Challenges to Rural Poverty Reduction in Viet Nam - Oxfam Blogs

Participatory poverty monitoring in rural communities in Viet Nam
26
The Government’s national income poverty line
Poverty in rural Viet Nam fell in the 2004-2010 period, according to the Government’s
2006-2010 income poverty line. At the end of 2010 the Government adopted a new
poverty line for the 2011-2015 period, according to which rural households and urban
households with an income per capita less than or equal to 400,000 VND and 500,000
VND per month respectively are considered poor. Raising the income poverty line
increases the rural household poverty rate by four percentage points (Table 1.2).
TABLE 1.2. Poor household rates in Viet Nam using the Government’s income
poverty line, in the period 2004-2010 (%)
Old income poverty line
New income
poverty line
2004 2006 2008 2010 2010
All of Viet Nam 18.1 15,5 13,4 10.7 14.2
Urban 8.6 7.7 6.7 5.1 6.9
Rural 21.2 17.0 16.1 13.2 17.4
Source: GSO, “Key results from Viet Nam Household Living Standards Survey 2010”, June 2011
Note:
• The income poverty line for the period 2006-2010 was set at an average income of 200,000 VND person
month in rural areas and 260,000 VND /person/month in urban areas. The poverty rate in 2004, 2006,
2008 and 2010 was measured by GSO using the poverty line for 2006-2010 with some adjustment due
to price changes in the corresponding year.
• The Government’s income poverty line for the 2011-2015 period is set at an average income of up to
400,000 VND/person/month in rural areas and 500,000 VND/person/month in urban areas (Decision No.
09/2011/QD-TTg dated 30/1/2011 of the Prime Minister).
Poverty reduction was uneven in the 2006-2010 period. Poverty rates fell most
rapidly (4-5% annually) in areas with diverse livelihoods, favourable conditions for
commodity production, migrant labour and local casual jobs. Poverty rates remain high
among ethnic minority groups living in remote mountainous areas.
According to the new poverty line the poverty rate at the monitoring points
in late 2010 rose sharply. Figure 1.1 shows the proportion of poor households in
some villages of the Kh’Mu, H’Mong, Thai, Raglai, and Van Kieu in northern mountainous
and central provinces is more than seventy percent. These villages are far from socioeconomic
centres, main roads, schools, commune health stations and markets. Most
have an unstable agricultural model, are prone to natural disasters and disease and
have few sources of non-agricultural employment. Ensuring basic food security remains
a challenge for local people. Villages face unique difficulties such as no access to the
national grid or problems with illegal drugs.
Perception of life changes
The proportion of people who feel their lives have improved over the last
five years is high in most monitoring points (Table 1.3). Four reported reasons
are: availability of labour, favourable market prices, improved access to loans, and the
introduction of new seed varieties.
Only a small proportion of respondents felt their lives had got “worse” in the
last five years (nine percent of the 600 households). The four most reported reasons
for a decline in living standards were: labour shortage (household members are elderly,
disabled or ill), natural disasters, a shortage of capital, and unfavourable prices. Price
volatility improved the lives of some households (higher sale prices for produce), and
hurt others (the price of inputs and essentials rose faster than produced outputs).