Dike construction social differentiation and local adaptive strategies a case study of a farming village in the mekong delta vietnam

Dike construction social differentiation and local adaptive strategies a case study of a farming village in the mekong delta vietnam Dike construction social differentiation and local adaptive strategies a case study of a farming village in the mekong delta vietnam Dike construction social differentiation and local adaptive strategies a case study of a farming village in the mekong delta vietnam

ADAPTIVE STRATEGIES: A CASE STUDY OF A FARMING VILLAGE IN THE MEKONG DELTA, VIETNAM

ADAPTIVE STRATEGIES: A CASE STUDY OF A FARMING VILLAGE IN THE MEKONG DELTA, VIETNAM

VO DUY THANH

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN

PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS

IN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

THE GRADUATE SCHOOL CHIANG MAI UNIVERSITY

OCTOBER 2009

a variety of ways by the following people during the coursework and writing the thesis

I express my greatest thankfulness to Professor Dr Yos Santasombat, my supervisor, for his critical suggestions and comments on my research and for his long trip to visit my research site in the Mekong Delta, a trip that encouraged me to complete the study I would also like to offer my special thanks to Mr Phrek Gypmantarisi, my second advisor, for passing on his interesting and valuable knowledge regarding the farming systems and national development policies associated with intensive agricultural production, knowledge which helped me to develop and finalize this study I am grateful to Mr Suriya Smutkupt, my external examiner, who spent long hours reading and commenting on my thesis

I would also like to express great respect and appreciation to the other lecturers at RCSD My thanks must go to Professor Dr Anan Ganjanapan, Dr Chayan Vaddhanaphuti, Dr Santita Ganjanapan, Associate Professor Dr Jamaree Chiengthong, Assistant Professor Dr Chusak Wittayapak, Dr Pinkeaw Laungaramsri and Dr Wassan Panyagaew, for their interesting and useful lectures in the fields of anthropology and sociology

My deepest thanks go to the villagers of My An village Their real-life stories provided me not only with knowledge, but also with a new way to look at and think about the impacts of government policies at the local level Their kindness, generosity and tolerance during the many hours of interviews and the repeated conversations on sensitive and complicated issues, helped me to complete the thesis During my

fieldwork, many people helped in individual ways It would be impossible to list them all here, but I would like in particular to express my deepest gratitude to Mr Le Nghia Thuan and Mr Nguyen Van Tien for their hospitality and support I will never forget

Mr Thanh, Mr Buu, Mr Cat and Mr Nghi, among others, whose lives I intruded into without invitation

I am happy to pay my deepest gratitude to Mr Tran Thanh Binh and Mr Vo Lam, my employers and respectively the present and former Director of the Research Center for Rural Development (RCRD), An Giang University, who encouraged and provided me with important guidance on data collection techniques and the development of my research topic I also offer a special thank to Mr Vo Van Ha, who supported me with the secondary data and shared his working experience in relation

to my research site

I also received great supports from Vietnamese Thais residing in Chiang Mai and should take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks to all of my classmates and Vietnamese students, who shared their feelings, experiences and knowledge with

me at Chiang Mai University

My study at Chiang Mai University and my fieldwork in the Mekong Delta were made possible due to the critical support and tolerance of my family I owe the deepest gratitude to my uncle, Dr Vo-Tong Xuan, my father and mother, brothers and sisters, who gave me love and encouragement throughout my study

Vo Duy Thanh

Thesis Title Dike Construction, Social Differentiation and Local

Adaptive Strategies: A Case Study of a Farming Village in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam

Author Mr Vo Duy Thanh

Degree Master of Arts (Sustainable Development)

Thesis Advisory Committee

Professor Dr Yos Santasombat Chairperson

ABSTRACT

In recent years, in order to respond to the need for agricultural intensification and diversification, the Vietnamese local government has installed a series of dike systems around many floodplain areas of the Mekong Delta in Vietnam in order to regulate and restrict the floodwaters flowing from the Mekong river system The authorities’ development plan assumes that people in the new flood-protected areas will be able to intensify and diversify their production of rice and other cash-crops, and thereby improve their livelihood However, innovations in artificial hydraulic management and changes in agricultural production have not only had a significant impact on the delta’s environment and ecology, but have also triggered a process of social differentiation, leading to the appearance of social groups who must struggle for access to the resources required for their survival

My research was carried out in My An, a farming village in the Mekong Delta The aims of this study are: (1) to reveal how the government’s agricultural development policies have affected rural transformation in the Mekong Delta in general, and in My An village in particular, (2) to explore how the dike construction has led to social differentiation among social groups of households within the village,

Chiang

(3) to identify the ways in which each different household group has diversified its livelihood strategy to survive, and (4) to analyze the everyday practices of local people to deal with the negative impacts of the dike system

The study finds that although the development of agricultural intensification has been widespread in My An village since the dike construction, however, it benefits have been unequally distributed While innovation has been relatively neutral in terms

of scale, its impacts have not: the changes in agricultural technologies being used, the

access to financial credits, the development of new technology services, and the investment opportunities created in agricultural intensification, have favored those farm operators better endowed with land and other means of production Poor farmers and landless households have found themselves on the losing side of the trade-off process, and have thereby been excluded from the benefits of the development

The study also explores the diverse and dynamic ways in which people have dealt with the changes, by examining their survival and livelihood strategies In this study, I argue that the livelihoods of local people constitute dynamic, complex and diverse paths, responsive to the changing economic, political and environmental conditions since the dike construction Households and individuals have varied in their emphasis and choices of strategies according to their own capacities within the wider socio-political and economic context, and in their internal structure in terms of size, composition and capital

Even though the existence of natural water-related hazards since the dike construction has been reduced, the flood control efforts have resulted in new man-made risks that this research attempts to highlight The problems and risks caused by the dike construction are derived essentially from an underestimation of the complexity and integrated nature of both the local ecology and livelihoods in the Mekong Delta This research highlights the need to recognize rural areas as geographical places where the interaction between natural and social relations differs among and between households and individuals My study also calls for the local government to reassess the long-term effectiveness of its dike construction program from a multi-sectoral perspective before it is replicated throughout the Mekong Delta

Chiang

งานศึกษาชิ้นนี้ถูกดําเนินการที่บ้าน “หมีอัน” ซึ่งเป็นหมู่บ้านชาวนาในที่ดินดอน สามเหลี่ยมปากแม่นํ้าโขงของประเทศเวียดนาม วัตถุประสงค์ของการศึกษาเพื่อ (๑) ศึกษาว่า นโยบายการพัฒนาภาคการเกษตรของรัฐบาลกระทบต่อการเปลี่ยนผ่านโครงสร้างทางชนบทในดิน ดอนสามแหลี่ยมปากแม่นํ้าโขงในภาพรวมและโดยเฉพาะที่หมู่บ้านหมีอันอย่างไร (๒) สํารวจว่า การก่อสร้างทํานบกั้นนํ้าได้สร้างความแตกต่างทางสังคมระหว่างกลุ่มต่างๆของครัวเรือนใน

Chiang

หมู่บ้านอย่างไร (๓) เพื่อระบุวิธีการที่แต่ละกลุ่มครัวเรือนสร้างความหลากหลายในกลยุทธ์ของวิธี ชีวิต เพื่อที่จะดํารงไว้ซึ่งวิธีชีวิตและความอยู่รอด (๔) เพื่อวิเคราะห์การปฏิบัติการในชีวิตประจําวัน ของคนท้องถิ่นในการจัดการกับผลกระทบทางลบของระบบทํานบกั้นนํ้า

ผลการศึกษาพบว่า ถึงแม้ว่าการพัฒนาการเกษตรอย่างเข้มข้นได้ถูกกระทําอย่าง แพร่หลายที่หมู่บ้านหมีอันภายหลังจากการสร้างทํานบกั้นนํ้า แต่ทว่าการกระจายผลประโยชน์ที่ เกิดขึ้นนั้นกลับไม่เท่าเทียมกัน บนความแตกต่างที่ว่านี้ ขณะที่นวัตกรรมยังเป็นกลางในระดับต่างๆ แต่ผลกระทบนั้นกลับไม่ใช่ การเปลี่ยนแปลงทางเทคโนโลยีทางการเกษตร การเข้าถึงแหล่งเงินกู้ และการให้บริการด้านเทคโนโลยีสมัยใหม่ และการลงทุนด้านโอกาสในการทําการเกษตรแบบ เข้มข้น สิ่งเหล่านี้ได้เกื้อหนุนต่อผู้ทําการเกษตรที่มีที่ดินและวิธีการผลิตที่ดีกว่า ส่วนเกษตรกรที่ ยากจนและครัวเรือนที่ไร้ที่ดินได้เข้าสู่เส้นทางแห่งการสูญเสีย และด้วยเหตุนี้พวกเขาก็ถูกกีดกัน ออกไปจากกระบวนการพัฒนา

การศึกษาครั้งนี้ยังสํารวจความหลากหลายและพลวัตของผู้คนในการจัดการกับความ เปลี่ยนแปลงโดยการตรวจสอบไปยังกลยุทธ์การอยู่รอดและการดํารงชีวิต ข้อสรุปเพื่อการถกเถียง ในครั้งนี้คือวิถีชีวิตของคนท้องถิ่นได้สร้างวิถีทางของพลวัต ความสลับซับซ้อน และความ หลากหลาย ซึ่งสิ่งเหล่านี้ได้สร้างให้เกิดการเปลี่ยนแปลงในเงื่อนไขทางเศรษฐกิจ การเมือง และ สิ่งแวดล้อม ภายหลังจากการสร้างทํานบกั้นนํ้า ครัวเรือนและชาวบ้าน แต่ละคนเจาะจงและเลือกใช้ กลยุทธ์แตกต่างกันตามแต่ความสามารถของตัวเองภายใต้บริบทของสังคมการเมือง และเศรษฐกิจ อย่าง รวมทั้งโครงสร้างภายใน เช่น ขนาด ผลิตผล และทุน

ถึงแม้ว่าหายนะเรื่องนํ้าได้ถูกบรรเทาลง อย่างไรก็ตามความพยายามในการควบคุมนํ้า ท่วมกลับส่งผลในเรื่องความเสี่ยงที่เกิดจากสิ่งก่อสร้างโดยฝีมือมนุษย์ ซึ่งงานวิจัยครั้งนี้ได้พยายาม เน้นยํ้าถึงปัญหาและความเสี่ยงซึ่งมีสาเหตุมาจากการสร้างทํานบกั้นนํ้านั้นว่าเกิดขึ้นจากการ ประเมินค่าของผลกระทบที่ตํ่าไปในด้านความสลับซับซ้อน และการเป็นส่วนหนึ่งของธรรมชาติ ของระบบนิเวศ และวิถีชีวิตของผู้คนในดินดอนสามเหลี่ยมปากแม่นํ้าโขง งานวิจัยนี้เกิดขึ้นเพื่อ ยอมรับว่าพื้นที่ชนบทในฐานะที่เป็นพื้นที่ทางภูมิศาสตร์ที่ซึ่งปฏิสัมพันธ์ระหว่างธรรมชาติและ ความสัมพันธ์ทางสังคมนั้นมีความแตกต่างท่ามกลางครัวเรือนและชาวบ้าน การศึกษาครั้งนี้ได้ เรียกร้องต่อรัฐบาลท้องถิ่นเพื่อการประเมินประสิทธิผลของโครงการทํานบกั้นนํ้า โดยใช้มิติของ ความหลากหลายในด้านต่างๆ ใหม่อีกครั้งหนึ่ง ก่อนที่จะเพิ่มจํานวนโครงการนี้ลงไปอีกอย่าง มากมายในดินดอนสามเหลี่ยมปากแม่นํ้าโขง

Chiang

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

2.2.1 The Dynamism of Households’ Livelihood Strategies 262.2.2 Everyday Practices as Local Responses to Deal with

CHAPTER III AGRARIAN TRANSFORMATION AND 40

AGRICULTURAL INTENSIFICATION IN THE MEKONG DELTA

3.1 The Potential of the Mekong Delta: the ‘Rice Bowl’ of the Nation 403.2 Rural Transformation and Potentials of Agricultural Intensification

3.2.1 Agrarian Transformation and Major Events Affecting toAgricultural Intensification in the Mekong Delta 453.2.1.1 Land Reclamation and Expansion of the

3.2.1.2 The Period from 1968 to 1975: The “Land to

the Tiller Reform” and the Introduction of

3.2.1.3 The Period from 1976-85: Expansion of

the Green Revolution under the Centrally PlannedEconomy of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 513.2.1.4 Rapid Rice Intensification Following the

Agricultural Liberalization Policy of 1986 to 2000 553.2.2 Recent Change in Human Intervention of Flood Prevention

CHAPTER IV DIKE CONSTRUCTION AND THE INTENSIVE

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION IN MY AN VILLAGE 63

4.1 Background: Annual Flooding and the Need to Construct

4.3 Dike Construction and Changes in My An Village 76

4.3.1 The Original Idea of Dike Construction in the Village 76

4.3.2 The Changes in My An Village after Dike Construction 774.3.2.1 The Loss of ‘Natural Fertilizer’ and the Increase

of Chemical Fertilizer Application for Agricultural

CHAPTER V SOCIAL DIFFERENTIATION AS PARTIAL

CONSEQUENCES OF THE DIKE CONSTRUCTION 99

5.1 Characteristics of Four Social Groups in the Research Site 99

5.1.1 Criteria of Wealth Ranking in My An Village 995.1.2 Educational and Religious Background of Respondents 1025.1.3 Labor Resources of Households 1045.1.4 A View of the Four Social Groups before and after

5.2 The Processes of Social Differentiation as Consequences of

Crop Diversification to Reduce Risk 1416.1.1.2 Tendency Two: Multi-Activity Strategies 1516.1.2 Expenditure-Reducing Strategies 156

CHAPTER VII LOCAL REPONSES TO IMPACTS OF THE

7.1 Everyday Practices as Local Responses to Dike Construction 162

7.1.1 The Lack of Local People’s Participation in Dike

7.2 Local Initiatives to Respond to Dike Construction 174

7.2.1 The Emergence of Farmer Networking in My An Village 1747.2.2 Integrated Farming Systems and Resource Flows in

7.3 Negotiation with Local Authorities and Opportunity to

7.4 Summary 183

8.1 The Main Findings of the Study 185

LIST OF TABLES

3.1 Rice Productivity in the Mekong Delta and Vietnam 41

3.3 Chronology of Mekong Delta Agrarian Transformation and

4.1 Estimated damage from flooding in the Mekong Delta 65 4.2 Production Activities in Flood Season 2002/2003 in An Giang Province 66 4.3 Dike Construction in An Giang Province and its Districts up to 2008 71 4.4 Major Characteristics of the Research Site 74 4.5 Increasing Amount of Fertilizers Used for Rice Production since the

4.6 Rice yields in Cho Moi district after Dike construction 81

4.7 The Evolution of Agricultural Production in My An Village 84

5.1 Household Classification According to Local Government’s Perspective 100 5.2 Householders’ Characteristic 102

5.3 Education Background of Household's Heads 103

5.4 Religious Background of the Respondents 103

5.5 Labor Resources of Four Social Groups 104

5.6 On-Farm and Non-Farm Labor 105

5.7 On-farm Income of Four Social Groups 112 5.8 Main Sources of Non-farm Income for My An Village 112

5.9 Income per Capita of Four Social Groups 116

5.10 Ranking household expenditure items in My An village 118

5.11 Access to Formal and Informal Credits 123

5.12 Sources of Loans 124 5.13 Main Purposes of Loans 126

5.14 Landholdings in My An village 131

LIST OF FIGURES

3.1 Map of Mekong Delta showing Flood-Prone Areas 44

3.2 Rice Intensification in the Mekong Delta 56

3.3 Rice Panicle as a Symbol for An Giang Province 59

3.4 The Mekong Delta has experienced a shift from flood-prone area to a vast agricultural intensified area 60 4.1 Flood Level in Cho Moi District, An Giang Province 64 4.2 Dike Systems Make the Difference 69 4.3 High Dike Construction in Cho Moi District and An Giang Province 72

4.4 The Increasing People in the Working Age of My An Village 74 4.5 Share of Agriculture in Economic Structure in 2008 75

4.6 The Decline of Rice Yields in My An Village 82 4.7 The Farming Systems before the Dike Construction (1998) 85

4.8 Cattle in Deepwater Rice Field 87

4.9 The Present Farming Systems in My An Village 89 4.10 Land Conversion from Paddy Rice to Cash-Crop 91

4.11 Labor Exchange in the Mekong Delta 97 5.1 Social Groups in My An Village 101

5.2 A Typical House on Stilts: Better-Off Household 105

5.3 Land Poor Household 107

5.4 Landless Poor Household 107 5.5 Distributing Income of the Better-off before and after Dike Construction 111 5.6 Distributing Income of Medium Households’ before and after

5.7 Distribution of Land Poor Households’ Income before and after

5.8 Distribution of Landless Poor Households’ Income before and after

5.9 Current Landholdings in My An Village 1306.1 Taro and Scallion as Common Crops of the Better-off Households 1436.2 Hybrid Maize, Baby Corn and Fattened Livestock as Common Practices

6.3 Rice and Corn in the Cropping Pattern of the Land Poor Households 1446.4 The use of manure has become more common in land poor households 1466.5 Baby corn land (right-side) being converted to paddy rice 1506.6 Mr V’s Breeding Plot for Rice Seed Varieties 1547.1 Fees becoming a burden to the poor 1727.2 Resource Flows: Integrated Farming System in My An Village 178

ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS

ADARD An Giang Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

Doi Moi The process of economic and social renovation which commenced in

Cong Unit of farmland in the South Vietnam One cong is 1,000 square

meters or 0.1 hectare

EIA Environmental Impacts Assessment

HCM City Ho Chi Minh City

PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal

IPM Integrated Pest Management

Tang vong quay

cua dat Increase of land-use rotations

VND Vietnamese dong During the time of the research the exchange rate

was approximately 17,100 VND to $US1

1.1 Rationale

Over the last few decades, the theoretical and ideological diversity of peasantstudies has reflected the diverse interests and different ways of approaching peasantry.The critical trends in peasant studies have explored the relationships between thepeasantry and ethnic identity (Leach 1954), ecological systems (Burling 1960),production systems (Geddes 1954, Freeman 1955 and Wolf 1966), productiontechnology (Geertz 1963), peasant struggles (Scott 1976, 1985), and changes inpeasant society (Gulliver 1965, Hobsbawn 1970) In the late 1980s, Hart, Turton,White and Anan (1989) adopted the concept of ‘agrarian transformation’ in the title of

their book, Agrarian Transformation: Local Process and the State in Southeast Asia,

which discussed the mechanisms and local-level processes of agrarian change and itslinkages with larger political and economic forces They used the term agrariantransformation as a substitute for rural or agrarian differentiation, a dynamic processinvolving the emergence of sharpening of differences within the rural population.These scholars conclude that, in the context of the commercialization of agriculture,the social differentiation within rice growing communities has become more apparent.While “commercial farmers” have more opportunities to accumulate wealth andpower through the changes in agricultural production, the small producers and

“landless agricultural laborers” have been marginalized, and have even becomepoorer

In recent studies, the picture of agrarian transformation trajectories hasbecome more complicated and diversified, with different approaches being taken indifferent contexts Jonathan Rigg (2001, 2005) employs arguments used by otherscholars in order to convince us that “lives and livelihoods in Rural South arebecoming increasingly divorced from farming and therefore from farmland” Hence,on-farm activities have become increasingly unimportant in rural households He

emphasizes the tremendous growth of the rural non-farm household economy duringrecent decades, and proposes a concept called de-agrarianization to grasp the ongoingprocess of rural changes in Southeast Asia Furthermore, within the context ofenvironmental degradation, resource depletion and the expansion of market capitalismthrough state development policies, Yos (2008) contends that we are going to witness

a greater disparity of income between urban and rural sectors, landlessness,agricultural unemployment and underemployment, massive urban-bound migrationand the rapid transformation of rural communities Within these circumstances,peasants have chosen various ways in which to cope with the changes generated bystate policies, and the penetration of global capitalism into their lives

In Vietnam, the agricultural sector has continued to play a fundamental role instrong growth and poverty reduction, since the Vietnamese Government adopted a

comprehensive reform program known as Doi Moi (renovation policy) in 1986, which

planned to move Vietnam from a centrally planned to a market-oriented economy.The de-collectivization of agricultural land, the freeing-up of the agricultural terms oftrade, as well as other reforms, directly benefited the bulk of the poor, whoselivelihoods were closely linked to small-scale subsistence agriculture in the ruralsector (Benjamin and Brandt 2004, cited in Van de Walle and Cratty 2004) RealGross Domestic Product (GDP) doubled during the 1990s, and the proportion of thepopulation living in poverty dropped from 60 percent to about 35 percent Vietnamhas thus gone from being unable to produce enough food to feed its own people, tobeing the world’s second-largest exporter of rice However, the benefits of thesedevelopments have not been spread evenly across the country Income inequality hasincreased over the period, with big differences between the poorest provinces inremote areas and the richer provinces around Ha Noi and Ho Chi Minh City (UNDP2001) Many people in rural areas remain poor, particular those who aregeographically isolated or on the margins of society There are particular problems inrural areas, where unemployment and underemployment are often high, and largenumbers of young people joining the labor force every year

Like other agricultural countries in Southeast Asia, agriculture and otherfarming activities dominate the Vietnamese countryside, both in terms of productionand employment (Tuan 1995) However, there is a concern that in the future, the

agricultural sector will not be sufficient in scale to sustain a rapidly increasingpopulation There is also a further concern about rising landlessness, and increasedlabor saving mechanization innovations in certain regions (Lan 2001, World Bank1998) Moreover, Vietnam’s agricultural exports, which are behind much of the recentgrowth in agriculture, also face less favorable global conditions (Xuan 2008, Golettiand Minot 1997) Although opportunities for productivity gains still exist, there isgeneral pessimism about agriculture’s employment generation possibilities in thelonger term Indeed, it is widely assumed that agricultural diversification,intensification and an increased participation in rural non-farm developments aregoing to be crucial for raising living standards and reducing poverty (Le Coq andTrebuil 2005, World Bank 1998).

It is a fact that the growth of agricultural production since the launching ofmarket liberalization policies, has mainly been the result of an acceleration in theintensification of the rice production system, not only in terms of the expansion of thecultivated area, but also in terms of an increase in rice yields This transformation ofrice production practices began in the late 1960s with the introduction of potentiallyhigh-yielding ‘Green Revolution’ semi-dwarf rice varieties, as well as theimplementation of land reforms Thanks to major improvements in water control thathave allowed multiple cropping, this crop intensification process has consisted mainly

of an extension of the irrigated rice ecosystem, while the other types of lessproductive rice ecosystems have receded These profound changes have beenachieved by smallholders who own their means of production, and are willing toinvest in fixed capital, working capital and labor, in order to maximize landproductivity and improve their incomes (Le Coq et al 2001) However, this ricemonoculture has led to a variety of conflicts arising in the rice economy Highexternal inputs, such as chemical fertilizers, pesticides and other forms of agro-chemicals, have led to environmental deterioration and economic inefficiencies (Sanh

et al 1998) In addition, the price of rice has fluctuated and the rice yield itself hasstagnated, probably due to deteriorating soil conditions Hence, the living standard ofrice farmers has not greatly improved, due to the comparatively low incomes receivedfrom rice production In an attempt to confront these problems, double-rice or triple-rice cropping systems have been introduced in the Mekong Delta (Son 1998) By

allowing farmers to recover capacity available for accumulating means of production,especially in agricultural land, the more recent land reforms have permitted thisimpressive rice intensification process to speed up However, the farmer’s lives havestill not improved to a sufficient extent.

Another significant factor contributing to Vietnam’s rural transformation inrecent years is that the rural non-farm economy has become an increasingly importantsource of employment for the rural labor force The contribution of the rural non-farmsector to rural employment increased from 21.5 percent in 1993, to 32.1 percent in

2002 This increase can be attributed to the considerable diversification of ruraleconomic activities away from farming and into services (Hung 2006) Although thestructure of rural employment has differed strongly region by region, the MekongDelta has witnessed a rapid development of the rural non-farm sector, which hasbecome an increasingly important source of rural employment The concentration ofrice production and other agricultural crops processing in the Mekong Delta makesthis region dependent upon agricultural processing as a main source of non-farmemployment However, the pattern of economic activities and market developments hasbeen very uneven While diversification into non-farm activities has been limited inthe countryside, a growing number of poor people have traveled to cities and otherareas to access more remunerative options There has thus been an explosion incircular migration within the Mekong region (Deshingkar 2006)

1.2 Statement of the Problem

The Mekong Delta is located in the southwest of Vietnam and covers thedownstream areas of the Mekong Region Hence, the landscape of the Delta has, overtime, been powerfully shaped by water, both through natural cycles and processes,and through human efforts to modify the natural water regime Annually, from August

to December, flooding occurs due to high rainfall and the overflow of the MekongRiver system In the peak flood season, approximately two-thirds of the MekongDelta is inundated During this season, tons of sediment is deposited on thefloodplain, contributing significantly to soil fertility in the Delta (Rothuis 1998, cited

in Torell and Salamanca 2003) It is also a time of plentiful fish and the renewal of the

paddy fields Hence, a discourse of living with floods is part of such culture in thisarea (Wong and Zhao 2001, cited in Label et al 2007).

The very fertile Delta is well-known, not only for ‘living with floods’, but also

as the ‘rice-bowl’ of Vietnam, since it produces approximately half of the nation’srice production Agricultural activity occupies 83 percent of the Mekong Delta and itsdevelopment has always been associated with the production of paddy rice, whichaccounts for 31.5 percent of household income In recent years, Vietnam has becomethe world’s second biggest rice exporter, accounting for eleven to thirteen percent ofthe world’s rice exports, of which over 90 percent is produced in the Mekong Delta,contributing significantly to Vietnam’s economy

However, in spite of sending abroad a greater volume of agricultural exportsthan any of the other regions in Vietnam, the Mekong Delta is still considered thepoorest region in the nation, with low per- capita income, low education levels and anunderdeveloped transportation system Poor households still occupy about ten percent

of the population (MOLISA 2001, cited in Tuan 2007) Among the poor, the number

of landless households has increased in recent years in the Mekong Delta, being 18.9percent of all households in 2002, as compared to 9.2 percent in 1998 and 8.2 percent

in 1993 (VDR 2004, cited in Tuan 2007) We are going to witness the big gapbetween townsfolk and farmers in the Mekong Delta For instance, the per capitaincome in Ho Chi Minh City is around USD2,000, while that in the remote provinces

of the Mekong Delta is only approximately USD430 (Xuan 2005) In addition, theregion is considered ‘low’ in human capital terms, as well as in terms of access toknowledge and information, as measured by school attendance A study shows thathalf of the adults in the Mekong Delta have not completed even a primary schooldiploma (Quyen et al 2003) and the percentage of students enrolled in secondaryschools is just over half the national average (Nam et al 2000)

Since the 1990s, to achieve its development goals and to establish thegroundwork for national development, the Vietnamese Government has endorsedmany crucial strategies for socio-economic development in the Mekong Delta Thesestrategies have continued to promote the Delta as the largest agricultural productionregion, including facilitating an increase in the quantity and quality of aquaculture andagricultural products produced for export Since then, the diversification,

intensification and commercialization of agriculture has been considered a keydevelopment solution for dealing with the pressure of population growth onlandholdings and the limitation of non-farm opportunities in many communities in thearea In particular, the intensification of rice production has been the avowed goal ofgovernment policy to strengthen the country’s economy, alleviate poverty and ensurenational food security In so doing, vital institutional and policy infrastructures havebeen put in place to jumpstart the process Vital policy changes have included thestrengthening of individual property rights, land reform, adoption of high yield ricevarieties and an increase in the export quota (Ryan 2002, cited in Torell andSalamanca 2003) On the other hand, in order to achieve an improvement in the socio-economic situation and living standards of the local people, large-scale water controlprojects have been initiated in the floodplains to support the intensification of riceproduction in the Mekong Delta (Hashimoto 2001) In one component of this strategy,dike systems have been constructed in many sub-regions of the Mekong Delta inorder to diversify and intensify agricultural production in line with market-orienteddemands, directly affecting local people’s livelihoods.

In one aspect, the dike systems have actually increased the number ofdevelopment opportunities for local people, since they support various kinds of on-farm and non-farm activities One remarkable advantage they have brought is thatfarmers can now farm the whole year around, even during the flooding season Theyhave been able to diversify their crops and mobilize their family labor moreintensively within their agricultural production In addition, the farmers can nowproduce more rice, since they can grow three rice crops per year instead of two.Furthermore, they can engage in a number of non-farm activities, such asagribusiness, petty trade, agricultural collectors, middlemen and so forth Therefore,the dike systems, as one village leader told me, have contributed significantly to localsocio-economic development, as they can mitigate annual flood damage, improvelocal household income, allow their children to attend school even in the peakflooding season and provide employment during the flooding season, and hence,contribute to solving social problems in the rural areas

However, while the dike systems have brought benefits in terms of increasedagricultural productivity, they have also brought new threats to the local people The

livelihoods of the poor people have been significantly and adversely affected.Because of the dike systems, people are no longer able to gain their livelihood fromfishing The loss of fishing has affected poor farmers and poor landless householdssince the boundaries of the dike systems prevent fish flows into the fields, where theypreviously fished The decline in livelihood opportunities has led these people tobecome even more marginalized They must change their livelihoods, usually bymoving out of the village to seek opportunities in urban areas.

Moreover, in my study village, the dike system has partially led to increasingsocial differentiation between different groups of people The benefits from thisdevelopment project have been spread unevenly, causing greater social differentiationwithin the village More resources are now concentrated in fewer hands Those peoplewith significant landholdings and sizeable financial capital are able to use their capitalintensively within agricultural production and agricultural services; hence, they havebeen able to benefit more than the poor farmers and the landless The spread ofintensified rice production and cash-crops, and the decline in fertility of the cultivatedland, all triggered by the water management projects, has resulted in the increasedapplication of agricultural inputs Increased investment costs have therefore becomesynonymous with a decline in the farmers’ incomes The village has witnessed anincreasing number of landless poor, and small farmers have had to abandonagriculture and migrate to urban areas to seek new livelihoods

Recent studies have shown an increasing interest in dike systems in theMekong Delta Most of them focus on aspects of environmental degradation,ecological impacts and the decline in rice yields, as well as the economic costs andbenefits of the dike programs For example, Hashimoto (2001) emphasizes recentinfrastructure developments in general and the water control projects in particular,including their contribution to environmental degradation in the Mekong Delta Hirata(2000) links the impacts of dike construction to the absence of genetic resources andbiodiversity in the Mekong Delta Nha et al (2005) explore the reduction in fishcatches as well as the correlation between the decline in soil fertility and rice yieldsinside dike systems From an economic perspective, Kien (2006) analyzes the costsand benefits of different types of dike systems, (for example, August dike, Permanenthigh dike and natural inundation - no dike) in the Mekong Delta

So far; however, there has been little discussion about the impacts of dikeconstruction on social differentiation, as well as the local people’s reactions to suchintervention systems By identifying problems which have emerged in the everydaylives of the local people, my study will emphasize these issues by paying particularattention to the relationships between agrarian transformation, social differentiationand local adaptive strategies within a farming village, using the example of a dikeconstruction for agricultural intensification in the Mekong Delta The study arguesthat the livelihoods of local people constitute dynamic, complex and diverse pathswhich are responsive to the changing economic, political and environmentalconditions created by the dike construction Households and individuals have varied

in their emphasis and choice of strategies according to both their own capacitieswithin the wider socio-political and economic context, and their internal structure interms of size, composition and capital However, due to a lack of capital assets1, thesmall farmers and poor landless households have not benefited from the dikeconstruction; therefore, these people have been excluded from the developmentprocess

My research was conducted in My An, a farming village located in Cho MoiDistrict, An Giang Province in the Mekong Delta, where the Government beganinstalling a dike system in 1998 In order to understand the local adaptive strategieschosen in response to the negative impacts of the dike system, my study focuses onthe social differentiation and local livelihood changes triggered by the project At thesame time, the study looks at the local people’s responses to suffering and thestrategies they use to maintain their livelihood Furthermore, the aim of this research

is to fill the information gap regarding to the social impacts of dike constructions inthe Mekong Delta Through a comprehensive analysis of the impacts of the dikeconstruction on social differentiation, I hope to encourage the local government toreassess the effectiveness of its dike construction program from a multi-sectoralperspective, and to find suitable long-term solutions to the problems

1

According to DFID (1998), households or individuals construct their livelihoodsbased on five types of capital assets: natural capital, social capital, human capital,physical capital and financial capital

1.3 Research Questions and Objectives

This study is based on the current problems encountered by people in My Anvillage, as well as the social theories that seek to construct ways to gain a betterunderstanding of the current situation and problems faced by small farmers and thelandless poor in the Mekong Delta It also makes space to challenge the mainstreamassumptions of the local government; that all people in the new flood-protected areaswill be able to intensify their agricultural production, as well as diversify their ways

of life; thereby improving their living standards in the long term The study raisesthree substantive questions:

1 How has agrarian transformation, especially commercialized and intensifiedagricultural production, led to increasing social differentiation within farmingvillages in the Mekong Delta?

2 How have different groups of people adapted and diversified their livelihoodstrategies to deal with the changes taking place after the dike construction?

3 How have local people coped with the negative impacts of the interventionproject, through their everyday practices?

Discussions guided by these questions are aimed at achieving the followingfour main objectives:

1 To study how the Government’s agricultural development policies haveaffected rural transformation in the Mekong Delta in general, and in My Anvillage in particular;

2 To explore how the dike construction has generated social differentiationbetween different groups of local households within the village;

3 To identify the ways in which each different group of people has diversifiedits livelihood strategy in order to survive; and

4 To analyze the everyday practices of local people to deal with the negativeimpacts of the dike system

1.4 Research Methodology

1.4.1 Research Site

In any case study, the choice of case is of the greatest significance and crucialfor the possibility of generalizing to theories and to identify general categories(Johansson 2002) Based on this assumption, I selected My An village as my researchsite, as this village has the general geographic, land use pattern and socio-economicstructure characteristics of most other rural communities in the Mekong Delta

First of all, this farming village is located alongside the Mekong River (seeFig 1.1); hence, local livelihood activities appear to be structured in line with theriver’s ebbs and flows, such as the annual flooding events Secondly, due to itslocation along the Mekong River, hundreds of tons of sediment are discharged in thearea during the annual floods that constructs land type in My An village to be one ofthe most fertile lands in the Mekong Delta As a result of this fertility, land usepatterns in the village are intensive and diverse, with many kinds of agricultural crops.Last, but by no means least, My An was one of the first villages to install the dikesystem in the Mekong Delta Since the appearance of the dike system, agriculturalproduction has intensified and diversified toward commercial cash-crops.Furthermore, the village’s economic structure has also been gradually transformed,moving from an on-farm to a non-farm based economy Since the dike system wasimplemented nearly ten years, its impacts on the local farming systems andlivelihoods have become obvious

The term “village”, or “Xa” in Vietnamese, is used in this research to refer to

the lowest level of comprehensive government administration in the Mekong Delta;

with Xa often referred to as a “commune”, derived from its usage in the north of Vietnam Below this level there are several “Ap”, which refers to hamlets in

Vietnamese In this case study, I focus on My An village, which is at the communelevel

Cho Moi District

Figure 1.1 Location of My An Village

The Mekong Delta

Mekong River

1.4.2 Data Collection

Basically, an ethnographic approach was applied during my research Themost important way of gathering data is to integrate oneself into the villagers’everyday practices in terms of both their ordinary and everyday lives, as well as theiragricultural and non-agricultural activities, in order to understand the ways in whichpeople construct and reconstruct their livelihoods

I have worked in My An village since 2006, through a research on agriculturalproduction and household economy during the flooding season, as sponsored by theMekong Delta Development Research Institute (MDI), Can Tho University Thanks tothis fieldwork, I had a very close relationship with the local people and with thoselocal officers whose work is related to the agriculture and rural development fields.After around one week investigating in the village, I realized that local people werestruggling to cope with their everyday lives after the local government constructed thedike system By chance, I heard the story of one poor landless man whose familylived mainly on fishing during the four month flooding season He had been arrested

by the local authorities for trying to “break down” the dike system by opening thesluice gates to allow floodwater into the field, so that he could catch fish The villageauthorities claimed that the man had tried to act against local government policy,since the dike system’s function was not only to protect all the villagers and thevillage infrastructure, but also to improve local people's livelihood However, the manadmitted that he had tried to open the sluice gate simply so that he could earn someincome from fishing for his family to survive He contended that he could not movefar away from his home to fish since it was dangerous for him to do so in his smallboat, due to heavy rains and storms Some days later, another two men were alsoarrested for the same action Another issue which I came across in the village at thattime was that many villagers were complaining about their crops being damaged bypest disease The local farmers did not know how to deal with this issue, because theyhad not seen these kinds of disease in the village before the dike construction

After this, I gained some interest in the issue and it raised critical questions in

my mind: why has such an agricultural development project created so much troublefor the local people? why have the poor people been excluded from the agriculturaldevelopment project while the local government believes that the dike construction

will benefit and improve the lives of all people in the village? how will the poor andlandless poor survive in these new circumstances?

One year later, I gained a scholarship to pursue my Master’s degree at theRegional Center for Social Science and Sustainable Development (RCSD), ChiangMai University, something which I believed would provide me with an excellentopportunity to return to the village and find answers to the above questions

My study is based on the data collected from two fieldwork trips: from March

to May 2008 and from November 2008 to March 2009 During the first field trip, Iattempted to identify and articulate the statement of the problem for my research, andalso choose samples for my research My An village consists of five hamlets: My Loi,

My Long, My An, My Thanh and My Phu Due to the limited time I had and the largepopulation of the research site (13,466 people within 2,819 households), I decided toselect three hamlets as my research sites: My Long, My Thanh and My Phu, withinwhich approximately five percent of households were chosen for interviews in thesecond fieldwork The sample selection for my research is shown in Table 1.1

Table 1.1 Research Sample Selection

Criteria for Sample Selection Number of Households Percentage

Source: Group discussion, 2008

In order to investigate the different livelihood activities and the local people’sresponses to the dike construction, various kinds of data and information needed to becollected; different methodologies and data collection techniques also had to be used.

Firstly, a number of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) techniques wereemployed, such as participatory observation, group discussion in combination withseasonal mapping and historical charts and the recording of oral history, in order toglean information from the different actors in the village In addition, Rapid RuralAppraisal (RRA) was also applied with key informants such as staff from theprovincial Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, experts and researchers

in the fields of agricultural and rural development at An Giang and Can ThoUniversities, district officers, village agricultural extension workers, villageauthorities, the head of the Farmers’ Association and the heads of the selectedhamlets Secondary data was also collected from the statistics unit of the People’sCommittee as well as other institutions, for comparison and cross-checking purposes

Together with PRA and RRA techniques, household interview was alsoapplied in order to gather data Ninety typical households were selected for ahousehold survey across the three research hamlets These selected households werethen placed in the following categories: i) household ranking based on income of foursocial groups: better-off, medium, land poor and landless poor households, ii)household ranking based on landholding: landless, a little land and a large amount ofland, and iii) household opportunities: farming, non-farming, agricultural wagedlabor, fisherman, migrant workers and those with a mix of these In-depth interviewswith different household groups within the village were carried out, in order to betterunderstand farmers’ choices of production system and their management strategies.Besides the farmers’ households, a group of landless households was also selectedand surveyed, in order to analyze more recent changes in their livelihoods and theireconomic performance

It is a fact that data collection for social science studies is very complicated,and that the data and information collected at different levels may be interrelated;therefore, I applied a number of data collection techniques at the same time, in order

to obtain information at different levels, and to take into account the requirements ofthe research questions and research objectives (see Appendix)

1.4.3 Data Analysis

Covering all data collected from various sources such as household surveys,key informant interviews, group discussion and participatory observation, the qualityand quantity of secondary data also helped me identifying the research questions aswell as issues that emerged throughout my fieldwork The information was then used

to analyze changes in local livelihoods, social relations, and the impacts of the State’sagricultural policies on local livelihood strategies Moreover, the collected datafurther helped me to understand the process of social differentiation brought about as

a consequence of agrarian transformation through the lens of government’sagricultural development at the local level

Based on the data I collected during the household interviews, I classifiedthem into different livelihood practices and different social groups, in order to seewhy households pursuit these strategies, opportunities as well as challenges toconstruct and reconstruct their livelihoods This classification provided information

on the diversity and complexity of local livelihood strategies, as well as theinteraction among them Furthermore, applying a theoretical background in theexploring collected data also helped me to discover, not only the dynamism of locallivelihoods, but also the complexity of the negotiation process among the differentactors when attempting to survive

Chapter Three: Agrarian Transformation and Agriculture Development in theMekong Delta, focuses on agrarian transformation and its impacts on agricultural

development in the Mekong Delta To illustrate this, the first section digs deeper intoagricultural developments in the past, whereby local people controlled flooding forsettlement, carried out land reclamation, constructed irrigation for agriculturalproduction The second section outlines the water intervention and control process(dike construction), and how agricultural intensification has taken place over recentyears in the Mekong Delta, as a result of the man-made water regime.

Chapter Four: Dike Construction and Intensive Agricultural Production in My

An Village, presents the recent trends with regard to floodwater control andagricultural intensification in both the Mekong Delta and My An village This chapterbegins with a general background of the Mekong Delta and the research site Afterthat, the discussion focuses on the positive and negative impacts of the dikeconstruction This chapter also illustrates the changes that have taken place in My Anvillage since the dike was constructed, in terms of agricultural production, theecosystem and social relations, and examines how theses changes have affected thelives of local people Through these discussions, I would like to show that people inthe Mekong Delta have their own world, one which has been constructed over a longperiod of adaptation to the natural environment (such as flooding), as well as to othernatural conditions through which social relationships have been regulated

Chapter Five: Social Differentiation as Partial Consequences of the DikeConstruction, firstly focuses on the characteristics of the four social groups in My Anvillage The chapter then explores the process of social differentiation, within ananalysis of the impacts of the dike construction on agricultural innovations Althoughthe recent adoption of productive agricultural technology has been widespread in My

An village, the distribution of its benefits has been highly unequal This chapterargues that changes in agricultural technology, access to financial credit, newtechnology services and investment opportunities in agricultural intensification, favorthe better-off and medium households who have greater potential in terms oflandholdings, financial capital, access to labor and machinery, social networks, andeven educational background The land poor farmers and the landless poor householdsfind themselves at the losing end in the trade-off, and are thereby excluded from thedevelopment process

Chapter Six: The Diversification of Household Livelihood Strategies, analyzesthe diversity and dynamics of people in dealing with these changes, by examiningtheir survival and livelihood strategies In this chapter I argue that the livelihoods oflocal people constitute dynamic, complex and diverse paths which have beenresponsive to the changing economic, political and environmental conditions since thedike construction Households and individuals now vary in their emphasis and choices

of strategy, according to their own capacities within the wider socio-political andeconomic context, as well as their internal structure in terms of size, composition andcapital

In Chapter Seven: Everyday Practices as Local Responses to the Impacts ofthe Dike Construction, my discussion concentrates on the lack of local participation inthe maintenance of the dike system, as well as its abandonment by the local people.The chapter illustrates how the local authorities were able to impose their power byresizing the land for dike construction in the village The local people's everydaypractices have since included passive resistance, such as fallowing their farmland onthe third rice crop, delaying or refusing to pay the dike construction fee and refusing

to attend village meetings The discussion then mentions some stories related tochanges in the villagers’ everyday lives, and demonstrates how day-to-daynegotiations with local authorities and among interest groups, through various formaland informal meetings, have been constructed At the same time, through theirinitiatives, local people have also strengthened the cooperation and partnershipamongst themselves, through the formation of Farmers’ networks and integratedfarming systems, so that they can exchange farming experience and technologies, andcan utilize their farming resources more effectively This chapter also mentions anopportunity that may exist to re-open the dike system in the future

Chapter Eight is the conclusion of the thesis, and is used to summarize themajor findings of the study and provide some theoretical discussions It alsohighlights the implications and limitations of the study

THEORETICAL CONCEPTS AND LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter reviews three main concepts related to my research concerns: (1)the social differentiation as consequence of agrarian transformation, (2) the dynamism

of household livelihood strategies, and (3) everyday practices as local response to dealwith change These concepts are used as a foundation for analysis and discussion ofthe field data and literature This chapter also includes the conceptual framework ofthe study

2.1 The Social Differentiation as Consequence of Agrarian Transformation

Agrarian Transformation Studies

Most of studies of the causes and consequences of agrarian transformationhave emphasized on the commercialization and technology changes taking place inrice growing communities in Southeast Asia Hart (1989), Turton (1989), White(1989) and Anan (1989) adopt the concept of agrarian transformation to discuss themechanisms and local-level processes of agrarian change, and their linkages withwider political and economic forces These scholars state that, in the context of thecommercialization of agriculture, a greater social differentiation within rice growingcommunities has become apparent While the “commercial farmers” have had agreater opportunity to accumulate wealth and power through the changes inagricultural production, the small producers and “landless agricultural laborers” havebecome marginalized However, the recent trajectory of agrarian transformation hasbecome more complex and diverse, based upon different approaches found indifferent contexts Rigg (2001, 2005) employs arguments from other scholars to arguethat “lives and livelihoods in [the] Rural South are becoming increasingly divorcefrom farming and; therefore, from land” Hence, on-farm activities are becomeincreasingly unimportant in rural households’ livelihood strategies Rigg emphasizesthe tremendous growth of rural non-farm household economies over the past few

decades, and proposes the concept of de-agrarianization in order to grasp the ongoingprocess of rural change in Southeast Asia However, by looking at the context ofenvironmental degradation, resource depletion and the expansion of market capitalismthrough state development policies, Yos (2008) contends that we are going to witness

an increasing disparity of incomes between urban and rural sectors, increasedlandlessness, agricultural unemployment and underemployment, massive urban-boundmigration, contract farming and the rapid transformation of rural communities Underthese circumstances, peasants have flexible chosen a variety of ways to cope with thechanges generated by state policies and the penetration of global capitalism

In Vietnam, agrarian transformation has also been studied by a number ofscholars from different perspectives Kerkvliet and Poster (1995) analyze variousaspects of economic liberalization and rural changes Kenji and Hironori (2002) look

at agricultural and rural development during Vietnam’s transition toward a oriented economy Ravallion and Dominique van de Walle (2004) question whetherrising landlessness indicates the success or failure of Vietnam’s agrarian transition,while Mutz and Klump (2005) explore modernization and social transformationthrough the analysis of social capital formation and institution building Marsh andMacAulay (2006) examine issues of land policy and the development of commercialagriculture Akram-Lodhi (2004) uses the concepts of classical agrarian politicaleconomy to explore the agrarian transition to rural capitalism He argues that dynamicproductive efficiency gains have been fostered as result of rural restructuring, and thatthe benefits of rural restructuring have been inequitably distributed Differences inaccess to land and differences in the technical coefficients of production have resulted

market-in the process of peasant-class differentiation market-in rural Vietnam

The point here is that most of the above studies emphasize state policies andtheir impacts on the local level in general They tend to describe the process ofagrarian transformation with respect to livelihood diversification, thecommercialization of agriculture, and urban-rural penetration and its impacts on therural poor My research shows that the literature on peasant studies is becomingincreasingly expository on the complexity and dynamism of rural places However,few studies go on to give a detailed description and analysis of social differentiation

and the coping mechanisms used to deal with it, whereas a peasant’s livelihoodstrategy is actually a reflection of the responses to all the processes affecting it.

Social Differentiation as Consequence of Agrarian Transformation:

Since the early twentieth century, agrarian transformation has become a coreissue among the studies on peasant societies For many sociologists, Asia, Africa, andLatin America are considered the ideal settings for carrying out agrariandifferentiation studies Most studies during this earlier period focused on the changestaking place in peasant communities as a result of capitalist development (Ritchie1996) However, some recent studies point out that the earlier notions on peasantdifferentiation, in terms of it promoting improved agricultural outputs through variouspro-peasant policies, have developed in a more complex way than the earlier theoriespredicted The ways in which these policies are introduced and the structures throughwhich they are mediated and implemented, affect the process of differentiationgreatly, not only from society to society, but also within a given society or evenbetween communities, depending on the class, ethnic composition, gender relationsand cultural practices of a given group (Meagher 2000)

The concept of social differentiation has been employed and discussed bymany scholars According to White (1989), the term “agrarian/rural differentiation”implies a dynamic process involving the emergence or sharpening of “differences”within the rural population, but does not in itself lead to or increase incomeinequalities It is not only about whether some peasants become richer than others, butalso about the changing relations between them (or between peasants and non-peasants) in the context of the development of commodity relations within the ruraleconomy

(i) Classical Analysis

Going back to the classical analysis, the main theorists of agrarian change, asMarxist, asserted that the penetration of capitalism into the countryside leads to thepolarization of landholdings and the development of impersonal wage labor relations,such that the peasantry disappears and the proletarians emerge (Ni and Yamazaki2004) The classical debates considered land as the most important source of a

peasant’s livelihood From this viewpoint, peasants surely became agricultural wagelaborers in others’ fields, since they lost their own land Furthermore, classicaltheorists’ arguments focused on structuralism to divide the world into two parts, andtry to explain how and why one part differs from, yet depends upon the other Forinstance, they divided rural society into two opposing classes: the ‘landlord’ and the

‘landless’ class

The key argument in this classical analysis is the persistence or disappearance

of the peasants as a result of increasing commercialization and production technology.This argument can be traced back to the differing analyses supported by Lenin and

Chayanov regarding the state of the Russian peasantry In The Development of Capitalism in Russia, Lenin observed the increasing differentiation taking place

among the Russian peasantry He asserted that “the old peasantry is not only

‘differentiating’, it is being completely dissolved, it is ceasing to exist, it is beingousted by absolutely new types of rural inhabitants These types are the ruralbourgeoisie…and the rural proletariat - a class of commodity producers and a class ofagricultural wage-workers.” (Deere and de Janvry 1981: 336, cited in Ni andYamayaki 2004)

In contrast, Chayanov’s standpoint was that the peasant economy ischaracterized by the “family labor farm”, which has the capacity to survive even whenconfronted with the expansion of commodity production Changes in the size of farmunits, which Lenin attributed to the process of accumulation and social differentiation,are explained by Chayanov in terms of demographic differentiation (Yos 2008)

It can be argued that the most important issue on which the two scholars differ

is that of access to the means of production Lenin assumed the existence of socialdifferentiation, not merely on the basis of differences in the size of landholdings, but

as a result of differences in the concentration of the means of production In otherwords, a large landowner will most likely have more of the other means ofproduction The driving force behind this process of differentiation is theestablishment of wage labor as the basic relation of production between largelandowners and poor peasants

Unlike Lenin and Chayanov’s analysis, Henry Bernstein (1979), by drawingupon the research of African peasantry, argues that in the process of global