Social Capital and Subjective Well-Being in Rural Vietnam

Social Capital and Subjective Well-Being in Rural Vietnam | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Social Capital and Subjective Well-Being in Rural Vietnam Phan Nguyen Thai, Lee Ji Yong This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9443381/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study investigates the relationship between social capital and subjective well-being (SWB) in rural Vietnam using a balanced panel of 1,585 households from the Vietnam Access to Resources Household Survey (VARHS) in 2012 and 2018. Using fixed effects, ordered probit, and correlated random effects (CRE) ordered probit models, the study examines multiple dimensions of social capital together with household economic characteristics. The results indicate that positions of public responsibility, organizational participation, and information are also positively associated with SWB. Household economic factors such as income and savings are consistently associated with higher SWB, while credit use is negatively associated with well-being. Overall, the findings suggest that rural well-being in Vietnam depends more on financial security and socially recognized participation than on trust alone. The study implies that policies aimed at improving rural well-being should combine income enhancement with stronger financial resilience, responsible credit systems, and meaningful community engagement. social capital household income subjective well-being ordered probit model Vietnam Figures Figure 1 1. Introduction Subjective well-being (SWB), commonly understood as individuals’ self-reported happiness and life satisfaction, is increasingly recognized as an important indicator of social progress alongside conventional economic measures (Clark, 2018 ; Riduan, 2024 ). In rural development research, this perspective is particularly valuable because improvements in living conditions are not fully captured by income or asset accumulation alone. While household well-being usually refers to the overall quality of life of the household as a socio-economic unit, including both material and non-material dimensions, SWB reflects an individual’s own evaluation of life satisfaction and happiness(Helliwell et al., 2021 ). In rural household surveys such as the Vietnam Access to Resources Household Survey (VARHS), SWB is typically reported by the household head and is often used as a proxy for household-level welfare, following earlier studies (Nuzhat Ahmad & Mahpara Sadaqa, 2022; Rani et al., 2021 ). This practice is based on the assumption that the household head’s assessment broadly reflects the well-being of the household, given their central role in decision-making and resource allocation. In the literature, SWB is generally conceptualized as individuals’ evaluations of their lives, including life satisfaction, happiness, positive emotions, and the relative absence of negative feelings (La et al., 2021 ; Sepúlveda Maldonado et al., 2020 ). It is commonly measured through self-reported survey questions in which respondents assess their overall life satisfaction on ordered scales (Helliwell, 2003 ; Sesmero et al., 2018 ) This approach has been widely adopted in both economics and psychology because it captures dimensions of welfare that extend beyond objective indicators such as income, consumption, or assets (Rajani et al., 2019 ; Tran et al., 2017 ). Within this broader understanding of well-being, growing attention has been paid to the role of social relationships and community embeddedness, especially through the concept of social capital. Social capital, broadly defined as the networks, norms, trust, and social relations that facilitate cooperation and collective action (Grootaert et al., 2004 ), has emerged as an important determinant of SWB. It can influence well-being through several channels. First, social networks may provide emotional support, companionship, and a sense of belonging, all of which contribute directly to life satisfaction. Second, participation in local groups and community organizations may increase access to information, services, and economic opportunities, thereby indirectly improving individual well-being. Third, generalized trust and reciprocal relationships can reduce uncertainty, strengthen social security, and enhance people’s confidence in coping with daily risks and future challenges (Prayitno et al., 2022 ; Wu et al., 2023 ). In rural settings, where formal institutions and welfare mechanisms are often weaker, these social resources may play an especially important role in shaping how individuals perceive and evaluate their lives. At the same time, the relationship between social capital and SWB is not necessarily straightforward or uniformly positive. Different dimensions of social capital may operate in different ways. For example, membership in organizations may enhance social integration and provide access to support networks, but it may also impose time commitments, financial contributions, or social obligations. Leadership roles may generate status and recognition, yet they may also bring pressure and responsibility. Likewise, trust can promote cooperation and psychological security, but its effects may depend on the broader institutional and community context. Existing studies therefore suggest that social capital is a multidimensional construct whose association with SWB may vary across forms, contexts, and populations (Campos-Matos et al., 2016 ; Cramm et al., 2013 ). Vietnam offers a particularly relevant context for examining the relationship between social capital and SWB. As a lower-middle-income country undergoing rapid socio-economic transformation, Vietnam has achieved substantial gains in income and living standards, but important disparities remain between rural and urban areas (Ruan et al., 2022 ). In rural Vietnam, households continue to rely heavily on kinship ties, neighborhood relations, local associations, and informal support networks to access information, manage risks, and sustain livelihoods (Yuan, 2024 ). These features make social capital a potentially important factor in explaining subjective well-being. However, empirical evidence on this relationship in rural Vietnam remains limited. Much of the previous literature has focused either on the role of income and other material factors in shaping SWB (Cai & Park, 2016 ; Graafland & Lous, 2019 ) or on the broader developmental functions of social capital without directly assessing its contribution to subjective life evaluations (Calcagnini & Perugini, 2019 ). Moreover, prior studies often rely on aggregate indicators of social capital, making it difficult to identify which specific dimensions matter most for SWB. Organizational participation, leadership roles, and interpersonal trust may not have the same implications for well-being, and aggregating them into a single index can obscure these differences. Examining social capital in a disaggregated way therefore offers a more nuanced understanding of how social connectedness influences subjective well-being. It also allows for a better assessment of whether some forms of social capital are more strongly associated with life satisfaction than others in rural contexts. Against this background, this study investigates the relationship between social capital and subjective well-being in rural Vietnam, with particular attention to different dimensions of social capital. By using panel data, the study is able to move beyond simple cross-sectional associations and better account for unobserved heterogeneity across households and individuals. Although the analysis remains correlational, it provides more robust evidence on how social participation, trust, and community roles are associated with subjective well-being over time. In doing so, the study contributes to the literature by clarifying the multidimensional role of social capital in shaping well-being and by offering context-specific insights for rural development policy in Vietnam and other low- and middle-income countries. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Data source The Vietnam Access to Resources Household Survey (VARHS) is a dataset that offers insights into the socioeconomic status of households in Vietnam and their access to resources. To understand the circumstances of households across the 12 provinces encompassing all regions of Vietnam, it was necessary to gather responses to various inquiries posed by the Vietnam Access to Resources Household Survey (VARHS). Refer to Fig. 1 for a visual depiction of the study site locations. The northern region encompasses Ha Tay, Lao Cai, Phu Tho, Lai Chau, and Dien Bien; the central region comprises Nghe An, Quang Nam, Khanh Hoa, Dak Lak, Dak Nong, and Lam Dong; and the Mekong River region includes Long An, all of which are part of this collective of locales. Despite collecting data from 2008 to 2018, only 2012, 2014, and 2018 show SWB. Furthermore, the SWB scale in 2014 differs significantly from the others, indicating that the results from that year may not be comparable to those from 2012 and 2018. As a result, the study only used data sources from VARHS in 2012 and 2018 to estimate the effect of social capital and income on SWB in rural Vietnam. The analysis of the above relationship in rural Vietnam uses 1585 households each year after merging the various STATA files. The survey of the 1,585 households in the sample took place in both 2012 and 2018, resulting in a balanced panel dataset. This panel structure allows us to control for unobserved household heterogeneity using correlated random effects. Although social changes (period or cohort effects) could influence SWB between 2012 and 2018, our models include a year dummy to capture common shocks or trends over time, such as policy reforms or macroeconomic shifts. 2.2 Measurement of Key Variables 2.2.1. Social capital index Grootaert et al. ( 2004 ) developed six dimensions for estimating the social capital index at the household level. The authors have divided the content into six final sections: group and networks; trust and solidarity; collective action and cooperation; information and communication; social cohesion and inclusion; and empowerment and political action (Bojorquez-Chapela et al., 2012 ). In this study, five of the six components constitute the social capital index in rural Vietnam, allowing researchers to assess the effect of social capital on happiness. In the Groups and Networks section, the study counts the number of groups in which the head of household participates, encompassing a variety of social organizations and informal networks. Furthermore, the study employs a question that connects household head trust in neighbors to the Trust and Solidarity social capital index representative. In terms of collective action and cooperation, the study uses the question, "Does any member of your household hold any office or other positions of public responsibility in the community or at higher levels of government?" to investigate the extent and manner in which household members have collaborated with others in their community on collective initiatives or in response to a crisis. Furthermore, the diversity of information sources and the impact of information sources on the decision to sell output and agricultural production are considered social capital indicators in the field of information and communication. Finally, the study uses the number of organizational leaders in each home to illustrate one of the social capital indices in the Empowerment and Political Action section. 2.2.2. Subjective Well-Being (SWB) In this study, SWB is measured using the household head’s self-reported evaluation, which we interpret as a proxy for household well-being. This is consistent with previous rural welfare studies (Rani et al., 2021 ) that treat the household head’s response as representative of the household’s overall life evaluation, given their key role in managing resources and representing household interests. In this study, the household head would answer the question, "Taking all things together, would you say you are (1) very pleased/happy with your life? (2) Rather pleased/happy with your life? (3) Not very happy/pleased with your life?’’ (4) Not at all happy/pleased with your life?’’, which is representative of their SWB. Table 1 SWB in rural Vietnam The level of SWB The year 2012 (%) The year 2018 (%) All (%) Value Very pleased/happy with life 7.83 6.51 7.17 3 Rather pleased/happy with life 47.59 75.83 61.71 2 Not very happy/pleased with life 39.57 16.28 27.93 1 Not at all happy/pleased with life 5.01 1.38 3.19 0 (Base) Observation 1585 1585 3174 - Source: VARHS 2.3. Methodology Since the study's output is a scale of SWB from 0 to 3, the Ordered Probit model can be used to estimate the impact of social capital and household income on SWB. The order probit is as follows: Pr(y it > k|κ, x it , z it , ν i ) = Φ(βx it + γz it + µ i + ε i − κ k ) (1) T = 2012 and 2018 I = 1,2,…,n Where, x it represents a vector of explanatory variables for the social capital index, z it denotes a vector of additional control variables, including household characteristics, µ i signifies an individual-specific time-invariant component, ε i is independently and identically distributed as N(0, σ 2 v ), κ comprises a set of cut points κ 1 , κ 2 , …, κ K−1 , and Φ(·) refers to the standard normal cumulative distribution function. Equation (1) can be transferred to another model as follows: y * 𝑖𝑡 ∗ = βx it + γz it + µ i + ε it (2) where ε it is predicted to be independently and identically distributed over time, and 𝑦 * 𝑖𝑡 represents the actual ordinal response, derived from latent continuous responses. The unobserved heterogeneity µ i may lead to biased results when estimating Eq. (2). Unobserved heterogeneity refers to the variation among individuals or entities not captured by the observed variables in a model. This can lead to biased estimates if the unobserved factors correlate with the dependent variable. Previous research (Phan et al., 2022 ) indicates that the Mundlak-type Correlated Random Effects (CRE) account for unobserved heterogeneity by incorporating the means of all time-varying variables ( \(\:\underset{\_}{X̅}\) 𝑗𝑖 ) into the model. To check the consistency of the results, provide several estimations, such as fixed effect, and the ordered probit estimation method with and without controlling for unobserved heterogeneity. Table 2 presents several variables that estimate the relationship between social capital, household income, and SWB. The independent variables include social capital variables such as groups and networks; trust and solidarity; collective action and cooperation; information and communication; social cohesion and inclusion; empowerment and political action; household income and characteristics; and the household head's SWB. This study selects several variables to estimate the relationship between social capital indexes, household income, and SWB, drawing from previous research. Firstly, the study examines several indices identified in previous research (Grootaert et al., 2004 ). Therefore, we selected and added several representative social capital indices to the analysis of this study, as shown in Table 1 . Several factors belonging to household characteristics were added to the above equations based on the previous research, such as savings (Cramm et al., 2010 ; Kapelle et al., 2022 ); the number of family members (Setyasalma & Muflikhati, 2019 ); household head gender (Kapelle et al., 2022 ); the education level of the household (Cramm et al., 2010 ; Rani et al., 2021 ); age of household head (Cramm et al., 2013 ; Hurd et al., 2013 ); total land for agricultural production; usage of credit (Pan et al., 2024 ; Sarmiento Prieto et al., 2023 ); access to agricultural extension services (Rishworth et al., 2020 ). Table 2 Statistic Descriptive Variable 2012 2018 All Mean Std. dev. Mean Std. dev. Mean Std. dev. SWB (Value from 0 to 3, as in Table 1 ) 1.585 0.707 1.874 0.519 1.793 0.636 Social capital indexes The number of organizations that participated 2.350 1.226 2.234 1.139 2.292 1.185 Generalized trust (1: Agree that most people are honest and can be trusted; 0: Disagree) 0.861 0.347 0.279 0.449 0.570 0.495 Qualified trust (1: Agree that there are people you cannot trust; 0: Disagree) 0.402 0.490 0.133 0.340 0.268 0.443 Positions of public responsibility (1: Yes; 0: No) 0.069 0.254 0.069 0.254 0.069 0.254 Number of information sources for livelihood and production 5.035 2.427 5.541 3.140 5.288 2.817 The effect of information on the decision to sell agricultural output (1: Yes; 0: No) 0.685 0.465 0.577 0.494 0.631 0.483 The effect of information on agricultural production decisions (1: Yes; 0: No) 0.554 0.497 0.567 0.496 0.560 0.496 Number of organizations with a leader position 0.071 0.292 0.061 0.307 0.066 0.299 Household characteristics Household Income (1,000,000 VND) 11.060 0.787 11.483 1.156 11.272 1.012 Saving (1: Yes; 0: No) 1.000 0.000 0.905 0.293 0.953 0.212 Number of Total Assets 5.674 2.290 8.619 4.082 7.147 3.622 Number of family members 4.294 1.662 4.107 1.780 4.200 1.724 Household head gender (1: Male; 0: Female) 1.000 0.000 0.776 0.417 0.888 0.315 The educational level of the household head (years) 8.285 3.056 8.358 3.137 8.322 3.097 Age of Household Head (Years) 51.419 13.963 56.400 13.565 53.909 13.987 Total land for agricultural production 1 (m 2 ) 8.080 1.409 7.752 1.288 7.929 1.364 Usage Credit (1: Yes; 0: No) 0.394 0.489 0.250 0.433 0.322 0.467 Access to Agricultural Extension Services (1: Yes; 0: No) 0.471 0.499 0.326 0.469 0.398 0.490 Observations 1,585 1,585 3,170 1 in log form Note: 1 USD = 27,000 VND 3. Result Table 3 shows that the determinants of subjective well-being (SWB) in rural Vietnam are not uniform across specifications, but several variables remain consistently important. Across all three models, household income, holding a position of public responsibility, and having savings are positively associated with SWB, while credit use tends to reduce SWB. These are the most robust findings in the table and suggest that both economic security and socially recognized roles matter for rural households’ life satisfaction. In particular, the coefficient on household income is positive and highly significant in all models, indicating that better-off households tend to report higher well-being. Similarly, savings has a strong positive effect, implying that financial security matters beyond current income alone. By contrast, the negative sign on credit use suggests that borrowing may reflect financial stress or repayment burdens rather than productive opportunity. Positions of public responsibility yield the strongest and most reliable results among the social capital variables. Its coefficient is positive and significant at the 1% level in the fixed effects, ordered probit, and CRE ordered probit models. This suggests that households with members serving in public or community roles tend to enjoy higher SWB, possibly because such positions bring prestige, stronger networks, better access to information, or a greater sense of purpose and influence within the community. The magnitude is also relatively large compared with other social-capital indicators, making this one of the most substantively important predictors in the table. The effect of organizational participation is weaker but still noteworthy. The number of organizations in which the household participates is positive and significant in the ordered probit and CRE ordered probit models, though not in the fixed effects specification. This pattern suggests that broader social participation may be associated with higher SWB, but the result is somewhat sensitive to model choice. One interpretation is that participation in organizations reflects access to support networks, social recognition, and community engagement, all of which can enhance life satisfaction. However, because the fixed effects estimate is insignificant, part of this positive association may be driven by cross-household differences rather than pure within-household change over time. The trust variables reveal a more nuanced pattern. Generalized trust is weakly positive in the fixed effects model but insignificant in the two ordered models, while qualified trust is negative and significant only in the standard ordered probit model. This suggests that trust does not exert a stable, direct effect on SWB once unobserved heterogeneity is considered. In other words, trust may matter, but its role is likely conditional rather than straightforward. This interpretation fits well with the broader argument of the study that not all forms of social capital are uniformly beneficial and that some dimensions of trust may impose obligations or social pressures rather than increase well-being directly. The information-related variables are also mixed. The number of information sources and the effect of information on selling decisions are not significant in any model, suggesting that mere access to more sources of information does not automatically translate into higher SWB. In contrast, the variable measuring the effect of information on agricultural production decisions is positive and significant in the fixed-effects and CRE-ordered probit models. This implies that information becomes welfare-enhancing when it is useful for actual production choices rather than simply available in principle. Productive, actionable information appears more relevant for rural well-being than information quantity alone. Regarding household characteristics, education of the household head is positive and significant only in the standard ordered probit model, while age and gender are not statistically significant in any specification. These results imply that demographic characteristics are less important than economic and social-resource variables in explaining SWB in this sample. More substantive, however, are the findings on family size and agricultural land, which change sign across models. Family size is negative in the ordered probit model but positive in the CRE ordered probit model. Likewise, land is positive in the fixed effects and ordered probit models but negative in the CRE specification. These inconsistencies suggest that the effects of household size and landholding are sensitive to how unobserved household heterogeneity is modeled. Therefore, these variables should be interpreted cautiously and not treated as fully robust determinants. Overall, Table 3 suggests that economic security variables are the most robust predictors of SWB, especially income, savings, and reduced dependence on credit. Among social capital dimensions, public responsibility stands out as the clearest positive factor, while other dimensions such as trust and organization membership are more conditional and model-sensitive. Table 3 Factors affecting the SWB in Rural Vietnam Variables Fixed effects Ordered Probit Model CRE Ordered Probit Model Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Social capital indexes Number of organizations that participated 0.024 0.054*** 0.054* (0.015) (0.020) (0.029) Generalized trust 0.070* -0.037 -0.038 (0.042) (0.057) (0.058) Qualified trust -0.027 -0.132** -0.014 (0.038) (0.056) (0.066) Positions of public responsibility 0.274*** 0.461*** 0.568*** (0.082) (0.097) (0.169) Number of information sources for livelihood and production -0.008 -0.014 -0.018 (0.007) (0.010) (0.013) The effect of information on the decision to sell agricultural output -0.046 -0.088 -0.139 (0.047) (0.064) (0.092) The Effect of Information on Agricultural Production Decisions 0.078* 0.078 0.179** (0.043) (0.059) (0.085) Number of organizations with a leadership position -0.040 0.090 -0.055 (0.046) (0.071) (0.100) Household characteristics Household Income¹ 0.066*** 0.229*** 0.152*** (0.018) (0.036) (0.036) Age of Household Head 0.005 0.002 0.011 (0.004) (0.002) (0.008) The educational level of the household head 0.005 0.024*** 0.015 (0.007) (0.008) (0.013) Gender of household head 0.075 0.126 0.115 (0.059) (0.079) (0.110) Number of family members 0.003 -0.033** 0.063** (0.013) (0.015) (0.029) Total land for agricultural production 0.027* 0.046*** -0.038** (0.014) (0.018) (0.016) Saving 0.211*** 0.516*** 0.414*** (0.082) (0.112) (0.153) Usage of credit -0.073* -0.156*** -0.138* (0.038) (0.051) (0.076) Access to Agricultural Extension Services -0.029 -0.007 -0.030 (0.034) (0.049) (0.067) Year dummy 0.287*** -0.449*** -0.460*** (0.045) (0.068) (0.083) Constant 0.025 - - (0.318) - - cut 1 - 1.349*** 2.397*** - (0.428) (0.595) Cut 2 - 2.921*** 3.981*** - (0.428) (0.598) Cut 3 - 5.122*** 6.194*** - (0.439) (0.610) Sigma2_u - 0.098** 0.097** - (0.046) (0.046) Observations 2,936 2,936 2,936 Number of household id 1,585 1,585 1,585 Robust standard errors in parentheses *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1 Table 4 reports the marginal effects of each explanatory variable on the probability of being in different SWB categories. This is more intuitive than Table 3 because it shows how a change in each factor shifts the likelihood of being not very happy, rather happy, or very happy. Overall, the table suggests that the most important factors improving SWB in rural Vietnam are positions of public responsibility, household income, savings, and landholding, while credit use increases the probability of low well-being. The CRE ordered probit results generally confirm the main direction of effects, although some variables lose significance after controlling for unobserved heterogeneity. Among the social capital variables, positions of public responsibility have the strongest and most robust marginal effects. In the ordered probit model, holding such a position reduces the probability of not being very happy by 11.61% and increases the probability of being rather happy and very happy by 9.09% and 5.47%, respectively. The CRE model shows even stronger effects, with a 14.06% reduction in the probability of low SWB and a 6.68% increase in the probability of being pleased. This is clear evidence that socially recognized roles in the community are strongly associated with improved well-being, likely through prestige, stronger networks, and greater access to support. The number of organizations that participated also shows a welfare-enhancing pattern, but only in the standard ordered probit model. Each additional organization reduces the probability of not being very happy by 1.36% and raises the probability of being rather happy and very happy by 1.06 and 0.64%, respectively. However, these effects become statistically insignificant in the CRE model, suggesting that the positive association may partly reflect unobserved household traits rather than a pure causal effect of participation itself. Thus, organizational participation appears beneficial, but the evidence is less robust than for public responsibility. Regarding the trust variables, generalized trust is not significant in either model, indicating no stable direct effect on SWB levels. In contrast, qualified trust significantly worsens SWB in the standard ordered probit model with the probability of being not very happy by 3.33% and lowers the probability of being very happy by 1.57%. Yet this effect disappears in the CRE model, which refer that distrustful or selective trust may be associated with lower life satisfaction, but that relationship is not robust once household-specific unobserved factors are taken into account. In other words, trust does not appear to be a consistently direct determinant of SWB in this table. The information variables also deserve careful interpretation with the number of information sources and the effect of information on decisions to sell output are insignificant across both models, implying that simply having more information channels does not necessarily improve happiness. By contrast, the effect of information on agricultural production decisions becomes significant in the CRE model. It decreases the likelihood of being unhappy by 4.46% and enhances the probabilities of being moderately happy and very happy by 3.48% and 2.12%, respectively. This implies that knowledge is significant solely when it is pragmatically beneficial for production decisions, rather than merely when it is accessible. Regarding household economic characteristics, household income is one of the most robust determinants of SWB. In the ordered probit model, a rise in income decreases the probability of low SWB by 5.76% and increases the probability of being very happy by 2.72%. The CRE model yields slightly smaller but still highly significant effects. This confirms that higher income substantially shifts households away from dissatisfaction and toward higher well-being. Similarly, savings have a very strong positive association with SWB. Having savings reduces the probability of being not very happy by about 13% in the ordered probit model and 10% in the CRE model, while raising the probability of being very happy by 6.12 and 4.87%, respectively. This indicates that financial security, not only income flow, is central to subjective well-being in rural areas. By contrast, credit use consistently lowers SWB. Households using credit are more likely to be in the low SWB category and less likely to be rather or very happy. In the ordered probit model, credit raises the probability of being not very happy by 3.92% and reduces the probability of being very happy by 1.85%. The CRE results remain significant, though at a weaker level. This likely reflects the burden of debt, repayment pressure, or financial vulnerability associated with borrowing in rural contexts. Among other household characteristics, total land for agricultural production has a positive and robust effect on SWB in both models. Greater landholding reduces the probability of low SWB and increases the probabilities of both middle and high SWB categories. This suggests that land remains an important productive and security asset for rural households. Education of the household head is beneficial only in the ordered probit model, where more education slightly reduces the chance of low well-being and raises the likelihood of higher SWB, but this effect disappears in the CRE model. Family size is negative in the ordered probit model, indicating that larger households face greater welfare pressure, though again this effect is not robust in the CRE model. Age, gender, and access to agricultural extension services do not show statistically significant effects. Overall, Table 4 confirms that the factors most strongly associated with better SWB in rural Vietnam are public responsibility, income, savings, and land, whereas credit use is associated with lower well-being. Social capital matters, but not all dimensions matter equally. The most meaningful form appears to be active and recognized social involvement, especially public responsibility, rather than generalized trust or mere access to many information sources. This table therefore strengthens the argument that rural well-being depends on a combination of economic security and effective, socially valued participation rather than on social capital in a broad or uniform sense. Table 4 The marginal effect of factors affecting SWB at different levels in rural Vietnam. Variables Not very happy/pleased with life Rather pleased/happy with life Very pleased/happy with life Ordered Probit CRE Ordered Probit Ordered Probit CRE Ordered Probit Ordered Probit CRE Ordered Probit Number of organizations that participated -0.0136*** -0.0121 0.0106*** 0.0094 0.0064*** 0.0057 (0.0051) (0.0074) (0.0040) (0.0058) (0.0024) (0.0035) Generalized trust 0.0093 0.0091 -0.0072 -0.0071 -0.0044 -0.0043 (0.0143) (0.0145) (0.0112) (0.0113) (0.0067) (0.0069) Qualified trust 0.0333** 0.0035 -0.0261** -0.0027 -0.0157** -0.0017 (0.0140) (0.0163) (0.0110) (0.0128) (0.0066) (0.0078) Positions of public responsibility -0.1161*** -0.1406*** 0.0909*** 0.1098*** 0.0547*** 0.0668*** (0.0239) (0.0421) (0.0188) (0.0330) (0.0117) (0.0202) Number of information sources for livelihood and production 0.0035 0.0046 -0.0028 -0.0036 -0.0017 -0.0022 (0.0024) (0.0032) (0.0019) (0.0025) (0.0011) (0.0015) The effect of information on the decision to sell agricultural output 0.0220 0.0353 -0.0172 -0.0276 -0.0104 -0.0168 (0.0162) (0.0228) (0.0127) (0.0178) (0.0077) (0.0109) The Effect of Information on Agricultural Production Decisions -0.0196 -0.0446** 0.0154 0.0348** 0.0093 0.0212** (0.0150) (0.0211) (0.0117) (0.0164) (0.0071) (0.0101) Number of organizations with a leadership position -0.0227 0.0122 0.0178 -0.0095 0.0107 -0.0058 (0.0179) (0.0247) (0.0140) (0.0193) (0.0084) (0.0118) Household Income¹ -0.0576*** -0.0361*** 0.0451*** 0.0282*** 0.0272*** 0.0172*** (0.0091) (0.0089) (0.0074) (0.0071) (0.0044) (0.0043) Age of Household Head -0.0005 -0.0028 0.0004 0.0022 0.0003 0.0013 (0.0005) (0.0020) (0.0004) (0.0016) (0.0002) (0.0010) The educational level of the household head -0.0060*** -0.0039 0.0047*** 0.0031 0.0028*** 0.0019 (0.0020) (0.0034) (0.0015) (0.0026) (0.0009) (0.0016) Gender of household head -0.0316 -0.0280 0.0247 0.0219 0.0149 0.0133 (0.0198) (0.0276) (0.0156) (0.0216) (0.0094) (0.0131) Number of family members 0.0083** 0.0034 -0.0065** -0.0027 -0.0039** -0.0016 (0.0039) (0.0065) (0.0030) (0.0051) (0.0018) (0.0031) Total land for agricultural production -0.0117*** -0.0154** 0.0092*** 0.0120** 0.0055*** 0.0073** (0.0044) (0.0073) (0.0035) (0.0057) (0.0021) (0.0035) Saving -0.1298*** -0.1024*** 0.1016*** 0.0800*** 0.0612*** 0.0487*** (0.0279) (0.0380) (0.0222) (0.0299) (0.0134) (0.0181) Usage of credit 0.0392*** 0.0361* -0.0307*** -0.0282* -0.0185*** -0.0172* (0.0126) (0.0188) (0.0100) (0.0148) (0.0060) (0.0089) Access to Agricultural Extension Services 0.0017 0.0076 -0.0013 -0.0059 -0.0008 -0.0036 (0.0122) (0.0167) (0.0096) (0.0130) (0.0058) (0.0079) Year Dummy 0.1129*** 0.1160*** -0.0884*** -0.0906*** -0.0533*** -0.0551*** (0.0166) (0.0205) (0.0136) (0.0165) (0.0079) (0.0098) Observations 2,936 2,936 2,936 2,936 2,936 2,936 Standard errors in parentheses *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1 4. Discussion This study provides new evidence on how different dimensions of social capital and household economic conditions are associated with subjective well-being (SWB) in rural Vietnam. The findings show that the relationship is more nuanced than the general assumption that social capital is uniformly beneficial for well-being. Instead, the results suggest that only some forms of social capital are consistently associated with higher SWB, while household economic security remains a central and more robust determinant of life satisfaction. Among the social capital variables, positions of public responsibility emerge as the strongest and most consistent predictor of higher SWB. This variable remains positive and highly significant across the fixed effects, ordered probit, and correlated random effects (CRE) ordered probit models. The marginal effects further confirm that holding such a role substantially reduces the probability of being in the low well-being category and increases the probabilities of being rather happy and very happy. One plausible explanation is that socially recognized public roles may enhance well-being through several channels, including social prestige, stronger embeddedness in community networks, greater access to local information, and a stronger sense of purpose or agency. This finding is consistent with previous studies (Akaeda, 2025 ; Helliwell & Putnam, 2005 ) showing that meaningful civic participation and socially valued roles can improve life satisfaction and welfare. By contrast, the effect of organizational participation is positive but less robust. The number of organizations in which a household participates is positively associated with SWB in the ordered probit and CRE ordered probit models, but the effect is not statistically significant in the fixed effects model and becomes insignificant in the CRE marginal effects. This pattern suggests that participation in organizations may be associated with greater social integration, broader networks, and better access to support, but that part of this relationship may reflect stable household characteristics rather than a clear within-household effect over time. In other words, organizational participation appears beneficial, but its welfare contribution is weaker and less consistent than that of socially recognized public responsibility (Liu et al., 2024 ; Rishworth et al., 2020 ; Sarmiento Prieto et al., 2023 ). The information-related variables also reveal that not all forms of social connectedness are equally meaningful for well-being. Neither the number of information sources nor the effect of information on selling decisions shows a statistically significant relationship with SWB. However, the variable capturing the effect of information on agricultural production decisions is positive and significant in the fixed effects and CRE models, and the marginal effects indicate that it lowers the probability of low SWB while increasing the likelihood of higher SWB. This suggests that information becomes welfare-enhancing when it is relevant, actionable, and useful for improving production decisions, rather than simply being available in large quantity (Li et al., 2025 ). For rural households, therefore, the practical value of information appears to matter more than the number of channels through which information is received (Liu et al., 2024 ). Household economic conditions are among the clearest and most robust determinants of SWB in the analysis. Household and savings show a strong and highly consistent positive association with SWB. This highlights that well-being depends not only on current earnings but also on financial resilience, that is, the ability to cope with shocks, smooth consumption, and reduce uncertainty about the future (Pan et al., 2024 ; Rishworth et al., 2020 ). In contrast, credit use is consistently associated with lower SWB across specifications. In rural settings, access to credit does not necessarily indicate opportunity; it may instead signal liquidity constraints or economic stress (Mawejje, 2019 ). This finding therefore underlines an important distinction between access to finance and financial security. While credit can be useful under some conditions, in the present context it appears more closely associated with strain than with improved welfare (Sarmiento Prieto et al., 2023 ). Overall, the findings suggest that SWB in rural Vietnam is shaped primarily by economic security and socially valued forms of public engagement, rather than by social capital in a broad or undifferentiated sense. Among the social capital dimensions, public responsibility is the clearest positive factor, whereas trust and organizational participation are more conditional and less robust. At the household level, income and savings are the most consistent positive predictors, while credit use is negatively associated with well-being. These findings imply that efforts to improve rural well-being should go beyond income growth alone and should also strengthen household financial resilience, reduce harmful debt dependence, and promote forms of community participation that provide recognition, agency, and meaningful social roles. 5. Conclusion This study examines how social capital and household economic conditions are associated with subjective well-being (SWB) in rural Vietnam using panel data from the VARHS and multiple model specifications. The findings show that the relationship is more nuanced than a simple assumption that all forms of social capital improve well-being. Instead, the results indicate that some dimensions of social capital are more relevant than others, and that household financial security remains central to explaining variations in SWB. Among the social capital indicators, positions of public responsibility, households with members holding public or community responsibilities are more likely to report higher well-being, suggesting that socially recognized roles, community influence, and a stronger sense of agency may enhance life satisfaction in rural settings. The household economic variables such income and savings are consistently associated with higher SWB, while credit use is linked to lower well-being. These findings highlight the importance of both current economic resources and financial resilience. Landholding also appears to support well-being, although its effect is somewhat sensitive across specifications and should therefore be interpreted with caution. Overall, the study suggests that subjective well-being in rural Vietnam is shaped by a combination of economic stability and socially meaningful participation. The findings move beyond a broad claim that “social capital matters” by showing that its effects are differentiated across dimensions. In particular, socially recognized public engagement appears more important than generalized trust, while household financial security remains a fundamental driver of well-being. These insights contribute to the literature by providing more fine-grained evidence on the relationship between social capital and SWB in a rural lower-middle-income context. Based on the result of study, the policy implications to improve rural well-being should not focus only on income growth, but also on strengthening household financial resilience through savings support, risk management, and more responsible credit systems. Rural development strategies should encourage forms of participation that give households meaningful social roles, voice, and recognition within the community. Supporting practical access to production-related information may also improve well-being by helping households make better livelihood decisions. Thus, policies that combine economic security with effective and empowering community engagement are likely to be more successful in enhancing rural well-being. Finally, this study has several limitations. The analysis remains correlational and relies on secondary survey data, which limits strong causal interpretation. Some dimensions of social capital, especially trust, may be measured imperfectly or may influence SWB through indirect channels not fully captured here. In addition, the two-wave panel structure constrains the ability to examine longer-term dynamics. Future research could build on these findings by using richer panel data, qualitative approaches, or causal identification strategies to better understand the mechanisms through which social participation, financial security, and local institutions shape subjective well-being in rural areas. Ethics declaration : Not applicable. Declarations Ethics declaration: Not applicable. Funding : There is no funding for this research Author Contribution N.T.P: Conceptualization, Data collection, Software, Writing—review and editing, Writing-original draft, Methodology. J.Y.L: Conceptualization, review, and editing. Acknowledgement This research is partly funded by the University of Economics, Hue University, under grant No. NNC.HDKT.2026.02. References Akaeda, N. (2025). The welfare state and the roles of social capital in subjective well-being: The crowding-out and crowding-in arguments revisited. Journal of Social Policy , 54 (2), 392–411. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279423000223 Bojorquez-Chapela, I., Manrique-Espinoza, B. S., Mejía-Arango, S., Solís, M. M. T. R., & Salinas-Rodríguez, A. (2012). Effect of social capital and personal autonomy on the incidence of depressive symptoms in the elderly: Evidence from a longitudinal study in Mexico. Aging & Mental Health , 16 (4), 462–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2011.651432 Cai, S., & Park, A. (2016). Permanent income and subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization , 130 , 298–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2016.07.016 Calcagnini, G., & Perugini, F. (2019). Social capital and well-being in the Italian provinces. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 68(November 2018), 100668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2018.11.005 Campos-Matos, I., Subramanian, S. V., & Kawachi, I. (2016). The ‘dark side’ of social capital: trust and self-rated health in European countries. The European Journal of Public Health , 26 (1), 90–95. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckv089 Clark, A. E. (2018). Four Decades of the Economics of Happiness: Where Next? Review of Income and Wealth , 64 (2), 245–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12369 Cramm, J. M., Møller, V., & Nieboer, A. P. (2010). Improving Subjective Well-being of the Poor in the Eastern Cape. Journal of Health Psychology , 15 (7), 1012–1019. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105310367833 Cramm, J. M., Van Dijk, H. M., & Nieboer, A. P. (2013). The importance of neighborhood social cohesion and social capital for the well being of older adults in the community. The Gerontologist , 53 (1), 142–150. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gns052 Graafland, J., & Lous, B. (2019). Income Inequality, Life Satisfaction Inequality and Trust: A Cross Country Panel Analysis. Journal of Happiness Studies , 20 (6), 1717–1737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-0021-0 Grootaert, C., Narayan, D., Jones, V. N., & Woolcock, M. (2004). Measuring Social Capital. Helliwell, J. F. (2003). How’s life? Combining individual and national variables to explain subjective well-being. Economic Modelling , 20 (2), 331–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-9993(02)00057-3 Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., Sachs, J. D., Neve, J. E., De, Aknin, L. B., & Wang, S. (2021). World Happines Report 2021. UN Sustainable Development Solutions NetworkSustainable Development Solutions Network, 1–208. https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2021/ Helliwell, J. F., & Putnam, R. D. (2005). * The social context of well-being. The Science of Well-Being (pp. 434–459). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198567523.003.0017 Hurd, N. M., Stoddard, S. A., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2013). Neighborhoods, Social Support, and African American Adolescents’ Mental Health Outcomes: A Multilevel Path Analysis. Child Development , 84 (3), 858–874. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12018 Kapelle, N., Nutz, T., Tisch, D., Schechtl, M., Lersch, P. M., & Struffolino, E. (2022). My Wealth, (Y) Our Life Satisfaction? Sole and Joint Wealth Ownership and Life Satisfaction in Marriage. European Journal of Population , 38 (4), 811–834. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-022-09630-7 La, B. T., Lim, S., Cameron, M. P., Tran, T. Q., & Nguyen, M. T. (2021). Absolute income, comparison income and subjective well-being in a transitional country: Panel evidence from Vietnamese household surveys. Economic Analysis and Policy , 72 , 368–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2021.09.008 Li, H., Li, J., & Yang, Z. (2025). The impact of digital economy development on subjective well-being: micro-level evidence from China. Frontiers in Public Health , 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1660857 Liu, W., Li, J. J. T., & Chen, J. (2024). Voting participation in grassroots elections and rural residents’ subjective well-being in China: The mediation roles of social class and fairness. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy , 24 (3), 1189–1207. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12411 Mawejje, J. (2019). Financial inclusion, shocks and coping strategies: survey evidence from Uganda. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies , 10 (3), 286–298. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJEMS-10-2018-0325 Nuzhat, A., & Mahpara Sadaqa. (2022). Social Capital Household Welfare and Poverty: Evidence from Pakistan. The Pakistan Development Review , 55 (4), 467–482. https://doi.org/10.30541/v55i4I-IIpp.467-482 Pan, B., Kerstetter, D., Yi, X., Zhang, G., Li, R., Gao, J., Shen, X. S., & Li, G. (2024). A Top Model of Urban Residents’ Subjective Well-Being in China. Sage Open , 14 (4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241289744 Phan, N. T., Lee, J., & Kien, N. D. (2022). The Impact of Land Fragmentation in Rice Production on Household Food Insecurity in Vietnam. Sustainability , 14 (18), 11162. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811162 Prayitno, P. H., Sahid, S., & Hussin, M. (2022). Social Capital and Household Economic Welfare: Do Entrepreneurship, Financial and Digital Literacy Matter? Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(24). https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416970 Rajani, N. B., Skianis, V., & Filippidis, F. T. (2019). Association of environmental and sociodemographic factors with life satisfaction in 27 European countries. Bmc Public Health , 19 (1), 534. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6886-y Rani, A., Quddoos, A., Yaseen, M. R., Tabassum, S., & Asif, A. (2021). The Impact of Social Capital on Household Well-being in Pakistan. Social Indicators Research , 158 (3), 927–946. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02717-4 Riduan, A. (2024). Citizen Participation in Policy Decision-Making. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Approach Sciences and Technologies , 1 (2), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.62207/fz1xn342 Rishworth, A., Elliott, S. J., & Kangmennaang, J. (2020). Getting Old Well in Sub Saharan Africa: Exploring the Social and Structural Drivers of Subjective Wellbeing among Elderly Men and Women in Uganda. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 17 (7), 2347. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072347 Ruan, H., Chen, J., Wang, C., Xu, W., & Tang, J. (2022). Social Network, Sense of Responsibility, and Resident Participation in China’s Rural Environmental Governance. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 19 (11), 6371. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116371 Sarmiento Prieto, J. P., Castro–Correa, C., Arrieta, A., Jerath, M., & Arensburg, S. (2023). Relevance of social capital in preserving subjective well-being in the face of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Risk Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy , 14 (2), 159–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12260 Sepúlveda Maldonado, J., Schnettler Morales, B., Denegri Coria, M., Orellana Calderón, L., Sepúlveda Aravena, J., Canales Poo, P., González Ciero, S., Lemunao, M., C., & Valderas, R., I (2020). Social desirability in the measurement of subjective well-being. Interdisciplinaria Revista de Psicología y Ciencias Afines , 37 (2), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.16888/interd.2020.37.2.7 Sesmero, J., Ricker-Gilbert, J., & Cook, A. (2018). How do african farm households respond to changes in current and past weather patterns? A structural panel data analysis from Malawi. American Journal of Agricultural Economics , 100 (1), 115–144. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aax068 Setyasalma, H., & Muflikhati, I. (2019). Financial Management and Assets Ownership toward Subjective Well-being on Entrepreneurial Family. Journal of Consumer Sciences , 4 (1), 25. https://doi.org/10.29244/jcs.4.1.25-36 Tran, T. Q., Nguyen, T. Q., Van Vu, H., & Doan, T. T. (2017). Religiosity and Subjective Well-Being Among Old People: Evidence from a Transitional Country. Applied Research in Quality of Life , 12(4), 947–962. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-016-9500-9 . Wu, Y., Guo, Z., & Qi, D. (2023). Analysis of the effect of social capital on rural household poverty. Social Policy & Administration , 57 (3), 333–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12864 Yuan, C. (2024). Unlocking Rural Revitalization through the Digital Economy: A Journey of Exploration. SHS Web of Conferences, 181, 02033. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202418102033 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9443381","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":632056702,"identity":"90b1c984-b00d-4993-ad1e-f47c80be6001","order_by":0,"name":"Phan Nguyen Thai","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Economics, Hue University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Phan","middleName":"Nguyen","lastName":"Thai","suffix":""},{"id":632056703,"identity":"0dd93f8b-6004-4cc4-9809-0aafb92a9d0a","order_by":1,"name":"Lee Ji Yong","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Korea University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Lee","middleName":"Ji","lastName":"Yong","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-04-17 03:09:56","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9443381/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9443381/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":108627608,"identity":"5387b5ce-48cc-4ecc-9574-484a2b6ac763","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-06 15:58:40","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":95060,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eA map of the study area from the VARHS data (Phan et al., 2022).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9443381/v1/627428b3fc320a254f52b684.png"},{"id":108805298,"identity":"917ea572-f542-4eaf-acf6-63874b13e787","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-08 15:25:31","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":777806,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9443381/v1/d79f33a2-2a93-4129-a3d0-9ea3dc75dfc4.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Social Capital and Subjective Well-Being in Rural Vietnam","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eSubjective well-being (SWB), commonly understood as individuals\u0026rsquo; self-reported happiness and life satisfaction, is increasingly recognized as an important indicator of social progress alongside conventional economic measures (Clark, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Riduan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). In rural development research, this perspective is particularly valuable because improvements in living conditions are not fully captured by income or asset accumulation alone. While household well-being usually refers to the overall quality of life of the household as a socio-economic unit, including both material and non-material dimensions, SWB reflects an individual\u0026rsquo;s own evaluation of life satisfaction and happiness(Helliwell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). In rural household surveys such as the Vietnam Access to Resources Household Survey (VARHS), SWB is typically reported by the household head and is often used as a proxy for household-level welfare, following earlier studies (Nuzhat Ahmad \u0026amp; Mahpara Sadaqa, 2022; Rani et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). This practice is based on the assumption that the household head\u0026rsquo;s assessment broadly reflects the well-being of the household, given their central role in decision-making and resource allocation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the literature, SWB is generally conceptualized as individuals\u0026rsquo; evaluations of their lives, including life satisfaction, happiness, positive emotions, and the relative absence of negative feelings (La et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Sep\u0026uacute;lveda Maldonado et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). It is commonly measured through self-reported survey questions in which respondents assess their overall life satisfaction on ordered scales (Helliwell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Sesmero et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) This approach has been widely adopted in both economics and psychology because it captures dimensions of welfare that extend beyond objective indicators such as income, consumption, or assets (Rajani et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Tran et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Within this broader understanding of well-being, growing attention has been paid to the role of social relationships and community embeddedness, especially through the concept of social capital.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial capital, broadly defined as the networks, norms, trust, and social relations that facilitate cooperation and collective action (Grootaert et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e), has emerged as an important determinant of SWB. It can influence well-being through several channels. First, social networks may provide emotional support, companionship, and a sense of belonging, all of which contribute directly to life satisfaction. Second, participation in local groups and community organizations may increase access to information, services, and economic opportunities, thereby indirectly improving individual well-being. Third, generalized trust and reciprocal relationships can reduce uncertainty, strengthen social security, and enhance people\u0026rsquo;s confidence in coping with daily risks and future challenges (Prayitno et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Wu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). In rural settings, where formal institutions and welfare mechanisms are often weaker, these social resources may play an especially important role in shaping how individuals perceive and evaluate their lives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the same time, the relationship between social capital and SWB is not necessarily straightforward or uniformly positive. Different dimensions of social capital may operate in different ways. For example, membership in organizations may enhance social integration and provide access to support networks, but it may also impose time commitments, financial contributions, or social obligations. Leadership roles may generate status and recognition, yet they may also bring pressure and responsibility. Likewise, trust can promote cooperation and psychological security, but its effects may depend on the broader institutional and community context. Existing studies therefore suggest that social capital is a multidimensional construct whose association with SWB may vary across forms, contexts, and populations (Campos-Matos et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Cramm et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eVietnam offers a particularly relevant context for examining the relationship between social capital and SWB. As a lower-middle-income country undergoing rapid socio-economic transformation, Vietnam has achieved substantial gains in income and living standards, but important disparities remain between rural and urban areas (Ruan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). In rural Vietnam, households continue to rely heavily on kinship ties, neighborhood relations, local associations, and informal support networks to access information, manage risks, and sustain livelihoods (Yuan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). These features make social capital a potentially important factor in explaining subjective well-being. However, empirical evidence on this relationship in rural Vietnam remains limited. Much of the previous literature has focused either on the role of income and other material factors in shaping SWB (Cai \u0026amp; Park, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Graafland \u0026amp; Lous, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) or on the broader developmental functions of social capital without directly assessing its contribution to subjective life evaluations (Calcagnini \u0026amp; Perugini, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, prior studies often rely on aggregate indicators of social capital, making it difficult to identify which specific dimensions matter most for SWB. Organizational participation, leadership roles, and interpersonal trust may not have the same implications for well-being, and aggregating them into a single index can obscure these differences. Examining social capital in a disaggregated way therefore offers a more nuanced understanding of how social connectedness influences subjective well-being. It also allows for a better assessment of whether some forms of social capital are more strongly associated with life satisfaction than others in rural contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAgainst this background, this study investigates the relationship between social capital and subjective well-being in rural Vietnam, with particular attention to different dimensions of social capital. By using panel data, the study is able to move beyond simple cross-sectional associations and better account for unobserved heterogeneity across households and individuals. Although the analysis remains correlational, it provides more robust evidence on how social participation, trust, and community roles are associated with subjective well-being over time. In doing so, the study contributes to the literature by clarifying the multidimensional role of social capital in shaping well-being and by offering context-specific insights for rural development policy in Vietnam and other low- and middle-income countries.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1. Data source\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Vietnam Access to Resources Household Survey (VARHS) is a dataset that offers insights into the socioeconomic status of households in Vietnam and their access to resources. To understand the circumstances of households across the 12 provinces encompassing all regions of Vietnam, it was necessary to gather responses to various inquiries posed by the Vietnam Access to Resources Household Survey (VARHS). Refer to Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e for a visual depiction of the study site locations. The northern region encompasses Ha Tay, Lao Cai, Phu Tho, Lai Chau, and Dien Bien; the central region comprises Nghe An, Quang Nam, Khanh Hoa, Dak Lak, Dak Nong, and Lam Dong; and the Mekong River region includes Long An, all of which are part of this collective of locales.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite collecting data from 2008 to 2018, only 2012, 2014, and 2018 show SWB. Furthermore, the SWB scale in 2014 differs significantly from the others, indicating that the results from that year may not be comparable to those from 2012 and 2018. As a result, the study only used data sources from VARHS in 2012 and 2018 to estimate the effect of social capital and income on SWB in rural Vietnam. The analysis of the above relationship in rural Vietnam uses 1585 households each year after merging the various STATA files. The survey of the 1,585 households in the sample took place in both 2012 and 2018, resulting in a balanced panel dataset. This panel structure allows us to control for unobserved household heterogeneity using correlated random effects. Although social changes (period or cohort effects) could influence SWB between 2012 and 2018, our models include a year dummy to capture common shocks or trends over time, such as policy reforms or macroeconomic shifts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Measurement of Key Variables\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.1. Social capital index\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGrootaert et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e) developed six dimensions for estimating the social capital index at the household level. The authors have divided the content into six final sections: group and networks; trust and solidarity; collective action and cooperation; information and communication; social cohesion and inclusion; and empowerment and political action (Bojorquez-Chapela et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). In this study, five of the six components constitute the social capital index in rural Vietnam, allowing researchers to assess the effect of social capital on happiness. In the Groups and Networks section, the study counts the number of groups in which the head of household participates, encompassing a variety of social organizations and informal networks. Furthermore, the study employs a question that connects household head trust in neighbors to the Trust and Solidarity social capital index representative. In terms of collective action and cooperation, the study uses the question, \"Does any member of your household hold any office or other positions of public responsibility in the community or at higher levels of government?\" to investigate the extent and manner in which household members have collaborated with others in their community on collective initiatives or in response to a crisis. Furthermore, the diversity of information sources and the impact of information sources on the decision to sell output and agricultural production are considered social capital indicators in the field of information and communication. Finally, the study uses the number of organizational leaders in each home to illustrate one of the social capital indices in the Empowerment and Political Action section.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.2. Subjective Well-Being (SWB)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this study, SWB is measured using the household head\u0026rsquo;s self-reported evaluation, which we interpret as a proxy for household well-being. This is consistent with previous rural welfare studies (Rani et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) that treat the household head\u0026rsquo;s response as representative of the household\u0026rsquo;s overall life evaluation, given their key role in managing resources and representing household interests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this study, the household head would answer the question, \"Taking all things together, would you say you are (1) very pleased/happy with your life? (2) Rather pleased/happy with your life? (3) Not very happy/pleased with your life?\u0026rsquo;\u0026rsquo; (4) Not at all happy/pleased with your life?\u0026rsquo;\u0026rsquo;, which is representative of their SWB.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSWB in rural Vietnam\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe level of SWB\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe year 2012\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe year 2018\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eValue\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVery pleased/happy with life\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.83\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.51\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRather pleased/happy with life\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e47.59\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e75.83\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e61.71\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot very happy/pleased with life\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e39.57\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27.93\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot at all happy/pleased with life\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.38\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0 (Base)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eObservation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e1585\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e1585\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e3174\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e-\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003eSource: VARHS\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3. Methodology\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSince the study's output is a scale of SWB from 0 to 3, the Ordered Probit model can be used to estimate the impact of social capital and household income on SWB.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe order probit is as follows:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePr(y\u003csub\u003eit\u003c/sub\u003e \u0026gt; k|κ, x\u003csub\u003eit\u003c/sub\u003e, z\u003csub\u003eit\u003c/sub\u003e, ν\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e) = Φ(βx\u003csub\u003eit\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;γz\u003csub\u003eit\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;\u0026micro;\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;ε\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;κ\u003csub\u003ek\u003c/sub\u003e) (1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eT\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2012 and 2018\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1,2,\u0026hellip;,n\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere, x\u003csub\u003eit\u003c/sub\u003e represents a vector of explanatory variables for the social capital index, z\u003csub\u003eit\u003c/sub\u003e denotes a vector of additional control variables, including household characteristics, \u0026micro;\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e signifies an individual-specific time-invariant component, ε\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e is independently and identically distributed as N(0, σ\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003ev\u003c/sub\u003e), κ comprises a set of cut points κ\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e, κ\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, \u0026hellip;, κ\u003csub\u003eK\u0026minus;1\u003c/sub\u003e, and Φ(\u0026middot;) refers to the standard normal cumulative distribution function.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEquation (1) can be transferred to another model as follows:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ey\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u0026#119894;\u0026#119905;\u003c/sub\u003e \u0026lowast; = βx\u003csub\u003eit\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;γz\u003csub\u003eit\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;\u0026micro;\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;ε\u003csub\u003eit\u003c/sub\u003e (2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ewhere ε\u003csub\u003eit\u003c/sub\u003e is predicted to be independently and identically distributed over time, and \u0026#119910;\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u0026#119894;\u0026#119905;\u003c/sub\u003e represents the actual ordinal response, derived from latent continuous responses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe unobserved heterogeneity \u0026micro;\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e may lead to biased results when estimating Eq.\u0026nbsp;(2). Unobserved heterogeneity refers to the variation among individuals or entities not captured by the observed variables in a model. This can lead to biased estimates if the unobserved factors correlate with the dependent variable. Previous research (Phan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) indicates that the Mundlak-type Correlated Random Effects (CRE) account for unobserved heterogeneity by incorporating the means of all time-varying variables (\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:\\underset{\\_}{X̅}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u0026#119895;\u0026#119894;\u003c/sub\u003e) into the model. To check the consistency of the results, provide several estimations, such as fixed effect, and the ordered probit estimation method with and without controlling for unobserved heterogeneity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e presents several variables that estimate the relationship between social capital, household income, and SWB. The independent variables include social capital variables such as groups and networks; trust and solidarity; collective action and cooperation; information and communication; social cohesion and inclusion; empowerment and political action; household income and characteristics; and the household head's SWB.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study selects several variables to estimate the relationship between social capital indexes, household income, and SWB, drawing from previous research. Firstly, the study examines several indices identified in previous research (Grootaert et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, we selected and added several representative social capital indices to the analysis of this study, as shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. Several factors belonging to household characteristics were added to the above equations based on the previous research, such as savings (Cramm et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Kapelle et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e); the number of family members (Setyasalma \u0026amp; Muflikhati, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e); household head gender (Kapelle et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e); the education level of the household (Cramm et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Rani et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e); age of household head (Cramm et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Hurd et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e); total land for agricultural production; usage of credit (Pan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Sarmiento Prieto et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e); access to agricultural extension services (Rishworth et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatistic Descriptive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2012\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2018\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStd. dev.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStd. dev.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStd. dev.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSWB\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Value from 0 to 3, as in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.585\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.707\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.874\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.519\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.793\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.636\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSocial capital indexes\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe number of organizations that participated\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.350\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.226\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.234\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.139\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.292\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.185\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeneralized trust (1: Agree that most people are honest and can be trusted; 0: Disagree)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.861\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.347\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.279\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.449\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.570\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.495\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQualified trust (1: Agree that there are people you cannot trust; 0: Disagree)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.402\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.490\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.133\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.340\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.268\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.443\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositions of public responsibility (1: Yes; 0: No)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.069\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.254\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.069\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.254\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.069\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.254\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber of information sources for livelihood and production\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.035\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.427\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.541\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.140\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.288\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.817\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe effect of information on the decision to sell agricultural output (1: Yes; 0: No)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.685\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.465\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.577\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.494\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.631\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.483\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe effect of information on agricultural production decisions (1: Yes; 0: No)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.554\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.497\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.567\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.496\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.560\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.496\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber of organizations with a leader position\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.071\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.292\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.061\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.307\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.066\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.299\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHousehold characteristics\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHousehold Income (1,000,000 VND)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.060\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.787\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.483\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.156\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.272\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.012\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSaving (1: Yes; 0: No)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.905\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.293\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.953\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.212\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber of Total Assets\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.674\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.290\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.619\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.082\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.147\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.622\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber of family members\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.294\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.662\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.107\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.780\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.200\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.724\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHousehold head gender (1: Male; 0: Female)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.776\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.417\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.888\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.315\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe educational level of the household head (years)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.285\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.056\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.358\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.137\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.322\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.097\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge of Household Head (Years)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e51.419\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.963\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e56.400\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.565\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e53.909\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.987\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal land for agricultural production \u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e (m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.080\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.409\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.752\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.288\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.929\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.364\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUsage Credit (1: Yes; 0: No)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.394\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.489\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.250\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.433\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.322\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.467\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccess to Agricultural Extension Services (1: Yes; 0: No)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.471\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.499\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.326\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.469\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.398\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.490\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eObservations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,585\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,585\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3,170\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003e\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e in log form\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003eNote: 1 USD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;27,000 VND\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Result","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e shows that the determinants of subjective well-being (SWB) in rural Vietnam are not uniform across specifications, but several variables remain consistently important. Across all three models, household income, holding a position of public responsibility, and having savings are positively associated with SWB, while credit use tends to reduce SWB. These are the most robust findings in the table and suggest that both economic security and socially recognized roles matter for rural households\u0026rsquo; life satisfaction. In particular, the coefficient on household income is positive and highly significant in all models, indicating that better-off households tend to report higher well-being. Similarly, savings has a strong positive effect, implying that financial security matters beyond current income alone. By contrast, the negative sign on credit use suggests that borrowing may reflect financial stress or repayment burdens rather than productive opportunity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositions of public responsibility yield the strongest and most reliable results among the social capital variables. Its coefficient is positive and significant at the 1% level in the fixed effects, ordered probit, and CRE ordered probit models. This suggests that households with members serving in public or community roles tend to enjoy higher SWB, possibly because such positions bring prestige, stronger networks, better access to information, or a greater sense of purpose and influence within the community. The magnitude is also relatively large compared with other social-capital indicators, making this one of the most substantively important predictors in the table.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe effect of organizational participation is weaker but still noteworthy. The number of organizations in which the household participates is positive and significant in the ordered probit and CRE ordered probit models, though not in the fixed effects specification. This pattern suggests that broader social participation may be associated with higher SWB, but the result is somewhat sensitive to model choice. One interpretation is that participation in organizations reflects access to support networks, social recognition, and community engagement, all of which can enhance life satisfaction. However, because the fixed effects estimate is insignificant, part of this positive association may be driven by cross-household differences rather than pure within-household change over time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe trust variables reveal a more nuanced pattern. Generalized trust is weakly positive in the fixed effects model but insignificant in the two ordered models, while qualified trust is negative and significant only in the standard ordered probit model. This suggests that trust does not exert a stable, direct effect on SWB once unobserved heterogeneity is considered. In other words, trust may matter, but its role is likely conditional rather than straightforward. This interpretation fits well with the broader argument of the study that not all forms of social capital are uniformly beneficial and that some dimensions of trust may impose obligations or social pressures rather than increase well-being directly.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe information-related variables are also mixed. The number of information sources and the effect of information on selling decisions are not significant in any model, suggesting that mere access to more sources of information does not automatically translate into higher SWB. In contrast, the variable measuring the effect of information on agricultural production decisions is positive and significant in the fixed-effects and CRE-ordered probit models. This implies that information becomes welfare-enhancing when it is useful for actual production choices rather than simply available in principle. Productive, actionable information appears more relevant for rural well-being than information quantity alone.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding household characteristics, education of the household head is positive and significant only in the standard ordered probit model, while age and gender are not statistically significant in any specification. These results imply that demographic characteristics are less important than economic and social-resource variables in explaining SWB in this sample. More substantive, however, are the findings on family size and agricultural land, which change sign across models. Family size is negative in the ordered probit model but positive in the CRE ordered probit model. Likewise, land is positive in the fixed effects and ordered probit models but negative in the CRE specification. These inconsistencies suggest that the effects of household size and landholding are sensitive to how unobserved household heterogeneity is modeled. Therefore, these variables should be interpreted cautiously and not treated as fully robust determinants.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e suggests that economic security variables are the most robust predictors of SWB, especially income, savings, and reduced dependence on credit. Among social capital dimensions, public responsibility stands out as the clearest positive factor, while other dimensions such as trust and organization membership are more conditional and model-sensitive.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFactors affecting the SWB in Rural Vietnam\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFixed effects\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrdered Probit Model\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCRE Ordered Probit Model\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoefficient\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoefficient\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoefficient\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSocial capital indexes\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber of organizations that participated\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.024\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.054***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.054*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.015)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.020)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.029)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeneralized trust\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.070*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.037\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.038\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.042)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.057)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.058)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQualified trust\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.027\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.132**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.014\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.038)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.056)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.066)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositions of public responsibility\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.274***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.461***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.568***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.082)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.097)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.169)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber of information sources for livelihood and production\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.008\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.014\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.018\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.007)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.010)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.013)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe effect of information on the decision to sell agricultural output\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.046\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.088\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.139\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.047)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.064)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.092)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Effect of Information on Agricultural Production Decisions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.078*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.078\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.179**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.043)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.059)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.085)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber of organizations with a leadership position\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.040\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.090\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.055\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.046)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.071)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.100)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHousehold characteristics\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHousehold Income\u0026sup1;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.066***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.229***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.152***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.018)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.036)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.036)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge of Household Head\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.005\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.002\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.011\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.004)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.002)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.008)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe educational level of the household head\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.005\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.024***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.015\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.007)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.008)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.013)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender of household head\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.075\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.126\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.115\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.059)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.079)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.110)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber of family members\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.003\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.033**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.063**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.013)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.015)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.029)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal land for agricultural production\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.027*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.046***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.038**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.014)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.018)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.016)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSaving\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.211***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.516***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.414***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.082)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.112)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.153)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUsage of credit\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.073*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.156***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.138*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.038)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.051)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.076)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccess to Agricultural Extension Services\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.029\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.007\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.030\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.034)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.049)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.067)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYear dummy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.287***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.449***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.460***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.045)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.068)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.083)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstant\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.025\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.318)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ecut 1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.349***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.397***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.428)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.595)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCut 2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.921***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.981***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.428)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.598)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCut 3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.122***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.194***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.439)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.610)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSigma2_u\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.098**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.097**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.046)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.046)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eObservations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,936\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,936\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,936\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber of household id\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,585\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,585\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,585\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRobust standard errors in parentheses\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*** p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01, ** p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05, * p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e reports the marginal effects of each explanatory variable on the probability of being in different SWB categories. This is more intuitive than Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e because it shows how a change in each factor shifts the likelihood of being not very happy, rather happy, or very happy. Overall, the table suggests that the most important factors improving SWB in rural Vietnam are positions of public responsibility, household income, savings, and landholding, while credit use increases the probability of low well-being. The CRE ordered probit results generally confirm the main direction of effects, although some variables lose significance after controlling for unobserved heterogeneity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmong the social capital variables, positions of public responsibility have the strongest and most robust marginal effects. In the ordered probit model, holding such a position reduces the probability of not being very happy by 11.61% and increases the probability of being rather happy and very happy by 9.09% and 5.47%, respectively. The CRE model shows even stronger effects, with a 14.06% reduction in the probability of low SWB and a 6.68% increase in the probability of being pleased. This is clear evidence that socially recognized roles in the community are strongly associated with improved well-being, likely through prestige, stronger networks, and greater access to support.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe number of organizations that participated also shows a welfare-enhancing pattern, but only in the standard ordered probit model. Each additional organization reduces the probability of not being very happy by 1.36% and raises the probability of being rather happy and very happy by 1.06 and 0.64%, respectively. However, these effects become statistically insignificant in the CRE model, suggesting that the positive association may partly reflect unobserved household traits rather than a pure causal effect of participation itself. Thus, organizational participation appears beneficial, but the evidence is less robust than for public responsibility.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding the trust variables, generalized trust is not significant in either model, indicating no stable direct effect on SWB levels. In contrast, qualified trust significantly worsens SWB in the standard ordered probit model with the probability of being not very happy by 3.33% and lowers the probability of being very happy by 1.57%. Yet this effect disappears in the CRE model, which refer that distrustful or selective trust may be associated with lower life satisfaction, but that relationship is not robust once household-specific unobserved factors are taken into account. In other words, trust does not appear to be a consistently direct determinant of SWB in this table.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe information variables also deserve careful interpretation with the number of information sources and the effect of information on decisions to sell output are insignificant across both models, implying that simply having more information channels does not necessarily improve happiness. By contrast, the effect of information on agricultural production decisions becomes significant in the CRE model. It decreases the likelihood of being unhappy by 4.46% and enhances the probabilities of being moderately happy and very happy by 3.48% and 2.12%, respectively. This implies that knowledge is significant solely when it is pragmatically beneficial for production decisions, rather than merely when it is accessible.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding household economic characteristics, household income is one of the most robust determinants of SWB. In the ordered probit model, a rise in income decreases the probability of low SWB by 5.76% and increases the probability of being very happy by 2.72%. The CRE model yields slightly smaller but still highly significant effects. This confirms that higher income substantially shifts households away from dissatisfaction and toward higher well-being. Similarly, savings have a very strong positive association with SWB. Having savings reduces the probability of being not very happy by about 13% in the ordered probit model and 10% in the CRE model, while raising the probability of being very happy by 6.12 and 4.87%, respectively. This indicates that financial security, not only income flow, is central to subjective well-being in rural areas.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy contrast, credit use consistently lowers SWB. Households using credit are more likely to be in the low SWB category and less likely to be rather or very happy. In the ordered probit model, credit raises the probability of being not very happy by 3.92% and reduces the probability of being very happy by 1.85%. The CRE results remain significant, though at a weaker level. This likely reflects the burden of debt, repayment pressure, or financial vulnerability associated with borrowing in rural contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmong other household characteristics, total land for agricultural production has a positive and robust effect on SWB in both models. Greater landholding reduces the probability of low SWB and increases the probabilities of both middle and high SWB categories. This suggests that land remains an important productive and security asset for rural households. Education of the household head is beneficial only in the ordered probit model, where more education slightly reduces the chance of low well-being and raises the likelihood of higher SWB, but this effect disappears in the CRE model. Family size is negative in the ordered probit model, indicating that larger households face greater welfare pressure, though again this effect is not robust in the CRE model. Age, gender, and access to agricultural extension services do not show statistically significant effects.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e confirms that the factors most strongly associated with better SWB in rural Vietnam are public responsibility, income, savings, and land, whereas credit use is associated with lower well-being. Social capital matters, but not all dimensions matter equally. The most meaningful form appears to be active and recognized social involvement, especially public responsibility, rather than generalized trust or mere access to many information sources. This table therefore strengthens the argument that rural well-being depends on a combination of economic security and effective, socially valued participation rather than on social capital in a broad or uniform sense.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe marginal effect of factors affecting SWB at different levels in rural Vietnam.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"12\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c11\" colnum=\"11\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c12\" colnum=\"12\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot very happy/pleased with life\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRather pleased/happy with life\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVery pleased/happy with life\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrdered Probit\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCRE Ordered Probit\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrdered Probit\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCRE Ordered Probit\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrdered Probit\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCRE Ordered Probit\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber of organizations that participated\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0136***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0121\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0106***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0094\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0064***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0057\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0051)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0074)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0040)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0058)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0024)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0035)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeneralized trust\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0093\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0091\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0072\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0071\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0044\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0043\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0143)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0145)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0112)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0113)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0067)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0069)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQualified trust\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0333**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0035\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0261**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0027\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0157**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0017\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0140)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0163)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0110)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0128)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0066)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0078)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositions of public responsibility\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.1161***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.1406***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0909***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1098***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0547***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0668***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0239)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0421)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0188)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0330)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0117)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0202)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber of information sources for livelihood and production\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0035\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0046\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0028\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0036\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0017\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0022\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0024)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0032)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0019)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0025)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0011)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0015)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe effect of information on the decision to sell agricultural output\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0220\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0353\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0172\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0276\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0104\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0168\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0162)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0228)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0127)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0178)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0077)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0109)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Effect of Information on Agricultural Production Decisions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0196\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0446**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0154\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0348**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0093\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0212**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0150)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0211)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0117)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0164)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0071)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0101)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber of organizations with a leadership position\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0227\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0122\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0178\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0095\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0107\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0058\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0179)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0247)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0140)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0193)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0084)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0118)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHousehold Income\u0026sup1;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0576***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0361***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0451***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0282***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0272***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0172***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0091)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0089)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0074)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0071)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0044)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0043)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge of Household Head\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0005\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0028\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0004\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0022\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0003\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0013\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0005)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0020)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0004)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0016)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0002)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0010)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe educational level of the household head\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0060***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0039\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0047***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0031\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0028***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0019\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0020)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0034)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0015)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0026)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0009)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0016)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender of household head\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0316\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0280\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0247\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0219\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0149\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0133\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0198)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0276)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0156)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0216)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0094)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0131)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber of family members\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0083**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0034\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0065**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0027\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0039**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0016\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0039)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0065)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0030)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0051)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0018)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0031)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal land for agricultural production\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0117***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0154**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0092***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0120**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0055***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0073**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0044)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0073)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0035)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0057)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0021)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0035)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSaving\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.1298***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.1024***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1016***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0800***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0612***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0487***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0279)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0380)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0222)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0299)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0134)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0181)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUsage of credit\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0392***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0361*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0307***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0282*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0185***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0172*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0126)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0188)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0100)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0148)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0060)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0089)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccess to Agricultural Extension Services\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0017\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0076\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0013\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0059\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0008\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0036\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0122)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0167)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0096)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0130)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0058)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0079)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYear Dummy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1129***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1160***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0884***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0906***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0533***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0551***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0166)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0205)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0136)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0165)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0079)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.0098)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eObservations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,936\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,936\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,936\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,936\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,936\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,936\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStandard errors in parentheses\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c11\" namest=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*** p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01, ** p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05, * p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c11\" namest=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study provides new evidence on how different dimensions of social capital and household economic conditions are associated with subjective well-being (SWB) in rural Vietnam. The findings show that the relationship is more nuanced than the general assumption that social capital is uniformly beneficial for well-being. Instead, the results suggest that only some forms of social capital are consistently associated with higher SWB, while household economic security remains a central and more robust determinant of life satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmong the social capital variables, positions of public responsibility emerge as the strongest and most consistent predictor of higher SWB. This variable remains positive and highly significant across the fixed effects, ordered probit, and correlated random effects (CRE) ordered probit models. The marginal effects further confirm that holding such a role substantially reduces the probability of being in the low well-being category and increases the probabilities of being rather happy and very happy. One plausible explanation is that socially recognized public roles may enhance well-being through several channels, including social prestige, stronger embeddedness in community networks, greater access to local information, and a stronger sense of purpose or agency. This finding is consistent with previous studies (Akaeda, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Helliwell \u0026amp; Putnam, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) showing that meaningful civic participation and socially valued roles can improve life satisfaction and welfare.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy contrast, the effect of organizational participation is positive but less robust. The number of organizations in which a household participates is positively associated with SWB in the ordered probit and CRE ordered probit models, but the effect is not statistically significant in the fixed effects model and becomes insignificant in the CRE marginal effects. This pattern suggests that participation in organizations may be associated with greater social integration, broader networks, and better access to support, but that part of this relationship may reflect stable household characteristics rather than a clear within-household effect over time. In other words, organizational participation appears beneficial, but its welfare contribution is weaker and less consistent than that of socially recognized public responsibility (Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Rishworth et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Sarmiento Prieto et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe information-related variables also reveal that not all forms of social connectedness are equally meaningful for well-being. Neither the number of information sources nor the effect of information on selling decisions shows a statistically significant relationship with SWB. However, the variable capturing the effect of information on agricultural production decisions is positive and significant in the fixed effects and CRE models, and the marginal effects indicate that it lowers the probability of low SWB while increasing the likelihood of higher SWB. This suggests that information becomes welfare-enhancing when it is relevant, actionable, and useful for improving production decisions, rather than simply being available in large quantity (Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). For rural households, therefore, the practical value of information appears to matter more than the number of channels through which information is received (Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHousehold economic conditions are among the clearest and most robust determinants of SWB in the analysis. Household and savings show a strong and highly consistent positive association with SWB. This highlights that well-being depends not only on current earnings but also on financial resilience, that is, the ability to cope with shocks, smooth consumption, and reduce uncertainty about the future (Pan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Rishworth et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). In contrast, credit use is consistently associated with lower SWB across specifications. In rural settings, access to credit does not necessarily indicate opportunity; it may instead signal liquidity constraints or economic stress (Mawejje, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). This finding therefore underlines an important distinction between access to finance and financial security. While credit can be useful under some conditions, in the present context it appears more closely associated with strain than with improved welfare (Sarmiento Prieto et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, the findings suggest that SWB in rural Vietnam is shaped primarily by economic security and socially valued forms of public engagement, rather than by social capital in a broad or undifferentiated sense. Among the social capital dimensions, public responsibility is the clearest positive factor, whereas trust and organizational participation are more conditional and less robust. At the household level, income and savings are the most consistent positive predictors, while credit use is negatively associated with well-being. These findings imply that efforts to improve rural well-being should go beyond income growth alone and should also strengthen household financial resilience, reduce harmful debt dependence, and promote forms of community participation that provide recognition, agency, and meaningful social roles.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examines how social capital and household economic conditions are associated with subjective well-being (SWB) in rural Vietnam using panel data from the VARHS and multiple model specifications. The findings show that the relationship is more nuanced than a simple assumption that all forms of social capital improve well-being. Instead, the results indicate that some dimensions of social capital are more relevant than others, and that household financial security remains central to explaining variations in SWB.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmong the social capital indicators, positions of public responsibility, households with members holding public or community responsibilities are more likely to report higher well-being, suggesting that socially recognized roles, community influence, and a stronger sense of agency may enhance life satisfaction in rural settings. The household economic variables such income and savings are consistently associated with higher SWB, while credit use is linked to lower well-being. These findings highlight the importance of both current economic resources and financial resilience. Landholding also appears to support well-being, although its effect is somewhat sensitive across specifications and should therefore be interpreted with caution.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, the study suggests that subjective well-being in rural Vietnam is shaped by a combination of economic stability and socially meaningful participation. The findings move beyond a broad claim that \u0026ldquo;social capital matters\u0026rdquo; by showing that its effects are differentiated across dimensions. In particular, socially recognized public engagement appears more important than generalized trust, while household financial security remains a fundamental driver of well-being. These insights contribute to the literature by providing more fine-grained evidence on the relationship between social capital and SWB in a rural lower-middle-income context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on the result of study, the policy implications to improve rural well-being should not focus only on income growth, but also on strengthening household financial resilience through savings support, risk management, and more responsible credit systems. Rural development strategies should encourage forms of participation that give households meaningful social roles, voice, and recognition within the community. Supporting practical access to production-related information may also improve well-being by helping households make better livelihood decisions. Thus, policies that combine economic security with effective and empowering community engagement are likely to be more successful in enhancing rural well-being.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, this study has several limitations. The analysis remains correlational and relies on secondary survey data, which limits strong causal interpretation. Some dimensions of social capital, especially trust, may be measured imperfectly or may influence SWB through indirect channels not fully captured here. In addition, the two-wave panel structure constrains the ability to examine longer-term dynamics. Future research could build on these findings by using richer panel data, qualitative approaches, or causal identification strategies to better understand the mechanisms through which social participation, financial security, and local institutions shape subjective well-being in rural areas.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eEthics declaration\u003c/b\u003e: Not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics declaration:\u003c/strong\u003e Not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e: There is no funding for this research\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eN.T.P: Conceptualization, Data collection, Software, Writing\u0026mdash;review and editing, Writing-original draft, Methodology. J.Y.L: Conceptualization, review, and editing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis research is partly funded by the University of Economics, Hue University, under grant No. NNC.HDKT.2026.02.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAkaeda, N. (2025). The welfare state and the roles of social capital in subjective well-being: The crowding-out and crowding-in arguments revisited. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Social Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e54\u003c/em\u003e(2), 392\u0026ndash;411. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279423000223\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/S0047279423000223\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBojorquez-Chapela, I., Manrique-Espinoza, B. S., Mej\u0026iacute;a-Arango, S., Sol\u0026iacute;s, M. M. T. R., \u0026amp; Salinas-Rodr\u0026iacute;guez, A. (2012). Effect of social capital and personal autonomy on the incidence of depressive symptoms in the elderly: Evidence from a longitudinal study in Mexico. \u003cem\u003eAging \u0026amp; Mental Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(4), 462\u0026ndash;471. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2011.651432\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/13607863.2011.651432\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCai, S., \u0026amp; Park, A. (2016). Permanent income and subjective well-being. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Economic Behavior \u0026amp; Organization\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e130\u003c/em\u003e, 298\u0026ndash;319. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2016.07.016\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jebo.2016.07.016\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCalcagnini, G., \u0026amp; Perugini, F. (2019). Social capital and well-being in the Italian provinces. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 68(November 2018), 100668. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2018.11.005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.seps.2018.11.005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCampos-Matos, I., Subramanian, S. V., \u0026amp; Kawachi, I. (2016). The \u0026lsquo;dark side\u0026rsquo; of social capital: trust and self-rated health in European countries. \u003cem\u003eThe European Journal of Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(1), 90\u0026ndash;95. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckv089\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/eurpub/ckv089\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClark, A. E. (2018). Four Decades of the Economics of Happiness: Where Next? \u003cem\u003eReview of Income and Wealth\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e64\u003c/em\u003e(2), 245\u0026ndash;269. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12369\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/roiw.12369\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCramm, J. M., M\u0026oslash;ller, V., \u0026amp; Nieboer, A. P. (2010). Improving Subjective Well-being of the Poor in the Eastern Cape. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Health Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1012\u0026ndash;1019. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1359105310367833\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1359105310367833\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCramm, J. M., Van Dijk, H. M., \u0026amp; Nieboer, A. P. (2013). The importance of neighborhood social cohesion and social capital for the well being of older adults in the community. \u003cem\u003eThe Gerontologist\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e53\u003c/em\u003e(1), 142\u0026ndash;150. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gns052\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/geront/gns052\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGraafland, J., \u0026amp; Lous, B. (2019). Income Inequality, Life Satisfaction Inequality and Trust: A Cross Country Panel Analysis. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Happiness Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1717\u0026ndash;1737. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-0021-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10902-018-0021-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGrootaert, C., Narayan, D., Jones, V. N., \u0026amp; Woolcock, M. (2004). Measuring Social Capital.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHelliwell, J. F. (2003). How\u0026rsquo;s life? Combining individual and national variables to explain subjective well-being. \u003cem\u003eEconomic Modelling\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(2), 331\u0026ndash;360. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-9993(02)00057-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/S0264-9993(02)00057-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHelliwell, J. F., Layard, R., Sachs, J. D., Neve, J. E., De, Aknin, L. B., \u0026amp; Wang, S. (2021). World Happines Report 2021. UN Sustainable Development Solutions NetworkSustainable Development Solutions Network, 1\u0026ndash;208. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://worldhappiness.report/ed/2021/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2021/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHelliwell, J. F., \u0026amp; Putnam, R. D. (2005). * The social context of well-being. \u003cem\u003eThe Science of Well-Being\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 434\u0026ndash;459). Oxford University Press. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198567523.003.0017\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198567523.003.0017\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHurd, N. M., Stoddard, S. A., \u0026amp; Zimmerman, M. A. (2013). Neighborhoods, Social Support, and African American Adolescents\u0026rsquo; Mental Health Outcomes: A Multilevel Path Analysis. \u003cem\u003eChild Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e84\u003c/em\u003e(3), 858\u0026ndash;874. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12018\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/cdev.12018\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKapelle, N., Nutz, T., Tisch, D., Schechtl, M., Lersch, P. M., \u0026amp; Struffolino, E. (2022). My Wealth, (Y) Our Life Satisfaction? Sole and Joint Wealth Ownership and Life Satisfaction in Marriage. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Population\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e(4), 811\u0026ndash;834. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-022-09630-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10680-022-09630-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLa, B. T., Lim, S., Cameron, M. P., Tran, T. Q., \u0026amp; Nguyen, M. T. (2021). Absolute income, comparison income and subjective well-being in a transitional country: Panel evidence from Vietnamese household surveys. \u003cem\u003eEconomic Analysis and Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e72\u003c/em\u003e, 368\u0026ndash;385. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2021.09.008\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.eap.2021.09.008\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi, H., Li, J., \u0026amp; Yang, Z. (2025). The impact of digital economy development on subjective well-being: micro-level evidence from China. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, 13. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1660857\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpubh.2025.1660857\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu, W., Li, J. J. T., \u0026amp; Chen, J. (2024). Voting participation in grassroots elections and rural residents\u0026rsquo; subjective well-being in China: The mediation roles of social class and fairness. \u003cem\u003eAnalyses of Social Issues and Public Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(3), 1189\u0026ndash;1207. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12411\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/asap.12411\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMawejje, J. (2019). Financial inclusion, shocks and coping strategies: survey evidence from Uganda. \u003cem\u003eAfrican Journal of Economic and Management Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(3), 286\u0026ndash;298. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/AJEMS-10-2018-0325\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/AJEMS-10-2018-0325\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNuzhat, A., \u0026amp; Mahpara Sadaqa. (2022). Social Capital Household Welfare and Poverty: Evidence from Pakistan. \u003cem\u003eThe Pakistan Development Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e55\u003c/em\u003e(4), 467\u0026ndash;482. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.30541/v55i4I-IIpp.467-482\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.30541/v55i4I-IIpp.467-482\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePan, B., Kerstetter, D., Yi, X., Zhang, G., Li, R., Gao, J., Shen, X. S., \u0026amp; Li, G. (2024). A Top Model of Urban Residents\u0026rsquo; Subjective Well-Being in China. \u003cem\u003eSage Open\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(4). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241289744\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/21582440241289744\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePhan, N. T., Lee, J., \u0026amp; Kien, N. D. (2022). The Impact of Land Fragmentation in Rice Production on Household Food Insecurity in Vietnam. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(18), 11162. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su141811162\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su141811162\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePrayitno, P. H., Sahid, S., \u0026amp; Hussin, M. (2022). Social Capital and Household Economic Welfare: Do Entrepreneurship, Financial and Digital Literacy Matter? Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(24). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su142416970\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su142416970\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRajani, N. B., Skianis, V., \u0026amp; Filippidis, F. T. (2019). Association of environmental and sociodemographic factors with life satisfaction in 27 European countries. \u003cem\u003eBmc Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(1), 534. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6886-y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12889-019-6886-y\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRani, A., Quddoos, A., Yaseen, M. R., Tabassum, S., \u0026amp; Asif, A. (2021). The Impact of Social Capital on Household Well-being in Pakistan. \u003cem\u003eSocial Indicators Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e158\u003c/em\u003e(3), 927\u0026ndash;946. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02717-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11205-021-02717-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRiduan, A. (2024). Citizen Participation in Policy Decision-Making. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Multidisciplinary Approach Sciences and Technologies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(2), 65\u0026ndash;74. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.62207/fz1xn342\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.62207/fz1xn342\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRishworth, A., Elliott, S. J., \u0026amp; Kangmennaang, J. (2020). Getting Old Well in Sub Saharan Africa: Exploring the Social and Structural Drivers of Subjective Wellbeing among Elderly Men and Women in Uganda. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(7), 2347. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072347\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/ijerph17072347\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRuan, H., Chen, J., Wang, C., Xu, W., \u0026amp; Tang, J. (2022). Social Network, Sense of Responsibility, and Resident Participation in China\u0026rsquo;s Rural Environmental Governance. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(11), 6371. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116371\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/ijerph19116371\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSarmiento Prieto, J. P., Castro\u0026ndash;Correa, C., Arrieta, A., Jerath, M., \u0026amp; Arensburg, S. (2023). Relevance of social capital in preserving subjective well-being in the face of the COVID‐19 pandemic. \u003cem\u003eRisk Hazards \u0026amp; Crisis in Public Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(2), 159\u0026ndash;178. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12260\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/rhc3.12260\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSep\u0026uacute;lveda Maldonado, J., Schnettler Morales, B., Denegri Coria, M., Orellana Calder\u0026oacute;n, L., Sep\u0026uacute;lveda Aravena, J., Canales Poo, P., Gonz\u0026aacute;lez Ciero, S., Lemunao, M., C., \u0026amp; Valderas, R., I (2020). Social desirability in the measurement of subjective well-being. \u003cem\u003eInterdisciplinaria Revista de Psicolog\u0026iacute;a y Ciencias Afines\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e37\u003c/em\u003e(2), 117\u0026ndash;128. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.16888/interd.2020.37.2.7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.16888/interd.2020.37.2.7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSesmero, J., Ricker-Gilbert, J., \u0026amp; Cook, A. (2018). How do african farm households respond to changes in current and past weather patterns? A structural panel data analysis from Malawi. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Agricultural Economics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e100\u003c/em\u003e(1), 115\u0026ndash;144. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aax068\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/ajae/aax068\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSetyasalma, H., \u0026amp; Muflikhati, I. (2019). Financial Management and Assets Ownership toward Subjective Well-being on Entrepreneurial Family. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Consumer Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(1), 25. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.29244/jcs.4.1.25-36\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.29244/jcs.4.1.25-36\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTran, T. Q., Nguyen, T. Q., Van Vu, H., \u0026amp; Doan, T. T. (2017). Religiosity and Subjective Well-Being Among Old People: Evidence from a Transitional Country. \u003cem\u003eApplied Research in Quality of Life\u003c/em\u003e, 12(4), 947\u0026ndash;962. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-016-9500-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11482-016-9500-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWu, Y., Guo, Z., \u0026amp; Qi, D. (2023). Analysis of the effect of social capital on rural household poverty. \u003cem\u003eSocial Policy \u0026amp; Administration\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e57\u003c/em\u003e(3), 333\u0026ndash;348. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12864\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/spol.12864\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYuan, C. (2024). Unlocking Rural Revitalization through the Digital Economy: A Journey of Exploration. SHS Web of Conferences, 181, 02033. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202418102033\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1051/shsconf/202418102033\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"social capital, household income, subjective well-being, ordered probit model, Vietnam","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9443381/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9443381/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigates the relationship between social capital and subjective well-being (SWB) in rural Vietnam using a balanced panel of 1,585 households from the Vietnam Access to Resources Household Survey (VARHS) in 2012 and 2018. Using fixed effects, ordered probit, and correlated random effects (CRE) ordered probit models, the study examines multiple dimensions of social capital together with household economic characteristics. The results indicate that positions of public responsibility, organizational participation, and information are also positively associated with SWB. Household economic factors such as income and savings are consistently associated with higher SWB, while credit use is negatively associated with well-being. Overall, the findings suggest that rural well-being in Vietnam depends more on financial security and socially recognized participation than on trust alone. The study implies that policies aimed at improving rural well-being should combine income enhancement with stronger financial resilience, responsible credit systems, and meaningful community engagement.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Social Capital and Subjective Well-Being in Rural Vietnam","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-05-06 15:58:36","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9443381/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"7f473852-afce-4ea6-b2d6-47dcd5e6003b","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 6th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"185778480784933840863642738677812105228","date":"2026-04-30T00:19:47+00:00","index":12,"fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-06T15:58:36+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-05-06 15:58:36","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9443381","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9443381","identity":"rs-9443381","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}