Update notes for vietnam
This commit is contained in:
parent
d347d4b7c3
commit
aa935fdc48
GPG Key ID:
B7538B8F50A1C800
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
|
|||
# Research Vietnam
|
||||
|
||||
* focus on:
|
||||
* income inequality, based on bottom 40%, Gini coefficient, other inequality measures
|
||||
* focus on: Vietnam varation in incidence of catastrophic weather events (e.g. floodings) and unequal impact of these events on households
|
||||
|
||||
## Literature unsorted
|
||||
|
||||
### [ ] WorldBank2012
|
||||
|
||||
* marked reduction in absolute poverty in country
|
||||
* rate of decline slowed somewhat since mid-2000s [@WorldBank2012; @VASS2006; @VASS2011]
|
||||
* some decline can be directly attributed to liberalization of markets instead of growth more generally [@McCaig2011; @Benjamin2004; @Edmonds2006]
|
||||
* inequality in Vietnam is largely intersectional between ethnicity, regional situation, and a strong rural-urban divide
|
||||
* persistent poverty severe among ethnic minorities [@Baulch2012]
|
||||
* focuses on consumption inequality
|
||||
|
||||
## Descriptive statistical analysis ideas
|
||||
|
||||
* real GDP per capita growth rate (see @Benjamin2017, fn.1)
|
||||
* distribution of GDP per capita (along ethnicity, rural, regional)
|
||||
* amount of ethnic minority in region (Ninh Binh)
|
||||
* overall (wikipedia ~98% Kinh)
|
||||
* versus especially rural
|
||||
|
||||
## Questions
|
||||
|
||||
* Should I work out a more explicit distinctive line between studies looking at welfare (consumption) and earnings (income) inequality, e.g. in an additional paragraph?
|
||||
* since income inequality outcomes tend to be larger than consumption inequalities in V
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,12 +1,18 @@
|
|||
# Research Vietnam
|
||||
### [ ] vandeWalle2001
|
||||
|
||||
* focus on:
|
||||
* income inequality, based on bottom 40%, Gini coefficient, other inequality measures
|
||||
* focus on: Vietnam varation in incidence of catastrophic weather events (e.g. floodings) and unequal impact of these events on households
|
||||
results:
|
||||
* ethnic minorities predominantly living in (remote) rural areas and lower living standards than ethnic majority
|
||||
* primarily due to environmental differences (difficult terrain, poor infrastructure, less access to off-farm work and market economy, inferior access to education)
|
||||
* compounded by social immobility and regional differences in living standards
|
||||
* does little to help using ethnic majority way of policy, must be specifically designed to reach minority households in poor areas; requires e.g. infrastructure development to change market disadvantages, isolation and social exclusion
|
||||
|
||||
## Literature
|
||||
### [ ] Baulch2012
|
||||
|
||||
### Benjamin2017 - Growth with Equity: Income Inequality in Vietnam, 2002–14
|
||||
results: (real) welfare (consumption) inequality between ethnic minorities and majority 1993-2004 increased by 14.6%; ~40% of gap due to endowments (primarily demographic structure and education), at least half due to differences in returns to endowments; geographic variables less than 20% of gap; much of gap 'linked to temporal changes in unobservable factors'
|
||||
* some additional suggested drivers are lack of ability in Vietnamese language, distance to commune/district centers amplifying effects
|
||||
* but not well-determined across time and thus lot of conjecture that unobservables may be due to: negative stereotyping, poort understanding of minority customs/cultures, unobserved variation in household-level endowments (land quality, distance to commune centre, education)
|
||||
|
||||
### [x] Benjamin2017 - Growth with Equity: Income Inequality in Vietnam, 2002–14
|
||||
|
||||
* economic/trade liberalization reforms:
|
||||
* Enterprise Law (2000)
|
||||
|
|
@ -22,11 +28,11 @@
|
|||
* similar trajectory to China - even more remarkable rates of growth over a longer period of time but at cost of higher inequality
|
||||
|
||||
* marked reduction in absolute poverty in country
|
||||
* rate of decline slowed somewhat since mid-2000s [@WorldBank2013; @VASS2006; @VASS2011]
|
||||
* rate of decline slowed somewhat since mid-2000s [@WorldBank2012; @VASS2006; @VASS2011]
|
||||
* some decline can be directly attributed to liberalization of markets instead of growth more generally [@McCaig2011; @Benjamin2004; @Edmonds2006]
|
||||
* inequality in Vietnam is largely intersectional between ethnicity, regional situation, and a strong rural-urban divide
|
||||
* persistent poverty severe among ethnic minorities [@Baulch2012]
|
||||
* [@WorldBank2013; Baulch2012; vandeWalle2001; vandeWalle2004]
|
||||
* [@WorldBank2012; Baulch2012; vandeWalle2001; vandeWalle2004]
|
||||
* consumption inequality since early 1990s has been relatively constant, moving within narrow range
|
||||
* income inequality markers werwe (and are) significantly higher than consumption measures, but dropped sharply in the 1990s
|
||||
* flattening off in 2000s
|
||||
|
|
@ -70,53 +76,3 @@ Overall: - slight reduction of of inequality through reduction in influence of w
|
|||
|
||||
<!-- TODO look at 2 lowest quintiles -->
|
||||
|
||||
### Bui2019 - Determinants of Rural-Urban Inequality in Vietnam: Detailed Decomposition Analyses Based on Unconditional Quantile Regressions
|
||||
|
||||
* examines determinants of rural-urban gap of household welfare in Vietnam through detailed decomposition analyses (consumption inequality) 2008-2012
|
||||
* basic education primary factor being beneficial to rural poort and ethnic minorities (in improving living standards)
|
||||
* remittances improve rural welfare but do not help reducing within or between-inequality
|
||||
* policy should ensure easy education access and support for self-employed to raise and stabilize income (instead of wage work, see @Benjamin2017)
|
||||
|
||||
* other studies on income inequality [@Imai2011; Imbert2011; Takahashi2007; vandeWalle2001]
|
||||
* most have tendency to mask within-group heterogeneity
|
||||
* e.g. within rural area there is high degree of heterogeneity depending on geographic characteristics (remoteness) or cultural factors [@Cao2008]
|
||||
|
||||
* previous studies on urban-rural expenditure:
|
||||
* @Thu2014 - urban-rural inequality continued to increase over years due to both covariate effects and returns to those covariate effects
|
||||
* in 90s until 2002, but marginally decreased 2002-2006 [also @Fritzen2005]
|
||||
* @Nguyen2007 - welfare disparity mainly explained by impact of structural effects
|
||||
* return to education, ethnicity, agricultural activies dramatically changed from 93-98
|
||||
* return to education improved the most
|
||||
* -> suggested development policy had urban bias (better education, more likely to benefit from economic reform)
|
||||
* confirmed by @Fesselmeyer2010 - Theil Index decomposition found period inequality within rural-urban sectors remained stable but between inequality increased 61.9%
|
||||
* @Cao2008 - within-gap for 2002-2004
|
||||
* this study builds upon their insights and uses reweighted regressions to arrive at rebust results
|
||||
|
||||
* in 90s widening gap between urban and rural
|
||||
* in last decade mostly within-group disparity (due to number of salaried workers in households within each sector)
|
||||
* in 2000s within-group inequality including regional, rural-urban, ethnic, gender increased/newly analyzed
|
||||
|
||||
Doi Moi policies: controlling credit growth, reducing subsidies to state-owned enterprises, besides opening economy to international trade
|
||||
|
||||
results:
|
||||
* urban-rural gap increasing in 2010, decreasing afterwards
|
||||
* effects of primary&secondary education on expenditure have become more positive across distribution in rural sector in recent years
|
||||
* -> suggests welfare inequality results from inequality in opportunity to improve human capital (agrees with @Thu2014)
|
||||
* thus, with within inequality as main overal inequality contributor, and large proportion of uneducated heads of households in rural sectors, facilitating education access for disadvantaged groups (poor households and ethnic minorities) would narrow gap within and between
|
||||
* higher education widens inequality gap again (between&within)
|
||||
* low social mobility among rural poor
|
||||
* e.g. they do not get the same social insurance as urban residents
|
||||
|
||||
### WorldBank2013
|
||||
|
||||
* marked reduction in absolute poverty in country
|
||||
* rate of decline slowed somewhat since mid-2000s [@WorldBank2013; @VASS2006; @VASS2011]
|
||||
* some decline can be directly attributed to liberalization of markets instead of growth more generally [@McCaig2011; @Benjamin2004; @Edmonds2006]
|
||||
* inequality in Vietnam is largely intersectional between ethnicity, regional situation, and a strong rural-urban divide
|
||||
* persistent poverty severe among ethnic minorities [@Baulch2012]
|
||||
* focuses on consumption inequality
|
||||
|
||||
## Descriptive statistical analysis ideas
|
||||
|
||||
real GDP per capita growth rate (see @Benjamin2017, fn.1)
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
|
|||
### [x] Bui2019 - Determinants of Rural-Urban Inequality in Vietnam: Detailed Decomposition Analyses Based on Unconditional Quantile Regressions
|
||||
|
||||
* examines determinants of rural-urban gap of household welfare in Vietnam through detailed decomposition analyses (consumption inequality) 2008-2012
|
||||
* basic education primary factor being beneficial to rural poort and ethnic minorities (in improving living standards)
|
||||
* remittances improve rural welfare but do not help reducing within or between-inequality
|
||||
* policy should ensure easy education access and support for self-employed to raise and stabilize income (instead of wage work, see @Benjamin2017)
|
||||
|
||||
* other studies on income inequality [@Imai2011; Imbert2011; Takahashi2007; vandeWalle2001]
|
||||
* most have tendency to mask within-group heterogeneity
|
||||
* e.g. within rural area there is high degree of heterogeneity depending on geographic characteristics (remoteness) or cultural factors [@Cao2008]
|
||||
|
||||
* previous studies on urban-rural expenditure:
|
||||
* [@Thu2014] - urban-rural inequality continued to increase over years due to both covariate effects and returns to those covariate effects
|
||||
* in 90s until 2002, but marginally decreased 2002-2006 [also @Fritzen2005]
|
||||
* [@Nguyen2007] - welfare disparity mainly explained by impact of structural effects
|
||||
* return to education, ethnicity, agricultural activies dramatically changed from 93-98
|
||||
* return to education improved the most
|
||||
* -> suggested development policy had urban bias (better education, more likely to benefit from economic reform)
|
||||
* confirmed by [@Fesselmeyer2010] - Theil Index decomposition found period inequality within rural-urban sectors remained stable but between inequality increased 61.9%
|
||||
* [@Cao2008] - within-gap for 2002-2004
|
||||
* this study builds upon their insights and uses reweighted regressions to arrive at rebust results
|
||||
|
||||
* in 90s widening gap between urban and rural
|
||||
* in last decade mostly within-group disparity (due to number of salaried workers in households within each sector)
|
||||
* in 2000s within-group inequality including regional, rural-urban, ethnic, gender increased/newly analyzed
|
||||
|
||||
Doi Moi policies: controlling credit growth, reducing subsidies to state-owned enterprises, besides opening economy to international trade
|
||||
|
||||
results:
|
||||
* urban-rural gap increasing in 2010, decreasing afterwards
|
||||
* effects of primary&secondary education on expenditure have become more positive across distribution in rural sector in recent years
|
||||
* -> suggests welfare inequality results from inequality in opportunity to improve human capital (agrees with @Thu2014)
|
||||
* thus, with within inequality as main overal inequality contributor, and large proportion of uneducated heads of households in rural sectors, facilitating education access for disadvantaged groups (poor households and ethnic minorities) would narrow gap within and between
|
||||
* higher education widens inequality gap again (between&within)
|
||||
* low social mobility among rural poor
|
||||
* e.g. they do not get the same social insurance as urban residents
|
||||
|
||||
### [ ] Imbert2013
|
||||
|
||||
results: earnings inequality overall in Vietnam decreased 1993-2006; public-private earnings gap increased in favor of public employees due to changes in compensation patterns: they were generally underpaid relative to earnings potential 90s, returns to skills homogeneity in labor market increased in early 2000s
|
||||
|
||||
### [ ] Nguyen2007
|
||||
|
||||
results: welfare inequality which in 1993 is primarily due to covariates such as education, ethnicity and age across entire distribution; in 1998 this remains true only for lowerst quantiles with rest of distribution being primarily due to differences in return between urban/rural sectors
|
||||
|
||||
### [ ] ThuLe2014
|
||||
|
||||
results: urban-rural consumption inequality 1993-2006; urban households consistently twice as much expenditure; difference lowest for poor households, increases (monotonically) for richer; primary drivers: inter-group different education (most important), age structure, labor market activity, geographic location;
|
||||
domestic remittances shorten urban-rural expenditure gap in later years (2002,2006)
|
||||
|
||||
### [ ] Cao2008
|
||||
|
||||
results: urban-rural inequalities 2002-2004, finds within-sector inequalities higher than between-, due to location characteristics; income level overall stays with education, occupation covariates; urban inequality higher than rural due to wage labor differences higher; wage labor can be equalizing source, agriculture definitely equalizing
|
||||
|
||||
### [ ] Fesselmeyer2010
|
||||
|
||||
results: 1990s widening urban-rural gap, individual characteristics (education, ethnicity, age) primary explanations for widening with returns primary explanation for increase at higher percentiles; argues for Lipton's urban-bias hypothesis creating structural obstacles rural
|
||||
|
||||
### [ ] Takahashi2007
|
||||
|
||||
results: primary determinants on income inequality in rural (emphasis on human capital and land) are returns to assets rather than endowments across regions; land endowments do not strongly correlate with regional income disparity (partially offset by lower returns); human capital improvements primary drivers of Red River delta catching up with Mekong River delta region
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
|
|||
### Missing
|
||||
|
||||
* informal/formal switches and stats
|
||||
|
||||
### [ ] vandeWalle2004
|
||||
|
||||
results:
|
||||
* looks at causes of poverty and incidence and participation in rural off-farm activities (1993-1998)
|
||||
* some common causative factors, education, region of residence
|
||||
* however generally processes determining both are not the same
|
||||
* participation in rural non-farm market economy allows *some* route out of poverty but certainly not all
|
||||
|
||||
### [ ] McCaig2013
|
||||
|
||||
results:
|
||||
* analyzing structural economic changes 1990-2008
|
||||
* structural changes account for 1/3rd of labor productivity growth (which was ~5.1% per year)
|
||||
* move from agriculture toward services and manufacturing, from household businesses to firms in enterprise sector, reallocation of workers from state-owned to private domestic and foreign owned firms
|
||||
* especially manufacturing grew (8->14% of workforce)
|
||||
|
||||
primary determinants: changes in trade policy, expansion of employment in foreign owned firms, declining role of state owned enterprises
|
||||
|
||||
### [ ] McCaig2014
|
||||
|
||||
results:
|
||||
* effects of US-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement (positive export shock), due to large US tariff reductions on Vietnamese exports
|
||||
* increased 5% share of manufacturing workers
|
||||
* slightly increased gap of labor productivity
|
||||
|
||||
### [ ] McCaig2015
|
||||
|
||||
results:
|
||||
* effects of economic changes to workforce transitions informal -> formal
|
||||
* younger workers, esp migrants, more likely to work in formal sector and stay in it
|
||||
* decline in aggregate share in informal employment bc of changes between and within birth cohorts
|
||||
* younger, educated, male, urban workers more likely to switch than others
|
||||
* little educated, older, female, rural workers least likely to switch
|
||||
* formalization coincides with occupational upgrading
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
|
|||
### [ ] Mottet2009
|
||||
|
||||
* looks at strengths/weaknesses of flood risk management in Ninh Binh province (2002-2005), especially urban Ninh Binh (capital):
|
||||
* flood risks constant challenge to area (for centuries)
|
||||
* affects most areas within the region
|
||||
* strengths of current management lie in prevention with dykes designed to channel high waters
|
||||
* additional measures, consolidation and elevation of houses, further strengthens prevention
|
||||
* effective monitoring of weather conditions (rainfall/typhoon) that may trigger floods
|
||||
* weaknesses
|
||||
* continued construction in flood-endangered zones (little urban policy)
|
||||
* information given to inhabitants over flood risks often insufficient
|
||||
* few compensation systems for flood victims
|
||||
|
||||
### [ ] Kozel2014
|
||||
|
||||
* overview of poverty in Vietnam and how it plays into inequality
|
||||
* generally, poverty decreased (dramatically) in Vietnam (90s-2010)
|
||||
* but factors still relatively similar:
|
||||
* low education and skills,
|
||||
* dependency on subsistence agriculture,
|
||||
* physical and social isolation
|
||||
* specific disadvantages linked to ethnic identity
|
||||
* exposure to natural disasters and risks
|
||||
* "future growth in agricultural livelihoods is also threatened by risks and vulnerabilities such as [...] natural disasters, climate change, and environmental degradation" [180]
|
||||
* poor households remain in precarious situation to economy-wide shocks (e.g. effects of climate change on rainfall and temperatures)
|
||||
* but also many households remain vulnerable to *falling* into poverty through these exogenous shock events
|
||||
* (reactionary) mitigation efforts towards these shocks: reduced healthcare spending, selling of land/livestock assets, taking children out of school often in turn lead to longer term adverse consequences
|
||||
|
||||
### [ ] Ylipaa2019
|
||||
|
||||
results:
|
||||
* Vietnam extremely susceptible to climate change impacts, esp extreme weather events (storms, floods)
|
||||
* looking at adaptation through gendered dimensions
|
||||
* differentiated rights/responsibilities male/female leading to unequal opportunities
|
||||
* females increased immobility, thus increased vulnerability to climate impacts and reduced capacity to adapt
|
||||
* at same time, farming livelihoods become increasingly feminized (due to urbanization and devaluation of farming)
|
||||
* the gender dimension is harder to counteract through usual technical solutions, may lead to exacerbation of both within-group/between-group inequalities
|
||||
|
||||
### [ ] Karpouzoglou2019
|
||||
|
||||
results:
|
||||
* historically, tying flood resilience of river deltas to institutional/infrastructural interventions, runs danger of unforeseen consequences ('ripple effects'):
|
||||
* biodiversity and accelerated land subsidence [collapse]
|
||||
* endangering fertile characteristics that made them interesting locations in the first place
|
||||
* resilience measures thus at risk of amploifying unequal power relations
|
||||
* potentially have differential effects on people's mobility under flood conditions
|
||||
* some groups better protected than others (water accumulation in specific areas)
|
||||
* driven by existing power structures, thus necessary to as if they exacerbate existing power inequalities
|
||||
|
||||
### [ ] Son2020
|
||||
|
||||
results:
|
||||
* analyze adaptation by ethnic minorities (Tay, Dao, Hmong) in Northern Mountainous Region (NMR):
|
||||
* poorest area of Vietnam
|
||||
* gender, age, ethnicity, poverty, location often provided considerable barriers to adaptation
|
||||
* locally-employed coping strategies conditional on strength and foresight of institutions and policies on loca, regional, central levels (i.e. especially preventative measures)
|
||||
* local knowledge and social capital can ease pressures but policy failures more typically led to mal-adaptation and welfare dependence
|
||||
* necessary to increase quality, focus of and access to government resources to enhance community adaptation possibilities
|
||||
* risks:
|
||||
* drought - (rice) yield losses between 50% and 100% depending on proximity of fields to water sources
|
||||
* impact also depends on access to non-farm incomes sources
|
||||
* effects poverty and hunger/malnutrition (especially among children)
|
||||
* taking children out of school to help family survival (financial & food)
|
||||
* flood
|
||||
* directly/indirectly (land slides) damage to residential structures
|
||||
* even more important than property damage was livelihood disruption
|
||||
* crop destruction, landslide cause, rice field inundation, overflowing fish ponds
|
||||
* additionally social problems like health risks through water contamination and malnutrition (crop failure)
|
||||
* cold snaps
|
||||
* loss of livestock
|
||||
* impact depending on biophysical location (higher altitudes hit more intensely)
|
||||
* ethnicity and farming practices (free-range grazing hit more heavily)
|
||||
* government should shift from crisis management to risk management, focus on building more adaptive capacity
|
||||
|
||||
### [ ] Jafino2021
|
||||
|
||||
* equity considerations increase in climate adaptation planning
|
||||
* but considerations often adopt aggregated perspective
|
||||
* only through closer disaggregation can be seen who benefits (when and where)
|
||||
* examples in Vietnam Mekong Delta of flood protection efforts mainly benefitting large-scale farming while small-scale farmers were in fact harmed
|
||||
* measured through aggregate total output and equity indicators and disaggregated district-level farming profitability indicators
|
||||
* analyzes: inundation, sedimentation, soil fertility, nutrient dynamics, behavioral land-use, farming profitability in coupled assessment model
|
||||
* adequate planning to anticipate equity consequences may require accounting for multisectoral dynamics
|
||||
* inter-district inequality responds non-linearly to climatic/socio-economic changes and choices of adaptation policies
|
||||
|
||||
-> within-sector policy responses to climate change may have between-sector impacts
|
||||
|
||||
### [ ] Hudson2021
|
||||
|
||||
* social inequalities lead to flood resilience inequalities across social groups
|
||||
* analyzes self-stated flood recovery responses in Central Vietnam (Thua Thien-Hue province), mainly in gender dimension:
|
||||
* set of relevant variables similar across genders: age, social capital, internal and external support after flood, perceived severity of previous flood impacts, perception of stress-resilience
|
||||
* women generally more heavily affected by flooding with longer recovery times
|
||||
* psychological variables can influence recovery rates more than adverse flood impacts (thus should be considered in post-flood support programs)
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
|
|||
# River Kim Dai dam lock
|
||||
|
||||
## Objectives
|
||||
|
||||
* climate change response:
|
||||
* sea level rise, flood tide
|
||||
* increased flood and drought
|
||||
* ensure province's steady economic development, esp agricultural
|
||||
* enhance management capacity of local governmental agencies
|
||||
* ensure safety of life, property, asset, crops for affected ppl in area
|
||||
* improve environmental sanitation
|
||||
* reduce flood risks, drought-caused diseases
|
||||
* improve health, living conditions for residents
|
||||
|
||||
specifically:
|
||||
* prevent saltwater intrusion into Vac River and other intrusion activities
|
||||
* store freshwater for agricultural production, domestic water supply
|
||||
* improve, regulate water supply for Southern Ninh Binh area, improve living/sanitation conditions of more than 200.000 HHs (~830.000residents)
|
||||
* reduce flood risks and prevent flood water coming reversely from Day River to Vac River
|
||||
* improve operational efficiency of existing lock complexes in region (Van Lock, Xanh Lock, Cau Hoi Lock)
|
||||
* facilitate waterway transportation
|
||||
* raise awareness of residents to climate change and combined water resource management demands
|
||||
|
||||
## Location
|
||||
|
||||
Ninh Binh Province
|
||||
|
||||
with:
|
||||
6 districts:
|
||||
* Gia Viễn
|
||||
* Hoa Lư
|
||||
* Kim Sơn
|
||||
* Nho Quan
|
||||
* Yên Khánh
|
||||
* Yên Mô
|
||||
2 provincial cities:
|
||||
* Ninh Bình (capital)
|
||||
* Tam Điệp
|
||||
(wikipedia)
|
||||
|
||||
Demographics
|
||||
The ethnic groups include the Viet (also called the Kinh, the Vietnamese ethnic majority), as well as other groups such as the Dao, Hoa, Hmong, Mường, Nùng, Tày and Thai. There are 23 ethnic groups, of which the Kinh account for more than 98%.
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue