We included both household and village variables, since decisions regarding land
use are partly made at the village level. Being a post-socialist country, Vietnam has a
long tradition of collective decision-making, and this is particularly true in rural
areas, especially regarding land use. Villages in the study area are mostly homogenous in ethnicity and even often constituted by households from the same clan. As a
consequence, ties among villagers are usually strong and the social life within a
village very intense, facilitating the circulation of information. Both historically and
presently, the ‘Vietnamese village’ is considered a strong entity in itself, and both the
colonial and communist party administrations have tried to instrumentalize villages
in order to impose political projects (see Bergeret 2003: 30–33, for a detailed
historical review of the “Vietnamese village myth”). Since de-collectivization,
these structures have remained in place or even been reinforced. Sikor (2004) and
Wirth et al. (2004) showed for Yen Chau how the organization of villages has
challenged the implementation of the Land Law over time. On a larger scale,
Kerkvliet (1995, 2005) showed how ‘everyday politics’ within Vietnamese villages
contributed towards transforming national policies during the de-collectivization
period. Based on this evidence, it is plausible that villagers’ experiences and opinions
may be important in terms of household decisions regarding the adoption of
agroforestry.
Table 7.8 shows the results of the household-level probit model accounting for
potential sample selection bias. In the last column, we show the marginal effects on
the probability of adopting agroforestry. The model has a good predictive power, with
82 % of the adopters correctly predicted. The upper part of Table 7.8 shows that
vertical connections, the possession of a radio, access to the agricultural extension
service, participation in the Farmers’ Union, and the wealth level were positive and
statistically significant determinants of the farmers’ awareness of agroforestry as an
SCT. We found that the decision to adopt agroforestry (bottom half of the table) was
positively influenced by education and income levels. The farm soil characteristics
and the size of the farmers’ upland area relative to the village average were also
significant factors. The estimated marginal effects indicate that, other things being
equal, the level of material support received increased the probability of practicing
agroforestry by 67 percentage points, while access to formal credit was insignificant.
In combination, these two findings indicate a low initial motivation of farmers to
undertake such an investment on their own,
11 but this interpretation must be nuanced
by the fact that the income level was found to be a significant factor.
11 An illustrative example is given by a qualitative case study conducted in one of the Hmong
sample villages by social scientists. There, farmers were given seeds and a lump sum of 300,000
VND (around 20 USD) to test hedgerows in their upland fields. In spite of this initial support, only
a small fraction of the farmers continued to maintain their hedgerows and those who did so out of a
fear of being punished by the administrative office which supported them. Farmers mentioned the
lack of profitability of this technique and the competition with their primary cash crop, maize, for
land, sunlight and nutrients as being major disadvantages. The findings of this case study were,
however, not fully representative of the situation in the whole of Yen Chau district, as indicated by
statistical tests: a Hausman specification test concluded that the full sample and the restricted
sample (excluding this village) estimates differed systematically. A likelihood ratio test concluded
that the restricted sample model fitted the data better.
7 Soil Conservation on Sloping Land: Technical Options and Adoption Constraints
265
use are partly made at the village level. Being a post-socialist country, Vietnam has a
long tradition of collective decision-making, and this is particularly true in rural
areas, especially regarding land use. Villages in the study area are mostly homogenous in ethnicity and even often constituted by households from the same clan. As a
consequence, ties among villagers are usually strong and the social life within a
village very intense, facilitating the circulation of information. Both historically and
presently, the ‘Vietnamese village’ is considered a strong entity in itself, and both the
colonial and communist party administrations have tried to instrumentalize villages
in order to impose political projects (see Bergeret 2003: 30–33, for a detailed
historical review of the “Vietnamese village myth”). Since de-collectivization,
these structures have remained in place or even been reinforced. Sikor (2004) and
Wirth et al. (2004) showed for Yen Chau how the organization of villages has
challenged the implementation of the Land Law over time. On a larger scale,
Kerkvliet (1995, 2005) showed how ‘everyday politics’ within Vietnamese villages
contributed towards transforming national policies during the de-collectivization
period. Based on this evidence, it is plausible that villagers’ experiences and opinions
may be important in terms of household decisions regarding the adoption of
agroforestry.
Table 7.8 shows the results of the household-level probit model accounting for
potential sample selection bias. In the last column, we show the marginal effects on
the probability of adopting agroforestry. The model has a good predictive power, with
82 % of the adopters correctly predicted. The upper part of Table 7.8 shows that
vertical connections, the possession of a radio, access to the agricultural extension
service, participation in the Farmers’ Union, and the wealth level were positive and
statistically significant determinants of the farmers’ awareness of agroforestry as an
SCT. We found that the decision to adopt agroforestry (bottom half of the table) was
positively influenced by education and income levels. The farm soil characteristics
and the size of the farmers’ upland area relative to the village average were also
significant factors. The estimated marginal effects indicate that, other things being
equal, the level of material support received increased the probability of practicing
agroforestry by 67 percentage points, while access to formal credit was insignificant.
In combination, these two findings indicate a low initial motivation of farmers to
undertake such an investment on their own,
11 but this interpretation must be nuanced
by the fact that the income level was found to be a significant factor.
11 An illustrative example is given by a qualitative case study conducted in one of the Hmong
sample villages by social scientists. There, farmers were given seeds and a lump sum of 300,000
VND (around 20 USD) to test hedgerows in their upland fields. In spite of this initial support, only
a small fraction of the farmers continued to maintain their hedgerows and those who did so out of a
fear of being punished by the administrative office which supported them. Farmers mentioned the
lack of profitability of this technique and the competition with their primary cash crop, maize, for
land, sunlight and nutrients as being major disadvantages. The findings of this case study were,
however, not fully representative of the situation in the whole of Yen Chau district, as indicated by
statistical tests: a Hausman specification test concluded that the full sample and the restricted
sample (excluding this village) estimates differed systematically. A likelihood ratio test concluded
that the restricted sample model fitted the data better.
7 Soil Conservation on Sloping Land: Technical Options and Adoption Constraints
265