Economic Sectors Impact Household Income in Vietnam: A Structural Path Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17059/ekon.reg.2023-1-10Keywords:
household income, structural path analysis (SPA), social accounting matrix (SAM), economic sector, labour, capital, inter-industry linkages, urban areas, rural areas, income inequalityAbstract
Despite the remarkable achievements in poverty reduction, income inequality in Vietnam still tends to increase, consequently having negative impacts on the sustainable growth of the country. The goals of this research are to identify and measure the impact of propagation channels of economic sectors on the income of the household groups, which is of great importance to poverty reduction efforts in Vietnam. The study aims to unravel the critical supply chain paths that drive changes in household income. To this end, the structural path analysis methodology is used based on the 2016 Vietnam Social Accounting Matrix model, which has not been extensively studied in Vietnam. Compared with previous studies, this research was conducted at the national level instead of the regional level and detailed the factors involved in income distribution such as economic sectors, labour, and household groups. The analysis finds 513 higher-order paths of 25 sectors that lead to an income increase for the household groups. When economic sectors expand under policy changes, household income improvements are mainly affected by labour skill, capital, and the magnitude of inter-industry linkages. It is noteworthy that high-skilled labour has a significant impact on the income of urban households, while the income of rural households is considerably affected by the capital. The analysis also demonstrates 32 selected paths having the greatest influence on household income. The importance of forestry, wood and wood products, fisheries, coal, crude oil and natural gas, footwear, distribution of electricity, gas, water, and utilities, and retail and wholesale for poverty alleviation is underlined for their distributional impact. Based on the research findings, relevant policy implications are also recommended.
References
Arndt, C., Garcia, A., Tarp, F. & Thurlow, J. (2012). Poverty reduction and economic structure: Comparative path analysis for Mozambique and Vietnam. Review of Income and Wealth, 58(4), 742-763. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4991.2011.00474.x.
Defourny, J. & Thorbecke, E. (1984). Structural path analysis and multiplier decomposition within a social accounting matrix framework. The Economic Journal, 94(373), 111-136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2232220.
Hartono, D. & Resosudarmo, B. P. (2008). The economy-wide impact of controlling energy consumption in Indonesia: An analysis using a Social Accounting Matrix framework. Energy Policy, 36(4), 1404-1419. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.12.011.
Ivanic, M. & Martin, W. (2018). Sectoral productivity growth and poverty reduction: National and global impacts. World Development, 109, 429-439. DOI; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.07.004.
Khan, H. A. & Thorbecke, E. (1989). Macroeconomic effects of technology choice: Multiplier and structural path analysis within a SAM framework. Journal of Policy Modeling, 11(1), 131-156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0161-8938(89)90028-8.
Lenzen, M. (2003). Environmentally important paths, linkages and key sectors in the Australian economy. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 14(1), 1-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0954-349X(02)00025-5.
Lenzen, M. (2007). Structural path analysis of ecosystem networks. Ecological Modelling, 200(3-4), 334-342. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.07.041
Leontief, W. W. (1941). The Structure of the American Economy, 1919–1929. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Linh, T. N., Long, H. T., Chi, L. V., Tam, L. T. & Lebailly, P. (2019). Access to rural credit markets in developing countries, the case of Vietnam: A literature review. Sustainability, 11(5), 1468. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11051468.
Luan, D. X., Bauer, S. & Kuhl, R. (2016). Income Impacts of credit on accessed households in rural Vietnam: Do various credit sources perform differently? AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, 8(1), 57-67.
Miller, R. E. & Blair, P. D. (2009). Input-output analysis: Foundations and extensions. Cambridge University Press.
Müller, D., Epprecht, M. & Sunderlin, W. D. (2006). Where are the poor and where are the trees?: targeting of poverty reduction and forest conservation in Vietnam. CIFOR Working Paper, 34(V). Bogor, Indonesia, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), 20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/002026.
Oshita, Y. (2012). Identifying critical supply chain paths that drive changes in CO2 emissions. Energy Economics, 34(4), 1041-1050. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2011.08.013.
Peters, G. P. & Hertwich, E. (2006). A comment on the “functions, commodities and environmental impacts in an ecological-economic model”. Ecological Economics 59, 1–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.08.008.
Pham, T. H. & Riedel, J. (2019). Impacts of the sectoral composition of growth on poverty reduction in Vietnam. Journal of Economics and Development, 21(2), 213–222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JED-10-2019-0046.
Puttanapong, N. & Sessomboon, P. (2017). Revealing the Paths Connecting Thai Agriculture, Food Industry and Household from Structural Path Analysis. Bangkok, Thailand. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.284850.
Pyatt, G. & Round, J. I. (1979). Accounting and fixed price multipliers in a social accounting matrix framework. The Economic Journal, 89(356), 850-873. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2231503.
Stone, J. R. N. (1978). The disaggregation of the household sector in the national accounts. In: Paper presented at World Bank Conference on Social Accounting Methods in Development Planning (pp. 16-21). Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Urgessa, T. (2015). The determinants of agricultural productivity and rural household income in Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Economics, 24(2), 63-91.
Wood, R. & Lenzen, M. (2009). Structural path decomposition. Energy Economics, 31(3), 335-341. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2008.11.003
