MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
CAN THO UNIVERSITY
---o0o---

NGUYEN LAN DUYEN

DETERMINING THE OPTIMAL FARM SIZE
IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION OF HOUSEHOLDS
MEKONG DELTA

DISSERTATION
(ABSTRACT)
Major: Agricultural Economics
Major code: 9 62 01 15

Can Tho, 07/2020


The research has been finished at Can Tho University

Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Nguyen Tri Khiem, PhD

Discussant 1: ..............................................................................................
Discussant 2: .............................................................................................
Discussant 3: .............................................................................................

The dissertation will be defended at the council of the school level at:
..........................................................................................................................
On: …….. hour…….. date …….. month……… year……….

Citing of this the dissertation in available at following the libraries:

Agricultural land area in Asia accounts for 20% of the world's total
agricultural land area, but the landholdings are very small (from 1-2 ha/household)
compared to the world average (3.7 ha/household) and the trend of small-scale
ownership is increasing (Pookpakdi, 1992). Vietnam's agricultural land area is 0.12
ha/person, only one sixth of the world average, equivalent to Belgium and the
Netherlands, higher than the Philippines and India, but lower than China and
Indonesia (OECD, 2015). Due to the industrialization that transfers agricultural
resources (such as labour and land) to the industrial sector, leaving less for
agricultural production (Dinh Bao, 2014). In agricultural production, industry or
services, producers are interested in many factors. One of the crucial factors
determining the success of production is the efficiency of production activities
(HQHDSX), or to use optimally resources to improve HQHDSX. In agricultural
production, land is a scarce factor (Hoque, 1988), a vital factor of production
(Adamopoulos and Restuccia, 2014) and is an especially irreplaceable means of
production (Pham Van Dinh and Do Kim Chung, 2004), therefore, producers need
to determine the optimal farm size threshold for investment in order to maximize
the efficiency of production activities.
However, at different stages of the economy, the farm size is different. In the
1960s, small scale was good and effective because of taking advantage of family
resources (labor, land, production tools, ...) but in the 1970s and 1980s due to the
process of urbanization and specialization. As an industrialization, attracting a large
number of rural laborers makes production more efficient on a large scale (Fan and
Chan-Kang, 2005). According to these researchers, by the 1990s, the application of
science and technology to production increased the land use intensity, thus
negatively affecting the land resources and the environment leading to production
not as effective as before.
The Inverse Relationship (IR) hypothesis between farm size and the efficiency
of agricultural production activities implies that small farm will be more effective
than households with large farm, discussed in countries with developed agriculture
in recent centuries, first in Russia (Chayanov, 1926), then India, the main studies

al. (2013), Nkonde et al. (2015), Wickramaarachchi and Weerahewa (2018) combine
traditional measurement (land productivity or technical efficiency) with total
measures (labor productivity, capital efficiency and total factor productivity) to
comprehensively assess the efficiency of household production activities.
Agricultural policymakers who face difficult decisions in the choice of
agricultural structure must ensure that achieving two goals of growth and equity
(Khan and Maki, 1979) and contribute to stimulating rural growth and reducing
poverty (Lipton, 1993). On that basis, the Government of Vietnam issued a new
Land Law in 2013, increasing the area of agricultural production land to 03
ha/household in the Mekong Delta and the limit of receiving land use rights is not
more than 30 ha/household in the hope of increasing the efficiency of production
activities. However, reality has a two-way effect, which means that at certain farm
size when increasing the farm size will increase efficiency or sometimes reduce the
efficiency of production activities and vice versa.
On that basis, the thesis "Determining the optimal farm size in agricultural
2


production of households Mekong Delta" deeply analyzes the impact of farm size
on the efficiency of production activities through various measures (measures of
land, labor, capital, economic efficiency, management techniques and technology
improvement) to determine the optimal farm size threshold to maximize the
efficiency of production activities. At the same time, this result serves as a solid
scientific basis for the State to assert or identify the validity of land allocation Policy
in the 2013 Land Law and make a useful contribution to a more rational adjustment
of land Policy in the future, especially helping households use the farm size
appropriately to increase the efficiency of production activities, improve livelihoods
and contribute to the development of the economy.
1.2 Research objectives
To achieve the overall objective of the research that is determine the optimal

for the remaining 2 regions as well as inter-provincial research of each region.
Therefore, the thesis focuses on three provinces (An Giang, Dong Thap and Can
Tho) because according to some experts, the ecological zoning in rice production in
the Mekong Delta is divided by annual floodplain (An Giang and Dong Thap) and
freshwater alluvium (Can Tho). In addition, these 3 provinces have similar
characteristics in terms of ecology, farm size and rice cultivation practices, which
are provinces in the key rice production areas and have high rice production so the
selection of locations is the survey site, the study will be highly representative for
alluvial and freshwater areas.
1.3.4 Time
Data were collected from 498 rice households in the Mekong Delta during the
three crops (Autumn-Winter crop 2016, the Winter-Spring crop 2017 and Summer
crop 2017). The primary data collection time is from September 2017 to December
2017. The time for analyzing secondary data is from 2010 to 2017. The time for
analyzing data and conducting the thesis is from January 2018 to December 2018.

CHAPTER 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the theoretical basis of the HQHDSX measures, the
theoretical basis of the influence of the farm size on the HQHDSX is measured based
on different aspects, the theoretical basis of the optimal farm size; Propose an
research framework, research model and analytical methods.
2.1 Theoretical framework
2.1.1 Theoretical framework for measuring the efficiency of production
The efficiency of agricultural production activities in general and rice
production in particular is comprehensively measured through two main aspects:
productivity (land productivity, labor productivity, capital efficiency and total factor
productivity) and production efficiency (including technical efficiency, allocative
efficiency, scale efficiency and economic efficiency). Li et al. (2013) showed that
the efficiency of agricultural production activities is a multi-dimensional concept in

efficiency (EE) is a basic goal of the producer and is a measure of the success of the
producer in selecting optimal inputs and outputs. Economic efficiency is the product
of technical and allocative efficiency. Thus, to achieve economic efficiency in
agricultural production in general or in rice cultivation in particular, households need
to achieve both technical efficiency and allocative efficiency (Farrell, 1957;
Dhungana et al., 2004).
Currently, the two most commonly used methods in most researchs are the nonparametric estimation method (DEA) and the parameter estimation method (SFA).
The research used parameter estimation method through stochastic frontier analysis
model (SFA) to estimate the economic efficiency of rice farming households because
of its advantage of being able to separate non-effective parts and noise out of errors
in the estimation model but this estimation method requires determining the shape
of functions and errors. Accordingly, EE is estimated through the stochastic profit
frontier function (Ali and Flinn, 1989; Ali et al., 1994; Rahman, 2003; Nwachukwu
and Onyenweaku, 2007; Thong, 1998; Pham Le Thong, 2011a&b; Pham Le Thong
et al., 2011) have the form:
𝜋 = 𝑓 (𝑃 , 𝑍 , 𝛼 )𝑒

5

(2.1)


Therefore, the economic efficiency of rice production households in the
concept of the stochastic profit frontier function is calculated as follows:
𝐸𝐸 = 𝐸 𝑒 (

)

𝜀



where SLUONG is rice quantity produced by households; K, L, FS represent the
value of capital (all costs of production except imputed family costs), total number of
labor days (hired and family labor), and land inputs (farm size) of households,
respectively; αK, αL and αFS are the output elasticities for capital, labor, and land,
correspondingly; t is time trend term and η is the rate of technoligical progress. Using
natural logarithm, equation (2.4) is estimated as follows:
𝑙𝑛𝑆𝐿𝑈𝑂𝑁𝐺 = (𝑙𝑛𝐴 + ηt) + 𝛼 𝑙𝑛𝐾 + 𝛼 𝑙𝑛𝐿 + 𝛼 𝑙𝑛𝐹𝑆 + 𝜀 (2.5)
Given that this production function is estimated with cross sectional data, the
time trend variable is t=1 and thus the lnA0 + ηt term becomes the constant term. To
get the TFP indicator, the research first compute the returns to scale (RTS)
coefficient, which is the sum of factor output elasticities (𝑅𝑇𝑆 = 𝛼 + 𝛼 + 𝛼 ),
then normalize each factor’s output elasticity and obtain 𝛼′ =
𝛼′

=

and define TFP as:

6

, 𝛼′ =

,


𝑇𝐹𝑃 =

𝑆𝐿𝑈𝑂𝑁𝐺
𝐾

between agricultural economists and development economists (Carter, 1984; Feder,
1985; Benjamin, 1995).
Imperfections in the market of inputs also contribute to the formation of a
strong inverse relationship between farm size and the efficiency of production
activities. First, the analysis of data from fifteen developing countries, Cornia (1985)
shows that systematic output per unit of agricultural land decreases as the farm size
of increase by labor is more abundant and cheaper for small farm. Head of
households' knowledge of land and local climatic conditions accumulated over
generations contributes to an advantage over hiring workers (Rosenzweign and
Wolpin, 1985). The advantage of supervision and knowledge of small farm will
compensate for difficulties in accessing capital and formal insurance in rural markets
(Feder, 1985). An inverse relationship between fram size and the efficiency of
production activities is caused by the imperfections of credit and labor markets when

7


combined with fixed costs of production (Eswaran and Kotwal, 1986). Imperfection
land and insurance motivate smallholders to use more family labor to reduce the
potential adverse effects of price fluctuations (Barrett, 1996). Assuncao and Ghatak
(2003) demonstrated an inverse relationship after controlling households'
heterogeneity of skills. Thapa (2007) also discovered this relationship in Nepal
because it used more labor and cash than large farms. Ansoms et al. (2008) found a
strong inverse relationship between farm size and the efficiency of production
activities Rwanda due to the scarcity of land that forced households to over-exploit
their resources in the case of main household income from agricultural production.
The research also found that increases in non-farm wages and technological
advances will affect the exchange rate, management capacity, presence and level of
market imperfections. It is these factors that will form the inverse relationship
between farm size and HQHDSX (Otsuka, 2013).

relationship was also discovered in Nigeria due to the high quality inputs used by
large farm of the households (Obasi, 2007), in Japan that having relatively well
factor markets (Kawasaki, 2010) and China due to technological development and
technological transformation (Chen et al., 2011).
Mixed results obtained by Rahman and Rahman (2009) suggest that a positive
relationship between HQHDSX and farm size occurs in advanced technology areas
and the inverse relationship still exists in developing regions. Tamel (2011) in the
US agriculture sector showed that in some areas, farm size and the efficiency of
production activities is positive but in others may have a positive relationship
(Kawasaki, 2010; Ali and Deininger, 2015; Lu et al., 2018) or the negative
relationship (Paul and Githinji, 2017) with farm size depending on the fragmentation
process. Hence, the inverse relationship is a local phenomenon rather than an
indispensable law in production.
The researches not only stop at a simple relationship (negative or positive
relationsgip) but also show a nonlinear relationship (U-shaped or ∩-shaped) between
farm size and HQHDSX. First, Mahmood and Nadeem-ul-haque (1981) have
demonstrated the U-shaped nonlinear relationship between farm size and HQHDSX
when estimating the inputs (farm size, square farm size) with output. Inheriting that
achievement, researchers Byiringiro and Reardon (1996), Heltberg (1998b) have
added the characteristics of soil and region characteristics, followed by Helfand and
Levine (2004) and Ali and Deininger (2015) developed Heltberg's model on the basis
of adding soil characteristics.
However, Dorward (1999), Kimhi (2006), Barrett et al. (2010), Ali and
Deininger (2015), Nkonde et al. (2015), Henderson (2015), Anseeuw et al. (2016),
Wickramaarachchi and Weerahewa (2018) argue that there is an inverted U-shaped
nonlinear relationship between farm size and HQHDSX through different models
from simple (only farm size variables and squared farm size) to the complete model
of information and characteristics of the head of household, land characteristics and
quality, the ability to manage and care for rice fields, ... all show this relationship.
2.1.3 Theoretical backgrounds of optimal farm size

threshold, if farm size continues to expand, the efficiency decreases and the optimal
farm size threshold is determined by

.

2.2 Overview of references
2.2.1 The research of the effects of farm size on the efficiency of production
activities
2.2.1.1 Effect of farm size on land productivity
The inverse relationship is discussed and discovered through theory and
experiment on many countries around the world (Mazumdar, 1965; Bharadwaj,
1974; Khan, 1977; Chaddha, 1978; Berry and Cline, 1979; Carter, 1984 ; Cornia,
1985; Feder, 1985; Bhalla and Roy, 1988; Chattopadhyay and Sengupta, 1997;
Heltberg, 1998a&b; Assuncao and Ghatak, 2003; Fan and Chan-Kang, 2005; Barrett
et al., 2010; Chen et al., 2011; Sial et al., 2012; Carletto et al., 2013; Holden and
Fisher, 2013; Ali and Deininger, 2015; Desiere and Jolliffe, 2017) but with a focus
on India (Sen, 1962; Bardhan, 1973; Ghose, 1979; Newell et al., 1997; Assuncao
and Braido, 2007; Gaurav and Mishra, 2015).
However, there are also many studies disagreeing with the above hypothesis
and based on empirical evidence that have provided the opposite opinion, that large
farm households will be more effective than households with small farm (Rao, 1966;
Srivastave et al., 1973; Heltberg, 1998a&b; Khan, 1979; Khan and Maki, 1979; Rao
and Chotigeat, 1981; Kevane, 1996; Akram-Lodhi, 2001; Van Hung and et al., 2007;
Truong Hong Vo Tuan Kiet and Hua Tuan Tai, 2013; Akudugu, 2016).
Thus, farm size can have an impact on land productivity in two dimensions,
showing economies of scale and non-economies of scale. Studies (Mahmood and
Nadeem-ul-haque, 1981; Byiringiro and Reardon, 1996; Heltberg, 1998b; Ali and
Deininger, 2015) have demonstrated a U-shaped nonlinear relationship between
farm size and land productivity. However, Dorward (1999), Barrett et al. (2010), Ali


Alvarez and Arias (2004), Rios and Shively (2005), Tipi et al. (2009), Nguyen Huu
Dang (2012) have demonstrated the positive relationship between farm size and
production efficiency.
Researchers not only stop in the linear relationship between farm size and
production efficiency but also research and make judgments about the existence of
nonlinear relationship between farm size and production efficiency. The U-shaped
relationship between farm size and production efficiency is shown through the
varius research of (Helfand and Levine, 2004). In contrast, Hoque (1988), Nguyen
Tien Dung and Le Khuong Ninh (2015), Nguyen Tien Dung (2015) have
demonstrated the inverted U-shaped nonlinear relationship between farm size and

11


production efficiency.
2.2.1.5 The effect of farm size on the total factor productivity
Although the relationship between farm size and TFP is not as deeply
concerned as the relationship between farm size and land productivity. However,
it still shows that there may be a linear relationship (negative or positive
relationship) between TFP and farm size or nonlinear relationship through some
empirical researches. First, Van Zyl et al. (1996), Li et al. (2013), Gautam and
Ahmed (2018) found an inverse relationship between farm size and TFP. In
contrast, other researches have found a positive relationship between farm size and
TFP through experiments in Czech Republic (Hughes, 1998), in Slovakia (Hughes,
2000), in Vietnam (Dinh Bao, 2014) and in Australia (Sheng and Chacellor, 2018).
The research also found nonlinear relationship between farm size and TFP in
two different forms. The U-shaped nonlinear relationship between farm size and
TFP through the research of Nkonde et al. (2015) have proved that the inverted Ushaped nonlinear relationship between farm size and TFP.
2.2.1.6 The effect of farm size on the efficiency of production activities
As just stated, most researcges only use a single measure of HQHDSX, in

Productivity

Optimal farm
size by NSLD

12


Source:Research and design

Hình 2.1 Proposes research framework
2.3.2 Data collection
The study selected three provinces in the Mekong Delta with the same
characteristics of the land with large farm rice cultivation of An Giang, Dong Thap
and an average of Can Tho. The study collected randomly 498 rice-producing
households in the Autumn-Winter 2016, Winter-Spring 2017 and Summer 2017
seasons, of which An Giang (225 households), Can Tho (90 households) and Dong
Thap (183 households).
2.3.3 Data analysis
Objective 1: Research using descriptive statistical methods
Objective 2: Research to use 2 ways:
- A two-step estimation method for four ways of measuring the efficiency of
production activities including land productivity, labor productivity, capital
efficiency and TFP.
- An one-step estimation method for economic efficiency measure.
Objective 3: Use necessary conditions and calculation formula of Greene
(2003), Wickramaarachchi và Weerahewa (2018):
𝜕𝐻𝑄𝐻𝐷𝑆𝑋(𝑄𝑀𝐷𝐴𝑇)
𝛽
= 0 => 𝑄𝑀𝐷𝐴𝑇 =

to work in rice fields (days/ha), LDGD is the total number of family labor days
working on rice fields (days/crop), ANGIANG (= 1 if the household lives in An
Giang and = 0 if in other province), and DONGTHAP (= 1 if the household lives in
Dong Thap and = 0 if in another province), TVON is the total cost of the inputs
(including family labor) (million VND/crop), THAMNIEN is the number of years
of rice farming experience of the head of the household (year), KCRUONG is the
distance from the household to the largest field (km), TAPHUAN (= 1 if the head of
the household participated in training courses in the last 3 years and = 0 if otherwise),
i indicate the number of i rice the households and j showing the number of j crops.

14


CHAPTER 3. OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH AREAS
This chapter presents an overview of the Mekong Delta as well as of the
provinces surveyed mainly regarding farm size.
3.1 Land resources in the Mekong Delta
Land area in the survey area is concentrated on alluvial soil. This soil group
has high fertility and balance, favorable for agricultural production, especially for
rice, coconut, sugarcane, pineapple and fruit trees.
3.2 Current status of rice production
3.2.1 Farm size in the Mekong Delta
* Farm size of agricultural production
Number of agricultural households in the Mekong Delta in general and the
three researched provinces in particular concentrated mainly on the farm size of 0.5
- 2 ha, accounting for 40.36%, followed by the scale of 0.2 - 0.5 ha accounts for
25.13% and the remaining is allocated at other ones.
Table 3.1 Number of households using agricultural land in the Mekong Delta by farm size

Unit: Household

Total
170.048
102.207
216.409
2.383.335

Nguồn:Tổng điều tra nông thôn, nông nghiệp và thủy sản Việt Nam năm 2016

* Farm size of rice cultivation by locality
6000

ĐBSCL

4000

Đồng Tháp

2000

An Giang

0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Cần Thơ

Source:General Statistics Office 2017

Figure 3.1 Scale of paddy land in the Mekong Delta by location
Farm size of rice cultivation is concentrated in An Giang, followed by Dong

0.00
< 0.2 ha

0.2 - 0.5 ha

0.5 - 2 ha

> 2 ha

Source: Vietnam Rural, Agriculture and Fishery Census 2016
Figure 3.2 Structure of households using rice land in the Mekong Delta by scale
3.2.2 Results of rice production in the research area
Đồng Tháp

An Giang

Cần Thơ

6,000.00
4,000.00
2,000.00
0.00
2010

2011

2012

2013


efficiency of production activities, improving incomes and raising the living
standards of households in the Mekong Delta.
4.1 Actual situation of rice production in Mekong Delta households
4.1.1 Land
Table 4.1 Actual situation of farmland
Households (m2/household)
Average
(%)
755,63
3,93
18.401,43
95,82
47,39
0,25
19.204,45
100,00

Soil tyle
Residential
Agricultural
Aquaculture
Tổng cộng

Average (m2/person)
Bình quân
Tỷ lệ (%)
172,52
3,93
4.201,24
95,82


Dong Thap
An Giang
Can Tho

0.00

Autumn-Winter Winter-Spring

Summer

Source: Summary results of self-survey data in 2017

Figure 4.1. Yield of seasonal rice manure

In general, there is not much difference in rice yield among provinces. The
higher yielding crop compared to the remaining two crops in the three provinces is
the winter-spring crop because this is the season with favorable weather, climate and
development environment for rice.

17


* Production results
Average profit ratio and net profit ratio of households are quite low and
relatively similar, about 0.5 times and 0.3 times (respectively for autumn-winter and
summer crops), but quite high in winter-spring.
Table 4.2 Rice production results of Mekong Delta households by season
Items


6. Profit except LDGD = (3)-(4)
18,40
28,80
Million
VND
7. Profit include LDGD = (3)-(5)
14,10
24,20
8. Profit ratio = (6)/(4)
Times
0,50
0,77
9. Net profit ratio = (7)/(5)
Times
0,35
0,58
Source: Summary results of self-survey data in 2017

Summer

11,50
4,90
56,35
37,90
42,30
18,40
14,10
0,49
0,33


Ha
Person
Classes
Million VND/year
Plots

Mean
1,71
1,70
5,97
21,33
1,08

Max
17,00
5,00
15,00
100,00
3,00

Min
0,10
1,00
0,00
0,00
1,00

Std. Dev
1,77
0,90

70,00

0,31
0,08
0,00

11,82
10,93
10,42

14,15
15,80
15,80
6,00
0,01

3,80
4,05
3,84
10,98
10,77

Million VND/ha

24,04
39,35
24,60
43,16
24,44
40,50

297
201
498

(%)
59,64
40,36
100,00

Source: Summary results of self-survey data in 2017

4.3 Optimal farm size of rice production of Mekong Delta households
4.3.1 Description of the variables in the model
Table 4.5 HQHDSX in rice cultivation of people in Mekong Delta
HQHDSX
NSDAT
NSLD
HQDV
EE
TFP

Unit

Autumn
-winter
Mil.VND/ha
32,58
Ton/person
8,70
%

6,95
10,53
38,23
5,86
0,97

Std. Dev
Winter Summer
-spring
8,22
6,77
13,00
10,55
48,75
36,62
12,88
13,04
1,33
0,95

Source: Summary results of self-survey data in 2017

4.3.2 The influence of the farm size on the efficiency of production activities
4.3.2.1 Autumn-Winter crop
Table 4.6 Influencing factors of farms size to rice HQHDSX of Autumn-Winter crop 2016
Variables
QMDAT
QMDATSQ
QMLD
NUCH

-2,9247***
-0,1660
-0,1086*
0,0028
1,4088
-0,0101
-0,0052
-0,0463
-0,3427
0,1993***
-0,0387**
0,0048

TAPHUAN
Cons
Number of obs
R-squared
Prob > F

1,0733*
-0,6917*
0,0477
-0,1429
18,4402***
0,8756
1,3619***
0,5273
498
478
498

0,0195**
0,0801
-0,1821
-0,0209
-0,0028
-2,0357**
-0,0176*
-0,0207***
0,2648
0,1879
0,0604***
0,0070*
0,0020

TFP
0,6536***
-0,0350***
0,0193
0,1107
-0,0008
0,0010
0,1717*
-0,0034*
-0,0014
0,2598**
0,2727***
0,0121
-0,0095***
0,0005
0,0566

KCRUONG
TAPHUAN
Cons
Number of obs
R-squared
Prob > F

NSDAT
NSLD
HQDV
EE
0,6560*
6,0002***
0,0334*
-0,0281*
-0,0498*
0,0337
-0,0027*
0,0016
-0,6085
-3,3568*** -0,0244
0,0222
0,7193
-0,0801
0,0482
-0,0343
0,1108
-0,1210*
0,0060
-0,0063*

-0,0036**
0,0022**
-0,0661***
-0,0066
-0,0025*
0,0026**
-0,2605
-1,2861*** -0,0241
-0,0146
29,4489***
6,0721***
1,9715***
-0,5372***
498
489
498
498
0,1719
0,8555
0,3915
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
Source: Estimated results of self-survey data in 2017

TFP
0,4504***
-0,0231***
-0,0158

DONGTHAP
TVON
THAMNIEN
KCRUONG
TAPHUAN
Cons
Number of obs
R-squared
Prob > F

NSDAT
NSLD
HQDV
EE
-0,4013
5,1126***
-0,0144
0,0121
0,0024
-0,0033
-0,0002
-0,0000
0,2486
-2,8412***
0,0093
-0,0013
1,9494**
0,1540
0,0860*
-0,0755**

-0,0392***
0,0219***
-0,0667**
-0,0300*
-0,0027*
0,0020**
-0,0153
-0,0007
-0,0005
0,0000
-0,2308
-1,0920***
-0,0081
-0,0138
19,8454***
3,6866**
1,3470***
-0,1176
498
498
498
498
0,1398
0,8604
0,2508
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
0,0000
Source: Estimated results of self-survey data in 2017

QMLD
NUCH
TDHVCH
TNKHAC
SOMANH
LDTHUE
LDGD
ANGIANG
DONGTHAP
TVON
THAMNIEN
KCRUONG
TAPHUAN
Cons
Number of obs
R-squared
Prob > F

NSDAT
0,6136
-0,0996
-0,1777
3,9556
0,2515
0,0106
0,7375
-0,0242
0,1069***
10,9699***
7,3019***

HQDV
0,0174
-0,0045
0,0090
0,1821
0,0122
-0,0000
0,0716
-0,0015
0,0057***
0,6099***
0,3824***
-0,0481***
-0,0098***
-0,0028
0,0201
4,5076***
498
0,3049
0,0000

EE
-0,0171
0,0028
0,0089
-0,1147
-0,0099
-0,0008
0,0409
0,0011

0,0000

Source: Estimated results of self-survey data in 2017

4.3.3 Optimal farm size
HQHDSX 20.000
15.000

Autumn-Winter

10.000

Winter-Spring

5.000

Summer

0.000
0

2

4

6

8 10 12 14 16 18

Whole year

(accounting for 25.27% of the total farmers' opinions) of neighboring households or
buy land in other areas of the region under the support of the Government from the
Loan policy with preferential interest rates.
Collaborate with neighboring small-scale rice households to expand
production scale with groups, rice cultivation groups or cooperatives.
Households can participate in a large model field to take advantage of the farm
size and government's support policies.
Households and businesses need to link up to establish "large sample fields"
and establish specialized farming areas associated with Viet GAP standards.
(ii) For households with limited financial resources
Rent or mortgage land to neighboring households wishing to expand their
farming.
Boldly transforming industries (especially non-agricultural occupations)
through state support (vocational training, assistance in accessing capital, policies to
attract investment and development of cottage industries and handicrafts) .
Boldly transfer land to neighboring farmers in a suitable form when rice
cultivation is not possible (ie exits to join the labor market).
The government should speed up the transfer of land use rights and voluntary
labor contracts (Li et al., 2013).
4.4.1.2 Households whose farming size is greater than the optimal farm size
Narrow the farming size to take advantage of internal resources as well as
apply economic principles to increase the efficiency of production activities by
dividing rice fields into two fields for household heads and children. Each person
who manages and exploits a field will achieve maximum the efficiency of
production activities.
22