81Land Inequality and Rice Security in Northern Laos
Phaythoune PHOMVIXAY*
Souksavanh VIXATHEP**
Phanhpakit ONPHANHDALA***

Abstract
Backward agriculture, inadequate farm income and absolute poverty have long
characterized the economy of developing countries. Unequal distribution of agriculturalland is often cited as a source of poverty and inefficiency in agriculture. However,much of literature on smallholders tends to address income inequality and（total）landsize, while land inequality has been overlooked in those discourses. In view of filling
the research gap, this paper provides a micro-level foundation for discussions on land
inequality and food security in Laos as a case study for least developed countries.
Using detailed primary data of farm households from Phongsaly, one of thepoorest provinces in northern Laos, the study decomposes agricultural land into
three types, namely irrigated lowland, rain-fed lowland and upland, and evaluates
the effect of uneven distribution and quality of land on food security. A significant
contribution of the paper to food security literature in Laos is that land inequality
is controlled for in the analysis and that access to agricultural infrastructure ismeasured by irrigated area. The study reveals that landholdings – regardlessof types of land – improve rice self-sufficiency, and that superior land quality –irrigated or rain-fed lowland – enhances food security of farm households. The findings
pertain to impact of land policy（allocation, utilization and management of agriculturalland）on food security and poverty alleviation.

＊ National Project Manager of Northern Rural Infrastructure Development Project, Ministry of Agriculture
and Forestry, Lao PDR（corresponding author）,＊＊ Assistant Professor, Graduate School of International Cooperation Studies, Kobe University,＊＊＊ Visiting Associate Professor at GSICS, Kobe University and Faculty of Economics and Business Management, National University of Laos.

Journal of International Cooperation Studies, Vol.21, No.2 & 3（2014.1）

国

82

際

協

力

論

集

第 21 巻  第 2・3 号合併号

Key words
food security, land inequality, Laos
JEL Classification
Q15, Q24
1. Introduction
Land plays a crucial role in agricultural development for developing countries.
It has direct impact on the livelihoods of farmers, income generation and poverty
situations in rural economies. For an agriculture-based economy land also plays acentral role in the formulation of development policies that aim at increasing the nation’s
income and improving people’s living standard. There exists an observation that inmany（economic）theories, which attempt to address the success of nations in raising
their incomes over time, the dichotomy of ‘landlessness’ and ‘having-access-to-land’ istreated comprehensively, while the distribution of land among economic agents withaccess-to-land has received less attention（Erickson and Vollrath, 2004）.
For Laos（also known as Lao PDR）
, a country located in the center of the
Indochinese peninsula with an overwhelmingly agriculture-dependent economy, land isa major resource that is vital for socio-economic development and poverty reduction.
While the role of agriculture in the economy has long been prioritized and emphasized,
the sector is characterized by multiple land tenure and farming practices, traditional
production systems and widespread use of household labor. A means of modernizing
this crucial sector is a land reform that is supposed to consolidate land security and give.
farmers more responsibility in managing natural resources（Ducourtieux et al., 2005）
Published studies on Lao agriculture address a number of issues related to land
reform, farmers’ response to government policies and farm practices（Ducourtieux etal., 2005; Takai and Sibounheauang, 2010）, land use planning for agricultural production,changes in land use and livelihoods（Thongmanivong and Fujita, 2006; Thongmanivong
et al., 2009; Phachomphon et al., 2010）, commercialization of farm products and market
information dissemination in rural communities（Foppes and Phommasane, 2006;
Yokoyama, 2010）and the like. Apart from some empirical works on farming output andland productivity（Onphanhdala, 2009, 2010）, foreign investment in agriculture and rural

Land Inequality and Rice Security in Northern Laos83

development（Onphanhdala and Suruga, 2011, 2013）and technical efficiency in farming
systems（Vixathep and Onphanhdala, 2013）, most of the research papers addressing land
distribution and land use tend to focus on qualitative analysis based on project work.
Moreover, although land inequality has been examined in cross-country studies（Erickson and Vollrath, 2004; Vollrath, 2007）, the impact of land distribution on ricesufficiency（livelihood）and poverty in Laos has virtually not been studied. Against thisbackground, the present paper provides a micro-level foundation for discussions on land
inequality and food security in Laos. By applying primary data of farm households fromPhongsaly province in northern Laos, the paper decomposes the inequality measurewith respect to three types of agricultural land, namely irrigated lowland, rain-fed
lowland and upland, and evaluates the effect of uneven land distribution on land holding
and estimates the impact of land quality on food security. This study could well beconsidered as a pioneer work for Laos and a case study for least developed countries.
2. Land Reform and Land Use Transformation

Farming practices: One of the most important economic sectors of Laos is agriculture,including forestry and fishery, which contributes roughly one-third to the GDP in 2010
and engages about three-quarters of the workforce in 2011. The sector is dominatedby subsistence rice production, followed by fresh vegetables and some industrial crops（FAO, 2012）. The farming system consists of two major practices: the rain-fed and/or
irrigated farming along the Mekong River and its tributaries（lowland farming）,and theslash-and-burn cultivation in the northern and eastern regions（upland farming）. About
60% of rice farmers practice lowland cultivation and some 10% do both lowland andupland farming. Rotational shifting cultivation is the most common agricultural practice,
while slash-and-burn practices are more frequent in the northern region（Vixathep andOnphanhdala, 2013）.

Land reform: Laos has a mountainous landscape with limited land area for
agriculture, mainly on the three major plains. With a resource-based economy, land
reform has significant impact on natural resources（forests, water）and agriculturaldevelopment. In the previous regime, the Kingdom of Laos, land was consideredultimately owned by the King and managed based on customary rules. After the Lao
PDR was founded in 1975, land ownership was transferred to the people represented

国

84

際

協

力

論

集

第 21 巻  第 2・3 号合併号

by the state. The collectivization was initiated in the mid-1970s aimed at redistributing
access to agricultural land and harvests, and over the following decade nearly
4,000 cooperatives were established. However, the collectivization was never mademandatory and faced passive resistance by farmers. Many cooperatives existed merely
in name. The collectivization was in part responsible for a drop in rice output and thecooperatives were dissolved by the late 1980s and land ownership was returned tooriginal owners（Vandergeest, 2003; Ducourtieux et al., 2005）.
In the mid-1990s the government of Laos adopted a participatory approach to land
reform. The Land and Forest Allocation Program and the land titling program received
widespread support from grassroots development organizations, community forestry
advocates, international organizations and many farmers. The main objectives of the
program are to clarify property rights, reduce poverty through extension services,
promoting community-based forest management and conservation, and stabilizing
swidden agriculture. The concept is to provide clear land rights and encourage farmers
to make productive investment in their land. The land allocation program was initially
implemented in urban areas and then extended throughout the country（Vandergeest,2003）.
In literature on Laos, the land reform has been found to have limited success,while negative consequences are more common. Slash-and-burn practices have declined
in some areas, but the true cause is said to be the spread of new mechanical meansthat has enhanced farmers’ productivity. It is even stated that land titling might not
be significant at all for enhancing agricultural productivity and food security. The land
reform has induced changes in farming practices and caused a decline in rice production
in some provinces. It has seriously affected farmers who do not have access to wet land
and/or irrigation services, or those with limited access to other means of production（Ducourtieux et al., 2005; Vandergeest, 2003）.

Land use transformation: Overall, the chronic changes of land use in Laos have beensummarized into four major periods:（1）the civil war era（1963-1975）saw forest
destruction due to bombing and reallocation;（2）the early socialist period（1975-1985）
witnessed an expansion of paddy land and forest degradation;（3）the market transition
period（1985-1995）experienced cash crop production resulting from trade and market
liberalization; and（4）the post-socialist era（1990-present）has been experiencing an

Land Inequality and Rice Security in Northern Laos

85

increase in commercial production and land reform as a consequence of development
process（Fujita, 2006）.
Over the last decade land use for agricultural production has expanded from about
4.1% of the total land（one million hectares）in 1999 to 6.1%（1.5 million hectares）in2009, in which rice farming accounts for 40% of cultivated land. Rice output, harvested
areas and paddy yield have also increased. The country has shown relatively good
progress in agricultural infrastructure development and provided irrigation to about
one-fourth of cultivated land over the same period（Table 1）.
Rapid expansion and transformation of agricultural land, mainly for commercial
production, occurs at the expense of forests and outweighs the capacity of local
authorities in the north. In particular, swidden land and fallow forests have beentransformed into permanent land for contract farming, such as plantation of rubber
trees, sugar cane and other cash crops（Thongmanivong et al., 2009）.However, the land
utilization ratio is still very low compared to many other developing countries in Asia.
For example, over the period 1999-2009 the land use ratio for agricultural production in
Cambodia was 22-23%, Vietnam 24-31%, Myanmar 16-19%, Thailand 37-38%, Indonesia
18-24%, Philippines 34-35%, Sri Lanka 30-35%, and heavily populated Bangladesh 64-68%（FAO, 2012）.
The distribution of agricultural land is relatively equitable across provinces, withaverage land size of 1.62 hectares. Most of farmers hold agricultural land. Overall, 36%
of farmers own less than one hectare, another 36% have 1-2 hectares, and 27% own 2

Table 1  Selected indicators of agricultural development in Laos
1999

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Agricultural land（1000 ha）（% of total） 955（4.1）1,081（4.7）1,182（5.1）1,215（5.3）1,399（6.1）1,468（6.4）
Agricultural population（% of total）

76.7

79.1

75.7

75.5

75.3

75.1

Agricultural land/agricultural population

0.24

0.24

0.26

0.26

0.31

0.32

Irrigated land（% of agricultural land）

26.2

16.5a）

27.8

27.4

26.2

21.1

Rice paddy output（1000 metric tons）

2,103

2,568

2,664

2,710

2,927

3,145

Rice paddy yield（kg/ha）

2,930

3,489

3,348

3,469

3,547

3,603

Rice paddy harvested area（1000 ha）

736

736

796

781

825

873

Note:

a）

denotes value of 2003

Source: Selected indicators of food and agricultural development in the Asia-Pacific Region (various issues), Rome: Foodand Agriculture Organization.

国

86

際

協

力

論

集

第 21 巻  第 2・3 号合併号

hectares or more（Onphanhdala, 2009）. On the other hand, a decrease in agricultural
population and a steady ratio of agricultural land to agricultural population of 0.24-0.32
could suggest a slight upward trend in land holding（Table 1）.

Agriculture in Phongsaly province: Phongsaly, the most-northern province in Laos, has avery mountainous landscape. The major farming practice is slash-and-burn agriculture
by farmers belonging to non-Lao ethnic groups（mainly Lao-Tai and Sino-Tibetan
ethno-linguistic groups）. Rice is by far the most important agricultural product of theprovince, followed by maize, starchy roots, vegetables, beans and nuts（Table 2）. Since
the beginning of the 2000s the plantation of sugar cane and some other cash crops（vegetables, beans, and nuts）has seen an upward trend, which most likely results fromincreased demand for agricultural products in neighboring countries and from increased
investment in the agricultural sector largely by investors from China and Thailand（Onphanhdala and Suruga, 2013）.
With respect to land reform, the program was launched in the province in1997 and accelerated in 2000. With the allocation program, the average family landholding has declined（from 17 ha to 13 ha per family）, whereas the area of slash-andburn agriculture（roughly 3 ha per family）has not changed. The reform does not
Table 2  Agricultural production in Phongsaly province（unit: Tons）
Output（Tons）

1976

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2009

96-00

01-05

Rice

20,055 26,093 38,310 39,720 40,946 37,430 44,725 51,155 39,800 38,067 46,123
-

06-09

Rice (% of Lao)

3.03

2.48

2.74

2.63

2.89

1.68

1.74

1.63

-

-

Maize

2,710

1,488

4,148

4,210

4,000

7,376

9,170 16,629

9,047

Starchy roots

2,122

2,460

2,185

9,720

6,000

1,204 20,810 25,133

9,280 19,796 20,798

Vegetables & beans

937

1,120

1,219

2,408

783

1,106 13,190

6,586

1,350

7,257 11,972

Peanuts

251

380

126

800

1,029

334

500

488

202

202

583

Soybeans

8

207

521

1,060

630

139

290

210

183

84

218

9,033 13,170

Mungbeans

11

85

140

280

217

52

210

105

32

119

131

Tobacco

147

245

360

1,600

1,139

-

-

-

563

-

-

Cotton

-

190

46

53

75

130

120

120

258

373

74

Sugar cane

-

-

1,250

1,225

630 43,200 21,100 83,109 31,330 27,041 63,975

Coffee

-

12

7

36

-

-

-

3

-

-

-

Tea

-

-

-

56

175

70

240

597

-

149

734

Note:‘96-00’implies that the figure in the column is the average value for 1996-2000,‘01-05’for 2001-2005,
and‘06-09’for 2006-2009.
Source: Northern rural infrastructure development sector project in（Ministry of Agriculture- and Forestry）

Land Inequality and Rice Security in Northern Laos

87

have immediate impact on reduction of shifting cultivation, but it has caused drastic
reduction of fallow areas（from 21 ha to 7 ha per family）and accelerated rotations ofswidden land（Ducourtieux et al., 2005）.
3. Analytical Framework and Data
3.1 Analytical approach and empirical model
Following the theoretical work by Shorrocks（1982）, which introduces alternative
decompositions of income of households or individuals into different factor components,
studies on inequality have drawn great attention in economic literature. In the 1980s
and 1990s, a large number of research works on inequality topics were conducted
for developed countries owing to availability of detailed household data（Lerman andYitzhaki, 1984; Silber, 1989; Garner, 1993; Lambert and Aroson, 1993）.
In a significant work, Lerman and Yitzhaki （1985） offer an alternativeinterpretation1 of the ‘natural decompositions’ by Shorrocks and propose the marginal
effect interpretation of an increase in income source on the overall inequality measure.
Derived from a formula for half of Gini’s mean difference（ ）:
wheredenotes income（ the lowest income,（1）
the highest income）,

distribution of income（uniform distribution between［0, 1］）, （of family income, and（）the covariance of thethe cumulative）the components

component and.

The decomposition of the Gini coefficient（ ）is expressed as（Lerman and Yitzhaki,
1985; Lopez-Feldman, 2006）:


where

（3）

represents share of component

component

to total income）,（2）

in total income（importance of income

is the relative Gini of component （how equally or

unequally distributed income componentis）, andis the Gini correlation between

国88

income component

際

協

力

論

集

第 21 巻  第 2・3 号合併号

and total income（how component

and the distribution of total

income are correlated）.
The effect of a marginal change in component, denoted as（a percentagechange in component ）,is derived in Lerman and Yitzhaki（1985）as:


（4）or



（5）

Equation（5）means that the percentage change in inequality as a consequence ofa marginal change in component

equals the original contribution of component

net of2

the component ’s share of total income. In this paper we use an algorithm developed
by Lopez-Feldman（2006）to evaluate the effect of land inequality（types of agriculturalland）on total land holding.
In addition, a regression analysis is applied to evaluate the impact of different
types of paddy land and some farm characteristics（number of adults in the household,ethnicity of farm household）on rice sufficiency of farm households. An ordered probit
model presents the best possible estimation for our case, because the dependent
variable is ordinal and classified into three levels（Wood, 2006; Ogurtsov et al., 2009）.
The standard ordered probit model is expressed as:
whereis an unobservable variable,

an array of parameters to be estimated,（6）
is a vector of independent variables,

is a random error term assumed to follow

a normal distribution, and the index denotes the i-th household. Instead ofobserveis
weclassified into three categories（rice shortage, rice sufficiency, rice surplus）（Table 3）.
3.2 Data and variables
The empirical analysis applies primary household data of 2011 and 2012, collected
within scope of the socioeconomic analysis for the Northern Rural Infrastructurewhere ��∗ is an unobservable variable, �� is a vector of independent variables, ��� is an array ofparameters to be estimated, and �� is the random error term assumed to be distributed as astandard normal, and the index denotes the i-th household. Instead of ��∗ we observe � classified
into three categories (rice shortage, rice sufficiency, rice surplus) (Table 3).
Land Inequality and Rice Security in Northern Laos89

3.2 Data and variablesof projects
data collection（Phongsaly
province）
FigureFigure
1 Site1  Siteof projects
for dataforcollection(Phongsaly
province)

Source: Feasibility study for NRI Project in Phongsaly Province (MAF, 2012, 2013)

6
Development Sector Project（hereafter NRI Project）. The NRI Project covers four

provinces in northern Laos（Phongsaly, Luang Nam, Oudomxay and Bokeo province）
and is implemented over several phases. The data used for this paper are obtained
from the household surveys from five subprojects:（1）2011 Survey（2 subprojects,
1,005 samples）: Nam Ou Irrigation Subproject covers six villages（844 households）,
and Nam Lan Irrigation Subproject contains one village（161 households）; and（2）2012
Survey（3 subprojects, 1,296 samples）: Nam Ngaen Subproject covers four villages（751households）,Nam Thae Subproject contains five villages（415 households）,and KomaenPhongsat Subproject includes two villages（130 households）. Upon clearing data withincomplete information, 2,301 observations from the two surveys are applied for theinvestigation. All the variables used in the empirical analysis are non-monetary terms
and invariant over the course of one year. This enables the use of combined data fromthe two surveys（pooled data）and thereby increasing the sample size and enhancing

国

90

際

協

力

論

集

第 21 巻  第 2・3 号合併号

the inference power of the analysis.
The surveys use a stratified random sampling method based on a master listof households（Masterlist）in a village（Ban）provided by the village authority. Eachvillage is classified into sub-village（Nouay）. The number of households（HHs）to be
drawn from a Nouay is determined based on its size（a larger sub-village is allocatedmore sample HHs）. In a village with more than ten Nouay’s, a random sampling of ten
sub-villages shall be done first, and sample HHs are randomly selected from each Nouay（MAF, 2012）.
The initial dataset contains information on three major types of agricultural land
（paddy land）and some information on land for home garden, fishpond, fruit trees, andwood. However, partly due to land scarcity in the mountainous landscape of the regions
under study, very few households in the samples own or use land for other purposes
than subsistence rice farming. This fact paves the way for the analysis to concentrateon paddy land. Moreover, information on household characteristics includes number ofTable 3  Definition of variables
Variable

Definition/description

Land types

irr_lland

Irrigated lowland（Lao language: “napee sonlapathan”）in hectare

rainf_lland

Rain-fed lowland（Lao language: “napee hap namphon”）in hectare

uplandUpland（Lao language: “neun soung, na hai, na peut”）in hectare

paddyland

Sum of the three types of agricultural land in hectare

Rice sufficiency

ricesuffice

Ordinal variable defined as follows:“1” denotes rice shortage（for less than a month to more than 4 months）“2” denotes rice sufficiency“3” denotes rice surplus

Household characteristics

adult

Number of adult members in the household

laotaiEthno-linguistic dummy for Lao-Tai group（reference）

monekhmer

Ethno-linguistic dummy for Mone-Khmer group

hmonglu

Ethno-linguistic dummy for Hmong-Lumien grouptibechnEthno-linguistic dummy for Tibeto-Chinese group

Notes: 1）The vast majority of households do not own or use land for home gardens, fishponds, fruit trees, andwood. Hence, they are negligible and excluded from the analysis.
2）The original definition of rice insufficiency distinguishes five levels of rice shortage（shortage ofless than one month, above 1 month to 2 months, above 2 months to 3 months, above 3 months to 4
months, and more than 4 months. However, in the analysis they are summarized to one situation of“rice shortage” regardless of the length of the event, i.e. the variable ‘ricesuffice’ equals 1.

Land Inequality and Rice Security in Northern Laos

91

Table 4  Summary of variables
Description

Variable

Obs.

Mean

Std. Dev.

Min

Irrigated lowland（ha）

irr_lland

2301

0.27

0.58

0.0

Max
9.9

Rain-fed lowland（ha）

rainf_lland

2301

0.33

0.53

0.0

5.5

upland

2301

0.53

0.73

0.0

9.3

Paddy land（ha）

paddyland

2301

1.14

1.08

0.0

10.4

Rice sufficiency level（1, 2, 3）

ricesuffice

2301

1.90

0.53

1

3

Upland（ha）

Number of adults in the household（persons）

adult

2301

2.00

1.48

0

9

Ethno-linguistic group of Lao-Tai

laotai

2301

0.65

0.48

0

1

Ethno-linguistic group of Mone-Khmer

monekhmer

2301

0.07

0.25

0

1

Ethno-linguistic group of Hmong-Lumien

hmonglu

2301

0.01

0.11

0

1

Ethno-linguistic group of Tibeto-Chinese

tibetchn

2301

0.28

0.45

0

1

Source: Authors’ calculations（primary data from Northern Rural Infrastructure Development Sector Project）.

adult HH members and dummy of ethno-linguistic group. The definition of variables forthe empirical analysis is presented in Table 3.
The summary statistics of land distribution and farm characteristics are presented
in Table 4. On average, a typical farm household in Phongsaly province（northern
Laos）owns about 0.3 hectare of irrigated lowland, 0.3 hectare of rain-fed lowland and
0.5 hectare upland for rice farming. These figures reflect the fact that the landscape ofnorthern Laos is mountainous and fertile agricultural land is rather scarce. With respect
to rice output, an average household would produce just enough for self-consumption（ricesuffice = 2）, a fact that would confirm the existence of widespread subsistence
farming in the country. Finally, the table reveals that the Lao-Tai and Tibeto-Chinese
ethnic groups are the major ethnic groups in Phongsaly province, as they comprise
more than 90% of the sample households.
4. Results and Discussions
The empirical analysis consists of two parts, namely the decomposition of land
inequality among the three types of agricultural land based on Equation（5）and theevaluation of land inequality impact on food security（rice sufficiency）by estimating
Equation（6）. The Gini decomposition of land inequality is conducted for all households
and for the three subgroups classified by rice sufficiency levels（Table 5）.
Agricultural crop production is the main source of income, and rice output strongly
influences the livelihoods of farmers in Phongsaly province. Hence, owning or having

国

92

際

協

力

論

集

第 21 巻  第 2・3 号合併号

Table 5  Decomposition of land inequality by types of agricultural land
Gini of source（land type）

Correlation withrank of total
land holdings

Share of land
inequality

irr_lland

0.236

0.772

0.644

0.247

0.011

rainf_lland

0.295

0.703

0.570

0.249

-0.046

upland

0.470

0.626

0.814

0.504

0.034

SourceA

All households

0.475

Total agricultural land
B

Households facing rice shortage

irr_lland

0.135

0.896

0.721

0.158

0.022

rainf_lland

0.200

0.812

0.632

0.186

-0.015upland

0.665

0.617

0.888

0.657

-0.0080.554

Total agricultural land
C

Households achieving rice sufficiency

irr_lland

0.218

0.741

0.551

0.203

-0.015

rainf_lland

0.316

0.662

0.525

0.250

-0.066

upland

0.466

0.620

0.830

0.547

0.081

0.439

Total agricultural landD

Relative
marginal
effect（% Change）

Land holding
shareHouseholds achieving rice surplus

irr_lland

0.399

0.662

0.728

0.418

0.019

rainf_lland

0.270

0.723

0.531

0.225

-0.045upland

0.330

0.664

0.749

0.357

0.026

Total agricultural land

0.460

Source: Authors’ calculations.

access to good land and irrigation services would raise farmers’ income, improve theirlivelihoods and reduce the poverty incidence in the province.
For all households in the samples, the Gini decomposition reveals that upland has
the largest share and eventually the strongest impact on land inequality across the
samples and the three subgroups. Specifically, it accounts for 33-67% of total landholding（Table 5, column 1）and contributes 36-66% to land inequality（Table 5, column 4）. In
addition, with a relatively high Gini correlation between upland and total landholdingof 0.749-0.888（Table 5, column 3）, upland favors the farm households at the top of the
distribution, i.e. the comparably land-rich households. On the other hand, irrigated andrain-fed lowland are most unequally distributed among farm HHs（Table 5, column 2）,
but they have a relatively weaker impact on land inequality, i.e. smaller share of landLand Inequality and Rice Security in Northern Laos93

inequality, as compared to upland（Table 5, column 4）. This result implies that most of
farmers would have access to upland for farming and that relatively wealthy farmers
could secure access to good land and irrigation services to enhance food security. This
source accounts for more than half of land inequality among households under study
in all but one case. Among the farmers with rice surplus（Part D）, irrigated lowland
would make the difference in land inequality（column 4）.
A particular interest of the study is to look into the land distribution issue for thevery poor households who face serious rice shortage（Part B）. Within this subgroup,
access to irrigation services and rain-fed lowland is highly unequal（Part B, row 2 andcolumn 2）, but these sources contribute only 14% and 20% to inequality（Part B, row
2 and column 1）, respectively. Moreover, most of the households in this subgroup are
upland farmers who hold little lowland and have little access to irrigation services.
However, those who can secure access to good land and/or irrigation services are
better off among themselves.
For all households（Part A）and relatively wealthy farmers（Part D）, a 1%
increase in irrigated lowland or upland would increase the Gini coefficient of landholding
by 0.01-0.03%. However, such a change would have mixed effects on poorer households（Part B and C）. On the other hand, an equivalent increase in rain-fed lowland would
decrease land inequality by 0.02-0.07%. The results imply that the relative marginal
effect of an increase in inequality sources varies across the subgroups in both sign andmagnitude（Table 5, column 5）.
The second part of the empirical analysis evaluates the contribution of different
land types, access to agricultural services, household labor endowment, and farmer’s
ethnicity to food security. The results of the ordered probit estimation are presented inTable 6.
Overall, the estimation results are consistent with the Gini decomposition discussed
above. First, owning or having access to lowland and/or having access to irrigation
services would improve food security, while upland farmers tend to face rice shortage（or upland does not appear to contribute to rice sufficiency）. As the Gini decomposition
has revealed, the distribution of upland is more equal among farmers in northern Laos（in comparison to the other two types of agricultural land）, hence, its contribution
to rice sufficiency would be more equal and the coefficient estimate for upland is

国

94

際

協

力

論

集

第 21 巻  第 2・3 号合併号

Table 6  Impact of land types and farm characteristics on rice sufficiency
Dependent variable: Level of rice sufficiency
Description

Variable

Coefficient

Std. Err.

P>¦z¦

Irrigated lowland（ha）

irr_lland

0.648***  

0.068

0.000

Rain-fed lowland（ha）

rainf_lland

0.476***  

0.053

0.000

Upland（ha）

upland-0.016        

0.035

0.655

Number of adults in HHs（persons）

adult

0.037**    

0.018

0.042

Ethnic group of Mone-Khmer

monekhmer-0.419***  

0.107

0.000

Ethnic group of Hmong-Lumien

hmonglu

0.209        

0.253

0.408

Ethnic group of Tibeto-Chinese

tibetchn-0.607***  

0.065

0.000

Observation
Log likelihood
Pseudo-R2

2301  
-1601.173  
0.115  

Notes: 1）Absence of collinearity problem is confirmed by using correlation matrix of independent variables.
The maximum absolute value of pairwise correlation coefficients is less than 0.40. 2）The asterisks ** and ***denote significance at the 5% and 1% level, respectively.
Source: Authors’ calculations.

understandably not significant. Second, it is plausible that households with more labor（greater number of adult members）available for farming activities are more likely
to achieve a higher rice sufficiency level. Finally, the Lao-Tai ethno-linguistic group
appears to have a higher probability of achieving greater rice sufficiency.
In sum, water resources for agricultural production – either by nature or throughmanmade facilities such as irrigation systems – would increase farm output andimprove farmers’ income and livelihoods. The analysis, however, does not take into
account the impact of land quality due to lack of information. Similarly, the question of
why and how the Lao-Tai ethnic farmers have achieved superior performance cannot
be answered within the scope of the study due to the very reason of data unavailability.
Finally, the results and findings from this study cannot be compared to other（developing）countries owing to absence of such analysis in published literature.
These are some interesting and relevant topics for further research that attempts
to look into the issues of land inequality in other parts of the country or the world, andto address such issues related to ethnic diversity in agricultural development.
5. Concluding Remarks
Unequal distribution of agricultural land is often cited as a source of poverty

Land Inequality and Rice Security in Northern Laos95

and inefficiency in agriculture in developing countries. However, much of literatureon smallholders tends to address income inequality and（total）land size, whileland inequality among landed farmers has been overlooked in those discourses. In
contemporary Laos, where the land reform is progressing and land use transformation
is occurring, land distribution is crucial for livelihoods of farmers and poverty reduction
efforts of the government. In recognizing the importance of the issue, this paper
decomposes the Gini index of land inequality with respect to three sources（irrigatedlowland, rain-fed lowland, upland）by applying primary data from two household
surveys in northern Laos（Phongsaly province）.
It has been found that superior farming practices, particularly lowland farming, andaccess to good agricultural land（i.e. land with access to irrigation and other extension
services）enhance food security of farmers, and thereby, improve their livelihoods. To
date, the provision of agricultural services is still very unequal and does not reach mostof the poor in remote areas. These services, however, are crucial for enhancing farmers’
food security, especially for the lower segment of the land-poor farm households.
By nature, the mountainous landscape of the northern part of Laos provides
very limited amount of good land（lowland）for agricultural production. However,land quality and agricultural productivity can be improved by means of productive
investment in agricultural infrastructure, appropriate utilization and maintenance of the
facilities, application of best practices in agricultural production, and appropriate land
management and utilization. In this context, sound agricultural policy and land policy
are essential for enhancing agricultural productivity and improving farmers’ livelihoods.
The Northern Rural Infrastructure Sector Project demonstrates the commitment of
the government to agricultural development and poverty reduction and, if successfully
implemented, could be replicated in other regions.
References

Adams, R. H. Jr.（2002）. Nonfarm income, inequality and land in rural Egypt. Economic Development andCultural Change, 50（2）,pp. 339-363.
Baird, I. G. and Shoemaker, B.（2007）. Unsettling experiences: Internal resettlement and international aid
agencies in Laos. Development and Change, 38（5）,pp. 865-888.
Bardhan, P., Luca, M., Mookherjee, D., and Pino, F.（2011）. Evolution of land distribution in West Bengal 19672004: Role of land reform. United Nations University, Working Paper No. 2011/31, 40 pages.
Besley, T. and Burgess, R.（2000）.Land reform, poverty reduction, and growth: Evidence from India. Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 115（2）,pp. 389-430.

96

国

際

協

力

論

集

第 21 巻  第 2・3 号合併号

Binswanger, H. P. and Deininger, K.（1997）. Explaining agricultural and agrarian policies in developing
countries. Journal of Economic Literature, 35（4）,pp. 1958-2005.
Bourdet, Y.（1995）. Rural reforms and agricultural growth in Laos. Journal of Developing Areas, 29（2）, pp. 161182.
, pp. 1-7.
Clarke, D. G.（1975）. Land inequality and income distribution in Rhodesia. African Studies Review, 18（1）Deininger, K., Jin, S., and Yadav, V.（2011）. Long-term effects of land reform on human capital accumulation:
Evidence from West Bengal. United Nations University, Working Paper No. 2011/82, 23 pages.
Ducourtieux, O., Laffort, J-R., and Sacklokham, S.（2005）. Land policy and farming practices in Laos.
Development and Change, 36（3）,pp. 499-526.
Erickson, L. and Vollrath, D.（2004）. Dimension of land inequality and economic development . International
Monetary Fund, Working Paper WP/04/158. Online Available: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/
wp/2004/wp04158.pdf（26 June 2013）.
Evrard, O. and Goudineau, Y.（2005）. Planned resettlement, unexpected migration and cultural trauma in
Laos. Development and Change, 35（5）,pp. 937-962.
Food and Agriculture Organization（FAO）.（2012）. Selected indicators of food and agricultural development in the
Asia-Pacific region 2001-2011. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Fujita, Y.（2006）. Understanding the history of change in Laos. Mountain Research and Development, 26（3）, pp.
197-199.
Fujita, Y. and Phanvilay, K.（2008）. Land and Forest Allocation in Lao People’s Democratic Republic:
Comparison of Case Studies from Community-Based Natural Resource Management Research. Society andNatural Resources, 21（2）,pp. 120-133.
Garner, T. I.（1993）. Consumer expenditures and inequality: An analysis based on decomposition of the Gini
coefficient. Review of Economics and Statistics, 75（1）,pp. 134-138.
Haq, R.（2008）.Land inequality by mode of irrigation in Pakistan, 1990-2000. Pakistan Development Review, 46（4）,pp. 1011-1022.
Jayne, T. S., Yamano, T., Weber, M. T., Tschirley, D., Benfica, R., Chapoto, and Zulu, B.（2003）. Smallholder
income and land distribution in Africa: Implications for poverty reduction. Food Policy, 28（1）,pp. 253-275.
Keswell, M. and Carter, M.（2011）. Poverty and land distribution: Evidence from natural experiment . United
Nations University, Working Paper No. 2011/46, 34 pages.
Lambert, P. J. and Aronson, J. R.（1993）. Inequality decomposition analysis and the Gini coefficient revisited.
Economic Journal, 103（420）,pp. 1221-1227.
Lerman, R. I. and Yitzhaki, S.（1984）. A note on the calculation and interpretation of the Gini index. Economic
Letters, 15（3-4）,pp. 363-368.
Lerman, R. I. and Yitzhaki, S.（1985）. Income inequality effect by income source: A new approach andapplications to the United States. Review of Economics and Statistics, 67（1）,pp. 151-156.
Lopez-Feldman, A.（2006）. Decomposing inequality and obtaining marginal effects. The Stata Journal, 6（1）, pp.
106-111.
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry（MAF）（2011）. Report on the implementation of the 6th five-year
agriculture and forestry development plan（2006-2010）and directions for the 7th five-year agriculture
and forestry development plan（2011-2015）. Phongsaly Provincial Department of Agriculture andForestry, MAF, Government of Lao PDR.
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry（MAF）（2012）Northern rural infrastructure development sector
project: Feasibility study on Nam Ou Irrigation Subproject and Nam Lan Irrigation Project. Vientiane:
MAF, Department of Planning（Two project reports）.
Muller, E. N., Seligson, M. A., Fu, H-D., and Midlarsky, M. I.（1989）. Land inequality and political violence.
American Political Science Review, 83（2）,pp. 577-596.
Nippon Koei（2012）. Feasibility Study on Nam Ou Irrigation Subproject in Nhot Ou District of Phongsaly province.
Northern Rural Infrastructure Development Sector Project. Department of Planning, Ministry ofAgriculture and Forestry, Government of Lao PDR.
Ogurtsov, V. A., M.A.P.M. van Asseldonk, and R.B.M. Huirne.（2009）. Purchase of catastrophe insurance byDutch dairy and arable farmers. Review of Agricultural Economics, 31（1）,pp. 143-162.
Olper, A.（2007）. Land inequality, government ideology and agricultural protection. Food Policy, 32（1）, pp. 6783.
Onphanhdala, P. and Suruga, T.（2011）. Impacts of Chinese investments on agricultural transformation andLand Inequality and Rice Security in Northern Laos

97

rural development: Evidence from Oudomxay, northern Laos. Scientific Journal of National University of

Laos, 5, pp. 179-188.

Onphanhdala, P. and Suruga, T.（2013）. Chinese outward FDI in agriculture and rural development: Evidence
from northern Laos. Kobe University, Graduate School of International Cooperation Studies, Working
Paper No. 25. Online Available: http://www.research.kobe-u.ac.jp/gsics-publication/gwps/2013-25.pdf（4July 2013）.
Phachomphone, K., Sengxua, P., Phouthavong, K., and Phenvichith, V.（2012）. Agricultural and forestry land
use planning at cluster village level: In case Xiengdao cluster village, Meung district, Bokeo province. Lao
Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 26(Special Issue), pp. 1-10［Lao language］.
Phongsaly Provincial Department of Planning and Investment（PDPI）（2011）. The 7th five-year socioeconomic development plan of Phongsaly Province（2011-2015）.PDPI, Phongsaly Province.
Shorrocks, A. F.（1982）.Inequality decomposition by factor components. Econometrica, 50（1）,pp. 193-212.
. Factor components, population subgroups and the computation of the Gini index of inequality.
Silber, J.（1989）
Review of Economics and Statistics, 71（1）,pp. 107-115.
Thongmanivong, S., Fujita, Y., and Phanvilay, K.（2009）. Agrarian land use transformation in northern Laos:
From swidden to rubber, Southeast Asian Studies, 47（3）,pp. 330-347.
Thongmanivong, S．and Fujita, Y.（2006）.Recent land use and livelihood transitions in northern Laos. MountainResearch and Development, 26（3）,pp. 237-244.
Vandergeest, P.（2003）. Land to some tillers: Development-induced displacement in Laos. International Social
Science Journal, 175, pp. 47-56.
Vixathep, S. and Onphanhdala, P.（2013）. Efficiency of upland and lowland farming in Lao PDR. Lao Journal of
Economics and Management, 4（1）,pp. 18-37.
Vollrath, D.（2007）. Land distribution and international agricultural productivity. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 89（1）,pp. 202-216.
Wood, E. H.（2006）. The internal predictors of business performance in small firms: A logistic regression, pp. 441-453.
analysis. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 13（3）

Notes
1

Lerman and Yitzhaki（1985）maintain that explaining the contribution of each factor
component as the product of its own inequality, its share of total income, and its correlation
with the rank of total income yields a more intuitive and compelling interpretation than theoriginal ‘natural decompositions’（the source contribution is viewed as the product of income
share and the pseudo-Gini）by Shorrocks（1985）.
2 Lopez-Feldman（2006）developed an algorithm for estimating equation（5）that reports all
the components: , , , , and the marginal effect（）.