Vietnam AGRICULTURE
Rice paddy dike construction
Courtesy Bill Herod
Agricultural production, the backbone of Vietnam's
development strategy, varied considerably from year to year
following national reunification in 1975. A particularly strong
performance in agriculture was recorded in 1976--up more than 10
percent from 1975--but production dropped back to approximately
95 percent of the 1976 level in 1977 and 1978 and recovered to a
level higher than that of 1976 only in 1979 (see
table 7,
Appendix A).
Vietnamese crop and livestock production offset agricultural
performance during this period. For example, an 8-percent
increase in the value of livestock production in 1977 balanced an
8-percent decrease in the value of crop production (mainly the
result of a 1-million-ton decline in the rice harvest). In 1978
the reverse occurred: a steep decline in livestock output
countered a significant increase in grain production. The value
of crop production, however, averaged four times the value of
livestock output at this time.
Foremost among Vietnam's agricultural troubles was
exceptionally adverse weather, including a drought in 1977 and
major typhoons and widespread flooding in 1978. The drought
overtaxed Vietnam's modest irrigation systems, and the floods
damaged them. In addition, the floods reportedly reduced cattle
herds by 20 percent. The size of this loss was indirectly
confirmed in Vietnamese statistics that showed a leveling off of
growth in livestock inventories (particularly of cattle) between
1978 and 1980. Throughout the Second Five-Year Plan, and
especially in the late 1970s, chemical fertilizers, pesticides,
and spare parts for mechanical equipment were in short supply.
Despite their having occurred, for the most part, fairly
early in the plan period, the severe reversals in the
agricultural sector greatly diminished hopes of achieving
self-sufficiency in food production by 1980. The 1980 grain
target eventually was lowered from 21 million tons to 15 million
tons, but even that amount proved unattainable.
The agricultural policies promulgated from 1976 through 1980
had mixed results. Pragmatic measures that encouraged the
planting of more subsidiary food crops (such as sweet potatoes,
manioc, beans, and corn) led to an increase of these crops from a
level of less than 10 percent that of grain production in 1975 to
a level that was more than 20 percent of grain output by the late
1970s. Improved incentives for farmers in 1978 and 1979 included
efforts to boost availability of consumer goods in the
countryside and to raise state procurement prices. They were
reinforced by adoption of a contract system that sought to
guarantee producers access to agricultural inputs in exchange for
farm products. Even so, bureaucratic inefficiencies and shortages
of agricultural supplies prevented complete success.
The program undertaken in mid-1977 to expedite unification of
North and South by collectivizing Southern agriculture met with
strong resistance. The reportedly voluntary program was designed
to be implemented by local leaders, but Southern peasants were
mainly freeholders--not tenants--and, aside from forming
production teams for mutual assistance (an idea that won
immediate acceptance), they resisted participation in any
collective program that attenuated property rights.
Failure to collectivize agriculture by voluntary means led
briefly to the adoption of coercive measures to increase peasant
participation. It soon became apparent, however, that such harsh
methods were counterproductive. Increased food shortages and
heightened security concerns in late 1978 and 1979 caused the
leadership once again to relax its grip on Southern agriculture.
In the North, formation of cooperatives had begun in 1959 and
1960, and by 1965 about 90 percent of peasant households were
organized into collectives. By 1975 more than 96 percent of
peasant households belonging to cooperatives were classified as
members of "high-level cooperatives," which meant that farmers
had contributed land, tools, animals, and labor in exchange for
income.
Between 1976 and 1980, agricultural policy in the North was
implemented by newly established government district offices in
an effort to improve central control over planting decisions and
farm work. The lax enforcement of state agricultural policies
adopted during the war years gave way to a greater rigidity that
diminished cooperative members' flexibility to undertake
different tasks. Labor productivity fell as a result. A study by
an overseas Vietnamese who surveyed ten rice-growing cooperatives
found that, despite an increase in labor and area cultivated in
1975, 1976, and 1977, production decreased while costs increased
when compared with production and costs for 1972 through 1974.
Although the study failed to take weather and other variables
into account, the findings were consistent with conclusions
reached by investigators who have studied the effects of
collectivization in other countries. Moreover, the study drew
attention to the North's poor agricultural performance as a
reason for Vietnam's persistent food problem.
State investment in agriculture under the Third Five-Year
Plan remained low, and the sector was severely troubled
throughout the plan period and into 1986 and 1987 as well. Only
modest food-grain increases of 5 percent were generated annually.
Although this was enough to outpace the 2.3 percent annual rate
of population growth during the 1980s, it remained insufficient
to raise average annual per capita food consumption much above
the official subsistence level of 300 kilograms. One official
Vietnamese source estimated in 1986 that farm families devoted up
to 80 percent of their income to their own food needs.
At the conclusion of the Third Five-Year Plan, agricultural
yields remained less than required to permit diverting resources
to the support of industrial development. In 1986 agriculture
still accounted for about 44 percent of national income (the
figure for developed nations is closer to 10 percent). The
agricultural sector also occupied some 66 percent of the work
force--a higher percentage than in 1976 and 1980. Worse still,
the output per agricultural worker had slipped during the plan
period, falling even farther behind the increasing output per
worker in industry. In 1980 more than three agricultural workers
were needed to produce as much national income as a single
industrial or construction worker. By 1985 an industrial worker
produced more than six times as much as an agricultural worker.
In December 1986, Vo Van Kiet, vice chairman of the Council
of Ministers and member of the Political Bureau, highlighted most
of the major problems of Vietnamese agriculture in his speech to
the Twelfth Session of the Seventh National Assembly. While
mentioning gains in fisheries and forestry, he noted that nearly
all farming subsectors--constituting 80 percent of the
agricultural sector--had failed to achieve plan targets for 1986.
Kiet blamed state agencies, such as the Council of Ministers, the
State Planning Commission, and the Ministry of Foreign Trade, for
their failure to ensure appropriate "material conditions"
(chiefly sufficient quantities of chemical fertilizers and
pesticides) for the growth of agricultural production. Kiet also
blamed the state price system for underproduction of key
"industrial crops" that Vietnam exported, including jute, sugar,
groundnut, coffee, tea, and rubber. Production levels of
subsidiary food crops, such as sweet potatoes, corn, and manioc,
had been declining for several years, both in relation to plan
targets and in actual output as well. By contrast, livestockoutput , including that of cattle, poultry, buffalo, and hogs, was
reported by the government to have continued its growth and to
have met or exceeded targets, despite unstable prices and
shortages of state-provided animal feed.
Outside observers agreed that the problems noted in Kiet's
speech had been exacerbated by the complexity of the pricing
system, which included multiple tiers of fixed prices for quota
and above-quota state purchases as well as generally higher free
market prices. The removal of more orthodox leaders, the rise of
moderate reformists such as Kiet to high party and government
positions during the Sixth National Party Congress, and the
cabinet changes in early 1987 seemed to indicate that the pricing
system would be modified, although no change was evident in the
fundamental structure of state-controlled markets or in the
tension within the multiple-market system
(see Internal Commerce
, this ch.).
Data as of December 1987
|