This paper investigates the impact of land tenure security on household labour supply in Vietnam, where the State owns all land and grants usufruct rights to individuals. The 1993 Land Law set usage rights for annual land at 20 years and perennial land at 50 years. In 2013, with usage rights for annual plots approaching expiration, the government passed the 2013 Land Law, extending usage rights for all land to 50 years. Utilizing this unexpected policy shift, we compare households with expiring rights (annual plots) to those with extended rights (perennial plots). Results reveal that increased tenure security reduce household labour supply in agriculture, particularly from women, and spurred greater capital intensity and a reduction in landholdings.

Clear and well-enforced property rights are essential for agricultural productivity and economic development. Increased tenure security incentivizes long-term investment (Demsetz, 1967; Alchian and Demsetz, 1973; Besley, 1995)² and can improve the allocation of production factors like land and labour.³ As economies grow, households with non-farming advantages often shift to emerging non-agricultural sectors (Duarte and Restuccia, 2010; Gollin et al., 2002; Do and Iyer, 2008).⁴ However, in developing countries with weak property rights, high transaction costs and fear of appropriation hinder land trade and discourage investment, leading to inefficient labour and capital allocation and lower productivity. This issue significantly affects economic development and structural transformation.⁵

Why would we expect land property rights to affect households’ labour supply? Besley and Ghatak (2010) explain how in a context of weak property rights, labour effort can be used to maintain ownership of your property. We can think of tenure insecurity as a random tax on production, which discourages labour effort. However, if labour effort reduces the risk of expropriation, farmers have an incentive to work on the land –possibly more than the optimal level– to maintain claims over their property.

Empirical evidence has found that tenure security of residential homes can affect household’s allocation of labour. In the context of Peru, Field (2007) shows that granting title deeds for urban squatters increased their labour outside their home, and allowed families to substitute child labour for adult labour. She argues that the certification increased tenure security, which eliminated the need to spend human resources to maintain ownership of their home. De Moura et al. (2014) obtained similar results in the case of Brazil, where a property certification program increased the hours worked per week of adult members in the household. These findings align with the argument that greater tenure security reduces the need for household members to defend their property, freeing up time and energy to engage in productive labour outside the home (Galiani and Schargrodsky, 2010). In both cases, the formalization of property rights alleviated the pressure on families to safeguard their homes, thereby allowing for a more efficient allocation of labor resources (Besley and Ghatak, 2010).

Tenure security for productive assets like agricultural land has distinct implications from residential property. In developing countries, land ownership is often closely tied to usage. A Mexican land reform legally separated land rights from use, issuing household certificates and legalizing intra-community land transfers, which led to a substantial increase in migration as owners no longer feared expropriation when living elsewhere (De Janvry et al., 2015; Valsecchi, 2014). Improved property rights also boost investments and promote land transfers (Besley, 1995; Goldstein and Udry, 2008; Markussen and Tarp, 2014; Do and Iyer, 2008; Kimura et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2021; Chari et al., 2021). In Vietnam, tenure security increased plot-level investments in irrigation and soil conservation (Bellemare et al., 2020) and, after the 1993 land reform, improved labor and land market efficiencies, allowing poorer farmers better access to land as wealthier households shifted to non-agricultural sectors (Deininger and Jin, 2008).

In 1993, the Vietnamese government passed a law where it granted individual usufruct rights to rural households. The duration of these rights was set at 20 years for annual crops, and 50 years for perennial crops. When the rights of annual plots were set to expire, the Vietnamese government passed the 2013 Land Law in which, among other things, extended the usage rights period of annual crops from 20 to 50 years. This unanticipated change in policy improved all landowners’ property rights, but it was particularly beneficial for annual crop growers, whose rights were set to expire soon. This paper explores the effect of land tenure security caused by this policy change on farmers’ household labour supply. The main hypothesis is that the 2013 Land Law led to a reduction in labour supply as households felt more secure in their land tenure, allowing them to allocate labour more efficiently. Additionally, the complementary hypothesis examines the differences in labour supply impacts by gender and age, considering how these factors influence household dynamics. The underlying mechanism explores the roles of capital and land holdings, assessing how changes in tenure security affect labour allocation decisions across various household members.

Using panel data on over 2 000 rural Vietnamese farming households from 2008 to 2016, we find that the 2013 Land Law, which increased tenure security, led to a reduction in agricultural labor among annual crop growers, particularly female adults. These results are robust across specifications and align with the parallel trends assumption. However, we find no evidence that the law boosted off-farm participation. Two explanations are proposed: first, enhanced land rights may encourage households to adopt a more capital-intensive input structure, reducing labour demand in farming; second, greater tenure security may facilitate land market participation, leading to smaller operational scales and less labour. Findings indicate increased capital intensity and decreased landholdings among annual crop growers post-2013.

The paper contributes to the literature of property rights and labour supply in three ways: first, it uses a difference-in-difference approach to examine the distortions of tenure insecurity in labour allocation, and it sheds light on the intra-household allocation of labour by examining labour supply by age and gender. Second, it explores the possibility of a shift in the structure of input shares by suggesting improvements in tenure security can increase capital intensity in agricultural production. Finally, results can be useful for policy makers as they show farmers devote resources to maintain their usufruct rights. Arguably, removing the need to renew your rights as owner every given time period can have significant benefits for landowners.

The paper is structured as follows: section 2 describes the context of land tenancy in Vietnam. Section 3 presents the empirical strategy. Section 4 describes the data used in the analysis and presents some descriptive statistics. Section 5 discusses the empirical findings and we conclude in section 6.

In the 1980s the Vietnamese government enacted a series of reforms to transform its agricultural sector from a collective production system to one based on household initiative. As part of these efforts, the Doi Moi reforms of 1988 sought to increase rural household’s land tenure security and began a process of privatization and decentralization of output and input markets. However, many restrictions on land usage and transfers remained until the enactment of the 1993 Land Law. This law contemplated the issuance of farm-level Land Use Rights Certificates (LURC), and the duration of those rights was set at 20 years for plots with annual crops and 50 years for plots with perennial crops. Moreover, the Land Law of 1993 allowed households to transfer, lease, mortgage and bequest the usage rights of their property.⁶

The formalization of private usage rights paved the way for the development of an active land market and the transformation of the rural economy. The land reform of 1993 increased agricultural investment and efficiency, it also granted better access to land for the poor and allowed rural households to pursue opportunities outside of agriculture (Pingali and Xuan, 1992; Smith, 1997; Do and Iyer, 2008; Deininger and Jin, 2008; Khai et al., 2013).

The Land Law of 1993 has had two revisions since it was issued. The first was in 2003 to include two names in the LURC where land was jointly owned (for example, in the case of husband and wife) and allowed for certification to be conducted at the plot level, instead of the farm-level as the 1993 law stipulated.⁷ The second was in 2013 when, among other things, the usage rights of all land –annual and perennial– was extended to 50 years. Because plots devoted to annual crops were originally given 20 years of usufruct rights, we expect this change in the law to increase tenure security for annual growers while perennial crop growers must be relatively unaffected by the law since they had at least 30 more years of usufruct rights.

Under Vietnamese laws, any agricultural land plot assigned to a household before or in 1993 began its usufruct rights in October 1993, while land acquired later began its rights upon acquisition (Ravallion and Van De Walle, 2004 and 2008). When usufruct rights are transferred (via sales or rentals), their duration is not reset. For instance, a plot acquired in 1993 and sold in 2010 would leave the new owner only three years of rights. Rights can be renewed if there has been no illegal use; however, Article 38 of the 2003 Land Law allows recovery of land used inefficiently or for the wrong purposes, requiring land return upon expired rights without extension.

This paper posits that usufruct right duration effectively characterizes land tenure security, as legal protections apply only within the rights period. Annual crop growers, particularly those with land from 1993 (representing 75% of such growers), faced significant tenure insecurity as expiration neared.⁸ The 2013 Land Law unexpectedly extended rights for annual crop plots from 20 to 50 years, improving security more for these farmers than for perennial growers, whose rights were still valid. This differential impact is used to analyse the effects of tenure security on household labour supply.

As discussed in section 2, the 1993 Land Law set the duration of usage rights for annual land at 20 years and perennial land at 50 years. In 2013, when annual land usage rights were set to expire, the Vietnamese government passed the 2013 Land Law which, among other things, extended the usage rights period of annual crops from 20 to 50 years. This unanticipated change in policy improved all landowners’ property rights, but it was particularly beneficial for annual crop growers.⁹ To investigate the effect of this policy change on household’s labour supply, we compare the difference in household’s labour decisions for annual crop growers with perennial crop growers.¹⁰ The following linear household fixed-effect specification is estimated:

(1)

Where Y_ht represents the number of days per capita in own-farm cropping activities of household h at time t, ANNUAL is a dummy variable that takes value 1 if household h had annual crops at time t, and 0 otherwise. Law13 is a dummy variable that takes value 1 if year is greater or equal to 2014, γ is a province-year fixed-effect, θ is a household fixed effect, μ is a vector of household characteristics that may vary over time (e.g. age of HH head, titles land, etc.) and ϵ is the error term. The household fixed-effects specification allows us to control for unobserved time-invariant characteristics that could be related to labour supply. The province-year fixed effects accounts for any macroeconomic shocks (e.g. off-farm labour demand, crop prices, etc.) that affect household’s labour allocation. We are mostly interested in coefficient β ₃ because it will capture the effect of the Land Law of 2013 on household labour decisions of annual crop growers (our treatment group).¹¹

This methodology is particularly well-suited for this analysis as it allows for a robust evaluation of the causal impact of the 2013 Land Law on household labour supply among annual crop growers compared to perennial crop growers. By comparing the changes in labour supply before and after the policy change between these two groups, our model controls for both observed and unobserved factors that could influence labour allocation, thereby isolating the effect of the policy itself. This method assumes that, in the absence of the treatment, the trend in labour supply would have been the same for vboth groups, allowing for a more accurate estimation of the treatment effect. Additionally, the fixed effects in our specification further strengthen this approach by accounting for any time-invariant characteristics specific to households, such as preferences or production capabilities, and province-year fixed effects mitigate potential confounding factors related to external economic influences, such as changes in labour market conditions or crop prices. Thus, our framework provides a powerful tool for understanding how enhanced tenure security through the 2013 Land Law specifically influenced labour supply decisions in the agricultural sector.

Bellemare et al. (2020) use this dataset to analyse the 2013 Land Law’s impact on plot-level investment in annual land. Their findings show that, before 2014, investment trends for annual and perennial plots were similar. After the Law’s enactment, however, strengthened ownership rights for annual land led to positive impacts on irrigation and soil conservation investments. Following Bellemare et al. (2020), we use a Difference-in-Differences approach to measure tenure security’s effect on labour supply. Our identification strategy thus assumes that household labour supply trends for annual and perennial crop growers would have remained similar without the tenure security improvements for annual plots introduced by the 2013 Land Law.

To verify this in figure 1 we show the number of days per capita devoted to own-farm cropping activities of annual and perennial growers across time. We can see that labour supply to own-farm agriculture is very similar until 2012, before the new land law came into effect. This illustrates that before the change in the law both annual and perennial crop farmer have similar labour decisions before the Land Law of 2013, however these deviates afterwards. We corroborate the parallel trends assumption by estimating equation (1) using only pre-treatment data (i.e. before 2014) and using 2012 as the treatment period (see the appendix for more details on robustness checks).

Tenure insecurity may lead households to allocate “excessive" labour to farming to maintain usufruct rights. Improvements in tenure security could reduce this need, freeing up labour for other activities and lowering agricultural labour input (De Janvry et al., 2015; Do and Iyer, 2008; Li, 2020). However, tenure security can also boost investment and facilitate land transactions (Macours et al., 2010; Bellemare, 2020), potentially increasing returns to farming and encouraging more labor in agriculture. In Peru, Nakasone (2011) found that tenure security increased labor on own farms. Thus, the impact on household labour supply is ultimately empirical and depends on the dominant mechanism.

For the analysis, we exclude households not in agriculture or that grow exclusively on rented land, as ownership rights are the focus. Anticipated rights expiration may cause households to switch crops; however, only 4% of annual plots convert to perennials, making endogeneity concerns minimal. We also address potential bias from rice-growing restrictions, which affect 38% of annual and 9% of perennial crop households. Markussen et al. (2011) suggest such households work harder and receive more support; thus, we re-estimate equation (1) for households without restricted plots.

vOur data comes from the Vietnam Access to Resources Household Survey (VARHS), covering the period 2008-2016.¹² The VARHS is conducted every two years and is a representative sample of the rural population in Vietnam. We rely on the balanced panel sample which consists of 2 131 rural households that were surveyed in all the five waves collected in the period under analysis. The surveyed households are located in 476 communes across 12 different provinces. The dataset contains precise information on household demographics, economic activities, land use and agricultural production. Crucially for us, the survey reports the time spend in own-farm activities by each member of the household and detailed information on crop choice, input use and cultivated land at the plot-level.

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics of households growing annual and perennial crops, before and after the change in the land law. The number of households involved in the production of annual crops is significantly larger than those in perennial crops. Annual crop growers have on average larger households, lower incomes and more land per household member. Before the 2013 Land Law annual and perennial growers were equally likely to have their land titled, however after the change in the law perennial crop growers increased their certified land relatively more than annual farmers.¹³

For our identification strategy, it is crucial to consider that households may switch between growing annual and perennial crops. We document households exclusively cultivating either type: over two-thirds of annual crop farmers grow only annual crops, whereas only 21% of perennial crop farmers grow perennials exclusively. After the policy change, more households specialize in one crop type. Additionally, some plots face government restrictions on crop types. Approximately 38% of annual crop households and 9% of perennial crop households have restricted land in our sample, though this proportion declines following the land policy change for both crop types.

In table 2 we explore the differences in household days devoted to agriculture (own-farm).¹⁴ In the first and second row we can see the average number of days per year devoted to cropping activities from all household members for the pre-reform period (years 2008, 2010 and 2012), for annual and perennial farmers. Before the 2013 Land Law, we notice that annual crop growers (households with at least one plot devoted to annual crops) spend more days in farming compared to perennial growers. However, after the policy change, annual crop growers reduced their average number of days in own-farm cropping activities, while perennial crop growers increased it.

Disaggregating labour supply by gender and age reveals notable patterns. In the pre-reform period, the difference in adult male labour days between annual and perennial crop farmers is small and not statistically significant. However, following the 2013 Land Law, male labour days increase significantly for perennial farmers and decrease for annual farmers. Among female household members, annual farmers previously worked 25 more days per year than perennial farmers, but this shifts post-reform, with women in annual-growing households reducing their farm labour while those in perennial-growing households increase it. For child labour, both groups reduce farm days, with the decrease being greater among annual crop growers.

There are two possible explanations for the reduction in own-farm labour supply. On the one hand it suggests that the “guard" effect of improved tenure security out-weights the “productivity" effect. The fact that women and children’s labour decreased after the Land Law suggests these households were devoting these labour resources to maintain usufruct right on their land.¹⁵ On the other hand, it could be that the increase in capital investments as found by Bellemare et al. (2020) leads to less labour resources being required to maintain productivity. We explore these channels in section 5.

Table 3 presents the results from equation (1) where the dependent variable is the number of days per capita devoted to own-farm cropping activities. We also present the results disaggregated by the gender and age of the worker.¹⁶ In the first column, only province-year fixed effects (FE) are included, the second column adds household demographics, and the third column adds relevant land characteristics.¹⁷ As discussed in section 3, we address two potential threats to our identification strategy: crop-switching and government restrictions on crop choice. Column 4 estimates equation (1) only for households that do not have any restricted land. Column 5 estimates the model using only house‑holds that were devoted to annual or perennial crops exclusively during the entire 8-year period. Finally, Column 6 includes non-restricted households that grew exclusively annual or perennial crops for the entire time-span of analysis.

In columns 1 to 4, the coefficients for the indicators of annual farming (Annual) and the post-2013 Land Law period (Law2013) are statistically significant and positive, indicating that days spent working the land are higher for annual farmers and increase after the Land Law’s implementation. However, these coefficients lose significance when we restrict the sample to farmers who did not switch crops. The interaction term between these variables (Annual*Law2013) is our primary focus, as it reflects the differential effect of tenure security for annual crops post-2013. This coefficient is consistently negative and statistically significant across all six specifications, with larger effects in columns 5 and 6, where the sample is limited to non-switching and non-restricted farmers. This indicates that the tenure security improvement from the 2013 Land Law led to a reduction in labour supply for own-farm cropping activities. The coefficient magnitude ranges from 26.4 to 7.1, suggesting a 20% average reduction in labour supply for annual crop growers, compared to an unconditional mean of 35 cropping days per capita per year.

When analysing results by gender, we find that the labour supply patterns for both men and women align with the aggregate findings. For male adults, the coefficients retain the same sign and significance as the overall results. In the case of female adults, the results mirror those of the aggregate, although the interaction term (Annual*Law2013) is not significant in columns 2 and 4. However, in columns 5 and 6, which focus on non-switching and non-restricted farmers, the effect is both large and significant, indicating that the improvement in tenure security from the policy change led to a decrease in labour supply for both male and female adults.

The results for child labour are less robust as only columns 1 and 3 have significant results on the interaction term. This is not surprising since only 11 percent of farmers in our sample have members 15 years old or younger working on their farm. If the land law increases the value of land, this wealth effect is expected to reduce child labor (Basu and Van, 1998). However, some authors have documented that for low levels of landholdings increasing land assets may lead to increases in child labor (Bhalotra and Heady, 2003; Basu et al., 2010; Oryoie et al., 2017; Muchomba, 2017). Moreover, improvements in women’s land rights caused by the 2003 Land Law (this law granted the possibility of including both husband and wife’s name in the LURC) may have increased women’s bargaining power resulting in reduction of child labour and increased household welfare (Menon et al., 2017; Matz and Narciso, 2021; Wang, 2014; World Bank, 2002).

As discussed above, improvements in land property rights may in turn have a positive effect on off-farm labour supply. We expect that as tenure security is strengthened can release human resources previously engaged in farming with “guarding" purposes. This may allow households to allocate labour supply to off-farm activities. We explore this effect of the 2013 Land Law on annual crop growers by estimating equation (1) where the dependent variable is the number of days per capita in wage employment and off-farm self-employment (e.g. trading services).

Table 4 shows the results of this specification. In the case of wage employment, the coefficient on the Land Law indicator is positive and significant in some of the specifications; this suggests that after 2013 farmers in general increased their labour supply in wage employment. However, the interaction term is statistically insignificant in all but one of the specifications (it also has the opposite sign that we would expect). For off-farm self-employment the results are also not statistically significant. Overall, it seems that the Land Law of 2013 reduced own-farm agricultural labour, but this did not lead to an increase in labour supply outside agriculture suggesting that the labour that was released from farming may have gone other non-income generating activities.

The evidence suggests that the 2013 Land Law reduced labour devoted to own-farm cropping, aligning with past findings that weak land rights compel households to invest in guard labour (Besley, 1995; Goldstein and Udry, 2008). With improved tenure security through the law’s extension of usufruct rights, we observe a drop in per capita days spent on own-farm activities. However, we do not find an increase in off-farm labour time. Two explanations may account for this. First, as Bellemare et al. (2020) noted, enhanced tenure security led to more investment in irrigation and soil conservation, potentially restructuring agricultural inputs toward greater capital intensity and reducing labour demand.

In table 5 we show the results of the estimations using the same specification as in equation (1) but with the level of capital as the dependent variable. Capital assets represent ownership of machinery (e.g. tractors, thrillers, etc.) valued at a set of common prices.¹⁸ Expenditure on capital services is the amount in VND spent per square meter in services such as rentals of machinery or cattle for ploughing.¹⁹ The dependent variables are the real value of owned capital assets and the real value of expenditure on capital services (per square meter) divided by the totals days in own-farm agriculture, and the capital expenditure divided by the total number of days in own-farm agriculture.

In the case of ownership of capital assets per worker, the coefficient on the interaction term is positive and significant in columns 5 and 6 (sample restricted to non-restricted and non-switching farmers). When looking at the expenditure on capital services ratio we observe the coefficient is positive and significant in all but the last column. This is suggestive evidence that enhanced tenure security may have created a more capital-intensive process of production, explaining at least in part the reduction in labour.

Second, property rights lower transaction costs in land markets (Banerjee et al., 2002; Deininger and Jin, 2005; Holden et al., 2011) which allows farmers to readjust their operational scales. If households reduce their agricultural landholdings, they will require fewer labour resources.²⁰ We explore the effect of tenure security on landholdings in table 6.²¹ Results show that in general, annual crop growers possess more land per capita than perennial growers. In all but one of the specifications the coefficient of Law2013 is negative; this reflects the fact that all households in our sample have reduced their landholdings across time. Our main coefficient of interest, the interaction term, is negative and statistically significant in columns 1 to 4. This suggests that annual farmers reduced their landholdings in response to the extension of their usage rights. It should be noted, however, that the coefficients are not statistically significant when we restrict the sample to non-switching crop growers, although the sign remains unchanged.

Overall, while we cannot rule out “guard labour" as one of the reasons for reduced labour supply due to the increase in tenure security, we can say that it is not the only reason. Increased investment in capital is likely to lead to more capital-intensive production and the need for fewer labour resources.²²

Weak enforcement of property rights distorts household labour allocation, forcing farmers to devote excessive resources to maintaining land ownership. This paper shows that Vietnamese farmers facing uncertainty about their usufruct rights experienced such constraints. The Land Law of 2013 increased tenure security for annual crop growers, eliminating the need for labour dedicated to guarding land.

Using detailed panel data from Vietnam, we find that increased tenure security reduced days spent on own-farm cropping activities, particularly for female adults, without increasing off-farm labour time, consistent with reduced guard labour. Two additional channels are explored: First, improved tenure security likely shifted input shares and increased capital intensity among annual crop growers, leading to reduced labour supply. Second, enhanced land rights enabled households to adjust their operational scale and reduced total landholdings, which also contributed to the decline in agricultural labour supply. Overall, this paper highlights the significance of clear, enforceable property rights for efficient labour allocation, demonstrating that farmers with enhanced tenure security reduced both their farming days and landholdings.

Our findings on Vietnam’s land tenure security can offer important lessons for Mexico and other Latin American countries, where insecure land rights continue to hamper agricultural productivity. In both regions, tenure insecurity limits investment in land and capital, leading to inefficient labour allocation. Similar to Vietnam, land reforms that formalize or extend property rights could encourage Mexican and Latin American farmers to invest in more capital-intensive practices, reduce reliance on manual labour, and improve overall productivity. For example, Mexico’s ejido system has often led to underinvestment due to unclear property rights. Reforms that enhance tenure security, similar to those in Vietnam, could encourage greater agricultural investment and labour reallocation (De Janvry et al., 2015; Galiani and Schargrodsky, 2010).

I would like to thank Carol Newman, Michael King and Andrew Newell for their valuable advice in the elaboration of this paper. All remaining errors are my own.

To test the parallel trends assumption we conduct a placebo test using only data from before the enactment of the 2013 Land Law (VARHS waves 2008-2012). The placebo treatment effect is a dummy variable taking a value one in 2012. If the reduction in agricultural labour is indeed driven by an improvement of tenure security caused by the 2013 Land Law, then we expect the coefficient on the interaction term in the placebo test to be statistically insignificant. Table A1 shows the results of the placebo test for own-farm cropping days per capita, separated by gender and age. The coefficient of the interaction term is statistically significant in only two of the specifications. However, the more interesting patterns are observed when looking at the test for male and female adults.

In all of the 6 specifications for male farming labour the interaction term is negative and statistically significant. This suggests that male labour in own-farm cropping activities was falling since before the 2013 Land Law. The negative effect observed on male labour may be driven by other drivers that were not related to the tenure security increase caused by the new law.²³ On the other hand, the interaction term in the specifications for female adult labour supply are statistically insignificant in all but one of the specifications where the coefficient positive. As such, we can rule out non-parallel trends for the case of women’s agricultural labour.²⁴

Table A2 shows the results for the placebo test for capital and land. In the case of capital ownership only the specification in column 1 has a significant and negative interaction term. In the case of expenditure on capital services none of the coefficients on the interaction terms are statistically significant. This corroborates the evidence presented above regarding capital intensity in agriculture being driven by improved tenure security. Likewise, for the case of landholdings, none of the coefficients on the interaction term are statistically significant. This suggests that the policy change was the main driver of the increase in capital use and the reduction in landholdings of annual crop growers.

This appendix describes the relationship between our dependent variables related to household labour supply and several demographic and land characteristics. Table A3 presents the results of the estimated coefficients for the days of all members in own-crop farming activities (per capita). It is interesting to see that household size and farming days are negatively related, this could be because with more members households are able to diversify their activities a little more. Other household characteristics do not seem to be relevant for our dependent variable. In the case of land characteristics, we observe farmers with more irrigated land spend more time in farming. Interestingly, the percentage of land acquired in 1993 is not statistically significant.

Adamopoulos, T., Brandt, L., Leight, J. and Restuccia, D. (2022). Misallocation, selection, and productivity: A quantitative analysis with panel data from China. Econometrica, 90(3). https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA16598

Alchian, A. A. and Demsetz, H. (1973). The property right paradigm. The Journal of Economic History, 33(01). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050700076403

Angrist, J. D. and Pischke, J.-S. (2008). Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeton University Press. https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691120355/mostly-harmless-econometrics

Banerjee, A. V., Gertler, P. J. and Ghatak, M. (2002). Empowerment and efficiency: Tenancy reform in West Bengal. Journal of Political Economy, 110(2). https://doi.org/10.1086/338744

Basu, K. and Van, P. H. (1998). The economics of child labor. American Economic Review, 88(3). https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.88.3.412

_____, Das, S. and Dutta, B. (2010). Child labor and household wealth: Theory and empirical evidence of an inverted-U. Journal of Development Economics, 91(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2009.01.006

Bellemare, M. F., Chua, K., Santamaria, J. and Vu, K. (2020). Tenurial security and agricultural investment: Evidence from Vietnam. Food Policy, 94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101839

Bertrand, M., Duflo, E. and Mullainathan, S. (2004). How much should we trust Differences-in-Differences estimates? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(1). https://doi.org/10.1162/003355304772839588

Besley, T. (1995). Property rights and investment incentives: Theory and evidence from Ghana. Journal of Political Economy, 103(5). https://doi.org/10.1086/262008

Besley, T. and Ghatak, M. (2010). Property rights and economic development. In D. Rodrik and M. Rosenzweig (eds.), Handbook of Development Economics (Vol. 5, pp. 4525-4595). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-52944-2.00006-9

Bhalotra, S. and Heady, C. (2003). Child farm labor: The wealth paradox. The World Bank Economic Review, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/lhg014

Brandt, L., Le, D., Huong, G., Trang, C., Pham, G., Nguyen, N. and Luu, V. (2006). Land access, land markets, and their distributive implications in rural Vietnam. University of Toronto.

Chari, A., Liu, E. M., Wang, S. Y. and Wang, Y. (2021). Property rights, land misallocation, and agricultural efficiency in China. The Review of Economic Studies, 88(4). https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdaa072

Chen, C., Restuccia, D. and Santaeulàlia-Llopis, R. (2021). Land markets, resource allocation, and agricultural productivity. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.1257/mac.20180248

De Janvry, A., Emerick, K., Gonzalez-Navarro, M. and Sadoulet, E. (2015). Delinking land rights from land use: Certification and migration in Mexico. American Economic Review, 105(10). https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20130156

De Moura, M. J. S. B., Ribeiro, M. and Piza, C. (2014). Are there any distributive effects of land title on labor supply? Evidence from Brazil. IZA Journal of Labor and Development, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-9020-3-11

Deininger, K. and Jin, S. (2005). The potential of land rental markets in the process of economic development: Evidence from China. Journal of Development Economics, 78(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2004.08.002

______ and Jin, S. (2008). Land sales and rental markets in transition: Evidence from rural Vietnam. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 70(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00487.x

______ and Feder, G. (2009). Land registration, governance, and development: Evidence and implications for policy. The World Bank Research Observer, 24(2). https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkp007

Demsetz, H. (1967). Toward a theory of property rights. American Economic Review, 57(2). https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.57.2.347

Do, Q. T. and Iyer, L. (2008). Land titling and rural transition in Vietnam. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 56(3). https://doi.org/10.1086/533548

Duarte, M. and Restuccia, D. (2010). The role of the structural transformation in aggregate productivity. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(1). https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2010.125.1.129

Field, E. (2007). Entitled to work: Urban property rights and labor supply in Peru. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(4). https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2007.122.4.1561

Galiani, S. and Schargrodsky, E. (2010). Property rights for the poor: Effects of land titling. Journal of Public Economics, 94(9-10). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.06.002

Goldstein, M. and Udry, C. (2008). The profits of power: Land rights and agricultural investment in Ghana. Journal of Political Economy, 116(6). https://doi.org/10.1086/595561

Gollin, D., Parente, S. and Rogerson, R. (2002). The role of agriculture in development. American Economic Review, 92(2). https://doi.org/10.1257/000282802320189177

Holden, S. T., Deininger, K. and Ghebru, H. (2011). Tenure insecurity, gender, low-cost land certification and land rental market participation in Ethiopia. The Journal of Development Studies, 47(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/00220381003706460

International Labour Organization (ILO) (2018). Employment in agriculture (% of total employment) (modelled ILO estimate). Data retrieved from World Development Indicators. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/sl.agr.empl.zs

Khai, L. D., Markussen, T., McCoy, S. and Tarp, F. (2013). Access to land: Market and non-market land transactions in rural Vietnam. In S. Holden, K. Otsuka, and K. Deininger (eds.), Land tenure reform in Asia and Africa: Assessing impacts on poverty and natural resource management (pp. 162-186). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137343819_8

Kimura, S., Otsuka, K., Sonobe, T. and Rozelle, S. (2011). Efficiency of land allocation through tenancy markets: Evidence from China. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 59(3). https://doi.org/10.1086/658347

Li, K. (2020). Property rights, land circulation and off-farm labor supply: Evidence from a land tenure reform in China. Journal of Development Economics, 144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2020.102435

Macours, K., De Janvry, A. and Sadoulet, E. (2010). Insecurity of property rights and social matching in the tenancy market. European Economic Review, 54(7). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2010.02.001

Markussen, T. (2017). Markets, property rights, and investment. In F. Tarp (ed.). Growth, structural transformation, and rural change in Viet Nam: A rising dragon on the move (pp. 117-138). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198796961.001.0001

Markussen, T. and Tarp, F. (2014). Political connections and land-related investment in rural Vietnam. Journal of Development Economics, 110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2013.07.011

______, Tarp, F. and Van Den Broeck, K. (2011). The forgotten property rights: Evidence on land use rights in Vietnam. World Development, 39(5). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.09.014

Matz, J. A. and Narciso, G. (2021). Does reinforcing spouses’ land rights improve children’s outcomes? Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in rural Vietnam. World Development, 138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105222

Menon, N., van der Meulen Rodgers, Y. and Kennedy, A. R. (2017). Land reform and welfare in Vietnam: Why gender of the land‐rights holder matters. Journal of International Development, 29(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3256

Muchomba, F. M. (2017). Women’s land tenure security and household human capital: Evidence from Ethiopia’s land certification. World Development, 98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.05.003

Nakasone, E. (2011). The impact of land titling on labor allocation: Evidence from rural Peru. IFPRI-Discussion Papers, (1111). https://www.ifpri.org/publication/impact-land-titling-labor-allocation-evidence-rural-peru

Newman, C., Tarp, F. and Van Den Broeck, K. (2015). Property rights and productivity: The case of joint land titling in Vietnam. Land Economics, 91(1). https://doi.org/10.3368/le.91.1.91

Oryoie, A. R., Alwang, J. and Tideman, N. (2017). Child labor and household land holding: Theory and empirical evidence from Zimbabwe. World Development, 100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.07.025

Pingali, P. L. and Xuan, V. T. (1992). Vietnam: Decollectivization and rice productivity growth. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 40(4). https://doi.org/10.1086/451975

Ravallion, M. and Van De Walle, D. (2004). Breaking up the collective farms. Economics of Transition, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0967-0750.2004.00180.x

_______ and Van De Walle, D. (2008). Land in transition: Reform and poverty in rural Vietnam. World Bank.

Smith, W. (1997). Land and the poor: A survey of land use rights in Ha Tinh and Son La provinces, Vietnam. Hanoi: ActionAid Vietnam.

United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU-WIDER) (2020). Vietnam Access to Resources Household Survey (VARHS), 2008-2016 [Dataset]. United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research. https://doi.org/10.35188/UNU-WIDER/WDS-2020-16.

Valsecchi, M. (2014). Land property rights and international migration: Evidence from Mexico. Journal of Development Economics, 110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2014.06.006

Wang, S. Y. (2014). Property rights and intra-household bargaining. Journal of Development Economics, 107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2013.12.003

World Bank (2002). Promising approaches to engendering development: Land use rights and gender equality in Vietnam. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/146051468779673764/promising-approaches-to-engendering-development-land-use-rights-and-gender-equality-in-vietnam