International labour out-migration from Viet Nam

There are few, if any, cases of immigrants into Viet Nam other than the Vietnamese returning from overseas. Hence, it is more meaningful to discuss outward migration from Viet Nam.

During the 1980s, there was considerable out-migration of workers to the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Eastern European Bloc countries: according to government records the peak number of Vietnamese workers in these countries exceeded 200,000. These workers did not belong to the poorer sections of the society; however, being a low-income country, any out-migration from Viet Nam would result in a multiplier effect through the expenditure of remittances, which in turn would create jobs and help to ease poverty. By the 1990s, when major political changes swept Eastern Europe, most workers, except those who returned to Germany, had returned to Viet Nam.

A new wave of migration to Japan, numbering up to 15,000 each year, began in 1994, and continued for awhile. Meanwhile the Republic of Korea also attracted Vietnamese workers, estimated to be in the range of about 22,000. These workers went in the capacity of “trainees” and were therefore not protected by locally prevalent laws relating to minimum wages. Workers in the range of 20,000 to 30,000 have also been reported to have found jobs in the Middle Eastern and East African countries. These workers in general go alone, and they are mainly male (over 80 per cent). Studies show that they face discrimination, loneliness and linguistic barriers, and hence alienation. They are also found to be engaged in hazardous jobs (for example, in the fishing industry in the Republic of Korea).

Yet another stream of migration since the early 1980s has been in the direction of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Cambodia (many more to the latter), stemming from the fact that these countries offered many more jobs and easy entry. The main activities of Vietnamese migrants in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic are in the construction business, in semi- and low-skilled jobs. The number of Vietnamese migrants to Cambodia is believed to be large, although no official data are available to
obtain a reasonable estimate. Estimates can best be derived from the Cambodian statistics presented in the next section.

Despite the fact that skilled workers have gone out of Viet Nam, the majority of them consist of relatively low-skill workers engaged in construction, plumbing, garment manufacture, or in personal care activities. The latest policy statements from authorities suggest that the export of skilled labour will be high on the agenda for years to come.

Vietnamese migrants in Cambodia

As a part of its studies on migration, CDRI conducted small sample interviews with Vietnamese Associations and individual workers of Vietnamese origin in selected villages of Kompong Chhnang and Phnom Penh in order to determine the status of Vietnamese workers in Cambodia.

The Vietnamese, who had lived in Cambodia for generations, were deported during the Lon Nol regime (1970-1975) and later during the Khmer Rouge regime (1975-1979). During the 1980s, they gradually returned to Cambodia, along with friends, relatives and neighbours. In the 1990s, a new wave of immigrants from Viet Nam was attracted by the opportunities offered by a sudden opening up of a market economy in Cambodia.

The scale of such immigration is very difficult to estimate. Demographers calculate that, if Cambodia’s population in 1985 (which is again an estimated figure drawn from the internal records of the Ministry of Economy and Finance) was 7.5 million, an average natural growth rate of 2.4 per cent might be expected to have brought the total population to around 9.9 million by 1998. If 360,000 repatriated refugees and their offspring are added to that, the total would add to around 10.3 million. The actual total enumerated in the 1998 census was 11.4 million, implying a contribution of a little more than 1 million by immigrants and their subsequent offspring (mainly composed of Vietnamese). Another estimate, provided by the governments of eight provinces (Kandal, Battambang, Phnom Penh, Takeo, Kompong Chhnang, Pursat, Prey Veng and Siem Reap) representing 53 per cent of Cambodia’s population, indicates that the total Vietnamese population was 227,000 in these provinces in 1995. The Kompong Chhnang Immigration Office, interviewed in April 2000, estimated that there had been a big increase in the number of Vietnamese in the province since the 1980s – from 1,269 households containing 7,064 people in 1985 to 2,708 households with 13,445 people in 1997 (So, 2001).

The occupation of Vietnamese workers varies with their location. Those interviewed in Kompong Chhnang were almost all involved in fishing year round. These small- and medium-scale fishermen earned on average around 10,000 riels (US$ 1 = 3,852 riels) per day, in addition to earnings obtained from cage cultures. The Vietnamese have been found to be especially dextrous in fishing activities; this is the reason why they have been successful in retaining their hold on this activity in Cambodia.

In Phnom Penh, most of those interviewed worked as construction workers, traders and skilled workers in machinery and electronic repair workshops, wood processing enterprises etc. Around 80 per cent of the small-scale contractors and supervisors in the construction industry are believed to be of Vietnamese origin. Employers of skilled workers said that they preferred to employ workers of Vietnamese origin because they found them to be skilled, hard working and patient. In contrast, local Cambodian workers tended to be confined to less skilled work; for instance, in construction, as labourers carrying sand, gravel and cement.

Most representatives of local authorities also admitted that in the villages surveyed the sex trade is to some extent run and staffed by the Vietnamese. In the survey villages, Vietnamese women work in brothels, karaoke bars, massage parlours, dance halls and “coin-rubbing” places. Those who work in dance halls operate independently but others are obliged to receive customers under the strict control of brothel-owners. The owners charge each customer between 5,000 and 70,000 riels: the workers are paid only a subsistence amount.

In short, Vietnamese migrants are low/medium to unskilled category workers; they work hard and they engage in any activity to earn a living. The intentions of Vietnamese migrants, particularly those who migrate to neighbouring countries, are at times to return, and at other times, to stay out permanently. Those who invest in a business outside of Viet Nam (for example, fishing, or personal care business in Cambodia) are typically expected to find roots in the host location.

REASONS FOR MOVING, EARNINGS, WORKING CONDITIONS AND ILLEGALITY

Internal migrants in Cambodia who had left their villages less than one year before the census stated that their principal reason for moving was the need to search for employment (29 per cent of the total), while the second reason given was the need to follow their families (25 per cent). Family reasons in many cases are also related to employment, since spouses move with migrants in search of work. There were few differences in the reasons given by male and female migrants, with females slightly more likely to move for family reasons and males slightly more likely to move for education and marriage. Increasing numbers are leaving villages because of rising population as well as unequal land distribution.

The wage difference between agricultural work and unskilled work in Phnom Penh can be significant: workers in paddy fields earn about 4,000 riels per day – around $1 – while the prevailing wage rate for unskilled/semi-skilled workers in the city can be 6,000- 10,000 riels (Pon and Acharya, 2001). Garment factories, in which about 3 per cent of the Cambodian labour force are employed, pay a minimum of $45 a month; with overtime work, most such workers are able to net $60-75 monthly. Most garment workers are migrants and they remit earnings home (Sok and others, 2001). Additionally, in rural areas work is not available for more than a few months, while in the city, work availability has no apparent seasonality. A larger number of days of work translates into higher incomes. Even in the case of rural-to-rural migration, while the wage rate may not vary much, the number of days of work does. People move from single-crop regions to double-crop ones to fish, engage in logging or even work on road-building and other construction work. Of late, it has not been uncommon for people to take up work under “food-for-work” programmes, even if they have to travel short distances.

For Cambodian workers in Thailand, the differential wage rate is the main attraction: wages are much higher than what they are at home for similar work. Table 3 shows the average earnings available locally compared with the average received by migrants in Thailand (converted in both cases to United States dollars for comparability). This holds true for workers of both sexes.

Life for Cambodian migrants in Thailand, though, is not easy. Since most are illegal migrants, they face harassment and at times imprisonment if they are caught, and being caught is not uncommon. At times, bribes to cross the border or escape prosecution and payments to intermediaries can cost the migrants their entire earnings. Additionally, there are criminal gangs who operate on both sides of the border, whose main job is to rob and fleece the cross-border migrants.19 Yet, workers choose to migrate, since otherwise they would face a food shortage for 3-6 months in a year; they have no capital to invest; they face unpredictable agricultural prices for their crops; and they often have outstanding debts at monthly interest rates of 10-30 per cent. Recent data from village studies (for late 2001) show that up to 30 per cent of all able-bodied workers in the border villages had moved to Thailand for the short or medium term.

Respondents further stated that migration could cause difficulties for those left behind. For example, older parents are left behind with no help; and there could be theft or land grabbing by others. Despite these problems, many long-range migrants reported positive outcomes from their experience: out of the 163 households in the sample, 11 households bought land, 40 more opened small businesses or bought motor-bicycles, and another 25 renovated or built houses. In addition, 57 per cent of households with a longrange migrant member were able to meet short-term food and farming requirements in 1999. Almost all short-range migrants were able to save money. Also, migration was judged to be good for the development of skills; the examples cited were in construction work and tailoring. These in turn raised the bargaining power of the migrants in the host markets as well as their employability at home.

Researchers in Viet Nam widely believe that migration helps to ease economic pressures. People who are poorer are more prone to migrate than those who are better off, although the poorest do not show the highest rate of migration. This could be explained by the fact that their economic resources to support workers to move, such as transport fee and the like, are too low. Table 4, which is based on lifetime migration data, shows that it is mainly the poor, particularly the rural poor, who migrate. Interestingly, males migrate considerably more than females in all expenditure classes, though there is no gender-specificity across expenditure classes.

According to data obtained from the Viet Nam Living Standards Survey (VLSS) of 1997/98, however, the economic reason per se was not the most important reason to migrate, either in the rural-to-urban stream or otherwise. The main reasons were related to war, natural disasters and family (table 5). Among urban migrants, only 22 per cent mentioned an economic reason, whereas 59 per cent mentioned family-related reasons and 9.1 per cent, others. Figures for rural migrants were 16.6 per cent, 46.3 per cent

and 37.1 per cent, respectively. However, a more reasoned interpretation of the data suggests that disasters are “push”-related factors. Disasters often emerge from crop failures or other similar economic setbacks. War-related factors are a priori inexplicable, however, since the war ended a quarter of a century previously.

The VLSS 1997/98 data show that the largest movement of people takes places for marital reasons for both men and women. However, the ratio of women’s migration for marital reasons is twice as high as that of men’s migration. For economic reasons, both men and women migrate in equal proportions.

In contrast to the VLSS data, CDRI interviews fielded in April 2000 with 141 workers of Vietnamese origin living in Cambodia revealed that motives for migration were overwhelmingly economic. Better opportunities to earn money in Cambodia were cited by almost all of them. The lack of skilled workers in Cambodia has provided opportunities for immigrant Vietnamese to work as construction foremen, wood
processors, machine repairers etc. Weak immigration controls in Cambodia also contribute to the flow. Since the mid-1990s, the unofficial fee to cross the border is reported to have been between $30 and $50, after which no work permit is needed. A few of those interviewed had acquired a Cambodian identity card, the unofficial fee for which is reportedly between $50 and $100. Migrants are reportedly subject to informal levies by police – ranging from 1,000 riels to 20,000 riels per month (around $0.25-4.00) in the villages surveyed.

per day, that is, more than the $2 marking the World Bank’s mild poverty line (table 6).21 Key informants reported much higher earnings from medium- and large-scale fishing enterprises, which are dominated by Vietnamese migrants. Vietnamese fishing contractors compete for fishing concessions and often succeed in getting them because of their prowess in technology and business. On the downside, unofficial checkpoints levying fees at rates between 500 riels and 2,000 riels have proliferated. As a result, fishermen are encouraged to use illegal fishing methods to meet these excessive demands, much to the detriment of the fish stock. Respondents reported that the catch in the survey areas fell by about 40 per cent in the late 1990s compared with the 1980s.

Evidence in this section adequately reveals that people move for long and short periods to seek work and higher earnings in addition to obtaining more secure jobs. Even those who state migration reasons other than economic stand to gain economically. Earnings in the host locations, whether for internal or international migration, are well beyond the poverty lines stated above.

POVERTY AND MIGRATION IN THE TRANSITIONAL ECONOMIES – AN ASSESSMENT

Each of the three countries from which data on migration have been analysed here has experienced national and international out-migration of its people, as well as inmigration of outsiders. In Cambodia, cross-border migration, particularly of Cambodians to Thailand and of Vietnamese to Cambodia, has attracted attention. While the former move westward for unskilled work, the latter move also westward from their origin to fill gaps in the middle-level skilled-job segments in the market. The situation in the Lao
People’s Democratic Republic is also somewhat similar: a number of Lao workers cross the border to Thailand to take up low-skilled jobs; meanwhile, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic gets some skilled workers, who to a great extent are from its neighbouring countries (China, Thailand, Viet Nam). Lastly, Vietnamese workers have been seeking jobs in as many as 30 countries around the world, including its neighbouring countries; and being more skilled than others, they effectively bridge gaps in the labour markets in different locales. Often, migrants who move to undertake seasonal work return soon, only to go back in the following season. In contrast, relatively more skilled workers and those who develop stakes (for example, acquire assets or contracts) in the host countries, tend to stay for long periods; in many cases their intention is to settle down. Thus, the composition of the migrant flows and the motives for migration differ significantly across groups.

All the evidence shows that in the transitional economies there are increased cases of relatively poorer rural workers seeking jobs anywhere they can find them. They may not be the poorest, since the poorest may not have the resources to manage and sustain migration, but surely they belong to the weaker and more deprived sections of the society. This is true of both internal and international migrants; most workers do not differentiate between whether they move within the country or cross borders. To what extent have such movements affected poverty situations? Evidence suggest that in most cases there is a wage difference between the home location and the host location; in some other cases, jobs are available, or available for longer periods, and in yet other cases, there is a learning process which in turn makes people more employable in higher paying jobs.

Rough computations show that almost all migrants earn more than subsistence wages. To this extent, migration is a powerful tool to combat poverty. In terms of indirect effects, data show that, in all cases, whether the move is within the country or out of it, people remit money.22 Remittances help in stabilizing the household food security situation back home and help in enabling some degree of capital formation. In a few instances, there is a path formed for future migrants to enter the job market from the outside. Next, expenditures of remittance monies may help to create local jobs for those poor who may not have succeeded in migrating. Indirect effects extend also to filling gaps in certain segments in the labour markets, which in turn, it is believed, improve the host economy and hence create more jobs. Of course, there are negative implications as well, both for the migrant workers and for the host economies.

Migrants are forced to pay bribes, face deprivation, get cheated etc., while in the host countries there may be job losses for some local workers. Nevertheless, migrants, at least on their part, consider the negative effects to be more than offset by the positive ones mentioned above.

Neither Cambodia nor the Lao People’s Democratic Republic have an official policy to promote or control migration. The only visible policy in Cambodia appears to be of discouraging rural-to-urban migration and providing land to the landless in rural areas so that they can earn a living locally. Viet Nam, on the other hand, has a clear policy on international migration. Prior to 1999, other than the cross-border migration to
neighbouring countries on which there is no control, only State enterprises could officially send workers out of the country. Thereafter, private sector companies too have been permitted to do so. There are stipulations, however, regarding the size of the labour exporting company, the purpose of export and the destination, in order to protect the interests of the workers. Following leads from countries that have had a wider exposure to and experience in migration (Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Thailand, for example), the latest thinking in Viet Nam is to actively promote the export of skilled labour to destinations where there is a demand for such workers. However, no official stand on internal migration or cross-border migration is currently available.

The descriptions in this paper further suggest that while workers move with the same motive – to maximize their income and standard of living – there is vast heterogeneity in their composition, employment conditions and social security. Human capital, social networks and the identification of niches in labour markets play a critical role in ensuring a better bargaining position for the migrants.

CONCLUSION

This paper compiles contemporary data on internal, cross-border and other forms of migration that reflect upon the “push factors” in migration (that is, the compulsion for people to migrate out of one’s country or area to escape poverty) on the one hand, and the filling up of extant gaps in the labour markets by migrant labour, on the other. Most unskilled workers move out in search of any job that may either gain for them higher wages or a longer period of work, or both. Their span and destination of migration depends upon their initial resource position. The more skilled and enterprising workers
find niche segments in the markets, thereby creating a demand for their services. Their earnings are generally higher. Such migrants also move with the intention of being out of their home locations for long periods of time, and at times, permanently. In this sense, migrants are a heterogeneous group.

All migrants face discrimination. It could be in the form of having to pay bribes to be able to remain in another location unlawfully, or for illegal transportation. They also face exploitation by being paid less for want of adequate bargaining power. Many also face social sanctions. However, these are not characteristics that have emerged today; they have existed for much longer, perhaps for more than even a century, and have not deterred migrants from migrating.

Migration has contributed to the alleviation of poverty. This is evident from the fact that more people are becoming mobile over time, they are willing to travel longer distances, and they are also willing to take more risks. However, the extent of poverty reduction cannot be gauged from the existing data except through making judgements based on wage or earnings differentials between the home and host locations.

There can be no realistic policy on internal migration in peasant economies with rapidly growing populations. Instead, it would be more realistic to put in place policies that could promote regionally balanced development, encourage labour-intensive industries and activities, and promote rapid human capital formation. International migration also would be effectively influenced by such policies, since labour movement under such policy regimes could be expected to be mainly demand driven, and not of the distress type in which workers get exploited and labour in host countries face avoidable
competition.

REFERENCES

Acharya, S. (2001). “Labour markets in transitional economies of South-East Asia and Thailand: A study of four countries”, in Labour Markets in Transitional Economies of Southeast Asia and Thailand, Development Analysis Network (DAN), (Ottawa, IDRC and Phnom Penh, Cambodia Development Resource Institute).

Anh, D. N. (2001). “Labour emigration and emigration pressures in transitional Vietnam” NIASnyatt (Nordic Newsletter of Asian Studies), No. 3.

Ba, L. X., C. C. Loi, N. T. K. Dzung and N. V. Tien (2001). “The labour market in Vietnam: Growth, poverty reduction and adjustment to crisis”, in Labour Markets in Transitional Economies of Southeast Asia and Thailand, Development Analysis Network (DAN), (Ottawa, IDRC and Phnom Penh, Cambodia Development Resource Institute).

Chan, S. and S. So (1999). Cambodian Labour Migration to Thailand: A Preliminary Assessment, Working Paper No. 11, (Phnom Penh, Cambodia Development Resource Institute).

Chan, S., S. Tep and S. Acharya (2001). Land Tenure in Cambodia - A Data Update, Working Paper No. 19, (Phnom Penh, Cambodia Development Resource Institute). Desbarats, J. and B. Sik (2000). “People and land in rural Cambodia”, Cambodia Development Review, vol. 4, No. 3.

General Statistics Office (GSO) (1999). Vietnam’s Living Standards Survey 1997/98, (Hanoi, GSO).

Godfrey, M., S. So, S. Tep, D. Pon, C. Katz, S. Acharya, D.C. Sisowath and T. Hing (2001). “A study of Cambodian labour market: Reference to poverty reduction, growth and adjustment to crisis”, in Labour Markets in Transitional Economies of Southeast Asia and Thailand, Development Analysis Network (DAN), (Ottawa, IDRC and Phnom Penh, Cambodia Development Resource Institute).

National Institute of Statistics (NIS) (1997). Demographic Survey of Cambodia, 1996, (Phnom Penh, Ministry of Planning).

National Institute of Statistics (NIS) (1998). Socio-economic Survey of Cambodia, 1997 (Phnom Penh, Ministry of Planning).

National Institute of Statistics (NIS) (1999). Population Census: Final Report (Phnom Penh: Ministry of Planning).

National Statistical Centre (NSC) and National Economic Research Institute (NERI) (2001). “The labour market in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic”, in Labour Markets in Transitional Economies of Southeast Asia and Thailand, Development Analysis Network (DAN), (Ottawa, IDRC and Phnom Penh, Cambodia Development Resource Institute).

Paitoonpong S., N. Thongpakde, J. Uchupalanun and C. I. Ayuthaya (2001). “Growth, poverty reduction and adjustment to crisis – Thailand”, in Labour Markets in Transitional Economies of Southeast Asia and Thailand, Development Analysis Network (DAN), (Ottawa, IDRC and Phnom Penh, Cambodia Development Resource Institute).

Pon, D. and S. Acharya (2001). “Earnings of vulnerable workers: Reflections on poverty in Phnom Penh”, Cambodia Development Review, vol. 5, No. 4.

Sik, B. (2000). Land Ownership, Sales and Concentration in Cambodia, Working Paper No. 16, (Phnom Penh, Cambodia Development Resource Institute).

So, S. (2001). “International migration”, Cambodia Development Review, vol. 5, No. 1.

So, S., S. Real, R. Sy, U. Uthey, B. Ballard and S. Acharya (2001). Social Assessment of Land in Cambodia, Working Paper No. 20, (Phnom Penh, Cambodia Development Resource Institute).

Sok, H., H. Chea and B. Sik (2001). Annual Economic Review, (Phnom Penh, Cambodia Development Resource Institute).

UNDP (2001). Human Development Report 2001: Making New Technologies Work for Human Development, (New York, Oxford University Press for the United Nations Development Programme).