VIETTHIET00@YAHOO.COM (VIET THIET) wrote in message news:...



> My position is that the 7% growth rate between 1985 until 1998 is not
> much to call home about. The main reason was that between 1975 and
> 1985, the VC's collectivization policy was a disastrous failure. It
> collapsed the entire economy, taking the entire population of a large
> rice-growing country to the brink of mass starvation. It should not
> take much effort to register growth in the double digit range coming
> up from a totally wrecked economy, mass starvation, or is it?

I have criticisms of the distribution of the benefit of the growth,
the composition of it, its long term sustainability, and the
corruption it brings with it; yet as far as output growth, it is
impressive by comparative standards.

As I mentioned in the previous post. The economy was *not* totally
wrecked at the time Doi Moi was implemented. Industrial output had
been growing rapidly for years. True, agricultural output was not
growing fast in the 1980s. Yet it's hard to blame collectivization.
The South, for the most part, was not collectivized because of ardent
resistance of peasants. By the early 1980s, the VCP mostly gave up.
One major reason why agricultural output in the 1980s wasn't as fast
as in the late 1980s and 1990s was low increases in inputs and slow
agricultural technology advances. This was related to the embargo and
the costs of war with the Khmer Rouge. The major VCP contribution to
slow agricultural growth in the 1980s was probably restrictions on
local autonomy that were eased after Doi Moi, leading to
diversification.

> The GDP per capita in 1985, before Doi Moi was probably $40 if anybody
> in the world cared to measure. I read some reports that it grew to
> $157 in 1991.

USD conversion of developing country living standards are dubious,
when viewed in absolute terms (and purchasing power parity measures,
the alternative, have their own flaws), but they can capture change.

> The point is, growth rate in the 5-7% per-annum range
> back from mass starvation and a completely collapsed economy is
> nothing to be proud about!

There was no mass starvation. There wasn't even that at the nadir of
the late 1970s disaster, and things had improved in the 1980s. Food
availability was inadequate to prevent rural malnutrition, but that
was solved very soon after the reforms, and the easing of the war and
the embargo.

It's true, an economy can grow at a misleadingly fast pace if good
policies are adopted at the bottom of a recession or depression --
meaning, the economy's previous capacity was underused, and they are
re-employed quickly. That is not the case in Vietnam by the time of
Doi Moi, at least not to the degree you are suggesting. Even if it
were, the growth wouldn't last nearly as long as it has. By the way,
what has been happening in the Vietnamese economy since 2000? I
haven't followed recent developments.

It's true, in general, that at the lower stages of industrialization
there is greater growth potential (for various reasons: external
technology borrowing, room for improving underdeveloped human
resources, immature sectors), so if interested, you should compare
Vietnam's performance to other countries when they were in that stage.
If you do, you'll find Vietnam's performance is pretty good, in terms
of output growth.


> My personal observations after touring all over Vietnam from cities to
> country side is that, presently the people of Vietnam is much poorer
> off, even compared to the period when the VC's were waging a war of
> terrorism througout Vietnam during the 70's.

And what were their alternatives to this "war of terrorism" (the
terror was mutual actually)? Electoral competition?

Anyway, the comparison is unfair. The US injected massive amounts of
money into South Vietnam, and after that, Vietnam faced embargo and
denial of normal int'l loans, as well as aggression from two
neighbors. Further, I already stipulate that the late 1970s economic
policies were horrible, and would have disrupted the economy even in
ideal circumstances. I am only contesting your description of the
VCP's growth record after that. The situation under the RVN is not
comparable to what options and capabilities the Vietnamese government
faced in 1982.

> Of course the population
> has doubled into 80 millions while the arable land mass remain the
> same

Correct

> The relative poverty is shown by the cramped housing, the ratios of
> beggars, peddlars, prostitutes, unattended children found on the
> street, and circumstantial clues like the absence of domestic produces
> like sea foods, fruits, vegeatbles etc... which appear to be exported
> for hard currencies. The variety, availability and affordability of
> basic food items appear very good in 2000, due to my observations that
> people in isolated areas were able to assemble quick meals with pork,
> chicken, beef, vegetables ingredients etc...

relative to what? In lists of health/vital stat measurements, Vietnam
has for a long time ranked higher on those lists than in per-capita
income, which is a good sign. This means they are achieving the same
health/vital stats as richer countries. However, because of the high
degree of inequality today, this pattern might end.

> The relative poverty is shown in the scarcity of finished goods, like
> building materials etc...In most other cities besides Saigon and
> Hanoi, you only have to travel a few miles from the center when most of
> the housing are just tiny mud and thatched huts, made from local
> natural materials. That's another aspects of poverty.

The question is not the absolute level of poverty, but how fast has
poverty been eased since the early 1980s, and how does that compare to
other countries at similar phases? Vietnam's performance is inferior
to Taiwan's under Chiang-Kai-Shek (the fastest grower/poverty reducer
in world history as far as I know), South Korea's under Park Chung
Hee, Malaysia's under Mahathir, and China's under Deng. Yet it is
comparable to Indonesia under Suharto, Thailand under the various
generals, Meiji Japan. It is superior to the Philippines under Marcos
and since, India under Nehru and Indira Ghandi, and all of Latin
America. The growth rate/poverty reduction performance is also
superior to the United States in the 19th century! Yet that's
misleading because what was impressive about US economic growth was
not its speed, but its incredible long term sustainability, which
Vietnam has yet to prove.