Aqua - Aquaculture and Poverty Alleviation in Ben Tre Province Vietnam

Aquaculture Economics & Management
ISSN: 1365-7305 (Print) 1551-8663 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uaqm20
Aquaculture and poverty alleviation in Ben Tre

Province, Vietnam
Kim Anh Thi Nguyen, Curtis M. Jolly, Chuong N.P.T. Bui & Trang T. H. Le
To cite this article: Kim Anh Thi Nguyen, Curtis M. Jolly, Chuong N.P.T. Bui & Trang T. H.
Le (2016) Aquaculture and poverty alleviation in Ben Tre Province, Vietnam, Aquaculture
Economics & Management, 20:1, 82-108, DOI: 10.1080/13657305.2016.1124938
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2016.1124938
Published online: 16 Feb 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 13
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uaqm20
Download by: [Agora Consortium] Date: 02 March 2016, At: 02:46

AQUACULTURE ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT
2016, VOL. 20, NO. 1, 82–108
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2016.1124938
Aquaculture and poverty alleviation in Ben Tre

Province, Vietnam
Kim Anh Thi Nguyena, Curtis M. Jollyb, Chuong N.P.T. Buic, and Trang T. H. Lec
a
Department of Economics, Nha Trang University, Nha Trang, Vietnam; bDepartment of Agricultural
Economics, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA; cDepartment of Agricultural Economics and
Rural Sociology, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Research results on the effects of aquaculture on poverty policy analysis; pangas/
alleviation have been mixed. We use Tobit, simulation models pangasius/tra; shrimp;
socioeconomics; Vietnam
Downloaded by [Agora Consortium] at 02:46 02 March 2016
and cross sectional survey data of 285 households, in Ben Tre

Province, Vietnam, to evaluate the effects of aquaculture
involvement on poverty, measured using per capita consump-
tion of less than $1.25 USD, $1.50, and $2.00 per day. The results
show for per capita consumption of less than $1.25 per day that
households’ aquaculture participation or productivity had no or
little effect on the living standard. For income levels above
$1.25 per capita per day aquaculture participation or produc-
tivity influenced the standard of living.
Introduction
Aquaculture production is one of the fastest growing industries in the agricultural
sector. Global aquaculture production has increased at an alarming rate,
8.4% from 1980s to 2010, and at an annual growth rate of 6.3% in the 1990s
(Stevenson & Irz, 2009; FAO, 2013). Though the growth rate of aquaculture has
slightly decelerated (5.4%) during the 2000s, its rate of progression has surpassed
the growth rate of agricultural production and that of the wild caught fish during
the same period (FAO, 2013). Aquaculture has had serious impacts in specific
rural areas; and commercial aquaculture has allegedly contributed significantly
to rural development and economic growth when multiplier effects, and back-
ward and forward linkages, are considered (Hishamunda et al., 2009; Belton
et al., 2012). According to Scoones (2009), aquaculture is anticipated to play
a major role in future poverty alleviation because it is usually an integrated part
of the farming system, with a complex livelihood portfolio. The progress noted
in aquaculture production has been rapid and researchers believe it is one of
the Means of increasing food production for the landless poor.
The growth of aquaculture production has been so impressive during the
last three decades that most donor agencies, NGOs and governments have
CONTACT Curtis M. Jolly cjolly@auburn.edu Department of Agricultural Economics, Auburn University,

212 Comer Hall, 1 Roosevelt Street, Auburn, AL 36849, USA.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/uaqm.
© 2016 Taylor & Francis
AQUACULTURE ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT 83
included aquaculture as part of their development strategies for improving

livelihoods and promoting rural development (Little et al., 2009; Stevenson &
Irz, 2009). Donor agencies, NGOs, and local governments have stressed the
importance of aquaculture as a Means to reduce rural poverty and improve
food security because most aquaculture programs undertaken globally are by
limited resource farmers. About 75% of the world aquaculture comes from
small-scale operations (Gupta, 2010). As stated by Little et al. (2009)
“small-scale” aquaculture has become synonymous with “poverty alleviation.”
In spite of positive advantages enumerated for aquaculture and its effects
on rural economic development, its impact on poverty reduction has been
a topic of much discussion and its positive contribution towards that goal
has been challenged by Harrison et al. (1994) and Lewis (1997). The topic
has been recently revisited by Belton et al. (2012), who stated that under cer-
tain conditions aquaculture may have positive influence on rural poverty
alleviation. Only few researchers (Charles et al. 1997; Irz et al. 2007; Van
Huong & Cuong, 2012) have provided some written evidence to show that
aquaculture production activities have resulted in increased income and
improvement of certain living standard indicators of the rural poor (Pant
et al. 2014).
According to Barman and Little (2006, 2011); Bhujel et al. (2008); CGIAR
(2007); Haylor and Khemaria (2007); Pant et al. (2012. 2014), and Kassam
(2013) aquaculture production with particular social, economic, environmen-
tal, input, output market and risk conditions can improve the livelihood of
poor and marginalized people. Nonetheless, in places like Bangladesh and
other developing countries it is felt that commercially oriented aquaculture,
employing modern technology and tied to the marketing chain, may have
greater impact on rural livelihoods than small-scale extensive aquaculture
(Hambrey et al., 2008; Belton et al., 2012). Stevenson and Irz (2009) have,
however, listed a number of constraints that serve as barriers to entry into
the industry by the poor and prevent them from benefiting from aquaculture.
These constraints include lack of land, poor access to technology, access to
credit and markets.
Aquaculture has been identified as an activity that improves livelihoods,
economic growth and poverty reduction through the increase in fish protein
supply (Edwards, 2000), employment (Edwards, 2000; Morales & Morales,
2006; Belton et al., 2012), rural household income (Edwards, 2000; Ahmed
& Lorica, 2002; Pant et al. 2014) and foreign exchange earnings (Yap, 1999;
Halwart, 2005; Hossain & Bayes, 2008). The backward and forward linkages
of aquaculture to other sectors have been shown to facilitate industrial
development (Hishamunda & Leung, 2009) but the effects of aquaculture
on poverty reduction have not been statistically and out rightly demonstrated.
Brummett et al. (2008) felt that the aquaculture contribution to poverty
reduction has been hidden in official statistics.
84 K.A.T. NGUYEN ET AL.
Aquaculture may improve income of a household and community but

poverty reduction is complex and may be rooted in many social and environ-
mental factors. Aquaculture ties to development may indicate a relationship
resulting in income generation but not necessarily to total poverty reduction.
Although aquaculture as a sector may generate jobs, foreign exchange earn-
ings, and increased protein supply at the macro level, it is not known whether
small-scale aquaculture or commercial aquaculture can be the driver to the
process of poverty reduction. Jolly et al. (2010) indicated that small-scale
aquaculture, embracing certain production systems and of specific high value
species, is likely to sustainably influence rural poverty reduction. Hambrey
et al. (2001) showed that certain production methods may have greater
influence on profitability and sustainability of aquaculture in rural areas in
Vietnam.
Vietnam has experienced significant economic growth over the past
decade. In many cases, Vietnam has resorted to fish and shrimp production
to improve limited resource farmer’s household welfare and to stimulate
national economic growth (van Huong & Cuong, 2012). The culture systems
are diversified and the southern part of the country has the most varied farm-
ing activities that include pond, fence and cage culture of catfish as well as
several indigenous species, giant tiger prawn culture and integrated culture,
such as rice-cum-fish, rice-cum-prawn and mangrove-cum-aquaculture.
Aquaculture farmers have adopted culture of export suitable species such as
the giant tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon), lobsters (Panulirus spp), groupers
(Epinephelus spp), bivalves (Meretrix lyrata and Anadara granosa) and
catfishes (cá tra-Pangasius hypophthalmus and cá basa-Pangasius bocourti),
produced at low cost and exported with the aim of increasing the farm income
of limited resource farmers (FAO, 2005).
Shrimp exports are responsible for 70% of Vietnam’s fisheries exports. One
of the strategies of poverty alleviation in Vietnam is to increase the production
of high value and export suited species, such as shrimp and lobster with
the objective of increasing household income and thus reducing rural poverty.
Crabs, oysters and clams are also cultivated, but their production is still
variable and is oriented to satisfy domestic demand. The basa and tra are pro-
duced mainly by limited resource farmers and are of lower value but the
second most exported fish species from Vietnam. Total aquaculture exports
contribute a fairly large percentage of GDP.
However, evidence that aquaculture can contribute to poverty alleviation is
not convincing in all cases. Hambrey et al. (2001) showed that sustainable
cage culture of high valued species increases income of limited resource
farmers in Vietnam, but the capital costs to enter fish farming with high
valued species served as a deterrent to the poorer farmers. Van Huong and
Cuong (2012) have shown that poverty reduction was inversely related to
the introduction of aquaculture in Hai Duong Province in Vietnam. In this
article, we examine the effects of aquaculture on poverty reduction in Ben Tre

Province in Vietnam.
Conceptual framework
The concept of poverty is multidimensional and difficult to define. The
approach of defining poverty in its simplest of forms is to relate it to its econ-
omic and financial aspects and not to link it to the holistic well-being of the
individual or household. We choose the most restrictive definition as pro-
posed by Sen (1983), where poverty is associated with hunger, so that the poor
are those who are unable to satisfy certain basic needs. Poverty can be defined
as the proportion of the population whose income or consumption falls below
an objectively given level accepted by the society as minimum nutritional per
capita requirement for life sustenance. According to the World Bank (2010)
poverty is defined as the existence of an individual or household below a given

subjective poverty line.
The most used indicator of poverty is based on a measurement of a relative
poverty line which gives an indication of the consumption of an individual or
household in a day or rather the amount of money the individual has to live
on in a day (Ravallion, 2010). The international poverty line has been estab-
lished as $1.25 a day subsistence (World Bank, 2010). That is an individual
who subsists on less than $1.25 a day is considered absolutely poor (Ravallion
& Chen, 2009). Higher poverty lines have been used to measure the absolutely
poor, the poor and the not-so-poor (Ravallion et al., 2009). In this article, we
use the base of $1.25 USD per day for the ultra-poor and perform sensitivity
analyses using two other measures of poverty $1.50, not-so-poor, and $2.00,
not-poor (Feleke et al., 2004; Deressa et al., 2009). As Stevenson and Irz
(2009) have stated, to link aquaculture with poverty alleviation requires the
measurement of robust statistical indicators.
It is important to ask the question: In what way does aquaculture affect
poverty? Clear theory linking aquaculture to poverty alleviation has been
weak. Since aquaculture is an industry within the agricultural sector we
anticipate that poverty is influenced by aquaculture in the same way as agri-
culture. Christiaensen et al. (2010) has shown that agriculture can influence
poverty and growth at all stages of development but agriculture has less effect
on poverty reduction in unequal societies. Their study showed that agriculture
is significantly more effective in reducing poverty among the poorest of
the poor (as reflected in the $1.00-day squared poverty gap); however, when
it comes to the better off poor (reflected in the $2.00-day measure) non-
agriculture activity had the edge. Information from the World Bank (2007)
is contrary to the previous statement and points out that agriculture driven
growth generates a larger welfare effect than non-agriculturally driven growth,
especially for the poorest 20% of the population.
It was stated by Schneider and Gugerty (2011) that under certain circum-
stances agricultural productivity and growth produce perverse outcomes for
the poor, and a number of factors such as population growth, technology,
asset, income distribution and market access influence the effects of agricul-
tural productivity on household income. In the case where asset endowment is
unevenly distributed the effects of agricultural productivity on poverty is less.
In fact, resource poor farmers do not have the funds to invest in particular
agricultural enterprises that would enable them to improve their income.
The more asset endowed farmers are, the more they are likely to adopt mod-
ern technologies in their farming practices to drive up productivity. Accord-
ing to Schneider and Gugerty (2011) agricultural productivity increase has a
smaller effect on the incomes of the poorest than non-agricultural labor
productivity.
A recent study conducted by Kassam (2013) in Ghana using descriptive
statistics indicated that aquaculture production had greater effects on non-

poor households than on poor households. The study indicated that fish farm-
ing households appear to be better off than non-fish farming households but
this was influenced by a number of factors including training in fish farming,
household assets, access to credit, resource endowments, the livelihood char-
acteristics and the production system employed by the fish farmer.
Because aquaculture is part of the agricultural sector it is important to
investigate:
1. Does aquaculture affect the poorest of the society more than the not-so-
poor?
2. Do all types of aquaculture enterprises influence poverty or some affect
poverty more than others?
3. Does diversity of the farm portfolio influence the effects of aquaculture on
poverty?
4. Do resource endowment and poverty levels influence the effects of aquacul-
ture on poverty alleviation?
To answer the above questions and to measure the influence of aquaculture
on poverty levels in Ben Tre Province we decided to adopt the Tobit model
developed by Tobin (1958). Based on previous work by McDonald and
Moffitt (1980) and Barrett (1999) we employ the Tobit model to establish
the statistical relationship between a dependent variable representing poverty
or standard of living and a set of demographic, socioeconomic and aquacul-
ture related variables of a given household.
Model development
The Tobit model shows the relationship between a non-negative dependent
variable (poverty index) and an independent variable (X) representing a sum-
mation of aquaculture and other exogenous variables. Because we investigate
the effects of aquaculture on poverty, and livelihoods in the households

that may not be influenced by aquaculture, we present the model in the form
proposed by Greene (2000); Madalla (1983):
INCt ¼ Xt b þ lt if Xt b þ lt > 0 ð1Þ
INCt ¼ 0 if Xt b þ lt � 0 ð2Þ
T ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; N
The preceding equation represents a censored distribution of inclusiveness for
those who are poor (INCt � 0) but have the resources and willingness to prac-
tice or not to practice aquaculture (X). For all those who are not-poor (INCt
> 0) but practice or not practice aquaculture. Aquaculture inclusive is scored
one, and l is a random error term, under the assumption of l � N(0,σ2). The
simple Tobit model can be represented below by the following equation:
INCi ¼ bo þ b1 X1 . . . . . .:bN XN þ l ð3Þ

N represents the number of observations,
INCj ¼ the dependent variable, (1 ¼ poor, 0 ¼ not-poor)
Xi ¼ a vector of independent variables,
b ¼ a vector of unknown coefficients, and
lt ¼ an independently distributed error term assumed to be normal with zero
mean and constant variance.
Explicitly the model can be presented:
INCi ¼ bo þ b1 AGE þ b2 EDUC þ b3 NUMC þ b4 NFJH þ b5 HHINF
ð4Þ
þ b6 HHACR þ b7 IAQ þ b8 OWNL þ b9 PRF þ l
where
INC-income per capita per day an individual spends on food
AGE-age of the head of household in years (þ)
EDUC-education of the head of household in years (þ)
NUMC-number of people in the household below 15 years and above 65 (−)
NFJH- number of family members with job outside the households (þ)
HHINF- the household involvement in farming activities (yes or no) (þ)
HHACR- household attempts to access credit (þ)
IAQ- household involvement in aquaculture or income from aquaculture (þ)
OWNL- household ownership of livestock (þ)
PRF-profitability from farming and other income sources (þ)
It is expected that age has a positive effect on the person’s income
(b1 > 0); yet education increases the personal income and hence expendi-
ture on food (b2 > 0). Asogwa and Umeh (2012) found that education
had a positive effect on household income and per capita consumption of
households in Nigeria. The number of people living in the household below
15 and above 65 who do not contribute to the household budget may have a
negative effect on the per capita expenditure per day (b3 < 0). Frimpong
and Asuming-Brempong (2013) found that the number of individuals in
the household had a negative effect on per capita consumption. Asogwa
and Umeh (2012) found that the number of children in school decreased
food security in the household. The number of people with jobs outside
the household has a positive effect on the income and hence on the per
capita consumption per day (b4 > 0).
The household engagement in farming activities is supposed to increase the
total income in cash or kind and hence increase the per capita consumption per
day and hence b5 > 0. Credit access has a positive effect on the total income
(Frimpong & Asuming-Brempong, 2013). Hence it is expected that an individ-
ual willingness to seek credit has a positive effect on the per capita income
expenditure (b6 > 0). The household decision to engage in aquaculture will
influence household income and may have a positive effect on aquaculture

income and hence b7 > 0. Ownership of livestock suggests an increase in wealth
which can be translated into total income and hence an increase in wealth may
have a positive effect on the per capita consumption per day (b8 > 0). The own-
ership in land has the same effect as the ownership in livestock and hence
b9 > 0. Similar results were obtained by Frimpong and Asuming-Brempong
(2013). Profitability from agriculture or from other enterprises, farm or non-
farm, has a positive influence on the per-capita expenditure per day (b10 > 0).
We are assuming that a farmer’s utility function is maximized by investing
in an aquaculture enterprise that generates positive net returns. The farmer
has several choices in terms of species selection and he/she chooses the
species, or combination of species that maximizes his/her utility function.
The engagement in a profitable aquaculture enterprise and the sale of the
given aquaculture species positively influence income and in turn may facili-
tate the fish producer’s consumption above the poverty line. The farmer’s
human and physical capital, plus factors such as access to credit, the house-
hold dependency ratio and risk management strategy enable the farmer to
engage in aquaculture with the aim of allowing members of the household
to consume above the poverty line.
Sociodemographic factors such as age, education, income and mana-
gerial skills have been noted to influence a famers’ vulnerability or poverty
level. Factors that influence farmers’ capital investment, such as land
ownership, livestock or other fixed assets affect income and reduce the
household’s consumption vulnerability. The farmer’s total assets affect
the farmers’ involvement in aquaculture and the household consumption.
However, a farmer with low levels of consumption may exist just at the
subsistence level or may consume below the poverty line. Such a farmer
may have inadequate funds to invest in aquaculture and the type of aqua-
culture enterprise may be unable to propel him and the household out of
poverty. A farmer who produces a marketable surplus and is able to sub-

sist above the poverty line may accumulate sufficient financial resources to
invest in aquaculture.
Poverty, therefore, undermines the farmer’s ability to employ technology
that enhances farm productivity. Hence, ultra-poor households (INC <
$1.25) that are unable to produce sufficient foodstuffs to meet household
needs may be unable to accumulate revenue to purchase equipment and to
adopt new technology to engage in profitable aquaculture. In the model speci-
fied in Equation (4), aquaculture participation is treated as exogenous and it
influences poverty levels, but poverty levels also influence the type of aquacul-
ture investments that farmers may undertake. Hence there is a simultaneous
relationship between poverty and aquaculture participation. There is thus
a problem of endogeneity and unless treated may result in inconsistent
estimates. Hence, we propose the model:
IAQ ¼ bo þb1 AGE þ b2 EDUC þ b3 NUMC þ b4 NFJH þ b5 HHINF

ð5Þ
þb6 HHACR þ b7 INC þ b8 OWNL þ b9 OWNLA þ b10 PRF þ h
Where the sociodemographic and other variables appear in Equation (4),
but OWNLA, household ownership of land, the instrumental variable does
not. Equations (4) and (5) define a simultaneous Tobit model and the joint
distribution of l and h is given by (l, h)
Nð0; RÞ:
where ∑ is a symmetric 2 × 2 matrix with a typical element σij and with I ¼ 1,2
and j ¼ 1, 2
The reduced form of the model can be represented as:
INC ¼ ⊓1x1i þ ŋji
where ⊓1 is a vector parameters to be estimated and ŋji is an error term.
INC ¼ INC*, if INC* > 0, and INC ¼ 0, if INC* � 0
IAQ ¼ ⊓2x1i þ ŋ2i
where Xi is a vector consisting of the above-mentioned variables in (5)
including OWNLA.
This leads us to the definition of the following hypothesis whose testing is
the object of our interest:
H0: q ¼ 0
H1: q≠0
Referring to the simultaneous determination of INC and IAQ we can test
whether IAQ is exogenously determined. We refer to the null hypothesis
H0 and the alternate hypothesis H1 and that Means the models are not
simultaneously determined. For q ¼ 0 two single models are employed
whereas for q≠0 simultaneous or two stage models are employed for efficient
and unbiased estimators.
Method
The Ben Tre Province in Vietnam is an area with a substantial number of
households that are dependent on aquaculture and fisheries for their liveli-
hood. Three coastal communes, namely Thua Duc of Binh Dai, An Thuy of
Ba Tri District, and Giao Thanh of Thanh Phu Districts, where aquaculture
production and capture fisheries have been designated as key industries to
promote economic growth and assist in poverty alleviation by the local
government, were chosen for the study. Aquaculture production has been
introduced as an industry that utilizes low-cost available inputs in the
production of valuable outputs that generate foreign reserves for rural
development (De Silva & Davy, 2010).
Ben Tre Province, which has diverse wetlands and rich aquatic resources,
has experienced rapid progress in brackish water shrimp production in the
past two decades (Cust Center for International Trade, 2006). The area of
shrimp farming is about 32,253 ha and is responsible for 5.23% of the total
shrimp farming area in Vietnam (Khang, 2008). Shrimp exports from Ben
Tre Province account for 5.34% of total export value which is estimated at
$130 M USD (Thao, 2006). Shrimp production has brought with it a number
of environmental, social and economic problems while generating much
foreign earnings for economic development. The question remains whether
the growth in the industry has facilitated poverty reduction or fostered wealth
concentration. The other species such as crabs, clams, cockles and pangasius
are produced at a smaller scale than shrimp.
A sample of 300 households, equally divided among three studied coastal
districts, was selected for a face-to-face survey. In each commune, the survey
covered all villages with the hope that the samples represent the population.
We solicited a list of agricultural, aquaculture and fisheries participants from
the commune administration. Local government informants identified the
rural inhabitants who were willing to participate in the survey and we inter-
viewed them during the period May to September 2012. Respondents were
chosen based on the economic structure of the commune in order to involve
as many occupations as possible, including agriculture, aquaculture and
fishing.
All respondent households associated with farming or gleaning activities
and who indicated a willingness to participate in the survey during the
three-month period were interviewed. The head of household or his/her des-
ignate and the spouse present answered the list of questions. We recognized
the intra-household dynamics that exist in Ben Tre Province (Jones et al., 2007),
but we also understand the difficulties in conducting an intra-household survey
and analyzing the data when separate instruments are administered to each of
the spouses (Acosta, 2013); hence we allowed each individual interviewee to
complement the responses of each other. Because it was found by Anderson
et al. (2014) and Carlsson et al. (2007) that there was no significant difference
between the marginal degree of positionality (MDP), (a measure that captures
how much of any utility increase experienced from a rise in income is due to
the increase in relative income) for most socioeconomic variables, we decided
that the method of allowing spouses to complement each other during the
survey would generate adequate responses. We used recall data from surveys
for the analyses.
Results
Of the 300 households that participated in the survey, 285 were considered
adequately completed for analyses. Of the 285 heads of households and
spouses completing the survey, 51 (18%) were females and 234 were males.
A total of 203 of the households indicated that their primary occupation
was farming but only 144 were actually involved in farming and 144 were
involved in fishing. The average age of farmer was 49 years, with the youngest
26 and the oldest 86. Heads of households had an average of 5.93 years of
schooling. About 7.0% of the sample reported having no schooling, 51.7
had only received primary education, 29.7 had received some secondary
education, 11.33 had some high school education and only 1.0% had attended
college. Most farm households owned their homes and land.
There were no differences in poverty levels among the poor women heads
of households involved in aquaculture and those women heads of households
not involved in aquaculture. The Mean number of households with women
head of households, involved in aquaculture, who lived below the poverty line
(consuming less than $1.25 per day) was 3.0, whereas the Mean number of
those not involved in aquaculture was 2.8. The Mean number of households
with women head of households, involved in aquaculture, who lived above the
poverty line (consuming more than $1.25 per day) was 2.1, whereas the Mean
number of those not involved in aquaculture was 1.9.
Women were involved in all aspects of fish farming, but the percentage of
women involved in post-harvest activities was significantly larger for women
than men. The distribution of the variables and simple descriptive statistics of
those household members living off <$1.25, $1.50 and <$2.00 per day for
those involved and not involved in aquaculture production are presented in
Tables A.1, A.2 and A.3 in the appendix.
As the test for exogeneity showed that income per capita from aquaculture,
productivity or participation in aquaculture are exogenous (q ¼ 0) we use two
separate equations to solve our models. The single equation models for the
ultra-poor households, that is those living on a budget of less than $1.25
per day, and for the not-so-poor, those living on a per capita income of
<$1.50 and <$2.00, the not-poor, seem to have good fit, with a χ2 probability
of less than a < .05, pseudo R2 of 0.27, 0.29 and 0.15, respectively (Table 1).
Table 1. Effect of aquaculture productivity on poverty using tobit analysis.

Tobit analysis Tobit analysis Tobit analysis
censoring at <1.25 censoring at <1.5 censoring at <2
Variables Coefficient p>t Coefficient p>t Coefficient p>t
Intercept 1.115*** (0.174) 0.000 1.459*** (0.098) 0.000 1.139*** (0.139) 0.000
Education of 0.019* (0.011) 0.085 0.019* (0.010) 0.060 0.027*** (0.010) 0.008
household head
Distance of house – – 2.21–05*** 0.005 – –
to the coastline (7.85e-06)
during hightide
Number of family −0.140*** (0.024) 0.000 −0.109*** (0.022) 0.000 −0.133*** (0.024) 0.000
members with jobs
Dependency ratio 0.614*** (0.174) 0.001 – – 0.663*** (0.158) 0.000
Primary occupation – – 0.148** (0.070) 0.035 – –
of HH is in agri,
fishery
Household involved 0.140* (0.087) 0.107 – – – –
in farming
HH owns livestock – – −0.198*** (0.075) 0.009 – –
Number of contacts 0.058*** (0.017) 0.001 0.044*** (0.012) 0.000 0.043*** (0.011) 0.000
HH can access
credit
Livelihood −0.383** (0.174) 0.029 – – – –
diversification
index
HH is involved in – – 0.139* (0.085) 0.106 0.175** (0.082) 0.033
fishing
Income per hectare 0.094* (0.051) 0.069 0.132*** (0.045) 0.004 0.152*** (0.038) 0.000
Summary of the model statistics
Observations 285 285 285
Pseudo-R-square 0.27 0.19 0.15
Chi2 (Probability) 66.09 (0.0000) 67.62 (0.0000) 71.72 (0.0000)
Log likelihood −90.531 −140.377 −204.783
NB: The values in bracket are the standard-errors; *,**,*** significant at 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively.
The results showed that if an individual were to increase his education

level, access to credit or the dependency ratio (number of household members
below 15 and above 64 relative to the household population) by one unit his
or her standard of living would increase by 0.019, 0.058 and 0.64, respectively,
when aquaculture productivity (income per capita per hectare from aquacul-
ture) is an independent variable. The number of persons working outside the
farm or business enterprise reduced the level of consumption by 0.014. The
livelihood diversity index had an inverse relationship with income. The liveli-
hood diversification index reduced the standard of living by 0.383. For those
who are ultra-poor aquaculture productivity as measured by income per
capita per hectare, had no effect on their standard of living as expressed on
the level of consumption per day at a < .05, but had a slight effect at a < .1.
For the not-so-poor participants, that is those who survive on an income
of less than $1.50 per day education, attempts to access credit, number of
household members with ages above 15 but below 64 living in the household
positively influenced the participants’ standard of living. A one unit increase
in education, attempts to access credit, and the number of household mem-

bers involved in fishing increased the consumption level per capita by
0.019, 0.04 and 0.139, respectively (Table 1). However, if the number of
household members working outside the home were to increase by one unit
the standard of living would fall by 0.109 units. If the household owned
livestock and the distance from the coastline increased by one unit, the stan-
dard of living was reduced by 0.198 and 2.21 units, respectively. Aquaculture
productivity had a positive effect on the standard of living.
Education, access to credit, dependency ratio and the person involved in
fishing positively influenced the standard of living by 0.027, 0.043, 0.0663
and 0.175 units, respectively, of practitioners of aquaculture whose income
was more than $2.00 per capita per day (Table 1). If the number of family
members of the household working outside were to increase by one unit,
holding other factors constant, the standard of living of the family would
decrease by 0.133 units. Aquaculture productivity had an overall positive

effect on the standard of living of the not-poor.
Effects of participation in aquaculture on poverty

The equations for those who indicated that they participated in aquaculture,
that is those who had a pond and produced fish during the past year, and for
the ultra-poor households, that is those living on a budget of less than $1.25
per day, those with income per capita of <$1.50 per day (the not-so-poor) and
those living on <$2.00 per day (the not-poor), have an χ2 probability of
a < .05 and pseudo R2 of 0.25, 0.18 and 0.13, respectively, that indicated the
models were of good fit (Table 2). The results showed that for those living
on less than $1.25 per day, if an individual were to increase his education
level, access to credit or the dependency ratio (number of household members
below 15 and above 64 relative to the household population) by one unit his
or her standard of living would increase by 0.023, 0.602 and 0.061, respectively
when aquaculture participation was an independent variable. The number of
persons working outside the farm or business enterprise reduced the level of
consumption by 0.137. The livelihood diversity index had an inverse relation-
ship with the poverty index, and reduced the standard of living by 0.478. For
those who are ultra-poor, participation in aquaculture had no effect on their
standard of living (Table 2).
For the not-so-poor participants, that is those who survive on an income of
less than $1.50 per day, who declared that they participated in aquaculture,
education, attempts to access credit, if the primary occupation of the house-
hold was agriculture or fisheries, if the household was involved in fishing
positively influenced the participants’ standard of living (Table 2). A one unit
increase in education, attempts to access credit, if the primary occupation of
the household was agriculture or fisheries, if the household was involved in
Table 2. Effect of aquaculture participation on poverty using tobit analysis.

Intercept 1.150*** (0.182) 0.000 1.413*** (0.100) 0.000 1.112*** (0.142) 0.000
Education of 0.023** (0.011) 0.039 0.023** (0.010) 0.029 0.032*** (0.009) 0.001
household head
Distance of house to – – 2.42e–05*** 0.003 – –
the coastline (8.22e–06)
during hightide
Number of family −0.137*** (0.025) 0.000 −0.104*** (0.022) 0.000 −0.128*** (0.024) 0.000
members with jobs
Dependency ratio 0.602*** (0.176) 0.001 – – 0.644*** (0.161) 0.000
Primary occupation of – – 0.138* (0.074) 0.062 – –
HH is in agri,
fishery
Household involved 0.155* (0.093) 0.096 – – – –
in farming
HH owns livestock – – −0.175** (0.075) 0.020 – –
Number of contacts 0.061*** (0.017) 0.000 0.045*** (0.012) 0.000 0.044*** (0.012) 0.000
HH can access
credit
Livelihood −0.478** (0.205) 0.020 – – – –
diversification
index
HH is involved in – – 0.143 (0.089) 0.110 0.157* (0.084) 0.064
fishing
Participation in 0.021 (0.082) 0.803 0.167** (0.071) 0.020 0.172*** (0.065) 0.009
aquaculture
Chi2 (Probability) 62.31 (0.0000) 63.66 (0.0000) 61.95 (0.0000)
Log likelihood −92.420 −142.359 −209.670
NB: The values in bracket are the standard-errors; *, **, ***significant at 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively.
fishing would increase the living standard by 0.023, 0.045, 0.138 and 0.143,
respectively. However, if the number of household members working outside
the home were to increase by one unit the standard of living would fall by
0.104 units. If the household owned livestock, and an increase in the distance
from the coastline by one unit, the standard of living was reduced by 0.175
and 0.0224 units, respectively. Aquaculture participation positively influenced
the standard of living.
Education, access to credit, dependency ratio and the person involved in
fishing positively influenced the standard of living by 0.032, 0.044, 0.0644,
0.0663 and 0.157 units, respectively, of participants in aquaculture whose
income were more than $2.00 per capita per day (Table 2). If the number
of family members of the household working outside were to increase by
one unit, holding other factors constant, the standard of living of the family
would fall by 0.128 units. Participation in aquaculture had a positive effect
on the living standard of the not-poor.
Simulation of aquaculture on poverty

From the Tobit model, we simulated the effects of size of farm in hectares,
income from aquaculture, which predominantly comes from shrimp sales,
income per capita per hectare on consumption per capita, the effects of
species produced on living standard, and the income diversity index on the
standard of living index, as seen in Figures 1–4.
Figure 1 shows the effects of aquaculture income and area in ha of aqua-
culture on poverty. For the ultra-poor, the effect of aquaculture area is parallel
to the horizontal axis for living standard of less than $1.25, but above $1.50
consumption level, the effect increases noticeably. The effects of income
increases on the living standard are seen at lower levels of income per capita
per day than that of area in aquaculture. For income levels above $1.50, the
increase is noticeable. Figure 2 shows the effect of income per hectare of fish;
there is a significant increase in aquaculture income when consumption per

capita is greater than $1.00 per day. This gives an indication that not only
the farm size must be of a given area but also the income generated per capita,
a measure of production intensification and land use efficiency.
In Figure 3, there are two main species produced by farmers; shrimps and
crabs. We simulated the effects of species on poverty levels. Shrimp
production had little effect on poverty at income levels of $1.25 per capita
per day but increased at income per capita per day greater than $1.25. Crab
production showed a horizontal fluctuating movement that indicated that
crab production had no effect on the standard of living. The simulation of
the diversity index with aquaculture production shows that the living standard
Figure 1. Simulated effects of aquaculture income and area in aquaculture on poverty index.
Figure 2. Simulated effects of income per hectare of fish on poverty index.
is inversely related to the diversity index, and aquaculture productivity had no

effect when the poverty index was below $1.00 per day (Figure 4).
Effects of poverty on aquaculture

The effect of poverty on aquaculture productivity for the ultra-poor (INC
< 1.25), the not-so-poor (INC < 1.50) and the not-poor (INC < 2.00) is seen
Figure 3. Simulated effects of fish species aquaculture on the poverty index.

Figure 4. The relationship between poverty index and livelihood diversification index.
in Table 3. The table shows that the χ2 probability of less than a < .05 and
pseudo-R2 of 0.20, 0.14 and 0.10, respectively, indicating that the models
are of good fit. The model for the ultra-poor shows that the education level
of the head of household, the number of family members with jobs outside
the household, the households engaged in farming and the number of con-
tacts made to secure credit positively influenced aquaculture productivity,
and the livelihood diversity index negatively influenced aquaculture
productivity.
The poverty index did not influence aquaculture productivity. For the not-
so-poor (INC < $1.25), the education level of the head of household, if the
primary occupation of the head of household was farming, and the ownership
of livestock positively influenced aquaculture productivity, but the distance of
the household from the coastline during high tide and the head of household
involvement in fishing negatively affected aquaculture productivity. Poverty
had no effect on aquaculture productivity for the not-so-poor. For the not-
poor education level of the head of household, the number of family members
with jobs outside the household, and the poverty index influenced aquaculture
productivity, but the household dependency ratio and the household involve-
ment in fishing negatively influenced aquaculture productivity.
The effect of poverty on aquaculture participation for the ultra-poor (INC
< 1.25), the not-so-poor (INC < 1.50) and the not-poor (INC < 2.00) is seen
in Table 4. The table showed that the χ2 probability of less than a < .05 and
Table 3. Effect of poverty on aquaculture productivity using tobit analysis.

Tobit analysis censoring Tobit analysis censoring Tobit analysis censoring
at <1.25 at <1.5 at <2
Intercept 1.658*** (0.566) 0.004 −1.839*** (0.372) 0.000 −0.962** (0.460) 0.037
Education of 0.079*** (0.029) 0.007 0.126*** (0.029) 0.000 0.121*** (0.030) 0.000
household head
Distance of house – – −7.44e–05*** 0.002 – –
to the coastline (2.36e–05)
during hightide
Number of family 0.161** (0.074) 0.031 0.100 (0.072) 0.163 0.231*** (0.079) 0.004
members with jobs
Dependency ratio −0.600 (0.499) 0.230 – – −0.814 (0.515) 0.115
Primary occupation – – 1.142*** (0.239) 0.000 – –
of HH is in agri,
fishery
Household involved 1.064*** (0.259) 0.000 – – – –
in farming
HH owns livestock – – 0.336 (0.215) 0.118 – –
Number of contacts 0.055 (0.034) 0.110 0.035 (0.033) 0.295 0.042 (0.035) 0.229
HH can access
credit
Livelihood −9.478*** (1.338) 0.000 – – – –
diversification
index
HH is involved in – – −1.838*** (0.321) 0.000 −1.839*** (0.341) 0.000
fishing
Poverty index 0.063 (0.069) 0.363 0.114 (0.071) 0.109 0.179** (0.076) 0.019
Chi2 (Probability) 145.50 (0.0000) 104.12 (0.0000) 67.89 (0.0000)
Log likelihood −285.743 −306.432 −324.548
NB: The values in bracket are the standard-errors; *, **, *** significant at 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively.
pseudo R2 of 0.30, 0.19 and 0.10, respectively, indicating that the models are of
good fit. The model for the ultra-poor shows that the number of family mem-
bers with jobs outside the household and the households’ engagement in
farming positively influenced aquaculture participation, while livelihood
diversity index negatively influenced participation in aquaculture. The
poverty index did not influence participation in aquaculture.
For the not-so-poor, the education level of the head of household and if
the primary education was agriculture, aquaculture positively influenced par-
ticipation in aquaculture, but the distance of the household from the coastline
during high tide and the head of household involvement in fishing negatively
affected aquaculture participation. Poverty had no effect on participation in
aquaculture. For the not-poor education level of the head of household, the
number of family members with jobs outside the household, and the poverty
index influenced aquaculture participation, but household involvement in
fishing negatively influenced participation in aquaculture. Poverty positively
influenced participation in aquaculture.
Table 4. Effect of poverty on aquaculture participation using tobit analysis.

Intercept 1.182*** (0.281) 0.000 −0.647*** (0.199) 0.001 −0.299 (0.267) 0.263
Education of 0.021 (0.014) 0.144 0.054*** (0.016) 0.001 0.053*** (0.018) 0.003
household head
Distance of house – – −5.51e–05*** 0.000 – –
to the coastline (1.32e–05)
during hightide
Number of family 0.063* (0.036) 0.086 0.032 (0.039) 0.405 0.115** (0.046) 0.012
members with jobs
Dependency ratio −0.202 (0.247) 0.413 – – −0.367 (0.298) 0.219
Primary occupation – – 0.747*** (0.128) 0.000 – –
of HH is in agri,
fishery
Household involved 0.817*** (0.128) 0.000 – – – –
in farming
HH owns livestock – – 0.097 (0.118) 0.409 – –
Number of contacts 0.026 (0.017) 0.123 0.023 (0.018) 0.206 0.030 (0.020) 0.134
HH can access
credit
Livelihood −5.639*** (0.662) 0.000 – – – –
diversification
index
HH is involved in – – −1.035*** (0.166) 0.000 −1.014*** (0.187) 0.000
fishing
Poverty index 0.005 (0.035) 0.875 0.049 (0.039) 0.210 0.087* (0.044) 0.051
Log likelihood −206.194 −240.488 −267.114
NB: The values in bracket are the standard-errors; *, **, *** significant at 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively.
Discussion and conclusion

The relationship between poverty and aquaculture is complex. The complexity
is dependent on the poverty line chosen, income from aquaculture, the area
in aquaculture, the production efficiency and the species produced. However,
the ultra-poor had less relief from aquaculture than the not-so-poor and the
not-poor for all situations simulated. There seems to be a stage below $1.00
consumption per capita per day where aquaculture production has no effect
on poverty. This is counter to the argument made by Christiaensen et al.
(2010) who argued that agriculture had a better chance of reducing the level
of poverty among the extremely poor but the chances decreased in unequal
societies.
Grewal et al. (2012) believes that agriculture played a part in reducing
poverty in Vietnam because of equitable land distribution in rural areas.
Pant et al. (2014) stated that aquaculture may influence the standard of living
of the ultra-poor household if the diversity of options made available to the
extreme poor are targeted to the household needs. However, a perceptible
effect is observed with an increase in income per capita per hectare of

production. Hence, it can be clearly stated that aquaculture production may
have no or little effect on poverty at a poverty level of less than $1.00 per
capita per day.
Efficient aquaculture has a marked effect on poverty when the poverty line
is above $1.00 per capita per day as seen in Figure 1. A number of studies
Datt and Ravallion (1998); Timmer (1997) and Mellor (1999) have shown
agricultural productivity is important in poverty reduction. The implication
is that the size of the operation may not matter unless production intensity
as measured by income per acre is achieved as noted in Figure 2. We see that
the positive relationship between income per hectare and the income per
capita per day. This may be related to the partial commercialization of
marketable surplus as well as the species produced. In developing countries
it is believed by Hambrey et al. (2008) and Belton et al. (2012) that commer-
cially oriented aquaculture, employing modern technology and tied to the

marketing chain, may have greater impact on rural livelihoods than small-
scale extensive aquaculture. Schneider and Grugerty (2011) suggested that
market access and the introduction of technology in agriculture are necessary
conditions for productivity growth and hence poverty reduction.
At all levels of poverty above $1.25 per capita consumption per day, aqua-
culture production was positively related to the poverty line. This suggests
that aquaculture production in terms of efficiency and scale can be a Means
of poverty alleviation. Hall et al. (2001) seemed to believe that there are several
strategies that the poor may adopt to escape poverty and among them are
expansion of agricultural holding, diversification of production and the
engagement in off-farm activities. A study by FAO (2010) stated that aquacul-
ture can help the poorest of the poor to escape poverty if it is integrated into
the whole farming system. However, the degree of escape was associated with
the scale of operation. It may be concluded that aquaculture production has a
greater effect on the not-so-poor than the ultra-poor.
The species produced seemed to influence the effects of aquaculture on
poverty. In the case of shrimp production there seemed to be a positive
relationship between aquaculture and poverty, but for crab production the
effects of production on poverty seemed to be absent as noted in Figure
3. The study by FAO (2010) stated that the use of aquaculture enterprises
to escape poverty requires that the farmers pay attention to the high end
of the market. This may be due to the relationship between the value of
shrimp and that of crab. Hambrey et al. (2001) showed that sustainable cage
culture of high valued species increased income of limited resource farmers
in Vietnam.
Poverty seemed to have no effect on the aquaculture production which
Means that someone may be too poor to participate in aquaculture
production. However, poverty may not be a problem for an investor to engage
in large-scale aquaculture enterprises as noted in the relationship between

poverty and the poverty line above $1.50 per capita per day. The not-poor
had a positive effect on aquaculture production. This means that as income
increases so does the participation and productivity in aquaculture.
The number of individuals working outside the household had a negative
effect on standard of living. This may seem to be a perverse relationship, but
the number of people who work outside the family home reduces the labor avail-
ability and does not necessarily increase revenue to the household from outside.
The individuals who work outside the household often depend on the household
for food for a long while before being able to transfer money back home. Paris et
al. (2009) noted that when young people in Vietnam went out to work they often
depended on the household for a long time before they became independent.
Another observation is that the dependency ratio had a positive effect on the
standard of living. Although this may seem an aberration, the pressure brought
forth on the family may assist in increasing the production output. Frimpong and
Asuming-Brempong (2013) and Asogwa and Umeh (2012) have found a negative
relationship among the number of dependents and food security.
This article was responsive to the issues raised in the introductory dis-
cussion. Aquaculture production at low levels of efficiency does not influence
the standard living, but for the standard of living above $1.25 aquaculture has
a marked effect. The same results for aquaculture participation. The study
concludes that an increase in aquaculture productivity enables poverty
reduction, but the mere participation in aquaculture at the ultra-poor level
does not guarantee poverty reduction. Aquaculture productivity increases
seem to have a greater effect on the not-so-poor than the ultra-poor.
The higher the value of the species the more noticeable are the effects of
aquaculture productivity on the levels of poverty.
Policy implications
Aquaculture may not be the panacea to poverty reduction as is listed in
many rural development programs. The enterprise may have a major effect
on poverty alleviation if the ultra-poor participants have the resources to enter
the arena to engage in production. Hence, given that those who are extremely
poor do not have the resources to invest, it would be important that those who
promote aquaculture as the driver of rural development should provide some
basic levels of investment either on credit or as soft loans to the intended
participants.
The type of aquaculture practice is important to the limited resources of
poor farmers. High valued species, stocked at high intensities seem to be
the best way to raise incomes of the poor. However, the high income produc-
ing fish is associated to high risks. Hence, policy makers must provide the
support to limited resource farmers to assist them in risk minimization so that
they are willing to participate in fish production. Although one may argue
that these are policies that encourage dependency, it may also be argued that
the alternative, such as urban migration, might be worse. A push or jump start
may be essential to help a willing farmer to get out of poverty.
References
Acosta, M. (2013) Navigating the intra-household survey in gender issues. In A. Soto Ed.,
International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). Decision Policy Analysis (DAPA).
Retrieved from http://dapa.ciat.cgiar.org/navigating-the-intrahousehold-survey-in-gender-
studies
Ahmed, M. & M.H. Lorica (2002) Improving developing country food security through
aquaculture development —Lessons from Asia. Food Policy, 27, 125–141.
Anderson, C., L.K. Stahley, & A.C. Cullen (2014). Individual and intra-household positionality
in Vietnam. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 49, 26–34.
Asogwa, B.C. & J.C. Umeh (2012) Food security determinants among rural farm households in
Nigeria; Internationa; Conference on Ecology and Chemical Engineering (ICEACS’2012)
December 18–19, Phuket, Thailand.
Barman, B.B. & D.C. Little (2006) Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) seed production in
irrigated rice fields in northwest Bangladesh - an approach appropriate for poorer farmers?
Aquaculture, 261, 72–79.
Barman, B.B. & D.C. Little (2011) Use of hapas to produce Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus
L.) seed in household foodfish ponds: a participatory trial with small-scale farming
households in northwest Bangladesh. Aquaculture, 317, 214–222.
Barrett C.B. (1999) Does Food Aid Stabilize Food Availability? Department of Agricultural,
Resource and Managerial Economics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA.
Belton, B., M.M. Haque, & D.C. Little (2012) Does size matter? Reassessing the relationship
between aquaculture and poverty in Bangladesh. Journal of Development Studies, 48(7),
904–922.
Bhujel, C R., M.K. Shrestha, J. Pant, & S. Burarom (2008) Ethnic women in aquaculture in
Nepal. Journal of Development, 51(2), 259–266.
Brummett, R.E., J. Lazard, & J. Moehl (2008) African aquaculture: realizing the potential.
Food Policy, 33, 371–385.
Carlsson, F., P.K. Nam, M. Linde-Rahr, & P. Martinsson (2007) Are Vietnamese farmers
concerned with their relative position in society? Journal of Development Studies, 43,
1177–1188.
CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research) (2007) Pooling
Resources, CGIAR News. Retrieved from http://www.cgiar.org/web-archives/www-cgiar-
org-enews-october2007-story_09-html
Charles, A.T., R.F. Agbayani, E.C. Agbayani, M. Agüero, E.T. Belleza, E. Gonzales, B. Stomal,
& J.Y. Weigel (1997) Aquaculture economics in developing countries: regional assessments
and an annotated bibliography. FAO Fisheries Circular. Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Christiaensen, L., L. Demery, & J. Kuhl (2010) Brief 13: The (evolving) role of agriculture
in poverty reduction-an empirical perspective. Journal of Development Economics. Retrieved
from http://www.ifad.org/drd/agriculture/13.htm
Cust Center for International Trade (2006) Center for Development and Integration
Economics and Environment, Vietnam. Trade liberalization and shrimp farming of the
poor in Ben Tre Province. Center for Development and Integration, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Datt, G. & M. Ravallion (1998) Farm productivity and rural poverty in India. Journal of
Development Studies, 34(4), 62–85.
De Silva, S. & B. Davy (2010) Aquaculture successes in Asia: contribution to sustained
development and poverty alleviation, In S. De Silva & B. Davy (Eds.), Success Stories in Asian
Aquaculture (p. 214). Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg London and New York.
Deressa, T.T., R.M. Hassan, and C. Ringler (2009) Assessing household vulnerability to climate
change: The case of farmers in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. International Food Policy
Research Institute, IFPRI Discussion Paper 00935. p.17.
Edwards, P. (2000) Aquaculture, Poverty Impacts and Livelihoods. Natural Resource
Persectives, 56. Overseas Development Institute, London, UK.
FAO (2005) National Aquaculture Sector Overview. Viet Nam, National Aquaculture Sector
Fact Sheets. FAO 2005–2015, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. Rome.
FAO (2010) Enhancing the contribution of small-scale aquaculture to food security, poverty
alleviation and socio-economic development, FAO Expert Workshop, 21–24 April 2010,
Hanoi, Vietnam.
FAO (2013) Global Aquaculture Production Statistics for the year. Fisheries and Aquaculture
Department, 2011. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/news/GlobalAquacultureProduction

Statistics2011.pdf
Feleke, S.T., R.L. Kilmer, & C.H. Gladwin (2004) Determinants of Food Security in Southern
Ethiopia at the Household Level. Food and Resource Economics Department, Institute of
Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA, 2004.
Frimpong, S. & S. Asuming-Brempong (2013) Comparative study of determinants of food
security in urban and rural households of Ashanti Region in Ghana; International Journal
of Economics and Management Sciences, 2(10), 29–42.
Greene, W.H. (2000) Econometric Analysis. 4th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Sadle River, New
Jersey, USA.
Grewal, B., H. Grunfeld, & P. Shehan (2012) The contribution of agricultural growth to
poverty reduction, ACIAR Impact Assessment Series 76; Research that works for developing
countries and Australia; Australian Centre for International Agriculture Research,
Canberra. pp. 1–59.
Gupta, M. (2010) Enhancing the contribution of aquaculture to poverty alleviation, food
security and rural development. Global Conference on Aquaculture; NACA, 2010. Views.
Retrieved from http://www.enaca.org/modules/podcast/soundtrack.php?soundtrack_id=43.
Hall, M., J. Dixon, A. Gulliver, & D. Gibbon (2001) Improving Farmers’ Livelihoods in
a Changing World; FAO and the World Bank, Rome, Italy.
Halwart, M. (2005) The role of aquaculture in rural development. Aquaculture and rural
dev.2/2005. FAO, Rome, Italy. Retrieved from http://www.ruraldevelopment.fileadmin/
ruraldevelopment/volltexte/2005/02en/ELR_engl_44.pdf
Hambrey, J., P. Edwards, & B. Belton (2008) An ecosystem approach to freshwater aquacul-
ture: a global review. In D. Soto, J. Aguilar-Manjarrez, & N. Hishamunda (Eds.), Building
an Ecosystem Approach to Aquaculture. FAO/Universitat de les Illes Balears Experts
Workshop. 7–11, May 2007. Mallorca, Spain, pp. 117–2211. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture
Proceedings No. 14, FAO, Rome, Italy.
Hambrey, J., L.A. Tuan, & T.K. Thuong (2001) Aquaculture and poverty alleviation II.
Cage culture in coastal waters in Vietnam. World Aquaculture. 32(2), 37–40.
Harrison, E., J.A. Stewart, R.L. Stirrat, & J.F. Muir (1994) Fish Farming in Africa: Sustainability and
Implications. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 518. Rome, FAO, 424.pp.
Haylor, G. & P. Khemaria (2007) Promotion of Aquaculture in MPRLP Villages - Final Report.
MPRLP and TCPSU/Enterplan, DFID/India, p. 24.
Hishamunda, N., J. Cai, & P. Leung (2009) Commercial Aquaculture and Economic
Growth, Poverty Alleviation and Food Security: Assessment framework. FAO Fisheries and
Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 512, FAO, Rome, Italy.
Hossian, M. & A. Bayes (2008) Rural Economy and Livelihoods: Insights from Bangladesh.
AH Development Publishing House, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Irz, X.T., J.R. Stevenson, P. Villarante, A. Tanoy, & P. Morrisens (2007) The equity and
poverty impacts of aquaculture: insights from the Philippines. Development Policy Review.
25, 495–516.
Jolly, C.M., G. Umali-Maceina, and N. Hishamunda (2009) Small-scale aquaculture: a fantasy
or economic opportunity. In M.G. Bondad-Reantaso & M. Prein (Eds.), Measuring the
Contribution of Small-Scale Aquaculture: An Assessment. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture
Technical Paper, No. 534. Rome, FAO (2009), pp. 73–86.
Jones, N., N.A. Nguyen, & T.H. Nguyen (2007) Trade Liberalization and Intra-household
Poverty in Vietnam: a q2 Social Impact Analysis, MPRA document, ODI and Development
Policy Research Center, Center for International Studies, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Kassam, L. (2013) Assessing the contribution of aquaculture to poverty reduction in Ghana.
Ph. D. Thesis, SOAS, University of London, London, UK. Retrieved from http://eprints.
soas.ac.uk/17842
Khang, V.P. (2008) Challenges to shrimp production in the Ben Tre Province, Vietnam.
Department of Social Science and Marketing, Norwegian College of Fishery Science,
University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway.
Lewis, D. (1997) Rethinking aquaculture for resource poor farmers: perspectives from
Bangladesh. Food Policy, 22(6), 533–546.
Little, D.C., N.R. Biswas, B.K. Barman, M.M. Haque, D. Turongruang, A. Shinn, M.A.R. Hossain,
P. Price, G. Milwain, E. Morales, Z.F. Ahmed, & F. Ul Islam (2009) Enhancing aquatic diversity
while promoting aquaculture among the poor – ‘win-win’ development in Asia. Presentation at
World Aquaculture 2011, 25–29 September, World Trade Center, Vera Cruz, Mexico.
Madalla, G.S. (1983) Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
McDonald, J.F., & R.A. Moffitt (1980) The uses of Tobit analysis. Review of Economics and
Statistics, 62(2), 318–321.
Mellor, J. (1999) Faster, More Equitable Growth – The Relation Between Growth in Agriculture
and Poverty Reduction Agricultural Policy Development Project (Research Report No. 4).
United States Agency for International Development, Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://www.abtassociates.com/reports/19998977199472.pdf
Morales, Q.V.V. & R.R. Morales (2006) Sintesis regional del desarrollo de la agricultura. 1.
America Latina y el Caribe-2005/Regional review on aquaculture development. Latin
America and the Caribbean-2005. FAO Circular, No.1017/1. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Pant, J., B.K. Barman, K. Murshed-E-Jahan, B. Belton, & M. Beveridge (2014) Can Aquacul-
ture benefit the extreme poor? A case study of landless and socially marginalized Adivasi
(ethnic) communities in Bangladesh. Aquaculture, 418–419, 1–10.
Pant, J., M.K. Shrestha, & R.C. Bhujel (2012) Aquaculture and resilience: Women in
aquaculture in Nepal. In M.K. Shrestha & J. Pant (Eds.), Small-Scale Aquaculture for Rural
Livelihoods. Proceedings of the Symposium on Small-Scale Aquaculture for Increasing
Resilience of Rural Livelihoods in Nepal, Kathmandu, 5–6 February 2009 (pp. 19–25).
Chitwan, Nepal: Institute of Agriculture and Animal Science, Tribhuvan University,
Rampur; Penang, Malaysia: The WorldFish Center.
Paris, T., T.N. Truong, M. Rubzen, & J. Luis (2009) Effects of out-migration on rice farming
households and women left behind in Vietnam. Gender, Technology and Development,
13(2), 169–198.
Ravallion, M. (2010) Poverty lines across the world. Policy Research Working Paper 5284,
World Bank, Washington, DC.
Ravallion, M. & S. Chen (2009) Weakly relative poverty. Policy Research Working Paper 4844,
World Bank, Washington, DC.
Ravallion, M., S. Chen, & P. Sangraula (2009) Dollar a day revisited. World Bank Economic
Review, 23(2), 163–184.
Schneider, K.M. & M.K. Gugerty (2011) Agricultural productivity and poverty reduction:
Linkages and pathways. The Evans School Review; Abridged EPAR Brief No. 1, Vol. 1,
56–74.
Scoones, I. (2009) Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. Journal of Peasant Studies,
36(1), 171–196.
Sen, A. (1983) Poor, relatively speaking. Oxford Economic Papers, New Series, 35(2), 153–169.
Stevenson, J.R. & X. Irz (2009) Is aquaculture development an effective tool for poverty allevi-
ation? A review of theory and evidence. Cashier Agricole, 18(2/3), 291–299.
Thao, N.V. (2006) The elements effected to industrial shrimp production in Ben Tre Province
(in Vietnamese). Hochiminh University of Economics, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Timmer, P. (1995) Getting agriculture moving: Do markets provide the right signals? Food
Policy, 20(5), 455–472.
Tobin, J. (1958) Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometrica, 26,
24–36.
van Huong, C., & T.H. Cuong (2012) Freshwater aquaculture contribution to food security in
Vietnam: A case study of freshwater tilapia aquaculture in Hai Duong Province. J. ISSAAS,
18(1), 6–17.
World Bank (2008) World Development Report 2008. Agriculture for development. World
Bank, Washington, DC.
World Bank (2010) Updates of Poverty Estimates for the Developing World. World Bank,
Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://go.worldbank.org/C9GR27WRJ0
Yap, W.G. (1999) Rural aquaculture systems in the Philippines. Aquaculture Asia, 4, 45–50.
Table A1. Descriptive statistic for individuals with a poverty index �1.25 and >1.25.
106
Poverty index �1.25 Poverty index >1.25
HH is involved in HH is not involved in HH is involved in HH not involved in
Aquaculture/Mariculture Aquaculture/Mariculture Aquaculture/Mariculture Aquaculture/Mariculture
(N ¼ 20) (N ¼ 38) (N ¼ 117) (N ¼ 110)
Appendix
Variable Mean Median STD Mean Median STD Mean Median STD Mean Median STD
Age of HH head (years) 50.2 52 10.7 50.7 51.5 12.5 48 47 11.8 49.7 49 12.2
Area of Fish Pond (acres) 0.9 0.6 0.8 *** - – – 1.2 1 1.1 *- – –
Area of owned farm or fishery 8,600 5,000 9,266 9,877 6,000 11,170.9 6,875 4,000 8,677.4 6,717.3 1,750 9,445.9
land (acres)
Distance of house to the coastline 2,695 1,650 2,704.8 2,388.7 1,285 3,791.5 2,345.7 1,800 2,301.2 4,370.3 1,950 7,038.1
during hightide
Distance of house to the nearest body 276.2 100 380 271.1 100 428 265.8 100 535.2 316 200 434.1
of water
Education of HH head (years) 5 5 3.4 4 3 2.4 6.3 6 3.3 5 5 3
Highest flood level that inundated house – – – 0 – 0.2 0 0 0.2 0 – 0.2
(last 10 years)
Household members below 15 and above 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.2
64/Household
size*103
Household Size 5.6 5 1.9 4.6 4 1.5 4.2 4.0 1.3 4.1 4 1.3
Income from Aquaculture 3,595 1,975 3,372.2 **** 3200 3,200 452.5 13907.4 4500 37,951.3 **8083.3 7,000 6,443.7
Livelihood diversification index (higher value 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.3
lower diversity,
lower value higher diversity)
ln (Monthly per capita Consumption) 13.2 13.3 0.3 13.3 13.3 0.3 14 13.9 0.4 14 13.9 0.3
Number of contacts HH can access credit 2.8 3 1.6 2.4 3 1.6 4.2 4 3 3.7 3 2.7
Number of family members between 15 to 3.9 3.5 1.8 3.5 3 1.6 3.2 3 1.3 3.2 3 1.4
64 yrs old
Number of family members with jobs 3.4 2.5 2.1 2.8 2.5 1.4 2.5 2 1 2.2 2 1.3
Number of female family members 3 2 1.6 2.3 2 1 2.1 2 1.1 1.9 2 1
Number of floods that affected the community 0.8 1 0.4 0.7 1 0.4 0.8 1 0.5 0.7 1 0.5
(last 10 years)
Number of floods that inundated house 0.7 1 0.5 0.7 1 0.5 0.7 1 0.5 0.7 1 0.5
(last 10 years)
Number of male family members 2.6 2.5 1.2 2.2 2 1.1 2.1 2 0.9 2.2 2 1
*N ¼ 84; **N ¼ 3; ***N ¼ 24; ****N ¼ 2. STD ¼ Standard deviation.
Table A2. Descriptive statistics for individuals with a poverty index �1.5 and >1.5.
Poverty index �1.5 Poverty index >1.5
HH is involved in HH is not involved in HH is involved in HH is not involved in
(N ¼ 40) (N ¼ 62) (N ¼ 97) (N ¼ 86)
Age of HH head (years) 50 50 11.2 50 49.5 12.5 47.6 45 11.7 50 49.5 12.5
Area of Fish Pond (acres) 1 0.7 0.9 ** - 0 0 1.2 1 1.1 0 0 0
Area of owned farm or fishery land (acres) 6395 3500 8003.5 6488.4 2000 8687.4 7428.6 4200 9064.7 6488.4 2000 8687.4
Distance of house to the coastline 2557 1725 2582.3 5133.3 2000 7762.3 2330.6 1800 2268.1 5133.3 2000 7762.3
during hightide
Distance of house to the nearest body 188 75 298.1 304.1 200 432 300.0 100 578.8 304.1 200 432
of water
Education of HH head 5.4 5 3.3 5.1 5 2.9 6.4 6 3.4 5.1 5 2.9
Highest flood level that inundated house 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0.2 0 0 0.2
(last 10 years)
64/Household
size*103
Household Size 5.1 5 1.7 4.1 4 1.3 4.1 4 1.3 4.1 4 1.3
Income from Aquaculture 4382 3775 3691.2 *8083.3 7000 6443.7 15709.1 4500 41450.5 *8083.3 7000 6443.7
Livelihood diversification index (higher value 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.3
lower diversity,
lower value higher diversity)
ln (Monthly per capita Consumption) 13.4 13.5 0.3 14.1 14 0.3 14.1 14.1 0.3 14.1 14 0.3
Number of contacts HH can access credit 2.8 3 1.9 3.5 3 2.5 4.5 4 3.1 3.5 3 2.5
Number of family members between 15 to 64 yrs old 3.6 3 1.5 3.1 3 1.3 3.2 3 1.3 3.1 3 1.3
Number of family members with jobs 3 3 1.7 2.1 2 1.3 2.5 2 1.1 2.1 2 1.3
Number of female family members 2.7 2 1.4 1.9 2 1 2.0 2 1.0 1.9 2 1
Number of floods that affected the community 0.8 1 0.4 0.7 1 0.5 0.7 1 0.5 0.7 1 0.5
(last 10 years)
Number of floods that inundated house 0.7 1 0.5 0.6 1 0.5 0.7 1 0.5 0.6 1 0.5
(last 10 years)
Number of male family members 2.4 2 1 2.2 2 1 2.1 2 0.9 2.2 2 1
107
*N ¼ 3; **N ¼ 66. STD ¼ Standard deviation.
Table A3. Descriptive statistic for individuals with a poverty index �2.0 and >2.0.
108
Poverty index � 2.0 Poverty index >2.0
HH is involved in HH is not involved in HH is involved in HH is not involved in
(N ¼ 84) (N ¼ 106) (N ¼ 53) (N ¼ 42)
Age of HH head (years) 48.8 48.5 11.8 50.2 49 12.8 47.51 45.00 11.41 49.33 49.00 10.77
Area of Fish Pond (acres) 1 0.6 0.9 ***0 0 0 1.50 1.30 1.19 *0 – –
Area of owned farm or fishery 6640.5 4000 7746 7577.6 2000 10360.9 7,897.64 4,200.00 10,176.59 7,404.76 4,000.00 9,042.07
land (acres)
Distance of house to the coastline 2289 1500 2182.1 3182 1650 5302.3 2,567.36 2,000.00 2,622.50 5,576.31 1,975.00 8,435.89
during hightide
Distance of house to the nearest 237.6 100 458.6 349.6 200 485.1 314.30 150.00 593.68 190.52 100.00 215.55
body of water
Education of HH head (years) 5.7 5 3.2 4.4 4 2.7 6.70 6.00 3.48 5.67 5.00 3.09
Highest flood level that inundated house 0 0 0.1 0 0 0.2 0.04 – 0.19 – – –
(last 10 years)
64/Household
size*103
Household Size 4.6 4 1.5 4.3 4 1.3 4.09 4.00 1.40 3.93 4.00 1.54
Income from Aquaculture 4644.5 3022.5 4681.6 ****3912.5 3200 2122.6 24,696.82 6,150.00 54,459.11 **15000 15,000.00
Livelihood diversification index (diversity) 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.36 0.33 0.09 0.57 0.50 0.25
ln (Monthly per capita Consumption) 13.6 13.7 0.3 13.6 13.7 0.3 14.35 14.34 0.31 14.32 14.26 0.27
Number of contacts HH can access credit 3.4 3 2.5 3.4 3 2.6 4.85 5.00 3.30 3.29 3.00 2.47
Number of family members between 15 to 3.3 3 1.4 3.3 3 1.4 3.28 3.00 1.35 3.14 3.00 1.51
64 yrs old
Family members with jobs 2.8 2 1.4 2.4 2 1.3 2.51 2.00 1.10 2.24 2.00 1.53
Female family members 2.4 2 1.3 2.1 2 1 1.98 2.00 1.10 1.86 2.00 1.07
Number of floods that affected the community 0.8 1 0.5 0.7 1 0.4 0.70 1.00 0.54 0.71 1.00 0.55
(last 10 years)
Floods that inundated house 0.7 1 0.5 0.7 1 0.5 0.62 1.00 0.53 0.60 1.00 0.50
(last 10 years)
Number of male family members 2.2 2 0.9 2.2 2 1 2.11 2.00 0.97 2.07 2.00 1.07
*N ¼ 32; **N ¼ 1; ***N ¼ 76; ****N ¼ 4. STD ¼ Standard deviation.

Aqua - Aquaculture and Poverty Alleviation in Ben Tre Province Vietnam

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aqua - Aquaculture and Poverty Alleviation in Ben Tre Province Vietnam

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aquaculture Economics & Management

ISSN: 1365-7305 (Print) 1551-8663 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uaqm20

Aquaculture and poverty alleviation in Ben Tre

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2016.1124938

Published online: 16 Feb 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Download by: [Agora Consortium] Date: 02 March 2016, At: 02:46

Aquaculture and poverty alleviation in Ben Tre

and cross sectional survey data of 285 households, in Ben Tre

CONTACT Curtis M. Jolly cjolly@auburn.edu Department of Agricultural Economics, Auburn University,

included aquaculture as part of their development strategies for improving

Aquaculture may improve income of a household and community but

article, we examine the effects of aquaculture on poverty reduction in Ben Tre

poverty is defined as the existence of an individual or household below a given

statistics indicated that aquaculture production had greater effects on non-

the effects of aquaculture on poverty, and livelihoods in the households

INCi ¼ bo þ b1 X1 . . . . . .:bN XN þ l ð3Þ

influence household income and may have a positive effect on aquaculture

poverty. A farmer who produces a marketable surplus and is able to sub-

IAQ ¼ bo þb1 AGE þ b2 EDUC þ b3 NUMC þ b4 NFJH þ b5 HHINF

Table 1. Effect of aquaculture productivity on poverty using tobit analysis.

The results showed that if an individual were to increase his education

in education, attempts to access credit, and the number of household mem-

decrease by 0.133 units. Aquaculture productivity had an overall positive

Effects of participation in aquaculture on poverty

Table 2. Effect of aquaculture participation on poverty using tobit analysis.

Simulation of aquaculture on poverty

there is a significant increase in aquaculture income when consumption per

Figure 2. Simulated effects of income per hectare of fish on poverty index.

is inversely related to the diversity index, and aquaculture productivity had no

Effects of poverty on aquaculture

Figure 3. Simulated effects of fish species aquaculture on the poverty index.

Table 3. Effect of poverty on aquaculture productivity using tobit analysis.

Table 4. Effect of poverty on aquaculture participation using tobit analysis.

Discussion and conclusion

effect is observed with an increase in income per capita per hectare of

cially oriented aquaculture, employing modern technology and tied to the

in large-scale aquaculture enterprises as noted in the relationship between

Department, 2011. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/news/GlobalAquacultureProduction

You might also like