When the “Strong Arms” Leave the Farms—Migration, Gender Roles and Risk Reduction in Vietnam

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review of manuscript – Sustainability 1065454

 

The paper attempts to explore a relevant and an under-researched issue in gender and migration literature. Using a household survey for two regions in Vietnam in South Africa during May and June 2019, the paper analyzes how farm labor and decision-making is redistributed when a household member migrates for economic reasons, and the role remittances in risk reduction strategies.

While the objective of this paper is interesting and has real implications for both development research and policy, the paper requires considerable revision. I provide some general comments about the broad issues related to the framework, motivation and contribution of this paper, and a number of specific questions and comments.

 

General comments

1. The title of this paper, inspired by the assumption that tasks performed by women are lighter and those by males as heavy, is suggestive of an analysis of male migration. The paper on the other hand presents an analysis of male and female migration (line 180-184). Hence, in this study, it’s not the ‘muscle’ that always leaves the farm. Moreover, the analysis focuses on both farm and domestic tasks, the latter of which, primarily women’s responsibility, is not perceived as heavy tasks. In order to use this title, it would be useful to present the link between the title’s assumption and the analysis of this paper.
2. The various themes discussed in this paper are not organized around the central message of the paper. I’d suggest highlighting the links between the data in each theme and the objective of the paper. E.g., credit and support mechanism, how does this relate to gender issues or intra-household labor and decision-making. And to migration?
3. The paper needs a better articulation of its main contribution to the literature. The objective of the paper deserves merit; however, I encourage the authors to give more attention to the theoretical framework used to derive these
4. Without a discussion of adaptation strategies and how those help increase resilience, it is difficult to understand the decision-making related to adaptation strategies.
5. Without a multivariate analysis that controls for differences across households, types of natural disasters, it is not possible to make inferences such as remittances contributed to shorter recovery period (line 380) or that changing variety contributed to shortening recovery (line 422).
6. It is very difficult to understand the results on division of household labor without details on household activities and time-use data.
   • Did the survey include a standard time-use module? What were the questions asked? Is the time-use data for the previous day or week, or for a typical day or week?
   • In lines 661-662, what is the gender division of response (% by men and women) to the questions on agricultural work that respondents would rather be released from?

7. Since, only one person in each household responded to the survey questions, does this mean that the comparison of men’s and women’s division of labor (Section 3.1.1) is based on the time-use data of men and women interviewed in the survey? Are these the individuals who are left behind on the farm? Would it be possible to present this data by relationship to the migrant? For instance, wife or de facto female head of the household, husband or male head of the household etc.

The reason I ask these questions is to understand the logic behind gender time-use comparison (Figure 1) in this paper. Normally, time-use analysis is used for large macro-level analysis of men’s and women’s labor allocation or for micro-level intra-household analysis. The former is a nationally- or some other representative survey, and the latter requires time-use information of both men and women in the household. If the paper is not presenting intra-household labor data, rather comparing time-use of men and women across the sample households, it is important to control for or disaggregate household by socio-economic characteristics and migration activity. A simple comparison of men’s and women’s time may not be meaningful since each group, men and women, is not homogenous in terms of their position, relationship to the migrant and responsibility in the household. I clarify my argument with the help of an example.

         Among the migrant households with wife absent, the husband or male household head would have greater responsibility of housework. However, for migrant households with both husband and wife present, during the migration of their son or daughter, the male household head would likely spend same or less time in domestic tasks. The women, on the other hand, would not see a substantial change in domestic work as a result of their husband’s or other male members’ migration because they are primary caretakers of their households.

Hence, to make this analysis relevant for the objective of this paper, the authors could disaggregate the households by type of migrants, e.g., migrant households with wife absent, migrant households with husband absent, migrant households with both present, but other member/s migrating, and then, compare the time-use of men and women within each group.

8. In Section 3.1.2, what are the specific domestic decisions discussed in this analysis?

Are these decisions related to how much time is spent in housework and care activities? Or do these decisions pertain to management of finances for basic household expenses?

In case of the former, I am interested to know how did male members of the household make decisions about women’s and other members’ labor time in housework and care provision? Normally, in patriarchal societies, the management of domestic tasks, like who does what and when, is the woman’s responsibility. So, what is the role that men have in domestic labor allocation decisions?

In case that domestic decisions are related to management of household finances, it is easier to understand why men’s decision-making power may change during and after migration.

 

9. In figures 2 & 3, is it possible to disaggregate the results by who is migrating? For instance, husband migrant, husband non-migrant, wife migrant, wife non-migrant etc. Here, I see an issue similar to the one pointed in comment #3. Specifically, the black bar in the figures 2 & 3, represents husband or male head of the household, some of whom are migrants while others aren’t. These are not homogenous categories. The decision-making power of men (women) who have migrated will vary from that of men (women) whose wives (husbands) have migrated or the men (women) whose wife (husband) is present, but child or other relative has migrated.
10. The paper argues that the long-term adaptation measures, adoption of new farming practices or land-use changes, were motivated by economic opportunities and to cope with natural disasters (section 3.2.2). However, the specific examples of sweet potato, cattle rearing etc. illustrate only the economic motivation. It would be useful to discuss the specific land-use changes adopted to deal with natural disasters or the role of increased incomes from growing high value crops or forest products in promoting greater resilience. E.g., how did the shift from growing rice to maize helped farmers adapt to natural disasters?

 

Specific questions and comments:

11. What is the sampling methodology?
12. Why were Ha Tinh and Dien Bien regions selected for this study? Give the motivation or the context to the regional focus of this study.
13. What is the % of migrants in Dien Bien that migrated to Hanoi for factory jobs? Is it only the youth in Dien Bien that migrates to Hanoi?
14. The paper argues that “In Ha Tinh, farming was adapted to the migration patterns, with more perennial and diverse land uses” (185-186). Here, it is difficult to connect the influence of migration on land-use patterns. It appears that migration led to perennial land use in Ha Tinh. Normally, the land use pattern in any area would depend on climate, soil conditions, types of food crops or staples, and other socio-economic factors. This pattern may be influenced by non-farm opportunities including migration, which often, is a result of agricultural cycles and constraints.
15. Lines 183-184 - any reason for this pattern in Ha Tinh? Perhaps, responsibility of children restricted older women's mobility?
16. What is the basis of the inference in lines 196-197, “farm labor shortage is more of a challenge for women”? This question is related to the points made in comment #7 & #8. Labor availability depends on household size, how household members divide their time across household, farm and non-farm activities, and if the household is able to hire outside labor.

Clarifying questions and comments:

1. Line 13-14 “men over 30 migrated longer periods…” is slightly confusing. You could rewrite this as, “men over 30 years of age migrated for longer periods….”
2. In lines 64-65 “This culture has contributed to visible reduce the mobility of more women than men….,” Does this mean that culture tends to restrict the mobility of some women, but not all? Or, it means that the culture restricts the mobility of women more than that of men?
3. Line 77, ownership of what?
4. Line 80, “migrant men maintain remote control…,” change it as, “migrant men maintain control remotely….”
5. women as lighter and those by males as heavy. -> females as lighter and those by males as heavy.; or women as lighter and those by men as heavy.
6. Line 112-113, “national poverty rate declined to 6%...” What was it previously? Or you could say that the national poverty rate was 6%.
7. Line 117, is youth the 15-24 years old? Since ‘youth’ is mentioned first time in the article, it is useful to specify how you define it. Perhaps, add the explanation in lines 156-159.
8. In Table 1, add a footnote to clarify the threshold for measurement of poverty. How are households categorized as poor, near-poor or non-poor?
9. In table 1, clarify what the remittance from abroad is a share of? In Ha Tinh, 16% remittances from abroad constitute 16% of non-agricultural income, i.e., 16% of the 28% non-agricultural income? Or 16% of all remittances? In case of the latter, provide a context, i.e., what is the total percent of remittances in non-ag income?
10. Is the reference # 29 cited as the source of sampling methodology of the qualitative study?
11. Line 161, on average how many plots per household?
12. It will also be useful to specify, which countries do the migrants in Ha Tinh are going to?
13. In line 210, specify the exact number, instead of 50-60%.
14. What do you mean by ‘decision power’ in line 212? Does this mean – the power to make decision by herself; or bargaining power?

Author Response

Please see attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This interesting study looks at the gendered implications of labour migration for two case study (upland and lowland) rural communities in Vietnam. In particular, it concerns how farm and domestic labour is redistributed and to what extent various risks to these agricultural livelihoods are reduced through arrangements altered by short and long-term migration patterns. In this regard it introduces an important and distinctive perspective crucial to the question of sustainability in the agricultural communities that remain the source of the most basic food and nutrition needs, but which receive economic rewards incommensurate with this significance  (agricultural production representing only 14% of measured GDP for Vietnam)

My main suggestions for improving the manuscript have to do with expanding the treatment of cultural-ecological factors which distinguish the two community case studies, and which could have wider significance for the differences in patterns that may apply more generally to upland (dry) cultivating systems and lowland (wet) cultures and eco-systems. For example, more cultural context comparing Thai to Kinh cultural and social-ecological patterns that influence household size, complexity and diversity of gendered concepts, tenure arrangements etc. could explain some cross village case study differences.

Related suggestions:

Figures:  Provide a title for Figure 1 and consider using dark and light shades of the same colours paired for women/men of each village since this would make it easier for the reader to immediately compare both by gender and by village. Similarly for Figure 4 light and dark shades of the same colour for relatives and neighbours of each village would facilitate the same dual visual comparisons .

Abstract:  The reference to 'unpaid' labour is rather misleading, since it is often made without qualifying the other forms of compensation in kind as exchange labour or produce, rather than cash. This matters a great deal in terms of  whether and in what respect the exchanges are regarded as exploitative and/or reciprocal-social Cf lines 294-300 for Dien Bien and 307-316 for Ha Tinh. It also suggests a privileging of the market that does not always contribute to cohesion or sustainability. Labour exchange is a significant traditional reciprocal form of compensation (DB 90% & 83% 297; Ha Tinh 51% & 83% relatives and neighbours 313) This spreads but does not reduce the total time burden on the migration-impacted household labour force, but very likely produces mutual benefits/securities. Future research into the advantages and disadvantages from the perspective of various participants would be an important next step in research, and would best adopt ethnographic methodologies and concepts to gain a deeper more nuanced perspective.

Two unexpected findings

Lines 421-23: It is somewhat surprising that changes in cropping in response to natural disaster significantly shortened the recovery period. Wouldn't there normally be some risk involved in an abrupt shift in terms of technical knowledge transfer, ecological fit, market access, etc that would accompany a relatively abrupt shift with limited time for planning?   Some suggestion on how this occurs is provided in the later section (549ff) with respect to what is sometimes called adaptive or social learning. This needs to be addressed and elaborated earlier in the text.

Lines 497-98 'the male head of household would temporarily transfer domestic decisions to the female de facto head of household, whilst retaining decision-making power over housework'. Please elaborate since it would logically be expected that male retention of decision-making power would be less likely in the female gender typed 'domestic' sphere.

These suggestions mainly can be dealt with by adding qualifying comments. They are decidedly from an anthropological perspective that I think central to the key conclusions presented in the study. Drawing out these cultural-ecological dimensions would contribute substantially to the key findings. It may also be worth including a recommendation that longer-term studies using ethnographic approaches would be important to elucidate some of the unexpected, but clearly important, outcomes for sustainability.

Technicalities:

Line 372  precisely what is meant by higher value 'species' in relation to labour demanding practices? Would 'crop types' be clearer?

Line 375 The manuscript needs to be checked for the occasional missing word as in line 375  -  'Longer recovery [times/periods] were also observed...'

Author Response

Please see attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors

I read your excellent paper with high interest.

Congratulation.

This is indeed a very worthful source also for research on similar questions in other parts of the world f.i. the southern and eastern parts of Europe.

I only found one small writing failure in line 119.

 

Thanks and best regards     

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for the positive feedback. We have included your comment when we made several language edits in the manuscript.