment is less likely to occur on female headed farms. Summary statistics also show inequality in access to land, and in land titling the poorest households are also underrepresented. The risk of marginalisation of the poor stands out as a topic for further research. Fourth, the use of traded inputs such as seeds, chemical fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides is generally fairly high, and private buyers are much more present in more accessible rural communities. Yet, infrastructural and transport problems are especially problematic for poorer households. A positive correlation between poverty and remoteness was also identified in this report, so infrastructure upgrading could potentially have an important poverty reducing effect.
249
Fifth, the rural credit market is dominated by two big state owned banks on the formal side of the market and money lenders, traders and friends and relatives on the informal side. There is a considerable gap between the interest rate charged by the two big formal institutions and the going rate for a loan at a money lender or a trader. Informal loans are mostly used for general consumption, whereas production loans are typically covered by the formal segment. Yet, one quarter of all loans for investment purposes does come from friends and relatives. Among the poorest 40 percent of the households only around 10 percent identified themselves as being selfrationed. This suggests that the present credit institutions formal and informal have quite broad coverage across provinces. Inter-provincial differences in credit coverage are huge, and in terms of activity levels the north-south difference are typically large. Sixth, a significant percentage of households experienced shocks during last five years. Losses are mainly due to natural disaster, the death/illnesses of the household members, and diseases of the livestock or failures of crops. The poor seem relatively more vulnerable to risks, and formal measures to cope with risks are limited, especially in the case of agricultural insurance. Differences between formal and informal insurance systems can also be noted, and informal insurance plays a more important role for the poor. Seventh, a variety of information sources is available to rural households, but local authorities and political and social organizations continue to be particularly important providers of information, especially when it comes to major policy changes. The use of agriculture extension organizations remains low, but many of the households, who have been in contact with an agriculture extension organization, have indeed applied the new information provided. Gaps in information dissemination continue to exist, an example being the Land Law, where only 18 percent had heard about it three years after its introduction. Not surprisingly, inequality in poverty status is reflected inequality in access to information, so there are many reasons to study further existing means of communicating information to the rural poor. Finally, the present report was focused on providing a series of illustrative descriptive tables and figures so as to provide an up-to-date picture of the characteristics of the Vietnamese rural economy as reflected in the evidence from the VARHS06. It has been argued throughout this report that in order to draw up more specific policy recommendations further in-depth causal analysis of the existing relationships identified is needed. It is nevertheless hoped that the present analysis will stimulate further work and reflection in support of the process of transforming the rural sector of Vietnam within the overall growth and development process of the country.
250
Annex Tables
Table A1: The percentages of HHs read newspaper
Every day Province Ha Tay Lao Cai Phu Tho Lai Chau Dien Bien Nghe An Quang Nam Khanh Hoa Dak Lak Dak Nong Lam Dong Long An Total Gender Female Male Food expenditure quintile Poorest 2nd poorest Middle 2nd richest Richest 2.0 2.5 4.9 6.0 20.7 5.2 6.6 6.1 11.7 17.7 13.2 17.2 15.2 23.5 18.2 79.7 73.7 73.9 58.8 43.4 10.6 6.3 7.5 10.0 13.0 18.8 69.0 64.8 5.9 3.5 3.8 1.8 1.8 5.2 11.4 12.8 11.0 7.3 1.4 14.4 7.2 10.8 2.5 9.2 4.4 1.8 8.2 12.3 5.1 13.0 13.8 6.2 12.5 9.5 22.9 7.1 12.2 7.7 5.3 24.0 17.5 12.7 11.0 10.2 23.1 17.6 17.6 60.4 86.9 74.9 86.1 91.2 62.6 58.8 69.5 65.0 68.7 69.3 55.5 65.7 Once or twice a week A few times in a month Almost never
251
Table A2: HHs use of internet (Percent)
Place to access internet Don't know what's internet Province Ha Tay Lao Cai Phu Tho Lai Chau Dien Bien Nghe An Quang Nam Khanh Hoa Dak Lak Dak Nong Lam Dong Long An Gender Female Male Food expenditure quintile Poorest 2nd poorest Middle 2nd richest Richest Total 87.6 78.6 73.6 66.9 58.1 72.9 7.4 9.2 13.2 11.6 9.6 10.2 5.0 12.2 13.2 21.5 32.3 16.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.9 1.2 11.7 2.6 6.7 7.3 15.4 9.9 88.3 97.4 93.3 92.3 81.7 88.9 76.1 72.1 9.1 10.5 14.8 17.5 0.0 1.5 21.9 7.2 78.1 91.4 57.8 79.8 54.6 94.7 97.4 75.0 54.5 82.2 83.2 78.9 86.0 95.0 15.7 10.0 36.2 3.5 0.0 5.3 9.6 0.0 5.5 0.0 9.8 1.7 26.4 10.1 9.2 1.8 2.6 19.7 35.9 17.8 11.3 21.1 4.2 3.3 0.0 0.0 8.6 52.4 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 10.0 21.7 16.7 47.6 0.0 2.6 0.0 49.9 15.0 5.0 0.0 50.5 90.0 78.3 74.6 0.0 100.0 97.4 97.6 50.1 85.0 86.4 100.0 49.5 Know, but not Know, access access internet internet Home Workplace Internet caf
252
Table A3: Import sources of information for agriculture production (Percent)

Insurance company Local authorities -1 Province Ha Tay Lao Cai Phu Tho Lai Chau Dien Bien Nghe An Quang Nam Khanh Hoa Dak Lak Dak Nong Lam Dong Long An Gender Female Male 69.3 82.8 36.0 51.9 65.3 77.6 51.5 63.8 36.8 54.4 48.9 61.6 17.9 25.4 86.2 96.2 88.3 97.7 88.9 79.4 77.8 46.5 77.9 65.9 92.8 63.8 32.3 68.7 70.6 95.9 60.4 75.9 46.4 7.7 19.8 37.8 48.8 32.8 76.8 45.8 83.6 97.7 46.1 79.4 80.3 42.7 85.3 47.0 87.2 67.3 57.3 32.9 85.8 88.0 20.5 63.9 56.8 39.7 69.0 36.3 88.8 53.5 33.3 78.7 78.4 85.4 18.8 50.5 53.3 10.1 62.7 33.2 84.7 38.1 55.3 70.0 78.1 94.2 49.7 67.4 55.0 26.8 52.5 30.3 75.8 42.2 22.8 19.9 34.3 46.3 12.5 39.4 16.6 3.8 6.8 9.1 49.1 7.5 Political and social orgs -2 Friends, News, mass neighbours -3 media -4 Input supplier -5 Extension service -6 / financial institution -7
Food expenditure quintile Poorest 2nd poorest Middle 2nd richest Richest Total 81.5 87.7 85.8 80.8 64.4 81.2 52.7 57.9 53.3 41.6 37.2 51.2 79.3 83.8 79.4 74.7 58.5 72.4 60.8 66.7 65.9 58.5 54.6 59.1 48.5 55.6 57.3 56.7 35.8 51.8 53.6 66.7 69.3 62.2 43.4 59.2 23.8 33.2 23.8 19.9 18.8 23.1
253
Table A4: Agriculture extension services last 12 months (Percent)

Percentage of HH not visited Province Ha Tay Lao Cai Phu Tho Lai Chau Dien Bien Nghe An Quang Nam Khanh Hoa Dak Lak Dak Nong Lam Dong Long An Gender Female Male 80.4 62.6 19.6 37.4 34.0 33.9 42.8 42.4 6.6 10.9 12.4 7.7 1.2 3.5 3.0 1.7 61.5 75.6 38.5 24.4 28.9 13.7 40.2 55.4 23.7 20.6 3.6 10.3 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 74.5 91.7 71.7 25.5 8.3 28.3 47.3 41.6 23.7 16.2 42.0 46.5 10.8 0.0 13.3 5.1 8.2 9.9 10.2 0.0 3.3 10.5 8.2 3.3 52.7 47.3 20.7 37.7 18.9 15.2 7.5 0.0 60.8 57.4 72.6 72.9 51.1 57.9 39.2 42.6 27.4 27.1 49.0 42.1 52.1 12.8 14.8 44.6 11.1 40.3 47.9 33.9 35.2 32.7 34.7 46.4 0.0 29.4 14.6 9.6 3.6 7.1 0.0 23.8 17.5 13.1 29.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 8.9 0.0 18.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 3.6 1.2 Percentage of HH visited 1 2 Number of extension visits 3 4 5 Over 5
Food expenditure quintile Poorest 2nd poorest Middle 2nd richest Richest Total 62.7 62.4 61.2 75.3 66.3 37.4 37.6 38.8 24.7 33.7 38.2 32.6 37.1 23.4 33.8 29.2 44.9 47.7 51.2 42.5 16.1 12.0 5.3 6.6 10.3 9.8 7.9 6.9 5.8 8.3 4.2 2.3 0.6 8.7 3.3 2.6 0.3 2.4 4.3 1.8 69.9 30.1 34.6 42.0 10.7 10.5 2.2 0.0
254
Table A5: Agriculture extension staff visits to HHs the last 12 months (Percent)
Local authorities -1 Gender Female Male Food expenditure quintile Poorest 2nd poorest Middle 2nd richest Richest Total 81.5 87.7 85.8 80.8 64.4 80.0 52.7 57.9 53.3 41.6 37.2 48.5 79.3 83.8 79.4 74.7 58.5 75.1 60.8 66.7 65.9 58.5 54.6 61.3 48.5 55.6 57.3 56.7 35.8 50.8 53.6 66.7 69.3 62.2 43.4 59.0 23.8 33.2 23.8 19.9 18.8 23.9 80.6 89.3 54.8 67.5 37.1 45.3 66.3 69.3 6.8 11.0 12.3 16.5 14.9 20.4 Political and social orgs -2 Friends, News, mass neighbours -3 media -4 Input supplier -5 Extension Insurance company / service -6 financial institution -7
255
Table A6: Husband and wifes name in the Land-use Right Certificate (Percent)
Correct answer Province Ha Tay Lao Cai Phu Tho Lai Chau Dien Bien Nghe An Quang Nam Khanh Hoa Dak Lak Dak Nong Lam Dong Long An Gender Female Male 52.8 68.6 Food expenditure quintile Poorest 2nd poorest Middle 2nd richest Richest Total 71.0 76.1 64.2 64.9 64.9 66.7 35.0 84.4 100.0 100.0 66.7 91.9 78.5 81.2 29.8 91.8 73.7 61.2
256
Table A7: Knowledge of HH of maximum amount of annual crop land (Percent)

Level of Knowledge Know Province Ha Tay Lao Cai Phu Tho Lai Chau Dien Bien Nghe An Quang Nam Khanh Hoa Dak Lak Dak Nong Lam Dong Long An Gender Female Male Food expenditure quintile Poorest 2nd poorest Middle 2nd richest Richest Total 18.26 17.61 7.35 20.3 12.9 14.63 73.08 46.46 0 17.45 34.94 30.94 16.21 14.41 42.94 29.05 19.65 0 19.75 0 33.33 0 8.65 23.61 27.71 8.26 0 37.92 100 0 0 33.3 0 100 0 0 Correct
257
References
Barslund, M. and Tarp, F. (2006): Rural Credit in Vietnam, Discussion Paper, Department of Economics, University of Copenhagen. Behrman, J.R. and Knowles, J.C. (1999): Household Income and Child Schooling in Vietnam, World Bank Economic Review, vol. 13(2), pp.211-256. Besley, T. (1995): Property Rights and Investment Incentives: Theory and Evidence from Ghana, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 103(51), pp. 903-937. Brandt, L. (2005): Land Access, Land Markets and their Distributive Implications in Rural Vietnam, mimeo. Brasselle, A.S., Gaspart, F. and Platteau, J.P (2001): Land Tenure Security and Investment Incentives: Puzzling Evidence from Burkina Faso, Journal of Development Economics, vol. 67, pp. 373-418. Carter, M.R. and Olinto, P. (2003): Getting Institutions Right for Whom? Credit Constraints and the Impact of Property Rights on the Quantity and Composition of Investment, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 85(1), pp. 173-186. Central Institute of Economic Management (CIEM) (2006): Practices in the Supply of Rural Public Services at District and Local Level Case Study of Thanh Hoa (in Vietnamese). Mimeo, Hanoi. Coate, S. and Ravallion, M. (1993): Reciprocity without Commitment: Characterization and Performance of informal insurance arrangements, Journal of Development Economics, vol. 67, pp. 1-24. Deaton, A. (1997): The Analysis of Household Surveys: A Microeconometric Approach to Development Policy, The World Bank, Johns Hopkins University Press. Deaton, A. (2003): Household Surveys, Consumption, and the Measurement of Poverty, Economic Systems Research, vol. 15(2), pp.135-159 Deininger, K. and Jin, S. (2003): Land Sales and Rental Markets in Transition, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, WPS 3013. DFID, Sustainable Livelihoods Distance Learning Guide Glossary (www.livelihoods.org). Duflo, E. (2001): Schooling and Labour Market Consequence of School Construction in Indonesia: Evidence from an Unusual Policy Experiment, American Economic Review, vol. 91(4), pp.795813.
258
Duong, P. B. and Izumida, Y. (2002): Rural Development Finance in Vietnam: A Microeconometric Analysis of Household Surveys, World Development, vol. 30(2), pp. 319-335. Epprecht, M., Le, T. , Minot, N. and Tran, A. and (2006): Income Diversification and Poverty in the Nouthern Uplands of Vietnam, International Food Policy Research Institute. Feder, G. and Feeny, D. (1991): Land Tenure and Property Rights: Theory and Implications for Development Policy, The World Bank Economic Review, vol. 5(1), pp. 135-153. Feder, G. and Onchan, T. (1987): Land Ownership Security and Farm Investment in Thailand, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 69(2), pp. 311-320. General Statistics Office (GSO) (2001): Agricultural and Fishery Census, http://www.gso.gov.vn General Statistics Office (GSO). Vietnam Household Living Standard Survey 2002. General Statistics Office (GSO). Vietnam Household Living Standard Survey 2004. Handa, S. and Simler, K. (2006): Quality or Quantity? The Supply-Side Determinants of Primary Schooling in a Poor Rural Economy, Journal of African Economies, vol. 15(1), pp.59-90. Hayes, J., Roth, M. and Zepeda, L. (1997): Tenure Security, Investment and Productivity in Gambian Agriculture: A Generalized Probit Analysis, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 79(2), pp. 369-382. Holden, S. and Yohanes, H. (2002): Land Redistribution, Tenure Insecurity, and Intensity of Production: A Study of Farm Households in southern Ethiopia, Land Economics, vol. 78(4), pp. 573-590. ILO (2005): Towards a viable microfinance sector in Viet Nam: Issues and challenges. ILO Vietnam Working Paper series no. 5. IMF (2006): IMF Country Report No. 06/423 Statistical Appendix for Vietnam. Available at:
http://www.informest.it/documentazione/VN_20061016115106_statisticalpercent20appendix_2006_vietnam_fmi.pdf
Lanjouw, J.O. and Lanjouw, P. (2001): How to Compare Apples and oranges: Poverty Measurement Based on Different Definitions of Consumption, Review of Income and Wealth, vol. 47(1), pp. 25-42 Laurenceson, J and Nghiem, H.S (2005): The nature of NGO microfinance in Vietnam and stakeholders perceptions of effectiveness, East Asia Economic Research Group, Dicussion Paper No. 3, The University of Queensland.
259
Mekong Economics (2004a): Access to Resources: The Case of Rural Households in Vietnam, prepared by Mekong Economics, Hanoi, Vietnam. Mekong Economics (2004b): Situation Analysis: Emerging Gender Issues in Vietnam during Economic Integration, prepared by Mekong Economics, Hanoi, Vietnam Mekong Economics (2004): Access to Resources. A study available at http://www.mekongeconomics.com/Document/Publications/2004/MKE%20Access%20to%20Reso urces.pdf. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (2003): Farmer Needs Study, Hanoi, Vietnam: Statistical Publishing House, p.75 Phung Duc Tung and Nguyen Phong (2007): Vietnam Household Living Standards Survey (VHLSS) 2002 and 2004 Basic Information, mimeo, Hanoi, Vietnam. Pingali, P.L. (1997): From Subsistence to Commercial Production Systems: The Transformation of Asian Agriculture, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 79, pp. 628-634 Platteau, J.P. (2000): Allocating and Enforcing Property Rights in Land: Informal versus Formal Mechanisms in Subsaharan Africa, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, vol. 26(1), pp.55-81. Ravallion, M. (1994): Poverty Comparisons, Harwood Academic Publishers. Ravallion, M. and van de Walle, D. (2003): Land Allocation in Vietnams Agrarian Transition, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, WPS 2951. Ray, D. (1999): Development Economics, Princeton University Press. Townsend, R.M. (1994): Risk and Insurance in Village India, Econometrica, vol. 63, pp. 539-591. Townsend, R.M. (1995): Consumption Insurance: An Evaluation of Risk Bearing Systems in Low Income Countries, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 9, pp. 83-102. Zeller, M. (1994): Determinants of Credit Rationing: A Study of Informal Lenders and Formal Credit Groups in Madagascar, World Development, vol. 22(12), pp. 1895-1907. World Bank (2003): Vietnam Development Report 2004. Report No. 27130-VN, World Bank, Washington DC. World Bank (2004a): Financial sector policy issues note: Viet Nam Bank for Social Policies, Financial Sector Group, Washington DC. World Bank (2004b): Vietnam Development Report 2005, Joint Donor Report to the Vietnam Consultative Group Meeting, Hanoi, December 1-2, 2004.
260
261

Dac Diem Kinh Te Nong Thon VN

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dac Diem Kinh Te Nong Thon VN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

0

187 90 131 116 112 196 114 78

12.8 6.2 9.0 7.9 7.7 13.4 7.8 5.3

77.8 89.0 80.1 92.2 90.3 83.3 72.8 69.2

k Lk (TN) k Nng (TN) Lm ng (TN) Long An (BSCL) Total

143 108 69 118 1,462

9.8 7.4 4.7 8.1 100

82.2 83.7 78.8 65.8 79.1

71.5 76.5 63.7 100.0 82.1

90.4 97.1 100.0 100.0 97.7

78.3 79.3 69.6 100.0 85.8

18.9 25.1 37.3 14.6 22.0

Ngho nht 16.6 Ngho nh 13.1

Giu nht 25.9

Ngho nht, 21.3

Giu nht, 18.4

T rung bnh 25.8

Ngho nh, 21.5 T rung bnh, 18.5

Giu nh, 20.3

Bng 1.3: Trnh hc vn ca ch h, ph thng v chuyn nghip dy ngh

6.5 7.6 8.1 13.2 11.7 9.4

3.1 4.1 1.9 2.4 6.8 3.6

3.3 1.6 3.1 3.4 7.6 3.8

0.4 0.1 1.8 2.3 7.2 2.3

Hnh 1.3: S phn b ngun nhin liu cho un nu

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

rm, thn ng v ph phm khc

Hnh 1.4: Tin nghi v sinh, s phn b gia cc tnh

Hnh 1.5: Phn b s rc (trong 12 thng qua)

? i t?p trung mang ti n mang t ?i h rc

chn lp chn l?p

v?t xu?ng sng, h vt xung sng, h?

2. THAM GIA TH TRNG LAO NG V CC HOT NG TO THU NHP

Thnh vin h lm vic

Thnh vin h c thu nhp

2.1. Cc hot ng to thu nhp

100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0

C: T l dn s trong tui lao ng tham gia cc hot ng phi nng nghip

D: T l dn s trong tui lao ng khai thc ti nguyn cng cng

Minot v cng s. (2006).

e Sims Simpsonof Incom Diversification Chpson Index v a dng ho thu nhp

Vic ni tr 33.1 26.7 31.6 27.4 28.7 26.8 25.6 28.0

Nng nghip Thi gian Phn thu nhp t lao ng

27.3 39.5 43.6

25.1 39.8 43.8

11.7 11.8 6.2

10.9 12.7 7.0

1.0 2.5 3.3

0.7 3.0 3.7

33.1 26.7 31.6

Ngho nh Trung bnh Giu nh Giu nht Tng

20.5 22.2 19.9 26.5 20.9

32.5 30.8 23.2 30.0 28.4

40.4 38.7 37.2 25.2 37.0

41.3 37.5 38.9 22.2 36.8

9.0 8.8 14.7 20.5 11.8

10.1 9.5 15.4 20.0 12.3

2.7 1.6 1.4 2.2 2.2

2.3 1.8 1.8 3.0 2.5

27.4 28.7 26.8 25.6 28.0

Hnh 2.6: Lao ng phi nng nghip ca h

0 2004 2006 2004 2006 2004 2006

3. T AI: C IM, S DNG T, U T V TH TRNG

3.1. S phn b v chia t thnh mnh