State-led urban development, displacement, resettlement, and livelihoods from a complexity perspective: A case study of Thu Thiem, Vietnam

Abstract

Urban development has displaced millions and caused widespread impoverishment across the world. Most literature investigates this problem using an "inadequate-input" approach, which attributes failures in livelihood restoration for displaced people to a lack of input investment, e.g. resources and finance, in displacement and resettlement (DR) projects. However, evidence shows that even projects with adequate inputs may fail to achieve their goals, and only a few are successful. This indicates the possibility of higher-level complexity in the DR process, where complex interactions between various factors are non-linear, with unpredictable outcomes.

Since the 1986 reform in Vietnam, land has increasingly been expropriated by the State for modernisation and economic growth. Studies of people who both lost land and have been displaced for urban development in Vietnam remain limited. Complexity in urban DR and its effect on livelihoods remain under-researched. This research explores this complexity through a case study of a state-led urban development called Thu Thiem, in Ho Chi Minh City, that displaced 14,000 households. The research answers three questions: 1) In what ways has the implementation of the Thu Thiem displacement and resettlement affected the livelihoods of the displaced people? 2) How did displaced households make decisions for their relocation and what are their post-displacement livelihood strategies? and 3) How did the broader urban development, displacement, and resettlement policies and power relations shape the policy planning and implementation? The research used a systems approach and the sustainable livelihoods approach; data was collected via on-site observation of relocation areas, in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, and a questionnaire survey.

The findings provide insights into complexity in DR in Vietnam. First, hasty land implementation, low compensation and poor resettlement affected households' livelihoods. Policy implementation was complicated by interactions between a two-price system for land that allowed developers to benefit at the cost of the displaced people, a chaotic land market due to land speculation, and a reductionist approach to urban DR. Second, the households' decision-making for relocation was influenced by not only their socio-economic characteristics but also their knowledge, earning activities, and family space and orientation. The complex socio-economic systems that constituted the people's livelihoods were neglected in the project. Livelihood strategies were identified for livelihood maintained, livelihood diminished and livelihood lost groups. Third, the broader urban development, displacement and resettlement policies and power relations shaped the rights and entitlements of the displaced people and DR planning and implementation broadly. Of these factors, most notable were unequal power relations between actors; a development agenda that prioritised modernisation; an incomplete national legislative framework and biased approach to DR; and a lack of project transparency and integrity. The influence of such factors indicates the complex institutional process of DR, showing the need for a holistic approach to address the complexity. Suggestions for better outcomes are based on the findings of this research.

The research provides insights into complexity in DR projects and how it impacts livelihoods in a country with a socialist-oriented market economy. It also examines other gaps, including urban displacement in Vietnam, coping strategies, and power relations and policy practices in DR. The findings could be used to inform project planning and implementation. Future studies are advised to use the complexity approach to explore how projects unfold in different contexts for greater knowledge transfer.