8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

1/710

TNG CC THNG K

GENERAL STATISTICS OFFICE

KT QU KHO STMC SNG DN C NM 2010

RESULT OF THE viET nam

HOUSEHOLD LIVING STANDARDS SURVEy 2010

NH XUT BN THNG KSTATISTICAL PUBLISHING HOUSE

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

2/710

2

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

3/710

3

Mc lc/cOnTEnT

li ni u/ Foreword 5

A M sng dn qua kt qu kho st m sng dn nm 2010 7

Living standards of the population reected through the Viet Nam Household Living

Stdrds Surey 2010

I. Mc sng dn c qua kt qu kho st mc sng dn c nm 2010 9

Living standards through results of the Viet Nam Household Living

Standards Survey 2010

1. Khi qut v cuc Kho st mc sng dn c nm 2010 9

Overview of the Viet Nam Household Living Standards Survey 2010

II. Kt qu kho st 9

Survey results

1. Mt s c im nhn khu hc c bn lin quan n mc sng 9Some basic demographic characteristics related to living standards

2. Gio dc 10

Education

3. Y t v chm sc sc kho 12

Health and health care

4. Vic lm v thu nhp 13

Employment and income

5. Chi tiu 15Consumption expenditure

6. Nh , in nc, phng tin v sinh v dng lu bn 18

Housing, electricity, water, sanitation facilities and durable goods

7. Gim ngho 19

Poverty reduction

8. Cc c im ca x 25

Commune general characteristics

9. Nhn xt chung 27

Overall remarks

B Kt qu s liu tng hp v kho st mc sng dn c nm 2010 29

Data results of the Viet Nam Household Living Standards Survey 2010

1. Mt s c im nhn khu hc c bn lin quan n mc sng 31

Some basic demographic characteristics related to living standards

2. Gio dc 75

Education

3. Lao ng - vic lm 123Labour - employment

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

4/710

4

4. Y t v chm sc sc kho 177

Health and health care

5. Tu nhp 227

Income

6. Chi tiu 273

Consumption expenditure

7. dng lu bn 347

Durable goods

8. Nh , in nc, phng tin v sinh v internet 363

Housing, electricity, access to safe drinking water, sanitary and internet

9. Tam gia cc chng trnh xo i gim ngho 425

Participation in poverty alleviation programmes

10. Ngnh ngh sn xut kinh doanh 467

Household businesses

11. Cc c im chung ca x 487Characteristics of commune

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

5/710

5

lI NI U

nh gi mc sng phc v hoch nh chnh sch v lp k hoch pht trin kinh t xhi, Tng cc Thng k (TCTK) tin hnh nhiu cuc iu tra mc sng dn c. c bit tnm 2002 n 2010, TCTK tin hnh Kho st mc sng dn c (KSMS) Vit Nam 2 nm mtln vo nhng nm chn nhm theo di v gim st mt cch c h thng mc sng cc tng lp

dn c Vit Nam; gim st, nh gi vic thc hin Chin lc ton din v tng trng v xoi gim ngho; gp phn nh gi kt qu thc hin cc Mc tiu pht trin thin nin k v ccMc tiu pht trin kinh t - x hi ca Vit Nam.

KSMS 2010 c tin hnh cn c Quyt nh s 320/Q-TCTK ngy 26/05/2010 caTng cc trng Tng cc Thng k.

Nhm phc v nhu cu thng tin cho cng tc qun l, nh gi v hoch nh chnh sch,k hoch pht trin kinh t - x hi n nm 2010, Tng cc Thng k bin son s liu chi tit vpht hnh n phm Kt qu Kho st mc sng dn c nm 2010 bao gm 2 ni dung:

Phn A: M sng dn qua kt qu Kho st m sng dn nm 2010

I. Khi qut v cuc Kho st mc sng dn c Vit Nam nm 2010II. Kt qu kho st

1. Mt s c im nhn khu hc c bn lin quan n mc sng2. Gio dc3. Y t v chm sc sc kho4. Vic lm v thu nhp5. Chi tiu6. Nh , in nc, phng tin v sinh v dng lu bn7. Gim ngho8. Tham gia cc chng trnh xa i gim ngho

9. Cc c im chung ca x10. Nhn xt chung

Phn B: Kt qu s iu tng hp v Kho st m sng dn nm 2010Mc 1. Mt s c im nhn khu hc c bn lin quan n mc sngMc 2. Gio dcMc 3. Lao ng - Vic lmMc 4. Y t v chm sc sc khoMc 5. Thu nhpMc 6. Chi tiuMc 7. dng lu bn

Mc 8. Nh , in nc, phng tin v sinh v s dng internetMc 9. Tham gia cc chng trnh xo i gim nghoMc 10. Ngnh ngh sn xut kinh doanhMc 11. Cc c im chung ca x

Tng cc Thng k chn thnh cm n cc b ngnh, cc n v c lin quan trong nc,cc chuyn gia quc t ca Chng trnh pht trin Lin Hp Quc (UNDP) v Ngn hng Thgii (WB),... h tr k thut trong sut qu trnh iu tra, t giai on chun b gm thit kphiu kho st v chn mu kho st n x l, cng b kt qu.

Tng cc Thng k rt mong nhn c nhng kin ng gp ca cc cp, cc ngnh, cct chc v c nhn s dng thng tin KSMS n phm ny ngy cng phc v tt hn nhu cu

s dng.TNG cc THNG K

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

6/710

6

FOREWORD

To evaluate living standards for policy-making and socio-economic development planning,the General Statistics Ofce (GSO) conducts the Viet Nam Household Living Standards Survey(VHLSS). In particular, from 2002 to 2010, this survey has been conducted regularly by the GSOevery two years in order to systematically monitor and supervise the living standards of differentpopulation groups in Viet Nam; to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the ComprehensivePoverty Reduction and Growth Strategy; and to contribute to the evaluation of achievement ofthe Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Vietnams socio-economic development goals.

The VHLSS 2010 was conducted in accordance with Decision No. 320/Q-TCTK datedMay 26nd, 2010 of the GSO Director General.

In order to meet information needs for management, policy making, evaluation, and socio-economic development planning, the GSO has compiled detailed data tabulations and is publishingResults of the Viet Nam Household Living Standards Survey 2010 which consists of 2 parts:

Part A: living standards through resuts of the Vietnam Househod living StandardsSurvey 2010

I. Overview of the Viet Nam Household Living Standards Survey 2010ii. Surey results

1. Some basic demographic characteristics related to living standards2. Education3. Health and health care4. Employment and income5. Expenditure6. Housing, electricity, water, sanitation facilities and durable goods7. Poverty reduction8. Participation in poverty reduction programs

9. Commune general characteristics10. General remarks

Part B: Data resuts on the Viet Nam Househod living Standards Survey 2010

Section 1. Some basic demographic characteristics related to living standardsSection 2. EducationSection 3. Labour - EmploymentSection 4. Health and health careSection 5. IncomeSection 6. Consumption expenditureSection 7. Durable goodsSection 8. Housing, electricity, water, sanitation facilities and use of InternetSection 9. Participation in poverty reduction programsSection 10. Business production activitiesSection 11. Commune general characteristics

The General Statistics Ofce would like to express sincere thanks to line ministries,national agencies, and international consultants of UNDP and the World Bank, etc. for theirtechnical assistance during the survey from preparation of the questionnaire and sample selectionto data processing and dissemination.

The General Statistics Ofce welcomes comments from all organizations, agencies, andindividuals who use information from the VHLSS at different levels so that this publication canbe improved and better meet the demands of data users.

GENERAl STATISTIcS OFFIcE

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

7/710

7

PHN/ PART A

MC SNG DN C QUA KT QU KHO STMC SNG DN C NM 2010

LIVING STANDARDS OF THE POPULATION REFLECTED

THROUGH THE VIET NAM HOUSEHOLD

LIVING STANDARDS SURVEy 2010

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

8/710

8

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

9/710

9

lIVING STANDARDS THROUGHRESUlTS OF THE VIET NAMHOUSEHOlD lIVING STANDARDSSURVEY 2010I. Overview of the Viet Nam Househodliving Standards Survey 2010

The VHLSS 2010 was conducted nation-wide with a sample size of 69,360 householdsin 3,133 communes/wards which wererepresentative at national, regional, urban, ruraland provincial levels. The survey collectedinformation during four periods, each periodin one quarter from the second quarter to theforth quarter in 2010 and one period in the rstquarter of 2011 through face-to-face interviews

conducted by interviewers with householdheads and key commune ofcials in communescontaining sample enumeration areas.

Indicators belonging to other areas ofspecialty are compiled from the VHLSS 2010data for clarication and in-depth analysisof factors impacting on living standards, soresults on these indicators should not be usedin place of published data on these subject

matters.II. Survey resuts1. Some basi demographi harateristisreated to iving standards

Average household size in 2010 was 3.89persons overall with a gradual decline seenover time (it was 4.44 persons in 2002, 4.36persons in 2004, 4.24 persons in 2006 and4.12 in 2008). This trend was seen in both

urban and rural areas, in all regions and fordifferent income quintiles.Average household size was higher in rural

areas than in urban areas, higher among poorhouseholds than among better off householdsand higher in mountainous areas than in deltaregions. According to the VHLSS 2010, the

Mc SNG DN c QUA KTQU KHO ST Mc SNG DNc NM 2010

I. Khi qut v u Kho st m sngdn nm 2010

KSMS 2010 c trin khai trn phm vic nc vi quy m mu 69.360 h1 3.133x/phng, i din cho c nc, cc vng,khu vc thnh th, nng thn v tnh/thnhph trc thuc Trung ng. Cuc Kho st thuthp thng tin theo 4 k, mi k mt qu tqu 2 n qu 4 nm 2010 v mt k vo qu1 nm 2011, bng phng php iu tra vinphng vn trc tip ch h v cn b ch cht

ca x c a bn kho st.

Cc s liu thuc cc chuyn ngnhthng k khc c tng hp t KSMS 2010 lm r v phn tch su hn v nhngnhn t nh hng n mc sng, khngnhm thay th cc s liu cng b cacc chuyn ngnh ny.

II. Kt qu kho st1. Mt s im nhn khu h bnin quan n m sng

Nhn khu bnh qun 1 h chung c ncnm 2010 l 3,89 ngi, gim dn qua ccnm iu tra (nm 2002 l 4,44 ngi, nm2004 l 4,36 ngi, nm 2006 l 4,24 ngi vnm 2008 l 4,12 ngi).. Xu hng ny din

ra i vi c khu vc thnh th v nng thn,cc vng v cc nhm thu nhp.Nhn khu bnh qun 1 h dn c thuc

khu vc nng thn cao hn khu vc thnh th,ca h dn c ngho cao hn h giu, vngni cao hn vng ng bng. Theo KSMS2010, nhn khu bnh qun 1 h nng thn

1. Trong 69.360 h c kho st nm 2010 c 22.365 h ch iu tra thu nhp, 37.596 h iu tra thu nhp v cc ch

khc, 9.399 h iu tra thu nhp, chi tiu v cc ch khc.Of 69,360 surveyed households in 2010, 22,365 households were asked about income; 37,596 households were askedabout income and other issues; 9,399 households were asked about income, expenditure and other issues.

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

10/710

10

average household size in rural areas was 3.92persons, 1.03 times higher than that in urbanareas and it was approximately the same asin 2008 (this gure in 2008 was 1.02 timeshigher). Average household size of the pooresthouseholds (quintile 1) was 4.18 people, 1.2

times higher than of the richest households(quintile 5). Household size in the Northernmidlands and mountain areas and the CentralHighlands is higher than in other regions

Households in rural areas, poor regionsor belonging to the poorest quintile oftenhave more children yet fewer workers thanhouseholds in urban areas, rich regions orhouseholds belonging to the richest quintile.

According to the VHLSS 2010, the shareof population aged 0-14 in rural areas washigher than in urban areas (25% vs. 21.6%).In contrast, the share of people aged 15-59in urban areas was higher than in rural areas(68.1% vs. 64.9%). The group with the highestpercentage of people aged 0-14 (31.7%)belonged to the poor (quintile 1) while thispercentage was lowest among the rich (quintile

5) at only 18.3%. In contrast, people aged 15-59 in quintile 5 accounted for 71.8% while inquintile 1 the percentage in this age group wasonly 57.4%.

The dependency ratio (which is calculatedby number of people not at working agedivided by number of people at working age:15-55 years old for women and 15-60 yearsold to men) in 2010 was 0.55. This ratio of

the poorest quintile was 1.8 times higherthan of the richest quintile. This ratio wasalso seen higher in households in rural areasand in households with lower education ofhouseholds heads.2. Eduation

The share of people who have no diplomaor who have never gone to school among thepopulation aged 15 years and older in the poorest

quintile was 38.1%, 4.6 times higher than in therichest quintile. This share among females was

l 3,92 ngi, cao gp 1,03 ln h thnh thv xp x nm 2008 (con s ny nm 2008 l1,02 ln). Nhm h ngho nht (nhm 1) c snhn khu bnh qun 1 h l 4,18 ngi, caogp 1,2 ln so vi nhm h giu nht (nhm5). Cc vng Trung du v min ni pha Bc

v Ty Nguyn c s nhn khu bnh qun 1h cao hn cc vng khc.

Cc h dn c thuc khu vc nng thn,cc vng ngho hoc thuc nhm h nghothng c ng con hn nhng li t lao nghn cc h gia nh khu vc thnh th, ccvng giu v cc h thuc nhm giu. Theo

KSMS 2010 t l ngi t 0-14 tui nngthn cao hn thnh th (25% so vi 21,6%),ngc li t l ngi t 15-59 tui thnhth cao hn nng thn (68,1% so vi 64,9%).Nhm h ngho nht (nhm 1) c t l ngit 0-14 tui cao l 31,7% trong khi nhm hgiu nht (nhm 5) ch chim 18,3%. Ngcli, s ngi trong nhm 15-59 tui ca nhm5 chim 71,8% trong khi nhm 1 ch c 57,4%.

T l ph thuc (c tnh bng s ngingoi tui lao ng chia cho s ngi trong tui lao ng: 15-55 tui i vi n v 15-60 tui i vi nam) ca nm 2010 l 0,55. Tl ph thuc ca nhm h ngho nht cao hn

1,8 ln so vi nhm h giu nht. T l phthuc cng cao hn cc h dn c thuc khuvc nng thn, cc h c trnh hc vn cach h thp hn.

2. Gio dT l khng c bng cp hoc cha bao

gi n trng ca dn s t 15 tui tr lnca nhm h ngho nht l 38,1%, cao hn

4,6 ln so vi nhm h giu nht; ca n giil 24,6%, cao hn 1,6 ln so vi ca nam gii.

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

11/710

11

24.6%, 1.6 times higher than the share amongmales. The share of population aged 15 yearsand older with college qualications and higherof the richest quintile was 121 times higher thanof the poorest quintile.

Gross enrolment rate trended to decrease

at all levels of general education, in both urbanand rural areas, in regions, among females andmales and in all ethnic groups. In contrast,net enrolment rate trended to increase at alllevels of general education, in both urban andrural areas, in regions and among females andmales. These trends showed that more andmore pupils were attending school at right ageas regulated at 3 levels of general educations.

Average expenditure on education percapita per month reached 68 thousand dong,accounting for 6% of total living expenditures.Average expenditure on education per capitaper month of the richest quintile was 5.6 timeshigher than of the poorest quintile, of urbanareas was 2.6 times higher than of rural areas.

On average, households paid more than 3million VND per household member in school,

a 64% increase in comparison with 2008; therichest quintile paid 6.8 million VND whichwas 6.3 times higher than the poorest quintilepaid; urban households paid 5.3 million VND,2,5 times higher than the rural households paid;households without residential registrationstatus paid 1.8 times more than ones withregistered households. Average educationexpenditure per person in school in the past

12 months in public schools was 2.5 millionVND, lower than expenditure for schooling incommunity-established schools (8.6 millionVND) and private schools (12.3 million VND).

The major components of educationexpenditure includes school fees (39.1%), feeson extra classes (12.9%) and other educationexpenditures (24.1%).

The share of people beneting from school

fee or contribution reduction or exemptions was38.6%, an increase compared to pervious years.

T l dn s t 15 tui tr ln c bng caong tr ln ca nhm h giu nht gp 121ln nhm h ngho nht.

T l i hc chung c xu hng gim

tt c cc cp hc ph thng, thnh th vnng thn v cc vng, nam v n v ccnhm dn tc. Ngc li, t l i hc ng tuic xu hng tng tt c cc cp, thnh thv nng thn, vng v nam n. Hai xu hngny cho thy hc sinh ngy cng i hc ngcc tui quy nh ca 3 cp hc ph thng.

Chi tiu cho gio dc o to bnh qun 1ngi 1 thng t khong 68 ngn ng, chimt trng 6% trong chi tiu cho i sng. Chitiu cho gio dc o to bnh qun 1 ngi 1thng ca nhm h giu nht cao gp 5,6 lnso vi nhm h ngho nht, ca h thnh thcao gp 2,6 ln so vi h nng thn.

Trung bnh cc h dn c phi chi hn 3triu ng cho mt thnh vin ang i hc,

tng 64% so vi nm 2008; nhm h giu nhtchi 6,8 triu, cao hn nhm h ngho nht 6,3ln; h thnh th chi 5,3 triu ng, cao hnh nng thn 2,5 ln; h khng c ng k hkhu ti ni ang sinh sng chi cao gp 1,8ln so vi nhng h c ng k h khu tini ang sinh sng. Chi gio dc, o to bnhqun 1 ngi i hc trong 12 thng qua ti cctrng cng lp khong 2,5 triu ng, thp

hn so vi cc loi trng dn lp (8,6 triung) v t thc (12,3 triu ng).

Trong c cu chi cho gio dc, khon hcph (39,1%), hc thm (12,9%) v chi giodc khc (24,1%) l cc khon chi chim ttrng ln.

T l hc sinh c min gim hc ph

hoc cc khon ng gp l 38,6%, tng sovi cc nm trc.

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

12/710

12

About 93% of household membersattended public schools. This share in urbanareas, among the richest quintile, in rich areas,and of Kinh people was respectively lowerthan in rural areas (89% vs 95%), among thepoorest quintile (88% vs 98%), in poor areas,

and of other ethnic groups.

3. Heath and heath areAccording to the VHLSS 2010, the share

of people receiving health care services inthe 12 months prior to the survey was 40.9%,with 37.1% receiving out-patient care and8.1% receiving in-patient care. This share was

higher in urban areas than in rural areas; of therichest quintile than of the poorest quintile.When necessary, people usually go to

state hospitals. The share of healthcare visitsin state hospitals in 2010 was 83.2%.

However, rural people had feweropportunities to receive medical examinationand treatment in state hospitals than urban

people. In 2010, only 81% of inpatient staysamong rural people were in state hospitals,while this gure was 90% in urban areas.

According to the VHLSS 2010 results,66.7% people receiving medical examinationand treatment had health insurance or freehealthcare cards. This share is urban areas andrural areas was respectively 72.6% and 64.1%.

In particular, 74.1% of healthcare visits amongthe poorest quintile had health insurance orfree health cards while this gure in the richestquintile was only 71%. This gure was higherthan the national average in the poorest regionsof the country like the Northern midlands andmountain areas and the Central Highlands, andamong ethnic minority groups.

Average expenditure for medical

examination and treatment in 2010 was 1.36million VND, 1.3 times higher than in 2008

C khong 93% s thnh vin h ang ihc trong cc trng cng lp v c xu hngtng qua cc nm. T l thnh vin ang ihc trong trng cng lp ti khu vc thnhth thp hn khu vc nng thn (89% sovi 95%), ca nhm h giu nht thp hn

ca nhm h ngho nht (88% so vi 98%), vng giu thp hn vng ngho, ca dntc Kinh thp hn ca cc nhm dn tc khc.3. Y t v hm s s kho

Theo KSMS 2010, t l ngi c khmcha bnh trong 12 thng trc thi imphng vn l 40,9%, trong 37,1% c khm/cha bnh ngoi tr v 8,1% c khm chabnh ni tr. T l ny thnh th cao hn

nng thn; nhm h giu nht cao hn nhmh ngho nht.Khi phi nhp vin, ngi dn ch yu

n cc bnh vin nh nc. T l lt ngikhm cha bnh ni tr ti cc bnh vin nhnc nm 2010 l 83,2%.

Tuy nhin, so vi ngi dn thnh th thngi dn nng thn c t hn c hi ckhm cha bnh ti cc bnh vin nh nc.

Nm 2010 c 81% lt ngi khu vc nngthn khm, cha bnh ni tr ti cc bnh vinnh nc, trong khi t l ny khu vc thnhth l 90%.

Theo kt qu KSMS 2010 c 66,7% sngi khm cha bnh ni, ngoi tr c thbo him y t hoc s/th khm cha bnhmin ph, trong thnh th l 72,6%, nngthn l 64,1%. c bit c 74,1% s ngi

thuc nhm h ngho nht c th bo him yt hoc s/th khm cha bnh min ph, trongkhi nhm h giu nht ch c 71%. Nhngvng ngho nht nh Trung du v Min nipha Bc v Ty Nguyn, nhng nhm dn tcthiu s c t l ny cao hn mc trung bnhca c nc.

Chi ph bnh qun 1 ngi c khm cha

bnh nm 2010 l 1,36 triu ng, cao gp 1,3ln so vi nm 2008.

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

13/710

13

The monthly average expenditure perhousehold member for medical treatment andhealth care was 62 thousand VND, accountedfor 5.4% of living expenditure. Averageexpenditure in the richest quintile was 3.6times higher than in the poorest quintile, of the

urban household was 1.4 times higher than ofthe rural household.4. Empoyment and inome

4.1. Employment

Employment is the most important factorwhich directly impacts living standards ofthe population through its role in householdincome generation.

The share of the population aged 15-19

who were economically active among thepoorest households was higher than amongthe richest households: 12.7% vs. 3.2% in2010. The difference results from the situationthat poor were less likely to attend school, andoften had to go to work to earn a living early intheir life. Similarly, there was a relatively largedifference between urban and rural areas. In 2010,the percentage of economically active population

aged 15-19 in urban areas was 3.6% versus 9.2%in rural areas. This gure in 2002 was 6.9% inurban areas versus 14.3% in rural areas.

The occupational/industry structure ofhousehold enterprises showed progress inshifting towards non-farm activities (i.e.outside of the agricultural, forestry and sherysectors). The percentage of population aged 15and over who worked in non-farm sectors in

2010 hit 34.1%, higher than in previous years(2002: 22.3%, 2004: 26.3%, 2006: 28.4%and 2008: 29.9%). However, poor householdscontinue to be disadvantaged compared to richhouseholds because a majority remain in purelyagricultural jobs with low income. The richerthe household, the more household memberswork in non-farm sectors and the higher theirincome. The percentage of the population

aged 15 and older employed or self-employedin non-farm sectors among quintile 1 (the

Chi tiu cho y t, chm sc sc kho bnhqun 1 ngi 1 thng t khong 62 ngnng, chim t trng 5,4% trong chi tiu choi sng. Chi tiu cho y t, chm sc sc khobnh qun 1 ngi 1 thng ca nhm h giunht cao gp 3,6 ln so vi nhm h ngho

nht, ca h thnh th cao gp hn 1,4 ln sovi h nng thn.4. Vi m v thu nhp

4.1. Vic lmVic lm l yu t quan trng nht tc

ng trc tip n mc sng ca dn c thngqua vai tr to thu nhp cho h dn c.

Nm 2010 nhm h ngho nht c t l

dn s hot ng kinh t tui t 15-19cao hn nhm h giu nht: 12,7% so vi3,2%. C tnh trng khc bit ny l do tr emnhm h ngho t c i hc m phi smlao ng kim sng hn nhm h giu. Tngt, c s khc bit tng i ln gia thnhth v nng thn. Nm 2010, t trng dn shot ng kinh t thuc nhm tui 15-19 thnh th l 3,6% so vi 9,2% nng thn;

nm 2002 con s ny l 6,9% thnh th sovi 14,3% nng thn.

C cu ngnh ngh sn xut kinh doanhca h dn c c nhng thay i tch cctheo hng pht trin thm nhiu ngnh nghphi nng, lm nghip, thy sn. T l dn st 15 tui tr ln lm cng, lm thu phi nng,lm nghip, thu sn nm 2010 t 34,1%,

tng so vi cc nm trc (nm 2002 l 22,3%,nm 2004 l 26,3%, nm 2006 l 28,4% vnm 2008 l 29,9%). Tuy nhin h ngho vnyu th hn h giu v a s lm cng victhun nng c thu nhp thp. H cng giucng c nhiu lao ng lm cng, lm thu vt lm phi nng, lm nghip, thu sn nn cthu nhp cao. T l dn s t 15 tui tr lnlm cng, lm thu hoc t lm phi nng, lm

nghip, thu sn ca nhm h ngho nht canm 2010 ln lt l 11,1% v 6,6%, trong

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

14/710

14

poorest group) in 2010 was 11.1% and 6.6%respectively while these percentages amongquintile 5 (the richest group) were 52.7% and29.8% respectively.

4.2. Income

In 2010, monthly average income per

capita across the country in current prices hit1,387 thousand dong, an increase of 39.4%compared to 2008, an average increase of18.1% per year in the period 2008-2010.

Real income (income which is controlledfor price changes) in the period 2008-2010increased 9.3% per year. This increase washigher than the real income increase of 8.4%per year in the period 2006-2008 and 6.2%

in the period 2004-2006 and lower than theincrease of 10.7% in the period 2002-2004.Income increased in both urban and rural

areas compared to 2008. Monthly averageincome per capita in urban areas was 2,130thousand VND and in rural areas it was 1,070thousand dong, a gap of nearly 2 times.

Monthly average income per capita ofthe poorest quintile (quintile 1) reached 369

thousand dong, an increase of 34.3%; of therichest quintile (quintile 5) reached 3,410thousand dong, an increase of 38.7% to 2008.

Monthly average income per capita incurrent prices in 2010 of all regions increasedto 2008. However, the income gap amongregions remains. The highest income percapita was seen in the South East, 2.5 timeshigher than the lowest income per capita seen

in the Northern midlands and mountain areas.

The rise in household income in 2010 wasmainly due to an increase in salaries, wages,self-employment in the construction; inaddition self-employment in the trade in ruralareas.

Out of total income, income from wagesand salary accounted for 44.9%, income

from agricultural, forestry, shery sectorsaccounted for 20.1%, income from industry

khi nhm h giu nht t l ny tng ngl 52,7% v 29,8%.

4.2. Thu nhpTrong nm 2010, thu nhp bnh qun 1

ngi 1 thng chung c nc theo gi hinhnh t 1387 nghn ng, tng 39,4% so vinm 2008, tng bnh qun 18,1% mt nmtrong thi k 2008-2010.

Thu nhp thc t (thu nhp sau khi loi tryu t tng gi) ca thi k 2008-2010 tng9,3% mi nm, cao hn mc tng thu nhpthc t 8,4% mi nm ca thi k 2006-2008v 6,2% mi nm ca thi k 2004-2006, thp

hn mc tng thu nhp thc t 10,7% mi nmca thi k 2002-2004.Thu nhp khu vc thnh th v nng thn

u tng so vi nm 2008. Thu nhp bnh qun1 ngi 1 thng khu vc thnh th t 2.130nghn ng; khu vc nng thn t 1.070 nghnng, chnh lch gn gp 2 ln.

Thu nhp bnh qun 1 ngi 1 thng canhm h ngho nht (nhm thu nhp 1) t

369 nghn ng, tng 34,3%, ca nhm hgiu nht (nhm thu nhp 5) t 3.410 nghnng, tng 38,7% so vi nm 2008.

Thu nhp bnh qun 1 ngi 1 thng nm2010 theo gi hin hnh ca cc vng u tngso vi nm 2008. Tuy nhin, thu nhp gia ccvng c s chnh lch. Vng c thu nhp bnhqun u ngi cao nht l ng Nam B, caogp 2,5 ln vng c thu nhp bnh qun u

ngi thp nht l vng Trung du v min nipha Bc.Tng thu nhp nm 2010 ca h dn c

ch yu do tng t cng vic hng tin lng,tin cng v cng vic t lm xy dng; khu vc nng thn c thm cng vic t lmthng nghip.

Trong tng thu nhp, t trng thu t tinlng, tin cng chim 44,9%, thu t nng,

lm nghip, thu sn chim 20,1%, thu t cngnghip, xy dng chim 5,7%, thu t dch v

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

15/710

15

and construction accounted for 5.7%, incomefrom services accounted for 17.9% and otherincome accounted for 11.4%. Though incomestructure in 2010 changed considerablycompared to income structure of previousyears, income from wages and salary; income

from services increased; the proportionof income from agricultural, forestry, andsheries decreased.5. consumption expenditure

Nationally, monthly average expenditureper capita in current prices in 2010 rose to1,211 thousand VND, increasing 52.8% incomparison to 2008, and the annual increasewas 23.6%. Real expenditure (expenditure

which was controlled for price changes) of theperiod 2008-2010 increased 14.1% per yearand it was higher than the increase of 7.9%per year of the period 2006-2008, 5.2% of theperiod 2004-2006 and 10.3% of the period2002-2004.

In all regions, monthly average expenditureper capita in 2010 showed a considerableincrease compared to 2008, of which the

lowest increase was seen in the South Eastand the highest increase was in the Red RiverDelta region.

In 2010, monthly average expenditurefor daily life per capita in rural areas rose to891 thousand VND, an increase of 62.4%compared to 2008; expenditure in urban areasreached 1,726 thousand VND, an increaseof 54.9% compared to 2008. Expendituresfor daily life in urban areas were 1.94 timeshigher than in rural areas and this gap hasgradually narrowed (this coefcient in 2006-2008 was 2.03 times, in 2004-2006 was2.06 times; in 2002-2004 it was 2.10 times).Compared to 2008, expenditure for daily lifeof the poorest quintile increased 51.4%; forthe richest quintile expenditure for daily lifeincreased 66.2%. Expenditure for daily life ofthe richest quintile was 4.6 times higher than

for the poorest quintile (this gap in 2008 was4.2 times, 2006, 2004 and 2002 was 4.5 times).

chim 17,9%, thu khc chim 11,4%. C cuthu nhp nm 2010 c chuyn bin ng kso vi cc nm trc, trong cc khon thuv tin lng tin cng v thu v dch v tnghn cc nm trc; c cu thu t nng, lmnghip, thu sn gim so vi cc nm trc.

5. chi tiuTnh chung c nc, chi tiu theo gi hin

hnh nm 2010 bnh qun 1 ngi 1 thngt 1.211 nghn ng, tng 52,8% so vi nm2008, bnh qun mi nm tng 23,6%. Chi tiuthc t (chi tiu sau khi loi tr yu t tng

gi) thi k 2008-2010 tng 14,1% mi nm,cao hn mc tng 7,9% mi nm ca thi k2006-2008, 5,2% ca thi k 2004-2006 vmc tng 10,3% ca thi k 2002-2004.

cc vng, chi tiu bnh qun u ngi1 thng nm 2010 tng kh so nm 2008, trong tng chm nht l ng Nam B, cao nht

l ng bng sng Hng.

Nm 2010 chi tiu cho i sng bnh qunu ngi 1 thng khu vc nng thn t891 nghn ng, tng 62,4% so vi nm 2008;khu vc thnh th t 1.726 nghn ng, tng54,9% so nm 2008. Mc chi tiu cho isng khu vc thnh th gp 1,94 ln khu

vc nng thn v c xu hng thu hp dnkhong cch (h s ny thi k 2006-2008 l2,03 ln; 2004-2006 l 2,06 ln; 2002-2004 l2,1 ln). Chi tiu cho i sng nm 2010 canhm h ngho nht tng 51,4%; ca nhmh giu nht tng 66,2% so vi nm 2008. Chitiu cho i sng ca nhm h giu nht caogp 4,6 ln ca nhm h ngho nht (h s nynm 2008 l 4,2 ln, 2006, 2004 v 2002 u

l 4,5 ln).

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

16/710

16

The share of total daily life expendituresspent on food and drink is a useful indicator toassess living standards. The higher this share,the lower the living standard is and vice versa.Viet Nam is a poor country and this proportionis still high but a downward trend has appeared

from 56.7% in 2002 to 52.9% in 2010.Expenditure on non-food goods and

services of the richest quintile was 7.4 timeshigher than among the poorest quintile. Amongnon-food items, expenditure on housing,electricity, water and sanitation among therichest quintile was 10.9 times higher thanamong the poorest quintile, expenditures onappliances and other household durable goods

was 5.8 times higher, health and health careexpenditure was 3.6 times higher, travel andcommunication expenditure was 12.5 timeshigher, education expenditure was 5.6 timeshigher, culture, sport and entertainmentexpenditure was 132 times higher.

T trng chi n ung trong chi tiu isng l mt ch tiu nh gi mc sng caohay thp. T trng ny cng cao th mc sngcng thp v ngc li. Vit Nam l mt nccn ngho nn t trng ny cn cao, nhng c xu hng gim, t 56,7% nm 2002 gim

xung 52,9% nm 2010.Nhm h giu nht c mc chi tiu nhng

hng ha, dch v tiu dng ngoi n ung lngp 7,4 ln so vi nhm h ngho nht, trong chi v nh , in nc, v sinh gp 10,9ln; chi thit b v dng gia nh gp 5,8ln, chi y t, chm sc sc kho gp 3,6 ln,chi i li v bu in gp 12,5 ln, chi giodc gp 5,6 ln, chi vn ho th thao gii tr

gp 132 ln.

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

17/710

17

T trng hi n, ung, ht trong hi i sngProportion of eating, drinking and smoking consumption expenditure

in consumption expenditure for living

n v tnh/Unit: %

2004 2006 2008 2010

chung n/ Whole country 53,5 52,8 53,0 52,9

Thnh th-Nng thn/ Urb-rurl

Thnh th/ Urban 48,9 48,2 48,6 48,9

Nng thn/Rural 56,7 56,2 56,4 56,1

8 Vng/ 8Regos

ng bng sng Hng/Red River Delta 51,1 51,5 53,4 51,8

ng Bc/North East 58,2 57,0 57,9 57,6

Ty Bc/North West 60,0 60,2 59,9 62,1

Bc Trung b/North Central region 56,3 55,1 56,7 55,5

Duyn hi Nam Trung b/ South Central Coastal region 53,1 54,4 54,1 53,8

Ty Nguyn/ Central Highlands 51,3 52,2 53,7 55,5

ng Nam B/ Southeast 50,4 48,0 47,1 48,5

ng bng sng Cu Long/ Mekong River Delta 56,7 56,2 55,8 54,56 Vng/ 6Regos

ng bng sng Hng/Red River Delta ... ... 53,1 51,9

Trung du v min ni pha Bc/ Northern midlandand mountain areas

... ... 59,9 59,3

Bc Trung B v duyn hi min Trung/North Centraland Central coastal areas

... ... 55,9 54,8

Ty Nguyn/ Central Highlands... ...

53,7 55,5ng Nam B/ South East ... ... 46,2 47,9

ng bng sng Cu Long/Mekong River Delta ... ... 55,8 54,5

5 nhm thu nhp/Income quintile

Nhm 1 (20% s h ngho nht)/ Quintile 1 (20%poorest households)

66,5 65,2 65,1 65,4

Nhm 5 (20% s h giu nht)/ Quintile 5 (20%richest households)

46,9 45,8 45,9 44,8

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

18/710

18

6. Housing, eetriity, water, sanitationfaiities and durabe goods

According to the VHLSS 2010, the shareof households having permanent dwellingswas 49.2%; semi-permanent dwellings was37.8%, less-permanent dwellings was 7.5%

and simple dwellings was 5.6%.The share of households having permanentdwellings of the poorest quintile was 41.3%while this share of the richest quintile was51.7%. In contrast, the share of householdshaving simple dwellings of the poorest quintilewas 12.9 times higher than the share owned bythe richest quintiles.

The share of households using electricity

for lighting reached 97.2% in 2010, of whichthis share in rural areas was 96.2%. Theshare of households using electricity in thepoorest quintiles was 91.6%. There was 5.1%of households in the Northern midlands andmountain areas not using electricity.

In 2010, per 100 households, there were96 motorbikes. Of which the poorest quintileowned 51 ones and the richest quintile owned

139 ones. Number of computers per 100households was 17 and this gure in urban areaswas 5 times higher than in rural areas. Therewas only 1 computer per 100 households in thepoorest quintile while there were 46 computersper 100 households in the richest quintile.

The share of households using safe drinkingwater sources reached 90.5%, of which thisshare in rural areas was 87.4%. The share of

households using tap water was 28.1%, ofwhich it was 68.3% in urban areas and 10.5%in rural areas. The share of households using aush toilet and pour-ush toilet was 54%, ofwhich this share in rural areas was 39.6%. Theshare of households whose waste was collectedwas 39.2%, of which this share in urban areaswas 79.6% and 21.4% in rural areas.

According to the VHLSS 2010, 71.8%

of communes had a commune health stationmeeting national standards (this gure in 2008

6. Nh , in n, phng tin vsinh v dng u bn

Theo KSMS 2010, t l h c nh kinc l 49,2%, nh bn kin c l 37,8%, nhthiu kin c l 7,5% v nh n s l 5,6%.

T l h c nh kin c ca nhm nghonht l 41,3% trong khi ca nhm giu nhtl 51,7%. Ngc li t l h c nh n sca nhm ngho nht cao gp 12,9 ln nhmgiu nht.

T l h c in li thp sng t 97,2%

nm 2010, trong khu vc nng thn t96,2%. S h thuc nhm ngho nht sdng in li t 91,6%. Vng Trung du vmin ni pha Bc cn gn 9% s h khngc s dng in li.

Nm 2010, s xe my trn 100 h dnc l 96 chic, nhm ngho c 51 chic vnhm giu c n 139 chic. S my vi tnh

trn 100 h dn c l 17 my, con s ny khu vc thnh th cao gp 5 ln khu vc nngthn, c 100 h thuc nhm ngho nht chc 1 my vi tnh trong khi nhm giu nht c46 my vi tnh.

T l h dng ngun nc hp v sinh chon ung t 90,5%, trong nng thn t87,4%. T l h dng nc my t 28,1%,

trong thnh th t 68,3%, nng thn t10,5%. T l h c h x t hoi v bn thoi t 54%, trong khu vc nng thn t39,6%. S h c rc thi c thu gom t39,2%, trong khu vc thnh th t 79,6%,nng thn t 21,4%.

Theo kt qu KSMS 2010, c 71,8% x

c Trm y t t chun quc gia (nm 2008con s ny l 56,1%), 68,2% Trm y t x c

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

19/710

19

was 56.1%), 68.2% of commune health stationshad a waste sorting system (it was 59.8% in2008). About 18.5% of commune health stationshad their waste collected, 61.6% of communehealth stations burned their waste, 15.9%buried their waste, 3.5% just threw waste into

the garbage dump, and the 0.5% left used othermethods. Figures in 2008 respectively were13.7%, 63.2%, 19.1%, 3.3% and 0.6%. Progresswas made in solid waste collection activities butit was remained weak. The share of communeshaving waste collection teams was only 32.3%in 2010 (this gure in 2008 was 27.5%).

A high proportion of liquid waste wasdisposed into sewers, ponds, lakes, rivers and

stream leading to strong impact on the localenvironment. Environment pollution seemed tobe worse. While in 2008, there were 41.5% ofcommunes having environmental problems, ofwhich 22.5% of communes having water sourcepollution, 7.2% of communes having air pollution,8% of communes having both water source andair pollution and 3.8% of communes havingother environmental problems, in 2010, there

were 52,7% of communes having environmentalproblems and gures corresponding to the aboveshares respectively were 26.8%, 8.1%, 13.9%and 3.9%. The above pollution was mainly aresult of household living waste of all communeswith environment pollution in 2010, up to 39.3%communes were polluted by daily waste (it was25.1% in 2008). In addition, industrial waste(19.8% of communes) and waste of handicraft

villages (6.3% of communes), and other causes(16.8%) also contributed to local environmentalpollution. Corresponding gures in 2008 were16.3%, 4.9% and 17.3%.7. Poverty redution

7.1. Results of poverty reduction

The poverty rate for the whole country in2010 decreased to 10.7% according to povertylines issued by the Government for the period

2006-2010 (it was 13.4% in 2008, 15.5% in2006 and 18.1% in 2004). By new poverty lines

phn loi rc thi y t (nm 2008 l 59,8%).Cc trm y t x x l rc thi y t ch yu lc ngi n ly i chim 18,5%, t chim61,6%, chn lp chim 15,9%, vt vo bi rcchim 3,5% v hnh thc khc l 0,5%, cccon s tng ng nm 2008 l 13,7%, 63,2%,

19,1%, 3,3% v 0,6%. Cng tc t chc thugom rc c ci thin nhng vn cn yu.Nm 2010 ch c 32,3% s x c t/i thugom rc (nm 2008 con s ny l 27,5%).

Cht thi ra cng rnh, ao, h, sng sui vchn lp cn chim t l cao lm nh hng

n mi trng sng ca cng ng. Tnh hnh nhim mi trng c xu hng gia tng, nunh nm 2008 c 41,5% s x c vn v mitrng, trong 22,5% s x b nhim ngunnc, 7,2% s x b nhim khng kh, 8% sx b nhim c ngun nc v khng kh v3,8% s x c vn khc v mi trng thnm 2010 c n 52,7% s x c vn v mitrng v cc con s tng ng vi cc vn

nh trn l 26,8%, 8,1%, 13,9% v 3,9%.Tnh hnh nhim mi trng ch yu l do rcthi sinh hot, trong tng s cc x b nhimmi trng nm 2010 c n 39,3% s x b nhim l do rc thi sinh hot (nm 2008 con sny l 25,1%). Ngoi ra, tnh hnh nhim mitrng cn do cht thi cng nghip (19,8%),cht thi lng ngh (6,3%) v cc nguyn nhnkhc (16,8%), cc con s tng ng trong nm

2008 l 16,3%, 4,9% v 17,3%.

7. Gim ngho7.1. Kt qu gim nghoT l h ngho c nc nm 2010 gim

cn 10,7% theo chun ngho ca Chnh phban hnh cho giai on 2006-2010 (nm 2008

l 13,4%, nm 2006 l 15,5% v nm 2004l 18,1%). Nu tnh theo chun ngho mi

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

20/710

20

of the Government for the period 2011-2015,the national poverty rate in 2010 was 14.2%,it was 6.9% in urban areas and 17.4% in ruralareas. The Northern midlands and mountainareas was the poorest region, followed by theCentral Highlands and the North Central and

Central Coastal areas. The lowest poverty ratewas seen in the South East.

The poverty rate (referred to here as incomepoverty) was calculated from data on monthlyaverage income per capita from the VHLSS andthe new poverty lines of the Government for theperiod 2006-2010 (200 thousand VND/person/month for rural areas and 260 thousand VND/person/month for urban areas) updated for

price changes in the corresponding years. For2010 only, the poverty rate was also calculatedby new poverty line of the Government for theperiod 2011-2015 which was 400 thousandVND/person/month for rural areas and 500thousand VND/person/month for urban areas.The poverty lines (adjusted for price changes)was used to calculate the poverty rate fordifferent years as follows

ca Chnh ph cho giai on 2011-2015 tht l h ngho c nc nm 2010 l 14,2%,thnh th l 6,9% v nng thn l 17,4%.Vng Trung du v min ni pha Bc c tl ngho cao nht c nc, tip n l 2 vngTy Nguyn v vng Bc Trung B v duyn

hi min Trung; ng Nam B c t l nghothp nht c nc.

T l h ngho ny (c gi l t l nghothu nhp) c tnh da vo s liu thu nhpbnh qun u ngi 1 thng ca h trongKSMS v chun ngho ca Chnh ph cho giaion 2006-2010 (200 nghn ng/ngi/thngcho khu vc nng thn v 260 nghn ng/ngi/thng cho khu vc thnh th), c cp

nht theo bin ng gi ca cc nm tngng. Ring nm 2010, t l h ngho cn ctnh theo chun ngho mi ca Chnh ph chogiai on 2011-2015 l 400 nghn ng/ngi/thng cho khu vc nng thn v 500 nghnng/ngi/thng cho khu vc thnh th. Chunngho (sau khi c cp nht gi) s dng tnh t l ngho cho cc nm nh sau:

chun ngho a chnh ph ho giai on 2006-2010 (ng)

The Governments poverty lines for period 2006-2010 (VND)

Thnh th/ Urban Nng thn/Rural2004 218.000 168.0002006 260.000 200.0002008 370.000 290.000

2010 450.000 360.000

chun ngho a chnh ph ho giai on 2011-2015 (ng)

The Governments poverty lines for period 2011-2015 (VND)

Thnh th/ Urban Nng thn/Rural2010 500.000 400.000

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

21/710

21

7.2. The rich-poor gap

According to the VHLSS 2010, the gap inmonthly average income per capita of the richesthousehold quintile and the poorest one was 9.2

times, increasing in comparison to the gap ofprevious years (8.1 times in 2002, 8.3 times in2004, 8.4 times in 2006 and 8.9 times in 2008).

The income gap between the rich and thepoor is also measured using the Gini coefcientor 40% standard. The Gini coefcientranges from 0 to 1. There is no inequality if theGini coefcient is 0. The level of inequalityis higher, the higher the value of the Gini

coefcient and when the Gini coefcient is 1,there is absolute inequality.

7.2. Phn ho giu nghoTheo KSMS 2010 h s chnh lch v thu

nhp bnh qun 1 ngi 1 thng gia nhm hgiu nht v nhm h ngho nht l 9,2 ln,

tng so vi cc nm trc (nm 2002 l 8,1ln, nm 2004 l 8,3 ln, nm 2006 l 8,4 lnv nm 2008 l 8,9 ln).

Chnh lch thu nhp v phn ho giungho trong dn c cn c nhn bit qua hs GINI hoc tiu chun 40%. H s GINInhn gi tr t 0 n 1. H s GINI bng 0 lkhng c s chnh lch. H s GINI cng tindn n 1 th s chnh lch cng tng v bng

1 khi c s chnh lch tuyt i.

T h nghoThe poverty rate

n v tnh/Unit: %

2004 2006 2008 2010 2010*

c Nc/ WHOLE cOUnTRY 18,1 15,5 13,4 10,7 14,2

Thnh th - Nng thn/ Urb Rurl

Thnh th/ Urban 8,6 7,7 6,7 5,1 6,9

Nng thn/Rural 21,2 18,0 16,1 13,2 17,4

6 vng/ 6 regions

ng bng sng Hng/Red River Delta 12,7 10,0 8,6 6,4 8,3

Trung du v min ni pha Bc/Northernmidland and mountain areas

29,4 27,5 25,1 22,5 29,4

Bc Trung B v duyn hi min Trung/North Central and Central coastal areas

25,3 22,2 19,2 16,0 20,4

Ty Nguyn/ Central Highlands 29,2 24,0 21,0 17,1 22,2

ng Nam B/ South East 4,6 3,1 2,5 1,3 2,3

ng bng sng Cu Long/Mekong River Delta 15,3 13,0 11,4 8,9 12,6

Lu /note:

* T l h ngho nm 2010* c tnh theo chun ngho ca Chnh ph giai on 2011-2015* Poverty rate in 2010* is estimated by the Governments poverty lines for period 2011-2015

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

22/710

22

The VHLSS 2010 showed that thenational Gini coefcient was 0.43 and it hasbeen increasing over time (0.42 in 2002, 2004and 2006; 0.43 in 2008).

The 40% standard developed by the WorldBank is used for assessing the income distribution

of the population. This standard assess theproportion of income held by the 40% poorestpeople in the population. If this proportion isless than 12%, there is a high income inequality.If it ranges from 12%-17%, income inequalityis medium and if the proportion is greater than17%, relative equality is considered to have beenreached. This proportion in Vit Nam in terms ofshare of households was 17.98% in 2002, 17.4%

in 2004, 17.4% in 2006, 16.4% in 2008, and 15%in 2010. According to this standard, Viet Namsincome distribution in the population is mediumbut the trend is moving towards becoming ahigher income inequality.

7.3. Participation in poverty reduction

programs

In 2010, 26.7% of households benetedfrom poverty reduction project/policy, an

increase compared with 2009 (24.6%), ofwhich 10.2% of households were supported inbuying health insurance, 11.5% of householdswere beneted from fee remision for medicalexamination and treatment applied for thepoor, 9% of households were beneted fromfavorable credit for the poor.

The share of households beneted fromthe poverty reduction project/policy was high

in the Nothern midlands and mountain areas,Northern Central and Central Coastal areasand the Central Highlands. About 68.1% ofminority ethnic households beneted from thepoverty reduction project/policy. This share inthe poorest quintile was 60.3%.

Some 82.2% of households self assessedthat their living standards in 2010 were betterthan 5 years previously, while 11.3% reported

no change and 6.2% considered they hadexperienced a fall in living standards. One of

KSMS 2010 cho thy h s GINI v thunhp tnh chung c nc l 0,43 v c xuhng tng qua cc nm (nm 2002, 2004,2006 l 0,42, nm 2008 l 0,43).

Tiu chun 40% ca Ngn hng Thgii a ra nhm nh gi phn b thu nhp

ca dn c. Tiu chun ny xt t trng thunhp ca 40% dn s c thu nhp thp nhttrong tng thu nhp ca ton b dn c. Ttrng ny nh hn 12% l c s bt bnh ngcao v thu nhp, nm trong khong t 12%-17% l c s bt bnh ng va v ln hn17% l c s tng i bnh ng. T trngny nc ta tnh theo s h l 17,98% nm2002, 17,4% nm 2004, 17,4% nm 2006,

16,4% nm 2008 v 15% nm 2010. Theo tiuchun ny th Vit Nam c phn b thu nhptrong dn c mc bt bnh ng va v angc xu hng tng bt bnh ng.

7.3. Tham gia chng trnh xa i gimngho

Trong nm 2010 c 26,7% s h dn cc hng li t d n/chnh sch gim

ngho, tng so vi nm 2009 (24,6%), trong 10,2% h c h tr mua th bo himy t, 11,5% h c min gim chi ph khmcha bnh cho ngi ngho, 9,9% h chng tn dng u i cho ngi ngho.

T l h c hng li t d n/chnhsch gim ngho t mc cao cc vng

Trung du v min ni pha Bc, Bc TrungB v Duyn hi min Trung v Ty nguyn.C 68,1% s h ngi dn tc thiu s chng li t d n/chnh sch gim ngho. Tl h thuc nhm ngho nht c hng lil 60,3%.

C 82,2% s h t nh gi cuc sngca gia nh nm 2010 c ci thin hn sovi 5 nm trc, 11,3% nh c v 6,2% gim

st. Nhng nguyn nhn cuc sng nh choc gim st ch yu l do h c ngi m

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

23/710

23

the main reasons given for no change or evena decline in living standards was that membersof the household had fallen sick (26.4%),especially in rural areas due to low income(26.6%) and increasing price (14.2%).

In 2010, 11.2% of households took out

loans or owed the favorable credit program forthe poor. The main credit source of householdswas the Vit Nam Bank for Social Policies(accounted for 82.6%) and political socialorganizations (8.1%).

7.4. Child poverty

Child poverty in Vit Nam has beena concern of Government agencies, andinternational organizations. Poor children

can be identied through 2 approaches. Therst approach is recognizing poor childrenas children living in poor households whereincome or expenditure is lower than theminimum living standard or below the povertyline. This approach identies poor childrenonly in the economic aspect/dimension. Poorchildren identied through this approach arecalled monetary poor children (or economic,

income, expenditure poor children) or singledimension poor children.The second approach identies poor

children through multi-dimensional indicators.In general, higher income or expendituregives a higher possibility of ensuring a betterlife in both material and spiritual dimensionsand vice versa. However, children neithercreate income nor decide on expenditure but

depend on the environment in which they live,support of their families and social protection.Moreover, children have other special needsto ensure their comprehensive development,physically, spiritually, and intellectually untilthey are mature enough to make their owndecisions to choose and create a good life forthemselves. According to this view, a secondapproach identies poor children not only

along the economic dimension but also along8 other domains related to child development

(26,4%), c bit l nng thn; do thu nhpthp (26,6%) v do gi c tng cao (14,2%).

Trong nm 2010, c 11,2% s h dn c

c vay hoc cn n chng trnh tn dng ui cho ngi ngho. Ngun vay ch yu cacc h dn c l t Ngn hng chnh sch xhi (chim 82,6%), tip n l cc t chcchnh tr x hi (8,1%).

7.4. Ngho tr emVn ngho tr em Vit Nam c

cc c quan Chnh ph, cc t chc quc tngy cng quan tm gii quyt. Tr em ngho

c xc nh theo 2 cch. Cch th nht xcnh tr em ngho l nhng tr em sng trongnhng h gia nh ngho - l nhng h gianh c mc thu nhp hoc chi tiu thp hnmc sng ti thiu hay di chun ngho.Cch ny xc nh tr em ngho di gc kinh t n thun. Tr em ngho c xcnh theo cch ny gi l tr em ngho tin t(hoc ngho kinh t, ngho thu nhp, ngho

chi tiu) hoc tr em ngho n chiu.

Cch th hai xc nh tr em ngho theocch nhn a chiu. Ni chung thu nhp hocchi tiu cng cao th cng c kh nng m bomt cuc sng y hn v vt cht v tinhthn v ngc li. Tuy nhin, trong thc t trem cha to ra c thu nhp cng nh khngt quyt nh c chi tiu m hon ton ph

thuc vo mi trng sng, s bao cp cagia nh v s bo tr ca x hi. Mt khc,tr em cn c nhng nhu cu c bit khc pht trin ton din c v th cht, tinh thn vtr tu cho n khi trng thnh, c kh nngt quyt nh, la chn v to dng cuc sngtt p. Trn quan im , cch th hai xcnh tr em ngho khng ch di gc kinht m xt 8 lnh vc khc thuc v nhu cu

pht trin ca tr em, gm: gio dc, y t, dinhdng, nh , nc sch v iu kin v sinh,

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

24/710

24

needs including: education, health, nutrition,housing, clean water and sanitation, nothaving to work at an early age, entertainmentand incluision, social protection. Children forwhom 2 or more of the 8 dimensions above arenot met will be considered multi-dimension

poor children.Applying the concept of multi-dimension

poverty will provide a more comprehensivepicture of child poverty. A child living in ahousehold with income or expenditure higherthan the poverty line may not be considered pooralong that single dimension yet he/she can still bea multi-dimension poor child if the above 8 needsare not met. Therefore, a combination of single-

dimension and multi-dimension approacheswill help policy makers to adequately identifychildren who need support and to developappropriate policies for these children to reducepoverty sustainably in general and child povertyin particular. This is especially important inVietnam as the nation enters the group ofmedium-income countries as single-dimensionpoverty will be observed at a much smaller scale

than multi-dimension poverty.In this report, multi-dimension poverty in2008 was be estimated using only 6 of the 8above domains (because the VHLSS 2008 didnot collect data on nutrition and entertainmentof children) but multi-dimension poverty in2010 was estimated using 7 domains (dueto absence of nutrition data). In addition tothat, multi-dimension poverty in 2010 was

estimated using 6 domains like 2008 forcomparision.The rate of multi-dimensional poverty

among children aged below 16 in 2010 by 7domains was 29.6% and by 6 domains was20.6%, a quite fast decrease from the rate of28.9% in 2008.

There were differences in the rate of multi-dimensional poverty among children between

urban and rural areas, among regions, ethnicgroups and age groups. Most poor children

khng lao ng sm, vui chi gii tr v hanhp, bo tr x hi. Tr em khng c mbo t nht 2 trong 8 nhu cu trn th c coil tr em ngho a chiu.

Ngho a chiu tr em s cho mt bctranh y v ton din hn v tnh trngngho ca tr em. Mt a tr c th khngngho n chiu, tc l sng trong h cmc thu nhp hoc chi tiu cao hn chunngho, nhng vn c th ngho a chiu dovn khng c p ng y 8 nhu cupht trin nu trn. V vy, kt hp ngho n

chiu v a chiu s gip cc nh hoch nhchnh sch xc nh y hn i tng trem cn tr gip v pht trin cc chnh schph hp vi cc i tng ny tt hn gimngho bn vng ni chung v gim ngho trem ni ring iu ny c bit quan trng ivi nc ta khi bt u ra nhp cc nc cthu nhp trung bnh m cc nc ny nghon chiu c th xy ra phm vi v mc

hp hn rt nhiu so vi ngho a chiu.Trong bo co ny ngho a chiu nm2008 ch c tnh theo 6 trong 8 lnh vc nutrn (do KSMS 2008 khng c s liu v dinhdng v vui chi gii tr ca tr em) nhngngho a chiu nm 2010 c tnh theo 7lnh vc (do khng c s liu v dinh dng).Bn cnh , ngho a chiu nm 2010 cnc tnh theo 6 lnh vc nh nm 2008 so

snh v i chiu.

T l tr em di 16 tui thuc din nghoa chiu nm 2010 theo 7 lnh vc l 29,6%v theo 6 lnh vc l 20,6% gim tng inhanh so vi nm 2008 l 28,9%.

T l tr em ngho a chiu c s khcbit gia khu vc, vng, dn tc v nhm

tui. Tr em ngho a s sng khu vc nngthn. Hai vng c t l tr em ngho a chiu

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

25/710

25

live in rural areas. The two regions with thehighest rate of multi-dimensional povertyamong children were the Northern midlandsand moutain areas and the Mekong RiverDelta. The rate of poverty among minorityethnic children was high.

8. commune genera harateristisIn order to evaluate the effect of community

on business production activities and livingconditions of people in rural areas the VHLSS2010 collected data from 2,250 communesthroughout the country. Information collectedfrom village and commune levels included:commune characteristics, opportunities fornon-farm employment, agricultural production

situation of communes, infrastructure,education, health, credit and savings.According to the assessment by key

ofcials of rural communes, in 2010, 98.9% ofsurveyed communes reported improvementsin living standards compared to 5 yearspreviously. This gure in 2008, 2006, 2004and 2002 was 99%, 99.1%, 98.7% and 97.7%respectively.

The rst reason given for the improvementin the peoples living standards in 2010 waschanges in income from agriculture (84.7%of communes). This is easy to understandbecause the main income source of surveyedpeople in 2010 was agriculture (96.8% ofcommunes), in which the Northern midlandsand moutain areas and the Central Highlandswere the two regions where 100% of surveyed

communes reported the main income sourceto be agriculture. In addition to that, cropproductivity reported by communes increaseddue to changes in cultivation methods,expansion of irrigated agricultural areas,increased more convenience for marketingagricultural products.

Another reason given for improvedliving standards of rural people in 2010 was

changes in income from non-agriculturebusiness activities of households (65.6%

cao nht l Trung du v min ni pha Bc vng bng sng Cu Long; t l tr em nghol ngi dn tc thiu s cao.

8. c im a x nh gi tc ng ca cng ng n

i sng v hot ng sn xut kinh doanhca dn c khu vc nng thn, KSMS 2010 thu thp thng tin ca 2.250 x khu vcnng thn trn phm vi c nc. Cc thngtin c thu thp t cp thn v x bao gm:c im tnh hnh chung ca x, c hi viclm phi nng nghip, tnh hnh sn xut nng

nghip ca x, c s h tng, gio dc, y t, tndng v tit kim.Theo nh gi ca cn b ch cht ca x

th nm 2010 c 98,9% s x kho st c mcsng kh ln so vi 5 nm trc. Con s nynm 2008, 2006, nm 2004 v 2002 ln lt l99%, 99,1%, 98,7% v 97,7%.

Mc sng ca dn c trong x nm 2010c ci thin trc tin l do nhng thayi v thu nhp t nng nghip (84,7% sx). iu ny cng d hiu v ngun thunhp ch yu ca dn c trong cc x iutra nm 2010 vn t nng nghip (96,8% sx), trong Trung du v min ni pha Bcv Ty Nguyn l 2 vng c 100% s xkho st c ngun thu nhp ch yu t nng

nghip, ng thi nng sut cc loi cytrng hu ht cc x u tng do thay ik thut canh tc, din tch t nng nghipc ti tiu ca hu ht cc x tng quacc nm, tiu th sn phm nng nghipcng thun tin hn.

Nguyn nhn khc lm cho mc sng cadn c trong x nm 2010 c ci thin l

do nhng thay i thu nhp t hot ng kinhdoanh phi nng nghip ca h (65,6% s x),

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

26/710

26

of households), improved communeinfrastructure (59.6% of households) andoff-farm employment during the off seasonfor agriculture (35.5% of households). In2010, 69.9% of communes had income fromcommercial activities and 36.1% of communes

from services. Opportunities for non-farm jobsfor rural people were increasingly available.The percentage of communes with businessproduction establishments, handicraft tradevillages within the commune of residenceor nearby communes continues to increase:50.2% in 2004, 51.4% in 2006, 57.2% in2008 and 57.8% in 2010 . The percentage ofcommunes with business production, service

establishments, traditional craft villages withinor nearby the commune that attract communeworkers was 88.1% in 2004, 89.4% in 2006,89.7% in 2008 and 89.8% in 2010.

In the 3 years ending in 2010, about 82.6%of rural communes implemented projectsor programs of the Government or of otherorganizations investing in different elds inorder to improve the peoples living standards:

economic and infrastructure development (75%of communes), hunger alleviation and povertyreduction (67.7% of communes), , culture andeducation (39.5% of communes), job creation(31.8% of communes) environment and cleanwater (26.4% of communes).

Rural commune infrastructure continuedto be improved. In 2010, the percentageof communes with roads accessible by

car to the Commune Peoples Committeereached 97.8%. Some 98.9% of communeshad electricity, 98.9% of communeswere connected to the national electricitynetwork; 89.3% had post ofces, 49.1%had a commune cultural center, 82.2% hada commune broadcasting station and 64.2%had a commune/inter-commune market.80.7% of hamlets had roads accessible by

car 12 months of the year. The percentageof hamlets with access to cement, concrete

c s h tng ca x (59,6% s x) v vic lmlc nng nhn (35,5% s x). Nm 2010 c69,9% s x c ngun thu t hot ng thngnghip v 36,1% s x c thu t hot ngdch v. C hi vic lm phi nng nghip chongi dn cc x ngy cng nhiu. T l x

c cc c s sn xut kinh doanh, dch v,lng ngh nm trn a bn x hoc gn xngy cng tng: 50,2% nm 2004, 51,4% nm2006, 57,2% nm 2008 v 57,8% nm 2010.T l x c cc c s sn xut kinh doanh,dch v, lng ngh k c nm trn a bn vkhng nm trn a bn x c thu ht lao ngca x l 88,1% nm 2004; 89,4% nm 2006,89,7% nm 2008 v 89,8% nm 2010.

Trong vng 3 nm k t nm 2010 tr vtrc c 82,6% s x c d n/chng trnhca Chnh ph hoc ca cc t chc khc ut vo cc lnh vc nhm nng cao mc sngca ngi dn: pht trin kinh t v kt cu h

tng (75% s x), xo i gim ngho (67,7%s x), vn ho gio dc (39,5% s x), tovic lm (31,8% s x), mi trng, ncsch (26,4% s x).

Kt cu h tng ca x v thn ngy cngc ci thin. Nm 2010 c 97,8% s x cng t n UBND x, 98,9% x c in,

98,9% x c in li quc gia, 89,3% x cbu in vn ho x, 49,1% x c nh vnho x, 82,2% x c trm truyn thanh x v64,2% x c ch x/lin x.. S thn/p cng t s dng c c 12 thng trongnm t 80,7% nm 2010. T l thn/p ctip cn ng t lm bng b tng xi mnghoc b tng nha t 51,1% nm 2010. T lthn/p c ch hng ngy l 26,7%, ch phin

l 10,4% v bu in l 25,3%.

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

27/710

27

Hu ht cc x u c trng tiu hc(98,3% s x) v trng trung hc c s

(90,8% s x). Phng tin i hc ca hcsinh tiu hc c ci thin ng k. Nm2010 c 57,7% s trng tiu hc c hc sinhi hc ch yu bng xe p v 37% l i b.Tnh trng b hc ca hc sinh tiu hc ccx khu vc nng thn ngy cng gim. Nm2003, t l x c t nht 1 trng hp hc sinhtiu hc b hc l 43,8%, nm 2005 l 37%,nm 2007 l 39,1% v t l ny nm 2009 l

36,9%. Nguyn nhn ch yu dn n vic bhc ca hc sinh tiu hc khu vc nng thnvn l kinh t kh khn (59,9%), b m khngquan tm n hc hnh ca con ci (61,5%)v tr em khng c kh nng hc hoc khngthch i hc (58,9%).

Theo KSMS 2010 c 98,9% s x c

trm y t x, 50,3% s x c bc s t, 56,8%s x c y s t nhn, 50,2% s x c y t tnhn v 69% s x c ca hng dc phmt nhn.

Bn cnh nhng mt tch cc nu trn, ccx khu vc nng thn cn phi i mt vicc t nn x hi nh: ru ch b tha (41,8%s x), trm cp (46,4% s x), c bc (42%s x), ma tu (29,4% s x). C 49,8% s x

c t nht 1 trng hp nghin ma tu cpht hin.

9. Nhn xt hungNm 2010, tuy kinh t - x hi nc ta

din ra trong bi cnh khng t kh khn,thch thc, nhng cng vi phc hi kinht nhanh sau khng hong, thu nhp nm 2010ca dn c tip tc tng, t l h ngho gim,

i sng ca cc tng lp dn c tip tc nnh. Tuy nhin mc sng vn c s cch

or asphalt roads for cars reached 51.1% in2010. The percentage of villages having adaily market was 26.7%, periodic marketwas 10.4% and post ofce was 25.3%.

Almost all rural communes had aprimary school (98.3% of communes)

and lower secondary school (90.8% ofcommunes). Means of travel to school forprimary pupils has signicantly improved.In 2010, 57.7% of primary schools reportedthat most pupils travel to school by bike and37% traveled on foot. The percentage ofcommunes reporting primary school drop-outs continues to decrease. The percentageof communes having at least 1 primary pupil

drop out in 2003 was 43.8%. This gure in2005 was 37%, 39.1% in 2007 and 36.9% in2009. The main reason reported for primarypupils dropping out was difcult economicconditions (59.9%), parents did not careabout their childrens education (61.5%) andchildren were not able to study or did not likestudying (58.9%).

According to the VHLSS 2010, 98.9%

of communes had commune health stations,50.3% had private doctors, 56.8% had privateassistant doctors, 50.2% had private nursesand 69% had private drug stores.

Despite the above positive aspects,communes in rural areas are having to face theproblem of social vices such as: alcoholism(41.8% of communes), theft (46.4% ofcommunes), gambling (42% of communes),

and drug abuse (29.4% of communes). Some49.8% of communes reported having at least 1drug addict known to the authorities.9. Overa remarks

In 2010, though the socio-economicdevelopment of our country faced not quite afew difculties and challenges, but with thefast economic recovery after the crisis, incomein 2010 of people continued to increase, the

poverty rate decreased, living standards ofdifferent classes of people have remained

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

28/710

28

stable. However, there remains a big gap inliving standards between urban and ruralareas, between the rich and poor population,and between regions, especially the Northernmidlands and mountain areas and the CentralHighlands who face more difculties than

other regions. This is an issue requiringcontinued concern and attention of policymakers to nd appropriate solutions.

GENERAl STATISTIcS OFFIcE

bit xa gia thnh th, nng thn, gia nhmdn c giu v ngho, gia mt s vng, cbit vng Trung du v min ni pha Bc vvng Ty Nguyn cn kh khn nht so vicc vng khc. y l vn i hi cc nhhoch nh chnh sch phi tip tc quan tm

gii quyt.

TNG cc THNG K

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

29/710

29

PHN/ PART B

KT QU S LIU TNG HP V KHO STMC SNG DN C NM 2010

DATA RESULTS OF THE VIET NAM HOUSEHOLD

LIVING STANDARDS SURVEy 2010

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

30/710

30

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

31/710

31

Mc 1/ SecTion 1

MT S c IM NHN KHU Hcc BN LIN QUAN N Mc SNG

SoMe BASic DeMoGRAPHic

cHARAcTeRiSTicS ReLATeD

To LiVinG STAnDARDS

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

32/710

32

M 1/Section 1Mt s im nhn khu h bn in quan n m sng/Somebasic demographic characteristics related to living standards

1.1. Nhn khu bnh qun 1 h chia theo 5 nhm thu nhp, thnh th nng

thn, vng, gii tnh ch h/ Household size by income quintile, urban rural,region and sex of household head

1.2. Nhn khu bnh qun 1 h chia theo 5 nhm thu nhp v tnh/thnh ph/Household size by income quintile and province

1.3. C cu nhn khu chia theo gii tnh v nhm tui/ Proportion of population bysex and age group

1.4. C cu nhn khu chia theo thnh th nng thn, gii tnh v nhm tui/Proportion of population by urban rural, sex and age group

1.5. C cu nhn khu chia theo nhm tui, thnh th nng thn, vng, 5 nhm

thu nhp v gii tnh/ Proportion of population by age group, urban rural, region,income quintile and sex

1.6. Tnh trng hn nhn ca dn s t 13 tui tr ln chia theo thnh th nngthn, 5 nhm thu nhp, gii tnh, nhm tui v trnh hc vn/ Marital statusof population aged 13 and over by urban rural, income quintile, sex, age group and

educational level

1.7. Gii tnh ch h chia theo thnh th nng thn, vng, 5 nhm thu nhp vtrnh hc vn ch h / Sex of household head by urban rural, region, incomequintile, region and educational level of household head

1.8. S ngi trong tui lao ng bnh qun mt h chia theo 5 nhm thunhp, thnh th nng thn, gii tnh, dn tc ca ch h, trnh hc vn cach h/ Number of household members in working age per household by incomequintile, urban rural, sex, age group, ethnicity of household head, educational level

of household head

1.9. T l ph thuc nm 2010 chia theo 5 nhm thu nhp, thnh th, nng thn,gii tnh ch h, dn tc ca ch h, trnh hc vn ca ch h/ Dependenceratio by income quintile, urban, rural, sex of household head, ethnicity of household

head and educational level of household head

1.10. T l nhp c ca dn s t 15 tui tr ln n ni hin ti trong vng 5 nm

qua chia theo 5 nhm thu nhp, thnh th nng thn, vng, gii tnh, nhmtui v dn tc ca ch h/ Immigration rate to current residence of populationaged 15 years old and over during the last 5 years by income quintile, urban, rural,

region, sex of household head, age group, ethnicity of household head

1.11. T l nhp c ca dn s t 15 tui tr ln n ni hin ti trong vng 5nm qua chia theo gii tnh, thnh th nng thn, 5 nhm thu nhp, nhmtui v trnh hc vn/ Immigration rate to current residence of populationaged15 years old and over during the last 5 years by sex, urban rural, income

quintile, age group and educational level

1.12. C cu nhn khu chia theo ni ng k h khu, thnh th nng thn, vng,

5 nhm thu nhp, gii tnh v nhm tui/ Structure of household members byplace of registration, urban/rural, region, income quintile, sex and age group

33

36

44

46

48

51

56

60

63

64

68

71

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

33/710

33

Nhn khu bnh qun 1 h chia theo 5 nhm thu nhp, thnh th nngthn, vng, gii tnh ch hHousehold size by income quintile, urban rural, region and sex of

household head

n v tnh/ Unit: Ngi/ Person

Chung/Total

5 nhm thu nhp/ Income quintile

Nhm 1/Quintile 1

Nhm 2/Quintile 2

Nhm 3/Quintile 3

Nhm 4/Quintile 4

Nhm 5/Quintile 5

C NC/ WHOLE COUNTRY

2002 4,44 4,92 4,69 4,46 4,25 4,00

2004 4,36 4,76 4,57 4,34 4,23 4,00

2006 4,24 4,63 4,43 4,26 4,11 3,90

2008 4,12 4,41 4,30 4,15 4,03 3,77

2010 3,89 4,18 4,10 3,96 3,82 3,47

Thnh th - Nng thn/ Urban - Rural

Thnh th/ Urban

2002 4,27 4,73 4,38 4,30 4,16 3,90

2004 4,20 4,60 4,51 4,39 4,32 4,00

2006 4,13 4,51 4,34 4,18 4,06 3,70

2008 4,07 4,41 4,32 4,16 3,92 3,62

2010 3,82 4,14 4,10 3,92 3,71 3,34

Nng thn/ Rural

2002 4,49 4,94 4,76 4,55 4,35 4,00

2004 4,41 4,77 4,58 4,34 4,19 3,90

2006 4,28 4,66 4,49 4,28 4,15 3,90

2008 4,14 4,41 4,34 4,17 4,05 3,78

2010 3,92 4,22 4,13 3,99 3,86 3,50

8 Vng/ 8 Regions

ng bng sng Hng/ Red River Delta

2002 3,97 4,08 4,14 4,08 3,88 3,70

2004 3,92 3,81 4,15 4,06 3,87 3,70

2006 3,84 3,67 4,10 3,95 3,82 3,60

2008 3,79 3,47 4,01 3,92 3,79 3,70

2010 3,65 3,45 3,76 3,80 3,69 3,56

ng Bc/ North East

2002 4,55 5,26 4,83 4,47 4,09 3,70

2004 4,46 5,10 4,70 4,35 4,08 3,70

2006 4,30 4,93 4,44 4,16 3,93 3,60

2008 4,16 4,66 4,27 4,08 3,85 3,56

2010 4,01 4,68 4,36 4,07 3,80 3,39

1.1

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

34/710

34

Nhn khu bnh qun 1 h chia theo 5 nhm thu nhp, thnh th nngthn, vng, gii tnh ch hHousehold size by income quintile, urban rural, region and sex of

household head

n v tnh/ Unit: Ngi/ Person

Chung/Total

5 nhm thu nhp/ Income quintile

Nhm 1/Quintile 1

Nhm 2/Quintile 2

Nhm 3/Quintile 3

Nhm 4/Quintile 4

Nhm 5/Quintile 5

Ty Bc/ North West

2002 5,15 5,85 5,25 4,68 4,16 3,50

2004 5,15 5,93 5,37 4,55 3,93 3,50

2006 4,93 5,78 4,97 4,34 3,99 3,50

2008 4,85 5,65 4,66 4,35 3,78 3,47

2010 4,58 5,55 5,24 4,75 4,45 3,49

Bc Trung B/North Central Coast

2002 4,53 4,88 4,74 4,42 4,10 3,70

2004 4,40 4,79 4,55 4,23 4,03 3,70

2006 4,28 4,65 4,33 4,23 3,84 3,60

2008 4,06 4,34 4,23 3,98 3,69 3,36

2010 3,94 4,25 4,14 4,08 3,84 3,49

Duyn hi Nam Trung B/ South Central Coast

2002 4,38 4,53 4,54 4,48 4,28 4,00

2004 4,24 4,37 4,40 4,25 4,17 4,00

2006 4,22 4,31 4,35 4,22 4,16 4,00

2008 4,11 4,30 4,30 4,15 3,97 3,73

2010 3,99 3,92 4,15 4,07 4,07 3,76

Ty Nguyn/ Central Highlands

2002 5,08 5,86 5,39 4,84 4,35 4,00

2004 5,09 5,92 5,39 4,87 4,66 4,20

2006 4,93 5,85 5,13 4,68 4,41 4,20

2008 4,80 5,65 5,21 4,63 4,41 3,85

2010 4,34 5,00 4,66 4,36 4,13 3,75

ng Nam B/ South East

2002 4,52 5,19 5,04 4,85 4,63 4,20

2004 4,48 5,08 4,89 4,68 4,62 4,20

2006 4,34 4,91 4,61 4,65 4,51 4,00

2008 4,24 4,81 4,68 4,60 4,41 3,89

2010 3,77 4,29 4,11 3,99 3,57 3,13

ng bng sng Cu Long/ Mekong River Delta

2002 4,60 5,12 4,94 4,69 4,52 4,10

2004 4,47 4,80 4,72 4,50 4,41 4,00

2006 4,32 4,57 4,56 4,39 4,18 4,00

2008 4,16 4,25 4,35 4,22 4,09 3,862010 3,94 4,11 4,09 3,99 3,93 3,64

Tip -Cont1.1

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

35/710

35

Nhn khu bnh qun 1 h chia theo 5 nhm thu nhp, thnh th nngthn, vng, gii tnh ch hHousehold size by income quintile, urban rural, region and sex of

household head

n v tnh/ Unit: Ngi/ Person

Chung/Total

5 nhm thu nhp/ Income quintile

Nhm 1/Quintile 1

Nhm 2/Quintile 2

Nhm 3/Quintile 3

Nhm 4/Quintile 4

Nhm 5/Quintile 5

6 Vng/ 6 Regions

ng bng sng Hng/ Red River Delta

2008 3,81 3,51 4,01 3,94 3,80 3,71

2010 3,65 3,48 3,76 3,81 3,70 3,53

Trung du v min ni pha Bc/ Northern midland and mountain areas

2008 4,32 4,95 4,35 4,09 3,82 3,44

2010 4,17 4,97 4,58 4,24 3,99 3,41Bc Trung B v duyn hi min Trung/ North Central area and Central coastal area

2008 4,12 4,38 4,30 4,08 3,87 3,60

2010 4,00 4,17 4,20 4,06 3,99 3,63

Ty Nguyn/ Central Highlands

2008 4,80 5,65 5,21 4,63 4,41 3,85

2010 4,34 5,00 4,66 4,36 4,13 3,75

ng Nam B/ South East

2008 4,20 4,57 4,66 4,58 4,43 3,89

2010 3,70 4,14 4,11 3,84 3,51 3,11

ng bng sng Cu Long/ Mekong River Delta2008 4,16 4,25 4,35 4,22 4,09 3,86

2010 3,94 4,11 4,09 3,99 3,93 3,64

Gii tnh ch h/ Sex of household head

Nam/ Male

2002 4,68 5,25 4,96 4,70 4,48 4,20

2004 4,59 5,11 4,79 4,55 4,42 4,10

2006 4,45 4,98 4,66 4,44 4,28 4,00

2008 4,33 4,77 4,53 4,34 4,19 3,91

2010 4,10 4,53 4,30 4,14 3,99 3,62

N/ Female2002 3,71 3,65 3,77 3,72 3,78 3,70

2004 3,68 3,51 3,76 3,65 3,76 3,70

2006 3,63 3,45 3,66 3,75 3,74 3,60

2008 3,52 3,32 3,54 3,65 3,66 3,45

2010 3,31 3,15 3,42 3,51 3,39 3,12

Tip -Cont1.1

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

36/710

36

Nhn khu bnh qun 1 h chia theo 5 nhm thu nhp v tnh/thnh phHousehold size by income quintile and province

n v tnh/ Unit: Ngi/ Person

5 nhm thu nhp/ Income quintile

Chung/Total

Nhm 1/Quintile 1

Nhm 2/Quintile 2

Nhm 3/Quintile 3

Nhm 4/Quintile 4

Nhm 5/Quintile 5

ng bng sng Hng/ Red River Delta

H ni (mi/new)

2008 4,1 4,1 4,3 4,2 4,0 3,8

2010 3,9 3,9 4,1 4,0 3,9 3,7

H ni (c/old)

2004 4,0 4,1 4,6 4,3 4,1 3,7

2006 3,9 4,2 4,1 4,1 3,9 3,5

2008 4,0 4,1 4,2 3,9 4,1 3,7

H Ty

2004 4,3 4,3 4,5 4,2 4,2 3,92006 4,3 4,4 4,5 4,4 4,2 3,9

2008 4,1 4,2 4,2 4,2 4,0 4,0

Vnh Phc

2004 4,6 4,9 4,8 4,8 4,2 4,1

2006 4,6 4,9 4,8 4,8 4,5 3,9

2008 4,3 4,5 4,5 4,5 4,2 3,8

2010 3,9 3,9 4,1 4,0 4,0 3,7

Bc Ninh

2004 4,3 4,2 4,5 4,6 4,2 4,1

2006 4,0 4,1 4,1 4,3 3,8 3,72008 4,0 3,7 4,4 4,0 4,1 3,9

2010 3,9 3,9 3,9 4,0 4,0 3,9

Qung Ninh

2004 4,2 4,8 4,5 4,4 4,4 3,9

2006 4,1 4,6 4,2 4,1 4,1 3,8

2008 4,0 4,3 4,4 4,0 4,0 3,7

2010 3,7 4,2 3,7 3,7 3,8 3,3

Hi Dng

2004 3,8 3,7 4,0 3,9 3,7 3,6

2006 3,6 3,4 3,7 3,8 3,7 3,5

2008 3,6 3,4 3,8 3,7 3,7 3,4

2010 3,4 3,0 3,7 3,6 3,5 3,3

Hi Phng

2004 4,0 3,7 4,1 4,1 4,0 3,7

2006 3,8 3,7 4,0 3,8 4,0 3,6

2008 3,7 3,5 3,9 4,0 3,8 3,7

2010 3,6 3,5 3,8 3,9 3,6 3,3

Hng Yn

2004 3,7 3,6 3,9 4,0 3,7 3,4

2006 3,7 3,6 3,9 3,8 4,0 3,5

2008 3,6 3,2 3,9 3,9 3,8 3,5

2010 3,6 3,2 3,9 3,8 3,9 3,4

1.2

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

37/710

37

Nhn khu bnh qun 1 h chia theo 5 nhm thu nhp v tnh/thnh phHousehold size by income quintile and province

n v tnh/ Unit: Ngi/ Person

5 nhm thu nhp/ Income quintile

Chung/Total

Nhm 1/Quintile 1

Nhm 2/Quintile 2

Nhm 3/Quintile 3

Nhm 4/Quintile 4

Nhm 5/Quintile 5

Thi Bnh

2004 3,6 3,4 3,7 3,8 3,5 3,2

2006 3,5 3,3 3,8 3,7 3,5 3,4

2008 3,5 3,4 3,7 3,7 3,5 3,2

2010 3,2 3,0 3,4 3,5 3,4 3,0

H Nam

2004 3,7 3,4 4,0 3,9 3,6 3,4

2006 3,5 3,3 3,7 3,6 3,8 3,2

2008 3,5 3,1 3,9 3,7 3,7 3,3

2010 3,6 3,6 4,0 3,5 3,5 3,4Nam nh

2004 3,6 3,1 3,9 3,7 3,7 3,4

2006 3,5 3,2 3,9 3,6 3,5 3,2

2008 3,4 3,1 3,6 3,8 3,6 3,2

2010 3,4 3,2 3,6 3,5 3,4 3,1

Ninh Bnh

2004 4,0 4,4 4,2 4,1 3,6 3,2

2006 4,0 4,3 4,4 4,0 3,7 3,6

2008 3,9 4,1 4,2 3,9 3,8 3,5

2010 3,5 3,4 3,6 3,4 3,5 3,4Trung du v min ni pha Bc/ Northern midland and mountain areas

H Giang

2004 5,0 5,5 4,9 4,5 4,3 3,3

2006 5,0 6,0 5,6 5,4 4,7 3,9

2008 4,8 5,5 5,4 4,6 4,4 4,1

2010 4,8 6,1 5,6 4,8 4,6 3,7

Cao Bng

2004 4,6 5,1 4,6 4,5 4,1 3,5

2006 4,6 5,0 5,2 4,7 4,4 3,9

2008 4,3 5,6 4,8 4,6 3,7 3,72010 4,3 5,5 4,7 4,4 3,9 3,4

Bc Kn

2004 4,6 5,1 4,7 4,5 3,9 3,3

2006 4,5 5,5 4,9 4,4 4,3 3,8

2008 4,4 5,0 4,7 4,4 4,1 4,0

2010 4,1 4,8 4,6 4,2 4,0 3,3

Tuyn Quang

2004 4,6 5,0 4,6 4,5 4,1 4,1

2006 4,3 4,8 4,5 4,3 4,1 3,9

2008 4,1 4,7 4,2 4,4 3,8 3,52010 4,2 4,9 4,4 4,2 4,0 3,6

Tip -Cont1.2

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

38/710

38

Nhn khu bnh qun 1 h chia theo 5 nhm thu nhp v tnh/thnh phHousehold size by income quintile and province

n v tnh/ Unit: Ngi/ Person

5 nhm thu nhp/ Income quintile

Chung/Total

Nhm 1/Quintile 1

Nhm 2/Quintile 2

Nhm 3/Quintile 3

Nhm 4/Quintile 4

Nhm 5/Quintile 5

Lo Cai

2004 5,1 5,9 5,0 4,5 4,1 3,6

2006 4,8 5,7 5,5 5,4 4,3 3,7

2008 4,9 5,4 5,7 5,4 4,5 3,9

2010 4,5 4,9 4,8 5,3 4,3 3,6

Yn Bi

2004 4,4 5,2 4,6 4,2 3,7 3,5

2006 4,4 5,5 4,9 4,8 4,0 3,6

2008 4,3 5,3 4,9 4,4 3,8 3,8

2010 4,0 5,0 4,4 4,1 3,7 3,3

Thi Nguyn

2004 4,3 4,6 4,8 4,4 4,1 3,6

2006 4,1 4,2 4,4 4,4 4,0 3,6

2008 4,0 4,3 4,2 4,1 3,8 3,5

2010 3,7 3,9 4,0 3,8 3,7 3,3

Lng Sn

2004 4,8 5,3 5,0 4,6 4,3 3,9

2006 4,6 5,1 4,8 4,8 4,3 4,0

2008 4,4 4,9 4,8 4,5 4,3 3,62010 4,3 4,9 4,6 4,4 4,3 3,7

Bc Giang

2004 4,3 4,7 4,6 4,3 4,1 3,5

2006 4,2 4,6 4,4 4,3 4,1 3,6

2008 4,1 4,2 4,3 4,4 4,1 3,7

2010 3,9 4,3 4,0 4,0 3,9 3,5

Ph Th

2004 4,3 5,0 4,5 4,2 3,8 3,5

2006 4,0 4,6 4,3 3,9 4,0 3,4

2008 3,8 4,0 3,8 3,9 3,8 3,42010 3,8 4,0 4,1 3,9 3,7 3,2

in Bin

2004 5,9 6,9 5,5 4,8 3,9 3,5

2006 5,6 6,3 6,4 6,1 5,4 4,5

2008 5,3 7,9 5,8 5,9 5,0 3,6

2010 5,1 6,2 6,3 5,5 4,9 3,6

Lai Chu

2004 5,7 6,0 6,3 5,0 4,6 3,7

2006 5,0 6,1 5,7 5,1 4,6 3,8

2008 5,4 6,4 6,3 6,1 5,5 3,9

2010 5,1 6,5 6,7 5,5 5,0 3,4

Tip -Cont1.2

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

39/710

39

Nhn khu bnh qun 1 h chia theo 5 nhm thu nhp v tnh/thnh phHousehold size by income quintile and province

n v tnh/ Unit: Ngi/ Person

5 nhm thu nhp/ Income quintile

Chung/Total

Nhm 1/Quintile 1

Nhm 2/Quintile 2

Nhm 3/Quintile 3

Nhm 4/Quintile 4

Nhm 5/Quintile 5

Sn La

2004 5,5 6,5 5,6 4,7 4,3 3,7

2006 5,2 6,7 5,7 5,4 4,9 4,0

2008 5,1 6,4 5,5 5,0 4,9 4,1

2010 4,6 5,3 5,1 4,8 4,4 3,7

Ho Bnh

2004 4,4 4,8 4,7 4,4 3,5 3,3

2006 4,3 4,8 4,7 4,5 4,2 3,7

2008 4,3 4,9 4,7 4,3 4,3 3,4

2010 4,1 4,4 4,4 4,6 4,3 3,3Bc Trung B v duyn hi min Trung/ North Central area and Central coastal area

Thanh Ho

2004 4,4 4,8 4,6 4,2 4,0 3,6

2006 4,3 4,9 4,7 4,2 4,2 3,7

2008 4,0 4,4 4,2 4,2 3,9 3,6

2010 4,0 4,3 4,2 4,1 3,8 3,5

Ngh An

2004 4,5 5,0 4,5 4,3 3,9 3,5

2006 4,3 4,9 4,5 4,4 4,2 3,7

2008 4,0 4,4 4,4 4,0 4,0 3,42010 3,9 4,5 4,3 4,1 3,7 3,4

H Tnh

2004 4,0 4,1 4,1 4,0 3,8 3,1

2006 3,9 4,2 4,2 4,0 3,9 3,4

2008 3,8 3,9 4,3 3,9 3,7 3,4

2010 3,6 3,8 3,8 3,8 3,6 3,1

Qung Bnh

2004 4,3 4,6 4,4 3,8 4,0 3,8

2006 4,3 4,5 4,9 4,5 4,2 3,7

2008 4,1 4,3 4,8 4,3 4,0 3,42010 3,9 3,9 4,1 4,0 4,0 3,4

Qung Tr

2004 4,6 5,2 4,7 4,1 4,1 4,0

2006 4,4 4,9 4,4 4,6 4,2 3,9

2008 4,3 4,6 4,8 4,4 4,3 3,8

2010 4,2 5,0 4,6 4,4 3,8 3,8

Tha Thin - Hu

2004 4,9 5,1 5,0 5,0 4,6 4,5

2006 4,7 5,2 5,0 4,6 4,7 4,0

2008 4,5 4,8 5,0 4,7 4,3 3,82010 4,3 4,2 4,7 4,3 4,4 3,9

Tip -Cont1.2

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

40/710

40

Nhn khu bnh qun 1 h chia theo 5 nhm thu nhp v tnh/thnh phHousehold size by income quintile and province

n v tnh/ Unit: Ngi/ Person

5 nhm thu nhp/ Income quintile

Chung/Total

Nhm 1/Quintile 1

Nhm 2/Quintile 2

Nhm 3/Quintile 3

Nhm 4/Quintile 4

Nhm 5/Quintile 5

Nng

2004 4,4 4,1 4,5 4,7 4,4 4,3

2006 4,5 4,8 4,4 4,8 4,4 4,2

2008 4,3 4,4 4,7 4,4 4,1 4,1

2010 4,4 4,3 4,7 4,6 4,2 4,1

Qung Nam

2004 4,1 4,2 4,2 4,2 4,1 3,9

2006 4,1 4,0 4,4 4,2 4,1 3,8

2008 4,0 4,2 4,2 4,1 3,8 3,6

2010 3,9 3,8 3,9 4,1 4,2 3,6

Qung Ngi

2004 4,2 4,3 4,3 4,1 4,0 3,7

2006 4,1 4,4 4,5 4,1 4,0 3,9

2008 4,1 4,7 3,9 4,4 4,1 3,5

2010 4,0 4,1 4,2 4,1 4,1 3,7

Bnh nh

2004 4,1 4,4 4,2 4,1 4,1 3,8

2006 4,1 3,9 4,3 4,2 4,3 4,0

2008 4,0 4,0 4,3 4,3 4,0 3,7

2010 3,8 3,9 3,9 3,8 4,0 3,6

Ph Yn

2004 4,3 4,3 4,5 4,3 4,4 3,8

2006 4,3 4,1 4,3 4,4 4,3 4,3

2008 4,2 4,3 4,5 4,3 4,2 3,9

2010 3,8 3,5 4,1 4,0 3,9 3,5

Khnh Ho

2004 4,5 5,3 5,1 4,5 4,2 3,9

2006 4,4 5,1 5,0 4,2 4,2 3,7

2008 4,2 4,8 4,2 4,3 4,1 3,7

2010 4,1 4,3 4,4 4,4 4,1 3,6

Ninh Thun

2004 4,8 5,3 4,9 4,9 4,3 4,3

2006 4,7 5,5 4,7 4,6 4,5 4,3

2008 4,6 5,2 5,3 4,7 4,4 3,9

2010 4,5 5,1 4,9 4,6 4,2 4,0

Bnh Thun

2004 4,7 5,5 5,1 4,6 4,6 4,1

2006 4,6 4,9 4,9 4,5 4,6 4,3

2008 4,5 4,8 4,9 4,7 4,3 4,12010 4,4 4,8 4,5 4,4 4,2 3,9

Tip -Cont1.2

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

41/710

41

Nhn khu bnh qun 1 h chia theo 5 nhm thu nhp v tnh/thnh phHousehold size by income quintile and province

n v tnh/ Unit: Ngi/ Person

5 nhm thu nhp/ Income quintile

Chung/Total

Nhm 1/Quintile 1

Nhm 2/Quintile 2

Nhm 3/Quintile 3

Nhm 4/Quintile 4

Nhm 5/Quintile 5

Ty Nguyn/ Central Highlands

Kon Tum

2004 5,0 6,3 4,8 4,9 4,5 3,9

2006 4,9 6,4 5,7 5,2 4,1 4,1

2008 5,0 6,0 5,9 4,9 4,4 4,1

2010 4,4 5,0 4,9 4,3 4,1 3,7

Gia Lai

2004 5,2 6,2 5,5 4,7 4,7 4,4

2006 5,1 6,6 5,8 4,8 4,8 4,2

2008 5,0 6,2 5,5 5,4 4,6 4,02010 4,5 5,5 4,8 4,5 4,2 3,9

c Lc

2004 5,4 6,1 5,7 5,4 4,8 4,4

2006 5,1 5,9 5,7 5,1 4,9 4,5

2008 5,0 5,8 5,6 5,0 4,8 4,2

2010 4,4 4,9 4,7 4,4 4,3 3,9

c Nng

2004 4,8 5,4 4,7 4,3 4,5 4,2

2006 4,5 5,1 4,8 4,8 4,2 4,0

2008 4,5 5,2 5,1 4,5 4,4 3,82010 4,3 4,8 4,6 4,7 4,1 3,7

Lm ng

2004 4,7 5,3 5,1 4,5 4,5 4,0

2006 4,6 5,5 4,9 4,6 4,3 4,0

2008 4,4 5,1 4,8 4,4 4,2 3,7

2010 4,1 4,6 4,4 4,1 4,1 3,5

ng Nam B/ South East

Bnh Phc

2004 4,5 5,1 4,7 4,6 4,5 4,1

2006 4,3 4,9 4,4 4,2 4,2 3,9

2008 4,2 4,6 4,2 4,2 4,0 3,9

2010 4,0 4,4 4,4 4,1 4,0 3,5

Ty Ninh

2004 4,3 4,6 4,7 4,3 4,0 3,9

2006 4,1 4,3 4,3 4,5 4,0 3,7

2008 3,9 4,1 4,0 3,9 3,7 3,6

2010 3,8 3,9 3,9 3,9 3,8 3,5

Bnh Dng

2004 4,1 4,1 3,5 4,3 4,2 4,0

2006 4,0 3,9 4,4 4,2 4,1 3,6

2008 3,7 3,9 4,1 3,8 3,5 3,4

2010 3,4 3,8 3,8 3,5 3,1 2,8

Tip -Cont1.2

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

42/710

42

Nhn khu bnh qun 1 h chia theo 5 nhm thu nhp v tnh/thnh phHousehold size by income quintile and province

n v tnh/ Unit: Ngi/ Person

5 nhm thu nhp/ Income quintile

Chung/Total

Nhm 1/Quintile 1

Nhm 2/Quintile 2

Nhm 3/Quintile 3

Nhm 4/Quintile 4

Nhm 5/Quintile 5

ng Nai

2004 4,7 5,3 5,7 5,1 4,7 4,3

2006 4,5 4,7 4,9 4,9 4,4 4,0

2008 4,5 4,9 4,9 4,7 4,3 4,0

2010 4,0 4,1 4,3 4,2 3,9 3,4

B Ra- Vng Tu

2004 4,5 4,6 5,0 5,0 4,8 3,9

2006 4,4 5,2 4,8 4,3 4,2 3,8

2008 4,5 5,2 4,6 4,9 4,5 3,7

2010 3,9 4,1 4,2 4,2 3,8 3,3TP H Ch Minh

2004 4,4 5,7 4,5 4,5 4,8 4,3

2006 4,3 4,8 4,5 4,6 4,0 3,6

2008 4,2 4,8 4,5 4,4 3,9 3,6

2010 3,6 4,2 4,1 3,7 3,4 3,0

ng bng sng Cu Long/ Mekong River Delta

Long An

2004 4,2 4,2 4,3 4,1 4,4 3,9

2006 4,1 4,4 4,1 4,2 4,1 3,9

2008 4,1 4,0 4,5 4,2 4,1 3,72010 3,9 4,1 4,1 4,0 3,9 3,6

Tin Giang

2004 4,3 4,7 4,3 4,5 4,2 4,0

2006 4,1 4,5 4,2 4,0 4,1 3,6

2008 4,0 4,2 4,4 4,2 4,0 3,5

2010 3,8 4,0 3,9 3,9 3,6 3,6

Bn Tre

2004 4,0 4,2 4,2 4,1 4,0 3,5

2006 3,9 4,1 4,1 4,1 3,8 3,3

2008 3,7 4,0 4,0 3,7 3,6 3,32010 3,5 3,7 3,7 3,6 3,4 3,3

Tr Vinh

2004 4,4 4,9 4,5 4,4 4,1 3,9

2006 4,2 4,3 4,4 4,4 4,2 3,8

2008 3,9 4,2 4,2 4,0 3,8 3,5

2010 3,8 3,9 4,0 3,8 3,8 3,7

Vnh Long

2004 4,4 4,9 4,7 4,4 4,2 3,8

2006 4,1 4,4 4,4 4,3 3,9 3,7

2008 4,0 4,2 4,1 4,1 3,8 3,72010 3,9 4,1 4,0 4,1 3,8 3,4

Tip -Cont1.2

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

43/710

43

Nhn khu bnh qun 1 h chia theo 5 nhm thu nhp v tnh/thnh phHousehold size by income quintile and province

n v tnh/ Unit: Ngi/ Person

5 nhm thu nhp/ Income quintile

Chung/Total

Nhm 1/Quintile 1

Nhm 2/Quintile 2

Nhm 3/Quintile 3

Nhm 4/Quintile 4

Nhm 5/Quintile 5

ng Thp

2004 4,6 4,9 4,8 4,5 4,6 4,1

2006 4,4 4,8 4,5 4,5 4,2 4,2

2008 4,2 4,1 4,3 4,3 4,1 4,0

2010 3,9 4,0 4,1 3,9 3,8 3,8

An Giang

2004 4,5 4,4 5,0 4,4 4,4 4,2

2006 4,4 4,6 4,7 4,4 4,3 4,1

2008 4,5 4,5 4,6 4,5 4,3 4,5

2010 4,2 4,4 4,4 4,2 4,0 3,9Kin Giang

2004 4,7 5,5 5,1 4,6 4,7 4,1

2006 4,6 4,7 4,5 4,8 4,6 4,3

2008 4,4 4,6 4,6 4,3 4,4 4,1

2010 4,1 4,3 4,4 4,3 4,2 3,6

Cn Th

2004 4,5 4,5 4,9 4,8 4,4 4,0

2006 4,5 4,8 5,0 4,4 4,4 3,9

2008 4,3 4,4 4,6 4,3 4,4 3,8

2010 3,9 3,9 4,0 4,1 3,8 3,6Hu Giang

2004 4,6 5,1 4,7 4,5 4,6 4,3

2006 4,3 4,5 4,6 4,2 4,2 3,9

2008 4,1 4,3 4,2 4,0 4,2 3,9

2010 3,9 4,1 4,1 3,9 4,0 3,4

Sc Trng

2004 4,7 5,0 5,0 4,7 4,6 4,2

2006 4,6 4,7 4,6 5,0 4,4 4,3

2008 4,2 4,5 4,2 4,4 4,2 3,8

2010 4,1 4,1 4,6 4,1 3,9 4,0Bc Liu

2004 4,8 5,2 5,0 5,1 4,5 4,4

2006 4,7 4,9 5,3 4,5 4,4 4,6

2008 4,4 4,2 4,5 4,6 4,5 4,2

2010 4,1 4,1 4,1 4,3 4,2 3,8

C Mau

2004 5,0 5,3 5,4 5,2 5,0 4,3

2006 4,8 5,2 5,1 4,9 4,5 4,4

2008 4,5 4,7 4,5 4,7 4,5 4,0

2010 4,1 4,4 4,1 4,3 4,2 3,7

Tip -Cont1.2

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

44/710

44

C cu nhn khu chia theo gii tnh v nhm tuiProportion of population by sex and age group

n v tnh/ Unit: %

Tng s/ Total Nam/ Male N/ Female

NHM TUI/AGE GROUP2002 100,0 49,2 50,8

2004 100,0 49,1 50,9

2006 100,0 49,1 50,9

2008 100,0 49,0 51,0

2010 100,0 49,0 51,0

0-4

2002 100,0 52,8 47,2

2004 100,0 53,4 46,6

2006 100,0 52,0 48,0

2008 100,0 52,0 48,02010 100,0 52,3 47,8

5-9

2002 100,0 51,0 49,0

2004 100,0 50,7 49,3

2006 100,0 51,7 48,3

2008 100,0 51,3 48,8

2010 100,0 51,3 48,7

10-14

2002 100,0 51,3 48,7

2004 100,0 50,8 49,22006 100,0 50,6 49,4

2008 100,0 50,8 49,2

2010 100,0 51,3 48,7

15-19

2002 100,0 51,4 48,6

2004 100,0 52,2 47,8

2006 100,0 52,1 47,9

2008 100,0 51,9 48,1

2010 100,0 51,4 48,6

20-242002 100,0 50,7 49,3

2004 100,0 52,3 47,7

2006 100,0 52,4 47,6

2008 100,0 52,8 47,2

2010 100,0 49,8 50,2

25-29

2002 100,0 49,2 50,8

2004 100,0 49,3 50,8

2006 100,0 50,4 49,7

2008 100,0 50,7 49,32010 100,0 49,5 50,5

1.3

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

45/710

45

C cu nhn khu chia theo gii tnh v nhm tuiProportion of population by sex and age group

n v tnh/ Unit: %

Tng s/ Total Nam/ Male N/ Female

30-342002 100,0 48,1 51,9

2004 100,0 46,9 53,1

2006 100,0 47,1 52,9

2008 100,0 47,5 52,5

2010 100,0 47,8 52,2

35-39

2002 100,0 49,0 51,0

2004 100,0 49,2 50,8

2006 100,0 48,6 51,4

2008 100,0 47,6 52,42010 100,0 49,1 50,9

40-44

2002 100,0 48,0 52,0

2004 100,0 48,0 52,0

2006 100,0 48,7 51,3

2008 100,0 48,9 51,1

2010 100,0 49,5 50,5

45-49

2002 100,0 47,4 52,6

2004 100,0 47,6 52,42006 100,0 47,4 52,6

2008 100,0 47,6 52,4

2010 100,0 48,7 51,3

50-54

2002 100,0 46,8 53,2

2004 100,0 47,8 52,3

2006 100,0 47,9 52,1

2008 100,0 47,9 52,2

2010 100,0 47,0 53,0

55-59

2002 100,0 45,7 54,3

2004 100,0 46,0 54,1

2006 100,0 46,4 53,6

2008 100,0 46,6 53,4

2010 100,0 47,3 52,7

60+

2002

2004 100,0 41,2 58,8

2006 100,0 41,1 58,9

2008 100,0 41,3 58,8

2010 100,0 41,5 58,5

Tip -Cont1.3

8/22/2019 KSMS2010 Ban In

46/710

46

C cu nhn khu chia theo thnh th nng thn, gii tnh v nhm tuiProportion of population by urban rural, sex and age group

n v tnh/ Unit: %

Thnh th/ Urban Nng thn/ Rural

Tng s/Total

Nam/ MaleN/

Fe-male

Tng s/Total

Nam/ MaleN/

Fe-male

C NC/ WHOLE COUNTRY

2002 23,3 11,4 11,9 76,7 3