Challenges to Rural Poverty Reduction in Viet Nam - Oxfam Blogs
Challenges to Rural Poverty Reduction in Viet Nam - Oxfam Blogs
Challenges to Rural Poverty Reduction in Viet Nam - Oxfam Blogs
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Participa<strong>to</strong>ry poverty moni<strong>to</strong>r<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> rural communities <strong>in</strong> <strong>Viet</strong> <strong>Nam</strong><br />
28<br />
Mostly work<strong>in</strong>g away from home, local jobs (casual or more permanent), trad<strong>in</strong>g<br />
or small bus<strong>in</strong>esses. Most migrant workers concentrate <strong>in</strong> the lowland and K<strong>in</strong>h<br />
dom<strong>in</strong>ated areas (Thanh Xuong-Dien Bien, Duc Huong-Ha T<strong>in</strong>h, and Thuan Hoa-<br />
Tra V<strong>in</strong>h). Most are young or middle-aged.<br />
• Education: Use of <strong>in</strong>come from agricultural and non-agricultural work <strong>to</strong> <strong>in</strong>vest<br />
<strong>in</strong> children’s and young people’s education (at most moni<strong>to</strong>r<strong>in</strong>g sites).<br />
The exercise summariz<strong>in</strong>g direct reasons contribut<strong>in</strong>g <strong>to</strong> better life at the<br />
moni<strong>to</strong>r<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>ts. The methodology “life his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>in</strong>terviews” <strong>in</strong> the last five years<br />
(2007-2011) was applied <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>-depth <strong>in</strong>terviews of households selected <strong>in</strong> the survey<br />
Non-agricultural employment<br />
(<strong>in</strong>cl. migration)<br />
Children, young<br />
HHs<br />
Youth, middle-aged<br />
Middle-aged, elderly<br />
Education<br />
Agricultural employment<br />
Infrastructure improvement<br />
Market, employment opportunities<br />
Social and productive services<br />
round <strong>in</strong> 2011. The responses of 110 households are summarized <strong>in</strong> Table 1.4.<br />
TABLE 1.4. Reasons for better life at the moni<strong>to</strong>r<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>ts, 2007-2011<br />
No. Direct reasons for better life over the last five Frequencies<br />
years<br />
1 Diversified, <strong>in</strong>tensive commodity production 66<br />
2 Gradual accumulation from lives<strong>to</strong>ck breed<strong>in</strong>g 42<br />
3 Local casual jobs 29<br />
4 Work<strong>in</strong>g away from home 27<br />
5 Benefit<strong>in</strong>g from Government’s support policies (<strong>in</strong> hous<strong>in</strong>g 25<br />
construction, rais<strong>in</strong>g children with disabilities, social<br />
assistance and allowance...)<br />
6 Expand<strong>in</strong>g area of productive land 23<br />
7 Hav<strong>in</strong>g more man power 13<br />
8 Trad<strong>in</strong>g, bus<strong>in</strong>ess and agricultural services 9<br />
9 More goods exchanges, purchase 7<br />
10 Households with members who are <strong>in</strong> de<strong>to</strong>xification<br />
3<br />
centres or work<strong>in</strong>g away from home<br />
11 Gett<strong>in</strong>g married <strong>to</strong> foreigners 1<br />
SOURCE: In-depth <strong>in</strong>terviews of selected households