LMpSAS I POLICY RESEARCH WORKING PAPER 2951 Land Allocation in Vietnam's Agrarian Transition Martin Ravallion Dominique van de Walle The World Bank Development Research Group H Poverty Team and Public Services Team January 2003 POLICY RESEARCH WORKING PAPER 2951 Abstract While liberalizing key factor markets is a crucial step in initial administrative allocation are measured against an the transition from a socialist control-economy to a explicit counterfactual market solution. The authors' market economy, the process can be stalled by imperfect tests using a farm-household panel data set spanning the information, high transaction costs, and covert resistance reforms suggest that land allocation responded positively from entrenched interests. Ravallion and van de Walle but slowly to the inefficiencies of the administrative study land-market adjustment in the wake of Vietnam's allocation. They find no sign that the transition favored reforms aiming to establish a free market in land-use the land rich or that it was thwarted by the continuing rights following de-collectivization. Inefficiencies in the power over land held by local officials. This paper-a joint product of the Poverty Team and the Public Services Team, Development Research Group-is part of a larger effort in the group to understand the welfare impacts of major policy reforms. Copies of the paper are available free from the World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433. Please contact Hedy Sladovich, room MC3-607, telephone 202-473-7698, fax 202-522-1154, email address hsladovich@worldbank.org. PolicN Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http://econ.worldbank.org. The authors may be contacted at mravallion@worldbank.org or dvandewalle@worldbank.org. January 2003. (23 pages) The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the view of the World Bank, its Executive Directors, or the countries they represent Produced by the Research Advisory Staff Land Allocation in Vietnam's Agrarian Transition Martin Ravallion Development Research Group World Bank, 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20433 rnravallion(a)worldbank.org Dominique van de Wallet Development Research Group World Bank, 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20433 dvandewallee,worldbank.org t For comments on this paper the authors are grateful to Bob Baulch, Quy-Toan Do, Andrew Foster, Emanuela Galasso and Rinku Murgai. Useful discussions on this topic were had with Mai Lan Lam, Quang Binh, Luc Duc Khai, Dinh Duc Sinh and participants at seminars in Hanoi (sponsored by the National Economics University and the Institute of Social Studies, Holland), the North-Eastern Universities Development Conference at Williams College and the University of Massachusetts. The support of the World Bank's Research Committee is gratefully acknowledged as is the assistance of Dorothyjean Cratty and Tomomi Tanaka. I 1. Introduction Vietnam's agrarian transition in the 1990s has closely followed a now classic policy scenario for economies in transition. First one privatizes the main productive assets - in this case agricultural land-use rights - then one legalizes their free exchange. In the first step, the de-collectivization of agriculture meant that the land that had been farmed collectively was to be allocated by administrative means within each commune. Naturally this left inefficiencies in land allocation, with some households having too much land relative to a competitive market allocation, while some had too little. The second step was reforming land laws so as to create the framework for a free market in agricultural land-use rights. While land remained the property of the state, Vietnam reformed land laws in 1993 to introduce official land titles and permit land transactions for the first time. Having removed legal obstacles to buying and selling land- use rights, the expectation was that land would be re-allocated to eliminate the initial inefficiencies in the administrative assignment. However, the outcomes are far from clear on a priori grounds. Land was not the only input for which the market was missing or imperfect. Indeed, as a stylized fact, other factor markets are still poorly developed in rural areas, which is likely to limit the efficiency gains from freeing up land transactions. Pervasive market failures fuelled by imperfect information and high transaction costs could well have stalled the process of efficiency-enhancing land re-allocations during Vietnam's agrarian transition. The local state continued to play an active role. However, it is unclear whether the continuing exercise of communal control over land was synergistic with market forces or opposed to them. Possibly the local political economy operated to encourage otherwise sluggish land re-allocation to more efficient users. 1 Or it may have worked against efficient agrarian transition, given pervasive risk-market failures and limitations on the set of redistributive instruments; resistance to the transition may then be an endogenous safety net, recognizing the welfare risks that a free market in land might entail. Or it might be expected that the frictions to agrarian transition stemming from the local political economy worked against both greater equity and efficiency; while socialism may have left in-grained preferences for distributive justice, the new possibilities for 'In the context of rural China, Benjamin and Brandt (2002b) argue that administrative land re- allocations served an efficiency role given other market failures. I capture by budding local elites - well connected to the local state authorities - would not presumably have gone unnoticed. The expost outcomes of this reform in Vietnam are also of interest to neighboring China, which is planning to liberalize the exchange of agricultural land-use rights from 2003 (McGregor and Kynge, 2002). As in Vietnam, the hope is that land will be reallocated to more efficient users, and that inefficient farmers will switch to (rural or urban) nonfarm activities. And, as in Vietnam, there are concerns in China that local officials and elites will subvert the process. This paper offers what we believe to be the first empirical test of whether the classic policy scenario of privatization followed by liberalized exchange has actually worked in a developing transition economy. In particular, the paper assesses whether the post-reform allocation of annual agricultural land-use rights in Vietnam redressed the inefficiencies of the initial administrative allocation. We first measure the extent of inefficiencies in the pre-reform administrative allocation, judged relative to an explicit counter factual. We then see to what extent those inefficiencies can explain the subsequent land re-allocations in a panel of farm households, with controls for other "non-market" factors bearing on land allocation. The following section describes key features of the setting. Section 3 describes our approach to testing whether the post-reform land re-allocation responded to the household-specific efficiency losses from the pre-reform administrative allocation. Our data are described in section 4. We then present and interpret our results in section 5. Section 6 concludes. 2. Lsumd alllicatdon fim Vemnn'lm9 signarnsuI ffironllRr In the late 1980s, Vietnam abandoned socialist agriculture, whereby rural workers had been organized into "brigades" that jointly farmed the commune's land. The central government gave local authorities the power to allocate the agricultural land that had been farmed collectively to individual households. De-collectivization was followed in 1993 by a new land law that introduced official land titles and permitted land transactions for the first time since communist rule began. Land remained the property of the state, but usage rights were extended (typically from 15 to 20 years for annual crop-land) and could (for the first time) be legally transferred and exchanged, mortgaged and inherited (Cuc and Sikor, 1998). 2 The central government's explicit aim in introducing this new land law was to promote greater efficiency in production by creating a market in land-use rights (see, for example, de Mauny and Vu, 1998). (This was one element of a set of reforms to increase agricultural output; other reforms include relaxing trade restrictions, which improved farmers' terms of trade; see Benjamin and Brandt, 2002a.) The expectation was that, after these legal changes, land would be re-allocated to assure higher agricultural output, taking account of such factors as farmers' abilities, supervision costs of hiring labor and the micro-geographic organization of land plots. Despite the center's aim of creating a free market in land-use rights, local authorities retained a degree of power over land. Local cadres oversee titling, land-use restrictions and land appropriation for infrastructure projects. Sikor and Truong (2000) describe well how the reforms were mediated by village institutions in Son La, a northern uplands province: "Local cadres were located at the intersection of the state and villages. A large majority of them came from local villages and maintained close ties with their kin and fellow villages. The close ties between local cadres and villages influenced the activities of the local state. Local cadres attempted to accommodate villagers' interests, sometimes even when they contradicted national policy." (Sikor and Truong, 2000, p.33). In these circumstances, it would be wrong to view the land-market reform as undermining the power of the local state over land allocation. Indeed, staff of one NGO argued that the reforms enhanced the power of the state over land usage (Smith and Binh, 1994). Although both the 1988 and 1993 land laws extended land use rights for "stable and long-term use" there are reports that some local authorities continue to re-allocate land periodically by administrative means, such as in response to demographic changes and new family formations. There is anecdotal evidence that the continuing power of the local state stalled the reforms in some parts of Vietnam. Writing a few years after the 1993 Land Law, Smith (1997) reports that in one northern province (Ha Tinh) the major commercial bank lending for agricultural purposes had not yet accepted a single land-usage certificate as collateral for a loan. The resistance of local officials to have the land sold to an outsider was one of the reasons given by the bank; another was that the bank was unsure it would ever find a buyer for the land should it foreclose on the loan. However, this should not be generalized; indeed, the same study reported cases of land certificates being accepted as collateral in another province. 3 Just how much the local state has inhibited the development of a land market is unclear. It appears that land transactions can by-pass state control. There have been reports of land transactions without titles (Smith, 1997; de Mauny and Vu, 1998). Possibly a quasi-market has emerged despite the continuing intrusions of the local state. There have also been concerns about rising inequality stemming from the reforms. A report by ActionAid staff exemplifies these concerns; while presenting no supportive evidence, the report predicted that the reforms would lead to: "..a greater concentration of land ownership, a greater disparity in wealth throughout the rural community and a possible increase in the phenomenon of landlessness and full-time agricultural wage labour." (Smith and Binh, 1994, p.17.) There have been reports of rising landlessness, notably in the south (de Mauny and Vu, 1998; Lam, 2001b). However, there is little sign of sharply rising income or consumption inequality.2 Some of the efforts made to avoid rising inequality may well have had perverse effects. There are reports that, in response to central Communist Party concerns about rising landlessness in the late 1 990s, some local officials in the south tried to stop poor families selling their land (de Mauny and Vu, 1998). The consequent devaluation of their main non-labor asset would presumably make the poor worse off. It is likely that transfers still happened despite such policies, though the transactions would become informal, and possibly on less favorable terms for those forced to sell their land because of adverse shocks. There were differences between the north and the south that are likely to have mattered to the pace of the agrarian transition. After re-unification in the mid-1970s, farmers in the south's Mekong Delta had resisted collectivization, and by the time the country de-collectivized 13 years later, less than 10 percent of all of the region's farmers had been organized into collectives. By contrast, virtually all of the crop land in the north and the south's Central Coastal provinces was collectivized by that time (Pingali and Xuan 1992; Ngo 1993). The market economy was thus more developed in the Mekong Delta at the beginning of the transition. It might be expected that this historical difference would 2 Analyses of household survey data for 1992/93 and 1997/98 indicate a significant drop in income inequality in the south (from a Gini of 0.46 to 0.42), though there was a slight increase in the North (from 0.37 to 0.39) and a slight increase in consumption inequality in both north and south (Benjamin and Brandt 2002a, Glewwe et al. 2001), though the statistical significance of these changes is a moot point. 4 mean that land allocation would adjust more rapidly in the Mekong after the reforms. However, there are other factors to consider. Rural per capita income growth was higher in the south over this period, fuelled in part by improvements in farmers' terms of trade arising from external trade reforms; Benjamin and Brandt (2002a) report a 95 percent increase in real income per person in the south over 1993-98, versus 55 percent in the north. Such rapid growth in real incomes may well have dampened the pressure to secure the efficiency gains from land re-allocation in the south. There were other pre-reform differences between the north and south. The distribution of land was more equal in the north.3 The collectivization of agriculture in the north over roughly a generation fostered a more equitable allocation at the time of de- collectivization. In the south, the fall back position was the land allocation pre- unification, and the realized allocation was more unequal than in the north (Ravallion and van de Walle, 2001). Lower inequality in the north may well have made it easier to achieve cooperative outcomes, including more efficient assignments of land-use rights.4 A related manifestation of this difference can be found in the performance of (formal and informal) institutions that deal with risk and are also likely to matter to land allocation. The safety net in rural areas of Vietnam is largely community-based; central and provincial programs have weak coverage (van de Walle, 2002). It is widely believed that villages in the north are better organized socially than in the south, so that when a farm household in the north suffers a negative shock (such as crop damage or ill-health) it will almost never need to sell land to cope. For example, writing about Son La province, Smith reports that: "..there is a tendency for the local authorities to seek to protect households from the dangers of a market in land, despite the provisions of the 1993 Law. This constitutes an attempt to protect poor households who may be tempted to sell their land for short term gain and lose their principal means of subsistence." (Smith, 1997, p. 1.) By contrast, an Oxfam team in the province of Tra Vinh in the Mekong Delta (in which the NGO had been working for a few years) reported that: 3 This difference shows up in the results from the VLSS of 1992/93. The coefficient of variation in the log of allocated annual agricultural land was 8.3% in the North's Red River Delta, versus 15.3% in the south's Mekong Delta (Ravallion and van de Walle 2001). (Among the five regions for which the sample size was deemed adequate, these were the regions with lowest and highest land inequality respectively.) 4For an excellent review of the theoretical arguments as to why high inequality can impede efficiency see Bardhan et al., (1999). 5 "The crucial problem is that there are no safety nets for helping households who encounter temporary crises.... It is no surprise that many families resort to transferring or mortgaging their land, discounting the future to cope with the current crisis" (de Mauny and Vu, 1998, p.23). This difference between the north and the south is no doubt in part a legacy of the longer period of collective organization in the north. However, the more equal land allocation in the north after breaking up the collectives could well have facilitated this, by making it easier to continue to achieve quasi-cooperative arrangements within communities. Better insurance in the north is likely to have also made it easier for land transactions to be made on efficiency grounds. Landholdings in the south, by contrast, are likely to have been less flexible, since land would be more likely to be held as insurance than in the north. These observations suggest that it would be naive to think that simply legislating the pre-requisites for a competitive land market in this setting would make it happen. The reality is more complex and uncertain, given the institutional/historical context. In principle, the continuing (and possibly enhanced) power of local cadres could either undermine the expected efficiency gains from the center's refonns or help secure those gains. The distributional outcomes are equally unclear; the local state had the power to either magnify any adverse distributional impacts of the reforms, or dampen them. The outcome is likely to depend in large part on the outcomes of a power struggle at local level, which can be taken to determine the (explicit or implicit) distributional goals of the local land allocation process. Capture of this allocation process by local elites could lead to even worse distributional outcomes.5 On the other hand, a desire to protect the poor could soften the impact. These same features of the Vietnamese rural economy that could inhibit the efficiency gains from introducing land titles and other trappings of the market economy lead one to question any presumption that efficiency gains from the land law would necessarily come with a cost to equity. Local institutions would have been capable of both stalling the market and protecting the poor from any polarizing forces it generated. In the rest of this paper we will study the outcomes of this process of post-reform land re-allocation, given its institutional and historical context. This has been a concern in recent analyses of the case for community-based welfare programs more generally (Bardhan and Mookherjee, 2000; Galasso and Ravallion, 2001). 6 3. Modeling land allocation The main hypothesis to be tested is that land re-allocation during the agrarian transition helped offset prior inefficiencies in the administrative allocation. To test this, we need to explicitly characterize the extent of inefficiency in the initial allocation. Then we will see how subsequent re-allocations of land responded. 3.1 Gainers and losers from the initial administrative allocation An initial administrative allocation of land was made as part of de- collectivization, giving an amount LA of land to household i for i=l,..,n. The administrative allocation need not be efficient in the specific sense of maximizing aggregate output or consumption. To characterize the efficient allocation, suppose that holding Li of land yields an output of F(Li ,X,) for household i where Xi is a vector of exogenous household characteristics. We assume that the function F is increasing and strictly concave in L, . The household also has (positive or negative) non-farm income, Y(X,). The household consumes its current income:6 Ci =C(L,,X,)=F(L ,Xi)+Y(X,) (1) The allocation that maximizes the commune's aggregate current consumption is: (L,..,L) -argmax[EC(L,,Xi) EL, = nL] (2) i=1 1=1 The solution equates FL(L;,XI) with the multiplier A on aggregate land in (2), giving: 4 =L(X,,2) (i=l,..,n) (3) We call this the "consumption-efficient allocation." This is also the competitive equilibrium assuming that utility depends solely on consumption. In the market allocation, each household's consumption will be F(L,,X;) + Y(X,) - AL, where A is the market price of land. Demands then equate FL(L,,X,) = A over all i, which is the allocation that maximizes aggregate consumption. In our empirical implementation, we assume that (1) takes the specific form: lnCi = a+blnLi +cXK +vi (4) 7 where a, b and c are parameters and vi is a white noise error process. Given estimates of the parameters and error term and data on X, we then calculate the consumption efficient allocation to each household. For O=16 in 1993 who died by 1998 0.109 0.33 No. >=50 in 1993 who died by 1998 0.089 0.30 Change in number of disabled adults 1993-98 -0.004 0.15 Change in no. of able bodied working age members 1993-98 -0.138 1.19 H'hold has new individual aged 8-99 in 1998 0216 0.60 Source: 1992/93 and 1997/98 Viet Nam Living Standards Surveys. 2559 observations except for the change in log allocated land for which n=2361. 50 Resullt$ Recall that in measuring land re-allocation and the initial efficiency loss we assume that 0(L) = (L7 -1) / q where Q E [0,1]. To choose a value of Q we regressed pi on T, across the entire data set for alternative values of 77 at 0.1 intervals over the [0,1] interval. The best fit (measured by the t-ratio on the partial adjustment coefficient) was obtained at q = 0, which gave a partial adjustment coefficient for proportionate differences of 0.33.9 The coefficient for absolute differences ( q = 1) was 0.17 and 9 Al standard errors in this paper are corrected for both heteroskedasticity and clustering. 14 between the two, the t-ratio declined monotonically. So we chose the proportionate (log difference) specification in all further work. However, this specification has the drawback that we lose some observations with zero land allocation in 1997/98 (since we cannot take the log of zero); this applies to slightly less than 8 percent of the sample. 0 We will study this sub-sample with zero allocated land in the second survey more closely, and test for sample selection bias, later in this section. For the present discussion we confine attention to the proportionate case. Figure 1 plots the proportionate changes (log differences) in land allocation against our measure of the initial loss relative to the efficient allocation, measured by ln(L / LA), for the national sample. The empirical relationship suggests a tendency for land re-allocation to respond positively to the initial inefficiency in the administrative allocation. As already noted, the linear regression coefficient is 0.33 (with a t-ratio of 9.8), indicating that one third of the initial disparity between the administrative allocation and the market allocation was eliminated over this five year period. Figure 1 also gives the nonparametric regression function (using Cleveland's, 1979, local regression method). The slope is positive but less than unity throughout, though it is clear that f (0) 0, reflecting an overall expansion in allocated annual land area over this period. Figure 1 is suggestive of partial adjustment toward the market allocation, though still leaving two-thirds of the initial mean proportionate efficiency loss after five years. However, as noted in the previous section, there are a number of concerns about bias, which might go in either direction. One concern is that the relationship might not be homogeneous, as assumed by equation (6). On adding In Li to the regression of ln(LR / Li) on ln(L; / LA), we could convincingly reject the null hypothesis implied by homogeneity. The regression coefficient on ln Li was -0.287 (t-ratio of 8.05), while the partial adjustment coefficient fell to 0.217 (7.09). ' We also tried defining the proportionate difference as the percentage change rather than log difference, thus allowing us to keep these observations; the results were sinilar, though (again) the log difference specification gave a better fit. 15 Figuire 1: Proportonate lannd re-allocation 1993-90 agalnmst the jpropordoonate Ross fromn the administrzflve alocaation hn 1993 Change in log land allocation 1993-98: National 4 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 2 al - give th Csiae pata adutmn coficet whe the varou 0~~~~~~~~ 0 0 0 0, ooo o00% 0 0 0D0 conrosreadedstp-y-sep(cmuatvey)W givenationalresults andabre 0~~~~~~~~~~~ -2 000 2 Proportionate efficiency ioss 1993 Table 2 gives the estimated partial adjustment coefficients when the various controls are added step-by-step (cumulatively). We give national results and a breakdown by region. Let us focus first on the national results. Consistently with Figure 1, all of our tests indicate a highly significant positive coefficient on the initial efficiency loss, implying that the land re-allocation process was in the direction of a more efficient allocation. However, as can be seen from Table 2, the partial adjustment coefficient falls to less than half the value implied by Figure 1 when all controls are added. This is the combined effect of both relaxing homogeneity and adding the controls for shocks and non-market factors, including commune fixed effects. There were also many significant commune effects. These could reflect prices rather than institutional factors. Of all these changes, relaxing homogeneity and adding commune effects does most of the work; with just these two changes, the partial adjustment coefficient falls to 0.155 (t=5.18), while adding the rest of the control variables only brings it down an extra 0.014 (Table 2). 16 Table 2: Effects of adding controls on the partial adjustment coefficients by region Northern Red North Central Mekong Full Uplands River Coast Coast Delta Sample No controls 0.476 0.294 0.306 0.172 0.350 0.328 (5.97) (6.81) (3.35) (2.17) (4.51) (9.82) Adding initial 0.170 0.094 0.129 0.025 0.221 0.218 land allocation (1.61) (2.67) (1.24) (0.37) (3.06) (7.09) Adding commune 0.205 0.123 0.132 0.079 0.171 0.155 effects (3.96) (2.98) (1.52) (1.32) (1.62) (5.18) Adding controls 0.255 0.150 0.175 0.074 0.215 0.182 for demographic (4.89) (4.02) (2.24) (1.15) (2.20) (6.46) shocks Adding controls 0.268 0.071 0.173 0.069 0.074 0.131 for connections (4.54) (1.39) (1.68) (1.16) (0.73) (4.09) and assets No. observations 432 790 459 269 308 2,361 Note: The table gives regression coefficients of the change in log annual land allocation on the estimated proportionate loss from the initial administrative allocation relative to the counter- factual market allocation. The regressions are cumulative in that as controls are added the previous controls are kept in. There are regional differences in the estimated adjustment coefficients, though the pattern of declining coefficients as controls are added is similar across regions. There is little sign of a difference between the north and the south; while the highest coefficient without controls is for the Northern Uplands, the south's Mekong Delta is the second highest. While the separation of market from non-market forces is clearly problematic in this setting, these results suggest that any non-market forces being picked up by our controls tended to be cooperant with market forces, as captured by the adjustment coefficient to initial losses from the administrative allocation. This is evident from the fact that, on balance, controls that raise (lower) land allocation tend to be positively (negatively) correlated with the loss due to the initial allocation. The only exception is for the controls for demographic shocks, which tended to work in the opposite direction (as is evident in Table 2), though the effect on the partial adjustment coefficient is small. In Table 3 we give the complete results for the most comprehensive model we estimated. For this we also added interaction effects between the initial loss variable and both initial land allocation and head's education, to allow the adjustment coefficient to vary within regions. The interaction effect with education was insignificant nationally and in most regions. However, we find a significant interaction effect between the initial loss relative to the efficient allocation and the initial land allocation. The speed of 17 adjustment toward the efficient allocation was higher for those who started off with less land. We find a number of other factors that influence land re-allocation. There is a highly significant effect of an increase over the time period in the number of persons of working age and new people joining the household. (We also tried dropping the latter variable given possible endogeneity concerns, but other results were affected little in the national model.) Households with male heads were also favored in the land re-allocation process. Having higher amounts of other types of land resulted in significantly higher access to allocated land. There are some regional differences in the model with controls. The significant negative interaction effect (such that there is a higher adjustment coefficient for households with less land) is only found in the Mekong. Whether this is a market response is unclear; it could also reflect the efforts of local officials in the Mekong to avoid rising landlessness (Section 2). The impacts of demographic and labor force changes appear to be generally stronger in the northern provinces. This is also where local authorities are more likely to enforce periodic land re-allocations. Being from an ethnic minority household helped increase annual land holdings in the north, and (especially) the Central Coastal region, while it tended to reduce holdings in the Mekong Delta; note, however, that the ethnic groups are not the same in these two regions. Ethnic effects also become significant and positive in the Northem Uplands and North Coast regions when we omit the number of new household members in 1998. Having a member who works for an SOE has a pronounced negative impact on annual land changes in the Northern Uplands and the Central Coast, though it has no impact elsewhere. In both the Northern Uplands and Central Coast regions a higher share of good quality irrigated land reduced the land re- allocation over time.'1 The tendency to favor male heads of household is strongest in the north. " We tested a dummy for being a social fund transfer recipient, one of the few ways to identify households that may be treated preferentially by local authorities. This was insignificant in the national model and all regions except the North Coast where it had a positive effect. 18 Table 3: Determinants of changes in allocated annual agricultural land Northern Red North Central Mekong Full Uplands River Coast Coast Delta sample Proportional loss from 0.433 0.197 0.501 0.230 1.494 0.700 admin. allocation (2.65) (0.52) (1.09) (0.67) (2.90) (4.51) Log initial land allocation -0.481 -0.434 -0.298 -0.495 -0.394 -0.405 (7.20) (6.32) (3.47) (10.04) (4.01) (11.78) Interaction of loss with initial -0.024 -0.017 -0.047 -0.022 -0.168 -0.077 land (1.06) (0.34) (0.84) (0.52) (3.02) (3.87) Adult member died 1993-98 0.096 0.110 0.043 -0.059 0.170 0.043 (0.52) (1.22) (0.18) (0.53) (1.07) (0.53) Elderly member died -0.150 -0.118 -0.034 -0.143 -0.162 -0.080 1993-98 (0.67) (1.18) (0.14) (0.96) (0.99) (0.88) Change in no. disabled 1993- 0.204 0.240 0.122 0.043 -0.008 0.119 98 (2.15) (1.66) (1.77) (0.43) (0.04) (2.03) Change in no. of able bodied 0.119 0.150 0.119 0.052 0.05 0.100 members (5.08) (8.70) (5.56) (1.44) (1.72) (8.92) New member 8-99 1993-98 0.113 0.189 0.111 0.050 0.205 0.124 (2.20) (4.59) (1.73) (0.94) (3.74) (5.00) Religion 0.151 -0.049 0.020 -0.054 0.126 0.005 (2.13) (1.12) (0.20) (0.45) (2.61) (0.16) Ethnicity 0.254 -0.128 0.089 1.014 -0.288 0.096 (2.06) (3.40) (0.75) (14.57) (1.44) (0.93) Born locally 0.159 0.018 0.160 0.178 -0.026 0.093 (1.71) (0.25) (1.36) (2.15) (0.22) (2.13) Genderofhead(male=l) 0.121 0.121 0.097 0.091 0.068 0.123 (3.93) (2.73) (1.61) (1.27) (0.64) (4.35) Governmentjob -0.142 -0.060 -0.142 -0.171 0.124 -0.090 (1.01) (0.75) (1.58) (0.86) (0.94) (1.56) SOE job -0.462 0.104 -0.087 -0.216 0.174 0.036 (4.19) (0.56) (0.37) (2.06) (1.05) (0.28) Education of head -0.006 0.011 -0.000 -0.001 0.028 0.006 (0.78) (2.48) (0.05) (0.18) (1.40) (1.58) Education of other adults 0.004 0.004 -0.001 0.007 0.009 0.004 (1.52) (1.60) (0.20) (2.79) (2.09) (2.18) Share of good quality non- -0.032 -0.047 0.032 -0.058 0.005 -0.009 irrigated land (0.38) (0.81) (0.50) (0.63) (0.06) (0.27) Share of good quality -0.256 -0.001 -0.088 0.118 0.271 -0.063 irrigated land (2.21) (0.01) (0.84) (1.59) (1.94) (1.23) Private irrigated x 103 0.051 0.249 0.275 -0.020 0.051 0.058 (0.61) (1.57) (1.92) (0.18) (2.56) (2.44) Private non-irrigated 0.077 0.111 0.195 0.056 0.080 0.042 x 10 (0.78) (4.04) (2.06) (0.92) (7.34) (1.88) Private perennial x -0.031 0.015 -0.139 0.092 0.044 0.024 (0.063) (0.016) (1.29) (1.11) (2.00) (2.04) Private water surface x 103 0.334 0.027 -0.043 -- 0.041 0.059 (2.72) (0.52) (0.31) (5.45) (3.86) Swidden land dummy -0.149 0.266 0.242 0.122 0.171 0.064 variable (2.37) (6.75) (1.85) (0.88) (3.09) (0.94) Commune dummy variables Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Constant 2.938 2.793 2.067 4.235 2.165 2.615 (6.97) (5.57) (3.68) (8.68) (2.56) (7.82) R2 0.631 0.461 0.435 0.548 0.438 0.490 RMSE 0.472 0.390 0.454 0.420 0.610 0.483 No. observations 432 790 459 269 308 2,361 Note: The dependent variable is the log change in annual agricultural allocated land between 1993 and 1998. Absolute t-ratios in parentheses are based on standard errors corrected for heteroskedasticity and clustering. Unless otherwise noted, all variables are initial 1993 values. 19 We also tested for effects of the initial efficiency of land allocation on the probability of becoming landless (in terms of allocated annual land). Table 4 gives the proportion of the 1997/98 sample that had no allocated land classified by the estimated initial loss relative to the efficient allocation in 1992/93. The higher the loss relative to the efficient allocation the higher the probability of having no allocated land in 1997/98. Table 4: lDisposaL of alocatedl land % landless in 1998/99 % landless 1 (Gained relative to the 4.6 efficient allocation) [477] 2 2.6 Quintiles of households [537] ranked by the loss from 3 5.9 administrative allocation of [579] land, 1992/93 4 10.7 [533] 5 (Lost relative to the efficient 16.4 allocation) [433] 7.7 [2559] Note: % of households having no allocated annual agricultural land in 1997/98; total number of sampled households in [.] We also estimated probits for landlessness using the same regressors as in Table 3. We did this for both disposal of allocated annual land and disposal of all cultivated land. Virtually the only significant predictors in any of these regressions was the proportionate efficiency loss, which had a significant positive coefficient in most cases, and geographic dummy variables. Becoming landless was more likely for households who had too little land relative to the efficient allocation, and it was more likely in the south than the in north. Our results are suggestive of a "land polarization" process among those who started off with too little land relative to the efficient allocation. The bulk of these households "traded up," acquiring more land in the more market-oriented economy. However, a minority simply disposed of their allocated land. The results in Table 4 are suggestive of an interpretation in which a subset of those households who started out with too little land (relative to the efficient allocation) simply "cashed in," possibly to take up other non-farm activities or pay off debts. The difference in behavior of those households who disposed of their allocated land raises a concern about the possibility of sample selection bias in our main 20 regressions for land re-allocation.12 In fact there are two possible sources of such bias. The first stems from the fact that our preferred specification for the functional form entailed that some observations had to be dropped; the second is panel attrition, in that some of the original random sample could not be interviewed in the second survey for various reasons (they had left their original address or they chose not to participate again). Motivated by the approach to testing for panel attrition bias in Fitzgerald, Gottschalk and Moffitt (1998), we tested for both sources of bias using initial land allocation as the auxiliary endogenous variable in a probit for whether a household dropped out of the sample (for either reason), with controls for all other observable exogenous characteristics in the baseline survey. (We used the same set of controls as in our model of land re-allocation.) This assumes that the initial land allocation is correlated with the selection-bias error component in the main regressions but does not appear on the RHS of our model of land re-allocation independently of the initial efficiency loss; the latter exclusion restriction is implied by our theoretical model (as discussed in the previous section). The initial land allocation variable was statistically insignificant (at the 10 percent level) nationally and for all regions, suggesting that there is little or no bias due to sample selection in our regressions for land re-allocation. 6. Conclusions The standard policy prescription for transforming a socialist command economy into a market economy is to privatize productive assets and then change the law to permit free transactions in those assets. We have put this model to the test in the context of Vietnam's agrarian transition. We find some support for the standard model during a period that included major liberalizing reforms to land laws. There are signs that land allocation responded to the inefficiencies of the initial administrative assignment at de-collectivization. Households who started with an inefficiently low (high) amount of crop land under the administrative assignment tended to increase (decrease) their holdings over time, through the process of re-allocation allowed under the new land laws. The partial adjustment coefficient was about 1/3 in the aggregate, meaning that one third of the initial gap between the actual allocation and the efficient allocation was eliminated within five years. 12 It might be conjectured that this explains why we get a better fit using the log difference specification; since the observations that disposed of their allocated land behaved very differently to differences in the initial inefficiency of their allocation, dropping these (because one cannot take the log of zero) improved the fit. However, we got a better fit with the log specification across the same (truncated) sample when compared to other values of t7 (tested at 0.1 intervals over the [0,1] interval). 21 We find an appreciably lower adjustment coefficient when we relax the standard homogeneity assumption in partial adjustment models (whereby the initial allocation does not influence the change in land allocation independently of the initial loss relative to the market allocation). At a given land deficit relative to the efficient allocation, households who started with the least crop land under the administrative assignment tended to see the largest increase in holdings during the transition. The speed of adjustment to inefficiencies in the administrative allocation also tended to be higher for those who started with less land. In other words, the transition process favored the "land-poor." The adjustment coefficient falls when we add controls for commune effects, demographic shocks and possible non-market factors influencing land allocation. The process favored households with long-term roots in the community, with male heads, better education and with more non-allocated land. We find that these controls tend to be cooperant with market forces, in that they are jointly positively correlated with land re- allocation and the efficiency losses from the initial administrative allocation. This is not what one would expect to find if the controls reflected strong non- market forces working against efficient land reallocation. The seemingly slow response to the initial inefficiencies of the administrative allocation does not appear to stem from countervailing non-market forces, but rather appears to be inherent to the workings of the market process in this setting. Refeirences The word "processed" describes informally reproduced works that may not be commonly available through library systems. Bardhan, Pranab, Samuel Bowles, and Herbert Gintis. 2000. "Wealth Inequality, Wealth Constraints and Economic Performance." In A.B. Atkinson and F. Bourguignon eds., Handbook of Income Distribution Volume 1. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Bardhan, Pranab, and Dilip Mookherjee. 2000. "Capture and Governance at Local and National Levels." American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 90(2): 135- 39. Benjamin, Dwayne, and Loren Brandt. 2002a. "Agriculture and Income Distribution in Rural Vietnam under Economic Reforms: A Tale of Two Regions." Department of Economics, University of Toronto. Processed. Benjamin, Dwayne, and Loren Brandt. 2002b. "Property Rights, Labor Markets and Efficiency in a Transition Economy: The Case of Rural China." Canadian Journal of Economics, forthcoming. Cleveland, William S. 1979. "Robust Locally Weighted Regression and Smoothing Scatter Plots." Journal of the American Statistical Association 74: 829-36. 22 Cuc, Le Trong, and Thomas Sikor. 1998. "National Agricultural Development Policy and Rural Organization." In Cuc, Le Trong, Terry Rambo, Keith Fahmey, Tran Duc Vien, Jeff Romm and Dang Thi Sy, eds., Red Books, Green Hills: The Impact of Economic Reform on Restoration Ecology in the Midlands of Northern Vietnam. Center for Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, Hanoi University. De Mauny, Alix, and Vu Thu Hong, 1998, "Landlessness in the Mekong Delta: The Situation in Duyen Hai District, Tra Vinh Province, Viet Nam," Report prepared for Oxfam Great Britain, Hanoi, Viet Nam. Fitzgerald, John, Peter Gottschalk, and Robert Moffitt. 1998. "An Analysis of Sample Attrition in Panel Data: The Michigan Study of Income Dynamics." Journal of Human Resources 33(2):300-44. Galasso, Emanuela, and Martin Ravallion. 2001. "Decentralized Targeting of an Anti- Poverty Program." Journal of Public Economics, forthcoming. Lam, Thi Mai Lan. 2001 a. "Land Fragmentation: A Constraint on Vietnamese Agriculture." Vietnam's Socio-Economic Development 26 (Summer): 73-80. Lam, Thi Mai Lan. 2001b. "Landless Households in the Mekong River Delta (A Case Study in Soctrang Province)." Vietnam's Socio-Economic Development 27 (Autumn): 56- 66. McGregor, Richard, and James Kynge. 2002. "China Promotes Protection of Private Property." Financial Times November 9/10: 1. Ngo Vinh Long. 1993. "Reform and Rural Development: Impact on Class, Sectoral, and Regional Inequalities." In William Turley and Mark Selden, eds., Reinventing Vietnamese Socialism. Boulder, Color.: Westview Press. Pingali, Prabhu, and Vo-Tong Xuan. 1992. "Viet Nam: Decollectivization and Rice Productivity Growth." Economic Development and Cultural Change 40(4): 697-718. Ravallion, Martin, and Dominique van de Walle. 2001. "Breaking Up the Collective Farm: Welfare Outcomes of Vietnam's Massive Land Privatization." Policy Research Working Paper 2710. Development Research Group, World Bank, Washington, D.C. Sikor, Thomas, and Dao Minh Truong. 2000. "Sticky Rice, Collective Fields: Community- Based Development Among the Black Thai." Center for National Resources and Environmental Studies, Agricultural Publishing House, Hanoi. Smith, William. 1997. "Land and the Poor: A Survey of Land Use Rights in Ha Tinh and Son La Provinces." ActionAid, Hanoi, Vietnam. Smith, William, and Tran Thanh Binh. 1994. "The Impact of the 1993 Land Law on Rural Households in the Mai Don District of Son La Province." ActionAid, Hanoi, Vietnam. Processed. van de Walle, Dominique. 2002. "The Static and Dynamic Incidence of Viet Nam's Public Safety Net." Policy Research Working Paper No. 2791. Development Research Group, World Bank, Washington, D.C. World Bank. 2000. "Viet Nam Living Standards Survey (VLSS), 1997-99: Basic Information." Research Development Group, World Bank, Washington, D.C. Processed. . 1999. Vietnam: Attacking Poverty. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. . 1995. "Viet Nam Living Standards Survey (VLSS), 1992-93: Basic Information." Research Development Group, World Bank, Washington, D.C. Processed. 23 Policy Research Working Paper Series Contact Title Author Date for paper WPS2923 Does Foreign Direct Investment Beata K Smarzynska October 2002 P Flewitt Increase the Productivity of Domestic 32724 Firms9 In Search of Spillovers through Backward Linkages WPS2924 Financial Development, Property Stijn Claessens November 2002 R Vo Rights, and Growth Luc Laeven 33722 WPS2925 Crime and Local Inequality in Gabriel Demombynes November 2002 P Sader South Africa Berk Ozler 33902 WPS2926 Distinguishing between Rashmi Shankar November 2002 P Holt Observationally Equivalent Theories 37707 of Crises WPS2927 Military Expenditure: Threats, Aid, Paul Collier November 2002 A Kitson-Walters and Arms Races Anke Hoeffler 33712 WPS2928 Growth without Governance Daniel Kaufmann November 2002 K Morgan Aart Kraay 37798 WPS2929 Assessing the Impact of Carsten Fink November 2002 P Flewitt Communication Costs on Aaditya Mattoo 32724 International Trade Ileana Cristina Neagu WPS2930 Land Rental Markets as an Klaus Deininger November 2002 M Fernandez Alternative to Government Songqing Jin 33766 Reallocation? Equity and Efficiency Considerations in the Chinese Land Tenure System WPS2931 The Impact of Property Rights on Klaus Deininger November 2002 M Fernandez Households' Investment, Risk Songqing Jin 33766 Coping, and Policy Preferences Evidence from China WPS2932 China's Accession to the World Aaditya Mattoo December 2002 P Fiewitt Trade Organization The Services 32724 Dimension WPS2933 Small- and Medium-Size Enterprise Leora F Klapper December 2002 A Yaptenco Financing in Eastern Europe Virginia Sarria-Allende 31823 Victor Sulla WPS2934 After the Big Bang9 Obstacles to the Karla Hoff December 2002 A Bonfield Emergence of the Rule of Law in Joseph E Stiglitz 31248 Post-Communist Societies WPS2935 Missed Opportunities Innovation and William F Maloney December 2002 P Soto Resource-Based Growth in Latin 37892 America WPS2936 Industrial Ownership and Hua Wang December 2002 Y D'Souza Environmental Performance Yanhong Jin 31449 Evidence from China WPS2937 The Determinants of Government Hua Wang December 2002 Y D'Souza Environmental Performance An Wenhua Di 31449 Empirical Analysis of Chinese Townships Policy Research Working Paper Series Contact Title Author Date for paper WPS2938 Recurrent Expenditure Requirements Ron Hood December 2002 M. Galatis of Capital Projects: Estimation for David Husband 31177 Budget Purposes Fei Yu WPS2939 School Attendance and Child Labor Gladys L6pez-Acevedo December 2002 M. Geller in Ecuador 85155 WPS2940 The Potential Demand for an HIV/ Hillegonda Maria Dutilh December 2002 H Sladovich AIDS Vaccine in Brazil Novaes 37698 Expedito J. A Luna Moises Goldbaum Samuel Kilsztajn Anaclaudia Rossbach Jose de la Rocha Carvalheiro WPS2941 Income Convergence during the Branko Milanovic January 2003 P. Sader Disintegration of the World 33902 Economy, 1919-39 WPS2942 Why is Son Preference so Persistent Monica Das Gupta January 2003 M. Das Gupta in East and South Asia? A Cross- Jiang Zhenghua 31983 Country Study of China, India, and the Li Bohua Republic of Korea Xie Zhenming Woojin Chung Bae Hwa-Ok WPS2943 Capital Flows, Country Risk, Norbert Fiess January 2003 R. lzquierdo and Contagion 84161 WPS2944 Regulation, Productivity, and Giuseppe Nicoletti January 2003 Social Protection Growth: OECD Evidence Stefano Scarpetta Advisory Service 85267 WPS2945 Micro-Finance and Poverty Evidence Shahidur R. Khandker January 2003 D Afzal Using Panel Data from Bangladesh 36335 WPS2946 Rapid Labor Reallocation with a Jan Rutkowski January 2003 J. Rutkowski Stagnant Unemployment Pool: The 84569 Puzzle of the Labor Market in Lithuania WPS2947 Tax Systems in Transition Pradeep Mitra January 2003 S. Tassew Nicholas Stern 88212 WPS2948 The Impact of Contractual Savings Gregorio Impavido January 2003 P. Braxton Institutions on Securities Markets Alberto R. Musalem 32720 Thierry Tressel WPS2949 Intersectoral Migration in Southeast Rita Butzer January 2003 P. Kokila Asia: Evidence from Indonesia, Yair Mundlak 33716 Thailand, and the Philippines Donald F Larson WPS2950 Is the Emerging Nonfarm Market Dominique van de Walle January 2003 H. Sladovich Economy the Route Out of Poverty Dorothyjean Cratty 37698 in Vietnam?