Lewismodel
’ t w o - sectormodel.InLewismodel,anunderdevelopede c o n o m y existsoftwobasi ceconomicsectors:traditionalagriculturalsectorandmodernindustrialsector.Thetraditiona lagriculturalsectorwasassumedaslowproductivity,surpluslaborandzerom a r g i n a l l a b o r p r o d u c t i v i t y W h i l e m e a n s , m o d e r n i n d u s t r i a l s e c t o r w a s consideredashighproductivityandadvancedtechnologyproduction
Lewisalsoassumedthat thelevelofwages inurbanindustrialsectortobeconstant,whichwas highert h a n theaveragewagesi nrurala g r i c u l t u r a l s e c t o r Accordingt o Lewis,aminimumd i ffe re n t inco meof30Pằbetweent w o sectorswillpushlaborforcemovingthesectorhavingh igherincome,leadingagrowthoutputinindustrialsector.Speedofoutputgrowthinindus trialsectordetermined
_ byt h e ra te ofindustrialin ve s tme nt a n d capitalaccumulationi n thatsect o r In termo f s u r p l u s labora n d zeromargina ll a b o r produc tivity i n rural,thi s l a b or transfertoindustrialsectoris notonlyeffectivenessonoutputinruralareasbut
6 alsoincreasestotaloutputofwholeeconomy.However,thetransitionoflabors alsodrivesdownmarginalproductivity,thatleadingadecreasingofrealwagesin
• industrialsectorand wagein agriculturalsectorwillequalthewageinindustrialsectorstepbys t e p andindustria lsectorhasnomonetaryi n c e n t i v e topromotet h emigrantsfromagriculturalse ctor.Inthemodel,themainfactorin labortransferishigherwageinindustrial sector,notbyworkingopportunitiesinurbanareas.
AlthoughLewis’two- sectormodelwasconsiderasthegeneraltheoryofthedevelopmentprocessindev elopingcourtiersduring1960sand1970s,butthemodelhasbeencritizedbye c o n o m i s t s (TodaroandSmith,2003).
First,Lewisstatedthatthenumberofnewjobscreationinindustrialsectorisp o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n w i t h t h e r a t e o f r e i n v e s t m e n t a n d c a p i t a l a c c u m u l a t i o n i n industrials e c t o r However, w h e n p r o f i t w a s i n v e s t e d i n t e c h n o l o g y , i t m a y b e leadsadecreasinglabordemand.And resultthat,morecapitalflowofinvestmentinindustrials e c t o r maybe d e c r e a s i n g t he jobsi n thats e c t o r Second, inLewismodel,laborsuppliesinruralareasareunlim itedandperfectlyelastic.According
. toTodaro,al th ou gh l a b o r productivityi n ruralareas islowbutsurpluslabor israthers m a l l a n d a s s u m p t i o n o f f u l l employmenti n u r b a n a s the m o d e l i s notreality.Third,inacompetitivelabormarketofindustrialsector, aconst antrealurbanwagesasLewis’assumptionareunrealistic.
Infact,realwagesinindustrialsectort e n d t o r i s e o v e r t i m e , b o t h a b s o l u t e t e r m a n d r e l a t i v e t o a v e r a g e r u r a l incomes.F i n a l l y , t h e a s s u m p t i o n o f d i m i n i s h i n g r e t u r n i n i n d u s t r i a l s e c t o r i s questionablebecausemucheviden ceshownthatinmostindustrialfields,returnsarei n c r e a s i n g
However,Lewismodelwarfor alongtimeconsideredasthebasicmodelofdevelopment,andappliedforexplainingthela bormovementsacrosscountriesNorthernAfricaandTurkeytoEuropeduringthepostwar boomoftheEuropean
Ingeneral,thekeyassumptionsinthemodeldonotfittheinstitutionalandeconomicr e a l i t y indevelopingcountries,andthoseassumptionsshouldbeadjustmenttofitth emodernreality.
Pushandpullfactortheory
Thet h e o r y e x p l a i n e d t h e f a c t o r s af f e ct i n g o n m i g r a t i o n d e c i s i o n s i n t e r m ofpositiveandnegativecharacteristicsoftheoriginalanddestinationplaces.In , thistheory,themovementpeopleexpectedreceivingmorebenefitsoradvantagesinmovingf romoneplaceto another.P u s h f a c t o r s consideredasnegativefactorsthatforcepeopletoleavetheoriginalplace,whilep ullfactorsarepositive factorsattractingthemigrants tomovetodestinationplace.
.AccordingtoLee,thepositive(pull)factorscouldbemoreimportantthantheneg ativefactors.Thenegative(push)factorsaredifficultones,includingthedifficultie sinruralareassuchaspoverty,unemployment,andlandshortages.Thepositivefactorsareattr activefactorsthatthemigrationwanttoachieve,includingthenewjobswithhigherincome sthanoriginalplace,theopportunitiesofbettereducatedorwellhealthytakingcare.Th erefore,thejobandincomeopportunitiesinu r b a n a r e a s a r e p u l l i n g f a c t o r s t h a t p u l l t h e p e o p l e t o s e t t l e a n d t o w o r k Althoughm i g r a t i o n c a n o c c u r e i t h e r b y ‘ p u s h ’ or‘ p u l l ’ factors,L e e a s s u m e s
• migrationmostlyisaresultofacombinationofboth.Usually, difficulteconomicconditionsatoriginalplacearethe key“push”factorswhileimprovedeconomic
However,anunfavorablesituationatoriginalplaces,forexample,warandconflictc a n a l s o p l a y e d ar o l e a s p u s h f a c t o r s t o i n d u c e m i g r a t i o n I n m a n y de velopingcountries,especiallyinVietnam,rural- urbanmigrationisalsotakingplaceb e c a u s e o f n a t u r a l d i s a s t e r s b e c a u s e o f w i t h o u t e f f e c t i v e s u p p o r t s f r o m governments.
Harris-Todaromodel
Themodelassumedthatandagriculturalproductionandthe labormarketinruralisperfectlycompetitiveandunemploymentareexistentinbothrura landurbana r e a s Accordingt o Todaro’view,every p e o p l e h a s anequalch ance o f
8 obtaininganurbanjobwithoutmentioningtheplace,theprobabilityofobtainingajobi s si mplypositiver e l a t i o n s h i p withthe urbanemploymentr a t e andlabor
TheHarris-Todaromodeldescribesthe numberof migrantsfromurbantoruralintimeperiodtisafunctionofthedifferencebetweenth eurbanexpectedwagea n d t h e r u r a l w a g e , t h e u r b a n e m p l o y m e n t r a t e a n d t h e f e s p o n s i v e n e s s O fmigrantst o e c o n o m i c o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n u r b a n a r e a s T h e m i g r a t i o n d e c i s i o n i s giveninthefollowingequation:
My=thenumberofruraltourbanmigrantsiiitimeperiodt h =theresponsivenessofthemigrant p =t h e urbanemployment rate,reflectingprobabilityoffindinganurbanjob u'theactualurbanwager'thea ctualruralwage E,= u r b a n employment u= urbanunemployment Whenconsideringwhethertomigratefromtheruralsector,thelabor willcomparetheexpectedwage hewillearnintheurbanwithwhatheearnsinth erurals ec t o r inwhich,t h e urbane x p e c t e d wag e i s theweighteda v e r a g e o fthewagesmultipliedbytheprobability offindinganurbanjob.
Ifurbanareas areeconomicallym o r e attractivethantheruralareasthan themodelisindisequilibriumbecausep u W.Therewillbeagreaternumber ofmigrantsgoingtowardsurban,therebydecreasing urbanexpectedwages( byincreasingurbanunemployment)andincreasing ruralwages.Hence,u r b a n areasbecomeless andlessattractivetothemigrantsu ntilt h e modelis againbackinequilibrium,implying thatpW=W.Attheequilib rium,th e expectedwagein
Thus,t h e m o d e l h a s explained s u c c e s s f u l l y t h e m a i n r e a s o n o f r u r a l t o , urbanmigrationincaseofexistencehighunemploymentinurbanareas.Besides,wecanu nderstandt h e differentlevelsofhumancapital,leadingahigherproportionofthee ducatedorskilledmigrantsthantheunskilledmigrant,becausetheyh a v e a b e t t e r c h a n c e f o r g e t t i n g a n e w j o b , o r h i g h e r u r b a n w a g e s t h a n unskilledm i g r a n t s
However,s o m e i m p l i c a t i o n s i n t h i s a r e q u e s t i o n a b l e b y s o m e c u r r e n t researchers.First,themodelimpliedthatforeachurbanjobcreated, morethanoneimmigrantleavetheruralareatomovetourban,resultinganincreas elaborsurplusorunemploymenti n urban.Butthe empiricalevidence haspro vedt h a t urban unemploymenthasbeennotaffectedsignificantlyasTodaro’s viewandi f themigrantwhodonotreceivejobsintheurbanformalsectorhecanfindw orkintheinformalsector,butthemodelhasnotmentionedthislabormarket.Then,
AlthoughHarris- Todaromodelcouldnotexplaincompletelythereasonsofmigrationoneconomica spect,butthemodelhasmadeusefulimplicationstothepolicymakerinmanagementpopu lationmovement.
Themodelstatedthatruraltourbanmigration willoccuriftheurbanwageissufficientlyhigherthanthe ruralwageevenifthereisunemploymentinurbanareas.Thispopulationm o v e m e n t d e p e n d s onunemploymentr a t e in bothru ra l andurbana r e a s , andeconom icopportunitiesi n theurbanf o r m a l andinformalsector.Therefore,theeffect ivepoliciesofmigrationshouldfocusonincreasinglivingstandardinruralanddecre asingincomegapbetween twoareas.
Migrationrateareassumedtorespondpositivelytobothhigherurbanwagesa ndhigherurbanemploymentprobabilities.Therefore, thecreationmore jobsi n urbanareaswithoutsimultaneous attemptstoimproveruralincomean demploymentopportunitiescanresultintheparadoxicalsituation.
NewEconomicsofLabourMigrationtheory
• Thenewmigrationt h e o r y researcheda n d developedby OdedStark andhis colleaguessince1980s,themodelexplainedthecausesandconsequencesofmigrat ion,especiallyinlessdevelopedcountries.
Them o t i v a t i o n tom i g r a t e i s n o t o n l y t h e s a l a r y d i f f e r e n t i a l b e t w e e n rrigrôntse n c ô ic d s ô i a r y i n tired e s t i n a t i o n p l a c e a n d t h e s a l a r y ga i n e d intkeiroriginalplaceasHarrisandTodaromodel.InStark’sopinion,migration decisionmakingis interpretedm o r e a s ahouseholdl i v e l i h o o d s t r a t e g y t hana s acompletelyindividualchoice
Thenewe c o n o m ic theoryo f migrations u g g e s t e d t h a t migrationr e l a t e d decisionismadebJ²householdsratherthanbyindividuals.Thisfindingcoincideswitht heobservationsthatmigrationprocessesarecharacterisedbyvisiblefamilypatterns.Fromt hisview,“diversifiedmigrationstraiegiesofparticular householdmembersa r e ins tr um en t o f r i s k m a n a g e m e n t a t householdl e v e l , rathert h a n a
AccordingStark,individualsavingsearnedfromthemigrationcanbeseenasanother elementofrisk managementathouseholdlevel,relatedtoremittancestransferredf r o m m i g r a n t s t o t h e i r f a m i l y a t t h e p l a c e o f o r i g i n M i g r a t i o n i s explainedasafamily decisioninthecontextofriskaversion.Morespecifically,Starksuggeststhatthehous eholdheadallocateslabortomaximizethewellbeingoftheruralhousehold.Asprim aryd e c i s i o n - m a k e r , t h e householdh e a d triestocombineanincreasingnewriskintheprodu ctionoffoodintheoriginwiththecompensationo f r e m i t t a n c e s f r o m d e s t i n a t i o n , s u c h combine c a n b e s e e n a s adiversifiedstrategyfamilymanpowerforcontrollin grisks.
Rural- urbanm i g r a t i o n c a n also considereda s afamilym i g r a t i o n w h i c h emphas izesmigrationo f afamilymemberasawaytodiversifyt h e risk.Stark
11 shownthatm ig ra ti on o f afamilymemberc a n resultfr om acooperativearran gementthatcombinesbetweenthemigrantsandhisfamily.Themigrantis
• insuredbyhisfamilywhilelookingforjob,l a t e r onthemigrantwillbeabletoco mpensateadverseshocksinthe long— termprogram.Thiscanalsoexplaintheparadoxofmigrationthatinthefirststepforw ardtourban,themigrantstillgetmuchs u p p o r t f r o m t h e f a m i l y i n s p i t e o f t h e m i g r a n t s c a n e a r n a n e x p e c t e d incomed i f f e r e n t i a l B e c a u s e t h i s s t a g e c a n b e s e e n a s a n i n v e s t m e n t , t h e n i t mightb e a veryp r o f i t a b l e i n v e s t m e n t i n c o m e f r o m t h e m i g r a n t s t o whole t h e family.
Starkh a s a l s o f o c u s e d o n a l t e r n a t i v e motivationstom i g r a t e t hatc a n contradicttheviewthattheexpectedincomedifferentialsbetweenruralareasandu rbanareasarepredominantf a c t o r s inordertoinducemigration.Thisproblem canb e e x p l a i n e d w h e n m i g r a t i o n entailsa s m a l l c h a n c e o f g e t t i n g a h i g h e r income.Forexample,peoplecanstillchoosetomigratetothecityinthehope ofpossiblet o i n c r e a s e h i s / h e r s o c i a l s t a t u s a m o n g r u r a l r e s i d e n t s a n d m i g r a n t s Thus,t h i s m o d e l p r e d i c t s that peoplecand e c i d e t o m i g r a t e int h e h o p e toincreasehis/hersocialstatusevenw ithonlyasmallchanceofamonetarygain.
Stark’stheoryi s considereda Todarom o d e l e x t e n d e d , b y e m p h a s i z i n g householdsr a t h e r t h a n i n d i v i d u a l s a s unitso f a n a l y s e s , a n d r e m i t t a n c e s a s aninter-temporalcontractualarrangementbetweenthemigrantandthefamilJ•.
Commentsonthetheories
• Themainreasonofruralto urbanmigrationi s economic;themigrationr a t e s dependonthedifferentialsincomebetweenruralandurbanareas,anddepend oneconomicopportunitiesinurbanlocation.
• Householdc h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a f f e c t stronglyonmigrationprobability, h o u s e h o l d size,characters o f h o u s e h o l d h e a d , h o u s e h o l d a s s e t e t c m ayb e c o n s i d e r a s importantfactorstomigrationprobability.
• Individuala b i l i t i e s a r e d e t e r m i n a n t s o f t h e m i g r a t i o n ; i t i s o f t e n t h e b e t t e r educatedpeopleincreasem i g r a t i o n p r o b a b i l i t y Then,th eagesandeducationbackgroundarec o n s i d e r e d a s i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g o n m i g r a t i o n probability.
Theeconomictheoriesoflabormigration,asw e l l asa l l economicstheori esingeneral,follove i t h e r macro- levelormicro- levelperspectivea n d reflectadiversityofparadigirisoftheoreticaleconomics.
Lewis’twosectormodelexplainedthatgivenwagedifferentialsbetweent wocapitalisteconomies, onecharacterizedbyasurplusoflaborandtheotherbysurplusofcapital,migrationandcapi talmovementoccurs.Similarframeworkisexplainedinneoclassicale c o n o m i c th eoryofHarrisandTodaro,thatexplainedpopulationmovementbyexpectedwag eandunemploymentrateinurban.Boththetheoriesexplainedp o p u l a t i o n mov ementfollowedbyrelationbetweencapitalista n d labor,immigrants m o v e u s u a l l y f r o m capital i nt ens ive t o l a b o r intensivefield.Moreover,iirimigran lworkforceismoreflexiblethanlocallabor
• one,p r o t e c t e d b y v a r i o u s i n s t i t u t i o n s ( t r a d e u ni ons, r e g u l a t i o n s o f w o r k conditions,etc),whichareresistingtheeffectivenessofLewisandHarris—Todaro
" theories.T h u s , n e o c l a s s i c a l m a c r o e c o n o m i c m i g r a t i o n a n d d u a l m a r k e t l a b o r theoriesprovideusefulexplanationsfor manyfeaturesofmigratoryphenomena,butneverthelessseemdifficulttopredictmigrationi nmacro—level.
Theneweconomics o f laborm i g r a t i o n t h e o r y b y S t a r k statesthatw agedifferencesbetweeno r i g i n a n d destination p l ac es a r e notprerequisite f o r migration.Starkpointsoutthatmigrationwastreatedasaninvestmentinhumancapit alandr e s u l t ofar a t i o n a l cost— benefitanalysis.T h e t h e o r y isv e r y comprehensiveanmaycoverdifferentasp ectsofhumandecisionsinmigrationcontexts,n o t o n l y l i m i t e d t o e c o n o m i c o n e s , b ut a l s o t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t t h e
• socialandpsychologicals p h e r e s oflife.Therefore,theneweconomicsoflabor migrationh a s c o v e r e d v a r i o u s a s p e c t s o f m i g r a t i o n decisionandm a d e implicationspersuasivelyforexplanationofmigration.
This chapterbrieftheproblemconcerningtohistoricalmigrationinVietnama n d the s pe c i f i c characteristicsi neachi n t e r n a l m i g r a t i o n p e f i o d Thechapterstat esfindouttwofundamentalconditions forhugemigrationw a r e s inthepast,t hosearethepovertya n d inequityi n economicactivities,highrateinpopulatio ngrowthandu n b a l a n c e inp o p u l a t i o n densityb e t w e e n areas.T h i s cha ptera ls o mentions t h e i m p o r t a n t roleof HCM cityas abiggestd e s t i n a t i o n placeinthecountryandsomethemigrants’characteristicstoHCMcity.
3.1O v e r v i e wo f migrationhi s to ry inVietnam
Thesect io n wills u m m a r i z e i n tofourmovement p o p u l a t i o n p e r i o d s alongwiththeVietnamesehistoricalphasesinfeudalregimes,undertheFr enchcolonialistregime,inthewaragainstUSarmyandafterreunification1 9 7 5 W ealsofindoutthespecificcharacteristicsfollowingeachperiodandother’
• important factorsaffectingonmigrationwares,inwhichmigrationinpre-reformandpost- reformeraswillbefocused.
Overtwothousandsyearsinthepast,migiantcommunitiesintheNorthmovedandse ttledalongtheriverbanksa n d e n l a r g e d a r e a s of t h e R e d R i v e r D e l t a , l a t e r t h a n , t h e f e r t i l i t y fieldsinMekong r i v e r d e l t a we re d e s t i n a t i o n o f mi g r at io n f l o w s intheSouth Likespreadingoil,migrantsbuiltupnewvillagesloc atedonlymilesawayfromtheirhomeareas.Thisprocesswas repeatedintheflatlandorfertilityfieldsoverthousandsyears.Undermanykingdomr egimes,migrationwasconsideredasaneffectivepolicytoexpandtheirterritoriesand toaffirmthe nationalsovereignty.Somes y s t e m s e n c o u r a g e d m i g r a t i o n b y i s s u i n g i n c e n t i v e s s u c h a s exemption
Accompanyw i t h thewarfarestotakeoverotherneighboringfe eb l eco untries,thenationalboundarywasexpandedcontinuously.HistoricalaccountsofmigrationinVietn amrecognizethatmigrationhasoccurredwithinthecountryovermost of itshistorya n d t h r e e f i f t h s ofth e n a t i o n ’ s currentt e r r i t o r y w a s progressivelyinvadedo v e r longpe r i ods byk i n g d o m r e g i m e s T h e n , t h e Vietnamesepeoplec o n d u c t e d migrationp r o g r e s s f r o m t h e R e d R i v e r D e l t a towardstheSouth wardandMekongDelta,followingtheterritorialexpansion.
In summary,migrationinfeudalregimestakenplaceontwomaindirections:po pulationmovementtoflatlands,fertilityfieldsalongtheRedriverandMeKongRiver, andmigrationfollowingontheterritorialexpansiontotheSouthward.
3.1.2 MigmtionundertheFrenchcolonialperiod settingthegove rnment c o l o n i a l i s t r e g i m e over Indochinaterri tory, t h eFrenchbeganapplyingonthenewcapitalproductionmodeintoVietna meconomy.Thischangeofproductionapproachstimulatedwidelythepopulationmove mentduring over theFrenchcolonialperiod(1884-1954).
Researchershavepointedoutthatmigrationinthisperiodwasafrequentphenomen onfollowedbyseveralmainmigrationforms.First,rural- urbanmigrationoflandlesspeasantscausedbyconcentralizationo f cultivat inglandsanddespotoflandownerclassinrural.Second,therewereseasonalrural - mralmovementsofagriculturallaborsinsearchoftemporaryemploymentinfarming.Third,lan dlesspeasantsfromtheoverpopulateddensityregionsofNorthmovedtothefertilityareas ofMekongDeltaandHighlandforsettingplantations.Four, internationalmigrationoflaborsmovedtoothertheFrenchcolonies.Last,there weremovementsofrurallaborstoworkinfactoriesandminingindustryoperatedbyt h e F r e n c h A m o n g w h i c h , t h e c i r c u l a r m o v e m e n t s o f a g r i c u l t u r a l l a b o r s betweenruralareasduringthetransplantingandharvestingseasonsaccountedfor
OverviewofmigrationhistoricalinVietnam
MigrationinthewaragainstUSarmy
FollowingGenevasigned1954,Vietnamwas dividedintotwoterritories,resultingm ov eme nt o f hundredt h o u s a n d s people f r o m theSouthtotheNorth.Duringthesameperiod,therewasalargemovementofe vacueesfromtheNorthtotheSouth.Ingeneral,about900,000peopleareestimatedtohave movedfrom
16 theNortht o theSouth,and100,000peoplemoveonoppositedirections(Dang, 2003)
DuringthewaragainstAmericana r m y , peoplei n theNorthwe r e evacu atedfrom urbancenterstothecountrysidetoavoidbombingdroppingbyUSar my,andimplementingeconomicplansinconditionsofwar.Inthisstrategy,peop lewereencouragedt o leavetheirnativeplacesandresettleintheNewEconomic Zones( N E Z s ) o n a p e r m a n e n t basis,w h i c h w e r e setu p i n NorthernHighlandprovincesforpurposeof decreasingpopulationdensityintheurbanareasandincfeasing productionoffood.Itisestimatedthatby1975nearlyonemillionpeoplefromurbanareaswe rerelocatedtotheNEZs.
Ino p p o s i t e , t h e S o u t h o f V i e t n a m w i t n e s s e d s u b s t a n t i a l u r b a n g r o w t h , reflectedb y s i g n i f i c a n t i n f l o w s o f r u r a l p e o p l e t o u r b a n a r e a s , p a r t i c u l a r l y t o majorc i t i e s l i k e S a i G o n , D a N a n g , C a n T h o Da tar e p o r t e d a s h a r p i n c r e a s e , from20Coto40Vointheproportionoftheurbanpopu lationintheSouthbetween1960and1975.
Themainreasonsbehindthe rapidpopulationincreaseinSoutherncitieswereg e n e r a l l y s e e n a s consequenceso f t h r e e c o o r d i n a t e d f a c t o r s F i r s t , t h e r e werewarfare— refugeem o v e m e n t s fromcountrysidewherearmedconflictswarescalatingv i o l e n t l y , t h e n u m b e r o f w a r - i n d u c e d d i s l o c a t i o n s w a s e s t i m a t e d a t some1 0 millionb e t w e e n 1 9 6
7 4 Second,t h e S o u t h e r n r e g i m e a t t e m p t e d t o isolatet h e o p p o s i t i o n f o r c e s o p e r a t i n g i n t h e c o u n t r y s i d e b y f o r c i n g v i l l a g e r s moveintothe speciallyf o r t i f i e d villagesknowna s the‘ s t r a te g i c hamlet’.Las t, thecrow dedpresenceoftheUSmilitarya n d civilianpersonnelbroughta largelaborfor ceofserviceinSaigonandotherbigcitiesthatwaroverthefiguresof500,000sol diersatthehigh- topperiodo f thewar.Moreover,theUnitedStates alsop r o v i d e d theSouth ernr e g i m e w i t h ana n n u a l militaryaidofUS$700
• millionsandotherdevelopmenta i d s forbuildinginfrastructure W i t h thats uchcondition,urbaneconomybecamecrowded,creatingbusinessopportun itiesforlocalpeopleandpromotingruralmigrantstothecities.
A t theinitialstage,alargenumberofpeoplewhohavetoevacuatetocitiesf o r a v o i d i n g w a r f a r e r e p a t r i a t e d backt o t h e i r n a t i v e h o m e l a n d s i n t h e South.Besides t h a t , t h e u r b a n m i d d l e c l a s s a n d t h e o f f i c i a l s i n
“ o l d r e g i m e ” considereda s t h e p o t e n t i a l h o s t i l e c o m p o n e n t s , w a r e f o r c e d e n t e r i n g “ t h e r e - educatedcamps”orNewEconomicZones(NEZs)inHighlandareas.Therefore,thef i r s t m i g r a t i o n s t r e a m i n t h i s s t a g e r e d u c e d u r b a n p o p u l a t i o n s cale.T h i s migrationstreamconsideredasgovernment’sattempts todealwitht h e pos-warurbanunemploymentandtostabilizelawandorderinthecitiesintheSouth
Accompanywithurban toruralmigration above,thehistoricaltrendoftheNortht o t h e S o u t h p o p u l a t i o n m o v e m e n t h a s c o n t i n u e d a s s e c o n d m i g r a t i o n componentinthatlime.Immediatelyaf terreunification,t h e re wasaSouthwardmovementofsignificantnumberof
The Northern Army is set to establish garrisons in regions such as the Central Highlands and other southern frontier provinces Subsequently, residents of the Red River Delta were encouraged to relocate to New Economic Zones (NEZs) in the Central Highlands and Middle regions Between 1975 and the mid-1980s, internal migration in Vietnam primarily involved resettlement programs, which were planned, organized, and controlled by the government (Dang, Goldstein, and McNally, 1997) Key motivations for these resettlement initiatives included security concerns, particularly in the years following the reunification in 1975 and the frontier war with China in 1979, as well as economic objectives In the North, high population pressure contrasted with the much lower population density in the South and Central Highlands, influencing migration patterns from North to South and directing flows into NEZs in these regions.
• shifteddramaticallymigrationmovements.Withmore economicadvantages,theSoutheastregionexperiencedhigh economicg r o w t h ratesanda t t r a c t e d thelargestp r o p o r t i o n ofm i g r a n t labors.B e s i d e s t h a t , a l a r g e n u m b e r ofu r b a n
18 residentsi n H C M C a n d S o u t h e r n c i t i e s h a v e r e c e i v e d remittancef r o m t h e i r overseasrelativesfromase a r l y as1976a n d moresincethe1980s,t h e s e
• remittancesw e r e a n i m p o r t a n t s o u r c e o f s u r v i v a l f u n d s a s w e l l a s f u n d s f o rinvestmenti n b u s i n e s s i n t h e r e f o r m p e r i o d T h a n k s t o t h e s e a d v a n t a g e s , l i v i n g standardsandwagesinHCMCandtheSoutheast regionwerethehighestinVietNam,i n r e l a t i o n t o a l l c i t i e s a n d r e g i o n s M o r e o v e r , t h e r a p i d g r o w t h o f t h e privateandforeigneconomicsectorsinHCMCa ndotherSoutheastcitiesofferedmoreemploymentopportunitieswithrelativelyhigherwa gesthanaveragewagesforlaborm i g r a n t s f r o m p r o v i n c e s I t i s clearedt h a t , e c o n o m i c r e n o v a t i o n h a s madem o r e p u l l f a c t o r s i n t h e S o u t h e a s t e c o n o m i c a r e a s t h a t a t t r a c t e d m o r e migrantsfromotherareas,asDangwr ote“Sinceearly1980smigrantsfromthe
Otherpopulationm o v e m e n t wasrepatriationf r o m NEZscausedbydis appointedr e s u l t s of t h e s e r e s e t t l e m e n t p r o g r a m s , d u e todifficultiessuc haslacko f p h y s i c a l a n d s o c i a l i n f r a s t r u c t u r e , p o o r h e a l t h , f o o d i n s e c u r i t y , a n d a shortageofreadilyclearedlandforcultivation.Asaresult,ab outhalvesofthe
1990s,organizedmigrationhaddisappearedandspontaneousmovements, bothrural- ruralandrural-urban,becamethemainformsofinternalmigrationinVietnam.
Ther e f o r m p o l i c i e s i n r e n o v a t i o n erah a s b e e n m a r k e d b y i n c r e a s i n gspontaneousm i g r a t i o n b o t h i n r u r a l a n d u r b a n a r e a s Z h a n g e t al2(2004)h av eidentified t h r e e i m p o r t a n t f e a t u r e s o f t h e r e n o v a t i o n thatr e d u c e d b a r r i e f s t o migration:
M i g r a t i o n afterreunification1975
• (iii)R e s t r i c t i o n s o n p r i v a t e s e c t o r i n v o l v e m e n t int r a n s p o r t a t i o n , communication,andmadewereeased,resultinginlowercostofmovementand increasedintegrationamongareas.
Theimpedimentstolabormobilitywerelimited,togetherwithincreasingin comeincqualitybetweenruralandurbanareassinceeconomicrenovation,ledtoaco nsiderablei n c r e a s e i n rural- urbanm i g r a t i o n s t a r t i n g intheear ly 1 9 9 0 s Moreover,e c o n o m i c r e f o r m s h a v e a l s o e n t a i l e d increased economicopportunitiesinu r b a n areas.A c c o m p a n y witheconomicbombin gtwolastdecades,t h e u r b a n i z a t i o n p r o c e s s i n V i e t n a m t a k e n p l a c e q u i c k l y , t h e u r b a n populationh a s i n c r e a s e d f r o m 2 0 OoI R 1 9 9 0 to2
6 P c i n 2 0 0 3 ' A c c o r d i n g t o statisticaldata2004,itisclearthatontheonehandthe urbanpopulationgrowthhasbeenmuchhigherthanthetotalpopulationgrowth, butontheotherhandtheruralp o p u l a t i o n growthm u c h s l o w e r t h a n t h e t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n growth.T h i s meanst h a t r u r a l t o u r b a n m i g r a t i o n i n r e c e n t y e a r s i n V i e t n a m h a s c r e a t e d a significantchangeintheVietnamesepopulation structure.
Thefactorsspeedupruraltourbanmigration
Populationdistributionanddensity
2004,the populationofVietnamwas81.78millionpeople.Malesaccountedfor49.5fioandfe malesfor50.5fiooftotal.Averagepopulation
21 densitygrewfrom194person/km'in1989to231person/ km'in19991and247persons/ km' in20 04 ,givingV i e t n a m bec omes o n e oft h e h i g h es t p o p u l a t i o n
- densityintheregion,itranksthethirda mo ng 42countriesinAsiaandPacific behindS i n g a p o r e andthePhilippines.
Thepopulationi s unevenlyd i s t r i b u t e d b e t w e e n t h e agriculturalre gions.TheCentralHighland,NorthWestandNorthEastaccounted45fiooftot allandareabutonly20fioofthetotalpopulation.Incontrast,theMekongRive rDellaandtheRedRiverDeltaaccounted40.4fiopopulationwhilecombinedland areaoflessthan16foiofthe totalcountry.
Vietnamhasalsorelativelylowofurbanization.Althoughthe urbanratiohasincreaseds t e a d i l y i n recenty e a r s buti t wasbelowt h a n s o m e countriesi n regionsu ch Indonesia,t h e Philippines,a n d Thailand.Datai ndicateda marked increaseintherateofurbanizationt h e 19 90 s andearly215c e n t u r y , with30fioOf thepopulationlivinginurbanareain2004,upfrom23.7Roin1999and19.4fioin1989'.
Forthepastfewyears,Vietnamesep o p u l a t i o n h a s beencontrolled w e l l withp o p u l a t i o n g r o w t h r a t e a t a b o u t 1 5 Prp e r y e a r H o w e v e r ,
The rapid population growth, now at 1.2 billion people, has significantly pressured the economy to create sufficient job opportunities This pressure has intensified in recent years as the percentage of young individuals seeking employment continues to rise In 1989, the working-age population (ages 15 to 60) comprised 52.65%, increasing to 57% in 1999 and further to 59% in 2004 This booming population has led to an imbalance in economic resources, particularly in rural areas where land is scarce while the labor force expands.
GeneralStatisticOffice2000Population andHousingCensus1999PopulationandHo usingCensus1999GeneralStatisticOffice2 0
22 resourcesi s abundant,t h e r e f o r e , t h e economyh a s lefta parto f thepopulati onunderemployedorunemployed.
Theboomingp o p u l a t i o n , c o m b i n e witha densityo f peopleliv ing inso me
The Red River Delta region faces significant challenges due to its high population density, with approximately 12 people per hectare of natural land and 20 people per hectare of agricultural land, making it difficult for individuals to sustain themselves solely through farming As a result, residents often engage in both farming and non-farming jobs to make ends meet In contrast, other regions such as the Mekong Delta and Southeast have much lower population densities, with figures of 4.2 and 3.6 people per hectare of natural land, respectively This disparity in land availability has led to an inevitable migration from some rural areas in search of better opportunities.
Generally,migrationingeneralandruraltourbanmigrationinparticularist hep r o c e s s o f t h e r e b a l a n c i n g e c o n o m i c r es o u r c es i n ordert o setupa n ew
. stageofeconomicdevelopment Ruralto urbanm i g r a t i o n a l t h o u g h main lya r e causedb y l a b o r s h o r t a g e s i n urbana r e a s , t h e h i g h p o p u l a t i o n g r o w t h a n d t h e
Migrationdataandtendency
Overviewofm i g r a t i o n t o HCMcity
Accordingtothemidtermpopulationsur ve y' conductedonbslOct2004 andmigrationsurvey2004,intheperiodof19 99 —
2004therewere1 , 0 3 3 , 7 0 2 migrantstoHCMcity,it was2.4 timescomparedwiththeperiodoflast5years(1994-
1999).Inaddition,atthet i m e ofsur ve y, populationd e n s i t y o f t h e city
26 was2 , 9 2 0 p e o p l e / k m ' , i n c r e a s i n g 2 1 4 f ioc o m p a r e d w i t h 1999.Population growthr a t e o f t h e c i t y h a s i n c r e a s e d continuouslyoverp e r i o d s , meanw hile
• naturalp o p u l a t i o n g r o w t h r a t e o f t h e c i t y h a s a t e n d e n c y t o d e c r e a s e b y t h e periods,from3.57Ro(1999—2004),1.52Oo(1989—
2 0 0 4 Atthecity’scentraldistricts,populationg r o w t h ratewasnegativebec ausemanyresidentshavetomovetoothercountrydistrictswhere
• urbaninfrastructure h a s beenimproved o r houseprices ee m s tobesuitable foryoungcouple;otherpeoplel e a f t h e i r housesandmove to sunburndistr ictsforlivingb e c a u s e o f i m p r o v i n g i n f r a s t r u c t u r e i n t h e c e n t r a l H o w e v e r , t h e m a i n reasono f h i g h p o p u l a t i o n y r o w t h r a t e i n countrya r e a s wasnetm ig ra ti on r a t e causedb y m i g r a n t s D a t a f r o m m i d t e r m s u r v e y 2 0 0 4 alsoshown t h a t a v e r a g e populationgrowthratesintheouter‹districts weresohigh,especiallyinperiod1999-2004.Thesef i g u r e s r e f l e c t e d t h e c i t y ’ s e c o n o m i c g r o w t h , a t t r a c t i v e n e s s fromindustrialparks,exportpr ocessingzonesandresultsofurbanizationprocessinthelasttime.
Migrantscharacteristicst o HCMC
2004),accounted16.949ôtotalpopulationlivinginthecity,andmigrantsfromMekongDelt aprovincesmadeupmore1 / 3 with36.91fiototalmigrants.Itwas surprisedt h a t m i g r a n t s f r o m t h e R e d R i v e r D e l t a a r e a i n c r e a s e d s t r o n g l y t o 14.78fiofrom12.69r intheperiod1994-1999thoughthis areasisnexttoHaNoi
• andtakingalongdistancetoHCMcity.Northcentralcoastprovincesfollowedatthet h i r d w i t h 14.03Wo,R e x t w a s t h e SouthE a s t a r e a w i t h 13.9Wo,d e c r e a s e d sign ificantlyf ro m 21.7fiointhelastperiod.Itcanbeexplainedt h a t SouthEastregio nisthemostdynamiceconomicareaintheSouthandinwholecountryaswell.Thes peedofindustrializationintheseplacesinrecentyearshasrequiredalargen u m b e r o f w o r k e rs a n d t h e l o ca l l a b o r f o r c e cans a t i s f y t h e d e m a n d f o r employmen t.i iierefore,theeconomicreasonformigrationhasdecreasedandasaresult,totalimmigrantsh avedeclined.
Educationisoftenconsideredt o beanimportantpr ed ict or ofmigratio n.Increasinglabormarketreturntoeducationalskills havebeenakeyelemento fconventionalh u m a n c a p i t a l models ofmigration.Most migrantsm o v e d t o thecitybyeconomicreasons,followedbyeducationalreasons.Themigration , populationr a t e i n schoolingwaslowert h a n r a t e o f permanent r e s i d e n t a s thesameagesgroup,thisratewasratherlo w insecondarya g e s (11-14)andhigh
17)i n K T 4 ' mi gr an ts, m o s t o f t h e m h a v e t o workf o r earningthemselvesandco ncentratingfortheirfamilies.
Althoughm i g r a n t s h a v e a b e t t e r b a c k g r o u n d i n e d u c a t i o n t h a n p e o p l e livinginoriginplaces,butingeneral,educationattainmentofperm anentresidenceishigherthanmigrants.
Age groups Wholethecity Permanent resident KT3' KT4
Inmostcountries,internalmigrantsarepreponderantlyy o u n g adult,a ndVietnami s n o e x c e p t i o n A l t h o u g h migrantsa r e m o s t l y concentrat edint h e younga g e butove r halfo f allmigrantswerei n theyoungage group1
5 - 2 9 Ifconsidered aslaborperspective,thereweremore90fioimmigrantsintheworkingageandtheseyoun gmigrantshaveeffectedpositivelyo n thecity’spopulation structure.Comparedwith1999, city’spopulationincreased1 5 9 f oi inagegroup
KT4:apersonwhohascontemporaryregistration forhimself.'KT3:Peopleh a s contemporaryregistrationasahousehold
29 respectively.I n g e n e r a l , p r o p o r t i o n o f m i g r a n t s i n wo rk in g a g e s wass o high,leadingcity’slaborforcealsoincreased.Within5years,totalcity’slaborf orcehasi n c r e a s e d m o r e 1 billionp e o p l e , a v e r a g e g r o w t h r a r e w a s 4
8 5 9 ô a n n u a l ,higherthanp o p u l a t i o n growthratei n t h e s a m e p e r i o d A n d situationw a s t h e sametomigrantswithuniversity,collegeorhighereducationaldegree s.
Ing e n e r a l, w o m e n s h o w e d t h e s a m e pattern a s meni n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p betweenmigrationandeducation.Migrationrateswereratherlowamongpeopl ewithl i t t l e o r n o e d u c a t i o n A s l e v e l s o f e d u c a t i o n i n c r e a s e , t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f migrantsrose.
Asdiscussedi n section3.1.4,themigration f l o w s inperiod1 9 8 4 - 1989werer u r a l t o r u r a l a n d m a l e m i g r a n t s a r e p r i o r i t y i n g e t t i n g job s.D a t a f r o m census
2 0 0 4 , causedbyveryfastgrowthofsomelabor- intensiveindustries,suchasgarment,shoesproduction,etc.Themigrants’gender index'inthecitythisperiodwaslowestthanwholethecountry,thisindexwason lyaround70fio intheagegroup 15-24andreached83.38Oototalmigrants. Theresult,a g a i n , reflectt h e increasing t r e n d o f f e m a l e s mobility r e l a t i v e t o malesduring1990s.
Informalisthesectorwherealargeproportionofmigrantshaveworkeda ndtheyhave acceptedthejobsthatpermanentresidentsdislikesuchasbuildingworkers,porters,stre etv e n d o r s , andthelike.T h e r e f o r e , althoughtheunemploymentr a t e inthec ityisafairlyhighlevelofabout6Rrbutthesurveydataindicatesthattheunempl oymentr a t e formigrantsisfairlylow,about1 —
2fio.Itcouldbesupposedthatduetothelackofexperienceandstrongpressuretomakinglivin g,migrantsarewillingtotakeanyjobtofindtheprovidedt h a t thejobcangivethemso mereturn,andthereforeunemploymentrateamongmigrantsisfaiflylow.
Economicss e c t o r KT3(Pc) KT4(Rằ) Total(to)
Table6showntheroleofthePublicandStateenterprisesthatabsorbthemigra ntsarequitelimited.Domesticprivateenterprises,thoughtheyhavebeenboom inginp a s t y e a r s , a r e n o t m a j o r e n g i n e t o g e n e r a t e j o b s form i g r a n t s Besidesthefo reigninvestedf i r m s , theinformals e c t o r andsmallenterpriseshave shownits importanceformigrantsasithasaccounted35.1Rooftotalemploymentform i g r a n t s Mo stm i g r a n t s h a v e w o r k e d inn o n - s t a t e enterprisesa n d t h e i r incomesa r e v e r y d i f f e r e n t b y a g e g r o u p s a n d g e n d e r s I n w h i c h , t h e a v e r a g e incomeofmale— migrantisalwayshigherthanfemale—migrantineveryagegroups.
Age group15-29 Agegroup30—44 Averagei n c o m e Migrant Resident Migrant Resident Migrant Resident Ave 985,460 1,217,409 1,304,010 1,603,731 1,063,822 1,489,093 Male 1,152,464 1,406,636, 1,421,122, 1,807,332 1,228,328 1,712,626 Female 870,240 1,066,940 1,200,613 1,366,546 939,470 1,263,874
6 0 h a v e b e e n w o r k i n g comparedw i t h o n l y 79 6f ioofpermanentr e s i d e n t s , butthe averageinco me ofpermanentr e s i d e n t s w a s h i g h e r a b o u t 4 0 P r t h a n m i g r a n t ’ s i n c o m e , thisd a t a reflectedthatmostjobswithlowincomewereconductedbythemigrants.
3.5timestheaveragei nc ome inrurala n d thisisthereason,whiche x p l a i n s ther ationaleo f
32 ruralt o urbanm i g r a t i o n t o thecity.However,t h e h i g h e r i n c o m e byi t s e l f i s not sufficienttoguaranteethebetterlivelihoodbecauseexpendituresinurbanareas
• arem u c h h i g h e r t h a n i n r u r a l a r e a s I t s h o u l d n o t e d t h a t l i v e l i h o o d o f s o m e migrantsin urbana r e a s isstillverylowandtheirincomeisenoug hto buyt h e basicsfortheirphysicalneeds,without cultureandentertainments,inworsecase,itisjustenoughtokeepthemalive.
Togetthecurrentincome,migrantshavetoworksmuchharderin term ofworkingintensityorlongerworkinglime.Especiallyininformalsectorandsmallenterpris es,mostmigrantshaveworkedmorethan8hoursperday,evenupto12hoursperday.
Migration and urbanization are frequently perceived negatively in policy debates and the media, often seen as issues needing resolution or threats to be mitigated Authorities tend to aim to slow or reverse rural-to-urban migration, overlooking its significance to household livelihoods Commonly viewed as a response to environmental disasters, economic exploitation, or political unrest, migration is often blamed for various societal problems, including environmental degradation, health issues, brain drain, and social instability This perspective contributes to the controversy surrounding migration processes, as they are predominantly associated with challenges rather than opportunities.
However,u n de r t h e benefitv i e w p o i n t f o r wholet h e c o u n t r y e c o n o m y , ruraltourbanmigrationprogressbringa greatbenefitineconomic.Inaddition,migrationisanaturalprogress,whichhappen sinmostthedevelopingcountries.Andbesidesthepositiveimpacts ineconomicas pect,theconsequenceinsocialcontextandenvironmentalsoneedtobeconsidered.
The process of industrialization and urbanization has significantly impacted countries worldwide, with labor migration playing a crucial role in the socio-economic development of cities The influx of young, working-age migrants has addressed local labor shortages, meeting the high demand for workers in various sectors According to a 2004 survey, migrant labor contributed to 33.15% of the total workforce, despite comprising only 28.9% of the city's overall population In many suburban industrial parks, migrants represented over 70% of the workforce Overall, migrant labor has been instrumental in generating approximately 30% of Ho Chi Minh City's GDP.
Mostm i g r a n t s a r e y o u n g a n d h a v e s o w e l l e d u c a t e d , c o n s i d e r e d asa brilliantlaboredforcethaturbanareasinheritfrommigrationproces s.Throughoutthe“braindrain”problem,urbanareashaveusedthebestmanpo werresourcesfromruralonthedevelopment.
The influx of migrants has significantly strained the city's infrastructure and public services, leading to a decline in urban life quality and serious environmental pollution Over 609,000 migrants are living in temporary and semi-solid housing, a rate that is double that of the city's residents, with their access to piped water being substantially lower This situation highlights the authorities' weaknesses in planning and developing infrastructure Additionally, the large-scale migration has contributed to rising unemployment rates in urban areas and has complicated the criminal situation.
Itisclearthat,immigrationp e o p l e have playeda veryimportant role inindustrializationa n d urbanizationp r o c e s s t h r o u g h s u p p o r t i n g humanp o we r t o thecityeconomy.Besidesthat,theseforceshavealsomadedifficultiestothecityinf rastructureandservicessystem.
- remittancesareoftenanimportantcomponentof householdi n c o m e s Remitta ncesaccountedfora r e m a r k a b l e rateofhouseholdexpenditures.A surveyc onductedb y t h e InstituteofS oc io lo gy 1 9 9 8 shownthatwithoutparticipatio ni n thecasheconomy,ruralfamilydidnothaveenoughincometosurviveand ortocoverexpensesforeducationa n d i l l n es s Remittancesn o t beusedf o r c o n s u m p t i o n , b u t i n m a n y c a s e s , i t i s s p e n t t o i n v e s t f o r e x p a n d i n g productionandforimprovingeducationbackground.Cashremittancescanreduce t h e needf o r farmerstoselltheirpa d d y r i c e asasourceofincomea n d ensur efootsecurityforruralfamiliesandthecommunity.
Mucho f t h e l i t e r a t u r e h a s l i n k e d m i g r a t i o n toi n s e c u r i t y o f t h e r u r a l economy.Labormigrantsarevulnerabletochangesinlabordemand,orp oliticalchanges.H o w e v e r , f r o m t h e p e r s p e c t i v e s o f m i g r a n t s a n d t h e i r c o m m u n i t i e s , migrationhasafunctionofreducingvulnerability.Effectivemigrat ionstrategies
Migrationisa n effectivewaytod e c r e a s e theworkingpressureand" underemploymentrateinr u r a l Theshortageso f farminglaborscausesb y migrationh a v e prom otedu s i n g newt e c h n o l o g i es a n d m ate ri als incultivation, leadinganincreasingproductivityinagriculturalactivities.
However,a l a r g e m i g r a t i o n p e o p l e a l s o c a n t h e s h o r t a g e o f s e a s o n i n g laborsintemporafy,thisproblemmaymakethenegativeaffectsonproductionin local Infact,althoughmigrantsfromQuang
Migration literature lacks a standard definition and explicit typology of migration phenomena, primarily due to the complexity and multiple dimensions of population mobility (Zhang et al., 2004) In many countries, official censuses are conducted every five years or at specific time points However, there is no general consensus among researchers regarding the classification of migration types, such as permanent versus casual or long-term versus short-term migration While some studies define migrants as those who have made a permanent or long-term change of residence, others encompass all forms of residential change from one location to another.
Migration is commonly defined by the United Nations, which categorizes long-term international migrants as individuals who relocate to a country other than their usual residence for at least 12 months, thus making the new country their primary residence In this context, they are considered long-term emigrants by their country of departure and long-term immigrants by the destination country Additionally, the UN defines short-term international migrants as those who move for a period of at least 3 months but less than a year, excluding movements for recreation, holidays, visits, business, medical treatment, or religious pilgrimage This classification is crucial for international migration statistics, as it helps to differentiate between various types of migration based on duration and purpose.
Junstats.un.org/unsdJdemof: ra hic/sconcerns miuration methods
In fact,t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of migrationalmostdependso n s o c i a l a n d economiccontextineachcountry.Theidentificationofresearchedobjectisalsoadisa greeableq u e s t i o n b e t w e e n r e s e a r c h e r s , i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are considereda s maine f f e c t s topopulation m o v e m e n t i n som e papers, b u t o t h e r opinionse m p h a s i s thatm i g r a t i o n decisionmakingisi n t e r p r e t e d moreasa household livelihoods t r a t e g y t h a n a s a c o m p l e t e l y i n d i v i d u a l c h o i c e ( S t a r k , 1991).
Geographersanddemographersoftenlookatthespatialandtemporaldimensionsofthe migrationp h e n o m e n o n , suc hasmigrationd u r a t i o n andd i s t a n c e , a s w e l l asi t s i m p a c t o n t h e s i z e a n d c o m p o s i t i o n ofa g i v e n populationa n d t h e r e l a t e d c h a n g e s i n f e r t i l i t y a n d m o r t a l i t y E c o n o m i s t s a n d s ociologistsoftenfocusattentiononthesocio- economicdomainsofmigration.“Theira n a l y s e s tendt o emphasize a s p e c t s ofd e m a n d a n d s u p p l y i n thel a b o r market throughlabormobilityandrelatedpolicies,the ‘push’and‘pull’forcesat
" origina n d destination, includingp o l i t i c a l , demographicands o c i o - e c o n o m i c factors,a n d d i s c r e p a n c i e s i n e c o n o m i c o p p o r t u n i t i e s , standardo f l i v i n g a n d incomelevelsbetweenthetwo“(Zhangetal2004:6)
In thisresearch,themigrantdefinedasapersonwhois15— 60yearsoldatt h e s u r v e y a n d c h a n g e d h i s / h e r r e s i d e n c e w i t h i n f i v e s y e a r s p r e c e d i n g t h e census.Thisdefinitio nmaya t firstglanceseemattractivebecauseo f itssimplicityandmeasurabilit y.Thereareserious problemswiththislimiteddefinitionwhenoneisconfrontedwiththeempirics ofmigration.Theuseofthespatialcriteriontodefinemigrationisnecessarytodistinguis hbetweenrelevant
First,apersonhas movedfromdistricttootherdistrictwithinaprovinceorotherprovinces,c i t i e s consideredm i g r a t i o n I n addition,an ypreviousmovementsbeforefiveyear satthetimeofsurveyconsideredasnon- migration.Second,onlypeoplelefttheirusualresidenceanddonotregisteratdes tination
37 that accountedasmigrants.Third,although thestudydoesnotmentiontheshort- termorlong-termmigrationbutcircularmovementisnotreflectedin thesurveydata.Andanypersonwhohadlefttheirusualresidenceforlessthansixmo nthswerenotconsideredasamigrant.
Infact,ruraltourbanmigrationisoftenhappenbyonememberormoreinahouseholdt hanwholehousehold.Amongstmembersofhousehold,seemtobeexistedasharingth eworksbetweenmigrantsandnon— migrants,h o u s e h o l d characteristicsplayanimportantroleincreatingeachindividualperso nalitiesandfeatures,throughaffectingontheindividualdecisions.Asaresult,hous eholdistheunitofanalysisandsurveytocollectprimarydataforestimationaregressionm odel.
Thelocationo f s u r v e y i s carriedo u t attwocommunes ofQ u a n g Ng a iprovince.A t t he f i e l d o f s u r v e y , mosth o u s e h o l ds h a v e o w n e d t h e p r o d u c t i o n landsanddependedonearningfromfarmactivities.Theinterviewedhousehold sares e l e c t e d r a n d o m fromt h e l i s t o f h o u s e h o l d s accordingt o t h • f o l l o w i n g criteria:
Asdefined,anypeoplei s outofagegroup1 5 -60considereda s non— migrantthoughtheyleft theiroriginresidencef o r economicreasonsorothers. Additionmore,theyoungpeoplewhohavejointedi n t o armyare notaccountedmigrants.
Ins o c i a l s c i e n c e r e s e a r c h , f i e l d w o r k i s th e c e n t r a l a n d i m p o r t a n t m e t h o d forc o l l e c t i n g t h e p r i m a r y information.Secondaryi n f o r m a t i o n a l s o p l a y s a n importantr o l e w h i l e a n a l y z i n g a n d g i v i n g i n f e r e n c e o f s o m e e m p i r i c a l knowledge.S o , thisstudyisbasedo n bothprimary a n d seco nda ry d a t a Data collectionm e t h o d s a r e p r i m a r i l y d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e k i n d s o f q u e s t i o n s t o b e answered,aswellasthetypeofresearchtobeconducted.
Secondarydataisdatathathavebeencollectedbyindividualsoragenciesforpurposesot herthantheparticularresearchstudy.Itplaysanimportantroleinresearchf r o m t h e v e r y b e g i n n i n g t o f i n a l s t a g e o f a n a l y s i s T h e i n f o r m a t i o n derivedf r o m s e c o n d a r y d a t a c a n b e v e r y h e l p f u l toc o n c e p t u a l i z e andt h e n analyzethestudy.Inthisstudy,I haveusedsecondaryinformationfromvarioussources,whichincludepublisheda ndunpublisheddocumentarysources:books,newspapers,articlesandinternet,etc.
Populationd a t a byGSOandHCMcityStatisticsDepartmenthave been usedtolookatpopulationg r o w t h inVietnam.Thesegiveanoverallpictureofp opulationgrowthandmovementtendencyofpopulationinVietnamingeneralandm igrationflowsHochiminhcityinparticular.Theyalso giveapictureofin- migrants’s t a t u s andt h e socio- economiccha rac ter is ti cs inthedestinationa r e a " Likewise,dataonsocio- economicservicesandinfrastructuresituationhavealsobeenlookedattodemonstratem igrantsflowtotheurbanareas.
Furthermore,d a t a r e c o r d e d i n ther e se a r c h es c o n d u c t e d b y I n s t i t u t e f o r EconomicR e s e a r c h o f H C M C i t y h a v e p r e s e n t e d t h e e s t i m a t e d d a t a o f populationmovement.Inwhich,theconsequencesfromuncontrolledm i g r a t i o n andu r b a n i z a t i o n alsoh a v e b e e n mentionedtot h e l o c a l author itiesa n d t h e government.Besides,otherpublishedandunpublishedr e p o r t s , b ooks,and journalshavebeenwidely usedinthisstudy.
SelectedlocationtocollectprimarydataisCluangNgaiprovince,intheremostof householdsh a v e incomesfromfarmingactivitiesandmigrationra te israthe rhigh.TheinterviewsconductedintwocommunesofDucPhodistrict,with
Int h i s s t u d y , I h a v e u s e d b o t h o b s e r v a t i o n a n d i n t e r v i e w m e t h o d s t o collecttheinformation.Becauseofthequestionsconcerningtoho useholdincomes,whichisverysensitivetothehumansituation,thus,theresearche rhasthefreedomt o changea n d f o r m u l a t e q u es t i o n s astheyc o m e t o minda r o u n d t h e issuebeinginvestigated Some oftheadvantagesofusingqualitativeapproacharethatitisthemostappropriate forstudyingcomplexandsensitivequestions,astheresearcherhastheopportunitytoprep arethesubjectsbeforeasking sensitivequestions.Itisalsolesslikelyi n qualitative r e s e a r c h t h a t a questio nwouldbemisunderstoods i n c e theresearcherc o u l d e i t h e r repeata question o r putitinaformthatisunderstoodbytherespondents.
Theinterviewswere c o n d u c t e d i n M a y 1 9 9 5 withh e l p oft h r e e t r a i n e d interviewers.Theinterviewersweregenerallyinformedofthegoalandapproachoft h i s study,theyw e r e t r a i n e d a b o u t i n t e r v i e w e d m e t h o d s a n d approach es ofverifyingt h e a n s w e r s f r o m r e s p o n d e n t s T h e i n t e r v i e w s w e r e e n c o u r a g e d f o r makingc o n v e rs a t i o n f r i e n d l y w i t h o u t l i m i t t i m e , a p p e n d i x I p r e s e n t s a n , overviewoftheprimaryresultsfrominterviews.
Dataf o r r eg ress io n a r e collected f r o m a migration c e n s u s i n t w o communesofQ u a n g Ngaip r o v i n c e w i t h 1 0 2 o b s e r v a t i o n s A n d a logitmo de l willberuntoanalyzevariablesaffectingonmigra tiondecision,regressionresultswillbeusedforexplainingeffectivelevelbyeachvariable.
AccordingtotheNewEconomicsofLaborMigrationtheoryimplicated inliterate,ruraltourbanmigrationisnotonlyindividualdecisionsbutalsorelevanttohouse holdcharacteristics.Besidethat,the economicfactorsatthedepartmentandd e s t i n a t i o n p l a y asp u s h a n d p u l l f a c t o r s t o m i g r a t i o n Int h i s r e s e a r c h , migrationprocessofeachindividuali sconsideredundertheviewpointofsharingthew o r k s a m o n g s t t h e m e m b e r s i n t h e h o u s e h o l d , sot h e h o u s e h o l d ’ s characteristicswillbeanalyzedtocla ssifytheinfluentleveltomigrationprobability.
Becaused e p e n d a n t var ia bl e i s abinary,t h e logistic modelca n beus ed Themodelallowsidentifyingthe inf luentlevelofhouseholdc h a r a c t e r i s t i c s onm i g r a t i o n probabilityofhousehold.
Themodeltob e estimatedfore a c h householdcharacteristiccanbespeci fieda s follows
Becauseh o u s e h o l d i s o b j e c t i n t h e s t u d y , s o a l l v a r i a b l e s u s i n g i n t h e modelrepresent f o r householdc h a r a c t e r i s t i c s thateffectonthemi grationpossibilityofthehousehold.Thevariablesaredescribedasfollows:
- PMIGvariablepresentsthehousehold’smigrationprobability,thisvariableisadummy whichgetsvalueof1ifatleastonememberofhouseholdinworkingage(15-
- SIZEstatesthenumberofhousehold’smember.Becausethelargerthehouseho ldsize,thehigherthepossibilityofworkingassignmentbetweenfamilymembersa n d h i g h e r m i g r a t i o n p r o b a b i l i t y o f h o u s e h o l d A d d i t i o n , a crowdedfa milym a k e s a pressureo n t h e i r e x p e n s e s h i g h l y i n t e r m o f l i m i t e d w o r k i n g opportunitiesintheruralareas,leadingtoanincreasingmigrationpossibility.
- EDUHHv a r i a b l e s h o w s e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l o f h o u s e h o l d head,i t i s u s u a l l y positiverelationw i t h m i g r a t i o n tendency.B e c a u s e e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l o f householdheadisusuallydirectlyproportionalwitheducatio nalattainmentofthehousehold’sm e m b e r s , a n d h i g h e d u c a t i o n d e g r e e o r k i l l l a b o r a l l o w s p e o p l e gettinga j o b e a s i e r t h a n a n u n s k i l l e d l a b o r w h e n m i g r a t i o n I n o t h e r w o r d s ,
41 educationall e v e l ofhouseholdh e a d influences migrationd e c i s i o n t h r o u g h o u t members’e d u c a t i o n a l a c h i e v e m e n t s
- DEPENvariableshowsthe ratioofdependentlabor,countedbytherateofoff- workingmembersovertotalmembers.Whenthisrateincreases,thatmeansthen umbero f peoplew h o are inworkingl a b o r d e c r e a s e s , leadingadecreasingi nhousehold’sm i g r a t i o n p o s s i b i l i t y
40groupovertotalmembers,thehistoricaldatashownthatpeopleinthisgrouparetheh ighestmigrationpossibility.Itisclearthatthis variableisexpectedrelationpositivelywiththemigrationprobability.
Land is a fundamental production resource in the household agriculture sector, measured by the average area of agricultural land per household member Larger land areas typically yield higher returns from agricultural production, resulting in increased average incomes Additionally, an increase in land size correlates with a reduction in off-working days and lowers the likelihood of household migration.
FARMRATEv a r i a b l e exp res ses thecontributionp r o p o r t i o n o f i n c o m e fromagriculturala c t i v i t i e s intotali n c o m e byp r o d u c t i o n i n local Thehi gherproportion,t h e m o r e d e p e n d e n t l e v e l o n e a r n i n g s f r o m a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s Wheni n c o m e f r o m a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n i s s t i l l l o w , s u c h h i g h p r o p o r t i o n reflectsalowincomeofthehousehold,andmoveme ntpossibilityofanymemberforimprovingincomeisfairhigh.
60inruralareas andmigrant’saverageincome Aincreasingofthisproportio nreflectsthattheincomegapbetweenruralandurbanareasdecreases,andt h e a t t r a c t i v e n e s s f r o m u r b a n r e g i o n d e c r e a s e s l e a d i n g t o a d e c l i n i n g i n migrationp o s s i b i l i t y T h e r e f o r e , t h e variablei s expectedi n v e r s e r a t i o relation withmigra tion p r o b a b i l i t y
Variables Keyconcept Definitionofvariables Exp.sign
Dichotomousvariable,get1if migration,otherwiseget0
1:primarylevel,class1to5 2:Secondarylevel,class6to9 3:Highlevel,class10to124:H igherlevel
SIZE Household’ss i z e Numberm e m b e r s ofthe household
Incomegapbetweenr u r a l andurbanareas. proportionb e t w e e n i n c o m e o f laborinruralareasandmigrant’ saverageincomeinruralarea.
1-PMIG ) = §o+§SIZE+§2EDUHH +§›DEPEND +§‹HIGHRATE
2005.'Thesquareofagriculturallandperheadis0.08ha,mostlandisexhaustedfieldan daffectedusuallyby naturaldisasters,soproductivityisratherlow Services sectorhascontributed35.2fioGDPbutjobcreationisverylimitedandindustrialsect orhasnotbeencapableforreceivingmuchpeople.T h e r e f o r e , ajobinthelargecitieso rindustrialcentersconsideredasthebest choicenotonlytorurallabor,butalsotourbanlaborinOuangNgaiprovince.
AlthoughGDPg r o w t h i n t h e p e r i o d of1990swasr a t h e r q u i c k l y b u t economics t r u c t u r e d i d s t i l l m a k e n o r e m a r k a b l e c h a n g e s , w h i c h w a s m o s t l y dependedo n a g r i c u l t u r e , f o r e s t r y a n d f i s h e r y T h e l a b o r p r o d u c t i v i t y inagriculturesectorincreased3.93 timesintheperiodof 1 9 9 1 - 1 9 9 7 w h i l e cultivatinglandwaslimited.Therefore,laborforcefromruralmovedforlookingot heTj o b s morea n d m o r e I n d u s t r i a l a n d s e r v i c e s e c t o r s g r o w n b e t t e r t h a n agriculturalsector,butitssmallscalescouldnotcreatemuchnewjobs meetingredundantlaborfromagriculture.Asaresulted,themigrantshavebeenm ovingtoo t h e r a r e a s f o r g e t t i n g j o b s thoughC i u a n g N g a i e c o n o m y w a s i n c r e a s i n g steady.
ItwastheturningpointindevelopingCiuangNgaieconomytoestablishDu ngQuatIndustrialZone(DungCiuatEconomicZonenowadays).QuangNgaieconomicstr ucture hasbeenshowingpositivechangessince 2002.Forexample,
44 productionrateinagriculture—industry— fisheryfellquicklyfrom45Ooin2000,36.29rin2004,34.8fioin2005, andto31.Shein2006(asestimated).Conversely,theproportionofindustryproductionw asonthe strongrisefrom26.looin2004,30.0Rri n 2005,andto33 5 hri n 2006(asestimated ).I n t h e p e r i o d o f 2 0 0 4 —
2006,1anaverageamountof13, 000 newjobswa re offeredannuallybym o s t newlyes t a b l i s he d e n t e r p r i s e s inthefieldofindustry a n d service inprovi nce’sindustrialzones.Yet,therewasaparadoxthattheofferedjobsdidexceedloc allabor’squalification.Therefore,thetendencyt o immigrateintootherplaceshas kepti n c r e a s i n g
Whati s m o r e , l a b o r f o r c e i n a g r i c u l t u r e g r e w s t r o n g l y w h i l e a r e a s f o r agriculture productioncametoastandstill,agriculturalserviceexpandedslowly,andplanstos u p p o r t o r offera g r i c u l t u r a l l a b o r ne wjobsw o r k e d i n e f f i c i e n t l y , makin gtheamountofredundant laborinagriculture,whichholdsthemajorpartsinimmigrationintheperiod,everlarger.
1 12 i tc a n b e p r e d i c t e d thatt h e r e a r e a b o u t 1 4 0 0 0 peoplejointt o workingagesyearly.Whilemean,inperiodof1 9 9 9 - 2 0 0 4, only"
HCMcityhasreceivedmore44.000migrantsfromOuangNgai,ofwhich,more90fiowasinworkinga g e s Thesef i g u r e s provedt h a t H C M c i t y was reallya n attractivedestinationofmigrantsfromQuangNgai.
ThedatacollectedfromthesurveyinQuangNgaiprovinceshows thatahi ghmigrationp r o p o r t i o n f r o m ruralto urbanareas.Thereare55fiohousehol dmigratesi n t o t a l 1 0 2 householdsi n t e r v i e w e d a n d m i g r a n t s c o n t r i b u t e 1 4 3 R r populationinthesurvey,thatmeansabout3topopulationmigrates fromruralt o urbanyearly.Moreover,withrespecttotheageofmigrants,migran tintheagegroup18- 40yearsaccountsaboutmoretwothethirdsoftotalmigrantswhilea smallproportionofoldpeoplewhoare morethanfiftyyearsold.T h i s s t r u c t u r e
'QuangNgaipeoplecommittee’srepot2006'Qu angNgaipeoplecommittee’srepot2005
57.19ằofmigrantsobtainshighschoolleveland12.8Rrforhighereducationleve lwhileonly4.3Pôforprimarylevel.However,theshort- termm i g r a t i o n i s stillpredominantt e n d e n c y i n ruralt o urbanm i g r a t i o n , t herei s more5 0 9‹ofh ous eh ol ds e x p r e s s thatmigration i s thewayt o releas eeconomicburdensi m m e d i a t e l y t h a n relocatet h e newliving environment Thistendencyi s reflectindurationofmigrationwi th 62tomigrantslefttheir usualresident:ewithinoneyearespeciallyinlowereducationlevelsandagegroupoverforty yearsold.
Theaveragesize ofhouseholdi n thesurveyis4.79peoplean dtwothet hirdsareintheworkingage,thisistheresultoffamilyplanningprograma n d bi rthc o n t r o l campaign c o n d u c t e d s i n c e 1 9 8 0 s b y g o v e r n m e n t s A l t h o u g h householdsizedecreasesbutlandsforagriculturalpro ductionpercapitaareonly
However,besidethetotalincomepercapita,datafromthesurveyshowsthat householdm i g r a t i o n possibility d e p e n d s onandtheproportiono f earning sfromfarmingactivitiesintotalincomethand e p e n ds onearningsfromfarm ingactivitiesonly.Thisearningsofnon- migrationhouseholdsis2.79percenthigherthanmigrationhouseholds (166.540VNDvs.162.020VND),butproportiono f earningsfromfarmingactivitiesofm igrationh o u s e h o l d s is 48.8percent,muchhigherthantheproportiono f 34.0
5percentof non- migrationhouseholds Th e resultalsoimpliesthatinthecurrentsituation,whenin comeinruralareasisstilllimited,t h e e x ce ss i v e d e p e n d e n c e s o n earningsf ro m f a r m i n g a c t i v i t i e s maybeincreasesmigrationscalesfromruraltourban.
Innormal,a h ig h r a t e i n dependantl a b o r w i l l m a k e p r e s s u r e o n e xpenditurei n h o u s e h o l d andp r o m o t e m i g r a t i o n H o w e v e r , d a t a s h o w s t h a t dependantl a b o r r a te i n migration h o u s e h o l d s i s highert h a n i n non- m i g r a t i o n households,inaverage,thereis1.57d e p e n d a n t memberine a c h mi grationhouseholdc o m p a r i n g with1 7 4 d e p e n d a n t member i n eachnon- migrationhousehold.
Itiso b s e r v e d thateducationlevelofhouseholdh e a d hasaffectonmigr ationpossibility, t h i s canbeexplainedt h a t membersinfamilywillhaveahig here d u c a t i o n l e v e l i f t h e h o u s e h o l d ownere d u c a t i o n l e v e l i s h i g h Theaveragelevelofmigrationhouseholdheadis2.76Compafingwith2.39o fnon-migrationhouseholdhead.
1:primarylevel,class1to52:Secondarylevel,class6to93:Highlevel,class10to124:High erlevel
Variable Coefficient Std Error z-Statistic Prob.
Table9shownmeanvalueandstandarddeviationofallvariablesinfulls ample,migrationh o u s e h o l d s a n d non- migration h o u s e h o l d s I n general,standarddeviationsofvariablesinthegr oupofmigrationhouseholda r e closedwiththefiguresinfullsample.Thisresult consolidatesthestatisticalsignificantlevelofdatathatisusedtoanalyzeregressionmo del.
Fromsurveyedd a t a inQuangNgaiprovincea n d usingsoftwareEvie w,theregressionresultofunrestrictedmodelshownintable10asfollows:
Theregression resultwith7independentvariablesinabovetableareshowthatDEPENDandLANDvariables arenotstatistically significanceinthemodel.
Therefore,totestwhetherthesevariablescanbedroppedfromthelogitmodel,w em a k e u s e o f c h i - s q u a r e d (2 witht w o d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m b a s e d o n t h e likelihoodratio,LRLUR
Then u l l h y p o t h e s i s s u p p o s e t h a t c o e f f i c i e n t o f D E P E N D a n d L A N D variablesequalzero.Forallvariablesofselectionmo del,pvalueissmallerthan59ằ,i t m e a n s t h a t allv a r i a b l e s ofmodelarem e a n i n g f u l Andthe testfor
Variable Coefficient Std.Error z-Statistic Prob.
Inassociationwithchi-square,R-squareisalsoconsidereda n o t h e r criteriontotestforgoodness-of- fit.Inthismodel,McfadddenR2is0.4684thatalsobeusuallya c c e p t a b l e inalogitm odel.
LRyvalueequals65.76,greaterthan/( o 0 5 , 5 ) = 11.07andystatistic º valueisverysmallto beconsideredaszero
Thecorrelationratiobetweenexplainvariables arerathersmall,sowecanconsidert h a t t h e r e i s nomulticollinearity i n t h e mo del Althought h e r e s i d u a l meanandm e d i a n aren o t s i m i l a r b u t theKurtosis( 1 0 3 8 8 ) a n d S k e w n e s s (0.1970)areacceptablev aluesfornormalityofaresidual.
Ther e g r e s s i o n r e s u l t i n t a b l e 1 0 shownt h a t theh o u s e h o l d m i g r a t i o n probabilitysignificantlydependsonhouseholdsize,educationlevelofhouseho ldhead,l a b o r r a t e i n a g e g r o u p 1 8 -
Influent levelsofv a r i a b l e s t o h o u s e h o l d migration probability areillustratedi n t a b l e 1 1 , whichr e f l e c t s t h e f l u c t u a t i o n o f h o u s e h o l d migration ' probabilityresponseo f i n c r e a s i n g b y o n e u n i t o f a v a r i a b l e a n d a t a g i v e n probability,intermofholdingothervariablesconstant Table12:Influentlevelsofvariablestohouseholdmigrationprobability
Itisclearthathouseholds i z e affectsonmigrationp r o b a b i l i t y p o s i t i v e l y andstrongly.Themorememberhouseholdhasthehighermigrationprobab ilityofhousehold.Infact, householdhasfavoriteconditionsforsharingworksbetweenthemembersifhousehol dsizeislarger.Addition, alargehouseholdsizemadeupmorepressureonitse x p e n d i t u r e s intermofli mitedproductionresourcesi n rurala r e a s willpushm i g r a t i o n p o s s i b i l i t y
F o r example, a n increasingmoreonememberinthefamilyleadsanincreasingh ouseholdmigrationprobabilityfrom507'rto77.629r,holdingothervariablesconstant.
The regression results confirm the positive relationship between' educationallevelofhouseholdh e a d andhouseholdm i g r a t i o n p r o b a b i l i t y This
relationcanbeexplainedbytwoapproaches,thefirstis influenceofhouseholdheadspreadingoverallmembers,leadingahighlevelofeducatio nthatisusuallydirectlyrelationt o migrationprobability Thesecondconcernto thehouseholdhead’sopened— mind,peoplewithhigheducationallevelisoftenbroad- mindedperson,whicheasilyencouragesthemembers’movementforgettingabetterjob.Th eregressionresultsstatethateducationallevelofhouseholdheadobtainsmoreonelevelwilli ncreasehouseholdmigrationprobabilityfrom509‹to74.47Pcintermofconsta ntothervariables.Theresultimplies thati nthesurveylocation, welleducati onalorskilledpeoplehavehigher tendencyinmovementpopulation,andinfluenceofeducationdegreeonmigrationdecisionisr atherstrongly.
• agesgroup, andthisgroupisalsothebestdynamiclaborsforceineconomy.Thehistoricaldata sho wnthatpeopleinthisgrouparethehighestmigrationpossibilityb e c a u s e t h e y c a n g e t a job inu r b a n e a s i e r t h a t o t h e r a g e g r o u p s Therefore,inc o n d i t i o n oflimi tedj o b s inruralareas,thisl a b o r e d force isconsideredasmaincomponent inmigrationwavestourban areas.Similarly,withtheinitialprobabilityo f 50fio,thelaboredf or ce inagesof1 8 -40increases1 brwillraisemigrationpossibilityofhouseholdto51.62Rr.
Iti s n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t t h e r a t i o o f e a r n i n g s f r o m a g r i c u l t u r e t o t o t a l incomeh a s p o s i t i v e i m p a c t o n m i g r a t i o n p r o b a b i l i t y , t h e m o r e d e p e n d e n t o n earningsfromfarminga c t i v i t i e s , t h e l o w e r h o u s e h o l d t o t a l i n c o m e , l e a d s t o a highermigrationprobability.Moreover,inconditio nofworkingopportunitiesarelimitedinruralareas,ahighrateofagriculturalincomeovert otalincomemeansthathousehold’s f r e e timeislong.Hence,thememberso f t h e householdh a v e
51 tendencyofmovementforfinding otherjobsinthefreetime.Theinf luentlevelo f proportiono f i n c o m e fromagric ulturala c t i v i t i e s tomigrationp r o b a b i l i t y i s closedw i t h r a t i o o f l a b o r i n a g e s o f 1 8 -
4 0 o v e r h o u s e h o l d size.I f r a t e o fagriculturale a r n i n g s i n c r e a s e s lRo,m i g r a t i o n p r o b a b i l i t y willi n c r e a s e s s l i g h t l y from50fioto51.61fio,meanwhilethispr obabilityrise51.62Rrfrom 50Prifratiooflaborinagesof18—40increaseslRo.
Conversely.o n c e l a b o r ’ s i n c o m e i n r u r a l areasi n c r e a s e s q u i c k l y a n d closet withincomethata migrantcangettinginrural,thereisnoanyeconomicsreasonstoe n c o u r a g e thefa rmers’ movementtourbanar eas Inotherwords,whenthedifferentincomebetweenalabori nruralandmigratorylaborinurbandecreases,ruraltourbanmigration i s alsodecr eases.Asregressionresult fromtable11,income ratiobetweenalaborinruralandamigratorylaborrisesuplRowilldecreasemigrationprobabi litydown48.85fiofrom50fio.
Abnormally,t h e averages q u a r e ofagricultural l a n d s percapitahasl ess
, impacto n m i g r a t i o n d e c i s i o n a n d t h i s v a r i a b l e i s n o t s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n t l y Althoughther e l a t i o n betweenLANDv a r i a b l e andm i g r a t i o n p r o b a b i l i t y isnegativeas expected,buttheeffectivelevelisverylowfarawayasexpected.Itcanbeexplainedth ataveragesquareoflandspercapitaissmallandincomefromcultivationd o notcontribu tes alargepercentagei n totali n c o m e ofhousehold.Therefore,a n i n c r e a s i n g o n e u n i t ofl a n d (100i n ' ) d o e s n o t i n c r e a s e muchearningsas wellaswastetimeofrurallabors.Moreover,inlocationsurvey,theaveragesquare ofagriculturallandspercapitaisnotlargeasinMekong
DeltaorHighLandsarea.Thedifferenceaveragesquareofagriculturall an ds p ercapitabetweengroupofmigrationand non- migrationisrathersmall(1.254in'vs.1.322in').Asresulted, t h e landsarenotc o n s i d e r e d t h e d om in an t f a c t o r t o keept h e, farmerslivingtogetherwiththeirtraditionaloccupation.
Thischapteristosummarizethemainresultsofstudy,includinghistory ofmigrationwavesinVietnam,migrants’characteristicsintourbanareas,resea rchmethodologiesand majorfindings.
Basedonr e s u l t s fromstatisticsanalysisandregressionresultsfromch apter5, policyi m p l i c a t i o n s willbegiven foroptimalmigration Finally, t he shortcomingso f s t u d i e s a s w e l l a s s u g g e s t i o n f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h e s a r e a l s o presentedi n thelastsectionthischapter.
MigrationprocessinVietnamhadoccurredforthousandsyearaccompanywiththesocialgro wth.Manymigrationflowsinthepastmovedtothedeltaareasalongthefertilizedriversfo rcultivation,otherpopulationmovementsmovedtodestinationswithbetternatur alresources.I n general,thegreatpopulationgrowths,t h e i n e q u a l i t y ofl i v i n g s t a n d a r d s , thei m b a l a n c e ind i s t r i b u t i o n ofagriculturall a n d s a n d n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s h a v e s t i m u l a t e d t h e g r e a t s t r e a m s o f migr ationpeopleinthepast.
Ruraltourbanmigration is indispensableresult ofindustrialization a n d urbanization,a n d alargescaleofmigrationware hasstartedwhenVietnam ese economyhassignificantlydevelopedsince1990s.Hanoi,DaNang,Hochi minhcityandotherbigcitieshavebecometheideadestinationformigrantsfromrural
- areas.Amongsteconomiccenters,Hochiminhcityisthebestchoicebyhighrateinecono micgrowth,highest incomepercapitainwholecountryandgettingajobeasily.Mostofmigrantsareinworkin gages,healthya n d bettereducationthanpeoplewhos t i l l staya t rurala r e a s
Althought h e u nem pl oy me nt r a t e i n urbanareasi s r a t he r h i g h b u t m i g r a n t s ’ u n e m p l o y m e n t r a t e i s ve r y l o w , b e c a u s e a
Besides,migrantremittancestotheirfamilyareconsideredasinvestmentcap itali n r u r a l a r e a s f o r i m p r o v e m e n t l i v i n g s t a n d a r d , i n n o v a t i n g p r o d u c t i o n materialsf o r i n c r e a s i n g p r o d u c t i v i t i e s H o w e v e r , t h e i m b a l a n c e i n m i g r a t i o n structurein sexandlaborforcemaybebringsaboutbadaffects onbothruralandurbanregionsinthefuture.
The regression results indicate a positive relationship between differential income in rural-urban settings and migration possibilities Additionally, the educational level of the household head significantly influences the migration decisions of family members A higher educational background facilitates easier integration into new environments, leading to increased migration probabilities Furthermore, household size plays a crucial role in migration, as larger households tend to have higher migration probabilities due to limited production resources in rural areas.
Althoughlandsisconsideredasoneofthemainlyproductionmaterialsinagric ulture,buttheresearchhasnoimpactofaveragesquare ofproductionlandsonmigrationprobability,itshownthatlandsisnolonger importantfactortokeepfarmers’lifetogetherwiththeirhomelands.
Asd i s c u s s e d above,themainreasonofruraltourbanmigrationisecon omic,t h e r e f o r e , t h e p o l i c i e s t o d e a l w i t h r u r a l t o u r b a n m i g r a t i o n i s s u e s shouldb a s e d ont h e e c o n o m i c v i e w p o i n t s andc o n t r o l ofm i g r a t i o n processshouldbetakenbytheeconomicmeasuresreplacingadministr ationalones.Thepoliciesmakersnotonlycreateafriendlyenvironmentformi grantstostayandhavestablelivesinurbanareas, butalsosetuptheeffectivemeasurestocontroltheflowsofmigrationratherthantoberes trictedascurrentregulationsare.
Regressionr e s u l t s ofthe modela n d statisticalda t a statethathouseho ld
• sizehas e f f e c t e d s t r o n g l y t o h o u s e h o l d m i g r a t i o n p r o b a b i l i t y T h e r e f o r e ,maintainingt h e h o u s e h o l d sizeby i m p l e m e n t i n g t h e p o l i c i e s o f f a m i l y p a n n i n g andreducingbirthratearethefirstpolicies.Infact,thesepolicieshav econductedsuccessfullyform o r e t h r e e d e c a d e s w h o l e c o u n t r y H o w e v e r , i n s o m e r u r a l regions,thenaturalpopulationgrowthrateisstillhigh,itma kesthepressureonnewjobsinlocalandpromotesmovementwaves.Keepingalowbirt hrate isthelong- terinprocesswithmanyobstacles,itisnotonlyforreducingmigrationbutalsoforeco nomicgrowthinlocal.
Householdhead’educationallevelcanbeseenasrepresentedf o r family educationlevel.Althougheducationaldegreeispositiverelativewithmigration probability,butinconverse,statisticsdatastatesthathigheducationallevelcanr educeremarkablyb i r t h rate.Besidesthat,skilledoreducationald e g r e e la borsareu s u a l l y m o v e m e n t f o r f i n d i n g t h e j o b s , whicha r e n o t a v a i l a b l e i n l o c a l , releasethepressureonjobsinlocal.
However,thelocalgovernmentsshouldfocuso n trainingvocationalschools o r p r a c t i c a l t r a i n i n g c o u r s e s b e c a u s e thes c h o o l s c a n h e l p f a r m e r i n reducingthedependenceonagriculturalincome,creatingthenon- farmworksatthelocal.Suchas,farmerscanexpandproductiona n d improvi ngtheirincome withoutm i g r a t i o n t o urbana r e a s Thelocala u t h o r i t i e s a ls o should r e v i e w t h e creditpolicies tocreatemorenon- farmjobsinrural,supportcreditstohouseholdfarmingprojectsandintensivelaborplans, especiallyunskilledlaborinlocal.Infact,theextraincomefrom thehousehold’ sma ll projectshavegoodaffectsondecreasingnumberofmigrantstourbanthanan ymacrostrategiesimplementingbytheauthorities.
Averyimportantprobleminagriculturalproductionisaffectedbyweatherandnaturalri sks,leadingtotheregularfluctuationinfarmers’income.Therefore,theessentialsmallcreditsca nassistfarmersovercomingdifficultiesandreducingmigrationw a r e te mpora rily.
Although migratory laboredf o r c e have contributed considerably in
• economicg r o w t h o f u r b a n areas,b u t u r b a n authoritiess h o u l d r e v i e w t h e economicstrategiesbasedonusinglabor forcethebest effectively.Istherationalift h e c i t i e s f o c u s o n i m p o r t a n t i n d u s t r i e s u s i n g s k i l l e d t e c h n i c a l laborsa n d capitali n t e n s i v e ?
Forl a b o r - i n t e n s i v e i n d u s t r i a l s , t h e u r b a n g o v e r n m e n t s s h o u l d c o n t r o l c l o s e l y Somepeoplethinkthatthegrowthoflabor- intensiveindustrialswillreducetheunemploymentrateinurban.Butinfact,migrato rylaborworkintheseindustriescontributedalargerate,andmostofthemareunskilled orloweducatedlabors,theircontributiontourbaneconomicgrowthisverylimited.
ThesurveyeddatacollectedinthethesiscoveringonlytwocommunesinOua ngNgaiprovincew i t h 1 0 2 households,s o thesamplecouldnotbeseenastypical samplerepresentfor200.000householdsintheprovince.Moreover,thesurvey eddatacomesfrommainlyresponsesofhouseholdheadsandtheaccurateappraisalsinthe answersarestilllimited.
Thef u r t h e r s t u d i e s s h o u l d f o c u s onm o r e t h e a v e r a g e l a n d s s q u a r e a s wella s effectinusinglandsinvariouscommunestoidentifytheeffectiveleveloflan dstomigrationdecision Ithinkthatifthelandsfactorisanalysedinmoredetail sandm o r e o b s e r v a t i o n , l a n d s w i l l h a v e i m p a c t e d o n r u r a l t o u r b a n m i g r a t i o n decision.
Variable Coefficient Std.Error z-Statistic Prob.
Meandependentvar 0.54902 S.D.dependentvar 0.500049 S.E.ofregression 0.34633 Akaikeinfocriterion 0.887338 Sumsquaredresid 11.27476 Schwarzc r i t e r i o n 1.093218 Loglkelhood -37.25424 Hannan-Ouinnc r i t e r 0.970706
Restr.loglikelihood -70.21003 Avg.loglikelihood -0.365238 LRstatistic(7df) 65.91159 McFaddenR-squared 0.469389 Probability(LRs t a t ) 9.86E-12
Variable Coefficient Std.Error z-Statistic
Meandependentvar 0.54902 S.D.dependentvar 0.500049 S.E.ofregression 0.341929 Akaikeinfocriterion 0.849526 Sumsquaredresid 11.22386 Schwarzc r i t e r i o n 1.003937 Loglikelihood -37.32585 Hannan-Quinnc r i t e r 0.912052 , Restr.loglikelihood -70.21003 Avg.loglikelihood -0.36594
LRstatistic(5df)Proba bility(LRs t a t )
Weus•achi—squarestatisticwithtwodegreesoffreedombasedonthelikelihood ratio,LRLU
Nuilihci‹›J’pcopleiii78-411ye‹ii‘.s‹›lil o D3ttronglira: ngu’di
Thong tin cti nhan ngif’di di cif
HP:in nhan/ 3fiii i ie‹?
THONG TIN VE DI Ct 1 :M i g r a n t s ’ information)
Hi§ntai cdngif’dinaotronggiadlnhhi§ndangsinhlam$nsinh songdndikhdckhting?
ArjanDeHaanandBenRogaly“LaborMobilityandRuralSociety”,Cr ownHouse,LondonN14SBP,Englan
• Bijak,J“Forecasting internationalt h eor i es Selectedt h e o r i e s , model,sa ndmethods”, C e n t r a l
(1998),Communism,Poverty,andDemographicChangeinNorthVietnam.Popu lationandDevelopmentReview,24(2):235-269
• Coxhead,IandDiep,Phan“InternalmigrationandincomeconvergenceduringVietn am’stransition”,UniversityofWisconsin,2006
• Dang.N.A,Thanh.H.X,CeciliaTacoli,“MigrationinVietnam”paperforpresentation attheRegionConferenceonMigrationinDhaka,Bangladesh,22—24June,2003.
• Dang,NguyenA n h ( 2 0 0 5 )"Vietnaminternalmigration.o p p o r t u n i t i e s a n dchallengesfordevelopment.”PaperpresentedattheRegionalConferenceon
RuralSpontaneousMigration.ProblemsandSolutions.Paperpresentedatth eInternationalSeminaronInternalMigration,Hanoi,6-8May1998.