IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2010) 1–1

Research article
erdPeople’s Livelihoods in the Suburbs - A Case Study at aCommunity of Ho Chi Minh CityVO VAN VIET
Department for Academic Affairs, Nong Lam University, Vietnam
E-mail: vvviet@hcmuaf.edu.vn
Received 11 December 2009

Accepted 5 March 2010

Abstract The study focuses on the analysis of the effects of urban growth and land tenure
policies on access to the land and livelihoods of the people. In the process of urbanization,
suburbanization, and changes in land tenure status, practical evidence shows that thehouseholds’ situation has improved. The problem, however, is whether everybody isbenefiting equally. In order to understand the problem, the following questions need to beanswered: How do policies impact on the livelihoods of the households? How do people inthe community have to change their livelihoods to adapt to the new circumstances. The
study employed various participatory research methods, both quantitative and qualitative.
Semi-structured interviews, In-depth interviews, Focus-group discussion, Participant
observation, and Secondary data were used in the study. The results indicate that the mostsuccessful households are those that are characterized by multi-activity and risk-spreading.
This is achieved by exploiting rural and urban opportunities simultaneously. The least
successful and poorer households are generally those with non-diversified income-earning
activities and/or which do not attempt to maximize the utilization of rural and urban
resources. It seems that farmers are not well-prepared for the transition from rural to urban
living. Lack of skills and formal training prevent them from exploiting opportunities toadjust to rapid changes. Thus, we can now observe a new group of people who have fallen
into poverty. Tenure transformation in the suburban areas due to rapid urbanization has
created more hardships, in social and economic terms, for the most vulnerable in society.
Given the limited availability of land, farmers in the community generally have threemeans of maintaining and improving their livelihoods. First, they can increase the use of
agricultural inputs. Second, they can migrate to areas where agricultural land is available
or where non-farm employment offers higher wages. Third, they can establish themselvesin a local off-farm occupation. Each of these strategies can be carried out alone or in
combination.
Keywords urbanization, livelihood, suburbs, skills, Ho Chi MinhINTRODUCTION
Ho Chi Minh City, considered as one of Vietnam’s fastest growing cities, is the largest
metropolitan area of the country, with 22 districts, 17 urban districts (quan), and 5 rural districts(huyen). It is the economic, industrial, financial, cultural, and tourist center of the country, whichperhaps could explain partly the constant increase in population. In 1940, there were only 0.5
million people living in the city. This grew to 2.3 million some 20 years later, and then to 5 million
by the year 2000, a tenfold increase within 60 years (Table 2). This growth of the population has
resulted in dynamic suburban development and intense competition for sites of industry, housing,commerce, and public utilities. Rapid economic development in recent years has caused a shift inthe spatial pattern of industry within the city. Factories have decentralized increasingly toperipheral industrial suburbs, industrial estates, and more extensive sites with lower land values.
This study focuses on the changing socioeconomic characteristics of households in thesuburbs. The main question to be answered is “How do people in the community change theirlivelihoods to adapt to the new circumstances?” In the process of urbanization, suburbanization,© ISERD

19

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2010) 1–1

and changes in land tenure status, practical evidence shows that the households’ situation has
improved. The problem, however, is whether everybody is benefiting equally. Who are the“winners” and “losers” in this system? What groups of people tend to win more?
METHODOLOGYThis study is descriptive in nature. To draw a wide range of information, it employed various
participatory research methods, both quantitative and qualitative (i.e., secondary data collection,interviews, household livelihood analysis). The following techniques were used for data collection:
Semistructured interviews, In-depth interviews, Focus-group discussion, Participant observation,and Secondary data.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This study looked more intensively into the livelihood strategies of three types of households
classified according to access to land; households whose land was wholly expropriated; households
whose land was wholly or partly sold; and households who still cultivate the lands (landed
households), as well as those engaged in non-farm and off-farm livelihood activities.
Changes in livelihoods and livelihood strategies of households in Vinh Loc A
Because each person’s most important productive asset is the land; there is an evident link between
loss of land and livelihood. The impact on livelihoods is devastating especially for the asset-poorhouseholds. Before 1996, there were no landless farmers; even though some owned as little as2,000 sq m of land. People mostly relied on agriculture for their livelihoods. The wealth andincome gap between the rich and the poor was relatively small. Most owned about the same size ofland and pursued similar economic activities. Most if not all farmers were owner-operators of small
landholdings, possessing nearly the same basic productive skills and independently managing theirown land and money.
By the year 2000, the land-use pattern had changed; farming had ceased to be the backbone ofpeople’s livelihoods. There was an increase in the number of landless farmers. The gap between therich and the poor households also widened. Unemployment and underemployment has become amajor problem and those who can find jobs in the city or industrial zones nearby have to support amuch larger number of relatives than before.
The chief and elders (of the households?) estimate that only about one-third of the households
are still earning part of their livelihoods from farming and those still farming are doing so on amuch reduced scale. Moreover, income from the farm has become only a secondary source.
Farmers have also become vulnerable to losing the land they still held. Interviews with farmers
reveal that whether a farmer is eager or reluctant to sell land depends mainly on his/her ability tofind other occupations and opportunities for investment for the household.
To obtain a secure livelihood, in the context of an urbanized commune like Vinh Loc A,
people are forced to choose a livelihood strategy that combines agriculture, industry, and service
sectors. Most if not all successful households or households with secure livelihood in this suburban
area does not depend exclusively on agriculture for their livelihood. Services and trading provide
additional sources of earnings for local residents. It should be noted that occupational
diversification has a long history. The trend towards occupational diversification within lowerincome households more recently is the result of an expansion of livelihood possibilities
accompanying changes in the commune’s economy. It is important to acknowledge that the processof occupational diversification is one in which households play an active part. Nonetheless, forthose whose lands were expropriated by the State, some difficulties are found in the process ofchange in occupation. In this case, households play a passive part. Their social capital (e.g.,
membership in farmers’ association) gained through the holding of land is suddenly became© ISERD

20

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2010) 1–1

disrupted when land was lost. These households can be portrayed as victims of lost land and of theencroachment of the city upon the suburbs.
Livelihood diversification
In relation to the livelihood strategies, people in the area follow a pattern of production dependent
on income from both the land and urban development so that family incomes are likely to be thesum of several activities - agricultural and commercial activities and urban employment within thecity. In other words, people depend on a combination of on-farm, off-farm, and non-farm income
sources. Many households earn some income from the farms but also earn substantial income fromother sources. Certain members of the households may have part-time or even full-time
employment off the farm, or engage in cottage industries at home for part of the time. The principal
activity is small-scale farming while livestock serve to reduce risks. For some households,
livestock raising, particularly dairy cattle, has become a reliable income source.
The economy of households in the commune is tied to the economy of the metropolis, andtheir production strategies are developed in response to changing market conditions. Well afterfactories and industrial zones encroach into the formerly rural landscape of the commune, thesehouseholds had become occupationally diversified. People who settle near main streets or the Vinh
Loc industrial zones (commercial and industrial activities) have built their own small business suchas retail business, coffee shops, and workshops in a portion of their dwelling space. Alternatively,
they rent out space to others for those purposes or build houses for rent to workers.
The practice of diversifying the households’ occupation into various nonagricultural sectors
could be seen as a strategy of survival as much as status acquisition and maintenance. Nonetheless,the adaptation and the ability to diversify occupation and sources of livelihood of people in thecommune vary significantly between groups. The analysis of the household’s livelihood strategy inthe previous section indicates that the households in Case 1, 4, and 5 have chosen different
strategies depending on their asset statuses. Those who have more assets can diversify their sourceof livelihood from among the three economic sectors such as industry, services, agriculture, or a
combination of these sectors. Thus, it can be stated that the better the ability to access capital, thebetter the adaptation.
Opportunities and challenges faced by different groups
Research in the commune has brought to light cases of both successes and failures. In terms of
livelihood opportunities, landed households have a wide range of choices. They can either continue
to engage in farming with additional income from small services, or they can decide to sell landand become totally nonagricultural households. Otherwise, they can sell part of the land and invest
the money in animal husbandry and intensively cultivate the land with new varieties and techniques.
In contrast, land-lost households, in general, are not only unable to take advantage of thisopportunity but in many cases lose a well-established job with the disappearance of agriculturalland, which in the past had provided them with employment as agricultural workers or selfemployment. Among the land-lost house-holds, those whose lands are expropriated face more
hardship than their counterparts primarily because they are not prepared for the transition. They aretotally forced to seek other livelihood sources outside their traditional agricultural occupations thathave long been established in history. Clearly, the gravity of the consequences of such a loss
depends, for individual households, on the ability of its members to obtain other forms of
livelihood.
However, the effects are not entirely negative for all land-lost households. As mentioned
elsewhere in this study, a new environment also provides new opportunities for households tomove up. More jobs are being created in and around the commune, especially in and around theVinh Loc Industrial Zone, especially since the Zone has become fully operational. With thedemand for more services, from a growing population of industrial workers, shops can be set up to
meet the diverse needs of these workers in the area. Nevertheless, new job opportunities are not© ISERD

21

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2010) 1–1

being created at a sufficient rate to provide employment for the expanding labor force in thecommune and the increasing income needed to support large households. And even if employment
opportunities are available, indigenous workers cannot efficiently compete with migrant workers
by reason of inadequate technical skills and lower education level. Thus, migration to other areas insearch for work, especially manual work, becomes an option taken by a growing number oflandless and near land-less households.
To obtain a secure livelihood, in the context of an urbanized commune like Vinh Loc A,
people are forced to choose a livelihood strategy that combines agriculture, industry and service
sectors. Most if not all successful households or households with secure livelihood in this suburban
area does not depend exclusively on agriculture for their livelihood. Services and trading provide
additional sources of earnings for local residents. It should be noted that occupational
diversification has a long history. The trend towards occupational diversification within lowerincome households in more recent times is the result of an expansion of livelihood possibilities
accompanying changes in the commune’s economy. It is important to acknowledge that the processof occupational diversification is one in which households play an active part. Nonetheless, forthose whose lands were expropriated by the State, some difficulties are found in the process ofchange in occupation. In this case, households play a passive part. Their social capital (e.g.,
membership in farmers’ association) gained through the holding of land is suddenly disrupted whenland was lost. These households can be portrayed as victims of lost land and of the encroachmentof the city upon the suburbs.
In many cases, like the ones cited above, the loss of agricultural land poses a threat to thelivelihood of Vinh Loc A farmers, especially farmers with little or no assets. Earning a livelihood
becomes an increasingly arduous task for farmers because of intense competition for employment
and access to land. Farmers fear that this land is being lost to urbanization which, once lost, usuallycannot be regained. Very few landless households can expect any access to additional land, either
because all available land is now in use or highly priced. Not only do farmers depend on this land
to produce their food, it is also a major economic sector in the commune. When farmers lose theirlands, lack of access to credit is an inescapable consequence since land is the only meaningful
collateral accepted by agricultural banks. Households that have not considered starting a non-farmbusiness usually cite the lack of capital or financing as the chief reason why they have not done so.
The other most common responses for not diversifying are age and ill health.
Roads to achieve secure livelihoods
When land, a natural capital, is lost, lack of human capital is one of the greatest difficulties that
Vinh Loc A households have to face. The majority of the households have been engaged inagricultural work. Now that agricultural land is no longer available, they are forced to find otherjobs to earn a living. However, the requirements to be employed in other sectors are not the same as
in agriculture. Technical and scientific skills are needed if one wants to be employed in theindustrial zones or in the industrial sectors. The loss of land for some households whose main
source of income is based on the farm can be seen as an adverse shock.
In fact, households who have sold land are not necessarily poor. They may have spent
substantially on building and repairing houses, purchasing consumer goods for their families, ordepositing savings in bank accounts to draw interest for consumption. Investments in production,
animal breeding, or professional training are still low. This constitutes another contradiction to besettled and to draw lessons from in order to shift actively the attitudes and behavior patterns ofresidents in these areas. Improving the people’s technical skills and education levels would help
solve the problem. With good human capital, people can easily capture opportunities whenavailable to improve their status.
In the process of adaptation to the new environment, there is a general pattern easily observedin the commune; most farmers having low education are old age and have no technological skills
and therefore they face more hardships. Occupational training for farmers in the process oftransformation also has many difficulties. Old farmers face health and aging problems. For the
younger generation, education is a major constraint. Interviews with the young people reveal that
© ISERD

22

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2010) 1–1

they prefer short-term training of about 2-5 months to be employed at the Industrial Zones. Those
whose parents have cash from selling land or whose land was expropriated often are not interested
in job training when they consider the low salary that can be gained with the money they have.
Interviews have shown that many young people lack the education and skills needed to benefit
from new economic opportunities. Farmers are particularly ill equipped for the urban transition.
Several reports from the Districts admit that job training, vocational guidance and job creation forhouseholds whose lands were expropriated have not been effective. Almost all the adjustment
strategies depend heavily on the households. In short, these households receive little help from thegovernment.
The loss of land will likely create a sense of confusion among many farmers who presently
make a living in agriculture. While agriculture certainly does not bring them much money, many
farmers cannot instantly adjust to new circumstances. Most of them still rely on agriculture despite
having smaller plots of land and other difficulties. As a result, the poor have become poorer, andthere are many new poor households that have been pulled further below the poverty line.
In many cases, non-farm and off-farm activities were essential components in the household
economies of the commune. Data collected for this study show that the most successful households
are those that are characterized by multi-activity and risk-spreading. This is achieved by exploiting
rural and urban opportunities simultaneously. The least successful and poorer households are
generally those with nondiversified income-earning activities and/or which do not attempt tomaximize the utilization of rural and urban resources. These households still do not have an
opportunity to move away from rice farming.
Interviews with KIs and households have demonstrated that the biggest losers in the process ofland use changes and loss of land are the farmers, who are dependent mainly on agricultural workfor their livelihood and who have little formal education and experiences (human capital) thatmight offer opportunities in the urban economy. The most economically successful and securegroup of households are those that, after the loss of land in the commune, used profit from the land
(in terms of compensation and proceeds from land sale) to purchase land in other areas where
agricultural land was cheap, or to invest in room-for-rent services or other nonagricultural
productive activities. Their strategy is a combination of crop production and marketing, with avariety of non-farm and off-farm income-generating activities.
By analyzing the livelihood strategies of selected households, the study found that the successor failure of households in the commune depends on a composite of personal and nonpersonal or
institutional situations. On the personal level, it means the ability of the individual or household toacquire the basic necessities of life such as food, shelter, and clothing. On the nonpersonal level, itmeans the ability of the State and other socioeconomic institutions to provide assistance to people
in terms of access to education, vocational training, health, information (including labor market
information and urban planning information), job attainment, and loans among others. Good
personal ability combined with a favorable institutional situation would likely provide people with
better and more secure livelihoods and vice versa. The absence of one of these two components
would cause difficulties for households in obtaining a secure, sustainable livelihood.
CONCLUSION
It is obvious that suburbanization is not entirely beneficial to all suburban people. Many problems
remain, some of which have been in existence for a long time, while others have recently emerged
but for which no absolute solutions have yet been found. Based on the findings of the research, tI
provides some recommendations for improvement of people’s livelihoods. The following
recommendations are based mainly on the notion that the biggest problem for the people in thecommune is the availability of assets, both tangible and intangible: 1. Providing nonagricultural
income sources and assisting farmers in improving cultivate productivity efficiently; 2. Protecting
agricultural land and livelihood; 3. Investing in human capital through education and vocational
guidance; 4. Accessibility to information, especially planning information; 5. Participation ofpeople in project planning that directly affects their lives; 6. Investment in infrastructure (physical© ISERD

23

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2010) 1–1

assets). For those whose lands were lost, their future lies increasingly in labor-force participation
outside agriculture. How to move people from the agricultural sector to other sectors of theeconomy is the chief objective of State policy. To accomplish the objective of moving agricultural
workers to other nonagricultural sectors, improving educational levels and occupational skills isvital in order to give people the means to obtain sufficient income for their households. Training in
nonagricultural skills is a critical factor in increasing the ability of farmers to take on off-farm work.
Those whose agricultural lands are to be affected by planned urban development should be given ahigher priority in job training and vocational guidance, as well as in employment in the industrial
zone built on their land. However, this would require more support from the government at alllevels. Improving education would help people recognize the new challenges they are facing in theurban environment so that they would develop coping and adaptive mechanisms to ensure a stable
livelihood.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many institutions and people gave me their support, assistance, advice, and encouragement during thecourse of writing my thesis. I wish to make special mention of the Vinh Loc A people and officers who
willingly participated in the prolonged interviews which I conducted during my stays. These people
spent many hours explaining their livelihoods to strangers from whom they could not expect much inreturn. To all of these people I am sincerely grateful. The success of the thesis is due to one person inparticular, my advisor Dr. Anna Marie A. Karaos, who showed enthusiasm, contribution, and energy
beyond the call of duty, to who I deeply grateful.

REFERENCES
Nguyen Trong Chuan and others (2000) Social policy. Socioeconomic Renovation in Vietnam, Institute ofSoutheast Asian Studies, 139-172, Singpore.
Norvarl, Glenn (1973) Suburbanization in the United States since World War II. The Urbanization of the
Suburbs, Sage Publication, 51-78, UK.
O’Callaghan, J.R (1996) Land use: the interaction of economics. Ecology and Hydrology, Chapman & Hall,
UK.
Pal, Agaton P. and Polson Robert (1973) Rural people’s responses to change, Dumaguete Trade Area,
Philippines. New Day Publishers, Philippines.
Pham Xuan Nam, Be Viet Bang and Hainsworth, G.B. (2000) Rural development in Vietnam, the search forsustainable livelihoods. Socioeconomic Renovation in Vietnam, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 148, Singapore.
Popkin, Samuel L. (1979) The rational peasant. The Political Economy of Rural Society in Vietnam,
University of California Press, USA.
Potter, R.B. (1992) Urbanization in the third world. Oxford University Press, USA.
Quan Julian (1998) Land tenure and sustainable rural livelihoods. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods, Russell
Press Ltd., 167-180.
Ratcliffe, John (1976) Land policy. An Exploration of the Nature of Land in Society, Huchinson of London,
UK.
Sam, Truong Thi Minh (2002) Chuyen dich co cau kinh te nong nghiep vung nong thon ngoai thanh Thanhpho Ho Chi Minh (Structural transformation of agricultural economics in rural areas of Ho Chi Minh
City). Nha Xuat ban Khoa hoc Xa hoi (Social Sciences Press), Vietnam.
Shearer, E.B. and others (1999) The reform of rural land markets in Latin America and the Caribbean:
research, theory, and policy implications. Land Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.

© ISERD

24