64270 Crop Output in Vietnam, 1992 to 2006: An Analysis of the Patterns and Sources of Growth A Report Prepared for the World Bank January 28, 2009 Dwayne Benjamin, University of Toronto Loren Brandt, University of Toronto Barbara Coelli, Paris School of Economics Brian McCaig, Australian National University Le-Hoa Nguyen, Centre for Agricultural Policy, Hanoi Tuan Nguyen, Centre for Agricultural Policy, Hanoi 1. Motivation and Background The purpose of this report is to provide a detailed analysis of the behaviour of cropping output in agriculture between 1992 and 2006 in Vietnam at both the national and regional level. There are several motivations. First, the cropping sector is important. Output from the cropping sector represents between 75-80 percent of the total value of output produced in agriculture; output from animal husbandry and farm services makes up the rest. Agriculture, in turns, represents 75-80 percent of the total value of output produced by the primary sector, which consists of agriculture, forestry and fisheries. Similar percentages apply to value-added. Thus, half of output or income generated in the primary sector is tied to cropping output. Given the role of the primary sector in Vietnam’s economy, and the percentage of households that derive income from the primary sector, behaviour in the cropping sector has important implications for the evolution of both growth and inequality. Second, Vietnam’s General Statistical Office reports annually estimates of cropping output at the national level in current (i.e., nominal) prices. They also report estimates in constant 1994 (i.e., real) prices. As far as we know however, they do not report similar estimates of nominal and real crop output disaggregated at either the provincial or regional level. Moreover, little is known about the construction of these estimates, especially details concerning the deflator used to convert measures of crop output from current to real values. Third, the period 1992 through 2006 has been one of considerable change in the economic and policy environment that might affect the growth of agriculture. Most obviously, the beginning of this time period corresponded to the main economic reforms that affected farm Vietnam Crop Output Report, Page 1 of 25 incentives. In addition, there have been a series of important measures of trade liberalization, both within Vietnam and between Vietnam and international markets. Combined, these factors have more closely tied farmer incentives and outcomes to fluctuations in world crop prices. These price (and policy) changes may also have induced farmers to shift dramatically cropping patterns, and to improve productivity (yields). Irrespective of responses to incentives, the integration of Vietnamese agriculture to international markets (and pricing) has made the valuation of agricultural output more complicated, especially in permitting policy makers to distinguish real increases in crop output from possibly transitory increases in nominal output driven by international trends in crop prices. Our primary objective is to provide a series of first-order “facts� concerning trends in real crop output in Vietnam. This principally entails combining nominal crop output and acreage data provided by the GSO, with price indices that we construct ourselves using detailed micro-level data from the Vietnam Living Standards Surveys (VLSS). We use information on prices extracted from the VLSS in order to construct a set of consistent estimates of the current value of crop output at the regional and national level for five benchmark years: 1992/1993, 1997/1998, 2002, 2004 and 2006. We use the same price information to construct a set of chain-linked Laspeyres price deflators at both the national and regional level in order to examine the behaviour of the real value of crop output over time. We examine key trends in the value of aggregate crop output, and major sub-aggregates at both the national and regional level over the period between 1992 and 2006. We also examine trends with respect to acreage. Our estimates of the value of real output and acreage data further allow us to carry out simple decomposition exercises examining the contributions of the extensive and intensive margins to output growth over time. The extensive margin reflects Vietnam Crop Output Report, Page 2 of 25 increases in crop output related to increases in acreage; the intensive margin, on the other hand, reflects increases arising from increases in crop output produced per unit of land (i.e., yields). We supplement our analysis at the national and regional level with a modest examination of trends at the household level. We are especially interested in the heterogeneity in the behaviour of the growth of crop output across households. The two dimensions of household heterogeneity that we concern ourselves with are farm size (measured in terms of cultivated area), and household income. We focus our analysis on trends with respect to how rapidly output was growing in real terms. The next parts of the chain would link output to farm incomes more directly. First this requires information on the value-added from crop production (gross output value less the cost of intermediate inputs) in order to convert gross revenue into real net income. Second, we would have to convert “real farm profits� measured in producer prices, to “real incomes� that link to farmer welfare, utilizing the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for rural households. In this report, we focus only on the trends in real output at the national and sub-regional level, and save the latter two links of the chain for future work. 2. Our Strategy Vietnam’s General Statistical Office (GSO) reports annually provincial-level data on acreage and physical output for 20 key crops. These crops fall into five main categories: cereals, annual industrial crops, perennials, fruits, and vegetables. Our strategy is to use the GSO physical output data, along with information on “unit values� (“prices�) from the VLSS in each of five benchmark years (1992, 1997, 2002, 2004 and 2006) to value output in order to produce a “consistent� set of estimates of the value of crop output. In an appendix, we describe in more Vietnam Crop Output Report, Page 3 of 25 detail the procedures used to overcome some of the shortcomings in the GSO aggregate crop data. While for expositional simplicity we will refer to them as such, unit values are not actual market prices. Rather, they are the ratio of sales revenue to output sold for each crop by farm households. Using the household survey data on crop sales, we calculate unit values for each household for each crop sold, and use them as estimates of farm-gate prices. Based on the sample of unit values, we then estimate the median unit value in each region for the purpose of valuing crop output in that region.1 At the national level, we use the median calculated over all households in the country. The unit values are then treated the same as prices, and used to construct separate chain- linked Laspeyres price indices for each region, and then for all of Vietnam. Each regional index is based only on price information for that region. The national index uses price information for the entire country. Differences in the composition of crop output across regions and differences in the behaviour of prices among major crop groups, e.g. cereals versus perennials, etc., point to potential problems in using a simple “national� price index to deflate regional nominal totals. The chain-linked index has the added advantage of factoring in changes over time in crop composition, and thus the weight of various crops in the price index. As we show below, there have been important changes in the composition of crop output. 




























































 1 We also experimented with using alternative summary measures such as the mean unit value, and the differences are marginal. The value of the median is that it is slightly less sensitive to extreme outliers in the data.
 Vietnam Crop Output Report, Page 4 of 25 3. Nominal rates of total crop output between 1992 and 2006, and select sub-periods In the next few tables we document total crop output, first in nominal, then in real terms. In order to do so, we also discuss the price index used to covert nominal to real output. In the top panel of Table 1, we report our estimates of the nominal value of crop out for all of Vietnam and by region for our five benchmark years. The top panel of Table 2 provides corresponding estimates of rates of nominal growth. In nominal terms, the value of crop output in current prices increased from 33.6 trillion VND to 182.8 trillion VND. This implies an average annual rate of growth of 12.9 percent over the entire period. The most rapid growth occurred between 1992 and 1997. This was followed by a sharp reduction in growth rates between 1997 and 2002 during which the nominal value of crop output only grew 3.9 percent annually. Nominal output growth accelerated the next four years, and has averaged more than 16 percent per annum. There are significant differences across the regions, with the growth in the Central Highlands (CH) the most rapid. Between 1992 and 2006, the nominal value of crop output increased at an annual rate of 22.3 percent in the CH. By comparison, the next most rapidly growing regions were the North West (NW) at 15.3 percent, and the South East (SE) at 14.1 Percent. Growth in crop output for both of the deltas lagged noticeably: it increased only 11.9 percent in the Mekong River Delta (MRD) and 8.6 percent in the Red River Delta (RRD). 4. Price Indices We are interested in real growth, which requires the construction of a set of crop price deflators in order to deflate nominal output into “real output.� “Real Output� corresponds to a constant composite of agricultural commodities. The distinction between nominal and real output is especially important if we want to evaluate overall trends in agricultural productivity. If there Vietnam Crop Output Report, Page 5 of 25 was only one crop (e.g., rice), this might be very easy. If prices were constant across the country, then increases in the value of rice output could be converted to “Kilograms� of rice using the price of rice. We would only need to track the national price of rice over time (e.g., from 1992 to 2006). If the price of rice varied across regions, then if we wanted to convert the values produced in each region to quantities, we would simply need regional price series. The calculation is more complicated once there are many crops, especially as all prices do not move in tandem. By its very nature, exercises like ours entail significant distillation and simplification. Our objective is to construct a deflator that corresponds to tracking the price of composite crop output over time. The focus is on permitting inter-temporal comparisons, so that we can summarize growth patterns. For any two years, we wish to calculate the “average� ratio of prices in the second period to the first, where the weights in the average depend on the relative importance of the crop in the base year. From this exercise, we can adjust nominal growth rates for the general tendency of crop prices to rise between the two time periods. The GSO itself conducts this exercise, reporting the value of crop production in both current prices and also in 1994 prices. These two series can be used to “back-out� their deflator with 1994 as the base year. There are number of potential problems with their deflator however. First, it uses as weights crop composition in 1994. As we show below, there has been an important shift in the composition of crop output. In particular, cereals (and especially paddy) have become less important, as the contribution of fruits, perennials and vegetables have increased. Insofar as there are differences across crops in terms of the behaviour of prices, changes in crop composition will introduce biases into the deflator, and ultimately, estimates of real output. Second, regions differ significantly in terms of the composition of crop output. Vietnam Crop Output Report, Page 6 of 25 Using a “national� deflator to convert regional nominal totals into real output will thus also introduce a bias into our estimates of regional growth rates. In Table 3, we report both the Laspeyres index between years, e.g. 1992-1997, 1997- 2002, etc, and then the chain-linked index with 1992 as 100. In the second panel of Table 2 we report the rate of annual price inflation (or deflation) implied by each of the indices between our benchmark years. In the appendix, we carry out a comparison of our index with the official GSO price deflator. Over the entire period, farm-gate prices rose slightly more than 6.5 percent per year, but this ignores volatility over the period. Prices rose nearly 12 percent or so per annum between 1992 and 1997, were modestly lower in 2002 compared to 1997, and then began to rise again, and between 2004 and 2006, rose at more than 11 percent per annum. Some of this variation in prices reflects fluctuations and trends in international crop prices. In Appendix Table A4, we report some of these main patterns for crops grown in Vietnam. The decline in Vietnamese prices between 1997 and 2002 matches global declines in crop prices almost across the board, but notably in rice and key perennials like coffee and rubber. The sharp increases between 2002, 2004, and 2006 for the price indices also correspond to significant increases in the world price of grain, and especially perennials. Note also the heterogeneity in the behaviour of crop prices across regions over our benchmark years. Over the entire period, the difference in the rate of inflation in crop prices between the region with the most rapidly rising and least rapidly rising prices is a fairly modest 1.5 percent per annum (see Table 2). But, even this amounts to an accumulated difference of 20 percent over a 14 year period. Since the real rate of crop output is simply the nominal rate less the rate of inflation, a small difference of 1.5 percent per annum can amount to a significant Vietnam Crop Output Report, Page 7 of 25 “real� difference over a longer period of time. Also, over much shorter periods, the differences in behaviour are significantly larger. The behaviour of crop prices in the Central Highlands between 1997 and 2002 is a good example. Prices fell back to 1992 levels there, largely due to the sharp drop in prices of perennials such as coffee and rubber, while prices in the seven other regions more or less remained constant. Prices recovered in the region rapidly after 2002, increasing at rates nearly twice that experienced nationally. 5. Real Output Growth In the bottom panel of Table 1 we report the levels of real output by region, and for Vietnam as whole. To present the numbers more clearly, we plot the logarithms of output over time in Figure 1. The slopes of the lines represent the growth rates of output, while the relative positions show the rankings of output by region. The most striking aspect of the figure is the rapid rate of growth in the Central Highlands, such that it has become the second most important region for crop output, passing the almost stagnant RRD, though still well behind the MRD (in levels). The growth rates themselves are reported in the bottom panel of Table 2. In this table, one can see the accounting identity that real growth equals nominal growth minus inflation. The resulting growth rates are also plotted in Figure 2. In calculating real rates of growth, we use separately the national and regional price deflators for deflating national and regional output. Over the entire period, growth of real crop output at the national level averaged an impressive 6.3 percent per annum. Over the 14 year period, however, there has been a slow secular decline in the rate of growth of crop production, falling from a high of nearly 8 percent between 1992- 1997, to 5.7 percent between 1997 and 2002, 5.4 percent between 2002 and 2004, and then 4.40 Vietnam Crop Output Report, Page 8 of 25 percent between 2004 and 2006. This decline is partially expected; the high growth in the early 1990s reflects the one-time gains that Vietnam agriculture enjoyed as part of the reintroduction of family farming in the late 1980s, and price and trade liberalization, especially with respect to rice (Benjamin and Brandt, 2002). There are significant differences across the regions. The fastest growth (as observed already) has been in the Central Highlands, which at 16.0 percent per annum is almost two and a half times the national average. Although growth dropped between 1997 and 2004 from the exceptional highs of the period 1992-1997, growth continued to be well above the national average, and between 2004 and 2006 growth exceeded 12 percent. In contrast, growth in the RRD has lagged significantly behind, and between 1992 and 2006 averaged only 2.5 percent, less than half the national average. The very slow growth in the RRD between 2004 and 2006 of 1.3 percent is particularly noticeable, behaviour that it shares with MRD, where growth was only 0.3 percent. In contrast, however, over the entire period, the MRD has done reasonably well, with output growing at an annual real rate of nearly 5 percent. In four of the other regions, namely, NE, NW, NCC and SE, growth between 1992 and 2006 has averaged 6 percent or more per annum, implying a near doubling of output. Next to the RRD, growth has been slowest in the SCC. In short, despite some significant regional differences, crop production has experienced very robust growth throughout much of Vietnam over this 14 year period, a development that likely has important distributive consequences. Vietnam Crop Output Report, Page 9 of 25 6. Real Output Growth by Crop Group Table 4 provides estimates of the rate of growth of real output at both the regional and national level over the same benchmark years for the five crop sub-aggregates. In each case, nominal crop output is being deflated by unique regional (national) price deflators that we constructed for each sub-aggregate. For example, the nominal value of cereal output in the RRD is deflated using a price index that utilizes information on prices in the RRD on paddy, corn, cassava, and sweet potatoes. There are lots of numbers to digest, but several things stick out: 1. In Figure 3, we plot the growth rates by region and crop for the full time span (1992- 2006). As noted before, the most remarkable feature is the rapid rate of growth in the Central Highlands. As can be seen here, however, output in the Central Highlands grew across the board, in all crop groups: perennials most obviously, but also cereals, fruit, and annual industrials. Nationally, expansion of perennials is most notable, as is the almost 10 percent annual rate of growth in fruit and vegetables. 2. Turning to Table 4 itself, we can see variation of these patterns across time periods. Between 1992 and 2002, cereal production grew a very robust 5 percent per annum, but fell off sharply the next four years. Between 2004 and 2006, output increased at less than one-half of one percent per annum, and actually contracted in both of the deltas regions. An important question is the reasons for the sharp drop off, and the extent to which cereal production has started to increase again in light of the sharp rise in grain prices the last year or so. 3. The slack in cereals has been picked up by the rapid growth in the other crops, especially perennials and fruits. Perennials and fruits have grown at average rates of 15.4 and 9.3 Vietnam Crop Output Report, Page 10 of 25 percent per annum, respectively. Although annual growth in both groups has declined over time, growth between 2004 and 2006 still averaged more than 10 percent in both. 4. The rapid growth in perennial production has not been limited to the CH. Both the SE and NW have enjoyed expansion in perennial crop output. 5. The rate of growth of vegetable output over the 14 year period has been the most constant among the sub-aggregates. This is true at both the national as well as regional level. We do not know if this accurately reflects trends, or is a product of the way that GSO measures vegetable output. 7. Composition of Crop Output Table 5 provides summary information at the regional and national level on the composition of crop output. In each of the five benchmark years, we report the percentage of nominal output made up of cereals, vegetables, annual industrial crops, perennials and fruit. In the early 1990s, cereals made up the bulk of crop output, representing nearly 75 percent of the value of crop output. Within cereals, rice was dominant, and itself represented more than 80 percent of output. In most regions, the percentage for cereals was between 70 and 80 percent, but in both the Central Highlands and the Southeast the percentage was less than 40 percent. Nationally, the rest of crop output was divided among annual industrial crops (8.40 percent), vegetables (5.95), perennials (5.51), and fruits (5.52). The much smaller role for cereals in the CH and SE was offset by much larger shares for annual industrial and perennials, which combined represented between 40-50 percent of gross crop output. These two regions were likely dependent on imports of rice from other parts of the country. Vietnam Crop Output Report, Page 11 of 25 The national numbers are also arrayed in Figure 4. The most significant trend at the national level is the reduction in the share of cereals, which fell to 56.90 percent by 2006, and the shift to cash crops. Most of this occurred between 1992 and 1997, and 2004-2006. 2 Perennials almost tripled as a share of the value of crop output, from 5.51 percent in 1992 to 15.36 percent in 2006. Much of this can be attributed to the increases in CH and SE. Vegetables’ share has doubled. Table 6 complements Table 5, and for each of the 5 major crop groups (as well as for total crop output) we provide each region’s share of the national total. The prominent role of the two deltas in cereal production sticks out, as does the expanding role of the CH and SE in perennial production. The NE has also become a more important producer of fruits. Reflecting the significantly lower growth of crop output in the RRD relative to the rest of Vietnam, the region’s overall share of total crop output fell from 22.7 percent to 15.9. Figure 5 provides a further summary of the patterns for total crop output. The most obvious patterns are the decline in the share of output produced in the two deltas: the Red River Delta declining more than the Mekong River Delta, and the corresponding increase in the share produced in the Central Highlands and Southeast. 8. Acreage Changes in the amount of land under cultivation, and shifts in acreage among the major crop groups play an important role in explaining the output trends described above. In Table 7 we report for each of the 8 regions and for each of our 5 benchmark years, total sown area for each of the five crop groups. It is important to note here that these data are for sown area as 




























































 2 With the sharp rise in cereal prices the last year, cereals’ share of total crop output has probably risen.
 Vietnam Crop Output Report, Page 12 of 25 opposed to cultivated land, and thus reflect changes in both cultivated area, as well as changes in the intensity with which land is farmed. Unfortunately, we do not have estimates for cultivated area which would allow us to sort out the two. For all of Vietnam, sown area increased by 40 percent over the 14 year period, with most of this occurring in the years up to 2002. This works out to an increase of 2.4 percent annually over the 14 year period. Room for expansion on this margin differed enormously across the regions. In the highly densely-populated RRD, for example, sown area remained more or less the same. In contrast, sown area increased more than three-fold in the CH. In between these two extremes are regions such as the SE and NW, both of which experienced increases in sown area of two-thirds. In the NE and MRD, on the other hand, sown area increased by slightly more than a third. Figure 6 reports the corresponding national totals by crop type. This clearly shows that growth in sown area has halted since 2002, except for perennials. Looking forward, there does not appear to be much room for further increases in sown area, and in all likelihood, it will contract. Table 8 reports the percentage of sown area in each region and in all of Vietnam in each of the five crop categories. This is complemented by Table 9 that reports each region’s share of total sown area in Vietnam in each of the five crop groups. Figures 7 and 8 plot the national numbers from these tables, illustrating the shifting crop composition and geographic distribution of sown area. In the aggregate, cereals dominate, and in 1992, 82.45 percent of sown area was in cereals. This declined appreciably between 1992 and 2002, with smaller reductions occurring between 2002 and 2006. Overall, the percentage of sown area in cereals fell by 13 percentage points, offset by increases (in order of magnitude) in perennials, fruits and vegetables. Only in the MRD, Vietnam’s major rice growing region, do we not observe a reduction in area in cereals Vietnam Crop Output Report, Page 13 of 25 of 10 percentage points or more. Most of the increase in sown area in perennials is a product of the rapid expansion in the CH and SE, however increases in fruits and vegetables are more broadly observed across the 8 regions. It is important to remember that even with the decline in the share of sown area in cereals, total sown area in cereals actually increased. This reflects the fact that total sown area itself rose by 40 percent. Between 1992 and 2006, total sown area in cereals increased from 7.642 million hectares to 9.012 million, or an increase of slightly less than 20 percent. By comparison, sown area in perennials increased by 228 percent; fruits rose by 196 percent; vegetables by 123 percent; and by 53 percent in annual industrial crops. 9. Decomposition The growth in real crop output that we documented in Section 5 occurred at both the extensive and intensive margins. The extensive margin here is the amount of land under cultivation (sown), while the intensive margin captures the contribution to output growth arising from changes in output per unit of land. Output per unit of land can increase because of higher yields or a shift to higher-valued crops. Increases in crop output resulting from an increase in the intensity with which land is used (i.e., the degree of double cropping) are also part of the intensive margin. Unfortunately, we do not have data on cultivated area, and only have data on sown area. Changes in sown area are a product of both changes in cultivated area, and changes in the multiple-cropping intensity. Nonetheless, we are able to carry out simple decompositions for changes in real crop output over time using sown area. In this simple decomposition, there are actually three contributing factors to output change: Vietnam Crop Output Report, Page 14 of 25 • Increases in yields on existing land; • Increases in land evaluated at existing yields; • Increases on new land related to an increase in yields. In this decomposition, we define yields to be the value of output per unit of sown land. Thus, changes in yield will be a product of both increases in physical yields, e.g. kilograms of paddy per hectare, and a shift to crops with a higher value of output per unit of land. There is also a third “interaction� factor, which represents the increase in output related to an increase in yields on new land. In principle, we could extend our decomposition to allow for this further breakdown, but will not do so at this point In Table 10, we provide the results of this simple decomposition for each of the 8 regions and for all of Vietnam for key sub-periods and for the entire period: 1992-1997, 1997-2002, 2002-2004, 2004-2006, and 1992-2006. We report the contributions in terms of proportions, with the sum of the 3 contributions totalling one. In principle, the contributions can be either positive or negative. For example, a reduction in sown area between periods would contribute negatively to growth. Over the entire period from 1992 to 2006 fully half of the increase in real output can be attributed to an increase in output on existing land. The increase in sown area is the source of 30 percent of the increase, while 20 percent of the growth can be attributed to the increase on new land related to an increase in yields. Especially revealing is the trend in the contribution of these factors. Increases in sown area are very important up through 2002, but over the last 4 years contributed much less as room to expand sown area was exhausted in most regions. The Vietnam Crop Output Report, Page 15 of 25 slack is filled by the contribution of rising yields, which between 2002-2004, and 2004-2006 were the source of 80 and 70 percent of the growth in real crop output, respectively. Analysis at the national level conceals important regional differences reflecting differences in the ability to expand output along the extensive margin. In the RRD, for example, there was simply no room, and in fact sown area declined slightly. As a result, all of the increase in real output came from either increases in physical yields, or a shift to higher value-added crops on existing land. The North Central and South Central were also more constrained in this regard. In the MRD and the SE, on the other hand, there was much more room to increase output through increases in sown area, especially during the period up to 2002. However, since 2002 these opportunities have largely disappeared, and increases in yields underlie the continued expansion of real output. Only in the NE, NW and the CH are increases in sown area continuing to play a role in real output growth, and between 2004 and 2006 were the source of roughly forty percent of output growth. Much of this is likely in the form of newly reclaimed land. 10. The Behavior of CropYields In our decompositions, the contribution of increases in yields is actually the product of two factors: 1. increases in physical yields; and 2. a shift to higher-valued crops. We intend to extend our decomposition for these two factors in future work, but for the moment, provide summary data on the behaviour of physical yields for our key crops. Table 11 presents yields for major crops by region and nationally for each of the 5 benchmark yields, while Table 12 provides rates of growth in yields over select periods. There are a number of caveats in interpreting these data. First, yield figures for both fruits and vegetables are aggregates constructed separately over all fruits and vegetables, respectively. Vietnam Crop Output Report, Page 16 of 25 Within each of these sub-aggregates, we are not able to differentiate the contribution to total yields of yield growth of individual crops versus a shift to crops with higher yields. Second, in the case of perennials it take several years after planting before the trees actually begin to bear output. Once this occurs, output will typically rise the first few years, and then level off. Thus, during periods of rapid expansion in acreage, and depending on how acreage in these crops is recorded, yield growth may be dampened. This will be less of a problem over longer periods of time. Turning to the growth rates in the last panel of Table 12, between 1992 and 2006, an unweighted average of physical yields for the major crops increased at an annual rate of slightly more than 4 percent. There are important differences across the crop groups. Perennials grew the fastest. Excluding perennials, yield growth still averaged a very respectable 3.3 percent, and for paddy, yields grew 2.8 percent per annum. Paddy yields rose through 2002, but have fallen subsequently, and between 2004 and 2006 were especially low. The driving factor in the fall in paddy yield growth is the behaviour in the two deltas, which combined represent 60 percent of paddy acreage. For cereals as a group, this has been partially offset by the more rapid increases in yield growth in both maize and cassava. There is a marked cyclical dimension to yield behavior: After rising between 1992 and 1997, yield growth fell over the next five years, but then rose sharply after 2002. In fact, growth after 2002 is more than double that between 1993 and 2002. However, a healthy portion of this is the product of rising yields in perennials, the calculation of which may be sensitive to the caveat raised above. Nonetheless, in the face of limited opportunities to expand acreage, it is this increase in yield growth that has helped to sustain reasonably high rates of growth of crop output over the last half of the period between 1992 and 2006. Vietnam Crop Output Report, Page 17 of 25 11. A Brief Look at Distributive Dimensions of Crop Output Growth Income from cropping represents an important source of rural household income. On the basis of estimates we have constructed of household income using the VLSS, in 1993 income from cropping represented 43.9 percent of total rural household income. This has declined over time with the emergence of new farm sidelines, e.g. animal husbandry and aquaculture, off-farm wage opportunities, and the development of family-run businesses, but even as late as 2006 income from cropping was the source of 26.9 percent of total rural income. Farming income may be especially important for households in the lower end of the income distribution for whom farming is the major source of income. Drawing on data from the VLSS, we examine the behaviour of the growth of crop output by household “type�. We divide rural households into quintiles on the basis of two criteria: cultivated landholdings, and per capita household incomes. We next compute for each of the five VLSS years, namely, 1992, 1997, 2002, 2004 and 2006, the value of real output per household in the quintile, and then rates of growth of real output over the entire period. Table 13 (and Figures 9 and 10) reports the breakdown on the basis of cultivated landholdings, while Table 14 (and Figures 11 and 12) does the same thing on basis of per capita household incomes. At the bottom of both of these tables are the rates of growth of real crop output over the period between 1992 and 2006 that are implied by the VLSS data. On average, between 1992 and 2006, average farm household real crop output grew 6.60 percent per annum, or slightly higher than our estimate of aggregate real crop output using the GSO data. In principle, the two numbers need not line up, especially if there is a sharp reduction in the percentage of households in the economy that are farming. This does not appear to be the case, and it is reassuring that the Vietnam Crop Output Report, Page 18 of 25 rates of growth in real crop output implied by the aggregate and household level data line up as well as they do.3 Across cultivated holdings, we observe relatively modest differences in the rate of growth of real crop output. It is lowest for the smallest of farms, rises through the third quintile, and then levels off. Output growth in the smallest quintiles is about half of the average (3.4 versus 6.6), but for the second quintile the difference is significantly less (5.6 versus 6.6). “Farm Size� is only modestly related to agricultural growth. We observe slightly smaller differences when households are sorted on the basis of income, but in the opposite direction. Real crop output grows at a fairly similar rate for households in the lower three quintiles, and then falls slowly through next two quintiles. More pronounced differences in growth rates throughout the income distribution are observed for the period between 1997 and 2006, which we also report at the bottom of Table 14. The rate of growth of crop output for households in the bottom quintile was almost twice that of households in the top quintile (8.1 versus 4.2 percent), and a third higher than households in the fourth quintile (8.1 versus 5.8). This behaviour represents an important reversal of the pattern observed between 1992 and 1997, and much higher rates of growth among higher income households. The results of these growth rates are reflected in Figure 13. In 1992, crop output is highly correlated with income quintile: richer households produce more crop output. By 2006, however, the relationship between income and crop output has flattened out significantly, and there is not much to differentiate the top three (or even four) quintiles from each other. Clearly, farming is 




























































 3 Between 1992 and 2006, the percentage of “rural� households that report income from cropping declines slightly from 94 percent to 84 percent. The percentage of “urban� households with cropping income remains constant at 22 percent. The other potential source of differences in rates of growth between the aggregate figures and the household-based ones is the behaviour of crop output on state farms and plantations. Vietnam Crop Output Report, Page 19 of 25 not the route to the top of the economic pyramid in rural Vietnam. One other notable feature from Figure 15 is that while crop output is similar across the top three quintiles, the richest households are distinguished by heavier involvement in perennials. Especially if the trees have not fully matured, we may see crop output (and income) increase sharply for the richest households. Of course, for this to translate into incomes requires correspondingly high commodity prices, which may not persist during a global economic downturn. Over the period between 1992 and 2006, income inequality in rural Vietnam, as measured by the Gini coefficient for per capita household incomes falls slightly, and at a minimum, probably remains the same. In fact, our own estimates suggest that inequality in 1992 and 1997 is nearly identical, but then significantly lower in 2002, 2004 and 2006. With income from the cropping sector much more important for those households in the bottom of the income distribution, the much more rapid growth of crop output (and incomes from cropping activity) by these households after 1997 may have played an important role in preventing income differences from widening, though this remains a topic for closer investigation. 12. Summary We summarize our key findings: 1. Vietnam has enjoyed robust growth in cropping output over the period 1992-2006. Rates of growth have fallen from the highs of the early to mid 1990s, but since 2002 have grown at between 4.5 and 5 percent. 2. There are marked differences among regions, with the growth in the RRD and MRD lagging significantly. The sharp drop in crop output growth after 2002 is particularly noticeable. The most rapid growth has been enjoyed by the CH, SE, and the NE and NW. Vietnam Crop Output Report, Page 20 of 25 3. There are also important differences across crop groups. The most rapid growth has been experienced by perennials, followed by fruits, and then vegetables. Cereal output growth has lagged, but still grew a respectable 4.0 percent annually. 4. Both the extensive and intensive margins have played important roles in this growth, but increases in physical yields and a shift to higher valued crops are especially important. At a minimum, they are the source of half of more of crop output growth over the entire time period, and more than three-quarters or so over the period between 2002 and 2006. 5. Our estimates of the nominal and real crop output line-up reasonably well with the GSO estimates, however, the GSO estimates for 2006 appear low. Underlying this are the prices that GSO has used to value crop output. By comparison to those we estimated using the VLSS household level data and international prices for the same key crops, GSO prices appear low. This has contributed to lower nominal output figures and nominal growth estimates. It may also have affected estimates of real output growth. 6. At the household level, we observe higher rates of growth of crop output among lower income households. The relationship is especially sharp between 1997 and 2006. With income from agriculture more important for these households, the ability of lower income households to benefit significantly from the growth in agriculture likely had positive implications for the trajectory of income inequality in Vietnam. Vietnam Crop Output Report, Page 21 of 25 APPENDIX: ESTIMATING CROP OUTPUT The starting point for our estimates is provincial-level data reported by GSO on output and acreage in 20 key crops. The list is not exhaustive, but covers most of the cropping sector. Table A1 provides a list of the crops for which we have information, by major crop group. Aside from dealing with occasional “outliers� in output or acreage that are the result of either data reporting or coding errors, the two main problems we face in our estimation relate to the valuing of output in fruits and vegetables. We discuss each in turn below. In the construction of regional estimates, we aggregate data at the provincial level. Regional boundaries have changed since 1992 and a number of provinces have been shifted among regions. To ensure consistency in our estimates at the regional level, we define regions on the basis of the definition in 1992. Table A2 in the appendix provides a breakdown of provinces by region. Estimates of fruit output Data on the physical outputs of fruits are not available for 1992. We have data for 1997, 2002, 2004 and 2006, but then only for 5 fruits including banana, rambutan, mango, citrus (oranges, limes and mandarins), and pineapple. In order to obtain estimates of the value of output for all fruits in each year, as well as for 1992, we utilize information from the VLSS. First, for each VLSS year, we estimate for each region the portion of the total value of fruit output that is represented by these five crops. We use this ratio to “blow up� our estimate based on the five fruits in order to obtain an estimate for all fruits. On average, these five crops represent xx.x percent of the gross value of fruit output as reported at the household level. Second, we use the Vietnam Crop Output Report, Page 22 of 25 VLSS data to construct estimates of the rate of growth of the nominal value of fruit output between 1992 and 1997. This estimate is then applied to our estimates for 1997 in order to obtain an estimate of the gross value of fruit output in 1992. The accuracy of our methodology rests on two things: 1.The similarity in the ratio of these five crops to total fruit output in the household sector compared to fruit production outside the household sector; and 2. How well growth in fruit output at the household level captures aggregate trends. This depends on both the similarity between growth in output in the household and non-household sector, and the representative of the households in the 1992 and 1997 VLSS. Estimates of vegetable output GSO does not report disaggregated output for vegetables. They only report total physical output of vegetables in kilograms. In order to value output, we use the VLSS to construct an estimate of the “unit value� for vegetables. This represents the average amount households received per kilogram of vegetables sold to the market calculated over all vegetables. As we do for all other crops, we construct estimates at both the regional level and national level. We also experimented with calculating unit values over the 5 vegetable crops that appear in each of the 5 VLSS. The differences are marginal. Acreage data for fruits We do not have complete acreage data for fruits. In order to obtain an estimate of total acreage that is comparable to our measure of output, we use information from the VLSS to estimate the percentage of total fruit acreage in the 5 fruits identified above. The chief difficulty here is that in the VLSS, data on fruit are more likely to be reported in terms of the total number of trees rather than the acreage. Households typically reported one way or the other. Vietnam Crop Output Report, Page 23 of 25 Using the VLSS, we estimate for each of the five benchmark years both the percentage of fruit area, and the percentage of fruit trees in the five fruits we have data for. We do this at both the regional and national level. In general, the two estimates are very consistent with each other, and are in the ballpark of 80-85 percent. We use these estimates to “blow-up� our acreage estimates to obtain an estimate of the total acreage in fruits. A comparison with GSO Estimates For comparison, in Table A3 we report GSO’s estimates of the nominal value of crop output between 1992 and 2006 at the national level, along with our estimates for the 5 VLSS years. (See columns (1) and (2). In making the comparison between our estimates and those of GSO, it is important to keep in mind that the comparison cannot be exact. There are several reasons for this. First, the number of crops used to estimate output may differ. Second, the “price� data from the VLSS that we are using to value physical output in each of the benchmark years is in fact based on sales in the preceding 12 months. This implies for 2006, for example, that we are using prices over a period spanning part of 2005 and 2006. Nonetheless, for 4 of the years, 1992, 1997, 2002 and 2004, our estimates are within 10 percent of GSOs, and for 1992 and 2004 we do especially well. This is reassuring, and gives our regional estimates, for which we have no other basis for comparison, credibility. Larger differences are observed for 2006: Our estimate of the nominal value of crop output for 2006 is twenty-five percent higher than GSO. This is exceptionally high and worrisome. More forensics work is required, but we believe the primary reason for the difference is too low of crop prices used by GSO to value output in 2006. Vietnam Crop Output Report, Page 24 of 25 In Table A3, we also compare our price deflator for crop output with GSOs for the five benchmark years: 1992, 1997, 2002, 2004 and 2006. We “backed-out� GSO’s deflator for the cropping sector using data they report on output in current prices and in 1994 prices. (See column (5). To facilitate the comparison, we “renormalize� GSOs deflator so that either 1992 or 1993 is equal to 100. Although the two deflators differ in construction (the GSO index uses 1994 output weights, and ours is a chain-linked Laspeyres price index in which the weights change over time), they tell a fairly similar story of what happens to crop prices between 1992 and 2006, but GSO’s index shows a smaller drop in crop prices in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and then a significantly smaller increase in crop prices after 2002 (xx.x percent versus yy.y percent). Between 2004 and 2006, their index implies an increase of 5.7; by comparison, our index shows an increase of 24.1 percent. Some of this may be attributable to differences in the weighting of crops in the two price indices and differences in the behaviour of prices across these crops, but it appears to more than just a matter of weighting. A reasonable point of comparison is the behaviour of crop prices internationally. In Table A4, we provide a set of estimates of for the behaviour of world crop prices for a majority of the crops we are using. All prices are expressed relative to the base year, 1992, while the year-to- year change is the percentage change between survey years. Prices were initially calculated on the basis of US $. These data show increases in international prices between 2002 and 2006 on par with those we estimate on the basis of the unit values from the VLSS. The run-up in the price of paddy, which represents slightly less than half of the gross value of crop output in Vietnam, is especially informative. Internationally, the price of paddy rose 28 percent between 2002 and 2004, and an additional 23 percent between 2004 and 2006. Our unit values for paddy show a similar increase. Vietnam Crop Output Report, Page 25 of 25 Table 1: Nominal and Real Crop Output by Region (in Millions of VND) 
 
 Nominal Crop Output
 Region:
 1992
 1997
 2002
 2004
 2006
 Red River Delta
 7,642,952
 16,268,997
 16,981,900
 19,971,046
 24,317,746
 North East
 3,109,436
 6,496,276
 10,953,713
 14,427,437
 19,278,402
 North West
 594,376
 1,375,549
 2,354,512
 3,160,143
 4,356,061
 North Central Coast
 2,819,342
 7,060,252
 9,398,532
 13,462,599
 16,447,691
 South Central Coast
 1,943,748
 4,724,820
 5,115,895
 6,980,863
 9,093,037
 Central Highlands
 1,562,103
 8,425,620
 8,195,140
 13,982,386
 26,282,982
 South East
 3,736,191
 9,491,042
 11,555,374
 16,898,163
 23,642,527
 Mekong River Delta
 12,234,180
 28,937,286
 35,794,038
 47,452,610
 59,404,005
 National (1)
 33,642,328
 82,779,842
 100,349,103
 136,335,246
 182,822,451
 
 Real Crop Output
 
 1992
 1997
 2002
 2004
 2006
 Red River Delta
 7,642,952
 9,714,997
 10,115,962
 10,482,492
 10,754,261
 North East
 3,109,436
 4,321,643
 7,607,469
 8,233,096
 9,160,115
 North West
 594,376
 848,125
 1,361,833
 1,539,018
 1,729,887
 North Central Coast
 2,819,342
 4,148,509
 5,622,665
 6,463,503
 6,726,238
 South Central Coast
 1,943,748
 2,613,024
 2,979,091
 3,399,959
 3,618,670
 Central Highlands
 1,562,103
 4,338,874
 8,095,304
 9,763,406
 12,425,300
 South East
 3,736,191
 5,071,545
 7,497,102
 8,725,053
 9,792,838
 Mekong River Delta
 12,234,180
 16,948,933
 21,608,717
 23,571,218
 23,734,240
 National (1)
 33,642,328
 48,005,650
 64,888,142
 72,177,746
 77,941,550
 National (2)
 33,642,328
 49,178,169
 64,976,877
 72,217,352
 78,781,609
 Notes: 1/ Source: See Appendix; 2/ “Nominal� values are expressed in current VND, while “Real� values are expressed in 1992 constant prices. 2/ National (1): Sum of real crop output in each region using regional deflators to deflate nominal crop output in each region; National (2): Sum of nominal crop output in each region deflated by the same national (non-region-specific) deflator. Table 2 Average Annual Rates of Growth of Crop Output Selected Years as Endpoints Nominal Growth in Output 92-97 97-02 02-04 04-06 92-06 Red River Delta 0.163 0.009 0.084 0.103 0.086 North East 0.159 0.110 0.148 0.156 0.139 North West 0.183 0.113 0.159 0.174 0.153 North Central Coast 0.202 0.059 0.197 0.105 0.134 South Central Coast 0.194 0.016 0.168 0.141 0.117 Central Highlands 0.401 -0.006 0.306 0.371 0.223 South East 0.205 0.040 0.209 0.183 0.141 Mekong River Delta 0.188 0.043 0.151 0.119 0.119 National (1) 0.197 0.039 0.166 0.158 0.129 Annual Change in Crop Price Index 92-97 97-02 02-04 04-06 92-06 Red River Delta 0.114 0.000 0.066 0.091 0.061 North East 0.091 -0.010 0.107 0.101 0.059 North West 0.109 0.014 0.095 0.114 0.074 North Central Coast 0.121 -0.004 0.125 0.085 0.070 South Central Coast 0.133 -0.011 0.100 0.110 0.071 Central Highlands 0.174 -0.138 0.208 0.243 0.064 South East 0.142 -0.041 0.130 0.123 0.070 Mekong River Delta 0.121 -0.006 0.107 0.115 0.071 National (1) 0.119 -0.018 0.111 0.113 0.066 Real Growth in Output 92-97 97-02 02-04 04-06 92-06 Red River Delta 0.049 0.008 0.018 0.013 0.025 North East 0.068 0.120 0.040 0.055 0.080 North West 0.074 0.099 0.063 0.060 0.079 North Central Coast 0.080 0.063 0.072 0.020 0.064 South Central Coast 0.061 0.027 0.068 0.032 0.045 Central Highlands 0.227 0.133 0.098 0.128 0.160 South East 0.063 0.081 0.079 0.059 0.071 Mekong River Delta 0.067 0.050 0.044 0.003 0.048 National (1) 0.074 0.062 0.055 0.039 0.062 National (2) 0.079 0.057 0.054 0.044 0.063 Notes: 1/ Authors calculations based on numbers reported in Tables 1 and 3. Table 3 Regional Crop Price Indices (Deflators) Pairwise Laspeyres Index 92-97 97-02 02-04 04-06 Red River Delta 1.67 1.00 1.13 1.19 North East 1.50 0.96 1.22 1.20 North West 1.62 1.07 1.19 1.23 North Central Coast 1.70 0.98 1.25 1.17 South Central Coast 1.81 0.95 1.20 1.22 Central Highlands 1.94 0.52 1.41 1.48 South East 1.87 0.82 1.26 1.25 Mekong River Delta 1.71 0.97 1.22 1.24 Chain-linked Laspeyre Index, 1992 =100 1992 1997 2002 2004 2006 Red River Delta 100.00 167.46 167.87 190.52 226.12 North East 100.00 150.32 143.99 175.24 210.46 North West 100.00 162.19 172.89 205.34 251.81 North Central Coast 100.00 170.19 167.15 208.29 244.53 South Central Coast 100.00 180.82 171.73 205.32 251.28 Central Highlands 100.00 194.19 101.23 143.21 211.53 South East 100.00 187.14 154.13 193.67 241.43 Mekong River Delta 100.00 170.73 165.65 201.32 250.29 Notes: 1/ Authors calculations. Table 4 Real Growth Rates by Crop and Region Selected Endpoints, Annual Averages Beginning and Endpoints 92-97 97-02 02-04 04-06 92-06 Cereals: Red River Delta 0.037 0.004 -0.002 -0.013 0.012 North East 0.049 0.120 0.034 -0.006 0.063 North West 0.049 0.090 0.103 0.051 0.071 North Central Coast 0.065 0.048 0.064 0.017 0.052 South Central Coast 0.033 0.023 0.064 0.024 0.033 Central Highlands 0.050 0.110 0.136 0.158 0.098 South East 0.081 0.083 0.047 0.013 0.067 Mekong River Delta 0.048 0.051 0.024 -0.008 0.037 National 0.048 0.050 0.033 0.005 0.040 Vegetables and Beans: Red River Delta 0.092 0.026 0.097 0.022 0.058 North East 0.056 0.143 0.061 0.032 0.084 North West 0.080 0.105 0.108 0.078 0.093 North Central Coast 0.044 0.059 0.093 0.051 0.057 South Central Coast 0.095 0.100 0.095 0.091 0.096 Central Highlands 0.215 0.136 0.085 0.170 0.161 South East 0.079 0.035 -0.049 0.159 0.055 Mekong River Delta 0.076 0.139 0.138 0.087 0.108 National 0.084 0.086 0.089 0.077 0.085 Annual Industrial Crops: Red River Delta 0.074 0.067 0.136 0.067 0.079 North East 0.134 0.096 0.034 0.010 0.088 North West 0.174 0.081 0.062 0.017 0.101 North Central Coast 0.220 0.153 0.021 0.002 0.133 South Central Coast 0.160 0.029 0.029 -0.003 0.069 Central Highlands 0.177 0.133 -0.057 0.170 0.124 South East 0.068 0.017 -0.038 0.034 0.029 Mekong River Delta 0.065 0.042 -0.057 0.058 0.037 National 0.111 0.074 0.001 0.040 0.071 Perennials: Red River Delta 0.106 0.094 0.022 -0.019 0.071 North East 0.062 0.147 0.059 0.224 0.113 North West 0.124 0.102 0.324 0.201 0.153 North Central Coast 0.244 0.069 0.196 0.087 0.149 South Central Coast 0.152 0.162 0.293 -0.018 0.148 Central Highlands 0.316 0.132 0.114 0.111 0.189 South East 0.059 0.210 0.170 0.079 0.130 Mekong River Delta Table 4 Real Growth Rates by Crop and Region Selected Endpoints, Annual Averages Beginning and Endpoints 92-97 97-02 02-04 04-06 92-06 National 0.184 0.152 0.125 0.114 0.154 Fruit: Red River Delta 0.112 -0.002 0.016 0.240 0.073 North East 0.207 0.099 0.065 0.473 0.179 North West 0.127 0.165 -0.223 0.138 0.083 North Central Coast 0.078 0.084 0.295 0.025 0.101 South Central Coast 0.189 -0.079 0.129 0.126 0.069 Central Highlands 0.064 0.341 0.000 0.085 0.149 South East -0.004 -0.027 0.159 0.124 0.027 Mekong River Delta 0.269 -0.001 0.159 -0.014 0.110 National 0.164 0.015 0.115 0.101 0.093 Notes: 1/ Authors’ calculations. See text. Table 5 Share of Crop Output by Crop Type and Region Percentages by Year RRD NE NW NC SCC CH SE MRD National 1992: Cereals 84.12 65.26 73.18 77.96 79.24 37.69 38.31 85.43 74.62 Vegetables & Beans 7.55 7.50 5.26 8.62 6.19 5.70 6.68 3.74 5.95 Annual Industrials 2.95 10.36 12.11 9.83 9.89 10.89 23.79 5.53 8.40 Perennials 0.21 13.44 1.79 0.51 0.83 43.99 18.51 0.01 5.51 Fruits 5.18 3.45 7.66 3.07 3.85 1.72 12.71 5.29 5.52 1997: Cereals 76.26 65.36 65.38 72.43 69.19 15.59 36.68 78.40 64.53 Vegetables & Beans 13.58 10.91 7.17 8.41 7.81 5.95 8.39 4.11 7.81 Annual Industrials 2.71 11.26 13.91 13.41 14.82 6.77 24.59 4.59 8.75 Perennials 0.08 4.02 2.07 1.59 0.72 70.85 20.59 0.00 10.11 Fruits 7.37 8.45 11.48 4.15 7.45 0.83 9.75 12.90 8.79 2002: Cereals 73.84 70.44 62.45 70.66 64.73 26.19 40.23 75.38 65.22 Vegetables & Beans 14.31 11.07 7.92 8.48 13.28 13.91 9.67 8.28 10.49 Annual Industrials 3.45 7.52 13.57 14.40 16.01 8.71 12.92 4.73 7.78 Perennials 0.18 3.99 1.68 1.25 1.04 46.24 28.90 0.11 7.82 Fruits 8.22 6.98 14.38 5.21 4.94 4.94 8.29 11.50 8.69 2004: Cereals 72.76 68.22 65.85 68.35 65.73 23.59 37.00 75.56 62.83 Vegetables & Beans 15.69 12.88 7.84 9.38 14.13 9.72 6.88 9.50 10.65 Annual Industrials 4.31 8.60 15.93 14.48 14.61 7.15 9.91 3.14 7.14 Perennials 0.29 2.94 3.07 1.73 1.81 57.46 38.86 0.08 11.43 Fruits 6.96 7.36 7.31 6.06 3.72 2.07 7.34 11.72 7.96 2006: Cereals 69.03 60.08 64.67 66.74 61.95 20.70 32.65 72.42 56.87 Vegetables & Beans 17.90 12.53 9.37 9.92 15.27 9.94 8.34 10.95 11.65 Annual Industrials 4.24 7.23 13.39 13.93 16.84 4.28 11.08 5.06 7.43 Perennials 0.19 4.58 3.68 2.36 1.43 63.54 41.10 0.06 15.35 Fruits 8.64 15.59 8.88 7.04 4.51 1.54 6.83 11.50 8.70 Notes: 1/ Authors’ calculations. Table 6 Regional Contribution to Crop Sub-aggregates and Total Crop Output Percentages by Region and Year RRD NE NW NC SCC CH SE MRD 1992: Cereals 25.6 8.1 1.7 8.8 6.1 2.3 5.7 41.6 Vegetables & Beans 28.8 11.6 1.6 12.1 6.0 4.5 12.5 22.9 Annual Industrials 8.0 11.4 2.5 9.8 6.8 6.0 31.5 24.0 Perennials 0.8 22.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 37.0 37.3 0.1 Fruits 21.3 5.8 2.4 4.7 4.0 1.4 25.6 34.8 Total 22.7 9.2 1.8 8.4 5.8 4.6 11.1 36.4 1997: Cereals 23.2 7.9 1.7 9.6 6.1 2.5 6.5 42.5 Vegetables & Beans 34.2 11.0 1.5 9.2 5.7 7.8 12.3 18.4 Annual Industrials 6.1 10.1 2.6 13.1 9.7 7.9 32.2 18.3 Perennials 0.2 3.1 0.3 1.3 0.4 71.3 23.3 0.0 Fruits 16.5 7.5 2.2 4.0 4.8 1.0 12.7 51.3 Total 19.7 7.8 1.7 8.5 5.7 10.2 11.5 35.0 2002: Cereals 19.2 11.8 2.2 10.1 5.1 3.3 7.1 41.2 Vegetables & Beans 23.1 11.5 1.8 7.6 6.5 10.8 10.6 28.2 Annual Industrials 7.5 10.6 4.1 17.3 10.5 9.2 19.1 21.7 Perennials 0.4 5.6 0.5 1.5 0.7 48.3 42.6 0.5 Fruits 16.0 8.8 3.9 5.6 2.9 4.6 11.0 47.2 Total 16.9 10.9 2.3 9.4 5.1 8.2 11.5 35.7 2004: Cereals 17.0 11.5 2.4 10.7 5.4 3.9 7.3 41.9 Vegetables & Beans 21.6 12.8 1.7 8.7 6.8 9.4 8.0 31.1 Annual Industrials 8.8 12.7 5.2 20.0 10.5 10.3 17.2 15.3 Perennials 0.4 2.7 0.6 1.5 0.8 51.6 42.2 0.3 Fruits 12.8 9.8 2.1 7.5 2.4 2.7 11.4 51.3 Total 14.6 10.6 2.3 9.9 5.1 10.3 12.4 34.8 2006: Cereals 16.1 11.1 2.7 10.6 5.4 5.2 7.4 41.4 Vegetables & Beans 20.5 11.3 1.9 7.7 6.5 12.3 9.3 30.6 Annual Industrials 7.6 10.3 4.3 16.9 11.3 8.3 19.3 22.1 Perennials 0.2 3.1 0.6 1.4 0.5 59.5 34.6 0.1 Fruits 13.2 18.9 2.4 7.3 2.6 2.5 10.2 42.9 Total 13.3 10.5 2.4 9.0 5.0 14.4 12.9 32.5 Notes: 1/ Authors’ calculations. Table 7 Regional and National Sown Area by Sub-Aggregates In Hectares by Crop, Region, and Year RRD NE NW NC SCC CH SE MRD National 1992: Cereals 1,400,201 779,799 243,000 924,200 539,300 266,000 526,100 2,963,400 7,642,000 Vegetables & Beans 98,196 48,428 6,760 48,000 22,100 26,500 65,200 71,400 386,584 Annual Industrials 43,015 62,955 20,469 64,516 48,318 40,664 136,170 84,687 500,794 Perennials 2,292 33,137 9,936 15,626 6,087 127,397 283,181 1,258 478,914 Fruits 27,400 16,400 4,000 22,800 20,800 9,300 25,200 135,000 260,900 Total 1,571,104 940,719 284,165 1,075,142 636,605 469,861 1,035,851 3,255,745 9,269,192 1997: Cereals 1,385,300 795,500 248,800 908,200 516,700 284,100 628,700 3,516,900 8,284,200 Vegetables & Beans 124,600 67,900 11,800 75,000 38,000 61,600 118,300 98,400 595,600 Annual Industrials 55,600 80,200 31,100 88,400 77,200 60,300 151,700 113,100 657,600 Perennials 3,290 40,637 7,765 28,289 16,048 400,045 427,881 0 923,955 Fruits 49,200 50,600 23,500 38,700 15,400 11,900 50,800 186,000 426,100 Total 1,617,990 1,034,837 322,965 1,138,589 663,348 817,945 1,377,381 3,914,400 10,887,455 2002: Cereals 1,141,100 1,035,700 304,900 914,100 496,600 445,800 717,400 3,883,200 8,938,800 Vegetables & Beans 131,400 101,800 17,000 91,400 53,100 100,900 122,000 144,900 762,500 Annual Industrials 60,800 107,600 40,900 140,300 84,400 101,600 134,000 102,300 771,900 Perennials 4,100 63,700 11,100 53,500 32,800 614,800 564,900 3,400 1,348,300 Fruits 70,400 128,900 33,400 51,400 26,700 18,000 117,700 231,000 677,500 Total 1,407,800 1,447,300 407,300 1,250,700 693,600 1,281,100 1,656,000 4,364,800 12,499,000 2004: Cereals 1,108,827 1,054,505 336,403 942,096 504,171 487,742 726,275 3,866,819 9,026,838 Vegetables & Beans 147,593 114,334 18,045 102,657 58,033 100,266 108,607 167,127 816,662 Annual Industrials 71,000 110,600 45,900 142,300 83,500 94,400 120,900 91,800 760,400 Perennials 3,975 67,693 14,133 59,327 36,454 627,289 594,634 2,924 1,406,429 Fruits 76,756 136,262 35,551 55,411 28,499 22,134 132,937 260,253 747,803 Total 1,376,455 1,483,394 450,032 1,301,791 710,657 1,331,831 1,683,353 4,388,923 12,758,132 2006: Cereals 1,068,700 1,042,900 361,600 944,300 508,500 569,600 688,200 3,828,700 9,012,500 Vegetables & Beans 146,100 117,600 20,200 106,300 63,200 103,100 116,000 188,500 861,000 Annual Industrials 88,700 114,600 46,300 140,300 77,600 90,500 115,400 93,400 766,800 Perennials 3,171 73,796 13,092 61,931 43,563 712,201 661,093 3,454 1,572,301 Fruits 69,784 153,324 36,979 56,363 30,481 25,482 120,906 278,005 771,324 Total 1,376,455 1,502,220 478,171 1,309,194 723,344 1,500,883 1,701,599 4,392,059 12,983,925 Notes: 1/ Authors’ calculations. See Text. Table 8 Share of Sown Area by Crop Type and Region Percentages of Each Region by Year RRD NE NW NC SCC CH SE MRD National 1992: Cereals 89.12 82.89 85.51 85.96 84.72 56.61 50.79 91.02 82.45 Vegetables & Beans 6.25 5.15 2.38 4.46 3.47 5.64 6.29 2.19 4.17 Annual Industrials 2.74 6.69 7.20 6.00 7.59 8.65 13.15 2.60 5.40 Perennials 0.15 3.52 3.50 1.45 0.96 27.11 27.34 0.04 5.17 Fruits 1.74 1.74 1.41 2.12 3.27 1.98 2.43 4.15 2.81 1997: Cereals 85.62 76.87 77.04 79.77 77.89 34.73 45.64 89.85 76.09 Vegetables & Beans 7.70 6.56 3.65 6.59 5.73 7.53 8.59 2.51 5.47 Annual Industrials 3.44 7.75 9.63 7.76 11.64 7.37 11.01 2.89 6.04 Perennials 0.20 3.93 2.40 2.48 2.42 48.91 31.06 0.00 8.49 Fruits 3.04 4.89 7.28 3.40 2.32 1.45 3.69 4.75 3.91 2002: Cereals 81.06 72.04 74.86 73.09 71.60 34.80 43.32 88.97 71.52 Vegetables & Beans 9.33 7.08 4.17 7.31 7.66 7.88 7.37 3.32 6.10 Annual Industrials 4.32 7.48 10.04 11.22 12.17 7.93 8.09 2.34 6.18 Perennials 0.29 4.43 2.73 4.28 4.73 47.99 34.11 0.08 10.79 Fruits 5.00 8.97 8.20 4.11 3.85 1.41 7.11 5.29 5.42 2004: Cereals 78.74 71.09 74.75 72.37 70.94 36.62 43.14 88.10 70.75 Vegetables & Beans 10.61 7.71 4.01 7.89 8.17 7.53 6.45 3.81 6.40 Annual Industrials 5.04 7.46 10.20 10.93 11.75 7.09 7.18 2.09 5.96 Perennials 0.28 4.56 3.14 4.56 5.13 47.10 35.32 0.07 11.02 Fruits 5.45 9.19 7.90 4.26 4.01 1.66 7.90 5.93 5.86 2006: Cereals 77.64 69.42 75.62 72.13 70.30 37.95 40.44 87.17 69.41 Vegetables & Beans 10.61 7.83 4.22 8.12 8.74 6.87 6.82 4.29 6.63 Annual Industrials 6.44 7.63 9.68 10.72 10.73 6.03 6.78 2.13 5.91 Perennials 0.23 4.91 2.74 4.73 6.02 47.45 38.85 0.08 12.11 Fruits 5.07 10.21 7.73 4.31 4.21 1.70 7.11 6.33 5.94 Notes: 1/ Authors’ calculations. See Text. Table 9 Regional Contribution to Total Sown in each Sub-aggregate Percentages by Region and Year RRD NE NW NC SCC CH SE MRD 1992: Cereals 18.32 10.20 3.18 12.09 7.06 3.48 6.88 38.78 Vegetables & Beans 25.40 12.53 1.75 12.42 5.72 6.85 16.87 18.47 Annual Industrials 8.59 12.57 4.09 12.88 9.65 8.12 27.19 16.91 Perennials 0.48 6.92 2.07 3.26 1.27 26.60 59.13 0.26 Fruits 10.50 6.29 1.53 8.74 7.97 3.56 9.66 51.74 Total 16.95 10.15 3.07 11.60 6.87 5.07 11.18 35.12 1997: Cereals 16.72 9.60 3.00 10.96 6.24 3.43 7.59 42.45 Vegetables & Beans 20.92 11.40 1.98 12.59 6.38 10.34 19.86 16.52 Annual Industrials 8.45 12.20 4.73 13.44 11.74 9.17 23.07 17.20 Perennials 0.36 4.40 0.84 3.06 1.74 43.30 46.31 0.00 Fruits 11.55 11.98 5.52 9.08 3.61 2.79 11.92 43.65 Total 14.86 9.50 2.97 10.46 6.09 7.51 12.65 35.95 2002: Cereals 12.77 11.59 3.41 10.23 5.56 4.99 8.03 43.44 Vegetables & Beans 17.23 13.35 2.23 11.99 6.96 13.23 16.00 19.00 Annual Industrials 7.88 13.94 5.30 18.18 10.93 13.16 17.36 13.25 Perennials 0.30 4.72 0.82 3.97 2.43 45.60 41.90 0.25 Fruits 10.39 19.03 4.93 7.59 3.94 2.66 17.37 34.10 Total 11.26 11.50 3.26 10.01 5.55 10.25 13.25 34.92 2004: Cereals 12.28 11.68 3.73 10.44 5.59 5.40 8.05 42.84 Vegetables & Beans 18.07 14.00 2.21 12.57 7.11 12.28 13.30 20.46 Annual Industrials 9.34 14.54 6.04 18.71 10.98 12.41 15.90 12.07 Perennials 0.28 4.81 1.00 4.22 2.59 44.60 42.28 0.21 Fruits 10.26 18.22 4.75 7.41 3.81 2.96 17.78 34.80 Total 11.04 11.63 3.53 10.20 5.57 10.44 13.19 34.40 2006: Cereals 11.86 11.57 4.01 10.48 5.64 6.32 7.64 42.48 Vegetables & Beans 16.97 13.66 2.35 12.35 7.34 11.97 13.47 21.89 Annual Industrials 11.57 14.95 6.04 18.30 10.12 11.80 15.05 12.18 Perennials 0.20 4.69 0.83 3.94 2.77 45.30 42.05 0.22 Fruits 9.05 19.88 4.79 7.31 3.95 3.30 15.68 36.04 Total 10.60 11.57 3.68 10.08 5.57 11.56 13.11 33.83 Notes: 1/ Authors’ calculations. See Text. Table 10 Decomposition of the Growth of Real Crop Output By Region and for Various Endpoints Proportions RRD NE NW NC SCC CH SE MRD National 1992 to 1997: Increased Yields 0.86 0.68 0.60 0.83 0.84 0.34 0.06 0.40 0.50 Increased Sown Area 0.11 0.26 0.32 0.13 0.12 0.42 0.92 0.52 0.41 Interaction 0.03 0.07 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.25 0.02 0.08 0.09 1997 to 2002: Yields 4.77 0.35 0.45 0.66 0.65 0.22 0.48 0.52 0.50 Sown Area -3.15 0.51 0.43 0.28 0.33 0.65 0.42 0.42 0.42 Interaction -0.62 0.14 0.12 0.06 0.03 0.13 0.10 0.06 0.07 2002 to 2004: Yields 0.99 0.59 0.18 0.70 0.81 0.78 0.88 0.93 0.80 Sown Area 0.01 0.39 0.81 0.27 0.17 0.19 0.10 0.06 0.18 Interaction 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 2004 to 2006: Yields 1.91 0.88 0.47 0.86 0.71 0.47 0.90 0.90 0.70 Sown Area -0.87 0.11 0.50 0.14 0.28 0.47 0.09 0.10 0.20 Interaction -0.04 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.10 1992 to 2006: Yields 1.49 0.43 0.38 0.69 0.74 0.21 0.37 0.47 0.50 Sown Area -0.30 0.31 0.36 0.16 0.16 0.32 0.40 0.37 0.30 Interaction -0.18 0.26 0.26 0.15 0.10 0.47 0.24 0.16 0.20 Notes: 1/ Authors’ calculations. See Text. Table 11 Yields (Tons Per Hectare) By Crop, Region, and Year Sub aggregate Crop RRD NE NW NC SCC CH SE MRD National 1992 Cereals Cassava 8.59 9.68 8.42 7.31 8.84 7.69 12.21 8.78 9.05 Maize 2.16 1.32 1.21 1.32 1.10 1.96 1.46 2.24 1.56 Rice 3.88 2.48 1.91 2.58 2.98 2.40 2.49 3.74 3.33 Sweet potatoes 8.72 6.52 3.85 4.63 4.23 6.03 5.15 10.35 6.40 Vegetables & Beans Beans Vegetable 12.40 9.59 10.00 7.96 11.02 14.32 10.56 13.21 11.23 Annual Industrials Cotton 0.38 0.37 0.28 0.25 0.73 0.80 0.00 0.67 Peanuts 0.89 0.80 0.68 0.64 0.71 0.96 1.51 1.80 1.04 Soybeans 1.04 0.58 0.73 0.67 0.71 0.88 0.69 1.56 0.82 Sugar cane 49.78 30.45 28.29 42.92 36.56 33.46 44.52 50.29 43.94 Tobacco 0.31 1.01 0.62 0.82 0.53 2.89 1.48 1.23 Perennials Black pepper 0.56 0.95 1.30 0.44 1.08 Cashew Coffee 0.35 0.43 1.14 1.49 1.15 Rubber 0.15 0.36 0.32 Tea 2.65 2.63 1.35 2.55 0.15 3.34 2.91 2.56 Fruits All fruits 1997 Cereals Cassava 8.82 9.52 7.56 6.11 8.82 9.32 15.61 8.73 9.45 Maize 3.06 2.08 1.54 2.22 1.95 3.05 3.01 3.12 2.49 Rice 4.71 3.22 2.60 3.61 3.68 2.86 3.04 3.98 3.88 Sweet potatoes 7.84 5.83 3.82 5.16 5.27 6.49 5.60 13.73 6.33 Vegetables & Beans Beans 0.79 0.60 0.58 0.56 0.79 0.67 0.52 1.37 0.69 Vegetable 15.78 10.79 10.20 8.65 11.36 17.23 13.44 13.12 13.18 Annual Industrials Cotton 0.56 0.33 0.50 1.15 1.11 0.94 Peanuts 1.44 1.02 1.00 1.23 1.26 1.04 1.79 1.81 1.39 Soybeans 1.22 0.81 0.83 0.92 1.40 1.11 0.86 2.10 1.06 Sugar cane 38.98 36.61 45.05 56.23 42.79 41.00 45.08 49.86 46.38 Tobacco 1.40 1.26 0.80 1.05 0.88 0.93 2.20 1.03 Perennials Black pepper 0.57 1.14 0.96 2.66 1.75 Cashew 0.15 0.22 0.36 0.33 Coffee 0.33 0.63 1.31 1.09 1.26 Rubber 0.41 0.25 0.59 0.50 Tea 3.05 2.86 2.21 3.01 1.27 3.56 1.24 2.99 Fruits All fruits 7.84 3.00 2.40 3.05 9.28 2.20 7.69 6.57 5.85 Table 11 Yields (Tons Per Hectare) By Crop, Region, and Year Sub aggregate Crop RRD NE NW NC SCC CH SE MRD National 2002 Cereals Cassava 10.77 10.50 8.33 8.07 11.87 13.09 19.02 13.05 13.17 Maize 3.52 2.65 2.54 2.98 2.90 3.07 3.49 4.23 3.02 Rice 5.64 4.22 3.27 4.51 4.28 3.25 3.47 4.62 4.59 Sweet potatoes 8.56 6.30 4.38 5.89 5.65 7.83 5.55 16.79 7.17 Vegetables & Beans Beans 1.00 0.80 0.76 0.57 0.88 0.55 0.68 1.35 0.71 Vegetable 16.27 10.89 10.22 8.87 12.21 17.51 10.00 14.60 13.35 Annual Industrials Cotton 0.38 0.65 0.00 1.20 0.92 1.05 Peanuts 1.91 1.25 0.99 1.64 1.46 1.09 2.01 2.32 1.62 Soybeans 1.48 0.95 1.06 1.33 0.00 1.37 0.81 2.24 1.28 Sugar cane 51.67 42.72 48.46 54.19 42.39 42.18 52.32 69.23 53.50 Tobacco 0.00 1.37 0.00 0.67 1.25 1.04 1.28 2.20 1.28 Perennials Black pepper 0.42 0.40 1.11 0.99 0.63 0.94 Cashew 0.19 0.38 0.61 0.33 0.54 Coffee 0.10 0.11 0.55 0.55 0.60 1.41 0.99 1.34 Rubber 0.23 0.06 0.35 0.87 0.69 Tea 3.76 3.67 2.34 2.64 2.14 5.30 1.00 3.88 Fruits All fruits 7.69 1.77 1.87 3.56 5.82 3.69 2.96 6.31 4.49 2004 Cereals Cassava 11.64 11.80 9.60 11.74 15.14 15.07 20.14 7.82 14.98 Maize 4.09 2.90 2.78 3.67 3.51 3.58 3.81 5.30 3.46 Rice 5.78 4.47 3.63 4.93 4.71 3.95 3.75 4.87 4.86 Sweet potatoes 8.91 6.39 4.79 6.17 6.09 7.66 5.43 18.34 7.48 Vegetables & Beans Beans 1.21 0.79 1.64 0.71 0.99 0.67 0.76 1.43 0.83 Vegetable 17.30 10.92 10.93 9.33 13.31 19.61 10.18 16.03 14.40 Annual Industrials Cotton 0.38 0.75 0.33 0.00 1.32 1.17 1.15 Peanuts 2.25 1.65 1.48 1.75 1.58 0.94 2.13 2.65 1.83 Soybeans 1.65 1.00 1.12 1.39 0.00 0.98 0.85 2.23 1.32 Sugar cane 52.85 43.72 49.78 56.29 45.66 49.31 54.41 69.39 55.32 Tobacco 1.49 0.80 1.33 1.57 1.43 2.00 1.44 Perennials Black pepper 0.72 0.52 1.51 1.50 0.66 1.38 Cashew 0.10 0.36 0.43 0.85 0.53 0.73 Coffee 0.36 0.13 0.66 0.74 0.80 1.76 1.11 1.66 Rubber 0.27 0.00 0.54 1.09 0.89 Tea 4.03 3.85 3.46 2.72 2.19 5.53 4.11 Fruits All fruits 7.57 2.61 1.89 5.87 5.17 3.87 3.27 6.27 4.85 Table 11 Yields (Tons Per Hectare) By Crop, Region, and Year Sub aggregate Crop RRD NE NW NC SCC CH SE MRD National 2006 Cereals Cassava 11.79 12.55 9.69 14.86 15.65 16.21 25.66 10.52 17.33 Maize 4.10 2.82 2.90 3.47 3.88 4.40 4.67 5.39 3.72 Rice 5.81 4.54 3.80 5.10 4.91 4.29 3.99 4.82 4.90 Sweet potatoes 9.40 6.39 4.71 6.14 5.92 9.77 7.76 19.82 8.04 Vegetables & Beans Beans 1.52 0.79 0.85 0.72 1.08 0.80 0.87 1.46 0.90 Vegetable 18.13 11.11 11.29 9.81 14.67 21.12 11.81 16.70 15.22 Annual Industrials Cotton 0.00 0.67 0.92 1.38 1.20 1.41 Peanuts 2.33 1.46 1.29 1.76 1.85 1.39 2.17 3.00 1.87 Soybeans 1.54 1.03 1.20 1.28 1.68 1.59 1.10 2.08 1.40 Sugar cane 49.32 46.40 53.79 55.11 45.40 54.06 57.78 74.36 58.03 Tobacco 0.00 1.37 0.00 1.75 1.74 1.73 1.67 2.25 1.60 Perennials Black pepper 0.72 0.90 2.16 1.59 1.79 1.69 Cashew 0.84 0.26 0.31 1.22 0.69 0.88 Coffee 3.80 0.75 1.47 0.80 0.94 2.06 1.57 2.00 Rubber 0.41 0.04 0.79 1.63 1.32 Tea 4.61 5.27 4.43 5.24 1.89 6.28 5.39 Fruits All fruits 7.61 2.13 2.73 5.12 5.63 4.23 4.34 6.71 5.16 Notes: 1/ Authors’ calculations. See Text. Table 12 Annual Rate of Growth in Yields of Key Crops By Crop, Region, and Various Endpoints Sub aggregate Crop RRD NE NW NC SCC CH SE MRD National 1992 to 1997: Cereals Cassava 0.005 -0.003 -0.021 -0.035 0.000 0.039 0.050 -0.001 0.009 Maize 0.072 0.095 0.049 0.110 0.121 0.092 0.156 0.069 0.097 Rice 0.040 0.054 0.064 0.070 0.043 0.036 0.041 0.012 0.031 Sweet potatoes -0.021 -0.022 -0.002 0.022 0.045 0.015 0.017 0.058 -0.002 Vegetables & Beans Beans Vegetable 0.049 0.024 0.004 0.017 0.006 0.038 0.049 -0.001 0.033 Annual Industrials Cotton 0.077 -0.021 0.125 0.094 0.069 0.069 Peanuts 0.100 0.048 0.080 0.139 0.120 0.017 0.034 0.000 0.059 Soybeans 0.032 0.068 0.028 0.066 0.144 0.047 0.046 0.062 0.052 Sugar cane -0.048 0.038 0.098 0.056 0.032 0.041 0.003 -0.002 0.011 Tobacco 0.349 0.045 0.052 0.049 0.105 -0.203 0.082 -0.035 Perennials Black pepper 0.004 0.002 0.155 0.100 Cashew Coffee 0.123 0.029 -0.060 0.020 Rubber 0.110 0.101 0.095 Tea 0.028 0.017 0.103 0.034 0.526 0.013 -0.157 0.032 Fruits All fruits NA Average (all crops) 0.024 Average (ex. Perennials) 0.024 1997 to 2002: Cereals Cassava 8.82 9.52 7.56 6.11 8.82 9.32 15.61 8.73 9.45 Maize 3.06 2.08 1.54 2.22 1.95 3.05 3.01 3.12 2.49 Rice 4.71 3.22 2.60 3.61 3.68 2.86 3.04 3.98 3.88 Sweet potatoes 7.84 5.83 3.82 5.16 5.27 6.49 5.60 13.73 6.33 Vegetables & Beans Beans 0.79 0.60 0.58 0.56 0.79 0.67 0.52 1.37 0.69 Vegetable 15.78 10.79 10.20 8.65 11.36 17.23 13.44 13.12 13.18 Annual Industrials Cotton 0.56 0.33 0.50 1.15 1.11 0.94 Peanuts 1.44 1.02 1.00 1.23 1.26 1.04 1.79 1.81 1.39 Soybeans 1.22 0.81 0.83 0.92 1.40 1.11 0.86 2.10 1.06 Sugar cane 38.98 36.61 45.05 56.23 42.79 41.00 45.08 49.86 46.38 Tobacco 1.40 1.26 0.80 1.05 0.88 0.93 2.20 1.03 Perennials Black pepper 0.57 1.14 0.96 2.66 1.75 Cashew 0.15 0.22 0.36 0.33 Coffee 0.33 0.63 1.31 1.09 1.26 Rubber 0.41 0.25 0.59 0.50 Table 12 Annual Rate of Growth in Yields of Key Crops By Crop, Region, and Various Endpoints Sub aggregate Crop RRD NE NW NC SCC CH SE MRD National Tea 3.05 2.86 2.21 3.01 1.27 3.56 1.24 2.99 Fruits All fruits 7.84 3.00 2.40 3.05 9.28 2.20 7.69 6.57 5.85 Average (all crops) 0.024 Average (ex. Perennials) 0.024 2002 to 2004: Cereals Cassava 0.039 0.060 0.073 0.206 0.129 0.073 0.029 -0.226 0.066 Maize 0.077 0.047 0.047 0.110 0.101 0.080 0.045 0.120 0.071 Rice 0.012 0.029 0.055 0.046 0.049 0.102 0.039 0.026 0.028 Sweet potatoes 0.020 0.007 0.046 0.024 0.039 -0.011 -0.011 0.045 0.022 Vegetables & Beans Beans 0.099 -0.009 0.471 0.121 0.059 0.106 0.052 0.032 0.079 Vegetable 0.031 0.001 0.034 0.026 0.044 0.058 0.009 0.048 0.038 Annual Industrials Cotton 0.006 0.072 0.048 0.128 0.046 Peanuts 0.087 0.147 0.224 0.035 0.041 -0.073 0.027 0.068 0.063 Soybeans 0.055 0.025 0.029 0.022 -0.155 0.024 -0.002 0.013 Sugar cane 0.011 0.012 0.014 0.019 0.038 0.081 0.020 0.001 0.017 Tobacco 0.044 0.095 0.033 0.232 0.054 -0.047 0.061 Perennials Black pepper 0.301 0.144 0.166 0.233 0.025 0.214 Cashew 0.359 0.065 0.181 0.264 0.167 Coffee 0.890 0.095 0.093 0.153 0.153 0.114 0.059 0.113 Rubber 0.084 -0.737 0.238 0.121 0.132 Tea 0.035 0.023 0.217 0.015 0.010 0.022 0.028 Fruits All fruits -0.008 0.214 0.004 0.284 -0.058 0.025 0.051 -0.003 0.039 Average (all crops) 0.071 Average (ex. Perennials) 0.045 2004 to 2006: Cereals Cassava 0.006 0.032 0.005 0.125 0.017 0.037 0.129 0.160 0.076 Maize 0.002 -0.015 0.021 -0.028 0.051 0.108 0.107 0.008 0.037 Rice 0.003 0.007 0.023 0.017 0.021 0.043 0.032 -0.005 0.004 Sweet potatoes 0.027 -0.001 -0.009 -0.002 -0.014 0.130 0.195 0.039 0.037 Vegetables & Beans Beans 0.122 0.001 -0.282 0.008 0.042 0.093 0.072 0.008 0.043 Vegetable 0.024 0.009 0.016 0.025 0.050 0.038 0.077 0.021 0.028 Annual Industrials Cotton 0.325 0.105 0.019 0.010 0.109 Peanuts 0.017 -0.058 -0.067 0.003 0.083 0.214 0.010 0.064 0.009 Soybeans -0.034 0.015 0.035 -0.039 0.275 0.139 -0.036 0.032 Sugar cane -0.034 0.030 0.039 -0.011 -0.003 0.047 0.030 0.035 0.024 Tobacco -0.040 0.479 0.141 0.050 0.083 0.061 0.052 Perennials Black pepper -0.002 0.313 0.197 0.030 0.647 0.105 Table 12 Annual Rate of Growth in Yields of Key Crops By Crop, Region, and Various Endpoints Sub aggregate Crop RRD NE NW NC SCC CH SE MRD National Cashew 1.931 -0.146 -0.155 0.198 0.142 0.099 Coffee 2.262 1.372 0.499 0.043 0.085 0.083 0.187 0.097 Rubber 0.223 2.124 0.208 0.220 0.217 Tea 0.070 0.170 0.131 0.388 -0.071 0.065 0.145 Fruits All fruits 0.002 -0.096 0.203 -0.066 0.044 0.045 0.152 0.034 0.031 Average (all crops) 0.067 Average (ex. Perennials) 0.040 1992 to 2006: Cereals Cassava 0.023 0.019 0.010 0.052 0.042 0.055 0.054 0.013 0.047 Maize 0.047 0.055 0.065 0.071 0.094 0.059 0.087 0.065 0.064 Rice 0.029 0.044 0.051 0.050 0.036 0.043 0.034 0.018 0.028 Sweet potatoes 0.005 -0.001 0.014 0.020 0.024 0.035 0.030 0.048 0.016 Vegetables & Beans Beans Vegetable 0.028 0.011 0.009 0.015 0.021 0.028 0.008 0.017 0.022 Annual Industrials Cotton 0.040 0.067 0.046 0.029 0.054 Peanuts 0.071 0.044 0.046 0.075 0.071 0.027 0.026 0.037 0.043 Soybeans 0.029 0.042 0.037 0.048 0.063 0.043 0.034 0.021 0.039 Sugar cane -0.001 0.031 0.047 0.018 0.016 0.035 0.019 0.028 0.020 Tobacco 0.022 0.077 0.055 0.088 -0.038 0.030 0.019 Perennials Black pepper 0.018 0.061 0.015 0.105 0.032 Cashew 0.117 Coffee 0.060 0.057 0.043 0.004 0.041 Rubber 0.126 0.113 0.107 Tea 0.040 0.051 0.089 0.053 0.196 0.046 -1.000 0.055 Fruits All fruits -0.003 -0.037 0.014 0.059 -0.054 0.076 -0.062 0.002 -0.014 Average (all crops) 0.043 Average (ex. Perennials) 0.033 Notes: 1/ Authors’ calculations, based on yield data reported in Table 11. Table 13 Real Crop Output by Acreage Quintiles By Year (in Thousands of VND) 1 2 3 4 5 Overall 1992: Cereals 403.4 1,174.7 1,773.2 2,333.7 3,059.2 1,785.9 Vegetables & Beans 47.3 89.5 135.8 148.6 125.8 111.6 Annual Industrials 67.7 103.5 146.3 262.6 508.5 222.2 Perennials 163.6 82.3 90.7 110.3 319.7 155.9 Fruits 199.7 81.6 114.1 164.3 331.2 181.2 Total 881.6 1,531.5 2,260.0 3,019.5 4,344.4 2,456.8 1997 Cereals 493.0 1,511.1 2,203.2 2,767.4 4,058.7 2,206.1 Vegetables & Beans 76.2 139.0 160.2 154.7 143.0 134.6 Annual Industrials 44.8 146.8 264.7 474.0 887.0 363.3 Perennials 162.3 158.0 240.0 430.4 961.9 390.4 Fruits 205.9 257.3 311.7 307.8 395.9 295.7 Total 982.2 2,212.2 3,179.9 4,134.3 6,446.4 3,390.1 2002 Cereals 630.5 1,708.5 2,493.1 3,307.6 4,810.1 2,589.4 Vegetables & Beans 106.7 160.7 243.8 268.4 186.2 193.1 Annual Industrials 43.7 107.4 218.8 397.7 588.1 271.1 Perennials 79.8 104.3 237.1 506.8 1,056.0 396.7 Fruits 260.0 300.3 395.9 465.9 552.3 394.8 Total 1,120.8 2,381.2 3,588.7 4,946.3 7,192.6 3,845.2 2004 Cereals 612.8 1,787.4 2,810.5 3,776.1 5,395.0 2,876.0 Vegetables & Beans 166.5 169.5 237.7 279.4 214.3 213.5 Annual Industrials 39.0 126.7 258.3 400.0 450.5 254.8 Perennials 77.1 115.9 239.2 763.2 989.9 437.0 Fruits 254.9 362.0 462.8 622.5 915.6 523.5 Total 1,150.3 2,561.6 4,008.5 5,841.3 7,965.3 4,304.9 2006: Cereals 698.1 2,553.5 4,252.6 6,243.7 8,767.1 4,502.3 Vegetables & Beans 207.4 196.0 275.4 236.1 225.9 228.1 Annual Industrials 61.8 144.4 295.4 406.6 592.5 300.1 Perennials 89.2 230.8 536.3 834.2 1,092.3 556.5 Fruits 344.1 379.8 489.1 523.7 829.9 513.3 Total 1,400.5 3,504.5 5,848.8 8,244.3 11,507.7 6,100.4 Annual Growth (1992-2006) 0.033 0.059 0.067 0.071 0.069 0.064 Notes: 1/ Based on VLSS, 1992, 1998, 2002, 2004, and 2006. Table 14 Real Crop Output by Income Quintiles By Year (in Thousands of VND) 1 2 3 4 5 Overall 1992: Cereals 1,281.4 1,700.2 1,938.6 2,062.2 2,103.1 1,785.9 Vegetables & Beans 74.1 84.5 142.6 153.6 117.8 111.6 Annual Industrials 151.8 212.1 196.9 256.1 314.0 222.2 Perennials 157.8 92.6 125.4 146.2 257.2 155.9 Fruits 126.9 126.7 152.8 207.3 308.3 181.2 Total 1,792.1 2,216.2 2,556.3 2,825.4 3,100.4 2,456.8 1997 Cereals 1,713.5 2,105.2 2,209.0 2,629.1 2,402.9 2,206.1 Vegetables & Beans 59.6 128.2 152.3 157.3 179.2 134.6 Annual Industrials 157.8 308.6 345.9 455.1 550.0 363.3 Perennials 99.2 215.8 316.7 364.5 925.6 390.4 Fruits 150.9 198.3 299.3 339.0 484.6 295.7 Total 2,181.0 2,956.0 3,323.2 3,945.0 4,542.3 3,390.1 2002 Cereals 2,106.1 2,622.9 2,831.5 2,873.7 2,452.7 2,589.4 Vegetables & Beans 125.2 191.8 203.6 232.8 198.2 193.1 Annual Industrials 219.8 263.4 274.4 296.4 287.8 271.1 Perennials 161.6 292.6 378.4 453.9 604.4 396.7 Fruits 126.3 205.1 299.4 440.7 764.0 394.8 Total 2,739.1 3,575.8 3,987.3 4,297.4 4,307.2 3,845.2 2004 Cereals 2,567.1 2,892.9 3,340.9 3,043.7 2,553.4 2,876.0 Vegetables & Beans 138.5 185.9 206.9 250.8 269.5 213.5 Annual Industrials 224.2 275.5 254.5 282.3 237.4 254.8 Perennials 146.0 270.9 377.3 502.8 806.5 437.0 Fruits 147.9 335.5 396.7 675.2 960.1 523.5 Total 3,223.8 3,960.7 4,576.2 4,754.9 4,827.0 4,304.9 2006: Cereals 3,868.6 4,920.8 5,233.8 4,969.1 3,616.4 4,502.3 Vegetables & Beans 139.5 176.8 181.8 336.4 284.3 228.1 Annual Industrials 135.9 272.0 318.7 378.3 370.0 300.1 Perennials 186.7 203.3 422.6 498.2 1,320.8 556.5 Fruits 209.2 322.4 358.4 525.0 1,041.9 513.3 Total 4,539.9 5,895.3 6,515.4 6,706.9 6,633.5 6,100.4 Annual Growth (1992-2006) 0.066 0.069 0.066 0.061 0.054 0.064 Notes: 1/ Based on VLSS, 1992, 1998, 2002, 2004, and 2006. Table A1: Crops included in the GSO Provincial Data Aggregate: Sub-components (if any): Cereals Rice Maize Cassava Sweet Potatoes Annual Industrial Peanuts Cotton Soybeans Sugar Tobacco Perennials Coffee Pepper Cashews Rubber Tea Fruit Pineapple Citrus (oranges, limes and mandarins) Banana Rambutan Mango Vegetables (Miscellaneous) Green Beans Table A2: Definitions of the Regions (Provinces assigned by Region) Region Included Provinces Red River Delta (RRD) Haiduong
 Hungyen
 Haiphong
 Namdinh
 Hanam
 Ninhbinh
 Hanoi
 Thaibinh
 Hatay
 Northeast (NE) Bacgiang
 Phutho
 Backan
 Quangninh
 Bacninh
 Thainguyen
 Caobang
 Tuyenquang
 Hagiang
 Vinhphuc
 Langson
 Yenbai
 Laocai
 
 Northwest (NW) Dienbien
 Laichau
 Hoabinh
 Sonla
 North Coastal (NC) Hatinh
 Quangbinh
 Hue
 Quangtri
 Nghean
 Thanhhoa
 South Central Coast (SCC) Binhdinh
 Phuyen
 Danang
 Quangnam
 Khanhhoa
 Quangngai
 Central Highlands (CH) Daklak
 Lamdong
 Gialai
 Daknong
 Kontum
 Southeast (SE) Baria - Vungtau
 Dongnai
 Binhduong
 Ninhthuan
 Binhphuoc
 TP Ho Chi Minh
 Binhthuan
 Tayninh
 Mekong River Delta (MRD) Angiang
 Kiengiang
 Baclieu
 Longan
 Bentre
 Soctrang
 Camau
 Tiengiang
 Cantho
 Travinh
 Dongthap
 Vinhlong
 HauGiang
 Table A3 Comparing GSO and VLSS-based Nominal Output and Crop Price Deflators by Year (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Year GSO VLSS GSO GSO GSO GSO GSO VLSS VLSS Nominal Output Real Output Implicit Deflator Deflator (Billions of VND) Base=1994 (1)/(3) Base 1994 Base 1992 Base 1993 Base 1992 Base 1993 1985 41 41,951 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1986 190 43,471 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 1987 999 42,571 2.3 2.9 3.4 3.4 1988 5,201 45,406 11.5 14.1 16.8 16.5 1989 10,706 48,900 21.9 27.0 32.2 31.6 1990 16,394 49,604 33.0 40.8 48.5 47.7 1991 33,345 51,248 65.1 80.4 95.6 93.9 1992 37,540 33,642 55,133 68.1 84.1 100.0 98.3 100.0 1993 40,818 58,906 69.3 85.6 101.8 100.0 100.0 1994 49,921 61,660 81.0 100.0 118.9 116.8 1995 66,794 66,183 100.9 124.7 148.2 145.6 1996 71,989 70,779 101.7 125.6 149.4 146.8 1997 77,358 82,780 75,746 102.1 126.1 150.0 147.4 170.7 1998 91,226 80,292 113.6 140.3 166.9 164.0 170.7 1999 101,648 86,381 117.7 145.3 172.8 169.8 2000 101,044 90,858 111.2 137.4 163.3 160.5 2001 101,403 92,907 109.1 134.8 160.3 157.5 2002 111,172 99,153 98,061 113.4 140.0 166.5 163.6 155.2 155.2 2003 116,066 101,786 114.0 140.8 167.5 164.6 2004 131,552 134,318 106,423 123.6 152.7 181.5 178.4 188.9 188.9 2005 134,755 107,898 124.9 154.3 183.4 180.2 2006 144,773 182,822 110,822 130.6 161.4 191.9 188.5 234.4 234.4 Notes: 1/ See Appendix Table A4 The Evolution of World Prices, Selected Crops Base Year = 1992 Year 1992 1997 2002 2004 2006 Grain Rice 100 113 72 92 113 (year to year) 13% -37% 28% 23% Corn/Maize 100 112 95 107 117 (year to year) 12% -15% 13% 9% Annuals Peanuts 100 135 101 140 128 (year to year) 35% -25% 39% -9% Soybeans 100 134 90 132 104 (year to year) 34% -33% 47% -21% Tobacco 100 103 80 80 86 (year to year) 3% -22% 0% 8% Cotton 100 137 80 107 100 (year to year) 37% -42% 34% -6% Cassava (Tapioca) 100 57 48 67 79 (year to year) -43% -15% 38% 18% Sugar 100 118 96 69 93 (year to year) 18% -19% -28% 34% Perennials Coffee 100 185 71 85 161 (year to year) 85% -62% 21% 89% Pepper 100 430 157 175 220 (year to year) 330% -64% 11% 26% Rubber 100 116 81 134 220 (year to year) 16% -30% 66% 64% Cashews 100 102 77 91 88 (year to year) 2% -24% 17% -4% Tea 100 144 121 132 144 (year to year) 44% -16% 9% 9% Fruit Bananas 100 110 112 111 144 (year to year) 10% 1% -1% 30% Oranges 100 94 115 175 169 (year to year) -6% 23% 51% -3% Notes: 1/ All price indices are expressed relative to the base year (1992), while the “year to year� change is the percentage change between survey years; 2/ Prices in the index are calculated on the basis of U.S. Dollars per metric ton. Figure 1: Real Crop Output by Year (in logarithms) 17 16 Log Real Crop Output 14 15 13 1992 1997 2002 2004 2006 Year RRD NE NW NCC SCC CH SE MRD Notes: Based on authors’ calculations, and numbers reported in Table 1. Figure 2: Decomposition of Growth Rates by Region .25 .2 Annual Average Growth Rate .05 .1 0 .15 RRD NE NW NCC SCC CH SE MRD Nominal Price Real Notes: Based on authors’ calculations, and numbers reported in Table 2. Figure 3: Real Annual Average Growth Rates by Crop and Region, 1992-2006 Central Highlands Mekong River Delta National North Central Coast North East North West Red River Delta South Central Coast South East 0 .05 .1 .15 .2 0 .05 .1 .15 .2 0 .05 .1 .15 .2 Annual Average Growth Rate cereal vegetables annual perennials fruit Notes: Based on authors’ calculations, and numbers reported in Table 4. Figure 4: Share of Real Crop Output by Crop Type, by Year 100 Share of Total Output by Crop Type 20 40 0 60 80 1992 1997 2002 2004 2006 cereals vegetables annuals perennials fruit Notes: Based on authors’ calculations, and numbers reported in Table 5. Figure 5: Share of Real Output by Region and Year 100 Share of Total Output by Region 20 40 60 0 80 1992 1997 2002 2004 2006 RRD NE NW NC SCC CH SE MRD Notes: Based on authors’ calculations, and numbers reported in Table 6. Figure 6: Sown Acreage by Crop and Year 15 Sown Area (Millions of Hectares per year) 5 0 10 1992 1997 2002 2004 2006 cereals vegetables annuals perennials fruit Notes: Based on authors’ calculations, and numbers reported in Table 7. Figure 7: Share of Sown Acreage by Crop and Year (All Vietnam) 100 80 Share of Sown Area by Crop 20 40 60 0 1992 1997 2002 2004 2006 cereals vegetables annuals perennials fruit Notes: Based on authors’ calculations, and numbers reported in Table 8. Figure 8: Share of Sown Acreage by Region and Year 100 Share of National Sown Area by Region 20 40 60 0 80 1992 1997 2002 2004 2006 RRD NE NW NC SCC CH SE MRD Notes: Based on authors’ calculations, and numbers reported in Table 9. Figure 9: Crop Output by Quintile (Based on Land Quintiles, 1992) 1992 Quintiles: By Acreage 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Real Value of Crop Output 0 1 2 3 4 5 cereals vegetables annuals perennials fruit Notes: Based on authors’ calculations, and numbers reported in Table 13. Figure 10: Crop Output by Quintile (Based on Land Quintiles, 2006) 2006 Quintiles: By Acreage 15,000 Real Value of Crop Output 5,000 10,000 0 1 2 3 4 5 cereals vegetables annuals perennials fruit Notes: Based on authors’ calculations, and numbers reported in Table 13. Figure 11: Crop Output by Quintile (Based on Income Quintiles, 1992) 1992 Quintiles: By Income 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Real Value of Crop Output 0 1 2 3 4 5 cereals vegetables annuals perennials fruit Notes: Based on authors’ calculations, and numbers reported in Table 14. Figure 12: Crop Output by Quintile (Based on Income Quintiles, 2006) 2006 Quintiles: By Income 8,000 Real Value of Crop Output 2,000 4,000 0 6,000 1 2 3 4 5 cereals vegetables annuals perennials fruit Notes: Based on authors’ calculations, and numbers reported in Table 14.