Supporting Greater Legal Recognition to Alternative Forms of Collective Action in Rural Vietnam

Phase 1 of the Making Markets Work Better for the Poor (M4P) Project commissioned a number of commodity-based value chain studies, all of which highlighted collective action as a key issue for the poor. As the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) was also very interested in this area, M4P commissioned a research study on “collective action in rural areas in Vietnam”, in order to provide timely inputs to the debate about cooperatives and other forms of collective action.

The research was undertaken by a consortium led by the Centre for Agrarian Systems Research and Development (CASRAD), and which also included the Department of Cooperatives and Rural Development (DCARD) of MARD. This Department was the unit delegated by the Minister to provide inputs to the revised laws on collective action. The research was based on a case study approach to understand best practice examples of collective action throughout the country.
While the debate about collective action’s effectiveness tended to centre at the time around the legal form of the group, the research undertaken by the consortium suggested that the factors behind collective action’s effectiveness were more related to a group’s internal governance and market orientation, rather than to its legal form.

Outcome Of The Research

As DCARD were heavily involved in the study and preparation of the report, and in fact sponsored and chaired the final workshop, the fieldwork and findings of the study were very relevant to their ongoing work of suggesting improvements to the relevant laws. The main impact of the study was that DCARD recommended and implemented decrees that gave greater legal recognition to alternative forms of collective action in rural areas, rather than only recognizing the cooperative as the sole legal form of collective action.

Key Success Factors

The success of the research in achieving policy change could be attributed to a number of factors including:

• The research was required by DCARD as part of their on-going work, but the DCARD team was uncertain as to how best proceed with the research.
• The Centre for Agrarian Systems Research and Development was seen as a credible research partner by MARD, with a research methodology that was easy to understand by all.
• The research was undertaken relatively quickly, and fitted in with policy-makers’ time frame.
• By involving those they wanted to influence in undertaking the actual research, CASRAD was undertaking policy advocacy right from the in initial design of the research methodology.
• The researchers were able to influence the head of DCARD, who had credibility within the Ministry and wider Government, for a change in the legal status of alternative collective action forms.