Analysis of Labour Migration Flows in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam

Abstract

Migration occurs as a response to economic development as well as to social, cultural, and environmental causes. This chapter explores migration patterns in the Mekong Delta (MD) region of Vietnam by using information in the Vietnam Household Living Standard Surveys for 2004 and 2006. The main purposes of the chapter are: (1) to gain insight into migration flows in the Mekong Delta region and (2) to identify the determinants of the migration flows regarding commune-related variables. From the description and the multivariate analysis, there are several interesting findings. First, the number of migrants in the Mekong Delta region has been increasing in recent years, and their destinations are the leading industrial and commercial cities in Vietnam, including Ho Chi Minh and Binh Duong. Second, “push” factors such as poverty and challenges in farm production are the key causes of migration flows. In addition, policy makers should take advantage of economic development programs as an adjustment tool in migration matters.

Appendices

Appendices

1.1 Appendix 1: Migration, Population, and Labour in the MD (Unit: %) (Source: GSO 2008)

	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007
Rate of out-migration	0.23	0.28	0.45	0.7	0.79
Share of rural population	80.2	79.8	79.1	78.9	78.8
Share of agricultural labour	61.9	60.1	59.7	55.4	51.7

Source: GSO 2008

1.2 Appendix 2

Summary of Decision No. 587 on benchmarks of poor and far-away communes issued on April 22, 2002 by the Ministry of Labour, Invalids, and Social Affairs.

A commune is seen as a poor commune if such commune has some of the ­following characteristics:

• 1. A poverty household rate of 25% or above.

• 2. A public infrastructure that is absent in up to three of six items including roads, schools, health-care units, clean piped waters, electricity, market systems. More detailed:

• Less than 30% of households provided with clean piped water.

• Less than 50% of households using electricity.

• No paved road to the center of the commune.

• Less than 70% of total required classrooms for schooling.

• No health-care unit in the commune.

• No market to meet consumers’ demands.

1.3 Appendix 3a: Summary of Statistics in 2004

Variables	Obs	Mean	Std. Dev.	Min	Max
Mig-Rate	451	86.735	154.878	0	2147.56
LnMig-Rate	451	3.826	1.217	0	7.67
Density	451	0.565	0.341	0.03	1.96
Farm wage	451	31.933	5.860	5	50.00
Poverty	451	9.707	8.375	0	62.99
Remote	451	0.372	0.484	0	1
Kinh ethnic	451	0.942	0.233	0	1
Agri	451	0.878	0.327	0	1
Indus	451	0.002	0.047	0	1
Fish	451	0.108	0.311	0	1
Living	451	0.993	0.081	0	1
Labour absorption	451	0.620	0.485	0	1
Lack of capital	451	0.487	0.500	0	1
Price fluctuation	451	0.188	0.391	0	1
Access to market	451	0.102	0.302	0	1
Farm technique	451	0.057	0.233	0	1
Job creation	451	0.215	0.411	0	1
Economic development	451	0.255	0.436	0	1
Disasters	451	0.013	0.044	0	0.65

1.4 Appendix 3b: Summary of Statistics in 2006

Variables	Obs	Mean	Std. Dev	Min	Max
Mig-Rate	480	78.775	109.646	0	1008.79
Ln Mig-Rate	480	3.738	1.273	0	6.92
Density	480	0.557	0.466	0.05	7.86
Farm wage	480	38.900	7.854	0	60.00
Poverty	480	17.585	10.706	0	74.27
Remote	480	0.329	0.470	0	1
Kinh ethnic	480	0.947	0.222	0	1
Agri	480	0.868	0.338	0	1
Indus	480	0.014	0.120	0	1
Fish	480	0.113	0.316	0	1
Living	480	0.993	0.078	0	1
Labour absorption	480	0.668	0.471	0	1
Lack of capital	480	0.475	0.499	0	1
Price fluctuation	480	0.152	0.359	0	1
Access to market	480	0.083	0.276	0	1
Farm technique	480	0.058	0.234	0	1
Job creation	480	0.235	0.424	0	1
Economic development	480	0.173	0.378	0	1
Disasters	480	0.007	0.024	0	0.26

1.5 Appendix 4: Testing for Normality

Mean  =  7.2e-10	Std.dev.= 1.218	(n  =  480)
Median  =  0.1155	Pseudo std.dev.=0.9994	(IQR  =  1.348)
10 trim  =  0.0753
	Low	High
inner fences	−2.635	2.757
Number mild outliers	18	5
% mild outliers	3.76%	1.04%
outer fences	−4.657	4.78
Number severe outliers	0	0
% severe outliers	0.00%	0.00%