Development of rural infrastructure and its

impact on the livelihoods of people living in

poverty

権利 Copyrights 日本貿易振興機構（ジェトロ）アジア
経済研究所 / Institute of Developing
Economies, Japan External Trade Organization
(IDE-JETRO) http://www.ide.go.jp
シリーズタイトル(英 ASEDP
)
シリーズ番号 71
journal or Impact of Socio-Economic Changes on the
publication title Livelihoods of People Living in Poverty in
Vietnam
page range [53]-82
year 2005
URL http://hdl.handle.net/2344/00015923
DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND ITS IMPACT
ON THE LIVELIHOODS OF PEOPLE LIVING IN POVERTY

Phan Si Man

1. INTRODUCTION

In the recent years, hunger eradication and poverty reduction in Vietnam has made
outstanding achievements. The poverty rate, from the General Statistical Office (GSO) and
international organizations estimates, has been reduced from 58% in 1993 to 28.9% in 2002,
and in accordance with the Ministry of Labor, Invalid and Social Affairs (MOLISA), the
poverty rate has been reduced from 23% to 11,4% during the same period. One of the active
factors which contributed to the achievements in poverty reduction has been policy
renovation on infrastructure and its development in rural areas where more than 90% of the
poor are living now.
The main objective of this research is to study policies on rural infrastructure and its actual
development in rural Vietnam in the past and at present. It also aims to assess the impact as
well as the effect on livelihoods of the poor in rural areas. Approaches and research
methods of this study are mainly based on document analysis and statistical data analysis.
However it also relies on surveys and fieldwork. Household surveys, case studies and field
work in the communes, villages in some provinces have been conducted.
The research is divided into of 3 sections. Section 2 describes and presents briefly
policy frameworks on rural infrastructure and their dynamic changes in Vietnam after ‘Doi
moi’ up to the present, and policies on rural infrastructure development in the poor and
extremely difficult communes and regions. Policy implementation on rural infrastructure in
general as well as in poor and extremely difficult communes is presented in Section 3.
Section 4, based mainly on the findings of field surveys, looks at the impact and effects of
the policy on rural infrastructure and its actual development on the livelihoods of the poor,
i.e. opportunities and challenges that the poor face, their livelihoods and their actual
situations nowadays.
 Phan Si Man

2. POLICY FRAMEWORK ON RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE

DEVELOPMENT AND ITS RENOVATION

2.1 General description on rural infrastructure development before Doi moi

In the past, before Doi moi, policy planning as well as building organization of rural
infrastructure in Vietnam had not been given the full attention it needed due to the difficult
economic conditions of the country as well as specific conditions of agriculture and rural
economy. At the national level, as well at local levels, policies on rural infrastructure
development mainly focused on works which served agricultural production, especially for
rice and food crop production. Of which, irrigation and drainage systems, reservoirs,
flooding protection works, reclaimation of waste land, and land productivity improvements
were the top priority. Investment capital from the government budget for irrigation and
drainage systems accounted for 40 - 50 per cent of the total government budget for
agriculture in general per year in the past (Phan Si Man [1995]).
Planning and investment in building infrastructure also gave priority to the main
agricultural regions (especially for the regions which specialized in food production), and
mainly focused on important irrigation works. Most of these works were constructed,
operated and managed at the ministerial, provincial, and district levels. The same happened
to the transportation system, electricity network and power suppliers network. However,
the range and level of government investment in these works was still small in comparison
to investments in irrigation and drainage systems. Policy and resource allocation for rural
infrastructure from the national level did not cover all regions.
In the past, before Doi moi, development of rural infrastructure in the villages and
communes such as bridges, roads, electricity networks, schools, health stations, cultural
houses, public welfare built, etc. were mainly constructed by communes and agricultural
cooperatives. Communes and agricultural cooperatives mobilized resources and
constructed these infrastructures with labor contributed from inhabitants (Do Hoai Nam
and Le Cao Doan [2001]). The central and local government investments and supports were
extremely small. Many communes and villages did not receive any investment from the
central levels of government.
The obstacles of the policy were attributed partly to difficulties in the state budget.
However, they were also due to the importance placed on agricultural production,
especially food production to the national economy. The other obstacles were weaknesses
and shortages of policy framework, especially policy on capital and social resources
mobilization for rural infrastructure in the communes and villages. That is why, building

54
 Rural infrastructure development

and development of rural infrastructure in the community faced difficulties in the past
before Doi Moi. Shortages, weaknesses and backward conditions in rural infrastructure
have existed in almost all communes and villages throughout the country, especially in the
mountainous, remote areas and in the areas with difficult conditions for food production
and living.

2.2 Renovation policies on development of rural infrastructure in the past and at

present

Policies on development of infrastructure in rural areas have changed in a positive way

since the 1990s. At the national level, framework of policy renovation on agricultural and
socio-economic development in rural areas was expressed in many documents, resolutions
and policies of the Communist Party, Vietnam’s State and the Government.

Box 1. Government’s policy documents and programs related to rural infrastructure

development.
- Decision No 133/ 1998/ QD-TTg of the Prime Minister on National Program on
Hunger Eradication and Poverty Reduction (HEPR) in the period of 1998- 2000
(Program 133, in 1998)
- Decision No 135/ 1998/ QD-TTg of the Prime Minister on Socio - Economic
Development Program in Extremely Difficult Mountainous and Remote Areas
(Program 135, in 1998).
- Decisions of the Government and Prime Minister on National Program on
Employment Creation (Program 120, 1998), National Program on Reforestation
(Program 327), Program on Clean water, Sanitation and Environment in Rural Areas
(1998), National Program on Electricity Network Development in Rural Areas (1999).
- Decision No 143/ 2001/ QD-TTg of the Prime Minister on National Program on
HEPR and Employment Creation in the period of 2001-2005 (Program 143) and
National Strategy on Poverty Reduction in the period of 2001-2010; 2001), etc.

Resolution No 10- NQ/TW of the Vietnamese Communist Party (in 1988),

Resolution of the 5th Congress of the Central Committee of the Party (1993) as well as
document from the 8th Congress of the Vietnamese Communist Party (1996), the 6th
Congress of the Central Committee of the Party (1998) and documents from the 9th
Congress of the Vietnamese Communist Party (2001) were all concerned with policy

55
 Phan Si Man

orientations on development of transportation, electricity, irrigation, schools, medical posts

and other infrastructure in rural areas. On this basis, many of the government’s decisions,
projects and programs on rural infrastructure development have been concreted and issued.
(Box 1).

2.2.1 Objectives of the policies

The main objective of rural infrastructure development stated in the above policy
documents is to quickly overcome and improve shortages, weaknesses and backward
situations of rural infrastructure in order to exploit the potential, promote
commercialization and market expansion, and integrate economic development into
comprehensive new rural development1. However, the objectives have been widened and
have become more comprehensive since the mid 1990s and especially after the 8th
Congress of the Communist Party in 1996. It emphasized the necessity of building and
comprehensive development of all systems, essential and fundamental infrastructure works
for the support and stimulation of poverty reduction in rural areas, integrating rural
development into the development of the whole country, and the improved supply of basic
social services in rural areas2. The development of social aspects such as health, culture,
education, social safeguards, etc., were considered to ensure comprehensive socio-
economic development in rural areas and build a new more progressive countryside.²
Overcoming underdeveloped conditions and narrowing inequality in rural areas, especially
in the mountainous remote areas, and areas with difficult conditions for food production
and living. Moreover, one of the objectives of the policy development on rural
infrastructure is to establish political and social stabilization, national security and welfare
for people living in all regions of the country, especially in the mountainous, remote areas,
border areas and islands, in the regions where natural calamities are common and regions
with high risk (mishaps) in production and life3.

1
Resolution No 10- NQ / TW, 1988, Resolution of the 5th Congress of Central Communist Party,
the VII Section, 1993.
2
Document of the VIIIth Congress of the Communist Party, 1996; Resolution of the 6th
Congress of Central Communist Party, 1998; National Program on HEPR in the period of
1998-2000, Program 135, 1998, etc.
3
Document of the VIIIth Congress of the Communist Party, 1996; Resolution of the 6th
Congress of Central Communist Party, 1998; National Program on HEPR in the period of
1998-2000, Program 135, 1998, etc.

56
 Rural infrastructure development

2.2.2 Range of impact and beneficiaries of the policies

The range of the policies on infrastructure development was expanded to infrastructure
works at village community level and it includes most of the essential infrastructure works.
The government started to support investment not only in infrastructure works serving for
agricultural production but also in infrastructure works serving for socio- economic
development in the communes and villages in general.
Of which, the infrastructure works which needed to be focused on for development
are as follows4:
1) irrigation and drainage systems (including canals, reservoirs, weirs and small
scale irrigation combined with hydroelectricity and the provision of clean water for
the inhabitants),
2) transportation canals in the communes, villages.
3) electricity networks and clean water works for living of the inhabitants.
4) markets and facilities serving for commodity exchange, trade and services.
5) schools.
6) health stations.

2.2.3 Contents of the policies

The content of the policies on development of rural infrastructure has been adjusted and in
some aspects. Among these, three main points to be interested in are: 1) policies on
investment, capital mobilization and resource allocation, 2) policies on building,
management and use of infrastructure works, and 3) shifting to other policy priorities.
Policies on investment, capital mobilization and resource allocation for development
of rural infrastructure have changed towards diversification of capital sources with more
open and flexible mechanism mobilization. On the one hand the government has continued
to intensify direct investment of the state budget (and other government’s sources for
investment) for development of rural infrastructure. On the other hand the government is
also committed to the expansion of investment and support in terms of funding for the
development of infrastructure of different kinds (including investment credit, and lending
with preferential interest rate through credit systems, banks, Development and Investment
Funds, etc.). The government has also encouraged the creation of favorable conditions for
capital mobilization from other sources, such as organizations, and individuals from
different ownerships inside and outside the country, to contribute to and invest in, the

4
According to documents of Resolution of the 5th Congress of Central Communist Party, (1993),
Resolution of the 6th Congress of Central Communist Party, (1998), Program 135 (1998), etc.

57
 Phan Si Man

development of rural infrastructure in the communes and villages, especially labor

contribution and local resources of the inhabitants5.
The policy mechanism on building, management, and use of infrastructure has also
been changed, with strong decentralization and more self-control given to commune
authorities. Since the early 1990s, the responsibilities of planning, investment, building and
management of the infrastructure works in the villages and communes have been
transferred from agricultural cooperatives to commune authorities, including infrastructure
works invested by the projects, national programs as well as by local authority levels
(district, province level)6. However, to ensure the socio- economic effect of the investment,
building, management and use of infrastructure, the state has introduced requirements for
close coordination of planning and building projects on infrastructure development in
general in line with socio- economic development plan in each commune and region7.
Policy priorities have also shifted. Instead of giving priority firstly to the Red River
Delta and Mekong Delta regions, since the early 1990s, (especially after 5th Congress of
Central Communist Party in 1993), priority of development of rural infrastructure at the
communes level has been given to communes in mountainous, remote areas with very
difficult conditions for food production and living. Since 1996-1997, the government and
local authorities have been building to policies, projects, and programs for socio- economic
development in the poor and difficult communes (based on the selected criteria) of which
there are projects and programs receiving priority. (see Section 1.3 below).

2.3 Policies on infrastructure in poor and extremely difficult communes

These policies are part of the content of policies on rural infrastructure development in
general, and are as policy priorities on infrastructure development for poor and extremely
difficult communes. The reason for making these policies is that hunger eradication and
poverty reduction movement has been expanded to the local areas since the early 1990s,
and the government had discovered that most of the poor were living in the rural
mountainous and remote areas, especially in the communes with very difficult condition for
food production, with very weak communication and rural infrastructure. Results of the
Household’s Living Standards Survey conducted by GSO in 1992-93 (GSO [1994]), Rural

5
According to documents of Resolution of the 5th Congress of Central Communist Party, (1993),
Resolution of the 6th Congress of Central Communist Party, (1998), Program 135 (1998), etc.
6
Excluding some cases, for example in the communes where local authorities are unqualified in
term of building organization and management, especially in the mountainous and remote areas.
7
Document of Program 135 (1998)

58
 Rural infrastructure development

and Agricultural Census (Nguyen Sinh Cuc [1995]), Socio-Economics Survey in 11

provinces in the North Mountainous region conducted by the Institute of Economics in
1992-1993 (Institute of Economics [1993]) and other surveys illustrated clearly these
poverty situations.
According to the Rural and Agricultural Census in 1994, the number of the
communes having access to electricity, roads, secondary schools, markets, etc. in many
mountainous regions was very low. For example, the proportion of communes in Lai Chau
province having access to electricity accounted for only 2.6 per cent. The proportion of
communes having auto way to the communal center was 59 per cent. Proportion of
communes having secondary schools was 32.4 per cent. The proportion of communes
having access to markets was 10.8 per cent. A similar situation can be observed in Lao Cai,
Ha Giang, Cao Bang province (in the North Mountainous region), Kon Tum (in the Central
Highlands), Phu Yen province (in the South Central Coast), and other provinces etc. The
surveys and researches on poverty at the village communities in these areas showed that
one of the main reasons for poverty was the shortage and weakness of the infrastructure
(Nguyen Sinh Cuc [1995]).
That is why priority to development of the essential infrastructure works in these
areas began to be emphasized in the policy on socio- economic development at national and
regional levels as well as at local levels. Especially after the VIth Congress of the
Communist Party in 1996, a shift of priority in the development of rural infrastructure
towards poor and extremely difficult communes has been presented clearly in the planning,
projects and programs on socio- economic development in the regions 8 . Most of the
policies on infrastructure development have been introduced or designed under a form of
project supporting village communities or clusters of communes since 1998.
At the national level, most of the projects supporting infrastructure development in
poor and extremely difficult communes has been integrated into or became one part of the
government’s projects or programs, belonging mainly to the Program on Socio- Economic
Development in Extremely Difficult Mountainous and Remote Areas (abbreviated as

8
For example, Instruction No 393- TTg of the Prime Minister on population planning and
upgrading infrastructure, production arrangement in ethnic and mountainous areas (June, 1996);
Decision No 656-TTg of the Prime Minister on socio- economic development in the Central
Highlands for the period of 1996-2000 (September, 1996); Decision No 960-TTg of the Prime
Minister on orientation of socio- economic development in the North Mountainous region in the
long term (Dec. 1996); Program on building clusters of mountainous communes and upland
areas (Decision 35/ QD- TTg of the Prime Minister approved in Jan. 1997); Instruction 515-TTg
of the Prime Minister on stimulating implementation of the Program on Exploitation and Socio-
Economic Development in Dong Thap Muoi (July, 1997), etc.

59
 Phan Si Man

Program 135, approved in 1998), the National Program on Hunger Eradication and Poverty
Reduction for the period of 1998-2000 (HEPR Program, or Program 133, approved in
1998), Target National Program on HEPR and Employment Creation in the period of
2001-2005 (Program 143, in 2001).
The main objectives of the projects on infrastructure listed in these programs are to
‘ensure poor communes to have an access to essential infrastructure such as small scale
irrigation systems, roads, electricity, schools, health centers, clean water, markets for
stimulating socio-economic development and directly support to HEPR in the communes
(Decision No 135/1998/QD-TTg of the Prime Minister, 1998). The selection criteria and
number of the selected communes of the project on infrastructure (listed in this program)
were determined by the Ethnic and Mountainous Committee and approved by the
government (Box 2).

Box 2: Selection criteria and target groups of the project on infrastructure, which is
listed in the Program 135
- Location: far areas, remote, border areas, island areas; more than 20 km from
development centers.
- Poverty incidence accounts for above 60 per cent of the total households; very difficult
living conditions.
- Without infrastructure or temporary infrastructure; very difficult condition for traffic; no
roads to the commune; weak or no access to electricity, irrigation systems, clean water,
schools, and health centers.
- Illiteracy rates above 60 per cent; high mobility; backward customs and weak
communication.
- Difficult conditions for production, self- sufficient production, or shifting cultivation;
agricultural cultivation in the forestry land; share from forestry activities of the total
household’s income is high.

Target groups of the infrastructure project which is listed in Program 133, Program
143 and other target national programs have been determined by given criteria (see Box 3),
including remaining poor communes in the whole country, excluding communes belonging
to the other infrastructure projects listed in Program 135.

60
 Rural infrastructure development

Box 3: Criteria for commune selection in the infrastructure projects listed in Program
133 and 143
1. Poverty incidence is above 25 per cent.
2. Infrastructure does not include 3 items of the total 6 essential items as follows:
- Safe water: under 30 per cent of the total households having access to clean water
- Electricity: under 50 per cent of the total households having access to electricity
- Transportation: no roads to the communal center or unaccessable during certain times of
the year
- School: Number of rooms (based on Ministry of Training and Education standards) ability
to serve only 70 per cent of the total pupils or they are temporary rooms constructed from
simple materials.
- Health care: No health center or having only a village clinic
- No market or having only a temporary market.

With the given selection criteria, the target groups of the Program 135 were initially
1,715 poor and extremely difficult communes. Of which the 1,000 poorest and most
difficult communes in 30 provinces, 91 districts have been invested in by this program. The
remaining poor communes have been given priority from other national target programs
(such as HEPR Program, Program on Clean Water Supply, etc) and other development
projects and programs9. The target groups and range of the projects on infrastructure listed
in the Program 135 have been widened due to the government’s decision on unifying
Program on Building Clusters of Mountainous and Upland Communes, the Project on
Settlement and the Project on Supporting extremely difficult Ethnic Minorities into
Program 135 in 2000 and merged the Project on Supporting the extremely difficult Ethnic
Minorities listed in the Program HEPR into Program 135 in 2001. In 2003, target groups of
the Program 135 and other projects on infrastructure listed in the program are 2,362
communes in 49 provinces (MOLISA-UNDP [2004]).
The government also required other target national programs, projects and other
development programs implemented in poor and extremely difficult communes to
coordinate and integrate into Program 135 or HEPR Program10. Along with the projects on

9
Decision No 135 attached a list of provinces and districts that have ‘extremely difficult
communes’, the number of ‘extremely difficult communes’, and the number of households and
population.
10
Inter - ministerial circular No 01/1999 of MPI and MF- MOLISA on instruction on planning
and coordinated all programs and projects for hunger eradication and poverty reduction (March,
1999).

61
 Phan Si Man

infrastructure development listed in the target national programs mentioned above, at the
local level, many provinces have built policies and projects on infrastructure development
in poor communes and villages based on the local requirement for poverty reduction. Most
of the investment costs for such programs come from local budget.
Moreover, the central government as well as local authorities have always strongly
encouraged the creation of favorable conditions for domestic and international
organizations (especially NGOs) to build projects in different forms to develop
infrastructure in poor and extremely difficult communes. These policies have attracted
participation of hundreds of domestic and international economic and social organizations
with high investment capital that would support thousands of projects to build
infrastructure in poor and extremely difficult communes (especially on works on clean
water supply, small- scale irrigation, schools, health stations, etc.).

3. ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN

GENERAL AND IN POOR AND EXTREMELY DIFFICULT COMMUNES

3.1 Overall picture

There are no surveys or statistical data on the number of the infrastructure and
infrastructure-building projects that have been built or implemented in the communes and
villages in rural areas up to now (2004). There are also no surveys or statistical data on total
investment costs and social investment resources (including government and local
investment, investment from other organizations and inhabitant’s contributions, etc.) for
infrastructure development in rural areas. However, the results of the 1994 Rural and
Agricultural Census conducted by GSO (Nguyen Sinh Cuc [1995]) as well as the results of
the 2001 Rural, Agricultural and Fishery Census (General Statistical Office [2003]) and
Households Living Standards Survey (VHLSS) in 2002 (General Statistical Office [2004])
show that coverage of the policies on infrastructure development has been widened and
covered almost all rural areas. According to the VHLSS in 2002, there was 57.3 per cent of
the total communes in rural areas which had received government investment programs or
programs of other organizations on economic and infrastructure development; 82.4 per cent
of the communes having HEPR Program, 30.2 per cent of the communes having projects on
cultural and education investment; 23.3 per cent of the communes having projects on health
care and community health care, and 18 per cent of the communes having projects on clean
water supply and environment (General Statistical Office [2004]).

62
 Rural infrastructure development

Table 1 shows the proportion of communes that have projects and programs of
government and other organizations on economic and infrastructure development. Of
which, the proportion of communes having projects on investment in socio- economic
development and rural infrastructure in the North - East, North – West, North Central Coast
and Mekong River Delta were higher than in the remaining regions. Figures on
mountainous communes involving in these projects and communes located in remote areas
were higher than in delta areas and in the communes not located in remote areas.

Table 1: Proportion of communes having government projects and programs,

and having projects and programs of other organizations
Unit: % of the total communes
Communes with projects with with projects with with projects with projects
on Projects on economic projects on health on clean
employment on and infra- on culture, and health water supply
creation HEPR structure education care service and
development environment
Rural areas 37.16 82.40 57.28 30.25 23.34 18.02
a. By regions
- Red River 33.89 79.19 49.16 30.20 27.35 19.13
Delta
- North East 31.91 77.89 66.83 30.65 21.36 19.35
- North West 28.57 72.53 58.24 32.97 20.88 24.18
- North Central 33.97 81.09 58.33 25.32 20.51 20.83
Coast
- South Central 52.43 86.89 56.55 23.60 23.22 16.85
Coast
- Central 29.81 87.26 57.14 30.43 31.06 24.84
Highlands
- South East 52.66 89.10 50.53 26.06 21.28 19.41
- Mekong 42.02 87.65 58.49 29.50 19.90 22.13
River Delta
b. By
geography
- Communes 41.43 84.60 52.00 26.93 23.65 20.55
located in the
delta
- Mountainous 26.42 77.09 65.77 33.69 23.72 23.45
communes
- Communes 28.94 83.40 70.43 37.23 21.28 21.28
located in
remote areas
- Communes 41.31 82.67 53.46 26.71 23.29 20.14
not located in
remote areas
Source: General Statistical Office (2004).

63
 Phan Si Man

Policy efforts and actual development of rural infrastructure were reflected clearly in
the Rural and Agricultural Census conducted by the GSO in the whole country in 1994 and
2001 (Table 2).

Table 2: Communes having essential infrastructure structures

1994 2001 Compared

2001 with
1994
No of Percentage No of Percentage Difference
communes communes
Total communes in 8,930 100 8,934 100 +3
the whole country
Communes having 7,725 86.4 8,415 94.2 +690
auto way to the
communal center
Communes having 5,381 60.2 8,010 86.9 +2,629
access to electricity
Communes having 8,188 91.6 8,885 99.4 +697
access to health
center
Communes having 8,752 98 8,926 99.9 +175
primary school
Communes having 6,813 76.3 7,543 84.4 +730
secondary school
Communes having 4,905 54.9 5,014 56.1 +109
access to market
Communes having 3,343 37.4 5,075 56.8 +1,732
radio system
Communes having - - 6,428 71.9
post office
Source: Nguyen Sinh Cuc (1995), General Statistical Office (2003)

Infrastructure service delivery in rural areas has been improved and had made
enormous progress compared to previous years. However, the infrastructure situation as
well as its service supply differs from commune to commune in different regions. The
infrastructure situation and its service in mountainous, remote, border areas and islands
areas were still underdeveloped compared to other communes, especially compared to rural
areas around the cities, towns, townships, industrial zones or in communes located in the
rural Red River Delta.

64
 Rural infrastructure development

3.2 Essential infrastructure works and its service delivery in rural areas.

3.2.1 Irrigation and drainage systems

Irrigation and drainage system works not only irrigate and drain cropped areas but also
provide water to residential areas, especially in mountainous and remote areas. The
combination of irrigation systems and small- scale hydroelectric plans also contributes to
provide electricity to inhabitants in these communes and villages.
As Table 3 and Table 4 show, there were 21 thousand irrigation works and about
194.5 thousand km canals serving agricultural production in the whole country as of 2001.
Along with this, there were hundreds of thousands of irrigation and drainage systems built
and managed by hamlets and villages. All of these systems ensure to fully irrigate 36.1 per
cent of total agricultural land, 48.1 per cent of annual crops and 63 per cent of annual paddy
land areas in the whole country.
There was a big difference among provinces and among regions in terms of
development of irrigation and drainage systems. In 2002, 23.1 per cent of communes in
rural Vietnam having incomes derived mainly from agricultural production faced
difficulties in agricultural production due to poor irrigation and drainage systems. These
communes are mainly located in North - East (42.9 per cent); North- West (42 per cent);
North Central Coast (32.5 per cent); in the mountainous region (34.6 per cent) and in the
low land areas (37.2 per cent) (General Statistical Office [2004]).

Table 3: Irrigation and drainage system and canal

serving for agricultural production

Water conservation Length of irrigation canal 2) (km)

projects 1) (pieces) Total Of which, solid
irrigation canal
Whole country 21,177 194,518 24,088
- Red River Delta 8,006 43,256 2,521
- North East 5,806 21,522 5,077
- North West 379 4,157 563
- North Central Coast 2,980 16,923 5,654
- South Central Coast 833 9,119 740
- Central Highlands 545 2,070 204
- South East 543 53,654 8,791
- Mekong River Delta 2,085 43,817 538
Note: 1) Data in 1999
2) Data in 2001
Source: General Statistical Office (2000), General Statistical Office (2003).

65
 Phan Si Man

Table 4: Irrigation in Agriculture in 2001

Agricultural land Annual crops Paddy land area

areas Irrigated land area irrigated (%)
(%) irrigated (%)
Whole country 36.1 48.1 63.0
- Red River Delta 70.5 77.8 82.9
- North East 23.1 31.4 29.2
- North West 7.7 9.1 24.1
- North Central Coast 36.8 46.2 61.1
- South Central Coast 30.6 39.9 67.2
- Central Highlands 5.7 12.2 29.6
- South East 13.2 21.1 34.1
- Mekong River Delta 59.8 67.1 68.1
Source: General Statistical Office (2003).

In some provinces where the incidence of poverty is higher compared to the rest of
the country also faced difficulties in irrigation and drainage. For example, in Lai Chau
province, percentage of agricultural lands that were fully irrigated accounted only for 4.9
per cent in 2001, this figure was 5.4 per cent for annual crops and 9.7 per cent for paddy
crops. Similar situations can be observed in other provinces such as Son La, Kon Tum, Gia
Lai, Binh Phuoc, and Kien Giang (Table 5).

Table5. Irrigation situations in some provinces having

difficulties in term of irrigation

Provinces Agricultural land Annual crops land Paddy land area

area Irrigated (%) area irrigated (%) irrigated (%)
Lai Chau 4.9 5.4 9.7
Son La 4.2 4.8 25.9
CaoBang 17.0 18.7 38.4
Lang Son 17.9 23.4 31.2
Kon Tum 4.5 8.3 25.3
Gia Lai 6.0 8.2 24.0
Lam Dong 3.1 12.6 27.8
Binh Phuoc 0.5 3.5 8.3
Dong Nai 12.1 17.6 24.8
Kien Giang 7.9 9.6 10.0
Ca Mau 1.3 1.8 2.1
Source: General Statistical Office (2003).

66
 Rural infrastructure development

3.2.2 Rural transportation

In 2001, more than 94 per cent of the communes in rural areas had roads to the communal
center (Table 6). However, in some provinces in the Mekong River Delta such as the
provinces Soc Trang, Bac Lieu, Vinh Long, Ca Mau, etc., the percentage of communes
having roads to the communal center was lower in comparison with other provinces. The
quality of the roads in the hamlets was still very low. According to the results of the 2001
Rural, Agricultural and Fishery Census percentage of the communes having paved or
concrete inter- hamlet roads accounted for only one third of the total communes (General
Statistical Office [2003]).

Table 6: Rural Transportation Situation

Proportion of Rate Communes Rate Communes

communes having with village-link with village-link
auto way to the road asphalted/ road totally
communal center or concreted asphalted/ or
concreted
Year 1994 2001 2001 2001
Whole country 86.4 94.2 33.0 3.1
- Red River Delta 99.4 99.8 65.1 11.2
- North East 96.5 9.3 0.1
- North West 82.6 87.3 5.5 0.0
- North Central Coast 90.0 96.5 30.9 0.7
- South Central Coast 82.5 94.2 32.5 1.2
- Central Highlands 96.2 97.4 14.5 0.2
- South East 97.9 99.2 32.9 1.7
-Mekong River Delta 65.7 77.9 41.4 2.6
Source: Nguyen Sinh Cuc (1995), General Statistical Office (2003).

Therefore, access to means of transportation and service in the hamlets faced some
difficulties in general, especially in mountainous and remote areas. According to the
VHLSS survey 2002, about 40.3 per cent of the total 80,460 hamlets in rural Vietnam have
a means of transportation (train, boat or car) passing through. The proportion of the hamlets
where means of transportation can not pass through accounted for 82.3 per cent in the
North- West. In the North- East, North Central Coast and Central Highlands they were
above 75 per cent. Mean distance from hamlets to transportation in the North- West was
10.1 km, in the North- East was 11 km, in the Central Highlands was 16 km, in high
mountainous areas: 12.5 km, in the far and remote areas, 10km. Similar situations can be
observed in poor and extremely difficult communes in rural areas nowadays.

67
 Phan Si Man

3.2.3 Electricity
Electricity and transmission networks in rural areas have improved since the beginning of
1990s. This is attributed partly to the rapid increase in electricity production in Vietnam
(thanks to the building of many power plants) and government efforts in the development
of transmission systems and electricity grids to all regions. It is also because of the
contributions from economic and social agencies and people’s contribution in building
transmission networks and installing electricity distribution equipment to households.
However, the proportion of villages and the proportion of households having access
to electricity was lower compared to the proportion of communes having access to
electricity, especially in the North Mountainous region, Central Highlands and Mekong
River Delta (Table 7). The reason is that development of electricity networks to hamlets and
from hamlets to households was not completed . In the many communes, only the
communal center had access to electricity, and there were still no transmission grids up to
hamlets and households. The data in 2001 (Table 8) illustrate clear shortage of transmission
networks in the communes and villages in some regions.

Table 7: Access to electricity in rural areas

Proportion of Proportion of Proportion of

communes having villages having households
access to electricity access to having access to
(%) electricity (%) electricity (%)
Year 1994 2001 2001 2001
Whole country 60.2 89.7 77.2 79.0
- Red River Delta 98.1 99.9 99.7 98.8
- North East 81.5 65.1 71.9
- North West 37.1 62.6 42.3 51.0
- North Central Coast 61.8 90.9 87.3 88.4
- South Central Coast 54.7 86.7 80.5 85.4
- Central Highlands 31.3 75.4 55.2 51.5
- South East 71.8 98.6 87.3 75.5
-Mekong River Delta 67.0 99.0 83.5 61.9
Source: Nguyen Sinh Cuc (1995), General Statistical Office (2003)

68
 Rural infrastructure development

Table 8: Proportion of communes, villages and households

having no access to electricity in all regions

Region Communes Villages having Households

having no access no access to having no access
to electricity electricity to electricity
No % No % No %
Whole country 924 100.0 18,310 100.0 2,740 100.0
- Red River Delta 2 0.2 35 0.2 40.1 1.5
- North East 343 37.1 7,488 40.9 438.2 16.0
- North West 197 21.3 3,763 20.6 183.3 6.7
- North Central Coast 147 15.9 2,035 11.1 226.3 8.3
- South Central Coast 91 9.8 788 4.3 156.0 5.7
- Central Highlands 124 13.5 2,422 13.2 311.2 11.3
- South East 8 0.9 441 2.4 304.5 11.1
-Mekong River Delta 12 1.3 1,338 7.3 1,080.4 39.4
Source: General Statistical Office (2003).

These hamlets and communes with no access to electricity were mainly located in the
North- East, North - West, Central Highlands and mountainous communes in the North and
South Central Coast Building an electricity network in the communes as well as from
commune to hamlet and households in these areas usually faces many difficulties, requires
high total investment cost, and exceeds the capacity of the communes in terms of capital
mobilization and inhabitant’s contributions.
Many electricity transmission and distribution networks were built by communes and
villages with inhabitant’s contributions. Therefore, the quality of these works as well as
quality of electricity supply usually does not meet necessary technical standards. Electricity
networks in the communes were unsystematic and are usually technically backwards. On
the other hand, household’s incomes are still low, therefore, people’s contributions,
especially from the poor, to the development of electricity network as well as their payment
for using electricity is a problem.

3.2.4 Clean water works

Clean water supplies in rural areas were set up many years ago. However, clean water
shortages have become to one of the obstacles to improving living conditions of the
inhabitants in many rural areas. A clean water shortage is also a major challenge to
settlement, resettlement and stabilization of living conditions of ethnic minorities in many
mountainous areas.

69
 Phan Si Man

The Government built and approved a National Target Program on Clean Water and
Sanitation, Environment in rural areas in 1998. Thousands of projects on clean water works
have been implemented in the communes and villages with investment support from
government, local authorities, international organizations such as UNICEF, FAO, WHO,
and other NGOs. However, only 18 per cent of the total number of communes in the whole
country had government projects, programs on clean water and environment or from other
organizations. This figure was highest in the Central Highlands (24.8 per cent), followed by
the North Central Coast (24.2 per cent) and the Mekong River Delta (22.1 per cent). In the
mountainous areas, this figure was 23.4 per cent, in the remote areas: 21.3 per cent (Table
9).

Table 9: Clean water use by the households in rural areas in 2002

Unit: %
Tap- Deep Deep Filtered Earth
water well well water well,
with stream river,
pumping stream
Rural areas 5.5 22.2 33.5 1.0 37.8
- Red River Delta 15.1 31.3 22.0 0.1 31.5
- North East 9.4 4.4 53.2 2.0 31.0
- North West 11.0 0.3 30.6 7.1 51.0
- North Central Coast 9.4 14.3 58.9 2.0 15.4
- South Central Coast 13.6 17.7 59.0 0.1 9.6
- Central Highlands 9.9 1.5 31.9 2.1 54.6
- South East 31.3 31.5 17.3 0.3 19.6
-Mekong River Delta 18.5 26.4 2.2 0.1 52.8
Source: General Statistical Office (2004)

Most rural inhabitants had a habit of using water from natural sources such as rain
water, water from rivers, streams, lakes, and wells. More than 50 per cent of the households
in the North- West, Central Highlands and Mekong River Delta used water from these
sources. In the Red River Delta, this figure was over 30 per cent. Clean water shortages
occur in many areas, especially during the dry seasons. In some communes and villages in
the midland and mountainous areas, rural residents have to walk 2 - 3 km from their houses
to get clean water. In some plains next to the sea, the people also face the same problems
due to salty water or water polluted by industrial wastes, wastewater from residential areas
and chemical substances from agricultural production.

70
 Rural infrastructure development

The main obstacle for the development of clean water works in rural areas nowadays
is shortages of investment capital from local authorities and inhabitants11. On the other
hand, there is a strong need to change people’s perceptions and habits in terms of access to
and use of clean water in these areas. Even in the plain areas or along the sea, drilling wells
is costly, not all households can afford it. In many places, people have to drill by pumps
hundreds of meters in order to get access to clean water. In mountainous and remote areas,
building water tanks for households, especially for the poor, during the dry seasons also
faces difficulty of expenditure, building materials and techniques.

3.2.5 Infrastructure for trade, service and communication

Along with the development of transportation and electricity networks, development of
infrastructure works for trade, services and communication in rural areas have also been
speeded up (Table 10).

Table 10: Proportion of communes having structures for trade,

service and communication in 2001
Unit: %
Communes Communes Communes Households
having having post having having
access to office available telephone
market transmission
system
Rural areas 56.1 71.9 56.8 5.3
- Red River Delta 62.8 86.0 98.2 5.2
- North East 43.2 57.8 22.5 1.9
- North West 28.5 47.4 9.3 0.8
- North Central Coast 57.6 73.8 46.5 2.9
- South Central Coast 64.8 70.5 60.4 5.1
- Central Highlands 38.4 58.4 31.7 4.2
- South East 69.3 81.1 75.2 12.0
-Mekong River Delta 71.4 81.6 77.7 6.9
Source: General Statistical Office (2003).

There are 5,000 communal market stations, thousands of commercial and service
centers in towns, townships, communal centers and clusters of communes in rural Vietnam

11
For example, cost for public work on clean water in Khanh Ninh commune (Ninh Binh
province) were more 8 VND billion (2004), but not all communes can mobilization this
investment capital. Cost per household’s water build or water tanker need also 1-2 VND
millions (Institute of Economics [forthcoming]).

71
 Phan Si Man

nowadays. In the Mekong River Delta there are many markets in the canals, rivers with
favorable conditions for the exchange of goods and services for inhabitants. However,
except for the main markets, commercial and service centers in townships and towns, most
markets, commercial and service centers in hamlets are of a small scale with weak
infrastructures. Many markets in the communes and villages are located in areas, or in
rivers without basic infrastructure such as storage, car, shops, shops for buying and
maintaining goods, etc.
The results of the 2001 Rural, Agricultural and Fishery Census (General Statistical
Office [2003]) and VHLSS in 2002 (General Statistical Office [2004]) show that in the
North- West, Northeast, and Central Highlands, about 60-70 per cent of communes and
75-80 per cent of hamlets do not have markets open every day, or have no access to market
located in the neighboring communes and villages. The distance from hamlet to market on
average is about 10-12 km. This is a big obstacle to production development, market
expansion, and the meeting of demand for goods exchanges for the people living in these
areas.
Postal service, and communication and radio services face similar situations. There
were 72 per cent of communes having post office and 56.8 per cent of communes having
radio system in rural areas in 2001. There are 2,500 communes (28 per cent of total
communes in rural area), 47,000 hamlets (58.3 per cent) have no post office and more than
3,800 communes (43.2 per cent) have no radio system. The average distance from a hamlet
with no post office to the nearest post office in high mountainous areas is 11 km. In remote
areas, the distance is about 8.5 km, 13.9 km in the North West region, and 12 km in the
Central Highlands (General Statistical Office [2004]).

3.2.6 Infrastructure for Education and Health

According to the 2001 Rural, Agricultural and Fishery Census (General Statistical Office
[2003]), the proportion of communes having kindergartens in rural areas accounted for 85.7
per cent, communes having primary schools accounted for 99.9 per cent, and communes
having lower secondary schools accounted for 84.4 per cent. The proportion of communes
having primary schools in the North - West, North Central Coast, Central Highlands, South
East and Mekong River Delta reached 100 per cent. However, the proportion of hamlets
having school was lower compared to communes. For example, according to the results of
the VHLSS survey in 2002 (General Statistical Office [2004]), hamlets having primary
schools in rural areas accounted for only 60.4 per cent and hamlets having secondary
schools accounted for only 30.5 per cent.

72
 Rural infrastructure development

The proportion of communes with available upper secondary school in rural areas
accounted for only 8.5 per cent, very low compared with proportion of communes having
primary and secondary schools. It showed that the higher the level of education is the more
difficult it is for rural pupils to access them. Especially, in some provinces in the North
Mountainous, Central Highlands, South East and Mekong River Delta region, the
proportion of communes having secondary schools was even lower, and accounted for only
2-3 per cent. For example, in Bac Kan province, this figure was 1.8 per cent, 2.1 per cent in
Lai Chau province, 2.4 per cent in Lang Son province, 2.5 per cent in Lao Cai province, 1.9
per cent in Gia Lai province, 2.3 per cent in Ninh Thuan province, and 1.8 per cent in Long
An province.
Moreover, the biggest problem nowadays is that most of schools in rural communes
(especially primary and secondary schools) were in a poor state with low quality rooms,
lacking equipments and learning tools. Nearly 70 per cent of primary schools, 55 per cent of
lower secondary school and about 52 per cent upper secondary school in rural areas have no
permanent building. Rates of primary school with semipermanent buildings in many
provinces in the North Mountainous, Central Highlands, South East and Mekong River
Delta accounts for from 85 per cent to 90 per cent at present.
Infrastructure for health service in rural communes face similar situations. Despite
the fact that most communes (99.45 per cent) have medical posts (village clinic), especially
in Red River Delta, North - West this figure reached 100 per cent (General Statistical Office
[2003]), most of them were with semipermanent buildings. Communal medical posts
usually had one room for a medical examination with medicine chests and little medical
equipment, one midwife room and one room containing several sickbeds for patients. Most
communal medical stations were not equipped with an ambulance. Many communal
medical stations in mountainous areas had no electricity, no telephone and no clean water.
Therefore, capability and quality of health care services in these communal medical
stations was not very high.

3.3 Infrastructure development situation in poor and extremely difficult communes

Shortages and backwardness of infrastructure in rural communes and villages can be

observed mainly in poor and extremely difficult communes, mountainous regions, remote,
border areas and islands. However, efforts in policy making and priority in policy
implementation for infrastructure development of government as well as of local
authorities (especially the implementation of projects listed in the HEPR programs
(Program 133 and 143), Program 135 and other projects, and programs on socio- economic

73
 Phan Si Man

development) have strongly improved infrastructure in these communes. As a result, tens of

thousands of basic infrastructure (small- scale irrigation systems, roads, electricity, schools,
medical stations, markets, structures for clean water supply, etc.) have been built in these
communes. During five years from 1999 to 2003, Program 135 has invested and supported
in building 5,748 roads of all kinds, 1,063 electricity works, 2,072 structures for clean water
supply, etc12. Among these communes, the communes that received less support had also
been invested in one or two types of infrastructure mentioned above.
Other thousands of poor and difficult communes (not listed in Program 135) had also
received financial support from government, local authorities and other organizations
(through Program 133, 143 and other development projects) for investment in essential
infrastructure. The total capital the communes received from these projects and programs
was much higher in reality compared to money allocation from the government budget
based on the policy. For example, in two years from 1999 to 2000 projects on building
infrastructure listed in Program on HEPR (Program 133) has already built 4,000
infrastructure works in extremely difficult communes (1,200 communes in 1999, and 1,870
communes in 2000), every commune built 2.3 infrastructure works on average. Moreover,
there are thousands infrastructure works (buildings) which in 500 other communes have
had capital invested by provincial budgets and mainstreamed capital support (MOLISA
[2000]).
Capital invested in infrastructure in poor and extremely difficult communes in
remote areas through Program 133, 143, and 135 accounted for 40.4 per cent of total capital
invested in agriculture and rural areas in general by central and provincial government
during the period of 1999- 200313. Moreover, hundreds of international and other domestic
organizations supported direct investment in infrastructure development in these
communes, especially thousands of small - scale irrigation systems, clean water systems,
medical stations and radio system have been built.
Moreover, efforts on investment support mentioned above still did not meet the
demand for infrastructure in poor and extremely difficult communes. These sources of
investment usually were allocated broadly in most of the poor and extremely difficult
communes in all regions, but investment per commune was still low (about VND 1.3-1.4
million by program 135, average about VND 320-350 million per year from 1999 to 2002).
Investment capital was mainly for building transport infrastructure, schools and small-
scale irrigation systems, meanwhile investments in electricity, clean water, health stations

12
‘Dai Doan Ket’ Newspaper No 41, 21/5/2004.
13
‘Dai Doan Ket’ Nerwpaper, No 41, 21/5/2004.

74
 Rural infrastructure development

and other infrastructure were still very low. For example, in the money allocation structure
of Program 135 for infrastructure projects in the period of 1999- 2002, 33.5 per cent of
investment capital was used for transport works, 18.26 per cent for investment in building
schools, 15.41 per cent invested in small- scale irrigation systems, and the rest was used for
investment in electricity works (accounting for only 7.31 per cent), clean water (5.01 per
cent), health stations (1.24 per cent), markets (0.48 per cent) 14 , etc. Among all
infrastructure works in Program 135 communes, only few works had investment costs up to
VND 500 million (MOLISA [2000]).
Most poor and extremely difficult communes had already been invested in and
received support to build basic and essential infrastructures, but shortages of basic and
essential infrastructure works (such as electricity networks, transportation, schools, market
buildings, etc.) in these communes still exists in all regions. The number of infrastructure
works in Program 135 commune is still low; usually there are 2-3 works in each commune
with small - scale, low technical quality, and low capacity in term of service provision15.

4. IMPACT OF POLICY ON INFRASTRUCTURE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT

ON LIVELIHOOD OF THE POOR

4.1 Policy on infrastructure and its actual development in rural areas has brought
benefits for the poor

It could be evaluated that among built infrastructure in rural areas, irrigation and drainage
works were assessed by the poor as having positive impact and creating more opportunities
for production development and their income improvement. The reason is that up to now,
most of the poor households in rural areas rely mainly on agricultural production
(cultivation, husbandry and fishery production). Improvements in irrigation and drainage
systems gave them a chance to expand their cultivated areas, increasing cropping intensity,

14
‘Thoi Bao Kinh Te’ Newspaper, No 121, July 2003.
15
Our field survey in 2004 at Tong Cot commune (Ha Quang district, Cao Bang province)
shows that investment support of program 135 about VND 400 million per year (1998-2003),
but only 3 infrastructure works built such as schools, medical posts and commune post-offices.
Communes have not had investment capital for transport and other infrastructure works. Also,
in Quang Han commune (Tra Linh district, Cao Bang province) invested for only irrigations and
clean water works by program 135 with VND 400 million per year, and shortages of investment
capital for other infrastructure works (Institute of Economics [forthcoming]).

75
 Phan Si Man

applying technical advances for increased crop yields, increased crop output, and therefore
higher household incomes. The poor households also had a chance to select crops that had
higher value in the market compared with traditional crops. In some areas, farmers had the
opportunity to develop fishery, husbandry production, cultivate vegetables by using surface
water and exploit other sources of income from reservoirs, and irrigation and drainage
systems.
Our field survey in Ha Nam province in 2003 shows that tens of poor households in
the communes such as Tuong Linh, Tan Son (Kim Bang district) with very difficult
condition for production have escaped from poverty because of an improvement in
irrigation and drainage works (Institute of Economics [2003]). With improvement of these
works, they could shift from low market value products such as sweet potatoes, cassava,
and sugarcane to vegetable production such as tomato, cucumber, and cabbages for selling
in other provincial markets. Dao Ly commune (Ly Nhan district), Chuyen Ngoai commune
(Duy Tien district) were low land areas where inundation happened during the summer
autumn crop seasons in the past, but at the time the survey was conducted, many
households had already escaped from poverty. Some households have become rich by
raising fish in the low- lying fields where irrigation and drainage system have been
improved.
Transport, trade, electricity, and clean water infrastructure works have been assessed
positively for improvement of inhabitants’ livelihoods in the communes and villages. These
works created not only opportunities and favorable conditions for goods exchange but also
created opportunities and conditions for new livelihoods besides traditional agricultural
production.
Our field surveys in some communes and villages and poor households in rural Red
River Delta areas such as Van Khe commune in Vinh Phuc province (research conducted in
2002, Institute of Economics [2002]) and Hai Phuc commune in Nam Dinh province
(conducted in 2003, Institute of Economics [2003]) show that the more favorable condition
for transportation and trade means that more poor households have improved their lives and
even escaped from poverty because they have more opportunities to works as a small
traders, in food and food- stuff processing, purchasing and in the transport of goods to other
areas for selling or opening shops in the commune. Many of them had opportunities to look
for a job, doing business or services in other areas, even in the cities, towns, industrial zones
or commercial - tourist areas located tens of km far from their commune.
Khe Ngoai hamlet, Van Khe commune (Me Linh district, Vinh Phuc province) was a
poor hamlet in the past due to many floods. Poverty was common. Improvements in
inter-commune, inter- village roads have created favorable conditions for traffic since the

76
 Rural infrastructure development

1990s. About 30 per cent of laborers in the hamlet (most of them are poor) are vendors or
have jobs in Hanoi (25 km from the hamlet). They purchase goods in the market nearby the
hamlet, transport them by using primitive transport means and sell them in the city. They
leave their home usually at 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. and came back home in the evening. Many poor
thought that this activity was their main livelihood and the only way for them to escape
from poverty (Institute of Economics [2002]). The poor households in Hai Phuc commune
(Hai Hau district, Nam Dinh province) have improved their livelihood by these activities.
More than 30 per cent out of a total of 1,100 laborers in this commune usually go out and
work outside the commune or have additional work such as services and small trade
activities in the commune (Institute of Economics [2003]).
There are also opportunities of new livelihoods for many poor who had a few plots of
land or no land for cultivation in many rural areas in the Mekong River Delta, South East,
Central Highlands and in some border areas. Our observations in Mong Cai frontier pass
(Quang Ninh province, research conducted in 2002), Tan Thanh frontier pass (Lang Son
province, research conducted in 2003) and Lao Cai frontier pass (Lao Cai province,
research conducted in 2004) showed that there were many traders, porters, and people
doing other work. They were ethnic minorities living in the hamlets in these areas. In Tan
Thanh frontier pass, a group of 5 people working as porters (of which 3 were male, 2 were
female) said that they were from the Nung ethnic group living in Lung Cung and Na Mat
villages (Hoang Viet commune, Van Lang district), more than10 km from Tan Thanh.
Every day they would go to the frontier pass and work as porters and come home in the
evening, thanks to improvement in the roads from the village to the frontier pass. They
received about VND 20-30 thousand per day for their work. 3 out of 5 people said that it
was their main source of income (Institute of Economics [forthcoming]).
Development of infrastructure on transport and trade in the mountainous and remote
communes or cluster of these communes also helped the poor in many local areas to change
their livelihoods. The new infrastructures help local residents to access to new production
factors such as new seeds, chemical fertilizers, production technique, etc., and to sell
products with higher benefits. They produce not only products to meet demand of their
consumption but also for selling in the market.
Development of social infrastructure works such as schools, medical stations,
electricity networks, postal offices, radio systems, etc. in the communes and villages in
rural areas (especially in poor and very difficult communes and villages in remote areas)
have been highly appreciated by the poor and inhabitants in general. These works helped
them to better access public services, and basic social services (such as culture, education,
health and health care, social security, etc.). Many poor households had access to electricity,

77
 Phan Si Man

listening to the radio, watching TV, enjoying artistic culture, receiving economic and social
information, and knowledge, information on warning and preventing natural calamities, etc.
Our field survey in Tong Cot commune (Ha Quang district, Cao Bang province, conducted
in 2004) shows that there are 142 households of total 432 households with access to
electricity, 51 households have a TV and 96 households have radio – cassette player. In
Quang Han commune (Tra Linh district, Cao Bang, conducted in 2004) there are 415
households of total 532 households with access to electricity, 342 households have a TV
and more than 200 households have radio – cassette player (Institute of Economics
[forthcoming]).

4.2 Constraints and obstacles of infrastructures development and their use

Actual infrastructure development in the rural communes and villages in Vietnam in recent
years and at present shows that not all projects and infrastructure works have a positive
impact and bring real benefits to the poor. To some extent it could be seen as a ‘failure’ of
the policy on infrastructure and its actual development on livelihood of the poor.

4.2.1 ‘Failure’ of the projects and infrastructure works

Dam building projects for preventing the penetration of water or small- scale irrigation
systems and clean water supply in some poor communes in Gia Lai province (Central
Highlands) can be seen as examples of the failure of the policy on infrastructure and its
actual development on the poor. In Gia Lai province, there was a project on building
irrigation weir in Bi village, located along the stream Ia- Klong (Ia- Grai district) funded by
Program 135 with total investment cost of VND 960 million which was completed in 2002.
However, one year after completion this weir did not work because civil work was too
small and too shallow, flood discharge system was low, a very low capacity of water
reservation and especially irrigation canals were lower than fields (therefore, there was not
enough water to irrigate and water could not reach the fields). All project areas could not be
irrigated as planned. The same thing happened to with a weir building project in Lan village,
located in Ia- Chia stream. The total investment cost for this project was VND 450 million
and it was completed in 2000, but it did not operate effectively. The irrigation system in
Cuc village (also located in Ia- Klong, Ia - Grai district) was of low quality, not
synchronized because there were no on- farm canals. This project with a total investment
cost above VND 200 million aimed to supply clean water to some communes with extreme
shortages of clean water in Krong- Pa, Ayun- Pa and Kong- Cho Ro districts. However,
during the dry seasons, 100 per cent of wells and water supply system (belonging to this

78
 Rural infrastructure development

project) dried up, and had no water because the depth of the wells did not meet the
standard16.
The same thing happened to some projects and infrastructure structures with regards
to transport, schools, medical stations, electricity networks, etc. Many transport and
electricity works have been badly built and not completed. Some works on schools and
medical stations in mountainous and high mountainous communes have been built and did
not meet technical standards and the requirements of technical equipments; On some
projects the work had not even been finished before needing repairs and renovation. There
are many of reasons and factors leading to this situation. Along with the reasons of poor
planning, investigation and technical design, project appraisal, etc., there are some other
reasons such as weaknesses in organization, investment management, and building.
Moreover, effects of natural calamities, storms, and floods can be seen as one of the
important reasons for impeding the positive impact of infrastructure in many rural areas.
Every year, hundreds of infrastructure works in these areas are devastated and degraded due
to these effects.

4.2.2 Difficulties for the poor

At present there are still a great many poor in rural areas facing difficulties in terms of
participation in infrastructure development as well as access to and benefits from projects
and infrastructure works. Shortages and weaknesses, or ‘failure’ of projects and
infrastructure works as mentioned above are the main obstacles. One of the severest
difficulties people face is paying a contribution to the building of infrastructure works in
the hamlet and paying fees for using the services provided by these infrastructure works.
Our field surveys in Hai Phuc commune (Nam Dinh province, conducted in 2003),
Van Khe (Vinh Phuc province, in 2002), Chuyen Ngoai and Tan Son commune (Ha Nam
province, in 2004) and Khanh Ninh commune (Ninh Binh province, in 2004) show that
even the poor have to contribute money for upgrading village roads, for building or
upgrading village drainage works, on -farm canals, expanding electricity networks from the
communal and village center to households (Institute of Economics [2003]). This
contribution depends on the regulation of each commune and village. In some cases for
example in Khanh Ninh commune and in Hai Phuc commune, there is an exemption for the
poor households, or the poor have to contribute their labor instead of money. This is a
burden for poor households.

16
‘Dai Doan Ket’ Newspaper, No 66, 19/8/2003.

79
 Phan Si Man

Fees for health care services, education and electricity are also a considerable burden
for poor farmers. The very low expenditure level on these services in their total expenditure
illustrates their low benefits and difficulties that the poor face in term of access to and
benefits from this infrastructure work. In Khanh Ninh commune (Ninh Binh province) as
well as in Hai Phuc (Nam Dinh), 100 per cent of the poor households could access
electricity easily, but the level of people using it and electricity fees paid by poor
households were very low, ten times lower than rich households in fact. They usually use
electricity for lighting or for their children study for about 1- 2 hours in the evening in order
to economize their money. Similar situations can be observed in poor households in Tong
Cot commune and in Quang Han commune (Cao Bang province, Institute of Economics
[forthcoming]).
High education expenditure and economic difficulties were the main concerns of
many poor and their children in terms of benefits from infrastructure on education. Many
poor households in rural areas do not send their children to school or their children had to
drop out because their parents wanted their children to suppliment their household incomes.
Many pupils dropped out due to difficulties in paying education fees and other
contributions, not because they are lacking in schools or because schools are located too far
from their house. According to the results of the VHLSS survey in 2002, 68.9 per cent out
of the pupils who had dropped out in the mountainous communes was due to economic
difficulties. Households had no money to afford education fees; only 20.7 per cent dropped
out due to school location, and 0.52 per cent due to over crowded classrooms in the school.
The percentage of pupils in primary school who dropped out for similar reasons in the
remote areas was 77.6 per cent, 20.3 per cent, and 0.34 per cent respectively. The reasons
for pupils dropping out in the secondary school were also similar.
Relating to infrastructure for health service, many poor households had favorable
condition to access these services and there was a positive impact of this work, but high fees
for medical examinations reduced opportunities for the poor to benefit from this service. To
pay the medical examination fee, poor in rural areas had to rely on their relatives,
community or they had to borrow money that made their life more difficult17.

17
Central government as well as ministries, related branches and local authorities have policies
on exemption education fees for the poor and providing health insurance certificate for the poor
(free of charge for medical examinations) in general, but the education fee exemption is not very
much, and at present the proportion of the poor pupils receiving the education fee exemption as
well as proportion of the poor in rural areas receiving health insurance certificates are very low
(MOLISA-UNDP [2004])

80
 Rural infrastructure development

5. CONCLUSION

This study is about policy changes and actual development of infrastructure in rural
Vietnam from Doi Moi to the present, and its impacts on the livelihoods of people living in
poverty in rural areas. The study presents the big achievements and the positive impact of
policy changes and its reality, therefore millions of poor in rural communes have the
opportunity to benefit and improve their livelihoods and many of them have escaped from
poverty. However, the study also presents constraints of the policy on rural infrastructure
and its actual development in the communes and villages and factors hindering its positive
impacts on livelihoods of the poor. On the other hand, the study also mentions obstacles the
poor face in dealing with disadvantages of infrastructure as well as their participation in
building, and getting benefits from projects and infrastructure works in the communes and
villages in rural areas nowadays. Therefore, along with policy efforts for intensifying
support to infrastructure development in rural areas, Vietnam needs to give priority to the
poor in rural areas in particular for production development, improving their incomes and
to support them in terms of upgrading their capacity to access and benefit from basic social
services.

REFERENCES

Do Hoai Nam and Le Cao Doan, Xay dung ha tang co so nong thon trong qua trinh cong
nghiep hoa, hien dai hoa o Viet Nam (Building rural infrastructure in process of
industrialization and modernization in Vietnam), Nha Xuat Ban Khoa Hoc Xa Hoi, Hanoi,
2001.
General Statistical Office (GSO), Vietnam Living Standard Survey 1992-1993, Statistical
Publishing House, Hanoi, 1994.
, Statistical Data of Vietnam Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery 1975-2000,
Statistical Publishing House, Hanoi, 2000.
, Results of the 2001 Rural, Agricultural and Fishery Census, Statistical
Publishing House, Hanoi, 2003.
, Results of the Households Living Standard Survey 2002, Statistical Publishing
House, Hanoi, 2004.
Ministry of Labour, Invalid and Social Affairs (MOLISA), Ky yeu hoi nghi so ket nam 1999
va trien khai ke hoach nam 2000 Chuong trinh Muc tieu Quoc gia Xoa doi giam ngheo va

81
 Phan Si Man

Chuong trinh 135 (Summary records of primary wrap up report of Assignment in 1999 and Plan
for implementation of the Target National Program on Hunger Eradication and Poverty
Reduction and Program 135 in 2000), Nha Xuat Ban Lao Dong-Xa Hoi, Hanoi, 2000.
MOLISA-UNDP, Assessment and Planning for the future, Hanoi, Nov. 2004.
Nguyen Sinh Cuc, Agriculture of Vietnam in the period of 1945- 1995, Statistical Publishing
House, Hanoi,1995.
Phan Si Man, ‘Doi moi chinh sach dau tu ket cau ha tang nong thon (Renovating investment
policy for rural infrastructure)’, Nghien Cuu Kinh Te, No 2, 1995.
Vietnam’s Institute of Economics, The general Report on result of Socio-Economics Survey in
11 provinces in the North Mountainous region, Hanoi, 1993.
, Documents of field surveys by project: ‘Nghien cuu doi moi chinh sach kinh te xa
hoi doi voi nong thon (Study on renovation socio-economic policy in rural area)’, Hanoi, 2002.
, Documents of field surveys by project: ‘Nghien cuu tac dong cua tu do hoa
thuong mai den san xuat lua gao cua ho nong thon (Study on impacts of trade liberalization on
rice production of households)’, Hanoi, 2003.
, Documents of field surveys by project:’Quan ly nha nuoc doi voi tai nguyen thien
nhien va moi truong’ (State management on natural resources and environment) (2002-2004),
Hanoi, (forthcoming).

82