Table 1: Poverty targeting of the policy on exemption for agricultural land use tax (for crop-growing households)
(1) The second column gives the estimate of the percentage of the crop-growing households who were exempted for the land use tax over the poor households (and of course also crop-growing households). The third column presents a similar figure but the denominator is the total number of the crop-growing and food poor households (estimates in the second and third columns are called coverage rates). The final column estimates the percentage of the poor households among the households who received the exemption (so-called targeting rate8).
(2) No information in VHLSS 2004
Source: Authors’ estimation from VHLSS 2002
Table 2: Poverty targeting of the program on reduction and exemption for education fee (for households who have someone attending school)
Regions 2002 2004
Note: The definition of the columns is similar to that in Table 1 Source: Authors’ estimation from VHLSS 2002-2004
8 In fact, the rate that is equal to 100 minus this rate is called the leakage rate. This indicator measures the percentage of the non-poor households but receiving the program over the total number of the program recipients.
Table 3: Poverty targeting on the program on provision of free healthcare insurance card
Note: The definition of the columns is similar to that in Table 1 Source: Authors’ estimation from VHLSS 2002-2004
Table 4: Poverty targeting on the program on support to housing construction and repairs
Regions 2002 2004
Note: The definition of the columns is similar to that in Table 1 Source: Authors’ estimation from VHLSS 2002-2004
Table 5: Poverty targeting on the program on provision of preferential credit
Regions 2002 2004
Note: The definition of the columns is similar to that in Table 1 Source: Authors’ estimation from VHLSS 2002-2004
Table 6: Average of loan during the past 12 months for the recipients of the preferential credit (VND
Source: Authors’ estimation from VHLSS 2002-2004
Table 7: Percentages of agricultural households attending meetings on agricultural extension
Regions 2004
Note: (1) No information in VHLSS 2002
(2) The definition of the columns is similar to that in Table 1 Source: Authors’ estimation from VHLSS 2004
Table 8: Percentages of agricultural households who were visited by agricultural staffs to provide agricultural extension
Note: (1) No information in VHLSS 2002
(2) The definition of the columns is similar to that in Table 1 Source: Authors’ estimation from VHLSS 2004
Table 9: Poverty targeting of several HEPR programs by ethnicity
Reduction and exemption for education fee
Kinh/Chinese 16.9 23.4 52.5 24.9 39.8 34.9
Ethnic minorities 52.9 58.4 72.2 68.6 73.2 65.1
All Vietnam 26.8 38.8 61.6 40.8 58.5 48.7
Provision of free healthcare insurance card
Kinh/Chinese 10.1 17.2 60.3 15.2 21.5 32.1
Attending meetings on agricultural extension (for agricultural households)
Kinh/Chinese 30.9 25.0 15.7
Ethnic minorities 46.1 44.9 57.6
All Vietnam 36.4 35.6 23.5
Visit of agricultural staffs to provide agricultural extension (for agricultural households)
Kinh/Chinese 6.8 6.4 15.4
Ethnic minorities 9.7 11.2 53.3
All Vietnam 7.8 8.9 22.5
Note: (1) Empty cell because of no information from the corresponding survey.
(2) The definition of the columns is similar to that in Table 1 Source: Authors’ estimation from VHLSS 2002-2004
Table 10: Percentage of communes which have different projects during 2002-2004 by poverty status in 2002 (commune panel data)
Non-poor
Note: Poor communes are defined as the 30th percentiles of communes which had the highest poverty rate in 2002. The poverty rate is estimated by the commune authority according to MOLISA poverty line.
Source: Authors’ estimation from VHLSS 2002-2004
Table 11: Number of household observations participating in several programs in panel data
Source: Authors’ estimation from VHLSS 2002-2004
Table 12: Average change in expenditure per capita among the participants in several programs (real price in January 2002)
Reduction and exemption for education fee
Non-Poor 2978.0 3071.2 93.2 7.5
Support to housing construction and repairs
Non-Poor 3316.5 3366.8 50.3 5.9
Visit of agr. staffs to provide agr. Extension
Non-Poor 3257.1 3785.2 528.1 24.2
Poor 1537.4 1981.9 444.5 28.7
Total 2620.2 3117.4 497.1 25.9
Source: Authors’ estimation from VHLSS 2002-2004
Table 13: Changes in expenditure per capita among the participants and non-participants households (real price in January 2002)
Recipients Expenditure per capita in 2002
Expenditure per capita in 2004
Absolute change in exp. 2002-2004
percentage change in exp. 2002-2004
(1) (2) (3) (4)=(3)-(2) (5)=100*(4)/(2)
Reduction and exemption for education fee
Non-Participants 3595.3 4176.2 580.9 26.4
Participants 1982.1 2243.4 261.2 20.8
Total 3372.9 3909.7 536.8 25.6
Provision of Healthcare insurance card
Non-Participants 3510.5 4084.4 573.9 26.7
Participants 2170.2 2382.5 212.3 16.4
Total 3372.9 3909.7 536.8 25.6
Support to housing construction and repairs
Non-Participants 3383.7 3924.8 541.0 25.8
Participants 2273.9 2380.4 106.5 11.5
Total 3372.9 3909.7 536.8 25.6
Provision of preferential credit
Non-Participants 2985.1 3516.9 531.8 26.9
Participants 2340.5 2739.7 399.2 21.1
Total 2895.4 3408.8 513.3 26.1
Attending meetings on agricultural extension
Non-Participants 3722.1 4285.9 563.9 25.5
Participants 2565.1 3039.3 474.2 26.0
Total 3372.9 3909.7 536.8 25.6
Visit of agr. staffs to provide agr. Extension
Non-Participants 3427.2 3966.9 539.7 25.6
Participants 2620.2 3117.4 497.1 25.9
Total 3372.9 3909.7 536.8 25.6
Source: Authors’ estimation from VHLSS 2002-2004
Table 14: Changes in poverty rate among the participants and non-participants households Recipients Poverty rate in 2002 Poverty rate in 2004 Absolute change in
2002-2004
(1) (2) (3) (4)=(3)-(2)
Reduction and exemption for education fee
Non-Participants 22.7 15.4 7.3
Support to housing construction and repairs
Non-Participants 27.8 20.1 7.7
Visit of agr. staffs to provide agr. extension
Non-Participants 27.4 20.1 7.3
Participants 37.0 24.6 12.4
Total 28.1 20.4 7.6
Source: Authors’ estimation from VHLSS 2002-2004
Table 15: Change in commune infrastructures over 2002-2004 (commune panel data) Percentage of
Source: Authors’ estimation from VHLSS 2002-2004
Table 16: Change in commune off-farm employment opportunities over 2002-2004 (commune panel
Non-farm enterprises/traditional villages using commune labor
Non-poor 55.4 68.3 12.9
Poor 33.1 40.1 6.9
Total 48.7 59.8 11.1
Number of commune labors in these enterprises/traditional villages
Non-poor 85.0 268.2 183.1
Poor 23.1 142.4 119.3
Total 66.3 242.7 176.4
Source: Authors’ estimation from VHLSS 2002-2004
Table 17: Main reasons for increases in welfare during the past 5 years (qualitative assessment by the commune authorities)
Source: Authors’ estimation from VHLSS 2004
Table 18: Distribution of the chairman of the commune people committee by highest education degree
Highest Education 2002 2004
Non-poor
Source: Authors’ estimation from VHLSS 2002-2004
Table 19: Distribution of the deputy chairman of the commune people committee by highest education degree
Highest Education 2002 2004
Non-poor communes
Poor communes
Total communes
Non-poor communes
Poor communes
Total communes
No degree 0.0 2.7 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.14
Primary 6.5 17.4 9.8 1.0 5.5 2.26
Lower secondary 34.4 42.0 36.7 20.6 39.7 25.95
Lower secondary and
above 59.1 37.9 52.7 78.2 54.8 71.65
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100
Source: Authors’ estimation from VHLSS 2002-2004