Migration has long played a role in the history of Vietnam and in particular is a key factor in the development of the state and society during the mid- to late-20th century. After 1954 the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) wanted to exert close control over population mobility in the north; to do so the government promoted migration to the rural and highland areas and restricted movement to the cities. During reunification in 1975, these policies were implemented throughout the nation. However, due to socioeconomic policies associated with reunification the government’s control over mobility failed. One of the major causes of this loss of control was free migration—the unrestricted ability to move around the country, which had not been experienced since before French colonization. While the state still maintained some control over movement, it was not to the same extent as had been exerted by the French or even by the pre-1975 DRV government. Following this influx of uncontrolled free migration, the government was forced to accept this new situation, which ultimately led to doi moi (Renovation) whereby existing patterns of internal and external migration were recognized as were the loosening of economic and social controls.
Population movements in Vietnam cannot all be characterized by the desire to escape communist rule, as there are different kinds of migrations as well as different reasons for migrating. Some of the different types of migration include, forced, state-sponsored, sojourners or temporary, and spontaneous or free. Reasons for migrating include searching for work or viable land to better one’s life, fear of reprisal from officials, settling land for internal and external security, or just the desire to see what is outside of the village or on the other side of the river. Also, a trend that is being seen lately is the return of migrants to their places of origins from the central highlands or new economic zones due to failed ventures, desire for change, to escape debt, or various other reasons.
Following the Geneva Agreement, the French handed over the city of Hanoi to the Democratic Republic of Vietnam on 10 October 1954. As a result about one million people moved from the north to the south whereas Viet Minh loyalists moved into Hanoi and other areas in the north. Shortly thereafter the DRV created policies that addressed the mobility of the population, including the institution of household registration (ho khau) which was based on a Chinese model aimed at restricting urban expansion by controlling how many people and who moved into the cities from the countryside. The ho khau system was eventually introduced into the countryside and “local surveillance networks were established to ensure that every citizen lived and slept in their place of registered residence.”[1] Along with the ho khau system, a coupon rationing system was introduced which also limited any sort of free migration because in order to partake in the rationing system, which restricted the supply of basic commodity goods, one needed to be registered with the local authorities. At this point in time, working for the state (either in production or administration) was one of the only ways in which migration into the cities could occur. The introduction of collectivization in 1958 also limited mobility because “membership in the cooperative determined access to economic and social benefits.”[2] In order to obtain membership, household registration was required. Without said membership people could not work on the paddies, could not trade, and could not work for wages.
Such restrictions did not abolish spontaneous migration; it just made it very expensive. There were state-approved migration programs which included moving from urban to rural or from lowland to highland. Between 1961 and 1966 over one million people participated in these state migration programs—moving into national agricultural and forestry enterprises or to new economic zone cooperatives in the highlands. Following reunification in 1975 the state sought to implement the same strategies to the entire nation. There were three objectives to the state’s post-reunification migration policy: (1) reduce the population density in the Red River Delta and coastal plains of central Vietnam; (2) limit population growth in urban areas, especially in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City; and (3) to distribute labor for productive development and to establish populations in regions that would serve the interests of internal and external security (highlands, border areas).
The DRV sought to reduce the population in the Red River Delta and coastal plains of central Vietnam by relocating lowlanders into the highlands in order to improve the population’s welfare and develop the economy. The logic was that “the plains would supply population to the highlands, and resources produced in both regions would feed the state’s industrialization policy.”[3] Part of the state’s vision with population redistribution was to not only improve individual situations but to improve whole nation’s situation. Le Duan, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, was insistent that the protection of the country (internal and external) must grow together with the economy—this combination was evident in policies directed at the cities.
Following reunification the de-urbanization of the south was a major concern of the government for three reasons: (1) the withdrawal of US support meant that cities could no longer support large populations; (2) the urban middle class posed a threat to the state; and (3) cities were symbolic of capitalism and inequality. “Authorities imposed socialism on an urban population far less malleable—and perceived as such—than that of Hanoi twenty years ago. This model and the manner of its implementation was to provoke a further exodus—of the boat people.”[4]
With regard to security, migration policy served to enhance both internal and external security in the highlands and along border areas. By establishing Kinh (ethnic Vietnamese) communities a ‘tense region’ could be brought under the control of the central government as the state had faced a major ethnic insurgency in the Central Highlands in 1975. External or national defense was necessary as China’s relationship with Vietnam waned and the relationship between Cambodia and China grew. In 1978 100,000 people settled along the border with China to ensure national security. Alongside Kinh resettlement in the highlands, a program of sedentarization of the ethnic minorities was implemented as well. “Initiated in the north in 1968, sedentarization aimed to stop highlanders’ perceived destruction of the forest, to teach them up-to-date farming practices, and to ‘rationalise settlement patterns’ in line with the state’s desire to improve the governance and security of the highlands.”[5]
As mentioned earlier, in April 1975 the Vietnamese were allowed to move freely throughout the country. There were still some restrictions, such as transportation and permission had to be obtained but the ability to move freely between regions and provinces had not been experienced since before French colonial rule. Due to reunification and the freedom of movement families were reunited and informal commercial ties were established resulting in an explosion of consumption in the north and flows of goods into the south. A new socioeconomic reality emerged that was in direct contrast to the socialist vision—the development of a two-tier economy (fixed-price system organized by the state and capitalist system operating according to the laws of supply and demand). Prior to reunification there had always existed a black market, however after reunification the conditions of the market began to grow exponentially.
At the Sixth Party Congress of the Vietnamese Communist Party in 1986 the need for renovation (doi moi) was expressed due to the fact that the vision of a socialist utopia did not materialize and the people no longer supported such a vision. The implementation of doi moi allowed for the free movement of people throughout the country, more so than what was seen after reunification. Factors involved with this new movement include the decollectivization of land, which opened up the countryside “to diverse production relationships rather than just the state-endorsed collective approach, and labourers [did] not have to be tied to the land any more.”[6] Also the decentralization of power and the abolition of the subsidy system allowed for the free flow of labor and reduction of the state’s power to control people’s movements. Another large factor was the development of a private sector that created a space for private transportation companies—the means with which to travel were made readily available (and legal).
Also during doi moi spontaneous migration began to occur by the mid-1990s to the Central Highlands, which eventually integrated the Highlands into the economy of the whole country. Migrants were attracted to the NEZs, without government influence, due to the development of a commodity market—particularly coffee. Eventually these spontaneous migrations replaced the planned migration as the vehicle of population redistribution. Unfortunately the ability to bypass state structures and the resulting loss of administrative control of migration begat negative impacts—social evils (gambling, drugs, theft), difficulty of administration, malaria, and loss of forest and biodiversity due to clear-cutting of forests.
[1] Andrew Hardy, “State Visions, Migrant Decisions: Population Movements since the End of the Vietnam War,” In Postwar Vietnam: Dynamics of a Transforming Society, edited by Hy Van Luong, 107-138, Singapore: ISEAS; Landham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003; p. 109.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid, 110.
[4] Ibid, 111.
[5] Ibid, 114.
[6] Li Tana, Peasants on the Move, 4.
No comments:
Post a Comment