IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2011) 2–1

Research article
erd

Rural People’s Livelihoods - A Case Study in a Communeat Mekong Delta, Vietnam
VO VAN VIET
University of Agriculture and Forestry, Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam
E-mail: vvviet@hcmuaf.edu.vn
Received 14 December 2010

Accepted 15 January 2011

Abstract Within the context of the Doi Moi period  in  Vietnam,  rural  people’s  livelihoods  are more diversified and also vulnerable depending on the policy and other factors. Thisstudy seeks to understand the dynamic of rural people livelihoods in relationship with thechanges in social and economic context. The general objective of this study is to describe
the livelihoods system of rural people and identify the livelihoods strategies adapted byrural people and describe patterns/models of sustainable livelihoods options. This study is
descriptive in nature. In order to draw a comprehensive range of information, the study
make used of a variety of research methods. More particularly, the study used theparticipatory research method, combining both quantitative and qualitative techniques (i.e.,
secondary  data  collection,  interviews,  households’  livelihood  analysis  and  the  like).
Keywords rural people`s livelihood, sustainable livelihood, participatory, Mekong Delta

INTRODUCTION
Vietnam is an agriculture-based country with about 80 percent of the total population living in therural  areas  and  75  percent  of  the  nation’s  labor  force  is  in  agriculture.  Since  1986,  the  Vietnamese  Government committed itself to a policy of renovation known as the Doi Moi. The core objectiveof this policy is to liberalize and stabilize the economy using strategic policies towards alleconomic sectors (i.e., state-owned business entities and nonstate-owned business entities). In orderto implement this policy, Vietnam opened its doors to foreign investors and successfully achieved
significant development. More attention is paid now to the expansion of all forms of businessenterprises. With the renovation process, Vietnam has undergone a dramatic transformation andvast changes in both social and economic aspects. The economic transformation from a centralizedplanned economy system to a market oriented economy led to profound changes in society. With
the   context   of   the   Doi   Moi   period,   people’s   livelihoods   are   more   diversified   and also vulnerable
depends on the policy and other factors. This study seeks to understand the dynamic of rural people
livelihoods in relationship with the changes in social and economic context. A community at
Mekong Delta was selected as a case study.
METHODOLOGYThis study aims to understand how people in a commune change their livelihood strategies. Thus, asimple descriptive case study design was applied. Data for the study have been collected andanalyzed simultaneously. More particularly, the study used the participatory research method. The
data that have been collected come from secondary and primary sources. The following techniques
were applied: 1. Semistructured interviews (SSI). This was conducted with 50 key informants.
With the use of interview guides, the researcher collected data on the commune, such associoeconomic characteristics, land use, socioeconomic infrastructure, development policies,
natural resources and sociopolitical structure; 2. In-depth interviews (IDI). This was conductedwith 30 households to generate understanding of household characteristics, particularly thedifficulties and opportunities related to livelihood and strategies employed to overcome the© ISERD65

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2011) 2–1

difficulties; 3. Focus-group discussion (FGD). This provided information on current household
situations and helped in identifying the better off and worse off households. The FGD also helped
gather data on the difficulties and advantages encountered by people in their livelihoods.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
About the study site
As shown in Fig. 1, Long Thuan commune is located at northern part of the isle of Cai Vung riverin Hong Ngu district. Long Khanh A commune borders in the north, Phu Thuan A commune
borders in the south, Phu Thuan B commune borders in the east and An Giang province borders inthe west (Cai Vung River). The center of village is located about 5 km away from the center of thedistrict and 17 km away from Vietnam-Cambodia border.
Surface land area of the commune covers about 2,010 ha (Statistical data in 2003) occupies
about 6.05% area of the whole district. Of this, 78 percent is household-individual managed land,
22 percent is commune-managed land, and land devoted to economic and social institutions.
Households and individuals manage most of the agricultural land.
The commune is composed of five hamlets which are named Long Thanh, Long Hoa, Long
Hung, Long Thoi A and Long Thoi B. Long Thuan is strategically located in the isle. Therefore,
the commune has many favorable conditions for agricultural development.

Fig. 1 Map of Long Thuan commune
Livelihood strategiesFrom the last years, the livelihoods of the peasant households of the community were linked tobroader markets through an expanding group of rice-trading middlemen and rice-millers.
Production was almost exclusively devoted to rice among Long Thuan households while somefamilies engaged in both market oriented fruit growing as well as rice cultivation. Although relying
increasingly on a money economy for their livelihood, these households were sustained by patternsof subsistence production, using local food resources as a basis for household sustenance. In the© ISERD66IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2011) 2–1

recent years, however, there was a shifting in pattern of livelihoods, people follows diversified
livelihood strategies that include both on and off farm activities. Productive assets such as
agricultural tools and machinery differ from household to household depending on the types of land
owned and used. On-farm activity diversification varies in terms of whether crops or livestock areraised, or have a mixed system. Off-farm strategy secures the income of many households. There
are significant differences occur in the percentages of income derived from on-farm and off-farmactivities. Those who have access to roads and market (physical capital), off-farm income plays animportant role and vice versa.
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 part of the time. The principal
activity is small-scale farming while livestock serves to reduce risks. For some households,
livestock raising, particularly dairy cow, has become a reliable income source.
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 are very different for particular groups. Those who have more assets can diversify theirsource of 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,
the better the adaptation.
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 land
and totally become 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-less households or lack of natural capital, in general, are unable to take advantageof this opportunity. Clearly, their livelihood depends, for individual households, on the ability of its
members to obtain other forms of livelihood.
New environment also provides new opportunities for households to move up. More jobs arebeing created in and around the commune. Nevertheless, new job opportunities are not being
created at a sufficient rate to provide employment for the expanding labor force in the commune
and the increasing income needed to support large households. Thus, migration to other areas insearch for work, especially manual work, becomes an option taken by a growing number ofhouseholds.
To obtain a secure livelihood, in the context of the commune, people are forced to choose a
livelihood strategy that combines agriculture and services sectors. Most, if not all successful
households or households with secure livelihood in this area, do not depend exclusively on
agriculture for their livelihood. Services and trading provide additional sources of earnings for localresidents. It should be noted that occupational diversification has a long history. The trend towards
occupational diversification within lower-income households more recently is the result of anexpansion   of   livelihood   possibilities   accompanying   changes   in   the   commune’s   economy.   It   is  important to acknowledge that the process of occupational diversification is one in whichhouseholds play an active part.
Non-farm and off-farm   activities  are   becoming   increasingly   critical  for   people’s   livelihoods.  
Moreover, non-farm and off-farm occupations often offer individuals and households better income.
It  constitutes  the  key  foundation  for  economic  advancement,  generates  different  effects  on  people’s  livelihoods, and determines to a large extent contemporary patterns of differentiation amonghouseholds. The availability and the accessibility of assets, tangible or intangible, basically regulate
the differentiation among households.
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 orinstitutional 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 in providing assistance to people© ISERD67

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2011) 2–1

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.
In the process of adaptation to the new environment, there is a general pattern easily observedin the commune; that most farmers have low level of education, are of old age, and have notechnological skills so that they face more hardships. Occupational training for farmers in theprocess of transformation also has many difficulties. Interviews with KIs 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 new environment; the market economy.
CONCLUSION
Land is the principal economic asset of people, and the incomes of most agricultural households
depend largely on access to land. While human capital and social capital are of some importance,
the most significant capital is natural capital, more particularly, ownership and control of land.
Agriculture has, and continues to mainly contribute to the revenues of the commune, and this is
likely to remain in the near future. However, at the household level in the study area, the role ofagriculture in supporting livelihoods is slowly declining with the availability of other non-farm
opportunities. Also, the significance of agriculture in terms of its role in supporting household
livelihood  is  determined  by  the  capacity  of  the  households’  landholdings,  their  access  to  labor  and  capital inputs, and the market. When access to land, labor, and market is restrained and newopportunities from urban employment are obtainable, the role of agriculture is likely to beweakened.
REFERENCES
Ashley, C. and Carney, D. (1999) Sustainable livelihoods: Lessons from early experience. Department forInternational Development, UK.
Barbichon, G. (1961) Adaptation and training of rural workers for industrial work. Organization foreconomic co-operation and development, France.
Brookfield, H. and Byron, Y. (1993) Southeast   Asia’s   environmental future. Oxford University Press,Singapore.
Carney, D. (1998) Sustainable rural livelihoods: What contribution can we make? Department forInternational Development. Russell Press Ltd., England.
Coleman, J. (1990) Foundations of social theory. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, USA.
Dao T.T. (1996) The Peasant household economy and social change.  In  Viet  Nam’s  Rural  Transformation.  
Westview Press, USA, 139-164.
Dennis, A.F. (1956) Land reform and economic development. In land tenure. The University of Wisconsin
Press, USA, 44-49.
DFID (2000) Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. Department for International Development, England.
Ferder, E. (1971) Latifundia and agricultural labour in Latin America. In peasants and peasant societes.
Penguin Books Ltd., England, 83-97.
Franklin, H. (1971) The worker peasant in Europe. In peasants and peasant societies. Penguin Books Ltd.,England, 98-102.
Hudson-Rodd, N. and Nyunt, M. (2001) Control of land and life in Burma. Land Tenure Center, Universityof Wisconsin-Madison, USA.
Hoang, Viet. Van De So Huu Ruong Dat Trong Nen Kinh Te Hang Hoa Nhieu Thanh Phan O Viet Nam. NhaXuat Ban Chinh Tri Quoc Gia. (1999) Hoang, Viet. Issues on landownership in a multisector market
economy of Viet Nam. National Politics Press, Vietnam.
Johnson, V.E. and Barlowe, R. (1954) Land problems and policies. McGraw-Hill Book Co., USA.
Lane, M. (2001) Indigenous land and community security: A (Radical) planning agenda. University ofWisconsin-Madison, USA.
Lastarria-Cornhiel, S. and Melmed-Sanjak, J. (1999) Land tenure in Asia, Africa, and Latin America: A lookat the past and a view to the future. Land Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.
© ISERD

68

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2011) 2–1Lellis, F. (1998) Livelihoods diversification and sustainable rural livelihoods. In sustainable rural livelihoods:
What contribution can we make? Department for international development. Russell Press Ltd., 53-65.
Maxwell, D. and Wiebe, K. (1998) Land tenure and food security: Review of concepts, evidence andmethods. Land Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.
Nguyen T.C., et al. (2000) Social policy. In socioeconomic renovation in Vietnam. Institute of Southeast
Asian Studies, Singapore, 139-172.
O’Callaghan,  J.R. (1996) Land use: The interaction of economics, ecology and hydrology. England.
Parsons, K.H. (1956) Land reform and agricultural development. In land tenure. The University of Wisconsin
Press, USA, 3-22.
Pal, A.P. and Polson, R.A. (1973) Rural people’s   responses to change. Dumaguete trade area, Philippines.
New Day Publishers, Philippines.
Pham Xuan N., Be Viet B. and Hainsworth, G.B. (2000) Rural development in Vietnam: The search forsustainable livelihoods. In socioeconomic renovation in Vietnam. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies,Singapore, 1-48.
Popkin, S.L. (1979) The rational peasant. The political economy of rural society in Vietnam. University ofCalifornia Press, USA.
Quan, J. (1998) Land tenure and sustainable rural livelihoods. In sustainable rural livelihoods: Whatcontribution can we make? Edited by D. Carney. Department for international development. Russell
Press Ltd., England, 167-180.
Ratcliffe, J. (1976) Land policy: An exploration of the nature of land in society, Great Britain.
Shearer, E.B., et al. (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.
Chambers, R. (1995) Poverty and livelihoods: Whose reality counts. Environment and urbanization, 7-1, 173204.
Edgens, J.G. and Staley, S.R. (1999) The myth of farmland loss. Forum for applied research and publicpolicy, 14-3, 29-34.
Fine, B. (1999) The development state is dead-long live social capital? Development and change, 30-1, 1-19.
Fulton, W. (1999) Covering the land use story. The Quill, 87-8, 27-30.
Mittal, A. (2000) Land loss, poverty and hunger. The Ecologist, 30-6, 44.
Rakodi, C. (1999) A capital assets framework for analysing household livelihoods strategies: Implication forpolicy. Development Policy Review, 17, 315-342.

© ISERD69