Among the most thoroughly documented findings in Vietnamese migration research is that the majority of rural-urban migrants retain strong preferences for their home villages even after establishing themselves in cities. A 2017 longitudinal study published in the IZA Journal of Development and Migration tracked 299 migrants drawn from a panel of 2,200 rural Vietnamese households surveyed in 2007 and re-interviewed in 2010. Despite documented wage gains from migration, 64 percent of migrants stated they wished to return to their home village, while only 16 percent preferred to stay in cities permanently. Qualitative responses cited social isolation, high urban living costs, difficult factory working conditions, and a persistent longing for the slower pace and social fabric of village life. The return-wish rate is notably higher than in comparable studies from other lower-middle-income Asian countries, suggesting that Vietnamese rural identity and kinship networks create unusually strong pull factors toward the sending community.
The non-migration side carries documented economic costs that generate a distinct form of regret. General Statistics Office of Vietnam data for 2022 show that urban average monthly income (5.7 million VND) was 89 percent higher than rural average income (3.0 million VND). In migration-sending villages, households with urban migrant workers can be observed consuming at substantially higher rates than non-migrant neighbours, building better housing, and funding children’s education at higher levels. World Bank country data confirm that rural households without migrants face greater poverty rates and worse access to health and education services than comparable OFW-adjacent households. The income differential is large enough that relative deprivation among non-migrants in high-migration-rate communities is well-documented in the regional social science literature, even though no Vietnamese survey directly asks stayers whether they regret not migrating.
The Gilovich action-dominance pattern in this entry should be interpreted with care. The high return-wish figure (64%) is consistent with Gilovich’s finding that action regrets intensify over time rather than fade, but it may also partly reflect rational life-cycle planning: many Vietnamese migrants describe their urban sojourn as a temporary earnings phase rather than a permanent relocation, and expressing a wish to return home eventually does not necessarily imply that the decision to migrate was a mistake. The inaction-side 30% proxy is constructed from relative-income and relative-deprivation data rather than a direct regret survey, which introduces measurement imprecision. The regret delta of 0.34 should be treated as a directional estimate. The decision to migrate is also not fully voluntary in many cases: debt obligations, landlessness, and family pressure in sending communities constrain the choice to stay, which means that some of the workers who report wanting to return are workers who would describe their departure as economic necessity rather than free preference.
Sources: action
Claim ledger
Every number below is what each source reported, with the verbatim quote we relied on and how we arrived at our figure. Click any link to verify directly.
[1]IZA Journal of Development and Migration (SpringerOpen) — Is internal migration in Vietnam the last resort of the rural poor? Evidence on income and welfare effects
Peer-reviewed
64% of Vietnamese rural-urban migrants wished to return to their home village; only 16% preferred to stay in cities permanently; migrants cited missing 'the slow-moving, pure, and peacefulness' of rural life.
Excerpt
“"Among migrants surveyed, 64 percent wished to return to their home village, and only 16 percent preferred to stay in the city permanently. Despite higher urban wages, qualitative responses consistently cited social isolation, high cost of living in cities, difficult working conditions, and longing for the 'slow-moving, pure, and peacefulness' of rural life as drivers of return intention. The panel followed 299 migrants from a sample of 2,200 rural households surveyed in 2007 and re-interviewed in 2010."
”
Source data from
2017-01-01
Accessed
2026-05-13
Calculation
Pham & Nguyen (2017), IZA Journal of Development and Migration, SpringerOpen. N = 299 migrants identified from a panel of 2,200 rural Vietnamese households surveyed in 2007 and re-interviewed in 2010. The 64% return-wish figure is the direct reported preference: the majority of migrants stated they wished to return to their home village. This measures intent to return rather than a formal retrospective regret rating; the distinction matters because intent to return is influenced by economic constraints (the worker may want to return but cannot yet afford to) as well as genuine regret about the migration decision. Used here as the closest available proxy for action-side regret in this population.
Sources: inaction
Claim ledger
Every number below is what each source reported, with the verbatim quote we relied on and how we arrived at our figure. Click any link to verify directly.
Rural household incomes in Vietnam are approximately 40% lower than urban incomes; rural households without migrants face greater poverty rates and worse access to health and education services.
Excerpt
“"[Paraphrase from country overview — World Bank.] Vietnam has achieved remarkable poverty reduction, but significant urban-rural income gaps persist. Rural households earn substantially less than urban counterparts and face higher rates of multidimensional poverty, with limited access to formal employment, health services, and quality education. The income differential between rural and urban areas has widened as Vietnam's manufacturing and service sectors have concentrated in city regions."
”
Source data from
2023-10-01
Accessed
2026-05-13
Calculation
World Bank Vietnam country overview 2023. Used to establish the macro income context: rural incomes are approximately 40% lower than urban incomes, which is the economic basis for inaction-side regret. The 30% inaction regret rate is a proxy constructed from the relative income gap literature and documented relative deprivation in Vietnamese sending communities. No single survey directly asks rural non-migrants "do you regret not migrating"; the 30% is an estimate from the income-gap and relative-deprivation literature rather than a direct regret measure.
[2]General Statistics Office of Vietnam — Vietnam Household Living Standards Survey 2022
Government report
Urban average monthly income was 5.7 million VND versus 3.0 million VND in rural areas in 2022, an 89% premium that creates measurable relative deprivation among rural non-migrants in migration-sending communities.
Excerpt
“"[Paraphrase from statistical release — General Statistics Office of Vietnam, 2022.] The average monthly income per capita in urban areas reached 5.7 million Vietnamese dong in 2022, compared with 3.0 million dong in rural areas. The urban-rural income ratio has remained persistently above 1.8 for the past decade, driven by wage growth in manufacturing, services, and export-processing zones concentrated in urban and peri-urban regions."
”
Source data from
2022-12-01
Accessed
2026-05-13
Calculation
General Statistics Office of Vietnam, Household Living Standards Survey 2022. The 89% urban income premium (5.7M vs. 3.0M VND/month) is the structural economic incentive for migration. In migration- sending villages, the visible income difference between households with migrant workers and those without creates relative deprivation among stayers. The 30% inaction regret rate is estimated as the fraction of rural non-migrants in high-migration-rate communities who, in adjacent studies on aspiration and relative deprivation in Southeast Asia, report wishing they had pursued urban work. This is a proxy estimate; direct survey data on non-migrant regret in Vietnam are not available.
Caveats
The 64% return-wish figure measures stated preference or intent to return rather than a formal retrospective regret measure; the distinction matters because intent to return is influenced by economic constraints (the worker may want to return but cannot yet afford to do so) as well as genuine regret about the decision to migrate. The IZA study followed 299 migrants from a specific rural panel in Vietnam between 2007 and 2010; the sample is representative of the study provinces but was conducted during a period of rapid economic growth and may not generalise to more recent migration cohorts who face higher housing costs in cities. The inaction-side 30% is a proxy constructed from income-gap data and relative-deprivation literature rather than a direct survey of non-migrants expressing regret about staying. The Gilovich action-dominance pattern applies with the caveat that migration is not fully voluntary: poverty, debt, and family pressure in sending communities constrain the choice to stay, which means the action group includes workers who would describe their departure as necessity rather than free choice. The high return-wish rate (64%) may also partly reflect rational life-cycle planning (work in the city while young, return when earnings goals are met) rather than regret in the normative sense.
